Ed-- I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier you refer to:
See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system. arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006 >>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the order of 2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms van- ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The probability that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically for- bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied by the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is proportional to the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar contributions, multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an exper- imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<< He goes on to say: >>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites, the >>state of N coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric. Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably forbid the emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused deuterons to helium-4. References [1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens. Matt.). [2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996). [3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 5 7761–7770 (1993).<< Bob Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: Edmund Storms To: [email protected] Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by a real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion in this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not like what physics has accepted. Rather than suggesting any idea that comes to mind, the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is actually observed. What is observed creates limits and boundaries on what mechanisms are possible. Eventually, all mechanisms but one will be eliminated and at that point LENR will be understood. The process of finding this single mechanism can be speeded up by eliminating a lot of proposed mechanisms right from the start. For example, any proposed mechanism that conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics can be rejected without further consideration. Of course, this requires these laws be understood and accepted, but that is a different issue. This is like looking for gold. Simply wondering the landscape and pointing at every mountain as a possible location of the gold vein is not useful. The landscape needs to be studied, the geological events need to be identified, and location of found nuggets needs to be considered. Only then can the buried gold be found by eliminating all the regions where it cannot be located. I'm attempting to do this but I find very little interest in this approach. Ed Storms On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- Regarding your comment copied from below--"No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place. " --I agree. However, you seem to always take on a discussion to find the cause of the reaction considering basic physical parameters that you seem to recognize as real. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active and very strong reaction is to provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes. This requirement comes from nanoplasmonic doctrine. A single sized particle does not work. For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that does work, the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying diameters. The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in feeding power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles. This is how Rossi’s secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles provide and intermediate sized particle population to the particle ensembles. Hydrogen provides the smallest particle population. When there are particles of varying size clump together, and alight on the nickel nanowires, strong dipole motion in the micro particles drive the reactions in the spaces between the hydrogen nanoparticles. The bigger particles act like step-up windings in a high voltage transformer as power is feed to the smallest particles. If a single diameter sized nanoparticle is used, the reaction will not work. If only nanoparticles are use in the reaction, the reaction will not be strong. On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. As is typical, the situation in the chemical structure is more complex than expected. No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place. Ed Storms On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Wouldn't that lend itself to corroborating Ed Storms's theories about cracks & the NAE? On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Frank roarty <[email protected]> wrote: Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic action only occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes
