That demonstration is creating what are called Falaco Solitons -- akin to topological defects of space-time, etc. Yes, like I said, it's an interesting phenomenon and has some applicability to the quantum domain for example, but I'm still not convinced its "the thing" in LENR. It might act as a catalyst, or something similar when applied, but there are LENR systems that exist where quasi-particle phenomenon doesn't seem to be at play really. Consider Cravens' heated-orb demo at NI-Week.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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! >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >
