It is possible that the reaction is so fast that melting happens later...
The speed of individual nuclear reactions is not relevant because you need tens of thousands of reactions just to create a microscopic hot spot. The conclusion is obvious: there can be a major source of heat in molten metal.
You cannot prove the speculation by another speculation.
The observation is not speculation. Self sustain mode of the reaction points to a energy storage mechanism in the entity that produces the reaction. A reaction that is self stimulated must be self powered.
QuoteSelf sustain mode of the reaction points to a energy storage mechanism
How do you know, it was not radioactive decay of some shortliving product of thorium?
You can't know it - you assumed it as an evidence of your theory = circular reasoning.
The speed of individual nuclear reactions is not relevant because you need tens of thousands of reactions just to create a microscopic hot spot. The conclusion is obvious: there can be a major source of heat in molten metal.
Hermes : The energy of one alpha 23.6MeV particle is enough to create a hotspot and a new cavity. Heat can also be counter productive for LENR as it disturbs the coherence of the involved hydrogen.
axil: The only LENR reaction that "runs" (seems to run is a more exact description..) in a liquid is ARC-electrolysis. All other reactions are (near/inside ) surface bound!
axil,
In your post #60 you are suggesting “facts” that are a bit awkward. The topic is about 7 questions, formulated by Ed Storms, that can be answered. So the topic is not about describing all the possibilities to establish cold fusion, nor it is an invitation to everyone to present his own cold fusion theory that’s not in relation to Ed Storms experiments.
However, if you don’t understand my explanation (post #44 and #57) you can ask questions about it and even ask for an illustration of the consequences.
The energy of one alpha 23.6MeV particle is enough to create a hotspot and a new cavity. Heat can also be counter productive for LENR as it disturbs the coherence of the involved hydrogen.
Note that this energy cannot be freed in one quantum as it would be detected.
Anyway, for keV quantum of possible energy, Edmund Storms have studied how to avoid melting.
Phonons are impossible, but x-rays or charged particles can be vectors.
http://lenrexplained.com/wp-co…ation-revised.pdf#page=28
page 28+
Note that this energy ( 23.6MeV particle) cannot be freed in one quantum as it would be detected.
Anyway, for keV quantum of possible energy, Edmund Storms have studied how to avoid melting.
Phonons are impossible, but x-rays or charged particles can be vectors.
AlainCo : This is obvious as you at least need a two body reaction, which already halves the amount. But the exact heat equivalent is 23.6MeV. Just remind, that room - temperature is about 40m(milli)eV. Thus you can heat over 100 million atoms... That's also the reason why storms theory doesn't work. You dont have more than some millions of atoms in a nano particle! But it could work in bulk electrodes!
PS: In sono fusion alphas are directly ejected!
“That's also the reason why storms theory doesn't work.”
Sorry, but I am a bit uncertain about the range of your opinion. Do you mean Ed Storms conviction about the causal connection between excess heat and the cracks at the surface of the palladium lattice? Or do you mean his hypothesis about the “hydroton”? ("hydroton" is Ed Storms supposed string of metallic hydrogen)
Anyway, for keV quantum of possible energy, Edmund Storms have studied how to avoid melting.
AlainCo: The classical timeframe of a nuclear reaction is to short to break it up into keV events and thereafter to explain heat dissipation. You must be able to show that these events last much, much longer than in the classical case!! or that EM radiation is emitted!
Both cases are not physically modelled yet. Thus, per definition, there is no model, just Storms assumptions.
This Cr39 picture shows a LENR reaction that occurred inside the Cr39 plastic. This picture shows a centralized reaction center with secondary reactions radiating from that center. Note, that the Cr39 plastic itself supports the reaction and not a metal lattice. This says to me that the cause of the reaction can freely move into the plastic and be active independent and self sufficient of its surroundings.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf
See pge 78
3.8.2 Compression experiment of a stabilized Pd/D foil
The recently released DTRA report by Mosier-Boss and Forsley shows how the NAE encased in the palladium lattice is protected by an electromagnetic shield. Before the NAE is charged, no protection is observed. After the NAE has been activated, the palladium lattice is resistant to the power of the explosion.
Not only hydrogen can be metalized, so can water. The collapse of the cavitation bubble can produce pressor high enough to form the metalized water. IMHO, it is this metalized water that produces the erosion of the target material seen in cavitation. This metalized water can erode diamond. This indicates that this as well as all metalized material is protested by a SHIELD of EMF that keeps it from decomposition.
Mark LeClair has characterized this water crystal which includes its isolation and photograph. Believe it or not.
http://www.waterconf.org/uploa…r%20Abstract%20WC2012.pdf
The Water Crystal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce3vqlIGxvk
At 34:00 into this video show, Mark LeClair, the president and driving force behind Nanospire begins his presentation describing the production of fusion using cavitation.
At 49:00 into the video. Mark LeClair describes his discovery of the water crystal.
Regarded LeClair's credibility.
The Mosier-Boss and Forsley experiment lends credence to the LeClair claims of neutron production when the metalized material is accelerated into matter. The acceleration of the NAE in encased in pladium produces hot fusion effects as witnessed by the generation of neutrons only when lithium is used as a catalyst.
http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cavitation-radiation.html
"Dog-One wrote:
Quote
Since I have the floor for a moment, let me say this much: I probably should have kept my big mouth shut. What I saw convinced me the LeClair Effect has merit. The big fat BUT in my opinion is this is clearly a poor way to convert Matter to Energy. And the form of energy you get isn't easily useable. Plus, you have the joy of waste product. I'll bet James Griggs has no idea just how dangerous his Hydrosonic Pumps actually are."
Another interesting revelation from the Mosier-Boss and Forsley experiment is that the cratering effect is only seen when a lithium catalyst was used in the experiment. The pressure related metallized material formation process associated with lithium requires at least 4 times LESS pressure than that needed to metallize hydrogen.
axil,
Your last postings are without the name of a person or a group. So may be it’s me who you’are talking to, but probably it is someone else.
Moreover, when physicists are asked to give their opinion about a new paper, they mostly take the time to read it, analyse it and respond to the questioner. Even a peer review takes some weeks (when it is not a simple document).
You are dropping nearly every day a couple of papers to support your opinions and I am sure that you have read all those papers carefully.
I do not doubt that you are a genius, but unfortunately I am not. So I need some time to read papers about applied physics and think about it. And because of my limited capacities I simply cannot read all those papers.
I know, it is shameful, but I have to confess that I am not “devoted” to LENR. So if anything that I have posted has shocked you, I apologize. So cheer up: skipp everything that is posted by H.G. There are others that are skilled in - and devoted to - the theoretics of LENR.
Display Moreaxil,
Your last postings are without the name of a person or a group. So may be it’s me who you’are talking to, but probably it is someone else.
Moreover, when physicists are asked to give their opinion about a new paper, they mostly take the time to read it, analyse it and respond to the questioner. Even a peer review takes some weeks (when it is not a simple document).
You are dropping nearly every day a couple of papers to support your opinions and I am sure that you have read all those papers carefully.
I do not doubt that you are a genius, but unfortunately I am not. So I need some time to read papers about applied physics and think about it. And because of my limited capacities I simply cannot read all those papers.
I know, it is shameful, but I have to confess that I am not “devoted” to LENR. So if anything that I have posted has shocked you, I apologize. So cheer up: skipp everything that is posted by H.G. There are others that are skilled in - and devoted to - the theoretics of LENR.
The one thing that I have found useful is the memorization of the references and the posts that are used in the analysis of a theory. This includes the associated LENR experimental results and other related experiments. This allows instant access to the material and aids in the correlation and comparison of material.
The one blog member that I loved to talk to around here was ECCO. He was the best and had all the LENR info at the tip of his tongue, a first class mind. He taught me a lot. I think that LENR was too much for him and he burnt out (nervous breakdown ?) because he no longer posts anymore at least anywhere that I can find.
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/43
Here is what metallized water looks like when compressed inside berly
Here is what metallized water looks like when compressed inside
axil: One more try: If physicists talk about metalized water they mean - water that somehow behaves like a metal. But please remind, that water is a molecule that consists of two times two orbiting elementary particles and Oxygen, which is condensed matter. There is no reason to ever think that something like a band-structure will occur in "metalized hydrogen or water".
What we know from the sono-fusion experiments is, that hydrogen gets stripped of the oxygen and thus oxygen forms "strings". Thus water and metalized hydrogen are two different matters. Le Clair as far is I know did look at water ...
The closest form of metalized hydrogen, we could discuss about, is Holmilds H(0) cluster. But here again, H(0) is surface bound, not anything that can be viewed at in an isolated form, excect for a short time, when Holmlid is banging it away.
If he could manage to accumulate H(0) then this would certainly become a different story.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2017/01/170126142854.htm
Metallic hydrogen, once theory, becomes reality
Physicists doubt bold report of metallic hydrogen. According to this picture the compressed hydrogen could change into transparent electride instead. Without conductivity measurements the transparent sample remains indistinguishable from reflecting one. Wouldn't be possible to shine at sample with laser of different color from above and from bellow at least?
After all, thee shininess may be something else entirely – like aluminium oxide, which is known to coat the diamonds that sit in the anvil and also becomes shiny under high pressure. Scientists have also cast doubt on the amount of pressure, that the paper claims to have pushed onto the hydrogen: the researchers shouldn't extrapolate the pressure by counting winding on the screws: they should measure it inside the diamond anvil.
QuoteNote, that the Cr39 plastic itself supports the reaction and not a metal lattice.
This is typical speculation of yours based on lack of knowledge how the CR-39 detector works
QuoteNot only hydrogen can be metalized, so can water.
This is what the mythomania syndrome is called. It's a weak schizophrenia condition, completely harmless - until it's not related to real world subjects.
Display Moreaxil: One more try: If physicists talk about metalized water they mean - water that somehow behaves like a metal. But please remind, that water is a molecule that consists of two times two orbiting elementary particles and Oxygen, which is condensed matter. There is no reason to ever think that something like a band-structure will occur in "metalized hydrogen or water".
What we know from the sono-fusion experiments is, that hydrogen gets stripped of the oxygen and thus oxygen forms "strings". Thus water and metalized hydrogen are two different matters. Le Clair as far is I know did look at water ...
The closest form of metalized hydrogen, we could discuss about, is Holmilds H(0) cluster. But here again, H(0) is surface bound, not anything that can be viewed at in an isolated form, excect for a short time, when Holmlid is banging it away.
If he could manage to accumulate H(0) then this would certainly become a different story.
Holmlid does accumulate H(0) on the iridium collection plate. The H(0) shows superfulidic behavior on that plate. The laser beam is directed onto the collection plate and not the iron oxide catalyst that produces the H(0)
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4928572
QuoteA piece of Ir metal in cylinder form (3.5 mm diameter) at the opening of the gas feed tube was in the laser focus. Inside the tube, a few potassium doped iron oxide catalyst samples23,24form ultra-dense deuterium from deuterium gas (99.8%). The ultra-dense deuterium is partially absorbed by the Ir, but finally falls down to the internal bottom of the Cu cylinder.
Also see
http://www2.chem.gu.se/~holmlid/
QuoteUltra-dense deuterium was recently shown to be the first room-temperature superfluid, see Ref. 196 below. It also shows a Meissner effect at room temperature (Ref. 204) and is thus probably also superconductive at room temperature.
The experimenter must accumulate the superconductive material to see superfluid behavior.
This is typical speculation of yours based on lack of knowledge how the CR-39 detector works
This is what the mythomania syndrome is called. It's a weak schizophrenia condition, completely harmless - until it's not related to real world subjects.
I don't take kindly to being characterized as crazy. I might be wrong, but not mentally ill. I think it is time for you to be banned.
