Hi Alain, Most of the present theories are focused on the lattice structure. A few people have suggested cracks as the location, but these ideas were not developed to show how this process might function or the resulting nuclear products. I attempted to put all the pieces together. A correct theory has to have all parts work together in a consistent and plausible way, which severely limits the possible combinations of ideas. As an engineer, I'm sure you can appreciate this requirement. In contrast, most theories are created by throwing together a collection of parts that look good but have no function in the machine.
I have found the problem to be very difficult for some people to understand. I find that writing a book without the limitations imposted in papers is the only way my insights can be explained and hopefully understood. As a consequence, I'm focusing on this project rather than providing detail and repetition here. The NAE is a gap of a critical size. I make this statement without qualification. This has no relationship to any other concept. This is a crack, which is a well known and well understood flaw in materials. I suggest this flaw supports a nuclear process by the mechanism I have suggested. This proposal is clear and unambiguous. It is also totally consistent with what has been observed. I reject all other theories because they do not produce explanations that are consistent with what is observed. The other theoreticians pick and choose what is consistent and ignore the rest. I find this approach to be unsatisfying. However, it takes a book to show the conflicts. Right now, you have to take my word that such conflicts actually exist. Thanks for the comments. I hope I answered your question. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > Dear Mr Storms > > I follow from far your discussion, and as a conservative engineer, with > modest vision of QM (I see it more like a radio-guy, with quantum fields like > EM-waves interacting, inside a lattice of antennas and wave guides, with some > components) your approach match my way of mind. > > do you have a paper about your vision of what is the constraints on theories, > from LENR experiments and old-fashioned validated QM? Your CF review in NWS > (2010) does not cover much on theory (good idea I agree). > > it seems your vision of topological defects looks like the quantum dots in > some semiconductors lasers, or the defects in gems which give color... what > you say is that few thing can happen inside the complex chemistry solution, > nor in the bulk... it have to be done inside a specific local "component", > stable and clean unlike solution or surface, localized unlike bulk... the NAE > concept? > > do you see theories which agree with your vision. > clearly not widom-larsen... > does Takahashi-way seems possible for you? Kim-Zubarev? corrected to respect > your p-e-p conclusion ? > > thanks in advance, and sorry for my naivety in QM. > > > > 2014-02-28 16:27 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>: > Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these > concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is > useless. > > I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a > philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person > how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would > happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained > might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. > > Ed Storms > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > >> Ed-- >> >> I agree with Axil. I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. >> They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP. >> >> Bob >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Axil Axil >> To: vortex-l >> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, >> >> Ed: >> Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. >> >> Axil: >> No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and >> the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the >> electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from. >> >> >> >> > >
