It is my belief that LENR is caused by magnetic screening. Cravens system has a number of LENR processes which includes black body resonant sized micro particles, hydrogen as an dielectric, and magnetic particles, and nanowire. These processes are weak but they center on magnetic force concentration, producing screening sufficient to increase proton tunneling.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > That demonstration is creating what are called Falaco Solitons -- akin to > topological defects of space-time, etc. Yes, like I said, it's an > interesting phenomenon and has some applicability to the quantum domain for > example, but I'm still not convinced its "the thing" in LENR. It might act > as a catalyst, or something similar when applied, but there are LENR > systems that exist where quasi-particle phenomenon doesn't seem to be at > play really. Consider Cravens' heated-orb demo at NI-Week. > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This paining of solitons is what forces the Higgs field to give solitons >> mass. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I thought this was cool. I always like a picture/video over an >>> equation. I realize both are important >>> >>> Quark pool (soliton "pairs") >>> >>> http://youtu.be/909o_kbCdFg >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > 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! >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >> >
