The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not subject to the exclusion principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Axil-- > > Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP > considering they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts? > I am thinking of a plasma like group of electrons. > > Bob > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > From: janap...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > > Ed: > > "The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei > to get closer than would be normally possible". > > The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing > electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into > a crack is very energy intensive. > > The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from "crack > packing". Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion > principle can happen. > > This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as > bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > > Axil, again well said [snip] 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.[/snip] but this is beyond > what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation > of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is > really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum > effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always > argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas > atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on > interaction with photons and electrons.... The challenge is proving that > quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how > they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. > > Fran > > > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > > > > 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 <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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
