Thank you for the link. I've read it many times. But I still don't understand it. For instance, what is a "mass re-normalized surface plasmon polariton electron"? OMG! I started looking for layman's explanations of those and...Giorgio wrote:Here you go:KitemanSA wrote:Does anyone have a layman's explanation to the (LW?) ultra-low momentum neutron, which is one hypothesized process for getting there.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
KitemanSA wrote:Thank you for the link. I've read it many times. But I still don't understand it. For instance, what is a "mass re-normalized surface plasmon polariton electron"? OMG! I started looking for layman's explanations of those and...Giorgio wrote:Here you go:KitemanSA wrote:Does anyone have a layman's explanation to the (LW?) ultra-low momentum neutron, which is one hypothesized process for getting there.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml
They are formed from an electron in a resonant circuit formed from the surface of a metal coupled to a photon.Surface plasmons, also known as surface plasmon polaritons, are surface electromagnetic waves that propagate in a direction parallel to the metal/dielectric (or metal/vacuum) interface. Since the wave is on the boundary of the metal and the external medium (air or water for example), these oscillations are very sensitive to any change of this boundary, such as the adsorption of molecules to the metal surface.
To describe the existence and properties of surface plasmons, one can choose from various models (quantum theory, Drude model, etc.). The simplest way to approach the problem is to treat each material as a homogeneous continuum, described by a frequency-dependent relative permittivity between the external medium and the surface. This quantity, hereafter referred to as the materials' "dielectric constant," is complex-valued. In order for the terms which describe the electronic surface plasmons to exist, the real part of the dielectric constant of the metal must be negative and its magnitude must be greater than that of the dielectric. This condition is met in the IR-visible wavelength region for air/metal and water/metal interfaces (where the real dielectric constant of a metal is negative and that of air or water is positive).
Localized surface plasmon polaritons (LSPRs) are collective electron charge oscillations in metallic nanoparticles that are excited by light. They exhibit enhanced near-field amplitude at the resonance wavelength. This field is highly localized at the nanoparticle and decays rapidly away from the nanoparticle/dieletric interface into the dielectric background, though far-field scattering by the particle is also enhanced by the resonance. Light intensity enhancement is a very important aspect of LSPRs and localization means the LSPR has very high spatial resolution (subwavelength), limited only by the size of nanoparticles. Because of the enhanced field amplitude, effects that depend on the amplitude such as magneto-optical effect are also enhanced by LSPRs.[1][2]
Q can be quite high (100 or so).
W-L requires that these electrons should have nearly MeV energy, as far as I can see.
also from that same site ( http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml (circa 2008)):
i'm ashamed to say this is totally new stuff for me also.
i think was it TomClarke who first suggested WL-theory be looked at?
andAnonymous wrote:It is looking more and more that "cold fusion" isn't fusion at all. The best theory out there that doesn't invoke any new physics is the Widom-Larsen theory (which has been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal). In a nutshell, it states what is going on is a multistep process. The plasmon modes in hydrated metals (think of them as surface electrons that all act together) get energized (many ways to do this) and get absorbed by protons. This produces a very low energy neutron (reverse neutron decay due to the weak nuclear force). Low energy neutrons get absorbed quite easily by anything. This starts a cascade of creating unstable isotopes which beta decay. During the beta decay gamma ray photons are released, but when they hit that metal plasmon they get shifted into mostly IR (heat) with a soft X-ray tail.
The challenge is that this phenomena requires very high energy densities (order of 10^11 V/m). So it more often will happen in small nano-crevices in materials.
( Miley's 1996 paper here - http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/librar ... ations.pdf )Geoge Miley! wrote:"I've taken a brief look at it so far," Miley said, "and from a first look, this theory agrees with the distinctive multipeak reaction product data from my experiments amazingly well. Testing against experimental data is an essential step that any serious theory in this field must face up to, but very few have to date."
Miley commented on how effectively the Widom-Larsen supports his experimental data as compared to other LENR theories. "Only four others have seriously tried, to my memory," he said.
"Compared to these other models," Miley said, "the Widom-Larsen model has much more in-depth development and a more detailed comparison with the rather complex features of the data. To address the full data set, one must consider a complicated spectrum of products for several different electrode materials. Several of the prior attempts are somewhat incomplete developments using arbitrary fitting parameters and assumptions."
i'm ashamed to say this is totally new stuff for me also.
i think was it TomClarke who first suggested WL-theory be looked at?
Tom - how do you suggest W-L is inconsistent with Rossi's work?TomClarke wrote:The experimental data for it (incl Rossi) is fragmentary and incoherent. (I'm including W-L - which has its own issues and is also not consistent with Rossi befor/after isotopic ratio experimental results).
Ok....KitemanSA wrote:Thank you for the link. I've read it many times. But I still don't understand it. For instance, what is a "mass re-normalized surface plasmon polariton electron"? OMG! I started looking for layman's explanations of those and...Giorgio wrote:Here you go:KitemanSA wrote:Does anyone have a layman's explanation to the (LW?) ultra-low momentum neutron, which is one hypothesized process for getting there.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml
I assume you know what a plasmon polariton is, in case you don't check here, is explained quite well:
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/DirectPDF ... text.xhtml
Once that is clear go here:
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/ ... eb-22-2011
While not in laymen terms, it does explain the process step by step, and allows for a clear understanding of the idea (check from slide 8 onward).
They do not explain the mass renormalization step, I will do it here in a quick way.
The electromagnetic oscillation created by the plasmon polariton oscillations and the proton oscillations induces an increase of mass in the electron.
I hope it helps to clarify.
Edited to fix some typing mistakes
Last edited by Giorgio on Sat May 14, 2011 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The theory requires a to have a metal hydride with a high potential difference (normally obtained through Laser radiation) to form the heavy mass renormalized electrons that "might" produce the low energy neutrons which are at the base of the theory.rcain wrote:Tom - how do you suggest W-L is inconsistent with Rossi's work?
I really think Tom is right in stating this is inconsistent with the Rossi device.
)parallel,
I could have been an observer at the experiments too. And it would count for nothing unless I was allowed complete freedom to dig into the experiment with my own tools and measuring equipment.
The difficulty is way more subtle than observing the Wright flyer make figure eights over a field. That I am competent to observe without digging into the experiment.
BTW EEStor had "observers" to verify the high dielectric of their proposed insulator. And yet they are a dead issue. Why? After all something was observed.
Let me add that IMO "cold fusion" is a real phenomenon. It may not be fusion though. Rossi IMO is a scammer. Let his 1 MW power plant prove me wrong.
Note: "contract to deliver....." was the last gasp of EEStor. Widely touted by the faithful. i.e. "How could it be a con? They have a contract."
I could have been an observer at the experiments too. And it would count for nothing unless I was allowed complete freedom to dig into the experiment with my own tools and measuring equipment.
The difficulty is way more subtle than observing the Wright flyer make figure eights over a field. That I am competent to observe without digging into the experiment.
BTW EEStor had "observers" to verify the high dielectric of their proposed insulator. And yet they are a dead issue. Why? After all something was observed.
Let me add that IMO "cold fusion" is a real phenomenon. It may not be fusion though. Rossi IMO is a scammer. Let his 1 MW power plant prove me wrong.
Note: "contract to deliver....." was the last gasp of EEStor. Widely touted by the faithful. i.e. "How could it be a con? They have a contract."
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon,
Levi and at least one other was given freedom to poke around as much as they wanted, with the exception of looking inside the small reactor. In the second case it was reported he brought his own meters. This still leaves open the possibility of a sophisticated trick which is why I say wait for the 1 MW plant. So far I find there is evidence for LENR and just speculation for how it could be fraudulant.
I haven't given up all hope on EEStor yet but there is less to confirm the EESU than there is for the E-Cat. The problem with the dielectric measurement was that the standard test was performed at low voltage and as you know, for most dielectrics the performance drops right off with the higher voltage needed for the device to work as claimed. That would be very easy for Weir to show but, like Rossi, he clearly is not interested in doing so.
What makes it difficult to judge is that there are good commercial reasons to keep things secret. Even just knowing that either device worked would change the game overnight. In both cases it looks like one will be able to tell by the end of the year. At least the E-Cat has been on display which is more than can be said for Polywell or the EESU.
Levi and at least one other was given freedom to poke around as much as they wanted, with the exception of looking inside the small reactor. In the second case it was reported he brought his own meters. This still leaves open the possibility of a sophisticated trick which is why I say wait for the 1 MW plant. So far I find there is evidence for LENR and just speculation for how it could be fraudulant.
I haven't given up all hope on EEStor yet but there is less to confirm the EESU than there is for the E-Cat. The problem with the dielectric measurement was that the standard test was performed at low voltage and as you know, for most dielectrics the performance drops right off with the higher voltage needed for the device to work as claimed. That would be very easy for Weir to show but, like Rossi, he clearly is not interested in doing so.
What makes it difficult to judge is that there are good commercial reasons to keep things secret. Even just knowing that either device worked would change the game overnight. In both cases it looks like one will be able to tell by the end of the year. At least the E-Cat has been on display which is more than can be said for Polywell or the EESU.
Well actually I nwas thinking that isotopic measurements on the before & after reactor powder provided by Rossi were not consistent with W-L LENR.Giorgio wrote:The theory requires a to have a metal hydride with a high potential difference (normally obtained through Laser radiation) to form the heavy mass renormalized electrons that "might" produce the low energy neutrons which are at the base of the theory.rcain wrote:Tom - how do you suggest W-L is inconsistent with Rossi's work?
I really think Tom is right in stating this is inconsistent with the Rossi device.
I also can't see how the W-L high energy electrons can be created - but that is another issue.
Best wishes, Tom
W-L is a nice idea. You can't rule it out completely but it is not easy to see how it gets the initial relativistic electrons. The stated mechanism is not fleshed out in any papers and does not seem (to me) to make sense.
What bothers me is that none of the experimental anomalies seem better explained by W-L than they do by anything else. And W-L has its own anomaly - complete absorption of the high energy gammas that it predicts must be emitted.
I would become very interested in W-L if it made an experimental prediction that was later verified.
The field of CF thus far has not had any clear results. There may well be unusual effects in hydrogen loaded metal lattices - but no reason to suppose they are nuclear in origin because repeatable positive experimetal data does not exist. Not for lack of trying.
What bothers me is that none of the experimental anomalies seem better explained by W-L than they do by anything else. And W-L has its own anomaly - complete absorption of the high energy gammas that it predicts must be emitted.
I would become very interested in W-L if it made an experimental prediction that was later verified.
The field of CF thus far has not had any clear results. There may well be unusual effects in hydrogen loaded metal lattices - but no reason to suppose they are nuclear in origin because repeatable positive experimetal data does not exist. Not for lack of trying.
In both cases a lack of verification can be seen as a deliberate commercial decision by the inventor - of course. The demos etc would be designed to keep doubt in competitors minds and therefore prevent competition.parallel wrote:MSimon,
Levi and at least one other was given freedom to poke around as much as they wanted, with the exception of looking inside the small reactor. In the second case it was reported he brought his own meters. This still leaves open the possibility of a sophisticated trick which is why I say wait for the 1 MW plant. So far I find there is evidence for LENR and just speculation for how it could be fraudulant.
I haven't given up all hope on EEStor yet but there is less to confirm the EESU than there is for the E-Cat. The problem with the dielectric measurement was that the standard test was performed at low voltage and as you know, for most dielectrics the performance drops right off with the higher voltage needed for the device to work as claimed. That would be very easy for Weir to show but, like Rossi, he clearly is not interested in doing so.
What makes it difficult to judge is that there are good commercial reasons to keep things secret. Even just knowing that either device worked would change the game overnight. In both cases it looks like one will be able to tell by the end of the year. At least the E-Cat has been on display which is more than can be said for Polywell or the EESU.
But this is convoluted. There is a more straightforward solution.
I don't put Polywell in with the other two, since no-one there is claiming it works.
Why not? I predicted their failure despite the "verification" of the dielectric constant (DC) in the lab. Why? Well the high DC has been confirmed elsewhere at LOW VOLTAGE. At high voltage the DC is much less. Which why I predicted the EEStor failure. Either they did not understand the physics or they were scammers. I incline towards the latter.I haven't given up all hope on EEStor yet
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Folks around here have noted the existance of TWO "heaters", an internal and an external. At least there are wires going up the center of the pipe and another something clamped around the outside. Might the internal "heater" in fact be a high intensity lamp to go along with other things to create some of those SPP whiche-jiggers?
MSimon,
So, as before, it all boils down to whether you can believe Rossi or Weir. Actually keep an open mind on them: the true believers seem to be the deniers.
As far as I know, the DC at high voltage has never been published, except as an ambiguous statement by Weir, who claimed it was still high.Why not? I predicted their failure despite the "verification" of the dielectric constant (DC) in the lab. Why? Well the high DC has been confirmed elsewhere at LOW VOLTAGE. At high voltage the DC is much less.
So, as before, it all boils down to whether you can believe Rossi or Weir. Actually keep an open mind on them: the true believers seem to be the deniers.
Well not by EEStor. But others have noted the voltage dependency. BTW if you did much electronics you would know that variation of DC with voltage is a problem with high DC ceramic caps. And the effect can be seen with as little as 1V to 2V on the cap.parallel wrote:MSimon,As far as I know, the DC at high voltage has never been published, except as an ambiguous statement by Weir, who claimed it was still high.Why not? I predicted their failure despite the "verification" of the dielectric constant (DC) in the lab. Why? Well the high DC has been confirmed elsewhere at LOW VOLTAGE. At high voltage the DC is much less.
And the fact that they didn't do the DC experiment at voltage was a big tell.
The heart of Rossi's "find" is his secret sauce. The fact that he isn't locking the IP by patents is a tell. Because this is a trade secret he will not be able to keep if his device works. If the device doesn't work of course he will be keeping the secret forever.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.