subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment"

Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references  
in my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion  
bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion,  
depending on the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold  
fusion if the NAE is present and high energy favors hot fusion without  
a NAE. You need to know a good deal more about the process before   
speculation is useful about in a particular experiment.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

Which paper describes the use of 300 eV?

The paper I mentioned by Chambers is relevant.  But I recall seeing  
a different paper, possibly where normal dd branches were seen, in  
which the energy of the beam was between 200-300 eV.  I will try to  
keep an eye out for it.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-08 Thread Jed Rothwell

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in my
 library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
 bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on
 the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE
 is present and high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.


At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing
that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles
on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos
and excess heat results showing this.

Mizuno himself cannot attend.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an  
interesting question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?


 I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However,  
particles of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words,  
the nano-gap I propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the  
particle size determines the size of the gap.  After all, CF has been  
found to occur under a variety of conditions, including in complete  
absence of nanoparticles. However, nano-gaps can form in any material,  
but not frequently with the correct dimension.


The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The  
better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will  
be produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.   
Consequently, I'm suggesting that people should not focus on the  
particle itself but on what is happening within the particle.  Unless  
the NAE is produced within the particle, the particle is inert no  
matter what  size it has.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references  
in my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful.  
Ion bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion,  
depending on the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors  
cold fusion if the NAE is present and high energy favors hot fusion  
without a NAE.


At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno  
showing that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces  
nanoparticles on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days.  
He has SEM photos and excess heat results showing this.


Mizuno himself cannot attend.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

 *How to build a nano-cavity*
http://nanophotonics.csic.es/static/publications/pdfs/paper203.pdf

Organized Plasmonic Clusters with High Coordination Number and
Extraordinary Enhancement in Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS)
To illustrate a pivotal principle from Nano-engineering that bears upon
LENR, in experimental results from that field involving Nanoplasmonics, the
electromagnetic field strength in the spaces between nanoparticles is
exponentially strengthened based on the number of nanoparticles in contact
with each other.   Remember, strengthening the density of the electron gas
is a prime LENR design goal. Electromagnetic field strength amplification
is what we really want to do.   See Figure A - Optical enhancement of
nanoparticle clusters with coordination numbers (points of near contact or
nano-gaps) from 1 to 7.   Comparison between the enhancement factors
obtained for each sample, normalized to the enhancement produced by a
single particle excited with a 633 nm laser line.   See  Surface-Enhanced
Raman Scattering (SERS) spectra of benzenethiol on the pentagonal bipyramid
(CN 7).   The enhancement factor of the electromagnetic fields in the
nano-gaps is proportional to the capacitance that the particle can impose
on the dielectric material in the gap.   Simply put, the number of
electrons that can be packed into the dielectric medium filling the gap is
directly proportional to the amount of charge difference that the particles
can bring to bear in the immediate neighborhood of the nano-cavity.   The
micro-particle has a far greater capacitive potential than a single
nano-particle or even a large cluster of nano-particles because its bulk is
orders of magnitude bigger than those particles that are sized on the
nanoscale. But critically, there needs to be a way to increase both the
effective surface area of the micro-particle and the coordination number
(nano-gaps) when two micro-particles grow close together.   This is
cleverly engineered by covering the micro-particles with nanowires like the
spines that cover the surface skin of a sea urchin.

   The nanowires draw close and touch as the micro-particles draw together
but the charge on the surface of the micro-particle largely remains in
place because current does not readily flow access these filamentary points
of contact. The nanowires provide a gage or better described as a spacing
mechanism so that the micro-particles maintain the optimum nano-metric
capacitive distance between their respective micro-particle surfaces.


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
 question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?

  I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles of
 a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I
 propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines
 the size of the gap.  After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety
 of conditions, including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However,
 nano-gaps can form in any material, but not frequently with the correct
 dimension.

 The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The
 better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be
 produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.  Consequently, I'm
 suggesting that people should not focus on the particle itself but on what
 is happening within the particle.  Unless the NAE is produced within the
 particle, the particle is inert no matter what  size it has.

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in my
 library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
 bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on
 the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE
 is present and high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.


 At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing
 that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles
 on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos
 and excess heat results showing this.

 Mizuno himself cannot attend.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Here is more...


Fano resonance between nano-particles produce whispering gallery waves
between nano-particles. This was discovered only three years ago. The
Nanoplasmonic research community has not optimized the formation of Fano
resonance to any degree yet. They have only gotten it up to 10^^15
amplification. What limits them is as follows:

These experimenters only use gold or silver because these metals are
relatively safe if ingested.

Nickel is far more reactive, powerful, and dangerous with regards to the
formation of electron dipole strength.

Micro-particles are not used yet because they are counterproductive to the
goals and products they want to produce such as nano-computers and optical
telecommunications.

Furthermore, the Nanoplasmonic experimenters never use hydrogen as the
dielectric, they use ordinary air.

They use lasers to stimulate dipole movement. Because the laser light is a
plain wave, it does poorly in producing vigorous dipole movement that are
required to produce whispering gallery waves..

The micro-particle is a wonderful storehouse for dipole vibrations.

Very small nano-particles use Fano resonance to amplify this dipole energy
(powerful source of alternating current) to a huge degree.

This micro/nano particle configuration produces a nano-sized tesla-coil.

Think of the resonant windings of a tesla coil,  were the main winding
resonantly drives the few windings

A Tesla coil's windings are loosely coupled, with a large air gap, and
thus the primary and secondary typically share only 10–20% of their
respective magnetic fields. Instead of a tight coupling, the coil transfers
energy (via loose coupling) from one oscillating resonant circuit (the
primary) to the other (the secondary) over a number of RF cycles.

As the primary energy transfers to the secondary, the secondary's output
voltage increases until all of the available primary energy has been
transferred to the secondary. A well designed Tesla coil can concentrate
the energy initially stored in the primary capacitor (the micro particle)
to the secondary circuit (the nano-particle). The voltage achievable from a
Tesla coil can be significantly greater than a conventional transformer,
because the secondary winding is a long single layer solenoid widely
separated from the surroundings and therefore well insulated. Also, the
voltage per turn in any coil is higher because the rate of change of
magnetic flux is at high frequencies.

The dipole operates an infrared frequency. This is very high.

With the loose coupling the voltage gain is instead proportional to the
square root of the ratio of secondary and primary inductances. Because the
secondary winding is wound to be resonant at the same frequency as the
primary, this voltage gain is also proportional to the square root of the
ratio of the primary capacitor to the stray capacitance of the secondary.

The micro-particle nano-particle resonance packs the entire energy content
stored on the surface of the micro-particle into the atomic level volume
between one nanometer sized particles.

This produces nano-ball lightning between nano-particles.






On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *How to build a nano-cavity*
 http://nanophotonics.csic.es/static/publications/pdfs/paper203.pdf

 Organized Plasmonic Clusters with High Coordination Number and
 Extraordinary Enhancement in Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS)
 To illustrate a pivotal principle from Nano-engineering that bears upon
 LENR, in experimental results from that field involving Nanoplasmonics, the
 electromagnetic field strength in the spaces between nanoparticles is
 exponentially strengthened based on the number of nanoparticles in contact
 with each other.   Remember, strengthening the density of the electron
 gas is a prime LENR design goal. Electromagnetic field strength
 amplification is what we really want to do.   See Figure A - Optical
 enhancement of nanoparticle clusters with coordination numbers (points of
 near contact or nano-gaps) from 1 to 7.   Comparison between the
 enhancement factors obtained for each sample, normalized to the enhancement
 produced by a single particle excited with a 633 nm laser line.   See
  Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS) spectra of benzenethiol on the
 pentagonal bipyramid (CN 7).   The enhancement factor of the
 electromagnetic fields in the nano-gaps is proportional to the capacitance
 that the particle can impose on the dielectric material in the gap.   Simply
 put, the number of electrons that can be packed into the dielectric medium
 filling the gap is directly proportional to the amount of charge difference
 that the particles can bring to bear in the immediate neighborhood of the
 nano-cavity.   The micro-particle has a far greater capacitive potential
 than a single nano-particle or even a large cluster of nano-particles
 because its bulk is orders of magnitude bigger than those particles that
 are sized on the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-08 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Ed,
I don't understand why you are so reluctant to consider the gap 
between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is essentially 
the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe the particles 
are inert and solid - only the geometry formed  between particles is active  - 
it is the same region that experiences stiction force which tends to make these 
gaps even smaller to the limit of particle shape and packing geometry. I think 
the micro scale tubules used by Rossi may combine micro and nano cavities as 
the bodies both pack together and their protrusions interlace to form smaller 
and smaller pockets between the particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if 
the IR energy feeding plasmons theory has any weight.
Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold 
fusion experiment

I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting 
question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?

 I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles of a 
critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I propose 
to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines the size of 
the gap.  After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety of conditions, 
including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However, nano-gaps can form in 
any material, but not frequently with the correct dimension.

The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The better 
the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be produced. Use 
of small particles improves this ability.  Consequently, I'm suggesting that 
people should not focus on the particle itself but on what is happening within 
the particle.  Unless the NAE is produced within the particle, the particle is 
inert no matter what  size it has.

Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in my 
library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion bombardment 
can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on the conditions 
and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE is present and 
high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.

At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing that 
ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles on wires 
subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos and excess heat 
results showing this.

Mizuno himself cannot attend.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

The one advantage that knowledge gained from nanoplasmonics offers is
that such knowledge can be trusted as experimentally validated.


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
 wrote:

  Ed,

 I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to consider
 the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is
 essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe
 the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed  between
 particles is active  – it is the same region that experiences stiction
 force which tends to make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle
 shape and packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi
 may combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and
 their protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between the
 particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy feeding
 plasmons theory has any weight.

 Fran   

 ** **

 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about
 successful cold fusion experiment

 ** **

 I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
 question, Are nanoparticles the NAE? 

 ** **

  I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles of
 a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I
 propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines
 the size of the gap.  After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety
 of conditions, including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However,
 nano-gaps can form in any material, but not frequently with the correct
 dimension.  

 ** **

 The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The
 better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be
 produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.  Consequently, I'm
 suggesting that people should not focus on the particle itself but on what
 is happening within the particle.  Unless the NAE is produced within the
 particle, the particle is inert no matter what  size it has. 

 ** **

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



 

 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 ** **

  Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in
 my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
 bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on
 the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE
 is present and high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.

  ** **

 At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing
 that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles
 on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos
 and excess heat results showing this.

 ** **

 Mizuno himself cannot attend.

 ** **

 - Jed

 ** **

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and  
generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF  
occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is  
not required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is  
in how the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more  
general in its formation and has properties that I believe are  
important, that a gap between arbitrary particles having an unknown  
and complex shape does not have. That is the only difference between  
our views about a gap.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to  
consider the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE.  
The geometry is essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am  
more likely to believe the particles are inert and solid - only the  
geometry formed  between particles is active  – it is the same  
region that experiences stiction force which tends to make these  
gaps even smaller to the limit of particle shape and packing  
geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi may combine  
micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and their  
protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between  
the particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy  
feeding plasmons theory has any weight.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about  
successful cold fusion experiment


I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an  
interesting question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?


 I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However,  
particles of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other  
words, the nano-gap I propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and  
the particle size determines the size of the gap.  After all, CF has  
been found to occur under a variety of conditions, including in  
complete absence of nanoparticles. However, nano-gaps can form in  
any material, but not frequently with the correct dimension.


The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present.  
The better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power  
will be produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.   
Consequently, I'm suggesting that people should not focus on the  
particle itself but on what is happening within the particle.   
Unless the NAE is produced within the particle, the particle is  
inert no matter what  size it has.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references  
in my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful.  
Ion bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion,  
depending on the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors  
cold fusion if the NAE is present and high energy favors hot fusion  
without a NAE.


At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno  
showing that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces  
nanoparticles on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days.  
He has SEM photos and excess heat results showing this.


Mizuno himself cannot attend.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

*“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”*

This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg



Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,
nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular
spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as
the NAE.

When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the
strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.




On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and
 generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF
 occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not
 required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how
 the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in
 its formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap
 between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not
 have. That is the only difference between our views about a gap.

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

 Ed,
 I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to consider
 the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is
 essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe
 the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed  between
 particles is active  – it is the same region that experiences stiction
 force which tends to make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle
 shape and packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi
 may combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and
 their protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between the
 particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy feeding
 plasmons theory has any weight.
 Fran   
 ** **
 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about
 successful cold fusion experiment
 ** **
 I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
 question, Are nanoparticles the NAE? 
 ** **
  I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles of
 a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I
 propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines
 the size of the gap.  After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety
 of conditions, including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However,
 nano-gaps can form in any material, but not frequently with the correct
 dimension.  
 ** **
 The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The
 better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be
 produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.  Consequently, I'm
 suggesting that people should not focus on the particle itself but on what
 is happening within the particle.  Unless the NAE is produced within the
 particle, the particle is inert no matter what  size it has. 
 ** **
 Ed
 On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


 
 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 ** **

 Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in my
 library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
 bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on
 the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE
 is present and high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.

 ** **
 At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing
 that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles
 on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos
 and excess heat results showing this.
 ** **
 Mizuno himself cannot attend.
 ** **
 - Jed
 ** **
 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-08 Thread Jed Rothwell

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
 question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?


I am sure they are the location of the NAE. The effect does not happen
without the particles.



  I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles of
 a critical size are the HOST for the NAE.


Mizuno discusses the optimum size, which he controls.



 In other words, the nano-gap I propose to be the NAE grows in a particle
 and the particle size determines the size of the gap.


I doubt that he could see that, or comment on it. His SEM does not show
much internal detail of the particles. It does show the distribution.

Anyway, you will see it in a couple of weeks. He is writing it still, and I
am translating it. I had to translate and submit an abstract and I have to
make poster now, quickly.

It won't be difficult for me to babysit the poster because I will just hand
out the paper and say read this! Whether it is in the final format or
not, I will hand it out. I warned Mizuno I will.

Professors are SO SLOW. They drive me crazy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”*

 This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.



 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg



 Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
 nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,
 nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular
 spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as
 the NAE.

 When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the
 strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.




 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and
 generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF
 occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not
 required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how
 the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in
 its formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap
 between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not
 have. That is the only difference between our views about a gap.

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

 Ed,
 I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to consider
 the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is
 essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe
 the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed  between
 particles is active  – it is the same region that experiences stiction
 force which tends to make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle
 shape and packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi
 may combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and
 their protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between the
 particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy feeding
 plasmons theory has any weight.
 Fran   
 ** **
 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about
 successful cold fusion experiment
 ** **
 I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
 question, Are nanoparticles the NAE? 
 ** **
  I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles
 of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I
 propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines
 the size of the gap.  After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety
 of conditions, including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However,
 nano-gaps can form in any material, but not frequently with the correct
 dimension.  
 ** **
 The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The
 better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be
 produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.  Consequently, I'm
 suggesting that people should not focus on the particle itself but on what
 is happening within the particle.  Unless the NAE is produced within the
 particle, the particle is inert no matter what  size it has. 
 ** **
 Ed
 On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


 
 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 ** **

 Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in
 my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
 bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on
 the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE
 is present and high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.

 ** **
 At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing
 that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles
 on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos
 and excess heat results showing this.
 ** **
 Mizuno himself cannot attend.
 ** **
 - Jed
 ** **
 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiEEfUXcRvAlist=PLA93BDCCCAE8FC3F2


Formation of a NAE through electromigration.


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
 point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
 material.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4


 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”*

 This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.



 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg



 Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
 nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,
 nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular
 spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as
 the NAE.

 When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the
 strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.




 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and
 generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF
 occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not
 required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how
 the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in
 its formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap
 between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not
 have. That is the only difference between our views about a gap.

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

 Ed,
 I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to consider
 the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is
 essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe
 the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed  between
 particles is active  – it is the same region that experiences stiction
 force which tends to make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle
 shape and packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi
 may combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and
 their protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between the
 particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy feeding
 plasmons theory has any weight.
 Fran   
 ** **
 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about
 successful cold fusion experiment
 ** **
 I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
 question, Are nanoparticles the NAE? 
 ** **
  I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles
 of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I
 propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines
 the size of the gap.  After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety
 of conditions, including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However,
 nano-gaps can form in any material, but not frequently with the correct
 dimension.  
 ** **
 The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The
 better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be
 produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.  Consequently, I'm
 suggesting that people should not focus on the particle itself but on what
 is happening within the particle.  Unless the NAE is produced within the
 particle, the particle is inert no matter what  size it has. 
 ** **
 Ed
 On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


 
 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 ** **

 Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in
 my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
 bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on
 the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE
 is present and high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.

 ** **
 At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing
 that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles
 on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos
 and excess heat results showing this.
 ** **
 Mizuno himself cannot attend.
 ** **
 - Jed
 ** **
 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I  
suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the  
contact between particles is topologically identical to a crack on  
the surface of a material.  Have you ever seen a crack, examined  
surfaces, or even explored cold fusion? A crack is created and held  
apart by stress. Two particles are not held apart and instead attempt  
to fuse to make a larger particle, thereby causing the well know  
sintering and loss of small particles.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space  
above the point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on  
the surface of a material.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”

This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg


Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of  
nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,  
nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The  
irregular spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are  
discussing as the NAE.


When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the  
strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.





On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and  
generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition,  
CF occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their  
presence is not required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only  
difference is in how the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress  
relief is more general in its formation and has properties that I  
believe are important, that a gap between arbitrary particles having  
an unknown and complex shape does not have. That is the only  
difference between our views about a gap.


Ed

On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to  
consider the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting  
NAE. The geometry is essentially the inverse of a skeletal  
catalyst- I am more likely to believe the particles are inert and  
solid - only the geometry formed  between particles is active  – it  
is the same region that experiences stiction force which tends to  
make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle shape and  
packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi may  
combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together  
and their protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets  
between the particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR  
energy feeding plasmons theory has any weight.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about  
successful cold fusion experiment


I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an  
interesting question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?


 I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However,  
particles of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other  
words, the nano-gap I propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and  
the particle size determines the size of the gap.  After all, CF  
has been found to occur under a variety of conditions, including in  
complete absence of nanoparticles. However, nano-gaps can form in  
any material, but not frequently with the correct dimension.


The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present.  
The better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power  
will be produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.   
Consequently, I'm suggesting that people should not focus on the  
particle itself but on what is happening within the particle.   
Unless the NAE is produced within the particle, the particle is  
inert no matter what  size it has.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90  
references in my library. You need to read this before speculation  
is useful. Ion bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or  
cold fusion, depending on the conditions and applied energy. Low  
energy favors cold fusion if the NAE is present and high energy  
favors hot fusion without a NAE.


At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno  
showing that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It  
produces nanoparticles on wires subjected to glow discharge for  
about 3 days. He has SEM photos and excess heat results showing this.


Mizuno himself cannot attend.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0876.pdf



*Plasmons in nearly touching metallic nanoparticles: singular response in
the limit of touching dimers*

* *

The response of gold nanoparticle dimers is studied theoretically

near and beyond the limit where the particles are touching. As the particles

approach each other, a dominant dipole feature is observed that is pushed

into the infrared due to interparticle coupling and that is associated *with
a*
* *

*large pileup of induced charge in the interparticle gap*. The redshift
becomes

singular as the particle separation decreases. The response weakens for very

small separation when the coupling across the interparticle gap becomes so

strong that dipolar oscillations across the pair are inhibited.
Lowerwavelength,

higher-order modes show a similar separation dependence in

nearly touching dimers. After touching, singular behavior is observed

through the emergence of a new infrared absorption peak,* also accompanied*
* *

*by huge charge pileup at the interparticle junction,* if initial
interparticle contact

is made at a single point. This new mode is distinctly different from

the lowest mode of the separated dimer. When the junction is made by

contact between flat surfaces, charge at the junction is neutralized and
mode

evolution is continuous through contact. The calculated singular response

explains recent experiments on metallic nanoparticle dimers and is relevant

in the design of nanoparticle-based sensors and plasmon circuits.






On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I
 suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the contact
 between particles is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of
 a material.  Have you ever seen a crack, examined surfaces, or even
 explored cold fusion? A crack is created and held apart by stress. Two
 particles are not held apart and instead attempt to fuse to make a larger
 particle, thereby causing the well know sintering and loss of small
 particles.

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

 Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
 point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
 material.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4


 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”*

 This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg


 Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
 nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,
 nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular
 spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as
 the NAE.

 When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the
 strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.



 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and
 generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF
 occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not
 required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how
 the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in
 its formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap
 between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not
 have. That is the only difference between our views about a gap.

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

 Ed,
 I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to consider
 the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is
 essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe
 the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed  between
 particles is active  – it is the same region that experiences stiction
 force which tends to make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle
 shape and packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi
 may combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and
 their protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between the
 particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy feeding
 plasmons theory has any weight.
 Fran   
 ** **
 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about
 successful cold fusion experiment
 ** **
 I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
 question, Are nanoparticles the NAE? 
 ** **
  I personally

RE: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-08 Thread Frank roarty

Ed,

   Please consider Axil's movie from a 3d bulk perspective..
which is where I believe his argument was headed, the single point of
contact  becomes multipoint to many particles all  self attracting into a
bulk form. essentially a rigid if not solid conductor with open voids.. I do
recognize the loss of mechanical stress you are citing but I do leave the
door open because of Casimir and other forces that these geometries both
share. Not asking you to change your preference only to allow for the
possibility.

Fran

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion
experiment

 

Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I
suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the contact
between particles is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
material.  Have you ever seen a crack, examined surfaces, or even explored
cold fusion? A crack is created and held apart by stress. Two particles are
not held apart and instead attempt to fuse to make a larger particle,
thereby causing the well know sintering and loss of small particles. 

 

Ed

On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote:





Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
material.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4

 

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

generally too big to achieve what I think is required

This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg

 

Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,
nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular
spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as the
NAE.

When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the strongest
generator of electromagnetic resonance.

 

 

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and generally
too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF occurs in the
absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not required.  We
agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how the gap forms. I
believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its formation and
has properties that I believe are important, that a gap between arbitrary
particles having an unknown and complex shape does not have. That is the
only difference between our views about a gap.

 

Ed

 

On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:





Ed,

I don't understand why you are so reluctant to consider the
gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is
essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe
the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed  between
particles is active  - it is the same region that experiences stiction force
which tends to make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle shape
and packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi may
combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and their
protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between the
particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy feeding
plasmons theory has any weight.

Fran   

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful
cold fusion experiment

 

I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
question, Are nanoparticles the NAE? 

 

 I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles of a
critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I
propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines
the size of the gap.  After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety
of conditions, including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However,
nano-gaps can form in any material, but not frequently with the correct
dimension.  

 

The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The
better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be
produced. Use of small particles improves this ability.  Consequently, I'm
suggesting that people should not focus on the particle itself but on what
is happening within the particle.  Unless the NAE is produced within the
particle, the particle is inert no matter what  size it has. 

 

Ed

On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real  
world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start  
to grow a bigger particle. This is a common and well understood  
behavior. We are not free to ignore what actually happens in Nature.  
Of course, pores can be trapped in the growing structure but these are  
generally large and eventually disappear if the material is held at  
high temperature long enough. We are trying to explain what happens in  
the real world, not in some idealized version that Axil has.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Frank roarty wrote:


Ed,
   Please consider Axil’s movie from a 3d bulk  
perspective.. which is where I believe his argument was headed, the  
single point of contact  becomes multipoint to many particles all   
self attracting into a bulk form… essentially a rigid if not solid  
conductor with open voids.. I do recognize the loss of mechanical  
stress you are citing but I do leave the door open because of  
Casimir and other forces that these geometries both share. Not  
asking you to change your preference only to allow for the  
possibility.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful  
cold fusion experiment


Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what  
I suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that  
the contact between particles is topologically identical to a crack  
on the surface of a material.  Have you ever seen a crack, examined  
surfaces, or even explored cold fusion? A crack is created and held  
apart by stress. Two particles are not held apart and instead  
attempt to fuse to make a larger particle, thereby causing the well  
know sintering and loss of small particles.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space  
above the point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on  
the surface of a material.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”

This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg


Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of  
nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,  
nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The  
irregular spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are  
discussing as the NAE.


When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the  
strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.





On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and  
generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition,  
CF occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their  
presence is not required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only  
difference is in how the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress  
relief is more general in its formation and has properties that I  
believe are important, that a gap between arbitrary particles having  
an unknown and complex shape does not have. That is the only  
difference between our views about a gap.


Ed

On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to  
consider the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE.  
The geometry is essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am  
more likely to believe the particles are inert and solid - only the  
geometry formed  between particles is active  – it is the same  
region that experiences stiction force which tends to make these  
gaps even smaller to the limit of particle shape and packing  
geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi may combine  
micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and their  
protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between  
the particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy  
feeding plasmons theory has any weight.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about  
successful cold fusion experiment


I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an  
interesting question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?


 I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However,  
particles of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other  
words, the nano-gap I propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and  
the particle size determines the size of the gap.  After all, CF has  
been found to occur

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

*“pores can be trapped in the growing structure but these are generally
large and eventually disappear”*

Whenever a heat or electric pulse is periodically applied to reinvigorate a
LENR reaction in a cycle, one of its consequences is to disrupt this
aggregation of nanoparticles, to reform these particles back into plasma,
and upon cooling of that plasma to reinitiate the process of nanoparticle
re-aggregation.

If re-stimulation of the LENR process is not performed, the LENR process
will weaken and eventually fail.

I have termed this process dynamic NAE formation.

On the other hand, in a solid material where the LENR reaction occurs in
stress cracks, there is no renewal process where the NAE can be rebuilt
after damage or congestion over time.




On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real
 world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start to
 grow a bigger particle. This is a common and well understood behavior. We
 are not free to ignore what actually happens in Nature. Of course, pores
 can be trapped in the growing structure but these are generally large and
 eventually disappear if the material is held at high temperature long
 enough. We are trying to explain what happens in the real world, not in
 some idealized version that Axil has.

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Frank roarty wrote:

 Ed,
Please consider Axil’s movie from a 3d bulk perspective..
 which is where I believe his argument was headed, the single point of
 contact  becomes multipoint to many particles all  self attracting into a
 bulk form… essentially a rigid if not solid conductor with open voids.. I
 do recognize the loss of mechanical stress you are citing but I do leave
 the door open because of Casimir and other forces that these geometries
 both share. Not asking you to change your preference only to allow for the
 possibility.
 Fran
 ** **
 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold
 fusion experiment
 ** **
 Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I
 suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the contact
 between particles is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of
 a material.  Have you ever seen a crack, examined surfaces, or even
 explored cold fusion? A crack is created and held apart by stress. Two
 particles are not held apart and instead attempt to fuse to make a larger
 particle, thereby causing the well know sintering and loss of small
 particles. 
 ** **
 Ed
 On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


 
 Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
 point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
 material.
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4

 ** **
 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”*

 This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.
  

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg
  

 Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
 nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,
 nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular
 spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as
 the NAE.

 When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the
 strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.
  

 ** **
 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
 Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and
 generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF
 occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not
 required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how
 the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in
 its formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap
 between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not
 have. That is the only difference between our views about a gap.
 ** **
 Ed
 ** **
 On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


 
 Ed,
 I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to consider
 the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is
 essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe
 the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed  between
 particles is active  – it is the same region that experiences stiction
 force which tends to make these gaps even smaller

RE: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-08 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Ed wrote:

Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and generally
too big to achieve what I think is required.

and this.

I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its formation
and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap between
arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not have. That
is the only difference between our views about a gap.

 

I think you may have that backwards.

 

The production of NAEs within bulk matter is way more random than modern
nanotech is able to achieve.

I've seen SEM images of nanotubes which look like the knap of a rug, with
*every* individual tube the same size and evenly spaced.  Try to get that
regularity with the random process of stress-relief causing dislocations on
bulk matter. where the NAE form and how big they are is not going to be
anywhere near the regularity that can be achieved in modern nanotech
manufacturing.

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion
experiment

 

Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real world.
When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start to grow a
bigger particle. This is a common and well understood behavior. We are not
free to ignore what actually happens in Nature. Of course, pores can be
trapped in the growing structure but these are generally large and
eventually disappear if the material is held at high temperature long
enough. We are trying to explain what happens in the real world, not in some
idealized version that Axil has. 

 

Ed

On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Frank roarty wrote:





Ed,

   Please consider Axil's movie from a 3d bulk perspective..
which is where I believe his argument was headed, the single point of
contact  becomes multipoint to many particles all  self attracting into a
bulk form. essentially a rigid if not solid conductor with open voids.. I do
recognize the loss of mechanical stress you are citing but I do leave the
door open because of Casimir and other forces that these geometries both
share. Not asking you to change your preference only to allow for the
possibility.

Fran

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion
experiment

 

Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I
suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the contact
between particles is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
material.  Have you ever seen a crack, examined surfaces, or even explored
cold fusion? A crack is created and held apart by stress. Two particles are
not held apart and instead attempt to fuse to make a larger particle,
thereby causing the well know sintering and loss of small particles. 

 

Ed

On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote:






Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
material.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4

 

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

generally too big to achieve what I think is required

This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg

 

Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,
nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular
spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as the
NAE.

When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the strongest
generator of electromagnetic resonance.

 

 

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and generally
too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF occurs in the
absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not required.  We
agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how the gap forms. I
believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its formation and
has properties that I believe are important, that a gap between arbitrary
particles having an unknown and complex shape does not have. That is the
only difference between our views about a gap.

 

Ed

 

On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:






Ed,

I don't understand why you are so reluctant to consider the
gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is
essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe
the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Mark, I'm not discussing what nanotech can achieve. I'm describing  
what Nature achieves in the various conditions known to produce CF.  
Later, once the NAE is properly identified, it will be made using  
nanotech. Meanwhile, we need to identify what actually needs to be  
made, not what someone IMAGINES occurs. Based on examining hundreds of  
studies, I have arrived at a condition that fits them all. I'm only  
asking that this conclusion be given serious consideration.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 5:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


Ed wrote:
“Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and  
generally too big to achieve what I think is required.”

and this…
“I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its  
formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a  
gap between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape  
does not have. That is the only difference between our views about a  
gap.”


I think you may have that backwards…

The production of NAEs within bulk matter is way more random than  
modern nanotech is able to achieve…
I’ve seen SEM images of nanotubes which look like the knap of a rug,  
with *every* individual tube the same size and evenly spaced.  Try  
to get that regularity with the random process of stress-relief  
causing dislocations on bulk matter… where the NAE form and how big  
they are is not going to be anywhere near the regularity that can be  
achieved in modern nanotech manufacturing.


-Mark Iverson

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful  
cold fusion experiment


Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real  
world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and  
start to grow a bigger particle. This is a common and well  
understood behavior. We are not free to ignore what actually happens  
in Nature. Of course, pores can be trapped in the growing structure  
but these are generally large and eventually disappear if the  
material is held at high temperature long enough. We are trying to  
explain what happens in the real world, not in some idealized  
version that Axil has.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Frank roarty wrote:


Ed,
   Please consider Axil’s movie from a 3d bulk  
perspective.. which is where I believe his argument was headed, the  
single point of contact  becomes multipoint to many particles all   
self attracting into a bulk form… essentially a rigid if not solid  
conductor with open voids.. I do recognize the loss of mechanical  
stress you are citing but I do leave the door open because of  
Casimir and other forces that these geometries both share. Not  
asking you to change your preference only to allow for the  
possibility.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful  
cold fusion experiment


Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what  
I suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that  
the contact between particles is topologically identical to a crack  
on the surface of a material.  Have you ever seen a crack, examined  
surfaces, or even explored cold fusion? A crack is created and held  
apart by stress. Two particles are not held apart and instead  
attempt to fuse to make a larger particle, thereby causing the well  
know sintering and loss of small particles.


Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote:



Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space  
above the point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on  
the surface of a material.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”

This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg


Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of  
nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,  
nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The  
irregular spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are  
discussing as the NAE.


When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the  
strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.





On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and  
generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition,  
CF occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their  
presence is not required.  We agree that a gap is required. The only  
difference is in how the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

AI have oftentimes repeated, all experimental references come from
Nanoplasmonics and the references presented as fully supported by
experimentation.

The only unknown is the detailed mechanism of the nuclear transmutation
process.. And even in this, the speculated mechanism is based on the latest
thinking in nuclear and string theory.




On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Mark, I'm not discussing what nanotech can achieve. I'm describing what
 Nature achieves in the various conditions known to produce CF. Later, once
 the NAE is properly identified, it will be made using nanotech. Meanwhile,
 we need to identify what actually needs to be made, not what someone
 IMAGINES occurs. Based on examining hundreds of studies, I have arrived at
 a condition that fits them all. I'm only asking that this conclusion be
 given serious consideration.

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 5:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

 Ed wrote:
 “Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and
 generally too big to achieve what I think is required.”
 and this…
 “I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its formation
 and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap between
 arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not have. That
 is the only difference between our views about a gap.”
 ** **
 I think you may have that backwards…
 ** **
 The production of NAEs within bulk matter is way more random than modern
 nanotech is able to achieve…
 I’ve seen SEM images of nanotubes which look like the knap of a rug, with *
 *every** individual tube the same size and evenly spaced.  Try to get
 that regularity with the random process of stress-relief causing
 dislocations on bulk matter… where the NAE form and how big they are is not
 going to be anywhere near the regularity that can be achieved in modern
 nanotech manufacturing.
 ** **
 -Mark Iverson
 ** **
 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 3:43 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold
 fusion experiment
 ** **
 Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real
 world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start to
 grow a bigger particle. This is a common and well understood behavior. We
 are not free to ignore what actually happens in Nature. Of course, pores
 can be trapped in the growing structure but these are generally large and
 eventually disappear if the material is held at high temperature long
 enough. We are trying to explain what happens in the real world, not in
 some idealized version that Axil has. 
 ** **
 Ed
 On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Frank roarty wrote:


 
 Ed,
Please consider Axil’s movie from a 3d bulk perspective..
 which is where I believe his argument was headed, the single point of
 contact  becomes multipoint to many particles all  self attracting into a
 bulk form… essentially a rigid if not solid conductor with open voids.. I
 do recognize the loss of mechanical stress you are citing but I do leave
 the door open because of Casimir and other forces that these geometries
 both share. Not asking you to change your preference only to allow for the
 possibility.
 Fran
  
 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold
 fusion experiment
  
 Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I
 suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the contact
 between particles is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of
 a material.  Have you ever seen a crack, examined surfaces, or even
 explored cold fusion? A crack is created and held apart by stress. Two
 particles are not held apart and instead attempt to fuse to make a larger
 particle, thereby causing the well know sintering and loss of small
 particles. 
  
 Ed
 On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote:



 
 Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
 point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
 material.
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4

  
 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”*

 This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.
  

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg
  

 Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
 nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move,
 nanoparticles will eventually touch

RE: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-08 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Ed:

You've analyzed all the LENR data way more than I, and I certainly hope you
are able to persuade some of the experimentalists to heed your advice on how
best to proceed.  however, even if ALL future experiments heeded your
advice, I still think the repeatability and COP will not be much better, for
the reasons to follow...

 

I think we can agree that there is a particular geometry or size which is
conducive to LENR; perhaps 'required' is more appropriate.  Given that, even
if someone were to get good results with a particular material, there is  

NO way to determine what size and/or geometry NAEs produced the
effect since they are destroyed (melted) by the reaction .

 

I am simply positing the following as reasons why an engineered nanotech
approach might be better:

- With nanotech, you can make nearly identical samples in every other aspect
but with different geometries/sizes.

- The one that gives you positive results is much more likely to be obvious
(hi COP) because nearly the entire sample would be conducive to LENR
reactions, not just a  miniscule percentage of random dislocations .

- One can then build samples with only slightly different geometries on
either side of the initially successful one in order to optimize the
geometry; this geometry is likely dependent on temperature - higher temps =
smaller NAEs???

- You might think that the numerous different initial samples would be a
crap-shoot, but I think odds are actually better for success because as one
steps up the resistance heater little by little, one of the numerous test
geometries will likely meet whatever conditions are necessary for the
reaction to trigger.  and you will KNOW EXACTLY what that geometry was!

 

I think the above is an engineer's approach, and if we assume that Rossi has
indeed obtained anywhere near the COPs that he claims, then an engineer's
approach might be a better route to success.

 

humor on

In fact, after one of the samples vaporizes (since the entire sample will
LENR-react), if your experiment, lab and bldg are still intact, one could
continue raising the temperature to see what geometry vaporized next! J

humor off

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 5:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion
experiment

 

Mark, I'm not discussing what nanotech can achieve. I'm describing what
Nature achieves in the various conditions known to produce CF. Later, once
the NAE is properly identified, it will be made using nanotech. Meanwhile,
we need to identify what actually needs to be made, not what someone
IMAGINES occurs. Based on examining hundreds of studies, I have arrived at a
condition that fits them all. I'm only asking that this conclusion be given
serious consideration.

 

Ed

On Jul 8, 2013, at 5:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:





Ed wrote:

Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and generally
too big to achieve what I think is required.

and this.

I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its formation
and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap between
arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not have. That
is the only difference between our views about a gap.

 

I think you may have that backwards.

 

The production of NAEs within bulk matter is way more random than modern
nanotech is able to achieve.

I've seen SEM images of nanotubes which look like the knap of a rug, with
*every* individual tube the same size and evenly spaced.  Try to get that
regularity with the random process of stress-relief causing dislocations on
bulk matter. where the NAE form and how big they are is not going to be
anywhere near the regularity that can be achieved in modern nanotech
manufacturing.

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion
experiment

 

Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real world.
When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start to grow a
bigger particle. This is a common and well understood behavior. We are not
free to ignore what actually happens in Nature. Of course, pores can be
trapped in the growing structure but these are generally large and
eventually disappear if the material is held at high temperature long
enough. We are trying to explain what happens in the real world, not in some
idealized version that Axil has. 

 

Ed

On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Frank roarty wrote:






Ed,

   Please consider Axil's movie from a 3d bulk perspective..
which is where I believe his argument was headed, the single point of
contact  becomes multipoint to many particles all  self attracting into a
bulk form. essentially a rigid

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

*I think we can agree that there is a particular geometry or size which is
conducive to LENR; *

I hold hope that such a thing is possible and can be found. I point to the
polariton laser as a well conceived example of purpose build
nano-engineering.

If a long lived polariton laser can be designed and manufactured so can a
long lived LENR reactor.


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:52 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Ed:

 You’ve analyzed all the LENR data way more than I, and I certainly hope
 you are able to persuade some of the experimentalists to heed your advice
 on how best to proceed…  however, even if ALL future experiments heeded
 your advice, I still think the repeatability and COP will not be much
 better, for the reasons to follow...

 ** **

 I think we can agree that there is a particular geometry or size which is
 conducive to LENR; perhaps ‘required’ is more appropriate.  Given that,
 even if someone were to get good results with a particular material, there
 is  

 NO way to determine what size and/or geometry NAEs produced the
 effect since they are destroyed (melted) by the reaction .

 ** **

 I am simply positing the following as reasons why an engineered nanotech
 approach might be better:

 - With nanotech, you can make nearly identical samples in every other
 aspect but with different geometries/sizes.

 - The one that gives you positive results is much more likely to be
 obvious (hi COP) because nearly the entire sample would be conducive to
 LENR reactions, not just a  miniscule percentage of random dislocations
 .

 - One can then build samples with only slightly different geometries on
 either side of the initially successful one in order to optimize the
 geometry; this geometry is likely dependent on temperature – higher temps =
 smaller NAEs???

 - You might think that the numerous different initial samples would be a
 crap-shoot, but I think odds are actually better for success because as one
 steps up the resistance heater little by little, one of the numerous test
 geometries will likely meet whatever conditions are necessary for the
 reaction to trigger…  and you will KNOW EXACTLY what that geometry was!***
 *

 ** **

 I think the above is an engineer’s approach, and if we assume that Rossi
 has indeed obtained anywhere near the COPs that he claims, then an
 engineer’s approach might be a better route to success…

 ** **

 humor on

 In fact, after one of the samples vaporizes (since the entire sample will
 LENR-react), if your experiment, lab and bldg are still intact, one could
 continue raising the temperature to see what geometry vaporized next! J***
 *

 humor off

 ** **

 -Mark Iverson

 ** **

 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 5:57 PM

 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold
 fusion experiment

 ** **

 Mark, I'm not discussing what nanotech can achieve. I'm describing what
 Nature achieves in the various conditions known to produce CF. Later, once
 the NAE is properly identified, it will be made using nanotech. Meanwhile,
 we need to identify what actually needs to be made, not what someone
 IMAGINES occurs. Based on examining hundreds of studies, I have arrived at
 a condition that fits them all. I'm only asking that this conclusion be
 given serious consideration.

 ** **

 Ed

 On Jul 8, 2013, at 5:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:



 

 Ed wrote:

 “Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and
 generally too big to achieve what I think is required.”

 and this…

 “I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its formation
 and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap between
 arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not have. That
 is the only difference between our views about a gap.”

  

 I think you may have that backwards…

  

 The production of NAEs within bulk matter is way more random than modern
 nanotech is able to achieve…

 I’ve seen SEM images of nanotubes which look like the knap of a rug, with *
 *every** individual tube the same size and evenly spaced.  Try to get
 that regularity with the random process of stress-relief causing
 dislocations on bulk matter… where the NAE form and how big they are is not
 going to be anywhere near the regularity that can be achieved in modern
 nanotech manufacturing.

  

 -Mark Iverson

  

 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 3:43 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold
 fusion experiment

  

 Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real
 world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.  
These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not  
related except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion.  However,  
the conditions required for initiation and the nuclear products are  
entirely different. As long as hot- and cold-fusion are considered in  
the same discussion, no progress will be made in understanding cold  
fusion.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:


Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment referenced in
this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high voltage causation
of fusion.



To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the
Proton-21 experimental series.



Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a LENR
experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR
experiment.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion. These
 are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not related except
 both are nuclear reactions involving fusion.  However, the conditions
 required for initiation and the nuclear products are entirely different. As
 long as hot- and cold-fusion are considered in the same discussion, no
 progress will be made in understanding cold fusion.

 Ed

 On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:

  Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

 http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_**fusion_nature.pdfhttp://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which  
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common  
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic  
ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two  
different phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various  
sources and the other requires no applied energy. One results in  
neutrons when deuterium is used, The other results in helium when  
deuterium is used. Can you at least acknowledge that these two  
different reactions occur?


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment  
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to  
high voltage causation of fusion.



To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the  
Proton-21 experimental series.



Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed  
a LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed  
a LENR experiment.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.  
These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not  
related except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion.   
However, the conditions required for initiation and the nuclear  
products are entirely different. As long as hot- and cold-fusion are  
considered in the same discussion, no progress will be made in  
understanding cold fusion.


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:

Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

In nuclear fusion research, the *Lawson criterion*, first derived on fusion
reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and published in
1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines the
conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach *ignition*, that is, that
the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is
sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses
without external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion
gives a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron)
density *n*e and the energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested
that a more useful figure of merit is the triple product of density,
confinement time, and plasma temperature *T*. The triple product also has a
minimum required value, and the name Lawson criterion often refers to
this inequality.

You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated here
when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot fusion.

The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what
LeClair thinks is causing it.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which phenomenon
it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common understanding.
Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic ideas so that the
discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two different phenomenon.
One uses high applied energy from various sources and the other requires no
applied energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used, The other
results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least acknowledge that
these two different reactions occur?

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment referenced in
this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high voltage causation
of fusion.

To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the
Proton-21 experimental series.

Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a LENR
experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR
experiment.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion. These
are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not related except
both are nuclear reactions involving fusion. However, the conditions
required for initiation and the nuclear products are entirely different. As
long as hot- and cold-fusion are considered in the same discussion, no
progress will be made in understanding cold fusion.

On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:

Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_**fusion_nature.pdfhttp://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Yes Axil, your mind set has not changed either, still just as  
unfocused on the subject at hand.  I do not see how this issue can be  
discussed when you cannot focus on the subject. The Lawson criterion  
has absolutely no relationship to cold fusion. It only applies to hot  
fusion. Apparently, you do not agree or understand, which makes  
further discussion about cold fusion pointless.


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei  
collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic  
nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities  
as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on  
fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and  
published in 1957, is an important general measure of a system that  
defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach  
ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the products of  
the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the temperature of  
the plasma against all losses without external power input. As  
originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a minimum required  
value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne and the  
energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested that a more  
useful figure of merit is the triple product of density,  
confinement time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also  
has a minimum required value, and the name Lawson criterion often  
refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as  
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as some  
other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter  
what LeClair thinks is causing it.





On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which  
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common  
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic  
ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with  
two different phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various  
sources and the other requires no applied energy. One results in  
neutrons when deuterium is used, The other results in helium when  
deuterium is used. Can you at least acknowledge that these two  
different reactions occur?


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment  
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to  
high voltage causation of fusion.



To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in  
the Proton-21 experimental series.



Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed  
a LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be  
termed a LENR experiment.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.  
These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not  
related except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion.   
However, the conditions required for initiation and the nuclear  
products are entirely different. As long as hot- and cold-fusion  
are considered in the same discussion, no progress will be made in  
understanding cold fusion.


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:

Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of the
Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be
characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time and
plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

In nuclear fusion research, the *Lawson criterion*, first derived on
fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and
published in 1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines
the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach *ignition*, that is,
that the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is
sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses
without external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion
gives a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron)
density *n*e and the energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested
that a more useful figure of merit is the triple product of density,
confinement time, and plasma temperature *T*. The triple product also has
a minimum required value, and the name Lawson criterion often refers to
this inequality.

You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated here
when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot fusion.

The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what
LeClair thinks is causing it.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic ideas
so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two different
phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various sources and the other
requires no applied energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used,
The other results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least
acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment referenced
in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high voltage
causation of fusion.

To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the
Proton-21 experimental series.

Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a
LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR
experiment.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.
These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not related
except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion. However, the
conditions required for initiation and the nuclear products are entirely
different. As long as hot- and cold-fusion are considered in the same
discussion, no progress will be made in understanding cold fusion.

On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:

Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_**fusion_nature.pdfhttp://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to a  
plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products, i.e.  
neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma and  
results in helium without kinetic energy.  The reaction is defined as  
LENR only if the conditions and reaction products fit the conditions  
on which the definition is based. You are not free to change the  
definition to suit your personal beliefs.


Ed


On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of  
the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be  
characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time  
and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei  
collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic  
nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities  
as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on  
fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and  
published in 1957, is an important general measure of a system that  
defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach  
ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the products of  
the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the temperature of  
the plasma against all losses without external power input. As  
originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a minimum required  
value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne and the  
energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested that a more  
useful figure of merit is the triple product of density,  
confinement time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also  
has a minimum required value, and the name Lawson criterion often  
refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as  
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as some  
other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter  
what LeClair thinks is causing it.





On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which  
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common  
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic  
ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with  
two different phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various  
sources and the other requires no applied energy. One results in  
neutrons when deuterium is used, The other results in helium when  
deuterium is used. Can you at least acknowledge that these two  
different reactions occur?


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment  
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to  
high voltage causation of fusion.



To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in  
the Proton-21 experimental series.



Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed  
a LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be  
termed a LENR experiment.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.  
These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not  
related except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion.   
However, the conditions required for initiation and the nuclear  
products are entirely different. As long as hot- and cold-fusion  
are considered in the same discussion, no progress will be made in  
understanding cold fusion.


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:

Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. There is no
mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to my understanding of
it.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to a
plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products, i.e.
neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma and results in
helium without kinetic energy. The reaction is defined as LENR only if the
conditions and reaction products fit the conditions on which the definition
is based. You are not free to change the definition to suit your personal
beliefs.

On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei
collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus of
compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities as defined by the
to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the *Lawson criterion*, first derived on
fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and
published in 1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines
the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach *ignition*, that is,
that the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is
sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses
without external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion
gives a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron)
density *n*e and the energy confinement time . Later analyses
suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the triple product of
density, confinement time, and plasma temperature *T*. The triple
product also has a minimum required value, and the name Lawson criterion
often refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated
here when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot
fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what
LeClair thinks is causing it.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic ideas
so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two different
phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various sources and the other
requires no applied energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used,
The other results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least
acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high
voltage causation of fusion.

To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the
Proton-21 experimental series.

Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a
LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR
experiment.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.
These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not related
except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion. However, the
conditions required for initiation and the nuclear products are entirely
different. As long as hot- and cold-fusion are considered in the same
discussion, no progress will be made in understanding cold fusion.

On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:

Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_**fusion_nature.pdfhttp://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are talking  
about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal of  
confusion about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is  
eliminated from discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper  
simply adds to the confusion, which many other papers have done as well.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion.  
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to  
my understanding of it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to  
a plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products,  
i.e. neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma  
and results in helium without kinetic energy.  The reaction is  
defined as LENR only if the conditions and reaction products fit the  
conditions on which the definition is based. You are not free to  
change the definition to suit your personal beliefs.


Ed



On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of  
the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot  
be characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement  
time and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com  
wrote:
Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei  
collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic  
nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at high  
densities as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on  
fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955  
and published in 1957, is an important general measure of a system  
that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach  
ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the products  
of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the temperature  
of the plasma against all losses without external power input. As  
originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a minimum required  
value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne and the  
energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested that a more  
useful figure of merit is the triple product of density,  
confinement time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also  
has a minimum required value, and the name Lawson criterion often  
refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as  
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as some  
other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter  
what LeClair thinks is causing it.





On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which  
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common  
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some  
basic ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing  
with two different phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from  
various sources and the other requires no applied energy. One  
results in neutrons when deuterium is used, The other results in  
helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least acknowledge that  
these two different reactions occur?


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment  
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to  
high voltage causation of fusion.



To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in  
the Proton-21 experimental series.



Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly  
termed a LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should  
be termed a LENR experiment.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold- 
fusion. These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They  
are not related except both are nuclear reactions involving  
fusion.  However, the conditions required for initiation and the  
nuclear products are entirely different. As long as hot- and cold- 
fusion are considered in the same discussion, no progress will be  
made in understanding cold fusion.


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David ledin wrote:

Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion  
experiment


http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread Robert Dorr



Ed and Axil,

Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as 
fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat, 
below let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure to 
start the fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires a 
high energy process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used in 
the experiment being discussed here, would be considered a form of 
hot fusion. Just an thought.


Bob

At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are 
talking about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal 
of confusion about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is 
eliminated from discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper 
simply adds to the confusion, which many other papers have done as well.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. 
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to 
my understanding of it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies 
to a plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion 
products, i.e. neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur 
in plasma and results in helium without kinetic energy.  The 
reaction is defined as LENR only if the conditions and reaction 
products fit the conditions on which the definition is based. You 
are not free to change the definition to suit your personal beliefs.


Ed



On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of 
the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot 
be characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement 
time and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil 
mailto:janap...@gmail.comjanap...@gmail.com wrote:
Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic 
nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of 
atomic nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at high 
densities as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on 
fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 
and published in 1957, is an important general measure of a system 
that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach 
ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the products 
of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the temperature 
of the plasma against all losses without external power input. As 
originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a minimum 
required value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne 
and the energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested that 
a more useful figure of merit is the triple product of density, 
confinement time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product 
also has a minimum required value, and the name Lawson criterion 
often refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as 
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as 
some other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter 
what LeClair thinks is causing it.





On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which 
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common 
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some 
basic ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are 
dealing with two different phenomenon. One uses high applied 
energy from various sources and the other requires no applied 
energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used, The other 
results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least 
acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment 
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to 
high voltage causation of fusion.



To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in 
the Proton-21 experimental series.



Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly 
termed a LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should 
be termed a LENR experiment.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and 
cold-fusion. These are two separate and independent phenomenon. 
They are not related except both are nuclear reactions involving 
fusion.  However, the conditions required for initiation and the 
nuclear products are entirely different. As long as hot- and 
cold-fusion

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

 From: David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com
 Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 1:31:41 AM

 Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment
 http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

It talks about coulomb explosions --- which is exactly what the Etiam patent 
claims (In their case of a Rydberg / Inverted Rydberg structure, generating 
high-energy protons).

Curious: the mention of Cold fusion in the abstract. In Nature !!??

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

I don't think that your criteria would include the Proton-21 experiments or
the exploding foil experiments as LENR.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote:


 Ed and Axil,

 Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as
 fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat, below
 let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure to start the
 fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires a high energy
 process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used in the experiment
 being discussed here, would be considered a form of hot fusion. Just an
 thought.

 Bob


 At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:

 My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are talking
 about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal of confusion
 about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is eliminated from
 discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper simply adds to the
 confusion, which many other papers have done as well.

 Ed
 On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

 The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. There is
 no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to my understanding
 of it.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to a
 plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products, i.e.
 neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma and results in
 helium without kinetic energy.  The reaction is defined as LENR only if the
 conditions and reaction products fit the conditions on which the definition
 is based. You are not free to change the definition to suit your personal
 beliefs.

 Ed



 On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of the
 Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be
 characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time and
 plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei
 collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus of
 compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities as defined by the
 to the Lawson criterion,
 In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on fusion
 reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and published in
 1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines the
 conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, that is, that the
 heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient
 to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses without
 external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a
 minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne
 and the energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested that a more
 useful figure of merit is the triple product of density, confinement
 time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also has a minimum
 required value, and the name Lawson criterion often refers to this
 inequality.
  You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated
 here when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot
 fusion.
 The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what
 LeClair thinks is causing it.




 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which
 phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common
 understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic ideas
 so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two different
 phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various sources and the other
 requires no applied energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used,
 The other results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least
 acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?

 Ed

 On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment referenced
 in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high voltage
 causation of fusion.


 To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the
 Proton-21 experimental series.


 Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a LENR
 experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR
 experiment.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.
 These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not related
 except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion.  However, the
 conditions

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Bob, here is the definition I plan to use at ICCF-18. This is accepted  
by most people in the field.  Hot fusion is so much different from  
cold fusion, no benefit is gained by mixing the two phenomenon. They  
can be easily separated because hot fusion makes neutrons when energy  
is generated. Cold fusion makes essentially no neutrons when energy is  
generated.


Ed


What are we talking about?
(cold fusion [CF], LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS, Fleischmann-Pons Effect)
A nuclear process initiated on rare
occasions in apparently ordinary
material without application of
significant energy that generates
heat and nuclear products without
expected radiation when any
isotope of hydrogen is present.
On Jul 7, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:



Ed and Axil,

Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as  
fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat,  
below let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure  
to start the fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires  
a high energy process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used  
in the experiment being discussed here, would be considered a form  
of hot fusion. Just an thought.


Bob

At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are  
talking about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal  
of confusion about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is  
eliminated from discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper  
simply adds to the confusion, which many other papers have done as  
well.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion.  
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to  
my understanding of it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
 wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies  
to a plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion  
products, i.e. neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur  
in plasma and results in helium without kinetic energy.  The  
reaction is defined as LENR only if the conditions and reaction  
products fit the conditions on which the definition is based. You  
are not free to change the definition to suit your personal beliefs.


Ed



On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms  
of the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction  
cannot be characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma  
confinement time and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com  
wrote:
Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic  
nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of  
atomic nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at high  
densities as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived  
on fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in  
1955 and published in 1957, is an important general measure of a  
system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to  
reach ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the  
products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the  
temperature of the plasma against all losses without external  
power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives  
a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron)  
density ne and the energy confinement time . Later analyses  
suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the triple  
product of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature T.  
The triple product also has a minimum required value, and the  
name Lawson criterion often refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as  
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as  
some other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter  
what LeClair thinks is causing it.





On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
 wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which  
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common  
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some  
basic ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are  
dealing with two different phenomenon. One uses high applied  
energy from various sources and the other requires no applied  
energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used, The other  
results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least  
acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment  
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to  
high

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread Robert Dorr




In a way they are both a form of pressure albeit mechanical or 
chemical in nature.


Bob

At 11:25 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
I don't think that your criteria would include the Proton-21 
experiments or the exploding foil experiments as LENR.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dorr 
mailto:rod...@comcast.netrod...@comcast.net wrote:


Ed and Axil,

Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as 
fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat, 
below let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure 
to start the fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires 
a high energy process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used 
in the experiment being discussed here, would be considered a form 
of hot fusion. Just an thought.


Bob


At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are 
talking about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal 
of confusion about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is 
eliminated from discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper 
simply adds to the confusion, which many other papers have done as well.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. 
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to 
my understanding of it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies 
to a plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion 
products, i.e. neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur 
in plasma and results in helium without kinetic energy.  The 
reaction is defined as LENR only if the conditions and reaction 
products fit the conditions on which the definition is based. You 
are not free to change the definition to suit your personal beliefs.

Ed


On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms 
of the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction 
cannot be characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma 
confinement time and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil 
mailto:janap...@gmail.comjanap...@gmail.com wrote:
Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic 
nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of 
atomic nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at high 
densities as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived 
on fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 
1955 and published in 1957, is an important general measure of a 
system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to 
reach ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the 
products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the 
temperature of the plasma against all losses without external 
power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives 
a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) 
density ne and the energy confinement time . Later analyses 
suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the triple 
product of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature T. 
The triple product also has a minimum required value, and the 
name Lawson criterion often refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as 
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as 
some other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter 
what LeClair thinks is causing it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which 
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common 
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some 
basic ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are 
dealing with two different phenomenon. One uses high applied 
energy from various sources and the other requires no applied 
energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used, The other 
results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least 
acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?

Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment 
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to 
high voltage causation of fusion.


To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in 
the Proton-21 experimental series.


Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly 
termed a LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment 
should be termed a LENR experiment.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 8:29:27 AM
 
 I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of
 the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be
 characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time
 and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.

Those criteria really only apply to Tokamaks. For example, I'm not sure that 
the Laser (National Ignition Facility) has to meet the confinement time 
criterion. (I haven't looked for the numbers).

For example, if you could create perfect Lawson fusion by creating a high 
energy plasma inside a nanoscale Nickel cage, where the surrounding 
temperature is cold .. would you call the High or Low energy?

But we're getting into Krivit territory here, bellowing that WL is LENR and not 
Cold Fusion.

Personally, I'm inclined to broaden the cold definition -- even if it turns 
out that there are multiple, totally different events.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

That depends on the nuclear products. The exploding foil can be LENR  
if heat is produced without neutron emission, i.e. without the nuclear  
reaction associated with hot fusion. In addition, both cold and hot  
fusion can be produced at the same time in some situations. The  
challenge is to separate the two mechanism, not redefine what is  
happening.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

I don't think that your criteria would include the Proton-21  
experiments or the exploding foil experiments as LENR.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net  
wrote:


Ed and Axil,

Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as  
fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat,  
below let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure  
to start the fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires  
a high energy process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used  
in the experiment being discussed here, would be considered a form  
of hot fusion. Just an thought.


Bob


At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are  
talking about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal  
of confusion about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is  
eliminated from discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper  
simply adds to the confusion, which many other papers have done as  
well.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion.  
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to  
my understanding of it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
 wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies  
to a plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion  
products, i.e. neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur  
in plasma and results in helium without kinetic energy.  The  
reaction is defined as LENR only if the conditions and reaction  
products fit the conditions on which the definition is based. You  
are not free to change the definition to suit your personal beliefs.


Ed



On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms  
of the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction  
cannot be characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma  
confinement time and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com  
wrote:
Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic  
nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of  
atomic nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at high  
densities as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived  
on fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in  
1955 and published in 1957, is an important general measure of a  
system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to  
reach ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the  
products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the  
temperature of the plasma against all losses without external  
power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives  
a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron)  
density ne and the energy confinement time . Later analyses  
suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the triple  
product of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature T.  
The triple product also has a minimum required value, and the  
name Lawson criterion often refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as  
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as  
some other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter  
what LeClair thinks is causing it.





On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
 wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which  
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common  
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some  
basic ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are  
dealing with two different phenomenon. One uses high applied  
energy from various sources and the other requires no applied  
energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used, The other  
results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least  
acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment  
referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to  
high voltage causation of fusion.



To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in  
the Proton-21 experimental series.



Since

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread Robert Dorr



That seems pretty straight forward to me.

Bob

At 11:27 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
Bob, here is the definition I plan to use at ICCF-18. This is 
accepted by most people in the field.  Hot fusion is so much 
different from cold fusion, no benefit is gained by mixing the two 
phenomenon. They can be easily separated because hot fusion makes 
neutrons when energy is generated. Cold fusion makes essentially no 
neutrons when energy is generated.


Ed


What are we talking about?
(cold fusion [CF], LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS, Fleischmann-Pons Effect)
A nuclear process initiated on rare
occasions in apparently ordinary
material without application of
significant energy that generates
heat and nuclear products without
expected radiation when any
isotope of hydrogen is present.
On Jul 7, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:



Ed and Axil,

Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , 
as fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of 
heat, below let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some 
pressure to start the fusion process. Any other type of fusion that 
requires a high energy process such as a high energy ion beam, that 
was used in the experiment being discussed here, would be 
considered a form of hot fusion. Just an thought.


Bob

At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are 
talking about. This confusion is common and results in a great 
deal of confusion about how cold fusion works. Unless this 
confusion is eliminated from discussion, no agreement is 
possible.  This paper simply adds to the confusion, which many 
other papers have done as well.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. 
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper 
to my understanding of it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies 
to a plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion 
products, i.e. neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur 
in plasma and results in helium without kinetic energy.  The 
reaction is defined as LENR only if the conditions and reaction 
products fit the conditions on which the definition is based. You 
are not free to change the definition to suit your personal beliefs.

Ed


On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms 
of the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction 
cannot be characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma 
confinement time and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil 
mailto:janap...@gmail.comjanap...@gmail.com wrote:
Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic 
nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of 
atomic nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at 
high densities as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived 
on fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 
1955 and published in 1957, is an important general measure of a 
system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor 
to reach ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by 
the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain 
the temperature of the plasma against all losses without 
external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson 
criterion gives a minimum required value for the product of the 
plasma (electron) density ne and the energy confinement time . 
Later analyses suggested that a more useful figure of merit is 
the triple product of density, confinement time, and plasma 
temperature T. The triple product also has a minimum required 
value, and the name Lawson criterion often refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as 
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as 
some other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no 
matter what LeClair thinks is causing it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which 
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common 
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some 
basic ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are 
dealing with two different phenomenon. One uses high applied 
energy from various sources and the other requires no applied 
energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used, The 
other results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least 
acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?

Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction mechanism

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three miracles

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

Harry


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote:


 Ed and Axil,

 Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as
 fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat, below
 let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure to start the
 fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires a high energy
 process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used in the experiment
 being discussed here, would be considered a form of hot fusion. Just an
 thought.

 Bob

 At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:

 My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are talking
 about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal of confusion
 about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is eliminated from
 discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper simply adds to the
 confusion, which many other papers have done as well.

 Ed
 On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

 The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. There is
 no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to my understanding
 of it.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to a
 plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products, i.e.
 neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma and results in
 helium without kinetic energy.  The reaction is defined as LENR only if the
 conditions and reaction products fit the conditions on which the definition
 is based. You are not free to change the definition to suit your personal
 beliefs.

 Ed



 On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of the
 Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be
 characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time and
 plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei
 collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus of
 compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities as defined by the
 to the Lawson criterion,
 In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on fusion
 reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and published in
 1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines the
 conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, that is, that the
 heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient
 to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses without
 external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a
 minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne
 and the energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested that a more
 useful figure of merit is the triple product of density, confinement
 time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also has a minimum
 required value, and the name Lawson criterion often refers to this
 inequality.
  You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated
 here when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot
 fusion.
 The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what
 LeClair thinks is causing it.




 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which
 phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common
 understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic ideas
 so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two different
 phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various sources and the other
 requires no applied energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used,
 The other results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least
 acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?

 Ed

 On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment referenced
 in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high voltage
 causation of fusion.


 To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the
 Proton-21 experimental series.


 Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a LENR
 experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR
 experiment.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.
 These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not related
 except both are nuclear reactions involving

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three miracles

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

 Harry


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote:


 Ed and Axil,

 Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as
 fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat, below
 let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure to start the
 fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires a high energy
 process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used in the experiment
 being discussed here, would be considered a form of hot fusion. Just an
 thought.

 Bob

 At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:

 My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are talking
 about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal of confusion
 about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is eliminated from
 discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper simply adds to the
 confusion, which many other papers have done as well.

 Ed
 On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

 The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. There is
 no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to my understanding
 of it.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to a
 plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products, i.e.
 neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma and results in
 helium without kinetic energy.  The reaction is defined as LENR only if the
 conditions and reaction products fit the conditions on which the definition
 is based. You are not free to change the definition to suit your personal
 beliefs.

 Ed



 On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of the
 Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be
 characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time and
 plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei
 collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus of
 compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities as defined by the
 to the Lawson criterion,
 In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on fusion
 reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and published in
 1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines the
 conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, that is, that the
 heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient
 to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses without
 external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a
 minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne
 and the energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested that a more
 useful figure of merit is the triple product of density, confinement
 time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also has a minimum
 required value, and the name Lawson criterion often refers to this
 inequality.
  You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated
 here when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot
 fusion.
 The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what
 LeClair thinks is causing it.




 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which
 phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common
 understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic ideas
 so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two different
 phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various sources and the other
 requires no applied energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used,
 The other results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least
 acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?

 Ed

 On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment referenced
 in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high voltage
 causation of fusion.


 To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the
 Proton-21 experimental series.


 Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a
 LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR
 experiment.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread blaze spinnaker

Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three miracles

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

 Harry


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote:


 Ed and Axil,

 Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as
 fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat, below
 let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure to start the
 fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires a high energy
 process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used in the experiment
 being discussed here, would be considered a form of hot fusion. Just an
 thought.

 Bob

 At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:

 My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are talking
 about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal of confusion
 about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is eliminated from
 discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper simply adds to the
 confusion, which many other papers have done as well.

 Ed
 On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

 The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. There is
 no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to my understanding
 of it.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to a
 plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products, i.e.
 neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma and results in
 helium without kinetic energy.  The reaction is defined as LENR only if the
 conditions and reaction products fit the conditions on which the definition
 is based. You are not free to change the definition to suit your personal
 beliefs.

 Ed



 On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of the
 Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be
 characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time and
 plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei
 collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus of
 compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities as defined by the
 to the Lawson criterion,
 In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on
 fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and
 published in 1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines
 the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, that is, that
 the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is
 sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses
 without external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion
 gives a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron)
 density ne and the energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested
 that a more useful figure of merit is the triple product of density,
 confinement time, and plasma temperature T. The triple product also has a
 minimum required value, and the name Lawson criterion often refers to
 this inequality.
  You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated
 here when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot
 fusion.
 The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what
 LeClair thinks is causing it.




 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:
  If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which
 phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common
 understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some basic ideas
 so that the discussion can move forward? We are dealing with two different
 phenomenon. One uses high applied energy from various sources and the other
 requires no applied energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used,
 The other results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least
 acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?

 Ed

 On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  It seems to me that the reaction mechanism of the experiment
 referenced in this thread is electrostatic in nature relating to high
 voltage causation of fusion.


 To draw a comparison, this is identical to the mechanism used in the
 Proton-21 experimental series.


 Since Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed a
 LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed a LENR
 experiment.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread Bob Higgins

It seems to me that for this definition to work, even as a phenomenological
definition, something more would need to be added regarding the expected
radiation.  For example, one could say without the radiation expected
from previous experiments in hot fusion.  However, clarifying it this way
implies we have an appropriate definition of hot fusion that is amenable
to distinguishing from cold fusion or LENR, or at least limiting its scope.
 It seems that a reasonable definition of cold fusion needs a companion
re-definition of hot fusion.

For example, could hot fusion be described as being between 2 or more
nuclei, each being kinetically unconstrained with 6 degrees of freedom
within the atomic scale?  Of course, some degrees of freedom could be
degenerate in symmetric nuclei.  This would seem to apply fine to a plasma.
 As the nuclei approach each other within an atomic radius, externally
applied fields would be insignificant in the force balance on the nuclei.

While it seems we know this to be true for hot fusion, the converse of this
cannot necessarily be used to describe cases of cold fusion because we
don't really know the mechanism yet (hence the need for a macroscopic
definition).  But at least it begins by limiting the scope of hot fusion.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


 What are we talking about?
 (cold fusion [CF], LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS, Fleischmann-Pons Effect)
 A nuclear process initiated on rare
 occasions in apparently ordinary
 material without application of
 significant energy that generates
 heat and nuclear products without
 *expected* radiation when any
 isotope of hydrogen is present.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Gamma rays, i.e. photons, are produced because otherwise the mass- 
energy cannot be turned into heat. Nevertheless, the energy of the  
photons is too small for most to leave the apparatus. Therefore, they  
are detected at too low an intensity to account for the heat. This  
confuses some people because the actual flux inside the apparatus is  
huge, but since it is not measured it is ignored.


Yes, the three miracles partially define cold fusion.

Ed


On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three  
miracles


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/ 
TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles


Harry


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net  
wrote:


Ed and Axil,

Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as  
fusion at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat,  
below let's say 1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure  
to start the fusion process. Any other type of fusion that requires  
a high energy process such as a high energy ion beam, that was used  
in the experiment being discussed here, would be considered a form  
of hot fusion. Just an thought.


Bob

At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:
My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are  
talking about. This confusion is common and results in a great deal  
of confusion about how cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is  
eliminated from discussion, no agreement is possible.  This paper  
simply adds to the confusion, which many other papers have done as  
well.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion.  
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to  
my understanding of it.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
 wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies  
to a plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion  
products, i.e. neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur  
in plasma and results in helium without kinetic energy.  The  
reaction is defined as LENR only if the conditions and reaction  
products fit the conditions on which the definition is based. You  
are not free to change the definition to suit your personal beliefs.


Ed



On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms  
of the Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction  
cannot be characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma  
confinement time and plasma temperature, then the reaction is LENR.



On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com  
wrote:
Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic  
nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of  
atomic nucleus of compressing matter to high temperatures at high  
densities as defined by the to the Lawson criterion,
In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived  
on fusion reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in  
1955 and published in 1957, is an important general measure of a  
system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to  
reach ignition, that is, that the heating of the plasma by the  
products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the  
temperature of the plasma against all losses without external  
power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives  
a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron)  
density ne and the energy confinement time . Later analyses  
suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the triple  
product of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature T.  
The triple product also has a minimum required value, and the  
name Lawson criterion often refers to this inequality.
You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as  
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as  
some other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter  
what LeClair thinks is causing it.





On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
 wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which  
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common  
understanding. Please, can you make an effort to agree on some  
basic ideas so that the discussion can move forward? We are  
dealing with two different phenomenon. One uses high applied  
energy from various sources and the other requires no applied  
energy. One results in neutrons when deuterium is used, The other  
results in helium when deuterium is used. Can you at least  
acknowledge that these two different reactions occur?


Ed

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

It seems to me that the reaction

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are separated by an abyss
or are connected by transition zone like that which exists between
mountains and the prairies remains to be seen.

Harry

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:

 Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three miracles

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

In Proton-21 gamma rays of up to 10 MeV are detected.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are separated by an abyss
 or are connected by transition zone like that which exists between
 mountains and the prairies remains to be seen.

 Harry

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM, blaze spinnaker 
 blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:

 Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three miracles

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

The radiation from hot fusion is unambiguous and well known. A source  
of energy that does not produce this radiation when hydrogen is  
present, but nevertheless is nuclear, is defined as LENR.  Of course,  
the definition I gave has to fit on a slide. The details would be  
added verbally. Nevertheless, it defines the clear difference between  
hot and cold fusion. That is all I'm asking people to acknowledge.   
The definition does not require cold fusion to be understood. The  
definition only shows where to look for the explanation. Hot fusion is  
not the place to look.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

It seems to me that for this definition to work, even as a  
phenomenological definition, something more would need to be added  
regarding the expected radiation.  For example, one could say  
without the radiation expected from previous experiments in hot  
fusion.  However, clarifying it this way implies we have an  
appropriate definition of hot fusion that is amenable to  
distinguishing from cold fusion or LENR, or at least limiting its  
scope.  It seems that a reasonable definition of cold fusion needs a  
companion re-definition of hot fusion.


For example, could hot fusion be described as being between 2 or  
more nuclei, each being kinetically unconstrained with 6 degrees of  
freedom within the atomic scale?  Of course, some degrees of freedom  
could be degenerate in symmetric nuclei.  This would seem to apply  
fine to a plasma.  As the nuclei approach each other within an  
atomic radius, externally applied fields would be insignificant in  
the force balance on the nuclei.


While it seems we know this to be true for hot fusion, the converse  
of this cannot necessarily be used to describe cases of cold fusion  
because we don't really know the mechanism yet (hence the need for a  
macroscopic definition).  But at least it begins by limiting the  
scope of hot fusion.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


 What are we talking about?
 (cold fusion [CF], LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS, Fleischmann-Pons Effect)
 A nuclear process initiated on rare
 occasions in apparently ordinary
 material without application of
 significant energy that generates
 heat and nuclear products without
 expected radiation when any
 isotope of hydrogen is present.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the  
two mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view is correct and not  
waste time looking for a transition zone. :-)


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, H Veeder wrote:

Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are separated by an  
abyss or are connected by transition zone like that which exists  
between mountains and the prairies remains to be seen.


Harry

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three  
miracles


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/ 
TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread David ledin

My Definition :

Any tabletop nuclear  fusion like Muon-catalyzed fusion or
pyroelectric fusion that most probable is mechanism behind e-cat can
be called  cold fusion .

In contrast to this :

ITER
http://www.picstation.net/pictures/968e2ec6b12374bd5489c613d5155447.jpg

General Fusion
http://www.picstation.net/pictures/5199f20390fccc4d0ab4643cf63a4fcc.png

http://www.picstation.net/pictures/a1601db449ca9f86c01f5dc5f80185b1.png

On 7/7/13, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the
 two mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view is correct and not
 waste time looking for a transition zone. :-)

 Ed
 On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, H Veeder wrote:

 Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are separated by an
 abyss or are connected by transition zone like that which exists
 between mountains and the prairies remains to be seen.

 Harry

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com

  wrote:
 Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
 cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three
 miracles

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/
 TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

I am not looking, but perhaps one should remain open to the possibility.

Harry


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the two
 mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view is correct and not waste time
 looking for a transition zone. :-)

 Ed
 On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, H Veeder wrote:

 Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are separated by an abyss
 or are connected by transition zone like that which exists between
 mountains and the prairies remains to be seen.

 Harry

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM, blaze spinnaker 
 blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:

 Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three miracles

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

 Harry

RE: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

The Nature article originally referenced was in 2005, and it was Seth
Putterman's group at UCLA; Putterman is one of the original researchers into
sonoluminescence.  He is also one of the jerks who helped in defaming Dr.
Rusi Taleyarkhan and his work on sonofusion at Purdue. This is one story
that Krivit did an excellent job of investigating and reporting on.

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Robert Dorr [mailto:rod...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion
experiment

 


That seems pretty straight forward to me.

Bob

At 11:27 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:



Bob, here is the definition I plan to use at ICCF-18. This is accepted by
most people in the field.  Hot fusion is so much different from cold fusion,
no benefit is gained by mixing the two phenomenon. They can be easily
separated because hot fusion makes neutrons when energy is generated. Cold
fusion makes essentially no neutrons when energy is generated. 

Ed


What are we talking about?
(cold fusion [CF], LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS, Fleischmann-Pons Effect)
A nuclear process initiated on rare
occasions in apparently ordinary
material without application of
significant energy that generates
heat and nuclear products without
expected radiation when any
isotope of hydrogen is present.
On Jul 7, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:





Ed and Axil,

Maybe it would be nice if we could define Cold Fusion, LENR , as fusion
at room temperature that only requires the addition of heat, below let's say
1000 degrees centigrade and possibly some pressure to start the fusion
process. Any other type of fusion that requires a high energy process such
as a high energy ion beam, that was used in the experiment being discussed
here, would be considered a form of hot fusion. Just an thought.

Bob

At 09:15 AM 7/7/2013, you wrote:



My point Axil, is that the authors have no idea what they are talking about.
This confusion is common and results in a great deal of confusion about how
cold fusion works. Unless this confusion is eliminated from discussion, no
agreement is possible.  This paper simply adds to the confusion, which many
other papers have done as well.

Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Axil Axil wrote:




The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion. There is no
mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to my understanding of
it.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
wrote: 

That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies to a
plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion products, i.e.
neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur in plasma and results in
helium without kinetic energy.  The reaction is defined as LENR only if the
conditions and reaction products fit the conditions on which the definition
is based. You are not free to change the definition to suit your personal
beliefs.

Ed



On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:




I am drawing a distinction between hot fusion and LENR in terms of the
Lawson criterion. Specifically, if a fusion reaction cannot be
characterized in terms of plasma density, plasma confinement time and plasma
temperature, then the reaction is LENR.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 

Hot fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei collide
at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus of
compressing matter to high temperatures at high densities as defined by the
to the Lawson criterion, 

In nuclear fusion research, the Lawson criterion, first derived on fusion
reactors (initially classified) by John D. Lawson in 1955 and published in
1957, is an important general measure of a system that defines the
conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, that is, that the
heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient
to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses without
external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a
minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) density ne
and the energy confinement time . Later analyses suggested that a more
useful figure of merit is the triple product of density, confinement time,
and plasma temperature T. The triple product also has a minimum required
value, and the name Lawson criterion often refers to this inequality. 

You are consistent at least; you had the same mindset as demonstrated here
when you described the LeClair experiment as some other type of hot fusion. 

The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter what
LeClair thinks is causing it.

 

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
wrote: 

If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which phenomenon
it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common understanding. Please,
can you make an effort

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Muon fusion is hot fusion because the fused nuclei explodes into  
fragments that includes neutrons. This is a fact and not open to  
debate. In addition, a muon has a lifetime of a few microseconds.  
Where and how do you think they are made? I have no idea what you mean  
by pyroelectric fusion. Before speculating, you need to gather some  
facts.


The e-cat does not produce significant radiation. Therefore, it cannot  
be any form of hot fusion. Rossi says it makes copper, some other  
people claim the energy results from isotopic shift. I claim the heat  
results from formation of deuterium and tritium. So far, the evidence  
is ambiguous. What is not ambiguous is the absence of any kind of hot  
fusion.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:12 PM, David ledin wrote:


My Definition :

Any tabletop nuclear  fusion like Muon-catalyzed fusion or
pyroelectric fusion that most probable is mechanism behind e-cat can
be called  cold fusion .

In contrast to this :

ITER
http://www.picstation.net/pictures/ 
968e2ec6b12374bd5489c613d5155447.jpg


General Fusion
http://www.picstation.net/pictures/ 
5199f20390fccc4d0ab4643cf63a4fcc.png


http://www.picstation.net/pictures/ 
a1601db449ca9f86c01f5dc5f80185b1.png


On 7/7/13, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the
two mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view is correct and not
waste time looking for a transition zone. :-)

Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, H Veeder wrote:


Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are separated by an
abyss or are connected by transition zone like that which exists
between mountains and the prairies remains to be seen.

Harry

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com


wrote:

Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com  
wrote:

In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com  
wrote:

cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three
miracles

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/
TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

People have explored this possibility and some people still think this  
overlap exists. I once had this opinion as well. Now the evidence is  
clear. Hot and Cold fusion are two separate and independent phenomenon  
requiring entirely different mechanisms.  Ironically, the initial  
rejection was based on the belief that cold fusion was hot fusion.  
When the expected radiation was not produced, the claim was rejected  
because no neutrons meant no fusion. Now we know that cold fusion is  
not hot fusion. It needs to be studied and understood separately.


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:22 PM, H Veeder wrote:

I am not looking, but perhaps one should remain open to the  
possibility.


Harry


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the  
two mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view is correct and not  
waste time looking for a transition zone. :-)


Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, H Veeder wrote:

Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are separated by  
an abyss or are connected by transition zone like that which exists  
between mountains and the prairies remains to be seen.


Harry

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com  
wrote:

In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com  
wrote:
cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three  
miracles


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

 From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
 Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 11:31:53 AM

 Those criteria really only apply to Tokamaks. For example, I'm not
 sure that the Laser (National Ignition Facility) has to meet the
 confinement time criterion. (I haven't looked for the numbers).

This 2009 paper extends Lawson to 3D ... looks to me as if NIF precursors 
(Omega?) have the same Lawson parameter as Tokomaks -- slides on p33 -- around 
5 -- and both need to get to 50-100 for ignition.

http://www.lle.rochester.edu/pub/viewgraph/PDF/PR/PRBETTI_NIC09.pdf

So I guess I can change my mind.

BIG Hot Fusion (ITER,NIF)
LITTLE Hot Fusion (Micro,nano ) -- HOT-IN-COLD Fusion : Hot-spots in a cold 
environment
Cold/LENR

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Cold fusion does not occur in plasma


We don't know where cold fusion can occur.  Some enterprising scientists or
inventor might show at some point that the Papp engine was producing LENR.
 We're largely still at the beginning.


 and results in helium


This and, of course, heat.

without kinetic energy.


This is an inference.  I personally prefer without energetic particles
detected at levels that are commensurate with heat.  That keeps the
assumptions about what is going on to a minimum.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote:

However, clarifying it this way implies we have an appropriate definition
 of hot fusion that is amenable to distinguishing from cold fusion or
 LENR, or at least limiting its scope.


Also, is it hot fusion if you get the normal dd branches with a beam of
deuterons focused on a deuterated palladium thin foil, but with the energy
of the beam at 300 eV instead of in the keV or MeV, i.e., with a greatly
increased cross section (I presume)?  It seems like the dramatic increase
in the cross section resulting from the palladium environment needs to be
explained.  I am beginning to suspect that what we're calling cold fusion
and hot fusion are not as distinct as one would like to make them.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 and results in helium


 This and, of course, heat.


Also, 4He is a known result of LENR in the context of deuterided palladium.
 But we don't really know what the product is in the context of Ni/H or
Pd/H, etc.  So we have to be careful there.  I personally suspect the stuff
going on in these other systems is no less LENR than the 4He produced in
Pd/D.

In other words, we should err towards a minimal, phenomenological
definition for LENR and avoid loading it with too many assumptions about
what is going on or about the system in which it is to be found.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread David ledin

This paper from nature is about  pyroelectric fusion .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion

On 7/8/13, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 Muon fusion is hot fusion because the fused nuclei explodes into
 fragments that includes neutrons. This is a fact and not open to
 debate. In addition, a muon has a lifetime of a few microseconds.
 Where and how do you think they are made? I have no idea what you mean
 by pyroelectric fusion. Before speculating, you need to gather some
 facts.

 The e-cat does not produce significant radiation. Therefore, it cannot
 be any form of hot fusion. Rossi says it makes copper, some other
 people claim the energy results from isotopic shift. I claim the heat
 results from formation of deuterium and tritium. So far, the evidence
 is ambiguous. What is not ambiguous is the absence of any kind of hot
 fusion.

 Ed
 On Jul 7, 2013, at 2:12 PM, David ledin wrote:

 My Definition :

 Any tabletop nuclear  fusion like Muon-catalyzed fusion or
 pyroelectric fusion that most probable is mechanism behind e-cat can
 be called  cold fusion .

 In contrast to this :

 ITER
 http://www.picstation.net/pictures/
 968e2ec6b12374bd5489c613d5155447.jpg

 General Fusion
 http://www.picstation.net/pictures/
 5199f20390fccc4d0ab4643cf63a4fcc.png

 http://www.picstation.net/pictures/
 a1601db449ca9f86c01f5dc5f80185b1.png

 On 7/7/13, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the
 two mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view is correct and not
 waste time looking for a transition zone. :-)

 Ed
 On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, H Veeder wrote:

 Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are separated by an
 abyss or are connected by transition zone like that which exists
 between mountains and the prairies remains to be seen.

 Harry

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM, blaze spinnaker
 blazespinna...@gmail.com

 wrote:
 Yeah that Soininen patent reported gamma radiation..

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 In LENR, sometimes gamma rays are produced.


 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 cold fusion can be distinguished from hot fusion by the three
 miracles

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/
 TakahashiTheory.shtml#miracles

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread blaze spinnaker

 We don't know where cold fusion can occur.  Some enterprising scientists
 or inventor might show at some point that the Papp engine was producing
 LENR.  We're largely still at the beginning.



Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that cold fusion is happening
everywhere all the time, even (especially?) in our light bulbs.

Hot fusion, on the other hand...

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

Feb 2012 on NIF : 
https://lasers.llnl.gov/workshops/user_group_2012/docs/6.3_glenzer.pdf

Wow! A total of TWENTY events!  Implosion velocity within 5% of ignition.

Keep the big money rolling, folks!

ps : They also use the plot of the Lawson parameters as Pressure*Seconds on the 
Y axis, Temp on X.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

2013-07-07 Thread ChemE Stewart

I agree, it is just low energy nuclear DECAY at the quantum level.  Time is
really just a creation by man, we are really not getting older, we are just
DECAYING, thanks to our Sun and quantum gravity.  Time to fire up those
LENR engines and find a lower vacuum area of space.  Earth is like a
quantum dark/vacuum energy petri dish.

Time is an illusion.
~ Albert Einstein

Just my take on it.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:


 We don't know where cold fusion can occur.  Some enterprising scientists
 or inventor might show at some point that the Papp engine was producing
 LENR.  We're largely still at the beginning.



 Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that cold fusion is happening
 everywhere all the time, even (especially?) in our light bulbs.

 Hot fusion, on the other hand...

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote:

 However, clarifying it this way implies we have an appropriate definition
 of hot fusion that is amenable to distinguishing from cold fusion or
 LENR, or at least limiting its scope.


 Also, is it hot fusion if you get the normal dd branches with a beam of
 deuterons focused on a deuterated palladium thin foil, but with the energy
 of the beam at 300 eV instead of in the keV or MeV, i.e., with a greatly
 increased cross section (I presume)?  It seems like the dramatic increase
 in the cross section resulting from the palladium environment needs to be
 explained.  I am beginning to suspect that what we're calling cold fusion
 and hot fusion are not as distinct as one would like to make them.

 Eric


Which paper describes the use of 300 eV?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 Which paper describes the use of 300 eV?


I was recalling things from memory and appear to have gotten a few details
mixed up.  Thankfully, not the most important one about the energy of the
beam.

The paper is [1], below, by G.P. Chambers and others (it does not appear to
be available online).  The substrate was titanium rather than palladium, as
I had said.  The energy of the deuteron beam was 350-1000 eV.  They saw ~5
MeV particles exiting from the *backside* (rather than the front side) of a
1 um thick deuterated titanium foil, as detected in a silicon
surface-barrier detector positioned behind it. They saw such events only in
live runs and not in control runs.  The rate of events was 10^(-16) per
deuteron pair per second, which they calculated to be 26 orders of
magnitude higher than the conventional cross sections.

Another detail I might have mixed up concerned the dd branches.  The usual
dd branches would involve neutrons (2.45 MeV), in one branch, and energetic
tritons (1 MeV) and protons (3 MeV), in the other (the tritons might be
within the region of noise for a silicon surface barrier, but not the
protons).  In this case they saw a peak at ~2.5 MeV that might be
attributable to the protons, accounting for energy loss (although I don't
think they offered this interpretation).  But they also saw the peak at ~5
MeV which they were unable to explain.  It could have been pileup from more
than one particle arriving at the detector in an interval shorter than its
time resolution.  Another thing they had yet to rule out at the time of
writing was a radioactive impurity causing the peak.  But they saw it only
in live runs and not in control runs, so there is evidence against this.

It's a mistake to base much off of a single paper, but this paper is
interesting, nonetheless.  There are many interesting details hidden in the
ion beam experiments.

Eric


[1] http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/228/1/383_1?isAuthorized=no

Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment