If you believe that the Rossi and DGT reactors work, then the nano-engineering methods that they claim they use is one route to LRNR among many.
But at the end of the day, all these LENR methods involve charge separation. I have postulated that charge separation is the root cause of LENR. In advancement of this concept, metallic nanoparticles have emerged as fundamental structures due to the tunability of their plasmonic resonances and ability to enhance electromagnetic fields. When two metallic nanoparticles are placed close to each other, forming a dimer, new plasmonic modes is formed, which are interpreted as the hybridization of the plasmonic resonances of the individual nanoparticles. This condition exists in the nano-hairs of the micro-particles used by Rossi and DGT. The referenced paper states that Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) formation can occur at high temperatures because BEC formation is proportional to the mass of the particle that comprises the BEC ensemble. For example, the photon can form BEC at very high temperatures; the electron is not far behind. The proton can also form a BEC at room temperature being relatively light. Atoms are relatively very massive. They require very low temperatures to form a BEC. Polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves in the infrared with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation that exists on the serface of a noble metal. This particle is very light. Like the photon, Polaritions can form BEC as specified in the reference article. It is these BEC in localized areas of high electron density that form the active nuclear areas where the lowering of the coulomb barrier is greatly enhanced. This is a similar mechanism to the crack method called out in your theory where the cracks in the lattice localizes, pins down and concentrates surface electrons under the stimulus of heat in and around the cracks on the surface of the lattice. In detail, for these non-touching nano-hair dimers as exists on the surface of Rossi’s micro-particles, the optical response is mainly governed by the Bonding Dimer Plasmon (BDP) resonance, arising from the coupling of the dipolar modes of the individual particles. This mode presents strong charge densities of opposite sign at both sides of the inter-particle cavity that exists in the space between the nano-hairs, producing enormously enhanced local electromagnetic fields. These nano-hairs draw quantized photon infrared energy from the resonant black body heat radiation emitted from the bulk of their constituent micro-particle (4 microns resonent black body temperature is 400C). For touching particles or, when a thin conductive path is opened between the nanoparticles, a new Charge Transfer Plasmon (CTP) mode is excited, in which the whole dimer acts as a dipolar plasmon mode, so that in the oscillations both particles present net charges of opposite sign. These nano-hairs can form a Bose-Einstein Condensate with a common wave function (PSI) when aggregated into an arbitrarily large ensemble. This charge coherence greatly amplifies the effectiveness of charge separation as a mechanism for lowering the coulomb barrier of atoms just below the root of the nano-hairs as a manifestation of negative dielectric permittivity. The surface charge density oscillations associated with surface plasmons at the interface between a metal nano-hair and a dielectric(hydrogen) can give rise to strongly enhanced EMF fields which are spatially confined to the interface. Similarly, if the electron gas is confined in three dimensions, as in the case of a small subwavelength particle, the overall displacement of the electrons with respect to the positively charged lattice leads to a restoring force which in turn gives rise to specific particle plasmon resonances depending on the geometry of the particle. In particles such as nano-hairs of suitable (usually pointed) shape, extreme local charge accumulations can occur that are accompanied by strongly enhanced EMF. Because these quasiparticles are almost massless, their condensate can develop and persist at extremely high temperatures. Unfortunately, you don’t believe that this BEC formation process at high temperatures is possible. This mechanism is behind the effectiveness of properly prepared nano-materials acting on the surface of metals as an enabling causation of LENR at least in the Rossi type reactor design. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Since you think this paper is relevant, perhaps you can suggest where all > the BEC are in PdD and why great effort is made to achieve temperatures > near 0 K to study BEC? > > Ed > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Experimens have shown that a BEC can form at > a temperature of 2640 K. > > arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086 > > I have posted on this elsewhere.Cheers: Axil > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> >> On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: >> >> I think you are being very dismissive of the way quantum mechanics works >> with in the nuclear realm. >> >> >> I have no problem applying QM if it is applied to realistic conditions. >> Simply assuming a condition that has no reality and then applying QM to >> justify the assumption means nothing. This is only a dog chasing its tail. >> You can use any vocabulary you want, but Gibbs energy determines the basic >> behavior of atoms. The temperature must be low because the bonding energy, >> obtained from the process you describe, is very low. The entropy * T will >> overwhelm the enthalpy if the value for T is large, thereby causing the BEC >> structure to decompose. Or do you think BEC formation violates the Laws of >> Thermodynamics? >> >> Ed >> >> It all boils down to PSI and if the nuclear force is point charge with a >> probability of interacting defined by PSI, or that PSI is blurred motion >> where the nuclear force is spread over space describing PSI. Is it a wave >> or is a particle probability? It's a very fundamental question with >> respect to BECs. The BEC comes about by the overlapping wave functions of >> integral spin. By it's nature bose particles when chilled they like to >> fall towards ground states and as they do, their PSI's will completely >> overlap making one big PSI(n) where PSI(n) describes all of the properties >> of that mix. The PSI is the matter wave, and with the matter wave all of >> the other attributes of a particle are carried along, so the electric force >> and the nuclear force(s) are just aspects of that PSI(n). The overlap of >> the PSI is where there is a probability of interaction. That's why I >> mentioned the Gamow factor is that it describes perfectly what the >> collision of two PSI's with nuclear interactions looks like. At very high >> energies, it looks like CERN, but at very low energies it looks like solid >> state. >> >> Eventually you have to have PSI(x) describing the model. If that wave >> function overlap doesn't occur, there is no probability for interaction and >> nothing will occur. >> >> I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very >> compelling. Specifically with the Nano scale BECs or 100 atom Bose-band >> states. >> >> Best Regards, >> Chuck >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> Eric, the details do not matter. The basic idea is wrong. The details >>> are just a series of arbitrary assumptions to avoid dropping the initial >>> premise. We are simply playing whack-a-mole. He strings a collection of >>> words together that have no logical relationship, but because the >>> vocabulary of QM mathematics is used, no one questions the statements. If >>> Ron wants to make a contribution, he needs to apply his ideas to what >>> actually exists in the real world based on what material science has agreed >>> is real based on much study. Simply making up concepts to which math is >>> applied is not useful except as a game. Also, we are describing a >>> mechanism. Describing one part in isolation is not useful. This is like >>> saying an automobile works by turning the key in the ignition and then go >>> on to describe the key in great detail. >>> >>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >>> >>> There is no alpha. The helium CAN NOT MOVE spontaneously. The helium >>>> contains extra energy as mass. This mass must be converted to energy before >>>> it can appear as reaction energy. The He is fixed in space. Normally the He >>>> nucleus explodes into fragments producing hot fusion. Or it emits a gamma >>>> which releases the mass-energy. This conversion CAN NOT OCCUR outside of >>>> the nucleus simply by being near a Pd. >>>> >>> >>> I suspect that you are very busy and haven't had time to read Ron's >>> writeup closely. Here is what he says about the production of the alpha: >>> >>> The fusion of deuterons always happens through unstable intermediate >>> states, and the cross section to alpha particle is only small because of >>> the same non-relativistic issue. To get an alpha, you need to emit a >>> gamma-ray photon, and emissions of photons are suppressed by 1/c factors. >>> >>> >>> Yes, this is why the hot fusion products occur rather than helium. Even >>> this statement is ambiguous - what does 1/c factors mean? In fact, the >>> explanation is much easier to understand simply by noting that energy can >>> be lost by the nucleus exploding into its parts faster than it can be >>> released by gamma emission. The issue is based on relative rates. Why is >>> gamma emission slow? It is slow for the same reason it is slow when photons >>> are emitted from any energetic nucleus. Many explanations have been >>> suggested including the need to assemble the required energy and spin in >>> the nucleus before the photon can be emitted. The statement of 1/c factors >>> has no relationship to this process. >>> >>> When there is a nucleus nearby, it can be kicked electrostatically, and >>> this process is easier than kicking out a photon, because it is >>> nonrelativistic (the same holds for an electron, but with much smaller >>> cross section due to the smaller charge, and there is no reason to suspect >>> concentration of wavefunction around electron density, as there is for a >>> nucleus). >>> >>> >>> Here Ron makes an assumption that has no justification. The nearest >>> nuclei is many Å away and surrounded by electrons. Any nuclear-nuclear >>> interaction is impossible. That is why spontaneous nuclear reactions are >>> so rare. >>> >>> >>> The time-scale for kicking a nucleus is the lifetime of the two-deuteron >>> resonance, which is not very long, in terms of distance, it is about 100 >>> fermis, this is about the same size as the inner shell. If the deuterons >>> are kicking about at random, this coincidence is not significant, but if >>> the deuteron-hole excitations are banded, it is plausible that nearly all >>> the energetic deuteron-deuteron collisions take place very close to a >>> nucleus, as explained above. >>> >>> >>> This is word salad without meaning in the real world. He makes up a >>> number and then assumes it applies it to an imagined process. Yes, the d >>> must be bonded (or as he says banded), but how? >>> >>> >>> There are conservation laws broken when a nucleus is nearby. The nucleus >>> breaks parity, so it might open up a fusion channel, by allowing deuteron >>> pairs to decay to an alpha from a parity odd state. Such a transition would >>> never be observed in a dilute beam fusion, because these fusions happen far >>> away from anything else. This hypothesis is not excluded by alpha particle >>> spectroscopy (there are a lot of relevant levels of different parities), >>> but it is not predicted either. >>> >>> >>> This is word salad. His statement about beams reveals an ignorance about >>> how beams are used. They are used to bombard a solid in which many >>> interactions take place resulting in hot fission. >>> >>> >>> Here there is a concept of a "two-deuteron resonance," i.e., the >>> metastable 4He you're talking about following upon the d+d fusion, which >>> will not last long and must shed some energy. Ron states or alludes to the >>> following in the above paragraph: >>> >>> 1. There is a metastable "two-deuteron resonance" that will decay. >>> This is the energetic 4He you're referring to, which will then go and do >>> something else. >>> 2. There are three channels for the decay of the >>> two-deuteron resonance: (a) d+d → [2d]* → 3He+n, (b) d+d → [2d]* → t+p, >>> (c) >>> d+d → [2d]* → 4He+ɣ. Normally (a) and (b) predominate and (c) is rare. >>> But the reason that (c) is rare is that it takes a while for the photon >>> to >>> be produced (my reading, anyway, of "emission of photons are suppressed >>> by >>> 1/c factors"). >>> >>> This is a restatement of the earlier comment, which is correct. >>> >>> >>> 1. When there is a palladium nucleus (not atom) nearby, however, the >>> energy that would have been dumped as a photon will instead be kicked to >>> a >>> proton in the palladium nucleus, a process that occurs quickly rather >>> than >>> slowly. Because this occurs quickly, branch (c) is enhanced and branches >>> (a) and (b) are suppressed in direct proportion. >>> >>> >>> This is an impossible assumption. >>> >>> >>> 1. When the mass deficit of the two-deuteron resonance is >>> electrostatically dumped into the proton in the nearby palladium nucleus >>> on >>> the order of 24 MeV, you will get a palladium nucleus with additional >>> kinetic energy an energetically stable recoil alpha, moving quite >>> quickly. >>> >>> In his original description Ron has touched on points that address >>> nearly every objection you have raised so far. His description may well be >>> incorrect, but I suspect it is not incorrect for the reasons you have >>> mentioned so far. >>> >>> >>> Eric, this discussion is a waste of time simply because the concept has >>> no relationship to reality. Clever people can create all kinds of personal >>> realities that are useful as games or as a guide for their lives. But in >>> science, the reality has to be shared based on centuries of hard work by >>> millions of people. New ideas have to fit into what is known and must be >>> described using words that have common meaning. People seem free to >>> imagine anything about CF that would be laughable if applied to any other >>> field of study. >>> >>> >>> I don't mean to press this issue. I just think Ron's theory should be >>> read closely before objections are raised; some very good objections have >>> already been raised in earlier threads. I understand if you're too busy or >>> if this lead does not seem to merit your time. There may be interest among >>> others here. It is also entirely possible that while Ron knows something >>> about the math involved, he knows nothing about what happens with these >>> things in real-life. I am wary of drawing this conclusion myself without >>> further evidence. >>> >>> >>> You are on the right tract. Just have more courage to call a spade a >>> spade, or more exactly call nonsense what it is. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
