Ed,
Please consider Axil's movie from a 3d bulk perspective..
which is where I believe his argument was headed, the single point of
contact becomes multipoint to many particles all self attracting into a
bulk form. essentially a rigid if not solid conductor with open voids.. I do
recognize the loss of mechanical stress you are citing but I do leave the
door open because of Casimir and other forces that these geometries both
share. Not asking you to change your preference only to allow for the
possibility.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion
experiment
Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I
suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the contact
between particles is "topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
material." Have you ever seen a crack, examined surfaces, or even explored
cold fusion? A crack is created and held apart by stress. Two particles are
not held apart and instead attempt to fuse to make a larger particle,
thereby causing the well know sintering and loss of small particles.
Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil 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]
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
