Re: [Vo]:nanocavities

Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:08:52 -0800

I don't understand your point. Laser stimulation has been done many times and it simply adds energy to the process. Energy can be added by increased temperature and application of applied current, which also increases the power. This changes nothing basic about the process nor reveals how the process works. 

Ed


On Feb 10, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:



Edmund Storms [email protected] via eskimo.com
11:45 AM (15 hours ago)



to vortex-l

 Edmund Storms writes:
Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done near absolute zero while using complex apparatus. This has no relationship to cold fusion. 

***What about KP Sinha’s Laser experiment in LENR ?
Laser stimulation of low-energy nuclear
reactions in deuterated palladium
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct102006/907.pdf
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: 

On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Experiments by Piantelli and information about early Rossi systems indicate that a cold LENR system will produce high energy radiation, but a hot system will not.
Alix, this statement does not describe the evidence. All we know is what Rossi claims, i.e. that INITIALLY radiation is produced that is reduced as the process continues. Many people have detected radiation under various conditions.
How can we understand the physical meaning of these experimental results?
It has been shown that coherent EMF in the form of time-dependent potentials can lead to substantial cooling in Bose Einstein condensates in an open system that allows entropy to be removed.
Formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate is routinely accomplished by using laser light to cool the system – in laser cooling in the form of scattered photons, in evaporative cooling in the form of discarded atoms.
Energy is transferred from atoms to be cooled to atoms which are rejected from the system.
In another example, this cooling technique is also used in cooling elements in the formation of clusters.
Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done near absolute zero while using complex apparatus. This has no relationship to cold fusion.
Ionic clusters consist of a single ion surrounded by one or more neutral molecules. They are created when a gas is cooled. Molecules in the gaseous state are widely separated and move about in continual motion. So widely separated in space are these molecules that they exert no force of attraction upon one another, and although they frequently collide, their kinetic energy is so high they will not stick together. These gas molecules must be cooled to reduce their kinetic energy and associated random motion.
As the temperature in the gas drops, however, molecular motion slows and the molecules begin to gather and stick together. Eventually, the motion slows sufficiently for intermolecular forces of attraction to bind the molecules together into clusters that number from a few to a few hundred individual molecules in size. If the number of neutral molecules surrounding the ion in each cluster becomes sufficiently large, an assemblage of clusters will resemble a conventional bulk material--either a liquid or a solid. 

Three common ways exist to produce clusters:
a) Gas aggregation sources: This is the oldest and easiest method for cluster production. Atoms or molecules are evaporated into a flow of rare gas atoms. The evaporated atoms are cooled in collision with the rare gas. When the atoms or molecules loose enough energy the cluster production is started.
b) Laser-ablation sources (surface sources, sputtering): Photon or heavy particle impact on a surface leads to the desorption of atoms or molecules. The released atoms or molecules are partially ionized and form plasma. Similar like in the gas aggregation sources the plasma is cooled by present rare gas that removes kinetic energy from the system and cluster formation is achieved
c) Supersonic cluster sources: A gas under high pressure is expanded adiabatically through a small nozzle. This is how noble gases are liquefied.
In a LENR system where a metal lattice is present, the coherent motion of the lattice will remove kinetic energy from the active nuclear sites containing the Bose-Einstein condensates by rejecting kinetic energy produced in these structures by nuclear processes contained the metal lattice.
This description has no justification in theory or in observation. Coherent motion of atoms does no occur spontaneously in a lattice.
If the coherent motion of the lattice is not robust enough, the radiation produced by the nuclear reactions will be unmodified by the cold lattice and escape as gamma rays. 



I have no idea what you are describing by the above comment.

Ed




Cheers:   Axil
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: 
Lou,
Any theory that proposes to use tunneling based on electrons being concentrated must at the same time show how the resulting energy is dissipated. Such energy is dissipated normally by the fusion product breaking into two parts, which go off with high energy in directions required to conserve momentum. This is called hot fusion and it is well known and understood.
In contrast, during cold fusion the fusion product does not fragment. It remains as He, but without the gamma emission as is required to dissipate the energy. To be consistent with this observation, a theory MUST explain how this nuclear energy is dissipated. Simply proposing a process to overcome the barrier without showing how the next step violates normal behavior is not useful in explaining cold fusion. The Maimon theory is ok if it is used to explain hot fusion because this is what would be expected and what has been observed when tunneling conditions have been created. People have to accept that hot fusion and cold fusion are two entirely different phenomenon that play by different rules. Confusion keeps being produced by trying to mix these two different effects. 

Ed



On Feb 9, 2013, at 10:09 AM, [email protected] wrote:

Ed,
I assume you are referring to Maimon's theory, which I am not familiar with. 

When you say "the expected reaction is hot fusion", are you only
referring to highly energetic collisions?

Do you think the theory X.Z.Li, et al, involving resonant tunneling
(at low kinetic energy), allegedly avoiding energetic byproducts, might 
be correct?  Some references --

"Deuterium (Hydrogen) Flux Permeating through Palladium and Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science"
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/WeiQdeuteriumh.pdf
"A Chinese view on summary of condensed matter nuclear science"
http://166.111.26.4/JOFE2004Sept.Vol23No3P217.pdf
"Fusion energy without strong nuclear radiation"
http://www.springerlink.com/index/w4721655219541kk.pdf
"Multiple Scattering Theory (MST) and Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science—“Super-Absorption” in a Crystal Lattice—"
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/LiXZmultiplesc.pdf

I am agnostic on this topic, and am very interested in your view.

-- Lou Pagnucco
The problem Eric is that once the math is solved, the expected nuclear 
reaction is hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, this effort is
a waste of time.  This is something the hot fusion field needs to
understand to explain the effect of bombarding materials with
energetic deuterons.  The effort has no application to cold fusion.


Ed
On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:13 AM, [email protected] wrote:

Eric,

It's good to hear Ron Maimon is trying to develop this theory.

But, the math is truly confusing, bewildering and intimidating -
even to formulate the problem, let alone solve it.
When composite particles are involved, calculating tunneling
probability
is almost intractable - even in free space, much less in condensed
matter.

A recent paper on composite particle tunneling -
"Tunneling of a molecule with many bound states in three dimensions"
http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/4/045201
(free - with registration)
- (and, the many references it cites) shows how tricky this is.
There are some related papers on arxiv.org too.

In the case of LENR, I think the empirical trumps the theoretical.

-- Lou Pagnucco


Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave-
functions,
perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites,
nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function
focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability
by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave-
functions.


Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons
meet near
a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where
the
strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push
the
positively charged deuterons back out again.  With 20 keV of initial
kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells
as far
as
the K shell before turning around again.  At the turning point
their de
Broglie waves would be "enhanced,", or, presumably, focused, and as a
result overlap and tunneling would be more likely.

Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised
which have
not yet been brought to Ron's attention.  Presumably he would set us
straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying.

Eric

Reply via email to