INTERVIEW WITH DR. EDMUND STORMS
Based on a discussion stimulated, in part, by the coming CERN Seminar on D/H loaded palladium , Ed Storms has summarized his answers in this way. It is about the essence of the problems of the field
"LENR has two aspects, each of which has to be considered separately. The first question is where in the material does the nuclear reaction take place. In other words, were is the NAE located. This means where in space is the NAE located, such as near the surface, and what is unique about the NAE. The LENR reaction CAN NOT take place in the normal lattice structure where it would be subjected to the well known laws that apply to such structures.
I propose the only place able to support such a nuclear reaction while not being subjected to the known chemical requirements are cracks consisting of two surfaces with a critical gap between them. Before the nature of the nuclear process can be discussed, a NAE must be identified and its existence must be agree to. Failure to do this has resulted in nothing but useless argument with no progress in understanding or causing the phenomenon.
Once the characteristics of the NAE are identified, a mechanism can be proposed to operate in this NAE with characteristics compatible with this environment. Attempts to propose a mechanism without identifying the NAE are doomed to failure. Without knowing the NAE, we are unable to test the characteristics of the nuclear mechanism to see if it can take place in an ordinary material and we are unable to know how to create a potentially active material.
This requirement is so basic, further discussion is pointless unless agreement is achieved.
This is not a normal physics problem where any idea can be made plausible simply by making a few assumptions. The nature of the chemical environment prevents many assumptions. We are proposing to cause a nuclear reaction in ordinary material where none has been seen in spite of enormous effort and none is expected based on well understood theory. A significant change in the material must first take place. This change must be consistent with the known laws of chemistry. Only the creation of cracks meets this requirement.
Once the NAE is identified, the characteristics of the nuclear reaction must be consistent with what is known. Simply proposing behavior based on general physics concepts is useless. For example, the role of perturbed angular correlations, which you suggest, must be considered in the context of the entire proposed reaction. The question means nothing in isolation. Like many proposed mechanisms, the idea cannot be tested because it has no clear relationship to the known behavior of LENR or to the variables known to affect the phenomenon.
This is not a guessing game. We now have a large collection of behavior all models most explain. Why not start by considering models that are consistent with this information?"
Thanks , dear Ed!
DAILY NEWS
1) The Seven Steps to E-Cat energy by Hank Mills
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/04/the-seven-steps-to-e-cat-energy-hank-mills/
2) Controller Electronics for Airflow Calorimeter and Associated LENR Setup Components
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1994-Controller-Electronics-for-Airflow-Calorimeter-and-Associated-LENR-Setup-Compone/?postID=7303#post7303
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/283-LENR-controller-pdf/
3) ASTRO-LENR?
http://22passi.blogspot.ro/2015/09/astro-lenr.html
4) Stepan Nikolaevich Andreev
FORBIDDEN TRANSMUTATIONS IN SCIENCE
Khimiia I Zhizni (Chemistry and Life) COMPLETE TEXT OF THE PAPER IS HERE
In science there exist some forbidden themes, taboos.
Today very few scientists dare to work in these fields that are complex, muddy,
and difficult. Here it is easy to loose your reputation, you have high chances
to be considered a pseudo scientist and you cannot obtain grants/funding. In
science it is dangerous to go outside the frame of accepted ideas to enter in
conflict with the dogma. However there just due to the efforts off those brave
Scientists who dare to not be as everybody else that new
ways in knowledge are opened.
We have repeatedly stated that during the development of
sciences, dogma start to get a status of dominant, prejudicial knowledge- that
has happened in biology, physics and in chemistry. We had witnessing how the
teaching of “the composition and the properties of compounds do not depend on
the way by which it was obtained” was ruined/removed by nanotechnology. It was
shown how the properties are essentially changed by nanotechnology, for example
how gold ceases to be a noble metal.
Today we can state that there exist numerous experiments
the results of which cannot be explained by the generally accepted knowledge of
the present. And the task of science is not to get rid of them but to make
efforts to discover their truths. The position” this cannot be now, therefore
it can never be” is obviously convenient but does not lead to explanation. More
than that, unexplained, still incomprehensible experiments can be harbingers of
new discoveries as it has happened so many times.
One of the domains hot in both literal and figurative
senseIs Low Energy Nuclear Reactions-LENR. We have asked
Stepan Nikolaevich Andreev, doctor in physico-mathematical sciences, working at
the Institute of General
Physics Russian
Academy
A very well and clearly written paper. It speaks first about the Rossi reactor, describes the Lugano experiment, discusses power and energy obtained. After that the electric explosions
in wires are presented in context and in some detail- see: G.L.Wendt, C.E.Irion, « «Journal of the American Chemical Society», 1922, 44, 1887—1894, Rutherford himself has called the attention of the scientist to the Wendt_Irion experiment. However they were forgotten and only 90 years later a Russian team lead by Leonid Irbekovich Urutskoev has continued them (Ego Out has discussed with Urutskoev anabout these achievements and their non-conformist interpretation as collective nuclear phenomena)
Other interesting studies are focused on the acceleration of alpha=decays under the ingfluence of lasers. also Russian papers cited. Nuclear reactions in biology are also discussed- see Kornilova and Vysotskii The reproducibility problem is also discussed and the outstanding success of Alexander Parkhomov.
The phenomena cannot be explained by known theories, new ones have to be found- perhaps tunneling plays a role?
A very positive and admirably wise paper/author.
A very well and clearly written paper. It speaks first about the Rossi reactor, describes the Lugano experiment, discusses power and energy obtained. After that the electric explosions
in wires are presented in context and in some detail- see: G.L.Wendt, C.E.Irion, « «Journal of the American Chemical Society», 1922, 44, 1887—1894, Rutherford himself has called the attention of the scientist to the Wendt_Irion experiment. However they were forgotten and only 90 years later a Russian team lead by Leonid Irbekovich Urutskoev has continued them (Ego Out has discussed with Urutskoev anabout these achievements and their non-conformist interpretation as collective nuclear phenomena)
Other interesting studies are focused on the acceleration of alpha=decays under the ingfluence of lasers. also Russian papers cited. Nuclear reactions in biology are also discussed- see Kornilova and Vysotskii The reproducibility problem is also discussed and the outstanding success of Alexander Parkhomov.
The phenomena cannot be explained by known theories, new ones have to be found- perhaps tunneling plays a role?
A very positive and admirably wise paper/author.
5) Andrea Rossi- not more fond of many modules!
September 4th, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Giuseppe Castrogiovanni:
The modules of the industrial plant in operation in the factory of a Customer are 250 kW modules. From here to modules of 50/100 kW the step is not high indeed.
The answer is: yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
September 4th, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Giuseppe Castrogiovanni:
The modules of the industrial plant in operation in the factory of a Customer are 250 kW modules. From here to modules of 50/100 kW the step is not high indeed.
The answer is: yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Experiments have identified many mechanisms that can produce LENR reactions, Ed Storms has identified one of them. LENR can also occur in both the liquid, gas and plasma phases as shown in experiments done to identify LENR over the quarter century of its most resent phase of experimental history. Identifying the NAE is a process of reduction over all these experiments that must focus on identifying the common factors involved over these many currently identified forms of LENR and also the many more forms that are likely to be discovered in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental causation of LENR must satisfy a global set of connected conditions.
This generalize causation mechanism must share, transfer and accumulate energy through quantum mechanical entanglement with clusters of matter of arbitrary size. This instantaneous gleaning of energy from many distinct sources occurs within a spherical zone around an EMF vortex. This duality of causation in the results observed in the LENR reaction leads to understandable confusion. But this multiplicity in the results as produced by the fundamental cause of LENR are unified by a commonality of characteristics linked to a common origin of the effect..
These common and universal conditions include the thermalization of gamma radiation, the rapid to instantaneous stabilization of radioactive isotopes, lack of neutron emissions, and the wide variation of seemingly random transmutation results which includes fusion of light elements into heavier elements and fission of heavy elements into lighter ones, remote reaction at a distance from the location of the LENR reaction(aka NAE), and instantaneous cluster fusion involving huge numbers of sub-reactions that occur instantly and collectively.
Even though the LENR reaction oftentimes occurs concurrent with the presence of hydrogen isotopes, hydrogen in not required as a fundamental cause of the reaction as shown in the experiments done at Proton 21 where a ball of copper is blasted with a high powered arc discharge, and the carbon dust experiments performed using microwaves conducted by George Egely, the new editor of infinite magazine. In the Proton 21 experiments, the nano-particles involved are copper based and in the Egely case the nano-particles are based on carbon. In the Papp reaction. The nano particles are based on chlorine and noble gases.
The experiments of Ed Storms is a first step in a very long road ahead.
Reading Ed's tome would be more amusing only if he were to be breathing in cold fusion produced helium while reading it. The Mickey Mouse voice would at least contribute some comic relief to the ideas notions therein. Alas Ed's never shown the ability to produce any such helium so he is forgiven for not providing the helium assisted podcast for our amusement.
ReplyDeleteThe cold fusion lenr reactions have been observed in such a variety of metals of varying thicknesses and affinity for hydrogen as to make the cold fusion crack'pot' concept far from clear or convincing. Of course one might argue that there are always cracks everywhere, especially in hydrogen loaded metals, but some cracks are wiser than others ;)
Your opinion...why do you not tell courageously who you are and explain things more in detail. Anyway experiments will decide. without Mickey Mouse and other childish tricks.
DeleteThen I can cite you.You know what I think about anonymity.
Peter
Peter