Jones--
I agree with you with the significance of the Letts Craven paper. For a long time the laser stimulation of the Pd-D system was shown to reliably cause excess heat. However, L&C indicate in the cited paper NMR was involved in their opinion. This was because RF stimulation also worked some of the time to cause EH. I have long considered that the NMR transitions are involved in getting sufficient spin energy in the lattice to stimulate a mass change with the excess energy distributed to the lattice electrons and hence phonons--heat. The intensity of the laser to excite the nuclei to higher spin states was the difference between RF stimulation and the laser stimulation. Note that the magnetic field was probably necessary to align the nuclei to allow the photons of the laser to properly align at the correct angle for a significant spin energy resonant transition. If SPP’s were involved, they may also have aligned in the magnetic field to create a much larger B field at the interstitial locations where the D nuclei were deposited or diffused. The large B field would have made for higher allowable spin states and potentially better coupling with the lattice. The collapse of SPP’S may have provided the transient magnetic B field (and changing spin energy states of the D and/or the rest of the coherent system to create the proper resonant conditions. This is all IMHO----- Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 8:20 AM To: [email protected] BTW – this is a fabulous paper in retrospect – especially if one is of the opinion that the dogbone type reactors – by virtue of incandescent light interacting in the alumina tube – are storing, collating and reemitting semi-coherent photons, as a substitute for laser irradiation. There are a number of papers on photon storage and super-radiance in alumina. Surface plasmons are all about photons in (semi)coherence. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDlaserstimua.pdf From: Jones Beene Oops, as you can see the Conference was in Cambridge. (where Violante’s 2003 paper was first presented) Letts and Cravens also presented similar work there with lasers but apparently did not use the phrase “surface plasmon”… or if they did, then maybe they are the first. – so the $64 question is: did Widom present his version of surface plasmons earlier than this date – or did he copy Violante or Letts/Cravens ? W-L certainly do not give attribution to either Violante or L/C in their 2005 paper. Yet, there is little doubt that Widom / Larsen now wish to take credit for this important detail – and it is a big deal, so if they are the first to recognize surface plasmons, then they deserve the credit; or if not … Violante, or Letts/Cravens, are the researchers whose name should be mentioned. At least they did real experiments. It is not idle banter to imagine that this specific insight on plasmons – if and when it is ever proved - will eventually lead to Stockholm (operative word being “IF”)… From: Jones Beene Hi Mark, Thanks for that - but here is a two year earlier reference – and one not encumbered by the ultra-cold neutron nonsense. It is a reference which comes from Volante at a conference presentation in 2003 at Frascati. Was Widom at this conference? If so, we have another attribution problem. The paper was presented in 2003 but not published until 2005. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005cmns.conf..421V In light of the relevance of the surface plasmon phenomenon to LENR, it seems fruitful to locate the earliest reference to its use in LENR – which as of now appears to be this Violante presentation, but perhaps there is an earlier reference. From: Mark Jurich Jones wrote: For the record, Fred Sparber started talking about surface plasmons in LENR on vortex in 2006 if not before. It is a mistake to credit this to W&L. FYI: It’s not my intent to get involved in the whole Widom-Larsen Theory Controversy, but I think it would be disingenuous if one did not reference the following paper in May 2005 which refers to “surface plasma modes”: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505026 I was quite aware of this preprint back in 2005, hence the comment. Mark Jurich
