I have just posted a reference (Plasmons on a patterned surface can enhance the production of bright electron beams) that describes how a properly configured patterned surface of cavities and mounds can convert the heat in the form of plasmons present in a lattice into electrons localized on that surface.
This is an example of how Anderson localization of plasmons in the form of collective oscillations of the free electron gas density on the surface of the lattice can catalyze LENR. More generally, this shows how the proper structuring of materials can be formulated to engineer localized concentrations of electrons in response to the application of heat to the surface of the lattice. These localized areas of high electron density form the active nuclear areas where the lowering of the coulomb barrier is greatly enhanced. This is a similar mechanism to the crack method called out in Ed Storms theory where the cracks in the lattice localizes, pins down and concentrates surface electrons under the stimulus of heat in and around the cracks on the surface of the lattice. Admittedly, breaking of chemical bonds may not be the appropriate term for processes so described. Topological construction in materials might be a better term even if this type of process might well be a chemical one. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Roarty, Francis X < [email protected]> wrote: > Axil,**** > > Nicely said but to pick one nit regarding syntax –when you said [snip]These > reactions must be catalyzed by chemical reactions where changes that > strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of > chemical bonds.[/snip] It isn’t clear what you are saying is the underlying > energy source or possibly multiple sources? Care to elaborate? You well > know my position re the geometry of the cavity walls and their suppression > of longer vacuum wavelengths that causes the initial catalytic action when > said geometry changes [see Chen at Cornell re catalytic action at openings > and defects nanotubes]. **** > > Fran**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 3:19 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room > Temperature**** > > ** ** > > I am both pleased and privileged at your interest in my correct > perceptions of LENR processes. There are so many widely varied instances of > these LENR processes, there must be more than one cause.**** > > There are instances where significant transmutation of elements and > isotopic shifts occurs without the generation of heat. **** > > There are instances where radioactive isotopic half-lives are > significantly modified by LENR processes.**** > > Also there are conditions where electrons and protons form coopper pairs > in seeming violation of the law of coulomb repulsion. **** > > Ensembles of protons can aggregate and form in cavities in seeming > violation of the laws of coulomb like charge repulsion. > Recent experimentation into the causes of superconductivity has shown in > contravention of longstanding belief that phonon action in the lattice does > not cause pairing but the collective action of electrons is what really > produces the pairing to occur.**** > > In all of these instances, nuclear reaction derivatives such as neutrons > and gamma radiation are seldom if ever seen as byproducts of the LENR > reaction.**** > > These reactions must be catalyzed by chemical reactions where changes that > strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of > chemical bonds.**** > > I have come to the conclusion that the actions of electrons; more > basically charge accumulation from their collective action can affect the > inner workings of the atomic nucleus and even change the basic character of > the proton.**** > > Recently, we've have gone over the new science paper on muonic hydrogen. > According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica, the charge > radius of the proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm > for muonic hydrogen and 0.88fm for electronic hydrogen. This would not be a > big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values. > But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there > is something unexplained by generally accepted science and the standard > model of matter going on.**** > > The most basic character of the proton changes base on the type of > negatively charge particle that orbits it.**** > > It is easy for my imagination to extend this field of nuclear influence to > include influence of the electron in the form of charge accumulation into > the very heart of the nucleus itself.**** > > These considerations lend comfort to my agreement with the Ken Shoulders' > “Electrum Validum" (EV), meaning "strong electron", wing of the LENR > community.**** > > > Cheers: Axil > > > **** > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Axil, your description does not fit what is observed or even what is > generally accepted. **** > > ** ** > > I'm trying to get you to understand the basic difference between cold > fusion and hot fusion. It would help if you read papers that describe what > is observed rather than speculate based on imagination. **** > > ** ** > > The Coulomb barrier is a force external to the nucleus that keeps the > nuclei apart and provide a force to hold the electrons in place. Of course > this is a simplified description that requires complex math to describe > accurately. Energy has to be applied to move the nuclei together. During > hot fusion, this energy can be supplied by the motion of the nuclei either > as temperature in plasma or as an energetic ion beam created by an > accelerator. Once the nuclei of d get close enough, the extra energy > observed as mass is suddenly released and the two d explode into fragments > of He. These fragments go off in directions and with energy required to > conserve momentum. The idea of gluons is not relevant.**** > > ** ** > > In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic > products and the final product is an intact helium nucleus. Nevertheless, > the nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course, radiation is produced and > some is detected outside of the apparatus. However, the energy of the > radiation is not consistent with a single release of energy as is the case > with hot fusion. In this way, the two processes are entirely different. > This difference MUST be taken into account in any explanation. **** > > ** ** > > Ed**** > > ** ** > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Axil Axil wrote:**** > > > > **** > > *Both hot and cold fusions are a result of pent up nuclear energy. Both > are explosions.***** > > As a first principle, LENR is caused by the lowering of the coulomb > barrier. ** ** > > How does energy and momentum conservation play into energy produced by > coulomb barrier lowering?**** > > The conservation laws apply to the system as a whole and not to any > individual part of the system.**** > > The energy increase of the cold fusion of a nucleus with a proton for > example somehow results in an energy transfer between the components in > that system. How can this energy transfer work?**** > > To start out with, Nuclei are made up of protons and neutron, but the mass > of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the > protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of > the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together.**** > > > The binding energy steals energy from the nucleons to keep the nucleus > together, that energy is transferred to the gluons.**** > > > As the coulomb barrier of the nucleus is screened, the protons lose their > repulsive charge in the nucleus so the gluons have less work to do; they > become less energy intensive.**** > > > Where does this energy go? It could go back into reformulating the mass > of the protons and neutrons. But without radioactive decay, the nucleus > must remain stable and there are no gamma rays to transfer the energy out > of the nucleus.**** > > The difference in the binding energy’s between the original nucleus and > the new nucleus must go somewhere as the nucleus returns to normal to > conserve energy as the screening gradually abates and the gluons regain > their energy. **** > > The only other component in the LENR system is the screening electrons. > Somehow the screening electrons must take the excess energy away with them > bit by bit as the screening of the nucleus gradually decreases. > > > > Cheers: Axil**** > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > ** ** > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > ** ** > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 8:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > ** ** > > **** > > Storms: NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without > radiation.**** > > KevinO:***There have been some observances of radiation. Not very much, > but some. **** > > ** ** > > Storms:Yes, I know but that is not the point. **** > > ***Then why did you make the point? Your claim was "Cold fusion produces > He4 without radiation." My analogy fits the observance well, in terms of a > little bit of emitted energy (balloon pops) getting out of the lattice -- > not very much but some. There is some radiation, but most of it gets > absorbed by the lattice. What point are you trying to make? **** > > > > **** > > I think you can make a better analogy by comparing exploding and burning.* > *** > > ***My analogy was aimed at showing that it's fusion that's taking place, > whether hot or cold, and that claiming there is "no" radiation didn't fit > the facts. You even say "yes I know but that is not the point". **** > > **** > > Hot fusion is an explosion of the nucleus as a result of pet up > nuclear energy. Cold fusion is a burning reaction that allows the energy to > leak out slowly even though the same reaction products are produced. Both > can occur in a lattice, but cold fusion REQUIRES the lattice while hot > fusion does not. **** > > ***Your analogy does not make sense. To say that cold fusion is a burning > reaction while hot fusion isn't would require us to fill the balloons with > 2 different flammable gasses. But any balloons in a lattice would burn/pop > when placed next to another burning balloon, suggesting a self-sustained > nuclear chain reaction such as fission. That isn't what takes place in > cold fusion cells. **** > > **** > > Both hot and cold fusions are a result of pent up nuclear energy. > Both are explosions. But they are on completely different scales. That's > why I said there's only one balloon pop in cold fusion and 50,000 balloon > pops in hot fusion. There's no corresponding 50,000 balloon pop in cold > fusion -- I'm not aware of any LENR/Cold fusion cell that has undergone a > HUGE nuclear reaction resulting in lethal levels of gamma rays, neutrons, > or whatever radiation. I doubt that it can happen. To say that cold > fusion requires the lattice while hot fusion does not is ignoring the > analogical fact that 50,000 balloons are being popped at once in the hot > fusion balloon example -- there's no way to do that in a lattice as far as > I can see. And if there was a way, there would be the corresponding > lethal levels of radiation. And conversely, there's no way to get just one > balloon to pop in the hot-fusion example. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
