*I think we can agree that there is a particular geometry or size which is conducive to LENR; *
I hold hope that such a thing is possible and can be found. I point to the polariton laser as a well conceived example of purpose build nano-engineering. If a long lived polariton laser can be designed and manufactured so can a long lived LENR reactor. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:52 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]<[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]<[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]<[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**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** >
