Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

Quote from Storms

I have measured the excess power and the amount of current at the same time. The number of emitted electrons is much greater than the number of fusion reactions. If these electrons are emitted with the energy produced by fusion, the mass-energy must have been added to many electrons.

Dr. Storms, are you sure that only D+D=>He fusion should be considered? Did you investigate the locations in the nano-gaps that caused He? Are you sure that no other nuclear reactions took place, like e.g. fission of the palladium around the crack?

You measured unexpected currents&voltages, so I assume you could do that in a process that uses electrolysis. If not how did you became aware of this voltage and current?

Do you believe that the energy of these excess electrons sufficiently explains the missing excess energy of forming He4, or was your lab instrumentation insufficient to do this?

I have seen hydrogen embrittlement of cold-deformed steel. Large cracks all over the place. It seems to me a a similar but much coarse process in comparison of that you use for LENR, which is on nano scale. This embrittlement happens when large mechanical tension is build into the metal while exhibited to hydrogen. I assume that the same happens when e.g. a metal wire is being put under (controlled) stress in a hydrogen environment. Would this be an approach for further investigation?

Quote from Gerard McEk

Dr. Storms, are you sure that only D+D=>He fusion should be considered? Did you investigate the locations in the nano-gaps that caused He? Are you sure that no other nuclear reactions took place, like e.g. fission of the palladium around the crack?

You measured unexpected currents&voltages, so I assume you could do that in a process that uses electrolysis. If not how did you became aware of this voltage and current?

Do you believe that the energy of these excess electrons sufficiently explains the missing excess energy of forming He4, or was your lab instrumentation insufficient to do this?

I have seen hydrogen embrittlement of cold-deformed steel. Large cracks all over the place. It seems to me a a similar but much coarse process in comparison of that you use for LENR, which is on nano scale. This embrittlement happens when large mechanical tension is build into the metal while exhibited to hydrogen. I assume that the same happens when e.g. a metal wire is being put under (controlled) stress in a hydrogen environment. Would this be an approach for further investigation?

Thanks for your comments. You really need to read what I and other people have published. I can focus only on a single subject here. All of your questions are answered in my two books.

A person asked a very good question during a different discussion. Here is my answer. I would like to hear your comments.

"Yes, electrons are involved to reduce the Coulomb barrier and to allow strong force interaction. We know that electrons can assemble to produce chemical bonds. Apparently, they can assemble in a different way when certain conditions are present. They would do this because such an assembly is part of the electron nature, just like chemical bond formation happens because this is the nature of the electron. Clearly, electrons have several ways they can assemble. One is common and the other is rare. Conventional theory has focused on the chemical-assembly process. We now need a theory describing the other process. People have explored other kinds of assembly to explain superconductivity. We now need to expand this understanding to explain LENR.

Why the gap encourages this assembly process is unknown. We can imagine the very large negative field present in a small gap might play a role. Clearly, the gap size is important, which would determine the magnitude of the negative field and how the electrons might form a structure. We have to assume that electrons want to form such a structure and only need the correct environment. Why they want to form the structure is unknown and would be the focus of a theory."

Quote from Storms

Yes, electrons are involved to reduce the Coulomb barrier and to allow strong force interaction. We know that electrons can assemble to produce chemical bonds. Apparently, they can assemble in a different way when certain conditions are present. They would do this because such an assembly is part of the electron nature, just like chemical bond formation happens because this is the nature of the electron.

This is the traditional picture. A bound electron behaves as EM flux. Only if you perturb the flux orbit charge is produced to restore the flux balance.

Physics has been defined by the old bang-bang guys, unluckily without understanding the real physics of mass. There is no coulomb barrier at all as matter itself always is neutral = free of charge.

The H*H*/D*-D* condensation is a magnetic process that needs a high B gradient to align the spins. Typically a very high current is sufficient as already Santilli, long before P&F/Mills, did show.

Even better is a catalyst with a high local field like Holmlid uses.

The nuclear force are all the same, just teh topology of the action "waves" define their strength. E.g. Deuterium is not bound by the classic strong force. The 4-He strong force is larger that inside a proton.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is the traditional picture. A bound electron behaves as EM flux. Only if you perturb the flux orbit charge is produced to restore the flux balance.

Physics has been defined by the old bang-bang guys, unluckily without understanding the real physics of mass. There is no coulomb barrier at all as matter itself always is neutral = free of charge.

Thanks for the comment. But when you say that the Coulomb Barrier does not exist, I know immediately that we are not discussing the same reality. This would be like discussing geology with someone who claims the Earth is flat. Therefore, any additional comment has no meaning because your understanding starts with a basic flaw. You really need to rexamine your basic understanding.

Quote from Storms

...

We have to assume that electrons want to form such a structure and only need the correct environment. Why they want to form the structure is unknown and would be the focus of a theory."

A person asked a very good question during a different discussion. Here is my answer. I would like to hear your comments.

Is there a common explanation for these structures and Prins experiments ?

"How is it possible that a structure consisting exclusively of electrons can be stable despite Coulomb repulsion? Prins recognizes the importance of this problem writing [9]: 'why does it remain stable when the power supply is switched off?' 'There must be some other mechanism. This mechanism should also explain why the electrons do not repeal each other and 'fly out of the gap' when switching off the applied potential.' "

Phys. Commun. 6 085005

Quote from Storms

A person asked a very good question during a different discussion. Here is my answer. I would like to hear your comments.

"Yes, electrons are involved to reduce the Coulomb barrier and to allow strong force interaction. We know that electrons can assemble to produce chemical bonds. Apparently, they can assemble in a different way when certain conditions are present. They would do this because such an assembly is part of the electron nature, just like chemical bond formation happens because this is the nature of the electron. Clearly, electrons have several ways they can assemble. One is common and the other is rare. Conventional theory has focused on the chemical-assembly process. We now need a theory describing the other process. People have explored other kinds of assembly to explain superconductivity. We now need to expand this understanding to explain LENR.

Why the gap encourages this assembly process is unknown. We can imagine the very large negative field present in a small gap might play a role. Clearly, the gap size is important, which would determine the magnitude of the negative field and how the electrons might form a structure. We have to assume that electrons want to form such a structure and only need the correct environment. Why they want to form the structure is unknown and would be the focus of a theory."

Display More

(1) I think you mean negative potential. Fields are vector qtys and therefore cannot be negative.

(2) It is true that electron-electron interactions can be complex. However superconductivity and chemical bonds are all described by the same QM equations. The spookiness of superconductivity comes from electron pairing: after which the pairs can interact as bosons. There are many interesting and not fully understood options for this sort of thing (and therefore superconductivity). The not understood stuff is just exactly what are the solutions to complex many body wave function equations for electrons in lattices where many bound electrons are interacting. They obey the normal laws and those laws do not allow very large local charge build-up. The HUP prevents it without high energy. And, with high energy, there is nothing to hold electrons in place. Certainly electrons cannot hold electrons in place at high energy: there is no force from the equations strong enough to hold electrons together.

So while high energy electrons are possible, with energy enhanced by resonance and coherence effects, or in some other not understood way, I don't see how high charge density electrons - as would provide very high screening, are possible. You would need something to "box" the electrons that exerted a very large force on the electrons. All we know that can do that is more electrons (an even higher charge density). Which just makes the problem of how you hold the electrons in place worse.

Quote from THHuxleynew

(1) I think you mean negative potential. Fields are vector qtys and therefore cannot be negative.

(2) It is true that electron-electron interactions can be complex. However superconductivity and chemical bonds are all described by the same QM equations. The spookiness of superconductivity comes from electron pairing: after which the pairs can interact as bosons. There are many interesting and not fully understood options for this sort of thing (and therefore superconductivity). The not understood stuff is just exactly what are the solutions to complex many body wave function equations for electrons in lattices where many bound electrons are interacting. They obey the normal laws and those laws do not allow very large local charge build-up. The HUP prevents it without high energy. And, with high energy, there is nothing to hold electrons in place. Certainly electrons cannot hold electrons in place at high energy: there is no force from the equations strong enough to hold electrons together.

So while high energy electrons are possible, with energy enhanced by resonance and coherence effects, or in some other not understood way, I don't see how high charge density electrons - as would provide very high screening, are possible. You would need something to "box" the electrons that exerted a very large force on the electrons. All we know that can do that is more electrons (an even higher charge density). Which just makes the problem of how you hold the electrons in place worse.

You assume that energy is required for electrons to form a structure when this is never the case. The assembly of electrons that form chemical structures always gives off energy when it forms. The electron pair that is asssumed to explain superconductivity gives off energy when it forms. Why would you assume that only the kind of assembly needed to cause fusion would require energy to form?

Also, you assume the electrons repeal each other. The electrons do not repel each other when they assemble to form chemical bonds. Obviously, the electrons interact with each other to form a stable structure based on Gibbs energy release. In other words, electrons have a property that can override the negative charge, which some people have considered to be magnetic. We need to look more deeply at this possibility.

Quote from gio06

Is there a common explanation for these structures and Prins experiments ?

"How is it possible that a structure consisting exclusively of electrons can be stable despite Coulomb repulsion? Prins recognizes the importance of this problem writing [9]: 'why does it remain stable when the power supply is switched off?' 'There must be some other mechanism. This mechanism should also explain why the electrons do not repeal each other and 'fly out of the gap' when switching off the applied potential.' "

Phys. Commun. 6 085005

Thanks, this is the kind of information I'm looking for. It's important that other phenomena are having to deal with the same issues.

I just downloaded Prins' book from Amazon, "The Physics Delusion" and discovered a kindred spirit. Prins describes the reality of physics as I have learned to see it. He says, "The book is a robust attempt to redirect physics from the present realm of fairytales." Apparently, he has suffered at the hands of physics in the same way we have. Perhaps cold fusion is not alone in revealing the flaws in how physicists view reality. I suggest this be required reading by everyone who thinks they understand reality.

Quote from Storms

But when you say that the Coulomb Barrier does not exist, I know immediately that we are not discussing the same reality.

John O'M Bockris used to say: "The Coulomb barrier is a shibboleth! A myth!!" Make of that what you will. Perhaps he had something in mind like what Prins says?

(Everything he said was with exclamation points.)

Quote from Storms

A person asked a very good question during a different discussion. Here is my answer. I would like to hear your comments.

"Yes, electrons are involved to reduce the Coulomb barrier and to allow strong force interaction. We know that electrons can assemble to produce chemical bonds. Apparently, they can assemble in a different way when certain conditions are present. They would do this because such an assembly is part of the electron nature, just like chemical bond formation happens because this is the nature of the electron. Clearly, electrons have several ways they can assemble. One is common and the other is rare. Conventional theory has focused on the chemical-assembly process. We now need a theory describing the other process. People have explored other kinds of assembly to explain superconductivity. We now need to expand this understanding to explain LENR.

Why the gap encourages this assembly process is unknown. We can imagine the very large negative field present in a small gap might play a role. Clearly, the gap size is important, which would determine the magnitude of the negative field and how the electrons might form a structure. We have to assume that electrons want to form such a structure and only need the correct environment. Why they want to form the structure is unknown and would be the focus of a theory."

Display More

Oh boy, the "Why they want to form a structure" seems like a question of information theory and something that will be hard to answer absolutely. We might be able to find LENR's mechanisms of operation, but I don't think I could answer that question with any absolute statement of why it formed any more than I could answer the question why are we here? Maybe it's the very ability we have to be able to ask the question 'Why' that is paradoxically also the answer? Or perhaps it is just like us humans forming in groups like this one, to give to one another in a collective experience of consciousness?

The stoics had a name for this called 'sympatheia', or better known as sympathy today. It certainly has been observed in physics that sympathetic systems create synergies in which emergent phenomenon arise. Phenomenon like crystalline formation, biological life, and the most clear representation of sympathetic resonance in vibrating fields. It could be asking the reason why the structures form isn't a very good question. Maybe a better question to ask is; what to do with the awareness of the LENR formations and how does our systems interact with it to give us something useful?

“We are born for synergy, just like the feet, just like the hands, just like the eyes, just like the rows of upper and lower teeth. Working against each other is unnatural, and being annoyed and turning one’s back is counterproductive.”

-Marcus Aurelius

Perhaps my commentary is a tad too esoteric, but it was enjoyable to ponder and write out none the less.

Quote from Storms

You assume that energy is required for electrons to form a structure when this is never the case. The assembly of electrons that form chemical structures always gives off energy when it forms. The electron pair that is asssumed to explain superconductivity gives off energy when it forms. Why would you assume that only the kind of assembly needed to cause fusion would require energy to form?

Chemical bonds overall release energy because they are stable - if they did not release energy they would fall apart! The energy released comes form electrons able to occupy positions at more positive potential around nuclei.

Electron pairs give off energy because the paired (different spin) electrons can occupy the same orbital - this overall allows electrons to get closer to nuclei.

All these effects are precisely modelled by QM theory and simulations.

The kind of assembly you suggest for fusion is a very high local charge concentration (lots of electron charge close to the nucleus) to provide very high screening.

That is not a possible solution of the equations. I've given you the reason - HUP. If it were possible we would have all our atoms collapsing into smaller neutral structures (e.g. like muonic atoms). Those indeed would make fusion much easier - muonic deuterium will fuse very easily. But it is possible muons because they are much heavier than electrons and so have much higher momentum - HUP constrains momentum and position - higher momentum => position can be more precise.

I'm not saying there is no electron assembly that causes fusion. I am addressing only what you have said must do this, which seems on very strong grounds not to be possible.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is not a possible solution of the equations.

That is our limitation, not Nature's.

...

...

...

Quote from Curbina

That is our limitation, not Nature's.

our resident circuitogist QM expert has assertions,,, not solutions...

QM is not 'precise' for multielectron atoms.

Quote from THHuxleynew

All these effects are precisely modelled by QM theory and simulations.

Why can't the Schrödinger equation be solved exactly for multi-electron atoms? Does some solution exist even in principle?

NOT a duplictae, see EDIT below It is common knowledge that the Schrödinger equation can be solved exactly only for the simplest of systems - such the…

physics.stackexchange.com