Sunday, June 10, 2012

Ed Storms' answers to 5 questions. Questions No. 6 and 7

I am very grateful to Ed Storms who has promptly and straightly answered to my
first 5 questions- see please below. I hope that his answers will become reality
because LENR's situation is far from the optimal. (I have a Masters Degree in Euphemistics.)
To remind you, the questions were:

1- about the consequences of the perfect success of the New Theory;

2- about the completeness of the New Theory, is it a "transtheory"-?

3- about the validity of the theory for all the existing LENR systems.

4- if the New Theory explains the serious problems of control, characteristic to
all the LENR systems?

5- if the New Theory explains the huge enhancement of energy achived in the LENR+ systems of Rossi and Defkalion?

Question #1: The consequences of my theory being correct are two fold. First, the ability to replicate LENR at robust levels will improve. Once the required cracks can be manufactured on demand, the energy could be made on any scale, from that required to power a computer to a space craft. Second, the phenomenon can be applied to solving the solar defect of neutrinos.  This will cause a new understanding of the Standard model.  But right now, we can only hope.

Question #2: The model will be a "trans-theory" only to the extent that it is acknowledged as plausible and worth exploring. This acceptance is not assured at this time.  As for whether one or many theories are required depends on how many ways Nature has to cause LENR. I assume only one basic method is possible.  Therefore, only one theory is needed, i.e. the correct one. We will have to  wait until the proper tests are made to determine which theory is correct. My model shows exactly which tests need to be done.

Question #3: I base my model on hundreds of observations that show several very robust patterns of behavior.  These behaviors include both the presence and absence of expected behavior.  I rely on using a large number of combinations of behaviors, all of which are consistent with the logic of the model.   In addition, the model can be applied to both deuterium and hydrogen systems using any method for causing LENR.  Of course, less support for the idea exists in the hydrogen system, which makes it the ideal system to use as a test of the predictions.

Question #4: Control is a problem that the model addresses. I assume the rules controlling chemical behavior apply to the process that proceeds the nuclear reaction, regardless how the  nuclear reaction operates. Once the preconditions are understood, the controlling variables can be identified and used in the same manner they would be used to control a chemical processes.  In other words, chemistry determines the rate of the nuclear reaction.  Once the required conditions are formed, the nuclear process occurs very rapidly and without any additional effort.   This is similar to how energy is made in a gas furnace. The rate of energy production is determined by how fast the fuel is applied, in this case D+, and the subsequent flame does its thing without any additional effort or control.

Question #5: Rossi has succeeded in increasing energy production by finding a way to create many active cracks in the fine nickel powder. Presumably the powder has just the right size to support exactly the correct size crack.  As a result, the concentration of NAE is higher than Piantelli was able to achieve in solid nickel.  The secret of the process involves the method and/or the material that needs to be added to Ni to cause the cracks to form.
In my opiniuon the answers o Ed are rational and positive- experiments and time will show. However, the answers have inspired me two new questions.

Question No.6: If the NAE are active cracks in the metal and many/more active cracks mean more energy, isn't then LENR an inherently destructive process?
Is there is a concurrent process by which the structure of the metal is rebuilt,
the "wounds" are healed or the metal is, in a certain sense, sacrificed -structurally speaking, on the altar of LENR?
Piantelli had self-sustaining cell working for some 4 months, Rossi speaks
about an active life time of the material of 6 months- it seems Ni is not destroyed but transmuted.
My guess from the very start (1993 paper) was that the active sites are formed in some way by "surface dynamics"- the movements of the atoms at the very surface of the metal - many degrees of freedom.

Question No.7  : Based on the New Theory, what would you recommend as a STRATEGY for the LENR field? For the time given the global startegy is driven mainly by the scarcity of the resources and the hostility of the authorities.  On what should research and development focus as much as they can? E.g. Pd systems vs. Ni systems?



  1. Question #6: I propose that a limited and relatively constant number of active cracks can form because these result from stress relief. Once all the stress is relieved, no more cracks can form. Of course, most of the cracks made this way will be too large to be active, so that only a small number of NAE sites are making the detected energy.

    The life time will be determined by variables independent of the number of active cites. For example as deuterium accumulates in the E-cat, the reaction rate will drop because the less active tritium formation reaction will start. When deuterium is used to make helium, the helium will accumulate and block access to the active sites for the deuterium.

    I do not believe that any significant transmutation takes place. All measurements of this process show that this reaction is rare, except for the claim by Rossi.

    Question #7: This question involves politics, which makes it difficult to answer. On the one hand, the Pd system has a great deal of experimental support while the Ni system can apparently produce significant power, but based on very little understanding of the process. If the crack model is correct, the metal is not important except that it be able to form active cracks and dissolve D or H as the required reactants. In fact, Ni might be a better host for the D reaction than Pd because it is cheaper and the D is more active than H because each D makes more energy than each H. So, my advice is not to focus on the metal but on understanding the process. Once the process is mastered, the claims will be accepted regardless of the metal used. In fact, I think neither Ni nor Pd are the best host for the reaction.

  2. Is it possible that NAE could form in the surface area between particles if the powder is fine enough and it is compressed by an external force.

    1. Can you please give some details- how fine, which
      compressing force?

    2. I have no numbers. I was just thinking if the area there an uneven surface region touches another could create cavitys that are suiteable for NAE:s (not creating cracks in surface by the force).