Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Axil Axil]

What these topologic materials do is impose order on electron behavior at
the boundaries of the bulk material through structural and/or crystal
organization of the various constituent atom types inside the bulk.



The electric fields of these bulk atoms control what the surface electrons
do on the boundaries by projecting electric and magnetic fields to the
surface of the bulk. One important characteristic of these surface
electrons is superconductivity. With superconductivity comes coherent and
entangled electron and/or proton behavior. This collective wave like
behavior is what overcomes the coulomb barrier.



Oftentimes, surface irregularities such as cracks, pits and inclusions, on
the surface of the material will amplify these projected electromagnet
fields that centralize, focus, and concentrate reactive LENR behavior on
the surface of the bulk topologic material.

Cheers:Axil


On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> Dear Eric,
>>  I don't think the walls of the nano-voids are real insulators.
>> However it seems (as DGTG alludes to) very intense electric and magnetic
>> phenomena take place in the special void places. And the nano-voids are
>> highly dynamic, open and shut and open again and this converts LENR in
>> LENR+.
>>  Peter
>>
>
> The term "topological insulator" is a little bit of a misnomer.  If I have
> understood what I have read, a typical topological insulator has a band gap
> in the bulk and is gapless at the surface.  I believe some topological
> insulators can become topological superconductors when appropriately doped.
>
> What is interesting in this regard is the surface effect and the
> connection to the doping of the material.  I don't think the bulk of the
> LENR substrate would need to have a band gap for this kind of effect to be
> potentially relevant, nor do I see a requirement for superconductivity.
> Perhaps when there are sufficient impurities at the outermost layers, a
> gap develops and the behavior changes.  Condensed matter is a fascinating
> topic.  The geometry, the kinds of atoms at different lattice sites, the
> pressure and temperature of the material, all of these dimensions can
> affect the electronic and magnetic characteristics of the material.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

Dear Eric,
>  I don't think the walls of the nano-voids are real insulators.
> However it seems (as DGTG alludes to) very intense electric and magnetic
> phenomena take place in the special void places. And the nano-voids are
> highly dynamic, open and shut and open again and this converts LENR in
> LENR+.
>  Peter
>

The term "topological insulator" is a little bit of a misnomer.  If I have
understood what I have read, a typical topological insulator has a band gap
in the bulk and is gapless at the surface.  I believe some topological
insulators can become topological superconductors when appropriately doped.

What is interesting in this regard is the surface effect and the connection
to the doping of the material.  I don't think the bulk of the LENR
substrate would need to have a band gap for this kind of effect to be
potentially relevant, nor do I see a requirement for superconductivity.
Perhaps when there are sufficient impurities at the outermost layers, a
gap develops and the behavior changes.  Condensed matter is a fascinating
topic.  The geometry, the kinds of atoms at different lattice sites, the
pressure and temperature of the material, all of these dimensions can
affect the electronic and magnetic characteristics of the material.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:57 PM 8/21/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Eff the skeptics.


My feelings exactly.


Voice of America, I am today.

Whether "5% success rate" is good news or bad news depends entirely 
on the details of those experiments.


They ran 300 experiments.  . . .


I believe the 5% refers to the last set of experiments run after 
ICCF16. There were, as I recall, about 110 in this series. Six of 
them produced irrefutably positive results. I mean results so large 
and clearly detected that they convinced even David Kidwell, who is 
the most skeptical cold fusion researcher I know.


I think before ICCF16 they got some positive indications, but no 
results that everyone at the NRL agreed were definitely real.


Basically, pseudoskeptics look at that 5% figure and make whatever 
assumptions confirm what they want to believe. What that really 
means, at least in part, is that the researchers worked hard and kept looking.


Pseudoskeptics will assume that the 5% is just noise. Indeed, I ran 
into this argument recently. Storms (2007 and 2010) has a bar chart 
showing the distribution of excess heat results from many cold fusion 
experiments. The first bar is close to noise, but some results in 
that bar would be significantly above noise. But the chart goes out, 
showing results distributed across a wide range of excess heat 
values. Storms point is that if this was noise, all the results would 
be in the first bar. That first bar is indeed the majority of 
results. How was this translated by the pseudoskeptics?


"Even according to Storms, most cold fusion experiments fail."

It's a standard human phenomenon. We strongly tend to see what we 
already believe. If we are not aware of this danger, and sometimes 
even if we are, we see new data and interpret it to confirm and 
strengthen what we already "know."


Ahem. It gets worse as we get older, sometimes.

I know of only one defense against this, and that is detachment from 
all interpretation, and it is not necessarily reliable, because we 
are trained from infancy to intepret. Interpretation isn't "wrong," 
but it's highly limiting. Strictly speaking, it is neither true nor 
false. That is, interpretations are not "true" because they cannot 
capture the depth of reality, they are, at best, useful. They are not 
"false" in the same way that a hammer is not "false." It is merely a 
tool, that is either more workable or less workable.


What we *can* do, I'll testify, is to quickly recognize and 
discriminate between interpretation and raw fact. I.e., observation. 
While there is always some level of interpretation in observation, we 
actually are quite good, as human beings, at observation, if we keep 
it simple. We can get better with training.


One of the key distinctions about interpretation is that it's a 
choice. It is always possible to come up with multiple 
interpretations. What I observed is what I observed. I might possibly 
improve my memory a bit, but I can't change what I observed, itself. 
I can change my interpretations, or propose alternate ones. This gets 
a lot easier if I don't require that the interpretations be "true." 
It helps to know that none of them are actually true, that very idea 
is one of the ideas that literally drive us crazy. The real question 
for interpretation is its effect. Interpretation is a choice, and we 
are actually responsible for it. If we had no choice, if 
interpretation were controlled by "truth," we'd have no responsibility.


Sorry, it's just the *truth* that you are a horrible human being and 
must be eliminated. We think the only problem with is that the 
genocidal maniac is wrong. No, it's the whole concept of truth of 
interpretation. It's just "true" that communism will take away our 
freedoms, and that Obama is a communist. It's just "true" that Saddam 
was a danger to the world and it was necessary to invade Iraq. For 
that matter, to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It just 
"true" that this saved millions of lives.


Basically, we make up meaning all the time. We make choices. We are 
responsible for those choices.


That's the bad news and the good news. 

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Eff the skeptics.


My feelings exactly.


Whether "5% success rate" is good news or bad news depends entirely on 
the details of those experiments.


They ran 300 experiments.  . . .


I believe the 5% refers to the last set of experiments run after ICCF16. 
There were, as I recall, about 110 in this series. Six of them produced 
irrefutably positive results. I mean results so large and clearly 
detected that they convinced even David Kidwell, who is the most 
skeptical cold fusion researcher I know.


I think before ICCF16 they got some positive indications, but no results 
that everyone at the NRL agreed were definitely real.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:21 PM 8/20/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote:
I have suggested that palladium is a red herring. If the phenomena 
is a surface effect then the outer surface of the palladium or 
material X will have the greatest number of defects or 
surface-effect areas and it has been found that roughening the 
surface will increase the effect. So too, I speculate will loading a 
bulk sample of palladium to the point that you induce fatigue cracks 
which will appear first on the surface and propogate inward as the 
internal pressure within the sample builds up due to the loading 
with hydrogen. You could get the same effect by first stressing a 
sample of palladium with proteum to the point that it would have 
shown the heat effect had it been loaded with deuterium then 
unloading the proteum and reloading it with deuterium. If the 
phenomena is a surface effect it should show up almost immediately 
just as in the case with the codeposited palladium and deuterium. 
The heat phemonema has show up in so many different material 
combinations and conditions that there is some other governing 
parameter other than palladium material. Granted palladium being 
open to hydrogen would allow it to migrate into the intersticies a 
little faster but just breaking up the material into a powder could 
produce the necessary surface defects and porosity needed to allow 
the heat effect to show up.


Not bad.

Not quite as easy as stated. Hydrogen poisons the reaction with 
deuterium, so you'd have to get rid of the hydrogen, it won't 
spontaneously unload, at least not quickly. You'd need to heat it, probably.


When the palladium is heated, or even sitting at room temperature, 
the cracks can heal, if I'm correct.


Predicting when the heat effect will show is also difficult. 
Basically, we don't know. Methods are known of preparing palladium 
that will *usually* produce XP, after a variable delay.


Basically, the effect may be very sensitive to the population of 
cracks of a precise size.


Storms thinks that the effect will appear if the cracks are the right 
size, regardless of the material. I'm rather skeptical of that, but 
it easily could be *partially* true.


Nanopowder and gas-loading are common approaches. Probably even 
greater success has been seen with matrices including palladium in a 
structure with other materials.


I've suggested working on controlling crack size, there are a number 
of possible approaches. Controlled deformation of material made 
brittle is one approach that could produce many controlled cracks 
distributed around a specific width. 

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Robert Lynn]

Just how hard would it be to detect if Deuterium is the product in Ni-H
LENR?

I don't have good data on P-P=>D fusion, but based on mass difference it
releases about 2.31e-13J/deuteron formed.  Assuming that to really produce
a strong Deuterium signal in needs to double in concentration from about
1/6000th to 1/3000th in hydrogen that means that 1/3000th of the hydrogen
in the reaction needs to be converted to deuterium.  That means about
23MJ/gram of hydrogen needs to be released to double the deuterium
occurrence.

In Rossi's claimed 50cc ~10kW ecat reactor at 20bar (about 0.1 grams in
hydrogen gas, significantly more in the nanopowder) that would only take
about an hour.  For Celani with 15W, and a reactor vessel of 200mL at 8 bar
(about 1.3grams Hydrogen + whatever metal loading was) that would take
perhaps 2-3 weeks, but might be tricky due to leakage of hydrogen through
walls.  Defkalion at about 1kW would be perhaps 1 day.

Much tougher to see in non-gas phase LENR due to large inventory of H in
the water.

These basic calculations suggest that probably Rossi or Defkalion already
know (my money would be more on Defkalion, given their better scientific
practices), and that Celani might be able to find out in next few weeks to
months (easier if he increases the power output using more mass of wire).

So hopefully we should know one way or the other quite soon.


On 21 August 2012 17:52, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> At 02:37 PM 8/20/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-20 21:23, Peter Gluck wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
>>> Don't make the skeptics happy!
>>>
>>
>> Here's where experiments such as Celani's come into help: by showing the
>> LENR community that excess heat can be [scientifically] large and
>> reproducible at will pretty much anywhere.
>>
>> Hopefully others will learn.
>>
>
> Look, Celani's work is great. His willingness to demonstrate it publicly
> is great. Don't make too much of it, though. The calorimetry shown is not
> conclusive. His lab reports are more valuable.
>
> A JET Nanor ran for, what was it? -- months? -- at MIT early this year.
>

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2012-08-21 18:52, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Look, Celani's work is great. His willingness to demonstrate it publicly
is great. Don't make too much of it, though. The calorimetry shown is
not conclusive. His lab reports are more valuable.


Yes, I agree with you that there are experiments of greater scientific 
value, also made by Celani himself. My point is that his portable demo 
can be a nice "motivational poster" for new people interested in making 
cold fusion experiments or long time garage experimenters stuck with 
costly, not easily repeatable and only instrumentally observable results 
with Pd-D electrolytic cells.


It's true that the calorimetry shown is currently not conclusive, but 
will this matter anymore once he manages to run it in self-sustaining or 
mostly self-sustained mode?


If he does, then we will have a clear winner since the cell is very 
simple to manufacture and assemble, it's relatively inexpensive, the 
active material can be produced at a low cost and can apparently trigger 
excess heat quite reliably in large and easily observable amounts. To 
me, this can potentially become a very good candidate for school lab 
LENR demonstrations too.



A JET Nanor ran for, what was it? -- months? -- at MIT early this year.


Unfortunately - I could be wrong - there's not much information around 
about it, besides relatively detailed slides showing tiny but reliable 
amounts of excess heat being generated in various runs.


I just noticed that JET Energy now have a dedicated website, though.

http://world.std.com/~mica/jetenergy.htm

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:37 PM 8/20/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

On 2012-08-20 21:23, Peter Gluck wrote:
[...]

I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
Don't make the skeptics happy!


Here's where experiments such as Celani's come into help: by showing 
the LENR community that excess heat can be [scientifically] large 
and reproducible at will pretty much anywhere.


Hopefully others will learn.


Look, Celani's work is great. His willingness to demonstrate it 
publicly is great. Don't make too much of it, though. The calorimetry 
shown is not conclusive. His lab reports are more valuable.


A JET Nanor ran for, what was it? -- months? -- at MIT early this year. 

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:23 PM 8/20/2012, Peter Gluck wrote:

I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga.
Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate
due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too:

Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus

I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
Don't make the skeptics happy!


Eff the skeptics. Whether "5% success rate" is good news or bad news 
depends entirely on the details of those experiments.


They ran 300 experiments. Suppose they were investigating the 
parameter space, that they varied lots of stuff. Depending on the 
specific results, 5% could be great news! If the results are close to 
noise, with the 5% being only slight elevated, this could be serious 
failure. *It all depends.*


Only when we imagine that the goal of experimentation is immediate 
big results with reliability, do we fall into the trap of considering 
a "5% success rate" as something shameful, to be hidden.


Suppose that they also measured helium. (They probably did not, a 
shame). Suppose that they only found helium in that 5% of attempts 
with excess heat. Suppose that the amount of the helium correlated 
with the excess heat.


That would be major finding, in fact. News. Even though it would 
simply be replicating what was found almost twenty years ago.


Scientifically, even a single event of heat producing helium is 
important. 15 such findings in an experimental series, clearly not 
only above noise but confirmed with helium, the ash?


Folks, science first. Once we understand the science, we'll have a 
much better idea if engineering this effect for commercial 
application is possible.


Peter, palladium is neither good nor bad. It's palladium. It is known 
to work for cold fusion, under the right conditions. PdD is therefore 
useful for investigating the phenomenon. If nickel works, NiH is 
obviously more practical, so confirming NiH nuclear reactions is 
therefore relatively urgent. Once again, the focus on HEAT, HEAT, 
HEAT distracts from the first step. What is the ash with NiH?


Reactors that produce a lot of heat will certainly help identify the 
NiH ash. If the primary ash is deuterium, as Storms thinks, it's 
going to take substantial accumulated product to make it detectable 
above noise. Before then, comprehensive analysis of reaction products 
is important, with controls and association with heat. If copper is 
the ash, it should be detectable, particularly in experiments where 
copper is not an ingredient.


The push for CHEAP ENERGY! actually is retarding the science, in some 
ways. Researchers in the field have incentives to keep their work 
secret. That is one reason why this field needs some substantial 
public funding, as has long been recommended by the DoE's own panels. 
That this recommendation has never been carried out is a travesty, 
and we should pin the tail on this donkey.


It's been the hot fusion lobby, protecting a billion-dollar 
boondoggle that may never pay off. Hot fusion is real, but 
controlling it is still a fantasy. If not for serious misbehavior on 
the part of the American Physical Society, and the physics community 
in general -- excepting certain physicists who maintained real 
skepticism, and who changed their minds when they saw the evidence -- 
we might have practical cold fusion already. Only be questioning the 
reality of the effect were the physicists able to maintain the 
drastic disparity in research funding, toward an approach that 
inherently needs to employ many more physicists than cold fusion will.


Cold fusion will require, to develop our understanding of the 
mechanism(s), the best physicists we have. It's new science. But that 
will not create a lot of jobs for physicists, compared to hot fusion 
research. Hot fusion research will collapse, it is practically 
inevitable. There are too many less dangerous ways to generate or 
collect power. Cold fusion is only one.


If you are starting out a career in physics, don't go for hot fusion 
research, it's a dead end.


Cold fusion will create jobs for chemists and materials scientists. 
I've been suggesting that creating the necessary structures, that set 
up what appear to be resonances that foster the reaction, might best 
be accomplished with bioengineering. Biophysics, specifically 
developing biological structures with nuclear effects, might be a 
field to investigate. And if you are a grad student, and have 
adventurous advisers, you might look at Vysotskii's work, just crying 
to be replicated. Check it out. Be a leader.


And by the way. You don't have to be a "believer" in cold fusion to 
do important work. Negative papers on cold fusion have not been 
published for many years. Lots of positive work has been done. If you 
can identity the artifact or set of artifacts that could be fooling 
hundreds of scientists around the world into accepting cold fusion, 
you'd be doing a fantastic serv

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Eric,
 I don't think the walls of the nano-voids are real insulators.
However it seems (as DGTG alludes to) very intense electric and magnetic
phenomena take place in the special void places. And the nano-voids are
highly dynamic, open and shut and open again and this converts LENR in
LENR+.
Peter

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, topology is the key but it would be good to find a better name for
>> the very places/sites than "cracks" that has some negative meanings .
>> Nano-voids would be fine, I think.
>>
>
> The word "topology" may be something of a false cognate with regard to
> what I'm thinking of, but I'm intrigued by the possibility that the metal
> substrate is acting as a topological insulator.
>
> http://phys.org/news/2012-07-surface-topological-insulator.html
>
> Eric
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Yes, topology is the key but it would be good to find a better name for
> the very places/sites than "cracks" that has some negative meanings .
> Nano-voids would be fine, I think.
>

The word "topology" may be something of a false cognate with regard to what
I'm thinking of, but I'm intrigued by the possibility that the metal
substrate is acting as a topological insulator.

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-surface-topological-insulator.html

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Peter Gluck]

I fully agree with the topology idea- now for more than 21 years- see
please my paper:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf
published first in Fusion Facts edited by Hal Fox.

Yes, topology is the key but it would be good to find a better name for the
very places/sites than "cracks" that has some negative meanings .
Nano-voids would be fine, I think.
However the places are IMHO no inert vessels where just D + D or H + H
reactions take place. The walls of the nano-voids are also active
participants in  a lot of nuclear reactions. Transmutations take place- the
lattice has a role.
Peter


On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I have suggested that palladium is a red herring.
>
> I think that Ed Storms has made a conceptual breakthrough that has yet to
> has impact in the broader LENR developer community. Ed Storms knows that It
> is not the material that matters, but its topology. The key to the LENR
> process is to find the proper shape of the material that is reactive. In
> essence, all the work put into material preparation is just a search for
> the mechanisms hidden in the shapes that are worked into the successful
> active substance. Any material can carry these wondrous shapes and some
> materials are more amenable to their production than others.
>
> When the essence of Ed Storms Ideas find wider acceptance in the LENR
> developers community, then progress will be swift and efforts will be
> fruitful.
>
> Cheers:   Axil
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Kelley Trezise 
> wrote:
>
>> **
>> I have suggested that palladium is a red herring. If the phenomena is a
>> surface effect then the outer surface of the palladium or material X will
>> have the greatest number of defects or surface-effect areas and it has been
>> found that roughening the surface will increase the effect. So too, I
>> speculate will loading a bulk sample of palladium to the point that you
>> induce fatigue cracks which will appear first on the surface and propogate
>> inward as the internal pressure within the sample builds up due to the
>> loading with hydrogen. You could get the same effect by first stressing a
>> sample of palladium with proteum to the point that it would have shown the
>> heat effect had it been loaded with deuterium then unloading the proteum
>> and reloading it with deuterium. If the phenomena is a surface effect it
>> should show up almost immediately just as in the case with the codeposited
>> palladium and deuterium. The heat phemonema has show up in so many
>> different material combinations and conditions that there is some other
>> governing parameter other than palladium material. Granted palladium being
>> open to hydrogen would allow it to migrate into the intersticies a little
>> faster but just breaking up the material into a powder could produce the
>> necessary surface defects and porosity needed to allow the heat effect to
>> show up.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Peter Gluck 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2012 12:23 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
>>
>> I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga.
>> Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate
>> due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too:
>>
>> Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum
>> Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
>>
>> I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
>> Don't make the skeptics happy!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa <
>> shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical*
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget
>>> review:
>>>
>>> http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/**07/darpa-nanotech-projects-**
>>> nanoscale.html<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html>
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.A.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Axil Axil]

I have suggested that palladium is a red herring.

I think that Ed Storms has made a conceptual breakthrough that has yet to
has impact in the broader LENR developer community. Ed Storms knows that It
is not the material that matters, but its topology. The key to the LENR
process is to find the proper shape of the material that is reactive. In
essence, all the work put into material preparation is just a search for
the mechanisms hidden in the shapes that are worked into the successful
active substance. Any material can carry these wondrous shapes and some
materials are more amenable to their production than others.

When the essence of Ed Storms Ideas find wider acceptance in the LENR
developers community, then progress will be swift and efforts will be
fruitful.

Cheers:   Axil


On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Kelley Trezise wrote:

> **
> I have suggested that palladium is a red herring. If the phenomena is a
> surface effect then the outer surface of the palladium or material X will
> have the greatest number of defects or surface-effect areas and it has been
> found that roughening the surface will increase the effect. So too, I
> speculate will loading a bulk sample of palladium to the point that you
> induce fatigue cracks which will appear first on the surface and propogate
> inward as the internal pressure within the sample builds up due to the
> loading with hydrogen. You could get the same effect by first stressing a
> sample of palladium with proteum to the point that it would have shown the
> heat effect had it been loaded with deuterium then unloading the proteum
> and reloading it with deuterium. If the phenomena is a surface effect it
> should show up almost immediately just as in the case with the codeposited
> palladium and deuterium. The heat phemonema has show up in so many
> different material combinations and conditions that there is some other
> governing parameter other than palladium material. Granted palladium being
> open to hydrogen would allow it to migrate into the intersticies a little
> faster but just breaking up the material into a powder could produce the
> necessary surface defects and porosity needed to allow the heat effect to
> show up.
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2012 12:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
>
> I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga.
> Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate
> due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too:
>
> Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum
> Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
>
> I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
> Don't make the skeptics happy!
>
> Peter
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa <
> shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical*
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget
>> review:
>>
>> http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/**07/darpa-nanotech-projects-**
>> nanoscale.html<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.A.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Kelley Trezise]

I have suggested that palladium is a red herring. If the phenomena is a surface 
effect then the outer surface of the palladium or material X will have the 
greatest number of defects or surface-effect areas and it has been found that 
roughening the surface will increase the effect. So too, I speculate will 
loading a bulk sample of palladium to the point that you induce fatigue cracks 
which will appear first on the surface and propogate inward as the internal 
pressure within the sample builds up due to the loading with hydrogen. You 
could get the same effect by first stressing a sample of palladium with proteum 
to the point that it would have shown the heat effect had it been loaded with 
deuterium then unloading the proteum and reloading it with deuterium. If the 
phenomena is a surface effect it should show up almost immediately just as in 
the case with the codeposited palladium and deuterium. The heat phemonema has 
show up in so many different material combinations and conditions that there is 
some other governing parameter other than palladium material. Granted palladium 
being open to hydrogen would allow it to migrate into the intersticies a little 
faster but just breaking up the material into a powder could produce the 
necessary surface defects and porosity needed to allow the heat effect to show 
up.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 12:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract


  I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga.
  Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate
  due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too:


  Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum
  Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus


  I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
  Don't make the skeptics happy!


  Peter


  On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa  
wrote:

On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote:


  *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical*

[...]

This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget 
review:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html

Cheers,
S.A.







  -- 
  Dr. Peter Gluck
  Cluj, Romania
  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Robert Lynn]

translations:

To err is human, to knowingly persist in error is diabolical.
The mountains will be in labor, and a ridiculous mouse will be brought forth

very apt.

On 20 August 2012 20:23, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga.
> Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate
> due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too:
>
> Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum
> Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
>
> I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
> Don't make the skeptics happy!
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa <
> shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>  *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical*
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget
>> review:
>>
>> http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/**07/darpa-nanotech-projects-**
>> nanoscale.html
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.**html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.A.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Jeff Berkowitz]

"Radio-Frequency Emissions" !? Is there prior history of the detection of
RF emissions from F-P type experiments?
Jeff

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Akira Shirakawa  wrote:

> On 2012-08-20 21:23, Peter Gluck wrote:
> [...]
>
>  I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
>> Don't make the skeptics happy!
>>
>
> Here's where experiments such as Celani's come into help: by showing the
> LENR community that excess heat can be [scientifically] large and
> reproducible at will pretty much anywhere.
>
> Hopefully others will learn.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2012-08-20 21:23, Peter Gluck wrote:
[...]

I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
Don't make the skeptics happy!


Here's where experiments such as Celani's come into help: by showing the 
LENR community that excess heat can be [scientifically] large and 
reproducible at will pretty much anywhere.


Hopefully others will learn.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Peter Gluck]

I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga.
Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate
due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too:

Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus

I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
Don't make the skeptics happy!

Peter

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa  wrote:

> On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>  *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical*
>>
> [...]
>
> This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget
> review:
>
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/**07/darpa-nanotech-projects-**
> nanoscale.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.**html
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote:


*Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical*

[...]

This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget 
review:


http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html

Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Jed Rothwell]

There is no preprint for this paper.


*Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical*

*Experiments*

D.D. Domingueza, L. DeChiarob, D.A. Kidwella, A.E. Moserc, V. Violanted,
G.K. Hublera,
S-F. Chenga, J-H. Hec, and D.L. Kniesa
aNaval Research Laboratory, Washington DC 20375 USA
bNaval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA USA
cNova Research, Inc., Alexandria VA 22308 USA
dENEA, Frascati, Italy

We have conducted over 300 Fleischmann-Pons type electrochemical
experiments varying several parameters. Less than 5% of these experiments
showed substantial excess heat with bursts of many kJ. These bursts are
sometimes accompanied by radio-frequency emissions and abnormal voltage
transients. We have been unable to explain these bursts as an experimental
artifact, and they are too large to be chemical in origin. However, given
the sporadic nature of the bursts, their origin is difficult to pinpoint.
Great care was taken in design of our instrumentation to avoid a number of
artifacts, which will be described. This large volume of experimental
results will be described in detail.

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this article/presentation
are those of the author/presenter and should not be interpreted as
representing the official views or policies, either expressed or implied,
of the US Government.

Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited