NO, THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.The issue is how QM applies to LENR. That is the only issue. It is a very simple concept. QM is a big subject having a huge range of applications. It works well under some conditions and it totally fails in others. Unless it is applied correctly, it would fail when it is used to explain LENR.
Ed Storms On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Bob Cook wrote: > Ed-- > > If you were light enough with feathers you probably could. > > It seems like the issue comes down to the question of whether QM theories > reflect reality? > > Bob > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Edmund Storms > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: Edmund Storms > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:43 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy > cannot spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for > energy to be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost > elsewhere and moved to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random > processes at a low level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is > much too small to cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique > conditions) much less a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry > supports this statement. This fact can be easily applied. The other laws can > be applied in a similar way, but I will leave that exercize for the book. > > For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an > electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without > violating the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually > happen in nature. Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any > additional argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM > arguments are going to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement > would be like accepting my claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms. Of > course, if you were intent on believing Superman is real, you might consider > the idea. :-) > > Ed > On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > >> Ed-- >> >> I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met. It is not >> easy to calculate entropy and show how it increases. It would appear that >> the microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a lower >> energy, However the rest of the system may have gained microstates >> associated with the calculation on entropy, S. I suspect this calculation >> will be hard in any LENR reaction. >> >> Bob Cook >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Bob Cook >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >> >> Ed-- >> >> I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier >> you refer to: >> >> See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its >> instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system. >> arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006 >> >> >> >>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the order >> >>>of >> >> 2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms van- >> >> ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The >> probability >> >> that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically >> for- >> >> bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied by >> >> the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is proportional >> to >> >> the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar contributions, >> >> multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising >> >> many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude >> >> and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an exper- >> >> imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<< >> >> He goes on to say: >> >> >>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites, the >> >>state of N >> >> coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric. >> >> Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared >> >> equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably forbid >> the >> >> emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain >> >> and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused deuterons >> to >> >> helium-4. >> >> References >> >> [1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens. >> >> Matt.). >> >> [2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996). >> >> [3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens. >> Matt. 5 >> >> 7761–7770 (1993).<< >> >> Bob Cook >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Edmund Storms >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Cc: Edmund Storms >> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:13 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >> >> Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by a >> real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion >> in this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not >> like what physics has accepted. Rather than suggesting any idea that comes >> to mind, the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is >> actually observed. What is observed creates limits and boundaries on what >> mechanisms are possible. Eventually, all mechanisms but one will be >> eliminated and at that point LENR will be understood. The process of >> finding this single mechanism can be speeded up by eliminating a lot of >> proposed mechanisms right from the start. For example, any proposed >> mechanism that conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics can be rejected >> without further consideration. Of course, this requires these laws be >> understood and accepted, but that is a different issue. >> >> This is like looking for gold. Simply wondering the landscape and pointing >> at every mountain as a possible location of the gold vein is not >> useful. The landscape needs to be studied, the geological events need to >> be identified, and location of found nuggets needs to be considered. Only >> then can the buried gold be found by eliminating all the regions where it >> cannot be located. I'm attempting to do this but I find very little interest >> in this approach. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote: >> >>> Ed-- >>> >>> Regarding your comment copied from below--"No amount of discussion about >>> magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it >>> can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in >>> the first place. " --I agree. However, you seem to always take on a >>> discussion to find the cause of the reaction considering basic physical >>> parameters that you seem to recognize as real. >>> >>> Bob >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Axil Axil >>> To: vortex-l >>> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:43 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >>> >>> As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active and very >>> strong reaction is to provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes. >>> This requirement comes from nanoplasmonic doctrine. >>> >>> A single sized particle does not work. >>> >>> For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that does >>> work, the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying >>> diameters. >>> >>> >>> The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in feeding >>> power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles. >>> >>> This is how Rossi’s secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles provide >>> and intermediate sized particle population to the particle >>> ensembles. Hydrogen provides the smallest particle population. >>> >>> When there are particles of varying size clump together, and alight on the >>> nickel nanowires, strong dipole motion in the micro particles drive the >>> reactions in the spaces between the hydrogen nanoparticles. >>> >>> The bigger particles act like step-up windings in a high voltage >>> transformer as power is feed to the smallest particles. >>> >>> If a single diameter sized nanoparticle is used, the reaction will not >>> work. If only nanoparticles are use in the reaction, the reaction will not >>> be strong. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>> Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear >>> active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the >>> conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. >>> >>> As is typical, the situation in the chemical structure is more complex than >>> expected. No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, >>> particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be >>> done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >>> >>>> Wouldn't that lend itself to corroborating Ed Storms's theories about >>>> cracks & the NAE? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Frank roarty <fr...@roarty.biz> wrote: >>>> Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic action only >>>> occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
