Talk-Polywell.org

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:02 am**

KitemanSA wrote:Another plasma physicist that believes plasmas react the same as condensed matter. Oh well.

Yeah that was my take on it. I guess when you have all the answers...

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:02 am**

Crawdaddy wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:Kiteman may not be as crazy as he looks!
I didn't go crazy till I came here and found all these "believers" mascarading as scientist types.
I still find it hard to imagine that a plasmon can concentrate it's energy enough to generate 10^11V/m fields.

So your plasmon theory is still slightly insane.

It is implausible.

But worse is the screening hypothesis.

This was kludged onto WpL theory to get round the manifest lack of experimentally observed gammas.

It requires that screening is very very good. Maybe 99.9%. It requires ultra-high energy electrons everywhere. Lots.

Remember the electrons we are talking about are 1000s of times higher energy than any bound electron level in a lattice.

The hypotheis is they come from BEC behaviour concentrating wave amplitude in small fraction of total volume, where concentration factor gives necessary energy.

But then they are by definition not present throughout volume.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:31 pm**

Crawdaddy wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:Kiteman may not be as crazy as he looks!
I didn't go crazy till I came here and found all these "believers" mascarading as scientist types.
I still find it hard to imagine that a plasmon can concentrate it's energy enough to generate 10^11V/m fields.

So your plasmon theory is still slightly insane.

I finally got around to reading the three NASA presentations.
Seems you have a problem with Zawodny's explanation of Widom Larsen's "heavy electron" precusor to their ultra-low momentum neutron. Not my konjecture. My plasmon conjecture doesn't propose that mechanism. Of course it doesn't propose much of ANY mechanism, so it is pretty unassailable. It is also indefensible, so I am even!!

I am currently pondering whether excitons (surface or otherwise) can be condensed into a massive quasi particle (super-fliud?) that can pick up a proton and guide it into a Ni nucleus.

I am concerned with ANY neutron explanation per-se... but a guided (screened?) proton seems plausible.

The primary question in my mind is whether that condensate can share the resultant binding energy release among its members resulting in a large number of lower energy particles rather than a small number of high energy particles. If so, no "gamma" (and only very low energy brem, if any)

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:51 pm**

With some fanfare, Brian Ahern promised to pesent his LENR theory on Dec 7th. Reportedly, to avoid being tainted with some UFO-related statements of the intended host for his presentation, it did not happen (maybe that tells us something right there). In any case, the presentation he was prepared to give on 12/7 can be found here:

http://citi5.org/launch/wp-content/uplo ... No8-11.ppt

Selected quote from presentation re. Rossi/Piantelli:

Rossi and Piantelli

Both describe nanoscale nickel particles with hydrogen to produce heat

Piantelli says the nickel must be free of any NiO coating and the feature size must be below 70nm

Rossi & Piantelli report self sustained operation

George Miley reported similar action last week

More grist for the theory mill...

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:33 pm**

Suppose an amateur wanted to replicate an E-Cat, and attempted to prepare Ni powder. What is a cheap way to do this and remove or convert the oxide?

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:59 pm**

My plasmon conjecture doesn't propose that mechanism. Of course it doesn't propose much of ANY mechanism, so it is pretty unassailable. It is also indefensible, so I am even!!

LOL!

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:13 pm**

tomclarke wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: I didn't go crazy till I came here and found all these "believers" mascarading as scientist types.
I still find it hard to imagine that a plasmon can concentrate it's energy enough to generate 10^11V/m fields.

So your plasmon theory is still slightly insane.
It is implausible.

But worse is the screening hypothesis.

This was kludged onto WpL theory to get round the manifest lack of experimentally observed gammas.

It requires that screening is very very good. Maybe 99.9%. It requires ultra-high energy electrons everywhere. Lots.

Remember the electrons we are talking about are 1000s of times higher energy than any bound electron level in a lattice.

The hypotheis is they come from BEC behaviour concentrating wave amplitude in small fraction of total volume, where concentration factor gives necessary energy.

But then they are by definition not present throughout volume.

I am not very familiar with windom-larsen theory. As I have stated previously the theory of cold fusion seems muddled and not worth my time at the moment.

I think the image in slide 20 showing "differential thermal signals" from the depicted nanostructure patterns is very worthy of interest though.

If that image depicts LENR then it is the best evidence to date that cold fusion is real.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:17 pm**

JoeP wrote:Suppose an amateur wanted to replicate an E-Cat, and attempted to prepare Ni powder. What is a cheap way to do this and remove or convert the oxide?

You would need a high vacuum pump, like a turbo pump, or liquid nitrogen trapped diffusion pump.

I figure it would cost you about 10k to amass the requisite materials and apparatus to start experimenting.

Although apparently there is some dude claiming he has achieved a good result using lithium aluminum hydride as a source of hydrogen and as a means of reducing nickel... or something like that.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:09 pm**

KitemanSA wrote:I am currently pondering whether excitons (surface or otherwise) can be condensed into a massive quasi particle (super-fliud?) that can pick up a proton and guide it into a Ni nucleus.

I am concerned with ANY neutron explanation per-se... but a guided (screened?) proton seems plausible.

Superfluid at high temperatures is not a real possibility IMHO.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:39 pm**

Uh - lithium aluminum hydride has to be handled very carefully. It is also used in the mfg of some illegal drugs so it may be difficult to obtain unless you are an advanced Chem student, teacher, or practitioner.

I can highly recommend these guys if you need a vacuum furnace.

http://www.ipsenusa.com/

#3 son starts work with them next month. Heh.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:32 pm**

MSimon wrote:Uh - lithium aluminum hydride has to be handled very carefully. It is also used in the mfg of some illegal drugs so it may be difficult to obtain unless you are an advanced Chem student, teacher, or practitioner.

I can highly recommend these guys if you need a vacuum furnace.

http://www.ipsenusa.com/

#3 son starts work with them next month. Heh.

Yes LiAlH4 is quite reactive. I recommend that you don't turn your back on undergraduates using it, or you may end up with an inextinguishable 6 foot pillar of blue/violet fire that burns a crater in a concrete floor.

Most hydrides are extremely difficult to handle and once they begin burning you are hooped. A rossi reactor filled with enough hydride to generate the observed heat would likely end up as a pile of molten slag on the floor.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:52 am**

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:I am currently pondering whether excitons (surface or otherwise) can be condensed into a massive quasi particle (super-fliud?) that can pick up a proton and guide it into a Ni nucleus.

I am concerned with ANY neutron explanation per-se... but a guided (screened?) proton seems plausible.
Superfluid at high temperatures is not a real possibility IMHO.

Given the "IMHO", this may be a useless question, but can you point to a solid physical reason for that opinion?

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:30 am**

KitemanSA wrote:... pondering whether excitons (surface or otherwise) can be condensed into a massive quasi particle (super-fliud?) that can pick up a proton and guide it into a Ni nucleus.

I am concerned with ANY neutron explanation per-se... but a guided (screened?) proton seems plausible....

erm... how does that work exactly then Kite?

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:27 am**

Posted from the Vortex list:

Hi All,

I'd just like to put this hypothesis out there to get some feedback and see
where the major flaws are:

-
Small spheres with dielectric-metal interfaces only support surface plasmon
polaritons with the spherical harmonic waves of the l=1 mode (the lowest),
implying that normal component of field enhancement effect occurs purely at the
two poles (North and South). So only two reaction sites per sphere but
very intense field enhancements happen there, with the whole energy of
the wave being concentrated temporarily at only these two sites. Some estimates
put the field strengths at such sites at around 10^11 V/m

- The free electron density wave normal field component penetrates ~10 nm into
the metal but ~100nm into the dielectric, i.e. v. high normal
accelerations at reaction sites

- Potential dynamic voltages normal to the metal surface generated could then
be of the order 10 kV

- Free protons that occur near the surface at reaction sites will also be
accelerated by
the enhanced surface plasmon polariton normal components, i.e. on the rebound
the
protons will be accelerated and have large velocity components perpendicular
into the metal at the local reaction sites

- The surface plasmons have frequencies of order 10^14-10^15 Hz so the
normal acceleration of protons away from and into the metal is taking place a
high number of times per second, i.e. even low
probability fusion events become likely in short (human) time scales.

- The number of these reaction sites are directly proportional to the number of
spheres (or pointed pyramids, etc) in a reactor

- The driving mechanisms that excite the surface plasmon resonances could be
electrons from currents (having drift velocity) in electrolytic cells or
infrared radiation in thermally driven cells (this is a weak area since surface
plasmon polaritons will require specific frequencies of radiation for
excitation)

It is like a Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion model in some
respects, but it is electrodynamic/lattice in essence since it uses the
field of the free electron coherent surface plasmon waves to accelerate
normally the protons, and the lattice to confine the nucleons of the metal
targets.

So call it Localised Electrodynamic Lattice fusion.

Worth pursuing?

Seems to be saying that the normal component of SPP's can focus dynamically on nano (micro?) spherical surfaces to v. intense field strengths. Protons (or deuterons?) on those surfaces are accelerated normally into the surface. So the surface work function acts like the restoring force and the SPP resonance (plus focussing) provides the excitation.

Does Nickel, Palladium have a high Work function, out of interest? Maybe Nickel-silver-dielectric micro spheres in Hydrogen rich environment would be adequate, with correct forcing to excite the SPP resonance modes.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:29 am**

Am wrote:http://www.statehousenews.com/skedtuesday.htm

EDITOR'S NOTE: According to Sen. Bruce Tarr, Andrea Rossi, "the Italian scientist who claims to have developed the world's first nuclear cold fusion reactor is coming to the State House tomorrow to explore the prospects of developing the device and producing it in Massachusetts." Tarr's office says Rossi plans to visit Tuesday morning for two days of meeting with government officials and representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University Massachusetts and Northeastern University. "Mr. Rossi's reactor, if successfully proven and developed, has the potential to change the way the world deals with energy," Tarr said in a statement.

Didn't see this report linked in this thread. May have missed it, but here is an article and some photos from Rossi's visit.

Hope, skepticism for cold fusion

Talk-Polywell.org

10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)