Zephir_AWT: "Well, it isn't. Polariton is result of coupling of photons with excitons and they even cannot exist within metals."
Excitons are formed on the surface of metals as well as most other types of nanoparticles.
I see that you have attempted to do some research. I suggest that you should do some more.
"A model proposed by Abrahamson and Dinniss , explains the formation of ball-lightning as normal lightning that strikes the ground and ejects a plume of Si, SiO and SiC nanoparticles whose excitation sustains the glow of ball-lightning."
The problem is that the majority of reports come from ships and boats (St. Elmo's Fire) where there is no "ground" to strike.
Raindrops nucleate around nanoparticles of dust and salt. Without dust, there would be little rain. Have you ever heard of cloud seeding?
St Elmo's fire is nothing to do with ball lightning.
One EOM value added business idea to add value to the new home LENR hot water systems is to sell the LENR reactor in a remote out building that stands at least 20 ,meters from the main house.
The unit can include all required piping and electrical connections between the house and the out building in an underground service trench. An inhouse radiation monitor can be included as an extra cost add on.
QuoteExcitons are formed on the surface of metals as well as most other types of nanoparticles
Small particles increase bang gap of all materials. Your theory/idea essentially predicts, the finer the metal, the faster the cold fusion run. But which cold fusion actually runs within nanoparticles?
Sherlock Holmes wrote: "A model proposed by Abrahamson and Dinniss , explains the formation of ball-lightning as normal lightning that strikes the ground and ejects a plume of Si, SiO and SiC nanoparticles whose excitation sustains the glow of ball-lightning."
The problem is that the majority of reports come from ships and boats (St. Elmo's Fire) where there is no "ground" to strike.
Raindrops nucleate around nanoparticles of dust and salt. Without dust, there would be little rain. Have you ever heard of cloud seeding?
Your quote specifically talks about striking the ground and ejecting a plume of SI, SIO and SIC, not raindrops-contained nanoparticles of dust and salt.
Small particles increase bang gap of all materials. Your theory/idea essentially predicts, the finer the metal, the faster the cold fusion run. But which cold fusion actually runs within nanoparticles?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf
Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale
Nanoplasmonics provide many types of EMF amplification mechanisms. One of the more difficult mechanisms to understand is how a pile of nano and micro particles greatly amplify EMF. The reference provided in this post shows how the topology in the way particles aggregate explain how EMF is concentrated through vortex formation. The reference defines an analogy between a vortex and a gear. Like a funnel, a large particle gathers the energy from a wave of EMF far larger than its diameter, In the case of the Rossi system, this type particle is the 5 micron nickel particle.
This large particle produces a relatively huge vortex. Other particles of various sizes accumulate around the nickel particle. Each of these particles produce a vortex proportional to the size of the particle. These vortexes fit together like gears where the large vortex provides a large amount of power, and the other smaller vortexes provide a gear train that speeds up the rotation rate of the smaller gears down the train.
Finally, the smallest vortexes associated with hydrogen crystals, spin at high rates of speed providing large EMF power amplification.
The take away is that a large spread of particles sizes produced within an aggregation of particles generates the most powerful EMF amplification effects. This fact explaines why the “secret sauce” effect provides such a large EMF power amplification result. These alkali metal hydrides supply the intermediatly sized gears that allows the large nickel gears to transfer their vast store of energy with little loss to the smallest hydrogen based gears down a smoothly running vortex power transmission chain.
I venture to say that there is randomness associated with this particle aggregation process that enables a sort of natural selection where the most effective dust pile configurations provide the most EMF amplification. When there are an abundance of particles, the chances are good that some of these piles will be LENR capable. That is to say, when there are a large number of particles, the chances are good that some of their aggregates will produce EMF amplication great enough to catalyze nuclear effects.
There is also a certain lifetime associated with particle formation. Particle piles are constantly falling apart. These particle aggregates must be constantly rebuilt to maintain a sustained reaction rate.
But which cold fusion actually runs within nanoparticles?
But which cold fusion actually runs within nanoparticles?
When the surface of metal is prepared with bumps and pits as Piantelli and Mizuno have shown, then this rough surface topology can produce the optical cavities needed to generate polaritons. Mizuno has shown that a rough surface is required on a metal to produce some small level of the LENR reaction. Also the preparation of nickel.copper wire with acid etching can produce this rough surface topology. As per Ed Storms theory of crack formation on palladium, the pitted surface can generate a small level of the LENR reaction. There are many other ways that a rough surface can be prepared that can generate LENR to some level of activity.
The LENR reaction occurs on the surface and because particles both micro and nano produce the most surface area by a huge amount, particles produce the most vigorous LENR reactions.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~qelec…tsPhysRep408_131_2005.pdf
Nano-optics of surface plasmon polaritons
QuoteDisplay MoreA surface plasmon polariton (SPP) is an electromagnetic excitation existing on the surface of a good metal. It is an
intrinsically two-dimensional excitation whose electromagnetic field decays exponentially with distance from the
surface. In the past, it was possible to study only the (far-field) scattered light produced by the interaction of surface
polaritons with surface features. Only with the development of scanning near-field optical microscopy did it become
possible to measure the surface polariton field directly in close proximity to the surface where the SPP exists. Here
we overview the near-field studies of surface polaritons on randomly rough and nanostructured surfaces, theoretical
models of SPP interaction with surface features, and SPP applications in novel photonic technologies. Surface
polariton scattering, interference, backscattering, and localization will be discussed, as well as concepts of surface
polariton optics and polaritonic crystals. Surface polaritons are finding an ever increasing number of applications
in traditional domains of surface characterization and sensors as well as in newly emerging nano-photonic and
optoelectronic technologies.
Here you're explaining the role of cavities with superconductivity, here with boson "condinsate"
(even after four years you didn't learn to spell it properly).
Sorry, but it has no meaning to dispute some physics with you - you're inventing new stuffs each month. You'll convince everyone about particular idea, which you believe right now.
Here you're explaining the role of cavities with superconductivity, here with boson "condinsate" (even after four years you didn't learn to spell it properly).
Sorry, but it has no meaning to dispute some physics with you - you're inventing new stuffs each month. You'll convince everyone about particular idea, which you believe right now.
It is true that I have trouble with the word condinsate. I have not been helped by any spell checker that functions on the web, I don't understand why condinsate is allowed through the spell checkers. I realize that the fault is mine and I have failed in this regard but I will try harder in the future to overcome this problem that I have even though I cannot expect to get any assistance from the web spell checkers.
Regaurding Bose condinsation of polaritons. the SPP will produce Bose condensation very easily even at room temperature. As a justification of this belief, see:
Condensation phenomena in plasmonics
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3182
VI. CONCLUSIONS
We have shown that condensation phenomena are possible
even in high loss rate systems, such as plasmonic
lattices combined with emitters. Population inversions
of Ng/(Ne) ∼ 1 are needed to achieve the regime where
the distribution deviates from the Maxwell-Boltzmann
one and may show diverging occupation numbers for certain
states. By tailoring the dispersions and loss profiles,
different types of distributions can be produced, also the
Bose-Einstein one.
Bob Greenyer just published the date of the (begin of the) test: 19th of May.
So this is very soon (next Friday)
If I understood Bobs comment on ECW correctly 19th of May is when MFMP could start the test because they then finished their preparation. I think the date of the start of the test depends on wether me365 confirms it or wants to postpone the beginning of the test.
Bob Greenyer, discussing the calorimetry of the test:
(Courtesy of Jed on Vortex.)
The equipment is surprisingly small. Here is a follow up video:
The equipment is surprisingly small.
Is this negative in some way? Or just interesting?
You can get pills for that.
Since nobody is commenting Bob/MFMP planned calorimetry setup here, I put something up which are just my hunch and guesses without hands on experience nor accurate calculations.
In a hope that maybe someone could get idea and do the math.
1) Pipe Diameter/Insulation
In remote heating steam systems they don't want to condensate steam at all, so they use superheeated steam that returns back to plant as normal heat, because it flows more easily and does not damage piping and heat exchangers so quickly.
In your case you have rather small pipe diameter and non super heated 'normal' heat. In my guess you need proper insulation to keep steam not to condensate already before heat exchanger and also to minimize bigger heat loss caused by hotter pipe than in return side.
2) Water return
I think you did not show or mention pump that you would need to pump condensed water back to reactor? Or is reactor positioned below condensation level. Even not specifically mentioned in video, that reactor circuit should be closed circuit anyway to keep measurement errors minimum. yes?
If so, what ensures steam starts to flow to correct direction and not pushed through return pipe up to condenser and returning via input pipe?
So should there be similar back flow valve also in return pipe as you have in cooler input?
3) Vacuum bleed
When you try to avoid vacuum generated by condensing steam, you plan to leak air after reactor (around 4:50 mark in first video ). Maybe install manual valve instead of 'crack' to make it easier control the level of vacuum.
Also if you leak cool air into condensing stream, it further cools down condensed water a bit (on top of energy released in condenser). Luckily that is probably small percentage and possible slight error is in correct direction (false negative).
For easier maintenance, as a general rule I'd prefer to put manual valve to each pipe just in case to keep fluid from leaking if you need to quickly check or clean heat exchanger for example.
4) pressure release valve
As Jeff has mentioned many times and was shortly mentioned in the video. Pressure release valve is most important thing to take with you when you pack your stuff for the test.
All in all it should be pretty easy to distinguish between COP 1.0 and > 10 even with more modest setup, but it is better if you achieve even 10-30% uncertainty in measurements. And energy amounts beyond any chemical sources.
Good Luck for testing!
Edit: One more thing Bob mentioned laminar fluid flow after 20 cm straight tube. There are different levels of laminar, and strictly speaking this flow is far away pure laminar, but I don't think it matters in this case.
OK, I'll comment on the first video but would much prefer it if somone could link to a written report.
As I understand it: me356 provides steam from his reactor. MFMP control the use of this steam, via a heat exchanger, to heat water. The hot water flow is monitored to determine power extracted.
The one obvious issue in this setup - not unfortunately dealt with by the control, is that of the fidelity of the output water temperature measurement.
As i understand it the control is not generating steam, measured via the heat exchanger, instead it is heating the secondary exchanger circuit water directly. Maybe I'm wrong - a decent write-up would be helpful here, and apologies if I am.
Thus any error related to the steam heat exchanger is not controlled.
Such an error could be that the output TC is measuring pipe temperature not water temperature, and the pipe temperature, in thermal contact with the steam circuit piping and lagged, could be much higher than the water temperature.
For a test of this type you want to knock on the head any such possibility. For example, by having a long unlagged plastic pipe run before the output TC. That is no problem - we are taking here about a claimed 10kW of output power. Any losses through lack of lagging on secondary circuit will be a few 100 W max and not prevent a positive result.
So:
(1) No lagging (helps to reduce uncertainty)
(2) long pipe run to output TC position. Or, more transparent, let output water form a jet and measure the water temperature inside the jet.
We need bomb-proof input power measurement of the reactor. PCE-830 or other true power wattmeter on the input side of any controller (so that the voltage is mains and not spiky) should be OK.
