Re: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

[Axil Axil]

The SPP in dark mode has a negative index of redaction, it absorbed and
stores energy, and it has negative mass.

https://www.sciencealert.com/negative-mass-quasi-particle-polaritons-low-energy-lasers

This builds on recent theoretical work on the behaviour of something called
a polariton , which appears to
behave as if it has negative mass – a mind-blowing property that sees
objects move* towards* the force pushing it, instead of being pushed away.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:39 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Mon, 12 Mar 2018 06:09:32 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >This wiki entry has a list of SPP metamaterials, a few of which may have
> applicability to LENR
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmonic_metamaterial
>
> "Light falling on conventional materials, with a positive index of
> refraction,
> exerts a positive pressure, meaning that it can push an object away from
> the
> light source. In contrast, illuminating negative index metamaterials should
> generate a negative pressure that pulls an object toward light.[6]"
>
> Wouldn't this violate conservation of momentum?
>
> >
> >Graphene is one of these which is  not difficult to make and deposit as
> an ink. Robert Murray Smith has an evolving method shown on his YouTube
> channel.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Mon, 12 Mar 2018 06:09:32 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>This wiki entry has a list of SPP metamaterials, a few of which may have 
>applicability to LENR
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmonic_metamaterial

"Light falling on conventional materials, with a positive index of refraction,
exerts a positive pressure, meaning that it can push an object away from the
light source. In contrast, illuminating negative index metamaterials should
generate a negative pressure that pulls an object toward light.[6]"

Wouldn't this violate conservation of momentum?

>
>Graphene is one of these which is  not difficult to make and deposit as an 
>ink. Robert Murray Smith has an evolving method shown on his YouTube channel.
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

[JonesBeene]

This wiki entry has a list of SPP metamaterials, a few of which may have 
applicability to LENR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmonic_metamaterial

Graphene is one of these which is  not difficult to make and deposit as an ink. 
Robert Murray Smith has an evolving method shown on his YouTube channel.



From: Russ 

I’d love to read a list of candidates for ‘metamaterials’ that might have 
practical utility as in easy to make and deposit. Any suggestions posted here 
would be a start on such a list. Thanks

RE: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

[Russ]

Here’s a link to an image of one very special use of the right metamaterial  

 

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/972582613809618944

 

 

From: Russ  
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

 

I’d love to read a list of candidates for ‘metamaterials’ that might have 
practical utility as in easy to make and deposit. Any suggestions posted here 
would be a start on such a list. Thanks

 

From: JonesBeene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 7:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: [Vo]:Evidence of UDH interaction with neutrino (was 1/f squared)

 

 

Re: the possibility that new discoveries will turn up a metamaterial which can 
reacts with neutrinos to a much greater extent than expected could be bolstered 
by evidence from cosmology presented below. There are many lose ends, however.

 

Could UDH be used in two ways – both as the target for laser pulses (Holmlid 
Effect) and secondarily an absorber of the resultant muon -> neutrino bursts? 
Neutrinos carry away over 99% of the energy of the Holmlid Effect but are 
poorly absorbed by all elements. What a waste.

 

Even if it were possible, protons are being disintegrated into pions then muons 
– with a mass/energy of 106 MeV each and then converted into much lower level 
x-rays if they do interact. OTOH this energy level is still thousands of time 
more favorable than burning hydrogen – so who cares about the low overall 
efficiency? Anyway this post proposes a novel way to use UDH as both fuel for 
laser irradiation– which converts into massive levels of muons which then 
decays into neutrinos…which neutrinos are then absorbed in a secondary system 
using UDH to capture some of the energy which is otherwise lost. UDH is far 
denser than U or any heavy element.

 

One of the most interesting findings in recent cosmology has been the discovery 
of a universal emission line at 3.56 keV which is associated with Dark Matter. 
This emission line has turned up in the core of every galaxy which has been 
studied - and there is an intuitive explanation. Any number of theorist have 
associated a dense form of hydrogen with Dark Matter. Yet the inherent conflict 
is that if Dark Matter is really dark it should not emit at 3.56 keV … unless 
of course, it is actually being irradiated as a target by an external source of 
energy and that source, by default, would be the neutrino flux. 

 

Conclusion of somewhat circular argument: If we should find that indeed Dark 
Matter can be identified as UDH or one of the other similar conceptions such as 
DDL, then a likely reason we see the characteristic x-ray is not from decay but 
from an interaction with neutrinos – which interaction then inflates the dark 
matter back to hydrogen. In short, Dark Matter may have a cross section for 
neutrino absorption which makes it useful as a way to convert the mass/energy 
of neutrinos into x-rays which can then be downshifted into usable energy. This 
could be implemented with the Holmlid setup or a variant.

 

The fact that Holmlid sees a small level of muon production from UDH at ambient 
conditions (which has NOT been irradiated with the laser) is thereby explained. 
The ambient case is  indicative of the rate of interaction with Earth’s 
background neutrino flux (from cosmic rays). As a practical matter, this 
conversion rate of UDH is too low to be useful without the laser – where 
Holmlid is getting massively more neutrinos compared to the background rate – 
100 trillion times more per unit area.

 

This rambling proposal would all fit together nicely except for the lack of 
independent verification which may be forthcoming from Taggett/TERN. 

There is no recent news from them:

http://ternresearch.com/news-and-papers