If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable, experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.
DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see both fission and fusion reactions in these results. IMHO, the primary causation of these LENR reactions is the lowering of the coulomb barrier. There is a secondary though important reaction that may or may not be established any given time. That is, Bose Einstein condensation that thermalizes the LENR reaction may or may not happen. If BEC is not in play, radiation and energetic particles will result. When BEC is enforced, LENR energy is not carried by the alphas and protons released from the nucleus but are thermalized as EMF. For example, because BEC has stopped when Piantelli removed his nickel bars from his reactor, Piantelli sees high energy protons emerge from the nickel bars removed from his reactor. Yes, he sees 6 MeV protons coming from the bars in his cloud chamber. The bottom line, Coulomb barrier lowering is mandatory in LENR, BEC is optional. That is how it looks to me. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you. I now have a better understanding the logic that has led you > to the slow-helium formation assumption. > > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > > The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done. Therefore, >> we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or not. In any case, >> so little radiation is detected that any associated energy would be too >> small to detect. >> > > Does the statement "so little radiation is detected that any associated > energy would be too small to detect" apply to the so-called "hamburger" > exposures, where the chip is completely pitted? Also, since no calorimetry > was made, it would seem that as far as the CR-39 experiments are concerned, > we have neither a basis for concluding that there is a large amount of > alpha flux when there is excess heat nor that there is a small amount of > alpha flux when there is excess heat (as you seem to be doing here). It > would be really nice if someone could systematically measure the number of > pits while using decent calorimetry. > > The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it complicated. >> Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much easier to understand >> and accept. I have to wonder why people are willing to explore complicated >> reactions and complex logic while ignoring the most simple possibility. >> > > In the assumptions that go into your hypothesis, there seems to be an > implicit model where at low energies you can sort of slide hydrons into one > another, with an attendant release of mass energy, and the behavior is > different than in the high energy case, where there will either be a > collision or they'll fuse. I am reminded of the difference in how water > behaves when an object hits it with great force, and when the object is > allowed to slide into it or drop into it from a low height. This > understanding of the electromagnetic force and of the nuclear force seems > to be implied by your hypothesis. I find it a very intriguing approach -- > it would be pretty neat if under the right conditions the hydrogen atoms > could be slowly pushed into one another, and only at high speeds do they > bounce away from one another and provide a lot of resistance. But it will > be a long time before I'm willing to adopt this model as a working > hypothesis. Even if I found it likely, I think it would be necessary to > eliminate other possibilities first, since it is such a departure from > current understanding of the strong and electrostatic forces, which, as I > understand it, are presented as static properties of the atoms that do not > vary with their speed relative to one another. > > Eric > >
