Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:


>
> If - in fact it turns out that Rossi is using this particular nickel
> isotope, and from the Kurchatov source, there is a good chance the above
> scenario is a fairly accurate portrayal of what is happening.


Any comment on the net energy balance?

RE: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Terry Blanton 


If - in fact it turns out that Rossi is using this particular nickel
isotope, and from the Kurchatov source, there is a good chance the above
scenario is a fairly accurate portrayal of what is happening.

 

Any comment on the net energy balance? 

 

Terry - In a naïve approach of adding mass-energy of nucleons – there is a
net loss of.005 amu, going from nickel to copper – representing roughly the
energy unaccounted-for of about 4.6+ MeV. 1 amu = 931 MeV

 

Mass energy of Ni-62 …..  61.928 amu

Mass energy of proton …1.007 amu

Total….. 62.935

 

Mass energy of Cu-63 …. 62.930 amu

 

I use the Oxford reference values, and there are some differences with other
tables.

 

An astute observer, who does not post publicly - has reminded me that this
RPF (diproton) hypothesis - in which protons in reversible fusion to
helium-2 and back, can effectively remove (borrow) 4-5 MeV before the QM
books are balanced is not much different on the bottom line - from
Hagelstein’s “magic phonons”. 

 

In both cases there are small dispersions of energy involving lots and lots
of atoms for every single “identity change” nuclear reaction.  Wow. You know
… I cannot disagree with that assessment, other than to say that RPF is not
just real, it is the most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, by
far.

 

Why invent a model that has no precedent in any other field to explain a
phenomenon – when the best model for that explanation is overhead at noon
every day? Of course, with RPF there is the necessity of QM time reversal,
which can be verbalized as “borrowing before payback” - but that too is a
known QM phenomenon. Whereas Hagelstein’s model, when all is said and done,
is an invention created to match an experimental outcome (which it does) but
with no precedent in physical reality.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Whereas Hagelstein’s model, when all is said and done, is an invention
> created to match an experimental outcome (which it does) but with no
> precedent in physical reality.
>
I think such models are called "phenomenological models" -- my impression
is that the idea is to try to accurately capture the behavior you're seeing
at the macro-level and then go from there.  This seems like a solid
approach, provided you don't jump to conclusions about what is going on
under the hood. My possible issues with Hagelstein's models are not that
they're phenomenological, it's that they don't seem to be very
good, phenomenologically speaking.  He wants to use a harmonic oscillator,
and what I see in the experimental data is chaotic behavior, with large
transients here and there and then longer quiescent periods.  Has anyone
followed Hagelstein's recent papers who can describe the behavior one would
expect to see from his models?  Perhaps they are chaotic now.

In one of his abstracts he offers a motivation for his general approach,
which is to try to subdivide a large (24 MeV) quantum into
tiny pieces using a "coherent energy exchange": "excess heat is thought to
have a nuclear origin due to the amount of energy produced, yet there are
no commensurate energetic particles".  Ed has also said that the fast
particles are not commensurate with what one would expect for excess heat.
 I would like to know more about the basis for this conclusion.  There are
obviously few neutrons.  But when you look at the CR-39 experiments, there
are fast protons and alphas.  And occasionally there is a "hamburger"
exposure, where the chip is filled with pits.  Abd wants to set aside those
instances as unreliable data points, but I think he's setting aside
evidence in doing so.

Obviously when you have a system contained within a glass or metal housing,
whether the system is electrolytic or gas phase, the fast particles are not
going to escape.  So the evidence one way or the other on whether there are
fast particles commensurate with excess heat seems to hinge upon two
points, as far as I can tell -- (1) the equivocal CR-39 experiments, and
(2) insufficient brehmstrahlung and hot-fusion neutrons that one might
expect as side channels.  Can someone elaborate on anything I've missed
here or gotten mixed up?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

On May 5, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jones Beene   
wrote:
Whereas Hagelstein’s model, when all is said and done, is an  
invention created to match an experimental outcome (which it does)  
but with no precedent in physical reality.


I think such models are called "phenomenological models" -- my  
impression is that the idea is to try to accurately capture the  
behavior you're seeing at the macro-level and then go from there.   
This seems like a solid approach, provided you don't jump to  
conclusions about what is going on under the hood. My possible  
issues with Hagelstein's models are not that they're  
phenomenological, it's that they don't seem to be very good,  
phenomenologically speaking.  He wants to use a harmonic oscillator,  
and what I see in the experimental data is chaotic behavior, with  
large transients here and there and then longer quiescent periods.   
Has anyone followed Hagelstein's recent papers who can describe the  
behavior one would expect to see from his models?  Perhaps they are  
chaotic now.


Peter has two conflicts with reality. He propose the process occurs in  
metal atom vacancies, which are not present in significant  
concentration in PdD and he has to convert the phonons to photons to  
be consistent with observations. This conversion process is hard to  
justify. The model makes no useful predictions as far as I can tell  
and is very hard to understand and justify.  However, the model is an  
amazing mathematical creation.


In one of his abstracts he offers a motivation for his general  
approach, which is to try to subdivide a large (24 MeV) quantum into  
tiny pieces using a "coherent energy exchange": "excess heat is  
thought to have a nuclear origin due to the amount of energy  
produced, yet there are no commensurate energetic particles".  Ed  
has also said that the fast particles are not commensurate with what  
one would expect for excess heat.  I would like to know more about  
the basis for this conclusion.  There are obviously few neutrons.   
But when you look at the CR-39 experiments, there are fast protons  
and alphas.  And occasionally there is a "hamburger" exposure, where  
the chip is filled with pits.  Abd wants to set aside those  
instances as unreliable data points, but I think he's setting aside  
evidence in doing so.


The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without  
assuming CF is the cause.  Trying to fit all observations to CF,  
especially those seen at very low rate, I believe is a mistake.  My  
model can explain these observations much easier.


Obviously when you have a system contained within a glass or metal  
housing, whether the system is electrolytic or gas phase, the fast  
particles are not going to escape.  So the evidence one way or the  
other on whether there are fast particles commensurate with excess  
heat seems to hinge upon two points, as far as I can tell -- (1) the  
equivocal CR-39 experiments, and (2) insufficient brehmstrahlung and  
hot-fusion neutrons that one might expect as side channels.  Can  
someone elaborate on anything I've missed here or gotten mixed up?


Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.  
Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid  
detecton. You should read his papers.  Here is a list.



1.Hagelstein, P.L., Rates for neutron and tritium  
production in coherent D-D fusion. 1989.


2.Hagelstein, P.L., A simple model for coherent D-D fusion  
in the presence of a lattice. 1989.


3.Hagelstein, P.L., Phonon interactions in coherent  
fusion. 1989.


4.Hagelstein, P.L. Coherent fusion theory. in Winter  
Meeting of The Am. Soc. of Mechan. Eng. 1989. San Francisco, CA,. p.


5.Hagelstein, P.L., A smple model for coherent D-D fusion  
in the presence of a lattice. 1989.


6.Hagelstein, P.L., Rates for neutron and tritium  
production in coherent D-D fusion. 1989.


7.Hagelstein, P.L., Phonon interactions in coherent  
fusion. 1989.


8.Hagelstein, P.L. Coherent fusion mechanisms. in  
Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, "AIP Conference  
Proceedings 228". 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American  
Institute of Physics, New York. p. 734.


9.Hagelstein, P.L. Status of coherent fusion theory. in  
The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. 1990. University of Utah  
Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah: National Cold Fusion Institute.  
p. 99.


10.Hagelstein, P.L., Coherent fusion theory. J. Fusion  
Energy, 1990. 9: p. 451.


11.Hagelstein, P.L. Coherent and semi-coherent neutron  
transfer reactions. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The  
Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di  
Fisica, Bologna, Italy. p. 205.


12.Hagelstein, P.L. Coherent and semi-coherent neutron  

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
> assuming CF is the cause.
>

I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
understand the part about neutrons.  It is the "very small number alpha"
particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this below, but I'm not
sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.


> Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected. Peter
> made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton.
>

I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is
broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is
going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system.  Do
you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above
the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it?


> You should read his papers.  Here is a list.
>

That is a long list.  I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein

An Interview With Peter
Hagelstein



MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:

So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model
that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the
physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's
basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic
oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's
just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of
the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math
really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death.
People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on
how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability
to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30
individual quanta.

Axil says:

Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:

The Jaynes Cummings model.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model

Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
absorption).




MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in an interview as follows:




What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.

Axil says:

This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
radiation to the near field in dark mode by eliminated far field emissions.

In a Ni/H reactor, a general state of Bose Einstein condensation exists do
to the unique properties of the polariton.



This takes nanoplasmonic theory to another level of detail in the Jaynes
Cummings Hubbard model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model

and the spaser

*arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086*





This property provides thermalization of gamma rays and superfluidic heat
transfer from the NAE to the walls of the reactor at temperatures of up to
2600Cthat cools the NAE.



Imagination is a great risk in the understanding of LENR. This is natural
when experimental data cannot be found. However, this
aforementioned characterization of he behavior of the polariton has been
experimentally verified in a thousand or more experiments conducted in the
field of nanoplasmonics. This new science has developed the tools to look
into the behavior of the nano-lattice and understand what is going on
inside it.

All that those interested in LENR is to take the time to learn.






On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
>> assuming CF is the cause.
>>
>
> I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
> understand the part about neutrons.  It is the "very small number alpha"
> particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this below, but I'm not
> sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.
>
>
>> Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.
>> Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton.
>>
>
> I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is
> broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is
> going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system.  Do
> you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above
> the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it?
>
>
>> You should read his papers.  Here is a list.
>>
>
> That is a long list.  I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

Thank you, Spock.

Eric


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein
>
> An Interview With Peter 
> Hagelstein
>
>
>
> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
>
> So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model
> that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the
> physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's
> basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic
> oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's
> just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of
> the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math
> really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death.
> People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on
> how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability
> to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30
> individual quanta.
>
> Axil says:
>
> Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:
>
> The Jaynes Cummings model.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model
>
> Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
> us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
> describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
> of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
> a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
> absorption).
>
>
>
>
> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in an interview as follows:
>
>
>
>
> What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
> hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
> makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
> weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
> fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
> physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
> loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
> exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
> weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
> exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
> chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.
>
> Axil says:
>
> This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
> radiation to the near field in dark mode by eliminated far field emissions.
>
> In a Ni/H reactor, a general state of Bose Einstein condensation exists do
> to the unique properties of the polariton.
>
>
>
> This takes nanoplasmonic theory to another level of detail in the Jaynes
> Cummings Hubbard model
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model
>
> and the spaser
>
> *arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086*
>
>
>
>
>
> This property provides thermalization of gamma rays and superfluidic heat
> transfer from the NAE to the walls of the reactor at temperatures of up to
> 2600Cthat cools the NAE.
>
>
>
> Imagination is a great risk in the understanding of LENR. This is natural
> when experimental data cannot be found. However, this
> aforementioned characterization of he behavior of the polariton has been
> experimentally verified in a thousand or more experiments conducted in the
> field of nanoplasmonics. This new science has developed the tools to look
> into the behavior of the nano-lattice and understand what is going on
> inside it.
>
> All that those interested in LENR is to take the time to learn.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>> The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
>>> assuming CF is the cause.
>>>
>>
>> I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
>> understand the part about neutrons.  It is the "very small number alpha"
>> particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this below, but I'm not
>> sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.
>>
>>
>>> Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.
>>> Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton.
>>>
>>
>> I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is
>> broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is
>> going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system.  Do
>> you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above
>> the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it?
>>
>>
>>> You should read his papers.  Here is a list.
>>>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF. This mechanism does  
not produce energetic particles because if it did, they or their  
secondaries would be easily detectable when multiple watts are  
produced, as occasionally happens.  Therefore, I reject any energetic  
emission as being related to CF. This encourages me to look for a  
different explanation, which seems to be a rare approach in the field.  
I suggest all energetic particles result from hot fusion that can  
occur at low level as the conditions supporting CF form. In other  
words, the cracks make CF when they grow only to a small gap, but can  
cause fractofusion if they grow large rapidly. Both process happen as  
a result of crack formation, but result from a different mechanism.  
This explanation allows all observations to be fit by one process, one  
assumption, and to occur at the same time. Personally, I like the  
simplicity of such an approach. However, simplicity does not seem to  
be the accepted approach is these discussions.


Ed Storms



On May 5, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without  
assuming CF is the cause.


I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I  
understand the part about neutrons.  It is the "very small number  
alpha" particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this  
below, but I'm not sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.


Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.  
Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid  
detecton.


I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the  
radiation is broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a  
range beyond what is going to be stopped by the glass or metal  
housing enclosing the system.  Do you expect the peak of the  
secondary radiation to be significantly above the threshold at which  
the glass or metal will stop it?


You should read his papers.  Here is a list.

That is a long list.  I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF.
>

I am probably missing something important, but I don't see how the
statement below follows from the one above -- perhaps you are just
mentioning it and do not intend it as an essential detail to this
discussion.


> This mechanism does not produce energetic particles because if it did,
> they or their secondaries would be easily detectable when multiple watts
> are produced, as occasionally happens.
>

It is the phrase "if it did, they or their secondaries would be easily
detectable when multiple watts are produced" that I am trying to
understand.  I'm not saying it's wrong -- I'm just being like Descartes and
trying to start from the beginning, so to speak.  At one point you saw some
evidence or a chain of reasoning that led you to this conclusion.  I'm
trying to piece together what those details might be.  So far I gather they
are these things:

   - If you have deuterium nuclei moving about at energies greater than 20
   keV, you'll get a significant number of d+d→3He+n reactions, and those
   neutrons will escape and be detected and/or be dangerous to any humans
   around.
   - If you have alphas and protons moving around at energies greater than
   20 keV, you'll get secondary EMF that will be of a spectrum such that a
   significant part of it will escape the metal or glass housing for the
   system, as well as the layer of (heavy) metal substrate atoms that may be
   intervening between the nuclear active area and the area between the
   substrate and the housing.  For V watts of power, that EMF can be known
   with within a confidence interval W to have an X spectrum and intensity.
Under those conditions, the amount of radiation that can be expected to
   pass through the Y mm of metal of a typical pressurized reactor housing is
   Z.
   - There are CR-39 experiments that provide evidence for the quantity of
   fast particles that have been observed when there is excess heat, but what
   they say is equivocal and/or the quality is poor.  For this reason, the
   CR-39 experiments are disregarded.

Does this sound about right?  Have I missed anything important in the
reasoning that led you to the above conclusion?  It is values for V, W, X,
Y and Z that I'm hoping to get some insight into.  I will try to see what I
can find in those papers of Hagelstein.  If you have any information on
these numbers, that would also be helpful.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

Ed Storms states:

In other words, the cracks make CF when they grow only to a small gap, but
can cause fractofusion if they grow large rapidly.

Axil begins:

In regard to experimental observation of crack dynamics as follows:


https://www.google.com/#q=miley+bose+einstein+condensation&hl=en&ei=wq-GUY-EIJP-4AP2yoEY&sqi=2&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=5ebeced8323f36c9&biw=853&bih=511
ADVANCES IN PROPOSED D-CLUSTER INERTIAL
CONFIMENT FUSION TARGET

“Recent superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUID) measurement
has shown ultradense states of deuterons with many more than 100 deuterons
within a crystal defect in a palladium crystal are possible, and a
superconductive state of these clusters was demonstrated in these
experiments [1, 2]. Similar ultra-dense state of deuterons was seen at
surface defects of iron oxide resulted in ion energies of 630 eV through
Mass spectrometry measurements [3]. It may well be assumed that both
cluster states are of the same nature though the states are concentrated at
the surface in the iron oxide case due to the catalytic generation in
contrast to the Pd samples with localization in the bulk volume [2]. In
both cases their existence was confirmed by the LENR process [4] which
likewise should be valid including when an inverted Rydberg state is
present. [3] A very important application would be using these clusters to
achieve non-cryogenic targets for inertial confinement The Sixth
International Conference on Inertial Fusion Sciences and Applications IOP
Publishing Journal of Physics: Conference Series 244 (2010) 032036
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/244/3/032036 _c 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd 1 fusion. In
principle this could also provide a compressed fuel density up to about
1000 times solid state density. [2][5][6].”

What Miley has seen in these cracks is a polariton condensate composed of
electrons an associated deuterons undergoing Plasmon  excitations caused by
dipole charge separation.

A crack is a geomantic mechanism or Nano antenna where electrons an
infrared radiation combine to form a polariton condensate.
The existence of a superconductive state indicates the the condensates
involves boson condensation at room temperature.
Other theories of LENR will be hard pressed to explain why room temperature
superconductivity is manifest in nano-optical crack. What produces such
high energy levels and what causes such high densities?

The polariton will produce these effects.

This is not imagination, this is experimental observation.




On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF. This mechanism does not
> produce energetic particles because if it did, they or their secondaries
> would be easily detectable when multiple watts are produced, as
> occasionally happens.  Therefore, I reject any energetic emission as being
> related to CF. This encourages me to look for a different explanation,
> which seems to be a rare approach in the field. I suggest all energetic
> particles result from hot fusion that can occur at low level as the
> conditions supporting CF form. In other words, the cracks make CF when they
> grow only to a small gap, but can cause fractofusion if they grow large
> rapidly. Both process happen as a result of crack formation, but result
> from a different mechanism. This explanation allows all observations to be
> fit by one process, one assumption, and to occur at the same time.
> Personally, I like the simplicity of such an approach. However, simplicity
> does not seem to be the accepted approach is these discussions.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
>> assuming CF is the cause.
>>
>
> I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
> understand the part about neutrons.  It is the "very small number alpha"
> particles that I'm querying.  I think you allude to this below, but I'm not
> sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion.
>
>
>> Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected.
>> Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton.
>>
>
> I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is
> broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is
> going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system.  Do
> you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above
> the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it?
>
>
>> You should read his papers.  Here is a list.
>>
>
> That is a long list.  I'm glad that you highlighted some of them!
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

On May 5, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF.

I am probably missing something important, but I don't see how the  
statement below follows from the one above -- perhaps you are just  
mentioning it and do not intend it as an essential detail to this  
discussion.


This mechanism does not produce energetic particles because if it  
did, they or their secondaries would be easily detectable when  
multiple watts are produced, as occasionally happens.


It is the phrase "if it did, they or their secondaries would be  
easily detectable when multiple watts are produced" that I am trying  
to understand.  I'm not saying it's wrong -- I'm just being like  
Descartes and trying to start from the beginning, so to speak.  At  
one point you saw some evidence or a chain of reasoning that led you  
to this conclusion.  I'm trying to piece together what those details  
might be.  So far I gather they are these things:
If you have deuterium nuclei moving about at energies greater than  
20 keV, you'll get a significant number of d+d→3He+n reactions, and  
those neutrons will escape and be detected and/or be dangerous to  
any humans around.


Yes Eric, that is correct.
If you have alphas and protons moving around at energies greater  
than 20 keV, you'll get secondary EMF that will be of a spectrum  
such that a significant part of it will escape the metal or glass  
housing for the system, as well as the layer of (heavy) metal  
substrate atoms that may be intervening between the nuclear active  
area and the area between the substrate and the housing.  For V  
watts of power, that EMF can be known with within a confidence  
interval W to have an X spectrum and intensity.  Under those  
conditions, the amount of radiation that can be expected to pass  
through the Y mm of metal of a typical pressurized reactor housing  
is Z.


Yes, correct
There are CR-39 experiments that provide evidence for the quantity  
of fast particles that have been observed when there is excess heat,  
but what they say is equivocal and/or the quality is poor.  For this  
reason, the CR-39 experiments are disregarded.


The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done.  
Therefore, we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or  
not. In any case, so little radiation is detected that any associated  
energy would be too small to detect. Nevertheless, the measurements  
show that a nuclear reaction was occurring, but not CF as the  
following logic shows.


If a single process operates, the heat and alpha radiation must result  
from this process. If let's say ten watts were produced, the alpha  
flux would have to be great enough to produce this power.  A flux this  
large (~10^13 alpha /sec) would be easily detected. It is not  
detected. Therefore, the process that produces the detected alpha is  
not the process that produces the measure heat. Nevertheless, the  
measured energy is correlated with helium production. This helium can  
not result from the production of alpha, based on the logic above.  
Since I assume only one mechanism produces the heat, the alpha cannot  
result from the reaction producing the heat. The reaction producing  
heat creates non-energetic helium,  which is called cold fusion.   
Based only on my one assumption and the observations, two separate,  
independent nuclear reactions can occur in a material. One generates  
energetic particles, typical of hot fusion and the other generates no  
energetic particles, typical of cold fusion.  Confusion results when  
these two separate reactions are combined and applied to CF.  I have  
proposed that what looks like alpha is actually energetic He3  
resulting from the hot fusion reaction.


The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it  
complicated.  Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much  
easier to understand and accept.  I have to wonder why people are  
willing to explore complicated reactions and complex logic while  
ignoring the most simple possibility.


Ed Storms
Does this sound about right?  Have I missed anything important in  
the reasoning that led you to the above conclusion?  It is values  
for V, W, X, Y and Z that I'm hoping to get some insight into.  I  
will try to see what I can find in those papers of Hagelstein.  If  
you have any information on these numbers, that would also be helpful.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

Thank you.  I now have a better understanding the logic that has led you to
the slow-helium formation assumption.


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done. Therefore,
> we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or not. In any case,
> so little radiation is detected that any associated energy would be too
> small to detect.
>

Does the statement "so little radiation is detected that any associated
energy would be too small to detect" apply to the so-called "hamburger"
exposures, where the chip is completely pitted?  Also, since no calorimetry
was made, it would seem that as far as the CR-39 experiments are concerned,
we have neither a basis for concluding that there is a large amount of
alpha flux when there is excess heat nor that there is a small amount of
alpha flux when there is excess heat (as you seem to be doing here).  It
would be really nice if someone could systematically measure the number of
pits while using decent calorimetry.

The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it complicated.
>  Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much easier to understand
> and accept.  I have to wonder why people are willing to explore complicated
> reactions and complex logic while ignoring the most simple possibility.
>

In the assumptions that go into your hypothesis, there seems to be an
implicit model where at low energies you can sort of slide hydrons into one
another, with an attendant release of mass energy, and the behavior is
different than in the high energy case, where there will either be a
collision or they'll fuse.  I am reminded of the difference in how water
behaves when an object hits it with great force, and when the object is
allowed to slide into it or drop into it from a low height.  This
understanding of the electromagnetic force and of the nuclear force seems
to be implied by your hypothesis.  I find it a very intriguing approach --
it would be pretty neat if under the right conditions the hydrogen atoms
could be slowly pushed into one another, and only at high speeds do they
bounce away from one another and provide a lot of resistance.  But it will
be a long time before I'm willing to adopt this model as a working
hypothesis.  Even if I found it likely, I think it would be necessary to
eliminate other possibilities first, since it is such a departure from
current understanding of the strong and electrostatic forces, which, as I
understand it, are presented as static properties of the atoms that do not
vary with their speed relative to one another.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.

DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see both
fission and fusion reactions in these results. IMHO, the primary causation
of these LENR reactions is the lowering of the coulomb barrier.

There is a secondary though important reaction that may or may not be
established  any given time. That is,  Bose Einstein condensation that
thermalizes the LENR reaction may or may not happen.

If BEC is not in play, radiation and energetic particles will result. When
BEC is enforced, LENR energy is not carried by the alphas and protons
released from the nucleus but are thermalized as EMF.

For example, because BEC has stopped when  Piantelli removed his nickel
bars from his reactor, Piantelli sees high energy protons emerge from the
nickel bars removed from his reactor. Yes, he sees 6 MeV protons coming
from the bars in his cloud chamber.

The bottom line, Coulomb barrier lowering is mandatory in LENR, BEC is
optional. That is how it looks to me.





On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Thank you.  I now have a better understanding the logic that has led you
> to the slow-helium formation assumption.
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done. Therefore,
>> we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or not. In any case,
>> so little radiation is detected that any associated energy would be too
>> small to detect.
>>
>
> Does the statement "so little radiation is detected that any associated
> energy would be too small to detect" apply to the so-called "hamburger"
> exposures, where the chip is completely pitted?  Also, since no calorimetry
> was made, it would seem that as far as the CR-39 experiments are concerned,
> we have neither a basis for concluding that there is a large amount of
> alpha flux when there is excess heat nor that there is a small amount of
> alpha flux when there is excess heat (as you seem to be doing here).  It
> would be really nice if someone could systematically measure the number of
> pits while using decent calorimetry.
>
> The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it complicated.
>>  Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much easier to understand
>> and accept.  I have to wonder why people are willing to explore complicated
>> reactions and complex logic while ignoring the most simple possibility.
>>
>
> In the assumptions that go into your hypothesis, there seems to be an
> implicit model where at low energies you can sort of slide hydrons into one
> another, with an attendant release of mass energy, and the behavior is
> different than in the high energy case, where there will either be a
> collision or they'll fuse.  I am reminded of the difference in how water
> behaves when an object hits it with great force, and when the object is
> allowed to slide into it or drop into it from a low height.  This
> understanding of the electromagnetic force and of the nuclear force seems
> to be implied by your hypothesis.  I find it a very intriguing approach --
> it would be pretty neat if under the right conditions the hydrogen atoms
> could be slowly pushed into one another, and only at high speeds do they
> bounce away from one another and provide a lot of resistance.  But it will
> be a long time before I'm willing to adopt this model as a working
> hypothesis.  Even if I found it likely, I think it would be necessary to
> eliminate other possibilities first, since it is such a departure from
> current understanding of the strong and electrostatic forces, which, as I
> understand it, are presented as static properties of the atoms that do not
> vary with their speed relative to one another.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

On May 5, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

Thank you.  I now have a better understanding the logic that has led  
you to the slow-helium formation assumption.



On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done.  
Therefore, we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or  
not. In any case, so little radiation is detected that any  
associated energy would be too small to detect.


Does the statement "so little radiation is detected that any  
associated energy would be too small to detect" apply to the so- 
called "hamburger" exposures, where the chip is completely pitted?   
Also, since no calorimetry was made, it would seem that as far as  
the CR-39 experiments are concerned, we have neither a basis for  
concluding that there is a large amount of alpha flux when there is  
excess heat nor that there is a small amount of alpha flux when  
there is excess heat (as you seem to be doing here).  It would be  
really nice if someone could systematically measure the number of  
pits while using decent calorimetry.


Eric, you need to do some calculations. The CR-39 is an accumulator.  
The flux, which determines power , is very small during these studies  
even though the final result looks large.  At no time could heat be  
detected from the reactions producing these products.


The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it  
complicated.  Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much  
easier to understand and accept.  I have to wonder why people are  
willing to explore complicated reactions and complex logic while  
ignoring the most simple possibility.


In the assumptions that go into your hypothesis, there seems to be  
an implicit model where at low energies you can sort of slide  
hydrons into one another, with an attendant release of mass energy,  
and the behavior is different than in the high energy case, where  
there will either be a collision or they'll fuse.


Hot fusion is a well know process that results when deuterons come  
together quickly with high energy.  The laws of conservation of energy  
and momentum require the final nucleus to explode in order to release  
the mass-energy. This process can occur when a crack forms if the   
resulting charge separation generates a high voltage gradient. This  
effect is easy to cause. Just hit a crystal of LiD with a hammer and a  
burst of neutrons will result. Cold fusion is an entirely different  
process with NO relationship to hot fusion.  This is not like your  
analogy. The water is just acting like water but with a gradual change  
in property as the velocity of impact increases. CF is not related to  
HF in any way. There is no gradual change from hot fusion to cold  
fusion as the applied energy decrease. As the energy goes down, the  
hot fusion reaction rate simply becomes increasingly small until under  
normal conditions it does not occur at all.  CF and HF are two  
entirely different phenomenon that can occur at the same time under  
certain conditions. Trying to relate them has caused most of the  
confusion.  You need to stop thinking about how HF works and start  
over using a different vocabulary.


Ed Storms

 I am reminded of the difference in how water behaves when an object  
hits it with great force, and when the object is allowed to slide  
into it or drop into it from a low height.  This understanding of  
the electromagnetic force and of the nuclear force seems to be  
implied by your hypothesis.  I find it a very intriguing approach --  
it would be pretty neat if under the right conditions the hydrogen  
atoms could be slowly pushed into one another, and only at high  
speeds do they bounce away from one another and provide a lot of  
resistance.  But it will be a long time before I'm willing to adopt  
this model as a working hypothesis.  Even if I found it likely, I  
think it would be necessary to eliminate other possibilities first,  
since it is such a departure from current understanding of the  
strong and electrostatic forces, which, as I understand it, are  
presented as static properties of the atoms that do not vary with  
their speed relative to one another.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
> experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.
>

These results have to be published in detail and then independently
replicated before we can have confidence they are real. There are many cold
fusion claims. Some were never replicated and I think most people have
concluded they were experimental errors. DGT's results may also be
experimental error, in which case it makes no sense take them into account.
The theory will be nonsense.



> DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see both
> fission and fusion reactions in these results.
>

Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what instruments
they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these results must also
be independently replicated.

As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing more
substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided, such
as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account their
claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few details from
a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a waste of
time even doing that.

This is also largely true of Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

I recently posted to Ed Storms this opinion of LENR experimentation which
show results consistent with what DGT is seeing.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/isotope-table-lenr-tool/

Several medium and heavy elements like calcium, titanium, chromium,
manganese, iron, cobalt, copper and zinc have been reported as detected by
several researchers, like Tadahiko Mizuno or George Miley.
1. lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf
Did you forget about this one in your library?

“Recently, Mizuno, Bockris and others have increasingly focused on
so-called “host metal transmutations,” that is, nuclear reactions of the
cathode metal itself. The cathode metal was inexplicably neglected for many
years. The term “host metal” is misleading. It was an unfortunate choice of
words. It implies that the metal acts as a passive structure, holding the
hydrogen in place, cramming the deuterons or protons together. The metal is
a host, not a participant. The hydrogen does the work. Now, it appears the
metal itself is as active as the hydrogen. The metal apparently fissions
and fusions in complex reactions. Now the task is to think about the metal,
and not just the hydrogen. Theory must explain how palladium can turn part
of itself into copper and other elements with peculiar isotopes.”

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/02/26/lenr-archives-illuminate-scientific-mystery-of-century-part-2/

I consider the fusion/fission idea well justified and on track having been
supported by many results.

I will document them in detail from your own library if you persist.

How about the fission/fusion results from Rossi and Piantelli, especially
from Piantelli because of his very good reputation.




On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
>> experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.
>>
>
> These results have to be published in detail and then independently
> replicated before we can have confidence they are real. There are many cold
> fusion claims. Some were never replicated and I think most people have
> concluded they were experimental errors. DGT's results may also be
> experimental error, in which case it makes no sense take them into account.
> The theory will be nonsense.
>
>
>
>> DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see
>> both fission and fusion reactions in these results.
>>
>
> Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what
> instruments they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these
> results must also be independently replicated.
>
> As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing more
> substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided, such
> as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account their
> claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few details from
> a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a waste of
> time even doing that.
>
> This is also largely true of Rossi.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1

Results from Piantelli


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I recently posted to Ed Storms this opinion of LENR experimentation which
> show results consistent with what DGT is seeing.
>
> https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/isotope-table-lenr-tool/
>
> Several medium and heavy elements like calcium, titanium, chromium,
> manganese, iron, cobalt, copper and zinc have been reported as detected by
> several researchers, like Tadahiko Mizuno or George Miley.
> 1. lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf
> Did you forget about this one in your library?
>
> “Recently, Mizuno, Bockris and others have increasingly focused on
> so-called “host metal transmutations,” that is, nuclear reactions of the
> cathode metal itself. The cathode metal was inexplicably neglected for many
> years. The term “host metal” is misleading. It was an unfortunate choice of
> words. It implies that the metal acts as a passive structure, holding the
> hydrogen in place, cramming the deuterons or protons together. The metal is
> a host, not a participant. The hydrogen does the work. Now, it appears the
> metal itself is as active as the hydrogen. The metal apparently fissions
> and fusions in complex reactions. Now the task is to think about the metal,
> and not just the hydrogen. Theory must explain how palladium can turn part
> of itself into copper and other elements with peculiar isotopes.”
>
>
> http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/02/26/lenr-archives-illuminate-scientific-mystery-of-century-part-2/
>
> I consider the fusion/fission idea well justified and on track having been
> supported by many results.
>
> I will document them in detail from your own library if you persist.
>
> How about the fission/fusion results from Rossi and Piantelli, especially
> from Piantelli because of his very good reputation.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>> If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
>>> experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.
>>>
>>
>> These results have to be published in detail and then independently
>> replicated before we can have confidence they are real. There are many cold
>> fusion claims. Some were never replicated and I think most people have
>> concluded they were experimental errors. DGT's results may also be
>> experimental error, in which case it makes no sense take them into account.
>> The theory will be nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>>> DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see
>>> both fission and fusion reactions in these results.
>>>
>>
>> Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what
>> instruments they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these
>> results must also be independently replicated.
>>
>> As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing
>> more substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided,
>> such as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account
>> their claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few
>> details from a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a
>> waste of time even doing that.
>>
>> This is also largely true of Rossi.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

another one


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1996/1996Mizuno-IsotopicDistribution-ICCF6.pdf


ISOTOPIC DISTRIBUTION FOR THE ELEMENTS EVOLYED IN PALLADIUM CATHODE AFTER
ELECTROLYSIS IN D2O SOLUTION

T. Mizuno, 'T.Ohmori*, T.Akimoto, K.Kurokawa, M.Kitaichi,

K.1noda, K.Azumi, S.Simokawa and M. Enyo"


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1
>
> Results from Piantelli
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> I recently posted to Ed Storms this opinion of LENR experimentation which
>> show results consistent with what DGT is seeing.
>>
>> https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/isotope-table-lenr-tool/
>>
>> Several medium and heavy elements like calcium, titanium, chromium,
>> manganese, iron, cobalt, copper and zinc have been reported as detected by
>> several researchers, like Tadahiko Mizuno or George Miley.
>> 1. lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf
>> Did you forget about this one in your library?
>>
>> “Recently, Mizuno, Bockris and others have increasingly focused on
>> so-called “host metal transmutations,” that is, nuclear reactions of the
>> cathode metal itself. The cathode metal was inexplicably neglected for many
>> years. The term “host metal” is misleading. It was an unfortunate choice of
>> words. It implies that the metal acts as a passive structure, holding the
>> hydrogen in place, cramming the deuterons or protons together. The metal is
>> a host, not a participant. The hydrogen does the work. Now, it appears the
>> metal itself is as active as the hydrogen. The metal apparently fissions
>> and fusions in complex reactions. Now the task is to think about the metal,
>> and not just the hydrogen. Theory must explain how palladium can turn part
>> of itself into copper and other elements with peculiar isotopes.”
>>
>>
>> http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/02/26/lenr-archives-illuminate-scientific-mystery-of-century-part-2/
>>
>> I consider the fusion/fission idea well justified and on track having
>> been supported by many results.
>>
>> I will document them in detail from your own library if you persist.
>>
>> How about the fission/fusion results from Rossi and Piantelli, especially
>> from Piantelli because of his very good reputation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
>>> If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally
 applicable, experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.

>>>
>>> These results have to be published in detail and then independently
>>> replicated before we can have confidence they are real. There are many cold
>>> fusion claims. Some were never replicated and I think most people have
>>> concluded they were experimental errors. DGT's results may also be
>>> experimental error, in which case it makes no sense take them into account.
>>> The theory will be nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see
 both fission and fusion reactions in these results.

>>>
>>> Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what
>>> instruments they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these
>>> results must also be independently replicated.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing
>>> more substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided,
>>> such as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account
>>> their claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few
>>> details from a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a
>>> waste of time even doing that.
>>>
>>> This is also largely true of Rossi.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

Eric, you need to do some calculations. The CR-39 is an accumulator. The
> flux, which determines power , is very small during these studies even
> though the final result looks large.  At no time could heat be detected
> from the reactions producing these products.
>

This suggests that the CR-39 experiments have in general been done in
connection with null results -- i.e., trials in which there was no reason
to think there was excess heat.  This is interesting on several levels,
since there were pits in the chips.  But if there was no clear excess heat,
we have little reason to conclude we have learned anything from the
CR-39 experiments about the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.

I fear that this thread may be becoming tiresome for the poor Vorts.  I
will mull over the information you have provided.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[ken deboer]

No, Eric, this is not tiresome to us poor unwashed voorts.  Except when it
occassionaly degenerates into a pissing contest, it is entirely interesting
to see ideas (many immediately shot down) spin out. It seems to me that
eventually some new useful insight, or synthesis might give either a
combatant or cheerleader another idea.


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> Eric, you need to do some calculations. The CR-39 is an accumulator. The
>> flux, which determines power , is very small during these studies even
>> though the final result looks large.  At no time could heat be detected
>> from the reactions producing these products.
>>
>
> This suggests that the CR-39 experiments have in general been done in
> connection with null results -- i.e., trials in which there was no reason
> to think there was excess heat.  This is interesting on several levels,
> since there were pits in the chips.  But if there was no clear excess heat,
> we have little reason to conclude we have learned anything from the
> CR-39 experiments about the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.
>
> I fear that this thread may be becoming tiresome for the poor Vorts.  I
> will mull over the information you have provided.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


> But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude
> we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha
> particle flux when there is excess heat.
>

I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do not
know whether there was heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear  
reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the  
reaction was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The  
only unknown is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.


We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission  
at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production  
and alpha emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear  
reaction is the source of the heat. The question is: What is this  
source?


When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This  
helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic  
demonstrates.  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear  
reaction. The question is: What is this reaction? That is the question  
my and other theories are trying to answer.  If you want to answer the  
question of where the alpha comes from, you need to start a different  
discussion because this emission is clearly not related to CF.


And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes  
alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a  
reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered.


Ed Storms



On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Eric Walker  wrote:

But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to  
conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about  
the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.


I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We  
do not know whether there was heat.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

Ed Storms states:

*“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a
comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
emission are not related.”*

This could be a false assumption as follows:

When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to
the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to
penetrate the surface of the CR-39.

In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very low
energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.

This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the
lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their
associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.





On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction
> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown
> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.
>
> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a
> comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the
> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source?
>
> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium
> does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates.
>  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question
> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are
> trying to answer.  If you want to answer the question of where the alpha
> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission
> is clearly not related to CF.
>
> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes
> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is
> too improbable to be seriously considered.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>
>> But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude
>> we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha
>> particle flux when there is excess heat.
>>
>
> I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do
> not know whether there was heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not  
invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that  
cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to  
sort through the arguments and some common sense is applied, the  
effect will be impossible to understand.  Naturally, I have considered  
the possibilities you suggest, Axil, before I came to my conclusions.  
Of course what you propose might be true.  Nevertheless, I reached my  
conclusion by considering all of the observed behavior.  A reader will  
have to decide for themselves which possibility they want to accept  
because it is impossible to debate such details here and reach an  
agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are given, a counter  
argument can always be provided.


I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you  
believe and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.


Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Ed Storms states:

“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha  
emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat  
production and alpha emission are not related.”


This could be a false assumption as follows:

When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy  
directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry  
enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39.


In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at  
very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.


This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly  
to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha  
particles and their associated behavior and measurement problematic  
and unreliable.







On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a  
nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate  
of the reaction was too small to make detectable heat from this  
reaction. The only unknown is whether heat from a different reaction  
can occur.


We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission  
at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production  
and alpha emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear  
reaction is the source of the heat. The question is: What is this  
source?


When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This  
helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic  
demonstrates.  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear  
reaction. The question is: What is this reaction? That is the  
question my and other theories are trying to answer.  If you want to  
answer the question of where the alpha comes from, you need to start  
a different discussion because this emission is clearly not related  
to CF.


And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes  
makes alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a  
reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered.


Ed Storms



On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Eric Walker  wrote:

But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to  
conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about  
the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.


I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments.  
We do not know whether there was heat.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

One of the advantages of Nanoplasmonics is that an experimental methodology
and associated tools have been developed that might impact on this sort of
experimental ambiguity.

This is why I recommend this science to you.

The recently referenced experiment on the acceleration of alpha decay shows
that Nanoplasmonics can have an impact on the alpha particle formation
process.

An important part of the scientific method is to select the right tools to
observe the points we are interested in sorting out.






On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite
> a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown
> to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the
> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible
> to understand.  Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest,
> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be
> true.  Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the
> observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves which
> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such
> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are
> given, a counter argument can always be provided.
>
> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe
> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Ed Storms states:
>
> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at
> a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
> emission are not related.”*
>
> This could be a false assumption as follows:
>
> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to
> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to
> penetrate the surface of the CR-39.
>
> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very
> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.
>
> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the
> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their
> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
>> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction
>> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown
>> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.
>>
>> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a
>> comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
>> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the
>> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source?
>>
>> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium
>> does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates.
>>  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question
>> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are
>> trying to answer.  If you want to answer the question of where the alpha
>> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission
>> is clearly not related to CF.
>>
>> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes
>> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is
>> too improbable to be seriously considered.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Eric Walker  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to
>>> conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the
>>> alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.
>>>
>>
>> I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do
>> not know whether there was heat.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Harry Veeder]

The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.

starting a fire with hand drill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA

Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs

Harry



On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite
> a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown
> to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the
> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible
> to understand.  Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest,
> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be
> true.  Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the
> observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves which
> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such
> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are
> given, a counter argument can always be provided.
>
> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe
> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.
>
> Ed Storms
> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Ed Storms states:
>
> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at
> a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
> emission are not related.”*
>
> This could be a false assumption as follows:
>
> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to
> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to
> penetrate the surface of the CR-39.
>
> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very
> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.
>
> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the
> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their
> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
>> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction
>> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown
>> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.
>>
>> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a
>> comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
>> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the
>> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source?
>>
>> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium
>> does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates.
>>  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question
>> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are
>> trying to answer.  If you want to answer the question of where the alpha
>> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission
>> is clearly not related to CF.
>>
>> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes
>> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is
>> too improbable to be seriously considered.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Eric Walker  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to
>>> conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the
>>> alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.
>>>
>>
>> I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do
>> not know whether there was heat.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is  
not very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are  
consistent with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of  
both physics and chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which  
needs to be identified.  Nevertheless, the role of this missing part  
can be clearly determined.  This missing part does not in any way  
relate to alpha emission. The interaction of an alpha with matter is  
well known and understood. It does not initiate a fusion reaction. If  
it could, all alpha emitters would occasionally produce CF in the  
presence of hydrogen, which has not been observed. Of course, someone  
will find a way to counter this conclusion, but to what end?  We must  
use some triage here. We need to consider ideas that are consistent  
with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves?   
Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed,  
the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.


Ed  Storms


On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:


The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.

starting a fire with hand drill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA

Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs

Harry



On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not  
invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that  
cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to  
sort through the arguments and some common sense is applied, the  
effect will be impossible to understand.  Naturally, I have  
considered the possibilities you suggest, Axil, before I came to my  
conclusions. Of course what you propose might be true.   
Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the  
observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves  
which possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to  
debate such details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter  
what arguments are given, a counter argument can always be provided.


I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you  
believe and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.


Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Ed Storms states:

“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha  
emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat  
production and alpha emission are not related.”


This could be a false assumption as follows:

When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy  
directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry  
enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39.


In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at  
very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.


This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly  
to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha  
particles and their associated behavior and measurement problematic  
and unreliable.







On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a  
nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate  
of the reaction was too small to make detectable heat from this  
reaction. The only unknown is whether heat from a different  
reaction can occur.


We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha  
emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat  
production and alpha emission are not related. Therefore, some  
other nuclear reaction is the source of the heat. The question is:  
What is this source?


When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This  
helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic  
demonstrates.  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear  
reaction. The question is: What is this reaction? That is the  
question my and other theories are trying to answer.  If you want  
to answer the question of where the alpha comes from, you need to  
start a different discussion because this emission is clearly not  
related to CF.


And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes  
makes alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such  
a reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered.


Ed Storms



On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Eric Walker  wrote:

But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to  
conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about  
the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.


I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments.  
We do not know whether there was heat.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

Ed Storms stated:

“ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known
about materials and about how CF behaves?  Unless you can show some
consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time.
So, put your thinking cap back on.”

In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are
game changing in how matter behaves.

These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials,
physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts
with common sense.

The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material
itself and not absolute.

You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern
age.




On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not
> very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent
> with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and
> chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified.
>  Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined.
>  This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The
> interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does
> not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would
> occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been
> observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion,
> but to what end?  We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas
> that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF
> behaves?  Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and
> observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.
>
> Ed  Storms
>
>
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
> Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.
>
> starting a fire with hand drill
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA
>
> Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not
>> invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be
>> shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the
>> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible
>> to understand.  Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest,
>> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be
>> true.  Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the
>> observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves which
>> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such
>> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are
>> given, a counter argument can always be provided.
>>
>> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe
>> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Ed Storms states:
>>
>> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission
>> at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and
>> alpha emission are not related.”*
>>
>> This could be a false assumption as follows:
>>
>> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to
>> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to
>> penetrate the surface of the CR-39.
>>
>> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very
>> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.
>>
>> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the
>> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their
>> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
>>> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction
>>> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown
>>> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.
>>>
>>> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at
>>> a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
>>> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the
>>> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source?
>>>
>>> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This
>>> helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates.
>>>  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made  
on purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible.   
Nevertheless,  these gaps have to be made using the known laws even  
though once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement  
also applies to the new materials you describe. They will be created  
using the known laws even though once created, they will have unusual  
properties. This same requirement applies to all aspects of materials  
science and has resulted in the unusual materials we presently enjoy.  
They were not made by imagining the need for "magic powers". The known  
and conventional laws of chemistry were used to create the materials  
in most cases.  The only question of importance is: What has to be  
created to initiate CF?  Unless you can answer this question, you do  
not know what you need to make.  So, please focus on this question.


Ed Storms


On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Ed Storms stated:

“ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is  
known about materials and about how CF behaves?  Unless you can show  
some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a  
waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.”


In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials  
that are game changing in how matter behaves.


These new materials are called topological materials. In these  
materials, physical processes can be engineered to behave in a  
manner that conflicts with common sense.


The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the  
material itself and not absolute.


You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this  
modern age.





On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is  
not very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are  
consistent with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of  
both physics and chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which  
needs to be identified.  Nevertheless, the role of this missing part  
can be clearly determined.  This missing part does not in any way  
relate to alpha emission. The interaction of an alpha with matter is  
well known and understood. It does not initiate a fusion reaction.  
If it could, all alpha emitters would occasionally produce CF in the  
presence of hydrogen, which has not been observed. Of course,  
someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, but to what  
end?  We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas that  
are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how  
CF behaves?  Unless you can show some consistency with what is known  
and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking  
cap back on.


Ed  Storms



On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:


The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.

starting a fire with hand drill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA

Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs

Harry



On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not  
invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that  
cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to  
sort through the arguments and some common sense is applied, the  
effect will be impossible to understand.  Naturally, I have  
considered the possibilities you suggest, Axil, before I came to my  
conclusions. Of course what you propose might be true.   
Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the  
observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves  
which possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to  
debate such details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter  
what arguments are given, a counter argument can always be provided.


I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you  
believe and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.


Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Ed Storms states:

“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha  
emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat  
production and alpha emission are not related.”


This could be a false assumption as follows:

When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy  
directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry  
enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39.


In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at  
very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.


This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly  
to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha  
particles and their associated behavior and 

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable
cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in
the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in
the same way that rain renews water in a puddle.

I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H
reactors.

A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that falls
on the surface of micro particles.

Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these
metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the
lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical
processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal
nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and
reliably and are self-renewing.

This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion
of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment.







On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on
> purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible.
>  Nevertheless,  these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though
> once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies
> to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known
> laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same
> requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in
> the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining
> the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry
> were used to create the materials in most cases.  The only question of
> importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF?  Unless you can
> answer this question, you do not know what you need to make.  So, please
> focus on this question.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Ed Storms stated:
>
> “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known
> about materials and about how CF behaves?  Unless you can show some
> consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time.
> So, put your thinking cap back on.”
>
> In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are
> game changing in how matter behaves.
>
> These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials,
> physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts
> with common sense.
>
> The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material
> itself and not absolute.
>
> You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern
> age.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not
>> very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent
>> with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and
>> chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified.
>>  Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined.
>>  This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The
>> interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does
>> not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would
>> occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been
>> observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion,
>> but to what end?  We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas
>> that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF
>> behaves?  Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and
>> observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.
>>
>> Ed  Storms
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
>> Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.
>>
>> starting a fire with hand drill
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA
>>
>> Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not
>>> invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be
>>> shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the
>>> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible
>>> to understand.  Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest,
>>> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be
>>> true.  Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the
>>> observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for thems

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these  
gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a  
material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration  
gradients, or temperature gradients. Regardless of the cause, the  
process is totally conventional requiring no magic.  The cracks are  
active at first while  the gap remains small, but the gap grows too  
large and CF stops if stress continues to be created.  The smaller the  
particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less  
stress.  In other words, the particle size is only important to keep  
the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is required.


Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with  
something (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of  
stress to produce the required gap size. He has discovered this  
process by trial and error and now has a recipe that works most of the  
time.  However, he shows no indication he understands what is actually  
happening in his material.


If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different  
impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel.   
The  role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the  
gap. Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons  
enter the gap.  If this model is correct, the process becomes very  
simple and easy to replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The  
electric discharge is only required to make H+ available to the gap.  
Again, no magic is involved at this stage.


If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they  
do not describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the  
critical conditions to be produced.


 We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical  
studies have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial  
efforts, I believe, are wasting their time and money.


Ed Storms

On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These  
renewable cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in  
unlimited numbers in the metal lattice. These drops are self- 
renewing and totally recyclable in the same way that rain renews  
water in a puddle.


I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H  
reactors.


A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops  
that falls on the surface of micro particles.


Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time,  
these metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the  
surface of the lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and  
renewed. The physical processes that happen in a crack in palladium  
and the alkali metal nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are  
formed more readily and reliably and are self-renewing.


This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the  
inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment.








On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be  
made on purpose in any material, CF will become totally  
reproducible.  Nevertheless,  these gaps have to be made using the  
known laws even though once created, a new phenomenon is initiated.  
This requirement also applies to the new materials you describe.  
They will be created using the known laws even though once created,  
they will have unusual properties. This same requirement applies to  
all aspects of materials science and has resulted in the unusual  
materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining the  
need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of  
chemistry were used to create the materials in most cases.  The only  
question of importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF?   
Unless you can answer this question, you do not know what you need  
to make.  So, please focus on this question.


Ed Storms



On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Ed Storms stated:

“ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is  
known about materials and about how CF behaves?  Unless you can  
show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas  
are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.”


In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials  
that are game changing in how matter behaves.


These new materials are called topological materials. In these  
materials, physical processes can be engineered to behave in a  
manner that conflicts with common sense.


The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the  
material itself and not absolute.


You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this  
modern age.





On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is  
not very useful. My guiding principle i

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Roarty, Francis X]

Axil,
Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your 
plasmonics posit? I always liked  wet cells from a neo  Julian Schwinger 
concept of  sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression plates 
of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were exposed to a 
dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive energies we see as the 
dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem to be suggesting that the 
plasma and solid geometries  can be forming similar structures, A metal rain 
would form dynamic cavities just like bubbles in sono fusion without  the self 
quenching heat sinking effect of a totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma 
caught in these cracks  during such a "rain storm" being effected equivalent to 
backfilling a cavity but, what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a 
catalyst to just keep creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to 
something and would love to see you put the pieces together.
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love


The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable 
cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in the 
metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in the same 
way that rain renews water in a puddle.

I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H reactors.

A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that falls on 
the surface of micro particles.

Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these metal 
drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the lattice. 
They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical processes 
that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal nano-drops are the 
same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and reliably and are 
self-renewing.

This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion of a 
potassium salt in a LERN experiment.





On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on 
purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible.  Nevertheless,  
these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though once created, a new 
phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies to the new materials you 
describe. They will be created using the known laws even though once created, 
they will have unusual properties. This same requirement applies to all aspects 
of materials science and has resulted in the unusual materials we presently 
enjoy. They were not made by imagining the need for "magic powers". The known 
and conventional laws of chemistry were used to create the materials in most 
cases.  The only question of importance is: What has to be created to initiate 
CF?  Unless you can answer this question, you do not know what you need to 
make.  So, please focus on this question.

Ed Storms



On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Ed Storms stated:

" We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about 
materials and about how CF behaves?  Unless you can show some consistency with 
what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your 
thinking cap back on."

In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are game 
changing in how matter behaves.

These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, 
physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts with 
common sense.

The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material 
itself and not absolute.

You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern age.



On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not very 
useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent with 
normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and chemistry. 
Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified.  Nevertheless, 
the role of this missing part can be clearly determined.  This missing part 
does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The interaction of an alpha with 
matter is well known and understood. It does not initiate a fusion reaction. If 
it could, all alpha emitters would occasionally produce CF in the presence of 
hydrogen, which has not been observed. Of course, someone will find a way to 
counter this conclusion, but to what end?  We must use some triage here. We 
need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about 
materials and about how CF behaves?  Unless you can show some consistency w

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

 I posted this video not long ago. The cracks are self assembling. watch
the video on how the nano-gaps form.


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

>  Axil,
>
> Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your
> plasmonics posit? I always liked  wet cells from a neo  Julian Schwinger
> concept of  sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression
> plates of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were
> exposed to a dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive
> energies we see as the dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem
> to be suggesting that the plasma and solid geometries  can be forming
> similar structures, A metal rain would form dynamic cavities just like
> bubbles in sono fusion without  the self quenching heat sinking effect of a
> totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma caught in these cracks  during
> such a “rain storm” being effected equivalent to backfilling a cavity but,
> what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a catalyst to just keep
> creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to something and would love
> to see you put the pieces together.
>
> Fran
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
>
> ** **
>
> The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable
> cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in
> the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in
> the same way that rain renews water in a puddle.
>
> I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H
> reactors. 
>
> A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that
> falls on the surface of micro particles. 
>
> Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these
> metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the
> lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical
> processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal
> nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and
> reliably and are self-renewing.
>
> This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion
> of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment.
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms 
> wrote:
>
> I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on
> purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible.
>  Nevertheless,  these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though
> once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies
> to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known
> laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same
> requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in
> the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining
> the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry
> were used to create the materials in most cases.  The only question of
> importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF?  Unless you can
> answer this question, you do not know what you need to make.  So, please
> focus on this question.
>
> ** **
>
> Ed Storms
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>
>
> 
>
> Ed Storms stated:
>
>  
>
> “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known
> about materials and about how CF behaves?  Unless you can show some
> consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time.
> So, put your thinking cap back on.”
>
>  
>
> In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are
> game changing in how matter behaves.
>
>  
>
> These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials,
> physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts
> with common sense.
>
>  
>
> The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material
> itself and not absolute.
>
>  
>
> You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern
> age.  
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms 
> wrote:
>
> Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not
> very useful. 

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

Sorry, here it is.

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-freedom-scientists-
nanoparticles-larger-real.html

Freedom of assembly: Scientists see nanoparticles form larger structures in
real time

The connection point between each of these nano-particles could be a NAE
site.


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>  I posted this video not long ago. The cracks are self assembling. watch
> the video on how the nano-gaps form.
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>>  Axil,
>>
>> Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your
>> plasmonics posit? I always liked  wet cells from a neo  Julian Schwinger
>> concept of  sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression
>> plates of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were
>> exposed to a dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive
>> energies we see as the dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem
>> to be suggesting that the plasma and solid geometries  can be forming
>> similar structures, A metal rain would form dynamic cavities just like
>> bubbles in sono fusion without  the self quenching heat sinking effect of a
>> totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma caught in these cracks  during
>> such a “rain storm” being effected equivalent to backfilling a cavity but,
>> what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a catalyst to just keep
>> creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to something and would love
>> to see you put the pieces together.
>>
>> Fran
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable
>> cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in
>> the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in
>> the same way that rain renews water in a puddle.
>>
>> I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H
>> reactors. 
>>
>> A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that
>> falls on the surface of micro particles. 
>>
>> Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these
>> metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the
>> lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical
>> processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal
>> nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and
>> reliably and are self-renewing.
>>
>> This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the
>> inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment.
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on
>> purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible.
>>  Nevertheless,  these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though
>> once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies
>> to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known
>> laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same
>> requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in
>> the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining
>> the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry
>> were used to create the materials in most cases.  The only question of
>> importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF?  Unless you can
>> answer this question, you do not know what you need to make.  So, please
>> focus on this question.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> Ed Storms stated:
>>
>>  
>>
>> “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known
>> about materials and about how CF behaves?  Unless you can show some
>> consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time.
>> So, put your thinking cap back on.”
>>
>>  

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Roarty, Francis X]

On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of cracks. 
Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a 
material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or 
temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while  the gap remains 
small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be 
created.  The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material 
means less stress.  In other words, the particle size is only important to keep 
the gap size small and stable. [/snip]

Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps on a 
particle surface are "stress" type and that the stress always trumps stiction 
force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a skeletal 
catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to close the 
gap, any "metal rain"  or loose conductive material should want to backfill the 
cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter particle geometries 
formed in light of Axils proposed "metal rain" because this is equivalent to 
Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to activate/elevate the Casimir force 
only the metal rain or other forms of dynamic medium formed by plasma between 
the particles would be continually reforming new geometries.  The concept would 
also lend some support to Rossi's seeming oversized particle choice and tubule 
shapes.
Fran



From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are 
produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress can 
be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. 
Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional requiring no 
magic.  The cracks are active at first while  the gap remains small, but the 
gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created.  The 
smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less 
stress.  In other words, the particle size is only important to keep the gap 
size small and stable. Again, no magic is required.

Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something (he 
calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce the 
required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error and now 
has a recipe that works most of the time.  However, he shows no indication he 
understands what is actually happening in his material.

If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different 
impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel.  The  role 
of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap. Again, no 
magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the gap.  If this 
model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to replicate once 
creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is only required to 
make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved at this stage.

If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they do not 
describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the critical 
conditions to be produced.

 We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical studies have 
been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial efforts, I believe, are 
wasting their time and money.

Ed Storms

On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote:



The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable 
cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in the 
metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in the same 
way that rain renews water in a puddle.

I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H reactors.

A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that falls on 
the surface of micro particles.

Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these metal 
drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the lattice. 
They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical processes 
that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal nano-drops are the 
same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and reliably and are 
self-renewing.

This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion of a 
potassium salt in a LERN experiment.




On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on 
purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible.  Nevertheless,  
these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

Stress generated cracks are important for the following reason. A NAE  
can not exist in a normal chemical environment. Consequently a change  
must take place. Any change requires energy because the chemical  
environment is at its lowest energy. Stress supplies this energy.   
When a crack forms, it contains the energy required to promote the  
electron associated with the hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy  
level, which is required to form the Hydroton.  Simply having several  
particles come together as Axil proposes would not work because this  
process lower the energy, thereby making it unavailable to form the  
Hydroton.


My model uses only conventional chemical processes to create the  
structure that eventually initiates mass-energy release. Up to the  
formation of the Hydroton, the rules of chemistry are followed  
exactly. Once the Hydroton forms, the process gets more complicated.  
However, this later process does not need to be understood to start  
the process.  To start CF, you only need to create the conditions  
required to form the Hydroton.  I propose how these conditions can be  
created.  Most of this process was described months ago in my first  
paper describing my proposed process.


Ed Storms



On May 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of  
cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the  
surface region of a material. The stress can be caused by  
impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. The  
cracks are active at first while  the gap remains small, but the gap  
grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created.  The  
smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material  
means less stress.  In other words, the particle size is only  
important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip]


Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the  
gaps on a particle surface are “stress” type and that the stress  
always trumps stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be  
created to make a skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a  
skeletal cat would want to close the gap, any “metal rain”  or loose  
conductive material should want to backfill the cavity closed. I  
also think we should consider the inter particle geometries formed  
in light of Axils proposed “metal rain” because this is equivalent  
to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to activate/elevate the  
Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of dynamic medium  
formed by plasma between the particles would be continually  
reforming new geometries.  The concept would also lend some support  
to Rossi’s seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes.

Fran



From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these  
gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a  
material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration  
gradients, or temperature gradients. Regardless of the cause, the  
process is totally conventional requiring no magic.  The cracks are  
active at first while  the gap remains small, but the gap grows too  
large and CF stops if stress continues to be created.  The smaller  
the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less  
stress.  In other words, the particle size is only important to keep  
the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is required.


Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with  
something (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of  
stress to produce the required gap size. He has discovered this  
process by trial and error and now has a recipe that works most of  
the time.  However, he shows no indication he understands what is  
actually happening in his material.


If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different  
impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel.   
The  role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to  
the gap. Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the  
hydrons enter the gap.  If this model is correct, the process  
becomes very simple and easy to replicate once creation of the gap  
is mastered. The electric discharge is only required to make H+  
available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved at this stage.


If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because  
they do not describe what is actually happening in a manner that  
allows the critical conditions to be produced.


 We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical  
studies have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial  
efforts, I believe, are wasting their time and money.


Ed Storms

On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM,

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

snip] this is not how I view the role of
> cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface
> region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration
> gradients, or temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while
>  the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress
> continues to be created.  The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap
> because less material means less stress.  In other words, the particle size
> is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip]
> ** **
> Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps
> on a particle surface are “stress” type and that the stress always trumps
> stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a
> skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to
> close the gap, any “metal rain”  or loose conductive material should want
> to backfill the cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter
> particle geometries formed in light of Axils proposed “metal rain” because
> this is equivalent to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to
> activate/elevate the Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of
> dynamic medium formed by plasma between the particles would be continually
> reforming new geometries.  The concept would also lend some support to
> Rossi’s seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes.
> Fran
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
> ** **
> OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps
> are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The
> stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature
> gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional
> requiring no magic.  The cracks are active at first while  the gap remains
> small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be
> created.  The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less
> material means less stress.  In other words, the particle size is only
> important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is
> required.  
> ** **
> Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something
> (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce
> the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error
> and now has a recipe that works most of the time.  However, he shows no
> indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. 
> ** **
> If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different
> impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel.  The
>  role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap.
> Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the
> gap.  If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to
> replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is
> only required to make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved
> at this stage.  
> ** **
> If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they do
> not describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the
> critical conditions to be produced. 
> ** **
>  We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical studies
> have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial efforts, I
> believe, are wasting their time and money. 
> ** **
> Ed Storms
> ** **
> On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>
> 
>
> The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable
> cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in
> the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in
> the same way that rain renews water in a puddle.
>
> I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H
> reactors.
>
> A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that
> falls on the surface of micro particles.
>
> Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these
> metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the
> lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical
> processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal
> nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and
> r

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Axil Axil]

 to promote the electron associated with the
>> hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy level, which is required to form the
>> Hydroton.  Simply having several particles come together as Axil proposes
>> would not work because this process lower the energy, thereby making it
>> unavailable to form the Hydroton.
>>
>> My model uses only conventional chemical processes to create the
>> structure that eventually initiates mass-energy release. Up to the
>> formation of the Hydroton, the rules of chemistry are followed exactly.
>> Once the Hydroton forms, the process gets more complicated. However, this
>> later process does not need to be understood to start the process.  To
>> start CF, you only need to create the conditions required to form the
>> Hydroton.  I propose how these conditions can be created.  Most of this
>> process was described months ago in my first paper describing my proposed
>> process.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of
>> cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface
>> region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration
>> gradients, or temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while
>>  the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress
>> continues to be created.  The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap
>> because less material means less stress.  In other words, the particle size
>> is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip]
>> ** **
>> Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps
>> on a particle surface are “stress” type and that the stress always trumps
>> stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a
>> skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to
>> close the gap, any “metal rain”  or loose conductive material should want
>> to backfill the cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter
>> particle geometries formed in light of Axils proposed “metal rain” because
>> this is equivalent to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to
>> activate/elevate the Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of
>> dynamic medium formed by plasma between the particles would be continually
>> reforming new geometries.  The concept would also lend some support to
>> Rossi’s seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes.
>> Fran
>> ** **
>> ** **
>> ** **
>> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com
>> ]
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
>> ** **
>> OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps
>> are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The
>> stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature
>> gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional
>> requiring no magic.  The cracks are active at first while  the gap remains
>> small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be
>> created.  The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less
>> material means less stress.  In other words, the particle size is only
>> important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is
>> required.  
>> ** **
>> Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something
>> (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce
>> the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error
>> and now has a recipe that works most of the time.  However, he shows no
>> indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. ***
>> *
>> ** **
>> If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different
>> impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel.  The
>>  role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap.
>> Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the
>> gap.  If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to
>> replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is
>> only required to make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved
>> at this stage.  
>> ** **
>> If I'm right, all the patents issued so far ar

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated.
>

Ha.  Yes, I stand corrected.  I think I had "excess heat" in mind.  Also,
Jed brings up a good point about the CR-39 trials -- we don't know one way
or another.  If Abd were here, it would be very difficult to discuss the
CR-39 trials, because he'd complain about every little point one tries to
make. ;)

We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a
> comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
> emission are not related.
>

I'm afraid we keep on going around in circles on this point.  You are
assering that prompt alphas comparable to the heat that is generated are
not produced, and I'm trying to figure out what the basis is for your
assertion.  Until I have convinced myself that this is correct on the basis
of something other than your assertion, I won't be able to follow you to
your conclusion of slow helium formation.  I think it's not as bad as when
we started -- I now have some more details to work with and Hagelstein's
papers to read.


> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes
> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is
> too improbable to be seriously considered.
>

You've gone further than I can go yet. :)  I haven't convinced myself that
there's ever 4He formation without kinetic energy.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[James Bowery]

Ed,

Could you find another name for "hydroton" that can be used with google?

That keyword is utterly swamped even if qualified by "fusion".

-- Jim


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Stress generated cracks are important for the following reason. A NAE can
> not exist in a normal chemical environment. Consequently a change must take
> place. Any change requires energy because the chemical environment is at
> its lowest energy. Stress supplies this energy.  When a crack forms, it
> contains the energy required to promote the electron associated with the
> hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy level, which is required to form the
> Hydroton.  Simply having several particles come together as Axil proposes
> would not work because this process lower the energy, thereby making it
> unavailable to form the Hydroton.
>
> My model uses only conventional chemical processes to create the structure
> that eventually initiates mass-energy release. Up to the formation of the
> Hydroton, the rules of chemistry are followed exactly. Once the Hydroton
> forms, the process gets more complicated. However, this later process does
> not need to be understood to start the process.  To start CF, you only need
> to create the conditions required to form the Hydroton.  I propose how
> these conditions can be created.  Most of this process was described months
> ago in my first paper describing my proposed process.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
>
> On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of
> cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface
> region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration
> gradients, or temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while
>  the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress
> continues to be created.  The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap
> because less material means less stress.  In other words, the particle size
> is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip]
> ** **
> Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps
> on a particle surface are “stress” type and that the stress always trumps
> stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a
> skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to
> close the gap, any “metal rain”  or loose conductive material should want
> to backfill the cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter
> particle geometries formed in light of Axils proposed “metal rain” because
> this is equivalent to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to
> activate/elevate the Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of
> dynamic medium formed by plasma between the particles would be continually
> reforming new geometries.  The concept would also lend some support to
> Rossi’s seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes.
> Fran
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
> ** **
> OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps
> are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The
> stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature
> gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional
> requiring no magic.  The cracks are active at first while  the gap remains
> small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be
> created.  The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less
> material means less stress.  In other words, the particle size is only
> important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is
> required.  
> ** **
> Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something
> (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce
> the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error
> and now has a recipe that works most of the time.  However, he shows no
> indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. 
> ** **
> If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different
> impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel.  The
>  role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap.
> Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the
> gap.  If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to
> replicate

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, ken deboer  wrote:

No, Eric, this is not tiresome to us poor unwashed voorts.  Except when it
> occassionaly degenerates into a pissing contest, it is entirely interesting
> to see ideas (many immediately shot down) spin out.
>

I don't think the voorts are unwashed -- just a captive audience that can
sometimes be imposed upon. I'm glad there's broader interest in this topic.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Until I have convinced myself that this is correct on the basis of
> something other than your assertion, I won't be able to follow you to your
> conclusion of slow helium formation.
>

I should be more specific.  What I'm hoping to do is come up with a
plausible case that we have not sufficiently established that the levels of
prompt alphas are incommensurate 4He formation; I'm optimistic that this
might be possible.  If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows
overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary
EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside),
I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives:

   1. There is 4He formation with little kinetic energy.
   1. There is 4He formation in which 24 MeV is released all at once, but
  diffusely, across the whole lattice (along the lines of Hagelstein's
  approach)
  2. There is 4He formation, but it occurs slowly over time (along the
  lines of your approach, Ed)
   2. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman
   suggests, and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it is not
   4He but something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling.
   3. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman
   suggests, and there is no nuclear reaction; instead there is a chemical
   reaction that is poorly understood -- perhaps Jones's RPF.

I'm not a big fan of (3), nor of (1)(1) or (1)(2).  I'm really hoping to
find that there have been some mistaken assumptions about what a large flux
of prompt alphas would look like hidden behind a reactor housing or the
wall of a glass beaker.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

>
>1. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that
>Hoffman suggests, and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it
>is not 4He but something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling.
>2. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that
>Hoffman suggests, and there is no nuclear reaction; instead there is a
>chemical reaction that is poorly understood -- perhaps Jones's RPF.
>
> I pressed "send" a little too quickly.  Jones's reaction is a nuclear one
I suppose, technically speaking, although it sure seems chemical.  I should
add that what I mean by the Hoffman suggestion is related to the assays
that were done by B.M. Oliver at Rockwell International on various cathodes
and flasks, including China Lake, reproduced in an appendix in his book.  I
think the China Lake samples were from Miles, and the suggestion that the
levels of helium witnessed were from atmospheric helium leaking in sound a
little far-fetched, but this is not something I have any expertise in.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

On May 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a  
nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated.


Ha.  Yes, I stand corrected.  I think I had "excess heat" in mind.   
Also, Jed brings up a good point about the CR-39 trials -- we don't  
know one way or another.  If Abd were here, it would be very  
difficult to discuss the CR-39 trials, because he'd complain about  
every little point one tries to make. ;)


We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission  
at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production  
and alpha emission are not related.


I'm afraid we keep on going around in circles on this point.  You  
are assering that prompt alphas comparable to the heat that is  
generated are not produced, and I'm trying to figure out what the  
basis is for your assertion.  Until I have convinced myself that  
this is correct on the basis of something other than your assertion,  
I won't be able to follow you to your conclusion of slow helium  
formation.  I think it's not as bad as when we started -- I now have  
some more details to work with and Hagelstein's papers to read.


Eric, you need to consider some basic requirements. If an energetic  
particle is produced, such as an alpha, a second particle must be  
present to carry away the momentum. That is why when He is produced by  
hot fusion, either a gamma is emitted as the second particle or the He  
fragments into two particles.  In the case of cold fusion, no gamma is  
emitted and the He does not fragment. Therefore, a new mechanism must  
operate to carry away the momentum while keeping the He intact and  
without producing a detectable gamma. This is the unique behavior of  
CF, which has lead to its rejection.  You simply can not produce a  
single particle with high kinetic energy without the energy being  
shared with another particle. The He produced by CF shows no evidence  
for a second particle.


In addition, an upper limit exists to hte energy of an alpha,  
calculated by Peter, above which the alpha would produce detectable  
secondary radiation.


The various theories all try to find a way for this energy-momentum to  
be lost gradually in the form of photons or phonons that are too weak  
to be detected.  Such a process, once started, must drain all the mass- 
energy out of the He.  This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of  
everyone who has studied the process.


Ed Storms


And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes  
makes alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a  
reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered.


You've gone further than I can go yet. :)  I haven't convinced  
myself that there's ever 4He formation without kinetic energy.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Eric, you need to consider some basic requirements. If an energetic
> particle is produced, such as an alpha, a second particle must be present
> to carry away the momentum.
>

Yes -- we are in agreement here.  There are various ways to accomplish this
apart from the Hydroton.  There is an f/H tunneling into a deuteron, for
example, where an electron is expelled instead of a gamma (if I have
understood Robin).  And there is Ron Maimon's approach, where a heavy
nuclide in the vicinity of the reaction shares in the momentum of the
reaction.  I fear we are repeating ourselves now.


> In addition, an upper limit exists to hte energy of an alpha, calculated
> by Peter, above which the alpha would produce detectable secondary
> radiation.
>

Yes -- there are Peter Hagelstein's calculations.  Is there anyone else who
has looked into this, or is the weight of the conclusion about the
detectable secondary radiation resting on Hagelstein's calculations alone?

The various theories all try to find a way for this energy-momentum to be
> lost gradually in the form of photons or phonons that are too weak to be
> detected.  Such a process, once started, must drain all the mass-energy out
> of the He.  This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of everyone who
> has studied the process.
>

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hagelstein's approach
involves a slow release -- I think the quantum is released all at once,
but across countless lattice atoms via phonons, a process that has the
effect of subdividing it up into something harmless.  There's no "leaking"
in that case.  It's a fast reaction, it just isn't concentrated in a single
place.  It's quite possible that I am mistaken in this understanding.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman suggests, 
and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it is not 4He but 
something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling.

1.  The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman 
suggests, and there is no nuclear reaction; instead there is a chemical 
reaction that is poorly understood -- perhaps Jones's RPF.

 

Let me say the major weakness of RPF, in the minds of those who think that LENR 
should be simplified ala Ockham, is that it speaks to protons only. 

 

It does not apply to deuterium. The helium evidence - which is strong - would 
apply to deuterium only, and has no bearing on reactions involving protons in 
metals.

 

Although technically the same element - deuterium is far different from 
protium, double the mass and different in almost every other significant 
physical property – so one feels justified in treating the two as different 
elements, essentially - since there is no way to reconcile the two types of 
gainful reactions as being similar IMO.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

On May 6, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker wrote:


I wrote:

Eric, you need to consider some basic requirements. If an energetic  
particle is produced, such as an alpha, a second particle must be  
present to carry away the momentum.


Yes -- we are in agreement here.  There are various ways to  
accomplish this apart from the Hydroton.  There is an f/H tunneling  
into a deuteron, for example, where an electron is expelled instead  
of a gamma (if I have understood Robin).  And there is Ron Maimon's  
approach, where a heavy nuclide in the vicinity of the reaction  
shares in the momentum of the reaction.  I fear we are repeating  
ourselves now.


In addition, an upper limit exists to hte energy of an alpha,  
calculated by Peter, above which the alpha would produce detectable  
secondary radiation.


Yes -- there are Peter Hagelstein's calculations.  Is there anyone  
else who has looked into this, or is the weight of the conclusion  
about the detectable secondary radiation resting on Hagelstein's  
calculations alone?


The various theories all try to find a way for this energy-momentum  
to be lost gradually in the form of photons or phonons that are too  
weak to be detected.  Such a process, once started, must drain all  
the mass-energy out of the He.  This is not just my opinion, but the  
opinion of everyone who has studied the process.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hagelstein's  
approach involves a slow release -- I think the quantum is released  
all at once, but across countless lattice atoms via phonons, a  
process that has the effect of subdividing it up into something  
harmless.  There's no "leaking" in that case.  It's a fast reaction,  
it just isn't concentrated in a single place.  It's quite possible  
that I am mistaken in this understanding.


The release rate proposed by Peter is ambiguous. He does not explain  
exactly what happens. He assumes atoms cluster in a metal atom  
vacancy, at some point they fuse into He, phonons are emitted, and  
these are converted to photons in order to account for the observed  
radiation. The process is described by mathematical equations having  
no relationship to what can be identified as a physical process.   
Nevertheless, some time has to be involved in the process to avoid  
melting the local environment by release of 24 MeV/He.


Ed Storms


Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows
>overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary
>EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside),
>I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives:



Where did I do this?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows
> >overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary
> >EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside),
> >I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives:
>
> 
>
> Where did I do this?
>

I was hoping you try to model this scenario -- it was a request! ;)

If you can show that a flux of alphas produced by several watts of d+d
reactions (dumping the energy to kinetic energy of the alphas) will be sure
to cause EMF that will escape from a reactor housing, that will allay
concerns on my part that this idea has been too hastily adopted as an
assumption.  By contrast, if you were to model the situation and determine
that any secondary radiation (apart from neutrons) is unlikely to escape,
or that the question is difficult to determine, that will egg me on in
thinking that a basic assumption in some of the cold fusion reasoning has
been flawed.

I am thinking of trying to model the system myself, but it looks complex.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Thu, 9 May 2013 20:49:04 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows
>> >overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary
>> >EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside),
>> >I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Where did I do this?
>>
>
>I was hoping you try to model this scenario -- it was a request! ;)
>
>If you can show that a flux of alphas produced by several watts of d+d
>reactions (dumping the energy to kinetic energy of the alphas) will be sure
>to cause EMF that will escape from a reactor housing, that will allay
>concerns on my part that this idea has been too hastily adopted as an
>assumption.  By contrast, if you were to model the situation and determine
>that any secondary radiation (apart from neutrons) is unlikely to escape,
>or that the question is difficult to determine, that will egg me on in
>thinking that a basic assumption in some of the cold fusion reasoning has
>been flawed.
>
>I am thinking of trying to model the system myself, but it looks complex.
>
>Eric

If you are thinking about Ron's model, then the alphas will have at least 
22.9 MeV.
The alpha itself can only travel a distance of microns through a solid or
liquid, but with an alpha that is that energetic, there are going to be
secondary reactions. i.e. a few direct fusion reactions of the alpha with other
nuclei, and also production of spallation neutrons, some of which will escape,
and some of which will fuse with other nuclei to create excited states that
decay via gamma radiation.
Suppose that about 1/1 alphas creates a spallation neutron (there is some
experimental evidence to suggest that this figure is in the ballpark).
A power output of 1 W would require 2.6E11 reactions / sec, which at a rate of 1
in 1, implies about 2.6E7 spallation neutrons / sec.

That in turn implies a gamma source of about 7E-4 Ci, if all of the neutrons are
absorbed, and each reaction only creates a single gamma. However most neutrons
will escape, and more than one gamma / reaction is likely, which tend to
compensate one another, so 1E-4 Ci of gamma radiation should be (very) roughly
in the ballpark.

Note that a smoke detector carries a radiation warning, and it's only 1
micro-Curie of alpha radiation at about 5.5 MeV which isn't enough to liberate
neutrons from most isotopes.

In short a 1 W reactor would produce about a 100 times more dangerous gamma
radiation than a smoke detector produces (almost) harmless alpha radiation (as
long as the 241Am not ingested or inhaled).

My radiation dosage calculator says:-

Activity:   1E-4 Ci
Distance:   2 m
Lead shielding: 2 cm

Received dose rate: 0.01 mr/hr
Unshielded dose rate:   0.025 mr/hr

Where I live, the background rate is about 0.018 mr/hr.

In short, very roughly, a 1 W unshielded power source would double the
background rate.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM,  wrote:

In short, very roughly, a 1 W unshielded power source would double the
> background rate.
>

Thank you for the numbers.  Twice background doesn't sound like all that
much; presumably this is near the threshold of detection, and a signal
would be easy to swamp out with noise?

The alphas would be Ron's alphas, at 22.9 MeV.  I'm trying a thought
experiment where the secondary spallation neutrons are somehow minimized --
I don't have an explanation for why this would be the case at this point,
but I'm curious anyway.  The setup I'm thinking of is something like this:

  |   air   |   glass   |   heavy water   |   cathode surface   |   active
region   |   cathode interior   |

Here the cathode surface is assumed to be very thin.  In the scenario I'm
trying to better understand, where the spallation neutrons are somehow
avoided, I'm wondering what the activity would like like from the vantage
point at the far left, at "air".  The alphas could potentially travel for
quite a while through the cathode before encountering a lattice site, I
think I remember reading, during which time they will dissipate energy by
way of low-level EMF.  I assume that EMF will be stopped by the cathode
surface, the heavy water and the glass, before reaching the air -- is this
a mistaken assumption?  Like you say, there will no doubt be inelastic
collisions, metastable nuclei and gammas.  But assuming little neutron
activation, do you have a sense of what the activity would be like outside
of this kind of "shielding"?

The question I'm trying to get at is whether we can say for sure that the
number of energetic particles (in this case alphas) in the cold fusion
experiments is not commensurate with heat.  It seems like this might be a
hasty conclusion, but this is just a hunch at this point.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Harry Veeder]

Ed,
I suggested two analogies with the videos

1) alphas trigger the reaction like a spark triggering a fire.
As you point out this analogy is difficult to square with observations.


2) alphas are like smoke accompanying a fire. Depending on the
conditions there can be lots of smoke with little fire (heat), or lots
of fire (heat) with little smoke.

This analogy is consistent with observations.


harry
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not
> very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent
> with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and
> chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified.
>  Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined.
>  This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The
> interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does
> not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would
> occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been
> observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion,
> but to what end?  We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas
> that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF
> behaves?  Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and
> observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.
>
> Ed  Storms
>
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
> Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.
>
> starting a fire with hand drill
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA
>
> Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not
>> invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be
>> shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the
>> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible
>> to understand.  Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest,
>> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be
>> true.  Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the
>> observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves which
>> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such
>> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are
>> given, a counter argument can always be provided.
>>
>> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe
>> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Ed Storms states:
>>
>> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission
>> at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and
>> alpha emission are not related.”*
>>
>> This could be a false assumption as follows:
>>
>> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to
>> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to
>> penetrate the surface of the CR-39.
>>
>> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very
>> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.
>>
>> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the
>> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their
>> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
>>> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction
>>> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown
>>> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.
>>>
>>> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at
>>> a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
>>> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the
>>> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source?
>>>
>>> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This
>>> helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates.
>>>  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question
>>> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are
>>> trying to answer.  If you want to answer the question of where the alpha
>>> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission
>>> is clearly not related to CF.
>>>
>>> And NO, helium can not be produced by 

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

Harry, it is impossible to apply energy to an alpha unless another  
particle is involved. You can not propose having energetic alpha  
emission without also identifying this other particle.  Basic laws can  
not be ignored just because CF is a strange phenomenon.


An alpha is normally emitted from this second particle (i.e. the  
decaying nucleus). When helium is made by fusion, the second particle  
is an energetic gamma, which carries away most of the energy. This  
energetic gamma is not emitted during CF. Therefore, the helium cannot  
be propose to have high energy unless another particle, which is not  
detected, is identified.  Takahashi proposes to form Be8 that  
fragments after emitting the extra energy as gamma. However, this idea  
has no experimental support.  The other theories do not propose  
energetic helium is produced.  If you want to make a contribution, you  
need to take these facts into account.


Ed Storms


On May 11, 2013, at 2:24 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:



Ed,
I suggested two analogies with the videos

1) alphas trigger the reaction like a spark triggering a fire.
As you point out this analogy is difficult to square with  
observations.



2) alphas are like smoke accompanying a fire. Depending on the  
conditions there can be lots of smoke with little fire (heat), or  
lots of fire (heat) with little smoke.


This analogy is consistent with observations.


harry
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is  
not very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are  
consistent with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of  
both physics and chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which  
needs to be identified.  Nevertheless, the role of this missing part  
can be clearly determined.  This missing part does not in any way  
relate to alpha emission. The interaction of an alpha with matter is  
well known and understood. It does not initiate a fusion reaction.  
If it could, all alpha emitters would occasionally produce CF in the  
presence of hydrogen, which has not been observed. Of course,  
someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, but to what  
end?  We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas that  
are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how  
CF behaves?  Unless you can show some consistency with what is known  
and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking  
cap back on.


Ed  Storms


On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:


The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.

starting a fire with hand drill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA

Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs

Harry



On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not  
invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that  
cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to  
sort through the arguments and some common sense is applied, the  
effect will be impossible to understand.  Naturally, I have  
considered the possibilities you suggest, Axil, before I came to my  
conclusions. Of course what you propose might be true.   
Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the  
observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves  
which possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to  
debate such details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter  
what arguments are given, a counter argument can always be provided.


I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you  
believe and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.


Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Ed Storms states:

“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha  
emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat  
production and alpha emission are not related.”


This could be a false assumption as follows:

When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy  
directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry  
enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39.


In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at  
very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.


This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly  
to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha  
particles and their associated behavior and measurement  
problematic and unreliable.







On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a  
nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate  
of the reaction was too small to make detectable heat from this  
reaction. The onl

RE: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Edmund Storms 

 

Takahashi proposes to form Be8 that fragments after emitting the extra
energy as gamma. However, this idea has no experimental support.  The other
theories do not propose energetic helium is produced.  If you want to make a
contribution, you need to take these facts into account.

 

 

For the record Ed, this is NOT what Takahashi says - at least not now.
Everyone should be given the same leeway to evolve a theory - and his is
looking better and better.

 

Takahashi proposes that the excited Be-8 nucleus has a relatively long
lifetime in which it emits lower energy photons in a series of transitions
until it reaches a level near the ground state. When the beryllium decays,
the two alpha particles have about 90 keV of energy. He specifically says
that these photons would NOT be gamma rays. He has some evidence for the 90
keV.

 

There is as much - or maybe more - good evidence for Takahashi's contention
- as for any theory which proposes some version of Hagelstein's "magic
phonons" as a way around the lack of gammas.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

On May 11, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



From: Edmund Storms

Takahashi proposes to form Be8 that fragments after emitting the  
extra energy as gamma. However, this idea has no experimental  
support.  The other theories do not propose energetic helium is  
produced.  If you want to make a contribution, you need to take  
these facts into account.



For the record Ed, this is NOT what Takahashi says – at least not  
now. Everyone should be given the same leeway to evolve a theory –  
and his is looking better and better.


Takahashi proposes that the excited Be-8 nucleus has a relatively  
long lifetime in which it emits lower energy photons in a series of  
transitions until it reaches a level near the ground state.


Jones, when these photons are emitted, where do they originate? If  
they originate from electrons changing their energy, they are called X- 
rays. If they originate from changes in energy of the nucleus, they  
are called gamma.  Your and Akito's description is consistent with the  
term gamma.


When Be8 is formed by conventional nuclear processes, it is observed  
to fragment into two alpha immediately. Why would Be8 made the way  
Takahashi  proposes decay any other way?  In addition, the proposed  
formation process that creates the cluster from which the Be8  
originates violates basic thermochemical laws. Why do you accept this  
process?


 I find that all theories are based on a series of assumptions, but  
some of these assumptions violate basic laws, yet the theory is  
accepted because the other assumptions are accepted.  This is like  
recommending a road on which the bridge is missing just because the  
rest of the trip is nice. The road is no longer passible before the  
goal can be reached, so what is the point of using such a road?


Ed Storms

When the beryllium decays, the two alpha particles have about 90 keV  
of energy. He specifically says that these photons would NOT be  
gamma rays. He has some evidence for the 90 keV.





There is as much - or maybe more - good evidence for Takahashi’s  
contention - as for any theory which proposes some version of  
Hagelstein’s “magic phonons” as a way around the lack of gammas.


Jones

RE: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Edmund Storms 

 

 I find that all theories are based on a series of assumptions, but some of
these assumptions violate basic laws, yet the theory is accepted because the
other assumptions are accepted.  This is like recommending a road on which
the bridge is missing just because the rest of the trip is nice. The road is
no longer passible before the goal can be reached, so what is the point of
using such a road?

 

 

And your map has such a bridge (to explain lack of gammas)?

 

I think not - in fact, it is the same kind of "missing bridge" that
Takahashi uses, but with a different name.

 

The only possible answer is that that the road which one needs to take, to
arrive at the correct conclusion - is a road that completely avoids going
through gamma-land from the start - by proposing a destination (reaction) in
which gammas cannot be involved.

 

Hagelstein's map does not avoid gamma-land, nor does yours - they simply
invent new names for the missing bridges which turn out to not be where they
should be, once you get there.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, you interpretation of what I claim is not correct. My theory  
and most others try to find a way for the mass-energy to leave the  
nucleus in units to small be detected.  Hagelstein's theory has these  
units being phonons generated by a process that can only be described  
by a complex equation. Takahashi has the mass-energy leaking out of  
Be8 as photons. These photons MUST originate in the Be8 nucleus, hence  
are called gamma.  My theory has the mass-energy being released as  
photons from a molecule of hydrons in a crack .  In my case, these  
photons are emitted by the fusing nuclei, hence are called gamma.


In my case, I try to make ALL steps in the process consistent with  
basic laws, which is not the case with the other theories.  Of course,  
a feature is missing in the nuclear process that needs to be  
identified.  This missing feature is what LENR has revealed and, when  
identified, will be the source of a Nobel prize. Meanwhile, I suggest  
you try to understand exactly what I'm proposing rather than impose  
your own interpretation.


It would help if you used the definition of gamma ray correctly. The  
only question is: How does the mass-energy get released? The mass  
energy is in the nucleus. If it comes out directly as a photon, as is  
normally the case, this process is defined as gamma emission. If the  
energy gets into the electron structure, it can be released as X-rays  
or phonons. No other possibility exists within known behavior.


Ed Storms



On May 11, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote:



From: Edmund Storms

 I find that all theories are based on a series of assumptions, but  
some of these assumptions violate basic laws, yet the theory is  
accepted because the other assumptions are accepted.  This is like  
recommending a road on which the bridge is missing just because the  
rest of the trip is nice. The road is no longer passible before the  
goal can be reached, so what is the point of using such a road?



And your map has such a bridge (to explain lack of gammas)?

I think not – in fact, it is the same kind of “missing bridge” that  
Takahashi uses, but with a different name.


The only possible answer is that that the road which one needs to  
take, to arrive at the correct conclusion - is a road that  
completely avoids going through gamma-land from the start - by  
proposing a destination (reaction) in which gammas cannot be involved.


Hagelstein’s map does not avoid gamma-land, nor does yours – they  
simply invent new names for the missing bridges which turn out to  
not be where they should be, once you get there.


Jones

RE: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Edmund Storms 

 

It would help if you used the definition of gamma ray correctly. 

 

Ed, I'm afraid that it us you who is not up to date on the semantics of
gamma radiation.

 

Gamma radiation these days is independent of origin, and is merely high
energy per photon. Apparently, you are unaware of the change in usage.

 

X-rays have a wavelength in the range of .01 to 10 nanometers, with energies
in the range 100 eV to 100 keV. These wavelengths are of course shorter than
UV and longer than gamma rays. Gamma radiation refers to radiation under .01
nm regardless of its source. You and I were taught that it had to be of
nuclear origin - that is not longer the case - even if most of the time
atomic nuclei are involved. Gammas also created by other processes,
especially cosmologically where the most intense radiation seldom involves
nuclei per se. Most gamma in the Universe come from gravitational collapse -
neutron star, quark star, or black hole. None of these have nuclei per se.

 

Natural sources of gamma which are not of a nuclear origin are lightning
strikes. Betatrons etc. can produce gammas directly from electrons which do
not involve a nucleus.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 10 May 2013 17:05:05 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

In the situation you describe, there are going to be lots of spallation
neutrons, because you only need 2.2 MeV to break a deuterium nucleus into a
proton and a neutron, and heavy water is all deuterium. It's going to be a prime
source of neutrons, as Jones is fond of pointing out. ;)

So far from creating a situation where there will be less neutrons, you have in
fact created one where there will be more.

In fact this a good reason for suggesting that CF in the D/Pd experiments is not
mediated by (very) fast alphas. 

Neutrons combining with the glass, or the cathode will produce gammas. (The
neutron capture cross section of heavy water itself is quite low, which is why
it's used as a moderator/coolant in some reactors.)


>On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM,  wrote:
>
>In short, very roughly, a 1 W unshielded power source would double the
>> background rate.
>>
>
>Thank you for the numbers.  Twice background doesn't sound like all that
>much; presumably this is near the threshold of detection, and a signal
>would be easy to swamp out with noise?
>
>The alphas would be Ron's alphas, at 22.9 MeV.  I'm trying a thought
>experiment where the secondary spallation neutrons are somehow minimized --
>I don't have an explanation for why this would be the case at this point,
>but I'm curious anyway.  The setup I'm thinking of is something like this:
>
>  |   air   |   glass   |   heavy water   |   cathode surface   |   active
>region   |   cathode interior   |
>
>Here the cathode surface is assumed to be very thin.  In the scenario I'm
>trying to better understand, where the spallation neutrons are somehow
>avoided, I'm wondering what the activity would like like from the vantage
>point at the far left, at "air".  The alphas could potentially travel for
>quite a while through the cathode before encountering a lattice site, I
>think I remember reading, during which time they will dissipate energy by
>way of low-level EMF.  I assume that EMF will be stopped by the cathode
>surface, the heavy water and the glass, before reaching the air -- is this
>a mistaken assumption? 

No, in fact all of it will be stopped by the free electrons in the
cathode(surface). Note however that we are specifically talking about UV and
lower energy levels here. High energy X-rays &/or gamma rays will escape easily.

> Like you say, there will no doubt be inelastic
>collisions, metastable nuclei and gammas.  But assuming little neutron
>activation, do you have a sense of what the activity would be like outside
>of this kind of "shielding"?

Aside from the effects caused by spallation neutrons, I doubt you would see much
from a purely alpha reaction such as Ron's.

I say this because apart from previously mentioned things, the only other form
of energy that is likely to escape the cell is high energy X-rays, and to create
these, you need high energy electrons. The highest energy electron you can
create in a head on collision with a 23 MeV alpha is M_e/M_alpha x 23 MeV = 3152
eV. Even if all of the kinetic energy of such an electron is converted into a
maximum energy X-ray through the bremsstrahlung mechanism (and it rarely is),
you only get a 3 keV X-ray, which is not very penetrating. I'll leave it up to
you to figure out the mean free path and transmission fraction in the various
materials of 3 keV X-rays.


>
>The question I'm trying to get at is whether we can say for sure that the
>number of energetic particles (in this case alphas) in the cold fusion
>experiments is not commensurate with heat.  

I think most (>99%) of the energy from the alphas would convert to heat in the
cell. Note however that a doubling of the background rate is easily detected,
especially if it turns on and off with the cell, and BTW so is a neutron
production rate of that magnitude, if you are using neutron detectors.

I said in a previous post a few weeks back that Geiger counters were not
particularly good at detecting neutrons, however I forgot about the prompt
gammas which would be internally generated in the Geiger counter, so I would now
expect them to be more sensitive than I first thought, but the sensitivity would
depend on the precise elements, quantities and geometry used in their
manufacture, and therefore would vary from one brand/type to the next.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Edmund Storms]

Ok Jones, but we now have a problem with communication. If the word  
gamma only describes a high energy range, than none of the radiation  
resulting from LENR can be called gamma. But, how do we describe the  
source of photons?  Must we now give the source in so many words every  
time?  And who made this change (Wikipedia??)?  Sounds like this  
change occurred only in cosmology and not in nuclear physics.   
Nevertheless, this change now makes communication in nuclear physics  
more difficult.


As for other sources, the photons resulting from lightning can come  
both from the nucleus and from the electrons. How do we talk about the  
source now that the idea behind the word gamma has been changed?


In any case, based on the present definition, the word gamma radiation  
does not apply to LENR because the emitted photons never enter the  
defined energy range.  Nevertheless, we need to discuss their source.  
Do they come from the nucleus or from the electron structure?


Ed Storms


On May 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Jones Beene wrote:




From: Edmund Storms

It would help if you used the definition of gamma ray correctly.

Ed, I’m afraid that it us you who is not up to date on the semantics  
of gamma radiation.


Gamma radiation these days is independent of origin, and is merely  
high energy per photon. Apparently, you are unaware of the change in  
usage.


X-rays have a wavelength in the range of .01 to 10 nanometers, with  
energies in the range 100 eV to 100 keV. These wavelengths are of  
course shorter than UV and longer than gamma rays. Gamma radiation  
refers to radiation under .01 nm regardless of its source. You and I  
were taught that it had to be of nuclear origin – that is not longer  
the case – even if most of the time atomic nuclei are involved.  
Gammas also created by other processes, especially cosmologically  
where the most intense radiation seldom involves nuclei per se. Most  
gamma in the Universe come from gravitational collapse - neutron  
star, quark star, or black hole. None of these have nuclei per se.


Natural sources of gamma which are not of a nuclear origin are  
lightning strikes. Betatrons etc. can produce gammas directly from  
electrons which do not involve a nucleus.


Jones

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Eric Walker]

Very interesting discussion.  If can summarize the main points in my own
words, it would be something like this -- for a hypothetical heavy water
electrolytic system in which watts of prompt alphas are being produced in a
palladium cathode by way of a hypothetical d+d+Pd→4He+Pd + Q (22.9 MeV
kinetic energy) reaction, you can expect the following:

   - There will be plenty of spallation neutrons due to collisions between
   alphas and heavy water molecules, where the deuterium nuclei are broken
   apart. These neutrons will either escape the system or activate the
   surrounding material, resulting in easily detectable gammas.
   - (To add Hagelstein's point, if I have understood it: in addition,
   prompt alphas can be expected to collide with deuterium nuclei in the
   cathode, and deuterium nuclei in the cathode scattered by alphas can be
   expected to collide with one another, providing an additional source of
   neutrons.)
   - The number of spallation neutrons can be expected to be large, since
   it takes only a fraction of the energy of an alpha with 22.9 MeV to break
   apart a deuterium nucleus.
   - There would also be x-rays, with a peak in the 3 keV range.  These
   x-rays will be stopped before leaving the system.
   - The doubling of the radiation level above background described in an
   earlier post would be easy to detect, although there would be some
   subtleties relating to the specific detector that is used.

For the mean free paths of 3 keV x-rays, I get small numbers: 46 microns in
water, 2 microns in palladium and 6.2 cm in air.  So it seems pretty clear
that the x-rays are unlikely to make it to a detector after traversing the
outer layer of palladium, the heavy water and the glass.

On the basis of all of this, I'm wondering if it is safe to conclude the
following:  any radiation exiting a system of this kind involving fast
alphas would be attributable solely to neutrons (spallation and fusion) and
the activation gammas they lead to, and to inelastic collisions between
alphas and other nuclei and the resulting gammas.  Any other radiation can
be expected to be quenched and to be undetectable apart from a general
increase in temperature of the system.  Is this conclusion too broad?

Just to call out two important assumptions here:

   - Prompt alphas will escape from the cathode and make it into the heavy
   water at still-high energies.
   - Prompt alphas travelling within a palladium lattice will scatter a
   significant number of deuterium nuclei, and a significant number of fast
   deuterium nuclei will scatter with one another; i.e., there is no mechanism
   that somehow segregates the locations of the two types of nuclei into
   separate channels.

Eric


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM,  wrote:

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 10 May 2013 17:05:05 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> In the situation you describe, there are going to be lots of spallation
> neutrons, because you only need 2.2 MeV to break a deuterium nucleus into a
> proton and a neutron, and heavy water is all deuterium. It's going to be a
> prime
> source of neutrons, as Jones is fond of pointing out. ;)
>
> So far from creating a situation where there will be less neutrons, you
> have in
> fact created one where there will be more.
>
> In fact this a good reason for suggesting that CF in the D/Pd experiments
> is not
> mediated by (very) fast alphas.
>
> Neutrons combining with the glass, or the cathode will produce gammas. (The
> neutron capture cross section of heavy water itself is quite low, which is
> why
> it's used as a moderator/coolant in some reactors.)
>
>
> >On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >In short, very roughly, a 1 W unshielded power source would double the
> >> background rate.
> >>
> >
> >Thank you for the numbers.  Twice background doesn't sound like all that
> >much; presumably this is near the threshold of detection, and a signal
> >would be easy to swamp out with noise?
> >
> >The alphas would be Ron's alphas, at 22.9 MeV.  I'm trying a thought
> >experiment where the secondary spallation neutrons are somehow minimized
> --
> >I don't have an explanation for why this would be the case at this point,
> >but I'm curious anyway.  The setup I'm thinking of is something like this:
> >
> >  |   air   |   glass   |   heavy water   |   cathode surface   |   active
> >region   |   cathode interior   |
> >
> >Here the cathode surface is assumed to be very thin.  In the scenario I'm
> >trying to better understand, where the spallation neutrons are somehow
> >avoided, I'm wondering what the activity would like like from the vantage
> >point at the far left, at "air".  The alphas could potentially travel for
> >quite a while through the cathode before encountering a lattice site, I
> >think I remember reading, during which time they will dissipate energy by
> >way of low-level EMF.  I assume that EMF will be stopped by the cathode
> >surface, the heavy water and the glass, before r

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 11 May 2013 18:04:19 -0700:
Hi Eric,

I think your summation is quite good.

>Very interesting discussion.  If can summarize the main points in my own
>words, it would be something like this -- for a hypothetical heavy water
>electrolytic system in which watts of prompt alphas are being produced in a
>palladium cathode by way of a hypothetical d+d+Pd?4He+Pd + Q (22.9 MeV
>kinetic energy) reaction, you can expect the following:
>
>   - There will be plenty of spallation neutrons due to collisions between
>   alphas and heavy water molecules, where the deuterium nuclei are broken
>   apart. These neutrons will either escape the system or activate the
>   surrounding material, resulting in easily detectable gammas.
>   - (To add Hagelstein's point, if I have understood it: in addition,
>   prompt alphas can be expected to collide with deuterium nuclei in the
>   cathode, and deuterium nuclei in the cathode scattered by alphas can be
>   expected to collide with one another, providing an additional source of
>   neutrons.)
>   - The number of spallation neutrons can be expected to be large, since
>   it takes only a fraction of the energy of an alpha with 22.9 MeV to break
>   apart a deuterium nucleus.
>   - There would also be x-rays, with a peak in the 3 keV range.  These
>   x-rays will be stopped before leaving the system.
>   - The doubling of the radiation level above background described in an
>   earlier post would be easy to detect, although there would be some
>   subtleties relating to the specific detector that is used.
>
>For the mean free paths of 3 keV x-rays, I get small numbers: 46 microns in
>water, 2 microns in palladium and 6.2 cm in air.  So it seems pretty clear
>that the x-rays are unlikely to make it to a detector after traversing the
>outer layer of palladium, the heavy water and the glass.
>
>On the basis of all of this, I'm wondering if it is safe to conclude the
>following:  any radiation exiting a system of this kind involving fast
>alphas would be attributable solely to neutrons (spallation and fusion) and
>the activation gammas they lead to, and to inelastic collisions between
>alphas and other nuclei and the resulting gammas.  Any other radiation can
>be expected to be quenched and to be undetectable apart from a general
>increase in temperature of the system.  Is this conclusion too broad?
>
>Just to call out two important assumptions here:
>
>   - Prompt alphas will escape from the cathode and make it into the heavy
>   water at still-high energies.
>   - Prompt alphas travelling within a palladium lattice will scatter a
>   significant number of deuterium nuclei, and a significant number of fast
>   deuterium nuclei will scatter with one another; i.e., there is no mechanism
>   that somehow segregates the locations of the two types of nuclei into
>   separate channels.
>
>Eric
>
>
>On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM,  wrote:
>
>In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 10 May 2013 17:05:05 -0700:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>
>> In the situation you describe, there are going to be lots of spallation
>> neutrons, because you only need 2.2 MeV to break a deuterium nucleus into a
>> proton and a neutron, and heavy water is all deuterium. It's going to be a
>> prime
>> source of neutrons, as Jones is fond of pointing out. ;)
>>
>> So far from creating a situation where there will be less neutrons, you
>> have in
>> fact created one where there will be more.
>>
>> In fact this a good reason for suggesting that CF in the D/Pd experiments
>> is not
>> mediated by (very) fast alphas.
>>
>> Neutrons combining with the glass, or the cathode will produce gammas. (The
>> neutron capture cross section of heavy water itself is quite low, which is
>> why
>> it's used as a moderator/coolant in some reactors.)
>>
>>
>> >On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM,  wrote:
>> >
>> >In short, very roughly, a 1 W unshielded power source would double the
>> >> background rate.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Thank you for the numbers.  Twice background doesn't sound like all that
>> >much; presumably this is near the threshold of detection, and a signal
>> >would be easy to swamp out with noise?
>> >
>> >The alphas would be Ron's alphas, at 22.9 MeV.  I'm trying a thought
>> >experiment where the secondary spallation neutrons are somehow minimized
>> --
>> >I don't have an explanation for why this would be the case at this point,
>> >but I'm curious anyway.  The setup I'm thinking of is something like this:
>> >
>> >  |   air   |   glass   |   heavy water   |   cathode surface   |   active
>> >region   |   cathode interior   |
>> >
>> >Here the cathode surface is assumed to be very thin.  In the scenario I'm
>> >trying to better understand, where the spallation neutrons are somehow
>> >avoided, I'm wondering what the activity would like like from the vantage
>> >point at the far left, at "air".  The alphas could potentially travel for
>> >quite a while through the cathode before encountering a