Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a BEC
forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have proposed but
not demonstrated.
Ed Storms
On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Th
On May 27, 2013, at 7:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a
BEC forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have
proposed but not demonstrated.
Ed Storms
***T
On May 27, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
The essential question is, Does a BEC form in any material?
***Yes, according to the 2 links I posted.
Kevin, did you actually read this paper (
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1
On May 27, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Kevin, did you actually read this paper (
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf)?
***I'm still making my way through it. It is not one of the links I
posted.
It i
to it.:-)
I hope this is clear.
-Mark
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On May 19, 2013, at 11:55 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
To which Ed answered
? Even if the electrode
hasn’t even been immersed in the electrolyte yet (if we’re talking
electrolytic type experiments); or before hydrogen gas is introduced
if we’re dealing with a NiH system? I don’t think so…
-Mark
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 1
and
monatomic states –forming the energy sink while opposing the motion
of one state through the sink much more than the other encouraging
disassociation and subsequent photon emission as the hydrotron
reforms.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28
de of the
dislocation immediately after it forms and before anything happens
to diffuse into them… I think I prefaced my questions to focus on
that situation. Can we agree that we are dealing with a vacuum, at
least initially?
-Mark Iverson
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netco
-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Mark, when the gap initially forms, nothing is present. It is a
void, a space without substance, a vacuum if you wish. However, it
contains strong negative
anism determines the
resistive parameter?
If a small collection of atoms behaves like a superconductor then
that would explain why the field generated by tiny Axil antennas can
become of great magnitude.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent
the protons in the gap is
their repulsion with the lattice nuclei and what primarily keeps
electrons in the gap is their repulsion with the electron shells
around the lattice nuclei?
harry
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Dave, you are adding ideas that have no
Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design. You are right, the
powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear
reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this
happen is unknown. Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be
attached to the
Dennis, I do not believe a process of continuous creation and
destruction of sites would be stable and would result in stable
production of energy, The creation and destruction processes are
independent of each other. Just by chance, one would get the upper
hand over the other, resulting in
inous colloid.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design. You are right,
the powder must make
earlier ecat and actually be part of the
NAE formation?
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the
the black
box between wall socket and the eCat.
Arnaud
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the
ket and the eCat.
Arnaud
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only
that this m
be somewhere there. EM stimulation could enhance the rate of
the reaction.
That’s not a fact I know.
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 22:14
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Amaud, we
a vigorous
reaction.
Again you say this with great certainty. Have you actually tried this
idea and does it work? If so, please publish the results.
Ed Storms
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Axil, you make your statements with great certainty. Have you ever
OK, can anyone from DGT verify that potassium is required to make Ni
nuclear active? If so, what chemical form is used?
Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
DGT has already stated that they use potassium.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
On
Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Arnaud Kodeck > wrote:
Ed,
I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black
box between wall socket and the eCat.
Arnaud
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc:
dd the EM stimulation controlled by the black
box between wall socket and the eCat.
Arnaud
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Fran, I wou
regardless of your
conclusion. Second, why do you think the NAE is not stable at the
temperatures used by Rossi?
Ed Storms
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
On May 29, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Fixed NAE theory cannot explain the Cause of the meltdown of the
Mark, according to my understanding, ANY material can be made nuclear
active as long as H+ can dissolve in the material. The challenge is
to know what change has to occur too create the NAE. Each theory
suggests a different change. Simply making alloys is a waste of time
unless this additi
Harry, I suggest you consult the literature. Addition of Cu LOWERS the
mp of Ni.
Ni and Cu form a continuous soild solution. The melting point is close
to being linear between 1083° and 1453°, the mp of Ni.
Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013
posts but perhaps I just don't understand your
model.
Anyway, I think the coulomb barrier problem is fundamentally more
important then the missing gamma issue, in the sense that a cogent
solution to the first problem will yield a cogent solution to the
second problem.
harry
On Wed, May
Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Rossi has done something to the Ni powder that is very stable and
not affected by high temperature. This fact alone greatly reduces
the possibilities to anyone familiar with the
No Alan, no relationship exist between my model and the one proposed
by Peter. You need to read the two ideas more carefully. I wish a
relationship existed, but sadly it does not. The cluster Peter
proposes to form does not occur in the same place in the material as
the Hydroton, it does n
Mark, why don't you ask and quote some who actually understand cold
fusion, like myself? I realize you consider me a believer. However,
have you considered why I have this belief? It is not based on my
imagination or on a pathology. It is based on the fact that I have
read and studied all o
wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
Mark, why don't you ask and quote some who actually understand cold
fusion, like myself?
Well, Ed, at least he quoted Elforsk. That's progress! The people
Elforsk do not understand cold fusion but they do understand
electricity, IR cameras, and the S
I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years
without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical
point at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree
of thermal contact between the source of energy (the Ni powder) and
the sink (The
On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is
pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down
the line. Each ball will alternately move away
AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
What is a Hydroton? I googled the term and all I could find were
references to a clay-based plant growing medium much prized by
marijuana growers ...
[mg]
On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Harry
On May 31, 2013, at 4:40 AM, Rob Dingemans wrote:
Hi,
On 30-5-2013 22:48, Edmund Storms wrote:
I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several
years without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The
critical point at which the temperature must be reduced de
account for it.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Cude, please admit to the obvious. The LENR effect has positive
feedback. Increased temperature causes increased power generation.
This is an established fact. Of course, if as you believe, CF is not
real, than this statement is irrelevant to you and any discussion is a
waste of time.
Ed
ion that would make the proton appear like a neutron for
some fraction of the time? (A naive guess on my part I am sure.)
Can you provide additional insight into your proposition?
Regards,
Bob Higgins
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
As this mass-energy is reduced,
Mark, you quoted Siegel as saying that CF violated physics because it
did not act like hot fusion. Carat simply pointed out that CF was not
like hot fusion and this comparison was not valid. She simply made a
statement of belief, not a proof. Siegel also made a statement of
belief, not a p
Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion with cold fusion. The
difference is in the products. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons
and energetic radiation. Hot fusion produce neutrons and radiation
because the conditions require the nuclear product to fragment. This
fragmentation does not
trons when the same amount of energy is released.
The term LENR is used to only describe cold fusion. It was not created
for it to be applied to hot fusion.
On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion
assisted fusion "warm fusion".
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to
use the
same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.
Those of us
who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years
On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use
the same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.
Those of us who have studied cold fusion for the last 23
On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms > wrote:
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is
pull a
OK, Jones, let me try to summarize what you propose.
You believe CF is like the Mills effect even though CF is known to
produce nuclear products and the Mills effect does not.
You believe that Rossi made the Ni-H2 system create energy using the
Mills effect while everyone else who explored
Jed is correct. Tritium can not be detected by an ordinary detector
because the beta is too weak. Unless the required special detector is
used, tritium would be totally missed no matter how much is present.
That is why tritium is dangerous. Nevertheless, modern methods can
detect tritium
Jones, you are simply wrong. I have worked with tritium and I know how
it behaves. It cannot be detected using its Bremsstrahlund unless a
huge amount is present because this radiation is produced at only a
small fraction of the beta and is absorbed very quickly by only a
small amount of ma
On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
OK, Jones, let me try to summarize what you propose You
believe CF is like the Mills effect even though CF is known to produce
nuclear products and the Mills effect does not.
Not even
11:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, you are simply wrong. I have worked with tritium and I know
how it behaves.
You apparently have not worked with tritium very intuitively, if you
cannot understand this simple video.
It cannot be detected using its Bremsstrahlund
extrapolating this demonstation to conditions that have no
relevance to the demonstration.
I hope this is clear and we can go on to other subjects.
Ed Storms
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, you are simply wrong. I have worked with tritium and I
Jones, I agree with your conclusion about Rossi. However, tritium is
not his only problem. His patent will probably not reveal how the Ni
can be treated to make it active. Simply adding Ni62 is obviously not
the only thing he does to the Ni. Without the ability to replicate the
patent by a
Dave, I agree. You have described the process very well. The only
thing missing from your model is the thermal contact between the
source, (Ni) and the sink (the mass of the E-cat). The better the
thermal contact, the longer the temperature can remain high while
control is maintained and t
I suggest you all read "Quantum Weirdness? It's all in your mind" In
Scientific American, June 2013, page 47. According to the author, QM
has been made complex and increasingly out of contact with reality.
The success in fitting behavior has been used to justify increasingly
complex mathe
Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The
laws of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system
and how the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do
not address the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source
that cannot
single quantum of energy.
Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy
You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY
of the quantum based on the coupling constant.
See figures 3 and 4.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Axil
I agree, the contribution by Cude has long since lost its value. His
issues have been discussed and answered several times. He is never
going to accept the basic claims, so why bother. Nevertheless, his
response is answered and the the answer creates a response, with no
end in sight. Enoug
On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Ed,
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Thu, May 30
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
I've been too busy with analysing the latest Rossi test to follow
this.
I've got the following "official" links to Storms' NAE
2012 Paper : http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEanapproach.pdf
Feb 2013 Kick-off post :
http://www.mail-archi
What answer were you hoping for?
Ed Storms
On Jun 6, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: "Edmund Storms"
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:37:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Thanks. (Not necessarily the answer I was hoping for !!!)
I assume you hit send before you were finished. Otherwise, this makes
no sense.
Ed Storms
On Jun 6, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: "Edmund Storms"
What answer were you hoping for?
Ten minutes =8-(
On Jun 6, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Ed,
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Ed,
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Fri
The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free
energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be
obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed
when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has
found better ways to get e
w example. Perhaps experience
with LENR will now give permission to test such life forms for nuclear
products, which is not presently done.
Ed
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free
energy to a biological
count for substantial biological disruption at the
scales of metabolic energy necessary for life.
As you say, it will be interesting to see the arithmetic for this
laid out more precisely when LENR research is widely funded.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
On Jun 9,
justify. If the answers are not provided, this
mechanism can not be a solution to the CF problem.
Ed
On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On another thread, Edmund Storms posted how many nuclear fusion atoms
must take place to generate 1 Watt of power. We can work backwords
nt of physical principles LENR vs. Nanoplasmonics,
it is more a matter of quantity rather than quality of the physical
processes.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Kevin, when you suggest involvement of a BEC, you need to consider
the sequence of the process. First deut
On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Kevin, when you suggest involvement of a BEC, you need to consider
the sequence of the process. First deuterons have to assemble into a
BEC of a increasingly larger size.
s. Which is it? Or perhaps there's an
in-between thing I'm overlooking, that no doubt would save face for
one or both of us?
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a
BEC forming between hydrons at
On Jun 12, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
One theoretical question about LENR is whether it is an electron-
capture process, involving the emission of a neutrino, or not.
Today we have neutrino detectors like Kamiokande, or Daya Bay,
working to detect neutrino from sun or nuclear rea
layed in loop along few month.
Big Physics mean big jokes.
This may be the greatest physics joke of history.
If not, WL and Brillouin may be sad, and Steven Krivit sure would be
desperate.
Me too for the missed joke.
2013/6/12 Edmund Storms
On Jun 12, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Alain Sepeda wro
On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Yes a neutrino would be produced. However, as I have said often, the
electron is added after almost all the excess mass-energy has been
emitted as weak photons. Therefore, the neutrino would have very
little energy to carry away, thereby
Eric, why do you ignore the obvious reaction of D-e-H = tritium? This
is the ONLY reaction consistent with all observations. The papers you
should read are:
1. Clarke, B.W., et al., Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-style
palladium cathodes II: Evidence for tritium production. Fusion
Tritium is made by gas discharge and gas loading where no lithium or
Na is present. The rate is sensitive to the H/D ratio and to the
concentration of hydrogen isotope in the material.
Ed
On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote
Robin, you need to acknowledge what actually is observed rather than
what you think should happen. We are witnessing a novel process that
has several basic characteristics, which are:
1. Hydrogen isotopes can come together in a material to make a fusion
product without emitting the nuclear
18, 2013, at 1:43 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Tritium is made by gas discharge and gas loading where no lithium or
Na is present. The rate is sensitive to the H/D ratio and to the
concentration of hydrogen isotope in the material.
According
, there has been no response.
Ed
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Paul Breed wrote:
Ed,
>4.) When the isotopes are H, the nuclear product is still unknown
Any speculation?
My speculation would be D
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Robin, you need to acknowledge w
Very funny, Eric. If I have, it's not for the lack of looking.
Ed
On Jun 18, 2013, at 8:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Eric, Tom Passel is not the only source of information. If you want
to make a useful conclusion, I suggest you rea
I think we all need to be clear. Heat has been made using normal
hydrogen, but without any indication of helium production. The source
of this heat has been discussed. Rossi et al. think it results from Ni
+p=Cu transmutation, several people suggest it results from fusion of
the deuterium im
On Jun 20, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
I think we all need to be clear. Heat has been made using normal
hydrogen, but without any indication of helium production.
Has anyone looked for helium production when normal hydrogen
produces heat? I don't r
Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold
the governments of the world on spending money for research that has
practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be
explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been
rejected and held to
so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I
would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were
able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm
Su
many of the needs of mankind.
Dave
-Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold
the governments of the world on spendin
here makes any reference to the topic of LENR. It
is entirely possible that LENR is real and Rossi is a fraud.
John
From: Edmund Storms
To: John Milstone
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dea
Eric, in any theory, a person has to ask how and why. In your theory,
how is the energy released as kinetic energy without particles being
emitted? How is momentum conserved? Kinetic energy is defined as
something moving with a velocity. How is this velocity created from
initially still obj
outright stealing is without consequence if it is done on a
big enough scale. You see, I can match you rant for rant. :-)
Ed
On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will
On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
I don't see how a gram or two of nano-powder can produce 10
kilowatts of heat output. Without running any numbers, the power
density is too high. Other atoms besides those in the powder must
also be involved in the production of power. How do
Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an
energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions
proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate
must be between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the
reactants must move at
, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an
energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three
reactions proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power,
the rate must be between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec
lker wrote:
Ed, these are very good questions. At the risk of reiterating
points made in older threads, I'll attempt to address each question
as I am able.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
In your theory, how is the energy released as kinetic energy without
par
On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary
ideas without any connection to what is known that even starting a
critique is difficult. The problem is made
Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward
LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other
high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They
know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as
well as the co
cover the errors.
Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future
when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our
misguided prospects.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm
Subjec
Alain, the phenomenon of LENR itself does not violate the laws of
thermodynamics but some of the explanations do. Apparently, this is a
problem that physicists have. Many of them do not understand or accept
the laws of thermodynamics. Consequently, they waste a lot of time
discussing ideas
Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion.
Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter
would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they
actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they
must have questioned thei
must cause and immediate adjustment by
the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real.
Is this what you mean by reality?
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion.
Therefore, they expected a large
historical dimensions.
Peter
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality
and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described
using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes
reality
can be used in poor
ways, such as using a hammer to fix a headache.
Ed Storms
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Alain, the phenomenon of LENR itself does not violate the laws of
thermodynamics but some of the explanations do. Apparently, this is
a problem that
an 4, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Not too early, Peter. The problem F-P faced would have existed
whenever the discovery was made because the discovery revealed a new
and perviously hidden part of reality. They paid the price of
forcing everyone to see a new phenomenon. That discove
I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL
nuclear reactions make heat. F-P and many people since 1989 see
evidence for a nuclear reaction. That fact alone should have excited
scientists. However, we all were taught that a nuclear reaction is
not influenced by the che
. Reality is not the game itself.
Ed Storms
On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms
wrote:
Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality
and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described
using
appreciated.
Ed Storms
On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL
nuclear reactions make heat.
As Martin often pointed out, radioactivity was first detected from
the heat it produces, and calorimetry
801 - 900 of 1369 matches
Mail list logo
