Ed: You've analyzed all the LENR data way more than I, and I certainly hope you are able to persuade some of the experimentalists to heed your advice on how best to proceed. however, even if ALL future experiments heeded your advice, I still think the repeatability and COP will not be much better, for the reasons to follow...
I think we can agree that there is a particular geometry or size which is conducive to LENR; perhaps 'required' is more appropriate. Given that, even if someone were to get good results with a particular material, there is >>> NO way to determine what size and/or geometry NAEs produced the effect since they are destroyed (melted) by the reaction <<<. I am simply positing the following as reasons why an engineered nanotech approach might be better: - With nanotech, you can make nearly identical samples in every other aspect but with different geometries/sizes. - The one that gives you positive results is much more likely to be obvious (hi COP) because nearly the entire sample would be conducive to LENR reactions, not just a >>> miniscule percentage of random dislocations <<<. - One can then build samples with only slightly different geometries on either side of the initially successful one in order to optimize the geometry; this geometry is likely dependent on temperature - higher temps = smaller NAEs??? - You might think that the numerous different initial samples would be a crap-shoot, but I think odds are actually better for success because as one steps up the resistance heater little by little, one of the numerous test geometries will likely meet whatever conditions are necessary for the reaction to trigger. and you will KNOW EXACTLY what that geometry was! I think the above is an engineer's approach, and if we assume that Rossi has indeed obtained anywhere near the COPs that he claims, then an engineer's approach might be a better route to success. <humor on> In fact, after one of the samples vaporizes (since the entire sample will LENR-react), if your experiment, lab and bldg are still intact, one could continue raising the temperature to see what geometry vaporized next! J <humor off> -Mark Iverson From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 5:57 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment Mark, I'm not discussing what nanotech can achieve. I'm describing what Nature achieves in the various conditions known to produce CF. Later, once the NAE is properly identified, it will be made using nanotech. Meanwhile, we need to identify what actually needs to be made, not what someone IMAGINES occurs. Based on examining hundreds of studies, I have arrived at a condition that fits them all. I'm only asking that this conclusion be given serious consideration. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 5:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ed wrote: "Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and generally too big to achieve what I think is required." and this. "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." I think you may have that backwards. The production of NAEs within bulk matter is way more random than modern nanotech is able to achieve. I've seen SEM images of nanotubes which look like the knap of a rug, with *every* individual tube the same size and evenly spaced. Try to get that regularity with the random process of stress-relief causing dislocations on bulk matter. where the NAE form and how big they are is not going to be anywhere near the regularity that can be achieved in modern nanotech manufacturing. -Mark Iverson From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:43 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment 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
