http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiEEfUXcRvA&list=PLA93BDCCCAE8FC3F2
Formation of a NAE through electromigration. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the > point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a > material. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4 > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> *“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”* >> >> This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation. >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg >> >> >> >> Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of >> nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move, >> nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular >> spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as >> the NAE. >> >> When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the >> strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and >>> generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF >>> occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not >>> required. We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how >>> the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in >>> its formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap >>> between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not >>> have. That is the only difference between our views about a gap. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: >>> >>> Ed,**** >>> I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to consider >>> the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is >>> essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe >>> the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed between >>> particles is active – it is the same region that experiences stiction >>> force which tends to make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle >>> shape and packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi >>> may combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and >>> their protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between the >>> particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy feeding >>> plasmons theory has any weight.**** >>> Fran **** >>> ** ** >>> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com<stor...@ix.netcom.com> >>> ] >>> *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Cc:* Edmund Storms >>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about >>> successful cold fusion experiment**** >>> ** ** >>> I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting >>> question, Are nanoparticles the NAE? **** >>> ** ** >>> I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles >>> of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I >>> propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines >>> the size of the gap. After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety >>> of conditions, including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However, >>> nano-gaps can form in any material, but not frequently with the correct >>> dimension. **** >>> ** ** >>> The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The >>> better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be >>> produced. Use of small particles improves this ability. Consequently, I'm >>> suggesting that people should not focus on the particle itself but on what >>> is happening within the particle. Unless the NAE is produced within the >>> particle, the particle is inert no matter what size it has. **** >>> ** ** >>> Ed**** >>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:**** >>> >>> >>> **** >>> Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:**** >>> ** ** >>> >>> Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in >>> my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion >>> bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on >>> the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE >>> is present and high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing >>> that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles >>> on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos >>> and excess heat results showing this.**** >>> ** ** >>> Mizuno himself cannot attend.**** >>> ** ** >>> - Jed**** >>> ** ** >>> ** ** >>> >>> >>> >> >
