In a previous post, I explained why I have concluded that what the
field currently needs is not more theory, particularly theories
proposed widely in advance of the experimental evidence that makes
the theory *necessary.*
Ed has developed circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial
evidence is inadequate to establish for braod consideration
something that is as he described, a "new idea in physics."
Much of Ed's full theory is still circumstantial as to the
problematic part, the assertion of a mechanism to explain the
"draining" process. However, Ed does not do this in this paper, so I
will set that issue aside, at least at first.
At 08:38 PM 2/13/2013, Edmund Storms wrote:
I would like to provide some advice to people attempting to explain
LENR. This advice comes from someone who has studied the subject for
the 23 years, who has an extensive background in chemistry and
physics, and who has read almost every paper about the subject. I
believe new ideas in physics are required, so my approach is not
based on an unwillingness to explore new ideas. We know from
centuries
of observation and well developed understanding of materials that a
nuclear interaction, whether it be fusion or transmutation, is not
possible in normal material. Consequently, a novel and rare
condition
must be created.
Ludwik pointed to a possible misinterpetation of the penultimate
sentence, and, after some thought, I'll agree with Ludwik that there
is a problem, but not exactly the problem he pointed to. What Ed is
attempting to assert here is sound, but the expression can be
misunderstood in a way that could inhibit certain further
explorations of the topic. Further, the logic is missing something.
What is necessarily true is that a "novel and rare condition" must
be created. It must not occur spontaneously in "normal material."
But what is "normal material"? Highly loaded palladium deuteride is
hardly a normal material. And deuterium with muons floating about is
hardly normal either. Abnormal materials imply a relative lack of
exploration of what happens in them.
However, the circumstantial evidence is strong that highly loaded
palladium deuteride, per se, doesn't exhibit the effect. Indeed,
something else is needed. This conclusion, however, is *not* from
"centuries of observation." It's actually coming, not from that, but
from the accumulated observation of the FP Heat Effect, which is
what Ed knows so well. Ludwik picked up on some exceptions, but
those are covered by "normal," I'd say. What's missing is the
evidence about "normal palladium deuteride" (or reference to it).
I'm not sure how to handle this, but I'm hoping that Ed will
recognize the issue.
Two separate questions require answers.
1. What aspect of a material is able to initiate a spontaneous
nuclear
reaction? Something about a material must change and this change
must
involve only a small part of the material, i.e. the NAE.
Ed is, as usual, correct, however, this has not logically been
established. This commonly happens when we write about something
where we have high familiarity, we skip steps. In a personal
interaction, the resulting gaps can be filled through question and
response. It's more difficult to do it concisely in an essay. The
obvious question: "Why must it only invove a small part of the
material, and not, say, the bulk or the entire surface, but at a low
rate?"
All this is part of what I might call "background theory," i.e. what
must be understood in order to begin to assess theories of cold
fusion. What is known? What can be reasonably concluded from what is
known? Some theorists proceed with a different order of business,
i.e.,
What can I imagine might be happening?
How can I present evidence to support this hypothesis?
How can I explain away evidence that appears not to support it?
It's backwards, hence Ed's constant theme.
For any hypothesis, it's possible that the "explaining away" is
valid. However, that's not where Occam's Razor leads us. The Razor
suggests that we first consider *all the evidence,* then attempt to
explain *as much of it as possible* with a relatively simply
hypothesis.
The true default hypothesis, per Occam's Razor, is that we don't
understand what's going on. It's usually true to at least some degree!
Once this
change occurs, the nuclear interaction occurs spontaneously without
extra energy being required. This condition must be created first
and be consistent with the mechanism that causes the nuclear reaction
in the NAE.
As to background theory, yes. However, again, we don't know the
condition itself. What we know are certain characteristics of the
FPHE. From those we infer some of the NAE conditions. Some remain
obscure.
This unique feature has been suggested to be metal atom
vacancies, deuterium atom vacancies, clusters of D of various sizes
with and without BEC being involved, gaps of a small size, locations
were neutrons can form or be released, and unique features present in
a highly loaded lattice that can initiate fusion.
Yes. Some of these suggestions are bundled with specific theories,
some not.
These features
must be consistent with known chemical behavior and physical
processes. No magic happens at this level. Although the condition
is
consistent with conventional chemical behavior, it must form rarely
by
random processes.
That is, they should not predict different ordinary ("known")
behavior than what has been well-observed normally.
The process of formation, from what's known about the FPHE, has not
been well-controlled. Whether it is "random" or not is speculation.
It might be quite predictable, but we haven't yet noticed how. We do
have some clues, and Ed has found some new evidence as to cracks.
Looking for things predicted by theory is, in fact, a major function
of theory, its utility. To function this way, it is not necessary
that the theory be correct. If theory stimulates new observations,
those observations can tighten the conditions on theory formation.
If observations confirm the predictions of the theory, they do not
necessarily confirm the theory, certainly not as to all details.
2. What mechanism can drain the mass-energy away from a collection of
hydrogen nuclei before the final nucleus is formed?
Or after. Ed tends to reject the "after" as being impossible, but
"before" is equally impossible, if not more so. He does not here
establish the logical necessity for "after." Indeed, I'm unaware of
it. The "draining of energy," i.e. some process that results in
either a gradual release of energy, in small enough quanta to avoid
the Hagelstein limit, or, alternatively, some process that transfers
the energy immediately to a large mass, is necessary. The latter is
considered impossible, routinely, at the energies involved.
It is not impossible, merely unlikely, and we must keep that in
mind; until we know what the mechanism is behind cold fusion, we
cannot rule out the "impossible," not entirely. But that is not
necessarily the first place we look, because an "impossible
explanation" is almost no explanation at all. We need a lot more
data before we will accept such.
And, this is my point, and the 2004 DoE review makes this clear, if
we assert theories considered impossible, the rejection of this will
rub off on *everything we present.*
The final nucleus
can be result from fusion or transmutation.
Yes. Or fusion followed by fission, which is similar.
This process must drain
the energy in a way that produces some detectable photon radiation,
but not enough to be consistent with the excess power.
The "detectable photon radiation" is likely, perhaps, but
unconfirmed. The photon evidence, so far, is weak. Stating this as a
logical necessity, then, may be an error. Yes, the photon energy
must not be large enough to have a *large* impact on remaining heat.
Some low-energy photons, though, will be absorbed and the energy
carried by them ends up as heat.
I would expect detectable photon energy to be correlated with excess
power, however, at a particular time, under the same conditions. The
ratio could vary with specific conditions. By "consistent with
power," Ed is referring to photon energy that would carry most of
the power, as wtih gammas in normal d-d -> He-4 fusion.
Correlation, though, is a different matter, something often missed
in the review of Miles et al, and reports that, say, tritium are not
"correlated" with excess heat. It seems highly unlikely that non-
artifact tritium would not be correlated with heat (unless the heat
is in the noise). It is certainly not "commensurate" with heat, i.e,
at a predicted level from d+d -> T + p. Far, far from it.
This draining
process must be complete before the final nucleus forms to avoid
conflicts with the law of conservation of momentum.
No. That's only one route. Yes, momentum must be conserved. Ed is,
here, falling into the same assumption as the skeptics, that is,
that some other mechanism is impossible. Yet dissipating energy
before the state change that releases the energy, at the levels
involved, is more of a violation of basic principles than some
"unknown mechanism." operating under unknown conditions, that allows
either direct energy transfer to a larger mass (lattice or cluster
or condensate) or that stores the energy in a nuclear excited state
before release.
Bottom line, we have no theory that clearly connects known physics
with the FP Heat Effect. And we don't have adequate evidence to
propose a theory that will be accepted, at this time. The approaches
by Takahashi and others are incomplete, but, at least, they attempt
to use known physics.
What is the function of proposing theories? As I pointed out in
another post today, it seems that we imagine that people will be
more ilkely to accept the experimental evidence for the FP Heat
Effect -- and helium -- if we present some "plausible theory." The
actual effect of prsenting theory, so far, has been clear: it
doesn't work.
There is only one rather narrow place where te pubic presentation of
theory is functional: that is when an effect has been confirmed, and
it is necessary to obtain funding to test the predictions of theory.
That exceptions exist in the history of science does not negatee
this, as a general principle. Cold fusion does not fit the
exceptions, yet.
The mechanism
must logically explain how He4, tritium, and transmutation are
produced without energetic radiation being detected.
Actually, no. That's highly desirable, but not necessary. In the
medium term, I'm interested in theories that predict helium, found
as the helium is found, in the quantities found, and, in addition,
the *levels* of excess heat as correlated with observed experimental
conditions. Predicting anything else is gravy, not basic nutrition.
A theory consistent with known physics that says nothing about
tritium and transmutations, but that accomplishes quantitative
predictions, is the number one theoretical goal. I expect that such
a theory will *likely*, as elaborated and explored, end up
explaining the other observed effects, but not necessarily. As must
be pointed out, LENR opened up a new continent, with new fauna. We
tend to think that there must be only one new species, but that is
not logically necessary, and it isn't even Occam's Razor necessary.
That there could be more than one reaction is actually an Razor
hypothesis, very simple, and had this been kept in mind, a lot of
the early confusion over cold fusion evidence migth have been
avoided. Read the skeptical documents! They attempted to shoehorn
every report into a Single Effect, and when various reports seemed
to conflict, they rejected the *whole thing*.
The mechanism
must show a positive effect of temperature,
Yes, almost certanly.
must occur in a variety of
materials including oxides,
Perhaps, that's not been clearly established. Ed is now assuming, it
seems, that various reported effects are not artifact. They might
not be, indeed, it may even be unlikely in some cases that they are,
but if we are trying to reduce our explanations to the logical
minimum, this is straying outside of that.
Basically, for whom is the essay intended? Different audiences will
hold different assumptions.
must be sensitive to magnetic fields and
laser light,
Not established adequately. Maybe. Maybe not. Look, the Letts work
with lasers is quite interesting, and he appears to have seen a
clear correlation with magnetic fields, but *this work has not been
replicated* -- or only, at best, poorly replicated.
and must be initiated using a variety of methods.
Yes. However, it is not necessary that every method be included. One
of the assertable deficiencies in Miles -- it caused a lot of
trouble, making matters far less clear than if it had not been done
-- was the appearance of some excess heat without helium being
found, in two measurements with a PdCe cathode.
Essentially, any confirmation of heat/helium, to be utterly
conclusive, should -- at least at first -- use only a single
protocol, as precise as possible. Adding in *any* extra variables
can confuse correlations.
Later, of course, similar analyses can be done with different
protocols. If two different protocols do produce the same result,
that strengthens the work. But they might produce different results,
because *the mechanism may differ in some way.*
Cold fusion research tended to be shotgun in nature. Everyone tried
something different. After all, none of it worked particularly well,
so why not keep varying conditions, maybe we will hit the jackpot!
However, the net result of this approach was a boatload of research
with no single replicable experiment to point to. There is only a
little work that *roughly* confirms other work.
These
requirements are created by observed behavior and severely limit the
kind of mechanisms that are plausible.
I'd say that, at this point, *no mechanism is plausable." Give up
"plausible"! But don't give it up by believing in something
implausible. *That will not fly.* Instead, firmly adhere to "we
don't know."
Until we do. It is highly likely that when we have enough data to
form sound theories, that they will be plausible, they will merely
turn out to be something not anticipated. Such as, for example, Bose-
Einstein Condensates at room temperature. I am *not* proposing that
we "believe in" such creatures. In fact, I'm suggesting that, with
few exceptions, we not *mention* them.
I've seen what happens when I've presented BEC theories. They are
*rejected out of hand,* it's just like the Hekman report of what
happened in the 2004 DoE review. People start making sure that there
is a clear path to the exit, for, after all, I might be dangerous.
If I'm going to mention such things at all, it had better be with a
framing symapthetic to the audience, i.e., "Well, this seems
preposterous, but...." And I'd better make sure that they get the
experimental evidence, why we would even bother to consider such
preposterousness, *before* these wild-hair ideas are presented.
I have examined all the theories with these requirements in mind. My
first conclusion is that the NAE cannot be created in the lattice
itself without violating known facts about thermochemical behavior.
I don't think that's correct, but it's not necessarily wrong,
either. Inside this field, we are not in the same condition as the
general skeptical community. We do accept heat/helium -- most of us,
and Krivit has never understood the issues. Larsen accepts heat/
helium, in fact, just at a different ratio.
Fusion simply doesn't happen as a "known thermochemical behavior."
Nuclear reactions could occur at a low rate, consistently with known
behavior, that represent apparent violations of thermodynamic
principles, but that aren't, and Ed and I have debated this ad
nauseum.
Ed has very sound reasons, however, to think that the reaction isn't
talking place in the lattice, and his arguments actually distract
from that.
This conclusion leaves gaps as the only plausible location. Gaps
have
the ability to form and host several types of clusters or structures.
Probably. Very likely. Above, Ed listed the kinds of gaps. That was
sound.
Cracks are quite plausible. The truth might be some of each, i.e,
some combination of phenomena, or it might be only one. If it's only
one, I'd vote for cracks, myself, as the first place to look.
These structures need to be explored to discover how they can drain
the mass-energy in a way that is consistent with requirement #2.
I rather doubt that the structures themselves accomplish this. The
structures are chemical. The energies involved are tiny compared
with the mass-energy released. No, NAE creates X, and X handles the
energy distribution. It's not the NAE itself, and it's possible that
there is more than one type of NAE that might do it.
This
"draining" process represents the missing knowledge about nuclear
interaction that cold fusion has revealed. I suggest the Nobel prize
will be found in the explanation of this "draining" process.
I tend to agree.
So far, in cold fusion, there are two major accomplishments; the
discovery of anomalous heat in palladium deuteride by Pons and
Fleischmann, and the discovery of the heat/helium correlation by
Miles et al. Others did yeoman work to confirm these findings, the
most central being all those groups that measured both XP and helium.
What is next, though, is probably not theory formation, not yet. We
need much more data. Collecting this data may sometimes be triggered
by some theory predicting this or that, but the key is *measurement*
and *detailed report.* As well, isolated investigations that only
look for a single result are intrinsically weak. Much as I love the
SPAWAR neutron findings, what is missing from that work is actually
central: is there any correlation between neutron counts and XP? And
the *entire body of neutron work* is a distracting side-show.
Who in the world let Jones into the room in 2004? Was he there to
apologize for his misleading rejection of Miles in 2005 and 2008?
Somehow I rather doubt it.
The minor evidences involve an audience in trying to figure out if
results at such low levels mean anything. It creates distracting
internal conversations -- or external debates -- about secondary
effects, possible artifacts, and on and on. The problem becomes, not
the elephant in the living room, but the flies attracted by elephant
dung.
--
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 cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
