I thought this was cool. I always like a picture/video over an equation. I realize both are important
Quark pool (soliton "pairs") http://youtu.be/909o_kbCdFg On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Except that Axil's approach, as it seems to me, is confined to plasmatic NiH > systems. This is all fine and good and has a certain value. However it > doesn't have much to say about a variety of PdD or "no stimulation / low > temperature" systems. Regardless of which one is more "commercially viable", > I think the question of whether we're looking at a universal effect working > across all systems, or a variety of effects in different systems, is an > important one, and we don't yet know the answer. > > Regards > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:41 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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! >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >
