Hydrogen(H2) molecule dissociation to atomic hydrogen(H1) http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html
Hot electrons do the impossible in catalytic chemistry Professors Peter Nordlander and Naomi J. Halas of Rice University in Houston, Texas are at the cutting edge of the nanoplasmonic revolution. This field of study is where LENR properly belongs. These researchers found, as the main result of their study, that some of the hot electrons could transfer into the closed shells of the H2 molecules and cause the two hydrogen atoms to separate, or dissociate. This process, called "plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au," The researchers found that, as soon as they turned the laser on, the rate of HD formation on the nanoparticle surface increased by a factor of 6. They also measured that the rate was strongly dependent on the concentration and size of the gold nanoparticles. The researchers explained that, in a sense, the electrons "do the impossible" because there would be no dissociation without them. Nordlander said. "It is an impossible chemical reaction. The energy for dissociation is simply too large. On other metals, like transition metals, a hydrogen molecule can dissociate spontaneously, in particular near defects and at elevated temperatures. The primary reason why these energetic electrons can dissociate the hydrogen molecule into atomic hydrogen is that that they are stationary near the imperfection in the lattice. Remember what I said about Anderson localization? …it all fits together. On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > High deuterium packing causes topological defects in the lattice > structure. These defects produce Anderson localization which will result > in vortex electron currents to form as in nanoplasmonics. > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> *You use Shoulder's speculation to counter my claim. You need to use some >> facts. Sparks do not occur during electrolysis because the voltages are too >> small and bubble collapse does not occur. The bubbles simply grow and rise >> to the surface. The sonoluminescent approach has two parts. Bubble >> collapse on a target simply injects D into the target where it fuels the >> normal CF reaction. The collapse that produces light initiates hot fusion, >> not cold fusion. You need to keep the processes separate because otherwise >> the process makes no sense at all. * >> >> Ed, >> >> I believe you are misunderstanding. I am not using Shoulder's speculation >> to counter your claim. As I stated prior: >> >> "I suspect that there are about 3-4 different types of reactions >> intermingling in all systems. The main reaction is some kind of cluster >> fusion phenomenon that produces the nuclear level excess heat and >> dissipates nuclear products slowly through photons and phonons. The >> secondary and tertiary phenomenon may include Cavitation, Casmir Forces, >> EVO, and/or Fracto-Fusion. All speculation of course." >> >> Why do your theory and EVO have to be mutually exclusive? You yourself >> have stated that there could be multiple phenomenon taking place in LENR >> systems. I am not negating your hypothesis. >> >> Axil, >> >> *Nanoplasmonics can explain tritium production as well as helium >> production.* >> >> Fair enough. That is one possibility of course, but only for NiH. EVO is >> not the main driver of that decay effect though, obviously. And it does >> nothing to show how EVO impacts PdD. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 12, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> >>> Axil, >>> >>> NAE "traps" seem to exist in many forms. DGT seems to have fabricated >>> "magnetic" traps facilitated by Nano-antennae, which is what you are >>> referencing. Meulenberg-Sinha in their Extended Lochon elaborate on >>> electrostatic traps initiated by phonons emanating from linear defects (or >>> "Nano-cracks"). Even in Ed's theory there is a variety of "trap", wherein >>> the walls of the NAE become sufficiently loaded with charge so to >>> facilitate the formation and "trapping" of Hydroton chains. There is no >>> monopoly on "trap" methodology it would appear. >>> >>> As far as Shoulders goes, again, the EVO does not explain He4 or >>> tritium. I think it may contribute to the overall reaction output as a >>> secondary or tertiary reaction, and may in fact be the reason we see >>> transmutations with no radioactive products. But we have to figure out >>> whether deuterium or tritium is produced in NiH before we jump to any real >>> conclusions. >>> >>> As far as Ed's objection that the EVO is only created in spark discharge >>> plasma, Shoulders also speculates EVO in wet-systems is formed through >>> sono-luminescent bubble ejections striking the cathode. So I'm not sure >>> that objection is all that valid, because theoretically EVO could form in >>> standard electrolysis PdD. But again it in no way accounts for He4 or >>> tritium in these systems (and neither does hot fracto-fusion account for >>> these ash either). >>> >>> >>> You use Shoulder's speculation to counter my claim. You need to use some >>> facts. Sparks do not occur during electrolysis because the voltages are too >>> small and bubble collapse does not occur. The bubbles simply grow and rise >>> to the surface. The sonoluminescent approach has two parts. Bubble >>> collapse on a target simply injects D into the target where it fuels the >>> normal CF reaction. The collapse that produces light initiates hot fusion, >>> not cold fusion. You need to keep the processes separate because otherwise >>> the process makes no sense at all. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Ken Shoulders has captured the fundament LENR reaction in a >>>> experimental picture he took. >>>> >>>> In more detail, a picture of the dark mode localized magnetic traps >>>> (LMT) can be found in the Ken Shoulders paper on Figure 5 and 6 on >>>> page 4 sited in this vortex post as follows: >>>> >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80263.html >>>> >>>> Let us discuss this >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *I also wonder if you will cover Ken Shoulders discovery of >>>>> transmutation in spark production* >>>>> >>>>> I continue to wonder how EVO factors into LENR, if at all. Shoulders >>>>> has observed that for whatever reason his experiments do not produce >>>>> radioactive elements, similar to LENR transmutation results. Now >>>>> unfortunately, like all vacuum energy hypotheses, EVO does not explain the >>>>> Heat/Helium correlation nor tritium production in PdD. Once we know >>>>> whether >>>>> deuterium and tritium are being produced in NiH, we'll be better able to >>>>> predict the relevance of EVO in that system. >>>>> >>>>> I suspect that there are about 3-4 different types of reactions >>>>> intermingling in all systems. The main reaction is some kind of cluster >>>>> fusion phenomenon that produces the nuclear level excess heat and >>>>> dissipates nuclear products slowly through photons and phonons. The >>>>> secondary and tertiary phenomenon may include Cavitation, Casmir Forces, >>>>> EVO, and/or Fracto-Fusion. All speculation of course. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> One manifestation of the LENR reaction that your theoretical thinking >>>>>> has been very weak on is the explanation of the Rossi reactor meltdown >>>>>> when >>>>>> high temperature material can melt at temperatures in excess of 2000C. >>>>>> >>>>>> Will you now attempt to explain how this high heat event can occur, >>>>>> and explain the details of how this particular reaction can happen? >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that the extremes of a reaction can reveal the detailed >>>>>> essence of the reaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also wonder if you will cover Ken Shoulders discovery of >>>>>> transmutation in spark production as well as transmutation produced in >>>>>> the >>>>>> proton 21 experiment? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Axil, this insight will be provided in a book that will take my >>>>>>> first book, written in 2007, to the present and show how the >>>>>>> observations >>>>>>> have been explained and how they can be better explained without >>>>>>> conflict >>>>>>> with what is known. Unfortunately, so many different opinions exists in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> field, no one would believe what I propose without the complete evidence >>>>>>> only a book can provide. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too many attempts at creating a theory are based on pure imagination >>>>>>> without any relationship to reality or to what is actually observed. >>>>>>> People >>>>>>> simply do not read the literature. This is understandable because about >>>>>>> 2000 papers must be found and read, which is a full time job. Enough >>>>>>> information is now available to make rejection of most theories possible >>>>>>> and to identify where the unique mechanism functions in the process. >>>>>>> Nothing about the process conflicts with what is known. The unique >>>>>>> mechanism is new and I predict the full understanding will warrant a >>>>>>> Nobel >>>>>>> prize by someone in the distant future. The best analogy to past >>>>>>> discoveries would be the realization by Pauli that a neutrino-like >>>>>>> particle >>>>>>> existed based on how the energy of beta decay was found to be less than >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> required mass-energy change. Until then, people had no clue such a >>>>>>> particle >>>>>>> was possible. In the case of LENR, a new force is revealed that is >>>>>>> hidden >>>>>>> in plain sight in exactly the same way. A person only needs to know >>>>>>> where >>>>>>> to look. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My book will describe my path to a solution. Of course, this will >>>>>>> open the door to another rejection event by all the theoreticians and >>>>>>> everyone who thinks they know how the effect works. But, then the book >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> speak for itself without my having to waste time in endless debate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed Storms >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm in the process of studying all the explanations and comparing >>>>>>>> them to what is known in LENR and in general science. The failure to >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> progress in explaining LENR is easy to see and a clear path to the >>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>> explanation is becoming obvious, at least to me. The problem has a >>>>>>>> solution if you know where to look. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am sure that all here want to get a preview of this emerging >>>>>>>> solution. Is it possible to reveal to us a preview? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
