Nanophasmonics experiment has observed EMF concentration of 10^^9 orders of magnitude in the space between two gold nanoparticles. This is a experimentally verified fact.
When workers in nanoplasmonics did a survey of various nanoantenna shapes, a maximum amplification factor of 10^^15 was observed. These areas of EMF application are called hot spots in nanoplasmonics, No one in that field has figured out how to put hot spots to practical use. The EMF involved in hot spots is magnetic only, IMHO. LENR is just an increase of this amplification by many orders of magnitude using clever optimization methods. These include topological superconductivity, the use of nickel, the use of hydrogen as the dielectric, compound micro/nano particle design, resonant micro-particle sizing, sharp curvature at the tips of the nanowire coat layer producing a very compact soliton, and especially vigorous dipole pumping. The solitons at the tips of the nanowires coated micro-particles reach a SPP density of 6*10^^23 SPP per cm-3, This power density is the magic threshold number for fusion. This magnetic EMF amplification is powerful enough to produce fusion. There are 10,000 nanoplasmonic books available describing how this process works. LENR is a matter of the degree of EMF amplification... a matter of degree, not principle, The huge amplification factor in NiH transforms the hot spot into a nuclear active environment. See an introduction is found here Stockman_Phys_Today_2011_Physics_behind_Applications http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Stockman_Phys_Today_2011_Physics_behind_Applications.pdf a comprehensive survey is found here *Nanoplasmonics: past, present, and glimpse into future* http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Stockman_Opt_Expres_2011_Nanoplasmonics_Review.pdf On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Interesting. Thanks again for the links to Miley's measurements. I think > Hagelstein was talking about this phenomenon a bit in one of his MIT > lectures, but I don't think he correlates it with superconductivity, but > rather a general lowering of resistance based on loading and other factors > (pretty sure). But I like the SC hypothesis nonetheless, and that would be > very interesting if it winds up being true. > > As for your theories, is there any way to test this in a simple, pragmatic > way? Does it make any predictions, etc.? I do think solitons and > quasi-particle dynamics (phonons, plasmons, etc.) in coherent systems is > interesting and has relevance to our world. I'm not yet sure whether they > apply to LENR, and if they do, what is their level of relevance? > > Regards, > John > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> There is a restrictive assumption in your analysis that limits >> possibilities. The LENR process may be carried by a dozen different >> elements, mostly transition metals, not only nickel. Nickel may have >> advantages over the other active elements but the NiH reaction should be >> looked upon as a topological reaction where the shape of the material is >> what matters and not the material itself. >> >> My motivation here. >> >> I am building a case for LENR as the underpinning for dark matter and >> dark energy. In intergalactic gas clouds, many elements are found. >> Unexpectedly, a high percentage of intergalactic dust are transition >> metals, the expected ash for a LENR reaction. The cosmological LENR >> reaction in order to support dark energy and a galaxy size dark matter >> soliton, production could not be restricted to only nickel. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Jones, all your points are well taken, we certainly don't have to agree >>> on everything and there is much in the field that is still "up for >>> grabs", and I think its possible we have different effects going on in PdD >>> vs. NiH as well. I really like how Ed's theory fits PdD, and you may be >>> right about the more exotic elements of NiH, but lets face it, we don't >>> have much solid experimental work to pull from in NiH. I mean, in terms of >>> a ratio, its probably like 10:1 in favor of PdD -- NiH has a lot of >>> catching up to do experimentally. Unfortunately much of the data is kept >>> under wraps due to intellectual property, etc. This both helps and hurts >>> progress of the field. I think speaking too authoratively about what is >>> actually going on in NiH domains is highly presumptuous, and while >>> speculating is useful, drawing too many conclusions from a system we don't >>> know much about is a mistake. Hell we don't even know what the dominant >>> nuclear-ash is, or if there is a nuclear ash. This is why I'm praying DGT >>> actually goes through w/ mass spectroscopy work that they promised in their >>> most recent paper. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Finally finished "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" over >>>> the >>>> weekend and find it to be a mixed bag - brilliant in places, but >>>> disappointing in others. There is no "cutting-edge" to be found here, if >>>> that is what you are looking for. I was, and maybe that is my problem. >>>> It >>>> can be recommended as a fine historical piece, very well-researched - >>>> but do >>>> not expect much more. >>>> >>>> Here is my main objection to Ed Storms' book from what is admittedly a >>>> minority point of view. It is a historical account of the first twenty >>>> years >>>> which overlooks the importance of new work, and that Ni-H is the >>>> commercial >>>> savior of LENR. All of that wonderful prior work with Pd-D, which set >>>> the >>>> table for where we are now, is valuable and intuitive, but .... To be >>>> blunt, >>>> when one is lost in time, with a focus on history, then the baggage that >>>> comes with that viewpoint can interfere with accurate understanding of >>>> where >>>> we are going. Palladium cannot really help us in the long run, and the >>>> best >>>> hope for deuterium now rests with Mizuno's new work. BTW - Mizuno's >>>> important new work is ignored by Ed and he cherry-pick data from old >>>> work >>>> that contradicts the new. That is almost unforgiveable in a book which >>>> promises accurate explanations. >>>> >>>> In short, Storms is only accurate for understanding results which were >>>> prior >>>> to Rossi and to "nano" but then falls flat - insofar as opening up the >>>> future. The book overlooks the most important new developments in LENR, >>>> like >>>> nanotechnology and SPP, or else fails to analyze them properly. I >>>> finished >>>> this book wanting much more and thinking that I had already read most >>>> of it >>>> anyway. >>>> >>>> In 24 years of accumulated experiment, which includes Mills - the >>>> experimental results are often contradictory, when considered in toto. >>>> When >>>> one is looking for commonality, as in this book, a general theme should >>>> emerge. That is where Ed's book fails - it begins with a false >>>> assumption >>>> and ends with a theme that points us in the wrong direction. To wit: >>>> >>>> 1) Fusion of deuterium in a Pd matrix or crack strongly appears to >>>> be a >>>> novel kind of gammaless nuclear fusion, with helium or tritium as the >>>> ash. >>>> This is where Ed's account is authoritative and helpful. He is an expert >>>> with Pd-D. >>>> >>>> 2) However, deuterium can participate in thermal gain without >>>> fusion, >>>> as the new Mizuno work indicates, which work is ignored as are many >>>> important new developments - like Cravens extremely important NI-Week >>>> demo. >>>> >>>> 3) Reactions of protons in a metal matrix (no deuterium) strongly >>>> appears to be non-fusion, having almost no indicia of fusion, as in >>>> Rossi's >>>> work; but it can be nuclear in the sense of nuclear mass being converted >>>> into energy. Rossi is marginalized. >>>> >>>> 4) Ed does not to believe that the two isotopes, deuterium and >>>> protium >>>> can entail completely different modalities for thermal gain - and so he >>>> proceeds to lump Ni-H into a category where it is not well-suited. >>>> Thus, for >>>> the segment of LENR which deals with Ni-H, his book is both wrong and >>>> counterproductive, since it casts the entire sub-field into chaos for >>>> the >>>> start by confusing two pathways as one. >>>> >>>> 5) It should be noted, in defense of point 3 that slight >>>> transmutation >>>> is seen on rare occasion by a minority of researchers (notably >>>> Piantelli), >>>> but it is three orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. >>>> When >>>> copper is found with nickel it is in the natural isotope ratio which >>>> statistically proves absolutely that it cannot be formed from nickel. >>>> >>>> In short, this book is authoritative and helpful for understanding the >>>> history of cold fusion, Pd-D and most of the experiments following in >>>> the >>>> footsteps of P&F. That is the good part and if this is what you are >>>> after, >>>> then do not read-on. >>>> >>>> As for the downside, Storms overlook or marginalizes the fact that Ni-H >>>> may >>>> not be related to Pd-D and may not be fusion at all. He emphasizes the >>>> few >>>> findings which point to fusion, and fails to even mention contrary >>>> arguments >>>> and weight of evidence. The two isotopes are extraordinarily different >>>> and >>>> it makes no sense to lump them into the same modality. The bottom line >>>> for >>>> Storms book is that it will bring you up to date to around the year >>>> 2010 - >>>> in terms of where the field was then, but fails to move beyond that >>>> limitation. >>>> >>>> In neglecting to emphasize the importance of Ni-H, mention the zero >>>> point >>>> field, nanomagnetism (or almost anything related to nanotechnology), >>>> giving >>>> half a sentence to surface plasmons, marginalizing Rossi, Cravens, >>>> Mizuno, >>>> Mills, and ignoring Ahern, plus - ignoring dozens of other cutting-edge >>>> subjects, "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" should >>>> instead be >>>> called "The History of Cold Fusion in Palladium." >>>> >>>> But as disappointing as it was to me, it was still worth the time, and >>>> you >>>> may agree with Ed's perspective anyway, so have at it! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
