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.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=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=25F9UdCiLqjC4AP3pYHIBQ&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=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. 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 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 blind to a large extent. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 28, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: >>> >>> Dear friends, >>> >>> This writing is in part about the echo of my appeal to Rossi's >>> Professors (who by the way do not belong to Rossi at all!) and in part is >>> about other failures in search of owners: >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/04/the-lenr-ists-sunday.html >>> >>> En ensemble, it is about serious problems and things. >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>> Cluj, Romania >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >>> -- >>> 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?hl=en. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> >> >> > >
