I like Axil's approach. Lots of stuff popping in and out around here. Lots of hydrogen everywhere also. I think our oceans are made up of hydrogen from our inflated and condensed quantum gravity field from our Sun and our "weather" phenomena. Maybe "Dark Matter" is the attractive force when it is popped in and "Dark Energy" is the extra pressure on the universe when it pops out.
I think Space is not so much smooth and curvy but is all stringy and puckered up with lots of LENR happening. Stewart On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is a restrictive assumption in your analysis that limits > possibilities. The LENR process may be carried by a dozen different > elements, mostly transition metals, not only nickel. Nickel may have > advantages over the other active elements but the NiH reaction should be > looked upon as a topological reaction where the shape of the material is > what matters and not the material itself. > > My motivation here. > > I am building a case for LENR as the underpinning for dark matter and dark > energy. In intergalactic gas clouds, many elements are found. Unexpectedly, > a high percentage of intergalactic dust are transition metals, the expected > ash for a LENR reaction. The cosmological LENR reaction in order to support > dark energy and a galaxy size dark matter soliton, production could not be > restricted to only nickel. > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Jones, all your points are well taken, we certainly don't have to agree on >> everything and there is much in the field that is still "up for grabs", and >> I think its possible we have different effects going on in PdD vs. NiH as >> well. I really like how Ed's theory fits PdD, and you may be right about the >> more exotic elements of NiH, but lets face it, we don't have much solid >> experimental work to pull from in NiH. I mean, in terms of a ratio, its >> probably like 10:1 in favor of PdD -- NiH has a lot of catching up to do >> experimentally. Unfortunately much of the data is kept under wraps due to >> intellectual property, etc. This both helps and hurts progress of the field. >> I think speaking too authoratively about what is actually going on in NiH >> domains is highly presumptuous, and while speculating is useful, drawing too >> many conclusions from a system we don't know much about is a mistake. Hell >> we don't even know what the dominant nuclear-ash is, or if there is a >> nuclear ash. This is why I'm praying DGT actually goes through w/ mass >> spectroscopy work that they promised in their most recent paper. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> >>> Finally finished "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" over >>> the >>> weekend and find it to be a mixed bag - brilliant in places, but >>> disappointing in others. There is no "cutting-edge" to be found here, if >>> that is what you are looking for. I was, and maybe that is my problem. It >>> can be recommended as a fine historical piece, very well-researched - but >>> do >>> not expect much more. >>> >>> Here is my main objection to Ed Storms' book from what is admittedly a >>> minority point of view. It is a historical account of the first twenty >>> years >>> which overlooks the importance of new work, and that Ni-H is the >>> commercial >>> savior of LENR. All of that wonderful prior work with Pd-D, which set the >>> table for where we are now, is valuable and intuitive, but .... To be >>> blunt, >>> when one is lost in time, with a focus on history, then the baggage that >>> comes with that viewpoint can interfere with accurate understanding of >>> where >>> we are going. Palladium cannot really help us in the long run, and the >>> best >>> hope for deuterium now rests with Mizuno's new work. BTW - Mizuno's >>> important new work is ignored by Ed and he cherry-pick data from old work >>> that contradicts the new. That is almost unforgiveable in a book which >>> promises accurate explanations. >>> >>> In short, Storms is only accurate for understanding results which were >>> prior >>> to Rossi and to "nano" but then falls flat - insofar as opening up the >>> future. The book overlooks the most important new developments in LENR, >>> like >>> nanotechnology and SPP, or else fails to analyze them properly. I >>> finished >>> this book wanting much more and thinking that I had already read most of >>> it >>> anyway. >>> >>> In 24 years of accumulated experiment, which includes Mills - the >>> experimental results are often contradictory, when considered in toto. >>> When >>> one is looking for commonality, as in this book, a general theme should >>> emerge. That is where Ed's book fails - it begins with a false assumption >>> and ends with a theme that points us in the wrong direction. To wit: >>> >>> 1) Fusion of deuterium in a Pd matrix or crack strongly appears to >>> be a >>> novel kind of gammaless nuclear fusion, with helium or tritium as the >>> ash. >>> This is where Ed's account is authoritative and helpful. He is an expert >>> with Pd-D. >>> >>> 2) However, deuterium can participate in thermal gain without >>> fusion, >>> as the new Mizuno work indicates, which work is ignored as are many >>> important new developments - like Cravens extremely important NI-Week >>> demo. >>> >>> 3) Reactions of protons in a metal matrix (no deuterium) strongly >>> appears to be non-fusion, having almost no indicia of fusion, as in >>> Rossi's >>> work; but it can be nuclear in the sense of nuclear mass being converted >>> into energy. Rossi is marginalized. >>> >>> 4) Ed does not to believe that the two isotopes, deuterium and >>> protium >>> can entail completely different modalities for thermal gain - and so he >>> proceeds to lump Ni-H into a category where it is not well-suited. Thus, >>> for >>> the segment of LENR which deals with Ni-H, his book is both wrong and >>> counterproductive, since it casts the entire sub-field into chaos for the >>> start by confusing two pathways as one. >>> >>> 5) It should be noted, in defense of point 3 that slight >>> transmutation >>> is seen on rare occasion by a minority of researchers (notably >>> Piantelli), >>> but it is three orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. >>> When >>> copper is found with nickel it is in the natural isotope ratio which >>> statistically proves absolutely that it cannot be formed from nickel. >>> >>> In short, this book is authoritative and helpful for understanding the >>> history of cold fusion, Pd-D and most of the experiments following in the >>> footsteps of P&F. That is the good part and if this is what you are >>> after, >>> then do not read-on. >>> >>> As for the downside, Storms overlook or marginalizes the fact that Ni-H >>> may >>> not be related to Pd-D and may not be fusion at all. He emphasizes the >>> few >>> findings which point to fusion, and fails to even mention contrary >>> arguments >>> and weight of evidence. The two isotopes are extraordinarily different >>> and >>> it makes no sense to lump them into the same modality. The bottom line >>> for >>> Storms book is that it will bring you up to date to around the year 2010 >>> - >>> in terms of where the field was then, but fails to move beyond that >>> limitation. >>> >>> In neglecting to emphasize the importance of Ni-H, mention the zero point >>> field, nanomagnetism (or almost anything related to nanotechnology), >>> giving >>> half a sentence to surface plasmons, marginalizing Rossi, Cravens, >>> Mizuno, >>> Mills, and ignoring Ahern, plus - ignoring dozens of other cutting-edge >>> subjects, "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" should instead >>> be >>> called "The History of Cold Fusion in Palladium." >>> >>> But as disappointing as it was to me, it was still worth the time, and >>> you >>> may agree with Ed's perspective anyway, so have at it! >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
