RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Jones Beene]

From: David Roberson 

Jones, do you assume that the RPF is not an elastic
collision because the strong force dominates?

Yes. The strong force is well-named… by far the strongest force in nature.

It is not too difficult to  imagine that the two protons are
bound together by the strong force for a short period of time as the new
nucleus seeks a way to emit the excitation energy that it contains. 

This energy transfer between two protons is not always “emitted” per se –
but it can be coupled to other particles as spin waves. The quanta are
related to bosons from the quark mass and governed by QCD. These are a
Goldstone bosons (pseudo or Nambu Goldstone bosons) which  correspond to the
spontaneously broken internal symmetry generators, following a strong force
reaction; and are characterized by the quantum numbers of these bosons. The
magnon is the prime example of the emitted energy – but it is a “spin wave”
pseudo particle, and not a photon.

We know of the beta plus decay leading to deuterium
production, but this is rare.   

Extraordinarily rare. In LENR, the experimenter would not see a single
deuteron in a thousand years.

It is not clear why the excited pair of protons is not
capable of emitting a gamma to lower their energy state, 

QCD color charge is not high energy. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge

but if this happens the next item on the agenda would be to
emit a positron and neutrino as this unstable nucleus changes to D which
always would occur given time.

There is simply not enough energy to play with to even suggest substantial
deuterium. Essentially, D never happens (unless that is one of your
hypothetical LENR “miracles”).

The excess (or deficit) energy per proton over the average mass is a
fraction of the maximum of 70 parts per million (of the total mass-energy of
the proton) and only the Boltzmann tail of that distribution is “useable”
maybe 4-5%. It can show up as anomalous gain or as anomalous loss (internal
heat sink). As gain, it can materialize as “thermal energy” due to magnetic
induction (in ferromagnetic metals like nickel) since the magnon spin wave
is the prime example of bosonic mass/energy transfer. As loss it can
materialize as a magneto-caloric effect.

-Original Message-
This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a
fundamentally
different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi,
Mills etc),
which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation.
To understand
LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be
damned.

There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which
leave no ash -
P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost
all solar
fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost)
mainstream physics
so far.

It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real
fusion (not an
elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color
changes in the 6
quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun.

However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same
two coming out,
and there will always be slight mass changes between the two
fusing protons
- which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to
equalize proton mass to
within a within very tight range.

The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to
learn something WRT
nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one
can engineer a
slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to
provide net gain
of energy.

This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly
intriguing to me,
despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. 

In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best
solution which I
could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining
reactors, one of
which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling.
In order to have
net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be
converted to energy on
the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one
would likely need
to convert a different kind of energy than electric input,
to pump up
depleted mass (on the cold-side). 

Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers
using slight mass
enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side
could be via
accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40
stands out as
  

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Kevin O'Malley]

Here is another experimental paper


  Enhancement of the Deuteron-Fusion Reactions in Metals and its
Experimental Implications

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.4538.pdf

A. Huke,1, * K. Czerski,2, 1 P. Heide,1 G. Rupre

ht,3, 1 N. Targosz,2 and W.  ebrowski2

1Institut für Optik und Atomare Physik, Technis

he Universität Berlin

Hardenbergstraÿe 36, 10623 Berlin, Germany

2Institute of Physics, University of Szczecin, Szcze

in, Poland

3TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Recent measurements of the reaction 2H(d,p)3H in metallic environments at
very low energies performed by different experimental groups point to an
enhanced electron screening effect. However, the resulting screening
energies differ strongly for divers host metals and different experiments.

Here, we present new experimental results and investigations of interfering
processes in the irradiated targets



On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

> Enhancement of fusion rates due to quantum effects in the
>
> particles momentum distribution in nonideal media
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3482.pdf
>
> N. J. Fisch,
>
> 1 M. G. Gladush,2 Yu. V. Petrushevich,2 Piero Quarati,3 and A. N.
> Starostin2
>
> 1
>
> Department of Astrophysical Sciences,
>
> Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540, USA
>
> 2
>
> SRC RF Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research,
>
> Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190 Russia
>
> 3
>
> Politecnico di Torino Department of Physics,
>
> Torino I-10125, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Italy
>
> (Dated: October 18, 2011)
>
> Abstract
>
> This study concerns a situation when measurements of the nonresonant
> cross-section of nuclear
>
> reactions appear highly dependent on the environment in which the
> particles interact. An appealing
>
> example discussed in the paper is the interaction of a deuteron beam with
> a target of deuterated
>
> metal Ta. In these experiments, the reaction cross section for d(d,p)t was
> shown to be orders of
>
> magnitude greater than what the conventional model predicts for the
> low-energy particles.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the information.  I only had time to skim over the paper which
>> left me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not
>> the result of an experiment.
>>
>>  Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis?
>>  If so, please help me find that reference.
>>
>>  I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Kevin O'Malley]

Enhancement of fusion rates due to quantum effects in the

particles momentum distribution in nonideal media
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3482.pdf

N. J. Fisch,

1 M. G. Gladush,2 Yu. V. Petrushevich,2 Piero Quarati,3 and A. N. Starostin2

1

Department of Astrophysical Sciences,

Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540, USA

2

SRC RF Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research,

Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190 Russia

3

Politecnico di Torino Department of Physics,

Torino I-10125, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Italy

(Dated: October 18, 2011)

Abstract

This study concerns a situation when measurements of the nonresonant
cross-section of nuclear

reactions appear highly dependent on the environment in which the particles
interact. An appealing

example discussed in the paper is the interaction of a deuteron beam with a
target of deuterated

metal Ta. In these experiments, the reaction cross section for d(d,p)t was
shown to be orders of

magnitude greater than what the conventional model predicts for the
low-energy particles.


On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Thanks for the information.  I only had time to skim over the paper which
> left me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not
> the result of an experiment.
>
>  Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis?
>  If so, please help me find that reference.
>
>  I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this.
>
>  Dave
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[David Roberson]

Jones, do you assume that the RPF is not an elastic collision because the 
strong force dominates?  It is not too difficult to  imagine that the two 
protons are bound together by the strong force for a short period of time as 
the new nucleus seeks a way to emit the excitation energy that it contains.


We know of the beta plus decay leading to deuterium production, but this is 
rare.   It is not clear why the excited pair of protons is not capable of 
emitting a gamma to lower their energy state, but if this happens the next item 
on the agenda would be to emit a positron and neutrino as this unstable nucleus 
changes to D which always would occur given time.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 12:18 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?


This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally
different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc),
which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand
LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned.

There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash -
P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar
fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics
so far.

It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an
elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6
quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun.

However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out,
and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons
- which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to
within a within very tight range.

The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT
nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a
slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain
of energy.

This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me,
despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. 

In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I
could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of
which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have
net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on
the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need
to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up
depleted mass (on the cold-side). 

Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass
enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via
accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as
the likely source but it could be another isotope or several.

However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are
gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing
as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used
to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily
gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since protons
pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side.

As for now,  I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and
Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell.


From: Kevin O'Malley 

Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts> 
Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest,
Hungary ^
<http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf>  |
P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi 
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf

Abstract

Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It
is shown that if a slow, quasi-free
heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free”
electron of a metallic host, it can obtain
such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state
that the probability of its nuclear
reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy
particle can significantly increase. It is also
shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge
of intermediately low energy interacts
with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host,
it can obtain much greater momentum
relative to the former case in the intermediate state and
consequently, the probability of a nuclear
reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even
more increase. This mechanism opens
th

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Axil Axil]

I think it would be best to discard fusion as a minor reaction in LENR and
concentrate on improving fission.

Cheers:Axil

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally
> different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc),
> which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand
> LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned.
>
> There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash -
> P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar
> fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream
> physics
> so far.
>
> It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an
> elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6
> quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun.
>
> However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out,
> and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons
> - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass
> to
> within a within very tight range.
>
> The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT
> nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a
> slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain
> of energy.
>
> This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me,
> despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths.
>
> In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I
> could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of
> which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to
> have
> net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy
> on
> the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need
> to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up
> depleted mass (on the cold-side).
>
> Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass
> enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via
> accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as
> the likely source but it could be another isotope or several.
>
> However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are
> gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing
> as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used
> to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily
> gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since
> protons
> pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side.
>
> As for now,  I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and
> Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell.
>
>
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes
> 
> Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest,
> Hungary ^
>   |
> P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi
>  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf
>
> Abstract
>
> Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It
> is shown that if a slow, quasi-free
> heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free”
> electron of a metallic host, it can obtain
> such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate
> state
> that the probability of its nuclear
> reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy
> particle can significantly increase. It is also
> shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive
> charge
> of intermediately low energy interacts
> with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host,
> it can obtain much greater momentum
> relative to the former case in the intermediate state and
> consequently, the probability of a nuclear
> reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even
> more increase. This mechanism opens
> the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up
> till know are thought to have negligible
> rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed
> by the Coulomb assistance of heavy
> charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd
> reactions are investigated numerically.
> It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed
> charged particle assisted dd reactions is
> the electron assisted d + d → 4He process.
>
>
> --

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[David Roberson]

Thanks for the information.  I only had time to skim over the paper which left 
me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not the 
result of an experiment.


Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis?  If so, 
please help me find that reference.


I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 9:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?


Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes
Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ | P´eter 
K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi 

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf



Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes 

P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi 
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 
Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary
(Date textdate; Received textdate; Revised textdate; Accepted textdate; 
Published textdate)

Abstract

Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a 
slow, quasi-free
heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a 
metallic host, it can obtain
such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the 
probability of its nuclear
reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can 
significantly increase. It is also
shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately 
low energy interacts
with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much 
greater momentum
relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the 
probability of a nuclear
reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This 
mechanism opens
the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought 
to have negligible
rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb 
assistance of heavy
charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are 
investigated numerically.
It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle 
assisted dd reactions is
the electron assisted d + d → 4He process.
PACS numbers: 25.70.Jj, 25.45.-z, 25.40.-h
Keywords: fusion and fusion-fission reactions, 2H-induced nuclear reactions, 
nucleon induced reactions


---
 

VI. SUMMARY
It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid metal 
surrounding
nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like 
(positive) charge of
low initial energy. It is recognized, that one of the participant particles of 
a nuclear reaction

of low initial energy may pick up great momentum in a Coulomb scattering 
process on a
free, third particle of the surroundings. The virtually acquired great 
momentum, that is
determined by the energy of the reaction, can help to overcome the hindering 
Coulomb
barrier and can highly increase the rate of the nuclear reaction even in cases 
when the rate
would be otherwise negligible. It is found that the electron assisted d + d → 
4He process
has the leading rate. In the reactions discussed energetic charged particles 
are created, that
can become (directly or after Coulomb collisions) the source of heavy charged 
particles of
intermediately low (of about a few keV ) energy. These heavy particles can 
assist nuclear
reactions too. It is worth mentioning that the shielding of the Coulomb 
potential has no
effect on the mechanisms discussed.
Our thoughts were motivated by our former theoretical findings [9] according to 
which
the leading channel of the p + d → 3He reaction in solid environment is the so 
called solid
state internal conversion process, an adapted version of ordinary internal 
conversion process
[10]. In the process formerly discussed [9] if the reaction takes place in 
solid material, in
which instead of the emission of a photon, the nuclear energy is taken away by 
an electron
of the environment (the metal), the Coulomb interaction induces a p + d → 3He 
nuclear
transition. The processes discussed here can be considered as an alternative 
version of the
solid state internal conversion process since it is thought that one party of 
the initial particles
of the nuclear process takes part in Coulomb interaction with a charged 
particle of the solid
material (e.g. of a metal).
There may be many fields of physics where the traces of the proposed mechanism 
may have
been previously appeared. It is not the aim of this work to give a systematic 
overview these
fields. We only mention here two of them that are thought to be partly related 
or explained
by the processes proposed. The first is the so called anomalous screening 
effect observed in
low energy accelerator physics investig

RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Jones Beene]

This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally
different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc),
which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand
LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned.

There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash -
P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar
fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics
so far.

It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an
elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6
quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun.

However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out,
and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons
- which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to
within a within very tight range.

The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT
nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a
slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain
of energy.

This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me,
despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. 

In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I
could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of
which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have
net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on
the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need
to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up
depleted mass (on the cold-side). 

Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass
enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via
accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as
the likely source but it could be another isotope or several.

However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are
gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing
as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used
to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily
gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since protons
pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side.

As for now,  I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and
Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell.


From: Kevin O'Malley 

Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes
 
Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest,
Hungary ^
  |
P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi 
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf

Abstract

Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It
is shown that if a slow, quasi-free
heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free”
electron of a metallic host, it can obtain
such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state
that the probability of its nuclear
reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy
particle can significantly increase. It is also
shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge
of intermediately low energy interacts
with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host,
it can obtain much greater momentum
relative to the former case in the intermediate state and
consequently, the probability of a nuclear
reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even
more increase. This mechanism opens
the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up
till know are thought to have negligible
rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed
by the Coulomb assistance of heavy
charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd
reactions are investigated numerically.
It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed
charged particle assisted dd reactions is
the electron assisted d + d → 4He process.


--- 

VI. SUMMARY
It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion,
in a solid metal surrounding
nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged
particles of like (posi

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Kevin O'Malley]

*Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order
processes*
*Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary
^
*| P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf



Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes

P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi
Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary
(Date textdate; Received textdate; Revised textdate; Accepted textdate;
Published textdate)

Abstract

Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that
if a slow, quasi-free
heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a
metallic host, it can obtain
such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the
probability of its nuclear
reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can
significantly increase. It is also
shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of
intermediately low energy interacts
with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain
much greater momentum
relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the
probability of a nuclear
reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase.
This mechanism opens
the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are
thought to have negligible
rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb
assistance of heavy
charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are
investigated numerically.
It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle
assisted dd reactions is
the electron assisted d + d → 4He process.
PACS numbers: 25.70.Jj, 25.45.-z, 25.40.-h
Keywords: fusion and fusion-fission reactions, 2H-induced nuclear
reactions, nucleon induced reactions


---


VI. SUMMARY
It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid
metal surrounding
nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like
(positive) charge of
low initial energy. It is recognized, that one of the participant particles
of a nuclear reaction

of low initial energy may pick up great momentum in a Coulomb scattering
process on a
free, third particle of the surroundings. The virtually acquired great
momentum, that is
determined by the energy of the reaction, can help to overcome the
hindering Coulomb
barrier and can highly increase the rate of the nuclear reaction even in
cases when the rate
would be otherwise negligible. It is found that the electron assisted d + d
→ 4He process
has the leading rate. In the reactions discussed energetic charged
particles are created, that
can become (directly or after Coulomb collisions) the source of heavy
charged particles of
intermediately low (of about a few keV ) energy. These heavy particles can
assist nuclear
reactions too. It is worth mentioning that the shielding of the Coulomb
potential has no
effect on the mechanisms discussed.
Our thoughts were motivated by our former theoretical findings [9]
according to which
the leading channel of the p + d → 3He reaction in solid environment is the
so called solid
state internal conversion process, an adapted version of ordinary internal
conversion process
[10]. In the process formerly discussed [9] if the reaction takes place in
solid material, in
which instead of the emission of a photon, the nuclear energy is taken away
by an electron
of the environment (the metal), the Coulomb interaction induces a p + d →
3He nuclear
transition. The processes discussed here can be considered as an
alternative version of the
solid state internal conversion process since it is thought that one party
of the initial particles
of the nuclear process takes part in Coulomb interaction with a charged
particle of the solid
material (e.g. of a metal).
There may be many fields of physics where the traces of the proposed
mechanism may have
been previously appeared. It is not the aim of this work to give a
systematic overview these
fields. We only mention here two of them that are thought to be partly
related or explained
by the processes proposed. The first is the so called anomalous screening
effect observed in
low energy accelerator physics investigating astrophysical factors of
nuclear reactions of low
atomic numbers [11]. The other one is the family of low energy nuclear
fusion processes.
The physical background, discussed in the Introduction and in the first
part of Section V.,
was questioned by the two decade old announcement [12] on excess heat
generation due to
nuclear fusion reaction of deuterons at deuterized Pd cathodes during
electrolysis at near
room temperature. The paper [12] initiated c

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[David Roberson]

Does anyone recall seeing an experiment where D and T were both allowed to be 
absorbed by palladium and then exposed to a muon stream?  This type of 
experiment might be of importance since it would most likely demonstrate 
whether or not a known cold fusion process releases its energy into the metal 
matrix instead of in the form of energetic gammas.  We continue to seek 
evidence as to why the standard types of cold fusion fail to behave like hot 
fusion in this regard and perhaps an experiment of this nature would be 
revealing.


The proposed experiment does not seem to be difficult to carry out with the 
proper resources while the payoff could be large.  Normal muon induced cold 
fusion is fairly well studied and it is typically conducted with frozen 
hydrogen components.  I consider the metal matrix that holds the hydrogen at 
room temperatures and perhaps a bit higher as being similar.  The hydrogen is 
effectively compressed by the metal and thus its density approaches that of a 
frozen sample.


Cracks or dislocations within the metal crystal structure would allow multiple 
atoms of hydrogen to reside within their confines and these locations might act 
as the fusion centers.  The elevated temperatures of the metal compared to 
frozen hydrogen environments could actually enhance the reaction rates due to 
added kinetic energy.


Both D and T would have an opportunity to fuse either with each other or with 
the same types of hydrogen adding to the data.


If anyone is aware of an experiment of this type having been performed please 
let me know.  If it has not been tried, then perhaps someone will make such an 
attempt.  If obtaining the T is too difficult, then just using D alone would 
still have interesting possible results.


Dave
 

 

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Kevin O'Malley]

I remember there being a paper about something like alpha bombardment of a
metal matrix generating a million times more fusion events than the same
level of plasma.  But I can't find it.




On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

>
>
>  So, I have a question that seeks an answer.  Is anyone aware of proof
> that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines
> of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs?
>

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Axil Axil]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1210.7086&ei=gCFVUbHvONWj4APO_YGQDQ&usg=AFQjCNHHVMEMw3IyGAIvqKFny5LmEfpDmQ&sig2=OOMNc5JRjV5IzQ-syGgncw&bvm=bv.2042,d.dmQ


Bose-Einstein condensation of plexcitons

This is another piece of the puzzle.
A Plexciton is a dipole that vibrates.


The electrons are screening the nuclei of the ions.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The enhanced fields are certainly interesting.  It is not clear how the
> large field is able to deliver energy to the reacting particles.  Do you
> think the field consists of many coupled electrons acting as a group
> ultimately placing their collective energy into just a few targets?  This
> would be a process that extracts energy from the local groups and
> concentrates it into a smaller number of items.  Almost sounds like a way
> to cool down the metal just prior to the initiation of a reaction.
>
>  The photoelectric effect has always been strange to me.  When I see that
> the wavelength of the incoming light is much larger than a single atom, I
> have a difficult time understanding how that quanta of energy ends up
> mainly in one target electron which is expelled.  This seems like a form of
> energy enhancement.  Could the processes be related?
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:56 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
>
>  We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration.
>
> This is just the beginning.
> As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a
> disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons.
> First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the
> resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document,
> it states.
> “A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation
> of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave
> irradiation.”
> A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole
> excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the
> experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to
> produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter
> close to the hot spot.
> Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most
> powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the
> experimenters could produce.  The lasers used by the experimenter could not
> get that deep into the infrared.
> The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub
> Nano scale solid connection between the nanoparticles.
> When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a
> radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation.
> When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a
> resonance process forces all the EMF  into the region between the
> nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation.
> The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the
> thinnest possible thread to connect them.
> In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field.
> I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared
> radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system
> could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude
> into the billions or trillions.
> You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to
> produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because
> of its dipole radiation profile.
> It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on
> to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels
>
> This is LENR, Dave
>  On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Give me a hint Axil.  The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity
>> might approach hot fusion conditions.  Please elaborate.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC10

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Harry Veeder]

Luke destabilizing a "proton" with an "electron"

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

well actually he does it with two "electrons" ;-)
Harry

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[David Roberson]

Perhaps that is the solution.  The magnitude of the LENR released energy is 
still too small for them to realize it is happening.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Mar 29, 2013 12:12 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?


The experimenter said:

"Throughout the course of the experiment a few nanoantennas became inactive, 
most likely due to photodegradation of the probe molecules."
 
No, the probe molecules got transmuted.
 





On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration.
 
This is just the beginning.
As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a 
disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons.
First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the resonance 
pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document, it states.
“A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation of 
plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave irradiation.” 
A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole 
excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the 
experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to 
produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter close 
to the hot spot.
Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most powerful 
at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the experimenters could 
produce.  The lasers used by the experimenter could not get that deep into the 
infrared.
The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub Nano 
scale solid connection between the nanoparticles.
When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a radio 
station to far places. This is called far field radiation.
When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a resonance 
process forces all the EMF  into the region between the nanoparticles. This is 
called near field radiation.
The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the 
thinnest possible thread to connect them. 
In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field.
I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared radiation 
wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system could increase 
its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude into the billions or 
trillions. 
You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to produce 
a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because of its 
dipole radiation profile. 
It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on to 
pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels

This is LENR, Dave


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Give me a hint Axil.  The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might 
approach hot fusion conditions.  Please elaborate.


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvA&sig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw
Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by 
Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy
In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna.
A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared 
range by a factor of 500,000,000.
I am showing you the path. What will you do with it?

Cheers:   axil


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss.  
My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred 
to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same 
behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured 
within a plasma.  The environment is extremely different in these two cases and 
it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree.  For 
instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different.  The 
kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either.  And, 
it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion 
appears to work with normal atoms.


Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar?   Who 
could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the low 
temperatur

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[David Roberson]

The enhanced fields are certainly interesting.  It is not clear how the large 
field is able to deliver energy to the reacting particles.  Do you think the 
field consists of many coupled electrons acting as a group ultimately placing 
their collective energy into just a few targets?  This would be a process that 
extracts energy from the local groups and concentrates it into a smaller number 
of items.  Almost sounds like a way to cool down the metal just prior to the 
initiation of a reaction.


The photoelectric effect has always been strange to me.  When I see that the 
wavelength of the incoming light is much larger than a single atom, I have a 
difficult time understanding how that quanta of energy ends up mainly in one 
target electron which is expelled.  This seems like a form of energy 
enhancement.  Could the processes be related?



Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?


We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration.
 
This is just the beginning.
As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a 
disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons.
First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the resonance 
pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document, it states.
“A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation of 
plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave irradiation.” 
A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole 
excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the 
experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to 
produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter close 
to the hot spot.
Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most powerful 
at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the experimenters could 
produce.  The lasers used by the experimenter could not get that deep into the 
infrared.
The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub Nano 
scale solid connection between the nanoparticles.
When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a radio 
station to far places. This is called far field radiation.
When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a resonance 
process forces all the EMF  into the region between the nanoparticles. This is 
called near field radiation.
The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the 
thinnest possible thread to connect them. 
In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field.
I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared radiation 
wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system could increase 
its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude into the billions or 
trillions. 
You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to produce 
a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because of its 
dipole radiation profile. 
It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on to 
pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels

This is LENR, Dave

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Give me a hint Axil.  The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might 
approach hot fusion conditions.  Please elaborate.


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvA&sig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw
Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by 
Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy
In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna.
A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared 
range by a factor of 500,000,000.
I am showing you the path. What will you do with it?

Cheers:   axil


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss.  
My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred 
to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same 
behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured 
within a plasma.  The environment is extremely different in these two cases and 
it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Axil Axil]

The experimenter said:

"Throughout the course of the experiment a few nanoantennas became
inactive, most likely due to photodegradation of the probe molecules."



No, the probe molecules got transmuted.




On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration.
>
>
> This is just the beginning.
>
> As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a
> disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons.
>
> First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the
> resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document,
> it states.
>
> “A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation
> of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave
> irradiation.”
>
> A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole
> excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the
> experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to
> produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter
> close to the hot spot.
>
> Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most
> powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the
> experimenters could produce.  The lasers used by the experimenter could not
> get that deep into the infrared.
>
> The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub
> Nano scale solid connection between the nanoparticles.
>
> When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a
> radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation.
>
> When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a
> resonance process forces all the EMF  into the region between the
> nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation.
>
> The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the
> thinnest possible thread to connect them.
>
> In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field.
>
> I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared
> radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system
> could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude
> into the billions or trillions.
>
> You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to
> produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because
> of its dipole radiation profile.
>
> It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on
> to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels
>
> This is LENR, Dave
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Give me a hint Axil.  The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity
>> might approach hot fusion conditions.  Please elaborate.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvA&sig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw
>> Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by
>> Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy
>> In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a
>> nanoantenna.
>> A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the
>> infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000.
>> I am showing you the path. What will you do with it?
>>
>> Cheers:   axil
>>
>>  On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to
>>> discuss.  My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals
>>> when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very
>>> presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring
>>> within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma.  The environment is
>>> extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to
>>> extrapolate a system to this degree.  For instance, the density of the
>>> reaction components is vastly different.  The kinetic energy of these same
>>> nuclei could hardly be further apart either

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Axil Axil]

They form dipoles; Dipole condensates.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> These cracks could prevent electrons and protons forming standard atoms of
> hydrogen and instead channel them together so they form much
> smaller structures such as a deflated hydrogen atom.
>
> Harry
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvA&sig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw
>>
>> Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by
>> Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy
>>
>> In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a
>> nanoantenna.
>>
>> A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the
>> infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000.
>>
>> I am showing you the path. What will you do with it?
>>
>>
>> Cheers:   axil
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to
>>> discuss.  My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals
>>> when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very
>>> presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring
>>> within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma.  The environment is
>>> extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to
>>> extrapolate a system to this degree.  For instance, the density of the
>>> reaction components is vastly different.  The kinetic energy of these same
>>> nuclei could hardly be further apart either.  And, it is well known that
>>> the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with
>>> normal atoms.
>>>
>>>  Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar?
>>>   Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the
>>> low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of
>>> its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other
>>> very nearby atoms?  This seems like a serious lack of imagination and
>>> insight.
>>>
>>>  So, I have a question that seeks an answer.  Is anyone aware of proof
>>> that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines
>>> of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs?  For
>>> example, it would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the
>>> reaction atoms to be accelerated by an electric field and rammed into a
>>> metal target.  For this exercise I think we should restrict the processes
>>> to include cases where fusion is detected within the surface of the metal
>>> and without significant external energy inputs.
>>>
>>>  Take the example of cold fusion that is initiated by muons.  Have
>>> there been any situations where this has been observed while the hydrogen
>>> is contained within a metal?  If so, what ash was observed and were gammas
>>> emitted by the process?  Perhaps an interesting test would be to infiltrate
>>> a mixture of deuterium and tritium into a nickel or palladium matrix and
>>> allow muons to enter the fray.  Someone may have already attempted this and
>>> it would be most informative for them to list the nuclear products that
>>> have been measured since this would simulate to a degree what we are
>>> expecting to observe with a typical cold fusion reaction.  Would this test
>>> result in the generation of gammas?  In what form would the energy be
>>> released?
>>>
>>>  I realize that the addition of tritium might blur the results,
>>> particularly when the normal cold fusion processes do not contain it.  For
>>> this reason, it might be interesting to only use regular hydrogen and
>>> deuterium at a lower expected reaction rate.  I am most interested in
>>> determining whether or not the reaction energy is distributed among the
>>> local atoms or confined to the ones undergoing fusion as is seen in hot
>>> fusion.
>>>
>>>  I would appreciate any responses from vortex members who have
>>> knowledge concerning these questions.
>>>
>>>  Dave
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Harry Veeder]

These cracks could prevent electrons and protons forming standard atoms of
hydrogen and instead channel them together so they form much
smaller structures such as a deflated hydrogen atom.

Harry

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvA&sig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw
>
> Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by
> Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy
>
> In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna.
>
> A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the
> infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000.
>
> I am showing you the path. What will you do with it?
>
>
> Cheers:   axil
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to
>> discuss.  My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals
>> when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very
>> presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring
>> within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma.  The environment is
>> extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to
>> extrapolate a system to this degree.  For instance, the density of the
>> reaction components is vastly different.  The kinetic energy of these same
>> nuclei could hardly be further apart either.  And, it is well known that
>> the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with
>> normal atoms.
>>
>>  Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar?
>> Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the
>> low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of
>> its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other
>> very nearby atoms?  This seems like a serious lack of imagination and
>> insight.
>>
>>  So, I have a question that seeks an answer.  Is anyone aware of proof
>> that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines
>> of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs?  For
>> example, it would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the
>> reaction atoms to be accelerated by an electric field and rammed into a
>> metal target.  For this exercise I think we should restrict the processes
>> to include cases where fusion is detected within the surface of the metal
>> and without significant external energy inputs.
>>
>>  Take the example of cold fusion that is initiated by muons.  Have there
>> been any situations where this has been observed while the hydrogen is
>> contained within a metal?  If so, what ash was observed and were gammas
>> emitted by the process?  Perhaps an interesting test would be to infiltrate
>> a mixture of deuterium and tritium into a nickel or palladium matrix and
>> allow muons to enter the fray.  Someone may have already attempted this and
>> it would be most informative for them to list the nuclear products that
>> have been measured since this would simulate to a degree what we are
>> expecting to observe with a typical cold fusion reaction.  Would this test
>> result in the generation of gammas?  In what form would the energy be
>> released?
>>
>>  I realize that the addition of tritium might blur the results,
>> particularly when the normal cold fusion processes do not contain it.  For
>> this reason, it might be interesting to only use regular hydrogen and
>> deuterium at a lower expected reaction rate.  I am most interested in
>> determining whether or not the reaction energy is distributed among the
>> local atoms or confined to the ones undergoing fusion as is seen in hot
>> fusion.
>>
>>  I would appreciate any responses from vortex members who have knowledge
>> concerning these questions.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Axil Axil]

We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration.


This is just the beginning.

As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a
disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons.

First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the
resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document,
it states.

“A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation
of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave
irradiation.”

A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole
excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the
experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to
produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter
close to the hot spot.

Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most
powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the
experimenters could produce.  The lasers used by the experimenter could not
get that deep into the infrared.

The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub
Nano scale solid connection between the nanoparticles.

When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a
radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation.

When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a
resonance process forces all the EMF  into the region between the
nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation.

The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the
thinnest possible thread to connect them.

In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field.

I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared
radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system
could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude
into the billions or trillions.

You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to
produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because
of its dipole radiation profile.

It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on
to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels

This is LENR, Dave
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Give me a hint Axil.  The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity
> might approach hot fusion conditions.  Please elaborate.
>
>  Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvA&sig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw
> Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by
> Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy
> In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna.
> A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the
> infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000.
> I am showing you the path. What will you do with it?
>
> Cheers:   axil
>
>  On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to
>> discuss.  My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals
>> when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very
>> presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring
>> within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma.  The environment is
>> extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to
>> extrapolate a system to this degree.  For instance, the density of the
>> reaction components is vastly different.  The kinetic energy of these same
>> nuclei could hardly be further apart either.  And, it is well known that
>> the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with
>> normal atoms.
>>
>>  Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar?
>> Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the
>> low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of
>> its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other
>> very nearby atoms?  This seems like a serious lack of imagination and
>> insight.
>>
>>  So, I have a question that seeks an answer.  Is anyone aware of proof
>> that hot fusion types 

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[David Roberson]

Give me a hint Axil.  The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might 
approach hot fusion conditions.  Please elaborate.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvA&sig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw
Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by 
Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy
In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna.
A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared 
range by a factor of 500,000,000.
I am showing you the path. What will you do with it?

Cheers:   axil


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss.  
My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred 
to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same 
behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured 
within a plasma.  The environment is extremely different in these two cases and 
it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree.  For 
instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different.  The 
kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either.  And, 
it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion 
appears to work with normal atoms.


Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar?   Who 
could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the low 
temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of its 
nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other very nearby 
atoms?  This seems like a serious lack of imagination and insight.


So, I have a question that seeks an answer.  Is anyone aware of proof that hot 
fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines of a metal 
matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs?  For example, it 
would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the reaction atoms to 
be accelerated by an electric field and rammed into a metal target.  For this 
exercise I think we should restrict the processes to include cases where fusion 
is detected within the surface of the metal and without significant external 
energy inputs.


Take the example of cold fusion that is initiated by muons.  Have there been 
any situations where this has been observed while the hydrogen is contained 
within a metal?  If so, what ash was observed and were gammas emitted by the 
process?  Perhaps an interesting test would be to infiltrate a mixture of 
deuterium and tritium into a nickel or palladium matrix and allow muons to 
enter the fray.  Someone may have already attempted this and it would be most 
informative for them to list the nuclear products that have been measured since 
this would simulate to a degree what we are expecting to observe with a typical 
cold fusion reaction.  Would this test result in the generation of gammas?  In 
what form would the energy be released?


I realize that the addition of tritium might blur the results, particularly 
when the normal cold fusion processes do not contain it.  For this reason, it 
might be interesting to only use regular hydrogen and deuterium at a lower 
expected reaction rate.  I am most interested in determining whether or not the 
reaction energy is distributed among the local atoms or confined to the ones 
undergoing fusion as is seen in hot fusion.


I would appreciate any responses from vortex members who have knowledge 
concerning these questions.


Dave





 

Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?

[Axil Axil]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdf&ei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvA&sig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw

Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by
Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy

In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna.

A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared
range by a factor of 500,000,000.

I am showing you the path. What will you do with it?


Cheers:   axil

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to
> discuss.  My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals
> when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very
> presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring
> within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma.  The environment is
> extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to
> extrapolate a system to this degree.  For instance, the density of the
> reaction components is vastly different.  The kinetic energy of these same
> nuclei could hardly be further apart either.  And, it is well known that
> the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with
> normal atoms.
>
>  Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar?
> Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the
> low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of
> its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other
> very nearby atoms?  This seems like a serious lack of imagination and
> insight.
>
>  So, I have a question that seeks an answer.  Is anyone aware of proof
> that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines
> of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs?  For
> example, it would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the
> reaction atoms to be accelerated by an electric field and rammed into a
> metal target.  For this exercise I think we should restrict the processes
> to include cases where fusion is detected within the surface of the metal
> and without significant external energy inputs.
>
>  Take the example of cold fusion that is initiated by muons.  Have there
> been any situations where this has been observed while the hydrogen is
> contained within a metal?  If so, what ash was observed and were gammas
> emitted by the process?  Perhaps an interesting test would be to infiltrate
> a mixture of deuterium and tritium into a nickel or palladium matrix and
> allow muons to enter the fray.  Someone may have already attempted this and
> it would be most informative for them to list the nuclear products that
> have been measured since this would simulate to a degree what we are
> expecting to observe with a typical cold fusion reaction.  Would this test
> result in the generation of gammas?  In what form would the energy be
> released?
>
>  I realize that the addition of tritium might blur the results,
> particularly when the normal cold fusion processes do not contain it.  For
> this reason, it might be interesting to only use regular hydrogen and
> deuterium at a lower expected reaction rate.  I am most interested in
> determining whether or not the reaction energy is distributed among the
> local atoms or confined to the ones undergoing fusion as is seen in hot
> fusion.
>
>  I would appreciate any responses from vortex members who have knowledge
> concerning these questions.
>
>  Dave
>
>