Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real
world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start
to grow a bigger particle. This is a common and well understood
behavior. We are not free to ignore what actually happens in Nature.
Of course, pores can be trapped in the growing structure but these are
generally large and eventually disappear if the material is held at
high temperature long enough. We are trying to explain what happens in
the real world, not in some idealized version that Axil has.
Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Frank roarty wrote:
Ed,
Please consider Axil’s movie from a 3d bulk
perspective.. which is where I believe his argument was headed, the
single point of contact becomes multipoint to many particles all
self attracting into a bulk form… essentially a rigid if not solid
conductor with open voids.. I do recognize the loss of mechanical
stress you are citing but I do leave the door open because of
Casimir and other forces that these geometries both share. Not
asking you to change your preference only to allow for the
possibility.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful
cold fusion experiment
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]]
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
