Thank you, Spock. Eric
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein > > An Interview With Peter > Hagelstein<http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein> > > > > MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows: > > So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model > that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the > physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's > basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic > oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's > just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of > the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math > really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death. > People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on > how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability > to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30 > individual quanta. > > Axil says: > > Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons: > > The Jaynes Cummings model. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model > > Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches > us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It > describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode > of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of > a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and > absorption). > > > > > MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in an interview as follows: > > > > > What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's > hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that > makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a > weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold > fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the > physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of > loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy > exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively > weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is > exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and > chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found. > > Axil says: > > This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF > radiation to the near field in dark mode by eliminated far field emissions. > > In a Ni/H reactor, a general state of Bose Einstein condensation exists do > to the unique properties of the polariton. > > > > This takes nanoplasmonic theory to another level of detail in the Jaynes > Cummings Hubbard model > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model > > and the spaser > > *arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086* > > > > > > This property provides thermalization of gamma rays and superfluidic heat > transfer from the NAE to the walls of the reactor at temperatures of up to > 2600Cthat cools the NAE. > > > > Imagination is a great risk in the understanding of LENR. This is natural > when experimental data cannot be found. However, this > aforementioned characterization of he behavior of the polariton has been > experimentally verified in a thousand or more experiments conducted in the > field of nanoplasmonics. This new science has developed the tools to look > into the behavior of the nano-lattice and understand what is going on > inside it. > > All that those interested in LENR is to take the time to learn. > > > > > > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without >>> assuming CF is the cause. >>> >> >> I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I >> understand the part about neutrons. It is the "very small number alpha" >> particles that I'm querying. I think you allude to this below, but I'm not >> sure if that is the only basis for this conclusion. >> >> >>> Fast particles make secondary radiation that can be easily detected. >>> Peter made calculations showing the energy limit required to avoid detecton. >>> >> >> I take it that an important assumption here is that (1) the radiation is >> broadband (sounds sensible) and (2) it extends into a range beyond what is >> going to be stopped by the glass or metal housing enclosing the system. Do >> you expect the peak of the secondary radiation to be significantly above >> the threshold at which the glass or metal will stop it? >> >> >>> You should read his papers. Here is a list. >>> >> >> That is a long list. I'm glad that you highlighted some of them! >> >> Eric >> >> >
