I'd like to add my Poynting Vector based model to the mix. I had posted this on another thread about Ed Storms's latest book.
To: *All; y'all; et al* Here’s my theory. On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across the anode & cathode of a capacitor. In the below Quantum Potential article, a propulsive force was found that matches these conditions (except that we’re seeing it on a microscopic level). Asymmetric Capacitor Thrusterhttp://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf An earlier SBIR study commissioned by the Air Force reported a propulsive force caused by a spark between ACT electrodes [3]. The study [3] also focused on ACT thrust in high vacuum (10−5 to 10−7 Torr) and reports small (on the order of 10 nN) thrust in vacuum under pulsed DC voltage conditions. Furthermore, the study [3] reports observation of thrust when a piezoelectric dielectric material such as lead titanate or lead zirconate (high relative dielectric constants of k = 1750) was used between the ACT electrodes. The thrust was apparently produced by slow pulsing spark-‐initiated breakdown of the dielectric. The magnitude of the propulsive force increases with the intensity of sparking across the dielectric. The study [3] recommended further exploration of sparking across dielectrics as a source of propulsive forces in ACTs. Unfortunately, no such follow-‐up study was conducted. I believe this Asymmetric Capacitor force has been previously described as the Poynting Vector. I think it is enhanced by the advent of a spark across the electrodes. But I might be mistaken. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pft01.htm During a charging process of a flat capacitor, the Poynting vector ( S=ExH ) comes from outside the capacitor towards the wire connections, parallel to the surface of the armatures inside the dielectric medium. There is an energy flow directly proportional to ExB. This energy is not provided by the wires but comes from the surrounding space around the capacitor. ( ref: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics : Electromagnetism vol2, Chap: 27-5, fig 27-3" by Addison-Wesley Publishing company. ) So, this Poynting Asymmetrical Capacitor Vector generates a unidirectional force. Any protons within its path would be propelled into a nearby Hydrogen atom which is trapped inside a Palladium matrix. This force is enough to overcome the Coulomb Barrier. A couple of guesses: There would have to be hundreds of thousands of these sparks every second, constantly spitting matter or protons or electrons in one direction similar to a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) particle accelerator, where only 1 in 100k particles actually collides with a nucleus of a hydrogen atom and fuses. This force is proportional to the distance between electrodes, so the effect would happen closer to the small vertex of the crack rather than the large ends of the crack. The transfer of energy of fused atoms is mostly heat because the collision is unidirectional, and the gamma rays that are emitted only come out in certain geometrical probabilities, and most of those probabilities are directly in line with host atoms on the palladium (or nickel) matrix. I look at it similar to a pellet gun hitting balloons -- most of the time the air escapes the balloon in almost the same regions each time. These reactions only occur one atom at a time, so the geometrically restricted release of gamma rays is similarly restricted. The released energy is absorbed by the matrix one atom-release at a time. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Some appetizers to hold you over > > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2896450/posts > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm still waiting to receive my copy. I'll have more to say then. I'm >> guessing most haven't gotten around to it either. But generally speaking it >> deserves some in-depth analysis for sure. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: / /An Examination of the >>> Relationship between Observation and Explanation/ by Edmund Storms >>> >>> See http://lenrexplained.com/ >>> ***So.... why is this book being greeted by indifference & yawning by >>> Vorticians? >>> >>> >> >
