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