>From what I can read in these figures, the electric field enhancemnt ranges to 300 fold
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121024/srep00764/full/srep00764.html#/f4 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > *New Findings from Rice University in the Area of Nanotechnology Published > * > > > > *October 1st, 2012* > > 2012 OCT 1 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at > Nanotechnology Weekly -- Investigators discuss new findings in > Nanotechnology. According to news originating from Houston, Texas, by > VerticalNews correspondents, research stated, "Planar clusters of coupled > plasmonic nanoparticles support nanoscale electromagnetic 'hot spots' and > coherent effects, such as Fano resonances, with unique near and far field > signatures, currently of prime interest for sensing applications. Here we > show that plasmonic cluster properties can be substantially modified by the > addition of individual, discrete dielectric nanoparticles at specific > locations on the cluster, introducing... > Fano resonance in a nanowire can convert heat/electron particles into > electromagnetic hotspots aka nuclear active areas. > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> **** >> >> I periodically have to start over with this discussion because the >> response provided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear >> conclusions are no longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding >> results from these discussions and this needs to be examined without the >> distraction created by the earlier discussion.**** >> >> The phenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide >> a model and were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features >> are: >> >> 1. The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic >> particles, as is the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in >> particular. >> >> 2. The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult >> to replicate in the laboratory. >> >> 3. The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience >> with the hot fusion process. >> >> 4. The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain >> solids.**** >> >> 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although >> extra energy will increase its rate. >> >> These features do not need additional demonstration or experimental >> detail to be accepted as real by a knowledgeable observer. >> >> The challenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not >> conflict with what is known about "conventional" nuclear reactions and is >> consistent with what is observed. The need for such an explanation, even >> thought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is too >> complex to investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, all >> experiments in science are guided at some level by an explanation, which is >> sometimes informal and based on current observed behavior but more often is >> based on established laws of Nature. The best model is the one that is >> consistent with the largest number of observations and makes accurate >> predictions about previously unseen behavior. These models are not >> designed to or are required to justify belief that the phenomenon called >> LENR is real. They are required to guide effective research that might >> eventually provide the required justification for acceptance. >> To do this, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must be >> consistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systems in >> which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions are consistent >> with the required rules (laws) and which are not has been the basic cause >> of conflict and argument about the proposed models. **** >> **** >> Before listing the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several >> nuclear processes and reactions can occur in a material at the same time. >> For the discussion to be clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a >> time. Initially the discussion will focus on the most active reaction that >> results in the major amount of detected heat energy. **** >> **** >> Several models propose processes other than fusion. These models involve >> either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the >> material. The resulting neutrons then interact with nuclei to form the >> observed nuclear products. This discussion is not focused on this claim >> other than to note that the observed behavior is not consistent with this >> process and many parts of the model conflict with basic laws of nature. >> Therefore, this path will not be explored here. The present discussion >> focuses only on fusion of hydrons as the process called LENR.**** >> **** >> Three basic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same >> time. No significant delay may separate these three events. These >> events are: **** >> **** >> >> A. Two or more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time >> in the material.**** >> >> B. Two or more hydrons must overcome the Coulomb barrier separating >> them.**** >> >> C. The resulting reduction in mass-energy must be converted to >> heat-energy.**** >> **** >> The basic assumptions used here are:**** >> **** >> >> 1. The behavior involves only one basic mechanism that occurs at the >> same basic location in the active material being examined. >> >> 2. The nuclear process can involve any isotope of hydrogen. >> >> 3. The entire process must be consistent with all known laws of physics >> and chemistry, although gaps in knowledge are accepted. >> **** >> The above assumptions and observed behavior alone allow a useful model to >> be proposed. To start the process, the location of the nuclear process in >> the material must be identified. I call this location, the Nuclear Active >> Environment (NAE). Consequently, a new assumption is introduced that >> says:**** >> **** >> >> 1. The NAE is a new physical structure having no connection through >> quantum mechanical processes or the laws of thermodynamics with the atoms >> that form the lattice structure. **** >> >> This assumption eliminates a number of proposed models from >> consideration, which is discussed later. >> **** >> I have explained previously why I propose that the nuclear reaction >> occurs in cracks of a critical size, so I will not repeat this argument >> here. Once the crack forms, the three basic processes (A, B, C above) >> must take place in this structure. The model now must describe how this >> series of events happens. **** >> **** >> First, the hydons that are present in the surrounding lattice as H+ or D+ >> must enter the crack and create a structure that is able to reduce the >> coulomb barrier. The only way this process has been seen to occur is >> either by applying enough kinetic energy to force the two nuclei together >> (hot fusion) or by insertion of a muon between two D. Both methods >> produce the typical and expected energetic particles. Use of ion >> bombardment has revealed that the electrons normally present in a material >> are able to reduce the magnitude of the Coulomb barrier for the >> conventional hot fusion process. Consequently, the logical implication >> is that electrons are also involved in the LENR process, but in a different >> way. Regardless of their involvement, the Coulomb reduction process >> must take place in a manner to allow the mass-energy to be released >> gradually in small quanta before the fusion process is complete. Otherwise, >> if mass-energy remains in the final structure, it must result in gamma >> emission to be consistent with known behavior. At this point in the >> model, we are faced with a dilemma. What process can be proposed that >> satisfies the observed behavior but does not conflict with known and >> accepted concepts in physics? All of the proposed models are faced with >> this dilemma while attempting to solve the problem different ways. The only >> question is which of the proposed methods (theories) provides the most >> logical description of observed behavior and best predictions, because they >> all contain the consequence of this dilemma. Can we focus the >> discussion on this dilemma? >> >> Ed >> >> >
