Ed, I was unaware that nearly touching metallic nanoparticles immediately fuse and start to grow a bigger particle, are you saying the lattices break and reassemble to form a solid or are you suggesting the stiction force reshapes the particles into perfect shapes to form closed surfaces?. I was under the impression that bulk powders remain individual grains until heated to the point of melting but given the video showing clear activity between the 2 surfaces I am now very curious regarding shape morphing since the force grows at the inverse cubed of plate spacing could the particles be "stretched" into closed surfaces? perhaps Axil can give more background on the video.. is the blurry motion between the particles an artifact of the sensor, Do we know if this interaction would still be present in a vacuum? Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:43 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
