Re: Excitronics and Szpak
At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of Excitronics, but your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they claimed that the deposited morphology resulted from an applied external electric field. I addressed the first earlier. In the second case, the applied field could have only had an indirect effect. The electrolyte is a good conductor. An external electric field can not penetrate a conductor. Though the above statement might be found in many text books, it seems to me to be untrue on two counts. First, the charge balance inside the conductor is changed by the imposed field E. If the field were not actually present, and merely balanced by the internal changes in the conductor, then this charge imbalance would not be maintained. This is one arena where the field superposition concept seems to cloud what is really happening inside the conductor. Second, the surface effects on the conductor can be significant and increase with the width of the conductor in the imposed field. That is to say that the field intensity in any remaining conductor-free gaps is increased by the presence of the subject conductor. Conduction band electron concentration is reduced on the negative side and increased toward the positive side. It seems to me logical that a change in electron concentration in the conductor could have chemical and morpological surface effects. At the very least, the ions would follow the lines of electropotential in such a way as to neutralize the gradient. An electrolyte is part dielectric. It neutrolizes field gradients in part by polar molecule rotation. In the electrolyte a strong electrostatic field tends to orient the H3O+ ions in a polar manner. I would think a fixed orientation for some of the H3O+ ions would reduce the electrolytes ability to conduct by its primary method, that being H3O+ molecule rotation followed by proton tunneling. THis then should increase the amount of conduction by other ions and such an increase might affect dendrite formation rates and morphology. It might also change convection currents, especially in the vicinity of dendrite tips, which, as you say below, could cause a change in morphology. There is another field effect in dielectrics. That is nucleus displacement. The positive nucleus is displaced toward the negative external field direction. In other words, the center of charge is displaced in order to neutralize the imposed field. In some texts the nature of this charge displacement is treated as if atomic electrons act like they exist at their center of charge. The nucleus is displaced from this center of charge by an imposed electrostatic field. From this assumption one can calculate the nuclear displacement given a field E. This is of course a great oversimplification. The nucleus has a much greater degree of freedom than this model indicates. That is because the nucleus is inside numerous spherical shells of electron quantum probability densities which have no net effect on the nucleus. A charge inside a spherical Faraday cage conductor experiences no net force upon that charge. The hydrogen nucleii in atoms in the interface, with its horrifically strong field intensities, especially in the presence of an alternating field, can experience dynamics which allow the nucleii to obtain closer distances than 0.5 the hydrogen atom radius. Yes, the Schrodinger equations will show thinning of the electron sheilding and thus increase repulsion and the resurrection of the Coulomb barrier. However, protons in the H3O+ ion have more time for briefly imposed fields to accelerate them and they can range a larger distance than would be thought by a simple center of charge model. Ditto for electrode nucleii and adsorbed hydrogen. If a cathode surface has an increased electron concentration, due to an externally applied field E, and that field E has principly the effect in the interface of increasing the orientation of molecules by polarity, it seems to me important to theoretically evaluate the resulting change in electron screening capacity at the interface. An increased electron concentration should increase the electron screening capacity. Nuclear fusion probability should increase with increased electron concentration. This would cause a change in convection currents within the cell and this would cause fluid to pass across the deposited surface. This change in fluid flow is the cause of the change in morphology. Simple mechanical stirring would have produced the same effect. A stirring control is certainly called for. In addition, the type of crystal growth depends on applied current and the ion concentration. Several different types of deposit are known and can be easily made by changing the normal conditions. I see nothing in this work that is anomalous or new. More work is needed,
Re: Excitronics and Szpak
Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of Excitronics, but your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they claimed that the deposited morphology resulted from an applied external electric field. I addressed the first earlier. In the second case, the applied field could have only had an indirect effect. The electrolyte is a good conductor. An external electric field can not penetrate a conductor. Though the above statement might be found in many text books, it seems to me to be untrue on two counts. First, the charge balance inside the conductor is changed by the imposed field E. If the field were not actually present, and merely balanced by the internal changes in the conductor, then this charge imbalance would not be maintained. This is one arena where the field superposition concept seems to cloud what is really happening inside the conductor. Second, the surface effects on the conductor can be significant and increase with the width of the conductor in the imposed field. That is to say that the field intensity in any remaining conductor-free gaps is increased by the presence of the subject conductor. Conduction band electron concentration is reduced on the negative side and increased toward the positive side. It seems to me logical that a change in electron concentration in the conductor could have chemical and morpological surface effects. I detect a bit of confusion here. We need, for the sake of discussion, to separate the effects produced by changes in electron concentration within a electrolyte from changes in concentration outside of the electrolyte, i.e., on the container surface. Szpak has changed the concentration of electrons on the surface so as to impose a change in electric field on the electrons and ions within the electrolyte. As with all conductors, free electrons and ions will move in such a way as to neutralize any change in the local field. This being the case, the positive ions will tend to move toward the surface having the greater negative charge. As a result, the impact of this applied charge will be reduced so that ions within the electrolyte will no longer experience its presence. However, as the positive ions move, they carry liquid with them so that convection within the cell is altered. No change in electron concentration occurs within the electrolyte. A person might observe a somewhat higher concentration of positive ions next to the negative charged wall, but this effect would be very local. At the very least, the ions would follow the lines of electropotential in such a way as to neutralize the gradient. An electrolyte is part dielectric. It neutrolizes field gradients in part by polar molecule rotation. In the electrolyte a strong electrostatic field tends to orient the H3O+ ions in a polar manner. I would think a fixed orientation for some of the H3O+ ions would reduce the electrolytes ability to conduct by its primary method, that being H3O+ molecule rotation followed by proton tunneling. THis then should increase the amount of conduction by other ions and such an increase might affect dendrite formation rates and morphology. It might also change convection currents, especially in the vicinity of dendrite tips, which, as you say below, could cause a change in morphology. I suggest the mechanism you suggest would only occur in a very pure electrolyte, not one that has, as in the Szpak case, a high concentration of Li+ ions. There is another field effect in dielectrics. That is nucleus displacement. The positive nucleus is displaced toward the negative external field direction. In other words, the center of charge is displaced in order to neutralize the imposed field. In some texts the nature of this charge displacement is treated as if atomic electrons act like they exist at their center of charge. The nucleus is displaced from this center of charge by an imposed electrostatic field. From this assumption one can calculate the nuclear displacement given a field E. This is of course a great oversimplification. The nucleus has a much greater degree of freedom than this model indicates. That is because the nucleus is inside numerous spherical shells of electron quantum probability densities which have no net effect on the nucleus. A charge inside a spherical Faraday cage conductor experiences no net force upon that charge. The hydrogen nucleii in atoms in the interface, with its horrifically strong field intensities, especially in the presence of an alternating field, can experience dynamics which allow the nucleii to obtain closer distances than 0.5 the hydrogen atom radius. Yes, the Schrodinger equations will show thinning of the electron sheilding and thus increase repulsion and the resurrection of the
Re: Excitronics and Szpak
Oops. slight correction :-) Going by Figure 1 on page 4 of Szpak's paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf I can't see how 1,000 to 3,000 volts per cm (across the cell) could result in any effect on the electrolyte. Review past physics 101: http://www.udayton.edu/~physics/gkm/p207ch26.htm 1/Ctotal = 1/C1 +1/C2 +1/C3 C2 is the electrolyte in the middle. Frederick
Re: Excitronics and Szpak
Jones Beene wrote: This is true. We should be focusing on the strongest claims. I would like to ask Ed if he has the time, and anyone else who has followed this closely, to list the *best* transmutation claim he has seen in the literature or in his own work (best being the most likely to sway the opinion of fence-straddling skeptics and/or the DoE officialdom). To start the ball rolling, I think the most relevant in terms of an air-tight case are those of Dr. Passels of EPRI. Here is an *excellent* analysis of some his work: http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/126passell.html This one seems rational, think George Miley (as well as Mike McKubre) is behind it: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVsearchforn.pdf Jones
Re: Excitronics and Szpak
At 12:40 PM 11/16/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of Excitronics, but your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they claimed that the deposited morphology resulted from an applied external electric field. I addressed the first earlier. In the second case, the applied field could have only had an indirect effect. The electrolyte is a good conductor. An external electric field can not penetrate a conductor. Though the above statement might be found in many text books, it seems to me to be untrue on two counts. First, the charge balance inside the conductor is changed by the imposed field E. If the field were not actually present, and merely balanced by the internal changes in the conductor, then this charge imbalance would not be maintained. This is one arena where the field superposition concept seems to cloud what is really happening inside the conductor. Second, the surface effects on the conductor can be significant and increase with the width of the conductor in the imposed field. That is to say that the field intensity in any remaining conductor-free gaps is increased by the presence of the subject conductor. Conduction band electron concentration is reduced on the negative side and increased toward the positive side. It seems to me logical that a change in electron concentration in the conductor could have chemical and morpological surface effects. I detect a bit of confusion here. We need, for the sake of discussion, to separate the effects produced by changes in electron concentration within a electrolyte from changes in concentration outside of the electrolyte, i.e., on the container surface. *Nothing* in my above paragraph references the electrolyte. Szpak has changed the concentration of electrons on the surface so as to impose a change in electric field on the electrons and ions within the electrolyte. As with all conductors, free electrons and ions will move in such a way as to neutralize any change in the local field. This being the case, the positive ions will tend to move toward the surface having the greater negative charge. As a result, the impact of this applied charge will be reduced so that ions within the electrolyte will no longer experience its presence. However, as the positive ions move, they carry liquid with them so that convection within the cell is altered. The above sentence appears to be nonsense. The *current* movement to neutralize a sudden steady state field E, i.e. a large but one-time delta E, be the current ion flow or otherwise, is negligible. There should be *no* fluid flow change to accomodate a steady state field - unless of course that steady state field significantly affects the reactions at the interface layer. No change in electron concentration occurs within the electrolyte. I did not in any way imply there was a change in electron concentration in the electrolyte - other than *at the interface*. In the interface itself electron concentration can be increased by an increase in electrode concentration due to the fact electrons can freely tunnel the interface itslef. The surface free electron quantum wavefunction extends beyond the interface itself. A person might observe a somewhat higher concentration of positive ions next to the negative charged wall, but this effect would be very local. Well the effect on dendrite formation *is* in fact very local, occuring at the dendrite tip. Isn't this in part in agreement with Szpak's results? At the very least, the ions would follow the lines of electropotential in such a way as to neutralize the gradient. An electrolyte is part dielectric. It neutrolizes field gradients in part by polar molecule rotation. In the electrolyte a strong electrostatic field tends to orient the H3O+ ions in a polar manner. I would think a fixed orientation for some of the H3O+ ions would reduce the electrolytes ability to conduct by its primary method, that being H3O+ molecule rotation followed by proton tunneling. THis then should increase the amount of conduction by other ions and such an increase might affect dendrite formation rates and morphology. It might also change convection currents, especially in the vicinity of dendrite tips, which, as you say below, could cause a change in morphology. I suggest the mechanism you suggest would only occur in a very pure electrolyte, not one that has, as in the Szpak case, a high concentration of Li+ ions. The above depends in part on the field gradient. In the vicinity of a dendrite tip, the field gradient is very high and polarization will take a larger role in field neutralization. This in effect presents a barrier to Li+ ions, which are cocooned in layers of polarized water molecules. [snip] Because the
Re: Excitronics and Szpak
Horace Heffner wrote: At 12:40 PM 11/16/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of Excitronics, but your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they claimed that the deposited morphology resulted from an applied external electric field. I addressed the first earlier. In the second case, the applied field could have only had an indirect effect. The electrolyte is a good conductor. An external electric field can not penetrate a conductor. Though the above statement might be found in many text books, it seems to me to be untrue on two counts. First, the charge balance inside the conductor is changed by the imposed field E. If the field were not actually present, and merely balanced by the internal changes in the conductor, then this charge imbalance would not be maintained. This is one arena where the field superposition concept seems to cloud what is really happening inside the conductor. Second, the surface effects on the conductor can be significant and increase with the width of the conductor in the imposed field. That is to say that the field intensity in any remaining conductor-free gaps is increased by the presence of the subject conductor. Conduction band electron concentration is reduced on the negative side and increased toward the positive side. It seems to me logical that a change in electron concentration in the conductor could have chemical and morpological surface effects. I detect a bit of confusion here. We need, for the sake of discussion, to separate the effects produced by changes in electron concentration within a electrolyte from changes in concentration outside of the electrolyte, i.e., on the container surface. *Nothing* in my above paragraph references the electrolyte. Now I'm confused. I thought we were discussing the Szpak paper. He used an electrolyte and applied an electric field to it. Any discussion of the proposed effect of this field must involve the electrolyte. A general discussion of a conductor is not relevant unless it can be applied to the electrolyte, which I though you were doing. Szpak has changed the concentration of electrons on the surface so as to impose a change in electric field on the electrons and ions within the electrolyte. As with all conductors, free electrons and ions will move in such a way as to neutralize any change in the local field. This being the case, the positive ions will tend to move toward the surface having the greater negative charge. As a result, the impact of this applied charge will be reduced so that ions within the electrolyte will no longer experience its presence. However, as the positive ions move, they carry liquid with them so that convection within the cell is altered. The above sentence appears to be nonsense. The *current* movement to neutralize a sudden steady state field E, i.e. a large but one-time delta E, be the current ion flow or otherwise, is negligible. There should be *no* fluid flow change to accomodate a steady state field - unless of course that steady state field significantly affects the reactions at the interface layer. A fixed field has an effect because the ions are moving in the electrolyte, because of bubble action, and these ions are essentially a current that is caused to pass through a fixed field. This field changes the paths these ions take, hence changes the convection currents. At the same time, the paths tend to neutralize this field, as I said before. You are viewing this as a stationary system when it is actually a dynamic system. No change in electron concentration occurs within the electrolyte. I did not in any way imply there was a change in electron concentration in the electrolyte - other than *at the interface*. In the interface itself electron concentration can be increased by an increase in electrode concentration due to the fact electrons can freely tunnel the interface itslef. The surface free electron quantum wavefunction extends beyond the interface itself. Where is the interface? In the experiment, we have a glass container containing a conductive liquid. The field is applied between two external plates. The cathode, where the effects are proposed to occur, are parallel to the field. I do not know where in this assembly an interface can occur. A person might observe a somewhat higher concentration of positive ions next to the negative charged wall, but this effect would be very local. Well the effect on dendrite formation *is* in fact very local, occuring at the dendrite tip. Isn't this in part in agreement with Szpak's results? By local, I mean local to the liquid immediately adjacent to where the external electrode is located. This local region is far
Excitronics and Szpak
Ref the recent paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf Recently (to what cannot be described as overwhelming fanfare), I tried to introduce the concept of Excitronics. This is a concept being tossed around in other fields, which the open-minded observer could think of as a possible key to the type of LENR where BEC-like condensation occurs - resulting eventually in nuclear reactions. These would most likely be the kind of reactions where you get a lot of transmutation but little excess energy. A good example may be the Szpak paper, which fortunately even comes with some *nice images* of excitons (see, I wasn't really pulling your leg after all). When very high current density is captured in a small effective circuit, electrons start to act collectively, and form what can be called an electron gas with strange and sometimes emergent properties, since many similar bosons can also begin to act as if they were one under high pressure (substituting for cold temperature), besides just the electrons - IOW as if they were a BEC-like condensate. Thus, excitronics is similar to a QM effect but not of the low-probability variety, which is normal for QM. From the Szpak paper: This is illustrated in a series of SEM photographs taken from various runs. In the absence of an electric field, the electrode structure consists of globules, 3 - 7 microns in diameter, arranged in short columns [looking somewhat like grape clusters] Each of the individual globules is an aggregate of much smaller, almost spherical units, having a diameter in a sub-micron range. This structure is uniform throughout the electrode. Often there is a preferred size for the excitronic circuit structure, and often that size will coincide with what is known as a particulate of the metal or alloy through which the electrons would normally travel. For this experiment the 3-7 micron grape-like structures which you see in Figure 2.a) the reference morphology would be the Pd exciton particulate, but these excitons are also composed of smaller nanoparticles. It is not stated what the ratio is but I suspect that the particulate (or phonon) is icosohedral - and may depend on the cross-interaction with the nested nanoparticles. Perhaps the secret to why palladium works a matrix doe LENR and not say, platinum, could be related to this geometric ordering more so than due to any other property of the metals. This gives hope that many alloys can be tailored to work by adjusting their phonon structure and nested nanostructure. Szpak used a strong electric field to get these results but I would bet a dollar to a donut hole that *much better* results would have come from using terahertz irradiation instead of an electric field - which cannot be very discriminating. This is a very important point. Exctitons are a derivative of a precise geometric size and micro-structure, and might have become a high temperature superconductor in other parameters. If the same field intensity were to have been created by a terahertz irradiation source, the results could have been much more dramatic, IMHO. Many of these particulates share a common wavelength - lets say the average diameter is 5 microns and the average circumference is ~15 microns. Perhaps a third of all the grapes will be close enough to become excitons. When we make this 15 micron wavelength coherent, such as by temperature regulation and by an identical phase-lock in applied frequency, then... voila: resonance - often leading to local superconductivity around the particulate - is poised to become an emergent property of the imposed coherence. BTW the effective electric field of coherent terahertz light could easily reach a billion watts even with a fairly broad focal point. This is the cross-over point and shared characteristic between LENR and HTSC (high temperature superconductivity). Once that 15 micron particulate becomes locally superconductive the inherent magnetic field will soar to probably 10-15 tesla, and that is in addition to the already high internal effective pressure due to overpotential and high loading. Yes, this is too far-out and hypothetical for many researchers to even consider. And I haven't even yet broached the subject of all that electronium which could be within the nano-particle itself ;-) So all I can say at this point is that my hope is that Szpak et al. will at least have a look into the possibility of terahertz irradiation... (and I hope they observe the results from an adjoing bunker...) Jones
