This paining of solitons is what forces the Higgs field to give solitons mass.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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! > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > >
