Re: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics
Just to add 2 more cents to the thread: - The high relative permeability of mu-metal only exists for low frequencies. By the time you get to 1MHz, the permeability of mu-metal has fallen an order of magnitude and it keeps declining at that rate. Don't think that mu-metal has extraordinary magnetic properties at optical frequencies by virtue of its initial low frequency relative permeability. - As I recall, Tom Claytor's report regarding mu-metal was that in his system it had the greatest rate of tritium production (which is what I believe he was optimizing for). This did not mean that mu-metal had the greatest LENR rate of the materials he tried. Bob Higgins On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Just when it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory, they seem to have become more complicated. Ockham fails again – no surprise really, since “parsimony” always fails miserably when QM enters the picture. SPP was the “catch-phrase” of the day for understanding LENR, due to the influence of NASA and Larsen, but a similar effect called spinplasmonics (SP) fits many experimental circumstances better than does SPP. This is because SP happens in a metal, without need of a dielectric, and has a magnetic component. Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP phenomenon but does not mention LENR. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028 There was a time when the two, SPP and SP, were considered to be part of the same general phenomenon, but on closer differentiation - if a choice needs to be made, the merits of each should be considered relative to precise details in any experiment. Yet both effects can be active in the same experiment, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In short, if the active region is conductive and ferromagnetic (or strongly paramagnetic) with no dielectric, then spinplasmonics fits better. When the active region has a metal-dielectric interface and is indifferent to magnetism, then SPP fits better. Is this being unnecessarily pedantic? Only if one wants to marginalize, rather than emphasize, the role of magnetism. If magnetism is highly important, then one more detail about a Mu metal connection (following Claytor’s revelation at MIT). When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he thought there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about publishing such “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was commercially important. An example is the upconversion of infrared light into visible light, which would be important for either SPP or spinplasmonics which ostensibly need optical photons. Here is the big surprise. Nickel may be important for upconversion of photons – more so than any other physical property. The prime materials for photon upconversion are luminescent ions Ni2+ and Mo3+ both of which elements are found in Mu metal. Surface ionization makes them active. That may not be coincidental, since optics and magnetics may be intimately entwined in Mu metals, which are a starting point for LENR ….Which then are activated by spinplasmonics….Which then create a continuing supply of DDL (deep Dirac layer) dense hydrogen….Which then disrupts the Dirac “sea” ….Which then yield binding energy photons of 6.8 eV….Which then thermalize into heat, finally providing thermal gain. And yes, Ockham fails again and “parsimony” always looks like a silly rule-of-thumb when QM enters the picture. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics
Dear Jones, thank you for this very interesting paper. Howeve, can you please explain/justify this assertion: it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory I think exactly the contrary is true, cold fusion needs more theories combined, not one. Peter On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Just when it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory, they seem to have become more complicated. Ockham fails again – no surprise really, since “parsimony” always fails miserably when QM enters the picture. SPP was the “catch-phrase” of the day for understanding LENR, due to the influence of NASA and Larsen, but a similar effect called spinplasmonics (SP) fits many experimental circumstances better than does SPP. This is because SP happens in a metal, without need of a dielectric, and has a magnetic component. Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP phenomenon but does not mention LENR. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028 There was a time when the two, SPP and SP, were considered to be part of the same general phenomenon, but on closer differentiation - if a choice needs to be made, the merits of each should be considered relative to precise details in any experiment. Yet both effects can be active in the same experiment, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In short, if the active region is conductive and ferromagnetic (or strongly paramagnetic) with no dielectric, then spinplasmonics fits better. When the active region has a metal-dielectric interface and is indifferent to magnetism, then SPP fits better. Is this being unnecessarily pedantic? Only if one wants to marginalize, rather than emphasize, the role of magnetism. If magnetism is highly important, then one more detail about a Mu metal connection (following Claytor’s revelation at MIT). When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he thought there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about publishing such “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was commercially important. An example is the upconversion of infrared light into visible light, which would be important for either SPP or spinplasmonics which ostensibly need optical photons. Here is the big surprise. Nickel may be important for upconversion of photons – more so than any other physical property. The prime materials for photon upconversion are luminescent ions Ni2+ and Mo3+ both of which elements are found in Mu metal. Surface ionization makes them active. That may not be coincidental, since optics and magnetics may be intimately entwined in Mu metals, which are a starting point for LENR ….Which then are activated by spinplasmonics….Which then create a continuing supply of DDL (deep Dirac layer) dense hydrogen….Which then disrupts the Dirac “sea” ….Which then yield binding energy photons of 6.8 eV….Which then thermalize into heat, finally providing thermal gain. And yes, Ockham fails again and “parsimony” always looks like a silly rule-of-thumb when QM enters the picture. Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics
From: Bob Higgins - The high relative permeability of mu-metal only exists for low frequencies. By the time you get to 1MHz, the permeability of mu-metal has fallen an order of magnitude and it keeps declining at that rate. Don't think that mu-metal has extraordinary magnetic properties at optical frequencies by virtue of its initial low frequency relative permeability. I agree with this. In fact, Letts indicated that a constant or slowly changing external field was preferable. The reason for that is not immediately evident. My hypothesis is more along the lines of the Mu metal being able to internalize a low (800 Gauss) applied field or even a much lower internal field from the SmCo powder which Cravens was providing at NI Week. The result of this is an oscillation between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic effects - when the temperature is near the Curie point. That oscillation apparently does not need to be rapid. - As I recall, Tom Claytor's report regarding mu-metal was that in his system it had the greatest rate of tritium production (which is what I believe he was optimizing for). This did not mean that mu-metal had the greatest LENR rate of the materials he tried. Yes. That is a good point. Plus Claytor uses high voltage. There is no obvious indication that Mu metal optimizes for another gainful reaction, which does not produce tritium. That is an inference, which may or may not be justified by the fact that tritium would be more difficult to produce than another related anomaly which was non-nuclear. IOW the reason that the Mu metal activity could be broader in scope - is that tritium (in very small amounts) could be the end result of a two-stage reaction which is non-nuclear in the first stage yet produces excess heat without tritium- leaving an energy-depleted state that then supports real fusion when high voltage is present. Tritium would then be the final result of accumulated QM effects in a second stage. Claytor only gets very small amounts of tritium anyway, and apparently he is not concerned with excess heat. That is a missing detail. But certainly, those results with Mu metal could be limited to tritium – OTOH there seems to be enough of a hint there to warrant looking for a broader application. Jones Beene wrote: Just when it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory, they seem to have become more complicated. Ockham fails again – no surprise really, since “parsimony” always fails miserably when QM enters the picture. SPP was the “catch-phrase” of the day for understanding LENR, due to the influence of NASA and Larsen, but a similar effect called spinplasmonics (SP) fits many experimental circumstances better than does SPP. This is because SP happens in a metal, without need of a dielectric, and has a magnetic component. Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP phenomenon but does not mention LENR. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028 There was a time when the two, SPP and SP, were considered to be part of the same general phenomenon, but on closer differentiation - if a choice needs to be made, the merits of each should be considered relative to precise details in any experiment. Yet both effects can be active in the same experiment, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In short, if the active region is conductive and ferromagnetic (or strongly paramagnetic) with no dielectric, then spinplasmonics fits better. When the active region has a metal-dielectric interface and is indifferent to magnetism, then SPP fits better. Is this being unnecessarily pedantic? Only if one wants to marginalize, rather than emphasize, the role of magnetism. If magnetism is highly important, then one more detail about a Mu metal connection (following Claytor’s revelation at MIT). When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he thought there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about publishing such “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was commercially important. An example is the upconversion of infrared light into visible light, which would be important for either SPP or spinplasmonics which ostensibly need optical photons. Here is the big surprise. Nickel may be important for upconversion of photons – more so than any other physical property. The prime materials for photon upconversion are luminescent ions Ni2+ and Mo3+ both of which elements are found in Mu metal. Surface ionization makes them active. That may not be coincidental, since optics and magnetics may be intimately entwined in Mu metals, which are a starting point for LENR ….Which then are activated by spinplasmonics….Which then create a continuing supply of DDL (deep Dirac layer) dense hydrogen….Which then disrupts the Dirac “sea” ….Which then yield binding energy photons of 6.8
RE: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics
From: Peter Gluck …thank you for this very interesting paper. However, can you please explain/justify this assertion: it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory I think exactly the contrary is true, cold fusion needs more theories combined, not one. Peter Well yes, an ultimate combination of theories is the goal. Until any phenomenon is completely explained, there will be pieces, here and there which are best explained in ways that may seem contradictory. Yet in the end, everything will come together. We have to deconstruct before we can reconstruct. Given that we still do not have an adequate ToE (theory of everything) in physics or cosmology, nor… to be brutally honest - even a complete physical understanding of the hydrogen atom - an ultimate theoretical framework for LENR is a long way off – and will probably have to wait its turn. Things will get more complex before they simplify. Yet there is something intuitive in appreciating the small difference between SPP and SP and between anomalous heat reactions which proceed to nuclear ash, and those which do not: all of which may hasten the time when an ultimate theory materializes.
Re: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics
Much of the science that underlies the Ni/H reactor is just at the publication stage. For example, I was just reading this newly released paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1404/1404.3764.pdf *Magneto-photonic phenomena at terahertz frequencies* This paper has some tidbits of insights about how heat produces strong magnetic fields. First, light at terahertz frequencies are resonant with the magnetic fields that it induces, so light and the induced resultant magnetic fields are about the same frequency. This terahertz frequency timeframe is also the same as the lifetimes of induced SPP’s. Also, the intensity of the plasma pulse that produces the terahertz pulse is proportional to the light that the pulse produces. This says that the spark (as per DGT design) that produces the plasma that generates the terahertz light should contain as much INSTATANOUS power as possible. A glow plug emitting constant heat will produce an associated weak terahertz pulse because its instantaneous power level is proportionately very low (as per Rossi design) On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Jones, thank you for this very interesting paper. Howeve, can you please explain/justify this assertion: it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory I think exactly the contrary is true, cold fusion needs more theories combined, not one. Peter On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Just when it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory, they seem to have become more complicated. Ockham fails again – no surprise really, since “parsimony” always fails miserably when QM enters the picture. SPP was the “catch-phrase” of the day for understanding LENR, due to the influence of NASA and Larsen, but a similar effect called spinplasmonics (SP) fits many experimental circumstances better than does SPP. This is because SP happens in a metal, without need of a dielectric, and has a magnetic component. Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP phenomenon but does not mention LENR. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028 There was a time when the two, SPP and SP, were considered to be part of the same general phenomenon, but on closer differentiation - if a choice needs to be made, the merits of each should be considered relative to precise details in any experiment. Yet both effects can be active in the same experiment, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In short, if the active region is conductive and ferromagnetic (or strongly paramagnetic) with no dielectric, then spinplasmonics fits better. When the active region has a metal-dielectric interface and is indifferent to magnetism, then SPP fits better. Is this being unnecessarily pedantic? Only if one wants to marginalize, rather than emphasize, the role of magnetism. If magnetism is highly important, then one more detail about a Mu metal connection (following Claytor’s revelation at MIT). When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he thought there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about publishing such “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was commercially important. An example is the upconversion of infrared light into visible light, which would be important for either SPP or spinplasmonics which ostensibly need optical photons. Here is the big surprise. Nickel may be important for upconversion of photons – more so than any other physical property. The prime materials for photon upconversion are luminescent ions Ni2+ and Mo3+ both of which elements are found in Mu metal. Surface ionization makes them active. That may not be coincidental, since optics and magnetics may be intimately entwined in Mu metals, which are a starting point for LENR ….Which then are activated by spinplasmonics….Which then create a continuing supply of DDL (deep Dirac layer) dense hydrogen….Which then disrupts the Dirac “sea” ….Which then yield binding energy photons of 6.8 eV….Which then thermalize into heat, finally providing thermal gain. And yes, Ockham fails again and “parsimony” always looks like a silly rule-of-thumb when QM enters the picture. Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics
Jones Beene wrote: | Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP | phenomenon but does not mention LENR. | http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028 [...] | When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he thought | there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about publishing such | “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades | (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was | commercially important. FYI: Paper: http://booksc.org/dl/18668679/66dc66 (extracted from: http://booksc.org/g/C.%20J.%20E.%20Straatsma;%20A.%20Y.%20Elezzabi ) Patent: http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US4032351 - Mark Jurich
Re: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics
Mark-- I am about 2/3 through the paper you identified on the transmission of a teraherz electric field wave form through Ni and Co particles in a static magnetic field. It is well written and even I can understand it. One question that kept going through my mind. Does the oscillating teraherz electric field produce a perpendicular oscillating magnetic field? Or does that only happen with photon propagation. Would a teraherz laser have a different effect? And would you see a phase change in the transmission of the beam through the Ni and Co particles? If the changing electric field does in fact cause a changing magnetic field, it would seem that it may introduce some impedence in the transfer of the electric field and account for the slight unexplained phase change reported with respect to the electric field wave form after passing through the film of the particle assemblege. Do you know what the N metal film is that the authors stated was applied to the Ni and Co particles in discussing the experimental set-up? Should that be no metal film? Bob - Original Message - From: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Optics, magnetic spinplasmonics Jones Beene wrote: | Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP | phenomenon but does not mention LENR. | http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028 [...] | When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he thought | there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about publishing such | “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades | (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was | commercially important. FYI: Paper: http://booksc.org/dl/18668679/66dc66 (extracted from: http://booksc.org/g/C.%20J.%20E.%20Straatsma;%20A.%20Y.%20Elezzabi ) Patent: http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US4032351 - Mark Jurich
