CREATIVE OBSTACLE MANAGEMENT FOR LENR, INFO FOR JUL 28, 2015

OBSTACLE MANAGEMENT OF LENR JUSTIFIES "WHY TECHNOLOGY FIRST"!

MOTTO

Success is not measured by what you accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds. (Orison Swett Marden)

This is a pearl of the motivational literature and as such it can accomplish the performance of being both true and untrue in the same time. During my websearch years I have written 437 columns of motivational literature- mainly translated from English to Romanian so I can claim being kind of motivational expert or at least erudite. In this case - the Motto- actually without accomplishments who wil appreciate you, increase your payment just because you have heroically confronted odds and obstacles?the final result is important the quality of the solution you have worked out for a very difficult problem.However "obstacle management" is a very important skill, both in life and in profession. And , now, for the sake of LENR I want to contribute to Obstacles management with a definition/description of what was done, many times unknowingly.
As problem solvers and LENR-ist we are confronted with many obstacles. At  a moment of LENR history, as disappointing than so many other mmoments I have asked rhetorically: "what is the antonym, opposite of "short-cut?" "long-cut" sounds
primitive. so eventually I have coined "OBSTACLED WAY" - but as far I know no English dictionary has accepted it as was the case with "ego out" and "memecracy"

Obviously the way of LENR is a tortuous obstacled way, so our progress depends on obstacle management. My philosophy, as shown in my FQXI essay and in many places on this blog is based on the priority and preponderance of the negative and this leads to the rule:"REMOVE THE OBSTACLES FIRST!
But take a look to LENR the greatest obstacle, as more recent surveys have also shown it is in everyday language- nobody knows  what LENR is, more poetically: LENR is a deep mystery, scientists complain LENR has no one valid theory and technologists say that existing many theories are of no help for them.  Lack of theory is a huge obstacle.
So many good people, people I admire, people with the highest accomplishments say in an ad-hoc chorus that it is not permitted, not rational, not reasonable to reverse the natural order of things- it is a MUST- we have first to understand LENR, to know what, how and why it works, we have to explore a broad area of critical parameters, we have to have absolute safety before even trying to build a technology. Axiom-like, isn't it?
Despite all this, I am thinking differently- take I have not told that I thinking the opposite- the things are never what they seem and are never simple.
And this is an old decision I took it in 1995 - it is written in my paper "WHY TECHNOLOGY FIRST?"  If somebody wants to read it- it is here: 
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/07/about-slow-progress-and-crazy.html    
 It is well known that my favorite meta-sport is swimming counter-stream but in this case my reasoning is based on things that I dare to think and say:

a) it is impossible to have a good LENR theory now;

b) actually LENR is a multiple chain of events all needing explanations some of these coming from branches of Science in state of birth just now;

c) revealing of the theories must go simultaneously with a profound metamorphosis
of matter implied in LENR in the style:"make hydrogen more reactive and nickel more receptive" of DGT, the operative LENR theories will be more like recipes.

There is no other way, no royal shortcut. Ask Rossi if you wish, in the best case he will show you his newest scientific theory trying to convince you that the theory is useful for his technology, this being the scientifically correct behavior. 

But let's translate the Technology First idea in the language of Obstacle Management. The rule is indeed "remove  obstacles first!" but you shall not think rigidly. If it happens you meet an obstacle so huge that it is irremovable, see if it is indeed a fatal, deadly obstacle, try to tame it in some way- than take the wise decision to make a detour and to learn how to coexist  with the obstacle.
Remove the other obstacles and when the Problem is solved in the greatest extent possible come back to the great obstacle and you will have a surprise: you can liquidate it easily, obstacles are aging even faster than humans and get weaker.
So let's do Technology First with courage and responsibility and be convinced a splendid 
bouquet of theories, of many colors, will eventually appear.

DAILY NEWS

1) Update from MFMP Facebook page:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1275-Reactor-parameters/?postID=6473#post6473

2) The paper of Vlad Zhigalov: "Exclusion of the third. A new class of nuclear reactions"
http://lenr.seplm.ru/articles/statya-vlada-zhigalova-isklyuchenie-tretego-o-novom-klasse-yadernykh-reaktsii
http://universe-tss.su/main/nauka/23119-isklyuchenie-tretego-o-novom-klasse-yadernyh-reakciy.html

3) Jim Sweeney is back with a miniature:
LENR Ignored -as Old Nuclear Goes on Life-support

http://londont.blogspot.ro/2015/07/lenr-ignored-as-old-nuclear-goes-on.html

4) Andrea Rossi in a rather romantic mood:
July 27th, 2015 at 8:18 PM

KD:
We believe it will work, but this does not mean that it will work, likewise a lover believes that his beloved lady will fall in love with him, but not always the story goes this way. This is a matter of fact we have to take notice of.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

AXIL DIXIT

The overarching theme of this essay is to explain how  neutrons are only transmuted from protons as a result of beta decay mediated under the control of the weak force.  Nuclear decay requires the weak force and neutron production requires nuclear decay. Nuclear decay resulting in the production of neutrons from protons must occur INSIDE the nucleus. 

To start off, quantum mechanics (QM) is a sometimes thing. Sometimes it does this and sometimes it does that. What QM does is based on probability. Nuclear decay is subject to the vagaries of probability. The production of a neutron from a proton is a sometimes thing. Because of the transient nature of beta decay, we cannot depend on nuclear decay to drive the LENR process. LENR must be produced by an absolutely certain cause...a cause that is guarantied to occur. Descriptions of what quantum mechanics does is absolutely  adverse to absolute statements.  And at the same time, it is nearly impossible to predict how subatomic particles and energy interact to get to the results that are later observed in LENR.

Next, the weak force is one of the four fundamental forces that govern all matter in the universe While the other forces hold things together, the weak force plays a greater role in things falling apart, or decaying. In nuclear physics, beta decay (β-decay) is a type of nucleon re-balancing function in which a proton is transformed into a neutron, or vice versa, INSIDE an atomic nucleus. This process allows the atom to move closer to the optimal ratio of protons and neutrons. Atoms want to have a one for one balance of protons and neutrons INSIDE the nucleus.

The weak force, or weak interaction that is responsible for turning a proton into a neutron is only effective at incredibly short distances. It acts on the subatomic level and plays a crucial role in keeping the number of protons and neutrons balanced in the nucleus or for converting stray neutrons that somehow get outside the nucleus and away from their proton partners into protons.

So it is seen that INSIDE the nucleus, the quark changes its flavor when interacting via the W- or W+. This interaction cannot be observed outside the nucleus because quarks do not exist outside the nucleus. Because of quark confinement, isolated quarks are not observed and the weak force only works in decay processes inside the nucleus. I am ignoring the decay of subatomic particles associated with nuclear processes. 

There are many neutrons inside of atoms and they are universally stable when protons and neutrons are paired together INSIDE the nucleus.  But if there is a very large mismatch in the number of protons or neutrons INSIDE the nucleus, a neutron can decay into a proton or a proton can become a neutron. When a neutron is outside of the nucleus, it will decay into a proton, positron and a neutrino. But in order for a stray neutron to decay into a proton, positron and neutrino, a very heavy W boson is needed to be born out of the energy of the vacuum to mediate the decay of the neutron  through the weak force.

The weak force only manifests itself INSIDE the nucleus or INSIDE the neutron, not in or around the proton or the electron. The weak force is absolutely required to turn a proton into a neutron. In order for the weak force to manifest outside the nucleus, a massive W boson must be born out of the vacuum. Under the rules of virtual particle production, the probability that this huge amount of virtual energy could be borrowed from the vacuum  is proportional to the mass of the W boson. Since the W boson is one of the heaviest boson that there can be... it is huge, the probability that the W boson will come into existence unbidden from the vacuum is vanishingly small. And if the W boson were generated from the vacuum, it would only be around for a very short time since its lifetime is inversely proportional to its mass. And if it did spring into existence from the vacuum, it would need to be produced and located within .1 percent of the diameter of the proton* to properly project the weak force during it almost near instantaneously short lifetime.

* ( the weak interaction involves the exchange of the intermediate vector bosons, the W and the Z. Since the mass of these particles is on the order of 80 GeV, the uncertainty principle dictates a range of about 10-18 meters which is about .1% of the diameter of a proton.)

The bottom line, the probability that the weak force affects subatomic particles OUTSIDE the nucleus is almost ZERO.  

In beta plus decay, for a proton to become a neutron requires the proton to decay into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino OUTSIDE of the nucleus. This virtual neutrino must be produced out of the energy of the vacuum just in the vanishingly short time that the W boson is in existence. This probability of two such extremely unlikely event occurring simultaneously is so small that this nearly impossible combination of events can occur together is close to zero.

Now in a 1 megawatt LENR reactor, there needs to be 10^25 LENR reactions more or less  happening during each and every second. This implies that the LENR reaction must be a sure thing and absolutely prolific. Because of timing, the range of the weak force, and the large energies involved, the probability of the creation of neutrons outside the nucleus is almost zero. This beta decay OUTSIDE the nucleus  therefore cannot be the cause of LENR.  

Yes, neutrons are produced by LENR but that creation must be a result of beta decay INSIDE the nucleus after the proton has become a part of the nucleus and the weak force must subsequently re -balance the number of protons and neutrons to keep the nucleus in the zone of stability.

For all who propose the creation of neutrons OUTSIDE the nucleus as the root cause of  LENR, they must address how the rules of the standard model, the production of virtual particles from the vacuum and the nature of beta decay and color change through the weak force are changed to allow this neutron production process to move forward with such great intensity and rapidity. Its not just meeting the requirements of energy balance, it’s meeting all the other conservation laws involved with beta decay and obeying all the rules of road for the standard m

OTHER 

A paper showing how fast is the Science of nano-plasmonics developing:

 1) Plasmonics/metamaterials and crystal growth at the crossroads 
http://metaconferences.org/ocs/public/conferences/9/pdf/3778.pdf
D. A. Pawlak1,2, K. Sadecka1 , P. Osewski1 , M. Gajc1 , K. Korzeb1 , A. Klos1 , E. Petronijevic3 , A. Belardini3 , G. Leahu3 , C. Sibilia3 1 Institute of Electronic Materials Technology (ITME), ul. Wólczyńska 133, 01-919 Warsaw, Poland, 2Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Banacha 2C, 02–097, Warsaw, Poland 3Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’Ingegneria – Sapienza Università di Roma, via A. Scarpa 14, 00161 Rome, Italy * corresponding author: Dorota.Pawlak@itme.edu.pl 
Abstract- 
We report on developments in fabricating nano and micro-structured volumetric plasmonic materials and metamaterials utilizing crystal growth techniques as the micro-pulling down method. Materials developed by directional solidification of eutectic composites and directional solidification of dielectrics directly doped with functional nanoparticles.

A neuroscience approach to innovative thinking and problem solving
New technique challenges the ‘keep at it and it’ll eventually happen’ tactichttp://www.cio.com.au/article/580509/neuroscience-approach-innovative-thinking-problem-solving/