It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question.
The really best questions even don’t need answers; they are valuable per se. (Yves Henri Prum)
SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING ED STORMS’ NEW LENR THEORY.
Our colleague, leading LENR scientist and author, Dr. Edmund Storms has just written a paper about LENR theory. It will be published in the Journal of Condensed Materials Nuclear Science’ Its abstract is here and I am sure the full text will be on the Web very soon.
An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions (cold fusion)
KivaLabs. Santa Fe, NM
A plausible nuclear-active-environment in which LENR occurs is identified by ruling out various possibilities and by identifying an environment that is common to all successful methods. When this environment is combined with a plausible mechanism, many testable predictions result. These insights and proposals are offered to help clarify understanding of LENR and to suggest future studies. The common environment in which LENR occurs is proposed to be cracks of a critical size, followed by a resonance process that dissipates energy by X-ray emission based on a laser-like process. The LENR behavior has the potential to test the Standard Model of nuclear interaction
Many ideas from the paper are developments of those from Dr. Storms’s great LENR guide that I have reviewed here:
In order to avoid interference with the many questions expected regarding particular aspects and details of the new theory, I have asked for the permission of the author to put here some questions I consider relevant.
First question- the Management of Triumph question: in case this theory is 100% real and “true” and a complete success, what are the consequences?
Is this theory first class i.e. predictive (II- prohibitive, III- explicative)? How has it to be developed in order to eradicate low reproducibility, increase intensity and prolong the release of heat energy? How can it be used for scale-up of the systems and which systems are the best.
Second question- in which extent is this theory a TRANS-THEORY?
(Explanation: I think LENR is a very complex combination of more phenomena and it needs more theories working together in harmony- as has, say photosynthesis or nitrogen fixation.
See please what I and other colleagues more knowledgeable than me have said some 7 years ago http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/2005GluckKrivitSurvey.shtml
By the way, when will this Survey be repeated?
Also please look to this excerpt of my 2006 paper: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2006/NET17.shtml#wicked
“From the understanding/theoretical point of view, it seems to be a fatal error to attempt to explain a multiphase, multistep, multilevel aggregate of phenomena by a single theory -- without considering adequately where they take place, how and what they are, etc.”
The perfect example of such a trans-theory is described in Piantelli’s Pontignano Poster 2010.
It also is my pleasure to quote again Defkalion’s bright definition of their process- as they understand it: “a dynamic system of the multistage set of reactions.”
It seems a good theory has to be really trans-theory because the barrier of Mr. Charles_Augustin de Coulomb is only one of the many barriers we have to pass in order to accomplish an industrial LENR process.
My impression is that the new theory is on the best way to become a transtheory. The genesis of NAE has to be thoroughly understood
Third question- what do you consider to be the proofs of the apparent universality of the New Theory?
As I have told more times, Nature has no problems, only solutions. Occam’s Razor is only one of them and sometimes it gets in conflict with the basic principle of maximum interestingness of the world. By the way, in LENR we are victims and scapegoats of this powerful principle. Hyper-complexity has put us repeatedly on the ropes. Therefore it is possible but not certain that the same theory is valid for the Pd-D electrochemical cell- with his rather modest performances. Nature does not like advices or consultants. She does what she wishes.
Piantelli has developed his own theory- that is a trans-theory and it is very self-consistent locally and it applies –as it was verified experimentally to all the transition metals. It is about nanostructures and not voids.
Palladium and nickel have quite different behaviors in contact with hydrogen isotopes and, physically speaking hydrogen and deuterium are more like stepbrothers. The electronic structure of palladium is more closed than nickel; deuterium is poison for the Ni-H process of Piantelli. Many colleagues bet on a D + D process for the palladium cell, H + H looks improbable.
I think only experiment will answer to this disturbing question.
Fourth Question: how does the New Theory explain the serious problems of controllability in LENR land?
Actually despite the smart methods, tricks, many experiments, classic (let’s say pre-Rossi LENR) despite many doubts) is apparently unable come out from the trap of smallish, unsure and volatile results. How can the New Theory explain or even justify this situation? Can we hope that serious improvements based on this theory? I accept this is an issue that needs much work. My friends know well that I ma intellectually married to my poisoning hypothesis. I am able to convince one colleague per year that I am right.
Fifth question- how does the New Theory explain LENR+ i.e. the two orders of magnitude enhancement of energy production in the E-cats and the Hyperions?
What is the significant even huge difference between Rossi’s process and LENR? kWatts vs. tens of Watts? Can the New Theory give some indication, idea whatever? Rossi has told from the start the process is very different from any LENR, including Piantelli’s and he cannot learn anything from classic LENR. The spectacular enhancement shows that he probably is right in this case.
Apparently LENR+ possesses an extra dimension, feature, a new degree of freedom- it is an other, new game. To use a tautology, an unexpected surprise.
Defkalion was speaking about working temperatures of + 650 C starting a couple of months ago, Rossi, Rossi started to mention 600 C more recently and says he is obtaining now a stable work regime at this temperature. Such high temperatures exclude nanostructures formed a priori- they are rapidly destroyed. Do not forget that according the available information, both Rossi and Defkalion are working with micrometric not nanometric nickel powder, however the surface is prepared using some proprietary methods. It also seems that for LENR+ some residual air traces are tolerable and no deep degassing cleaning of the nickel surfaces a la Piantelli’s patent WO 2010/058288 is compulsory.
In essence it is probably about a very dynamic generation of a great population of NAE. Highly active NAEs.