Onion Architecture and LENR (Axil Axil)

The following post was submitted by Axil Axil

Like electricity and electronics, we are at the Benjamin Franklin stage of our understanding of LENR as a technology. We stand in a field with a kite string in our hand with a kite lifting into a thundercloud.

The innovation and insights of Maxwell are still many years off, the simple knowledge that allows an electrician to do his job is still not yet defined. The nature of the electron is not even imagined. The transistor and the technology of solid state systems is centuries off into the future.

Like electronics, LENR will require a onion layer approach to education. Complex technologies cannot be swallowed in one mouthful.

Such complex fields of knowledge is of a specific type of architecture I call “Onion Architecture”. I’ve found that it leads to more maintainable applications since it emphasizes separation of concerns throughout the system. I must set the context for the use of this architecture before proceeding.

Like software and computer hardware design, It emphasizes the use of interfaces for behavior contracts, and it forces the externalization of infrastructure. Here there is a requirement for a traditional layered architecture. This is the basic architecture I see most frequently used. Each subsequent layer depends on the layers beneath it, and then every layer normally will depend on some common infrastructure and utility services. The big drawback to this top-down structure of knowledge, is that the detailed fundamental layers are incomprehensible until the top most layers are understood.

If someone were to reveal the ultimate cause of LENR, it would not be understood until all the upper layers were understood. This is why getting control of LENR will take many years of exploration and education as each layer of the LENR knowledge base is put into place.

Axil Axil

  • Nigel Appleton

    Wait – wut?

    • Axil Axil

      What do you need to know to advance your understanding of LENR?

  • Mats002

    As an IT Architect that description of an onion layered analogy with a topdown view is very familiar. I am sure you see those layers of LENR clearly but I do not. Can you please outline and exemplify the different layers and their interfaces, your approach is very interesting and I agree it is a useful model for complex systems.

    • Axil Axil

      Let us work this out together in the context of the Rossi reactor. An expert software and/or hardware architect does this stuff for a living.

      As an example, of a functional breakdown exercise…

      The most simple LENR function in the Rossi type reactor is the function that converts heat into electrical activity. Yet this function is complex in the extreme. To understand this completely requires a multii-year graduate course of study in nano optics, solid state physics, and nanoplasmonics.

      The nickel micro particle with the nano wire coat is the LENR subsystem that carries out this function. An understanding of what a surface plasmon polariton (SPP) is, how the SPP is produced, how the nano wire coat on the nickel micro particles produces the SPPs, how the SPPs travel on the surface of the superconducting nano wires is determined…all of this are concepts that are hard to understand.

      See an example of a simple SPP idea here

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWmvZ0IGrsU&list=PLTSjRO1SeVYpvadtC-78o-wHghgDdvNgX

      Here is a more complicated in depth SPP explanation including math here. When the video talks about grid wave conversion, read that as nano wire particle coating.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIIABIU3tRw

      I say in LENR heat is converted into magnetic power. To explain this, first heat energy must be transferred to electrons. SPPs do that.

      All LENR theories do not attempt to explain how heat is transformed into LENR activity but they must do that. Experiment demands that this explanation be provided in theory.

      • Mats002

        OK, thanks for your confidence in my ability. We’ll see what it is worth.
        The outmost layers I see are:
        1. Business knowledge, I see different markets like industrial and domestic etc.
        2a. Engineering knowledge for heat producing devices
        2b. Engineering knowledge for electrical producing devices
        3. Engineering knowledge for control systems (sensors, electronics and software)

        That was the easier part, now to the deeper layers of this onion:

        4a. LiH system expert, knows the actionable parameters for this class of LENR reaction
        4b. PdD system expert, knows the actionable parameters for this class of LENR reaction
        4c. XXX system expert (I presume there are a number of different classes of LENR, some not known yet)

        5. Fundamental LENR expert (this is your domain Axil)
        From the information you provided I would like to elaborate on the LENR fundamentals level as a process.
        This is the process I can see from your description:
        External heat -> SPP production -> electron movement -> magnetic force -> isotope shift + heat

        6. For now I can not see this layer, you need to fill in, but it must be at a smaller and faster scale than level 5

        Each level in the onion have processes that should be described. Those processes use services (functions) of the lower layer through the exposed interfaces.
        Feel free to add, delete, change, develop… Not sure discus is the best tool for this though :/

        • Axil Axil

          One of the limiting factors that will hold back acceptance and continuing progress on LENR is a lack of an explanation for LENR on any given system. Even more broadly, it will take a large number of trained people to support a wide adoption of a nascent LENR power sector.

          Clearly, Rossi will have huge trouble supporting his product line because no one will understand it. Critics will not be assuaged in their negativism without an explanation of LENR that they can understand. R&D on new and improved systems can’t be undertaken unless the principles of LENR are understood in detail.

          One of the reasons why Windows is a dominate product in the software industry is the large amount of educational material that is available for training in usage and application development.

          Based on his fear of composition, Rossi as the current top dog in the LENR development race does not make LENR easier to understand.

          MFMP stands to be a pacing factor in LENR progress because of their openness and willingness to communicate.

          • GreenWin

            “Critics will not be assuaged in their negativism without an explanation of LENR that they can understand.”

            Yes. Such was the case of Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, when he exclaimed,

            “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”

            Those unwilling or unable to understand the ever-changing vicissitudes of technology, will be left on the slag heap of history. 🙂

          • Obvious

            “One word characterized the most strenuous of the efforts for the advancement of science that I have made perseveringly during fifty-five years; that word is FAILURE. I know no more of electric and magnetic force, or of the relation between ether, electricity, and ponderable matter, or of chemical affinity, than I knew and tried to teach my students of natural philosophy fifty years ago in my first session as Professor. Something of sadness must come of failure; but in the pursuit of science, inborn neccessity to make the effort brings with it much of the certaminis gaudia, and saves the naturalist from being wholly miserable, perhaps even allows him to be fairly happy in his daily work.”
            – Lord Kelvin

          • GreenWin

            Professor Kelvin admits to learning essentially nothing in his 50 years as a “teacher.” And for this he is elected President of the Royal Society.

          • Obvious

            Lord Kelvin was right about plenty of things, and also changed his mind when new information became available that contradicted his prior beliefs. He knew the limits of his knowledge, and limits of knowledge itself. For these reasons, he will always be remembered as a great scientist, and earned his knighthood.
            The “quote” of his that you used above has never been verified, and does not seem to exist in the printed record. He did make comments on the impracticality of commercial balloon-based aircraft, however. Give me a couple minutes to change computers, and I’ll find the real verified quotes.

          • Obvious

            Dear Baden Powell

            I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society.

            Yours truly Kelvin

            December 8, 1896

          • Obvious

            “The air-ship, on the plan of those built by Santos-Dumont, is a delusion and a snare. A gas balloon, paddled around by oars, is an old idea, and can never be of any practical use. Some day, no doubt, some one will invent a flying machine that one will be able to navigate without having to have a balloon attachment. But the day is a long way off when we shall see human beings soaring around like birds.”
            -Lord Kelvin

          • Obvious

            “They never will be able to use dirigible balloons as a means of conveying passengers from place to place. There never was and never can be any commercial value to any such affair. It is all a delusion and a snare. Santos-Dumont is a very bright young man, but an air ship as planned by him is not practicable.”
            – Lord Kelvin, quoted in the New York Times
            April 20, 1902

          • Obvious

            Actually, I may have found the original “quote” source.

            —–

            “Do you think it possible,” I asked him “for an airship to be guided across the Atlantic ocean?”

            “Not possible at all,” he replied.

            “On what ground do you think that the airship is impracticable?”

            “Because no motive power can drive a balloon through the air.”

            “Your objection, as I understand it, rests upon the unwieldiness of the balloon, but how about the aeroplane? Do you think that that is practicable?”

            “No; no more than the other.”

            “Then we cannot navigate the air at all in a commercial way?”

            “No; I think it cannot be done. No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful.”

            “But, Lord Kelvin, you remember the experiments of the German, Lindenthal, who used a gliding machine, starting from an elevation and riding down the slope of the air?”

            “Yes, but Lindenthal simply threw away his life. He was killed during his experiments, and later on another gentleman who had undertaken the same sort of flying also sacrificed his life. They both threw away their lives without any possibility of success in what they were undertaking to do.”

            “Then it would appear that, in your opinion, we have no hope of solving the problem of aerial navigation in any way?”

            “No; I do not think there is any hope. Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success. The balloon is the best of all.”

            “But you think that the principal of the balloon cannot be applied to make a successful airship?”

            “No; I do not.”

            This very decided opinion of Lord Kelvin on the impracticability of any of the present methods of solving the problem of aerial navigation certainly seems to throw a wet blanket on the whole matter.

            The Newark Advocate, April 26, 1902
            ——
            Note that his arguments are based on the unavailability of an engine with a suitable power-to-weight ratio. The invention of such an engine made the motorized aircraft possible.

          • Obvious

            “Blow a soap bubble and observe it. You may study it all your life and draw one lesson after another in physics from it.”
            -Lord Kelvin

          • GreenWin

            Yes, I took Kelvin’s quote to be a grudging gesture of humility. A laudable trait in any scientist. How refreshing it would be for today’s physicists to follow suit. One need only admit we are utterly ignorant of 95% of the universe around us – to take the first Step.

            “It seems as if we may also be forced to conclude that the supposed
            connexion between magnetic storms and sun-spots is unreal, and that the
            seeming agreement between periods has been a mere coincidence.”

            — Lord Kelvin, 1892

          • Obvious

            It is unfortunate that many point out a few bad predictions by Kelvin, and ignore his huge contribution to science and everyday life.

          • Mats002

            As you already have pointed out, Computer Science has evolved bottomup from boolean algebra, the atom (truly not devidable) of information are bits, ones and zeroes, on and off. Theory is the fundamentals.
            But taken into account that the hardware needed to run the logic treatments is dependent upon transistors that in turn is dependent on the same nanoscale mechanism that LENR is dependent upon, then we do not not have a true understanding of the rock bottom of the processes of computers.
            The 6:th layer, not yet described, should be shared by LENR and electronics and physics of all kind, it is some fundamental of nature like quantum mechanics and their stretch through extra dimensions.
            Therefore, LENR theory at level 5 should be sufficient, and that is where your work are. Once that is understood, or as part of understanding it, new discoverys can be made bottomup from there. But I believe and hope that level 4 is enough to flood the market with LENR powered products.

  • Obvious

    So much to grok.

  • Axil Axil

    Andy, you sound like you are disappointed in how theory is developed. No one can know the total truth on the first day. It took particle physics 50 years and tens of billions of dollars to come up with and verify the Higgs field. Cold fusion is at least as involved as the Higgs theory. Give the theorists a break and expect some fits and starts in the progess in understanding what LENR is all about.