Ed Storms reviews his NAE concept

The transmutation process that occurred in the 100 micron nickel fusl particle analyzed in the Lugano test undercuts most of your(Ed Storms) assumptions about the LENR reaction.

Analysis of the experimental evidence from Lugano contradicts your reaction guidelines. A more appropriate analysis goes as follows…

The complete conversion of a proportionally large micro sized nickel particle with a 100 micron diameter might provide convincing supporting evidence that nucleons find their way into the center of this massive nickel particle by quantum teleportation. This quantum mechanical based movement is supported by the entanglement of lithium 7 on the outside of the 100 micron nickel particle that completely covered the outside of the nickel particle.

In the Lugano test, the 100 micro nickel particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or 4 neutrons from lithium 7 to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and this swap happened to all billion atoms of the that particle in one shot. This is what this latest theory cannot explain. This is called cluster transformation.

Yes, Teleportation…like in star trek. A nucleon located in lithium 7 atom does not need to find its way through large amounts of nickel by bumping and grinding their way through all that nickel. These nucleons just appear like magic inside the micro particle.

This conclusion might seem ridiculous on it face but this conclusion is fully supported by the experimental evidence from Lugano.

If the nucleons or in fact any subatomic particle did physically penetrate the nickel particle in many singular events over and extended timeframe, we would expect that the outer layers of the particle would experience more nuclear reactions than the center of the particle. This penetration type of reaction would produce a layered ash profile. The outmost surface of the particle should have some copper and/or zinc content, and the inside should still have some untouched lower Z isotopes of nickel…like Ni58.

But NO, the particle is pure Ni62, completely homogeneous Ni62, utterly pure Ni62. It must be that the nucleons that make up the lithium 7 coating see no material resistance to the penetration of the nickel. The entangled nucleons mated with each nickel atom move through the nickel particle via the 5th dimension in which entanglement works directly through the nickel bulk to its entangled nickel mate into the center of the micro particle or to its dedicate nanowire edge with equal probability. This looks like nucleon teleportation to me.

And even more perplexing, the delicate nickel nanowire surface covering of the microparticle is pure NI62. This delicate surface nano sized feature has suffered no subatomic particle impact damage what so ever. This ash looks the same as the fuel…physically unchanged but isotopically different.

No neutrons were detected so the active subatomic particle supporting the Ni58 to Ni62 transmutation must be neutrons from the lithium outside the particle. In some cases, this neutron teleportation changes lithium 7 into lithium 6 were 4 lithium 7 atoms gave up a single neutron to form a nickel 62 atom from a nickel 58 atom starting point.

Yes, this transmutation result from Lugano is impossible to believe but it happened, If it weren’t for logic and the very detailed results of the Lugano experiment, what other answer could there be?

Quote from axil

Yes, this transmutation result from Lugano is impossible to believe but it happened, If it weren’t for logic and the very detailed results of the Lugano experiment, what other answer could there be?

A much simpler explanation is that the ⁶²Ni particle went into the reactor as ⁶²Ni and was unchanged by the operation. Although I have no direct quote from Rossi, others here have stated that Rossi has used ⁶²Ni as 'fuel' (or more properly: substrate or catalyst within the fuel mix). The overall composition and lithium isotope distribution in the mass spectrometry results from the other speck of Lugano ash is much more interesting, but this is not the place for that discussion either. My apologies to Longview for more OT under the OP. The ghost of William of Occam insisted I reply here and now.

The miracle Lugano ash particle is so unbelievable, there is a natural assumption all of us will make: this particle must have been salted. We will also assume that the buildup of lithium and nickel isotopic changes on and in the ash happened at a relatively constant rate over a long period of time. But what may have happened is a one time explosive reaction where lithium and nickel interacted in a singular and monolithic event involving billions of atoms. Such an event was seen in Holmlid's experiment where billions of fusion reactions instantly produced huge numbers of neutral particle reaction products.

Just by chance, the analysts of the isotopic change in the Lugano ash content picked up this one in a million 100 micron nickel particle as the object of their examination.

The nickel screen inside the alunina tube kept the big particle from entering the central regions of the reactor tube. There was just a few of these oversized particles produced by the fuel preparation process. Most of the smaller nickel particles made it through the mesh and entered the central region.

When the ash was removed, 99.8 % of the ash was held in place by the mesh inside the reactor tube by the wire mesh. Only the biggest ash particles came out of the reactor tube during the ash dump.

To make a valid comparison, the Lugano testers selected a large fuel particle from the fuel held back after the fuel loading process.

That fuel particle was isotopically normal.

This one ash particle was so unusual that it is near impossible for it to be fabricated by someone who wanted to salt the ash sample.

The salter would have had to remove the 100 micron fuel particle and replace it with the Ni62 and Li6 coated ash particle. When the fuel was loaded, the fuel was divided into parts where some fuel was reserved for latter isotopic analysis and another part was loaded into the reactor. The devil is in the details when the method of scam is considered.

We must try to understand how a massive burst LENR reaction involving billions of atoms can occur in a single event. And how a single isotope can result from many different precursors that fed into this singular reaction.

Quote

To make a valid comparison, the Lugano testers selected a large fuel particle from the fuel held back after the fuel loading process. That fuel particle was isotopically normal.This one ash particle was so unusual that it is near impossible for it to be fabricated by someone who wanted to salt the ash sample. The salter would have had to remove the 100 micron fuel particle and replace it with the Ni62 and Li6 coated ash particle. When the fuel was loaded, the fuel was divided into parts where some fuel was reserved for latter isotopic analysis and another part was loaded into the reactor. The devil is in the details when the method of scam is considered.

Given your flights of fancy I feel pots and kettles come to mind when you say something is implausible...

However in this case you are wrong - from a failure of imagination.

All that is needed is to replace the original fuel mix with the same, made with bought Ni-62 (which coincidentally has the same composition as the measured ash) and bought Li-7 (lots of variation here and it could just be Li from a different batch, but bought Li-7 matches the analysis too).

How can this be done? I was not present, and not being an expert in detecting tricks even had I been I would probably not have realised. The Lugano Profs are not experts, and explicitly have said they did not believe subterfuge possible, so they definitely would not detect even quite cack-handed substitution.

Logically however we have as possibles:

on reactor loading
on reactor ash removal
at any time between the two, by substituting the reactor.

So: fuel substitution extraordinarily difficult? No.

This rejection of any experimental result by naysayers is why Rossi or others must release and commercialize a product on the open market. People will vote on the validity of LENR with their money. When there is money being made, this will override all propaganda and the paradigm will begin to shift.

Money talks, bulls**t walks.

Hi Edmund,
you say that my theory does not explain the basics of Cold Fusion. However, I still think it does. I will comment each of your points, referring to my updated presentation:

1 ) The NAE is explained in the pages 21 through 25; its rarity is explained on page 24.
2 ) My NAE is stable once formed and can be present in significant concentration. It is actually very well protected, because it is due to electron orbitals that have energies above the chemical range. My NAE is neither a minor impurity nor an occasional flaw in the material.
3 ) In my theory there are fusions and fissions. The fusions are not restricted to the addition of a helium nucleus/cluster, but have a strong preference for stable nuclei. Tritium is produced without neutrons.
4 ) My NAE is generally limited to the surface region, and in fact is NOT inside the metal, but very near to it.
5 ) Most of the heat energy results from He4 formation when deuterium is used. This is a consequence of the energies of the reactions on page 19. I explain the difference between hydrogen and deuterium loading.
6 ) The huge nuclear energy differences are released is as Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) radiation around the unique wavelength of 14.6 [nm]. EUV thermalize in very thin layers in condensed matter. Randell Mills measured this radiation directly. Swartz measured non-thermal near infrared, but he attributed it to Bremsstrahlung. Some gammas can arise when fissions take place.
7 ) My NAE does not require impossible chemical conditions. It requires only the presence of the right atoms, surrounded by ionic bonds (e.g. the zeolites of Kidwell in the recent patent), and hydrogen nuclei with energies of a few [eV]. The numbers say that only Ca requires hydrogen energies below 1 [eV]; and in fact Iwamura reaches fusion only with diffusion energies.

Cheers
Andrea Calaon

Quote

This rejection of any experimental result by naysayers is why Rossi or others must release and commercialize a product on the open market. People will vote on the validity of LENR with their money. When there is money being made, this will override all propaganda and the paradigm will begin to shift.Money talks, bulls**t walks.

Hardly any experimental result!

It is perfectly sensible to require independent tests of an extraordinary claim like 98% nuclear transmutation when there is zero supporting evidence. In this case Rossi has never shown excess heat and his only previous isotopic tests are stated by him now to be worthless because contaminated, even though he did not say this was possible for many months after the tests were originally done, and the tests showed Cu ash at a time when Rossi was claiming Ni -> Cu as the basis of his invention. (He has now abandoned that claim).

Even where there is not this history no sensible person would believe extraordinary claims from an inventor without independent tests. There are especially in this area too many examples of incorrect claims supported by flawed demos.

That is why you will want to understand LENR when the only furnace available to heat your home is a LENR furnace. But still then, this technology may not be of interest for you. You may just be content to trust in Rossi.

@AlainCo
@axil
I tried to post on Edmund's blog on the page suggested by Longview:
http://lenrexplained.com/2015/…that-theory-must-explain/
, but I could not get my post through. You posted successfully. How should I do?
Thanks in advance for any suggestion.

@AlainCo
Thank you Alain. I tried from two completely different IPs. And I tried using two different e.mails (libero and gmail).
I could try using a different name ... hahaha

@AlainCo
My post on Edmund's page must have been "moderated", i.e. censored somehow because I have tried now to send the same comment without my webpage and I was prompted with a message saying that I had already sent an identical comment, that, however, as you can see, is NOT on the page.
So my only conclusion is that my comment was censored. Anyway, thanks again Alain for your support.

Quote from Andrea Calaon

My post on Edmund's page must have been "moderated", i.e. censored somehow because I have tried now to send the same comment without my webpage and I was prompted with a message saying that I had already sent an identical comment,

Andrea, I tried to copy your post from here to there and got the same result. I think it may require registration to post there (perhaps a privilege of membership?). I also tried to sign up for the email list: the site told me to expect a confirmation email which I could not find. I then sent a message realting this through the contact form there... Whatever the source of the delay, the confirmation email appeared in my spam folder overnight. So after confirming to the list this AM I tried to re-post and got the same 'Duplicate message' you did.

This is not exactly all OT. I can believe that Dr. Storms (or his publisher/publicity agent) wishes to keep both spam and pathoskeptics off what is a book related site, so our posts as new contributors may require hand confirmation, at least until some confidence has been built. There are many possible explanations for that not occurring: perhaps the moderator is busy working through your updated presentation. Perhaps they are just trying to prevent the thread from derailing. After subscribing and confirming, still no luck posting there so here is my comment intended for LENR Explained:

I appreciate the attempt to boil down the results from many disparate experiments to find what is common among them. The dual ideas that a theory might arise from your lists and theories can be tested against the lists indicates to me that this is a step along the proper path towards resolution of the cognitive dissonance that comes from nuclear reactions appearing in ordinarily stable material.

An initial comment and question regarding 1 and 2 on both lists. Between the need for special preprocessing to form the material (co-dep, nanoparticles or foams) and the usual delay in initiation of significant nuclear activity, there is the implication of self-organization at or just below the surface of the material. It seems that the reaction sites need not be individually durable. The delay of onset implies they are generated: the continuation of reactions may rely on regeneration of particular nuclear reaction sites. The question is how are all forms of discontinuity ruled out in item 1 of list 2? Could it be that the NAE is a broader organization of sites that preferentially re-creates similar dislocations in a correlated way?

The Chemonuclear Fusion crowdfunding campaign will go live on IndieGoGo in one week- on November 20, 2015! It will have a video explaining the Chemonuclear Fusion concept for all who are interested. Remember, CHEMONUCLEAR FUSION MEANS NO POLLUTION!

I beleive that my "peer review" of Ed Storms theory infuriates Dr. Storms. It always has. I believe that Ed departed Vortex because of this resistance to discussion about his theory. The reason, Ed said that he did not want to speculate anymore. Ed must have closed down the question section after he responded to my last review of his theory. He had to get the last word in.

Ed selects experimental results that only supports his theory and rejects any results that may undermine that theory.

Dear LeMoyne Castle,
thank you very much for the support, the attempts and the long comment!
For sure, as you say, Storms wishes to keep both spam and pathoskeptics (!) off what is a book related site.
Since January this year when Edmund Storms contacted me, I have exchanged very many instructive, interesting and challenging and e-mails with him. I leaned a lot from him and from his clever way of reasoning. He actually knows my theory (apart from the very latest developments). I wrote the post to see why he is now saying that my theory does not fulfil his criteria, whereas I think it does.
I think Edmund is not busy studying my presentation, because he already knows it quite well through the long exchanges we’ve had.

It may be, as you say, that Edmund is trying to prevent the thread from derailing. But my first guess is that there is some sort of technical problem.

You say: “I appreciate the attempt to boil down the results from many disparate experiments to find what is common among them”. To be honest I started my theory ignoring the majority of the evidences that later my theory happened to explain in a way or another. Some experimental results like the strange radiation were completely unknown to me, whereas my theory was predicting a neutral particle with characteristics that would fit the required properties.

My EUV radiation frequency comes from a simple formula that uses only physical constants, so I can not tweak with it. That frequency corresponds to a single energy, which generates the list on page 25. No adaptation. No attempt to fit. I realized about the accordance between the theoretically best NAE and the list I was getting, progressively as I looked at the orbital energies.
I think there is really not much space for an alternative explanation of the major evidences of LENR, but a theory similar to mine. I do not see alternative path that do not crash against evidences at some point.
The long delays typical of electrochemical experiments can actually be completely eliminated by loading the material prior to the stimulation of the formation of the NAE, as Swartz does. So there is no need for a self-organizing phenomenon that leads to the NAE. The NAE is instantaneous if you have a system that generates it. The delays of electrochemical experiments were due to the need to develop an oxide layer thick enough to obtain the correct potential gap necessary for the acceleration of the protons to the right speed. And when the barrier grows too much the NAE disappears.
The metachronous thermal effects are due to the Hyd that accumulate in condensed matter and react also when the NAE is not active, stimulated by phonons and magnetic effects.
The NAE requires protons at the right speed. This obeys chemical laws, and can be generated in MANY different ways. I don’t know if correlated dislocations or similar phenomena can help. I would guess the correct proton energies have simpler explanations. In fact the NAE is present in very different materials. And I think it is not like superconductivity.

@acalaon

One LENR mode that both your theory and that of Ed Storms does not address is the Rossi reactor burnup case. This is a plasma based reaction that forms when nickel, alumina. stainless steel and anything else that makes up the reactor structure vaporizes . This mode speaks to the fact that the LENR reaction can exist in plasma with temperatures in excess of 4000C.

This type of plasma reaction is also seen in the microwave reactions using carbon performed by Egely.