*Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.*
This reaction under discussion is a nuclear reaction centered on the action of light. It is NOT a chemical reaction. The questions that these experiments answer is can EMF produce a nuclear reaction? The discussion has nothing to do with chemistry as stated by Franks. As a baseline reaction in nuclear physics, it is universally accepted that gamma radiation can produce a nuclear reaction. In optical physics, laser light that contains enough power density can also produce a nuclear reaction. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-0-387-34756-1_62#page-1 "Abstract. - Powerful tabletop lasers are now available in the laboratory and can be used to induce nuclear reactions. We report the first demonstration of nuclear fission using a high repetition rate tabletop laser with intensities of 10^^20W/cm2. Actinide photo-fission has been achieved in both 238U and 232Th from the high-energy bremsstrahlung radiation produced by laser acceleration of electrons. The fission products were identified by time-resolved γ-spectroscopy." The experiments that I referenced show that nanoparticles can amplify and concentrate the output power of a weak laser to a sufficiently high level to initiate a nuclear reaction. The question is not if light can produce a nuclear reaction, but can an amplification mechanism be engineered to use a very weak light source to produce a nuclear reaction. There have been Nanoplasmonic experiments that show that light can be amplified by a factor of 10 to the 15th power (one million billon times) using nanoantenna technology. I contend that the Ni/H reactor has exceeded that amplification factors to such a level the infrared energy can be concentrated to a level that it can induce nuclear reactions. It is not a matter of if EMF can induce a nuclear reaction, but how much amplification can be applied to support weak light based nuclear reactions. I resent being called a liar by an ignorant man. In a post that should have embarrassed him, I contend the Franks does not know anything in the field of photonics or nanotechnology and he is speaking from a position of profound and utter ignorance on these matters. I have given Franks a clue as to the fields you should bone up on. Let us hope he begins his reeducation. On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil > Axil<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22Axil+Axil%22> > Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:34:20 > -0800<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20131214> > > Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+reaction with 100% > repeatability. > > > Foks0904 . > <http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22Foks0904+.%22> > Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:35:15 -0800 > <http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20131214> > > ...take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach > ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. > > > > Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out > mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction > in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening. > >
