Well Dave, your description might affect local regions. If the
concentration of NAE is too high, a runaway effect might occur locally
and cause local melting, which would kill the effect at that location.
Nevertheless, the heat is not created only at the site of the
reaction. The reaction produces photons that have a range in matter
before they lose their energy as heat. The net result is complicated
because the energy from one NAE site is absorbed throughout the
material thanks to the photon flux. We only have the ability to
measure the average temperature and the average power, although local
heating can be detected as brief bursts of increased temperature and
local melting.
Ed
On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat
involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant
at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major
factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will
cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though
the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite
time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic
movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby.
This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished
from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much
like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I
would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a
large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout
the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is
what I am expecting to cause the difference.
The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively
enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more
than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all
of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates
relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you
dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way
the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of
generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of
NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea
some attention.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to
determine the magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he
saw individual flashes, but how powerful was each one? Is it
possible to prove that each flash was at a level consistent with
the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of
technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they
have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected
during the event.
Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior.
Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are
contributing to an average that is measured as heat.
You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have
been involved in what we call "Blue Sky Thinking" where people
freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know
that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas
are not immediately negatively criticized by the other
participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected
directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex
is intended to offer?
Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to
reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal
is to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at
random is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can
make some interesting moves, but you will not win the game.
It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited
by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a
working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail
without exception, there is room for wild speculation.
This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor
about how the gall bladder functions or to Boeing Inc. how the
airplane actually works? Perhaps these are extreme examples, but my
suggestion is to learn something first.
One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of
evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly.
Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in
contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time?
I have identified certain aspects a successful theory must have. I
have not provided all the details yet. The only way a theory can be
judged is by how effectively it explains what is observed. My
theory is more effective in doing this than any other. This only
means that it is on the right tract. I'm only show where the gold
is buried, not how to dig or why it is present at that location.
That information comes later.
If so, I understand why you want to ensure that noise coming from
other directions does not misdirect the understanding of how LENR
behaves.
I object to the "noise" as you say only because it is a distraction
from hearing what is being sought, rather like listening to music
while a friend constantly talks.
My question above is important to answer and if you are absolutely
confident that each fusion reaction is of only a single pair of D's
that is randomly occurring and disconnected please let me know.
That tiny bit of knowledge is vital to my understanding.
Have you read my papers? I explain exactly what I think is occurring.
Evidence exists that there is connection between individual events
which just popped into my mind. You have stated that the effect is
temperature dependent as we believe which implies that each energy
release adds heat to the system leading to more of the same.
No, temperature dependence only means that one controlling part of
the process is endothermic, i.e. it requires energy to occur. This
requirement results from basic laws of thermodynamics.
This is correlated in time. Now, how fast does the energy
released by each reaction dissipate among the NAE? There most
likely exists a relaxation time during which the energy becomes
spread throughout the material. Would it not seem likely that the
nearby NAE would be effected much more strongly than those far
removed? The density of NAE that are present within a region of
the metal could be a major indication of the magnitude of energy
released due to this interaction.
You are describing thermal behavior, which is a well known and
understood process that has no relationship to the source of heat.
My theory does not care what happens to the heat once the photons
are formed because the heat energy results from the photons being
absorbed by the surrounding material by well know processes. CF
follows normal rules up to a critical stage and again follows normal
rules after this stage. The question is, What happens during this
unknown stage in the process? This is where I suggest you apply your
ideas.
Ed
You might want to consider how this effect could fit into your
theory.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You pose an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads
to an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its
interaction with the metal. Who knows?
If enough helium forms, this will certainly be true. However, this
requires the effect run for a long time without this aid.
I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain
reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures
appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations.
Two kinds of surface effects occur. Some are caused by material
depositing from an impure electrolyte at the site of H2 loss from a
crack. Others are caused by local melting produced by a very high
concentration of NAE. These two types are easy to separate.
Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each
LENR event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in
scale to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence
in support to this hypothesis?
The local areas flash off and on in apparently random ways, as been
seen and measured by Szpak et al.
I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required
before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug
in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that
then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt
that a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear
fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically
reject such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high
energy radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray
represents a very high level of high energy radiation by itself.
Before you speculate too much, Dave, you really need to understand
all that has been discovered and observed. I spent 23 years doing
this, so my model is not based on casual ideas.
Ed
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Breed <p...@rasdoc.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
>The fusion process has a beginning and an ending. It is not
continuous. Once the He forms, the reaction must stop until the He
leaves the site and more D takes its place.
Has anyone melted a working cathode to see if it contains any
trapped He?
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its
a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He
a way to escape to the surface?
