Category Archives: Interview

Storms on The Space Show

Edmund Storms was the guest on the Space Show Tuesday March 15. The hour-long discussion with live call-in question and answer is here:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/15-mar-2016/broadcast-2666-dr.-edmund-storms

We welcomed back to the show Dr. Edmund Storms to discuss updates LENR R&D. During the first segment of our 62 minute discussion, Dr. Storms started us off with a brief historical overview of the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction -cold fusion energy research and development efforts. We discussed the use of the term cold fusion as compared to LENR, the work of Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat LENR generator, and the need for secrecy given the patent laws applicable to LENR designs and products.

In addition, Dr. Storms talked at length about the various chemical reactions that were being studied to produce LENR fusion, explaining why the experiments were challenging due to the difficulty in their being repeatable and dependable. He explained the different approaches being used and the “secret” seemingly known only to Rossi regarding his E-Cat device. During this discussion, Dr. Storms talked extensively about nuclear reactions, fuel, hydrogen isotopes, light hydrogen, nickel, and palladium.

Later in the segment, Dr. Storms was asked if the research for LENR was organized and centralized or decentralized. Our guest said the research was very dispersed and decentralized. Much of it was actually taking place in small private labs. He talked about research funding needs which could range from about a million dollars for a small lab to tens of millions of dollars for a large scale multi-lab research effort. Since he was making potential “save the world” type claims for this type of energy, I asked him about other energy forms discussed on The Space Show that make the same type of “save the world “claims. Don’t miss what Dr. Storm had to say in response to my question.

John in Ft. Worth called to talk about the original Pons and Fleishman cold fusion experiments. In responding, Dr. Storms introduced us to the concept of Nanoracks. Dr. Storms believes LENR has something to do with Nanoracks which he explained in detail with John and in the balance of the first segment.

BJohn asked about LENR applications for spaceflight. Sandra asked about the size of LENR generators and if they would be individual or industrial in scope. Don’t miss the vision Dr. Storm explained to us regarding LENR usage, starting at the industrial scale but working toward individual usage. He talked about the problems & challenges in accomplishing the transition from industrial to personal.

In the second segment, Dr. Storms was asked about the methodology and game plan for developing and bringing to commercial operation LENER. Our guest talked at length about the need for a varied multi-discipline set of studies including nuclear physics and chemistry. He explained why this was an unlikely academic mix. Also during this segment, he stressed over and over again that there were no academic classes in LENR anywhere plus there were no text books on the subject. In fact, John from Ft. Worth even inquired as to why so much of conventional science was opposed to LENR.

Later in the segment, I asked for Dr. Storm’s plan to accelerate LENR R&D. He suggested putting the effort and money into the national labs research programs which a more sympathetic to LENR research. He said the work from the labs would be highly credible and would then be useful in helping to start academic programs facilitating the study of the subject. As the program was nearing its end, Larry asked about crowd funding programs to support this research. Don’t miss Dr. Storm’s concluding comments.

Please post your comments/questions in the comments section for this archived program on The Space Show website. You can reach Dr. Edmund Storms through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather

Interview with Peter Gluck

Edmund Storms from the interview with Peter Gluck of Ego-Out.

Edmund-StormsLENR 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 nuclear active environment (NAE) located?

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.

So the question becomes, “Where in space is the NAE located, such as near the surface, and what is unique about the NAE that separates it from the normal structure”?

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.

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.

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 is compatible with the 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?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather