OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these
gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a
material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration
gradients, or temperature gradients. Regardless of the cause, the
process is totally conventional requiring no magic. The cracks are
active at first while the gap remains small, but the gap grows too
large and CF stops if stress continues to be created. The smaller the
particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less
stress. In other words, the particle size is only important to keep
the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is required.
Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with
something (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of
stress to produce the required gap size. He has discovered this
process by trial and error and now has a recipe that works most of the
time. However, he shows no indication he understands what is actually
happening in his material.
If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different
impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel.
The role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the
gap. Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons
enter the gap. If this model is correct, the process becomes very
simple and easy to replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The
electric discharge is only required to make H+ available to the gap.
Again, no magic is involved at this stage.
If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they
do not describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the
critical conditions to be produced.
We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical
studies have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial
efforts, I believe, are wasting their time and money.
Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These
renewable cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in
unlimited numbers in the metal lattice. These drops are self-
renewing and totally recyclable in the same way that rain renews
water in a puddle.
I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H
reactors.
A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops
that falls on the surface of micro particles.
Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time,
these metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the
surface of the lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and
renewed. The physical processes that happen in a crack in palladium
and the alkali metal nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are
formed more readily and reliably and are self-renewing.
This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the
inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be
made on purpose in any material, CF will become totally
reproducible. Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the
known laws even though once created, a new phenomenon is initiated.
This requirement also applies to the new materials you describe.
They will be created using the known laws even though once created,
they will have unusual properties. This same requirement applies to
all aspects of materials science and has resulted in the unusual
materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining the
need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of
chemistry were used to create the materials in most cases. The only
question of importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF?
Unless you can answer this question, you do not know what you need
to make. So, please focus on this question.
Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Ed Storms stated:
“ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is
known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can
show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas
are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.”
In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials
that are game changing in how matter behaves.
These new materials are called topological materials. In these
materials, physical processes can be engineered to behave in a
manner that conflicts with common sense.
The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the
material itself and not absolute.
You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this
modern age.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is
not very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are
consistent with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of
both physics and chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which
needs to be identified. Nevertheless, the role of this missing
part can be clearly determined. This missing part does not in any
way relate to alpha emission. The interaction of an alpha with
matter is well known and understood. It does not initiate a fusion
reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would occasionally
produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been
observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this
conclusion, but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need
to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about
materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some
consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste
of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.
Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.
starting a fire with hand drill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA
Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs
Harry
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does
not invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested
that cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is
used to sort through the arguments and some common sense is
applied, the effect will be impossible to understand. Naturally,
I have considered the possibilities you suggest, Axil, before I
came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be true.
Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the
observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves
which possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to
debate such details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter
what arguments are given, a counter argument can always be provided.
I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you
believe and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.
Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Ed Storms states:
“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha
emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat
production and alpha emission are not related.”
This could be a false assumption as follows:
When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy
directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry
enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39.
In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus
at very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.
This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR
directly to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of
alpha particles and their associated behavior and measurement
problematic and unreliable.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> wrote:
Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a
nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the
rate of the reaction was too small to make detectable heat from
this reaction. The only unknown is whether heat from a different
reaction can occur.
We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha
emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat
production and alpha emission are not related. Therefore, some
other nuclear reaction is the source of the heat. The question
is: What is this source?
When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected.
This helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic
demonstrates. Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear
reaction. The question is: What is this reaction? That is the
question my and other theories are trying to answer. If you want
to answer the question of where the alpha comes from, you need to
start a different discussion because this emission is clearly not
related to CF.
And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes
makes alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy.
Such a reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered.
Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to
conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments
about the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.
I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these
experiments. We do not know whether there was heat.
- Jed
