On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip]
Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps on a particle surface are "stress" type and that the stress always trumps stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to close the gap, any "metal rain" or loose conductive material should want to backfill the cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter particle geometries formed in light of Axils proposed "metal rain" because this is equivalent to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to activate/elevate the Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of dynamic medium formed by plasma between the particles would be continually reforming new geometries. The concept would also lend some support to Rossi's seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes. Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional requiring no magic. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is required. Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error and now has a recipe that works most of the time. However, he shows no indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel. The role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap. Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the gap. If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is only required to make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved at this stage. If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they do not describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the critical conditions to be produced. We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical studies have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial efforts, I believe, are wasting their time and money. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote: 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 <stor...@ix.netcom.com<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> 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 <stor...@ix.netcom.com<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> 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 <stor...@ix.netcom.com<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> 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 <stor...@ix.netcom.com<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> 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 <eric.wal...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>> 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
