One more comment on the thread from yesterday - which now features the more credible source for the importance of SPP.
SPP is the acronym for "Surface Plasmon Polariton." This niche has now
reached the level of "meme" and needs no further explanation when it comes
up - but unfortunately provides one more arcane acronym to feature in the
vocabulary of LENR.
Many of us are of the believe that the SPP is the key dynamic - and actually
the sine qua non to one particular form of LENR - the one which is best
demonstrated in the Rossi HotCat, since that device seems to benefit the
most from a strong and coherent internal source of IR (actually FIR or Far
Infrared). Most curious that the HotCat operating temperature is exactly the
emission wavelength of SiC.
SPP may not be completely relevant to anything other than the HotCat - which
admission also emphasizes the point that there are about a dozen energy
anomalies which are seen in LENR - and SPP is only one of them. If intense
FIR - far infrared - is not a defining feature of the process, then SPP is
not particularly relevant.
BTW one question for Industrial Heating - do you have rights to the HotCat
as well?
From: Edmund Storms
OK Jones, you claim SiC because this fits with your concept
of plasmons while you claim I ignore SiC because it is not required in my
crack theory. Actually, I reject plasmons simply because they can not
initiate a nuclear reaction in a material. You will have to wait until you
read my book to fully understand this claim.
The further comment which I have for Ed is to say that the NASA work on SPP
is credible, plus it actually supports part of his theory - so it makes no
sense to reject it.
I think that many in the field were a little turned off when Widom and
Larsen suddenly picked up on yet another a hot topic in physics and
instantly incorporated it into their theory as if it had been there all
along, while attempting to marginalize their former plum, the ultra cold
neutron (which was a fiction from start to finish). That aggressive action
by W-L may be one basis for the negative reaction to SPP.
The Zawodny patent application which is poorly drafted and almost useless in
terms of providing anything more than a "bargaining chip" - does prominently
feature SPP. This means that it has been vetted by the staff at NASA. The
abstract is below. SPP is important to Ed as well since he posits heavy or
deflated electrons (or did at one time) for Coulomb shielding, and SPP
provide an elegant way for achieving the deflated electron.
www.google.com/patents/US20110255645
Abstract of NASA patent
A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that
includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material
system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational
environment. A structure is formed that includes a
non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The structure
incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface
thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface
plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to
the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons
are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon
polaritons propagate along the structure. END
BTW - Horace Heffner pretty much initiated and defined the "deflated" or
heavy electron for incorporation into LENR. I doubt that any patent which
does not acknowledge Heffner as prior art will stand up in litigation.
Zawodny probably differentiates his advance well-enough - but there are
errors and few meaningful specifications. Dead-in-the-water unless politics
enters into the equation.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
