Reference: Self-organized atomic nanowires of noble metals on Ge(001): Atomic structure and electronic properties
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F0906.4912&ei=xrGIUJ6BNMa70AGz_4CQDQ&usg=AFQjCNEmf0XIH21PHz0C-1lohScap7TfjQ&sig2=mF3fV0COlK1H4yJ8qhoK8g New techniques in fabricating cracks (quasi-one-dimensional (1D) structures) in noble metals (Palladium might work) have been achieved that may make scientific analysis more tractable in the area of radiation production through hydrogen loading in a palladium lattice. Atomic structures of quasi-one-dimensional (1D) character can be grown on semiconductor substrates by metal adsorption. Significant progress concerning study of their 1D character has been achieved recently by condensing noble metal atoms on the Ge(001) surface. In particular, Pt and Au yield high quality reconstructions with low defect densities. We reported on the self-organized growth and the long-range order achieved, and present data from scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) on the structural components. For Pt/Ge(001), we find hot substrate growth is the preferred method for self-organization. These atomic wires exhibit metallic conduction at room temperature, as documented by low-bias STM. For the recently discovered Au/Ge(001) nanowires, they now have developed a deposition technique that allows complete substrate coverage. The Au nanowires are extremely well separated spatially, exhibit a continuous 1D charge density, and are of solid metallic conductance. In this review we present structural details for both types of nanowires, and discuss similarities and differences. A perspective is given for their potential to host a one-dimensional electron system. The ability to condense different noble metal nanowires demonstrates how atomic control of the structure affects the electronic properties. In reducing the size to the single-atom scale, and specifically by constructing two-dimensional (2D) and even uasi-one-dimensional (1D) structures, the physics of the electronic charge carriers will change dramatically. In particular, one is used to a description of the electron states within the Fermi liquid picture. Also, one is familiar with treatments of phase transitions within the mean-field theory. The latter, e.g., is used successfully to describe the conventional superconducting ground state of metals within the BCS formalism. However, in turning to material systems that are essentially 1D in nature, there is indication that these scenarios do no longer apply. With nearly 1D properties, this newly fabricated nano-material lets us expect rather strong interactions of electrons and lattice, owing to a reduction of electrostatic screening. Specifically, the 1D nature of the electron system can be responsible for the occurrence of a charge density wave (CDW), implying a metal-insulator transition for the electron band concerned. This now offers us an opportunity to study unusual physics that results from the predicted breakdown of the Fermi liquid picture. The physics of charged particles: electrons and protons in low dimension topoligy is dramatically different from that encountered in conventional three-dimensional bulk metals, and solid state theory predicts exotic many-body scenarios. Most prominent for 1D systems is the emergence of the so-called "Luttinger liquid", which results from a decoupling of the spin and charge degrees of freedom. In a friendly suggestion and in order to atone for my misreading of Ed Storms latest paper, Mr. Storms among other workers would be well served to build some of these palladium nanowires and load them with protons from ionized hydrogen. These lattice structures are well ordered; demonstrating high regularity which makes them an ideal target for analysis. In addition, this week, researchers have discovered that electrons flow in alternating directions and in parallel down within the ridges of this noble metal nanowire array and not on or in them. http://phys.org/news/2012-10-obstinate-electrons-assumptions-path.html Cheers: Axil On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Alan, if you look at the photograph, you see GM#1 on the apparatus, where > it is clearly shown in the diagram (Fig. 5), and GM#2 is hanging by a wire > off to the right , as clearly stated under the photograph. > > GM#2 never detects radiation from the sample but can detect radiation from > GM#1 when it is activated. (Fig. 13) > > The GM used were the only ones available at the time. We never expected > the mica to be activated. Now that we know this, we are doing what is > obvious to everyone. However, as I clearly state, this is a progress report > being published to alert people to the strange behavior. > > Ed > > On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > > At 11:26 AM 10/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I uploaded a version of this paper with some revisions and corrections. > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf > > > I had to read it several times to figure out the relationship between GM#1 > and GM#2. > > Let me summarize my current understanding to see if I've got it right > > Specimen ---> Mica Window --> GM#1 > *- - - - - - - > *-----------------------> GM#2 > > GM#1 and GM#2 show counts both from the specimen and from the Mica Window > > Insert lead : > > Specimen ---> LEAD Mica Window --> GM#1 > *-----------------------> > GM#2 > > GM#1 and GM#2 are no longer detecting radiation from the Specimen, but are > detecting the decay of K40 > in the Mica window. > > So the the discovery is that the radiation from the specimen is doing > "something" to K40 -- which decays with a half-life of 109 minutes. > > At the very least, that should be in the abstract as well as in the > conclusion. > > Lead-on question : > > Why not use a NON-mica GM#1 AND #GM2, and then insert mica into the > specimen->GM#1 path > > > Specimen -----------------------> GM#1 > -----------------------------------------> GM#2 > > Insert MICA : > > Specimen ---> MICA ------> GM#1 > -----------------------------> #GM2 > > and/or > > Specimen ---> LEAD MICA ------> GM#1 > -----------------------------> #GM2 > > Then remove the mica and put it next to GM#3 to record its decay (possibly > with a separate background-detector GM#4) > > MICA ---> GM#3 > > >
