Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Kevin O'Malley]

First of all,
***How long did it take for you to generate a 4 point list rather than

answer a simple 40k foot inductive question?


your question was not about my theory.
***It sure as hell was.  It points to one theory being more consistent

with the evidence than the other.  The BEC theory possibly competes with

yours at that point.

 It was about how I would expected a BEC would behave,
***No, it is about how a fusion event would absorb in a lattice and how

such absorption would necessitate lots of lattice be between the event &

the observer.

 which has no relationship to my theory
***It has plenty of relationship to your theory.  You just choose to not

see it.


Second, I explained
***Explained?  Your supposed lack of time was the "explanation".  But you

have plenty of time for denigration, dismissal, 4-point lists, etc.   And

by doing so you violate Occham's Razor, "multiplying entities beyond

necessity".


to you why I did not answer your question and you replied with demanding

arrogance.
***I don't "demand" anything.  I just point out how you're avoiding

answering the question while you have "time" for other stuff.  You won't

answer it because you can't -- that isn't a demand, it's an observation of

your behavior.  If you want to find evidence of "demanding arrogance",

simply look through the last few weeks of your own vortex posts and search

for the word "must".  Now, that is demanding arrogance.  One simple recent

example:  "Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must..."


In a discussion group, interaction with other people is voluntary
***then volunteer an explanation.


and based on a pleasant and fruitful interaction.
***It isn't based on pleasant & fruitful interaction, not to put too fine

a point on things.  The RESULT is  SUPPOSED to be pleasant & fruitful

interaction.  BUt your decision to not answer questions lacks fruit and

has generated some unpleasantness.


Third, when I say I do not BELIEVE
***Yeah, that's something I notice about your writing, how you appear to

have this almost religious outlook about how things are supposed to be in

terms of science & LENR.  For instance you wrote to me that I "accept

reality" according to KP Sinha rather than from you.   What kind of

polemic nonsense is that?  We MUSt approach things a certain way... that

kind of thing.



BEC has a role, perhaps I can translate this belief into English you can

accept.
***There you go again.


I have seen no evidence to support the claim.
***You choose not to see it.  People in this state of mind can look across

the sky and fail to see the sun.


I have seen no plausible justification that a BEC based on hydrogen atoms

can occur at room temperature.
***YE Kim sees it.  Others see it.  Experimental evidence suggests it.

You prefer, you choose not to see it.

 I have seen no evidence of how a BEC can produce results that are

consistent with observations attributed to LENR.
***YE Kim sees it.  Others see it.  Experimental evidence suggests it.

You prefer, you choose not to see it.



 I have seen no explanation of how a BEC can produce results that are

consistent with observations attributed to LENR
***YE Kim provided it.  Others see it.  Experimental evidence backs it up.

  You prefer, you choose not to see it.

 Are these statements clear?
***Your statements are about as clear as mud.


These statements are based on my study
***baloney.  Those statements are based on your emotional attachment to

your theory.


and reading of all the evidence I can find.
***What about getting in touch with YE Kim, KP Sinha, and others and

having a pow-wow about how to test each others' theories?  How is it you

read all the same stuff as me about laser cooling and concluded it was not

used for LENR even though KP Sinha told me directly that was EXACTLY his

approach?  What else have you got wrong in your approach to your theory?

The world may never know... because you choose this path of not defending

your theory because you "don't have the time".



I'm not interest in debating this information.
***Then it is likely that your theory will become a fish out of water,

struggling for what you refuse to provide it by not defending it.

 I suggest you do this with people who care about a possible role for BEC.
***I suggest you defend your theory.



Fourth, your understanding of how lasers behave when applied to a solid

material conflicts with what I have observed
***yup.  That's because you got it wrong.  Go ahead & give KP Sinha a call

and come up to speed.  You might even get some insight against the

formation of BECs because his theory conflicts with it.  Read how Dr. Chu

got his Nobel Prize in physics by forming BECs with laser cooling.  Then

tell us again how laser cooling hasn't been used for LENR.


 and shows a confidence on your part that has no justification.
***Let me know how that conversation goes with KP Sinha, and also with YE

Kim.  If my confidence is unjustified then

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Axil Axil]

 **
**
*Ed Storms said: I do not now believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.*





I agree with this. But the conditions that produce LENR make the formation
of BEC probable.



This BEC formation is not a necessary and sufficient condition to the
development of LENR, be if a BEC does form, it may enhance the reaction.





I also now question what professor George H. Miley saw in those cracks. He
says that the cavities held a deuteron BEC.



I don’t think he has done a definitive test to make a determination as
follows:



*The experiment would determine whether or not a BEC can indeed form inside
a metal at room-temperature. If a BEC forms, you can then measure the
velocity distribution of the deuterons with low-energy neutron scattering
or high-energy x-ray scattering off the deuterium in the metal, as was done
in the atomic case.
*

I am doing my annual LENR theory reformulation; ,,,throw out the old, ring
in the new…





My newly developing theory points to the possible but not necessary
development of a plexciton BEC.





Addressed to all and sundry, I have all the time in the world to explain my
theory so please ask me and leave Ed alone.


 Cheers:Axil

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> First of all, your question was not about my theory. It was about how I
> would expected a BEC would behave, which has no relationship to my theory
>
> Second, I explained to you why I did not answer your question and you
> replied with demanding arrogance.  In a discussion group, interaction with
> other people is voluntary and based on a pleasant and fruitful interaction.
>
> Third, when I say I do not BELIEVE BEC has a role, perhaps I can translate
> this belief into English you can accept. I have seen no evidence to support
> the claim. I have seen no plausible justification that a BEC based on
> hydrogen atoms can occur at room temperature. I have seen no evidence or
> explanation of how a BEC can produce results that are consistent with
> observations attributed to LENR. Are these statements clear?  These
> statements are based on my study and reading of all the evidence I can
> find.  I'm not interest in debating this information. I suggest you do this
> with people who care about a possible role for BEC.
>
> Fourth, your understanding of how lasers behave when applied to a solid
> material conflicts with what I have observed and shows a confidence on your
> part that has no justification. If you want an example of why I want no
> further discussion with you, simply look at the way you insist that only
> you understand this interaction.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>  OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry
>> ***I don't care about hurt feelings.  You can hurt my feelings every day
>>  next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple question.
>>
>> You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to fully
>> answer.
>> ***I'm not asking for it to be fully answered.  That's why I'm asking at
>> the 40k foot high Inductive level of Occham's Razor.
>>
>> If I leave a gap in my answer, other questions follow.
>> ***If you are not going to answer questions as they pertain to your
>> theory, then what are you doing?  Trolling for groupies?
>>
>> I simply do not have the time to answer all questions.
>> ***You take the time to answer questions you like, and you don't take the
>> time to answer the questions you don't like.  I get it.  It aint very
>> scientific, but I get it.
>>
>> Besides, I have also made my opinions about the role of BEC clear in the
>> past, so this idea is not of interest to me.
>> ***If it turns out to be the breakthrough, the idea will be of interest
>> to you.  And if you could find the silver bullet that destroys BECs as a
>> viable theory, you'd be interested.Since we have neither of these, we
>> rely on inductive reasoning to move us forward and now you don't even want
>> to pursue inductive reasoning.   You seem to prefer to engage in
>> opinionation.   Now, admittedly, your opinion is worth more than mine due
>> to your 23 years of effort in this area.  But it just so happens that in
>> the case of laser cooling (which Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize for in
>> creating BECs), you happened to be wrong as it pertained to LENR.  So it's
>> in the best interest of LENR science to close the loop on that line of
>> inquiry, if only at the 40k foot level.
>>
>> I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.
>> ***Science aint about belief.
>>
>>>Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism, either
>>> implied or real, is not usually taken kindly.
>>>
>>
>> ***It would appear to be the case.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

First of all, your question was not about my theory. It was about how  
I would expected a BEC would behave, which has no relationship to my  
theory


Second, I explained to you why I did not answer your question and you  
replied with demanding arrogance.  In a discussion group, interaction  
with other people is voluntary and based on a pleasant and fruitful  
interaction.


Third, when I say I do not BELIEVE BEC has a role, perhaps I can  
translate this belief into English you can accept. I have seen no  
evidence to support the claim. I have seen no plausible justification  
that a BEC based on hydrogen atoms can occur at room temperature. I  
have seen no evidence or explanation of how a BEC can produce results  
that are consistent with observations attributed to LENR. Are these  
statements clear?  These statements are based on my study and reading  
of all the evidence I can find.  I'm not interest in debating this  
information. I suggest you do this with people who care about a  
possible role for BEC.


Fourth, your understanding of how lasers behave when applied to a  
solid material conflicts with what I have observed and shows a  
confidence on your part that has no justification. If you want an  
example of why I want no further discussion with you, simply look at  
the way you insist that only you understand this interaction.





On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:


OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry
***I don't care about hurt feelings.  You can hurt my feelings every  
day  next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple  
question.


You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to  
fully answer.
***I'm not asking for it to be fully answered.  That's why I'm  
asking at the 40k foot high Inductive level of Occham's Razor.


If I leave a gap in my answer, other questions follow.
***If you are not going to answer questions as they pertain to your  
theory, then what are you doing?  Trolling for groupies?


I simply do not have the time to answer all questions.
***You take the time to answer questions you like, and you don't  
take the time to answer the questions you don't like.  I get it.  It  
aint very scientific, but I get it.


Besides, I have also made my opinions about the role of BEC clear in  
the past, so this idea is not of interest to me.
***If it turns out to be the breakthrough, the idea will be of  
interest to you.  And if you could find the silver bullet that  
destroys BECs as a viable theory, you'd be interested.Since we  
have neither of these, we rely on inductive reasoning to move us  
forward and now you don't even want to pursue inductive reasoning.
You seem to prefer to engage in opinionation.   Now, admittedly,  
your opinion is worth more than mine due to your 23 years of effort  
in this area.  But it just so happens that in the case of laser  
cooling (which Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize for in creating BECs),  
you happened to be wrong as it pertained to LENR.  So it's in the  
best interest of LENR science to close the loop on that line of  
inquiry, if only at the 40k foot level.


I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.
***Science aint about belief.
   Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism,  
either implied or real, is not usually taken kindly.


***It would appear to be the case.

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Kevin O'Malley]

OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry
***I don't care about hurt feelings.  You can hurt my feelings every day
next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple question.

You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to fully
> answer.
>
***I'm not asking for it to be fully answered.  That's why I'm asking at
the 40k foot high Inductive level of Occham's Razor.

If I leave a gap in my answer, other questions follow.
***If you are not going to answer questions as they pertain to your theory,
then what are you doing?  Trolling for groupies?

I simply do not have the time to answer all questions.
***You take the time to answer questions you like, and you don't take the
time to answer the questions you don't like.  I get it.  It aint very
scientific, but I get it.

Besides, I have also made my opinions about the role of BEC clear in the
past, so this idea is not of interest to me.
***If it turns out to be the breakthrough, the idea will be of interest to
you.  And if you could find the silver bullet that destroys BECs as a
viable theory, you'd be interested.Since we have neither of these, we
rely on inductive reasoning to move us forward and now you don't even want
to pursue inductive reasoning.   You seem to prefer to engage in
opinionation.   Now, admittedly, your opinion is worth more than mine due
to your 23 years of effort in this area.  But it just so happens that in
the case of laser cooling (which Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize for in
creating BECs), you happened to be wrong as it pertained to LENR.  So it's
in the best interest of LENR science to close the loop on that line of
inquiry, if only at the 40k foot level.

I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.
***Science aint about belief.

>Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism, either
> implied or real, is not usually taken kindly.
>
> ***It would appear to be the case.

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:




On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something  
about how radiation and LENR behave.
***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners of this list.  I  
got an A in calculus-based Nuclear Physics when I was in college, so  
if you're knocking out that much of a level of interest, you'll be  
removing most Vorts.


I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone. You are asking a question  
that requires a great deal of my time to fully answer. If I leave a  
gap in my answer, other questions follow. I simply do not have the  
time to answer all questions. Besides, I have also made my opinions  
about the role of BEC clear in the past, so this idea is not of  
interest to me. I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.




Your suggestion is not consistent with this knowledge.  I know it is  
fun to speculate and I don't want to insult your interest, but  
describing the reasons why this suggestion is not correct would  
require too much time.


***You have enough time for some of us to see how dismissive you  
are, and you even have enough time to have been flat wrong about  
laser cooling with respect to LENR.  But you don't have enough time  
to explain this little aspect of your theory.  Got it.


OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry



 I'm afraid you either need to take my word for this or undertake a  
study of how radiation and LENR actually behave.

***I doubt taking your word for it will be productive.


Fine, your choice.


I describe the observed radiation in my book and the behavior of  
radiation as it passes through matter can be obtained from many text  
books about nuclear physics.
***Sounds like Occham's Razor is too good for you.  Sorry to see you  
rejecting my humble "small and imperfect description of a plausible  
part of the process".


I still believe this and I have been patiently answering questions and  
engaging in lengthly discussions for years, most recently on Vortex.   
I could have just as easily ignored your question. Instead I respected  
you enough to tell you that I did not have time to give you the answer  
you wanted and suggested you attempt to find the answer on your own.   
Apparently, that approach was not useful. Sorry.




Ed


Maybe you just need a vacation.  Here's something you wrote in 2007:
Reply to my message (11/24/07):
  Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism,  
either implied or real, is not usually taken kindly. Criticizing  
theories that are either wrong or not useful gets us nowhere. The  
only useful activity is finding out from Nature what is actually  
happening, rather than making assumptions about the process. I made  
my previous comments only because a few people showed interest and  
because I object when theories are presented as real and useful when  
they are obviously wrong. I have no problem when people make efforts  
to understand the phenomenon with humility and an acknowledgment  
that their efforts are only a small and imperfect description of a  
plausible part of the process. Such an approach allows us to work  
together to achieve a sincere understanding, rather than an ego trip  
for a few people.

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something about
> how radiation and LENR behave.
>
***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners of this list.  I got an A
in calculus-based Nuclear Physics when I was in college, so if you're
knocking out that much of a level of interest, you'll be removing most
Vorts.




> Your suggestion is not consistent with this knowledge.  I know it is fun
> to speculate and I don't want to insult your interest, but describing the
> reasons why this suggestion is not correct would require too much time.
>

***You have enough time for some of us to see how dismissive you are, and
you even have enough time to have been flat wrong about laser cooling with
respect to LENR.  But you don't have enough time to explain this little
aspect of your theory.  Got it.



>  I'm afraid you either need to take my word for this or undertake a study
> of how radiation and LENR actually behave.
>
***I doubt taking your word for it will be productive.


> I describe the observed radiation in my book and the behavior of radiation
> as it passes through matter can be obtained from many text books about
> nuclear physics.
>
***Sounds like Occham's Razor is too good for you.  Sorry to see you
rejecting my humble "small and imperfect description of a plausible part of
the process".

Maybe you just need a vacation.  Here's something you wrote in 2007:
*Reply to my message (11/24/07):
*  Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism, either
implied or real, is not usually taken kindly. Criticizing theories that are
either wrong or not useful gets us nowhere. The only useful activity is
finding out from Nature what is actually happening, rather than making
assumptions about the process. I made my previous comments only because a
few people showed interest and because I object when theories are presented
as real and useful when they are obviously wrong. I have no problem when
people make efforts to understand the phenomenon with humility and an
acknowledgment that their efforts are only a small and imperfect
description of a plausible part of the process. Such an approach allows us
to work together to achieve a sincere understanding, rather than an ego
trip for a few people.

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something  
about how radiation and LENR behave. Your suggestion is not consistent  
with this knowledge.  I know it is fun to speculate and I don't want  
to insult your interest, but describing the reasons why this  
suggestion is not correct would require too much time.  I'm afraid you  
either need to take my word for this or undertake a study of how  
radiation and LENR actually behave.  I describe the observed radiation  
in my book and the behavior of radiation as it passes through matter  
can be obtained from many text books about nuclear physics.


Ed
On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

How about applying Occham's Razor?  If these fusion events were  
happening on the surface at 10^11 times/sec, then there would likely  
-- likely, as in applying INDUCTIVE reasoning-- be far more  
radiation emitted because it would not be absorbed by the lattice.   
It seems that the absorption by the lattice necessitates a bunch of  
lattice to be  between the event & the observer.  That is consistent  
with BECs forming deep inside the lattice, with energetic emissions  
colliding with gaps in the lattice near the edges.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
To make 1 watt of power using d+d=He, the fusion reaction has to  
happen at 10^11 times a second, which would produce radiation at  
this flux if it resulted from the process. The detected energetic  
radiation is frequently near 1 event/sec. This low level flux can  
also be explained by hot fusion being caused as cracks form.  Of  
course, proof does not exist. The path to an explanation must be  
based on rational judgement and good guess at this time. The proof  
will come later if money is made available.  Money will not come  
unless some good guesses are made and applied.


Ed

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Kevin O'Malley]

How about applying Occham's Razor?  If these fusion events were happening
on the surface at 10^11 times/sec, then there would likely -- likely, as in
applying INDUCTIVE reasoning-- be far more radiation emitted because it
would not be absorbed by the lattice.  It seems that the absorption by the
lattice necessitates a bunch of lattice to be  between the event & the
observer.  That is consistent with BECs forming deep inside the lattice,
with energetic emissions colliding with gaps in the lattice near the
edges.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> To make 1 watt of power using d+d=He, the fusion reaction has to happen at
> 10^11 times a second, which would produce radiation at this flux if it
> resulted from the process. The detected energetic radiation is frequently
> near 1 event/sec. This low level flux can also be explained by hot fusion
> being caused as cracks form.  Of course, proof does not exist. The path to
> an explanation must be based on rational judgement and good guess at this
> time. The proof will come later if money is made available.  Money will not
> come unless some good guesses are made and applied.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

To make 1 watt of power using d+d=He, the fusion reaction has to  
happen at 10^11 times a second, which would produce radiation at this  
flux if it resulted from the process. The detected energetic radiation  
is frequently near 1 event/sec. This low level flux can also be  
explained by hot fusion being caused as cracks form.  Of course, proof  
does not exist. The path to an explanation must be based on rational  
judgement and good guess at this time. The proof will come later if  
money is made available.  Money will not come unless some good guesses  
are made and applied.


Ed

On Feb 20, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:




On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles  
are detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the  
main effect, hence are not part of the LENR process.
***How do you know they are not part of the LENR process?  Has it  
been established and published?  Earlier you had acknowledged that  
much of the emissions are absorbed by the lattice.   How much of the  
lattice emission absorption is currently accepted in LENR circles?

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles are
> detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the main effect,
> hence are not part of the LENR process.
>
***How do you know they are not part of the LENR process?  Has it been
established and published?  Earlier you had acknowledged that much of the
emissions are absorbed by the lattice.   How much of the lattice emission
absorption is currently accepted in LENR circles?

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles are  
detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the main  
effect, hence are not part of the LENR process.  Yes, X-rays are seen  
which are much less in number than needed to account for the heat.  
These are details, not the main event.  We need to focus on what is  
basic and characteristic of LENR and not be distracted by secondary  
reactions.


Ed
On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Eric Walker wrote:


On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:11, Edmund Storms  wrote:

1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using  
D.


The CR-39 experiments suggest that there are ~1 MeV protons and ~4  
MeV alphas exiting some Pd/D configurations.


Some of the work done at BARC and by Karabut and Karabut suggest  
that x-rays, sometimes collimated, are seen in Pd/D systems under  
some conditions.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Eric Walker]

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:11, Edmund Storms  wrote:

>> 1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.

The CR-39 experiments suggest that there are ~1 MeV protons and ~4 MeV alphas 
exiting some Pd/D configurations.

Some of the work done at BARC and by Karabut and Karabut suggest that x-rays, 
sometimes collimated, are seen in Pd/D systems under some conditions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Alain Sepeda]

It is clear these are not laws, but phenomenological regularities observed.
A bit like observing that animal are smaller on islands.

If I understand well, your opinion is that even seen as observation of
regularities, it is not so true... Moreover all is mixed with theoretical
noise.

thanks for that answer.

Naively my recent position is that we discuss too much about theories, and
not enough about results, rough regularities, key factors. Early
theoretical concern have killed the domain on all sides... mainstream
rejected LENR, and some PdD experts laughed at NiH .
Despite what seems an interesting method, it seems Kozima fall into that
theoretical trap.

Beside that, Peter Gluck on his blog raised a concern that we focus too
much on measurement, and not enough on increasing efficiency...
Professionally I agree, because I'm engineer not scientist... after all,
the problem of fire is between the wood and the cooking... anyway,
phenomenological or top-down, we need a theory to optimize and secure LENR.
Usually it is done afterward, and maybe modern society think it is able to
break that old schedule : 1 discover, 2 industrialize, 3 theorize. Hubris?

best regards

2013/2/19 Edmund Storms 

> These "Laws" do not make sense.  I have no idea what they mean. A law must
> be clearly stated and consistent with what is known. It must also clearly
> limit what is possible. The "laws" stated by Kozima are so general they
> have no special application.  This kind of sloppy thinking and description
> invites confusion.
>
> A suitable law is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This can be clearly
> stated and imposes a clear limit on how energy can flow or be accumulated
> in a chemical system.  Another example, the Law of Conservation of Momentum
> clearly describes how energy can be released from reaction of any kind.
> These laws severely limit the kind of mechanism causing LENR. The Kozima
> laws do not do this.
>
> Ed
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

Let me add a  few more comments. Kozima believes that all materials  
contain extra neurons that are outside of the nucleus and are  
stabilized against their normal radioactive decay (16 min 1/2 life) by  
something in the lattice. He believes that these trapped neutrons are  
released occasionally and cause LENR.  First, no justification exists  
for believing such trapped neutrons exist. Second, none of the nuclear  
products are consistent with neutron interaction.  When neutrons  
react, two results occur. A gamma is emitted immediately to conserve  
momentum. The resulting nucleus is a new isotope, not a new element. A  
new element cannot result unless an alpha, beta, or positron is  
emitted. These emissions are not detected.  Regardless of the  
arguments Kozima uses, these facts eliminate his theory from  
consideration.


Ed


On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:


Dear Mr Storms,

Does Kozima laws inspire you something?

(I've naively commented
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?244-Theory-Kozima-3-Laws-in-the-CF-Phenomenon&highlight=kozima 
 )

kozima article (extended version)

do you identify interesting points, and weakess ?

the approach seems similar to what you propose...



Abstract
There have been discovered three empirical laws in the CFP;
(1) The First Law: the stability effect for nuclear transmutation  
products,
(2) the Second Law; the inverse power dependence of the frequency on  
the intensity of the excess heat production, and
(3) the Third Law: bifurcation of the intensity of events (neutron  
emission and excess heat production) in time. There are two  
corollaries of the first law:
Corollary 1-1: Production of a nuclide A’Z+1X’ from a nuclide AZX in  
the system.

Corollary 1-2: Decay time shortening of unstable nuclei in the system.
These laws and the necessary conditions for the CFP tell us that the  
cold fusion phenomenon is a phenomenon belonging to complexity  
induced by nonlinear interactions between agents in the open and  
nonequilibrium CF systems as far as we assume a common cause for  
various events in the CFP, i.e. excess heat production, neutron  
emission, and nuclear transmutation. The characteristics of the CF  
materials for the CFP are investigated using our knowledge of the  
microscopic structure of the CF materials consulting to the  
complexity in relation to the three laws explained above.
A computer simulation is proposed to reproduce an essential feature  
of the CFP using a simplified model system (a super-lattice)  
composed of two interlaced sublattices; one sublattice of host  
nuclei with extended neutron wavefunctions and another of proton/ 
deuterons with non-localized wavefunctions.





2013/2/19 Edmund Storms 

On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic  
paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any  
idea that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can  
look for the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to  
do the latter.  As is the case with any complex process, logic  
demands that the various parts have a definite relationship to each  
other. For example, to make an automobile function, a power source  
has to be coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates  
the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not important at  
this level of understanding. However, to simplify the description,  
general features of each part are frequently described.  At this  
stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue  
whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.


I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their  
required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This  
behavior has several basic features as follows:


1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission  
using D and H.
3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in  
which it occurs.

4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen.

Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested  
mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process.  In  
addition, this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of  
science and agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules  
of behavior in chemical systems.  Unfortunately, ignorance of these  
conventional rules seems to be so common that this discussion keeps  
being deflected from a useful path.  Can we at least agree about the  
basic behavior that needs to be explained and the basic rules that  
need to be obeyed?  Perhaps other people would be willing to suggest  
the rules they think are important - or no rules if they think LENR  
occurs outside of normal scientific understanding.


Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not  
allow the parts to be c

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

These "Laws" do not make sense.  I have no idea what they mean. A law  
must be clearly stated and consistent with what is known. It must also  
clearly limit what is possible. The "laws" stated by Kozima are so  
general they have no special application.  This kind of sloppy  
thinking and description invites confusion.


A suitable law is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This can be  
clearly stated and imposes a clear limit on how energy can flow or be  
accumulated in a chemical system.  Another example, the Law of  
Conservation of Momentum clearly describes how energy can be released  
from reaction of any kind. These laws severely limit the kind of  
mechanism causing LENR. The Kozima laws do not do this.


Ed
On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:


Dear Mr Storms,

Does Kozima laws inspire you something?

(I've naively commented
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?244-Theory-Kozima-3-Laws-in-the-CF-Phenomenon&highlight=kozima 
 )

kozima article (extended version)

do you identify interesting points, and weakess ?

the approach seems similar to what you propose...



Abstract
There have been discovered three empirical laws in the CFP;
(1) The First Law: the stability effect for nuclear transmutation  
products,
(2) the Second Law; the inverse power dependence of the frequency on  
the intensity of the excess heat production, and
(3) the Third Law: bifurcation of the intensity of events (neutron  
emission and excess heat production) in time. There are two  
corollaries of the first law:
Corollary 1-1: Production of a nuclide A’Z+1X’ from a nuclide AZX in  
the system.

Corollary 1-2: Decay time shortening of unstable nuclei in the system.
These laws and the necessary conditions for the CFP tell us that the  
cold fusion phenomenon is a phenomenon belonging to complexity  
induced by nonlinear interactions between agents in the open and  
nonequilibrium CF systems as far as we assume a common cause for  
various events in the CFP, i.e. excess heat production, neutron  
emission, and nuclear transmutation. The characteristics of the CF  
materials for the CFP are investigated using our knowledge of the  
microscopic structure of the CF materials consulting to the  
complexity in relation to the three laws explained above.
A computer simulation is proposed to reproduce an essential feature  
of the CFP using a simplified model system (a super-lattice)  
composed of two interlaced sublattices; one sublattice of host  
nuclei with extended neutron wavefunctions and another of proton/ 
deuterons with non-localized wavefunctions.





2013/2/19 Edmund Storms 

On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic  
paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any  
idea that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can  
look for the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to  
do the latter.  As is the case with any complex process, logic  
demands that the various parts have a definite relationship to each  
other. For example, to make an automobile function, a power source  
has to be coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates  
the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not important at  
this level of understanding. However, to simplify the description,  
general features of each part are frequently described.  At this  
stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue  
whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.


I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their  
required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This  
behavior has several basic features as follows:


1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission  
using D and H.
3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in  
which it occurs.

4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen.

Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested  
mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process.  In  
addition, this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of  
science and agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules  
of behavior in chemical systems.  Unfortunately, ignorance of these  
conventional rules seems to be so common that this discussion keeps  
being deflected from a useful path.  Can we at least agree about the  
basic behavior that needs to be explained and the basic rules that  
need to be obeyed?  Perhaps other people would be willing to suggest  
the rules they think are important - or no rules if they think LENR  
occurs outside of normal scientific understanding.


Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not  
allow the parts to be change arbitrarily. For example, individual  
parts of the models proposed by Takahashi, Kim, or Hagelstein cannot  
be mod

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Alain Sepeda]

Dear Mr Storms,

Does Kozima laws inspire you something?

(I've naively commented
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?244-Theory-Kozima-3-Laws-in-the-CF-Phenomenon&highlight=kozima)
kozima article 
(extended
version )

do you identify interesting points, and weakess ?

the approach seems similar to what you propose...



*Abstract*
> There have been discovered three empirical laws in the CFP;
> (1) The First Law: the stability effect for nuclear transmutation
> products,
> (2) the Second Law; the inverse power dependence of the frequency on the
> intensity of the excess heat production, and
> (3) the Third Law: bifurcation of the intensity of events (neutron
> emission and excess heat production) in time. There are two corollaries of
> the first law:
> Corollary 1-1: Production of a nuclide A’Z+1X’ from a nuclide AZX in the
> system.
> Corollary 1-2: Decay time shortening of unstable nuclei in the system.
> These laws and the necessary conditions for the CFP tell us that the cold
> fusion phenomenon is a phenomenon belonging to complexity induced by
> nonlinear interactions between agents in the open and nonequilibrium CF
> systems as far as we assume a common cause for various events in the CFP,
> i.e. excess heat production, neutron emission, and nuclear transmutation.
> The characteristics of the CF materials for the CFP are investigated using
> our knowledge of the microscopic structure of the CF materials consulting
> to the complexity in relation to the three laws explained above.
> A computer simulation is proposed to reproduce an essential feature of the
> CFP using a simplified model system (a super-lattice) composed of two
> interlaced sublattices; one sublattice of host nuclei with extended neutron
> wavefunctions and another of proton/deuterons with non-localized
> wavefunctions.





2013/2/19 Edmund Storms 

>
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>  A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic paths.
>> People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any idea that
>> comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can look for the overall
>> patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to do the latter.  As is the
>> case with any complex process, logic demands that the various parts have a
>> definite relationship to each other. For example, to make an automobile
>> function, a power source has to be coupled to a gear box through a
>> mechanism that isolates the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not
>> important at this level of understanding. However, to simplify the
>> description, general features of each part are frequently described.  At
>> this stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue
>> whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.
>>
>> I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their
>> required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This behavior
>> has several basic features as follows:
>>
>> 1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
>> 2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission using D
>> and H.
>> 3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in which
>> it occurs.
>> 4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen.
>>
>> Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested
>> mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process.  In addition,
>> this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of science and
>> agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules of behavior in
>> chemical systems.  Unfortunately, ignorance of these conventional rules
>> seems to be so common that this discussion keeps being deflected from a
>> useful path.  Can we at least agree about the basic behavior that needs to
>> be explained and the basic rules that need to be obeyed?  Perhaps other
>> people would be willing to suggest the rules they think are important - or
>> no rules if they think LENR occurs outside of normal scientific
>> understanding.
>>
>> Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not allow the
>> parts to be change arbitrarily. For example, individual parts of the models
>> proposed by Takahashi, Kim, or Hagelstein cannot be modified without
>> producing conflicts in the logical structure. In other words, all parts
>> have to be accepted in each model if the basic model is to be accepted.  A
>> person is not free to pick the part they like and reject the rest.  The
>> Takahashi model requires a cluster of 4 deuterons to form and fuse to make
>> Be8, the Kin model requires a BEC to form that can lower the barrier and
>> dissipate nuclear energy as many scattered deuterons, the Hagelstein model
>> requires metal atom vacancies be present and be filled with deuterons that
>> can vibrate and lose their energy