Dear Jones, thank you for this very interesting paper. Howeve, can you please explain/justify this assertion: "it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory" I think exactly the contrary is true, cold fusion needs more theories combined, not one. Peter
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Just when it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory, they > seem to have become more complicated. Ockham fails again – no surprise > really, since “parsimony” always fails miserably when QM enters the > picture. > > SPP was the “catch-phrase” of the day for understanding LENR, due to the > influence of NASA and Larsen, but a similar effect called spinplasmonics > (SP) fits many experimental circumstances better than does SPP. This is > because SP happens in a metal, without need of a dielectric, and has a > magnetic component. Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP > phenomenon but does not mention LENR. > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028 > > There was a time when the two, SPP and SP, were considered to be part of > the > same general phenomenon, but on closer differentiation - if a choice needs > to be made, the merits of each should be considered relative to precise > details in any experiment. Yet both effects can be active in the same > experiment, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In short, if the > active > region is conductive and ferromagnetic (or strongly paramagnetic) with no > dielectric, then spinplasmonics fits better. When the active region has a > metal-dielectric interface and is indifferent to magnetism, then SPP fits > better. > > Is this being unnecessarily pedantic? Only if one wants to marginalize, > rather than emphasize, the role of magnetism. If magnetism is highly > important, then one more detail about a Mu metal connection (following > Claytor’s revelation at MIT). > > When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he thought > there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about publishing > such > “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades > (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was > commercially important. An example is the upconversion of infrared light > into visible light, which would be important for either SPP or > spinplasmonics which ostensibly need optical photons. Here is the big > surprise. Nickel may be important for upconversion of photons – more so > than > any other physical property. The prime materials for photon upconversion > are > luminescent ions Ni2+ and Mo3+ both of which elements are found in Mu > metal. > Surface ionization makes them active. > > That may not be coincidental, since optics and magnetics may be intimately > entwined in Mu metals, which are a starting point for LENR ….Which then are > activated by spinplasmonics….Which then create a continuing supply of DDL > (deep Dirac layer) dense hydrogen….Which then disrupts the Dirac “sea” > ….Which then yield binding energy photons of 6.8 eV….Which then thermalize > into heat, finally providing thermal gain. > > And yes, Ockham fails again and “parsimony” always looks like a silly > rule-of-thumb when QM enters the picture. > > Jones > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
