Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the
transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a
host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in
that lattice.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding
energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more
than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and
dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the
nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are
not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this
level of energy.
In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must
be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in
excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a
new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively
identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution.
Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not
change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these
issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied
for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any
imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as
important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100
years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation
of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the
papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory
and assumptions.
Ed Storms
On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
Ed
You said:
>You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large
number of atoms in a chemical system.<
Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be
one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms
together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the
electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals,
are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems
and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of
any practical intensity.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear
reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation
is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the
papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them.
If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is
fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion
cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the
bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and
no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle.
Yes, that is the assumption. The issue is whether that assumption is
valid. Can a large number of sinks participate in what is a random process such
that they can share mass-energy? Can this collection remain intact for the time
required for the process to go to completion. You must assume that a nuclear
energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system.
This concept is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics.
Ed Storms
Eric
