The cold fusion is all about heavy atom nuclei involvement - both for overcoming of Coulomb barrier, both in dissipation.
How heavy do you think they need to be?
Edmund Storms: Q&A ON THE NAE
-
-
24 MeV could melt some 10 million atoms (assuming no heat loss), far too few to cause any visible hot spot. I repeat, you need tens of thousands of reactions, all occurring in the same vicinity to cause visible hot spots. Any model needs to take this into account.
Hermes: Just wanted to remind you that a cubic nanoparticle of 40nm contains only about 4 mio Ni atoms. Most experimenters use smaller particles and not cubic ones...
-
I'm talking about nickel atoms and I already talked about longitudinal pressure waves, which will run along their line multiple-times, while dissipating energy continuously. So that this line may not be very long - about one thousand of atoms or so. The assumption, that the whole energy of fusion must get dissipated in a single moment is redundant here. Regarding the absorption of neutrons, it could be estimated from half value level of neutrons (about 1 cm for nickel) and the fact, the diameter of nickel nuclei (0.005 pm) is more than 20.000 times smaller, than the distance between atoms (100 pm). Which means, the neutrons should be absorbed in 500 nm layer of atom lattice, providing this layer is oriented in parallel with direction of neutron path.
-
Personally I would find it logical, from recent finding that nm-particles are self-healing when loaded from alpha-phase to beta-phase, unlike bigger structures. As if the damage were required for LENR.
to be confirmed.But I am of the same opinion, FWIW.
-
is there a definitive position whether nm particle or µm particle work ?
There is far more work needed to decide about this. Small particles no longer have all phonon-wave modes availlable. There are myriads of papers in all fields investigating the benefits (dangers) of nano-particles.
Here an internal Forum pointer to actual, relating work in a different field: Wave multiplication! = frequency division.
After reading this paper, you may be understand that nano particles could radiate in the XUV region! Instead of IR!
-
Just wanted to remind you that a cubic nanoparticle of 40nm contains only about 4 mio Ni atoms. Most experimenters use smaller particles and not cubic ones...
The point is not that you can get anomalies without molten hotspots, but the contrary namely that heat production must be created in molten hotspots! Is this concept so hard to grasp? It implies that the NAE if any, is not a special physical nor chemical structure which could be destroyed by melting. It is irrelevant to this argument what most experimenters do or how nano-particles behave. I challenge anyone to come up with an alternative explanation.
-
is there a definitive position whether nm particle or µm particle work ?
Seems likely to be a wishful overgeneralization, or the reported experience of one researcher working with a specific process and apparatus. I do not know of any multi-study analysis that comes to this conclusion, and if there were a semi-consensus (I am not aware of one), it would probably be largely based on anecdote of the consensees. But I'd be interested in seeing the reference you're recalling, because I remember hearing something like that as well. Perhaps it was a tidbit from Rossi?
-
Alan this is in regards to Can's post on stirring. If you feel that the reaction is concentrated (assuming all other variables are the same "heat/water temp/mixture etc.") and you can duplicate the reaction, it would be wise to consider stirring or possibly using a membrane flow device to see if you can duplicate the process. Why? Other than to test variables it would be to see if varying the concentration is effective in strengthening the reaction. Maybe even add a sonic bubbler to stir for a sono effect. Have you considered pressurizing the device?
-
One error not to do in considerin Edmunt Storm's theory is to criticize it to the details to refute it totally.
It is not an upfront theory like many theory I've read.
It is just an experimentator, looking ate data, eliminating what is impossible, refuted, not observed, to propose a narrow corridor of possible theories...
Here we have an experimentalist approach, like Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie (or CSI), where common sens is stated, and after removing the impossible, only remains the improbable .
I have an alternative idea to the ‘nanocrack’ location for the NAE. Assume a short edge dislocation in the Palladium. For those of you not metallurgists, visualize a 2 cm wide putty knife sticking into the middle of a 10 cm cube of Jello. Now visualize that with both putty knife and Jello as being Palladium. [That’s an edge dislocation that Axil posted on Thursday] The Deuterium nuclei bounce back and forth along the dislocation and rebound where the dislocation stops in both directions. If there are just two nuclei there, they would bounce off each other with a random speed distribution, then bounce off the ‘wall’ at the end of the dislocation. Or maybe their energy and repulsion that holds them there are such that they occasionally pass each other. During the moment of pass, they be pushed together by the lattice to fuse. That's the key: The 2 nuclei pass each other in the correct location that the Pd lattice pushes them together.
This concept embraces Storms’ NAE and Hydroton ideas, as well as McKubre’s comment that the system needs to ‘breathe’ which would pump deuterium nuclei in and out of the volume. Reaction rate is determined by how fast the D nuclei and He atoms diffuse through the metal. Furthermore, if the D preferentially occupies interstitial sites rather than the dislocation, it explains why loading needs to be high. Finally, invoking the requirement that the dislocation has both a minimum and maximum length, explains why LENR is rarely observed.
Just thinkin’
-
Go Dan, Please complete this idea on how the reaction would be started/stopped and what would take it to happen. U B tink'n sweet
-
Go Dan, Please complete this idea on how the reaction would be started/stopped and what would take it to happen. U B tink'n sweet
Startup is relatively easy to explain. The interstitial sites (of which there are many, many compared to the dislocation sites) must be filled first, as they are lower energy sites but are not NAE. Explaining the stopping is more difficult. Could be local overheating from LENR destroying the NAE, or the insoluble He blocking the Deuterium, or maybe some other nuclear low probability process poisoning the NAE, such as the creation of Tritium or 3He, or there's enough local energy to knock a Pd atom into the wrong place which would block the resonance.
It's also hard to explain how other NAE are created during LENR activity. But I have a few ideas on that too. Maybe if the required length of the dislocation is 3 or 4 atoms long, there is a possibility of the lattice vibrations during LENR creating the required morphology. I'm personally not comfortable with the lattice being able to absorb 2 MeV per event without breaking up. Maybe it *does* break up but usually heals itself.
Shrug.
-
Startup is relatively easy to explain. The interstitial sites (of which there are many, many compared to the dislocation sites) must be filled first, as they are lower energy sites but are not NAE. Explaining the stopping is more difficult. Could be local overheating from LENR destroying the NAE, or the insoluble He blocking the Deuterium, or maybe some other nuclear low probability process poisoning the NAE, such as the creation of Tritium or 3He, or there's enough local energy to knock a Pd atom into the wrong place which would block the resonance.
It's also hard to explain how other NAE are created during LENR activity. But I have a few ideas on that too. Maybe if the required length of the dislocation is 3 or 4 atoms long, there is a possibility of the lattice vibrations during LENR creating the required morphology. I'm personally not comfortable with the lattice being able to absorb 2 MeV per event without breaking up. Maybe it *does* break up but usually heals itself.
Shrug.
The surface plasmon polariton, the main actor in the LENR process requires "pumping" to stay alive when it is in a subcritical state. Heat photons feed the SPP. If the application of heat is stopped, the the SPPs will die of starvation form the leakage of energy(diffraction) if the SPP is not feed by pumping. The dipole motion of the electron component of the SPP is the heartbeat of the polariton. Adding photon energy(heat) into the dipole vibration feeds new life into the SPP keeping it alive. Cooling the reactor kills the SPP and with it the LENR reaction. Piantelli has stated that cooling his reactor, will shut it down
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7146840/
QuoteThe self-consistent theory of SPP amplification by interaction of SPP with excited layer of surface cover (sub-monolayer of organic dye molecules or quantum dot array) is proposed in the present work. The local field effects are taken into account when quantization of SPP's field and calculation of susceptibility of the objects consisting the active layer at the surface is performed. It was shown that the pumping of the cover with certain intensity can lead to increasing the life-time of the SPP and the mean free-path.
-
The question comes down to “who can you believe”? The proper theory that describes LENR seems to be balanced on a single point. That point being the proper characterization of the true exotic form of hydrogen that drives the LENR reaction.
There are a number of theories out there about exotic hydrogen espoused by leading LENR theorists including Ed Storms, Piantelli, George Miley, and Leif Holmlid among others; how to choose: who to accept? Which idea is the true cornerstone upon which to build a proper LENR theory?
It only takes one unanswered question to kill a false theory. I discount Piantelli’s negative ion hydrogen theory because it cannot explain why mixing hydrogen isotopes kills the LENR reaction. A LENR theory must explain why a pure hydrogen isotope must be used to support the LENR reaction. This theory also does not explain why gamma rays are not produced by the purported fusion reaction catalyzed by the negative hydrogen ions.
Ed storms has looked at hundreds of LENR experiments and found that cracks in the lattice were almost always a factor in an active LENR reaction. Ed then concluded that something happens to hydrogen in those cracks to fire up the LENR reaction. Through Imagineering, Ed came up with an imaginative hydrogen behavior mechanism that supports the fusion of hydrogen. In Ed’s theory, the crack pushes the hydrogen close enough together through compression so that the deuterium will eventually fuse. The hydrogen must be deuterium because protium fusion is too ethereal to support the high rates of fusion required to generate huge amounts of power needed to be detectable in a vigorous LENR reaction.
Deuterium is a boson that can be forced together to occupy the same space whereas protium is a fermion that cannot occupy the same space as defined by the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This is the root of why Ed and many other deuterium fusion proponents do not accept the nickel hydrogen reaction even though Rossi has shown that such protium based LENR reactions may work. In addition to the theoretical flaws that Piantelli suffers in his theory, Ed’s suffers even more contradictions that we will get more into below.
The Miley/Holmlid idea is essentially the same thing which comes from the fact that they both participated in a joint multiyear experimental program that both have cooperated in and drawn theoretical inspiration from.
Holmlid’s theory of Ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) contains enough quantum mechanical complexity to really explain many of the mysteries that LENR demonstrates. The quantum mechanical nature of the Holmlid UDH theory is what I like.
IMHO, when all is said and done, there are just two authoritative sources the describe UDH that one can go to that have advanced this UDH characterization. How UHD behaves in those cracks and tubercles tells the tale about how LENR acts.
The two sources are Leif Holmlid and Ed Storms. They both have a story to tell about how UDH works. How can one tell whose story is the correct one? I have made my choice; I like Holmlid’s explanation of UHD; yes, I am a disciple of the Holmlid flavor of science.
Holmlid has spent decades of research coming up with a layout for the structure of UHD. But it is not just Holmlid; there are scores of others in the field of high pressure physics who have been working alongside Holmlid. In addition, Holmlid’s theory is based on the superconductor model put forward in a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch. Beside Hirsch, there are a score of other contributors to this model of type II superconductivity who have developed a vibrant school of theory.
It is this superconductivity that opens the door to so many answers to the perplexing nature of the LENR reaction. Bose condensation explains why no gamma rays are seen in LENR; why light feeds the LENR reaction, why mesons are produced by LENR, why a mixing of isotopes kill the reaction, why lithium can replace hydrogen inside the cracks and still produce the LENR reaction, why LENR produces neutrons when the NAE is compressed via explosion, how life after death can persist for hours after all stimulation is terminated, how both light and electrons can be produced by LENR, how all radioactive isotopes are stabilized through the LENR reaction, why no neutrons are produced in the LENR reaction, how LENR can catalyze fission of heavy elements, how LENR can exist in a plasma, how LENR can support nuclear reactions at a distance away from the crack…how Rossi’s Cat/Mouse reaction works, how LENR can produce an uncontrolled meltdown, and how isotopes of any type of element can shift, not just helium.
The theory that Ed Storms has come up with is inspired by billiard ball thinking, not proper thinking informed by quantum mechanics. If we want to know how LENR can do erstwhile unexplainable things and more, we need to understand how UDH works through it structure and how quantum mechanics uses this weird and unearthly structure fathered by the Meissner effect to do miracles.
-
24 MeV could melt some 10 million atoms (assuming no heat loss), far too few to cause any visible hot spot. I repeat, you need tens of thousands of reactions, all occurring in the same vicinity to cause visible hot spots. Any model needs to take this into account.
The muon catalyzed theory of LENR accounts for a muon chain reaction where a burst of muons from a NAE can produce a exponential exposition of exponential muon creation that can catalyze all the individual fusion and fission reactions required to produce the heat needed to melt down the crack. The muon explosion as a secondary reaction can exist even after the crack that produced it has melted down.
-
Display More
axil,
You have reacted very well!
I don’t know why you are so devoted to LENR, but maybe you can agree with the opinion that the biggest problem in LENR is the design of a reactor that’s simple, not dangerous and can run for a very long time. The model to describe the mechanism cannot be a problem because even Holmlid’s use of Rydberg matter is – from the viewpoint of quanta transfer – comparable with Pd based fusion. Unfortunately, most physicists are devoted to the phenomenological view.
Because simple LENR is a lattice based application, the active area must be quite large when we want to use the mechanism for power plants to generate heat for electricity. However, there are all kinds of electric usage that are impossible without storage. So there is a need for small LENR reactors that can keep the active area undamaged and can resupply hydrogen into the active area.
Have you never considered to dive into the more practical aspects of LENR?
There is an idea that has come up on Vortex for a muon based thorium fission reactor that supports a grid based utility controlled reactor whose economies of scale that the utilities would like. The muon theory of LENR points to a level of radiation exposure that will become problematic. A large scale multi gigawatt reactor under the control of a electric utilities will remove the radiation danger from the general public. Writing a post on this meson/thorium based reactor is on my list of things to do.
-
During the carbon electrolysis experiments I wrote about in here recently, a sensitive waterproof geiger probe picked up numerous short-lived beta (?) radiation hotspots on the surface of bulk carbon grains lying in the tank. These persisted at up to 80cpm equivalent (20 cpm background) for up to 20 seconds before vanishing only to appear somewhere else. Difficult to collect good experimental data on these, because you had to 'go fishing' for them with the probe - but interesting nevertheless. These same experiments also produced other interesting items like the shotgun-peppered Anode shown here.
Lay a large sheet of Cr39 on this bed of carbon, let the reaction cook for awhile and then examine the Cr39 for particle tracks under a microscope. This is standard experimental practice in LENR experimentation.
-
Display More
By the way about nanoparticle,
I've heard long ago that NANO-Particles were not LENR-active, while MICRO-particles were active.
As Mizuno/CleanPlanet seems to show, hybrid micro-nano structures seems to work better ?
is there a definitive position whether nm particle or µm particle work ?
Personally I would find it logical, from recent finding that nm-particles are self-healing when loaded from alpha-phase to beta-phase, unlike bigger structures. As if the damage were required for LENR.
to be confirmed.
A wide mix of particle sizes produce the most power through the gear effect. To understand this read as follows:
Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdfPage 15
12.5. Molding the river of light in vortex nanogear transmissions
Reading the entire paper is well worth it if you have the time and the inclination.
-
The point is not that you can get anomalies without molten hotspots, but the contrary namely that heat production must be created in molten hotspots! Is this concept so hard to grasp? It implies that the NAE if any, is not a special physical nor chemical structure which could be destroyed by melting. It is irrelevant to this argument what most experimenters do or how nano-particles behave. I challenge anyone to come up with an alternative explanation.
Mark LeClear states that the water crystal, a ultra dense form of water and the active agent in cavitation is protected from destruction by a imperious quantum mechanical based shield. This is why cavitation can erode anything including diamond. The structure of UDH explains this and is one of the pluses in support of the ultra dense hydrogen theory of LENR.
