Rossi understands that his invention is based on catalysis. That is the reason why Rossi named his invention “The Energy Catalyzer” (also called E-Cat) (6). In order to understand how Rossi’s invention works, it is important to understand the nature of catalysis as supported by nanoparticles. There may be other modes of catalysts that might confuse the issue of understanding Rossi’s work, so I will focus my discussion on nanoparticles and how nanoparticles when properly stimulated by light can extract energy from the environment. Metal nanoparticles have unique catalytic properties that lend themselves to the backbone energy generation function in the E-Cat.
In his research and development, Rossi’s goal was to increase the catalytic power of his invention to a high enough level to extract energy from the environment. The patent that Rossi has recently been granted defines the energy source as a catalytic process. It does not mention nuclear causation. LENR is not nuclear centric based on neutron stimulation for energy production but a greatly amplified catalytic process has been enhanced to such a huge degree that a positive feedback loop between the NAE and the environment is generated. This feedback loop is based on an electromagnetic connection between the NAE and the environment and works at a distance from the NAE. When the NAE has accumulated enough energy, then it becomes to a degree self-sustaining and supported by this energy feedback loop. I would like to continue on and explain in more detail how Rossi has achieved the ability to produce a self-sustaining energy feedback mechanism in the catalytic process. Metal nano and micro particles produce vortexes of light in what can be termed as polariton solitons. (7) It is worth explicitly point it out because it is such an important reference (7) “Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale”. This article provides a wonderful explanation of how metal nanoparticles integrate with polaritons to form EMF energy concentrations. Nanoplasmonics provide many types of EMF amplification mechanisms. One of the more difficult mechanisms to understand is how a pile of nano and micro particles greatly amplify EMF. The reference provided in this post shows how the topology in the way particles aggregate explains how EMF is concentrated through vortex formation. The reference defines an analogy between a vortex and a gear. Like a funnel, a large particle gathers the energy from a wave of EMF far larger than its diameter, In the case of the Rossi system, this type particle according to the patent between 1 to 100 microns but mostly 5 micron nickel particles available commercially off the shelf (COTS). Other nanoparticles are produce as an ongoing process during E-Cat operation by what is termed “Secret Sauce” chemical additives. These additives provide the smallest nanoparticles in the particle aggregations. A picture of how these particles aggregate is now worth understanding (8). But there is a constraining factor that limits the aggregation of a certain size limit due to dipole forces (9). This large particle produces relatively huge amounts of dipole generated current. . Other particles of various sizes accumulate around the large nickel particles. Each of these particles produces a photonic vortex proportional to the size of the large particle member of the aggregation. These vortexes fit together like gears where the large vortex provides a large amount of power concentration, and the other smaller vortexes provide a gear train that speeds up the rotation rate of the smaller gears down the train. Finally, the smallest vortexes associated with hydrogen crystals, spin at high rates of speed providing large EMF power amplification. The take away is that a large spread of particles sizes produced within an aggregation of particles generates the most powerful EMF amplification effects. This fact explains why the “secret sauce” effect provides such a large EMF power amplification result. These alkali metal hydrides supply the intermediately sized gears that allow the large nickel gears to transfer their vast store of energy with little loss to the smallest hydrogen based gears down a smoothly running vortex power transmission chain. The smallest particles are the hydrogen Rydberg matter which has its own unique supercharged EMF amplification mechanism. I venture to say that there is randomness associated with this particle aggregation process that enables a sort of natural selection where the most effective dust pile configurations provide the most EMF amplification. When there are an abundance of particles, the chances are good that some of these piles will be LENR capable. That is to say, when there are a large number of particles, the chances are good that some of their aggregates will produce EMF implication great enough to catalyze quantum mechanical level effects. There is also a certain lifetime associated with particle formation. Particle piles are constantly falling apart. These particle aggregates must be constantly rebuilt to maintain a sustained reaction rate. 6 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer 7 – Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf 8 – Particle aggregation https://vimeo.com/36691535 9 – The effect of the dipole-dipole repulsion on the size of the L-J particle aggregation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkxXheV748U On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Ludwik Kowalski < kowals...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote: > P.S. Wikipedia's definition (in blue below) is consistent with what I > remember. > > > A *catalyst* is a substance that speeds up a *chemical* reaction, but is > not consumed by the reaction; hence a *catalyst* can be recovered > chemically unchanged at the end of the reaction it has been used to speed > up, or catalyze. > > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote: > > I also responded to Peter G, essentially at the same time. Bot my reply > bounced back. I wrote: > > 1) Peter wrote (see his egoout below ): ... "I have a cult for catalysis, > met it professionally in many forms and have developed a kind of philosophy > of it ... . > > *I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have > developed a kind of philosophy of it.* > > * - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. "* > > 2) I am not a chemist. But I would say that a catalytic surface is a > surface covered with one or more catalysts (chemical compounds). Such > compounds can participate in reactions but are not consumed by these > reactions). Some chemical reactions would be very rare, if catalysts were > not available. > > 3) Does my definition conflict with Peter's nano-cracks definition? > Probably not; Peter probably thinks that some catalysts are present in > nano-cracks. Which compounds does he have in mind, in our CMNS context? > > Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > *a) Continuing discussion with Ed Storms* > > * Yesterday Ed has promptly answered to my catalysis in LENR questions, > but has forgot to answer to this question "caused "by the unique PdD et > classic paper of JCF-16 so I repeat it:* > > *- what do you think about paper of Numata- No.15 at JCF- see the list? > I have spoken more times about nano-vortices as NAE to you, in this is > something like that* > > > *Ed: I will be pleased to comment once the paper becomes available. If > you you have a copy, please send it.* > *Ed's answer, my comments * > > > *To answer your questions, we need to know what the words mean. The word > catalyst describes a general concept, there being hundreds of different > kinds of catalyst. One kind does not take the place of another. Simply > saying a catalytic surface is required is too trivial. What is worse, the > concept of catalyst was only applied to a chemical reaction, never to a > nuclear reaction, until LENR was discovered. We need to know what the word > means when it describes a nuclear process. A catalyst can reasonably be > understood to lower a barrier by a few eV but what allows a barrier of > several MeV to be lowered?* > > *ANSWER * > *Please, please read my essay here:* > *http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/the-most-fundamental-question-about-lenr.html > <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/the-most-fundamental-question-about-lenr.html> > * > *I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have > developed a kind of philosophy of it.* > > *Ed: I read your comment but I do not understand how it applies to our > problem. A catalyst is a concept applied when the rate of a chemical > reaction can be increased by operation of another chemical condition. To be > useful, the chemical condition needs to be identified. This requires > identification of the chemical state causing the rate of LENR to increase. > In addition, we are faced with the need to increase a reaction rate having > a barrier of MeV. You have not answered my question. How can this be done?* > > * - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. These cracks > are created by stress relief. Many ways exist to create the stress and the > resulting crack formation depends on the property of the surface. Stress > generation and crack formation are influence by many variables. We will not > understand these variables until they are study for the purpose of causing > LENR. So, simply saying a catalyst is necessary without showing the form > of the catalyst is useless. Also, complaining about lack of knowledge > about the process without showing what needs to be studied is also > useless. I'm attempting to show exactly what needs to be studied and what > will be found when that study is undertaken. I see no one else doing this. > Instead, we are provided with guesses and speculation based on what Rossi > might wish to reveal. * > > *ANSWER* > *As far I know/understand, the nanocracks are not a specific, quantifiable > feature of the metal (Pd, Ni) surface- **with concrete it would be > different. * > > *Ed: Peter, I'm amazed you would say this. The nano-crack is the initial > formation of a gap that, if allowed to grow larger, would be and is easily > seen. This is a well known and easily observed process. I'm not > suggesting a new condition. I'm only suggesting a new consequence of a > well-known condition. * > > > *It is difficult to explain- based on the density of nanocracks per > surface a thousand times increase of the heat release from PdD to NiH at > 1200 C- the best for you is to deny it temporarily- an 1000 times increase > of nanocracks density is not possible. We like it or not, cracking is a > destructive process. My alternative is the dynamic formation of the NAE > surfce nanostructures* > *due to the increased mobility and re-arrangements of surface atoms of the > metals, obviously increasing with temperature.* > > *Ed: What kind of nano-structures are able to initiate a nuclear reaction? > You need to be specific. What exactly needs to be created on the surface > to cause LENR and how can this be done? I have answered this question using > my theory. Can you give an answer using your understanding? Making general > comments is not useful at this stage. We need exact descriptions and > predictions.* > > *- Axil and others suggest treatments that would apply stress even though > he does not explain the process this way. However, no one has the money or > interest in setting up a complicated method without assurance that it has a > relationship to creating the required conditions. * > > *ANSWER * > *AXIL will explain this again, in more detail- please appreciate that AXIL > tries to develop a holistic understanding of the field that is indeed very > rich and varied.* > > *Ed: Yes, but Axil's approach is too rich and varied. It is like throwing > a collection of colored paint against the wall and hoping to form a picture > of something recognizable. I call this an abstract art form, not science. > We need to have exact descriptions that can be easily tested and related to > what is presently known.* > > *The essence of the problem is the lack of agreement about a NAE being > required. Without this agreement, no one even looks for the NAE or attempts > to identify it. I suggest a very plausible NAE, but this idea is ignored > because the basic need for a NAE of any form is not accepted. * > > *Dear Ed, have you seen this jCF-16- how does it consider NAE:* > *What is the "nuclear active environment" of the cold fusion Tetsuo Sawada* > *LENR poly-semantics.* > > *ANSWER* > > *As regarding me, I have pre-agreed with NAE much before even the > word/acronym was created by you just I called it "active sites" because > they are fisrt topological and and only then environmental. I don't think > they are nano-cracks in the surface but nanostructures on the surface. Is > this an essential difference? ok- void space vs structured nano-matter, in > the surface vs. the surface , static-preformed vs. dynamic, permanent vs. > transient, possibly usual nuclear two particles reaction vs. collective > transformation, fusion vs more complex nuclear interactions etc.* > > *Ed: You and other people do not understand what I mean when I use the > term NAE. It is not simply a site where LENR happens to take place, as you > define it. It is a special local condition that is created by a chemical > process BEFORE LENR can take place. Its eventual use as a site for a > nuclear reaction is not anticipated by Nature when the NAE is formed. The > nuclear reaction is an unusual and unexpected consequence. For reasons > having nothing to do with the eventual nuclear process, this condition > forms and allows something extraordinary to happen. This way of looking at > the problem forces an entirely different set of rules on how the process > works. You are free to reject my idea, but please understand what I > propose before you reject it. You and I are describing an entirely > different condition when we use the term NAE. I do not believe your > definition applies because I do not believe a process that can cause fusion > can take place in or on a normal material. A very unique and rare change > must take place. We need to identify this change in an exact way while > remaining consistent with known behavior.* > > *Further- is NAE a chemical structure and are you right as you say:* > *The chemical structure of a material has to be modified in a unusual way > before LENR can be initiated. * > *Or is it about dimensions first i.e. is it a nano-effect primarily.* > > *Ed: OK, that comment is the start of an agreement. As for your question, > I have no idea what you are asking. We know that no matter what happens, it > must take place at a nano scale. We have a very limited number of possible > changes that can take place in a material at this size level. Exactly what > kind of change do you propose?* > > * I forgot to ask- what arguments do you have for the existence of > hydrotons Are they active somewhere?* > > *Ed: In order to fuse, the hydrogen MUST occupy the same place at the same > time. For the sale of discussion, I use the word Hydroton to identify this > assembly of hydrogen. I propose how it forms so as to be consistent with > the rules of thermodynamics. I speculate that metallic hydrogen would have > the same ability to support a fusion reaction, hence could be called a > Hydroton. * > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > >
