Nanoplasmonic experiments can be performed that evoke nuclear reactions through the use of laser irradiation of metallic nanoparticles. The nanoparticles amplify, concentrate, focus and convert the photons from the lasers into magnetic energy as described in my previous posts, for example see this experiment:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water. In this nanoplasmonic experiment, tritium can be increased or reduced or both simultaneously based on the parameters manipulated by the experimenter. The metal used is sensitive to the degree of reflection of the laser light. More reflection produces more reactivity. The duration of the laser pulse also is a factor. I believe that tritium production in Deuterium systems is a matter of timing related to an incomplete reaction cycle. In a system that flickers magnetically, and/or does not sustain a state of Bose Einstein condensation will produce nuclear products. A good example of this is the cavitation system that Mark LeClair has developed. The experimenter in the referenced paper remarks as follows: “The efficiency of nuclear processes occurring during the course of heavy water electrolysis can depend on the character of roughness of the electrode surfaces on a nanometer scale, the “spikiness” parameters [17, 18] in particular. Indeed, it is precisely in the regions of the sharpest surface relief alterations that high electric field strengths making for the acceleration of electrons and high mechanical stresses depressing the activation barriers for electrochemical processes can both get realized. This parameter is out of control in most experiments with electrolysis of heavy water. On the contrary, laser ablation of metallic targets by sub-nanosecond laser pulses leads to formation of self-organized nanostructures (NS) on the target. The average size and density of NS depends on laser fluence on the target and target material. Typical view of such NS on Ti and Au target ablated in water with 10 ps laser pulses are presented in Fig. 1.” The paper is reflecting the rationale I gave for the formation of static and dynamic nuclear active environments. Clearly, uncontrolled creation of NAE is consistent with what happens in many uncontrolled LENR systems using electrolysis. By the way to avoid chance in NAE formation, in recent Misuno reactor experiments, Mizuno preconditions his electrodes to form metal spikes to enable the static NAE in the nanoplasmonic LENR process. The authors of this paper has their own theory of what is going on, my agreement will the author will vary on certain issues. At the end of the day, uncontrolled random effects can increase and/or decrease the creation and/or destruction of tritium. Tritium is not an indicator of a hot fusion like reaction but instead shows that a marginal system is flickering in terms of sustaining a nanoplasmonic LENR reaction. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > > > These statements are in the archive so there is no need to collect them. > There are many of them over the years, so there will be plenty to gloat > over - if gammaless fusion is proved. > > > > My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion - at low input > energy, without gammas - is proved then it will consist of two simultaneous > miracles. These are actually two completely separated miracles –not one > which includes a subset. > > > > The first is the fusion itself, which is a strong miracle if the > probability is high - and the second is a previously unknown channel for > shedding the immense energy of fusion events. That second one is actually a > stronger miracle then the first one. Nuclear tunneling via QM is known to > happen at low probability but it always involves a gamma channel. > > > > Actually – it would be fabulous to be wrong on this point, but I am not > worried in the least about that happening. Yet in November, if Mizuno > backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter earlier - and there really > was helium, then mea culpa. > > > > *From:* Eric Walker > > > > Jones Beene wrote: > > > > The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is > lack of fusion. > > > I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for > future gloating. ;) > > > > Eric > > >
