Ed--
What about crack orientation; is it more important than size when a magnetic
field is present?
Bob
From: Edmund Storms
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is
the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can
not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky
sometimes.
Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:
I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for:
A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very
low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of
course).
This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates
different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.
Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with
scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample
and getting detectable tritium -- however small.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a
huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and
how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection
that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an
answer to your question is not easy to supply.
Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:
Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide
distribution of crack sizes?
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way
is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation
metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many
people if they wish.
Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:
Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with
tritium:
Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a
Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack
sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost
constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical?
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost.
Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research,
keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck
to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically
significant degree.
Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I
can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice
demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job
much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent.
Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated
control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature
difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the
voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated
material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small
amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization.
This is not an expensive device.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough
of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right
size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is
used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer
active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably
because the tools and skill are not common.
Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.
As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for
brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather
than a random event.
Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks.
Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many
different ways, but getting the right size is the problem.
Might there be a technique that generates a wide
distribution of crack sizes?
