Axil, you would make a more useful contribution if you read and used
what has been observed.
On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The connection between the referenced experiment and the Ni/H
reactor is stronger than you state.
The Ni/H reactor does not produce tritium, it produces the majority
of its transmutation products as very light elements, and an alpha
particle is helium.
The light hydrogen system does produce tritium occasionally.
The experiment does not produce gamma radiation even though it shows
nuclear activity in heavy elements, it does not feature hydrogen,
but it is water based, and importantly, it does use nano-particles.
You did say
“And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made
the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make
money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have
no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to find
out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little
more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are
hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else does and
makes the effect work much better and with total control. As long
as most people continue to think the effect is not real and that the
explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the
competition will remain weak.”
"Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can
make the effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal
their secret recipe."
The Rossi secret is exposed by these types of experiments with
nanoparticles.
He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3
micron in size.
A strong experimenter with years of LENR experience under his belt
is strong competition when his experimental efforts are properly
focused.
These types of experiments are easy to do and are inexpensive to
evaluate.
Have you ever had success replicating the Rossi method? I have not
had success even though I have tried to replicate his claim many times.
Understanding this type of nanoparticle based experiment will lend
profound insight into the reactions happening inside Ni/H type
reactors.
If you say that this type of experiment only produces alpha decay,
this is not the case.
No one claims light hydrogen makes helium. That product is produced
only when deuterium is used. My theory predicts that deuterium is the
source of energy when light hydrogen is used, not transmutation.
The following experiment by the same fellow show evidence of fission
in uranium and thorium:
At the end of the day, a study of Nanoplasmonics directed toward
LENR will be well worth your valuable time.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Ed Storms
arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4268
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, Axil, radioactive decay can be affected several different ways,
but this is not LENR as normally defined. The discussion involves
creation of helium, tritium, and transmutation using isotopes of
hydrogen without application of extra energy and without significant
radiation being emitted.
Ed
On Apr 28, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in
the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that
occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex
collection of conditions?
Let us get down to basics. Here is an experiment that shows LENR
nuclear activity without a NAE as we understand it.
Accelerated alpha-decay of 232U isotope achieved by exposure of
its aqueous solution with gold nanoparticles to laser radiation
A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=25F9UdCiLqjC4AP3pYHIBQ&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=pB3pVPZuQrv_xT8EcvrwWA
The experiment suggests that LENR is caused by intense electrical
fields around nanoparticles.
As quoted in the article:
"Strong dependence of the acceleration of alpha-decay on the peak
power of laser radiation in the medium should be related to the
strength of fields of the laser wave. The natural measure of the
electrical field is its value inside the atom or ion. The electric
field of laser wave becomes comparable with inter-atomic field at
intensity level of 10 to the 16 power W/cm2. Possible mechanism of
laser-induced acceleration of alpha-decay can be illustrated as
follows (Fig. 5). Exposure of NPs to laser radiation leads to its
amplification in the vicinity of NPs. If an ion of Uranil is
situated near the exposed nanoparticle, then strong electric field
of the laser wave disturbes its electronic shells. This
perturbation causes the oscillations of the potential near its
equilibrium value with the frequency of laser radiation. So do the
width and the hieght of the potential barrier for tunneling alpha-
particle. Since the probability of tunelling depends on the barrier
widt in an exponential way, so even its small variations can
noticeably increase the rate of alpha-decay".
In this experiment, the half-life of 232U in the induced
Nanophotonic electrical field induced within the influence of the
laser field is 5 milliseconds instead of 69 years.
With this type of experimental evidence, will you look into
Nanophotonics?
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
OK Peter, let's discuss. I view the LENR process like I would a
complex machine in which all the parts have a function, but each
must work with the other parts for the entire machine to work
properly. No part can be examined to determine its function
without considering how it relates to every other part.
Unfortunately, each theory being proposed to explain LENR is
applied to a different part. If a clock were used as an analogy,
one theory explains the spring will ignoring the balance wheel.
Another explains the balance wheel and ignores the gears.
In other words, if a person proposes how the Coulomb barrier is
reduced, I propose he must also provide a method for releasing the
mass-energy that is consistent with the proposed lowering process.
If a method to form helium is proposed, the method must also show
how tritium and transmutation can be produced.
I realize many people do not consider the LENR process to be a
single machine, but instead a complex mixture of independent
processes. They imagine under some conditions, helium is made.
Change the conditions and transmutation becomes the main reaction.
Apparently some theoreticians expect tritium to form for no
apparent reason. This creates a mayor conflict in how the behavior
is explained and creates a basic question. Does LENR result from
single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is
LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various
locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of
conditions?
The answer a person makes to this question determines the rest of
the discussion. Consequently, this conflict in basic belief must
be resolved before any discussion is possible. I get the
impression that a great deal of conflict has been created during
past discussions because this basic question is not clearly
resolved and lingers as an unconscious distraction.
Ed Storms
On Apr 28, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed,
Thank you very much for this bright answer.
It seems to me that in the implicit mode you agree with the idea
that CF
has arrived before its time- and this is the reason of its slow
and hesitant
development.
For example re understanding of LENR you had sufficient data to work
out your theory only recently. The reactions take place in
nanocavities.
but what actually the reactions are- you know, I don't know and am
waiting
for experimental results coming from DGT.
I dare to think the taxonomy of LENR groups can be considered more
diverse and complex than those described by you, but perhaps we cn
discuss this peacefully later e.g. for an joint editorial on my
blog, if
you will agree.
Re: "I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-types
reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by
people who are not committed to the present ideas." I think this
secret is not so difficult and is not unique so
open minded researchers will get the solution- what is the
essential difference
between LENR (passive, powerless, problematic) and LENR+ (active,
autonomous, application-ready). I think the clue is an accelerated
mode of
NAE-genesis.
Peter
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> wrote:
Peter, I'm glad you are trying to look at the LENR phenomenon from
a broad perspective. Let me add a few of my insights about where I
think the field stands right now without naming names.
More than enough information has been accumulated to provide the
basis for the correct explanation and to show how the effect can
be replicated without fail. Nevertheless, we are still struggling
to accept a useful explanation and to make the effect work without
fail because this information is not being used. If I apply the
analogy of a jig saw puzzle, people are trying to assemble the
picture while ignoring a large number of the pieces. The people
who are attempting to create an explanation assemble a little part
of the puzzle and then insist that the whole picture is like their
little piece, with the interpretation of what the little piece
shows being totally in the imagination. Each person has been
looking at their little piece so long, they no longer have the
ability to consider any other interpretation. Normally, new
people come into a field of study and bring with them new
insights. This process does not occur in this field because most
people who could provide such a contribution are not interested.
Furthermore, no contribution even from these outsiders would be
useful unless the huge collection of observed behavior has been
mastered, which requires considerable effect. As a result, most
new ideas being debated have very little relationship to what is
real. This ignorance encourages repetition of failed methods and
discussions that lead nowhere.
And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made
the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make
money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have
no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to
find out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a
little more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently,
they are hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else
does and makes the effect work much better and with total
control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is
not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types
have a chance because the competition will remain weak.
So, from my viewpoint, we have three types of attitudes operating
in the LENR field. First we have most people in science who have
no interest and think the claims are nonsense. In the second
group, we have a few people who have made the effect work, but not
well enough to attract interest from Group #1. The third group
consists of people who have explored various aspect of the effect
with mixed success for the last 24 years. These people think they
are the field. They speak for the field, judge what is real or
not, and look to Fleischmann and Pons as their heros. I have to
admit being in this group, while aspiring to move into group #2.
Nevertheless, I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-
types reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be
applied by people who are not committed to the present ideas.
This new blood must come from outside Group #3 because this group
will not accept new ideas from within, as always happens when a
field of study remains isolated too long. Consequently, I'm
rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work
well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe.
At that point, a swarm of graduate students, will descend on the
field and start to make fast process in finding the correct
explanation and the ideal application. Until then, we in Group #3
are just exploring a fun hobby with the blind leading the blind to
a large extent.
Ed Storms
On Apr 28, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear friends,
This writing is in part about the echo of my appeal to Rossi's
Professors (who by the way do not belong to Rossi at all!) and in
part is about other failures in search of owners:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/04/the-lenr-ists-sunday.html
En ensemble, it is about serious problems and things.
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
