On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic
products and the final product is an intact helium nucleus.
Nevertheless, the nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course,
radiation is produced and some is detected outside of the apparatus.
However, the energy of the radiation is not consistent with a single
release of energy as is the case with hot fusion. In this way, the
two processes are entirely different. This difference MUST be taken
into account in any explanation.
Ed
***My balloon analogy accounts for the difference. The reason why
the energy is not consistent with hot-fusion emission is that most
of the energy gets absorbed into the lattice. There are some LENR
theories out there such as phonons greatly contributing to the
absorption, and lately Ron Maimon's theory of Auger deuterons may
even account for the absorption plus the transmutations in the
strange way they've been showing up.
http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/01/ron-maimons-theory.html
The Maimon theory ignores several facts. He proposes that the energy
applied to remove an electron from Pd can be used to lower the Coulomb
barrier. In fact, when PdD is bombarded by energetic electrons so that
the proposed electron is removed from the Pd, NO FUSION IS OBSERVED.
Hot fusion, not cold fusion, is only observed if the bombarding
deuteron has this energy, not the electrons in the lattice.
If you read my papers, you would already know exactly what I claim.
***It would save all of us a lot of time if you spent the one minute
necessary to read and process my analogy, rather than asking me to
spend 100 hours to understand your theory. It is doubtless I will
have trouble understanding your theory when I do embark on this
endeavor. Even then, those 100 hours spent would be no guarantee
that I would immediately comprehend your shorthand approach to
emails on vortex.
A short hand approach has to be used because neither one of us has the
time to explain everything in detail. That is why I write papers where
all the details can be explained for everyone to study. In addition,
my approach is based on the concepts and vocabulary taught in
chemistry and physics. If you do not have knowledge of these concepts,
most of what I say will make little sense. Since I have no knowledge
about your background, I have no idea how to explain some of these
ideas that would be consistent with your education. So, I can only
explain what I mean in general ways that may not answer all questions.
Your analogy is not consistent with how I and most people imagine
the process to occur. Yes, the energy is absorbed in the lattice
during cold fusion. The nature of this process has to be explained in
a way that is consistent with known chemical and physical laws. I find
it easier to explain what I propose is happening in contrast to
showing why another proposed process is wrong. Nevertheless, I list in
my paper a few general requirements that must be followed that you are
free to apply without my help.
Ed
