Crater formation is an instance of reaction meltdown. In a bulk material, random processes will produce some cases of crack formation in terms of size and shape that will be subject to a runaway reaction.
Once the reaction gets underway, the speed of the reaction gets to the point where it occurs in an extremely short timeframe, an explosion. The almost instantaneous release of heat takes a finite time to spread out from its site of creation. After this reaction pulse of heat, the explosion will destroy the crack system that created the reaction in the first place. As we all now realize, control of the reaction is top priority. To insure control of the reaction, random processes must be eliminated to keep the flow of power constant and within limits. This is done by controlling the many layers of resonances and positive feedback loops that give the reaction it’s amazing power. Success in engineering LENR involves identifying these resonant processes and properly controlling them. This interesting engineering exericse will be the subject of my next post. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2013, at 6:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > OK, I think I understand what you are describing after your detailed > explanation. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears as though you are > assuming that a random collection of individual events is leading to the > crater formation and hot spots. This is a possible cause and might indeed > be the final explanation. I see that you are still considering that the > energy from each reaction is in the form of photons mainly which can > penetrate fairly deeply into the metal. The heat is released when the > photons are absorbed at some remote location. > > > Correct > > > That is what I remember you stating a few days ago. I countered with a > slightly different concept as I was discussing blue sky thinking. I > envision that the heat does not appear far removed from the reaction and > therefore results in a large elevation to the temperature in the very > nearby NAE. On many occasions a random fusion occurs at one of your sites > that does not cause adjacent sites to significantly accelerate their > activity. The probability of interaction instead is directly related to > the density of NAE within the region according to my hypothesis. I see now > how this differs from your process since it appears that each of your > reactions proceeds slowly and there would not be a large concentration of > heat energy to diffuse. > > > I think we have a combination of what you describe and my description. > The photons are absorbed as they move from the source. The greatest heat is > produced near the source with the energy release dropping off with > distance. Consequently, some local heating will occur where the photon > flux is greatest. > > > Do you think that the heating due to random addition of the events would > be sufficient to cause the cratering and hot spots? I am not sure about > how many of these random happenings would have to be coincident for the > release of sufficient heat energy to form one of those craters. > > > The melted spots are rare. Most apparent craters are not from this cause, > as I said. Most result from deposited impurities. > > The appearance reminds me more of an explosion of some sort instead of a > simple melting of the material. > > > Please read: > > > Nagel, D., Characteristics and Energetics of Craters in LENR Experimental > Materials J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 10. 1-14 (2013) > > These craters you describe are from deposition of impurity. > > I suspect that a cone type shape does not originate from random melting > of a bulk of material although I may be wrong. And the dept of the initial > cone tip seems out of range for liquid metal to originate. These are the > problems that I encounter when attempting to explain the size and shape of > the end products. > > > You need to consider that several sources of apparent craters are > possible. > > > If you think of the reaction as being a form of chain reaction then the > shapes make more sense. There will generally be a single random triggered > fusion reaction within the metal. These must be occurring for the device > to initially generate excess heat. If, as I suspect, the adjacent NEA > sites become triggered themselves then more heat is added to the mix. An > interesting observation comes to light. Since the resulting structure has > a cone shape, the suggestion becomes that the energy is released in that > shape from each reaction. This cone of energy spreads outward from > initiation and encounters additional NAE in its path. Many of these become > triggered in some manner and the energy from them adds to the resulting > cone shaped energy wave. We would need to understand what process could > lead to a cone shaped energy release if my hypothesis has any likelihood of > success. > > > David, you are over thinking this process and ignoring much of what has to > happen for any melting to occur. Consider that a large number of cracks > form in one place. The fusion is then controlled by how fast the D can get > to this region, which is determined by temperature and concentration of D > in the surrounding PdD. The cracks start to produce energy slowly and the > local area heats up, as seen by the flashes measured by Szpak et. al. The > local area gets hotter, the D diffuses more rapidly, and the flash rate > increases while becoming more intense each time. Finally, the flash > creates a local temperature that exceeds the melting point of the alloy on > the surface, which has a value significantly below that of Pd. This melting > causes a sudden release of gas that blows the liquid away. Yes, the sites > interact, but through local temperature and diffusion. Because this local > region can be less than a square micron in size, the description has to > take the conditions present on this scale into account. On this scale, the > surface is very complex. > > > I need to consider how shaped charges behave to clarify my understanding > of how my assumed process proceeds. Someone in vortex my already have that > knowledge and their input would be welcome. Should I also look into the > path that a high speed projectile takes when it penetrates a solid > material? The shockwave emanating from one of these tends to take the form > of the craters. > > Well Ed, I see that your current theory and my hypothesis do not quite > merge together as a whole. If there is a way to speed up your reactions > and get them to cooperate with their neighbors then that might become > possible. > > > I see no basic difference. We are only nitpicking about details. > > Ed > > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 6:40 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV > > > 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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 > > > > >
