In this experiment the possible source of the energy is the electric arc. ***Yup. It's possible that it's the arc that causes the jump to LENR. In Ed Storms's perspective, it is cracks which force a 1 dimensional string to form and somehow the laws of thermodynamics don't apply because it's no longer in the bulk. Well, if there's a spark across that crack caused by a differential voltage, INSIDE that spark you could have the formation of a linear (Luttinger Liquid) BEC that might also act as an accelerator, pushing hydrogen atoms & protons into the sides of the cavities at close to the speed of light, like a cathode ray tube accelerator. Good place to start for this Poynting Vector-based accelerator proposal: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg66755.html INSIDE the arc, it is plasma physics rather than condensed matter physics and the laws of thermodynamics DO get twisted a bit.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > More... > > Going from carbon and water to nickel is a LENR reaction that requires the > injection of a good deal of energy to occur. Since carbon are water are low > Z elements that transmute to high Z elements, just about all the elements > produced require external energy for the reaction to occur. Mizuno is not > the only experiments to show endothermic energy input. > > In this experiment the possible source of the energy is the electric arc. > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m329.pdf >> >> >> >> *Low Energy Induced Nuclear Fusion Via Coherence* >> >> *Of The Quantum Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy* >> >> *Through Ultra Close Range Casimir Effects* >> >> >> >> Page 1119 >> >> >> >> The analysis of the carbon residue is tabulated below for the four >> >> samples collected as described earlier. The last column is one set of >> typical >> >> DC Arc Spectroscopy results provided for comparison that were reported by >> >> Singh, et al of B.A.R.C in their 1994 carbon arc in water experiment >> reported >> >> in *Fusion Technology*. >> >> >> >> 18 elements were transmuted from pure carbon and pure water via an >> electric arc. See table. >> >> >> >> Any theory of LENR must explain any experiment result ever performed and >> account for any of those experimental results. This criticism is part of >> the peer review process. The person who produced the theory might well >> consider the criticism as a service and amend his theory for the better. >> This is not an EMOTIONAL process involving loyalty, or politics, but one of >> science in the quest to arrive at perfect truth. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Axel, >>> I do understand that there are good theories and not so good dittos. >>> Why so adamant? >>> It seems to me that there is a myriad of theories, some of them have >>> similarities, some of them exclude each other. >>> Very little is won by finding holes in the other theories. >>> Problems are many and the lack of experimental data is the main issue. >>> Therefore it is hard to have any theory confirmed. >>> The well established experiments (BLP, Rossi, etc). are protecting there >>> investment and let very little out about their findings. >>> I realize that it is expensive and difficult to make experiments. >>> However, I think that just now we need to to stop producing more >>> theoretical formats and concentrate >>> on verifying one theory one step at the time. >>> I think Ed Storms have done that and that is what brings credibility to >>> his theory. It does not make it right but very few hypothesis >>> are better substantiated with actual test data. >>> My suggestion is just that. Suggest or do experiments to be done to >>> support your own theories instead of finding holes in others ideas. >>> I think Brad is on the right track. I am happy to provide the >>> microwave:) >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>> [email protected] >>> +1 916 436 1899 >>> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >>> >>> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction >>>> results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to >>>> consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By >>>> embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and >>>> permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a >>>> result of a LENR reaction. >>>> >>>> The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in >>>> Ed Storms theory. >>>> >>>> The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails >>>> a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of >>>> atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and >>>> neutrons coming back together. >>>> >>>> This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit >>>> endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. >>>> >>>> LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. >>>> >>>> This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic >>>> sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and >>>> inviolable laws of thermodynamics. >>>> >>>> But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of >>>> LENR. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
