Except that Axil's approach, as it seems to me, is confined to plasmatic NiH systems. This is all fine and good and has a certain value. However it doesn't have much to say about a variety of PdD or "no stimulation / low temperature" systems. Regardless of which one is more "commercially viable", I think the question of whether we're looking at a universal effect working across all systems, or a variety of effects in different systems, is an important one, and we don't yet know the answer.
Regards On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:41 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > I like Axil's approach. Lots of stuff popping in and out around here. > Lots of hydrogen everywhere also. I think our oceans are made up of > hydrogen from our inflated and condensed quantum gravity field from > our Sun and our "weather" phenomena. Maybe "Dark Matter" is the > attractive force when it is popped in and "Dark Energy" is the extra > pressure on the universe when it pops out. > > I think Space is not so much smooth and curvy but is all stringy and > puckered up with lots of LENR happening. > > Stewart > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is a restrictive assumption in your analysis that limits > > possibilities. The LENR process may be carried by a dozen different > > elements, mostly transition metals, not only nickel. Nickel may have > > advantages over the other active elements but the NiH reaction should be > > looked upon as a topological reaction where the shape of the material is > > what matters and not the material itself. > > > > My motivation here. > > > > I am building a case for LENR as the underpinning for dark matter and > dark > > energy. In intergalactic gas clouds, many elements are found. > Unexpectedly, > > a high percentage of intergalactic dust are transition metals, the > expected > > ash for a LENR reaction. The cosmological LENR reaction in order to > support > > dark energy and a galaxy size dark matter soliton, production could not > be > > restricted to only nickel. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Jones, all your points are well taken, we certainly don't have to agree > on > >> everything and there is much in the field that is still "up for grabs", > and > >> I think its possible we have different effects going on in PdD vs. NiH > as > >> well. I really like how Ed's theory fits PdD, and you may be right > about the > >> more exotic elements of NiH, but lets face it, we don't have much solid > >> experimental work to pull from in NiH. I mean, in terms of a ratio, its > >> probably like 10:1 in favor of PdD -- NiH has a lot of catching up to do > >> experimentally. Unfortunately much of the data is kept under wraps due > to > >> intellectual property, etc. This both helps and hurts progress of the > field. > >> I think speaking too authoratively about what is actually going on in > NiH > >> domains is highly presumptuous, and while speculating is useful, > drawing too > >> many conclusions from a system we don't know much about is a mistake. > Hell > >> we don't even know what the dominant nuclear-ash is, or if there is a > >> nuclear ash. This is why I'm praying DGT actually goes through w/ mass > >> spectroscopy work that they promised in their most recent paper. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Finally finished "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" over > >>> the > >>> weekend and find it to be a mixed bag - brilliant in places, but > >>> disappointing in others. There is no "cutting-edge" to be found here, > if > >>> that is what you are looking for. I was, and maybe that is my problem. > It > >>> can be recommended as a fine historical piece, very well-researched - > but > >>> do > >>> not expect much more. > >>> > >>> Here is my main objection to Ed Storms' book from what is admittedly a > >>> minority point of view. It is a historical account of the first twenty > >>> years > >>> which overlooks the importance of new work, and that Ni-H is the > >>> commercial > >>> savior of LENR. All of that wonderful prior work with Pd-D, which set > the > >>> table for where we are now, is valuable and intuitive, but .... To be > >>> blunt, > >>> when one is lost in time, with a focus on history, then the baggage > that > >>> comes with that viewpoint can interfere with accurate understanding of > >>> where > >>> we are going. Palladium cannot really help us in the long run, and the > >>> best > >>> hope for deuterium now rests with Mizuno's new work. BTW - Mizuno's > >>> important new work is ignored by Ed and he cherry-pick data from old > work > >>> that contradicts the new. That is almost unforgiveable in a book which > >>> promises accurate explanations. > >>> > >>> In short, Storms is only accurate for understanding results which were > >>> prior > >>> to Rossi and to "nano" but then falls flat - insofar as opening up the > >>> future. The book overlooks the most important new developments in LENR, > >>> like > >>> nanotechnology and SPP, or else fails to analyze them properly. I > >>> finished > >>> this book wanting much more and thinking that I had already read most > of > >>> it > >>> anyway. > >>> > >>> In 24 years of accumulated experiment, which includes Mills - the > >>> experimental results are often contradictory, when considered in toto. > >>> When > >>> one is looking for commonality, as in this book, a general theme should > >>> emerge. That is where Ed's book fails - it begins with a false > assumption > >>> and ends with a theme that points us in the wrong direction. To wit: > >>> > >>> 1) Fusion of deuterium in a Pd matrix or crack strongly appears to > >>> be a > >>> novel kind of gammaless nuclear fusion, with helium or tritium as the > >>> ash. > >>> This is where Ed's account is authoritative and helpful. He is an > expert > >>> with Pd-D. > >>> > >>> 2) However, deuterium can participate in thermal gain without > >>> fusion, > >>> as the new Mizuno work indicates, which work is ignored as are many > >>> important new developments - like Cravens extremely important NI-Week > >>> demo. > >>> > >>> 3) Reactions of protons in a metal matrix (no deuterium) strongly > >>> appears to be non-fusion, having almost no indicia of fusion, as in > >>> Rossi's > >>> work; but it can be nuclear in the sense of nuclear mass being > converted > >>> into energy. Rossi is marginalized. > >>> > >>> 4) Ed does not to believe that the two isotopes, deuterium and > >>> protium > >>> can entail completely different modalities for thermal gain - and so he > >>> proceeds to lump Ni-H into a category where it is not well-suited. > Thus, > >>> for > >>> the segment of LENR which deals with Ni-H, his book is both wrong and > >>> counterproductive, since it casts the entire sub-field into chaos for > the > >>> start by confusing two pathways as one. > >>> > >>> 5) It should be noted, in defense of point 3 that slight > >>> transmutation > >>> is seen on rare occasion by a minority of researchers (notably > >>> Piantelli), > >>> but it is three orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. > >>> When > >>> copper is found with nickel it is in the natural isotope ratio which > >>> statistically proves absolutely that it cannot be formed from nickel. > >>> > >>> In short, this book is authoritative and helpful for understanding the > >>> history of cold fusion, Pd-D and most of the experiments following in > the > >>> footsteps of P&F. That is the good part and if this is what you are > >>> after, > >>> then do not read-on. > >>> > >>> As for the downside, Storms overlook or marginalizes the fact that Ni-H > >>> may > >>> not be related to Pd-D and may not be fusion at all. He emphasizes the > >>> few > >>> findings which point to fusion, and fails to even mention contrary > >>> arguments > >>> and weight of evidence. The two isotopes are extraordinarily different > >>> and > >>> it makes no sense to lump them into the same modality. The bottom line > >>> for > >>> Storms book is that it will bring you up to date to around the year > 2010 > >>> - > >>> in terms of where the field was then, but fails to move beyond that > >>> limitation. > >>> > >>> In neglecting to emphasize the importance of Ni-H, mention the zero > point > >>> field, nanomagnetism (or almost anything related to nanotechnology), > >>> giving > >>> half a sentence to surface plasmons, marginalizing Rossi, Cravens, > >>> Mizuno, > >>> Mills, and ignoring Ahern, plus - ignoring dozens of other cutting-edge > >>> subjects, "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" should > instead > >>> be > >>> called "The History of Cold Fusion in Palladium." > >>> > >>> But as disappointing as it was to me, it was still worth the time, and > >>> you > >>> may agree with Ed's perspective anyway, so have at it! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >
