Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:02:15 -0400: Hi, [snip] In this experiment, the half-life of 232U in the induced Nanophotonic electrical field induced within the influence of the laser field is *5 milliseconds instead of 69 years.* That should be 5 micro-seconds, not milli-seconds. However I can't find any indication in the paper of the actual area of the beam, nor of the actual fraction of the volume of the fluid that was exposed to it. However if we assume that only a fraction of the volume was actually exposed, while also assuming that the activity of the whole volume was reduced, then the effect may actually be even larger. There are however a couple of potential systematic errors. 1) We don't know whether the experiment was sealed or open. If open, then there is the possibility that minute particles were ejected into the air, resulting in a simple loss of material in the experiment. 2) A second possible source of error is binding of the U to the surface of the Gold nano-particles, which then sank to the bottom, which would also affect the concentration remaining in solution. This would be easy to determine, by measuring the activity of any residue in the bottom of the container. The authors of the paper should be queried on both counts. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
U232 is highly dangerous stuff. It has an alpha activity that is 10 times that of U238 which is itself also very dangerous. If U232 gets into the air as particles, the particles pop around in the air like little jets propelled by its own intense alpha activity and it tends to break apart into smaller particles. It is very deadly stuff. The experimenter must have taken great pains to contain the U232 to protect his life. No doubt, the experiment must have been sealed. Also, the alpha activity would blow off U232 from any type of fixation on the gold particles. This intense alpha activity would also keep it suspended in solution. It also pumps out prodigious levels of gamma radiation. On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:47 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:02:15 -0400: Hi, [snip] In this experiment, the half-life of 232U in the induced Nanophotonic electrical field induced within the influence of the laser field is *5 milliseconds instead of 69 years.* That should be 5 micro-seconds, not milli-seconds. However I can't find any indication in the paper of the actual area of the beam, nor of the actual fraction of the volume of the fluid that was exposed to it. However if we assume that only a fraction of the volume was actually exposed, while also assuming that the activity of the whole volume was reduced, then the effect may actually be even larger. There are however a couple of potential systematic errors. 1) We don't know whether the experiment was sealed or open. If open, then there is the possibility that minute particles were ejected into the air, resulting in a simple loss of material in the experiment. 2) A second possible source of error is binding of the U to the surface of the Gold nano-particles, which then sank to the bottom, which would also affect the concentration remaining in solution. This would be easy to determine, by measuring the activity of any residue in the bottom of the container. The authors of the paper should be queried on both counts. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I agree and; furthermore, believe that we do not currently possess the machines which will be necessary to follow the complex reactions which are occurring with LENR. We will need better eyes. Perhaps that is true. Many breakthroughs did not occur until instruments were invented. However, we will not know for sure about cold fusion unless and until it is explained. We might find out that present day instrument results can explain everything. The answer might be in the data already. We just don't see it. At the conference in Italy, there were some descriptions of advanced equipment used in material science. The capabilities are astounding. These machines make three-dimensional micro-photos showing what elements and isotopes are deposited at each layer. If we had access to instruments like that we might make breakthroughs. The instruments cost tons of money which we do not have. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Peter, I am of the opinion that the geometry formed between Rossi's micro tubules is on the nanoscale and would therefore support plasmonics. My intention for asking the question was to make people consider the implications of packing geometries when you have billions of spiky shaped 3 micron grains poured together into a bulk material -my thought is that stiction forces would clump them closely together until the spikes prevent any further collapse...a sort of self assembling skeletal catalyst OR aero colloid? VR Frank From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:17 AM To: VORTEX Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog Dear Fran, I wamly recommend you to take in consideration what our colleague AXIL says, he is stepwise developing the holistic\ view of the phenomena taking place- via nanoplamonics and resonances etc.,- very much in harmony with Defkalion's results and principles. Peter On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Sunday 4/28 Ed said [snip] The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with nanoparticles. He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. [/snip] Has anyone investigated the geometries formed by these microtubules when they pack together to form the bulk material that the hydrogen actually permeates through...what does the 3 micron actually refer too??? Are they referring to the particle diameter or spacing between the protrusions of a 3 micron grain..I was of the impression these tubules were odd shaped with spikes that could form inter geometries much smaller than the 3 micron scale referenced in the articles, similar to dust in a grain elevator becoming explosive even though individual grains are perfectly harmless. Regards Fran He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 9:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog Axil, you would make a more useful contribution if you read and used what has been observed. On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The connection between the referenced experiment and the Ni/H reactor is stronger than you state. The Ni/H reactor does not produce tritium, it produces the majority of its transmutation products as very light elements, and an alpha particle is helium. The light hydrogen system does produce tritium occasionally. The experiment does not produce gamma radiation even though it shows nuclear activity in heavy elements, it does not feature hydrogen, but it is water based, and importantly, it does use nano-particles. You did say And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else does and makes the effect work much better and with total control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the competition will remain weak. Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe. The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with nanoparticles. He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. A strong experimenter with years of LENR experience under his belt is strong competition when his experimental efforts are properly focused. These types of experiments are easy to do and are inexpensive to evaluate. Have you ever had success replicating the Rossi method? I have not had success even though I have tried to replicate his claim many times. Understanding this type of nanoparticle based experiment will lend profound insight into the reactions happening inside Ni/H type reactors. If you say that this type of experiment only produces alpha decay, this is not the case. No one claims light hydrogen makes helium. That product is produced only when deuterium is used. My theory predicts that deuterium is the source of energy when light hydrogen is used, not transmutation. The following experiment by the same fellow show evidence of fission in uranium and thorium: At the end of the day, a study of Nanoplasmonics directed toward LENR will be well worth your valuable time. Thanks for the suggestion. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
I once calculated that a sphere of nickel 56 nanometers diameter would self melt from the energy released by approximately 1 nuclear reaction. The size mentioned of 3 microns would be large enough to sustain numerous fusion reactions before melting but would undergo a large temperature pulse for each occurrence. Since the reactions appear to have a positive temperature coefficient, I would guess that the size can be optimized for the best case operation which is maximum energy release before melting destroys the NAE. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 9:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog On Sunday 4/28 Ed said [snip]The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with nanoparticles. He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. [/snip] Has anyone investigated the geometries formed by these microtubules when they pack together to form the bulk material that the hydrogen actually permeates through…what does the 3 micron actually refer too??? Are they referring to the particle diameter or spacing between the protrusions of a 3 micron “grain”..I was of the impression these “tubules” were odd shaped with spikes that could form inter geometries much smaller than the 3 micron scale referenced in the articles, similar to dust in a grain elevator becoming explosive even though individual grains are perfectly harmless. Regards Fran He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 9:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog Axil, you would make a more useful contribution if you read and used what has been observed. On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The connection between the referenced experiment and the Ni/H reactor is stronger than you state. The Ni/H reactor does not produce tritium, it produces the majority of its transmutation products as very light elements, and an alpha particle is helium. The light hydrogen system does produce tritium occasionally. The experiment does not produce gamma radiation even though it shows nuclear activity in heavy elements, it does not feature hydrogen, but it is water based, and importantly, it does use nano-particles. You did say “And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else does and makes the effect work much better and with total control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the competition will remain weak.” Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe. The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with nanoparticles. He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. A strong experimenter with years of LENR experience under his belt is strong competition when his experimental efforts are properly focused. These types of experiments are easy to do and are inexpensive to evaluate. Have you ever had success replicating the Rossi method? I have not had success even though I have tried to replicate his claim many times. Understanding this type of nanoparticle based experiment will lend profound insight into the reactions happening inside Ni/H type reactors. If you say that this type of experiment only produces alpha decay, this is not the case. No one claims light hydrogen makes helium. That product is produced only when deuterium is used. My theory predicts that deuterium is the source of energy when light hydrogen is used, not transmutation. The following experiment by the same fellow show evidence of fission in uranium and thorium: At the end of the day, a study of Nanoplasmonics directed toward LENR will be well worth your valuable time. Thanks for the suggestion. Ed Storms arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4268 On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, Axil, radioactive decay can be affected several different ways, but this is not LENR as normally defined. The discussion involves creation of helium, tritium, and transmutation using isotopes of hydrogen without application of extra energy
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Francis, This is an important question. Probably related are Reifenschweiler's observation that tritium decay time is modulated in Ti-microparticle emulsions. especially when they form chains, and (if I recall correctly) the notes in Brian Ahern's patent application that proximity of micro-/nano-particles is an important variable in the anomalous energy release. -- Lou Pagnucco Roarty, Francis X wrote: On Sunday 4/28 Ed said [snip] The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with nanoparticles. He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. [/snip] Has anyone investigated the geometries formed by these microtubules when they pack together to form the bulk material that the hydrogen actually permeates through...what does the 3 micron actually refer too??? Are they referring to the particle diameter or spacing between the protrusions of a 3 micron grain..I was of the impression these tubules were odd shaped with spikes that could form inter geometries much smaller than the 3 micron scale referenced in the articles, similar to dust in a grain elevator becoming explosive even though individual grains are perfectly harmless. [...]
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
*Experimentally measuring hot spot energy concentration.* In a seminal Nanoplasmonics paper, the ability of hot spots to concentrate power is experimentally determined for the first time. http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy Some select nanoparticle configurations (called nanoantenna in the parlance of Nanoplasmonics) can concentrate and amplify incoming EMF from a laser by a factor of 500,000,000 in the near infrared range to a sub-nano-sized region that we have been calling a hot spot. Even though the enhancement factors obtained are mind blowing, they are far from the maximum’s that might eventually be reached.The gap between two nanowires (called nanoantenna) measuring at or under .5 NM can concentrate an EMF field by a factor of 10 to the 13 power.This ability to concentrate EMF quantified in experiments exceeds quantum mechanical predictions by a factor of 3. This can result in an EMF singularity limited only by electron tunneling through the gap.The size of the gap is proportional to the energy of the free electrons on the surface of the micro-particles. Special Relativity shows that the mass of an object appears to increase as its speed *v* (relative to the rest frame) increases. Higher energy electrons gain mass with speed. Heavier electrons can support a smaller hot spot gap, which means higher EMF confinement from surface plasmoids. One of the most commonly found and widely exploded hot spots in Nanoplasmonics is due to the lightning rod effect, a nonresonant enhancement that generates a high local field at the point of a sharp tip or the limited area of a contract point between two nano-antennas.As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a disadvantage in maximizing concentration and associated enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons.First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document, it states.“A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave irradiation.” A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter close to the hot spot.Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the experimenters could produce. The lasers used by the experimenter could not get that deep into the infrared.The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub Nano scale solid or near connection between the nanoparticles.When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation.When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a resonance process forces all the EMF into the ultra-small region between the nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation. In the case where the particles touch or connected, little radiation escaped to the far field. Most all of the radiation was directed into the near field region between the particles. I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude into the billions or trillions. You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because of its dipole radiation profile. To get such high enhancement factors, something special is happening inside the hot spot. It looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels Another interesting paradox explained in the study is that the more laser energy that is pumped into the system, the less enhancement that results. The nanoparticles want to work smarter not harder. What is really important in determining the enhancement level of the system is the specific geometry of the system. The wavelength of the EMF and the associated resonance of the system are mainly determined by the details of its geometry. The study states as follows: “Differences can be explained based on previous work by McMahon et al., which showed that these structures commonly exhibit LSPR maxima at wavelengths above 900 nm and
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Lou, I agree.. although I think Reifenschweiler's observations were for small values of retarded decay while most other observations and claims for anomalous decay rate were for large accelerations in decay rate, I think the anomalous heat in Aherns patent is more closely associated with the accelerated decay than retarded decay but both properties are derived from the same suppression geometry[large acceleration concentrated in Casimir cavity/small retardation disbursed over exterior surface of cavity]. The decay rate anomalies are one of the reasons I remain convinced about Naudts paper on relativistic hydrogen where he claims the hydrino is just relativistic hydrogen like you have ejected from the suns corona but the acceleration is negative -caused by suppressing vacuum pressure and causing nano breaks in isotropy instead of compressing vacuum pressure via energy intense acceleration of objects to near C velocity [Haisch Rueda analogy of accelerating car into]. The other thing I find interesting regarding these kind of reports is that the decay rate returns to normal after the gas is extracted... it isn't permanently reducing the radioactivity or at least not enough to effect the half life. My thought is only a very small fraction of the gas can occupy the relatively few hot spots at any given time and these anomalies are so rarely reported because the effect must be very prodigious to even slightly effect the average decay rate of all the gas present. Fran -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 2:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog Francis, This is an important question. Probably related are Reifenschweiler's observation that tritium decay time is modulated in Ti-microparticle emulsions. especially when they form chains, and (if I recall correctly) the notes in Brian Ahern's patent application that proximity of micro-/nano-particles is an important variable in the anomalous energy release. -- Lou Pagnucco Roarty, Francis X wrote: On Sunday 4/28 Ed said [snip] The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with nanoparticles. He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. [/snip] Has anyone investigated the geometries formed by these microtubules when they pack together to form the bulk material that the hydrogen actually permeates through...what does the 3 micron actually refer too??? Are they referring to the particle diameter or spacing between the protrusions of a 3 micron grain..I was of the impression these tubules were odd shaped with spikes that could form inter geometries much smaller than the 3 micron scale referenced in the articles, similar to dust in a grain elevator becoming explosive even though individual grains are perfectly harmless. [...]
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is what the NAE really looks like up close – a 3.5 micron cluster that gobbles up protons like they were gummy drops … Whereupon they are chased by solar neutrinos, the ghost particle.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:24:23 -0400: Hi, [snip] U232 is highly dangerous stuff. It has an alpha activity that is 10 times that of U238 which is itself also very dangerous. The half life of U232 is 69 years, That of U238 is 4.47 billion years. U232 is 65 million times more active than U238. If U232 gets into the air as particles, the particles pop around in the air like little jets propelled by its own intense alpha activity and it tends to break apart into smaller particles. It is very deadly stuff. The experimenter must have taken great pains to contain the U232 to protect his life. I agree that they should, however that's no guarantee that it was done. No doubt, the experiment must have been sealed. Also, the alpha activity would blow off U232 from any type of fixation on the gold particles. This intense alpha activity would also keep it suspended in solution. The experiment that produced the strongest results, only lasted for 1 hour. During that time only about 1 part in 1 million of the U232 would decay. IOW almost none of it. Therefore decay would make no measurable difference to the amount of U232 sticking to gold nano-particles and falling to the bottom. A gold nano particle with a radius of 10nm would only acquire 0.4 eV of kinetic energy from the decay of a U232 atom attached to it's surface. This isn't enough to dislodge any other U232's that may be attached to it. It also pumps out prodigious levels of gamma radiation. Some yes, but most of the energy in alpha decay reactions is carried by the alpha particle, and most of the gamma x-rays produced are low energy (see http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/decaysearchdirect.jsp?nuc=232Uunc=nds) so moving the active substance to the bottom of the container, thereby increasing the separation distance from the detector, would reduce the count. In short this potential error can by no means be ruled out. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Sorry, I should have said Pu238 On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:24:23 -0400: Hi, [snip] U232 is highly dangerous stuff. It has an alpha activity that is 10 times that of U238 which is itself also very dangerous. The half life of U232 is 69 years, That of U238 is 4.47 billion years. U232 is 65 million times more active than U238. If U232 gets into the air as particles, the particles pop around in the air like little jets propelled by its own intense alpha activity and it tends to break apart into smaller particles. It is very deadly stuff. The experimenter must have taken great pains to contain the U232 to protect his life. I agree that they should, however that's no guarantee that it was done. No doubt, the experiment must have been sealed. Also, the alpha activity would blow off U232 from any type of fixation on the gold particles. This intense alpha activity would also keep it suspended in solution. The experiment that produced the strongest results, only lasted for 1 hour. During that time only about 1 part in 1 million of the U232 would decay. IOW almost none of it. Therefore decay would make no measurable difference to the amount of U232 sticking to gold nano-particles and falling to the bottom. A gold nano particle with a radius of 10nm would only acquire 0.4 eV of kinetic energy from the decay of a U232 atom attached to it's surface. This isn't enough to dislodge any other U232's that may be attached to it. It also pumps out prodigious levels of gamma radiation. Some yes, but most of the energy in alpha decay reactions is carried by the alpha particle, and most of the gamma x-rays produced are low energy (see http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/decaysearchdirect.jsp?nuc=232Uunc=nds) so moving the active substance to the bottom of the container, thereby increasing the separation distance from the detector, would reduce the count. In short this potential error can by no means be ruled out. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Dear Ed, Thank you very much for this bright answer. It seems to me that in the implicit mode you agree with the idea that CF has arrived before its time- and this is the reason of its slow and hesitant development. For example re understanding of LENR you had sufficient data to work out your theory only recently. The reactions take place in nanocavities. but what actually the reactions are- you know, I don't know and am waiting for experimental results coming from DGT. I dare to think the taxonomy of LENR groups can be considered more diverse and complex than those described by you, but perhaps we cn discuss this peacefully later e.g. for an joint editorial on my blog, if you will agree. Re:* **I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-types reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by people who are not committed to the present ideas. *I think this secret is not so difficult and is not unique so open minded researchers will get the solution- what is the essential difference between LENR (passive, powerless, problematic) and LENR+ (active, autonomous, application-ready). I think the clue is an accelerated mode of NAE-genesis. Peter On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Peter, I'm glad you are trying to look at the LENR phenomenon from a broad perspective. Let me add a few of my insights about where I think the field stands right now without naming names. More than enough information has been accumulated to provide the basis for the correct explanation and to show how the effect can be replicated without fail. Nevertheless, we are still struggling to accept a useful explanation and to make the effect work without fail because this information is not being used. If I apply the analogy of a jig saw puzzle, people are trying to assemble the picture while ignoring a large number of the pieces. The people who are attempting to create an explanation assemble a little part of the puzzle and then insist that the whole picture is like their little piece, with the interpretation of what the little piece shows being totally in the imagination. Each person has been looking at their little piece so long, they no longer have the ability to consider any other interpretation. Normally, new people come into a field of study and bring with them new insights. This process does not occur in this field because most people who could provide such a contribution are not interested. Furthermore, no contribution even from these outsiders would be useful unless the huge collection of observed behavior has been mastered, which requires considerable effect. As a result, most new ideas being debated have very little relationship to what is real. This ignorance encourages repetition of failed methods and discussions that lead nowhere. And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else does and makes the effect work much better and with total control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the competition will remain weak. So, from my viewpoint, we have three types of attitudes operating in the LENR field. First we have most people in science who have no interest and think the claims are nonsense. In the second group, we have a few people who have made the effect work, but not well enough to attract interest from Group #1. The third group consists of people who have explored various aspect of the effect with mixed success for the last 24 years. These people think they are the field. They speak for the field, judge what is real or not, and look to Fleischmann and Pons as their heros. I have to admit being in this group, while aspiring to move into group #2. Nevertheless, I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-types reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by people who are not committed to the present ideas. This new blood must come from outside Group #3 because this group will not accept new ideas from within, as always happens when a field of study remains isolated too long. Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe. At that point, a swarm of graduate students, will descend on the field and start to make fast process in finding the correct explanation and the ideal application. Until then, we in Group #3 are just exploring a fun hobby with the blind leading the
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
The enemy of LENR is scientific focus. Development of LENR requires good knowledge levels in a dozen fields of science and engineering to support any progress in the subject. For example, it is unrealistic to ask a chemist to design a car. The chemist has a focused view of his particular subject constrained by his education, his goals, his interests, and the requirements of his employment. He knows nothing of aerodynamics, engine development, interior design, transmission shift points, and so on. Designing a car requires a culture of allied technologies. Those interested in progression and advancement of LENR should understand that a culture of allied LENR technologies must be envisioned, understood, defined, and organized. The motivation to do this will come when people skilled in this type of industrial organization recognize that LENR is possible, useful, and profitable. the Rossi-types do not need to reveal their secret. They simply have to show that LENR is possible, useful, and profitable. When LENR achieves this take off point, the current world culture of industrial technology competition will do the rest. I am not concerned about the future prospects of LENR because the directions that LENR is currently taking are directed toward this LENR take off point. On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Peter, I'm glad you are trying to look at the LENR phenomenon from a broad perspective. Let me add a few of my insights about where I think the field stands right now without naming names. More than enough information has been accumulated to provide the basis for the correct explanation and to show how the effect can be replicated without fail. Nevertheless, we are still struggling to accept a useful explanation and to make the effect work without fail because this information is not being used. If I apply the analogy of a jig saw puzzle, people are trying to assemble the picture while ignoring a large number of the pieces. The people who are attempting to create an explanation assemble a little part of the puzzle and then insist that the whole picture is like their little piece, with the interpretation of what the little piece shows being totally in the imagination. Each person has been looking at their little piece so long, they no longer have the ability to consider any other interpretation. Normally, new people come into a field of study and bring with them new insights. This process does not occur in this field because most people who could provide such a contribution are not interested. Furthermore, no contribution even from these outsiders would be useful unless the huge collection of observed behavior has been mastered, which requires considerable effect. As a result, most new ideas being debated have very little relationship to what is real. This ignorance encourages repetition of failed methods and discussions that lead nowhere. And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else does and makes the effect work much better and with total control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the competition will remain weak. So, from my viewpoint, we have three types of attitudes operating in the LENR field. First we have most people in science who have no interest and think the claims are nonsense. In the second group, we have a few people who have made the effect work, but not well enough to attract interest from Group #1. The third group consists of people who have explored various aspect of the effect with mixed success for the last 24 years. These people think they are the field. They speak for the field, judge what is real or not, and look to Fleischmann and Pons as their heros. I have to admit being in this group, while aspiring to move into group #2. Nevertheless, I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-types reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by people who are not committed to the present ideas. This new blood must come from outside Group #3 because this group will not accept new ideas from within, as always happens when a field of study remains isolated too long. Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe. At that point, a swarm of graduate students, will descend on the field and start to make fast process in finding the correct explanation and
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
OK Peter, let's discuss. I view the LENR process like I would a complex machine in which all the parts have a function, but each must work with the other parts for the entire machine to work properly. No part can be examined to determine its function without considering how it relates to every other part. Unfortunately, each theory being proposed to explain LENR is applied to a different part. If a clock were used as an analogy, one theory explains the spring will ignoring the balance wheel. Another explains the balance wheel and ignores the gears. In other words, if a person proposes how the Coulomb barrier is reduced, I propose he must also provide a method for releasing the mass-energy that is consistent with the proposed lowering process. If a method to form helium is proposed, the method must also show how tritium and transmutation can be produced. I realize many people do not consider the LENR process to be a single machine, but instead a complex mixture of independent processes. They imagine under some conditions, helium is made. Change the conditions and transmutation becomes the main reaction. Apparently some theoreticians expect tritium to form for no apparent reason. This creates a mayor conflict in how the behavior is explained and creates a basic question. Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of conditions? The answer a person makes to this question determines the rest of the discussion. Consequently, this conflict in basic belief must be resolved before any discussion is possible. I get the impression that a great deal of conflict has been created during past discussions because this basic question is not clearly resolved and lingers as an unconscious distraction. Ed Storms On Apr 28, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, Thank you very much for this bright answer. It seems to me that in the implicit mode you agree with the idea that CF has arrived before its time- and this is the reason of its slow and hesitant development. For example re understanding of LENR you had sufficient data to work out your theory only recently. The reactions take place in nanocavities. but what actually the reactions are- you know, I don't know and am waiting for experimental results coming from DGT. I dare to think the taxonomy of LENR groups can be considered more diverse and complex than those described by you, but perhaps we cn discuss this peacefully later e.g. for an joint editorial on my blog, if you will agree. Re: I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-types reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by people who are not committed to the present ideas. I think this secret is not so difficult and is not unique so open minded researchers will get the solution- what is the essential difference between LENR (passive, powerless, problematic) and LENR+ (active, autonomous, application-ready). I think the clue is an accelerated mode of NAE-genesis. Peter On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Peter, I'm glad you are trying to look at the LENR phenomenon from a broad perspective. Let me add a few of my insights about where I think the field stands right now without naming names. More than enough information has been accumulated to provide the basis for the correct explanation and to show how the effect can be replicated without fail. Nevertheless, we are still struggling to accept a useful explanation and to make the effect work without fail because this information is not being used. If I apply the analogy of a jig saw puzzle, people are trying to assemble the picture while ignoring a large number of the pieces. The people who are attempting to create an explanation assemble a little part of the puzzle and then insist that the whole picture is like their little piece, with the interpretation of what the little piece shows being totally in the imagination. Each person has been looking at their little piece so long, they no longer have the ability to consider any other interpretation. Normally, new people come into a field of study and bring with them new insights. This process does not occur in this field because most people who could provide such a contribution are not interested. Furthermore, no contribution even from these outsiders would be useful unless the huge collection of observed behavior has been mastered, which requires considerable effect. As a result, most new ideas being debated have very little relationship to what is real. This ignorance encourages repetition of failed methods and discussions that lead nowhere. And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the effect work
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: OK Peter, let's discuss. I view the LENR process like I would a complex machine in which all the parts have a function, but each must work with the other parts for the entire machine to work properly. I agree and; furthermore, believe that we do not currently possess the machines which will be necessary to follow the complex reactions which are occurring with LENR. We will need better eyes.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: The answer a person makes to this question determines the rest of the discussion. Consequently, this conflict in basic belief must be resolved before any discussion is possible. I get the impression that a great deal of conflict has been created during past discussions because this basic question is not clearly resolved and lingers as an unconscious distraction. Hi Ed, Speaking as a recent observer of the LENR field, I think your main argument is basically right. There are the different groups -- there are the majority of qualified scientists who are off doing other things; there are the engineers who take an Edisonian approach and who seem to be starting to gain traction (one can hope); and there are the seasoned veterans of the field, many of whom are also qualified scientists, who are all focused on their own pet theory and who seem content to ignore any evidence that might contradict it. In this regard I largely agree with Abd that a big part of the problem is that the field has not been approached with sufficient systematicity up to now to allow for the resolution of some basic questions which, once resolved, will help to bring the theorizers into greater agreement about what they should be trying to explain. An example of a basic question that has not been settled to my mind is what the EMF spectrum looks like when there is excess heat and when there is none -- for example, what is the x-ray signature across the range of experiments? There are snippets of information, but only a handful of solid datapoints as far as I can tell. Another question is what is the role of prior oxidation of the substrate? A third question is what is that funny phase-1a spike in the temperature that one often sees at the very start of hydrogen loading, which very much looks chemical and which sometimes is attributed to LENR? These are just three questions, but there are many others. We have snippets of information here and there, but there has not yet been the time or resources for a systematic investigation that would allow for them being sorted out for good. Your book has gone a long way in clearing away some of these questions, and I wish everyone would read it, as well as Beaudette's book, since they address mistaken assumptions one might have when first approaching the field. I suspect that if sufficient professional attention were brought to bear on this set of problems, bright minds with the money to explore them could make short work of explaining what is going on. What they would find, perhaps, is that one of the crazy ideas that was floated on this list or on one of the LENR forums was basically right. But we won't be able to get to that conclusion (or a completely different one) without doing the hard work of laying a foundation for getting there. I also agree that in the absence of progress along those lines, it is good that the engineers appear to be moving forward with the Edisonian approach -- let's cross our fingers that they're not just fooling themselves, since it seems to be an easy thing to do in this field. I am grateful to the LENR researchers for sticking it out through all these years, and also to the engineers, for ignoring the critics in the peanut gallery entirely. I'm optimistic that we'll eventually figure out what's going on. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
*Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of conditions? * Let us get down to basics. Here is an experiment that shows LENR nuclear activity without a NAE as we understand it. *Accelerated alpha-decay of 232U isotope achieved by exposure of its aqueous solution with gold nanoparticles to laser radiation * A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=4cad=rjaved=0CEMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=25F9UdCiLqjC4AP3pYHIBQusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=pB3pVPZuQrv_xT8EcvrwWA The experiment suggests that LENR is caused by intense electrical fields around nanoparticles. As quoted in the article: Strong dependence of the acceleration of alpha-decay on the peak power of laser radiation in the medium should be related to the strength of fields of the laser wave. The natural measure of the electrical field is its value inside the atom or ion. The electric field of laser wave becomes comparable with inter-atomic field at intensity level of 10 to the 16 power W/cm2. Possible mechanism of laser-induced acceleration of alpha-decay can be illustrated as follows (Fig. 5). Exposure of NPs to laser radiation leads to its amplification in the vicinity of NPs. If an ion of Uranil is situated near the exposed nanoparticle, then strong electric field of the laser wave disturbes its electronic shells. This perturbation causes the oscillations of the potential near its equilibrium value with the frequency of laser radiation. So do the width and the hieght of the potential barrier for tunneling alpha-particle. Since the probability of tunelling depends on the barrier widt in an exponential way, so even its small variations can noticeably increase the rate of alpha-decay. In this experiment, the half-life of 232U in the induced Nanophotonic electrical field induced within the influence of the laser field is *5 milliseconds instead of 69 years.* With this type of experimental evidence, will you look into Nanophotonics? On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: OK Peter, let's discuss. I view the LENR process like I would a complex machine in which all the parts have a function, but each must work with the other parts for the entire machine to work properly. No part can be examined to determine its function without considering how it relates to every other part. Unfortunately, each theory being proposed to explain LENR is applied to a different part. If a clock were used as an analogy, one theory explains the spring will ignoring the balance wheel. Another explains the balance wheel and ignores the gears. In other words, if a person proposes how the Coulomb barrier is reduced, I propose he must also provide a method for releasing the mass-energy that is consistent with the proposed lowering process. If a method to form helium is proposed, the method must also show how tritium and transmutation can be produced. I realize many people do not consider the LENR process to be a single machine, but instead a complex mixture of independent processes. They imagine under some conditions, helium is made. Change the conditions and transmutation becomes the main reaction. Apparently some theoreticians expect tritium to form for no apparent reason. This creates a mayor conflict in how the behavior is explained and creates a basic question. Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of conditions? The answer a person makes to this question determines the rest of the discussion. Consequently, this conflict in basic belief must be resolved before any discussion is possible. I get the impression that a great deal of conflict has been created during past discussions because this basic question is not clearly resolved and lingers as an unconscious distraction. Ed Storms On Apr 28, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, Thank you very much for this bright answer. It seems to me that in the implicit mode you agree with the idea that CF has arrived before its time- and this is the reason of its slow and hesitant development. For example re understanding of LENR you had sufficient data to work out your theory only recently. The reactions take place in nanocavities. but what actually the reactions are- you know, I don't know and am waiting for experimental results coming from DGT. I dare to think the taxonomy of LENR groups can be considered more diverse and complex than those described by you, but perhaps we cn discuss this peacefully later e.g. for an joint editorial on my blog, if you will agree. Re:* **I believe the field will slowly
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Yes, Axil, radioactive decay can be affected several different ways, but this is not LENR as normally defined. The discussion involves creation of helium, tritium, and transmutation using isotopes of hydrogen without application of extra energy and without significant radiation being emitted. Ed On Apr 28, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of conditions? Let us get down to basics. Here is an experiment that shows LENR nuclear activity without a NAE as we understand it. Accelerated alpha-decay of 232U isotope achieved by exposure of its aqueous solution with gold nanoparticles to laser radiation A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=4cad=rjaved=0CEMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=25F9UdCiLqjC4AP3pYHIBQusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=pB3pVPZuQrv_xT8EcvrwWA The experiment suggests that LENR is caused by intense electrical fields around nanoparticles. As quoted in the article: Strong dependence of the acceleration of alpha-decay on the peak power of laser radiation in the medium should be related to the strength of fields of the laser wave. The natural measure of the electrical field is its value inside the atom or ion. The electric field of laser wave becomes comparable with inter-atomic field at intensity level of 10 to the 16 power W/cm2. Possible mechanism of laser-induced acceleration of alpha-decay can be illustrated as follows (Fig. 5). Exposure of NPs to laser radiation leads to its amplification in the vicinity of NPs. If an ion of Uranil is situated near the exposed nanoparticle, then strong electric field of the laser wave disturbes its electronic shells. This perturbation causes the oscillations of the potential near its equilibrium value with the frequency of laser radiation. So do the width and the hieght of the potential barrier for tunneling alpha-particle. Since the probability of tunelling depends on the barrier widt in an exponential way, so even its small variations can noticeably increase the rate of alpha-decay. In this experiment, the half-life of 232U in the induced Nanophotonic electrical field induced within the influence of the laser field is 5 milliseconds instead of 69 years. With this type of experimental evidence, will you look into Nanophotonics? On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: OK Peter, let's discuss. I view the LENR process like I would a complex machine in which all the parts have a function, but each must work with the other parts for the entire machine to work properly. No part can be examined to determine its function without considering how it relates to every other part. Unfortunately, each theory being proposed to explain LENR is applied to a different part. If a clock were used as an analogy, one theory explains the spring will ignoring the balance wheel. Another explains the balance wheel and ignores the gears. In other words, if a person proposes how the Coulomb barrier is reduced, I propose he must also provide a method for releasing the mass-energy that is consistent with the proposed lowering process. If a method to form helium is proposed, the method must also show how tritium and transmutation can be produced. I realize many people do not consider the LENR process to be a single machine, but instead a complex mixture of independent processes. They imagine under some conditions, helium is made. Change the conditions and transmutation becomes the main reaction. Apparently some theoreticians expect tritium to form for no apparent reason. This creates a mayor conflict in how the behavior is explained and creates a basic question. Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of conditions? The answer a person makes to this question determines the rest of the discussion. Consequently, this conflict in basic belief must be resolved before any discussion is possible. I get the impression that a great deal of conflict has been created during past discussions because this basic question is not clearly resolved and lingers as an unconscious distraction. Ed Storms On Apr 28, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, Thank you very much for this bright answer. It seems to me that in the implicit mode you agree with the idea that CF has arrived before its time- and this is the reason of its slow and hesitant development. For example re understanding of LENR you had sufficient data to work out your theory only recently.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
The connection between the referenced experiment and the Ni/H reactor is stronger than you state. The Ni/H reactor does not produce tritium, it produces the majority of its transmutation products as very light elements, and an alpha particle is helium. The experiment does not produce gamma radiation even though it shows nuclear activity in heavy elements, it does not feature hydrogen, but it is water based, and importantly, it does use nano-particles. You did say “And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else does and makes the effect work much better and with total control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the competition will remain weak.” Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe. The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with nanoparticles. A strong experimenter with years of LENR experience under his belt is strong competition when his experimental efforts are properly focused. These types of experiments are easy to do and are inexpensive to evaluate. Understanding this type of nanoparticle based experiment will lend profound insight into the reactions happening inside Ni/H type reactors. If you say that this type of experiment only produces alpha decay, this is not the case. The following experiment by the same fellow show evidence of fission in uranium and thorium: At the end of the day, a study of Nanoplasmonics directed toward LENR will be well worth your valuable time. arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4268 On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, Axil, radioactive decay can be affected several different ways, but this is not LENR as normally defined. The discussion involves creation of helium, tritium, and transmutation using isotopes of hydrogen without application of extra energy and without significant radiation being emitted. Ed On Apr 28, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: *Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of conditions? * Let us get down to basics. Here is an experiment that shows LENR nuclear activity without a NAE as we understand it. *Accelerated alpha-decay of 232U isotope achieved by exposure of its aqueous solution with gold nanoparticles to laser radiation * A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=4cad=rjaved=0CEMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=25F9UdCiLqjC4AP3pYHIBQusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=pB3pVPZuQrv_xT8EcvrwWA The experiment suggests that LENR is caused by intense electrical fields around nanoparticles. As quoted in the article: Strong dependence of the acceleration of alpha-decay on the peak power of laser radiation in the medium should be related to the strength of fields of the laser wave. The natural measure of the electrical field is its value inside the atom or ion. The electric field of laser wave becomes comparable with inter-atomic field at intensity level of 10 to the 16 power W/cm2. Possible mechanism of laser-induced acceleration of alpha-decay can be illustrated as follows (Fig. 5). Exposure of NPs to laser radiation leads to its amplification in the vicinity of NPs. If an ion of Uranil is situated near the exposed nanoparticle, then strong electric field of the laser wave disturbes its electronic shells. This perturbation causes the oscillations of the potential near its equilibrium value with the frequency of laser radiation. So do the width and the hieght of the potential barrier for tunneling alpha-particle. Since the probability of tunelling depends on the barrier widt in an exponential way, so even its small variations can noticeably increase the rate of alpha-decay. In this experiment, the half-life of 232U in the induced Nanophotonic electrical field induced within the influence of the laser field is *5 milliseconds instead of 69 years.* With this type of experimental evidence, will you look into Nanophotonics? On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: OK Peter, let's discuss. I view the LENR process like I would a complex machine in which all the parts have a function, but each must work with the other parts for the entire machine to
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Axil, you would make a more useful contribution if you read and used what has been observed. On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The connection between the referenced experiment and the Ni/H reactor is stronger than you state. The Ni/H reactor does not produce tritium, it produces the majority of its transmutation products as very light elements, and an alpha particle is helium. The light hydrogen system does produce tritium occasionally. The experiment does not produce gamma radiation even though it shows nuclear activity in heavy elements, it does not feature hydrogen, but it is water based, and importantly, it does use nano-particles. You did say “And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else does and makes the effect work much better and with total control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the competition will remain weak.” Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe. The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with nanoparticles. He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. A strong experimenter with years of LENR experience under his belt is strong competition when his experimental efforts are properly focused. These types of experiments are easy to do and are inexpensive to evaluate. Have you ever had success replicating the Rossi method? I have not had success even though I have tried to replicate his claim many times. Understanding this type of nanoparticle based experiment will lend profound insight into the reactions happening inside Ni/H type reactors. If you say that this type of experiment only produces alpha decay, this is not the case. No one claims light hydrogen makes helium. That product is produced only when deuterium is used. My theory predicts that deuterium is the source of energy when light hydrogen is used, not transmutation. The following experiment by the same fellow show evidence of fission in uranium and thorium: At the end of the day, a study of Nanoplasmonics directed toward LENR will be well worth your valuable time. Thanks for the suggestion. Ed Storms arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4268 On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, Axil, radioactive decay can be affected several different ways, but this is not LENR as normally defined. The discussion involves creation of helium, tritium, and transmutation using isotopes of hydrogen without application of extra energy and without significant radiation being emitted. Ed On Apr 28, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of conditions? Let us get down to basics. Here is an experiment that shows LENR nuclear activity without a NAE as we understand it. Accelerated alpha-decay of 232U isotope achieved by exposure of its aqueous solution with gold nanoparticles to laser radiation A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=4cad=rjaved=0CEMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=25F9UdCiLqjC4AP3pYHIBQusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=pB3pVPZuQrv_xT8EcvrwWA The experiment suggests that LENR is caused by intense electrical fields around nanoparticles. As quoted in the article: Strong dependence of the acceleration of alpha-decay on the peak power of laser radiation in the medium should be related to the strength of fields of the laser wave. The natural measure of the electrical field is its value inside the atom or ion. The electric field of laser wave becomes comparable with inter-atomic field at intensity level of 10 to the 16 power W/cm2. Possible mechanism of laser-induced acceleration of alpha-decay can be illustrated as follows (Fig. 5). Exposure of NPs to laser radiation leads to its amplification in the vicinity of NPs. If an ion of Uranil is situated near the exposed nanoparticle, then strong electric field of the laser wave disturbes its electronic shells. This perturbation causes the oscillations of the potential near its equilibrium value with the frequency of laser radiation. So do the
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: The light hydrogen system does produce tritium occasionally. As you might well know, the production of tritium by any nuclear system would be very problematical, and this is also true for a commercial Ni/H LENR system. Tritium is the bane of nuclear energy. The developers of a Ni/H reactor will have done every thing possible to eliminate tritium emanations from their commercial system. He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in size. Could this be one of the Rossi secrets that you missed? The Ni/H micro-particle approach is a two level mechanism. As you state truly, the first level is a 3 micron sized particle. But I hope you realize that the second level is a thick coating of nanowire over the entire surface of those micro-particles. These 20 nanometer wires form nano-antennas at their points of contact between abutting micro-particles. These points of contact are the abundant NAE that can boost electric field gain theoretically by a trillion times, and have been experimentally shown in nanoplasmonics to produce a EMF gain of 500,000,000. No one claims light hydrogen makes helium. That product is produced only when deuterium is used. My theory predicts that deuterium is the source of energy when light hydrogen is used, not transmutation. From the released ash assay of the DGT reaction, it looks like both fusion and fission are going on simultaneously. Rossi states the same description of his ash in his first patent. DGT sees both lead and boron in their ash, a situation best suited for a theory that addresses the lowering of the coulomb barrier. Cheers:Axil
