http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein
An Interview With Peter Hagelstein<http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows: So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death. People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30 individual quanta. Axil says: Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons: The Jaynes Cummings model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and absorption). MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in an interview as follows: What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found. Axil says: This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF radiation to the near field in dark mode by eliminated far field emissions. In a Ni/H reactor, a general state of Bose Einstein condensation exists do to the unique properties of the polariton. This takes nanoplasmonic theory to another level of detail in the Jaynes Cummings Hubbard model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model and the spaser *arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086* This property provides thermalization of gamma rays and superfluidic heat transfer from the NAE to the walls of the reactor at temperatures of up to 2600Cthat cools the NAE. Imagination is a great risk in the understanding of LENR. This is natural when experimental data cannot be found. However, this aforementioned characterization of he behavior of the polariton has been experimentally verified in a thousand or more experiments conducted in the field of nanoplasmonics. This new science has developed the tools to look into the behavior of the nano-lattice and understand what is going on inside it. All that those interested in LENR is to take the time to learn. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > > The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without >> assuming CF is the cause. >> > > I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I > understand the part about neutrons. It is the "very small number alpha" > particles that I'm querying. I think you allude to this below, but I'm not > sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion. > > >> Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected. >> Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton. >> > > I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is > broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is > going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system. Do > you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above > the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it? > > >> You should read his papers. Here is a list. >> > > That is a long list. I'm glad that you highlighted some of them! > > Eric > >
