A crack is an EMF Cuisinart. Both the wavelength of the electron and the photon varies widely over time in a random fashion (aka Fano resonance)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance When the wavelength of the electron and the photon just so happen to momentarily become equal, they combine to form a polariton. Polaritons have spin and that means that they can produce a magnetic field. A soliton forms (aka NAE) inside the crack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton Over time, an unlimited numbers of polaritons can pack into the crack and produce an EMF black hole of unlimited power. The uncertainty principle increases the energy of the soliton as more polaritons pack into it. It's like a crowded room where each polariton has less and less space to move and their energy goes way up(without limit) and so does the magnetic field that the soliton projects. The gammas from fusions that the soliton produces is feed back into the soliton in a positive feedback loop. Eventually, the soliton breaks up and its energy in x-rays are thermalized by the reactor structure and hydrogen as x-ray energy will do. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Axil-- > > Are the polaritons found in the crack with its high magnetic field? > > Bob > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:57:03 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > From: janap...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not > subject to the exclusion principle. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Axil-- > > Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP > considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? > I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. > > Bob > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > From: janap...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > > Ed: > > "The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei > to get closer than would be normally possible". > > The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing > electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into > a crack is very energy intensive. > > The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from "crack > packing". Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion > principle can happen. > > This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as > bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > > Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not > come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical > "squeezing" of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty > principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond > what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation > of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is > really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum > effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always > argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas > atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on > interaction with photons and electrons.... The challenge is proving that > quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how > they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. > Fran > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > > The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it > is derived from a quantum mechanical "squeezing" of EMF (photons and > electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion > imposed. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle > > This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a > chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized > and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The > mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be > consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not > independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is > proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear > process, can take place without considering the environment in which this > occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the > amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy > is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the > environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to > which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which > chemistry applies and must be considered. > > Ed Storms > > > On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > > > Ed: > LENR is not a chemical process. > > What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: > > Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment > > A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in > such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to > identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical > structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: > > 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship > between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous > change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss > of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law > of Thermodynamics. > > 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous > increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy > are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to > even affect the chemical structure. > > 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a > collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without > affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will > cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, > application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all > parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a > concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as > to reduce the gradient. > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > > > Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is > predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical > process. > Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually > read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear > reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not > know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a > gap in a material. > > > > LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. > LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is > observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. > > > > Cracks are a topological mechanism. > Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they > how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of > debate. > > > > To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, > will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation > and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the > materials used don't matter if they support the "crack topology". For > example, water will do just as well as nickel. > I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the > discussion. > > > > Under "there must be only one LENR cause" constraint, Ed Storms theory is > inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in > exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is > lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are > topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard > to chemistry. > > My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me > apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the > theory is inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the > process of development. You are invited to help this process. > > > > Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and > topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or > iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without > the constants of chemistry. > > Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the > same way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with > respect to LENR. > > Ed Storms > > > > > > Some background > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > > > > Ed-- > > You said-- > > >Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. > > I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, > obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all > like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any > given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) > appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. > > While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These > comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear > reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This > barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying > high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple > hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. > > We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by > an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an > explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown > energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction > would take place. This simply does not happen. > > Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a > limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this > process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical > lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a > process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. > I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about > the lattice. > > > > > I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the > interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow > engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total > potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The > changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. > > Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However > the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is > being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not > spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. > Pretending otherwise is not useful. > > > > > > From what you say-- > > >"the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure." > > I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic > natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. > > Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry > tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT > happen. > > Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a > lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in > a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic > level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? > > > > > For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes > part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, > the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the > various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy > and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, > spin etc. > > That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear > process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then > dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description > does not show how this can be done. > > > > > Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book > regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. > > > I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual > differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating > physicists. > > Ed Storms > > > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Cc:* Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > > Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside > of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can > be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit > QM to the lattice is a waste of time. > > Ed Storms > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > > > Bob, > > Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process > were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the "chemical > environment" of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we > would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a > nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates > "nano-cracks" or "nano-voids" as the likely nuclear active environment > (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently > of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' > atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. > > Regards, > John > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com > > wrote: > Ed-- > > You stated-- > >If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually > observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. > > What limitations do you have in mind? > > Bob Cook > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Cc:* Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > > Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I > can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do > not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often > various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict > with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know > laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied > to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in > particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope > something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you > would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what > the elephant looks like. > > Ed Storms > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > > > The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge "how much is > enough" or "how far do we need to zoom in". > The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most > theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. > To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly > complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true > essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive > at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like > by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a > darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says > the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant > is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a > tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand > fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the > one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. > > The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of > you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the > different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the > features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must > put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. > Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why > there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to > just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. > > We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and > groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must > keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and > not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
