Peter,
I am of the opinion that the geometry formed between Rossi's
"micro" tubules is on the nanoscale and would therefore support plasmonics.
My intention for asking the question was to make people consider the
implications of packing geometries when you have billions of spiky shaped 3
micron grains poured together into a bulk material -my thought is that stiction
forces would clump them closely together until the spikes prevent any further
collapse...a sort of self assembling skeletal catalyst OR aero colloid?
VR
Frank
From: Peter Gluck [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:17 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
Dear Fran,
I wamly recommend you to take in consideration what our
colleague AXIL says, he is stepwise developing the holistic\
view of the phenomena taking place- via nanoplamonics and
resonances etc.,- very much in harmony with Defkalion's results and
principles.
Peter
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Roarty, Francis X
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sunday 4/28 Ed said [snip] 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. [/snip]
Has anyone investigated the geometries formed by these microtubules when they
pack together to form the bulk material that the hydrogen actually permeates
through...what does the 3 micron actually refer too??? Are they referring to
the particle diameter or spacing between the protrusions of a 3 micron
"grain"..I was of the impression these "tubules" were odd shaped with spikes
that could form inter geometries much smaller than the 3 micron scale
referenced in the articles, similar to dust in a grain elevator becoming
explosive even though individual grains are perfectly harmless.
Regards
Fran
He does not use nano-particles. The Ni used is shown to be near 3 micron in
size.
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 9:04 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: just published on my Blog
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<http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4268>
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[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
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
