If this huge energy is available, why does it only affect a nuclear process taking place in a chemical environment. Why does the energy not affect chemical reactions that can also occur in the material and require far less energy to initiate? I suggest you answer these questions clearly before proposing mechanisms that have no apparent support from observation.
Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is > derived from a quantum mechanical "squeezing" of EMF (photons and electrons) > through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle > > This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical > structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused > on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is > proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these > requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. > Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not > pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without > considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes > limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, > and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve > the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that > takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in > a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. > > Ed Storms > > > On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil 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 >>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>> Cc: Edmund Storms >>>> 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 >>>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>>> Cc: Edmund Storms >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
