Ed, Could you find another name for "hydroton" that can be used with google?
That keyword is utterly swamped even if qualified by "fusion". -- Jim On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > Stress generated cracks are important for the following reason. A NAE can > not exist in a normal chemical environment. Consequently a change must take > place. Any change requires energy because the chemical environment is at > its lowest energy. Stress supplies this energy. When a crack forms, it > contains the energy required to promote the electron associated with the > hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy level, which is required to form the > Hydroton. Simply having several particles come together as Axil proposes > would not work because this process lower the energy, thereby making it > unavailable to form the Hydroton. > > My model uses only conventional chemical processes to create the structure > that eventually initiates mass-energy release. Up to the formation of the > Hydroton, the rules of chemistry are followed exactly. Once the Hydroton > forms, the process gets more complicated. However, this later process does > not need to be understood to start the process. To start CF, you only need > to create the conditions required to form the Hydroton. I propose how > these conditions can be created. Most of this process was described months > ago in my first paper describing my proposed process. > > Ed Storms > > > > > On May 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > > 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:[email protected]<[email protected]> > ] > *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[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**** > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > > >
