On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:45 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Ed, I was not suggesting that this reaction is the main one, I was merely > pointing out that it is possible. Someone made a blanket statement that this > path was not possible and I wanted to clear the air.
Dave, none of us has the time to describe every aspect of the issue in each e-mail. We all have to assume the reader has done some homework and knows that the statement is not complete and that the writer also know this. In any case, emission of a photon makes the process two body, not one body as I was describing. > The conservation of energy and momentum does not prevent this from happening > as was stated. Had the original proposition been that it was not likely or > observed I would have remained silent. The fact is that during cold fusion NO energetic gamma is emitted, which was known in 1989. Therefore, this issue is not relevant. People propose the He4 is emitted as an alpha, which means the helium has translational energy. This is not possible when one particle is involved, which is what I said. Takahashi proposes Be8 forms and decomposes into two alpha, which does conserve energy and momentum and is not inconsistent with the basic requirements. However, the resulting alpha would have too much energy for the secondary radiation to be missed. Therefore, this proposed reaction does not occur. Each theory suggested so far can be eliminated by identifying these conflicts with observation. If the observations were not so many and so strong, a person might conclude that LENR is impossible, which of course is the skeptical conclusion. Nevertheless, the effect is real and therefore it must have an explanation. Until people actually search where the keys are located rather than under the lamppost, success will be impossible. Ed Storms > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:29 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > Yes Dave, that is true, but that is not what is observed. This reaction is > known to happen less than 1% of the time during hot fusion and it produces a > 23 MeV gamma that is required to conserve momentum. This reaction is clearly > not observed. We know this for a fact. Therefore, this idea is irrelevant. > > Ed Storms > On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: > >> Ed, the energy can be released in the form of a particle, such as an alpha, >> and a gamma ray. Energy and momentum can be conserved in that manner. The >> bulk of the energy will be given to the gamma ray due to the large >> difference in masses. Think of a rifle firing a bullet. Most of the >> energy ends up in the bullet while linear momentum is conserved. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:09 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >> >> Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy generated >> when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two particles for >> the energy to be dissipated. I know of no example in nature where this >> requirement does not operate when energy is released. If energy is not >> released immediately, but is retained in the nucleus, this nucleus is found >> to be unstable and will eventually release energy over a period of time by >> emission of a particle, including a photon. This is how nature is found to >> behave. Imagining otherwise is not useful unless you have observed support >> for the idea. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook wrote: >> >>> Ed-- >>> >>> You said: >>> >>> >>Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha >>> >>because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is >>> >>released. << >>> >>> I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles would >>> not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum >>> requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may >>> be changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR. >>> >>> Bob >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Edmund Storms >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: Edmund Storms >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >>> >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >>> >>>> From: Edmund Storms >>>> >>>> Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not >>>> produced by photons. >>>> >>>> Who said it was? >>> >>> I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up >>> photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added >>> the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not >>> produced by gamma. >>> >>>> You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation >>>> of intense photon emission - and am still waiting. >>> >>> I sent a list of references. If you want a copy of a particular paper to >>> read, ask and I will send what I have. Unfortunately, I can not send using >>> Vortex and I can not send all the papers. >>>> >>>> This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such >>>> as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation. >>>> >>>> What? Are you now saying that the helium you claim to see in Pd-D does not >>>> begin as an alpha particles? >>> >>> Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because >>> two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. >>>> >>>> Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the >>>> mass-energy is dissipated as photons. >>>> >>>> There is no proof of this. >>> >>> The proof is in the behavior. This is the only conclusion consistent with >>> all behavior. Unfortunately, a book is required to present this information >>> in a form and as complete as you require. I'm attempting to do this. Please >>> be patient. >>> >>>> >>>> The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a >>>> mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and >>>> consistent will all the other observations. >>>> >>>> It is not plausible if you cannot document photons sufficient to account >>>> for >>>> the heat. >>> >>> I agree, the measurement of heat and radiation have not been done in a way >>> to show a quantitative correlation. However, I suggest you apply this >>> standard to the other explanations as well. If you do, I think you will >>> have to agree that no explanation meeting this requirements presently >>> exists, including your own. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>>> >>>> Where is the documentation? >>>> >>>> Jones >>>> >>>> >>>> <winmail.dat> >>> >>> >> >
