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. ***Well, I'm sorry to see Ed go. I cannot agree with his assessment of the goal here, however. Speculation is offered towards trying to understand. When he says "the goal here is not to understand", he's wrong. The goal is to understand.
I hope he comes back. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > 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 <janap...@gmail.com> > > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *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 properties*which 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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22James+Bowery%22> >> Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 >> -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20140322> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
