Tuesday, January 24, 2017

JAN 24, 2017 LENR INFO AND NAE CHAT

MOTTO


The number one quality that separates the very best entrepreneurs and team members from the rest is agility - the ability to change with the times, shift at a moment’s notice, and pivot when needed. (William Vanderbloemen)

DAILY NOTES 

 Ed Storms has answered all my questions re nature and functionality of NAE.


if NAE are nanocracks -why is there a limit for their number/density? Whatis the limiting factor?

Answer-1: The cracks are generated by stress generated by the change in volume when D reacts with Pd.  The cracks form at weak regions in the structure. A limit to the number of weak regions exists in a structure. Once crack formation has relieved the stress, no further cracks can form.  This is basic material behavior having nothing unusual about the process until the Hydroton forms. For reasons yet unknown, once the critical size crack forms, it can then support the LENR process. 

 Are those active cracks special in some way or is it only a problem of size?

Answer-2:  The gap size is the critical condition. A size too large can not support LENR. 

 If temperature is  a factor-(how?),

Answer-3: Temperature determines how fast D can get to the NAE by diffusion from its site in the surrounding lattice. 


 will be the processes at 70, 400, 800, 1200  C be qualitatively the same, or will be some changes in the mechanism?

Answer-4 The mechanism is not changed by temperature. Temperature ONLY changes how fast the fuel (D or H) can get to where it can fuse. 


The NAE are resistant and survive the nuclear process, how and why? 

Answer-5: The gap is filled with a chemical structure consisting of chains of D.  These chains (Hydrotons) fuse by an unknown process and are destroyed. The gap remains in which more Hydroton can form.  The gap can remain because the energy is released slowly without causing destruction of the local lattice structure.  As I have been saying, one unique and required feature of LENR is the slow rate at which energy is released.  Of course, this process is only slow when compared to the hot fusion process.   Cold fusion is actually better described as slow fusion. 

The duration of the PdD excess heat is a problem. Piantelli said he had excess heat for months. 


Answer-6: Many people have seen the process last for a long time. In my case, it stops only when I cause it to stop because  want to go on to other studies. 


The Rossi heat effect seems to be OK for 6 months. 
What do you think and which factors play a role for the claimed greater density of NAE in NiH then in PdD - metallurgy, morphology? Perhaps we have to consider that Pd D works with deuterium and NiH with protium.


Answer-7:  Ni does not take up as much hydrogen isotope as Pd, hence the stress is less compared to Pd. Also, Ni is stronger than Pd, thereby preventing the stress from producing much cracking.  Rossi found a way to produce the active cracks in Ni powder where each grain could contain a number of active cracks. Arata was able to activate Pd powder with impressive power production. Clearly, powder allows more NAE to form within the same weight of material.  Work in Japan is taking advantage of this conclusion using Pd. 

I have numbered the answers and I am commenting them.

Comment-1

Having experience with the catalytic active sites and being a witness of how  the idea of nano- has conquered LENR, plus being convinced that LENR is very complex, diversified, different and dynamic - I am unable to accept that something so simple and unstructured as crack can be the locus of LENR. I think NAE are nanostructures not nanovoids. And my experience in metallurgy, morphology of metals, my memories re different kinds of microscopy do not show such voids/gaps in metals.. This includes (please correct me if I am erring!) studies made with Pd cathodes after use as by ENEA and SKINR.
My knowledge is not in concordance of what you say about how cracks in metals are formed.
If the number/density of cracks is the determining factor for all forms of LENR- we have a variation from 1-10 W/g excess energy in PdD to > 1000 W/g at Rossi  to great a variation in matter of cracks.All we (you)  can do is to deny the reality of the high energy process. 
Cracking being ab ovo destructive would not be 'good' for a technology.

Comment-2

If the gap is the determining factor I see the outright difficulties of performing some kind of smart fissuring, deliberate building of the ideal gap size distribution, both with Pd and Ni (later many other transition metals) It is too much unmanageable randomness in cracking.

Comment-3

The idea that temperature increase is accelerating heat excess release by increasing the diffusion speed of deuterium/hydrogen to the active sites can be perfectly true 
for the interval 25-100 Celsius - for the PdD electrolytic cell.

Comment--4

Here is the main/greatest difference in our opinions. I am convinced tha the icrease of the temperature from 100C up to the melting point of the active metal changes the mechanism of the process by which active sites are generated.
When I have hypothesized that Cold Fusion is determined by topology and takes place in active sites similar to those creating heterogeneous catalysis
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/a_30180
I have  thought from the very start that the moving/dynamics of the surfacee metal atoms- as in the Gryaznov theory of how the active sites in catalysis are formed and formed again- is the cause of the genesis of the structures we call now NAE.
I have described this many times, first perhaps here:
 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/07/29/peter-gluck-on-the-differences-between-lenr-and-lenr/

However I know it well, you do not accept the existence of the enhanced heat release LENR+ process nad this mechanism with NAE born, working, dying in a really dynamic equilibrium. You are right, or I am right- the future will show it.

Comment -5

The existence and functionality of hydrotons is sin=mply a MUST if, I repeate-if- the nano-cracks are the NAE. I have to say that I have never read about something similar- outside NAE and LENR. For D+D the idea has, if not something similar
but a precedent with He formed in the F&P Cell- much discussed recently- but for H+H even in long chains nuclear  reactions in such mild conditions? More proofs necessary, really!

Comment-6

Mea culpa- "many people, "long time"- I m not able now to quantify thse with numbers data of your book, for example. What was the duration of your most 
longeval experiment? The absolute record is.. you know?

Comment -7

What you say is based on the idea that PdD at ,100 c working with deuterium and NiH working with light hydrogen at hundreds of degrees Celsius are very similar
use nanocracks as NAE, D+ D or H+H behave identically in Hydrotons. 
For NiH the Lugano experiment s indicate different nuclear reaction or interactions.

Let's hope, you and I will be longeval enough to continue this dispute till the truth will be known, one LENR or more LENRs, LENR+ yes or no, NAE void or nano-matter and so on..? 

SEE please what AXIL thinks about the NAE- below.

DAILY NEWS

1) Rossi v. IH Case — Judge Upholds, Dismisses Counter-Suit Counts
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/01/18/rossi-v-ih-case-judge-upholds-dismisses-counter-suits/comment-page-1/#comment-294506 


2) Edmund Storms: Q&A ON THE NAE


3) UpdatedCOLDFUSIONCONNECTIONS  by Doktor Bob

4) kald fusjon (Norwegian)

5) Ed Wall continues to report about the Sun Cell
Dawning of the SunCell ® Part 2 of a Series Investigating the Work of Randell Mills Ed Wall*

6) From Gregory Goble
Electric Energy Cell continued

7) Heat generation above break-even from laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium
by Leif Holmlid


AXIL ABOUT NAE AS NANO-CRACKS

Re: if NAE are nanocracks...

More generally, a NAE is a regime of space/time were electrons and photons are confined together for enough time so that they can become quantum mechanically entangled. The confinement allows electrons to be converted to bosons which removes the Pauli exclusion restriction on their massive concentration.

The NAE survives the nuclear process (proton decay) because the proton and the NAE are entangled an become the same. Energy flows from the proton to the NAE as a gentle redistribution of energy in the same subatomic structure.

In the entanglement process, the NAE becomes a special sub atomic particle...a polariton. Anytime electrons are made to rotate is a tight space...confined...polaritons may be formed.

In a bacteria, the process of entanglement is the same. Chemical structure produces the polariton by entangling electrons and EMF.

As an analogy, think about the way a proton pulls in an electron when there are to many protons in the nucleus. The proton pulls in this additional mass/energy to rebalance the system without any catastrophic disruption as gentle as you please.

Its not how many NAE that a system can produce, it is the number that can be confined because polaritons can easily escape their place of birth. Such confinement is done magnetically because polaritons are magnetic particles containing all the spins of all the electrons and photons that have come together to make them up.

Think about ball lightning, how can you contain ball lightning or a plasmoid after it has formed...it easily passes through glass and walls...you put it in a magnetic bottle. 
LENR IN CONTEXT-1

The America First Energy plan

David Fojt has found this:
Study confirms “hydrogen spillover” in catalytic hydrogenation
Dissociated hydrogens reduce substrate on two types of surfaces, but with drastically different efficiencies By Stu Borman (only abstract free)
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i2/Study-confirms-hydrogen-spillovercatalytic-hydrogenation.html?type=paidArticleContent
In some industrial processes, flowing hydrogen molecules over solid surfaces containing catalytic metals reduces organic molecules by hydrogenation. On the basis of a mechanism proposed in the 1960s, chemists think such reactions may proceed through the movement of hydrogen atoms in a process called “hydrogen spillover.” But researchers haven’t been able to confirm this mechanism because models of the reaction are difficult to create and analyze.

With a new, realistic model system, researchers have shown . .
.
Scientists develop first catalysed reaction using iron salts
Date:January 20, 2017
Source:University of Huddersfield
Summary:
A new chemical reaction has been developed that is catalysed using simple iron salts – an inexpensive, abundant and sustainable alternative to costlier and scarcer metals. The research could lead to huge economic gains in the pharmaceutical and agrichemical sectors, plus more affordable medicines for healthcare providers, say researchers.
LENR IN CONTEXT_2

Shown today by Gapingvoid
How To Develop Agility (And Own The Future)http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamvanderbloemen/2016/04/29/how-to-develop-the-agility-and-own-the-future/#b1de82c5974f

How playing Wittgensteinian language-games can set us free
https://aeon.co/ideas/how-playing-wittgensteinian-language-games-can-set-us-free?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=55c7fdbe70-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-55c7fdbe70-69012005


9 comments:

  1. Frank Acland
    January 24, 2017 at 1:44 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    When you say the QuarkX is acting a ‘little different’ now, does this mean:

    1) You had to repair the reactor
    2) You had to adjust the control system
    3) The power output is lower
    4) The COP is lower
    5) The QuarkX is less stable
    6) You had to start over on your quest for Sigma 5
    7) Something else

    Thank you for what you can tell us.

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    January 24, 2017 at 3:56 PM
    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- no
    4- no
    5- no
    6- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom Conover
    January 24, 2017 at 6:13 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    May I inquire if the heat transfer again had to be increased? Thank you for your answers to Frank, and the many others that openly try to encourage you in your work.

    Tom

    Andrea Rossi
    January 24, 2017 at 6:15 PM
    Tom Conover:
    Yes, we found a very brilliant solution.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    JPR
    January 24, 2017 at 3:30 PM
    Update?

    Andrea Rossi
    January 24, 2017 at 4:00 PM
    JPR:
    Got a good restart,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Regarding: Ed’s answer to Peter’s comments on cracks:

    Ed Storms states in part:

    Well Peter, you do not disappoint. As expected, you do not agree with a single answer I gave. In addition, AXIL distorts and describes the process in terms having no meaning in the real world.

    Axil answers:

    The polariton is a primary part of the Widom-Larsen LENR Theory and was identified by NASA as far back as 2011 in their LENR patent application. There is a major field of LENR that postulates the polariton as the primary mover in LENR theory. This includes the ball lightning school and the plasmoid crew (Ken Shoulders).

    There are 10’s of thousands of papers written about Plasmonics and spintronics. The magnon, a close relation to the polariton, is central to spintronics which is s an emerging cutting edge field of science and engineering.

    The point to be made is that nano Plasmonics and Spintronics is NOT hand waving with a mainstream an significate following in LENR. Ed ignores superconductivity and coherence, another area in LENR science. There is also topology and how those ideas relate to LENR. There is also the role of virtual particles and the vacuum that have a place at the LENR table.

    Ed’s nanocrack theory is correct as far as it goes but unfortunately – in spite of the accurate description - Edmund Storms has no idea about the fundamental theoretical background of LENR reaction. This species of hydrogen that Ed assumes these cracks produce have no basis in reality…strictly a product of Ed imagination. Ed has never attempted to understand why LENR does not produce radioactive byproducts or gamma rays especially if the cracks produce fusion. There is an entire school of LENR belief in exotic neutral particle production that Ed completely ignores in his selection process of LENR experiments he chooses to study. Ed ignores exploding wire experiments and the associated monopole theory folks that conducted them.

    Ed does not explain what causes fission in LENR and how Lithium 7 and transmute to Lithium 6. Ed also ignores all the plasma based LENR experiments where there is no cracks to be found and also biological LENR.

    Ed Storms needs to broaden his thinking to cover more areas of LENR research and try to address them; such broadening of concepts is not hand waving.

    LENR is far more complex than the limited case that Ed Storms is interested in. The solution to LENR is in complexity not in simplification, and don’t forget quantum mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Peter Gluck,

    It isn’t difficult to imagine that the theoretical problems about LENR are caused by a lack of adequate foundational physics. So you have to accept that you cannot solve the problems about the mechanism with a discussion about Ed Storms description of Pd based nuclear fusion.

    Moreover, the description of Ed Storms is accurate and is accordant to the observable phenomena. You can discuss some details with Ed Storms about his conclusions – like the existence of “Hydrotons” as an self-sustained phenomenon – but you cannot draw any conclusion about it. Just because you cannot establish your intuition with the help of foundational physics.

    However, this is an important discussion and don’t destroy it with hurrying too much because you are eager to force results. Ed Storms description is a reliable observation of Pd based fusion and a perfect underground to investigate low temperature nuclear fusion (hopefully Ed Storms will contribute a lot; he is the empiric professional).

    Maybe you have to be a bit more serious (more scientifically). Skip a lot of irrelevant issues – like the never ending Rossi story – and try to wipe out a lot of layman’s contributions. The progress of LENR don’t depend on a summary of all the “LENR opinions” from the internet. At the moment there is more than enough scientific and industrial interest in LENR so there is no necessity to promote LENR any longer. Try to concentrate on the foundations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,

      I suppose what you have told here is the critique part.
      But where is the positive part- please apply foundational physics, take the storms model and try to make a sketch about a research strategy- follow your own advice and tell experimenters what should they do.
      You can conceive it as an Editoril and I will publish it on the Blog as Advises fro... with pleasure
      Just it should be constructive, creative...It will be fine to help Ed Storms- many colleagues accept his Explanation.
      peter

      Delete
  5. @Peter Gluck,

    Sorry, I was a bit too vague. I wrote: “the theoretical problems about LENR are caused by a lack of adequate foundational physics”. However, it is more clear when I had wrote: “the theoretical problems about LENR are caused by a lack of new foundational physics”.

    First of all, what is foundational physics? There are a lot of interpretations but the kernel is the model that declares the existence of physic laws and physic constants. Unfortunately, there is no model in theoretical physics that can elucidate the existence and alterations of all the phenomena in our universe. Nor it can elucidate the existence of physic laws and constants. In fact, the problems about LENR are the existing problems in theoretical physics for more than a century (the aether theory was a first attempt to solve these problems).

    So we don’t know why atoms emerge from the underlying spatial fields, we call quantum fields. We even don’t know why there is a constant speed of light, irrespectively the speed – and the direction – of the phenomenon that radiates the light. Why there is a quantum of energy (Planck’s constant). Even the origin of the conservation of energy – the main law in physics – is a mystery. Etc., etc.

    So we don’t know why there is a Coulomb force and what mechanism/alteration is responsible for its existence. In other words: “inventing” the LENR mechanism is the construction of adequate theoretical physics (a concept that can elucidate ultimate reality).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regarding: “the theoretical problems about LENR are caused by a lack of new foundational physics”.

    This points out the fault in the method that people use to understand how LENR works. Ed Storms has invented a hydrogen metallic chain produced inside cracks that he thinks is his original creation, but this is not the case. There is an entire science built around how metallic hydrogen works, how it forms, how long it lasts, what its structure is, low heavy it can get, how it reacts to EMF.

    Ed Storms does not care what others have found in their study of metalized hydrogen, so he invents what he imagines how metalize hydrogen should work.

    If Ed did this research, Ed would find that metalized hydrides are superconductors, Ed would look into how that behavior comes about, he would then attempt to understand if superconductivity had and import to LENR.

    There is a complete disregard to connecting LENR to existing science. People just invent things out of whole cloth because it is too hard to go do the background research into the connections that exist between LENR and the general body of existing science.

    When such connections are discussed, Ed says that discussion is hand waving and word salad. As a one time professional scientist, why is Ed so reluctant to do the hard work in discovering the connections between things.

    The foundational physics exists but the connections need to be made to it.

    When there is a mystery to be solved, its resolution involves a step by step process of discovery involving the most miniscule details. That is what science does or what it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BRILLIANT LIGHT POWER’S 3RD ROADSHOW EVENT
    By request, we have agreed to run a 3rd, updated event in our Roadshow series at ABM Industries Irvine, California location on February 28th from 2-4pm PST. For the first time we will have some limited space for interested parties to attend due to the size of the venue. Please contact pallison@brilliantlightpower.com if you would like to attend for details. Video of previous Roadshow events are available on the Demonstration Days page.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did you know that you can create short links with Shortest and receive money for every visitor to your short urls.

    ReplyDelete