Gold can come in many colors. Since ancient times, glass artists and alchemists alike have known how to grind the metal into fine particles that would take on hues such as red or mauve. Carbon nanotubes are the same, different sizes shade water in different colors.
At scales even smaller, clusters of just a few dozen atoms display even more outlandish behavior. Gold and other transition metals when combined with certain other atoms often tend to aggregate in specific numbers and highly symmetrical geometries, and sometimes these clusters can mimic the chemistry of single atoms of a completely different element. They become, as some researchers say, superatoms. Recently researchers have reported successes in creating new superatoms and deciphering their structures. In certain conditions, even familiar molecules such as buckyballs--the soccer-ball-shaped cages made of 60 carbon atoms—can unexpectedly turn into superatoms. Superatoms can be formed from large aggregation of atoms numbering in the 10s of thousands. The is no limit to the shells that can form. Today at the cutting edge of science, researchers are already studying how superatoms bind to each other and to organic molecules. Tracking superatoms can help researchers learn how biological molecules move inside cells and tissues, or determine the structure of those molecules precisely using electron microscopes. And by assembling superatoms of elements such as gold, carbon, aluminum, titanium and tungsten researchers may soon be able to create entirely new materials. Such materials could store hydrogen fuel in solid form at room temperature, make more powerful rocket fuels or lead to computer chips with molecule-sized features. "Designer" materials made of superatoms could have combinations of physical properties that don't exist in nature. As Kit Bowen, a chemical physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, puts it, it's as if you felt like eating something hot and something cold at the same time, and could have it both ways. "Like a hot-fudge sundae." Small numbers of atoms often form structures as symmetrical, and almost as intricate, as those of snowflakes. But while no two snowflakes, even if they have the same number of water molecules, are identical, a small, specific number of atoms of the same element typically will assemble into the same, specific shape. The quintessential example is how 60 carbon atoms form buckyballs. The strange behavior of atoms in small groupings has been known for a long time, though only recently have scientists begun to understand it in detail. The whole idea is that small is different, The physical properties of a material, such as hardness and color, are the same for a l-pound lump of the stuff as they are for a 100-ton chunk. But when you get to specks made of a few million atoms or less, properties usually begin to change. A job for superatoms For larger clusters, it's not always clear when atoms will aggregate into regular structures or into shapeless blobs with any number of atoms. For example, in clusters of gold atoms each cluster member donates an electron to the cluster, just as inside larger chunks of metal, where mobile electrons can conduct electricity. Forty-four of those electrons get immobilized in bonds between gold atoms, leaving 58 electrons free to roam. These 58 electrons then orbit the cluster's core--made of positive gold ions--just as they would orbit the nucleus of a stand-alone atom. And 58 happens to be a "magic number." It's the number of electrons needed to fill a shell around the superatom, so that it won't feel a desire to add or shed electrons, which would destabilize its structure. This process is similar to what happens in noble gases, which are chemically inert because they have just the right number of electrons to fill a shell around the atom. By tweaking the conditions in lab vials, researchers can obtain clusters of different numbers of gold atoms although they haven't determined the precise structure in those cases yet. It is these cluster orbiting electrons that are important to the LENR process. Spreading jellium The story of the superatom begins when two physicists walk into a barber shop. Marvin Cohen of the University of California, Berkeley recalls how he and a colleague, the late Walter Knight, ran into each other at their favorite barber's one afternoon in 1984. While waiting for his haircut, Knight talked about some surprising data from an experiment in which he had baked a block of sodium and then measured the masses, and thus the sizes, of vaporized particles that came out. Knight's particles came in a range of sizes. But those made of eight, 20, 40, 58 (remember 58?) or 92 atoms were a lot more abundant. Cohen guessed what might be happening, and he started scribbling some back-of-the-envelope calculations. "Tony, the barber, thought we were figuring out a way to beat the stock market," Cohen recalls. Sodium is a metal, with a propensity to shed one of its 11 electrons. In a cluster, atoms share these electrons in a "socialistic" way. Cohen says. For simplicity, in his calculation he imagined the positive electric charge of a cluster's sodium ions (each of them an atom minus one electron) as being spread uniformly like jelly, rather than concentrated at the ions. Nuclear physicists use a similar model for atomic nuclei; they call it the "jellium" model. Jellium gave the right answer. The shared electrons orbiting the cluster do so in different energy levels, or shells, just as they would in an atom, Cohen figured. Computer calculations confirmed his guess. Like ordinary atoms, clusters with unfilled electron shells are chemically reactive. Full shells, with "magic numbers" of electrons, are not. Sodium clusters with eight, 20 or 40 atoms are the analog of helium, neon, and the other noble gases, which rarely form molecules. Clusters with non-magic numbers of atoms tend to lose or gain electrons, making them more likely to also lose or gain atoms (to get a magic number) through collisions with other clusters. A year later, Exxon Corporate Research Lab chemist Robert Whetten, now at Georgia Tech, and his collaborators noticed that clusters of six aluminum atoms could split hydrogen molecules at room temperature, something smaller clusters couldn't do. "Only aluminum-6jumped up and shouted 'Here I am, I can do this!'" says Whetten. And in the late 1980s, Welford Castleman of Peimsylvania State University in University Park and his colleagues discovered that clusters of 13, 23 or 37 aluminum atoms, plus an extra electron, become chemically inert, even though pure aluminum usually reacts violently with oxygen. The researchers realized that Cohen and Knight's magic numbers could explain the perplexing phenomenon. In an aluminum cluster, each atom donates three electrons to the cause. The 13-atom cluster, or [Al.sub.13], for example, ended up with 39 common electrons (3 x 13), and the extra electron in the ion [Al.sub.13]--was just what the cluster needed to reach the magic number 40. But the team went further. It showed that the neutral clusters [Al.sub.13,] [Al.sub.23] and [Al.sub.37] get into similar chemical reactions as do elements that crave one extra electron. Those are the elements such as chlorine or fluorine, which in the periodic table are the halogens, the column directly to the left of the noble gases. Then in 1995, Shiv Khanna and Purusottam Jena of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond found a theoretical explanation for Castleman's discovery. While Cohen's calculation could predict which clusters would be stable, understanding chlorine like behavior required calculating the energetics of adding or removing an electron from the cluster, which is what Khanna and Jena did. They proposed the term "super atom" (two words, originally) for such clusters. Hot-fudge sundae Several teams are now trying to create superatom-based salt crystals--something that's proving trickier than expected, since once the molecules start aggregating, the superatoms tend to merge with each other, forming clumps more than crystals. "When you put them together, they slag themselves," Bowen says. One approach is to coat superatoms with other kinds of stuff. On the other hand, Castleman hopes that replacing potassium ions with larger molecules might prevent superatoms from coalescing. "You have a chance of keeping them away from each other," he says. The interest in making crystals out of superatoms goes beyond pure curiosity. By adjusting the types, shapes and sizes of a material's ingredients, scientists and engineers could tune physical properties to their likes. "You would have a way of making materials with tailored properties," Bowen says. For example, a material that can be transparent typically won't conduct electricity, and vice versa. But a suitable all-metal salt, say, might be able to do both. And with a stretch of imagination, all-aluminum salts could make airplanes with see-through fuselages possible; almost as cool as a hot-fudge sundae. When a superatom is ionized, it does not loss just one electron, it can loss hundreds based on its "magic number” A superatom ion can have a massive positive charge and if it is long and thin enough, the cluster will be superconductive. The electrons numbering in the thousands will orbit the positive charged core. When this superatoms draws near to the surface of a metal lattice impregnated with protons crystals, these high charge concentrations on the surface of the superatoms will screen and lower the coulomb barrier. The engineering challenge is to produce superatoms in large numbers. Rossi and PDGTG have their “secret sauce” which is just an ionized heap of superatoms. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Quantum mechanics lives in the realm of the wave. The electron will exert > it influence on the positive charge nucleus in bits and pieces. > > > Alex, you are using the wave model and I'm using the particle model. Both > are accepted by science and are useful. However, it is best to stick to one > or the other in a discussion. Otherwise, the discussion gets too confusing > to be useful. > > > Take a look at this to give your imagination a brake: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Fermi_screening > > > The Thomas-Fermi formula is a more general potential than the Coulomb's > law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law>. > > > Yes, screening occurs. The question is, "Is this process alone sufficient > to create LENR at over 10^11 times/sec and how does it allow the resulting > energy be dissipated? Please answer this question. > > > For the nonlinear Thomas-Fermi formula, solving these simultaneously can > be difficult, and usually there is no analytical solution. However, the > linearized formula has a simple solution: > > R= (Q/r)((e)exp(-kr)) > > With *k*=0 (no screening), this becomes the familiar Coulomb's > law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law> > . > > The infuence of about 2000 electrons near the site of fusion will lower > the coulomb barrier. > > > No material has 2000 electrons at any nucleus where they must be located > to lower the barrier. > > Ed > > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> That is an interesting complication Axil. There is no doubt that the >> electrons can act as a screen of the electric field to an extent. Once, I >> tried to get a handle upon the magnitude of this effect from a simple >> mental model point of view and a few things seemed to show up. The COE >> and COM like to make it difficult to visualize. I placed an electron >> between two protons and realized that as long as the electron was in the >> middle, there was no Coulomb barrier to counter since the negative charge >> exerted a slightly larger pull than the opposite positive charge repelled >> as the combination gets smaller. >> >> This model leads to an interesting idea. If the electron could be >> judiciously placed precisely between the protons, there would be no net >> force acting upon it. If we then allow the protons to slowly come >> together, there would be no net energy imparted upon the electron as the >> system shrinks. Each proton would actually be drawn towards the other one >> and a small amount of energy would be imparted upon each. This is due to >> the fact that the electron charge is closer to the proton charge than is >> the other positive repelling charge. >> >> This process could be continued until something gives. A net amount of >> energy is given to the protons as they head towards each other. The >> electron is merely kept in the center without expending any energy. >> Now, if the electron squirts out of the line at right angles to the axis >> between the protons, then it must be given energy equal to the amount of >> Coulomb energy that it helped overcome as the protons came towards each >> other. This would be expected if the electron were to escape the >> vicinity. The protons would then possess the same amount of energy that >> they would have obtained had they not had the electron to help. >> >> If an electron could be coaxed into this behavior and remain between >> the proton pair until the group merges, then fusion would be common. Since >> this is not true, one must assume that the electron diverts at some point. >> Perhaps a gamma ray comes along to set it free, but more likely, quantum >> mechanics intervenes and the electron begins some form of orbital motion >> around one or both protons. Unless the orbit that it settles within allows >> for the release of extremely high energy, then the protons are not close >> enough to fuse. I suspect that a process of this general nature might >> lower the net Coulomb barrier to a degree, but I have no idea how much. >> >> I began to think of a multiple electron case, but grew weary as my mind >> wasted away. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 2:21 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions >> >> *For one, it is not possible for an alpha with that total energy to be >> released.* >> I would like to introduce a complicating factor: electron screening.. >> Both the cross section of alpha decay and nuclear fusion can be >> significantly reduced by electron screening. >> In fact I believe that the helium 4 seen in cold fusion experiments are >> many times derived from enhanced alpha emissions from high Z elements >> rather than fusion of hydrogen. >> In the presence of an electron cloud, the consideration of the coulomb >> barrier potential must be replaced by the Tomas Fermi potential to account >> for electron screening. >> Furthermore In astrophysics, cross sections of low energy fusion events >> can increase by a factor of one million based on the extent of electron >> screening around the fusion site. In fact, it is impossible to >> experimentally produce correct stellar fusion reaction cross sections >> because both theory and experiment is not able to explain astrophysical >> fusion based observations due to the electron screening problem. >> Astrophysics uses the Trojan horse approximation to get around this >> electron screening conundrum. >> >> Cheers: Axil >> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: >> >>> Sometimes the emails do get crossed up with the number of responses. In >>> this particular case I think that my input helped to clarify the problem to >>> many others who may be following this discussion. My choice of observation >>> locations proves that there are two bodies or body equivalents that must >>> exit the reaction. Now it is plain for all to see that it is not possible >>> for an alpha particle to be the only result since I have demonstrated that >>> the conservation of momentum would be violated it this were to happen. >>> >>> Before my mental example, it was just a statement that was difficult >>> to defend. Now we can more readily understand the type of reaction that >>> must take place in this form of fusion. For one, it is not possible for an >>> alpha with that total energy to be released. If we could get a measure of >>> the energy of the alphas that actually are emitted, then that information >>> can be directly used to calculate the transferred momentum and energy which >>> is received by the matrix. Now, I have shown that some reactionary force >>> is required through which the energy and momentum is transferred to the >>> system. This is an important observation in my opinion. >>> >>> It is good that the members of vortex-l can discuss issues of this >>> nature since much is not known about the reactions that take place. >>> Sometimes a small spark of incite at the correct moment will lead to added >>> knowledge. Perhaps others now will realize that what I have written here >>> is educational. The next time, they might use my ideal observation >>> location or something of a similar nature to understand other physics >>> problems. Had I written a paper, it is likely that I would have overlooked >>> this particular tidbit of knowledge and left out a major issue that should >>> have been considered. >>> >>> So, I suggest that we continue to engage in similar discussions within >>> vortex and enlarge our knowledge base since no one person is required to be >>> the holder of all that is important. Knowledge is always advancing as >>> more minds are engaged. >>> >>> I vote for open discussion within vortex. And, my post was not a >>> waste of anybodies time. Proof of this assertion will be from this point >>> forth since most of those engaged in the current discussion will now >>> understand the issue of energy and momentum requirements. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >>> Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 12:12 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions >>> >>> The problem with such exchanges is that the messages to different >>> people cross so that I have to explain the same thing several times, which >>> is a waste of time. That is why I write papers so that everyone can study >>> the same explanation. >>> >>> >>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: >>> >>> Ed, I am confused by your statement that cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 >>> body reaction. I see two reaction components unless I am missing >>> something. One is the alpha particle and the other appears in the form of >>> mass released as energy into the surrounding structure. >>> >>> >>> The energy release must result from emission of something. Normally in >>> hot fusion, the release results from emission of a strong gamma when He4 >>> forms. This gamma is not present when He4 forms during cold fusion. Why >>> not? The mechanism of energy transfer is obviously not conventional, yet it >>> must be consistent with the law of conservation of momentum. I try to >>> solve this problem in my theory. Most people ignore the issue. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> Every observer must see that the laws of physics apply to what he >>> sees. My favorite point is to be located precisely between the two protons >>> as they head toward each other with exactly the same energy. In this >>> location an observer sees that a finite amount of kinetic energy is >>> measured for the two particles and that there is exactly zero momentum for >>> the equal velocity pair. When they collide together, there is no motion >>> required for the resulting alpha particle until it releases the excess >>> energy. When that energy is finally emitted in some form, then a reaction >>> force would result in relative motion of the alpha particle. In this >>> manner, both conservation of energy as well as conservation of momentum is >>> shown. >>> >>> In my experience, when these laws are seen by any one observer, then >>> they are true for all of the others. Do you see a hole in this argument? >>> How are the laws true for others but not for the one ideally located? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >>> Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 10:38 am >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions >>> >>> The human mind is able to imagine endless possibilities. In order to >>> make any progress, a triage must be done by eliminating the ideas that are >>> so improbable or so illogical that they have very little chance of being >>> correct. That is what I'm attempting to do. >>> >>> In any case, several basic rules MUST be considered. Hot fusion is a >>> conventional 2 body-2 body reaction as is required to carry away the energy >>> and momentum. Cold fusion is a 2-body to 1 body reaction that violates this >>> condition. That violation MUST be acknowledged and explained. >>> >>> People are not free to imaginary any thing. Certain rules are known to >>> apply. These rules are so basic that they MUST not be ignored. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >>> >>> d+d=n+He3 and d+d=t+p >>> >>> What about d+d+...+d=? We don't know. This is what many many particle >>> models ends up being. Theyare hot fusion. The only difference it is that >>> there are many, more than 2>, incoming nuclei to fuse. You cannot do that >>> in experiments using colliders, it is too unlikely. So, you cannot say that >>> cold fusion is any different than hot fusion that easily. >>> >>> 2013/1/25 Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >>> >>>> Yes, people try to explain LENR using the behavior described in the >>>> paper. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
