Sorry, here it is. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-freedom-scientists- nanoparticles-larger-real.html
Freedom of assembly: Scientists see nanoparticles form larger structures in real time The connection point between each of these nano-particles could be a NAE site. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > I posted this video not long ago. The cracks are self assembling. watch > the video on how the nano-gaps form. > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Roarty, Francis X < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Axil,**** >> >> Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your >> plasmonics posit? I always liked wet cells from a neo Julian Schwinger >> concept of sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression >> plates of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were >> exposed to a dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive >> energies we see as the dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem >> to be suggesting that the plasma and solid geometries can be forming >> similar structures, A metal rain would form dynamic cavities just like >> bubbles in sono fusion without the self quenching heat sinking effect of a >> totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma caught in these cracks during >> such a “rain storm” being effected equivalent to backfilling a cavity but, >> what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a catalyst to just keep >> creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to something and would love >> to see you put the pieces together.**** >> >> Fran**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM >> *To:* vortex-l >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable >> cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in >> the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in >> the same way that rain renews water in a puddle.**** >> >> I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H >> reactors. **** >> >> A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that >> falls on the surface of micro particles. **** >> >> Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these >> metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the >> lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical >> processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal >> nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and >> reliably and are self-renewing.**** >> >> This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the >> inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment.**** >> >> **** >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> wrote:**** >> >> I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on >> purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. >> Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though >> once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies >> to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known >> laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same >> requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in >> the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining >> the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry >> were used to create the materials in most cases. The only question of >> importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF? Unless you can >> answer this question, you do not know what you need to make. So, please >> focus on this question.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Ed Storms**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> Ed Storms stated:**** >> >> **** >> >> “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known >> about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some >> consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. >> So, put your thinking cap back on.”**** >> >> **** >> >> In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that >> are game changing in how matter behaves.**** >> >> **** >> >> These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, >> physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts >> with common sense.**** >> >> **** >> >> The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the >> material itself and not absolute.**** >> >> **** >> >> You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern >> age. **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> wrote:**** >> >> Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not >> very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent >> with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and >> chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. >> Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. >> This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The >> interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does >> not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would >> occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been >> observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, >> but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas >> that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF >> behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and >> observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Ed Storms**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire". >> Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.**** >> >> **** >> >> starting a fire with hand drill**** >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA**** >> >> **** >> >> Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire" >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs >> >> Harry**** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> wrote:**** >> >> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not >> invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be >> shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the >> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible >> to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, >> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be >> true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the >> observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which >> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such >> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are >> given, a counter argument can always be provided. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe >> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Ed Storms **** >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> Ed Storms states:**** >> >> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission >> at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and >> alpha emission are not related.”***** >> >> This could be a false assumption as follows:**** >> >> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to >> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to >> penetrate the surface of the CR-39. **** >> >> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very >> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.**** >> >> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the >> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their >> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.**** >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> wrote:**** >> >> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear >> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction >> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown >> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a >> comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha >> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the >> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? **** >> >> ** ** >> >> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium >> does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. >> Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question >> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are >> trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha >> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission >> is clearly not related to CF. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes >> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is >> too improbable to be seriously considered. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Ed Storms**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> **** >> >> But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to >> conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the >> alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do >> not know whether there was heat.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> - Jed**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> > >
