On May 1, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Hi Ed,
In fact, I suggested an explanation that met all of these
requirements, but this was either rejected or ignored. Consequently,
I have very little hope for any theory being accepted any time soon.
I have read your recent JCMNS articles. My difficulty with your
explanation is almost identical to my difficulty with fractional
hydrogen -- my intuition and my basic knowledge of chemistry and
nuclear physics, picked up from reading Science News and Scientific
American, suggest to me that it is unlikely that you can have a
hydroton in which, after successive vibrations of the chain, the
hydrogen nuclei gradually combine with the electrons sandwiched
between them and give off small bursts of low-energy EMF. This
seems to fly in the face of Coulomb repulsion and the large amount
of motion that these particles generally undergo. Like Dave, I
would expect such a structure to be dishearteningly unstable and
fleeting if it ever formed at all.
Thanks for the comment, Eric. Before I answer, you need to know that
my description of the hydroton has changed and improved. I now propose
it is a chain formed from 2p bonds that allow a series of hydrons to
form a chain of atoms. This kind of bond is normally not stable. I
propose it becomes stable in the crack for reasons I will not describe
here. The bond provides an electron between the nuclei as a normal
consequence. This high probability of an electron between the hydrons
reduces the barrier and brings the nuclei closer together than is
normally achieved. This eliminates your first objection.
As for the vibration causing loss of mass energy, this is the great
mysterious process that is at the heart of cold fusion. The LENR
phenomenon reveals the existence of a process that can cause emission
of mass-energy before the final He nucleus is fully formed, because
otherwise hot fusion results. The only unknown is the exact nature of
this process. No matter what process is proposed, it must be
consistent with a structure that can form by chemical means. This
requirement severely limits the kind of structure that is possible.
Nevertheless, the demonstrated reality of CF requires such a structure
to form. What structure would you suggest?
By the way, nuclei do not snap together because the strong force is
obviously not operating as expected. Perhaps, the theory of the strong
force acting outside of the nucleus needs to be modified.
The basic problem is that LENR is impossible if all objections are
correct. But LENR is possible, therefore some objections are not
correct. Now you need to decide which objection you are willing to
modify. My approach is to find a logically consistent process that
can be applied to all observations without violating any BASIC law and
without making arbitrary assumptions. Of course, gaps exist within
this logical structure, which I identify. Nevertheless the structure
allows the process to be partially understood and hopefully made
reproducible. Full understanding will only happen after an army of
graduate students have finished their work.
You must decide what value my opinion and those of others here has
for you -- this is Vortex, "a big nasty nest of 'true believers' ".
My sense that you've adopted an unpromising approach to dividing up
the 24 MeV quantum (in the case of the Pd/D system), but this sense
on my part (not really even an opinion) may have no value for you.
That is fine with me, since I am well aware of the limitations of my
understanding of these systems and am not offended by the thought
that we could all be bat-crazy here.
When you say "unpromising", what does this mean? I have proposed a
physical condition in which the nuclear reaction must occur, I have
proposed a nuclear process that predicts the observed products and the
variables that affect these reactions, and I have proposed the form of
the emitted energy. What is unpromising about that? Yes, you might
find gaps in the details of how the energy is lost, but that is only
part of the model. Are you proposing that the entire model is wrong
because you find one detail hard to accept? Perhaps you can suggest a
better process for gradual release of energy while remaining
consistent with all the other requirements.
OK, if the purpose is to shoot the bull and just enjoy sharing
opinions, then the goal is not a search for reality. Then no one
should expect anything of lasting value to result from the
discussion, other than the fun. People are just talking for the fun
of talking. This is ok and worthwhile, but the process should not be
confused with trying to gain knowledge.
I think you're failing to distinguish between the various sub-
threads. Some of the ideas mentioned here are off the wall. I
suspect that some of them are intentionally so. People are polite,
though, and rather than criticizing ideas, they just pay attention
to the ones that are interesting. So it might seem like we're all a
little credulous (and perhaps we are). This is Vortex-L and not
CMNS. It is less like a presentations at a scientific conference
and more like conversation at cafe during the evenings of the
conference.
Fair enough. Since this is the case, I may not spend much time in
this Cafe because I want to learn and teach rather than simply engage
in a conversation. In the past I enjoyed listening to the ideas and
reading some of the interesting links without comment. I will go back
to this mode if necessary. You see Eric, I have limited amount of time
and a limited skill at typing. As a result, I tend to be brief and
blunt in my replies because this takes less time and effort. I'm not
intending to put down or be insensitive to feelings. Nevertheless,
like Jones, I do not tolerate fools. If a person wants to learn, I'm
happy to teach, but this requires the person to do some homework.
This does not seem to be the approach taken when CF is discussed.
People seem to think any idea is equally valid, that one person's
opinion is as good as any other. Since no theory has been accepted,
any idea is equal to any other idea.
Here, again, I think you're failing to read into the nuances of the
various threads. Different people have different opinions, but
everyone is polite (these days). I also think you could help us out
a lot by engaging our ideas -- but that requires patience and more
than just saying something to the effect that we're imagining things.
I made a general statement here, which was not directed to an
individual. Nevertheless, some members of the group seem to think that
their ideas are correct and no amount of discussion seems adequate to
change their minds. This is not true of everyone. Some people are fun
to engage, which I have done in private on several occasions.
You have to engage specific details, and you have to find the time
to follow them up with even more specific details as you're
challenged on the things you're challenging people on. Often people
learn by this kind of back and forth. If you find the people here
unpromising material, that's another thing -- we only know what we
know.
Good advice. I provide much of this information in my book and in the
papers I write. So, the back a forth you advise must start with
reading these sources before staring a discussion. I see you have done
this and your questions are good and, as a result, are worth
answering, if you will excuse my arrogance.
Ed Storms
Eric
