Ed, A long time ago, in Solid State Physics, I read about various types of Dislocations in crystals (grains). Are they the NAEs? They move with applied/internal stress/pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dislocation
Regards, Sunil CC: [email protected] From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: about the Nuclear Active Environment Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:04:06 -0600 On Aug 19, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:Dear Ed, Thank you for criticizing my paper as I have asked the readers.I am reading everything you are publishing; then perhaps theproblem is my limited or absent understanding. I hope you are perfectly understanding what you write and willbe able to show at the target where and what I am telling that isnot correct, scientific, is misleading.I have written first about CF happening in active sites starting in 1991. Anyway please make your critic constructive by telling us if theNAE are cracks or not, if not, then what is their structure and function. Dear Peter, The NAE in my theory are cracks of a especially small gap size that are generated by stress relief in the material. They permit formation of a structure that is able to lower the Coulomb barrier and dissipate the energy by emission of low energy photons from the nucleus. The theory shows how helium, tritium and deuterium are made by the fusion process, what conditions are required for the process to work, and identifies engineering variables that are needed to control the process. Many details are descried in the papers I have already sent to CMNS and more will be provided in my ICCF-18 paper. I suggest you study these papers before jumping to any conclusions. In addition, If you need more clarification, please ask. Ed Thank you in advance in the name of my readers, Peter On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: Peter, why do you write about subjects that you know nothing about? You obviously have not read or understood what I propose. You have not asked questions or discussed this with me. You make statements that have no relationship to what I have proposed or even to general knowledge about the subject. Please, if you want to be a spokesman for the field, at least learn something about the subject you are discussing. Indeed, I find your approach to be very common in this field. People reach conclusions about cold fusion without any knowledge of what is known about the subject or even what is accepted in conventional science. I can understand why conventional scientists think the people who believe CF is real are deluded. If I had not studied what is known and seen the effect myself, I would be one of them. Several people have remarked to me just how low the standards are in this field. We need to do better. Ed On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Friends, Please read, criticize, and improve the ideas published here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/some-reasons-why-lenr-nae-cannot-be.html Believe me, I am sincere and serious here, and it is not a case ofcrackophobia. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CMNS" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
