What I am trying to accomplish is to connect those amazing particle tracks that you reference in your work starting from simple conceptual building blocks that are universally accepted in science in a step by step methodology. These most basic concepts start with nanoplasmonics and deal with the experimental observations of “Hot Spots” where huge EMF amplifications has been observed that range from 10^^10 to 10^^15. For example, in the nanoplasmonic reference:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2040-8978/17/11/114001/meta Surface enhanced Raman scattering of molecules in metallic nanogaps this article explicitly addresses the charactor of “Hot Spots” and how the EMF power level is experimentally determined. By the way, Fleischmann M, Hendra P J and Mcquillan invented the SERS experimental method in 1974. What we call the NAE standard science calls a “Hot Spot” “SERS utmost sensitivity has its origin in the dramatic increase of Raman scattering that takes place for analytes in the vicinity of metallic nano-structures. Typical enhancement factors in SERS studies are in the range of 10^^4–10^^10 depending on experimental conditions.” There is a limitation on SERS power determination. In certain particle configurations, the power level in the gap gets to grow so large that the chemical used as a detector is destroyed by the high EMF power level. The experimenter just discards this experimental condition because he has no tools to handle it.. What I am trying to do is use systems engineering to layout a well accepted scientific path between simple building blocks of causation to the strange tracks that you reference in your work. All the information that I have presented so far is standard science. I would like to continue this building process a little further if I may. To address the concern about violation of conservation laws, the production of mesons in Holmlid’s experiments violates Charge, parity, and time symmetry(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry). I would like to eventually explain what is going on in this case if permitted. On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Frédéric Henry-Couannier <[email protected] > wrote: > Ed : "Axil, once again you create a word salad of assumptions ... > > Everything you say below has no relationship to Rossi or to reality, so I > will not comment further. You are using pure imagination to violate the > laws of thermodynamics, which is a waste of time. " > > Yes Axil, moreover i have noticed that several times you have mixed my > work with your salad ... > Such strategy of the amalgams is often used to discredit relevant ideas > ... and to trigger allergic reactions (Ed's reaction for instance) > > yes, physics is a game where sometimes one has the right to, and even one > should, change the rules but not by inventing whatever you want ... you > need to point a genuine reasoning error or hidden unjustified assumption in > the currenttly accepted framework ... only when you have done that and when > you have rigorously shown that there is only one possible other way , only > then will your construction be neaningfull even if eventually it leads in > some cases to the local violation of the conservation of energy ... (thus > also violation of the first principle of thermodynamics). BTW let me remind > everybody that QM non locality also violates the local conservation of > almost everything , and is still as enigmatic today as it was one century > ago! > > Fred > > > > Le Vendredi 27 novembre 2015 18h04, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > a écrit : > > > > On Nov 27, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Rossi understands that his invention is based on catalysis. That is the > reason why Rossi named his invention “The Energy Catalyzer” (also called > E-Cat) (6). In order to understand how Rossi’s invention works, it is > important to understand the nature of catalysis as supported by > nanoparticles. There may be other modes of catalysts that might confuse the > issue of understanding Rossi’s work, so I will focus my discussion on > nanoparticles and how nanoparticles when properly stimulated by light can > extract energy from the environment. Metal nanoparticles have unique > catalytic properties that lend themselves to the backbone energy generation > function in the E-Cat. > > Axil, > Rossi shows no ability to understand his discovery. His use of the word > catalyst is a general description that can be applied to a wide range of > behaviors. We need to focus on the detail, not on the general description. > > In these few sentences, you make three assertions. You propose > nanoparticles are important, that they need to be stimulated by light, and > this light comes from the environment. > > You assume nano-particles are actually used by Rossi. There is no evidence > for this. Rossi says his Ni has a size in the 10 micro range. You assume > light from the environment can reach the Ni through the wall of a opaque > container. Finally, all material would experience self generated light but > only a very rare kind of material is nuclear active. You fail to identify > the difference between what works and what does not. > > > In his research and development, Rossi’s goal was to increase the > catalytic power of his invention to a high enough level to extract energy > from the environment. > > > > Your are now describing a basic conflict with the second law of > thermodynamics. Energy can not be taken from a lower temperature to a > higher temperature without doing work on the system. Rossi does not apply > any work to the E-Cat. Your description does not make any sense. Energy is > not being extracted from the environment. It is being extracted from a > nuclear process, as Rossi claims and as LENR describes. > > The patent that Rossi has recently been granted defines the energy source > as a catalytic process. It does not mention nuclear causation. LENR is not > nuclear centric based on neutron stimulation for energy production but a > greatly amplified catalytic process has been enhanced to such a huge degree > that a positive feedback loop between the NAE and the environment is > generated. This feedback loop is based on an electromagnetic connection > between the NAE and the environment and works at a distance from the NAE. > When the NAE has accumulated enough energy, then it becomes to a degree > self-sustaining and supported by this energy feedback loop. > > > Axil, once again you create a word salad of assumptions to explain > something that has a much simpler explanation. Rossi did not mention a > nuclear process because if he had the patent would have been refused. He is > trying to patent the method, not the result. You need to apply common sense > rather than unrestrained imagination. > > Everything you say below has no relationship to Rossi or to reality, so I > will not comment further. You are using pure imagination to violate the > laws of thermodynamics, which is a waste of time. > > Ed Storms > > > I would like to continue on and explain in more detail how Rossi has > achieved the ability to produce a self-sustaining energy feedback mechanism > in the catalytic process. > > Metal nano and micro particles produce vortexes of light in what can be > termed as polariton solitons. (7) > > It is worth explicitly point it out because it is such an important > reference (7) “Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the > nanoscale”. This article provides a wonderful explanation of how metal > nanoparticles integrate with polaritons to form EMF energy concentrations. > > 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 explains 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 according to the patent between 1 to 100 > microns but mostly 5 micron nickel particles available commercially off the > shelf (COTS). Other nanoparticles are produce as an ongoing process during > E-Cat operation by what is termed “Secret Sauce” chemical additives. These > additives provide the smallest nanoparticles in the particle aggregations. > A picture of how these particles aggregate is now worth understanding (8). > But there is a constraining factor that limits the aggregation of a certain > size limit due to dipole forces (9). > > This large particle produces relatively huge amounts of dipole generated > current. . Other particles of various sizes accumulate around the large > nickel particles. Each of these particles produces a photonic vortex > proportional to the size of the large particle member of the aggregation. > These vortexes fit together like gears where the large vortex provides a > large amount of power concentration, 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 explains why the “secret sauce” effect provides such a > large EMF power amplification result. These alkali metal hydrides supply > the intermediately sized gears that allow 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. The smallest particles are the hydrogen Rydberg matter which has its > own unique supercharged EMF amplification mechanism. > > 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 implication great enough to catalyze quantum mechanical > level 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. > > > > > > > > 6 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer > > 7 – Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale > http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf > > 8 – Particle aggregation > https://vimeo.com/36691535 > > 9 – The effect of the dipole-dipole repulsion on the size of the L-J > particle aggregation > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkxXheV748U > > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Ludwik Kowalski < > [email protected]> wrote: > > P.S. Wikipedia's definition (in blue below) is consistent with what I > remember. > > > A *catalyst* is a substance that speeds up a *chemical* reaction, but is > not consumed by the reaction; hence a *catalyst* can be recovered > chemically unchanged at the end of the reaction it has been used to speed > up, or catalyze. > > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote: > > I also responded to Peter G, essentially at the same time. Bot my reply > bounced back. I wrote: > > 1) Peter wrote (see his egoout below ): ... "I have a cult for catalysis, > met it professionally in many forms and have developed a kind of philosophy > of it ... . > > *I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have > developed a kind of philosophy of it.* > > * - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. "* > > 2) I am not a chemist. But I would say that a catalytic surface is a > surface covered with one or more catalysts (chemical compounds). Such > compounds can participate in reactions but are not consumed by these > reactions). Some chemical reactions would be very rare, if catalysts were > not available. > > 3) Does my definition conflict with Peter's nano-cracks definition? > Probably not; Peter probably thinks that some catalysts are present in > nano-cracks. Which compounds does he have in mind, in our CMNS context? > > Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > *a) Continuing discussion with Ed Storms* > > * Yesterday Ed has promptly answered to my catalysis in LENR questions, > but has forgot to answer to this question "caused "by the unique PdD et > classic paper of JCF-16 so I repeat it:* > > *- what do you think about paper of Numata- No.15 at JCF- see the list? > I have spoken more times about nano-vortices as NAE to you, in this is > something like that* > > > *Ed: I will be pleased to comment once the paper becomes available. If > you you have a copy, please send it.* > *Ed's answer, my comments * > > > *To answer your questions, we need to know what the words mean. The word > catalyst describes a general concept, there being hundreds of different > kinds of catalyst. One kind does not take the place of another. Simply > saying a catalytic surface is required is too trivial. What is worse, the > concept of catalyst was only applied to a chemical reaction, never to a > nuclear reaction, until LENR was discovered. We need to know what the word > means when it describes a nuclear process. A catalyst can reasonably be > understood to lower a barrier by a few eV but what allows a barrier of > several MeV to be lowered?* > > *ANSWER * > *Please, please read my essay here:* > *http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/the-most-fundamental-question-about-lenr.html > <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/the-most-fundamental-question-about-lenr.html> > * > *I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have > developed a kind of philosophy of it.* > > *Ed: I read your comment but I do not understand how it applies to our > problem. A catalyst is a concept applied when the rate of a chemical > reaction can be increased by operation of another chemical condition. To be > useful, the chemical condition needs to be identified. This requires > identification of the chemical state causing the rate of LENR to increase. > In addition, we are faced with the need to increase a reaction rate having > a barrier of MeV. You have not answered my question. How can this be done?* > > * - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. These cracks > are created by stress relief. Many ways exist to create the stress and the > resulting crack formation depends on the property of the surface. Stress > generation and crack formation are influence by many variables. We will not > understand these variables until they are study for the purpose of causing > LENR. So, simply saying a catalyst is necessary without showing the form > of the catalyst is useless. Also, complaining about lack of knowledge > about the process without showing what needs to be studied is also > useless. I'm attempting to show exactly what needs to be studied and what > will be found when that study is undertaken. I see no one else doing this. > Instead, we are provided with guesses and speculation based on what Rossi > might wish to reveal. * > > *ANSWER* > *As far I know/understand, the nanocracks are not a specific, quantifiable > feature of the metal (Pd, Ni) surface- **with concrete it would be > different. * > > *Ed: Peter, I'm amazed you would say this. The nano-crack is the initial > formation of a gap that, if allowed to grow larger, would be and is easily > seen. This is a well known and easily observed process. I'm not > suggesting a new condition. I'm only suggesting a new consequence of a > well-known condition. * > > > *It is difficult to explain- based on the density of nanocracks per > surface a thousand times increase of the heat release from PdD to NiH at > 1200 C- the best for you is to deny it temporarily- an 1000 times increase > of nanocracks density is not possible. We like it or not, cracking is a > destructive process. My alternative is the dynamic formation of the NAE > surfce nanostructures* > *due to the increased mobility and re-arrangements of surface atoms of the > metals, obviously increasing with temperature.* > > *Ed: What kind of nano-structures are able to initiate a nuclear reaction? > You need to be specific. What exactly needs to be created on the surface > to cause LENR and how can this be done? I have answered this question using > my theory. Can you give an answer using your understanding? Making general > comments is not useful at this stage. We need exact descriptions and > predictions.* > > *- Axil and others suggest treatments that would apply stress even though > he does not explain the process this way. However, no one has the money or > interest in setting up a complicated method without assurance that it has a > relationship to creating the required conditions. * > > *ANSWER * > *AXIL will explain this again, in more detail- please appreciate that AXIL > tries to develop a holistic understanding of the field that is indeed very > rich and varied.* > > *Ed: Yes, but Axil's approach is too rich and varied. It is like throwing > a collection of colored paint against the wall and hoping to form a picture > of something recognizable. I call this an abstract art form, not science. > We need to have exact descriptions that can be easily tested and related to > what is presently known.* > > *The essence of the problem is the lack of agreement about a NAE being > required. Without this agreement, no one even looks for the NAE or attempts > to identify it. I suggest a very plausible NAE, but this idea is ignored > because the basic need for a NAE of any form is not accepted. * > > *Dear Ed, have you seen this jCF-16- how does it consider NAE:* > *What is the "nuclear active environment" of the cold fusion Tetsuo Sawada* > *LENR poly-semantics.* > > *ANSWER* > > *As regarding me, I have pre-agreed with NAE much before even the > word/acronym was created by you just I called it "active sites" because > they are fisrt topological and and only then environmental. I don't think > they are nano-cracks in the surface but nanostructures on the surface. Is > this an essential difference? ok- void space vs structured nano-matter, in > the surface vs. the surface , static-preformed vs. dynamic, permanent vs. > transient, possibly usual nuclear two particles reaction vs. collective > transformation, fusion vs more complex nuclear interactions etc.* > > *Ed: You and other people do not understand what I mean when I use the > term NAE. It is not simply a site where LENR happens to take place, as you > define it. It is a special local condition that is created by a chemical > process BEFORE LENR can take place. Its eventual use as a site for a > nuclear reaction is not anticipated by Nature when the NAE is formed. The > nuclear reaction is an unusual and unexpected consequence. For reasons > having nothing to do with the eventual nuclear process, this condition > forms and allows something extraordinary to happen. This way of looking at > the problem forces an entirely different set of rules on how the process > works. You are free to reject my idea, but please understand what I > propose before you reject it. You and I are describing an entirely > different condition when we use the term NAE. I do not believe your > definition applies because I do not believe a process that can cause fusion > can take place in or on a normal material. A very unique and rare change > must take place. We need to identify this change in an exact way while > remaining consistent with known behavior.* > > *Further- is NAE a chemical structure and are you right as you say:* > *The chemical structure of a material has to be modified in a unusual way > before LENR can be initiated. * > *Or is it about dimensions first i.e. is it a nano-effect primarily.* > > *Ed: OK, that comment is the start of an agreement. As for your question, > I have no idea what you are asking. We know that no matter what happens, it > must take place at a nano scale. We have a very limited number of possible > changes that can take place in a material at this size level. Exactly what > kind of change do you propose?* > > * I forgot to ask- what arguments do you have for the existence of > hydrotons Are they active somewhere?* > > *Ed: In order to fuse, the hydrogen MUST occupy the same place at the same > time. For the sale of discussion, I use the word Hydroton to identify this > assembly of hydrogen. I propose how it forms so as to be consistent with > the rules of thermodynamics. I speculate that metallic hydrogen would have > the same ability to support a fusion reaction, hence could be called a > Hydroton. * > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > >
