Edmund Storms: Q&A ON THE NAE

    axil.


    Sorry, I apologize for the confusing. I didn’t mean the scientific contents of your post (#91), but the way you responded the critics and started your post with the captivating sentence: “Sorry, this is just an opinion”. That was very well done! Nearly every person in your situation had started a quarrel to defend his ego.


    Personally I have no new theory about the LENR mechanism. Because when a phenomenon (LENR mechanism) is conform the existing physics laws and theories, it is no more than a specific situation in physics.


    That’s why I have asked you about your interest in LENR experiments. Because when a “mysterious” phenomenon like the LENR mechanism is described with the help of the referential frame of reliable physics you cannot speculate any longer about the origin of the phenomenon (or you have to proof the description is wrong).


    In other words: speculation time is over! Ed Storms has described the Pd-lattice process painfully and it showed to be a simple result of the main law in physics, the conservation of energy.


    Now there is a new challenge: there is a need for small LENR reactors that can keep the active area undamaged and can resupply hydrogen into the active area.

    Well, it sounds interesting, isn't it?!

    ED STORMS answer to Axil comments:


    Quote

    AXIL went in to great detail to show how I have not done a proper job supporting my model and how the polariton explains the LENR effect. Once again, he, like other theoreticians, claim I have no idea what I'm taking about. We clearly have an inability to communicate largely as result of our training, he in physics and I in materials science. Also, we clearly do not share the same information about how LENR has been observed to behave. While I may not understand physics as well as AXIL, I do understand what has been observed about the behavior of LENR thanks to having studied the entire literature and studied the effect in the lab for 27 years, with many of the results being unpublished.


    My approach is based on several assumptions, that clearly differ from the assumptions AXIL makes. While I acknowledge my starting points as assumptions, AXIL seems to think his assumptions are true and they show that my approach is wrong. I find discussions with people who take this approach to be unproductive. Rather than exploring my assumptions and trying to see if they lead to important insight, the ideas are rejected and my abilities and knowledge are questioned. I have no doubt that AXIL is smart and knows a great deal about physics. The question is whether this knowledge applies to LENR. For example, the concept of nano Plasmonics and Spintronics is real and valuable. The question we are trying to answer is whether the concept applies to the LENR process.


    AXIL, if you want to engage in a useful discussion, I suggest you try to learn and understand exactly what I'm saying. I ask you to accept my assumptions for the sake of discussion and see where they take the discussion. You might be surprised about what they can explain and predict.

    WAITING FOR AXIL'S ANSWER


    How this half-educated troll with zero background and results in physics can even afford to criticize the active physicists and researchers from Los Alamos National Lab with hundreds of publications goes over my head - but I'm not obliged to understand everything...

    Ed Storms and everybody else who has an opinion about LENR is wrong about what is the origin of the energy produced in LENR.


    Ed Storms is under the misconception that fusion is the primary LENR reaction. This assumption is false. In his latest paper, Leif Holmlid proves that fusion is not the source of energy in the LENR reaction. This LENR energy comes from the breakup of two protons. The primary assumption that Ed Storms uses to frame his theory is wrong. The penetration of the Coulomb barrier is wrong.



    Fusion might happen in LENR because of all the pions and muons produced by proton breakup.


    If tou want to understand LENR, read this paper below.


    This revelation is described here below:



    Published (Jan 12, 2017) on PLOS.org --



    "Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)" - Leif Holmlid



    http://journals.plos.org/ploso…69895#pone.0169895.ref007



    Holmlid Quote:



    "The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found with this assumption [21–23] is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and protons with 14.7 MeV [57]. The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced D+D fusion study in D(0) [14]. Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments. Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities. Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4, 6 and 7 etc, where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than ordinary fusion."



    Sorry my good fellows; forget fusion. Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of fusion as the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words, LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons. Kaon production points to a amplified weak force decay process working to decay protons and neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga electron volts per reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted to mesons. There is a huge amount of energy consumed in meson production, and a trifling amount to heat.

    Quote
    Ed Storms is under the misconception that fusion is the primary LENR reaction. This assumption is false. In his latest paper, Leif Holmlid proves that LENR isnot the source of energy in the LENR reaction. This LENR energy comes from the breakup of two protons


    Holmlid does the experiments at much higher energy density provided with laser pulses, than the cold fusion runs (formation of muons and kaons is common above 150 MeV only).

    Prof. Holmlid indeed knows about it - it's just you who cannot understand it (hint: muons and kaons were observed during Holmlid laser experiments only, nowhere else during cold fusion - make the conclusion yourself).

    The protons are stable particles, their "breakup" cannot produce any energy. You're flooding internet with nonsensical speculations, because you have no idea, what's going on.

    axil,


    I am sorry but I have to interrupt your enthusiasm. There is quite a difference between Holmlid’s experiments and Pd-lattice fusion. I don’t think that you can find any theoretical physicist who believe that a small electric current at the cathode can produce proton decay.

    • Official Post

    mesons would be detected by the many experiments where radiation were detected.

    Holmlid results are interesting, requires replications, and eve may explain unusual situations.


    Reason why Ed proposes it is pep fusion is simply because

    * He4 is produced with energy per He4 around 24MeV

    * conservation of miracles


    I understand that people can push other hypothesis, but being sure it is not variation about dd ded pep pp fusion, while having no finished predictive fact-compatible theory, is a bit overconfidence.


    I'm not sure Ed is right, but until now I don't see this theory is worse than others, and I even see reason to see it better than most.


    I hear people moaning about billard-ball theories, but nobody even discussed about my questions on how an hydroton insulated from outside could leak it's 24MeV energy accumulated in separated d-d in a coherent way through x-rays... If there was a requirement of keV interactions supporting those transition ? whether it should involve both electrons and nucleus or not...

    Like nobody tries to replicate F&P in hot fusions labs, nobody tries to complete the big holes in Ed's theory in Pet-Theories Club.

    Why I like Ed's theory is because he started with conservative assumption on physics and chemistry, proposed what his knowledge of experiments implied, and finally proposed a framework with a big hole that physicists could fill...


    But nobody want to fill it, and most prefers to assume pink fairy, or to follow few experimental results only...


    Who want to fill the hole? Job to do!

    Zephir_AWT said about fellow forum member Axil above:

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    How this half-educated troll with zero background and results in physics can even afford to criticize the active physicists and researchers from Los Alamos National Lab with hundreds of publications goes over my head - but I'm not obliged to understand everything...


    And then in the Playground post #1390 Zephir_AWT said:

    Whereas me and Jed in particular are scientists, "who are forced to read

    well minded but naive thoughts again and again and separate them from
    pure informational noise."


    But then Zephir gave me a link to another forum where then he said:

    "And I'm not scientist and I never claimed so. I'm just more consequential." Linky-to-Zephir_AWT_quote for those who want to see it.


    This is just an observation after you provided some links the other night. I really think you just like to argue and you are welcome to when you provide proof. But you are now just harassing Axil among others.

    So you are as above either a Scientist or not a Scientist in your own words (unless you deny my quotes linked above). I have noticed you hunt and insult Axil. You argue without any independent references 80% of the time, just a snide remark. Maybe you are not very happy IRL, but that is speculation without proof. See how that works?


    I am not a scientist, but have worked with all kinds over the years. A scientist is one who follows scientific method period. Do you know why? They will not get recognized unless their theories are published and peer reviewed (and of course funding or promotion or raises). And in applied physics the language of peer reviewed scientific work is math.


    I will ask you again to please stop with this Axil hunt insult thing you have going on. Please it is not healthy for you. Disagree all you want but skip the insults. Please pretty please!

    Quote

    how hydroton insulated from outside could leak it's 24MeV energy accumulated in separated d-d in a coherent way through x-rays


    What the hydroton is supposed to mean? A proton from hydrogen? At first, the proton may fuse with nickel or lithium instead of another proton. Analyses of the nickel powder used in Rossi’s energy catalyzer show that a large amount of copper is formed. For copper to be formed out of nickel, the nucleus of nickel has to capture a proton… At the case of Li, the 8Be4 will be formed instead, followed with break into two alphas with high kinetic energy, but without gamma radiation. The activation barrier may be higher (but not so high once the shielding of nickel electrons applies) and the resulting energy will be lower.


    At second, the protons during cold fusion are never isolated from outside - this is the main aspect of cold fusion, after all. They always collide at the head of train of another atoms and the resulting energy gets dissipated along this line primarily. There are multiple mechanism, which could be involved in it. The main one probably is, due to entanglement the colliding line of atom nuclei serves like the waveguide, where the resulting particles get absorbed effectively and the waves would bounce back and forth along it, thus prolonging the time for their dissipation into an outside.

    Quote

    A scientist is one who follows scientific method period. Do you know why? They will not get recognized unless their theories are published and peer reviewed


    They still remain scientists. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

    Not so many scientists working in cold fusion research would even pass the peer-review criterion, because the cold fusion research isn't accepted with peer-reviewed journals systematically.


    Quote

    And in applied physics the language of peer reviewed scientific work is math. Please pretty please!


    This criterion renders every finding nonexisting for scientists, until its theory will not be developed. I don't think, it's correct, scientific the less to ignore all accidental findings, which thus have no theory developed yet. Not to say formal one with math.

    Such a method would lead into exactly the situation, which we are facing by now: the cold fusion findings get ignored for one century already. I'm sorta surprised, I'm hearing it again and again just at the cold fusion forum.

    Quote from AlainCo

    mesons would be detected by the many experiments where radiation were detected.

    Holmlid results are interesting, requires replications, and eve may explain unusual situations.

    I see it this way. No radiation will be detected because almost all the energy from the LENR reaction goes into the production of mesons because the LENR energy is stored in an SPP BEC of size N SPPs. The ultra dense hydogen or lithium is a nanoparticle that hosts and amplify SPPs on its surface. Without the UDH, the SPP will produce radiation based on its size when it decays. Radiation release from single SPPs will produce XUV and X-rays whose wavelength that is based on the circumference of the SPP. For example, a spherical SPP with a circumference of 2 to 3 nanometers will release stored EMF with a wavelength of 10 nn when the SPP decays. This is because the SPP is a whispering gallery wave.


    Supporting reference:


    https://phys.org/news/2009-12-…-sensor-nanoparticle.html


    2009-12-tiny-gallery-sensor-nanoparticle.html


    http://www.nature.com/nature/j…7228/abs/nature07627.html


    http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/pdf/10.1038_nature07627.pdf

    Quote from AlainCo

    I disagree. It is possible that the reaction is so fast that melting happens later...

    Can you cite some evidence for such a conjecture? Just how fast would your reactions have to be? As I have already explained it takes at least tens of thousands of nuclear reactions to make a visible molten hot spot. How are these reactions all synchronized when there isn't enough room in a nano crack (according to Storms) to fit so much deuterium fuel? Just how would an ordered state like a Hydroton form if there had just been a nuclear reaction in the neighborhood raising the local temperature? Don't the laws of thermodynamics apply?

    Except for Holmlid who is a member of the noble prize selection committee, a member of the APS, and whose papers are all peer reviewed there.

    Quote

    No radiation will be detected because almost all the energy from the LENR reaction goes into the production of mesons


    Mesons are unstable and they were never observed during cold fusion. Holmlid experiments aren't about cold fusion - in many aspects they're hotter than the hot fusion in tokamak.

    Prof. Holmlid also demonstrates, that the academical titles and peer-review don't warrant recognition: his experiments were not still replicated with anyone else.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Mesons are unstable and they were never observed during cold fusion. Holmlid experiments aren't about cold fusion - in many aspects they're hotter than the hot fusion in tokamak.

    Prof. Holmlid also demonstrates, that the academical titles and peer-review don't warrant recognition: his experiments were not still replicated with anyone else.

    Use logic please. Ed Storms claims cold fusion(misnomer) is produced by metallic hydogen even though Eds concept is wrong. Holmlid properly defines UDH and shows how it produces mesons. Cold fusion -> UDH -> mesons. QED.

    George Milley didn't observe neither meson, neither muon formation during cold fusion. What Ed Storms says about you instead :


    The collection of D that is able to fuse must assemble in a unique condition in the material. None are consistent with observed behavior - except cracks of a critical gap as I suggested. Nevertheless, AXIL keep suggesting ideas having no relationship to what is observed or what is required based on simple logic and known facts. I have given up trying to change his minds. As has been the case with all new discoveries, opinions are only changed when the idea is made so obvious, it can not be ignored by even the most stubborn. Apparently intelligence and knowledge do not help a person change their mind. Apparently, most people simply can not do this unless they are forced to change by overwhelming experience they can not ignore. In my case, I have had this experience in the lab. They have not.


    Acceptance and understanding does not result from adding random ideas that appear to be good. The ideas have to be logically related to each other and to what is known, both about nature in general and about the LENR phenomenon in particular. This logical connection is not be created by AXIL. So, we continue to disagree.


    Quote

    Holmlid properly defines UDH and shows how it produces mesons.


    How the UDH could produce mesons? He claims it being stable.

    There is no proof that LENR produces fusion but muons produce fusion and fission. How can heavy elements like lead be formed by a fusion reaction? Riddle me this please.

    Quote

    How can heavy elements like lead be formed by a fusion reaction? Riddle me this please.


    The lead isn't formed during cold fusion. During hot fusion everything is possible in similar way, like during Holmlid's experiments.
    It just depends on how much of energy would you pump into it at start, because hot fusion apparently has no upper limit of hotness.


    Quote

    There is no proof that LENR produces fusion


    You can be as ignorant, as the worst cold fusion deniers, if the facts don't play well with your toy ideas (theory is too strong denomination here).

    See for example my list of helium-formation citations.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.