On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:06 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, I have been looking at the craters that have formed upon the
surface of some of the earlier active experiments. Also, Axil
supplied a fine link that demonstrated hot spots being formed upon
the surface of another system. I can run down the picture reference
if you wish, but I suspect that you are aware of these from previous
studies. Let me know.
I have seem all of this information.
The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable
of doing this degree of damage and creating the relatively large
heating associated with hot spots.
Dave, I see no question here. A single event CAN NOT do any damage.
This is easy to show. The melting occurs only when the random
collection of active sites exceeds a critical concentration in a local
region, as I explain in detail below.
It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR
systems in a positive manner. Elevated metal temperature is
required to obtain any significant LENR and it is apparent that the
higher the temperature of a device such as the ECAT, the more heat
is produced.
Yes
My hypothesis can be proven wrong if it can be shown that there is
no change in the quantity of energy released per larger event
regardless of the density of NAE that are active in the material.
So, if all of the craters can be formed by one or at most a couple
of simultaneous fusion reactions, or the amount of heat appearing at
the hot spots is only due to one, then each is unrelated. Here I
refer to a fusion reaction as being due to the formation of one ash
product instead of a chain of events due to the heating.
Does this suggest that you now accept the coupling hypothesis? I
recall that earlier you stated that each fusion event proceeded to
completion and was not related to the others.
I need to be more clear here. Millions of suitable cracks are present
in an active material. Each one of these cracks supports a series of
fusion reactions. The process starts by D accumulating and forming the
required structure in the crack. The structure resonates until all
energy is lost and the He forms. The He diffuses away and is replaced
by D, and the process repeats. The total cycle time might be a few
seconds for each active site. The sites are cycling in random sequence
and the total power is the average of them all. No single site can
produce enough energy to make any local change or even to be
detected. However, if by random chance a large number of sites are
close together, this can release enough power to cause melting when
all the cycles in this area scrutinize to a sufficient amount. If this
happens, all active sites in this region are destroyed and further
energy production at this local region stops.
When I first mentioned this idea you did not express a positive
opinion of its merits. It is good that we can now agree that this
might be happening and should be an addition to the original theory.
My opinion was that I could see no benefit to using this process to
explain anything - other than the explanation I had already imagined
as I describe above.
One thing that needs to be clarified is that I am not speaking of
the average temperature of the metal matrix in this description.
That might be what you refer to as local. I am addressing the
instantaneous large spike that occurs and which diffuses into the
average background temperature with time. There is a large
difference between the two.
You need to realize that the energy is not felt by the system as heat
until the photons are absorbed. Most of these photons leave the sample
and make heat in the electrolyte or in the wall of the container. Very
little is absorbed locally at the active crack. As I said, the
process of heat formation is complex. The individual active sites
only experience the ambient temperature. Local temperature at each
site will be slightly greater than the average, but not excessive
unless the concentration of sites at that local area is very high.
Is this clearer.
Ed
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: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing
coupling between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected
based on local temperature and a photon flux. What more do you
propose?
Ed
On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Robin,
The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in
the MeV, not eV. That is why I believe that there is a mutual
interaction between individual NAE. The local heat energy release
is large and can not escape the area except through diffusion which
is a slow process compared to the reaction time associated with
nuclear effects.
This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many
degrees Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if
we assume a positive temperature coefficient for LENR.
Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will
continue until completion. My suggested addition is a system
level coupling that will now explain other observations. When an
addition improves a theory, it should be incorporated into an
improved one. Now we can consider the behavior of a device
exhibiting LENR as being composed of two different type of
responses. The first is the original one where NAE generate
copious amounts of energy as the elements within fuse. The
addition explains craters and hot spots which are hypothesized to
be associated with the density of the NAE sites.
So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist
between NAE and a couple of good examples that suggest that this is
happening. We should seek out unusual behavior that does not meet
expected performance and attempt to explain the discrepancy. Do
you know of any evidence that coupling between active regions does
not exist?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>You ask several questions at the same time. The LENR process
requires
>energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the
overall
>process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In
other
>words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
>initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and
>releases its energy. Consequently, the initiation reaction will
>become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form. This
>energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF
or
>any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction. The
>important information comes from identifying the rate limiting
step so
>that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This
requires a
>theory.
At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount
of heat
energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best
matches this
is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed
to match the
difference in energy between the "energy hole" of Hydrinos, and the
"energy
hole" provided by many common catalysts.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
