Ed--

It is my understanding the PEP applies to any QM system.  Certainly to atoms 
but also to crystals like Pd crystals and the semi conductors in transistors 
and any number of different electronic devices that use voltage control in 
switching.  

Bob

Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:44:43 -0700
CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Axil, I see our basic problem. We have an entirely different understanding of 
what the words used in this discussion mean and how the concepts are applied. 
For example, the Pauli Exclusion principle applies to electrons in energy 
states within atoms. The walls of cracks contain electrons that are not 
assigned to an atom. Therefore, the PEP does not apply.  I do not explain 
because the concept is irrelevant in my model.  Fractofusion demonstrates that 
high voltages, i.e. large electric fields can exist in a crack for a brief 
time. I'm simply using this observed behavior to initiate formation of the 
required structure in the crack. 
The Hydroton is a molecule consisting of hydrogen atoms held together by 
electrons to which the PEP applies. Once this structure forms, which is an 
exothermic reaction, the structure is able to initiate a nuclear reaction. This 
process has no relationship to the PEP.
Rather than trying to find flaws, you might first want to correctly and fully 
understand what I propose.
Ed Storms 

On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: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

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.


 




 

 


 


 

 



 

 

 





 







                                          

Reply via email to