Brian Ahern said:
*This is a four year old report of unsubstantiated ramblings. Why do you give it any credence as nothing has developedin the 4 year hiatus.It is a disservice to assign credit to this material.* LeClair is considered by most of the old school LENR advocates as at best an eccentric and a maverick. But isn't this put down what science places on the heads of the Cold Fusion advocates themselves? Can the pot call the kettle black? Ed Storms analyzed the transmutation products generated in LeClair's experiments and this imprimatur of authenticity bolstered by Ed's reputation lends credence to the results that LeClair claims in his experiments. Like the unworldly transmutation results that have come out of the Lugano demo, can the amazing claims produced by LeClair be trusted? It seems to me that Ed Storms unblemished and longstanding reputation as a scientist lends credence to the amazing claims that the LeClair experiments have produced. How can cavitation produce transuranic elements let alone lead. But with the advent of Holmlid's experiments which are amazing in their own rite, involving Rydberg matter, it is worth a second look at the mechanisms that LeClair is claiming. This is why I set the post under discussion in the context of a compare and contrast relationship with Holmlid's claims. There is a definite and striking parallel between what LeClair claims and what Holmlid claims. One insight that might come out of the comparison between LeClair's work and Holmlid's experiment is to try to understand why Holmlid's experiments are so difficult to replicate whereas cavitation happens every time right from the get go. I believe that the answer to this question might lead to major insights into the mechanisms of LENR. I am also going to suggest a cure for the radiation problem that LeClair has discussed in his research and I wanted to set the predicate in the LeClair post as a foundation to that suggestion. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Ludwik Kowalski < kowals...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote: > P.S. Wikipedia's definition (in blue below) is consistent with what I > remember. > > > A *catalyst* is a substance that speeds up a *chemical* reaction, but is > not consumed by the reaction; hence a *catalyst* can be recovered > chemically unchanged at the end of the reaction it has been used to speed > up, or catalyze. > > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote: > > I also responded to Peter G, essentially at the same time. Bot my reply > bounced back. I wrote: > > 1) Peter wrote (see his egoout below ): ... "I have a cult for catalysis, > met it professionally in many forms and have developed a kind of philosophy > of it ... . > > *I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have > developed a kind of philosophy of it.* > > * - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. "* > > 2) I am not a chemist. But I would say that a catalytic surface is a > surface covered with one or more catalysts (chemical compounds). Such > compounds can participate in reactions but are not consumed by these > reactions). Some chemical reactions would be very rare, if catalysts were > not available. > > 3) Does my definition conflict with Peter's nano-cracks definition? > Probably not; Peter probably thinks that some catalysts are present in > nano-cracks. Which compounds does he have in mind, in our CMNS context? > > Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > *a) Continuing discussion with Ed Storms* > > * Yesterday Ed has promptly answered to my catalysis in LENR questions, > but has forgot to answer to this question "caused "by the unique PdD et > classic paper of JCF-16 so I repeat it:* > > *- what do you think about paper of Numata- No.15 at JCF- see the list? > I have spoken more times about nano-vortices as NAE to you, in this is > something like that* > > > *Ed: I will be pleased to comment once the paper becomes available. If > you you have a copy, please send it.* > *Ed's answer, my comments * > > > *To answer your questions, we need to know what the words mean. The word > catalyst describes a general concept, there being hundreds of different > kinds of catalyst. One kind does not take the place of another. Simply > saying a catalytic surface is required is too trivial. What is worse, the > concept of catalyst was only applied to a chemical reaction, never to a > nuclear reaction, until LENR was discovered. We need to know what the word > means when it describes a nuclear process. A catalyst can reasonably be > understood to lower a barrier by a few eV but what allows a barrier of > several MeV to be lowered?* > > *ANSWER * > *Please, please read my essay here:* > *http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/the-most-fundamental-question-about-lenr.html > <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/the-most-fundamental-question-about-lenr.html> > * > *I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have > developed a kind of philosophy of it.* > > *Ed: I read your comment but I do not understand how it applies to our > problem. A catalyst is a concept applied when the rate of a chemical > reaction can be increased by operation of another chemical condition. To be > useful, the chemical condition needs to be identified. This requires > identification of the chemical state causing the rate of LENR to increase. > In addition, we are faced with the need to increase a reaction rate having > a barrier of MeV. You have not answered my question. How can this be done?* > > * - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. These cracks > are created by stress relief. Many ways exist to create the stress and the > resulting crack formation depends on the property of the surface. Stress > generation and crack formation are influence by many variables. We will not > understand these variables until they are study for the purpose of causing > LENR. So, simply saying a catalyst is necessary without showing the form > of the catalyst is useless. Also, complaining about lack of knowledge > about the process without showing what needs to be studied is also > useless. I'm attempting to show exactly what needs to be studied and what > will be found when that study is undertaken. I see no one else doing this. > Instead, we are provided with guesses and speculation based on what Rossi > might wish to reveal. * > > *ANSWER* > *As far I know/understand, the nanocracks are not a specific, quantifiable > feature of the metal (Pd, Ni) surface- **with concrete it would be > different. * > > *Ed: Peter, I'm amazed you would say this. The nano-crack is the initial > formation of a gap that, if allowed to grow larger, would be and is easily > seen. This is a well known and easily observed process. I'm not > suggesting a new condition. I'm only suggesting a new consequence of a > well-known condition. * > > > *It is difficult to explain- based on the density of nanocracks per > surface a thousand times increase of the heat release from PdD to NiH at > 1200 C- the best for you is to deny it temporarily- an 1000 times increase > of nanocracks density is not possible. We like it or not, cracking is a > destructive process. My alternative is the dynamic formation of the NAE > surfce nanostructures* > *due to the increased mobility and re-arrangements of surface atoms of the > metals, obviously increasing with temperature.* > > *Ed: What kind of nano-structures are able to initiate a nuclear reaction? > You need to be specific. What exactly needs to be created on the surface > to cause LENR and how can this be done? I have answered this question using > my theory. Can you give an answer using your understanding? Making general > comments is not useful at this stage. We need exact descriptions and > predictions.* > > *- Axil and others suggest treatments that would apply stress even though > he does not explain the process this way. However, no one has the money or > interest in setting up a complicated method without assurance that it has a > relationship to creating the required conditions. * > > *ANSWER * > *AXIL will explain this again, in more detail- please appreciate that AXIL > tries to develop a holistic understanding of the field that is indeed very > rich and varied.* > > *Ed: Yes, but Axil's approach is too rich and varied. It is like throwing > a collection of colored paint against the wall and hoping to form a picture > of something recognizable. I call this an abstract art form, not science. > We need to have exact descriptions that can be easily tested and related to > what is presently known.* > > *The essence of the problem is the lack of agreement about a NAE being > required. Without this agreement, no one even looks for the NAE or attempts > to identify it. I suggest a very plausible NAE, but this idea is ignored > because the basic need for a NAE of any form is not accepted. * > > *Dear Ed, have you seen this jCF-16- how does it consider NAE:* > *What is the "nuclear active environment" of the cold fusion Tetsuo Sawada* > *LENR poly-semantics.* > > *ANSWER* > > *As regarding me, I have pre-agreed with NAE much before even the > word/acronym was created by you just I called it "active sites" because > they are fisrt topological and and only then environmental. I don't think > they are nano-cracks in the surface but nanostructures on the surface. Is > this an essential difference? ok- void space vs structured nano-matter, in > the surface vs. the surface , static-preformed vs. dynamic, permanent vs. > transient, possibly usual nuclear two particles reaction vs. collective > transformation, fusion vs more complex nuclear interactions etc.* > > *Ed: You and other people do not understand what I mean when I use the > term NAE. It is not simply a site where LENR happens to take place, as you > define it. It is a special local condition that is created by a chemical > process BEFORE LENR can take place. Its eventual use as a site for a > nuclear reaction is not anticipated by Nature when the NAE is formed. The > nuclear reaction is an unusual and unexpected consequence. For reasons > having nothing to do with the eventual nuclear process, this condition > forms and allows something extraordinary to happen. This way of looking at > the problem forces an entirely different set of rules on how the process > works. You are free to reject my idea, but please understand what I > propose before you reject it. You and I are describing an entirely > different condition when we use the term NAE. I do not believe your > definition applies because I do not believe a process that can cause fusion > can take place in or on a normal material. A very unique and rare change > must take place. We need to identify this change in an exact way while > remaining consistent with known behavior.* > > *Further- is NAE a chemical structure and are you right as you say:* > *The chemical structure of a material has to be modified in a unusual way > before LENR can be initiated. * > *Or is it about dimensions first i.e. is it a nano-effect primarily.* > > *Ed: OK, that comment is the start of an agreement. As for your question, > I have no idea what you are asking. We know that no matter what happens, it > must take place at a nano scale. We have a very limited number of possible > changes that can take place in a material at this size level. Exactly what > kind of change do you propose?* > > * I forgot to ask- what arguments do you have for the existence of > hydrotons Are they active somewhere?* > > *Ed: In order to fuse, the hydrogen MUST occupy the same place at the same > time. For the sale of discussion, I use the word Hydroton to identify this > assembly of hydrogen. I propose how it forms so as to be consistent with > the rules of thermodynamics. I speculate that metallic hydrogen would have > the same ability to support a fusion reaction, hence could be called a > Hydroton. * > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > >
