I posted this video not long ago. The cracks are self assembling. watch the video on how the nano-gaps form.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Roarty, Francis X <[email protected] > wrote: > Axil,**** > > Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your > plasmonics posit? I always liked wet cells from a neo Julian Schwinger > concept of sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression > plates of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were > exposed to a dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive > energies we see as the dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem > to be suggesting that the plasma and solid geometries can be forming > similar structures, A metal rain would form dynamic cavities just like > bubbles in sono fusion without the self quenching heat sinking effect of a > totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma caught in these cracks during > such a “rain storm” being effected equivalent to backfilling a cavity but, > what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a catalyst to just keep > creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to something and would love > to see you put the pieces together.**** > > Fran**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love**** > > ** ** > > The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable > cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in > the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in > the same way that rain renews water in a puddle.**** > > I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H > reactors. **** > > A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that > falls on the surface of micro particles. **** > > Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these > metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the > lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical > processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal > nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and > reliably and are self-renewing.**** > > This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion > of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment.**** > > **** > > > **** > > ** ** > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on > purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. > Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though > once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies > to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known > laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same > requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in > the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining > the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry > were used to create the materials in most cases. The only question of > importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF? Unless you can > answer this question, you do not know what you need to make. So, please > focus on this question.**** > > ** ** > > Ed Storms**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:**** > > > > **** > > Ed Storms stated:**** > > **** > > “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known > about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some > consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. > So, put your thinking cap back on.”**** > > **** > > In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are > game changing in how matter behaves.**** > > **** > > These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, > physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts > with common sense.**** > > **** > > The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material > itself and not absolute.**** > > **** > > You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern > age. **** > > > > > **** > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not > very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent > with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and > chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. > Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. > This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The > interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does > not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would > occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been > observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, > but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas > that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF > behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and > observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on. > **** > > ** ** > > Ed Storms**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:**** > > > > **** > > The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire". > Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.**** > > **** > > starting a fire with hand drill**** > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA**** > > **** > > Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs > > Harry**** > > **** > > ** ** > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite > a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown > to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the > arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible > to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, > Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be > true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the > observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which > possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such > details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are > given, a counter argument can always be provided. **** > > ** ** > > I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe > and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. **** > > ** ** > > Ed Storms **** > > On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:**** > > > > **** > > Ed Storms states:**** > > *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at > a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha > emission are not related.”***** > > This could be a false assumption as follows:**** > > When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to > the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to > penetrate the surface of the CR-39. **** > > In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very > low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.**** > > This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the > lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their > associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.**** > > > **** > > ** ** > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear > reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction > was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown > is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. **** > > ** ** > > We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a > comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha > emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the > source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? **** > > ** ** > > When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium > does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. > Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question > is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are > trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha > comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission > is clearly not related to CF. **** > > ** ** > > And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes > alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is > too improbable to be seriously considered. **** > > ** ** > > Ed Storms**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:**** > > > > **** > > Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > **** > > But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude > we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha > particle flux when there is excess heat.**** > > ** ** > > I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do > not know whether there was heat.**** > > ** ** > > - Jed**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
