http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0876.pdf
*Plasmons in nearly touching metallic nanoparticles: singular response in the limit of touching dimers* * * The response of gold nanoparticle dimers is studied theoretically near and beyond the limit where the particles are touching. As the particles approach each other, a dominant dipole feature is observed that is pushed into the infrared due to interparticle coupling and that is associated *with a* * * *large pileup of induced charge in the interparticle gap*. The redshift becomes singular as the particle separation decreases. The response weakens for very small separation when the coupling across the interparticle gap becomes so strong that dipolar oscillations across the pair are inhibited. Lowerwavelength, higher-order modes show a similar separation dependence in nearly touching dimers. After touching, singular behavior is observed through the emergence of a new infrared absorption peak,* also accompanied* * * *by huge charge pileup at the interparticle junction,* if initial interparticle contact is made at a single point. This new mode is distinctly different from the lowest mode of the separated dimer. When the junction is made by contact between flat surfaces, charge at the junction is neutralized and mode evolution is continuous through contact. The calculated singular response explains recent experiments on metallic nanoparticle dimers and is relevant in the design of nanoparticle-based sensors and plasmon circuits. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I > suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the contact > between particles is "topologically identical to a crack on the surface of > a material." Have you ever seen a crack, examined surfaces, or even > explored cold fusion? A crack is created and held apart by stress. Two > particles are not held apart and instead attempt to fuse to make a larger > particle, thereby causing the well know sintering and loss of small > particles. > > Ed > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the > point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a > material. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4 > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”* >> >> This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation. >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg >> >> >> Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of >> nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When free to move, >> nanoparticles will eventually touch and arrogate together. The irregular >> spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are discussing as >> the NAE. >> >> When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the >> strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and >>> generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF >>> occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is not >>> required. We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is in how >>> the gap forms. I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in >>> its formation and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap >>> between arbitrary particles having an unknown and complex shape does not >>> have. That is the only difference between our views about a gap. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: >>> >>> Ed,**** >>> I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to consider >>> the gap between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is >>> essentially the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe >>> the particles are inert and solid - only the geometry formed between >>> particles is active – it is the same region that experiences stiction >>> force which tends to make these gaps even smaller to the limit of particle >>> shape and packing geometry. I think the micro scale tubules used by Rossi >>> may combine micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and >>> their protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between the >>> particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy feeding >>> plasmons theory has any weight.**** >>> Fran **** >>> ** ** >>> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> >>> ] >>> *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 11:55 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Cc:* Edmund Storms >>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about >>> successful cold fusion experiment**** >>> ** ** >>> I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting >>> question, Are nanoparticles the NAE? **** >>> ** ** >>> I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However, particles >>> of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words, the nano-gap I >>> propose to be the NAE grows in a particle and the particle size determines >>> the size of the gap. After all, CF has been found to occur under a variety >>> of conditions, including in complete absence of nanoparticles. However, >>> nano-gaps can form in any material, but not frequently with the correct >>> dimension. **** >>> ** ** >>> The power being generated is determined by the number NAE present. The >>> better the material is able to create nano-gaps, the more power will be >>> produced. Use of small particles improves this ability. Consequently, I'm >>> suggesting that people should not focus on the particle itself but on what >>> is happening within the particle. Unless the NAE is produced within the >>> particle, the particle is inert no matter what size it has. **** >>> ** ** >>> Ed**** >>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:**** >>> >>> >>> **** >>> Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote:**** >>> ** ** >>> >>> Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in >>> my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion >>> bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on >>> the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold fusion if the NAE >>> is present and high energy favors hot fusion without a NAE.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> At ICCF18 I will be presenting a poster session paper by Mizuno showing >>> that ion bombardment iteself can create the NAE. It produces nanoparticles >>> on wires subjected to glow discharge for about 3 days. He has SEM photos >>> and excess heat results showing this.**** >>> ** ** >>> Mizuno himself cannot attend.**** >>> ** ** >>> - Jed**** >>> ** ** >>> ** ** >>> >>> >>> >> > >
