it is not clear to understand on a video.
Is there smething written ?
or can someone make a synthesis on his vision?
He talking about this paper, published in 2014.
Plasmonics with a Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale
By Svetlana V. Boriskina, PhD from MIT
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1657
Here a some videos splaining the process: https://www.youtube.com/user/sboriskina/videos
I like Simeon Hein. he is the LENR lightbringer to the New Age Cristal world.
Defects on the lattice surface give a hold for the plasmonic vortexes.
So from light to plasmonic vortexes to transmutations.
The paper is supposed to explain how this works from the macroscale to the atomic scale.
Dont ask me anything, this is way above my paygrade 
( Ask Axil Axil, he will know)
New video from Simeon Hein.
So in a nutshell according to Simeon an honest evaluation of cold fusion not possible because the hot fusion people are running interference.
The truth is the cold fusion people are their own worst enemies. They treat everyone around them as if they were complete morons. They withhold key data. They throw hissy fits if everyone does not see the light as they do.
Cold fusion activists would do well to study the Lugano report. It does much in the way of highlighting the criteria which goes into proving that cold fusion exists. That's not to say that I believe in the Lugano report. I just think they did a professional job of presenting their case. The rest of everyone in the LENR community seems not to care to win the hearts and minds of anybody who is not drunk on kool-aid by now.
So in a nutshell according to Simeon an honest evaluation of cold fusion not possible because the hot fusion people are running interference.
Thats not how I understood it. Its more that selecting people with a vested interest to see cold fusion disapear for the evaluation is the main thing and it should not have been done. Was that a devious and deliberate move? I dont know, maybe it was just careless or stupid.
The Lugano report is not the only available evidence.
It have serious flaws on the calorimetry (and only that), and better is to focus on more classic scientific evidences available since 1991.
The work of Bockris, of Fleischmann, of McKubre, of Melvin Miles, cannot be attacked seriously.
They were however attacked by unethical and unscientific method. This is clear from a scientific point of view.
the book of charles Beaudette is quite clear on that
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr home page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35
selecting people with a vested interest to see cold fusion disapear
When I would come home from school saying something was not fair my mother used to say "be so good that they can't say no".
The way LENR is presented makes it awfully easy to say no.
You make some good point that there are many mistakes done around LENR communication and science.
However there are exactly the same as the one of the opponents. There is nothing specific in LENR, compared to anti-LENR.
One great point that make me exhausted is that on both side people focus too much on theory, and forget history.
On both side the experimental protocol are very variable from pathetic to really good.
On both side some people take conclusion from missing data, and invert logic.
however we have data. the data is that
1- there is no proven artifact in the best and numerous experiments, despite huge reviw, on PdD
2- there is peer reviewed results, replicated experiments of good quality, even if much less numerous than the mass of experiments of good and bad quality. this mean Scientific method is respected
3- there is human effects (groupthink, mindguard, mutual assured delusions, consensus of terror) that make classic scientific method (publication, peer review, consensus, media) nearly but not totally non-functional in LENR. This is old know phenomenon identified in epistemology literature and economics.
4- NiH scientific evidence are weak, but business circumstantial evidence TODAY are huge, and much enough for business actors to take risk.
5- Lugano test is non conclusive on the calorimetry
6-Ferrara test is conclusive, as Lugano isotopic measurements (all critics are based on conspiracy theory which don't hold seriously).
7- Brillouin test presented at ICCF17 is conclusive.
8- theoretical arguments cannot reject the possibility of LENR (collective effects are not enough understood) even if no mechanism is still identified.
beside that I know that more and more media and scientists are simply convinced that it is a genuine scientific domain, reasonably risky on the materialist side, but incredibly risky because of an old group of mindguards which can ruin your career, whoever you are.
QuoteCold fusion activists would do well to study the Lugano report. It does much in the way of highlighting the criteria which goes into proving that cold fusion exists. That's not to say that I believe in the Lugano report. I just think they did a professional job of presenting their case. The rest of everyone in the LENR community seems not to care to win the hearts and minds of anybody who is not drunk on kool-aid by now.
Just to add to Alain's comment above. The Lugano report is unprofessional in a broader sense than just incorrect calorimetry calculations, and other LENR wannabees would be well to heed the other defects:
(1) There is a total lack of controls. Why are lots of controls important? Because the more controls you have, the more possible error mechanisms can be ruled out. For example controls before and after the experiment will deal with changes in equipment and sensors due to heating. But it is not simple, because perfect controls are usually impossible, hence include as many different types of control as possible.
In the Lugano case there are two types of control: running the dummy under identical conditions to the active reactor, and checking the thermography temperatures independently (via surface TCs). Both are required for this method to be even half safe.
(2) There is a lamentable lack of imagination. The authors assume (on basis of insufficient evidence) that nuclear reactions are involved. The isotopic data is inconsistent and not independent but still used.
(3) There is a lack of care over documenting setup. If the reactor is changed that must be recorded (securely, so that it can be certain whether it is the same reactor coming back). If the wiring setup is changed (as is the best explanation for the electrical input-side anomalies) this must be documented. Without this care the details of the data are provably inconsistent and the integrity of the whole test is suspect.
(4) The authors do not reply to criticism. I'm not saying they have to reply to Pomp's paper since that was a damning critique of what they did not do right, but had no specifics to answer. However when their calculation methodology is shown provably and badly wrong it is inexcusable that they do not reply to this. They could, after all, recalculate using the correct methodology from their raw data and revise conclusions in the light of that. Or they could retract the results as just wrong. To make no answer is highly unprofessional.
I would not trust anybody who says "nucilar"! (Simeon Hein)
Here a simple link to the Japanese LENR Facts/ Truths site:
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq9…/FactTruth/FactTruth.html
The page contains two documents- refs, luckily in English...
David and also Simeon Hein, thank you for posting this interesting theory. One very peripheral hint that it could be true is that Rossi is said to use three-phase power. Three phase power is, of course, perfect for turning rotors. Therefore it is conceivable that the large particles (gears) are rotated by the three phase and that then turns the small "gears" at a very fast rate. Of course, this connection with Rossi is very hazy and might be irrelevant. It does seem worthwhile for people to keep this gear theory in mind for possible exploration.
All in all, I think the gear theory is not most likely explanation for LENR. I have a different theory that I'm not going to waste time discussing until I get some more important things done.
David and also Simeon Hein, thank you for posting this interesting theory. One very peripheral hint that it could be true is that Rossi is said to use three-phase power. Three phase power is, of course, perfect for turning rotors. Therefore it is conceivable that the large particles (gears) are rotated by the three phase and that then turns the small "gears" at a very fast rate.…
Examination of the Lugano paper reveals that this is indeed the case. The three heater wires are each fed from a separate phase, and by analogy with the stator of a brushless AC induction motor the resulting fields will induce a swirling 'vortex-like' motion in the nickel particles. That this motion is present even about the Curie temperature of (from memory 370C) is (for some) controversial- but the induced currents and the field gradients inside the fuel are large, and the resistance to motion in a hot hydrogen plasma environment are negligible.
Contrary evidence to the gear theory would be a demonstration of LENR where no three phase is used. I doubt that me356 is using it, but only he can say.
Triggering LENR in many experiments seems to be related to change in almost anything, but, most notably, change in pressure. Preferably a sudden drop in pressure after having first put hydrogen into the material.
QuoteTriggering LENR in many experiments seems to be related to change in almost anything, but, most notably, change in pressure. Preferably a sudden drop in pressure after having first put hydrogen into the material.
This idea of system perturbation as a trigger for LENR is no doubt a valid one. And it is vary much in line with the work of Vladimir Dubinko in Kharkov on 'Anharmonic Breathers.' He opines that in order to get the cat to move you have to kick it into motion.
I can't imagine, how the plasmonic vortices should work, nevertheless I can imagine, how the low-dimensional collisions could work https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/4b9l7m/reexaming_karabuts_anomalous_collimated_xrays/d176cru There is illustrative and verbose demo of this effect
it is not clear to understand on a video.
Is there smething written ?
or can someone make a synthesis on his vision?
See
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…-the-nanoscale-axil-axil/
Plasmonics With a Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale (Axil Axil) Posted on April 1, 2015
Also see
Display MoreHe talking about this paper, published in 2014.
Plasmonics with a Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale
By Svetlana V. Boriskina, PhD from MIT
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1657
Here a some videos splaining the process: https://www.youtube.com/user/sboriskina/videos
I like Simeon Hein. he is the LENR lightbringer to the New Age Cristal world.
Defects on the lattice surface give a hold for the plasmonic vortexes.
So from light to plasmonic vortexes to transmutations.
The paper is supposed to explain how this works from the macroscale to the atomic scale.
Dont ask me anything, this is way above my paygrade
The key component in the Ni/H reactor LENR reaction is the production of topological polaritons or as they have been newly named “Topolariton”. Science has thus caught up with LENR in that these quasiparticles officially dubbed topological polaritons have made their debut in the theoretical world.
The tools that Condensed-matter physicists often turn to are particle-like wave form entities called quasiparticles—such as excitons, plasmons, magnons—to explain complex phenomena seen in the solid state. Now Gil Refael from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and colleagues report the theoretical concept of the topological polarition, or “topolariton”: a hybrid half-light, half-matter quasiparticle that has special topological properties and might be used in devices to transport light in one direction.
This one way propagation is a critical revelation that explains how topolaritons arise from the strong spin based coupling of a photon and an exciton, a bound state of an electron and a hole. Their topology can be thought of as knots in their gapped energy-band structure. The nickel microparticles used in the Rossi reactor design provides topological one dimensional nanowire structures from which topolaritons emerge, these knots unwind and allow the topolaritons to propagate in a single direction down the nanowire without back-reflection with no loss in power. In other words, the topolaritons cannot make U-turns. Back-reflection is a known source of detrimental feedback and loss in photonic devices. The LENR centric topolaritons’ are immunity to back-reflection may thus be exploited to build long lived aggregates of topolaritons with increased performance.
The paper by Gil Refael explains where the spin of these topolaritons come from and why they last for so long. In this newly released paper, these researchers are struggling to produce and use Topolaritons, but LENR inventors have been at this business for decades. It is promising that science is catching up with this everyday world of LENR.
http://xxx.tau.ac.il/pdf/1406.4156.pdf
Topological polaritons
Torsten Karzig,1 Charles-Edouard Bardyn,1 Netanel H. Lindner,2, 1 and Gil Refael1
1-Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, Caltech, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
2-Physics Department, Technion, 320003 Haifa, Israel
The interaction between light and matter can give rise to novel topological states. This principle was recently exemplified in Floquet topological insulators, where classical light was used to induce a topological electronic band structure. Here, in contrast, we show that mixing single photons with excitons can result in new topological polaritonic states — or “topolaritons”. Taken separately,
the underlying photons and excitons are topologically trivial. Combined appropriately, however, they give rise to non-trivial polaritonic bands with chiral edge modes allowing for unidirectional polariton propagation. The main ingredient in our construction is an exciton-photon coupling with a phase that winds in momentum space. We demonstrate how this winding emerges from the finite momentum mixing between s-type and p-type bands in the electronic system and an applied Zeeman field. We discuss the requirements for obtaining a sizable topological gap in the polariton spectrum, and propose practical ways to realize topolaritons in semiconductor quantum wells and monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides.
From a simplistic point of view, electrons vibrate centered on a hole which is an ion that the electron was once in orbit around.
Photons get entangled with that electron and move to the very outside of the microparticle or the yip of a nanoparticle.
The electron does not move yet the photon and electron are connected and energy is shared between them.
The photons are formed into a vortex that behaves like a particle. Over time many photons are added to this "soliton" and its spin becomes very strong. This quasiparticle produces a spin that is very powerful which is the sum of the spin of each photon and also their angular momenta as they orbit in the vortex. Spin is magnetism on the atomic scale. This is monopole magnetism because it projects in one direction.
