Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
*Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts *Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf *| P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary (Date textdate; Received textdate; Revised textdate; Accepted textdate; Published textdate) Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d + d → 4He process. PACS numbers: 25.70.Jj, 25.45.-z, 25.40.-h Keywords: fusion and fusion-fission reactions, 2H-induced nuclear reactions, nucleon induced reactions --- VI. SUMMARY It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid metal surrounding nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like (positive) charge of low initial energy. It is recognized, that one of the participant particles of a nuclear reaction of low initial energy may pick up great momentum in a Coulomb scattering process on a free, third particle of the surroundings. The virtually acquired great momentum, that is determined by the energy of the reaction, can help to overcome the hindering Coulomb barrier and can highly increase the rate of the nuclear reaction even in cases when the rate would be otherwise negligible. It is found that the electron assisted d + d → 4He process has the leading rate. In the reactions discussed energetic charged particles are created, that can become (directly or after Coulomb collisions) the source of heavy charged particles of intermediately low (of about a few keV ) energy. These heavy particles can assist nuclear reactions too. It is worth mentioning that the shielding of the Coulomb potential has no effect on the mechanisms discussed. Our thoughts were motivated by our former theoretical findings [9] according to which the leading channel of the p + d → 3He reaction in solid environment is the so called solid state internal conversion process, an adapted version of ordinary internal conversion process [10]. In the process formerly discussed [9] if the reaction takes place in solid material, in which instead of the emission of a photon, the nuclear energy is taken away by an electron of the environment (the metal), the Coulomb interaction induces a p + d → 3He nuclear transition. The processes discussed here can be considered as an alternative version of the solid state internal conversion process since it is thought that one party of the initial particles of the nuclear process takes part in Coulomb interaction with a charged particle of the solid material (e.g. of a metal). There may be many fields of physics where the traces of the proposed mechanism may have been previously appeared. It is not the aim of this work to give a systematic overview these fields. We only mention here two of them that are thought to be partly related or explained by the processes proposed. The first is the so called anomalous screening effect observed in low energy accelerator physics investigating astrophysical factors of nuclear reactions of low atomic numbers [11]. The other one is the family of low energy nuclear fusion processes. The physical background, discussed in the Introduction and in the first part of Section V., was questioned by the two decade old announcement [12] on excess heat generation due to nuclear fusion reaction of deuterons at deuterized Pd cathodes during electrolysis at near room temperature. The paper [12] initiated
RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc), which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned. There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash - P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics so far. It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6 quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun. However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out, and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to within a within very tight range. The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain of energy. This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me, despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up depleted mass (on the cold-side). Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as the likely source but it could be another isotope or several. However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since protons pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side. As for now, I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell. From: Kevin O'Malley Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf | P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d + d → 4He process. --- VI. SUMMARY It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid metal surrounding nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Thanks for the information. I only had time to skim over the paper which left me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not the result of an experiment. Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis? If so, please help me find that reference. I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 9:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ | P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary (Date textdate; Received textdate; Revised textdate; Accepted textdate; Published textdate) Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d + d → 4He process. PACS numbers: 25.70.Jj, 25.45.-z, 25.40.-h Keywords: fusion and fusion-fission reactions, 2H-induced nuclear reactions, nucleon induced reactions --- VI. SUMMARY It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid metal surrounding nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like (positive) charge of low initial energy. It is recognized, that one of the participant particles of a nuclear reaction of low initial energy may pick up great momentum in a Coulomb scattering process on a free, third particle of the surroundings. The virtually acquired great momentum, that is determined by the energy of the reaction, can help to overcome the hindering Coulomb barrier and can highly increase the rate of the nuclear reaction even in cases when the rate would be otherwise negligible. It is found that the electron assisted d + d → 4He process has the leading rate. In the reactions discussed energetic charged particles are created, that can become (directly or after Coulomb collisions) the source of heavy charged particles of intermediately low (of about a few keV ) energy. These heavy particles can assist nuclear reactions too. It is worth mentioning that the shielding of the Coulomb potential has no effect on the mechanisms discussed. Our thoughts were motivated by our former theoretical findings [9] according to which the leading channel of the p + d → 3He reaction in solid environment is the so called solid state internal conversion process, an adapted version of ordinary internal conversion process [10]. In the process formerly discussed [9] if the reaction takes place in solid material, in which instead of the emission of a photon, the nuclear energy is taken away by an electron of the environment (the metal), the Coulomb interaction induces a p + d → 3He nuclear transition. The processes discussed here can be considered as an alternative version of the solid state internal conversion process since it is thought that one party of the initial particles of the nuclear process takes part in Coulomb interaction with a charged particle of the solid material (e.g. of a metal). There may be many fields of physics where the traces of the proposed mechanism may have been previously appeared. It is not the aim of this work to give a systematic overview these fields. We only mention here two of them that are thought to be partly related or explained by the processes proposed. The first is the so called anomalous screening effect observed in low
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
I think it would be best to discard fusion as a minor reaction in LENR and concentrate on improving fission. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc), which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned. There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash - P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics so far. It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6 quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun. However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out, and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to within a within very tight range. The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain of energy. This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me, despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up depleted mass (on the cold-side). Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as the likely source but it could be another isotope or several. However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since protons pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side. As for now, I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell. From: Kevin O'Malley Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf | P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d + d → 4He process. ---
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Jones, do you assume that the RPF is not an elastic collision because the strong force dominates? It is not too difficult to imagine that the two protons are bound together by the strong force for a short period of time as the new nucleus seeks a way to emit the excitation energy that it contains. We know of the beta plus decay leading to deuterium production, but this is rare. It is not clear why the excited pair of protons is not capable of emitting a gamma to lower their energy state, but if this happens the next item on the agenda would be to emit a positron and neutrino as this unstable nucleus changes to D which always would occur given time. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 12:18 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc), which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned. There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash - P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics so far. It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6 quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun. However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out, and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to within a within very tight range. The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain of energy. This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me, despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up depleted mass (on the cold-side). Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as the likely source but it could be another isotope or several. However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since protons pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side. As for now, I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell. From: Kevin O'Malley Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf | P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Enhancement of fusion rates due to quantum effects in the particles momentum distribution in nonideal media http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3482.pdf N. J. Fisch, 1 M. G. Gladush,2 Yu. V. Petrushevich,2 Piero Quarati,3 and A. N. Starostin2 1 Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540, USA 2 SRC RF Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research, Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190 Russia 3 Politecnico di Torino Department of Physics, Torino I-10125, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Italy (Dated: October 18, 2011) Abstract This study concerns a situation when measurements of the nonresonant cross-section of nuclear reactions appear highly dependent on the environment in which the particles interact. An appealing example discussed in the paper is the interaction of a deuteron beam with a target of deuterated metal Ta. In these experiments, the reaction cross section for d(d,p)t was shown to be orders of magnitude greater than what the conventional model predicts for the low-energy particles. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the information. I only had time to skim over the paper which left me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not the result of an experiment. Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis? If so, please help me find that reference. I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Here is another experimental paper Enhancement of the Deuteron-Fusion Reactions in Metals and its Experimental Implications http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.4538.pdf A. Huke,1, * K. Czerski,2, 1 P. Heide,1 G. Rupre ht,3, 1 N. Targosz,2 and W. ebrowski2 1Institut für Optik und Atomare Physik, Technis he Universität Berlin Hardenbergstraÿe 36, 10623 Berlin, Germany 2Institute of Physics, University of Szczecin, Szcze in, Poland 3TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Recent measurements of the reaction 2H(d,p)3H in metallic environments at very low energies performed by different experimental groups point to an enhanced electron screening effect. However, the resulting screening energies differ strongly for divers host metals and different experiments. Here, we present new experimental results and investigations of interfering processes in the irradiated targets On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Enhancement of fusion rates due to quantum effects in the particles momentum distribution in nonideal media http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3482.pdf N. J. Fisch, 1 M. G. Gladush,2 Yu. V. Petrushevich,2 Piero Quarati,3 and A. N. Starostin2 1 Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540, USA 2 SRC RF Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research, Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190 Russia 3 Politecnico di Torino Department of Physics, Torino I-10125, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Italy (Dated: October 18, 2011) Abstract This study concerns a situation when measurements of the nonresonant cross-section of nuclear reactions appear highly dependent on the environment in which the particles interact. An appealing example discussed in the paper is the interaction of a deuteron beam with a target of deuterated metal Ta. In these experiments, the reaction cross section for d(d,p)t was shown to be orders of magnitude greater than what the conventional model predicts for the low-energy particles. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Thanks for the information. I only had time to skim over the paper which left me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not the result of an experiment. Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis? If so, please help me find that reference. I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
From: David Roberson Jones, do you assume that the RPF is not an elastic collision because the strong force dominates? Yes. The strong force is well-named… by far the strongest force in nature. It is not too difficult to imagine that the two protons are bound together by the strong force for a short period of time as the new nucleus seeks a way to emit the excitation energy that it contains. This energy transfer between two protons is not always “emitted” per se – but it can be coupled to other particles as spin waves. The quanta are related to bosons from the quark mass and governed by QCD. These are a Goldstone bosons (pseudo or Nambu Goldstone bosons) which correspond to the spontaneously broken internal symmetry generators, following a strong force reaction; and are characterized by the quantum numbers of these bosons. The magnon is the prime example of the emitted energy – but it is a “spin wave” pseudo particle, and not a photon. We know of the beta plus decay leading to deuterium production, but this is rare. Extraordinarily rare. In LENR, the experimenter would not see a single deuteron in a thousand years. It is not clear why the excited pair of protons is not capable of emitting a gamma to lower their energy state, QCD color charge is not high energy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge but if this happens the next item on the agenda would be to emit a positron and neutrino as this unstable nucleus changes to D which always would occur given time. There is simply not enough energy to play with to even suggest substantial deuterium. Essentially, D never happens (unless that is one of your hypothetical LENR “miracles”). The excess (or deficit) energy per proton over the average mass is a fraction of the maximum of 70 parts per million (of the total mass-energy of the proton) and only the Boltzmann tail of that distribution is “useable” maybe 4-5%. It can show up as anomalous gain or as anomalous loss (internal heat sink). As gain, it can materialize as “thermal energy” due to magnetic induction (in ferromagnetic metals like nickel) since the magnon spin wave is the prime example of bosonic mass/energy transfer. As loss it can materialize as a magneto-caloric effect. -Original Message- This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc), which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned. There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash - P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics so far. It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6 quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun. However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out, and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to within a within very tight range. The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain of energy. This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me, despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up depleted mass (on the cold-side). Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
I remember there being a paper about something like alpha bombardment of a metal matrix generating a million times more fusion events than the same level of plasma. But I can't find it. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: So, I have a question that seeks an answer. Is anyone aware of proof that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs?
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Does anyone recall seeing an experiment where D and T were both allowed to be absorbed by palladium and then exposed to a muon stream? This type of experiment might be of importance since it would most likely demonstrate whether or not a known cold fusion process releases its energy into the metal matrix instead of in the form of energetic gammas. We continue to seek evidence as to why the standard types of cold fusion fail to behave like hot fusion in this regard and perhaps an experiment of this nature would be revealing. The proposed experiment does not seem to be difficult to carry out with the proper resources while the payoff could be large. Normal muon induced cold fusion is fairly well studied and it is typically conducted with frozen hydrogen components. I consider the metal matrix that holds the hydrogen at room temperatures and perhaps a bit higher as being similar. The hydrogen is effectively compressed by the metal and thus its density approaches that of a frozen sample. Cracks or dislocations within the metal crystal structure would allow multiple atoms of hydrogen to reside within their confines and these locations might act as the fusion centers. The elevated temperatures of the metal compared to frozen hydrogen environments could actually enhance the reaction rates due to added kinetic energy. Both D and T would have an opportunity to fuse either with each other or with the same types of hydrogen adding to the data. If anyone is aware of an experiment of this type having been performed please let me know. If it has not been tried, then perhaps someone will make such an attempt. If obtaining the T is too difficult, then just using D alone would still have interesting possible results. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do with it? Cheers: axil On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss. My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma. The environment is extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree. For instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different. The kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either. And, it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with normal atoms. Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar? Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other very nearby atoms? This seems like a serious lack of imagination and insight. So, I have a question that seeks an answer. Is anyone aware of proof that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs? For example, it would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the reaction atoms to be accelerated by an electric field and rammed into a metal target. For this exercise I think we should restrict the processes to include cases where fusion is detected within the surface of the metal and without significant external energy inputs. Take the example of cold fusion that is initiated by muons. Have there been any situations where this has been observed while the hydrogen is contained within a metal? If so, what ash was observed and were gammas emitted by the process? Perhaps an interesting test would be to infiltrate a mixture of deuterium and tritium into a nickel or palladium matrix and allow muons to enter the fray. Someone may have already attempted this and it would be most informative for them to list the nuclear products that have been measured since this would simulate to a degree what we are expecting to observe with a typical cold fusion reaction. Would this test result in the generation of gammas? In what form would the energy be released? I realize that the addition of tritium might blur the results, particularly when the normal cold fusion processes do not contain it. For this reason, it might be interesting to only use regular hydrogen and deuterium at a lower expected reaction rate. I am most interested in determining whether or not the reaction energy is distributed among the local atoms or confined to the ones undergoing fusion as is seen in hot fusion. I would appreciate any responses from vortex members who have knowledge concerning these questions. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Give me a hint Axil. The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might approach hot fusion conditions. Please elaborate. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do with it? Cheers: axil On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss. My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma. The environment is extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree. For instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different. The kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either. And, it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with normal atoms. Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar? Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other very nearby atoms? This seems like a serious lack of imagination and insight. So, I have a question that seeks an answer. Is anyone aware of proof that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs? For example, it would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the reaction atoms to be accelerated by an electric field and rammed into a metal target. For this exercise I think we should restrict the processes to include cases where fusion is detected within the surface of the metal and without significant external energy inputs. Take the example of cold fusion that is initiated by muons. Have there been any situations where this has been observed while the hydrogen is contained within a metal? If so, what ash was observed and were gammas emitted by the process? Perhaps an interesting test would be to infiltrate a mixture of deuterium and tritium into a nickel or palladium matrix and allow muons to enter the fray. Someone may have already attempted this and it would be most informative for them to list the nuclear products that have been measured since this would simulate to a degree what we are expecting to observe with a typical cold fusion reaction. Would this test result in the generation of gammas? In what form would the energy be released? I realize that the addition of tritium might blur the results, particularly when the normal cold fusion processes do not contain it. For this reason, it might be interesting to only use regular hydrogen and deuterium at a lower expected reaction rate. I am most interested in determining whether or not the reaction energy is distributed among the local atoms or confined to the ones undergoing fusion as is seen in hot fusion. I would appreciate any responses from vortex members who have knowledge concerning these questions. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration. This is just the beginning. As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons. First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document, it states. “A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave irradiation.” A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter close to the hot spot. Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the experimenters could produce. The lasers used by the experimenter could not get that deep into the infrared. The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub Nano scale solid connection between the nanoparticles. When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation. When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a resonance process forces all the EMF into the region between the nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation. The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the thinnest possible thread to connect them. In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field. I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude into the billions or trillions. You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because of its dipole radiation profile. It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels This is LENR, Dave On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Give me a hint Axil. The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might approach hot fusion conditions. Please elaborate. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do with it? Cheers: axil On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss. My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma. The environment is extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree. For instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different. The kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either. And, it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with normal atoms. Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar? Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other very nearby atoms? This seems like a serious lack of imagination and insight. So, I have a question that seeks an answer. Is anyone aware of proof that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs? For example, it would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the reaction atoms to be accelerated by an electric field and rammed
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
These cracks could prevent electrons and protons forming standard atoms of hydrogen and instead channel them together so they form much smaller structures such as a deflated hydrogen atom. Harry On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do with it? Cheers: axil On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss. My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma. The environment is extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree. For instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different. The kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either. And, it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with normal atoms. Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar? Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other very nearby atoms? This seems like a serious lack of imagination and insight. So, I have a question that seeks an answer. Is anyone aware of proof that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs? For example, it would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the reaction atoms to be accelerated by an electric field and rammed into a metal target. For this exercise I think we should restrict the processes to include cases where fusion is detected within the surface of the metal and without significant external energy inputs. Take the example of cold fusion that is initiated by muons. Have there been any situations where this has been observed while the hydrogen is contained within a metal? If so, what ash was observed and were gammas emitted by the process? Perhaps an interesting test would be to infiltrate a mixture of deuterium and tritium into a nickel or palladium matrix and allow muons to enter the fray. Someone may have already attempted this and it would be most informative for them to list the nuclear products that have been measured since this would simulate to a degree what we are expecting to observe with a typical cold fusion reaction. Would this test result in the generation of gammas? In what form would the energy be released? I realize that the addition of tritium might blur the results, particularly when the normal cold fusion processes do not contain it. For this reason, it might be interesting to only use regular hydrogen and deuterium at a lower expected reaction rate. I am most interested in determining whether or not the reaction energy is distributed among the local atoms or confined to the ones undergoing fusion as is seen in hot fusion. I would appreciate any responses from vortex members who have knowledge concerning these questions. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
They form dipoles; Dipole condensates. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: These cracks could prevent electrons and protons forming standard atoms of hydrogen and instead channel them together so they form much smaller structures such as a deflated hydrogen atom. Harry On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do with it? Cheers: axil On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss. My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma. The environment is extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree. For instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different. The kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either. And, it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with normal atoms. Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar? Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other very nearby atoms? This seems like a serious lack of imagination and insight. So, I have a question that seeks an answer. Is anyone aware of proof that hot fusion types of reactions have been observed within the confines of a metal matrix that is not subject to very massive energy inputs? For example, it would be too similar to a hot fusion environment to allow the reaction atoms to be accelerated by an electric field and rammed into a metal target. For this exercise I think we should restrict the processes to include cases where fusion is detected within the surface of the metal and without significant external energy inputs. Take the example of cold fusion that is initiated by muons. Have there been any situations where this has been observed while the hydrogen is contained within a metal? If so, what ash was observed and were gammas emitted by the process? Perhaps an interesting test would be to infiltrate a mixture of deuterium and tritium into a nickel or palladium matrix and allow muons to enter the fray. Someone may have already attempted this and it would be most informative for them to list the nuclear products that have been measured since this would simulate to a degree what we are expecting to observe with a typical cold fusion reaction. Would this test result in the generation of gammas? In what form would the energy be released? I realize that the addition of tritium might blur the results, particularly when the normal cold fusion processes do not contain it. For this reason, it might be interesting to only use regular hydrogen and deuterium at a lower expected reaction rate. I am most interested in determining whether or not the reaction energy is distributed among the local atoms or confined to the ones undergoing fusion as is seen in hot fusion. I would appreciate any responses from vortex members who have knowledge concerning these questions. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
The experimenter said: Throughout the course of the experiment a few nanoantennas became inactive, most likely due to photodegradation of the probe molecules. No, the probe molecules got transmuted. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration. This is just the beginning. As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons. First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document, it states. “A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave irradiation.” A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter close to the hot spot. Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the experimenters could produce. The lasers used by the experimenter could not get that deep into the infrared. The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub Nano scale solid connection between the nanoparticles. When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation. When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a resonance process forces all the EMF into the region between the nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation. The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the thinnest possible thread to connect them. In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field. I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude into the billions or trillions. You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because of its dipole radiation profile. It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels This is LENR, Dave On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Give me a hint Axil. The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might approach hot fusion conditions. Please elaborate. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do with it? Cheers: axil On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss. My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma. The environment is extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree. For instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different. The kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either. And, it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with normal atoms. Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar? Who could have confidence that a fusion reaction taking place within the low temperature confines of a metal matrix would restrict the release of its nuclear energy to just the reacting particles and not include other very nearby atoms? This seems like a serious lack of imagination and insight. So, I have a question that seeks an
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
The enhanced fields are certainly interesting. It is not clear how the large field is able to deliver energy to the reacting particles. Do you think the field consists of many coupled electrons acting as a group ultimately placing their collective energy into just a few targets? This would be a process that extracts energy from the local groups and concentrates it into a smaller number of items. Almost sounds like a way to cool down the metal just prior to the initiation of a reaction. The photoelectric effect has always been strange to me. When I see that the wavelength of the incoming light is much larger than a single atom, I have a difficult time understanding how that quanta of energy ends up mainly in one target electron which is expelled. This seems like a form of energy enhancement. Could the processes be related? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration. This is just the beginning. As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons. First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document, it states. “A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave irradiation.” A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter close to the hot spot. Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the experimenters could produce. The lasers used by the experimenter could not get that deep into the infrared. The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub Nano scale solid connection between the nanoparticles. When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation. When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a resonance process forces all the EMF into the region between the nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation. The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the thinnest possible thread to connect them. In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field. I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude into the billions or trillions. You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because of its dipole radiation profile. It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels This is LENR, Dave On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Give me a hint Axil. The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might approach hot fusion conditions. Please elaborate. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do with it? Cheers: axil On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss. My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma. The environment is extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Perhaps that is the solution. The magnitude of the LENR released energy is still too small for them to realize it is happening. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 29, 2013 12:12 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? The experimenter said: Throughout the course of the experiment a few nanoantennas became inactive, most likely due to photodegradation of the probe molecules. No, the probe molecules got transmuted. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration. This is just the beginning. As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons. First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document, it states. “A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave irradiation.” A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter close to the hot spot. Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the experimenters could produce. The lasers used by the experimenter could not get that deep into the infrared. The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub Nano scale solid connection between the nanoparticles. When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation. When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a resonance process forces all the EMF into the region between the nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation. The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the thinnest possible thread to connect them. In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field. I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude into the billions or trillions. You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because of its dipole radiation profile. It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels This is LENR, Dave On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Give me a hint Axil. The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might approach hot fusion conditions. Please elaborate. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do with it? Cheers: axil On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I was thinking of something unusual this afternoon that I wanted to discuss. My mind wandered into thoughts about cold fusion within metals when It occurred to me that the hot fusion crowd was being very presumptuous to expect the same behavior during fusion reactions occurring within a metal matrix as is measured within a plasma. The environment is extremely different in these two cases and it seems to be out of line to extrapolate a system to this degree. For instance, the density of the reaction components is vastly different. The kinetic energy of these same nuclei could hardly be further apart either. And, it is well known that the hot fusion involves a plasma while cold fusion appears to work with normal atoms. Why would it not be a miracle if both types of behavior were similar? Who could have confidence that a fusion
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Luke destabilizing a proton with an electron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOFgFAcGHQc well actually he does it with two electrons ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjaved=0CDsQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1210.7086ei=gCFVUbHvONWj4APO_YGQDQusg=AFQjCNHHVMEMw3IyGAIvqKFny5LmEfpDmQsig2=OOMNc5JRjV5IzQ-syGgncwbvm=bv.2042,d.dmQ Bose-Einstein condensation of plexcitons This is another piece of the puzzle. A Plexciton is a dipole that vibrates. The electrons are screening the nuclei of the ions. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:58 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The enhanced fields are certainly interesting. It is not clear how the large field is able to deliver energy to the reacting particles. Do you think the field consists of many coupled electrons acting as a group ultimately placing their collective energy into just a few targets? This would be a process that extracts energy from the local groups and concentrates it into a smaller number of items. Almost sounds like a way to cool down the metal just prior to the initiation of a reaction. The photoelectric effect has always been strange to me. When I see that the wavelength of the incoming light is much larger than a single atom, I have a difficult time understanding how that quanta of energy ends up mainly in one target electron which is expelled. This seems like a form of energy enhancement. Could the processes be related? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? We are suggesting LENR with this level of power concentration. This is just the beginning. As stated in the study, the experimental techniques used there were at a disadvantage in maximizing the enhancement of EMF for a couple of reasons. First, laser excitation of the nanoparticles is poor at producing the resonance pattern that generates the most enhancements. From the document, it states. “A dipole within the near-field of the nanoparticles allows for excitation of plasmon resonances, which are difficult to excite with plane wave irradiation.” A laser produces plane wave irradiation only; on the other hand, dipole excitation will really get the enhancement rolling. The only way that the experimenters got the enhancement up to as high as it eventually got was to produce secondary excitement using the laser to pump up a dipole emitter close to the hot spot. Another problem for the experimenters was that the enhancement is most powerful at longer wavelengths into the deeper infrared than the experimenters could produce. The lasers used by the experimenter could not get that deep into the infrared. The most enhancements came from nanoparticles that were connected by a sub Nano scale solid connection between the nanoparticles. When there is some space between the particles, power is broadcast like a radio station to far places. This is called far field radiation. When the particles were connected by a thin channel of material, a resonance process forces all the EMF into the region between the nanoparticles. This is called near field radiation. The most powerful nano-particles emitters look like a dumbbell with the thinnest possible thread to connect them. In this case, little radiation escaped to the far field. I speculate that if the experiment was run using the optimum infrared radiation wavelength and the properly connected nanoparticles, the system could increase its enhancement levels by a few more orders of magnitude into the billions or trillions. You can see that a well-built LENR system has all the prerequisites to produce a very powerful infrared and electron current enhancements because of its dipole radiation profile. It also looks like there is a Bose-Einstein condensation process going on to pump up the EMF enhancements to these huge levels This is LENR, Dave On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Give me a hint Axil. The enhanced field suggests to me that the activity might approach hot fusion conditions. Please elaborate. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 28, 2013 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CD4QFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castl.uci.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FSingle%2520Nanoparticle%2520SERES_Galley%2520Proof_121712.pdfei=kslFUYK3I8eX0QH9u4DwCQusg=AFQjCNE52ebdjSPkC101MgD1Obse3dYAvAsig2=h58oP-5AUJVw13xOhIhVEw Structure Enhancement Factor Relationships in Single Gold Nanoantennas by Surface-Enhanced Raman Excitation Spectroscopy In the parlance of Nanoplasmonics, a crack can be considered a nanoantenna. A optimally configured nanoantenna can amplify incoming EMF in the infrared range by a factor of 500,000,000. I am showing you the path. What will you do
