Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is useless. I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I agree with Axil. I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
WELL SAID! [snip] The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.[/snip] From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:06 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge how much is enough or how far do we need to zoom in. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
. Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to LENR. Ed Storms Some background http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of development. You are invited to help this process. Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants of chemistry. Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to LENR. Ed Storms Some background http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: If this huge energy is available, why does it only affect a nuclear process taking place in a chemical environment. Why does the energy not affect chemical reactions that can also occur in the material and require far less energy to initiate? I suggest you answer these questions clearly before proposing mechanisms that have no apparent support from observation. From system to system, LENR is subject to a variation of strength. To my way of thinking, this variability in the characterization of the unique mix and match LENR processes instantiated in each LENR system are directly based on the strengths of magnetic fields generated in each LENR system. Magnetic fields interact with the vacuum and produce a number of different breakdown mechanisms as a function of that field's strength. To start this detailing, virtual particle production in the vacuum is one of the sources of the uncertainty in quantum mechanics as particles come randomly into and out of existence. Tunneling and radioactivity is a result of this vacuum based uncertainty. Magnetic fields interact with the vacuum to produce particles in a deterministic way. As the strength of the magnetic fields increase, the probability that the vacuum will generate particles will also increase. This increase particle production in the vacuum increases the rates of tunneling and radioactivity. As the magnetic field gains strength to intermediate levels, the vacuum produces composite particles from fermions. The magnetic field interacts with the various types of fermions to catalyze virtual charge carrying quasi-particle pairs that are bound to the fermions as the fermions attempts to minimize its particular energy level. As the magnetic field reaches it maximum strength, this field produces mesons out of the vacuum which effectively guaranties nuclear disruption in terms of charge screening, cluster fusion, fission, and isotope and radioactivity stabilization In summary, a single primary magnetic field based causation produces strength based mix and match results centered on a hierarchy of magnetically catalyzed vacuum based particle production mechanisms.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Dear Mr Storms I follow from far your discussion, and as a conservative engineer, with modest vision of QM (I see it more like a radio-guy, with quantum fields like EM-waves interacting, inside a lattice of antennas and wave guides, with some components) your approach match my way of mind. do you have a paper about your vision of what is the constraints on theories, from LENR experiments and old-fashioned validated QM? Your CF review in NWS (2010) does not cover much on theory (good idea I agree). it seems your vision of topological defects looks like the quantum dots in some semiconductors lasers, or the defects in gems which give color... what you say is that few thing can happen inside the complex chemistry solution, nor in the bulk... it have to be done inside a specific local component, stable and clean unlike solution or surface, localized unlike bulk... the NAE concept? do you see theories which agree with your vision. clearly not widom-larsen... does Takahashi-way seems possible for you? Kim-Zubarev? corrected to respect your p-e-p conclusion ? thanks in advance, and sorry for my naivety in QM. 2014-02-28 16:27 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is useless. I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I agree with Axil. * I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP.* *Bob* - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Hi Alain, Most of the present theories are focused on the lattice structure. A few people have suggested cracks as the location, but these ideas were not developed to show how this process might function or the resulting nuclear products. I attempted to put all the pieces together. A correct theory has to have all parts work together in a consistent and plausible way, which severely limits the possible combinations of ideas. As an engineer, I'm sure you can appreciate this requirement. In contrast, most theories are created by throwing together a collection of parts that look good but have no function in the machine. I have found the problem to be very difficult for some people to understand. I find that writing a book without the limitations imposted in papers is the only way my insights can be explained and hopefully understood. As a consequence, I'm focusing on this project rather than providing detail and repetition here. The NAE is a gap of a critical size. I make this statement without qualification. This has no relationship to any other concept. This is a crack, which is a well known and well understood flaw in materials. I suggest this flaw supports a nuclear process by the mechanism I have suggested. This proposal is clear and unambiguous. It is also totally consistent with what has been observed. I reject all other theories because they do not produce explanations that are consistent with what is observed. The other theoreticians pick and choose what is consistent and ignore the rest. I find this approach to be unsatisfying. However, it takes a book to show the conflicts. Right now, you have to take my word that such conflicts actually exist. Thanks for the comments. I hope I answered your question. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Dear Mr Storms I follow from far your discussion, and as a conservative engineer, with modest vision of QM (I see it more like a radio-guy, with quantum fields like EM-waves interacting, inside a lattice of antennas and wave guides, with some components) your approach match my way of mind. do you have a paper about your vision of what is the constraints on theories, from LENR experiments and old-fashioned validated QM? Your CF review in NWS (2010) does not cover much on theory (good idea I agree). it seems your vision of topological defects looks like the quantum dots in some semiconductors lasers, or the defects in gems which give color... what you say is that few thing can happen inside the complex chemistry solution, nor in the bulk... it have to be done inside a specific local component, stable and clean unlike solution or surface, localized unlike bulk... the NAE concept? do you see theories which agree with your vision. clearly not widom-larsen... does Takahashi-way seems possible for you? Kim-Zubarev? corrected to respect your p-e-p conclusion ? thanks in advance, and sorry for my naivety in QM. 2014-02-28 16:27 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is useless. I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I agree with Axil. I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed states that various things happen but he does not explain in depth how they happen. Ed states that this or that has been observed, but when it comes to nuclear reactions, it is not now possible to see how these reactions can occur. Here, Ed is claiming that an effect of LENR is the cause. Ed stops at an intermediate stage. The cause of LENR is deeper than Ed has gone in his theory. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, I see our basic problem. We have an entirely different understanding of what the words used in this discussion mean and how the concepts are applied. For example, the Pauli Exclusion principle applies to electrons in energy states within atoms. The walls of cracks contain electrons that are not assigned to an atom. Therefore, the PEP does not apply. I do not explain because the concept is irrelevant in my model. Fractofusion demonstrates that high voltages, i.e. large electric fields can exist in a crack for a brief time. I'm simply using this observed behavior to initiate formation of the required structure in the crack. The Hydroton is a molecule consisting of hydrogen atoms held together by electrons to which the PEP applies. Once this structure forms, which is an exothermic reaction, the structure is able to initiate a nuclear reaction. This process has no relationship to the PEP. Rather than trying to find flaws, you might first want to correctly and fully understand what I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure
RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Fran, Ed and Axil The chemistry can affect local magnetic fields that seem to be influencing the lenr reactions. ALSO lattice vibrational kinetic energy may also be available to provide energy to system, whether in a lattice void or a defect,. to allow LENR transitions . Bob From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:15:16 + Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR
RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil-- Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. Bob Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
The *Pauli exclusion principle* is the quantum mechanical principle that no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. A more rigorous statement is that the total wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. It is irrelevant where the fermions are: in the walls of the NAE or inside it. For example, in an isolated atom no two electrons can have the same four quantum numbers if *n*, *ℓ*, and *mℓ* are the same, *ms* must be different such that the electrons have opposite spins, and so on. In a crack, no two electrons can have the same quantum number. A crack is like a gigantic atom to the electrons where they all must have their own obit(quantum number). On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I see our basic problem. We have an entirely different understanding of what the words used in this discussion mean and how the concepts are applied. For example, the Pauli Exclusion principle applies to electrons in energy states within atoms. The walls of cracks contain electrons that are not assigned to an atom. Therefore, the PEP does not apply. I do not explain because the concept is irrelevant in my model. Fractofusion demonstrates that high voltages, i.e. large electric fields can exist in a crack for a brief time. I'm simply using this observed behavior to initiate formation of the required structure in the crack. The Hydroton is a molecule consisting of hydrogen atoms held together by electrons to which the PEP applies. Once this structure forms, which is an exothermic reaction, the structure is able to initiate a nuclear reaction. This process has no relationship to the PEP. Rather than trying to find flaws, you might first want to correctly and fully understand what I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not subject to the exclusion principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. Bob -- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei
RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed-- It is my understanding the PEP applies to any QM system. Certainly to atoms but also to crystals like Pd crystals and the semi conductors in transistors and any number of different electronic devices that use voltage control in switching. Bob Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:44:43 -0700 CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil, I see our basic problem. We have an entirely different understanding of what the words used in this discussion mean and how the concepts are applied. For example, the Pauli Exclusion principle applies to electrons in energy states within atoms. The walls of cracks contain electrons that are not assigned to an atom. Therefore, the PEP does not apply. I do not explain because the concept is irrelevant in my model. Fractofusion demonstrates that high voltages, i.e. large electric fields can exist in a crack for a brief time. I'm simply using this observed behavior to initiate formation of the required structure in the crack. The Hydroton is a molecule consisting of hydrogen atoms held together by electrons to which the PEP applies. Once this structure forms, which is an exothermic reaction, the structure is able to initiate a nuclear reaction. This process has no relationship to the PEP. Rather than trying to find flaws, you might first want to correctly and fully understand what I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote:Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy.Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic
RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil-- Are the polaritons found in the crack with its high magnetic field? Bob Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:57:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not subject to the exclusion principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. Bob Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
A crack is an EMF Cuisinart. Both the wavelength of the electron and the photon varies widely over time in a random fashion (aka Fano resonance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance When the wavelength of the electron and the photon just so happen to momentarily become equal, they combine to form a polariton. Polaritons have spin and that means that they can produce a magnetic field. A soliton forms (aka NAE) inside the crack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton Over time, an unlimited numbers of polaritons can pack into the crack and produce an EMF black hole of unlimited power. The uncertainty principle increases the energy of the soliton as more polaritons pack into it. It's like a crowded room where each polariton has less and less space to move and their energy goes way up(without limit) and so does the magnetic field that the soliton projects. The gammas from fusions that the soliton produces is feed back into the soliton in a positive feedback loop. Eventually, the soliton breaks up and its energy in x-rays are thermalized by the reactor structure and hydrogen as x-ray energy will do. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Are the polaritons found in the crack with its high magnetic field? Bob -- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:57:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not subject to the exclusion principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. Bob -- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: approach thanks for the advice. I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on researchers and their theories... My main message it to be very careful, to flee theory, and not trust NASAal trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree... Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say. I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and gamma at 1-10^-6... Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-) Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR). I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't block research work ... my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical QM, they invented new physics... Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge (what it cannot be). best regards.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
To account for the appearance of superconductivity and cluster fusion in the NiH reactor, I predict that a magnetic field of 10^16 tesla emanating from the NAE will be announced as an experimental finding from NiH reactor research. Such an experimental finding will be selective and conclusive in LENR theory. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: approach thanks for the advice. I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on researchers and their theories... My main message it to be very careful, to flee theory, and not trust NASAal trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree... Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say. I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and gamma at 1-10^-6... Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-) Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR). I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't block research work ... my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical QM, they invented new physics... Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge (what it cannot be). best regards.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil-- How would you measure such a magnetic field inside a NCE? It must be deduced by other than direct measurement I would guess. However, if possible, it would be conclusive as to your soliton/crack idea. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, To account for the appearance of superconductivity and cluster fusion in the NiH reactor, I predict that a magnetic field of 10^16 tesla emanating from the NAE will be announced as an experimental finding from NiH reactor research. Such an experimental finding will be selective and conclusive in LENR theory. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: approach thanks for the advice. I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on researchers and their theories... My main message it to be very careful, to flee theory, and not trust NASAal trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree... Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say. I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and gamma at 1-10^-6... Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-) Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR). I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't block research work ... my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical QM, they invented new physics... Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge (what it cannot be). best regards.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
There is a spectrographic technique that astrophysicist use to measure the magnetic field strenth around neutron stars and black holes. Such means can be used if the Ni/H reactor had a spyhole where light emissions from the NAE could be indicative of its magnetic field strength. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- How would you measure such a magnetic field inside a NCE? It must be deduced by other than direct measurement I would guess. However, if possible, it would be conclusive as to your soliton/crack idea. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:08 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, To account for the appearance of superconductivity and cluster fusion in the NiH reactor, I predict that a magnetic field of 10^16 tesla emanating from the NAE will be announced as an experimental finding from NiH reactor research. Such an experimental finding will be selective and conclusive in LENR theory. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: approach thanks for the advice. I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on researchers and their theories... My main message it to be very careful, to flee theory, and not trust NASAal trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree... Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say. I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and gamma at 1-10^-6... Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-) Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR). I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't block research work ... my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical QM, they invented new physics... Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge (what it cannot be). best regards.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge how much is enough or how far do we need to zoom in. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Axil: I acknowledge chemical conditions as follows: a dielectric gas, a transition metal, heat. What else have I said is required? Ed: Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. Axil: A topological defect in the metal structure provides the quantum environment that supports LENR, even if that environment is complicated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_quantum_electrodynamics Ed: If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. Axil: One important chemical manifestation that is almost always central to the LENR process is nano-particle production as a condensate of cooling plasma. This is a generalization of the Storms' lattice crack posit. Ed: You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. Axil: The ideas that hit the wall are all consistent with the ones that have been thrown previously. Each idea is a projection and an implication of the previous material and all ideas are fashioned to answer one ore more LENR characteristics. For example, a standard quantum nanocavity based nanoplasmonic mechanism supports a positive nuclear feedback process while providing both thermalization of gamma radiation and upshift of infrared heat,. . Ed: As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Axil: The elephant is truly a huge animal and unfortunately the wall is large with a heavy coat of material. Regrettably, LENR is very complicated, interconnected, and obscure.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed: While what Axil describes are not unconventional theories in physics, they have no relationship to LENR. That is the problem in physics these days, any idea can be applied to LENR no matter how unrelated to reality it might be. The justification being that QM is a world unrelated to common logic or experience in which anything can be justified if the right formula is applied. To a large extent, this attitude is a self-serving way to avoid having to justify why the ideas make so sense outside of complex math. Axil: In the process of connecting the dots, I have made the mistake that most everyone makes; we just cannot help ourselves; at any given juncture in the journey, I assume the most fundamental effect that is so far uncovered must be the cause. This is the great trap in thinking about LENR. There has always been something more basic and profound underneath that effect. Ed: The situation in LENR is a good example. A collection of conflicting ad hoc assumptions are made and these are taken seriously by people in physics even when they lead to direct conflicts with experience, with basic laws of Nature, and even with each other. I'm of the opinion that physics needs some serious house cleaning, a process that is rejected just as new ways of thinking were rejected before QM was introduced. Physics, as well as all human activity, gradually gets corrupted by ad hoc assumption, poorly defined words, and concepts based on authority figures. As a result, the old needs to be periodically swept away with a fresh start. LENR has the potential to do this, but only if the old ideas are abandoned. I see no effort to do this in these discussions. Axil: In Ed storms brilliant posit that cracks were important in LENR, I accepted it whole cloth and I just went to the associated field of physics to see how these cracks worked. I wanted to know everything and anything about these cracks. I found the answers in the field of nanoplasmonics and quantum optics. This field in turn provided more clues and directions to enable the ideas to go deeper. Down, down the rabbit hole, in any complex system, it's all about following the dots. All the dots are described by standard science; it's just the magnitudes involved that are hard to believe. I told Ed Storms that he needed to study the field of science that describes the cracks that he has so brilliantly discovered but he never did. He made the effect is the cause mistake and never recovered.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Cracks when generalized are an instance of a broad category of phenomena in condensed matter physics called topological defects. This concept is also found in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). We can gain great insight into LENR by studying the generalized characterization of cracks in all the fields of physics that this phenomenon is found. Studying cracks in all its guises and persona's throughout the totality of science is valuable in understanding LENR in depth. On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge how much is enough or how far do we need to zoom in. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole. On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge how much is enough or how far do we need to zoom in. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Ed-- I agree with Axil. I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
