P.S. Wikipedia's definition (in blue below) is consistent with what I remember.
A catalyst is a substance that speeds up a chemical reaction, but is not consumed by the reaction; hence a catalyst can be recovered chemically unchanged at the end of the reaction it has been used to speed up, or catalyze. On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote: > I also responded to Peter G, essentially at the same time. Bot my reply > bounced back. I wrote: > > 1) Peter wrote (see his egoout below ): ... "I have a cult for catalysis, met > it professionally in many forms and have developed a kind of philosophy of it > ... . > > I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have > developed a kind of philosophy of it. > > - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. " > > 2) I am not a chemist. But I would say that a catalytic surface is a surface > covered with one or more catalysts (chemical compounds). Such compounds can > participate in reactions but are not consumed by these reactions). Some > chemical reactions would be very rare, if catalysts were not available. > > 3) Does my definition conflict with Peter's nano-cracks definition? Probably > not; Peter probably thinks that some catalysts are present in nano-cracks. > Which compounds does he have in mind, in our CMNS context? > > Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> a) Continuing discussion with Ed Storms >> >> Yesterday Ed has promptly answered to my catalysis in LENR questions, but >> has forgot to answer to this question "caused "by the unique PdD et classic >> paper of JCF-16 so I repeat it: >> >> - what do you think about paper of Numata- No.15 at JCF- see the list? I >> have spoken more times about nano-vortices as NAE to you, in this is >> something like that >> >> Ed: I will be pleased to comment once the paper becomes available. If you >> you have a copy, please send it. >> >> Ed's answer, my comments >> >> >> To answer your questions, we need to know what the words mean. The word >> catalyst describes a general concept, there being hundreds of different >> kinds of catalyst. One kind does not take the place of another. Simply >> saying a catalytic surface is required is too trivial. What is worse, the >> concept of catalyst was only applied to a chemical reaction, never to a >> nuclear reaction, until LENR was discovered. We need to know what the word >> means when it describes a nuclear process. A catalyst can reasonably be >> understood to lower a barrier by a few eV but what allows a barrier of >> several MeV to be lowered? >> >> ANSWER >> Please, please read my essay here: >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/the-most-fundamental-question-about-lenr.html >> >> I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have >> developed a kind of philosophy of it. >> >> Ed: I read your comment but I do not understand how it applies to our >> problem. A catalyst is a concept applied when the rate of a chemical >> reaction can be increased by operation of another chemical condition. To be >> useful, the chemical condition needs to be identified. This requires >> identification of the chemical state causing the rate of LENR to increase. >> In addition, we are faced with the need to increase a reaction rate having a >> barrier of MeV. You have not answered my question. How can this be done? >> >> - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. These cracks are >> created by stress relief. Many ways exist to create the stress and the >> resulting crack formation depends on the property of the surface. Stress >> generation and crack formation are influence by many variables. We will not >> understand these variables until they are study for the purpose of causing >> LENR. So, simply saying a catalyst is necessary without showing the form of >> the catalyst is useless. Also, complaining about lack of knowledge about >> the process without showing what needs to be studied is also useless. I'm >> attempting to show exactly what needs to be studied and what will be found >> when that study is undertaken. I see no one else doing this. Instead, we are >> provided with guesses and speculation based on what Rossi might wish to >> reveal. >> >> ANSWER >> As far I know/understand, the nanocracks are not a specific, quantifiable >> feature of the metal (Pd, Ni) surface- with concrete it would be different. >> >> Ed: Peter, I'm amazed you would say this. The nano-crack is the initial >> formation of a gap that, if allowed to grow larger, would be and is easily >> seen. This is a well known and easily observed process. I'm not suggesting >> a new condition. I'm only suggesting a new consequence of a well-known >> condition. >> >> >> It is difficult to explain- based on the density of nanocracks per surface a >> thousand times increase of the heat release from PdD to NiH at 1200 C- the >> best for you is to deny it temporarily- an 1000 times increase of nanocracks >> density is not possible. We like it or not, cracking is a destructive >> process. My alternative is the dynamic formation of the NAE surfce >> nanostructures >> due to the increased mobility and re-arrangements of surface atoms of the >> metals, obviously increasing with temperature. >> >> Ed: What kind of nano-structures are able to initiate a nuclear reaction? >> You need to be specific. What exactly needs to be created on the surface to >> cause LENR and how can this be done? I have answered this question using my >> theory. Can you give an answer using your understanding? Making general >> comments is not useful at this stage. We need exact descriptions and >> predictions. >> >> - Axil and others suggest treatments that would apply stress even though he >> does not explain the process this way. However, no one has the money or >> interest in setting up a complicated method without assurance that it has a >> relationship to creating the required conditions. >> >> ANSWER >> AXIL will explain this again, in more detail- please appreciate that AXIL >> tries to develop a holistic understanding of the field that is indeed very >> rich and varied. >> >> Ed: Yes, but Axil's approach is too rich and varied. It is like throwing a >> collection of colored paint against the wall and hoping to form a picture of >> something recognizable. I call this an abstract art form, not science. We >> need to have exact descriptions that can be easily tested and related to >> what is presently known. >> >> The essence of the problem is the lack of agreement about a NAE being >> required. Without this agreement, no one even looks for the NAE or attempts >> to identify it. I suggest a very plausible NAE, but this idea is ignored >> because the basic need for a NAE of any form is not accepted. >> >> Dear Ed, have you seen this jCF-16- how does it consider NAE: >> What is the "nuclear active environment" of the cold fusion Tetsuo Sawada >> LENR poly-semantics. >> >> ANSWER >> >> As regarding me, I have pre-agreed with NAE much before even the >> word/acronym was created by you just I called it "active sites" because they >> are fisrt topological and and only then environmental. I don't think they >> are nano-cracks in the surface but nanostructures on the surface. Is this >> an essential difference? ok- void space vs structured nano-matter, in the >> surface vs. the surface , static-preformed vs. dynamic, permanent vs. >> transient, possibly usual nuclear two particles reaction vs. collective >> transformation, fusion vs more complex nuclear interactions etc. >> >> Ed: You and other people do not understand what I mean when I use the term >> NAE. It is not simply a site where LENR happens to take place, as you define >> it. It is a special local condition that is created by a chemical process >> BEFORE LENR can take place. Its eventual use as a site for a nuclear >> reaction is not anticipated by Nature when the NAE is formed. The nuclear >> reaction is an unusual and unexpected consequence. For reasons having >> nothing to do with the eventual nuclear process, this condition forms and >> allows something extraordinary to happen. This way of looking at the problem >> forces an entirely different set of rules on how the process works. You are >> free to reject my idea, but please understand what I propose before you >> reject it. You and I are describing an entirely different condition when we >> use the term NAE. I do not believe your definition applies because I do not >> believe a process that can cause fusion can take place in or on a normal >> material. A very unique and rare change must take place. We need to >> identify this change in an exact way while remaining consistent with known >> behavior. >> >> Further- is NAE a chemical structure and are you right as you say: >> The chemical structure of a material has to be modified in a unusual way >> before LENR can be initiated. >> Or is it about dimensions first i.e. is it a nano-effect primarily. >> >> Ed: OK, that comment is the start of an agreement. As for your question, I >> have no idea what you are asking. We know that no matter what happens, it >> must take place at a nano scale. We have a very limited number of possible >> changes that can take place in a material at this size level. Exactly what >> kind of change do you propose? >> >> I forgot to ask- what arguments do you have for the existence of hydrotons >> Are they active somewhere? >> >> Ed: In order to fuse, the hydrogen MUST occupy the same place at the same >> time. For the sale of discussion, I use the word Hydroton to identify this >> assembly of hydrogen. I propose how it forms so as to be consistent with >> the rules of thermodynamics. I speculate that metallic hydrogen would have >> the same ability to support a fusion reaction, hence could be called a >> Hydroton. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "CMNS" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
