Tag Archives: LENR theory

Q&A on the NAE

Peter Gluck of Ego-out engages Edmund Storms on the NAE
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/01/jan-23-2017-lenr-info-questions.html

Question If NAE are nanocracks – why is there a limit for their number/density? What is the limiting factor?

Answer 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.

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

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

Question If temperature is a factor, how?

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

Question Will the processes at 70, 400, 800, 12000 C be qualitatively the same, or will be some changes in the mechanism?

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

Question How and why do the NAE resist and survive the nuclear process?

Answer 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.

Question Piantelli said he had excess heat for months. The Rossi heat effect seems to be OK for 6 months. Why is the duration of the PdD excess heat a problem?

Answer 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.

Question 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 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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather

JCMNS Vol. 20 publishes two Storms papers

JCMNSlogo

The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science JCMNS Vol. 20 [.pdf] has published Anomalous Energy Produced by PdD and How Basic Behavior Can Guide A Search for an Explanation both by Edmund Storms, LENERGY, LLC.

Anomalous Energy Produced by PdD on pages 81-99 reports on the “production of anomalous energy using two different samples and the behavior of this energy when temperature, deuterium content of the material, and applied current are changed.

“The observed response gives additional insight into the possible mechanism and corrects some previously incorrect conclusions about this behavior.”

Storms has determined that high-loading is not a necessary condition to initiate the reaction, and that the single greatest factor is temperature.

The second paper How Basic Behavior Can Guide A Search for an Explanation pages 100-138 is a systematic narrowing of LENR models as examined by their assumptions and logical consequences. Jettisoning all ideas that rely on imagined events, the theoretical field is pared down with only the most robust theoretical elements surviving.

An attempt to provide a reasoned approach to an explanation continues the further evolution of Nanocrack Theory, where experimental evidence is supreme.

Download JCMNS Vol. 20 from the lenr-canr.org JCMNS library page here:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1495

or download the .pdf directly here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondenseds.pdf

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather

LENR theory paper revised with more detail

Edmund StormsHow basic behavior of LENR can guide a search for an explanation [.pdf] has been revised with more details.

Download [.pdf]

Fig-8

How basic behavior of LENR can guide a search
for an explanation
[.pdf] by Edmund Storms

ABSTRACT
The LENR effect was identified 27 years ago by Profs. Fleischmann and Pons as production of extra energy in a normal chemical structure, in this case PdD. Over a thousand published papers now support the discovery and the energy is shown to result from fusion of hydrogen isotopes without the need to apply energy and without energetic radiation being produced. By conventional standards, the claims are impossible. Nevertheless, a new phenomenon has been discovered requiring acceptance and understanding. The major behaviors and their present understanding are described in this paper and are used to suggest how an effective explanation might be constructed. Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept the impossible. In this case, the normal skepticism needs to be ignored in order to determine if this promised energy source is real and can provide the ideal energy so critically
needed.

INTRODUCTION
Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) or Cold Fusion was introduced to the world 27 years ago by Fleischmann and Pons(1), Univ. Utah, with expectation of great benefit to mankind. Instead, their claim for a new kind of fusion was quickly rejected (2), an attitude that continues even today. Over the years, several thousand papers addressed the subject with a large fraction supporting the claim(3). Mastery of about 1000 papers is now required to understand the effect.

A description of all the known behaviors and all proposed explanations would require much more than a single review paper. Here, only the tip of the large iceberg will be examined along with some original results not published elsewhere. The selection of behaviors is designed to focus attention on only the essential conditions required to cause the LENR effect. Limits will be set using observed behavior in order to evaluate proposed explanations. The new kind of nuclear interaction needed to explain LENR is expected to fall within these limits. In other words, boundaries need to be identified to keep the imagination from running wild. The LENR effect is assumed consistent with all rules normally applied to conventional chemical and nuclear behavior. Nevertheless, a novel mechanism is clearly operating and needs to be acknowledged.

Many conditions needing consideration are not quantitative or lend themselves to mathematical analysis. While frustrating to conventional scientists, these unique behaviors must be made part of a successful explanation. Quantitative behaviors can be used to expand understanding once the basic process is understood.

An effective explanation needs to solve several difficult problems. The Coulomb barrier needs to be overcome without using more energy than is normally available in a chemical structure at room temperature. Neutron formation, which has been suggested by several theoreticians (4, 5), is prohibited because the required energy of 0.78 MeV and the required neutrino can not be expected to be available at the same site at the same time. Once fusion has occurred, the mechanism must then dissipate the huge nuclear energy released by the process without producing local destruction of the chemical structure or energetic radiation. The mechanism must also account for various transmutation reactions known to occur. Failure to combine these events in a way that is consistent with known chemical and nuclear behavior dooms most efforts to explain the process. In contrast, a single mechanism is proposed in this paper to cause all observed behavior while being consistent with known chemical and nuclear behavior.

This paper has two parts, with the first describing the important observations on which an explanation must be based. The second part uses a few assumptions combined with these chosen behaviors to provide an explanation about how LENR can be initiated using a proposed mechanism. This mechanism is clearly much different from that causingn the conventional hot fusion process. Ironically, this conflict is used to reject the claims for LENR rather than guiding a search for the cause of the difference. Consequently, this difference must be clearly understood before the novel features of LENR can be explored.

Unlike hot fusion, LENR takes place in and requires a chemical structure to operate. The role of this structure must be understood before physics is applied to understanding subsequent nuclear process. Clearly, a unique and rare condition must form in the structure in which a nuclear process can function. The nature of this condition is discussed following the discussion of hot fusion.

Continue reading How basic behavior of LENR can guide a search for an explanation – Revised here.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather