The application of heat in the Ni/H reactor is required to get the dipoles moving.
If the LENR reaction was only due to Casimir force geometry, a cold Ni/H reactor would produce power. Heat must be applied to the Ni/H reactor to get the alternating current going on the surface of the micro-particles. Heat is the dynamo of the LENR reaction. LENR is an electrical reaction. The higher temperature of the heat, the greater becomes the dipole voltage and the more vigorous will become the LENR reaction. When we spin up a generator to higher RPMs, more power is produced; the same is true for LENR. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe that Fano resonance is what produces massive concentrations of > electric charge. > > In the same way that gravity accumulates matter in an open ended and > unlimited extent so that the accumulation can destroys space/time in a > black hole; the same may be true for extreme concentrations of other > fundamental forces. > > How much EMF can be concentrated in space before the laws of nature are > distorted? > > Fano resonance between nano-particles was discovered only three years ago. > The Nanoplasmonic research community has not optimized the formation of > Fano resonance to any degree yet. They have only gotten it up to 10^^15 > amplification. What limits them is as follows: > > These experimenters only use gold or silver because these metals are > relatively safe if ingested. > > Nickel is far more reactive, powerful, and dangerous with regards to the > formation of electron dipole strength. > > Micro-particles are not used yet because they are counterproductive to the > goals and products they want to produce such as nano-computers and optical > telecommunications. > > Furthermore, the Nanoplasmonic experimenters never use hydrogen as the > dielectric, they use ordinary air. > > They use lasers to stimulate dipole movement. Because the laser light is a > plain wave, it does poorly in producing vigorous dipole movement. > > The micro-particle is a wonderful storehouse for dipoles. > > Very small nano-particles use Fano resonance to amplify this dipole energy > (powerful source of alternating current) to a huge degree. > > This micro/nano particle configuration produces a nano-sized tesla-coil. > > Think of the resonant windings of a tesla coil, were the main winding > resonantly drives the few windings > > A Tesla coil's windings are "loosely" coupled, with a large air gap, and > thus the primary and secondary typically share only 10–20% of their > respective magnetic fields. Instead of a tight coupling, the coil transfers > energy (via loose coupling) from one oscillating resonant circuit (the > primary) to the other (the secondary) over a number of RF cycles. > > As the primary energy transfers to the secondary, the secondary's output > voltage increases until all of the available primary energy has been > transferred to the secondary. A well designed Tesla coil can concentrate > the energy initially stored in the primary capacitor (the micro particle) > to the secondary circuit (the nano-particle). The voltage achievable from a > Tesla coil can be significantly greater than a conventional transformer, > because the secondary winding is a long single layer solenoid widely > separated from the surroundings and therefore well insulated. Also, the > voltage per turn in any coil is higher because the rate of change of > magnetic flux is at high frequencies. > > The dipole operates a infrared frequency. This is very high. > > With the loose coupling the voltage gain is instead proportional to the > square root of the ratio of secondary and primary inductances. Because the > secondary winding is wound to be resonant at the same frequency as the > primary, this voltage gain is also proportional to the square root of the > ratio of the primary capacitor to the stray capacitance of the secondary. > > The micro-particle nano-particle resonance packs the entire energy content > stored on the surface of the micro-particle into the atomic level volume > between one nanometer sized particles. > > This produces nano-lightning between atoms. In this unworldly environment > any nuclear reaction can take place including anything that Ed Storms can > imagine. > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Stress generated cracks are important for the following reason. A NAE can >> not exist in a normal chemical environment. Consequently a change must take >> place. Any change requires energy because the chemical environment is at >> its lowest energy. Stress supplies this energy. When a crack forms, it >> contains the energy required to promote the electron associated with the >> hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy level, which is required to form the >> Hydroton. Simply having several particles come together as Axil proposes >> would not work because this process lower the energy, thereby making it >> unavailable to form the Hydroton. >> >> My model uses only conventional chemical processes to create the >> structure that eventually initiates mass-energy release. Up to the >> formation of the Hydroton, the rules of chemistry are followed exactly. >> Once the Hydroton forms, the process gets more complicated. However, this >> later process does not need to be understood to start the process. To >> start CF, you only need to create the conditions required to form the >> Hydroton. I propose how these conditions can be created. Most of this >> process was described months ago in my first paper describing my proposed >> process. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: >> >> On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of >> cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface >> region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration >> gradients, or temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while >> the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress >> continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap >> because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size >> is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip]**** >> ** ** >> Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps >> on a particle surface are “stress” type and that the stress always trumps >> stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a >> skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to >> close the gap, any “metal rain” or loose conductive material should want >> to backfill the cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter >> particle geometries formed in light of Axils proposed “metal rain” because >> this is equivalent to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to >> activate/elevate the Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of >> dynamic medium formed by plasma between the particles would be continually >> reforming new geometries. The concept would also lend some support to >> Rossi’s seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes.**** >> Fran**** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> >> ] >> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Cc:* Edmund Storms >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love**** >> ** ** >> OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps >> are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The >> stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature >> gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional >> requiring no magic. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains >> small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be >> created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less >> material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only >> important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is >> required. **** >> ** ** >> Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something >> (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce >> the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error >> and now has a recipe that works most of the time. However, he shows no >> indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. *** >> * >> ** ** >> If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different >> impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel. The >> role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap. >> Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the >> gap. If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to >> replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is >> only required to make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved >> at this stage. **** >> ** ** >> If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they do >> not describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the >> critical conditions to be produced. **** >> ** ** >> We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical studies >> have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial efforts, I >> believe, are wasting their time and money. **** >> ** ** >> Ed Storms**** >> ** ** >> On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote:**** >> >> >> **** >> >> 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**** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> ** ** >> >> >> >
