subject:"\[Vo\]\:Explaining Cold fusion \-IV"

*Would you posit this explains the spectrum shift in Mills “Black Light”
plasma?*

cfm.ehu.es/nanophotonics/publications/NJP_13_083013_2011.pdf

Optical characterization of charge transfer and bonding dimer plasmons in
linked interparticle gap


The frequency of the light emitted is based on the conductance and the
topology of the space between to nano-particles in the linked interparticle
gap.


Therefore, The hydrino is certainly a misinterpretation of the spectrum of
emissions from atomic clusters.
 .

Cheers:   Axil

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

  Axil,

 Would you posit this explains the spectrum shift in Mills
 “Black Light” plasma? [snip] In plain language, when nano-particles are
 packed together so that they touch in many places, the ability to downshift
 EMF from high frequency to a lower frequency is increased by 5000 times
 with the of the photon absorbed in the electric field between the
 nanoparticles. [/snip]

 Fran

 ** **

 *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:35 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

 ** **


 http://nanophotonics.csic.es/static/publications/pdfs/paper203.pdf

 Organized plasmonic clusters with high coordination number and
 extraordinary enhancement in surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)

  

  

 snipIn summary, we have shown that by using PF68 coating and emulsion
 clustering it is possible to produce plasmonic nanoparticle molecules with
 high symmetry and coordination index, and that they can be separated by
 applying density gradient centrifugation. PF68 produces narrow
 interparticle gaps with subsequent strong optical interactions while
 allowing the analytes to diffuse inside the gaps, where gigantic electric
 fields are generated, as we have shown by directly measuring the SERS
 enhancement in the clusters. Our geometrical nanostructures not only open a
 new path for the investigation of optical interactions between
 nanoparticles, but they also have great potential for applications to
 sensing and nonlinear nanophotonics. snip

 In plain language, when nano-particles are packed together so that they
 touch in many places, the ability to downshift EMF from high frequency to a
 lower frequency is increased by 5000 times with the of the photon absorbed
 in the electric field between the nanoparticles.

  

 This article indicates that the electric field between nano-particles goes
 up exponentally with the number of particles that touch each other; and
 with associated radiation shilding.

 On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Recapitulating your famous quote as follows”

  

 “Many explanations have been proposed that are based on imagined ways
 energy could accumulate in sufficient amount in the chemical lattice to
 overcome the Coulomb barrier, either directly or as result of neutron
 formation. These processes also occasionally involve accumulation of extra
 electrons between the hydrogen nuclei as another way to hide the barrier.
 These suggestions ignore the severe limitations a chemical lattice imposes
 on energy accumulation and electron structure. Some proposed processes even
 ignore obvious conflicts with what has been observed. Consequently, none
 have been useful in directing future research or have achieved universal
 acceptance.”

 Recent work in nanoplasmonics  have demonstrated an electromagnetic field
 amplification of 700 times in enhancement.
 This amplification can be amplified through the strengthening of negative
 charge accumulated in the lattice as well as particle size resonance
 matching with the ambient heat of the system.

 Ed you basic assumptions about charge accumulation are now proven to be
 incorrect. Will you adjust your theory to reflect these new factors?

 These nanoplasmonic experimental techniques can be adapted directly to
 LENR research, Are you willing to run such experiments?

 

 On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 wrote:

 Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing coupling
 between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected based on local
 temperature and a photon flux. What more do you propose?

 ** **

 Ed

 ** **

 On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:



 

 Robin, 

 ** **

 The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in the
 MeV, not eV.  That is why I believe that there is a mutual interaction
 between individual NAE.  The local heat energy release is large and can not
 escape the area except through diffusion which is a slow process compared
 to the reaction time associated with nuclear effects.

 ** **

 This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many degrees
 Kelvin which should encourage

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-28 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:31:29 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
I may have calculated incorrectly, but I get a base resonant frequency for the
Ni atom in it's lattice of something like 4E11 Hz. This is obviously way more
than normal sound, but matches a photon frequency just below the bottom of the
IR, meaning that THz frequency thermal photons should be able to excite it
readily.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
You must be off in that calculation for some reason.  The kinetic energy due 
to temperature should give you a direct measure of the velocity.
Dave


What does the velocity due to thermal energy have to do with the resonant
frequency of atoms in the lattice? The atoms are in a rigid lattice. That means
that at least for small deviations from their current location, they are
harmonic oscillators. I derived the spring constant from the energy required to
cause the lattice to melt and the normal atomic spacing. Then I derived the
fundamental frequency from the spring constant and the mass of a Ni atom. The
frequency I got was 4E11 Hz.

Why is this wrong?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Because it is just wrong!  Kidding Robin.  Now I am confused a bit,  are you 
calculating that if I displaced an atom by a tiny amount and let go of it that 
it would begin to vibrate at that frequency as the energy damped out?  Maybe 
so, I was not thinking of that process.  I assumed that you were figuring out 
the vibrations due to the temperature of the metal.  If what you calculated is 
accurate then an incoming photon of that frequency would easily be absorbed by 
one of the atoms and start it vibrating in place.   Do you have any idea of how 
high the Q of the resonance would be?  You might find that energy is stolen 
away by the nearby atoms quickly.


It would be interesting if you could calculate a similar resonant frequency for 
the motion of just the nucleus.  Displace it slightly and allow it to wiggle 
back and forth within its electron cloud that is somewhat confined by the atoms 
surrounding it.  I wonder if a free atom in space exhibits a resonance of this 
nature?  One might think that in free space that the electrons would compensate 
for the nucleus movement so quickly that it would immediately radiate the 
energy.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 3:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:31:29 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
I may have calculated incorrectly, but I get a base resonant frequency for the
Ni atom in it's lattice of something like 4E11 Hz. This is obviously way more
than normal sound, but matches a photon frequency just below the bottom of the
IR, meaning that THz frequency thermal photons should be able to excite it
readily.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
You must be off in that calculation for some reason.  The kinetic energy due 
to 
temperature should give you a direct measure of the velocity.
Dave


What does the velocity due to thermal energy have to do with the resonant
frequency of atoms in the lattice? The atoms are in a rigid lattice. That means
that at least for small deviations from their current location, they are
harmonic oscillators. I derived the spring constant from the energy required to
cause the lattice to melt and the normal atomic spacing. Then I derived the
fundamental frequency from the spring constant and the mass of a Ni atom. The
frequency I got was 4E11 Hz.

Why is this wrong?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

I wonder if a free atom in space exhibits a resonance of this nature?

Look into the FANO resonance.

Cheers:   Axil

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Because it is just wrong!  Kidding Robin.  Now I am confused a bit,  are
 you calculating that if I displaced an atom by a tiny amount and let go of
 it that it would begin to vibrate at that frequency as the energy damped
 out?  Maybe so, I was not thinking of that process.  I assumed that you
 were figuring out the vibrations due to the temperature of the metal.  If
 what you calculated is accurate then an incoming photon of that frequency
 would easily be absorbed by one of the atoms and start it vibrating in
 place.   Do you have any idea of how high the Q of the resonance would be?
  You might find that energy is stolen away by the nearby atoms quickly.

  It would be interesting if you could calculate a similar resonant
 frequency for the motion of just the nucleus.  Displace it slightly and
 allow it to wiggle back and forth within its electron cloud that is
 somewhat confined by the atoms surrounding it.  I wonder if a free atom in
 space exhibits a resonance of this nature?  One might think that in free
 space that the electrons would compensate for the nucleus movement so
 quickly that it would immediately radiate the energy.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 3:05 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

  In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:31:29 -0500 
 (EST):
 Hi,
 [snip]
 I may have calculated incorrectly, but I get a base resonant frequency for 
 the
 Ni atom in it's lattice of something like 4E11 Hz. This is obviously way more
 than normal sound, but matches a photon frequency just below the bottom of 
 the
 IR, meaning that THz frequency thermal photons should be able to excite it
 readily.
 [snip]
 Regards,
 
 Robin van Spaandonk
 
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
 You must be off in that calculation for some reason.  The kinetic energy due 
 to
 temperature should give you a direct measure of the velocity.
 Dave
 
 
 What does the velocity due to thermal energy have to do with the resonant
 frequency of atoms in the lattice? The atoms are in a rigid lattice. That 
 means
 that at least for small deviations from their current location, they are
 harmonic oscillators. I derived the spring constant from the energy required 
 to
 cause the lattice to melt and the normal atomic spacing. Then I derived the
 fundamental frequency from the spring constant and the mass of a Ni atom. The
 frequency I got was 4E11 Hz.

 Why is this wrong?

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

FANO?  Is that a yes to my question?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

I wonder if a free atom in space exhibits a resonance of this nature?

Look into the FANO resonance.

Cheers:   Axil

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Because it is just wrong!  Kidding Robin.  Now I am confused a bit,  are you 
calculating that if I displaced an atom by a tiny amount and let go of it that 
it would begin to vibrate at that frequency as the energy damped out?  Maybe 
so, I was not thinking of that process.  I assumed that you were figuring out 
the vibrations due to the temperature of the metal.  If what you calculated is 
accurate then an incoming photon of that frequency would easily be absorbed by 
one of the atoms and start it vibrating in place.   Do you have any idea of how 
high the Q of the resonance would be?  You might find that energy is stolen 
away by the nearby atoms quickly.

It would be interesting if you could calculate a similar resonant frequency for 
the motion of just the nucleus.  Displace it slightly and allow it to wiggle 
back and forth within its electron cloud that is somewhat confined by the atoms 
surrounding it.  I wonder if a free atom in space exhibits a resonance of this 
nature?  One might think that in free space that the electrons would compensate 
for the nucleus movement so quickly that it would immediately radiate the 
energy.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 3:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:31:29 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
I may have calculated incorrectly, but I get a base resonant frequency for the
Ni atom in it's lattice of something like 4E11 Hz. This is obviously way more
than normal sound, but matches a photon frequency just below the bottom of the
IR, meaning that THz frequency thermal photons should be able to excite it
readily.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
You must be off in that calculation for some reason.  The kinetic energy due 
to 
temperature should give you a direct measure of the velocity.
Dave

What does the velocity due to thermal energy have to do with the resonant
frequency of atoms in the lattice? The atoms are in a rigid lattice. That means
that at least for small deviations from their current location, they are
harmonic oscillators. I derived the spring constant from the energy required to
cause the lattice to melt and the normal atomic spacing. Then I derived the
fundamental frequency from the spring constant and the mass of a Ni atom. The
frequency I got was 4E11 Hz.

Why is this wrong?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

The answer is yes if the atoms are excited and take the form of dipoles.

Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 FANO?  Is that a yes to my question?

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 4:47 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

  I wonder if a free atom in space exhibits a resonance of this nature?

 Look into the FANO resonance.

 Cheers:   Axil

  On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Because it is just wrong!  Kidding Robin.  Now I am confused a bit,  are
 you calculating that if I displaced an atom by a tiny amount and let go of
 it that it would begin to vibrate at that frequency as the energy damped
 out?  Maybe so, I was not thinking of that process.  I assumed that you
 were figuring out the vibrations due to the temperature of the metal.  If
 what you calculated is accurate then an incoming photon of that frequency
 would easily be absorbed by one of the atoms and start it vibrating in
 place.   Do you have any idea of how high the Q of the resonance would be?
  You might find that energy is stolen away by the nearby atoms quickly.

  It would be interesting if you could calculate a similar resonant
 frequency for the motion of just the nucleus.  Displace it slightly and
 allow it to wiggle back and forth within its electron cloud that is
 somewhat confined by the atoms surrounding it.  I wonder if a free atom in
 space exhibits a resonance of this nature?  One might think that in free
 space that the electrons would compensate for the nucleus movement so
 quickly that it would immediately radiate the energy.

  Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 3:05 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

   In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:31:29 -0500 
 (EST):
 Hi,
 [snip]
 I may have calculated incorrectly, but I get a base resonant frequency for 
 the
 Ni atom in it's lattice of something like 4E11 Hz. This is obviously way 
 more
 than normal sound, but matches a photon frequency just below the bottom of 
 the
 IR, meaning that THz frequency thermal photons should be able to excite it
 readily.
 [snip]
 Regards,
 
 Robin van Spaandonk
 
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
 You must be off in that calculation for some reason.  The kinetic energy 
 due to
 temperature should give you a direct measure of the velocity.
 Dave
 
 
 What does the velocity due to thermal energy have to do with the resonant
 frequency of atoms in the lattice? The atoms are in a rigid lattice. That 
 means
 that at least for small deviations from their current location, they are
 harmonic oscillators. I derived the spring constant from the energy required 
 to
 cause the lattice to melt and the normal atomic spacing. Then I derived the
 fundamental frequency from the spring constant and the mass of a Ni atom. The
 frequency I got was 4E11 Hz.

 Why is this wrong?

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

http://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjnano/single/articleFullText.htm?publicId=2190-4286-3-97

This is how you can build nanowires

Cheers: Axil

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Recapitulating your famous quote as follows”

“Many explanations have been proposed that are based on imagined ways
energy could accumulate in sufficient amount in the chemical lattice to
overcome the Coulomb barrier, either directly or as result of neutron
formation. These processes also occasionally involve accumulation of extra
electrons between the hydrogen nuclei as another way to hide the barrier.
These suggestions ignore the severe limitations a chemical lattice imposes
on energy accumulation and electron structure. Some proposed processes even
ignore obvious conflicts with what has been observed. Consequently, none
have been useful in directing future research or have achieved universal
acceptance.”

Recent work in nanoplasmonics have demonstrated an electromagnetic field
amplification of 700 times in enhancement.
This amplification can be amplified through the strengthening of negative
charge accumulated in the lattice as well as particle size resonance
matching with the ambient heat of the system.

Ed you basic assumptions about charge accumulation are now proven to be
incorrect. Will you adjust your theory to reflect these new factors?

Perhaps when I agree with your conclusion I will make a change. However, I
do not agree and the charge accumulation is not important to the present
level.. As for running experiments, I have done this for years but now I
trying to understand what the experiments mean. I have concluded that
effective experiments will require equipment I do not have. I'm looking
for ways to get access to such equipment.

These nanoplasmonic experimental techniques can be adapted directly to
LENR research, Are you willing to run such experiments?

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing coupling
between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected based on local
temperature and a photon flux. What more do you propose?

On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Robin,

The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in the
MeV, not eV. That is why I believe that there is a mutual interaction
between individual NAE. The local heat energy release is large and can not
escape the area except through diffusion which is a slow process compared
to the reaction time associated with nuclear effects.

This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many
degrees Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if we assume
a positive temperature coefficient for LENR.

Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will
continue until completion. My suggested addition is a system level
coupling that will now explain other observations. When an addition
improves a theory, it should be incorporated into an improved one. Now we
can consider the behavior of a device exhibiting LENR as being composed of
two different type of responses. The first is the original one where NAE
generate copious amounts of energy as the elements within fuse. The
addition explains craters and hot spots which are hypothesized to be
associated with the density of the NAE sites.

So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist between
NAE and a couple of good examples that suggest that this is happening. We
should seek out unusual behavior that does not meet expected performance
and attempt to explain the discrepancy. Do you know of any evidence that
coupling between active regions does not exist?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
You ask several questions at the same time. The LENR process requires
energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall
process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other
words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and
releases its energy. Consequently, the initiation reaction will
become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form. This
energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or
any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction. The
important information comes from identifying the rate limiting step so
that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This requires a
theory.

At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount of heat

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-28 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:44:14 -0500 (EST):
Hi Dave,
[snip]
Because it is just wrong!  Kidding Robin.  Now I am confused a bit,  are you 
calculating that if I displaced an atom by a tiny amount and let go of it that 
it would begin to vibrate at that frequency as the energy damped out?  

Yes.

Maybe so, I was not thinking of that process.  I assumed that you were 
figuring out the vibrations due to the temperature of the metal.  If what you 
calculated is accurate then an incoming photon of that frequency would easily 
be absorbed by one of the atoms and start it vibrating in place.   

Precisely. And heat has an appropriate frequency. Most sound waves OTOH do not.
In fact they are off by many orders of magnitude. Hence my suspicion that this
is the reason for the difference in speed between sound and heat in a solid.

Do you have any idea of how high the Q of the resonance would be?  You might 
find that energy is stolen away by the nearby atoms quickly.

I think measuring the speed of heat transport in the solid answers that
question, since that's exactly what's happening when heat spreads. I.e. energy
is transferred to other atoms. The Q must be pretty high, since the speed of
heat spread is usually very low, except in metals where it is also spread by
free electrons.



It would be interesting if you could calculate a similar resonant frequency 
for the motion of just the nucleus.  
Displace it slightly and allow it to wiggle back and forth within its electron 
cloud that is somewhat confined by the atoms surrounding it.  

99.975% of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus, so this *is* essentially what
I calculated. 
Since the nucleus is effectively suspended friction free in a mesh of electric
fields (think springs), that explains why the Q is so high.

I wonder if a free atom in space exhibits a resonance of this nature?  One 
might think that in free space that the electrons would compensate for the 
nucleus movement so quickly that it would immediately radiate the energy.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-28 Thread mixent

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:11:33 -0800:
Hi Eric,

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. If an explosion occurs inside the
lattice, heat from it will spread out spherically in all directions, melting the
metal as it goes. Where this sphere intersects the surface of the metal, a hole
will form, releasing the pressure of the explosion, and the plasma, vaporized
and molten metal, will all go in that direction, expanding as it goes, and
producing a more or less conical crater, unless it is already very close to the
surface, in which case it may just blow part of the surface away leaving a gap.

[snip]
I'm not sure how explosives shielded by tamper work, but the crater
pictures look a little like that to me.  It looks like there is a small
volume that turns to liquid and then possibly gas at a rate faster than the
surrounding material, creating an expanding volume.  The craters we see
point outward from the surface of the substrate, and I would expect the
surface side of the molten volume to exert less pressure on the volume than
the opposing side.  This in turn leads an eruption away from the inner wall
and towards the surface.  In this model, the momenta of the original
sources of heat do not play a part.

Eric
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

This is an interesting discussion Robin.  I have worked with resonances for 
many years in radio design so I see parallel behavior.  It is quite common to 
drive a system with frequencies that are below the resonance and obtain the 
driven response.  You can start at essentially zero hertz and work your way up 
as long as you can figure a way to couple to the system.  I believe we would 
agree that normal heating of a system of metal atoms results in their vibration 
at a random average rate.  The magnitude of the vibration should be 
proportional to the temperature which is then proportional to the average 
kinetic energy of the atoms.


Until I considered what you just wrote, I had not given much thought to the 
coupling between the electrons in orbitals and the nucleus of the atoms.  How 
tightly are they actually connected when in a metal crystal?  I can see how it 
might be possible to obtain a very large Q if the nucleus is weakly restrained 
by the electrons.  The spring analogy is a good one and it is interesting that 
you were able to obtain a spring constant equivalent for the mass to stretch 
and relax as it moves up and down, etc.  How do you calculate a loss factor 
that damps the vibration?  And, if the losses of each atom associated with the 
metal are very small, then there would be a lot of coupling occurring between 
nearby atoms.  In radio design, you can reduce the actual coupling coefficient 
between two resonant tanks as the Q of each rises and still have the ability to 
transfer a large amount of energy between them.  This is a common practice in 
band pass filter design.


If the coupling between nearby atoms is adequate for the Q then we should see a 
large amount of energy being transferred in the vicinity of the resonances.  
That would be a good way to drive the metal into a frenzy.


I am trying to visualize your explanation as to the difference between heat and 
sound wave movement in materials.  I am not convinced that there is a big 
difference.  Normal random heating must occur as kinetic energy and linear 
momentum is propagated into an adjacent region.  Take as example the toy 
composed of hanging steel balls.  Assume that they are a little separated in 
distance instead of physically touching.  The first ball would hit the next one 
in the line and it would come to a complete stop while the new one continues 
with all the momentum and kinetic energy forward.  This ball would collide with 
the next one on down the line.  In this case the energy would move as fast as 
the beginning ball onward.  Could we consider this as heat energy?  I think so 
since it represents kinetic energy of the ball which could be scaled up with 
more of the same to represent a higher temperature.


That simple model appears to clarify the issue.  Notice that the energy and 
momentum was directed away from the source ball at a rapid pace which seems to 
far exceed what we normally think of as heat transfer.  Now, I think that this 
is indeed exactly how it works.  This is only one half of the system and the 
other half is energy being directed back towards the original heat source.  How 
interesting.


Now I understand why the thermal gradient is what drives the transfer of heat 
from a hot to cold region.  The kinetic energy of the hot particles is 
continually being directed outwards and meanwhile energy is returning from the 
other direction.   The hot regions sends a larger quantity of heat outward than 
it recovers and the difference between these two processes can be represented 
as the temperature gradient.  Heat does not generally move at full speed as in 
the toy case because there are a multitude of balls(atoms) that share the 
momentum among themselves with collisions.   The total momentum and kinetic 
energy moves outwards, but it spreads out into the total metal matrix and does 
not move as a strongly coordinated wave.


Sound on the other hand is coordinated.  For the toy analogy you can think of a 
sound wave as being the result of a surface containing a large number of the 
toys that are driven in a coordinated manner so that the motion continues with 
minimal spreading.  In this case, the overall motion consists of parallel 
compression waves moving in one direction.  Sound waves are thus coordinated in 
time and space while heat is not.  Sound can therefore move at the maximum 
speed throughout the material while heat has to randomly spread forward which 
is much slower.


Forgive me for the thinking process that proceeded as I was writing.  Sometimes 
it is important to follow how a thought is formulated.


I think this understanding I just visualized is a fairly good description of 
the physics behind the two processes.  What do you think Robin?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 28 Feb

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

 think
 Robin?

  Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 8:24 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

  In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:44:14 -0500 
 (EST):
 Hi Dave,
 [snip]
 Because it is just wrong!  Kidding Robin.  Now I am confused a bit,  are you
 calculating that if I displaced an atom by a tiny amount and let go of it that
 it would begin to vibrate at that frequency as the energy damped out?

 Yes.

 Maybe so, I was not thinking of that process.  I assumed that you were 
 figuring
 out the vibrations due to the temperature of the metal.  If what you 
 calculated
 is accurate then an incoming photon of that frequency would easily be absorbed
 by one of the atoms and start it vibrating in place.

 Precisely. And heat has an appropriate frequency. Most sound waves OTOH do 
 not.
 In fact they are off by many orders of magnitude. Hence my suspicion that 
 this
 is the reason for the difference in speed between sound and heat in a solid.

 Do you have any idea of how high the Q of the resonance would be?  You might
 find that energy is stolen away by the nearby atoms quickly.

 I think measuring the speed of heat transport in the solid answers that
 question, since that's exactly what's happening when heat spreads. I.e. energy
 is transferred to other atoms. The Q must be pretty high, since the speed of
 heat spread is usually very low, except in metals where it is also spread by
 free electrons.

 It would be interesting if you could calculate a similar resonant frequency 
 for
 the motion of just the nucleus.
 Displace it slightly and allow it to wiggle back and forth within its 
 electron
 cloud that is somewhat confined by the atoms surrounding it.

 99.975% of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus, so this *is* essentially 
 what
 I calculated.
 Since the nucleus is effectively suspended friction free in a mesh of electric
 fields (think springs), that explains why the Q is so high.

 I wonder if a free atom in space exhibits a resonance of this nature?  One
 might think that in free space that the electrons would compensate for the
 nucleus movement so quickly that it would immediately radiate the energy.
 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

I think we should be considering a heat source that is distributed in this 
case.  An earlier post I just wrote might help explain how a heat pulse could 
progress in a conic form.  The coordinated addition of many thousands of 
individual fusion events might well lead to this result.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 12:30 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:11:33 -0800:
Hi Eric,

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. If an explosion occurs inside the
lattice, heat from it will spread out spherically in all directions, melting the
metal as it goes. Where this sphere intersects the surface of the metal, a hole
will form, releasing the pressure of the explosion, and the plasma, vaporized
and molten metal, will all go in that direction, expanding as it goes, and
producing a more or less conical crater, unless it is already very close to the
surface, in which case it may just blow part of the surface away leaving a gap.

[snip]
I'm not sure how explosives shielded by tamper work, but the crater
pictures look a little like that to me.  It looks like there is a small
volume that turns to liquid and then possibly gas at a rate faster than the
surrounding material, creating an expanding volume.  The craters we see
point outward from the surface of the substrate, and I would expect the
surface side of the molten volume to exert less pressure on the volume than
the opposing side.  This in turn leads an eruption away from the inner wall
and towards the surface.  In this model, the momenta of the original
sources of heat do not play a part.

Eric
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-28 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

How tightly are they actually connected when in a metal crystal?  I can see
 how it might be possible to obtain a very large Q if the nucleus is weakly
 restrained by the electrons.  The spring analogy is a good one and it is
 interesting that you were able to obtain a spring constant equivalent for
 the mass to stretch and relax as it moves up and down, etc.


We should not make the connections between lattice points too loose, or our
rigid metal sheet will turn into rubber.  It seems like a single metallic
bond between two metal atoms may allow for some springy movement, but I'm
guessing that the Brillouin zone as a whole will be somewhat rigid.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Concentrate on the electrons. Heat will cause the electrons to vibrate.
This couple is how the resonance comes into play.

In a dipole the ions are ridgid but the electrons can move.

Cheers:   axil

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:27 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I think we should be considering a heat source that is distributed in this
 case.  An earlier post I just wrote might help explain how a heat pulse
 could progress in a conic form.  The coordinated addition of many thousands
 of individual fusion events might well lead to this result.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 12:30 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

  In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:11:33 -0800:
 Hi Eric,

 I think you may have hit the nail on the head. If an explosion occurs inside 
 the
 lattice, heat from it will spread out spherically in all directions, melting 
 the
 metal as it goes. Where this sphere intersects the surface of the metal, a 
 hole
 will form, releasing the pressure of the explosion, and the plasma, vaporized
 and molten metal, will all go in that direction, expanding as it goes, and
 producing a more or less conical crater, unless it is already very close to 
 the
 surface, in which case it may just blow part of the surface away leaving a 
 gap.

 [snip]
 I'm not sure how explosives shielded by tamper work, but the crater
 pictures look a little like that to me.  It looks like there is a small
 volume that turns to liquid and then possibly gas at a rate faster than the
 surrounding material, creating an expanding volume.  The craters we see
 point outward from the surface of the substrate, and I would expect the
 surface side of the molten volume to exert less pressure on the volume than
 the opposing side.  This in turn leads an eruption away from the inner wall
 and towards the surface.  In this model, the momenta of the original
 sources of heat do not play a part.
 
 Eric
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Are you suggesting that the electrons can be toyed with very easily, but the 
nucleus is more rigidly locked into place by the electron fields?  I hope there 
is some strength to the system.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 2:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


Concentrate on the electrons. Heat will cause the electrons to vibrate. This 
couple is how the resonance comes into play.
 
In a dipole the ions are ridgid but the electrons can move.
 
Cheers:   axil


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:27 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I think we should be considering a heat source that is distributed in this 
case.  An earlier post I just wrote might help explain how a heat pulse could 
progress in a conic form.  The coordinated addition of many thousands of 
individual fusion events might well lead to this result.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 12:30 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV




In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:11:33 -0800:
Hi Eric,

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. If an explosion occurs inside the
lattice, heat from it will spread out spherically in all directions, melting the
metal as it goes. Where this sphere intersects the surface of the metal, a hole
will form, releasing the pressure of the explosion, and the plasma, vaporized
and molten metal, will all go in that direction, expanding as it goes, and
producing a more or less conical crater, unless it is already very close to the
surface, in which case it may just blow part of the surface away leaving a gap.

[snip]
I'm not sure how explosives shielded by tamper work, but the crater
pictures look a little like that to me.  It looks like there is a small
volume that turns to liquid and then possibly gas at a rate faster than the
surrounding material, creating an expanding volume.  The craters we see
point outward from the surface of the substrate, and I would expect the
surface side of the molten volume to exert less pressure on the volume than
the opposing side.  This in turn leads an eruption away from the inner wall
and towards the surface.  In this model, the momenta of the original
sources of heat do not play a part.

Eric
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:41 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Are you suggesting that the electrons can be toyed with very easily,


Yes


 but the nucleus is more rigidly locked into place by the electron fields?


not all the electrons are needed to do this locking, valence  electrons in
a dipole can be played with


  I hope there is some strength to the system.




the plasmon is a first step to LENR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-27 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:58:53 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
I was thinking about the penetration dept of alphas and I am pleased that you 
looked into that.  Perhaps it is time to do further checking into whether or 
not they are associated with the hot spots.


Robin, do you have time to make a quick calculation of the density of the 
nuclear reactions taking place within one of the craters?  You could start 
with your 10,000 reactions and compare that to the volume and thus number of 
atoms of Pd to see how common the active sites are as compared to the general 
metal matrix.  We might be able to take this number and effectively see how 
much energy would be available per atom for a trigger if spread evenly, 
although you may have already performed this calculation with the melting 
figure.  I am attempting to see if the trigger would be too weak unless it 
comes in a small package which would tend to support the alpha or proton type 
of particle.


The cone shape does strongly suggest that a particle type of ignition is 
occurring which propagates along the main momentum direction.   I find it 
interesting that there also appears to be a coordination among the trigger and 
the responding sites so that the effect proceeds in a well defined direction 
again somewhat like a laser.

...it may not necessarily be nuclear. A Hydrino amplification reaction would
produce about 6 times more energy than it consumes, with each reaction yielding
from 100's to 1000's of eV. Such a reaction would tend to propagate in a line,
due to conservation of momentum.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-27 Thread David Roberson

That is a possibility as well.  I still need to convince myself that hydrinos 
are possible before I can accept that reality.


The Q pulses generated by one LENR group behave somewhat similar to what we 
would be generating with our large mechanical kicks.  I am coming to the 
realization that heat is actually sound that is of a random nature instead of 
directed.  They both can be represented by kinetic energy and momentum of 
particles.  Add the fact that a shockwave is also of this nature and I suspect 
that some pieces of the puzzle might fall into place.  Heat equals random 
kinetic energy of particles.  Shockwaves and sound waves are directed forms.  
Hum.


I started looking into detonation waves and shaped charges to get some more 
ideas.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 3:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:58:53 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
I was thinking about the penetration dept of alphas and I am pleased that you 
looked into that.  Perhaps it is time to do further checking into whether or 
not 
they are associated with the hot spots.


Robin, do you have time to make a quick calculation of the density of the 
nuclear reactions taking place within one of the craters?  You could start with 
your 10,000 reactions and compare that to the volume and thus number of atoms 
of 
Pd to see how common the active sites are as compared to the general metal 
matrix.  We might be able to take this number and effectively see how much 
energy would be available per atom for a trigger if spread evenly, although you 
may have already performed this calculation with the melting figure.  I am 
attempting to see if the trigger would be too weak unless it comes in a small 
package which would tend to support the alpha or proton type of particle.


The cone shape does strongly suggest that a particle type of ignition is 
occurring which propagates along the main momentum direction.   I find it 
interesting that there also appears to be a coordination among the trigger and 
the responding sites so that the effect proceeds in a well defined direction 
again somewhat like a laser.

...it may not necessarily be nuclear. A Hydrino amplification reaction would
produce about 6 times more energy than it consumes, with each reaction yielding
from 100's to 1000's of eV. Such a reaction would tend to propagate in a line,
due to conservation of momentum.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-27 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:42:42 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
That is a possibility as well.  I still need to convince myself that hydrinos 
are possible before I can accept that reality.

They may not be, but if they were, it would explain a lot. :)


The Q pulses generated by one LENR group behave somewhat similar to what we 
would be generating with our large mechanical kicks.  I am coming to the 
realization that heat is actually sound that is of a random nature instead of 
directed.  

I used to think that too, but have been wondering about the difference in the
speed of sound in solids compared to that of heat. Sound travels at thousands of
meters/sec, while heat travels at mere mm/sec.

Perhaps sound travels faster because the phonons don't have enough energy to
excite the atoms, so they don't get absorbed and just pass from one to the next.
IOW if there were a resonant energy level in the atom, then they would get
absorbed and wouldn't travel nearly so well. Since heat has a much higher
frequency, it can find matching resonances much more easily.

I may have calculated incorrectly, but I get a base resonant frequency for the
Ni atom in it's lattice of something like 4E11 Hz. This is obviously way more
than normal sound, but matches a photon frequency just below the bottom of the
IR, meaning that THz frequency thermal photons should be able to excite it
readily.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-27 Thread David Roberson




Hi,
[snip]
That is a possibility as well.  I still need to convince myself that hydrinos 
are possible before I can accept that reality.

They may not be, but if they were, it would explain a lot. :)


The Q pulses generated by one LENR group behave somewhat similar to what we 
would be generating with our large mechanical kicks.  I am coming to the 
realization that heat is actually sound that is of a random nature instead of 
directed.  

I used to think that too, but have been wondering about the difference in the
speed of sound in solids compared to that of heat. Sound travels at thousands of
meters/sec, while heat travels at mere mm/sec.
One thing to consider Robin.  Have you seen the speed that tidal waves travel 
in the open ocean?  This can be hundreds of miles per hour.  Water surface 
waves are far slower, so perhaps there is a a process that operates in a 
somewhat similar manner for the sound waves.  Shock waves in materials, 
especially gases can be much faster than the normal compression sound waves.
I am missing the mathematical understanding of why both types of ocean waves 
exist at the same time, but appear much different in behavior.  Is the math 
similar for heat and sound waves?  This is a good issue to work upon.

Perhaps sound travels faster because the phonons don't have enough energy to
excite the atoms, so they don't get absorbed and just pass from one to the next.
IOW if there were a resonant energy level in the atom, then they would get
absorbed and wouldn't travel nearly so well. Since heat has a much higher
frequency, it can find matching resonances much more easily.
It just seems that the transfer of momentum would happen on contact between 
atoms which should be fast in solids or liquids.  I can see why gas would pass 
sound slower due to the transit time between collisions.  It just seems that we 
are speaking of the same type of activity in both heat and sound.  Kinetic 
energy and momentum must be involved at the atomic level.

I may have calculated incorrectly, but I get a base resonant frequency for the
Ni atom in it's lattice of something like 4E11 Hz. This is obviously way more
than normal sound, but matches a photon frequency just below the bottom of the
IR, meaning that THz frequency thermal photons should be able to excite it
readily.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
You must be off in that calculation for some reason.  The kinetic energy due to 
temperature should give you a direct measure of the velocity.
Dave

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-27 Thread Axil Axil

http://nanophotonics.csic.es/static/publications/pdfs/paper203.pdf
Organized plasmonic clusters with high coordination number and
extraordinary enhancement in surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)



snipIn summary, we have shown that by using PF68 coating and emulsion
clustering it is possible to produce plasmonic nanoparticle molecules with
high symmetry and coordination index, and that they can be separated by
applying density gradient centrifugation. PF68 produces narrow
interparticle gaps with subsequent strong optical interactions while
allowing the analytes to diffuse inside the gaps, where gigantic electric
fields are generated, as we have shown by directly measuring the SERS
enhancement in the clusters. Our geometrical nanostructures not only open a
new path for the investigation of optical interactions between
nanoparticles, but they also have great potential for applications to
sensing and nonlinear nanophotonics. snip
In plain language, when nano-particles are packed together so that they
touch in many places, the ability to downshift EMF from high frequency to a
lower frequency is increased by 5000 times with the of the photon absorbed
in the electric field between the nanoparticles.

This article indicates that the electric field between nano-particles goes
up exponentally with the number of particles that touch each other; and
with associated radiation shilding.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Recapitulating your famous quote as follows”



 “Many explanations have been proposed that are based on imagined ways
 energy could accumulate in sufficient amount in the chemical lattice to
 overcome the Coulomb barrier, either directly or as result of neutron
 formation. These processes also occasionally involve accumulation of extra
 electrons between the hydrogen nuclei as another way to hide the barrier.
 These suggestions ignore the severe limitations a chemical lattice imposes
 on energy accumulation and electron structure. Some proposed processes even
 ignore obvious conflicts with what has been observed. Consequently, none
 have been useful in directing future research or have achieved universal
 acceptance.”

 Recent work in nanoplasmonics  have demonstrated an electromagnetic field
 amplification of 700 times in enhancement.
 This amplification can be amplified through the strengthening of negative
 charge accumulated in the lattice as well as particle size resonance
 matching with the ambient heat of the system.

 Ed you basic assumptions about charge accumulation are now proven to be
 incorrect. Will you adjust your theory to reflect these new factors?

 These nanoplasmonic experimental techniques can be adapted directly to
 LENR research, Are you willing to run such experiments?


 On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing coupling
 between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected based on local
 temperature and a photon flux. What more do you propose?

 Ed

 On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:

 Robin,

  The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in the
 MeV, not eV.  That is why I believe that there is a mutual interaction
 between individual NAE.  The local heat energy release is large and can not
 escape the area except through diffusion which is a slow process compared
 to the reaction time associated with nuclear effects.

  This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many
 degrees Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if we assume
 a positive temperature coefficient for LENR.

  Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will
 continue until completion.   My suggested addition is a system level
 coupling that will now explain other observations.  When an addition
 improves a theory, it should be incorporated into an improved one.  Now we
 can consider the behavior of a device exhibiting LENR as being composed of
 two different type of responses.  The first is the original one where NAE
 generate copious amounts of energy as the elements within fuse.  The
 addition explains craters and hot spots which are hypothesized to be
 associated with the density of the NAE sites.

  So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist between
 NAE and a couple of good examples that suggest that this is happening.  We
 should seek out unusual behavior that does not meet expected performance
 and attempt to explain the discrepancy.  Do you know of any evidence that
 coupling between active regions does not exist?

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

  In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process requires

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-27 Thread Axil Axil

 that
 coupling between active regions does not exist?

  Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

  In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process requires
 energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall
 process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other
 words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
 initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and
 releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will
 become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This
 energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or
 any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.  The
 important information comes from identifying the rate limiting step so
 that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This requires a
 theory.

 At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount of heat
 energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best matches 
 this
 is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed to 
 match the
 difference in energy between the energy hole of Hydrinos, and the energy
 hole provided by many common catalysts.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-26 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:48:22 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
I see what you refer to and this may be an important piece of the puzzle.  The 
main thing that concerns me is that we should be able to see the fast moving 
energetic particles outside the material.

Most experiments are done inside solid containers. Alpha particles, have a range
in solids of approx. 10 microns, protons somewhat more than alphas but still not
much. 10 microns is a fraction of the thickness of a human hair. Nothing will
make it out of a container. In experiments that worked where CR-39 was used as
the detector inside the cell, fast particles have been detected.
Even beta particles wouldn't make it out of a container. However they would
create some bremsstrahlung which should be detected.

In early experiments, some experimenters checked for glow in the dark. None
was found, though few early experiments actually worked. Perhaps now that more
are successful, it's time to check again.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-26 Thread David Roberson

I was thinking about the penetration dept of alphas and I am pleased that you 
looked into that.  Perhaps it is time to do further checking into whether or 
not they are associated with the hot spots.


Robin, do you have time to make a quick calculation of the density of the 
nuclear reactions taking place within one of the craters?  You could start with 
your 10,000 reactions and compare that to the volume and thus number of atoms 
of Pd to see how common the active sites are as compared to the general metal 
matrix.  We might be able to take this number and effectively see how much 
energy would be available per atom for a trigger if spread evenly, although you 
may have already performed this calculation with the melting figure.  I am 
attempting to see if the trigger would be too weak unless it comes in a small 
package which would tend to support the alpha or proton type of particle.


The cone shape does strongly suggest that a particle type of ignition is 
occurring which propagates along the main momentum direction.   I find it 
interesting that there also appears to be a coordination among the trigger and 
the responding sites so that the effect proceeds in a well defined direction 
again somewhat like a laser.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 26, 2013 2:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:48:22 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
I see what you refer to and this may be an important piece of the puzzle.  The 
main thing that concerns me is that we should be able to see the fast moving 
energetic particles outside the material.

Most experiments are done inside solid containers. Alpha particles, have a range
in solids of approx. 10 microns, protons somewhat more than alphas but still not
much. 10 microns is a fraction of the thickness of a human hair. Nothing will
make it out of a container. In experiments that worked where CR-39 was used as
the detector inside the cell, fast particles have been detected.
Even beta particles wouldn't make it out of a container. However they would
create some bremsstrahlung which should be detected.

In early experiments, some experimenters checked for glow in the dark. None
was found, though few early experiments actually worked. Perhaps now that more
are successful, it's time to check again.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-26 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


  The cone shape does strongly suggest that a particle type of ignition is
 occurring which propagates along the main momentum direction.   I find it
 interesting that there also appears to be a coordination among the trigger
 and the responding sites so that the effect proceeds in a well defined
 direction again somewhat like a laser.


I'm not sure how explosives shielded by tamper work, but the crater
pictures look a little like that to me.  It looks like there is a small
volume that turns to liquid and then possibly gas at a rate faster than the
surrounding material, creating an expanding volume.  The craters we see
point outward from the surface of the substrate, and I would expect the
surface side of the molten volume to exert less pressure on the volume than
the opposing side.  This in turn leads an eruption away from the inner wall
and towards the surface.  In this model, the momenta of the original
sources of heat do not play a part.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-25 Thread Edmund Storms

  
my already have that knowledge and their input would be welcome.   
Should I also look into the path that a high speed projectile takes  
when it penetrates a solid material?  The shockwave emanating from  
one of these tends to take the form of the craters.


Well Ed, I see that your current theory and my hypothesis do not  
quite merge together as a whole.  If there is a way to speed up your  
reactions and get them to cooperate with their neighbors then that  
might become possible.


I see no basic difference. We are only nitpicking about details.

Ed


Dave

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:06 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Ed, I have been looking at the craters that have formed upon the  
surface of some of the earlier active experiments.  Also, Axil  
supplied a fine link that demonstrated hot spots being formed upon  
the surface of another system.  I can run down the picture  
reference if you wish, but I suspect that you are aware of these  
from previous studies.  Let me know.


I have seem all of this information.


The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable  
of doing this degree of damage and creating the relatively large  
heating associated with hot spots.


Dave, I see no question here. A single event CAN NOT do any damage.  
This is easy to show. The melting occurs only when the random  
collection of active sites exceeds a critical concentration in a  
local region, as I explain in detail below.


 It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR  
systems in a positive manner.  Elevated metal temperature is  
required to obtain any significant LENR and it is apparent that the  
higher the temperature of a device such as the ECAT, the more heat  
is produced.


Yes


My hypothesis can be proven wrong if it can be shown that there is  
no change in the quantity of energy released per larger event  
regardless of the density of NAE that are active in the material.   
So, if all of the craters can be formed by one or at most a couple  
of simultaneous fusion reactions, or the amount of heat appearing  
at the hot spots is only due to one,  then each is unrelated.  Here  
I refer to a fusion reaction as being due to the formation of one  
ash product instead of a chain of events due to the heating.


Does this suggest that you now accept the coupling hypothesis?   I  
recall that earlier you stated that each fusion event proceeded to  
completion and was not related to the others.


I need to be more clear here.  Millions of suitable cracks are  
present in an active material. Each one of these cracks supports a  
series of fusion reactions. The process starts by D accumulating and  
forming the required structure in the crack. The structure resonates  
until all energy is lost and the He forms. The He diffuses away and  
is replaced by D, and the process repeats. The total cycle time  
might be a few seconds for each active site. The sites are cycling  
in random sequence and the total power is the average of them all.  
No single site can produce enough energy to make any local change or  
even to be detected.  However, if by random chance a large number of  
sites are close together, this can release enough power to cause  
melting when all the cycles in this area scrutinize to a sufficient  
amount. If this happens, all active sites in this region are  
destroyed and further energy production at this local region stops.



When I first mentioned this idea you did not express a positive  
opinion of its merits.  It is good that we can now agree that this  
might be happening and should be an addition to the original theory.


My opinion was that I could see no benefit to using this process to  
explain anything - other than the explanation I had already imagined  
as I describe above.


One thing that needs to be clarified is that I am not speaking of  
the average temperature of the metal matrix in this description.   
That might be what you refer to as local.  I am addressing the  
instantaneous large spike that occurs and which diffuses into the  
average background temperature with time.  There is a large  
difference between the two.


You need to realize that the energy is not felt by the system as  
heat until the photons are absorbed. Most of these photons leave the  
sample and make heat in the electrolyte or in the wall of the  
container. Very little is absorbed locally at the active crack.  As  
I said, the process of heat formation is complex.  The individual  
active sites only experience the ambient temperature.  Local   
temperature at each site will be slightly greater than the average,  
but not excessive unless the concentration of sites at that local  
area is very high.


Is this clearer.

Ed


Dave


-Original Message

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-25 Thread Axil Axil

 for any melting to occur.  Consider that a large number of cracks
 form in one place. The fusion is then controlled by how fast the D can get
 to this region, which is determined by temperature and concentration of D
 in the surrounding PdD. The cracks start to produce energy slowly and the
 local area heats up, as seen by the flashes measured by Szpak et. al. The
 local area gets hotter, the D diffuses more rapidly, and the flash rate
 increases while becoming more intense each time.  Finally, the flash
 creates a local temperature that exceeds the melting point of the alloy on
 the surface, which has a value significantly below that of Pd. This melting
 causes a sudden release of gas that blows the liquid away. Yes, the sites
 interact, but through local temperature and diffusion. Because this local
 region can be less than a square micron in size, the description has to
 take the conditions present on this scale into account. On this scale, the
 surface is very complex.


  I need to consider how shaped charges behave to clarify my understanding
 of how my assumed process proceeds.  Someone in vortex my already have that
 knowledge and their input would be welcome.  Should I also look into the
 path that a high speed projectile takes when it penetrates a solid
 material?  The shockwave emanating from one of these tends to take the form
 of the craters.

  Well Ed, I see that your current theory and my hypothesis do not quite
 merge together as a whole.  If there is a way to speed up your reactions
 and get them to cooperate with their neighbors then that might become
 possible.


 I see no basic difference. We are only nitpicking about details.

 Ed


  Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 6:40 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


  On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:06 PM, David Roberson wrote:

 Ed, I have been looking at the craters that have formed upon the surface
 of some of the earlier active experiments.  Also, Axil supplied a fine link
 that demonstrated hot spots being formed upon the surface of another
 system.  I can run down the picture reference if you wish, but I suspect
 that you are aware of these from previous studies.  Let me know.


  I have seem all of this information.


  The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable of
 doing this degree of damage and creating the relatively large heating
 associated with hot spots.


  Dave, I see no question here. A single event CAN NOT do any damage. This
 is easy to show. The melting occurs only when the random collection of
 active sites exceeds a critical concentration in a local region, as I
 explain in detail below.

   It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR systems in
 a positive manner.  Elevated metal temperature is required to obtain any
 significant LENR and it is apparent that the higher the temperature of a
 device such as the ECAT, the more heat is produced.


  Yes


  My hypothesis can be proven wrong if it can be shown that there is no
 change in the quantity of energy released per larger event regardless of
 the density of NAE that are active in the material.  So, if all of the
 craters can be formed by one or at most a couple of simultaneous fusion
 reactions, or the amount of heat appearing at the hot spots is only due to
 one,  then each is unrelated.  Here I refer to a fusion reaction as being
 due to the formation of one ash product instead of a chain of events due to
 the heating.

  Does this suggest that you now accept the coupling hypothesis?   I
 recall that earlier you stated that each fusion event proceeded to
 completion and was not related to the others.


  I need to be more clear here.  Millions of suitable cracks are present
 in an active material. Each one of these cracks supports a series of fusion
 reactions. The process starts by D accumulating and forming the required
 structure in the crack. The structure resonates until all energy is lost
 and the He forms. The He diffuses away and is replaced by D, and the
 process repeats. The total cycle time might be a few seconds for each
 active site. The sites are cycling in random sequence and the total power
 is the average of them all. No single site can produce enough energy to
 make any local change or even to be detected.  However, if by random chance
 a large number of sites are close together, this can release enough power
 to cause melting when all the cycles in this area scrutinize to a
 sufficient amount. If this happens, all active sites in this region are
 destroyed and further energy production at this local region stops.


  When I first mentioned this idea you did not express a positive opinion
 of its merits.  It is good that we can now agree that this might be
 happening and should be an addition to the original theory.


  My opinion was that I could see

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

 as cratering phenomena using your individual reactions as a 
starting point.  I have brought the density of NAE into the equation in a way 
that allows for chain reactions to be explained which was lacking from the 
earlier discussions.


I consider this contribution as more than just nitpicking the details.  All of 
us need to operate as a team as we attempt to analyze the evidence before us.  
If we work together and realize that no one person is the sole innovator and 
ultimate source of ideas then the next few years should not be a repeat of the 
last decades and LENR will unravel before us.  So, lets all make an attempt to 
keep our minds open far enough to accept new ideas from sources beyond 
ourselves since it can not be known ahead of time what sparks will ignite a 
fire.


Dave







-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV




On Feb 24, 2013, at 6:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:


OK, I think I understand what you are describing after your detailed 
explanation.   Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears as though you are 
assuming that a random collection of individual events is leading to the crater 
formation and hot spots.  This is a possible cause and might indeed be the 
final explanation.  I see that you are still considering that the energy from 
each reaction is in the form of photons mainly which can penetrate fairly 
deeply into the metal.   The heat is released when the photons are absorbed at 
some remote location. 


Correct


 
 
That is what I remember you stating a few days ago.  I countered with a 
slightly different concept as I was discussing blue sky thinking.  I envision 
that the heat does not appear far removed from the reaction and therefore 
results in a large elevation to the temperature in the very nearby NAE.  On 
many occasions a random fusion occurs at one of your sites that does not cause 
adjacent sites to significantly accelerate their activity.  The probability of 
interaction instead is directly related to the density of NAE within the region 
according to my hypothesis.  I see now how this differs from your process since 
it appears that each of your reactions proceeds slowly and there would not be a 
large concentration of heat energy to diffuse.



I think we have a combination  of what you describe and my description. The 
photons are absorbed as they move from the source. The greatest heat is 
produced near the source with the energy release dropping off with distance.  
Consequently, some local heating will occur where the photon flux is greatest.

 

 
 
Do you think that the heating due to random addition of the events would be 
sufficient to cause the cratering and hot spots?  I am not sure about how many 
of these random happenings would have to be coincident for the release of 
sufficient heat energy to form one of those craters. 



The melted spots are rare. Most apparent craters are not from this cause, as I 
said. Most result from deposited impurities. 


 The appearance reminds me more of an explosion of some sort instead of a 
simple melting of the material. 


Please read:



Nagel, D., Characteristics and Energetics of Craters in LENR Experimental 
Materials J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 10. 1-14 (2013)


These craters you describe are from deposition of impurity.


  I suspect that a cone type shape does not originate from random melting of a 
bulk of material although I may be wrong.  And the dept of the initial cone tip 
seems out of range for liquid metal to originate.  These are the problems that 
I encounter when attempting to explain the size and shape of the end products.



You need to consider that several sources of apparent craters are possible. 

 

 
 
If you think of the reaction as being a form of chain reaction then the shapes 
make more sense.  There will generally be a single random triggered fusion 
reaction within the metal.   These must be occurring for the device to 
initially generate excess heat.  If, as I suspect, the adjacent NEA sites 
become triggered themselves then more heat is added to the mix.  An interesting 
observation comes to light.  Since the resulting structure has a cone shape, 
the suggestion becomes that the energy is released in that shape from each 
reaction.  This cone of energy spreads outward from initiation and encounters 
additional NAE in its path.  Many of these become triggered in some manner and 
the energy from them adds to the resulting cone shaped energy wave.  We would 
need to understand what process could lead to a cone shaped energy release if 
my hypothesis has any likelihood of success.



David, you are over thinking this process and ignoring much of what has to 
happen for any melting to occur.  Consider that a large number of cracks form 
in one place. The fusion is then controlled by how fast the D can get

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-25 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:06:28 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable of doing 
this degree of damage and creating the relatively large heating associated 
with hot spots.  It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR 
systems in a positive manner.  Elevated metal temperature is required to 
obtain any significant LENR and it is apparent that the higher the temperature 
of a device such as the ECAT, the more heat is produced.

Assuming a fairly typical crater is a cone with a radius of 1 micron, and a
depth of 2 microns, and a face centered cubic lattice (I used Ni), then such a
cone would contain about 2E11 Ni atoms. For a metal to melt, the kinetic energy
of the atoms needs to exceed the bond energy of the metal, so by calculating the
average kinetic energy associated with the melting point of the metal, we can
get a rough idea of the energy required to melt the material in the crater.
That works out to be 2E11 atoms x 0.233 eV / atom ~= 43000 MeV, or roughly 10
thousand fusion reactions.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Thanks Robin,


That is a good estimate of the melting energy and it demonstrates that a 
coordinated reaction is required in order to generate one of the crater events. 
 I hope that a chain reaction of this type will always proceed at a slow enough 
rate to limit the heat released to a safe value.  This overall process reminds 
me of the behavior of a laser medium.   It will emit continuous radiation when 
the pump energy is below a certain value, but a chain reaction begins in 
earnest once the system gain exceeds a threshold.  The activity and density of 
the NAE sets the effective system gain in the LENR case.  Here, the equivalent 
to lasing is the generation of hot spots and in the spectacular case, a crater.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 3:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:06:28 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable of doing 
this degree of damage and creating the relatively large heating associated with 
hot spots.  It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR 
systems 
in a positive manner.  Elevated metal temperature is required to obtain any 
significant LENR and it is apparent that the higher the temperature of a device 
such as the ECAT, the more heat is produced.

Assuming a fairly typical crater is a cone with a radius of 1 micron, and a
depth of 2 microns, and a face centered cubic lattice (I used Ni), then such a
cone would contain about 2E11 Ni atoms. For a metal to melt, the kinetic energy
of the atoms needs to exceed the bond energy of the metal, so by calculating the
average kinetic energy associated with the melting point of the metal, we can
get a rough idea of the energy required to melt the material in the crater.
That works out to be 2E11 atoms x 0.233 eV / atom ~= 43000 MeV, or roughly 10
thousand fusion reactions.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-25 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:26:49 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
The local heat energy release is large and can not escape the area except 
through diffusion which is a slow process compared to the reaction time 
associated with nuclear effects.

If the energy is released in the form of a fast particle, then it does not have
to depend on diffusion. A fast particle will rip through a lattice at high
speed, leaving a trail of ionized atoms in it's wake.

Note that if this fast particle then goes on to trigger other fusion reactions,
which also create fast particles, then you get a branching effect, the debris of
which looks like an inverted cone.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

I agree.  That is along the lines of what I was thinking since the linear 
momentum appears to encourage that to happen.  The angle of the cone shape is 
not quite so easy to determine as far as I know.


Are you aware of a method that can be used to establish the expected cone 
opening angle if the effect is due to particle interaction?   Here I am 
interchanging heat for kinetic energy of a particle that is being ejected.  I 
do not think that extremely energetic particles are being released since they 
would be easy to detect.  Perhaps the helium or other ash of the fusion event 
is ejected with only a fraction of the total energy at the conclusion of a 
reaction such as Ed's.  If most of the energy escaped as photons and only a 
smaller portion escaped with the fusion product, then all we need is enough 
initial energy in the particle to overcome the losses it encounters along its 
path as it seeks additional NAE sites to trigger.


If instead of a direct trigger by impact of the lower energy particle we depend 
upon the instantaneous elevated kinetic energy absorbed by the nearby sites 
then it is important to understand why the momentum continues in the same 
general direction for new reactions.  It appears as if the momentum from the 
projectile particle is in the correct direction, so the reactions of the NAE 
sites appear to follow its lead.  We know that laser emissions are in sync with 
the incoming wave front, so perhaps this is true for other systems.  This 
concept need to be fleshed out.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 10:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:26:49 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
The local heat energy release is large and can not escape the area except 
through diffusion which is a slow process compared to the reaction time 
associated with nuclear effects.

If the energy is released in the form of a fast particle, then it does not have
to depend on diffusion. A fast particle will rip through a lattice at high
speed, leaving a trail of ionized atoms in it's wake.

Note that if this fast particle then goes on to trigger other fusion reactions,
which also create fast particles, then you get a branching effect, the debris of
which looks like an inverted cone.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-25 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:01:17 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
If instead of a direct trigger by impact of the lower energy particle we 
depend upon the instantaneous elevated kinetic energy absorbed by the nearby 
sites then it is important to understand why the momentum continues in the 
same general direction for new reactions.  It appears as if the momentum from 
the projectile particle is in the correct direction, so the reactions of the 
NAE sites appear to follow its lead.  We know that laser emissions are in sync 
with the incoming wave front, so perhaps this is true for other systems.  This 
concept need to be fleshed out.

You don't need this if fast particles are the trigger. As I said previously, the
natural branching will automatically lead to a cone shape, because more energy
is released at the end than at the start (more reactions at the end), and it
increases as it goes from start to end. The actual angle of the cone will depend
on how many new events an originating event triggers on average. If the number
is small, then you end up with a deep narrow cone. If large, then a wide shallow
one.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

I see what you refer to and this may be an important piece of the puzzle.  The 
main thing that concerns me is that we should be able to see the fast moving 
energetic particles outside the material.


Do you recall reports of high energy radiation emerging from the crater type 
regions or possibly hot spots?  If these are not measured then we would need an 
explanation as to why this is true.


Presently, I am attempting to see if it is possible to define away the problem 
by eliminating the high energy particles and replacing them with low energy 
ones.   If I recall the video that showed the hot spots was taken with a PdD 
system.   Perhaps the high energy alphas would be stopped easily by the 
electrolyte and not seen outside of the experiment.  Do you recall the 
penetration distance of an alpha under these conditions and is it likely for 
them to be produced but not be measured?


The cone shape of the crater fits well into the picture provided the triggering 
particle or process is not expected to escape and be detected.  If a kinetic 
wave(heat) is the trigger then it would not be expected to escape from the 
metal surface so external detection is not an issue.   I am suspicious that 
alphas would escape and be seen.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 26, 2013 12:39 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:01:17 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
If instead of a direct trigger by impact of the lower energy particle we 
depend 
upon the instantaneous elevated kinetic energy absorbed by the nearby sites 
then 
it is important to understand why the momentum continues in the same general 
direction for new reactions.  It appears as if the momentum from the projectile 
particle is in the correct direction, so the reactions of the NAE sites appear 
to follow its lead.  We know that laser emissions are in sync with the incoming 
wave front, so perhaps this is true for other systems.  This concept need to be 
fleshed out.

You don't need this if fast particles are the trigger. As I said previously, the
natural branching will automatically lead to a cone shape, because more energy
is released at the end than at the start (more reactions at the end), and it
increases as it goes from start to end. The actual angle of the cone will depend
on how many new events an originating event triggers on average. If the number
is small, then you end up with a deep narrow cone. If large, then a wide shallow
one.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Let's start from a different viewpoint.  I would like to find out from  
Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to my  
approach. I'm trying to explain what is common to all approaches,  
which might be combined, and where they are different and might need  
to be modified.


I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to form  
in PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy conversion  
because no conventional chemical structure can do this. Each of the  
proposed theories identifies some kind of change, but each one is  
different. The proposed structure is given different names and  
different properties, but the goal is the same.  We are all trying to  
solve the same problem by proposing different mechanisms and we place  
these structures at different locations within the material. I'm  
trying to find some agreement we all can live with.


No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST  
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a  
normal chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical  
structure. No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules  
no matter how much QM is applied or how complex the mathematical  
justification.  No idea will be accepted if it violates the Laws of  
Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we agree on this basic requirement??


I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because  
creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice  
itself without violating these rules, which I have explained  
previously.  This conclusion is important and BASIC to understanding  
LENR. People have to stop trying to fit their structure into the  
lattice. Using the lattice as the location is the major flaw in the  
theories. This  requirement MUST be resolved because no agreement  
exists at the present time.


Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to  
this requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model fits  
this requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from hydrons,  
which other people have called a cluster. I simply add more details  
about how this structure can be created based on conventional  
concepts.  Most other models ignore the formation process.


Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron can  
be promoted to the p level.  This promotion cannot occur in the normal  
lattice because the p level has more energy than does the s level. On  
the other hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s state  
electron to the p state as a result of the intense negative charge on  
the walls of the crack.  This should be easy to justify using QM  
calculations, which I suggest Tom explore.


This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a string.  
At this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is described.  
The only novel feature is the ability of the charge on the walls of  
the crack to promote the election to the next quantum level.   
Nevertheless, the structure contains all the features required to  
start the mass-energy conversion, i.e. many hydrons coupled together  
by electrons and a physical form that can resonate.  The only question  
remaining, Is this structure sufficient to initiate mass-energy  
conversion?


The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the mechanism  
for the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each of the  
structures has flaws and limitations we each can identify in the other  
models, but not perhaps not in our own.  Can we agree that the  
structure most likely to be correct and certainly the most useful one  
will explain the greatest number of observations? Also, no proposed  
structure can be tested unless the conditions causing its formation  
can be created in real materials. Purely mathematical models applied  
to ideal materials, I suggest, can be rejected immediately.


Can we discuss and agree about any of these conclusions?

Ed

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

 I my view, heat and/or the application of pulsed electric current are/is
an indispensable ingredient in the LENR reaction. Do you agree?

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Let's start from a different viewpoint.  I would like to find out from Tom
 and other people whether their approach can be applied to my approach. I'm
 trying to explain what is common to all approaches, which might be
 combined, and where they are different and might need to be modified.

 I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to form in
 PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy conversion because no
 conventional chemical structure can do this. Each of the proposed theories
 identifies some kind of change, but each one is different. The proposed
 structure is given different names and different properties, but the goal
 is the same.  We are all trying to solve the same problem by proposing
 different mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations
 within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can live with.

 No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST follow
 known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a normal
 chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical structure. No idea
 can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter how much QM
 is applied or how complex the mathematical justification.  No idea will be
 accepted if it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we
 agree on this basic requirement??

 I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because creation
 of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice itself without
 violating these rules, which I have explained previously.  This conclusion
 is important and BASIC to understanding LENR. People have to stop trying to
 fit their structure into the lattice. Using the lattice as the location is
 the major flaw in the theories. This  requirement MUST be resolved because
 no agreement exists at the present time.

 Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to this
 requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model fits this
 requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from hydrons, which other
 people have called a cluster. I simply add more details about how this
 structure can be created based on conventional concepts.  Most other models
 ignore the formation process.

 Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron can be
 promoted to the p level.  This promotion cannot occur in the normal lattice
 because the p level has more energy than does the s level. On the other
 hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s state electron to the p
 state as a result of the intense negative charge on the walls of the crack.
  This should be easy to justify using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom
 explore.

 This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a string. At
 this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is described. The only
 novel feature is the ability of the charge on the walls of the crack to
 promote the election to the next quantum level.  Nevertheless, the
 structure contains all the features required to start the mass-energy
 conversion, i.e. many hydrons coupled together by electrons and a physical
 form that can resonate.  The only question remaining, Is this structure
 sufficient to initiate mass-energy conversion?

 The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the mechanism for
 the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each of the structures has
 flaws and limitations we each can identify in the other models, but not
 perhaps not in our own.  Can we agree that the structure most likely to be
 correct and certainly the most useful one will explain the greatest number
 of observations? Also, no proposed structure can be tested unless the
 conditions causing its formation can be created in real materials. Purely
 mathematical models applied to ideal materials, I suggest, can be rejected
 immediately.

 Can we discuss and agree about any of these conclusions?

 Ed

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV



On Feb 24, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

I my view, heat and/or the application of pulsed electric current  
are/is an indispensable ingredient in the LENR reaction. Do you agree?




You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process requires  
energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall  
process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other  
words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once  
initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and  
releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will  
become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This  
energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or  
any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.  The  
important information comes from identifying the rate limiting step so  
that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This requires a  
theory.


Ed





On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Let's start from a different viewpoint.  I would like to find out  
from Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to  
my approach. I'm trying to explain what is common to all approaches,  
which might be combined, and where they are different and might need  
to be modified.


I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to  
form in PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy  
conversion because no conventional chemical structure can do this.  
Each of the proposed theories identifies some kind of change, but  
each one is different. The proposed structure is given different  
names and different properties, but the goal is the same.  We are  
all trying to solve the same problem by proposing different  
mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations  
within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can  
live with.


No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST  
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a  
normal chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical  
structure. No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical  
rules no matter how much QM is applied or how complex the  
mathematical justification.  No idea will be accepted if it violates  
the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we agree on this basic  
requirement??


I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because  
creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice  
itself without violating these rules, which I have explained  
previously.  This conclusion is important and BASIC to understanding  
LENR. People have to stop trying to fit their structure into the  
lattice. Using the lattice as the location is the major flaw in the  
theories. This  requirement MUST be resolved because no agreement  
exists at the present time.


Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to  
this requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model  
fits this requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from  
hydrons, which other people have called a cluster. I simply add more  
details about how this structure can be created based on  
conventional concepts.  Most other models ignore the formation  
process.


Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron  
can be promoted to the p level.  This promotion cannot occur in the  
normal lattice because the p level has more energy than does the s  
level. On the other hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s  
state electron to the p state as a result of the intense negative  
charge on the walls of the crack.  This should be easy to justify  
using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom explore.


This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a  
string. At this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is  
described. The only novel feature is the ability of the charge on  
the walls of the crack to promote the election to the next quantum  
level.  Nevertheless, the structure contains all the features  
required to start the mass-energy conversion, i.e. many hydrons  
coupled together by electrons and a physical form that can  
resonate.  The only question remaining, Is this structure sufficient  
to initiate mass-energy conversion?


The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the  
mechanism for the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each of  
the structures has flaws and limitations we each can identify in the  
other models, but not perhaps not in our own.  Can we agree that the  
structure most likely to be correct and certainly the most useful  
one will explain the greatest number of observations? Also, no  
proposed structure can be tested unless the conditions causing its  
formation can be created in real materials. Purely mathematical  
models applied to ideal materials, I

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Heat interacts with the lattice at the sites of lattice imperfections to
activate the NAE. This is the exciton: a bound state of an electron and
hole which are attracted to each other by the electrostatic Coulomb force.
It is an electrically neutral quasiparticle.

A plasmon is a quantum of plasma oscillation. Through the photoelectric
effect, heat (infrared light) couples with free electrons and causes them
to oscillate on the surface of the lattice forming plasmons.

When these waves of electrons (plasmons) interact with excitons, Quantum
Plexcitonics are formed. It is these Plexcitonics that fill the NAEs and
form the intense electromagnetic fields greatly amplified through Fano
resonance that produce fusion in the NAEs.

The formation of these fields are describe in my post “Hot spots” and are
also described in top of the line science literature as referenced in my
post.





On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:


 On Feb 24, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

 I my view, heat and/or the application of pulsed electric current are/is
 an indispensable ingredient in the LENR reaction. Do you agree?


 You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process requires
 energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall
 process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other
 words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
 initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and releases
 its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will become faster, the
 more energy that is applied in any form.  This energy can take the form of
 increased temperature, laser light, RF or any other source that can couple
 to the rate limiting reaction.  The important information comes from
 identifying the rate limiting step so that the extra energy can be applied
 more effectively. This requires a theory.

 Ed



 On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Let's start from a different viewpoint.  I would like to find out from
 Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to my approach.
 I'm trying to explain what is common to all approaches, which might be
 combined, and where they are different and might need to be modified.

 I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to form in
 PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy conversion because no
 conventional chemical structure can do this. Each of the proposed theories
 identifies some kind of change, but each one is different. The proposed
 structure is given different names and different properties, but the goal
 is the same.  We are all trying to solve the same problem by proposing
 different mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations
 within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can live with.

 No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST follow
 known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a normal
 chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical structure. No idea
 can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter how much QM
 is applied or how complex the mathematical justification.  No idea will be
 accepted if it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we
 agree on this basic requirement??

 I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because
 creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice itself
 without violating these rules, which I have explained previously.  This
 conclusion is important and BASIC to understanding LENR. People have to
 stop trying to fit their structure into the lattice. Using the lattice as
 the location is the major flaw in the theories. This  requirement MUST be
 resolved because no agreement exists at the present time.

 Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to this
 requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model fits this
 requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from hydrons, which other
 people have called a cluster. I simply add more details about how this
 structure can be created based on conventional concepts.  Most other models
 ignore the formation process.

 Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron can be
 promoted to the p level.  This promotion cannot occur in the normal lattice
 because the p level has more energy than does the s level. On the other
 hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s state electron to the p
 state as a result of the intense negative charge on the walls of the crack.
  This should be easy to justify using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom
 explore.

 This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a string. At
 this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is described. The only
 novel feature is the ability of the charge on the walls of the crack to
 promote the

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-24 Thread mixent

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process requires  
energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall  
process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other  
words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once  
initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and  
releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will  
become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This  
energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or  
any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.  The  
important information comes from identifying the rate limiting step so  
that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This requires a  
theory.

At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount of heat
energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best matches this
is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed to match the
difference in energy between the energy hole of Hydrinos, and the energy
hole provided by many common catalysts.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

The spectroscopic anomalies that have here to for been cited as proof of
the existence of Hydrinos could well originate from collections of
electrons stored in artificial atoms formed in nano-cavities subject to
Fano resonant spectral modifications at high electron loading.

See

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=8cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CGcQFjAHurl=http%3A%2F%2Fworkspace.imperial.ac.uk%2Fexperimentalsolidstate%2FPublic%2FStefan%2520Maier%2FFanoNanoLett09.pdfei=xmYqUbCOLaiy0AGo1oBYusg=AFQjCNFPM2Q5GEicZh0vjZzlyM90Mnm4nAsig2=OQQxWfkNDRXi8MMJfnlitg

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount of heat
energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best
matches this
is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed to
match the
difference in energy between the energy hole of Hydrinos, and the energy
hole provided by many common catalysts.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Yes Robin, hydrinos are a possible feature in the LENR process.  
Several people have proposed this idea using a different justification  
than Mills gives. However, this is not the only feature in the process  
that needs energy to occur. At the present time, the understanding has  
to focus on the engineering consequences of this behavior.  The  
details can be debated later.


Ed


On Feb 24, 2013, at 11:59 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37  
-0700:

Hi,
[snip]
You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process  
requires

energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall
process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other
words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and
releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will
become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This
energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or
any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.  The
important information comes from identifying the rate limiting step  
so
that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This  
requires a

theory.


At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount  
of heat
energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best  
matches this
is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed  
to match the
difference in energy between the energy hole of Hydrinos, and the  
energy

hole provided by many common catalysts.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

The rules of the game

*No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter how
much QM is applied or how complex the mathematical justification.*

Is QM considered a chemical rule?

I found a reference that purports to prove hydrinos are incompatible with
quantum mechanics.

Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum
mechanics

http://128.84.158.119/pdf/0704.0631

If we accept one, we have to reject the other?



On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Let's start from a different viewpoint.  I would like to find out from Tom
 and other people whether their approach can be applied to my approach. I'm
 trying to explain what is common to all approaches, which might be
 combined, and where they are different and might need to be modified.

 I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to form in
 PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy conversion because no
 conventional chemical structure can do this. Each of the proposed theories
 identifies some kind of change, but each one is different. The proposed
 structure is given different names and different properties, but the goal
 is the same.  We are all trying to solve the same problem by proposing
 different mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations
 within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can live with.

 No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST follow
 known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a normal
 chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical structure. No idea
 can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter how much QM
 is applied or how complex the mathematical justification.  No idea will be
 accepted if it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we
 agree on this basic requirement??

 I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because creation
 of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice itself without
 violating these rules, which I have explained previously.  This conclusion
 is important and BASIC to understanding LENR. People have to stop trying to
 fit their structure into the lattice. Using the lattice as the location is
 the major flaw in the theories. This  requirement MUST be resolved because
 no agreement exists at the present time.

 Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to this
 requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model fits this
 requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from hydrons, which other
 people have called a cluster. I simply add more details about how this
 structure can be created based on conventional concepts.  Most other models
 ignore the formation process.

 Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron can be
 promoted to the p level.  This promotion cannot occur in the normal lattice
 because the p level has more energy than does the s level. On the other
 hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s state electron to the p
 state as a result of the intense negative charge on the walls of the crack.
  This should be easy to justify using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom
 explore.

 This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a string. At
 this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is described. The only
 novel feature is the ability of the charge on the walls of the crack to
 promote the election to the next quantum level.  Nevertheless, the
 structure contains all the features required to start the mass-energy
 conversion, i.e. many hydrons coupled together by electrons and a physical
 form that can resonate.  The only question remaining, Is this structure
 sufficient to initiate mass-energy conversion?

 The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the mechanism for
 the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each of the structures has
 flaws and limitations we each can identify in the other models, but not
 perhaps not in our own.  Can we agree that the structure most likely to be
 correct and certainly the most useful one will explain the greatest number
 of observations? Also, no proposed structure can be tested unless the
 conditions causing its formation can be created in real materials. Purely
 mathematical models applied to ideal materials, I suggest, can be rejected
 immediately.

 Can we discuss and agree about any of these conclusions?

 Ed

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Axil, QM is only a tool. It is not a law. It is a tool used to  
describe behavior. Yes, many aspects of chemistry can be described  
using QM.  On the other hand, the concept that energy states have a  
characteristic energy, i.e. quanta, is a law of nature.


The hydrino is a concept put forth by Mills. The idea has experimental  
support although the mathematical description Milsl uses leaves a lot  
of questions. He does not claim to use QM.  Therefore, your conclusion  
makes no sense.


Ed
On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


The rules of the game

No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no  
matter how much QM is applied or how complex the mathematical  
justification.


Is QM considered a chemical rule?

I found a reference that purports to prove hydrinos are incompatible  
with quantum mechanics.


Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard  
quantum mechanics


http://128.84.158.119/pdf/0704.0631

If we accept one, we have to reject the other?



On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Let's start from a different viewpoint.  I would like to find out  
from Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to  
my approach. I'm trying to explain what is common to all approaches,  
which might be combined, and where they are different and might need  
to be modified.


I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to  
form in PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy  
conversion because no conventional chemical structure can do this.  
Each of the proposed theories identifies some kind of change, but  
each one is different. The proposed structure is given different  
names and different properties, but the goal is the same.  We are  
all trying to solve the same problem by proposing different  
mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations  
within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can  
live with.


No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST  
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a  
normal chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical  
structure. No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical  
rules no matter how much QM is applied or how complex the  
mathematical justification.  No idea will be accepted if it violates  
the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we agree on this basic  
requirement??


I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because  
creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice  
itself without violating these rules, which I have explained  
previously.  This conclusion is important and BASIC to understanding  
LENR. People have to stop trying to fit their structure into the  
lattice. Using the lattice as the location is the major flaw in the  
theories. This  requirement MUST be resolved because no agreement  
exists at the present time.


Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to  
this requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model  
fits this requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from  
hydrons, which other people have called a cluster. I simply add more  
details about how this structure can be created based on  
conventional concepts.  Most other models ignore the formation  
process.


Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron  
can be promoted to the p level.  This promotion cannot occur in the  
normal lattice because the p level has more energy than does the s  
level. On the other hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s  
state electron to the p state as a result of the intense negative  
charge on the walls of the crack.  This should be easy to justify  
using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom explore.


This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a  
string. At this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is  
described. The only novel feature is the ability of the charge on  
the walls of the crack to promote the election to the next quantum  
level.  Nevertheless, the structure contains all the features  
required to start the mass-energy conversion, i.e. many hydrons  
coupled together by electrons and a physical form that can  
resonate.  The only question remaining, Is this structure sufficient  
to initiate mass-energy conversion?


The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the  
mechanism for the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each of  
the structures has flaws and limitations we each can identify in the  
other models, but not perhaps not in our own.  Can we agree that the  
structure most likely to be correct and certainly the most useful  
one will explain the greatest number of observations? Also, no  
proposed structure can be tested unless the conditions causing its  
formation can be created in real materials. Purely mathematical

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-24 Thread James Bowery

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 ...No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST
 follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a normal
 chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical structure. No idea
 can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter how much QM
 is applied or how complex the mathematical justification.  No idea will be
 accepted if it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we
 agree on this basic requirement??


Possibly not if you agree with Carver Mead's recent
quasi-manifestohttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/wherein
he purports Mach's principle in conjunction with his concept of
collective electrodynamics.

Keep in mind, Carver Mead was motivated to write Collective
Electrodynamicshttp://www.amazon.com/Collective-Electrodynamics-Quantum-Foundations-Electromagnetism/dp/0262632608
by his deep involvement in solid state electrodynamics.

If I understand the implications of what he's saying, there are conceivable
paths to reactionless drive which would create the appearance of
localized violations of thermodynamics in solids.

On the other hand, if we accept the evidence of He4 as a primary product of
LENR, we are likely looking at a typical nuclear chemistry energy balance.

This leads me to question the approach you're taking in stating the
constraints on which theories to consider:

Are we not really talking about enumerating the findings of fact from
current LENR research upon which to build theory?

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV



On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:59 PM, James Bowery wrote:

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
...No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST  
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a  
normal chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical  
structure. No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical  
rules no matter how much QM is applied or how complex the  
mathematical justification.  No idea will be accepted if it violates  
the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we agree on this basic  
requirement??


Possibly not if you agree with Carver Mead's recent quasi-manifesto  
wherein he purports Mach's principle in conjunction with his concept  
of collective electrodynamics.


Keep in mind, Carver Mead was motivated to write Collective  
Electrodynamics by his deep involvement in solid state  
electrodynamics.


If I understand the implications of what he's saying, there are  
conceivable paths to reactionless drive which would create the  
appearance of localized violations of thermodynamics in solids.


He is not describing the same application of LOT as I am. The laws  
have a wide application. You need to focus on the particular  
application. I'm talking about forming a new chemical condition that  
must precede the nuclear effect. That is all.


On the other hand, if we accept the evidence of He4 as a primary  
product of LENR, we are likely looking at a typical nuclear  
chemistry energy balance.


Yes, in the overall effect, not in individual steps of the process.


This leads me to question the approach you're taking in stating the  
constraints on which theories to consider:


Are we not really talking about enumerating the findings of fact  
from current LENR research upon which to build theory?


Yes. The facts I'm using are clear and not in dispute.

Ed

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

You have oftentimes citied imagination as unproductive in the formulation
of theory.

I might rightfully apply the method that Mills uses to interpret the
experimental basis of the hydrino theory as imagination.

QM says it’s impossible to know what those electrons are actually doing to
produce the experimental results Mills sites because of inherent
uncertainty in the behavior of electrons.

Any sort of resonance phenomena might be producing those experimental
hydrino results acting under any sort of chemical topology.

How does Mills KNOW that hydrinos are the root cause of those spectral
results and not Fano interference at work in the gap of a nanoparticle
dimer.


On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Axil, QM is only a tool. It is not a law. It is a tool used to describe
 behavior. Yes, many aspects of chemistry can be described using QM.  On the
 other hand, the concept that energy states have a characteristic energy,
 i.e. quanta, is a law of nature.

 The hydrino is a concept put forth by Mills. The idea has experimental
 support although the mathematical description Milsl uses leaves a lot of
 questions. He does not claim to use QM.  Therefore, your conclusion makes
 no sense.

 Ed

 On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

 The rules of the game

 *No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter
 how much QM is applied or how complex the mathematical justification.*

 Is QM considered a chemical rule?

 I found a reference that purports to prove hydrinos are incompatible with
 quantum mechanics.

 Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum
 mechanics

 http://128.84.158.119/pdf/0704.0631

 If we accept one, we have to reject the other?



 On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Let's start from a different viewpoint.  I would like to find out from
 Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to my approach.
 I'm trying to explain what is common to all approaches, which might be
 combined, and where they are different and might need to be modified.

 I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to form in
 PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy conversion because no
 conventional chemical structure can do this. Each of the proposed theories
 identifies some kind of change, but each one is different. The proposed
 structure is given different names and different properties, but the goal
 is the same.  We are all trying to solve the same problem by proposing
 different mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations
 within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can live with.

 No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST follow
 known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a normal
 chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical structure. No idea
 can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter how much QM
 is applied or how complex the mathematical justification.  No idea will be
 accepted if it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we
 agree on this basic requirement??

 I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because
 creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice itself
 without violating these rules, which I have explained previously.  This
 conclusion is important and BASIC to understanding LENR. People have to
 stop trying to fit their structure into the lattice. Using the lattice as
 the location is the major flaw in the theories. This  requirement MUST be
 resolved because no agreement exists at the present time.

 Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to this
 requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model fits this
 requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from hydrons, which other
 people have called a cluster. I simply add more details about how this
 structure can be created based on conventional concepts.  Most other models
 ignore the formation process.

 Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron can be
 promoted to the p level.  This promotion cannot occur in the normal lattice
 because the p level has more energy than does the s level. On the other
 hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s state electron to the p
 state as a result of the intense negative charge on the walls of the crack.
  This should be easy to justify using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom
 explore.

 This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a string. At
 this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is described. The only
 novel feature is the ability of the charge on the walls of the crack to
 promote the election to the next quantum level.  Nevertheless, the
 structure contains all the features required to start the mass-energy
 conversion, i.e. many hydrons coupled

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV



On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

You have oftentimes citied imagination as unproductive in the  
formulation of theory.




To be clear, I said use of ONLY imagination is a waste of time. A  
theory has be be related to reality - imagination does not.  
Nevertheless, theory very frequently STARTS with imagination.  A  
theory that goes no further is a waste of time. Mills did not stop  
with theory. He demonstrated a set of predictions. You are free to  
believe the results or not.
I might rightfully apply the method that Mills uses to interpret the  
experimental basis of the hydrino theory as imagination.




Not any more.
QM says it’s impossible to know what those electrons are actually  
doing to produce the experimental results Mills sites because of  
inherent uncertainty in the behavior of electrons.




He gets a product that has properties consistent with his predictions.  
That is the only way any and all  theories are tested.
Any sort of resonance phenomena might be producing those  
experimental hydrino results acting under any sort of chemical  
topology.


How does Mills KNOW that hydrinos are the root cause of those  
spectral results and not Fano interference at work in the gap of a  
nanoparticle dimer.




I suggest you ask Mills or read his many papers. He claims to have  
demonstrated the existence of something he can describe as a hydrino.


Ed



On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Axil, QM is only a tool. It is not a law. It is a tool used to  
describe behavior. Yes, many aspects of chemistry can be described  
using QM.  On the other hand, the concept that energy states have a  
characteristic energy, i.e. quanta, is a law of nature.


The hydrino is a concept put forth by Mills. The idea has  
experimental support although the mathematical description Milsl  
uses leaves a lot of questions. He does not claim to use QM.   
Therefore, your conclusion makes no sense.


Ed

On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


The rules of the game

No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no  
matter how much QM is applied or how complex the mathematical  
justification.


Is QM considered a chemical rule?

I found a reference that purports to prove hydrinos are  
incompatible with quantum mechanics.


Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard  
quantum mechanics


http://128.84.158.119/pdf/0704.0631

If we accept one, we have to reject the other?



On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
 wrote:
Let's start from a different viewpoint.  I would like to find out  
from Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to  
my approach. I'm trying to explain what is common to all  
approaches, which might be combined, and where they are different  
and might need to be modified.


I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to  
form in PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy  
conversion because no conventional chemical structure can do this.  
Each of the proposed theories identifies some kind of change, but  
each one is different. The proposed structure is given different  
names and different properties, but the goal is the same.  We are  
all trying to solve the same problem by proposing different  
mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations  
within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can  
live with.


No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST  
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially  
a normal chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical  
structure. No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical  
rules no matter how much QM is applied or how complex the  
mathematical justification.  No idea will be accepted if it  
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example.  Can we agree on  
this basic requirement??


I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because  
creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the  
lattice itself without violating these rules, which I have  
explained previously.  This conclusion is important and BASIC to  
understanding LENR. People have to stop trying to fit their  
structure into the lattice. Using the lattice as the location is  
the major flaw in the theories. This  requirement MUST be resolved  
because no agreement exists at the present time.


Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to  
this requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model  
fits this requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from  
hydrons, which other people have called a cluster. I simply add  
more details about how this structure can be created based on  
conventional concepts.  Most other models ignore the formation  
process.


Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron  
can be promoted to the p

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-24 Thread David Roberson

Robin,


The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in the MeV, not 
eV.  That is why I believe that there is a mutual interaction between 
individual NAE.  The local heat energy release is large and can not escape the 
area except through diffusion which is a slow process compared to the reaction 
time associated with nuclear effects.


This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many degrees 
Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if we assume a positive 
temperature coefficient for LENR.


Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will continue until 
completion.   My suggested addition is a system level coupling that will now 
explain other observations.  When an addition improves a theory, it should be 
incorporated into an improved one.  Now we can consider the behavior of a 
device exhibiting LENR as being composed of two different type of responses.  
The first is the original one where NAE generate copious amounts of energy as 
the elements within fuse.  The addition explains craters and hot spots which 
are hypothesized to be associated with the density of the NAE sites.


So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist between NAE and 
a couple of good examples that suggest that this is happening.  We should seek 
out unusual behavior that does not meet expected performance and attempt to 
explain the discrepancy.  Do you know of any evidence that coupling between 
active regions does not exist?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process requires  
energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall  
process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other  
words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once  
initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and  
releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will  
become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This  
energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or  
any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.  The  
important information comes from identifying the rate limiting step so  
that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This requires a  
theory.

At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount of heat
energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best matches this
is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed to match the
difference in energy between the energy hole of Hydrinos, and the energy
hole provided by many common catalysts.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing  
coupling between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected based  
on local temperature and a photon flux. What more do you propose?


Ed
On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Robin,

The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in  
the MeV, not eV.  That is why I believe that there is a mutual  
interaction between individual NAE.  The local heat energy release  
is large and can not escape the area except through diffusion which  
is a slow process compared to the reaction time associated with  
nuclear effects.


This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many  
degrees Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if we  
assume a positive temperature coefficient for LENR.


Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will  
continue until completion.   My suggested addition is a system level  
coupling that will now explain other observations.  When an addition  
improves a theory, it should be incorporated into an improved one.   
Now we can consider the behavior of a device exhibiting LENR as  
being composed of two different type of responses.  The first is the  
original one where NAE generate copious amounts of energy as the  
elements within fuse.  The addition explains craters and hot spots  
which are hypothesized to be associated with the density of the NAE  
sites.


So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist  
between NAE and a couple of good examples that suggest that this is  
happening.  We should seek out unusual behavior that does not meet  
expected performance and attempt to explain the discrepancy.  Do you  
know of any evidence that coupling between active regions does not  
exist?


Dave


-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37  
-0700:

Hi,
[snip]
You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process  
requires

energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall
process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other
words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and
releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will
become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This
energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or
any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.  The
important information comes from identifying the rate limiting step  
so
that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This  
requires a

theory.

At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount  
of heat
energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best  
matches this
is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed  
to match the
difference in energy between the energy hole of Hydrinos, and the  
energy

hole provided by many common catalysts.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

Recapitulating your famous quote as follows”

“Many explanations have been proposed that are based on imagined ways
energy could accumulate in sufficient amount in the chemical lattice to
overcome the Coulomb barrier, either directly or as result of neutron
formation. These processes also occasionally involve accumulation of extra
electrons between the hydrogen nuclei as another way to hide the barrier.
These suggestions ignore the severe limitations a chemical lattice imposes
on energy accumulation and electron structure. Some proposed processes even
ignore obvious conflicts with what has been observed. Consequently, none
have been useful in directing future research or have achieved universal
acceptance.”

Recent work in nanoplasmonics  have demonstrated an electromagnetic field
amplification of 700 times in enhancement.
This amplification can be amplified through the strengthening of negative
charge accumulated in the lattice as well as particle size resonance
matching with the ambient heat of the system.

Ed you basic assumptions about charge accumulation are now proven to be
incorrect. Will you adjust your theory to reflect these new factors?

These nanoplasmonic experimental techniques can be adapted directly to LENR
research, Are you willing to run such experiments?


On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing coupling
 between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected based on local
 temperature and a photon flux. What more do you propose?

 Ed

 On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:

 Robin,

  The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in the
 MeV, not eV.  That is why I believe that there is a mutual interaction
 between individual NAE.  The local heat energy release is large and can not
 escape the area except through diffusion which is a slow process compared
 to the reaction time associated with nuclear effects.

  This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many
 degrees Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if we assume
 a positive temperature coefficient for LENR.

  Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will
 continue until completion.   My suggested addition is a system level
 coupling that will now explain other observations.  When an addition
 improves a theory, it should be incorporated into an improved one.  Now we
 can consider the behavior of a device exhibiting LENR as being composed of
 two different type of responses.  The first is the original one where NAE
 generate copious amounts of energy as the elements within fuse.  The
 addition explains craters and hot spots which are hypothesized to be
 associated with the density of the NAE sites.

  So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist between
 NAE and a couple of good examples that suggest that this is happening.  We
 should seek out unusual behavior that does not meet expected performance
 and attempt to explain the discrepancy.  Do you know of any evidence that
 coupling between active regions does not exist?

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

  In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process requires
 energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall
 process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other
 words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
 initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and
 releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will
 become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This
 energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or
 any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.  The
 important information comes from identifying the rate limiting step so
 that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This requires a
 theory.

 At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount of heat
 energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best matches 
 this
 is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed to match 
 the
 difference in energy between the energy hole of Hydrinos, and the energy
 hole provided by many common catalysts.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

2013-02-24 Thread David Roberson

Ed, I have been looking at the craters that have formed upon the surface of 
some of the earlier active experiments.  Also, Axil supplied a fine link that 
demonstrated hot spots being formed upon the surface of another system.  I can 
run down the picture reference if you wish, but I suspect that you are aware of 
these from previous studies.  Let me know.


The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable of doing 
this degree of damage and creating the relatively large heating associated with 
hot spots.  It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR 
systems in a positive manner.  Elevated metal temperature is required to obtain 
any significant LENR and it is apparent that the higher the temperature of a 
device such as the ECAT, the more heat is produced.


My hypothesis can be proven wrong if it can be shown that there is no change in 
the quantity of energy released per larger event regardless of the density of 
NAE that are active in the material.  So, if all of the craters can be formed 
by one or at most a couple of simultaneous fusion reactions, or the amount of 
heat appearing at the hot spots is only due to one,  then each is unrelated.  
Here I refer to a fusion reaction as being due to the formation of one ash 
product instead of a chain of events due to the heating.


Does this suggest that you now accept the coupling hypothesis?   I recall that 
earlier you stated that each fusion event proceeded to completion and was not 
related to the others.  When I first mentioned this idea you did not express a 
positive opinion of its merits.  It is good that we can now agree that this 
might be happening and should be an addition to the original theory.


One thing that needs to be clarified is that I am not speaking of the average 
temperature of the metal matrix in this description.  That might be what you 
refer to as local.  I am addressing the instantaneous large spike that occurs 
and which diffuses into the average background temperature with time.  There is 
a large difference between the two.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV


Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing coupling between 
the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected based on local temperature and a 
photon flux. What more do you propose?


Ed

On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Robin, 

 
 
The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in the MeV, not 
eV.  That is why I believe that there is a mutual interaction between 
individual NAE.  The local heat energy release is large and can not escape the 
area except through diffusion which is a slow process compared to the reaction 
time associated with nuclear effects.
 

 
 
This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many degrees 
Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if we assume a positive 
temperature coefficient for LENR.
 

 
 
Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will continue until 
completion.   My suggested addition is a system level coupling that will now 
explain other observations.  When an addition improves a theory, it should be 
incorporated into an improved one.  Now we can consider the behavior of a 
device exhibiting LENR as being composed of two different type of responses.  
The first is the original one where NAE generate copious amounts of energy as 
the elements within fuse.  The addition explains craters and hot spots which 
are hypothesized to be associated with the density of the NAE sites.
 

 
 
So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist between NAE and 
a couple of good examples that suggest that this is happening.  We should seek 
out unusual behavior that does not meet expected performance and attempt to 
explain the discrepancy.  Do you know of any evidence that coupling between 
active regions does not exist?
 

 
 
Dave
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
 
 
 
In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process requires  
energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the overall  
process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In other  
words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once  
initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and  
releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will  
become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This  
energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF or  
any other source that can couple to the rate

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV



On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


Recapitulating your famous quote as follows”

“Many explanations have been proposed that are based on imagined  
ways energy could accumulate in sufficient amount in the chemical  
lattice to overcome the Coulomb barrier, either directly or as  
result of neutron formation. These processes also occasionally  
involve accumulation of extra electrons between the hydrogen nuclei  
as another way to hide the barrier. These suggestions ignore the  
severe limitations a chemical lattice imposes on energy accumulation  
and electron structure. Some proposed processes even ignore obvious  
conflicts with what has been observed. Consequently, none have been  
useful in directing future research or have achieved universal  
acceptance.”


Recent work in nanoplasmonics  have demonstrated an electromagnetic  
field amplification of 700 times in enhancement.
This amplification can be amplified through the strengthening of  
negative charge accumulated in the lattice as well as particle size  
resonance matching with the ambient heat of the system.


Ed you basic assumptions about charge accumulation are now proven to  
be incorrect. Will you adjust your theory to reflect these new  
factors?




Perhaps when I agree with your conclusion I will make a change.  
However, I do not agree and the charge accumulation is not important  
to the present level.. As for running experiments, I have done this  
for years but now I trying to understand what the experiments mean.  I  
have concluded that effective experiments will require equipment I do  
not have.  I'm looking for ways to get access to such equipment.


Ed
These nanoplasmonic experimental techniques can be adapted directly  
to LENR research, Are you willing to run such experiments?




On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing  
coupling between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected  
based on local temperature and a photon flux. What more do you  
propose?


Ed

On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Robin,

The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in  
the MeV, not eV.  That is why I believe that there is a mutual  
interaction between individual NAE.  The local heat energy release  
is large and can not escape the area except through diffusion which  
is a slow process compared to the reaction time associated with  
nuclear effects.


This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many  
degrees Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if  
we assume a positive temperature coefficient for LENR.


Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will  
continue until completion.   My suggested addition is a system  
level coupling that will now explain other observations.  When an  
addition improves a theory, it should be incorporated into an  
improved one.  Now we can consider the behavior of a device  
exhibiting LENR as being composed of two different type of  
responses.  The first is the original one where NAE generate  
copious amounts of energy as the elements within fuse.  The  
addition explains craters and hot spots which are hypothesized to  
be associated with the density of the NAE sites.


So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist  
between NAE and a couple of good examples that suggest that this is  
happening.  We should seek out unusual behavior that does not meet  
expected performance and attempt to explain the discrepancy.  Do  
you know of any evidence that coupling between active regions does  
not exist?


Dave


-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37  
-0700:

Hi,
[snip]
You ask several questions at the same time.  The LENR process  
requires
energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the  
overall
process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In  
other

words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and
releases its energy.  Consequently, the initiation reaction will
become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form.  This
energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light, RF  
or

any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.  The
important information comes from identifying the rate limiting  
step so
that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This  
requires a

theory.

At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the amount  
of heat
energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that best  
matches this
is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is needed  
to match the
difference

Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV