Edmund Storms: Q&A ON THE NAE

Quote

Piantelli said he had excess heat for months. The Rossi heat effect seems to be OK for 6 months. Why is the duration of the PdD excess heat a problem?

Piantelli and Rossi are working with nickel nanowhiskers, stabilized by graphite at their surface against recrystallization - whereas the palladium reactions did usually run in the bulk massive systems and the LENR runs at foreign atoms at dislocations of it. Piantelli andRossi utilize the magnetic field and AC electric fields activation. This activation prohibits the accumulation of hydrogen within lattice. Palladium is soft metal, which releases hydrogen easily: once the concentration of hydrogen increases, the LENR starts and gets runaway due to high amount of hydrogen trapped withing palladium, so that the palladium gets heated, dislocations recrystallize the hydrogen escapes and the reaction stops. Once the palladium gets applied in a thin layers on the ZrO2 substrate (NANOR of Swartz), then the speed of head transfer is sufficient for protect it from quenching. They simply run quite different systems than the palladium researchers.

So that the main factors which contribute to steady-state LENR of Ni-H systems without quenching IMO are:

1. Lower solubility and accumulation of hydrogen within lattice
2. Higher robustness and ductility of metal lattice, nanowhiskers are formed by single but robust dislocation
3. Separation of crystals with graphite, which prohibits their recrystalization
4. Higher concentration but lower activity of reaction centers at Ni
5. Thin layer of dusty material with high surface area available for cooling and radiation instead bulk metal
6. Continuous activation prohibiting the accumulation of hydrogen within lattice

Most of these points are already involved in Storms answer ("Ni does not take up as much hydrogen isotope as Pd, hence the stress is less compared to Pd. Also, Ni is stronger than Pd, thereby preventing the stress from producing much cracking. Rossi found a way to produce the active cracks in Ni powder where each grain could contain a number of active cracks. Arata was able to activate Pd powder with impressive power production (NANOR is similar system, BTW). Clearly, powder allows more NAE to form within the same weight of material.")

I think we need to clarify some fundamental issues. Storms is unique in conjecturing a Nuclear Active Site or Environment. This site has NEVER been identified experimentally. It is pure conjecture that nano cracks are such a site. And there is strong experimental evidence that cracks cannot be the NAS. Collis has pointed out in the CMNS forum that the existence of circular hot spots of melted metal indicates that any such NAS must survive local melting. Cracks cannot survive in melted metal.

Furthermore there is no attribute of any crack which could promote any significant bypass of the Coulomb barrier.

Quote

And there is strong experimental evidence that cracks cannot be the NAS

Such as? Ed seems to think only a linear nano-crack dimension can fulfill. This does play well with both my theory of low-dimensional collisions leading to cold fusion, both with rumors about whisker usage in Ni-H systems with Rossi and Piantelli.

It's important to realize, that nanocracks of Eduard Storms are merely what the dislocations are called in solid state physics - not some visible cracks of physical surface of crystals. In this respect it's significant, that whisker crystals contain high volume ratio of cracks - they're essentially formed by one long screw-like dislocation along whole their crystal axis. But because this dislocation fills nearly the whole volume of crystal, it cannot move or disappear due to thermal motion of crystal lattice - it's therefore very stable and resistant to quenching.

Re: if NAE are nanocracks...

More generally, a NAE is a regime of space/time were electrons and photons are confined together for enough time so that they can become quantum mechanically entangled. The confinement allows electrons to be converted to bosons which removes the Pauli exclusion restriction on their massive concentration.

The NAE survives the nuclear process (proton decay) because the proton and the NAE are entangled an become the same. Energy flows from the proton to the NAE as a gentle redistribution of energy in the same subatomic structure.

In the entanglement process, the NAE becomes a special sub atomic particle...a polariton. Anytime electrons are made to rotate is a tight space...confined...polaritons may be formed.

The polariton is a primary part of the Widom-Larsen LENR Theory and was identified by NASA as far back as 2011 in their LENR patent application.

In a bacteria, the process of entanglement is the same. Chemical structure produces the polariton by entangling electrons and EMF.

As an analogy, think about the way a proton pulls in an electron when there are to many protons in the nucleus. The proton pulls in this additional mass/energy to rebalance the system without any catastrophic disruption as gentle as you please.

It's not how many NAE that a system can produce, it is the number that can be confined because polaritons can easily escape their place of birth. Such confinement is done magnetically because polaritons are magnetic particles containing all the spins of all the electrons and photons that have come together to make them up.

Think about ball lightning, how can you contain ball lightning or a plasmoid after it has formed...it easily passes through glass and walls...you put it in a magnetic bottle.

Polaritons will populate the surface of micro and nanoparticles but even after these particles melt, the polaritons float free inside the dusty plasma.

Quote from Hermes

And there is strong experimental evidence that cracks cannot be the NAS.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Such as?

Quote from Hermes

Cracks cannot survive in melted metal.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

It's important to realize, that nanocracks of Eduard Storms are merely

These nano-cracks are conjectured to exist, and probably we would not disagree. But they exist everywhere not just on a metal surface. We know that solid palladium cubes becoms spheres whgen loaded / del;oaded a dozen or so times. Stress which produces cracks must exist in the bulk too. But as not much helium cannot be released from the bulk we kbow that cracks are not the source of helium.

I have read the questions and Edmund Storm’s answers. I cannot say that his answers are wrong. His description of the Pd phenomenon is quite accurate. Unfortunately – in spite of the accurate description - Edmund Storm has no idea about the theoretical background of the LENR mechanism. That’s not a negative remark, he isn’t involved in theoretical research about the transfer of quanta within the structure of quantum fields.

In fact, the NAE doesn’t facilitate LENR. The NAE is only the visible indication of the lack of local freedom of movement of the enclosed H/D atoms within the metal lattice. Theoretically it is possible to get fusion without any (micro) cracks. However, you cannot get it for free. When you increase the freedom of movement of enclosed Hydrogen or Deuterium atoms, you have to increase the electromagnetic stimulation of these light weight atoms (ultra high density electromagnetic waveform). Unfortunately, it isn’t easy to predict the influence of the waveform in relation to the atoms of the metal lattice. If the waveform influences the thermal energy of the metal lattice too much, there is no - or hardly any - decrease of the Coulomb force. Because in these circumstances the energy supply is converted into internal vibrations of the involved atoms.

However, when fusion is established, the situation alters. Too much electromagnetic radiation will damage the metal lattice and the fusion will end.

IMO the solid state physics connected with catalysis of LENR with nanocracks is quite apparent. According to my theory, multiple atoms must collide along a single line for to get the attenuation of momentum with "Astroblaster effect" (i.e. inverse Mossbauer lattice effect). It requires to have atoms locked in their positions along this line despite the thermal motion of atoms. The dislocation line is just the line of such an atoms.

The atoms sitting along axis of screw dislocation are apparently subject of highest stress, so that they cannot wiggle in their positions and the axis of dislocation is the coldest place of crystal from thermodynamic perspective. In addition, we have to collide the atom nuclei of nickel with hydrogen nuclei (protons) for to achieve the cold fusion and these protons would naturally concentrate just along these dislocations and crystal boundaries - they will get oversaturated there, just because this place of lattice is coolest. You may also imagine, that the atom of metal which are most frustrated by their neighbors and which are therefore a subject of stress forces will have most of orbitals accessible for additional bonding. Another aspect of dislocations is simply steric: the atoms which get absorbed to metal surface will naturally follow steps and inner corners, because they would get adsorbed from multiple sides at the same moment, so that they will get concentrated there.

Quote

If temperature is a factor, how?

Here Ed Storm is just saying that "Temperature determines how fast D can get to the NAE by diffusion from its site in the surrounding lattice". But from perspective of my theory the temperature dependence cannot be so monotonous at all. The hotter the lattice is, the more wildly the atom nuclei wiggle against each other and the more frequently they occasionally collide. But the probability, that multiple atoms will collide along a single line in the same direction will decrease with increasing temperature too. This factor of temperature dependence can get quite extreme in certain special cases and it will lead into bell shape profile of it. Which means, that the cold fusion will run in quite narrow temperature range only. I also don't think, that the diffusion is the driving step of cold fusion, because it's usually way faster than the fusion - it only controls the saturation of lattice by hydrogen and this process will itself be driven by other steps than just by diffusion (by dissociation of molecular hydrogen into nascent atomic one, for example).

From the perspective of my model the Storm's answer to another question "Will the processes at 70, 400, 800, 12000 C be qualitatively the same, or will be some changes in the mechanism?" can be correct neither. The reaction mechanism of cold fusion can really change with temperature (which is impressive by itself, given the ratio of activation energies of lattice processes and proton fusion). For example we know (and Rossi even admitted it openly at public), that the ECat leaves the character of cold fusion at elevated temperatures and it's prone to runaways under release of free neutrons. The production of symmetric fusion products like the helium-4 nuclei should cease down accordingly and in general the aneutronic cold fusion will change gradually into a normal hot fusion known from tokamaks. You may consider these subtleties as (indirect indeed) confirmation of both validity of ECat, both my model, because the escapement of neutrons is exactly what we can expect, when the colliding line of atom nuclei will get deformed due to thermal motion of atoms. Once Andrea Rossi observed and reported this effect, then we can be rather sure, he really had the working ECat catalyst in his hands, because you could hardly invent this consequence without knowing about my theory.

I am quite doubtful that there is an "NAE" involving cracks such as Ed Storms describes. There might be something that is similar on some level, however; for example, electro-deposited platinum from the anode.

dear friends,

perhaps ou will take in consideration my 7 comments

to ED's 7 answers in my Blog EGO OUT yesterday- plus Ed's answer.

Comment-1

Having experience with the catalytic active sites and being a witness of how the idea of nano- has conquered LENR, plus being convinced that LENR is very complex, diversified, different and dynamic - I am unable to accept that something so simple and unstructured as crack can be the locus of LENR. I think NAE are nanostructures not nanovoids. And my experience in metallurgy, morphology of metals, my memories re different kinds of microscopy do not show such voids/gaps in metals.. This includes (please correct me if I am erring!) studies made with Pd cathodes after use as by ENEA and SKINR.

My knowledge is not in concordance of what you say about how cracks in metals are formed.

If the number/density of cracks is the determining factor for all forms of LENR- we have a variation from 1-10 W/g excess energy in PdD to > 1000 W/g at Rossi to great a variation in matter of cracks.All we (you) can do is to deny the reality of the high energy process.

Cracking being ab ovo destructive would not be 'good' for a technology.

Comment-2

If the gap is the determining factor I see the outright difficulties of performing some kind of smart fissuring, deliberate building of the ideal gap size distribution, both with Pd and Ni (later many other transition metals) It is too much unmanageable randomness in cracking.

Comment-3

The idea that temperature increase is accelerating heat excess release by increasing the diffusion speed of deuterium/hydrogen to the active sites can be perfectly true

for the interval 25-100 Celsius - for the PdD electrolytic cell.

Comment--4

Here is the main/greatest difference in our opinions. I am convinced tha the icrease of the temperature from 100C up to the melting point of the active metal changes the mechanism of the process by which active sites are generated.

When I have hypothesized that Cold Fusion is determined by topology and takes place in active sites similar to those creating heterogeneous catalysis

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf

http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/a_30180

I have thought from the very start that the moving/dynamics of the surfacee metal atoms- as in the Gryaznov theory of how the active sites in catalysis are formed and formed again- is the cause of the genesis of the structures we call now NAE.

I have described this many times, first perhaps here:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…es-between-lenr-and-lenr/

However I know it well, you do not accept the existence of the enhanced heat release LENR+ process nad this mechanism with NAE born, working, dying in a really dynamic equilibrium. You are right, or I am right- the future will show it.

Comment -5

The existence and functionality of hydrotons is sin=mply a MUST if, I repeate-if- the nano-cracks are the NAE. I have to say that I have never read about something similar- outside NAE and LENR. For D+D the idea has, if not something similar

but a precedent with He formed in the F&P Cell- much discussed recently- but for H+H even in long chains nuclear reactions in such mild conditions? More proofs necessary, really!

Comment-6

Mea culpa- "many people, "long time"- I m not able now to quantify thse with numbers data of your book, for example. What was the duration of your most

longeval experiment? The absolute record is.. you know?

Comment -7

What you say is based on the idea that PdD at ,100 c working with deuterium and NiH working with light hydrogen at hundreds of degrees Celsius are very similar

use nanocracks as NAE, D+ D or H+H behave identically in Hydrotons.

For NiH the Lugano experiment s indicate different nuclear reaction or interactions.

Let's hope, you and I will be longeval enough to continue this dispute till the truth will be known, one LENR or more LENRs, LENR+ yes or no, NAE void or nano-matter and so on..?

And Ed's answer to the comments:

Well Peter, you do not disappoint. As expected, you do not agree with a single answer I gave. In addition, AXIL distorts and describes the process in terms having no meaning in the real world. We continue to go down our separate paths.

I keep asking, how would you or how would any theoretician propose to treat Pd or Ni in order to initiate the LENR effect? How do you propose active Pd differs form inactive Pd in ways that can be measured? What feature within Pd or Ni allows the LENR process to take place. I see no effort being made to answer these questions. Instead, the effort is focused on rejecting what I propose without adding anything of value.

The general experience shows that active and inactive Pd differ in important ways. Unless these differences can be identified and controlled, LENR will remain useless and difficult to study. Hand waving ideas, such as AXIL supplies, are simply not useful. We need concrete and consistent ideas. The possible role of cracks is consistent with what everyone has observed and with what I have seen in my lab, yet this is not good enough in your eyes. Please propose a better location for the fusion reaction to take place.

I will answer with pleasure that is discussion between friends

and on the target- no Disputitis, Defusitis, Detailities, Dilutitis- it is about NAE - nuclearly active sites (not simply "cold FUSION active sites).

greetings,

peter

Regarding: Ed’s answer to Peter’s comments on cracks:

Ed Storms states in part:

Well Peter, you do not disappoint. As expected, you do not agree with a single answer I gave. In addition, AXIL distorts and describes the process in terms having no meaning in the real world.

Axil answers:

The polariton is a primary part of the Widom-Larsen LENR Theory and was identified by NASA as far back as 2011 in their LENR patent application. There is a major field of LENR that postulates the polariton as the primary mover in LENR theory. This includes the ball lightning school and the plasmoid crew (Ken Shoulders).

There are 10’s of thousands of papers written about Plasmonics and spintronics. The magnon, a close relation to the polariton, is central to spintronics which is s an emerging cutting edge field of science and engineering.

The point to be made is that nano Plasmonics and Spintronics is NOT hand waving with a mainstream an significate following in LENR. Ed ignores superconductivity and coherence, another area in LENR science. There is also topology and how those ideas relate to LENR. There is also the role of virtual particles and the vacuum that have a place at the LENR table.

Ed’s nanocrack theory is correct as far as it goes but unfortunately – in spite of the accurate description - Edmund Storms has no idea about the fundamental theoretical background of LENR reaction. This species of hydrogen that Ed assumes these cracks produce have no basis in reality…strictly a product of Ed imagination. Ed has never attempted to understand why LENR does not produce radioactive byproducts or gamma rays especially if the cracks produce fusion. There is an entire school of LENR belief in exotic neutral particle production that Ed completely ignores in his selection process of LENR experiments he chooses to study. Ed ignores exploding wire experiments and the associated monopole theory folks that conducted them.

Ed does not explain what causes fission in LENR and how Lithium 7 and transmute to Lithium 6. Ed also ignores all the plasma based LENR experiments where there is no cracks to be found and also biological LENR.

Ed Storms needs to broaden his thinking to cover more areas of LENR research and try to address them; such broadening of concepts is not hand waving.

LENR is far more complex than the limited case that Ed Storms is interested in. The solution to LENR is in complexity not in simplification, and don’t forget quantum mechanics.

Quote

AXIL distorts and describes the process in terms having no meaning in the real world ... plasmonics and spintronics is NOT hand waving with a mainstream an significate following in LENR. Ed ignores superconductivity and coherence, another area in LENR science. There is also topology and how those ideas relate to LENR. There is also the role of virtual particles and the vacuum that have a place at the LENR table.

This is just what Dr. Storms had on mind when he mentioned you.. You already managed to involve whole physics into LENR without single one clue...
Ironically just this attitude makes you useful as a collector of links, because until you have no idea what is relevant or not, you cannot also specialize to any particular pet theory.

Quote from AlainCo

Edmund Storms propose that the NAE is nano cracks filled with hydrogen metallic chain.

This is maybe missing other similar ideas.

This points out the fault in the method that people use to understand how LENR works. There is an entire science built around how metallic hydrogen works, what it is, how it forms, how long it lasts, what its structure is, How heavy it can get, how it reacts to EMF. Ed Storms does not care what others have found in their study of metalized hydrogen, so he invents what he imagines how metalize hydrogen should work.

If Ed did this research, Ed would find that metalized hydrides are superconductors, Ed would look into how that behavior comes about, he would then attempt to understand if superconductivity had and import to LENR.

There is a complete disregard to connecting LENR to existing science. People just invent things out of whole cloth because it is too hard to go do the background research into the connections that exist between LENR and the general body of existing science.

When such connections are discussed, Ed says that discussion is hand waving and word salad. As a one time professional scientist, why is Ed so reluctant to do the hard work in discovering the connections between things.

When there is a mystery to be solved, its resolution involves a step by step process of discovery involving the most miniscule details. That is what science does or what it should be.

Where can I find more information (structure, properties, etc.) on this Hydroton postulated by Storms?

Ed Storms seems to be centered here:

http://lenrexplained.com