Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion.
I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Ed stated: > > ->>---Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. > The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A > huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a > chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and > apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the > Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. > This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are > not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano > particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the > Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.-<< > > I would note Ed, that there are well documented low energy nuclear reactions > that are called fusion reactions where the coulomb barrier is overcome. > One is the fusion of two deuterons in a molecule that is bound together > with a muon and an electron. The theory is that the coulomb repulsive field > between the two deutrons--the barrier--is reduced by the presence of the > attractive negatively charged muon and an electron to the extent that the > wave function of each deuteron overlaps the other and another quantum system > force (not coulombic) draws the two protons into a new particle, helium, with > a relase of energy associated with the redcued total mass of the new particle > with respect to the mass of the two initial deuterons. > > I am suprised that you do not seem to recognize the reality of this reaction. > There appears to be no kinetic energy needed to cause this reaction to take > place or "get over this barrier" (your words) between the two deuterons. As > long as the characteristics of the particles as presented by their wave > function is such that these wave functions can blend together to form a new > wave function with lower potential energy (mass) they shall blend together > consistent with theromodynamic principles associated with reactions that > result in an increase of entropy and spin conservation. This increase in > entropy is a long-held principle of chemical reactions as well. Spin > conservation principle is only about 75 years old. > > The existence of electrons pairs in in chemical reactions is important > relative to ionization potentials. Here it is believed the electrons pair up > with opposite spins with an overlap of their respective force fields as > described by their wave functions to form a new quasi particle with its > distinctive characteristics as described by its wave function. Cooper > paring is possible for any Fermi particles including protrons. These are > consider to be quasi particles with spins pointing in opposite directions. > Bose Einstein Condensates of Bose particles (integral or 0 spin particles) > result from nuclear reactions without high energies required to over come the > coulomb barriers between such particles. > > Bob > > > > From: Axil Axil > To: vortex-l > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE > > Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an > extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. > This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum > mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur > because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion > principle. > > Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in > current scientific development. > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The > question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A > huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a > chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics > and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called > the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well > known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in > and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR > using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties > allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in > fantasy. > > Ed Storms > On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > >> A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence: >> “Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk >> materials.” >> >> This is why some here take issue with Ed’s relying only on “… the laws from >> the past 100 years of chemistry/physics”. Those laws were developed with >> bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what’s >> happening in LENR, and my $ is on the novel propertieswhich the referenced >> paper is studying. This may also be the reason why the ‘gray-hairs’, or >> grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been able to figure this >> out; they can’t think out of the bulk-matter-box. >> >> So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that’s what we >> Vorts are good at! J >> >> -Mark Iverson >> >> From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM >> To: vortex-l >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE >> >> These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles: >> >> http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf >> >> Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a >> wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles. >> >> Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return >> various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd. >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result >> of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesis: >> >> Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals >> with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then >> supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses >> into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas >> stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ. >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: >> James Bowery Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700 >> >> > It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. >> >> Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous >> metal - if it behaves like glass. >> I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium >> electrodes was one of the keys. >> >> Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material. I suppose that if >> the material is not too ductile, just the >> formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it. SO experimenting with >> the ball mill might be one possibility. >> >> > > >
