The kinetic energy of an electron or group of electrons cannot match or
exceed the power of hot fusion devices like ITER or the national fusion
facility.
The answer is not to be found in kinetic energy or the related relativistic
speed of electrons.
An arching electron will produce nano-particles when it deposits it kenetic
energy on a metal surface.
I believe that the dark modes seen in Ken Shoulders sees in his experiments
are due to nano-particle generation when metal is vaporized by the kinetic
energy of electrons.
Ken Shoulders states as follows:
The EV makes a streak of light as it travels across the surface of the
dielectric, and imparts a localized surface charge. Unless this charge is
dispersed, it will cause the next EV to follow another path. A witness
plate of metal foil may be positioned to intercept the EVs, and will
sustain visible damage from their impact. The foil thus serves to detect
and locate the entities even if they are invisible ("black EVs").
Black EVs are produced by Fano resonance of nano-particles produced by the
condensation of metal vapor in concert with light radiation produced by
the EV.
Polaritons are thereby formed to resolve the EMF discharge into dark modes
of EMF radiation.
Coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering act in concert with Fano resonance to
turn the EMF of the spark inward into a local EMF focus where charge
concentration is manifest.
Figure 18 in this reference shows micro/nano particle production
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Charge%20Clusters%20In%20Action.pdf
Nuclear transmutation is shown in figure 19.
Notice that almost all of the transmutation is caused by fission.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Your statement may be correct.
>
> I am looking for overlooked explanations for paradoxical LENR experiments.
>
> The Feynman Lecture reference I cited at the start of this thread shows
> that electrons in electric arcs can pick up significant linear momentum as
> current is interrupted. Due to their small mass, this extra momentum can
> give electrons a relativistic increase in kinetic energy, and so more mass.
>
>
> This quite counter-intuitive, since kinetic energy is normally defined
> in terms of velocity. High kinetic energy particles normally move
> - fast. However, because the electron momentum is defined by a differential
> operator, an immobile electron wave packet can gain kinetic energy by
> becoming more localized, and having a more oscillatory envelop.
>
> Perhaps this happens when an arcing electron collides with a proton,
> deuteron or triton which experiences an equal, opposite momentum 'kick'
> as the current stops.
>
> The deuteron and triton have obvious structure. The proton does also since
> it is a 'quark bag'. Possibly this structure is enough to trap an
> immobile (lab frame) colliding electron whose momentum is ramping up.
> K-shell electron capture is another conjecture.
>
> I checked my math. I think it is correct.
>
> This is also related to "hidden" field momentum, which manifests itself in
> the "Feynman disk/cylinder (pseudo-)paradoxes."
>
> I believe that a similar analysis can be done for strong local transient
> coulomb forces in plasmons.
>
> All just a waste of time, if there really are no LENR transmutations, tho.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
>
> > Lou, most experiments apply no extra energy other than temperature or
> > electric current. We know that the level of temperature and current
> > used do not and cannot initiate a nuclear reaction. Something else is
> > important. Yes, small local variations in energy might occur, but
> > these are not even close to what is required to initiate a nuclear
> > reaction. We are discussing the LENR effect here, not whether small
> > variations in energy might occur in a material based on some novel
> > process. That subject requires a different discussion.
> >
> > Even when high energy is applied on purpose, such as by using ion
> > bombardment, the energy required to get the observed rates is many
> > thousands of eV and the result is hot fusion, not cold fusion.
> > Consequently, we now know that energy cannot be spontaneously
> > concentrated enough to cause the observed rates and if it were
> > concentrated, the result would be only hot fusion.
> >
> > People keep trying to suggest minor processes that are observed to
> > occur in materials under conditions that have no relationship to cold
> > fusion. These discussion, while interesting and I'm sure informative,
> > are not related to the subject at hand. If you want to understand CF,
> > you need to focus on what is known about CF.
> >
> > We know that energy cannot spontaneously concentrate to levels
> > required to initiate a nuclear reaction. We know that when energy is
> > applied at the required level, hot fusion results, not cold fusion.
> > Nevertheless, modest extra energy applied to when LENR is already
> > occuring does increase the rate. This means the extra energy is not
> > required to initiate the process, but affects some aspect of the
> > process already in progress, such as diffusion. You need to explore
> > how energy might affect the process, not how it might start the process.
> >
> > Ed Storms
> > [...]
>
>
