more... Hydrogen in LENR inactive because it is NMR active. Hydrogen must form Rydberg matter is such a way that copper pairs of hydrogen nuclei are formed to transform the hydrogen nuclear spin arrangements into a NMR inactive state.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > You haven't accumulated sufficient dots. Consider, DGT has publically > revealed many clues that are consistent with magnetic causation in LENR, > including NMR related ones such as Ni61 LENR inactivity, intense RF > production, intense magnetic field production, the presence of EMF solitons > collocated with the micro particles, and BEC formation. > > Also, inactivation of nickel's magnetic behavior above the Curie > temperature as a requirement for reaction activation. > > Both Rossi and DGT that NMR inactive isotopes of nickel are required to > carry the reaction which includes Ni60, Ni58, Ni62, and Ni64. NI61 does not > function in the reaction. > > Being paramagnetic, both palladium and tungsten can carry a lenr reaction > at low temperatures. > > Both deuterium and nitrogen stop the LNR reaction according to Piantelli. > These gases are NMR active. > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Maybe. Time will certainly reveal the mechanism. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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! >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
