More: Ed:
No theory has shown how a cluster of hydrons can form except by proposed formation of a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). Hydrogen can form nanoparticles call Rydberg matter through condensation of a cooling hydrogen plasma. This is how hydrogen usually arrogates in cluster based fusion. It forms a lattice and becomes a solid. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.1570.pdf see chapter 2 on page 5 On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ed: > LENR is not a chemical process. > > What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: > > Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment > > A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in > such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to > identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical > structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: > > 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship > between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous > change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss > of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law > of Thermodynamics. > > 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous > increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy > are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to > even affect the chemical structure. > > 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a > collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without > affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will > cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, > application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all > parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a > concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as > to reduce the gradient. > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> >> On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is >> predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical >> process. >> >> Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually >> read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear >> reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not >> know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a >> gap in a material. >> >> LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. >> >> LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is >> observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. >> >> Cracks are a topological mechanism. >> >> Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they >> how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of >> debate. >> >> To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, >> will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation >> and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the >> materials used don't matter if they support the "crack topology". For >> example, water will do just as well as nickel. >> >> I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. >> >> Under "there must be only one LENR cause" constraint, Ed Storms theory is >> inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in >> exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is >> lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are >> topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard >> to chemistry. >> >> My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me >> apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the >> theory is inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the >> process of development. You are invited to help this process. >> >> Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and >> topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or >> iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without >> the constants of chemistry. >> >> >> Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the >> same way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with >> respect to LENR. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> Some background >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: >>> >>> Ed-- >>> >>> You said-- >>> >>> >Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. >>> >>> I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, >>> obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all >>> like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any >>> given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) >>> appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. >>> >>> >>> While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These >>> comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear >>> reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This >>> barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying >>> high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple >>> hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. >>> >>> We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by >>> an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an >>> explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown >>> energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction >>> would take place. This simply does not happen. >>> >>> Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a >>> limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this >>> process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical >>> lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a >>> process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. >>> I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about >>> the lattice. >>> >>> >>> I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the >>> interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow >>> engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total >>> potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The >>> changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. >>> >>> >>> Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However >>> the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is >>> being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not >>> spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. >>> Pretending otherwise is not useful. >>> >>> >>> >>> From what you say-- >>> >>> >"the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure." >>> >>> I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic >>> natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. >>> >>> >>> Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry >>> tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT >>> happen. >>> >>> Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a >>> lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in >>> a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic >>> level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? >>> >>> >>> For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes >>> part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, >>> the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the >>> various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy >>> and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, >>> spin etc. >>> >>> >>> That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear >>> process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then >>> dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description >>> does not show how this can be done. >>> >>> >>> Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book >>> regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. >>> >>> >>> >>> I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual >>> differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating >>> physicists. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> ----- 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 2:17 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, >>> >>> Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside >>> of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can >>> be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit >>> QM to the lattice is a waste of time. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
