Axil, A good reference. It lead me to a couple other related papers:
"Nuclear processes initiated by electrons" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0036024413060277 (Click on 'Look Inside icon for first two pages.) "Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water" http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf -- LP Axil wrote: > Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+ reaction with 100% > repeatability. > > These simple, straight forward, and uncomplicated experiments show that > the > Nanoplasmonic mechanism is unambiguously capable of producing nuclear > reactions. > > > I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the > electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by > progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in > 1974. > > An experiment not related to the E-Cat shows how light under the mediation > of nanoparticles (provides topological order of the spin net liquid) can > produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear > effect. > > http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf > > > *Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au > nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt* > > It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission. > > Abstract > Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in > aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was > experimentally > studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the > wavelength of 1.06 â 0.355 ïm were used as well as a visible-range Cu > vapor > laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions > before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and > gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 â 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time > gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear > reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure > initiated > nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different > channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid > and > nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear > transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are > discussed. > > Here is another paper: > > I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can > change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also > causes thorium to fission. > See references: > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ > > > I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic > underpinnings of LENR. > > Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in > topology. > > These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments > with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You >> are >> wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional >> quantum hall effect to get onto the right track.* >> >> Actually Axil, we don't know what it is. You're entitled to your >> interpretation but that's all it is. Not enough data exists to support >> your >> assertions no matter how well thought out they are. >> >> As to John Franks' antagonistic demands for a "definitive experiment" >> (presumably for evidence of excess heat), those demands had been met >> many >> times already by 1994 (McKubre, Storms, Oriani, Huggins, Arata, Bockris, >> etc.). If he had cared to look back on the history of the field + the >> archived technical papers he could have answered his own questions >> before >> coming in here for the most basic of information. >> >> Faraday efficiency has to do with recombination. Recombination has been >> ruled out many times over in LENR experiments. Mr. Franks, do you >> honestly >> think highly trained electrochemists did not understand >> that rudimentary recombination might be a factor worth ruling out early >> on? >> >> Even though progress has been made, we still don't know what the >> mechanism >> is. So what? Experiment is king in science, and it sometimes takes a >> generation or more to discover what the exact mechanism for a new >> phenomenon is. Discounting a discovery for the reason that it does not >> fit >> into current theory totally flips scientific protocol on its head and is >> an >> amateurish understanding of scientific method at best. We are dealing >> with >> a messy, complex, chemical system, not highly controllable 2 body >> nuclear >> interactions in a vacuum like most physicists are used to. Unreasonable >> demands for high repeatability make no sense for these types of complex, >> highly non-linear systems, especially in the early stages of >> development. >> Scientific history is full of such stubbornly unrepeatable cases that >> are >> nonetheless legitimate science (cloning a sheep for example). >> Significant >> progress in terms of repeatability has been made however; take >> Energetics >> in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% >> repeatability >> in their cells. >> >> Mr. Franks I suggest you educate yourself more before storming in with >> nonsense arguments that are outdated by almost 20 years. >> >> Regards, >> John M >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You >>> are >>> wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the >>> fractional >>> quantum hall effect to get onto the right track. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:28 PM, John Franks <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Vortex, >>>> >>>> What is Faraday Efficiency and might it be behind some of the mistaken >>>> claims of excess heat from LENR? >>>> >>>> And all this talk of "imagination" in other threads, relativistic >>>> electrons, the lattice somehow doing something, how is it possible to >>>> get >>>> two nucleons close enough for the strong force to take over? >>>> >>>> You can't get lower than the ground state and 0.1nm or so is a lot >>>> larger than the 0.1pm and less to get significant fusion. This >>>> shielding >>>> talk seems is bogus as is talk of "other types of nuclear reactions >>>> that >>>> don't produce neutrons or gamma rays". >>>> >>>> Why can't you LENR people do one definitive experiment after all these >>>> years (going on 25) and 100s of millions of dollars? >>>> >>>> JF. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
