Ed--
You said:
>However, the resulting alpha would have too much energy for the secondary
>radiation to be missed.<
If the alphas are in high spin states upon the decomposition of Be-8, then
small amounts of energy associated with transition from one state to the next
lower state would never be seen. If many electrons are involved in the
reaction it seems likely only small energy packets would be released. The
secondary radiation may be missed.
Why do you imply the secondary radiation should necessarily be a high energy
photon(s)?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, I was not suggesting that this reaction is the main one, I was merely
pointing out that it is possible. Someone made a blanket statement that this
path was not possible and I wanted to clear the air.
Dave, none of us has the time to describe every aspect of the issue in each
e-mail. We all have to assume the reader has done some homework and knows that
the statement is not complete and that the writer also know this. In any case,
emission of a photon makes the process two body, not one body as I was
describing.
The conservation of energy and momentum does not prevent this from
happening as was stated. Had the original proposition been that it was not
likely or observed I would have remained silent.
The fact is that during cold fusion NO energetic gamma is emitted, which was
known in 1989. Therefore, this issue is not relevant. People propose the He4 is
emitted as an alpha, which means the helium has translational energy. This is
not possible when one particle is involved, which is what I said. Takahashi
proposes Be8 forms and decomposes into two alpha, which does conserve energy
and momentum and is not inconsistent with the basic requirements. However, the
resulting alpha would have too much energy for the secondary radiation to be
missed. Therefore, this proposed reaction does not occur. Each theory suggested
so far can be eliminated by identifying these conflicts with observation. If
the observations were not so many and so strong, a person might conclude that
LENR is impossible, which of course is the skeptical conclusion. Nevertheless,
the effect is real and therefore it must have an explanation. Until people
actually search where the keys are located rather than under the lamppost,
success will be impossible.
Ed Storms
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Yes Dave, that is true, but that is not what is observed. This reaction is
known to happen less than 1% of the time during hot fusion and it produces a 23
MeV gamma that is required to conserve momentum. This reaction is clearly not
observed. We know this for a fact. Therefore, this idea is irrelevant.
Ed Storms
On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:34 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, the energy can be released in the form of a particle, such as an
alpha, and a gamma ray. Energy and momentum can be conserved in that manner.
The bulk of the energy will be given to the gamma ray due to the large
difference in masses. Think of a rifle firing a bullet. Most of the energy
ends up in the bullet while linear momentum is conserved.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy
generated when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two
particles for the energy to be dissipated. I know of no example in nature where
this requirement does not operate when energy is released. If energy is not
released immediately, but is retained in the nucleus, this nucleus is found to
be unstable and will eventually release energy over a period of time by
emission of a particle, including a photon. This is how nature is found to
behave. Imagining otherwise is not useful unless you have observed support for
the idea.
Ed Storms
On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
Ed--
You said:
>>Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha
because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is
released. <<
I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles
would not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum
requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may be
changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not
produced by photons.
Who said it was?
I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought
up photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added
the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not produced by
gamma.
You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation
of intense photon emission - and am still waiting.
I sent a list of references. If you want a copy of a particular paper
to read, ask and I will send what I have. Unfortunately, I can not send using
Vortex and I can not send all the papers.
This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such
as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation.
What? Are you now saying that the helium you claim to see in Pd-D
does not
begin as an alpha particles?
Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha
because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is
released.
Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the
mass-energy is dissipated as photons.
There is no proof of this.
The proof is in the behavior. This is the only conclusion consistent
with all behavior. Unfortunately, a book is required to present this
information in a form and as complete as you require. I'm attempting to do
this. Please be patient.
The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a
mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and
consistent will all the other observations.
It is not plausible if you cannot document photons sufficient to
account for
the heat.
I agree, the measurement of heat and radiation have not been done in
a way to show a quantitative correlation. However, I suggest you apply this
standard to the other explanations as well. If you do, I think you will have to
agree that no explanation meeting this requirements presently exists, including
your own.
Ed Storms
Where is the documentation?
Jones
<winmail.dat>
