Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the "chemical environment" of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates "nano-cracks" or "nano-voids" as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest.
Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Ed-- > > You stated-- > >If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually > observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. > > What limitations do you have in mind? > > Bob Cook > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Cc:* Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > > Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can > say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not > acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various > esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the > requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and > observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is > actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, > throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As > a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is > known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. > > Ed Storms > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge "how much is > enough" or "how far do we need to zoom in". > > The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most > theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. > > To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly > complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true > essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive > at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like > by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a > darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says > the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant > is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a > tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand > fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the > one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. > > > The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of > you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the > different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the > features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must > put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. > Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why > there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to > just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. > > We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and > groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must > keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and > not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole. > > >
