*perhaps Axil can give more background on the video.. is the blurry motion between the particles an artifact of the sensor,*
Francis, ** There are two categories of nano/micro particels, static and dynamic. Please allow me to define them. Dynamic particles Dynamic particles are produced from plasma as that plasma is cooled. This is Rydberg matter which has a variable life span and combine with other particles or discompose based on conditions in the surrounding environment. As a specific example of formation, in a discharge of an electric spark such as occur in the Propon-21 experiment, or in the explosion of a metal foil the electric discharge produces plasma of metal and gas that rapidly cools. This cooling produces nano-particles of various sizes. The latent energetic infrared environment provides the dipole excitation in this condensing nano-dust to support the LENR activity as these particles aggregate. After the energy of the system get below a given threshold, the LENR reaction stops. The same process occurs in electrolysis in water. For example, when pure carbon electrodes support spark discharge in pure water, carbon based buckeyballs form from the plasma produced by the spark discharge. These carbon based nanoparticles support the transmutation of the pure water and carbon into many other elements. In a Ni/H reactor, both hydrogen and other added low melting point elements added as a “secret sauce” support the formation of Rydberg matter including hydrogen clusters, potassium clusters, carbon clusters, potassium hydride clusters and so on. The lifetime of many of these Rydberg clusters may be finite and the clusters can decompose over time. Static nanoparticles are material that the builder of the LENR reactor uses to augment the action of the dynamic nanoparticles. They can be large in diameter in the microns and may be compound particles including nanostructures on their surfaces. For example in the high school reactor, tungsten powder of various and random diameters are used as static micro/nano particles. I general, these particles are not reactive enough to support a vigorous LENR reaction on their own. In the high school reactor dynamic hydrogen and potassium Rydberg matter nanoparticles are added to produce a vigorous LENR reaction. According to Nanoplasmonic principles, the size range of the family of both static and dynamic nano/micro particles should as wide as possible. Dynamic nanoparticles must be rebuilt periodically to renew the vigor of the LENR reaction through the vaporization of hydrogen and low melting point elements and subsequent reformulation of the set of dynamic nanoparticles. *Do we know if this interaction would still be present in a vacuum? * ** IMHO, yes I believe that many of the elements that are claimed to be produced in supernovas are formed in planetary and stellar nebulas when atomic matter gradually coalesces into dust of gradually larger diameters through electrostatic attraction. These dust clouds condense under the action of electrostatic dipole attraction until the mass of these particles become large enough for gravity to take over the condensation process. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Roarty, Francis X <[email protected] > wrote: > 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]<[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**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** >
