Re: [Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:44:23 -0500: Hi, [snip] This was not an MeV/He-4 chart, actually, and it was not, contrary to Krivit's assertions, used to prove the 24 MeV correlation. What the paper was asserting was that there was a correlation between excess heat and He-4, and this was merely recent (in 2004) confirmation of it. [snip] BTW 24 MeV is not necessarily a sign of DD fusion to He4. In that reaction two D's fuse to create He4, releasing 23.8 MeV, so the energy release is about 6 MeV / nucleon. However that is typical of almost all fusion reactions because the binding energy of most nuclei is on the order of 6 MeV / nucleon. Hence almost any fusion reaction involving D will release about 10-12 MeV / D. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
At 04:55 PM 2/8/2010, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:44:23 -0500: Hi, [snip] This was not an MeV/He-4 chart, actually, and it was not, contrary to Krivit's assertions, used to prove the 24 MeV correlation. What the paper was asserting was that there was a correlation between excess heat and He-4, and this was merely recent (in 2004) confirmation of it. [snip] BTW 24 MeV is not necessarily a sign of DD fusion to He4. Well, it's not an exclusive sign, let's put it that way. It's remarkable, though, if that is the actual Q factor. What people like McKubre have said about the results is that they are consistent with 23.8 MeV, the expectd Q factor for reactions starting with deuterium and ending with helium In that reaction two D's fuse to create He4, releasing 23.8 MeV, so the energy release is about 6 MeV / nucleon. However that is typical of almost all fusion reactions because the binding energy of most nuclei is on the order of 6 MeV / nucleon. Hence almost any fusion reaction involving D will release about 10-12 MeV / D. I have no quarrel with that. However, what's interesting here is that we know helium is being produced. Interesting to see what Huizenga said about Bush and Lagowski's results back in roughly 1991. He claimed that the there was not enough helium to explain the energy. But that, of course, would have assumed that all the helium was being measured, and, as well, that there were no other reactions. Obviously, Huizenga was indeed paying attention to further research, but busy inventing reasons why the results were impossible. He was upset that Bush and Lagowski didn't look for gamma rays. As if that mattered. It was already known that there wasn't enough gamma radiation to be significant, nor enough neutrons, etc. Quite obviously, the reaction was not straight, ordinary, brute-force hot fusion, so playing up expected hot fusion signatures was, by this time, thoroughly obtuse. Anyway, I saw this in an old Science News article. So I decided to look in Huizenga's book, Cold Fusion, which was, after all, published after this. His Epilogue, p. 243: The invited paper by Miles, Bush, et al. made the most spectacular claim at the conference. It was reported that, The amount of helium [4He] detected correlated approximately with the amount of excess heat and was within an order of magnitude of the theoretical estimate of helium production based upon fusion of deuterium to form 4He. This claim has been published elsewhere by Miles, Bush, et al., [J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 271 (1991); 346 99 (1993)] and I have commented on it previously ( see pp. 136 and 212). If it were true that 4He was produced from room-temperature fusion in amounts very nearly commensurate with excess heat, one of the great puzzles of cold fusion would have been solved! However, as is the case with so many cold fusion claims, this one is unsubstantiated and conflicts with other well-established experimental findings. First, the failure of Miles, Bush, et al. to detect 3He in their experiments requires that the branching ratio of 4He/3He from D+D cold fusion be increased by a facgtor of more than a hundred million compared to low-energy (=2 keV) and muon-catalyzed fusion (a type of cold fusion). Hence, it is highly likely that the 4He is a contaminant from the atmosphere. In accition, if 4He is produced in the amount claimed (for earlier claimw of 4He, see Chapter VIII, Part B), it must be accompanied by large intensities (in fact, lethal intensities) of the associated 23.8 MeV gamma ray. Only when the 23.8 MeV gamma rays are observed on-line, can one be sure that the 4He is produced by fusion and is not an artifact. Finally, the 23.8 MeV gamma ray transfers essentially all of the D=D - 4He + gamma reaction energy outside the cell and destroys the relationship between the helium production and the excess heat based on the assumption that all the reaction energy stays inside the cell. More recently, Miles, Bush et al reported that they can produce neither excess power nor 4He from their electrolysis experiments (Abstracts of the Third International Conference, p. 93) Beautiful, John. Too bad you aren't still cogent enough to understand what you did. If, indeed, you ever were. He discounted experimental results on the basis that they did not match a theory that it was D-D fusion of the kind he was familiar with. And it wasn't! If there is any 3He produced, or gamma rays, it's very little. He-4 is produced, and the report that he said must be artifact didn't claim that it was fusion. It claimed that the helium was correlated with the excess heat, and that it was within an order of magnitude of what D-D fusion would produce if it formed 4He. And that is not only true, but it's been much more closely confirmed. And, obviously, if the energy did not escape in the form of gamma rays, but
Re: [Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
On Jan 31, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: On Jan 31, 2010, at 1:12 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I'm encouraged to see that debate concerning the pros and cons of the controversial Widom Larsen theory has started opening up. I expect to seecontroversy. An understatement Steven! 8^) Abd, your analysis of the MeV/He-4 chart looks excellent to me. Nice job! Too bad your quality of response could not have been forthcoming from the authors. When I first saw the graph many months ago I simply assumed there was a misplaced decimal point on the 3.4 kJ number, the low number. I assumed a very low number, if real, would have some kind of explanation, because it disproves the assertion of a constant ratio of energy to 4He. This variability problem is, however, typical of most all repeated cold fusion experiments. Some experiments work and some don't. Until the experiments can be better controlled I think it will not be possible for anyone to credibly assert a fixed excess energy to 4He atom ratio exists. Also, when first I looked at the chart I immediately assumed the background line was there merely to show that the He counts were above background, not that background was *included* in the counts, which makes the chart essentially meaningless for the supposed purpose of showing a constant energy/4He *ratio*. Not only does it obscure the ratios, it shows the total counts to be close to the background counts, and thus with large error bars. When two nearly equal counts are subtracted the difference is a smaller number but the standard deviation becomes larger, so the deviation proportion becomes very large. If I obtained similar data that contradicted my own hypothesis and I were forced by my boss to gloss it over as much as possible I would have done the chart just as the chart was done - with the background counts included so as to make the ratios look more constant, and then not publish the actual numbers. The apparent stonewalling for months by the authors just makes the situation look all the worse. OTOH, we haven't yet heard the other side of the story. As to the rest of the NET story I just simply haven't been able to follow it carefully. It has long seemed to me, the folks asserting fixed E/4He ratios (a) believe it and (b) are credible scientists, but they (c) had formed strong personal opinions that the published data could not yet strongly support. A fixed energy/4He ratio is a logical hypothesis in some cases, but there is not a wealth of consistent and quality data to support the conclusion. In fact the existence of numerous *heavy element transmutation reports* contradicts the possibility of a fixed energy/4He ratio in at least those cases, unless such heavy nuclear reactions are assumed to occur with absolutely *no* energy production. Instead of debating whether there is a fixed (23.8 MeV)/4He ratio, i.e. from: D(D,gamma)He4 23.8 MeV it seems to me far more useful to note what is *not* observed in many experiments, namely 3.27-4.03 MeV energies and corresponding particles that support the common fusion reactions: D(D,p)T 4.03 MeV D(D,n)He3 3.27 MeV Given that high energy protons and neutrons are not observed in accordance with the excess heat, and given that the energy observed in some experiments greatly *exceeds* (4.03) MeV/4He, we can see that conventional fusion is totally out of the question to explain those experiments. Something wonderfully useful is happening, provided it can be harnessed. This is the important information. That there may be bungling of one kind or another, and emotional wrangling over theories with high emotional (and in some cases financial) investments, holds little interest for me. As with the global warming cover-up email flap - the behavior of a hand full of individuals does not change the way the universe works. There is an objective physical reality which is above opinion and independent of human existence. It would be preferable that everyone in the field worked harmoniously toward understanding this reality, and that all human foibles could be set aside. However, if I expected this to happen I would be even more of a crank than I am. Controversy and especially reasoned debate is good and necessary. Debate is indeed a good thing, but personally I don't have time for extended debate of any kind. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents worth here and am leaving it at that. I haven't had time to even read and check out what is being said in various cases. It's good that errors or possibly misleading text in published papers is pointed out, that's important. So true. However, we don't need more polemic that extrapolates from real or merely perceived errors into reprehensibility and blame. If evidence becomes conclusive that
RE: [Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
I'm encouraged to see that debate concerning the pros and cons of the controversial Widom Larsen theory has started opening up. I expect to see disagreement and controversy. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/2009Jan30LatticeEnergySlides.pdf From Abd, ... And the kicker: in the above slide show, I find this statement: Using its unique, unpublished proprietary understanding of LENR, Lattice is now ready to begin device engineering programs. In other words, We are not telling you what we know. Steve, are you sure you want to hitch yourself to this star? ... Just so there is no confusion I realize Abd was referring to Mr. Krivit and not me. Speaking just for myself, I'm waiting to see what kind of fruit based on such proprietary understanding Lattice Energy intends to produce. If it turns out that Lattice Energy can brew a pot of hot tea it might be a good indicator as to whether their proprietary knowledge (presumably based on their Widom-Larsen theory) should be given more consideration by the rest of the community. In the meantime it doesn't hurt to debate its alleged merits. ... Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
On Jan 31, 2010, at 1:12 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I'm encouraged to see that debate concerning the pros and cons of the controversial Widom Larsen theory has started opening up. I expect to seecontroversy. Controversy and especially reasoned debate is good and necessary. It's good that errors or possibly misleading text in published papers is pointed out, that's important. However, we don't need more polemic that extrapolates from real or merely perceived errors into reprehensibility and blame. If evidence becomes conclusive that there is fraud (illegal) or deliberate misrepresentation, sure, it's the duty of a journalist to bring it into the light of public examination. Sloppy work in this, though, is what we saw with Taubes. Excellent writer who got stuck on a sensationalist theory and did a lot of damage. He could have done a lot of good if he had been more careful. He later did very good work with salt and diet. What led him astray was attachment. Meanwhile, since Krivit has written about alleged problems with the heat/helium work, following generally the same line of approach as Larsen, I'd like to know what Widom-Larsen theory predicts as to heat/ helium relationship. I'm not finding it easy to find.
[Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/342incoherentexplanation.shtml I've read this issue of New Energy Times and am puzzled. Krivit rejects the hypothesis, it appears, that helium collection in these experiments is not complete, that some helium remains in the system and is not analyzed, whereas if calorimetry is performed, generally, it will measure all the heat produced. This hypothesis leads to the conclusion that the Q value, calculated in MeV/He-4, will exceed whatever value is associated with the reaction that produces the helium, and that only by careful extraction and measurement of the last bit of helium would the value measured approach the true value. If, indeed, there is one true value. Until we know the reactions involved, we cannot know what value to expect. However, what has generally been said about the Q value is that it is consistent with the hypothesis that the reaction is d + d - He-4. Deuterium fusion, by whatever process or intermediary, would lead to a Q value of 23.8 MeV/He-4. That is, if the fuel is deuterium and the product is He-4, that much energy must be released. However, it is possible that with some intermediary reactions, some energy would be involved in creating other reaction products. If so, this would reduce or increase the measured Q value. Loss of helium would increase the Q value, so if half the helium is not found and measured, the Q value found would be (if the heat and helium measurements are sufficiently accurate) 47.6 MeV/He-4. However, in some experiments the measurement accuracy is not high, so greater variance can be expected. Storms covers this topic in some detail in The Science of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (2007). He points to the work of Miles, starting with noting that 12 studies produced no excess heat and no extra helium, compared with 21 studies that produced excess energy, of which 18 produced extra helium. (There were differences involved in the three studies that produced no helium: two were studies with a Pd-Ce alloy, not well studied, and in one there was a possible error in heat measurement, according to Storms.) This is a stunning correlation, indicating that the production of helium is strongly associated with excess heat. Okay, at what value? Storms then notes the retention problem. The measured helium values are expected to have a negative bias because some unknown amount will be retained by the palladium. The values obtained by Miles et al indicate 46% was retained in their study, a very reasonable amount if half of the emitted alphas went in the direction of the bulk material and were captured, while the other half went into the solution and were detected. Of course, the 46% value assumes the 23.8 MeV from d-d fusion. Storms goes on, In addition, some extra energy might result from other reactions, such as transmutation without helium being produced. The values reported by Bush and Lagowski are consistent with 42% of the helium being retained by the metal -- a reasonable amount in good agreement with the Miles value. Storms then shows a chart from Gozzi et al. This chart is tricky to read, it took me a while to figure it out. The heavy line is excess heat, plotted against time. The light line showing data points with error bars is measured helium referred back to energy at the value of 23.8 MeV/He-4. So how the two lines track each other is an indication of how well the excess heat is consistent with the 23.8 MeV/He-4 hypothesis. It is quite consistent! What we should remember is that it's astonishing that He-4 is found even within an order of magnitude of what would be predicted from deuterium fusion being the main source of excess energy. It becomes very difficult to explain this away as helium measurement error, and as well difficult to explain away the excess energy values as likewise being due to measurement error. The two errors would have to be correlated. Storms then shows a chart from McKubre et al, the Case experiments, showing energy/helium consistent with about 25% retention of helium by the solids; this experiment used palladium deposited on coconut charcoal, and it's reasonable to consider that the materials might be less effective at retaining helium. And then there is the Hagelstein/SRI report, where extensive effort was made to extract as much of the helium as possible, and the Q value obtained was 24.8 +/- 2.5 MeV. Storms then reviews the data and comes up with an upper limit of 43 +/- 12 MeV/He-4; if 50% of the helium were retained, this would become 21 +/- 12. MeV/He-4. He combines the measurements to suggest a value of 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, and says that although this value is consistent with d-d fusion being the source of energy and helium, other reactions may also be consistent. Now, Krivit dismisses the concept of retention of helium by palladium, but does not appear to understand it. He writes,
