Ed--
If you were light enough with feathers you probably could.
It seems like the issue comes down to the question of whether QM theories
reflect reality?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy
cannot spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for
energy to be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost elsewhere
and moved to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random processes at
a low level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is much too small
to cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique conditions) much
less a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry supports this statement.
This fact can be easily applied. The other laws can be applied in a similar
way, but I will leave that exercize for the book.
For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an
electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without violating
the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually happen in
nature. Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any additional
argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM arguments are going
to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement would be like accepting my
claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms. Of course, if you were intent on
believing Superman is real, you might consider the idea. :-)
Ed
On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
Ed--
I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met. It is not
easy to calculate entropy and show how it increases. It would appear that the
microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a lower
energy, However the rest of the system may have gained microstates associated
with the calculation on entropy, S. I suspect this calculation will be hard
in any LENR reaction.
Bob Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Cook
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Ed--
I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier
you refer to:
See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its
instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system.
arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006
>>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the
order of
2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms
van-
ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The
probability
that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically
for-
bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly
multiplied by
the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is
proportional to
the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar
contributions,
multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region
comprising
many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude
and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an
exper-
imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<<
He goes on to say:
>>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites,
the state of N
coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric.
Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared
equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably
forbid the
emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain
and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused
deuterons to
helium-4.
References
[1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens.
Matt.).
[2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996).
[3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens.
Matt. 5
7761–7770 (1993).<<
Bob Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by
a real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion
in this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not
like what physics has accepted. Rather than suggesting any idea that comes to
mind, the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is actually
observed. What is observed creates limits and boundaries on what mechanisms
are possible. Eventually, all mechanisms but one will be eliminated and at that
point LENR will be understood. The process of finding this single mechanism
can be speeded up by eliminating a lot of proposed mechanisms right from the
start. For example, any proposed mechanism that conflicts with the laws of
thermodynamics can be rejected without further consideration. Of course, this
requires these laws be understood and accepted, but that is a different issue.
This is like looking for gold. Simply wondering the landscape and
pointing at every mountain as a possible location of the gold vein is not
useful. The landscape needs to be studied, the geological events need to be
identified, and location of found nuggets needs to be considered. Only then can
the buried gold be found by eliminating all the regions where it cannot be
located. I'm attempting to do this but I find very little interest in this
approach.
Ed Storms
On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
Ed--
Regarding your comment copied from below--"No amount of discussion
about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it
can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the
first place. " --I agree. However, you seem to always take on a discussion to
find the cause of the reaction considering basic physical parameters that you
seem to recognize as real.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active and
very strong reaction is to provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes.
This requirement comes from nanoplasmonic doctrine.
A single sized particle does not work.
For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that
does work, the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying
diameters.
The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in
feeding power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles.
This is how Rossi’s secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles
provide and intermediate sized particle population to the particle ensembles.
Hydrogen provides the smallest particle population.
When there are particles of varying size clump together, and alight
on the nickel nanowires, strong dipole motion in the micro particles drive the
reactions in the spaces between the hydrogen nanoparticles.
The bigger particles act like step-up windings in a high voltage
transformer as power is feed to the smallest particles.
If a single diameter sized nanoparticle is used, the reaction will
not work. If only nanoparticles are use in the reaction, the reaction will not
be strong.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were
nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the
conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton.
As is typical, the situation in the chemical structure is more
complex than expected. No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden
electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs
to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place.
Ed Storms
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
Wouldn't that lend itself to corroborating Ed Storms's theories
about cracks & the NAE?
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Frank roarty <fr...@roarty.biz>
wrote:
Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic
action only
occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes
