Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY in LENR
I wrote: Two questions: - Do we have solid evidence that there is a dynamic NAE rather than a static one? Or is the evidence just barely above noise at this point? - If there is no clear evidence yet, is there a clever experiment that could settle this question for at least one system? I think there is one way that the NAE is dynamic -- through contamination. This contamination might be due to unexpected chemical species coming in from the electrolyte, or, looking back on older experiments with hindsight, it might be due to transmutations. For the present purpose the effect of such contaminants might be the main factor driving a dynamic NAE; or, alternatively, they may poison a reaction, as has sometimes been hypothesized. In considering the static case (2), it seems like contaminants should dealt with as noise to be filtered out. Obviously they would be important if they ended up driving a dynamic NAE, but a dynamic NAE is only assumed for case (1). Eric
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY in LENR
Dear Reliable, I think you have an special personal interest in this discussion about Reliability. I know well the paper of Bushnell, everything OK however windows do not melt, they break- have seen many major accident and have read about Seveso, Flixborough, Oppau, Chernobyl Why Bushnell does not tell wher and when the windows melted. Is this a reliable statement? Peter On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:36 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: G'Day, Bushnell says it all. http://futureinnovation.larc.**nasa.gov/view/articles/** futurism/bushnell/low-energy-**nuclear-reactions.htmlhttp://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html _Dennis Bushnell http://futureinnovation.larc.**nasa.gov/view/articles/** futurism/bushnell/bushnell-**bio.htmlhttp://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/bushnell-bio.html _ The current experiments are in the 10's to hundreds range. However, several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are right prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released. Warm Regards, Reliable Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Colleagues, I hope to discuss a lot of LENR subjects with our colleague Abd. Today, now, here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.** ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-**colleague-abd-about.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-colleague-abd-about.html starting to exchange ideas re Reliability in CF/LENR. Far from agreement but this makes a dispute interesting. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY in LENR
At 02:29 PM 6/5/2012, Peter Gluck wrote: I hope to discuss a lot of LENR subjects with our colleague Abd. Today, now, here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-colleague-abd-about.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-colleague-abd-about.html starting to exchange ideas re Reliability in CF/LENR. Far from agreement but this makes a dispute interesting. I don't see that we are far from agreement, but maybe Peter sees something I don't. Here is the discussion, with my responses interspersed: DISCUSSING WITH MY COLLEAGUE ABD ABOUT RELIABILITY I have to apologize again, my old age weaknesses allow me to answer to Abd only step by step, in fragments to his so well ordered arguments. I have to recognize that in our LENR circles, what he says is more happily/readily accepted than my ideas. Perhaps. What that means, I don't know. Maybe nothing. Peter, you have extensive experience, which is to be respected. I'm a writer, so it's my business to be effectively communicative. I'm still learning, though. So, now about reliability. [I wrote:] Well, they *may be* inherent weaknesses of PdD LENR set up by known methods. A premature vision of an ultimate application can kill new discoveries, allowing them to be dismissed as worthless even if they are real, and if their reality is in question, it's a double whammy. What we need is Science, and it comes before Energy, if we need reliability for Energy. *We do not need reliability for Science.* It is desirable, that's all. I think there definitely are inherent weaknesses, uncontrollable hidden parameters in the Pd-D cells and these are almost ubiquitous in this system. and difficultly curable. I have met similar things in my lab-pilot-plant practice, something that went fine 1000 times suddenly became impossible, a colorless product (as it has to be) coming out red or dirty grey with no obvious explanation first. Many times I was thinking to write a report about occult phenomena in technology, but then we found a simple straightforward causal explanation and we solved the problem by removing, killing that cause. Yes. Until you identified the cause, it was totally mysterious. Gremlins. Bad juju. Whatever. The weaknesses of the Pd D cells are unusually stubborn, Electrochemical PdD experiments are *extremely* complex. With gas-loading, the complexity may be reduced, but a great deal depends on the exact structure of the particles or Pd material. And it will change with loading and deloading. I am firmly convinced that poisoning of the active centers (NAE) by adsorption of gases that are NOT deuterium (it seems everything goes not only the very polar gases as I thought) explains this long series of troubles. I will write a new paper about poisoning these days. Nobody will believe it- just the Pd-D cells. I'll believe it in that I consider it possible. Why not? However, I don't see this as explaining the difference between the first, second, and third current excursions in SRI P13/P14, which was a sealed cell. It's not impossible, though, because the first and second excursions, showing no heat, may have cleaned off the cathode. It was crucial to identify the reasons for such variability. The skeptics did not get the import of variability, they thought that it meant that the effect was down in the noise. However, that's what SRI P13/P14 showed so clearly: the effect, when it appears, is striking, not marginal. Of course, sometimes there is an effect close to the noise. But a strong, quite visible effect is one of the characteristics of a successful replication of the FPHE, not something questionable, where we look at a plot and say, Well, see, it's a little bit above the noise there, for a few hours. Maybe. Or maybe that is just noise a little higher than usual. Reality is really good if it is repeatable and it is bad when it plays perfidiously hide and seek with us. Ultimately, it appears, reality does play hide and seek, at the quantum level. But I don't think that's happening here. Regardless, reality is not bad. Period. It's just reality. We make up good and bad. This is not you, but scientists who reject experimental data because they don't see repeatability in it are just fooling themselves. What they don't see means nothing. Saying I don't understand this is fine. Saying you must have made a mistake, is the problem, unless the error can be identified. Not just guessed. I agree with Abd re the premature vision- it is not good to focus only and immediately on applications and not explore the full richness of the phenomena, process, and product, whatever. It's not as powerful, and it runs the risk of an enormous waste of time. Look, it was obvious from the beginning that there *might be* enormous promise from cold fusion. But it was also obvious, within a few months, that this was not going to be easy, at least
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY in LENR
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Of the 33 cells, 12 were showing no anomalous heat, and no anomalous helium was detected. 18 showed heat, and, from them, helium was detected within an order of magnitude of the helium expected from d - He-4. The more heat, the more helium, within experimental error. (The measurements were rough, unfortunately, only order-of-magnitude detection.) Forgive my introducing a tangential but related question to this thread. An important possibility that has been raised by Ed Storms and possibly others is that there is a nuclear active environment that is only gradually formed, and that once this environment is sufficiently present, for example, on the surface of a palladium cathode, LENR will proceed more readily (for the present purpose, let's assume a single family of reactions here, excepting cavitation and so on). Implicitly this possibility is to be contrasted with a nuclear active environment that does not undergo modification over time and remains unchanged by the reaction. In the limiting case, there is the general understanding that known substrates are modified after a temperature spike above some threshold. Once a large excursion has occurred, substrates appear to become ineffective. Below this limit, however, the makeup of the nuclear active environment (NAE) could be dynamic or it could be static. One motivation for introducing a changing, cumulative NAE, as I understand it, is to explain the long initiation times that were needed in Pd-D electrolysis experiments, especially in the early days. Sometimes it took weeks or months before anything was seen. So we have two broad possibilities -- (1) a changing NAE and (2) a static NAE. One way to model (2) is to assume independent power excursion events that occur at some average rate X. I think this system can be studied with a Poisson distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution If the average rate X is high, the first excursion is likely to happen earlier than in a system for which the average rate is low, but there is variability, so you can't be sure. If the average rate is very low, you might not see even a single excursion during the course of your observations over a period of months, say. For a moderate average rate, you could see several events in close in time and then not see anything, at which point the experiment is terminated. Presumably if the NAE is dynamic, all bets are off and something altogether different could be happening. Two questions: - Do we have solid evidence that there is a dynamic NAE rather than a static one? Or is the evidence just barely above noise at this point? - If there is no clear evidence yet, is there a clever experiment that could settle this question for at least one system? Eric
