Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
In reply to Nigel Dyer's message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:09:36 +: Hi, [snip] Gamma rays are detected associated with a number of different aspects of thunderstorms. As far 'conventional' lightning is concerned it seems to be associated with initiation of the forks in the forked leader en route to the ground in advance of the (visible) return stroke when the large currents flow Nigel Perhaps the gamma rays locally ionize the surrounding otherwise insulating atmosphere making it possible for the current to take an alternate path? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
LOL! I totally agree! Every time another set of those slides comes out, I cringe at the thought of attempting to read them. On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: He sure can fit a lot of words into one sentence... Also, his powerpoint slide density matches the density of a black hole. On Monday, November 12, 2012, wrote: Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has recently posted the presentation - Electroweak Neutron Production and Capture in Lightning Discharges -ANS Meeting San Diego Nov 2012 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Summary: This presentation is part of a November 13, 2012, panel session Discussion of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions at the American Nuclear Society 2012 Winter Meeting in San Diego, CA. Enabled by many-body, collective effects and appropriate forms of required input energy (e.g., electric currents and/or organized magnetic fields with tubular geometries can be used to produce ‘catalytic’ neutrons via an electroweak reaction: e + p -- n + #957; ), LENRs involve elemental nucleosynthetic transmutation reactions very much like stars, only at vastly lower temperatures and pressures that are found in laboratory apparatus such as electrolytic chemical cells and many natural processes such as lightning discharges.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
What they are missing is the orbiting energetic particle creating the static lightning just like piantelli thinks it is orbiting hydrogen and not an orbiting neutrino. It is all in the orbit...on Earth many times we call them...rainbows. Behold the beauty. Also, with two great orbiting comets on the way get your ice pick. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Monday, November 12, 2012, wrote: In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com javascript:;'s message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:53 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote Also, with two great orbiting comets on the way get your ice pick. And a good single malt.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
That too!
On Monday, November 12, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:53 PM, ChemE Stewart
cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
wrote
Also, with two great orbiting comets on the way get your ice pick.
And a good single malt.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
Are you thinking that hot fusion may be occurring within the lightning stroke? I have read that gamma rays have been detected under some conditions. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 3:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
How confident are you that we will need the ice picks very soon? If no cooling becomes evident does that suggest that your theory has a fatal flaw? Just asking. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning What they are missing is the orbiting energetic particle creating the static lightning just like piantelli thinks it is orbiting hydrogen and not an orbiting neutrino. It is all in the orbit...on Earth many times we call them...rainbows. Behold the beauty. Also, with two great orbiting comets on the way get your ice pick. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Monday, November 12, 2012, wrote: In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
Dave,
I believe with most severe storms their is a weakly interacting massive
particle orbiting through the atmosphere and back into the Earth. It is
creating the low pressure and resulting static discharge/lightning. The
particle(s) are triggering beta decays with the surrounding gas and Earth.
A big particle acts just like his little brother the neutrino. They orbit,
they decay, they collapse and they raise hell with matter.
Tasmanian devil is probably better than what I used to call them. They are
the black areas of the Mandelbrot set, we are the colorful frill.
Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com
On Monday, November 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote:
Are you thinking that hot fusion may be occurring within the lightning
stroke? I have read that gamma rays have been detected under some
conditions.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'mix...@bigpond.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 3:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in
lightning
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'pagnu...@htdconnect.com');'s message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19
-0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012
Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a
metal lattice.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:58:31 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Are you thinking that hot fusion may be occurring within the lightning stroke? I have read that gamma rays have been detected under some conditions. Possibly also, but I see no reason why WL are wrong about lightning. I was simply pointing out that though they may well be correct about neutron production in lightning, I suspect they are wrong about neutron production in a lattice. [snip] Furthermore, there is also the possibility of creating spallation neutrons (especially from D in the water) in lightning, which is essentially a large linear accelerator. Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
Several recent papers state that this neutron production is anomalous and still not properly explained, e.g., from a popular science site - Lightning strikes produce free neutrons, and we're not sure how. Low energy neutrons not due to cosmic rays or any other previously known source. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/nuclear-lightening/ Larsen indicates ways to test his hypothesis. Wendt-Irion type electric arcing experiments could also be repeated. -- Lou Pagnucco mixent wrote In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
Gamma rays are detected associated with a number of different aspects of thunderstorms. As far 'conventional' lightning is concerned it seems to be associated with initiation of the forks in the forked leader en route to the ground in advance of the (visible) return stroke when the large currents flow Nigel On 12/11/2012 20:58, David Roberson wrote: Are you thinking that hot fusion may be occurring within the lightning stroke? I have read that gamma rays have been detected under some conditions. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 3:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
It's in the rainbow...you might have to shine a big spotlight to find it if the sun is not also shining. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Monday, November 12, 2012, wrote: Several recent papers state that this neutron production is anomalous and still not properly explained, e.g., from a popular science site - Lightning strikes produce free neutrons, and we're not sure how. Low energy neutrons not due to cosmic rays or any other previously known source. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/nuclear-lightening/ Larsen indicates ways to test his hypothesis. Wendt-Irion type electric arcing experiments could also be repeated. -- Lou Pagnucco mixent wrote In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com javascript:;'s message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
Nigel, Do we know how to characterize the electromagnetic energy (and electron) flow prior to the visible return stroke? -- Lou Pagnucco Nigel Dyer wrote: Gamma rays are detected associated with a number of different aspects of thunderstorms. As far 'conventional' lightning is concerned it seems to be associated with initiation of the forks in the forked leader en route to the ground in advance of the (visible) return stroke when the large currents flow Nigel On 12/11/2012 20:58, David Roberson wrote: Are you thinking that hot fusion may be occurring within the lightning stroke? I have read that gamma rays have been detected under some conditions. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 3:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Lightning contains many high velocity electrons, which are not present in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Possibly also, but I see no reason why WL are wrong about lightning. I was simply pointing out that though they may well be correct about neutron production in lightning, I suspect they are wrong about neutron production in a lattice. It would be kind of fun if Widom and Larsen end up proving everyone wrong. I do not imagine Larsen will have an easy time at the American Nuclear Society tomorrow, if they are anything like the American Physical Society. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
what is their profile at ANS ? Scientists ?(I mean the APS like, MIT like, Science/Nature Like) Industrialists ? (Business) Engineers (in the french meaning: link between science and industry, between project and technology, between feasible and done)? Applied scientist ? (a science version of the engineer) Industrialist and engineers have a tendency to accept facts more easily, even if they are conservative, and have a tendency to trust scientists and mainstream. They have less dogma, but much trust and in scientific domain, a great modesty (that hopefully they compensate in the business domain). Pure scientists (not applied scientists) are more dogmatic, preferring crazy unproven hypothesis that match their assumptions, than accepting facts that break all their books. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to be what I've observed, with my own bias. 2012/11/13 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Possibly also, but I see no reason why WL are wrong about lightning. I was simply pointing out that though they may well be correct about neutron production in lightning, I suspect they are wrong about neutron production in a lattice. It would be kind of fun if Widom and Larsen end up proving everyone wrong. I do not imagine Larsen will have an easy time at the American Nuclear Society tomorrow, if they are anything like the American Physical Society. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nano-carbon LENRs
I wrote: One question I have concerns the thermal properties of the [carbon nanotube bulk] system. I have started to conclude that the thermal properties are important -- for example, perhaps the temperature in the substrate must gradually build to the point where some kind of resonance is triggered in smaller sites throughout the material. It is not difficult to envision how this might occur in a thermally conducting material such as a metal. It is harder to see how this would happen in a carbon substrate. On second thought, graphene has some interesting thermal properties, as do carbon nanotubes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Thermal_properties http://authors.library.caltech.edu/1745/1/CHEnano00.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_properties_of_nanostructures#Carbon_nanotubes Wikipedia gives the thermal conductivity of nickel as 90.9 W/m/K. There are different numbers for the thermal conductivity of carbon nanotubes. The second source mentions up to ~29 W/m/K, provided there are few defects. The third source, from Wikipedia, says that the conductivity can get up to 3500 W/m/k, two orders of magnitude higher. But even if the carbon substrate were coal, it's obvious that it would have interesting thermal properties. Another important property would be the ability to load hydrogen. Apparently it might be possible to store hydrogen in carbon nanotubes: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp How high a loading can be obtained in the structure that is discussed in this source is unclear. In the model in my mind, the cavity would probably need to be filled with hydrogen. If the rate of desorption of hydrogen is too high, a reaction might not be possible according to this line of thinking. A very nice thing about carbon bulk is that it can sustain high temperatures. The temperatures mentioned in the third link above, to Wikipedia, for temperature stability, are 2800 C (3073 K) in a vacuum and 750 C (1023 K) in air. The following source gives a melting temperature for carbon nanotube material without defects of 4500 K and a pre-melting temperature of 2600 K. http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-4484/18/28/285703;jsessionid=D53B81E04C8D46A0D606206C1E32DF70.c2 By comparison, the melting point of nickel is 1728 K. The reason the higher temperature would be useful in this line of reasoning is that a higher frequency of infrared would permeate the bulk. One might even have a fun time taking coal and heating it in a chamber loaded with hydrogen (but doing so very carefully). I believe Less Case did an interesting experiment with activated carbon that was reproduced by Michael McKubre. It included a palladium catalyst, but the palladium might not have been essential to the experiment if a suitable carbon material had been used. Activated carbon is carbon that has a large number of small pores and therefore a high surface area. If carbon nanotube material with some of these exotic properties, such as high thermal conductivity, high magnetic fields, and optical resonance, was used, a transition metal might not be needed. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nano-carbon LENRs
Thank you, Lou, for the interesting links. Concerning Lewis Larsen's slides, the first twenty or so include abstracts from recent papers on various topics relating to graphene and carbon nanotubes. The second paper you mention touches on high magnetic fields generated in carbon nanotubes (I am going off of the abstract in this instance) and the third paper, on arxiv.org, discusses a high temperature (~1700 K) superconducting state in multi-walled carbon nanotubes. These are all some interesting properties. Larsen's slides include an abstract of a paper discussing a tunable resonant plasmonic cavity, i.e., an optical cavity that interacts with plasmons along the walls, I believe. The optics are subwavelength, which I understand to mean that the wavelength of the cavity mode is significantly larger than one or more dimensions of the cavity. Somehow at the nanometer scale you can have a mode with a relatively long wavelength in a much smaller cavity. The last link leads to a patent for a device that will focus EM radiation into the THz range. If this is possible, I wonder whether the wavelength cannot be decreased further still into the EUV or x-ray range. With regard to new possibilities concerning carbon nanotubes, it seems likely that you can get an x-ray pulse in these nanotubes. One question I have concerns the thermal properties of the system. I have started to conclude that the thermal properties are important -- for example, perhaps the temperature in the substrate must gradually build to the point where some kind of resonance is triggered in smaller sites throughout the material. It is not difficult to envision how this might occur in a thermally conducting material such as a metal. It is harder to see how this would happen in a carbon substrate. What are your thoughts on the relationship between the temperature and the reaction? (To ask the same question I recently asked Guenter.) With regard to the focusing of EM radiation, there is the focusing of the wavelength and the modification of the field strength. What are your thoughts on the enhancement of the field strength? Concerning the focusing of the wavelength, I have been reading through some of the LENR papers and taking note of the x-ray energies that are observed. Often the x-rays are in the 1-2 keV range; in at least one instance they were as high as 200 keV or higher. One of the shortcomings of some of the papers is that sometimes omit to report what was seen in control runs. In one instance where the x-ray spectrum of a control was provided, it looked very similar to a spectrum shown in another paper that was associated with a live cell. So I'm not sure how much the specifics of the x-ray data are to be relied upon. Sometimes there are sporadic gammas as well. The gammas appear to be due to individual events. Although the specifics of the x-ray spectra are hard to pin down, the number of papers finding soft x-rays (in the 100 eV - 10 keV range) is large. So the existence of x-rays in PdD electrolyte and Pd+D2 gas glow discharge experiments seems to be pretty solid. The in-situ x-ray spectra are sometimes explained in terms of characteristic lines of palladium or transmuted elements, but when I look at the graphs, they are often broad, and I wonder how much can be deduced about individual elements rather than simply there being a resonance of some kind stepping up the frequency; for example, some kind of focusing into the 0.5-3 keV range by a mechanism similar to that presented in the patent you mentioned. I am not sure what the dimensions of the focusing device would need to be in order to accomplish this, although from reading elsewhere I understand that x-ray resonators are possible at these scales. On magnetic fields such as the one generated in the superconducting nanotube, above, Stan Szpak and Pamella Mosier-Boss make reference to there being morphological effects on systems in the presence of magnetic and electric fields; see, for example, page 13 of these slides: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSexperiment.pdf They do not characterize much the effects they believe that these fields to cause, but they seem to have concluded that it is under the influence of magnetic and electric fields that you get the dramatic mini-volcanos and explosions that are seen in some of the photographs. I recall Abd saying that there was no claim of any effects of the (possibly AC) electric field in the paper he recently analyzed. Eric On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lattice Energy LLC recently posted a new presentation reviewing evidence for LENRs in carbon nanostructures: LENRs on Hydrogenated Fullerenes and Graphene-July 6 2012 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-on-hydrogenated-fullerenes-and-graphenejuly-6-2012 Especially interesting since carbon supports ballistic current at high temperatures. Slide 26 cites this intriguing paper: Macroscopic
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 7 Apr 2012 13:05:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] The fact that I have not searched for invisible pink unicorns An invisible unicorn can't be pink ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: An invisible unicorn can't be pink ;) How could you know if you can't see them? T
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Pagnucco, If the boys in the back of your NJ shop are successfully finished their free Lattice Energy through arc plasmas in hydrogen here is a next project: Gearing Up to replicate this startling free energy devise at http://pesn.com/2012/04/15/9602075_Inteligentry_Manufacturers_Gearing_Up_for_Noble_Gas_Engine_Roll-out/ Snip It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other bursty) phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks:
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Team, Sorry to disappoint, but I own no shop. However, if the tech you refer to is real, it should be easy to set up a persuasive public demo. LP Teampositive wrote: Pagnucco, If the boys in the back of your NJ shop are successfully finished their free Lattice Energy through arc plasmas in hydrogen here is a next project: Gearing Up to replicate this startling free energy devise at http://pesn.com/2012/04/15/9602075_Inteligentry_Manufacturers_Gearing_Up_for_Noble_Gas_Engine_Roll-out/ Snip It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other bursty) phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks: Â
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
No. Not me. But I did spend most of my life in the semiconductor business, too. Pagnucco Lou Pagnucco, Kulite Semiconductor Products Inc, Leonia, NJ Â Not you? Sorry. Â
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here. Ah, yes. This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf. A cautionary tale, indeed. Thanks for bringing this up. Do you have any additional references on this topic, even if you're not following it closely? Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
How to build a fusion reactor in your garden shed. Interesting post at: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/ "Jed on April 10, 2012 at 11:24 pm Robert, You state: increase more spillover of atomic hydrogen onto the nickel particles, and increase hydrogen diffusion through the interstitial spaces of the nickel lattice 1. Can an in-situ source of atomic hydrogen be created in an atmosphere of pure methane, propane, ethylene, acetylene or hexane or mixtures thereof with an inert gas diluent subjected to electromagnetic fields within an arc or plasma created by an alternating field pulsing device? Ref: De Broglie or Dr. R. M. Santilli method of creating neutrons. 2. Can a small bleed by use of a pressure releaaw valve at opposite side of said example gas be energized to create active forms of H by passing same through a series of insulated gaps such as spark plugs fitted into a tube through Ts prior to flow through reaction chamber and fired by devices such as RFG, Tesla Coils, Buzz ignition coils, Lesion creating oscillators and other triggers. What frequency would you suggest? 3. For the nichrome heating wire coil, within the reaction chamber, would you suggest dozens, hundreds or thousands of turns activated by which: alternating, direct current or pulsed DC? 4. What metal hydrides, by rank, would you try as an alternate source of H? 5. Do you believe that the Rossi chamber residue showing Ni and Fe point to a catalyst of NiFeH powder prepared by heat sinter, reduction to powder followed by H treatment? 6 You speak of active catalyst dispersions in cavities within solids. Can they be dispersed in non reactive liquids as well? Carry on. You are the best. Jed Reply Robert Mockan on April 11, 2012 at 3:07 am Energy efficient methods of atomic hydrogen synthesis are contact ionization with hot filament, high voltage corona discharge (like in neon sign), and microwave irradiation. Items 1 and 2 in your list can also make it but at lower energy efficiency. Frequency has more to do with electron resonance in plasma than any vibratory state of molecular hydrogen when doing an energy activated conversion, because it is electron impact in the plasma that causes the molecule to atom conversion. The literature reveals the 27 Mhz and 2450 Mhz bands have both been applied for RF mediated conversion, but that is because those sources are common in laboratory use, and not because of hydrogen molecule nuclei properties. In discharge conversion a Woods tube with porous sintered glass disks separating the electrodes from the conversion zone, and with the inner walls orthophosphate coated, works well for greater than 90% conversion of molecular to atomic hydrogen. Contact ionization is also efficient, but power is lost through radiation from the incandescent filament. Item 3 on your list assumes more than the design I described. The purpose of my original comment is to point out a way others could demonstrate LENR using conventional readily available appliances, in this case a resistance heater that uses Nichrome wire. My own experiment uses a small piece of flat wire from such a heater, cut so it fits into a test tube where it can be exposed to hydrogen gas pressure cycling. Thus I know the whole heater would also work, but would require a container large enough to hold it and able to withstand collapse from external atmospheric pressure, with low gas pressure cycling of hydrogen inside. My lab grade power supply is just to heat the wire, not provide other means of activation except by pulsing to induce greater diffusion. There is a company that does use a long length of wire with current to heat it and high voltage pulsing in their experiments, but that design is not something the lay person can do with a hardware store heater. Item 4 and 5 might be one and the same, although a rare earth addition would provide faster uptake. There are many possibilities for a separate hydride source of hydrogen. The Fe may be a product of nickel transmutation. This gets into what exactly is the composition of the Rossi catalyst that has increased the thermal power generated per unit mass of the catalyst and fuel, and what specifically is he using to increase spillover of atomic hydrogen. There are other ways to accomplish what he has, and my bet is they will function in a superior way, but more progress requires more funds to determine what exactly he is using. Meanwhile if one is willing to increase the amount of nuclear active catalyst to compensate for the reduced thermal power per mass ratio, up to 100 times, then one can still
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation -- and on to the future.
At 04:43 PM 4/10/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: On 4/10/2012 4:39 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Defkalion on their forum gave a similar explanation, talking about the heat caused by H2 breaking before loading and, recombination after degasing... It can't possibly be recombination! Both the power and energy far exceeds that in many cases, as Fleischmann pointed out. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf In heat after death, the deuterium gradually comes to the surface. It is presented to the surface, as electrochemists say. This surface is undergoing cold fusion because it happens to be ideal nuclearactive material. The deuterons leaking out join into the reaction, just as deuterons being pushed in during electrolysis does. I am assuming the reaction occurs at surface layers, rather than in the bulk. Fleischmann thinks it happens in the bulk. He used to, anyway. Most people disagree. The reaction may normally happen at or under the surface, based on where helium is found. However, that may not be universal. I'd be interested to know why Fleischmann thinks bulk. Lenr-canr.org seems to be inaccessible to me right now, if he mentions it in that paper. As to recombination, there are two kinds of recombination. Defkalion would have to be talking about recombination of atomic hydrogen to form molecular hydrogen, H2. The process of absorption of hydrogen/deuterium into metal hydrides (deuterides) is exothermic, so the reverse process is endothermic. This kind of recombination cannot explain heat after death. It should cause cooling. It's similar to evaporation from a liquid (or sublimation of a solid, as may be more accurate for the release of H from a hydride). The other kind of recombination would only apply to the electrochemical experiments, not to gas-loading, because it would be the reaction of hydrogen/deuterium with oxygen to reform water. That would be exothermic. The problem with this is the lack of adequate oxygen in these cells to support more than a little of this. Atomic hydrogen is present at the surface of hydrides, and it's highly reactive. I'd assume that it would burn if an oxygen bubble contacts the surface. Shanahan presents a vision of oxygen microbubbles contacting the surface and exploding, he tries to use this as a way to explain SPAWAR pitting on the other side of CR-39 near the cathode, some kind of shock wave from the explosion blowing material off the other side. Some skeptics are getting desperate An oxygen bubble contacting the cathode if it is releasing hydrogen would indeed burn it, but it would not explode, because the flame front could not spread through the bubble. If, however, the bubble is an explosive mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, you would get a pop. Not much. And such bubbles probably don't exist. Oxygen bubbles were formed at the anode as pure oxygen. And when the current is turned off, that formation will stop. What is truly astonishing, from the point of view of the scientific method and normal scientific process, is that absolutely preposterous theories of artifact to explain away the FPHE were allowed and circulated, but no paper was ever published that actually demonstrated artifact, as to the heat. A great deal of attention was focused on the famous neutron error of Pons and Fleischmann, even though that only reflected a small part of their finding, a mysterious part, in fact, because those neutrons showed that classical fusion could only explain -- even if the neutrons were real -- a small fraction of the heat found. The heat results were crucial, and fundamaental, and were never found to be artifact. The contrary, later neutral analysis showed little error, if any. This was, indeed, the Scientific Fiasco of the Century, as Huizenga called it. He didn't know the half of it. The big problem with cold fusion was the famous irreproducibility. That term was used broadly to imply that nobody could replicate. That was, of course, a major misrepresentation or error. The effect was replicated. What was difficult was replicating *exact results.* SRI P13/P14 demonstrated the problem, and that finding, itself, should have been considered conclusive on this point: the FPHE depends on cathode conditions that were poorly controlled. Because under the exact conditions, except for time sequence, the same electrolytic current excursion (stepped increase over a small base current that simply maintained loading levels) produced, the first two times, no excess heat over the hydrogen control, only (apparently) a small increase in noise, as would be expected from increased activity. The third time, a very clear signal. What I've noticed about cold fusion research in general is that excess weight was placed on positive results (i.e., the skeptics are right to claim publication bias! -- but don't understand the actual impact). Only the positive result in P13/P14 was dignified with a graph,
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 11:40 PM 4/10/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's crucial. I know of only one *partial* theory that actually makes quantitative predictions, beyond Preparata's expectation of helium, and it's not ready for publication. I definitely appreciate many of the points you raise. Â But I think you risk putting the cart before the horse, here. Â Some of the most important advances in physics were made through a conceptual leap of some kind, and only later were the quantitative implications worked out. Â It's obviously important to have good measurements to work with. Â But what is needed of a theory is something -- anything -- that can be tested. Â It seems like too strong a statement to say that quantitative predictions are crucial to a theory, at least in the early stages. The early stage could be called brainstorming, and in brainstorming we don't reject *anything*, we list it. However, in the next stage, we start to look at predictions. W-L theory easily leads to certain predictions. The deuterium - helium theory also leads to a prediction, that (if this is the only active pathway, an important qualification) helium and heat will be correlated at 23.8 MeV, within experimental error. This theory was, so far, successful. It's been confirmed, though the confirmation could certainly be tightened up. To compete with this theory -- which is incorrectly labelled the theory of DD fusion -- W-L theory must show better quantitative predictions. The D - He theory allows that small levels of transmutation and even hot fusion may occur, but without an elaboration of exact process, it cannot predict those transmutations. W-L theory could. So it appears from a naive analysis that the required transmutations (not to mention gammas) are missing. But Larsen is welcome to do the work to apply his own theory and make specific predictions. Or anyone else. That's what W-L theory needs at this point. Not glossy slide shows that gloss over the problems. Frankly, I don't think that it can be done, Larsen already knows that such work would come up with predictions that fail. He doesn't test and publish results from his gamma shield invention because they don't exist, but maybe he'll get it right next month. Read that patent. It does not say how to make the device, with anything like adequate detail. It's an invalid patent, my opinion. Not a lawyer. I should add that while my questions were raised in the context of a thread about Widom and Larsen's theory, I don't have the faintest opinion concerning the complex formulae that they include in their papers, to the extent that I'm in a position to judge these things. Â I appreciate their contribution they've made in drawing attention to the possibility of neutron flux, even if the outlines of what they propose is unlikely or even preposterous. Â I'm a hobbyist, trying to understand LENR in context of the evidence on the transmutations of heavy elements, and I have not seen any good explanation for this apart from neutron flux or contamination. No, it's simple. If deuterium fusion is taking place, that will liberate 23.8 MeV of energy per helium atom produced. If the mechanism results in 100% efficient conversion of this energy to lattice heat, that's it. Nothing else would happen. But it's quite likely that the mechanism isn't perfect. So there will be some slop. The Hagelstein limit of 20 KeV for charged particles is not a theoretical limit, i.e., it does not rule out the emission of charged particles with well over that limit. It is based on experimental evidence that such emission is only present at, at most, low levels. I.e., the main mechanism cannot involve the creation of charged particles with energy over the limit. An example. Suppose that BECs are formed, and that fusion takes place within the BECS, it's one of the plausible explanations on the table. Suppose that fusion within a BEC does transfer energy to the lattice efficiently. Okay, there we'd have a more complete theory. But what happens if the BEC, before decaying and releasing its contents, collides with a nucleus? It's neutral, and it's very small. It could easily fuse, just as could a neutron. And then you'd get normal fusion products. But mostly the BECs don't collide. They are formed with very low relative velocity to the lattice. Probably about zero. But stray stuff is floating around in there. A deuteron could, for example, collide with the BEC. Wouldn't happen very often. But enough to explain the side-products that are found. Look, there is a main reaction. It produces heat and helium at roughly the right amount, as expected from deuterium - helium. That's the place to start, if we want to understand cold fusion. That does not tell us mechanism. It just narrows the search a little. There are
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
I was under the impression the research done by Iwamura et al was among the most convincing in the LENR field! harry On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here. Ah, yes. This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf. A cautionary tale, indeed. Thanks for bringing this up. Do you have any additional references on this topic, even if you're not following it closely? Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Von:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:24 Mittwoch, 11.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation I'm not concerned with the official record, per se. However, well-reported research is not the same as unsubstantiated rumor. Proprietary information is fine, for business. It is practically worthless for science, unless shared. If Widom and Larsen were to report their findings, if they have any, in attempts to confirm their theory, I'd accept those findings as testimony, and the common-law principle is that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. But we don't have any of that. If you are concerned with real science, start to get your hands dirty. It will be necessary. This is an important point. Science itself has already its inner problems --the role of peers, publish-perish, in-group conformance, etc. Financing of research by industry, issuing patents by a cluster of (researcher-university-industry) makes the problem substantially more difficult. Then there are the secret-'saucegers', which establish their own companies, because they smell big money, or at least want to be compensated for their suffering. Eg Rossi basically seems to be a quack, who does a disservice to the community. Now Piantelli issued three patents and has his own company. Good for him. From a scientific point of view this definitely diminishes his credibility. Science, as we learned it, is about reducing the SUBJECT to some entity, which opens itself, and what ‘it’ does to intersubjective verification. Right? Not surrounding itself with secret sausages and patents and other crap. Ultimately only a small lot of good AND honest researchers remain. A handful. One has to identify them. Who are they? Considering the weaknesses, most of us have, this is difficult. Some of us even make errors. Which puts us into the hell of eternal ignorance. (not so with economists, it seems) Anyway, The capitalist conception of 'innovation' seems to be seriously challenged by something like LENR. It slows down inovation , even eventually stopping it altogether, eg if the innovation reduces profit. Remember: Capitalism is not about making a better world, but maximizing profit. Which seem to be two fundamentally differently animals. Call this a conspiracy, a collective self-enforcing delusion, an autoimmune societal-reaction, the parasite taking over the brain of its host. Does not matter. From an engineering perspective, these are self-inhibiting forces. This as a warning to the good people, who believe that LENR would lead to instant Karma. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqP3wT5lpa4 Anyway. Abd ul, you are a most valuable person in the field. Keep on enlightening us. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 01:34 AM 4/11/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here. Ah, yes. Â This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf. Â A cautionary tale, indeed. Â Thanks for bringing this up. Â Do you have any additional references on this topic, even if you're not following it closely? Well, this is the recent paper: http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf TOF-SIMS Investigation on Nuclear Transmutation from Sr to Mo with Deuterium Permeation through Multi-layered Pd/CaO A. Murase, N. Takahashi, S. Hibi, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi Page 34. (PDF page 43.) Disappointing result, eh? While the book is not absolutely closed, and if Murase et al have correctly analyzed their data, this is a true replication. It confirmed Iwamura's actual results (the peak at X-96), but demonstrated artifact with more careful measurement and analysis. Iwamura might come back with a response, but will need to address the specific possible artifact. We are seeing here one of the dangers of single-result experimentation. The most solid cold fusion work has been work that measured both excess heat and helium, and that showed correlation over many cells. So each experiment produces two results: anomalous heat and anomalous helium. There is little reason why an artifact with one would produce a matching artifact with the other! (yes, you can imagine that a hot cell might leak more, which ignores the fact that, first of all, one of the research groups (McKubre) was using isothermal calorimetry, so the cell was maintained at a constant temperature, whether there was anomalous power or not. And then another (Italian, ah, this memory is a bit spotty, Krivit tried to impeach this work and didn't have a clue about what they had actually done) did not exclude ambient helium, so they were only measuring elevation above ambient). And isn't it amazing that somehow the leakage would allow *just the right amount of helium*, out of a wide range of possibilities? No, heat/helium, once demonstrated and replicated, should have damn near ended the controversy. Miles was 1993. Just to show how long the silly charade went on. Miles did not demonstrate the mechanism, though Preparata got a few points for predicting the helium. But, from Miles, confirmed by more accurate measurements later, it's fusion. Get over it.) (If W-L theory were more plausible, I'd consider allowing that neutron induced transmutation, even if it takes deuterium and makes neutrons from it, and leaves behind helium, is not *exactly* a fusion mechanism. But it's not plausible, given the utter lack of experimental confirmation and the multiple miracles it requires.)
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 01:34 AM 4/11/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here. Ah, yes. Â This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf. Â A cautionary tale, indeed. Â Thanks for bringing this up. Â Do you have any additional references on this topic, even if you're not following it closely? Well, this is the recent paper: http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf TOF-SIMS Investigation on Nuclear Transmutation from Sr to Mo with Deuterium Permeation through Multi-layered Pd/CaO A. Murase, N. Takahashi, S. Hibi, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi Page 34. (PDF page 43.) Disappointing result, eh? While the book is not absolutely closed, and if Murase et al have correctly analyzed their data, this is a true replication. It confirmed Iwamura's actual results (the peak at X-96), but demonstrated artifact with more careful measurement and analysis. It is not an exact replication since they used a different implantation method. Harry Iwamura might come back with a response, but will need to address the specific possible artifact. We are seeing here one of the dangers of single-result experimentation. The most solid cold fusion work has been work that measured both excess heat and helium, and that showed correlation over many cells. So each experiment produces two results: anomalous heat and anomalous helium. There is little reason why an artifact with one would produce a matching artifact with the other! (yes, you can imagine that a hot cell might leak more, which ignores the fact that, first of all, one of the research groups (McKubre) was using isothermal calorimetry, so the cell was maintained at a constant temperature, whether there was anomalous power or not. And then another (Italian, ah, this memory is a bit spotty, Krivit tried to impeach this work and didn't have a clue about what they had actually done) did not exclude ambient helium, so they were only measuring elevation above ambient). And isn't it amazing that somehow the leakage would allow *just the right amount of helium*, out of a wide range of possibilities? No, heat/helium, once demonstrated and replicated, should have damn near ended the controversy. Miles was 1993. Just to show how long the silly charade went on. Miles did not demonstrate the mechanism, though Preparata got a few points for predicting the helium. But, from Miles, confirmed by more accurate measurements later, it's fusion. Get over it.) (If W-L theory were more plausible, I'd consider allowing that neutron induced transmutation, even if it takes deuterium and makes neutrons from it, and leaves behind helium, is not *exactly* a fusion mechanism. But it's not plausible, given the utter lack of experimental confirmation and the multiple miracles it requires.)
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 07:58 PM 4/11/2012, Harry Veeder wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 01:34 AM 4/11/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here. Ah, yes. Â This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf. Â A cautionary tale, indeed. Â Thanks for bringing this up. Â Do you have any additional references on this topic, even if you're not following it closely? Well, this is the recent paper: http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf TOF-SIMS Investigation on Nuclear Transmutation from Sr to Mo with Deuterium Permeation through Multi-layered Pd/CaO A. Murase, N. Takahashi, S. Hibi, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi Page 34. (PDF page 43.) Disappointing result, eh? While the book is not absolutely closed, and if Murase et al have correctly analyzed their data, this is a true replication. It confirmed Iwamura's actual results (the peak at X-96), but demonstrated artifact with more careful measurement and analysis. It is not an exact replication since they used a different implantation method. Sure. However, the ion they found could easily have been the ion identified by Iwamura. While Iwamura's expectations may not be decisive, I'm guessing that Iwamura thought their method would work. It would be silly to attempt a replication with a variation that the original experimenter thought would *not* work. In any case, I wrote that the book wasn't closed. The fundamental point here was that the identification of transmuted elements can be quite tricky, when methods of analysis are being used that are so sensitive that they can find almost any element almost anywhere. *Quantity* becomes crucial.
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
There are many problems with this paper. The most glaring error is that they heated their sample to 1000C for 10 minutes before measuring. They do this to remove sulphur, which should not be present under tightly controlled conditions (incidentally they claim to explain the presence of sulphur in reference 11, which is not included in the references section)! It is very probable that massive material changes would occur under high temperature treatment, like the diffusion of CaO into the upper Pd film. The observation of natural Mo isotopic ratios BEFORE D2 gas permeation and the presence of sulphur also indicates that their fabrication process was poorly controlled. The cited Iwamura paper tracks the growth of the Mo peak by XPS AND SIMS through repeated cycles of D2 permeation and reports a zero Mo peak before D2 Permeation by XPS. The paper in question shows a huge CaO peak before D2 gas permeation which is not present in the Iwamura samples before gas permeation. Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:58:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 01:34 AM 4/11/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here. Ah, yes. Â This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf. Â A cautionary tale, indeed. Â Thanks for bringing this up. Â Do you have any additional references on this topic, even if you're not following it closely? Well, this is the recent paper: http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf TOF-SIMS Investigation on Nuclear Transmutation from Sr to Mo with Deuterium Permeation through Multi-layered Pd/CaO A. Murase, N. Takahashi, S. Hibi, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro and J. Kasagi Page 34. (PDF page 43.) Disappointing result, eh? While the book is not absolutely closed, and if Murase et al have correctly analyzed their data, this is a true replication. It confirmed Iwamura's actual results (the peak at X-96), but demonstrated artifact with more careful measurement and analysis. It is not an exact replication since they used a different implantation method. Harry Iwamura might come back with a response, but will need to address the specific possible artifact. We are seeing here one of the dangers of single-result experimentation. The most solid cold fusion work has been work that measured both excess heat and helium, and that showed correlation over many cells. So each experiment produces two results: anomalous heat and anomalous helium. There is little reason why an artifact with one would produce a matching artifact with the other! (yes, you can imagine that a hot cell might leak more, which ignores the fact that, first of all, one of the research groups (McKubre) was using isothermal calorimetry, so the cell was maintained at a constant temperature, whether there was anomalous power or not. And then another (Italian, ah, this memory is a bit spotty, Krivit tried to impeach this work and didn't have a clue about what they had actually done) did not exclude ambient helium, so they were only measuring elevation above ambient). And isn't it amazing that somehow the leakage would allow *just the right amount of helium*, out of a wide range of possibilities? No, heat/helium, once demonstrated and replicated, should have damn near ended the controversy. Miles was 1993. Just to show how long the silly charade went on. Miles did not demonstrate the mechanism, though Preparata got a few points for predicting the helium. But, from Miles, confirmed by more accurate measurements later, it's fusion. Get over it.) (If W-L theory were more plausible, I'd consider allowing that neutron induced transmutation, even if it takes deuterium and makes neutrons from it, and leaves behind helium, is not *exactly* a fusion mechanism. But it's not plausible, given the utter lack of experimental confirmation and the multiple miracles it requires.)
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 10:09 PM 4/11/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote: There are many problems with this paper. The most glaring error is that they heated their sample to 1000C for 10 minutes before measuring. They do this to remove sulphur, which should not be present under tightly controlled conditions (incidentally they claim to explain the presence of sulphur in reference 11, which is not included in the references section)! It is very probable that massive material changes would occur under high temperature treatment, like the diffusion of CaO into the upper Pd film. The observation of natural Mo isotopic ratios BEFORE D2 gas permeation and the presence of sulphur also indicates that their fabrication process was poorly controlled. The cited Iwamura paper tracks the growth of the Mo peak by XPS AND SIMS through repeated cycles of D2 permeation and reports a zero Mo peak before D2 Permeation by XPS. The paper in question shows a huge CaO peak before D2 gas permeation which is not present in the Iwamura samples before gas permeation. My, that's ... assertive. Confident. Those were not errors, this is an experimental paper and they reported what they did. They did not claim that this was an exact replication. However, this paper has implications that cannot be ignored. They found what easily could have been intepreted as an isotopically pure Mo peak after deuterium permeation. If they had not carefully pursued a certain alternative, this paper would have been considered an Iwamure replication. But they did pursue that, and they reported their conclusion. It wasn't Mo, it was Ca2O+. Which is certainly likely to be present, since these experiments use calcium oxide layer separating layers of palladium. I'm going to repeat this. If they had simply reported that peak, this paper would have been considered a confirmation of Iwamura's results. However, it wasn't. Now, we can easily claim that they did not manage to create the Iwamura effect. Fair enough. However, they have raised a spectre that isn't just going to lie back down in the grave. CaO2+, which could be expected to be somewhat present in Iwamura's work, imitates Mo-96 quite closely. So, the obvious question, did Iwamura take sufficient care to rule out that he was observing Mo-96 instead of CaO2+? Now, these are the reported replications of Iwamura: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Higashiyamreplicatio.pdf reports Praseodymium. (Another Iwamura report). http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAsearchforn.pdf found Mo in 8/14 runs, considered the identification Not definite. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFthermaland.pdf is not at all a replication. They found anomalous Mo in an electrochemical cell, that's all. Kidwell at the NRL apparently attempted to replicate Iwamura, and did not succeed. There was speculation about Praseodymium contamination. The Iwamura publication regarding possible transmutation of Sr to Mo was in 2002. That's ten years. There is no clear confirmation as far as I know, in spite of some attempts. The most important was Kitamura, who considered it not definite, and so this new paper is important, as an attempt to replicate, to become more clear about what was being observed, specifically with Sr and Mo. This paper, by the way, is a clear response to the skeptical chorus that claims that the cold fusion community uncritically accepts every report.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Some point agains WL by AUL Lomax are ok, but they also are against DD fusion. gamma are expected in both cases. WL give a strange solution, but DD give none... especially if you take into account Ni+H, W+D,... and also the strange LENR that WL have gathered (ligtnings, rocks breaking, wires explosion, coke factory nitrogen anomaly, japanese arcing in oil, )... So there should be a different mechanism for Ni+H... He4 as explains give no hint on the precise reaction, and DD or WL are solutions. the fact that WL does not give unique answer to the 31Mev average energy, is a reason to keep open to alternatives. It is clear that WL cycles are very various, and their might even be some no cycle, or soup cooking... Larsen in his slide does not criticize Mac Kubre experiment, on the opposite, he support that his results are better than what he says himself. He seems more to criticize the Error margin that seems to match just too fine the DD theory. the lack of detected neutrons could work with DD-He4, but this branch (probability 1/137 compared to T+n al) is strange... even more than heavy electrons... good reason to have no strong opinion on any of the two theories. globally it seems that something is missing in each theoretical approach. we should stay openmind. the neutrons, and weak interaction seems an interesting direction... WL theory have weaknesses. Heavy electrons, are know phenomenons, but in that context it is hard to swallow naively... Naively isotropic screening of gamma seems strange, but maybe is ther something we miss, or that even the theorist missed. maybe is there a similar theory, waiting to be found... more classic DD fusion also have problems, but could be accepted when we discover some new facts, like done for WL with the heavy electron idea. the branch ratio, the Ni+H success raise problems... what we know from the experiments : - reaction Pd+D happens, but also less Pd+H, strong Ni+H, W+D... - clear energy production, with nuclear source (or at least more than chemical) - nearly no neutrons or ultra slow neutrons - nearly no gamma at level coherent with power - transmutation of heavy nuclei, letting hypothesis of nucleon absorption by heavy nucleus - He4 correlated to power, coherent with DD or WL phenomenons this let room for many solutions, and WL is imperfectly filing some holes. DD impertect too. 2012/4/10 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: W-L theory allows for a farrago of proposed reactions, so one can pick and choose for a large and complex field, to find a reaction that might explain a particular result. And that the required reaction series might be way-silly-improbable is ignored. Essentially, there will be, if W-L theory of neutron formation is correct, there will be N neutrons being formed. It is proposed that these have a very high absorption rate, so N transmutations will be caused. But this is N/T, where T is the total number of possible targets. (Roughly.) A transmuted element becomes just another target, and would presumably be exposed to the same neutron flux. The probability of a second reaction in the cycle would be the square of N/T. That would be, for all intents and purposes, close to zero. Can you further explain this calculation? Are you assuming a low flux, where N/T 1? You're also thinking that T is large and includes the Palladium atoms in the lattice? The intermediate product would be left. If neutrons are being created in significant numbers, we would expect to see specific results that are not observed, and gammas are only one aspect of this. I think you mentioned a great deal of heat as being another missing observable in addition to gamma radiation. Just to make sure I understand your position -- you're relying on branching ratios and reactions that are known from previous experience with fusion? I have no reason to doubt this approach, I'm just trying to understand. What are the other missing observables in addition to heat and gamma rays? Looking through some of the other slides, what Larsen is doing is searching through experimental records, finding anomalies that W-L theory *might* explain. There is an absence of quantitative analysis. I think Jed had a nice thread about the merits of qualitative analysis not too long ago, but point taken. There is an absence of clear experimental prediction. A good indicator of wishy-washy thinking. This is pure ad-hoc speculation, and all it can do, scientifically, is to suggest avenues for exploration. Arriving at new avenues for exploration doesn't seem all that bad a result, but we should strive for better. Just to make sure I understand your position -- you don't like neutron flux because you don't find sufficient evidence for it and you find strong evidence against it. For there to be sufficient flux to have a carbon cycle and so on would entail
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 12:08 AM 4/10/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:  W-L theory allows for a farrago of proposed reactions, so one can pick and choose for a large and complex field, to find a reaction that might explain a particular result. And that the required reaction series might be way-silly-improbable is ignored. Essentially, there will be, if W-L theory of neutron formation is correct, there will be N neutrons being formed. It is proposed that these have a very high absorption rate, so N transmutations will be caused. But this is N/T, where T is the total number of possible targets. (Roughly.) A transmuted element becomes just another target, and would presumably be exposed to the same neutron flux. The probability of a second reaction in the cycle would be the square of N/T.  That would be, for all intents and purposes, close to zero. Can you further explain this calculation?  Are you assuming a low flux, where N/T 1?  You're also thinking that T is large and includes the Palladium atoms in the lattice? Yes, N/T 1. If not so, then we'd be seeing far stronger evidence of reactions: transmutation products, heat, and (if not for the magic heavy electron patches) radiation.  The intermediate product would be left.  If neutrons are being created in significant numbers, we would expect to see specific results that are not observed, and gammas are only one aspect of this. I think you mentioned a great deal of heat as being another missing observable in addition to gamma radiation.  Just to make sure I understand your position -- you're relying on branching ratios and reactions that are known from previous experience with fusion? No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? Heat is not missing, except when we look at what would be required to generate the observed levels of helium following the W-L pathways. The third missing observable is the levels of transmuted elements that would be present as intermediate products, or as end products if the helium is produced by alpha emission. (Which then leaves another problem, hot alphas, which would create other observable effects.)  I have no reason to doubt this approach, I'm just trying to understand.  What are the other missing observables in addition to heat and gamma rays?  Looking through some of the other slides, what Larsen is doing is searching through experimental records, finding anomalies that W-L theory *might* explain. There is an absence of quantitative analysis. I think Jed had a nice thread about the merits of qualitative analysis not too long ago, but point taken. It's crucial. I know of only one *partial* theory that actually makes quantitative predictions, beyond Preparata's expectation of helium, and it's not ready for publication.  There is an absence of clear experimental prediction. A good indicator of wishy-washy thinking.  This is pure ad-hoc speculation, and all it can do, scientifically, is to suggest avenues for exploration. Arriving at new avenues for exploration doesn't seem all that bad a result, but we should strive for better. The problem is that it hasn't really been developed to the point where specific experiment is being suggested. Just to make sure I understand your position -- you don't like neutron flux because you don't find sufficient evidence for it and you find strong evidence against it. I don't find *any* evidence for it. W-L theory is a speculation. The basis of the speculation is this: if there is an unknown nuclear reaction, what is it? So people make things up. Most of these made-up theories are not considered plausible. However, we cannot rule any of them out completely, except where they make clear predictions. Speculation that surface conditions on metal hydrides might create a previously-unobserved effect, making neutrons, fine. But then what do neutrons do in that enviroment? Neutron behavior is well-known and predictable. And what we'd expect these neutrons to do just doesn't happen. The missing gammas are a big part of it. To explain them, a *new* previously unobserved effect is required: gamma suppression, and not just a partial shielding, complete shielding. Beyond that, where are the copious transmutation products (other than helium) required to explain the observed heat? And if helium is being produced by the cycle that W-L proposes, where are all the required intermediate products? This is what I understand: W-L theory proposes that neutrons are formed within a patch. The neutrons have a short path, because of their very low momentum. They all are absorbed. The elemental composition of the patch, as to the most common elements, can be known. The patch cannot be very small, or gammas would escape from neutrons travelling to the edge or beyond. Given a composition, the transmutation
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 03:42 AM 4/10/2012, Alain Sepeda wrote: Some point agains WL by AUL Lomax are ok, but they also are against DD fusion. Depends. What is DD fusion? There is a known set of reactions which can be called DD fusion. That is not what is happening in the FPHE. Obviously. The Storms review (2010) does not claim DD fusion, rather he writes about the fusion of deuterons. He does not specify the number involved, and one of the theories he cites is Takahashi's 4D BEC collapse fusion theory. Hence I typically write about deuterium fusion, without specifying the mechanism. If deuterium is being converted to helium, with no other major products, the heat generated will be 23.8 MeV/He-4. If this is through 4D fusion to Be-8, no gammas are expected, and there is no rate issue, because the 4D collapse is a single BEC formation and collapse. The intermediate product is formed within a BEC, and we don't really know, as far as I can tell, how this would behave. But Be-8 is highly unstable, I think the half-life under normal circumstances is a femtosecond, and it would decay to two alpha particles. Plus, of course, the four electrons. gamma are expected in both cases. They are expected with ordinary d-d fusion to He-4, which is a very rare branch. Nobody is proposing that kind of d-d fusion. WL give a strange solution, but DD give none... I'll say it again, nobody is proposing DD. especially if you take into account Ni+H, W+D,... and also the strange LENR that WL have gathered (ligtnings, rocks breaking, wires explosion, coke factory nitrogen anomaly, japanese arcing in oil, )... So there should be a different mechanism for Ni+H... Obviously. No matter what, in fact, unless Widom and Larsen or someone else can explain, and test, a common mechanism. He4 as explains give no hint on the precise reaction, and DD or WL are solutions. Sure. Quite the same. Solutions that don't match the experimental evidence, either one. the fact that WL does not give unique answer to the 31Mev average energy, is a reason to keep open to alternatives. It is clear that WL cycles are very various, and their might even be some no cycle, or soup cooking... There is no evidence for *any* of these transmutations. It's all made up. I.e., W-L say that X - Y could happen. Fine. If you get these neutrons, that could happen. Now take that idea and make some specific predictions where the results can be observed. That has not been done, as far as anything published. What seems obvious to informed observers is that W-L theory makes some obvious predictions that are contradicted by the evidence. If that's incorrect, where is the analysis by W-L that it's incorrect? Essentially, they are stonewalling. Larsen in his slide does not criticize Mac Kubre experiment, on the opposite, he support that his results are better than what he says himself. He seems more to criticize the Error margin that seems to match just too fine the DD theory. There is no DD theory. There is an obvious deuterium fusion theory, which need not involve d-d fusion. Or there might be some form of d-d fusion that guides the fusion to only the helium result, with phonon transfer of energy to the lattice. Maybe. But it doesn't matter. We don't have the mechanism, and Widom and Larsen don't take us closer to having it; the theory, indeed, creates new mysteries. One aspect of it, essential to any continued consideration of possible neutron formation, would be verifying the gamma absorption. That's completely missing. We have no reports of any experiments to find it. I'll repeat: Larsen was asked by Garwin about this and declined to comment, claiming that the information was proprietary. Well, they now have a patent on a gamma shield. So ... where is the evidence? A patent is invalid if it does not provide adequate information to make a working device. I suspect they have an invalid patent the lack of detected neutrons could work with DD-He4, but this branch (probability 1/137 compared to T+n al) is strange... even more than heavy electrons... good reason to have no strong opinion on any of the two theories. Two bogus theories, you are shuffling them around and comparing them. If you want to look at 4D - 2 He-4, that's more plausible, but still remains incomplete and unproven. We *know* what will happen if there are loose slow neutrons on the surface of an FPHE cathode, and that doesn't happen, the evidence is strong. We don't know what will happen if a BEC forms from two deuterium molecules and collapses to fuse to Be-8. This is important: if the precursor physical configuration, with two deuterium molecules in a certain arrangement that might be possible, forms a BEC and collapses, it *will* fuse, 100%. That's what Takahashi showed, though I'd be far happier if his study were independently confirmed. That was just a test configuration, and he didn't study how far the material could
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 05:16 PM 4/9/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Interpretations of work can involve theory. McKubre is an electrochemist, not a nuclear physicist. While his opinions about theory may not exactly be irrelevant, neither should we expect them to be authoritative . . . As far as I know, McKubre feels that Hagelstein's theories are the most helpful in the field. I have never heard or read anything from him about the W-L theory. Having met Peter and having heard him speak a number of times, I agree. Peter is quite cautious, and is proceeding step-by-step through what it is necessary to understand to understand cold fusion. He became quite interested in the possible formation of D2 in the lattice, which could form in vacancies. Indeed, it appears, *would* form in vacancies. Some CF theories suggest the presence of D2 in confinement. I believe he is hoping to confirm Brillouin's calorimetry. That would not necessarily give credibility to their theory. It might, if -- for example -- they can control the reaction well, and their method of control is predicted by the theory. Yup. When a theory makes a successful prediction, particularly something not expected, it gets a right to a higher notch in the process of acceptance. However, what is truly important is that process of prediction/experimental design/confirmation or falsification. A theory may suggest a new experiment which has positive results. That doesn't prove that the theory is true. But it takes us closer to such a conclusion. If results are *quantitatively predicted*, with accuracy, the theory becomes the default understanding. It might still be incomplete. Pons and Fleischmann, in 1989, falsified standard LENR=zero expectations. It was reasonable, before the FPHE was confirmed, to be quite skeptical. Cold fusion theories have not been useful or predictive so far. Two exceptions that I know of. 1. Preparata predicted helium. Miles checked and found that helium was being produced, correlated with the heat. That was a major milestone in cold fusion history, and still has received inadequate attention, especially given that Miles has been confirmed. That can only partially be blamed on stubborn pseudoskepticism. As a community with interest in cold fusion, we also need to take responsibility for this. 2. Hagelstein predicted resonances (generating increased heat) at 8 and 15 THz. Letts confirmed it, using dual laser stimulation with beat frequencies from 3 - 22 THz, and an additional unexpected resonance was found below 22 THz, which may have been due to hydrogen impurities. What's the importance of this? After all, dual laser stimulation isn't apparently necessary for cold fusion to happen! The Hagelstein-Letts experiment, published in 2008, takes what might be called subcritical PdD, it apparently has no heat without both laser stimulation and a magnetic field, and turns it on. The cathode is not a normal FPHE cathode. It is a piece of carefully prepared palladium foil, a standard Letts cathode, to which has been added a bit of gold plating, after the foil has been loaded with deuterium. (The gold may help reduce deuterium loss, but it is apparently necessary for laser stimulation, the gold particles on the surface absorb the laser light, and, with dual lasers, are the non-linear mixer necessary to produce the beat frequency.) This is a heads-up, for those reading. The Letts-Hagelstein experiment may not directly represent a practical approach to cold fusion, but it gives us a handle on the reaction under the specific conditions. It may be possible to further explore heat/helium, for example, with this approach. It may be possible to explore vacancy theory, or other theories. If the effect is reliable, as it seems it is, it becomes possible to vary specific conditions and see quantitative changes. For example, to get results from dual laser stimulation, a magnetic field appears necessary. What is the *quantitative* relationship of magnetic field to heat, under dual laser stimulation at resonance? What level of field is necessary? Indeed, with dual-laser stimulation, we don't know how the effect varies with laser intensity. 1 mW lasers seem to produce the effect. It might not take much! How much natural radiation is present at the resonant frequencies? A host of experimental questions are raised, that will have general implications. That's exciting, that there is now beginning experimental work to more carefully and quantitatively explore what McKubre called the parameter space, at that ACS Conference where Krivit made such an ass of himself. It's about time.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. A single cause should show the same type of behavior. What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this “life after death” behavior? On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III) review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce - using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other bursty) phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/ Axil Axil wrote: I am interested in the life after death phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi yes, the Brillouin Energy system no. A single cause should show the same type of behavior. What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this life after death behavior? On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III) review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce - using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. I do not think life after death is significant. I think the causes are prosaic. With bulk material, it is caused by highly loaded Pd samples that gradually degas. With powder, it is the only kind of cold fusion you can have. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. The difference is probably the size of the particles and the amount they can absorb. There is no particular advantage to life after death. It is like a dirty ICE engine that keeps running for a moment after you cut the ignition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Defkalion on their forum gave a similar explanation, talking about the heat caused by H2 breaking before loading and, recombination after degasing... 2012/4/10 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. I do not think life after death is significant. I think the causes are prosaic. With bulk material, it is caused by highly loaded Pd samples that gradually degas. With powder, it is the only kind of cold fusion you can have. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. The difference is probably the size of the particles and the amount they can absorb. There is no particular advantage to life after death. It is like a dirty ICE engine that keeps running for a moment after you cut the ignition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
this is an essential point. Good-mannered versus bad-mannered LENR. I keep repeating myself. I'm not not a an nuclear physicist, but do not need to be one. This is a question of reasoning There are several theories for the good-mannered category. Say Godes and Piantelli and W-L. Piantelli is a current case: ... Piantelli has a theory that doesn’t require exotic reactions, but can be explained using known physics and mathematics. A semi-complete theory has been provided to the University of Siena and will be published shortly. The complete theory will probably be disclosed after the first commercial units have been sold. ... http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/09/italian-lenr-workshop-april-10-14/ Fine. Problem is, You have a set of evidence, and fit YOUR theory to YOUR evidence. It is the same with Godes. But what is accepted evidence? Are You free to choose, what evidence is, what sloppy science, what delusion, what fraud? Well. Seems, even scientists need some commonsense to decide upon such senible questions. As someone coming from the engineering side, I call theory-building on a singular set of evidence OVERFITTING, which means, that such a normally theory explains ONES OWN set of evidence, but not the SPECTRUM of evidence, which includes, in the case of LENR, up to now, higher order transmutations, which are NOT included in any theory of Good-mannered LENR, which concentrates on He-X-production, and stops there. The question of higher order transmutations is mainly ignored. The LENR-crowd deplores the stubborn orthodoxy, on the other hand the 'good-mannered-LENR'-crowd ignores 'extremists' like LeClair and other evidence of 'bad-mannered LENR'.. Why? Because no remotely acceptable theory exists for the 'bad' case-- (at least to my knowledge) Therefore: what must not exist, does not exist. Guenter Von: pagnu...@htdconnect.com pagnu...@htdconnect.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:33 Dienstag, 10.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other bursty) phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/ Axil Axil wrote: I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. A single cause should show the same type of behavior. What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this “life after death” behavior? On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III) review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce - using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantelli’s cloud chamber. Could this mean that Piantelli’s reaction is different from the neutron centric Brillouin Energy system’s reaction? On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other bursty) phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/ Axil Axil wrote: I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. A single cause should show the same type of behavior. What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this “life after death” behavior? On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III) review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce - using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
'life-after-death' is probably not an apt term. to me it is more of a post-mortem analysis, ie analyzing the reactant after the process has stopped. Higher order transmutations or not. As to the basics of the effect, it becomes increaingly clera to me, that a) this is a grid-effect b) that irregular/'dirty' grids perform better. If one considers Piantelli as someone worth listening to-- he says: ---No catalyst is necessary. The trick is in the preparation of the nickel.--- This makes the effect all the more theoretically difficult/intractable. But Pinatelly says, he has a theory. But I probably will not believe it. And this is independent of whether his reactor works or not. In the best case Pinatelli proves his own pudding, and not all sorts of puddings out there, so to say. I think Miley got it best up to now, but the classical Coulomb-barrier still holds, even in his theory. So there must be something else, which is more fundamental. Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:00 Dienstag, 10.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. I do not think life after death is significant. I think the causes are prosaic. With bulk material, it is caused by highly loaded Pd samples that gradually degas. With powder, it is the only kind of cold fusion you can have. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. The difference is probably the size of the particles and the amount they can absorb. There is no particular advantage to life after death. It is like a dirty ICE engine that keeps running for a moment after you cut the ignition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 01:01 PM 4/10/2012, Axil Axil wrote: I am interested in the life after death phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi yes, the Brillouin Energy system no. A single cause should show the same type of behavior. Not necessarily. A single cause may exist in various states of setup. First of all, what is heat after death? The term was developed to name the phenomenon sometimes observed, that a Fleischmann-Pons cell, which is maintained at high loading by continuous electrolysis, shows anomalous heat -- even increasing -- *after* the electrolysis current is shut off -- or the cell has boiled dry, or has used up its heavy water, in some cases, so that the current stops. HAD tells us little about the mechanism for generating excess power, only that it obviously doesn't depend on continued electrolysis, per se. This appears to contradict the finding that XP directly varies with current density, but that finding may be indirect, i.e., based on a variation with deuterium loading or flux. However, deuterium loading will decline as the deuterium escapes. The process of escape, the resulting deuterium flux, could explain the process as well. That is, the long-term general suspicion has been that triggering the reaction is enhanced by movement of the deuterium. In or out! HAD doesn't mean much with gas-loading work, unless a gas-loaded cell is being heated to be elevated in temperature. (That would be the case with Rossi, but certainly not with all gas-loaded results.) What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this life after death behavior? I haven't been able to figure out what they say about Heat *before* death. They are proposing a mechanism not previously seen, and without any evidence for the mechanism itself. It's purely Well, if Magic could happen, then the mystery of cold fusion is explained. Fine. If Magic can happen. Can it? I don't see specific predictions in the W-L papers, only masses of speculations and possibilities (or impossibilities!) asserted as if they were fact. I don't see any considerations of rate, and rate is crucial. Fusion can happen at room temperature, you know. The only problem is *rate*! Way silly low. By ignoring rate considerations, then, once they get us to accept that neutrons can form, they then can assert a whole series of reactions, and you don't notice the rate problem. Even so, they need to invent a perfect gamma shield. They actually patented it, I just read the patent. http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/us-patent-7893414-b2 There is no coverage of any experimental evidence that gamma shielding actually occurs, no described demonstration or operating parameters or characteristics. Just assertion without evidence. That patent is full of utterly irrelevant information. The preferred embodiments, as far as I can tell, do not describe how to build a working model. They seem to assume that metal hydrides will just do it. Interestingly, they predict reaction enhancement by laser stimulation at resonant frequencies. But they don't specify the frequencies. That way, they can then claim that any stimulation effect was predicted by them. I see no sign that they actually built the device they have patented. Amazing, isn't it, that CF patents have generally been banned, but this patent was allowed. Did CF patents depend on a particular theory of operation? Very strange.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On 4/10/2012 4:39 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Defkalion on their forum gave a similar explanation, talking about the heat caused by H2 breaking before loading and, recombination after degasing... It can't possibly be recombination! Both the power and energy far exceeds that in many cases, as Fleischmann pointed out. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf In heat after death, the deuterium gradually comes to the surface. It is presented to the surface, as electrochemists say. This surface is undergoing cold fusion because it happens to be ideal nuclearactive material. The deuterons leaking out join into the reaction, just as deuterons being pushed in during electrolysis does. I am assuming the reaction occurs at surface layers, rather than in the bulk. Fleischmann thinks it happens in the bulk. He used to, anyway. Most people disagree. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
First, I have to say I am not sure Piantelli's observations are real. Maybe he had faulty instruments. But, if he did see protons, and they were from decaying neutrons (sequestered in some decay-attenuating niche), then, he should have seen electrons (and probably some X-rays), I think. But, recall, in Otto Reifenschweiller's experiments - -- Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf -- Cold Fusion and Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf -- About the possibility of decreased radioactivity of heavy nuclei http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=512913 - he saw a suppression of both electron beta-particle and x-ray emissions. In one of his papers (I'm not sure if it's in the above), he claims that reduction is strongest when the titanium nano-crystals form colloidal chains - which, I believe, can promote plasmon propagation. Maybe high momentum plasma electrons can stop beta-particles, but not massive protons. Guenter points out that there's a lot of intramural squabbling, and that perhaps several phenomena coexist. Maybe none exist. or - maybe we are watching the Indian Blind men and an elephant story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant Axil Axil wrote: If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantellis cloud chamber. Could this mean that Piantellis reaction is different from the neutron centric Brillouin Energy systems reaction? On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other bursty) phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/ Axil Axil wrote: I am interested in the life after death phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi yes, the Brillouin Energy system no. A single cause should show the same type of behavior. What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this life after death behavior? On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III) review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce - using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
pagnucco, some philosophical musings: The blind man-metaphor seems about right. LENR raised a lot of questions for me. Even the blasphemical question of the identity of atoms, which is a hypothesis, based on statistical measures. No individual atom has ever been weighed precisely. It is a statistical average. Nothing more. The precision of physical constants invariably stems from ensemble -means PLUS a mathematical construct of interrelationships, which maybe precise to the n-th degree, but only as a statistical mean. Engineers naturally talk about FITs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate ), which seems to be completely alien to physicists, who are mired in mathematical rigidity. Maybe they need a bit of help? Mathematically inclined physicists ofcourse deny that idea of variability in their fundamentals outright and violently. The law of identity binds them together with the mathematicians. Common engineering experience says, that identity is only an approximation. Only Whitehead, the eminent logician, dared to challenge that from the other side. Like the LENR crowd he has been silenced, never refuted. As an engineer I am more tolerant. Maybe matter is more dirt-like, and not a mathematically precise entity. Heisenberg maybe was somehow in the middle. The concept of Heisenberg uncertainty later on was transformed into Quantum-voodoo, which is not really convincing. But, as said, I am just a dumb engineer, hoping to be educated by the big-heads sometime, who seem to know it all. Pity is, some of them got insane. (Goedel) (No, I am not Rossi) Guenter Von: pagnu...@htdconnect.com pagnu...@htdconnect.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 0:07 Mittwoch, 11.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation First, I have to say I am not sure Piantelli's observations are real. Maybe he had faulty instruments. But, if he did see protons, and they were from decaying neutrons (sequestered in some decay-attenuating niche), then, he should have seen electrons (and probably some X-rays), I think. But, recall, in Otto Reifenschweiller's experiments - -- Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf -- Cold Fusion and Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf -- About the possibility of decreased radioactivity of heavy nuclei http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=512913 - he saw a suppression of both electron beta-particle and x-ray emissions. In one of his papers (I'm not sure if it's in the above), he claims that reduction is strongest when the titanium nano-crystals form colloidal chains - which, I believe, can promote plasmon propagation. Maybe high momentum plasma electrons can stop beta-particles, but not massive protons. Guenter points out that there's a lot of intramural squabbling, and that perhaps several phenomena coexist. Maybe none exist. or - maybe we are watching the Indian Blind men and an elephant story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant Axil Axil wrote: If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantelli’s cloud chamber. Could this mean that Piantelli’s reaction is different from the neutron centric Brillouin Energy system’s reaction? On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other bursty) phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/ Axil Axil wrote: I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. A single cause should show the same type of behavior. What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this “life after death” behavior? On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantelli’s cloud chamber. Could this mean that Piantelli’s reaction is different from the neutron centric Brillouin Energy system’s reaction? I was thinking about the cloud chamber -- I believe it was Piantelli's cloud chamber. The description I read said that there were all kinds of particles flying out of the active region. Is there a good description of what happened there? Has there been a systematic attempt to gather further evidence in this connection? I believe the system was a Pd/D system. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? Heat is not missing, except when we look at what would be required to generate the observed levels of helium following the W-L pathways. The third missing observable is the levels of transmuted elements that would be present as intermediate products, or as end products if the helium is produced by alpha emission. (Which then leaves another problem, hot alphas, which would create other observable effects.) I'm reminded of the cloud chamber anecdote -- I'm hoping some more details will turn up in this connection. It's crucial. I know of only one *partial* theory that actually makes quantitative predictions, beyond Preparata's expectation of helium, and it's not ready for publication. I definitely appreciate many of the points you raise. But I think you risk putting the cart before the horse, here. Some of the most important advances in physics were made through a conceptual leap of some kind, and only later were the quantitative implications worked out. It's obviously important to have good measurements to work with. But what is needed of a theory is something -- anything -- that can be tested. It seems like too strong a statement to say that quantitative predictions are crucial to a theory, at least in the early stages. I should add that while my questions were raised in the context of a thread about Widom and Larsen's theory, I don't have the faintest opinion concerning the complex formulae that they include in their papers, to the extent that I'm in a position to judge these things. I appreciate their contribution they've made in drawing attention to the possibility of neutron flux, even if the outlines of what they propose is unlikely or even preposterous. I'm a hobbyist, trying to understand LENR in context of the evidence on the transmutations of heavy elements, and I have not seen any good explanation for this apart from neutron flux or contamination. There are some problems associated with the identification of transmutation products, and until there is adequate confirmation of results like those of Iwamura, it's dangerous to base much on them. Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here. Perhaps -- but I think we have to err on the side of inclusivity of evidence or, as Guenter alluded to, risk selecting away important phenomena that any theory will need to explain. From a purely formal perspective, it is entirely possible that there is not one but several different reactions going on under the category of LENR. But this is certainly not a starting point I will depart from. The present mode of academic research, of excluding from consideration anything that has not been entered into the official record, is only suitable for legal courts and the obtaining of tenure. It's not the most efficient way of getting at the truth by any means, and as I become more and more familiar with academic research, I'm grateful not to feel bound by it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Could some of he missing energy by escaping by means of neutrinos? If a new unknown reaction is taking place, it might follow entirely unusual pathways. My two cents worth. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 12:40 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? Heat is not missing, except when we look at what would be required to generate the observed levels of helium following the W-L pathways. The third missing observable is the levels of transmuted elements that would be present as intermediate products, or as end products if the helium is produced by alpha emission. (Which then leaves another problem, hot alphas, which would create other observable effects.) I'm reminded of the cloud chamber anecdote -- I'm hoping some more details will turn up in this connection. It's crucial. I know of only one *partial* theory that actually makes quantitative predictions, beyond Preparata's expectation of helium, and it's not ready for publication. I definitely appreciate many of the points you raise. But I think you risk putting the cart before the horse, here. Some of the most important advances in physics were made through a conceptual leap of some kind, and only later were the quantitative implications worked out. It's obviously important to have good measurements to work with. But what is needed of a theory is something -- anything -- that can be tested. It seems like too strong a statement to say that quantitative predictions are crucial to a theory, at least in the early stages. I should add that while my questions were raised in the context of a thread about Widom and Larsen's theory, I don't have the faintest opinion concerning the complex formulae that they include in their papers, to the extent that I'm in a position to judge these things. I appreciate their contribution they've made in drawing attention to the possibility of neutron flux, even if the outlines of what they propose is unlikely or even preposterous. I'm a hobbyist, trying to understand LENR in context of the evidence on the transmutations of heavy elements, and I have not seen any good explanation for this apart from neutron flux or contamination. There are some problems associated with the identification of transmutation products, and until there is adequate confirmation of results like those of Iwamura, it's dangerous to base much on them. Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here. Perhaps -- but I think we have to err on the side of inclusivity of evidence or, as Guenter alluded to, risk selecting away important phenomena that any theory will need to explain. From a purely formal perspective, it is entirely possible that there is not one but several different reactions going on under the category of LENR. But this is certainly not a starting point I will depart from. The present mode of academic research, of excluding from consideration anything that has not been entered into the official record, is only suitable for legal courts and the obtaining of tenure. It's not the most efficient way of getting at the truth by any means, and as I become more and more familiar with academic research, I'm grateful not to feel bound by it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
just to quote Larsen in his cite: - He criticize the ide that He4 is trapped, and an ad hoc excuse - he claims that some transmutation cycle produce much more coherent energry by He4 than DD fusion you can fin their reasoning in http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewcarbon-seed-lenr-networkssept-3-2009 page 25+ with page 34 summarizing their interpretation of McKrubre results... they claim it works better than DD hypothesis+leak excuse. 2012/4/9 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 12:31 AM 4/8/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:34:24 -0500: Hi, [snip] Widom-Larsen theory completely fails to explain the actual experimental results of cold fusion experiments, particularly the PdD reactions of the Pons-Fleischmann Heat Effect. Not that I'm a fan of WL :), but: D + e- = 2 n Pd106 + 2 n = Ru104 + He4 + 11.9 MeV What experimental result does this explain? Pd106 + 2 n would become Pd108, which is stable. Granted 11.9 MeV isn't 23.8 MeV, but it is about half, and I'm not convinced that the He4/heat ratio has been measured all that accurately. The problem, Robin: the difficulty in measuring helium release is in capturing all the helium. The released energy is reasonably well measured through the calorimetry. It is suspected that, in general, about half the helium is trapped in the cathode. If the reaction is a surface reaction, and if helium is born with some energy (it could be below the 20 KeV Hagelstein limit), half the helium will have a trajectory inward to the cathode. The rest will come off with the evolving gas, and be measured. So the heat/helium numbers from experiment, unless adjusted according to some assumption like this, tend to be higher than the actual reaction Q, double or so. Not lower. I personally find it frustrating that more work on measuring Q, and improving accuracy, with more complete capture of the helium, hasn't been done. I've been suggesting that experiments be run with a platinum wire cathode, on which would be plated palladium. (This is done in some SPAWAR co-deposition experiments. I'm putting codeposition in quotes because these are apparently not actually codeposition, because they first plate out the palladium, then raise the voltage to start evolving deuterium. The experiments I know of with a platinum wire cathode were not designed to measure heat or helium, though.) In any case, once the experiment is done and XP measured, then the electrolysis would be reversed and the palladium dissolved, which should release all the helium. It needs to be a platinum base wire for the cathode or it would break up. Just my idea. Storms, however, estimates 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, and it's reasonable from the data. 12 MeV would not be. Furthermore, Pd104 + 2 n = Ru102 + He4 + 13.75 MeV and Pd102 + 2 n = Ru100 + He4 + 15 MeV If I'm correct, there is no evidence that dineutrons are even formed, but without the dineutrons, you would have two reactions necessary, and a serious rate problem. There is no evidence that dineutrons would be absorbed in toto, the dineutron is a transient phenomenon. W-L theory would predict a complex of transmutations, but none of them release as much energy as the transmutation of deuterium - helium. These transmutations would show a predictable relationship to the elemental mix in the close environment of the cathode surface. Palladium would, of course, be a common activation target, and if the targets decay by alpha emission, then we'd have hot alphas. I have seen no experimental evidence that such a mix of transmuations is actually found. Transmutations are certainly reported from FPHE experiments, but at very low levels compared with helium. The reactions described would all produce anomalous isotopes of Ruthenium. Hot alphas, i.e., energetic helium nuclei, above 20 KeV, break the Hagelstein limit, they would be observed. Charged particle radiation from FPHE experiments are at quite low levels, not the high levels that would be necessary if the helium is being produced by alpha emission. Pd-104 is stable, so why would Pd102 + 2 n not simply become Pd-104?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 01:30 AM 4/9/2012, Alain Sepeda wrote: just to quote Larsen in his cite: - He criticize the ide that He4 is trapped, and an ad hoc excuse - he claims that some transmutation cycle produce much more coherent energry by He4 than DD fusion you can fin their reasoning in http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewcarbon-seed-lenr-networkssept-3-2009http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewcarbon-seed-lenr-networkssept-3-2009 page 25+ with page 34 summarizing their interpretation of McKrubre results... they claim it works better than DD hypothesis+leak excuse. they claim. Once again, where is the experimental confirmation of *their* theories? However, let's look at this: p.24 asks questions. If you can ask a question about an experiment and assume there is no answer, have you discredited the experiment? There is some missing helium. Given the difficulties of capturing all the helium, the amount missing is pretty small! Further, the missing helium raises the yield per He-4, it does not lower it. After neglecting the most obvious residence of the missing helium, they then (p.26) give their own theory: other reactions which produce heat but not helium. (this is stated in a confusing way, in fact, but that's the basic point.) Bottom line, though, the McKubre experiments described provide no evidence for W-L theory. They merely indicate a need for further work to tighten up the search for helium. If, after doing so, a discrepancy remains, this again would not be evidence for W-L theory, it would merely be evidence for *something other than deuterium - helium heat. How much of something else would depend on the exact values found. p. 27 reviews the McKubre result, but then criticizes it on the basis of an alleged belief that cold D-D fusion was the only nuclear reaction that could possibly take place in their experiments. No, McKubre was pursuing helium evidence, which is the *only* solid evidence that *significant* nuclear reactions are taking place in CF experiments. McKubre is not nailed to a particular hypothesis of mechanism. Some mechanism involving deuterium - helium seems likely, though, by Occam's Razor. This is consistently stated by Krivit/Larsen as d-d fusion, when there are other possibilities. It is obvious that experimental evidence regarding other isotopic anomalies in CF cells would always be desirable, but what Larsen's explanation doesn't tell you is that one looks for helium with a mass spectrometer, or techniques, that can discriminate between the mass of D2+ and He-4+m and that mass spectrometer may not be useful at higher Z. Bottom line, Larsen is here simply finding some level of incompleteness in McKubre's work, and attempting to discredit the obvious conclusions from that work on this basis. He is not reporting evidence for his own theory. Larsen correctly reports that gas-phase cells are being compared with electrolytic cells, and that it is improper to assume that the location of reaction helium would be the same. However, it is one of the operating assumptions of CF research that the heat effect in palladium deuteride is being produced by the same mechanism. That is a useful assumption, to a degree. It also could easily be incorrect. There may be many mechanisms. Occam's Razor, however, suggests not starting there. One mystery is enough for today, tomorrow, if we haven't solved the one mystery, we might consider that there is more than one. However, cf the old story about the blind men examining an elephant, each reporting something different. There is no way for the blind men to tell, initially, if this is one object or many. Then they get to some meat, slide 30, According to W-L theory of LENRs, He-4 atoms should be produced on or very near the surface of of Pd. If that were true, given the He-4 solubility is very low, why would He-4 go deeply into the Pd metal when it is much easier for He atoms to simply enter D2 gas? There is an obvious answer, so he gives it, next page. He proposes that the He-4 is produced by decay of Be-8. This, in fact, is similar to Takahashi's theory. Larsen assumes a ground state decay, which is, in fact, one of the unresolved problems of Takahashi's theory. (Because the Be-8 would be formed with an excitation of almost 47.6 MeV, how is this energy dumped if not in the kinetic energy of decay products. The half-life of Be-8 is extremely short, would it have time to transfer the nuclear axcitation energy? Not known, really.) The ground state decay gives 46 KeV alphas, or so. Larsen shows a penetration depth of only a few microns, for these, as if this is enough to discredit the burial hypothesis. *However,* if the helium is born on the surface, with some kinetic energy, half of the alphas will have a trajectory that is toward the palladium bulk, and will implant. Low solubiliity of helium in palladium would
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Abd, First, thanks for putting in so much effort into your review. I think most of us find the reaction pathways bewildering complicated. I am perplexed, though, that you say that McKubre's experiments provide no evidence for W-L theory, since he is now a technical advisor for Brillouin Energy. Brillouin's video claims that (W-L theory) electron capture initiates a reaction chain that ends with alpha-particle production. Do you communicate with McKubre and have any update on his theory? - especially wrt Brillouin's LENR hypothesis. Thanks, Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: [...] Bottom line, though, the McKubre experiments described provide no evidence for W-L theory. They merely indicate a need for further work to tighten up the search for helium. If, after doing so, a discrepancy remains, this again would not be evidence for W-L theory, it would merely be evidence for *something other than deuterium - helium heat. How much of something else would depend on the exact values found. p. 27 reviews the McKubre result, but then criticizes it on the basis of an alleged belief that cold D-D fusion was the only nuclear reaction that could possibly take place in their experiments. No, McKubre was pursuing helium evidence, which is the *only* solid evidence that *significant* nuclear reactions are taking place in CF experiments. McKubre is not nailed to a particular hypothesis of mechanism. Some mechanism involving deuterium - helium seems likely, though, by Occam's Razor. This is consistently stated by Krivit/Larsen as d-d fusion, when there are other possibilities. [...]
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 12:25 PM 4/9/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Do you communicate with McKubre and have any update on his theory? - especially wrt Brillouin's LENR hypothesis. The idea that McKubre has a theory, or that this is, in some way, important, is Krivit propaganda. He is an experimentalist. He's done a lot of replication work, he's almost unique in the amount of this that he's done. You can trust his actual work, it's been excellent. I'm quite sure that it's not motivated by some desire to confirm a theory. Interpretations of work can involve theory. McKubre is an electrochemist, not a nuclear physicist. While his opinions about theory may not exactly be irrelevant, neither should we expect them to be authoritative, except where very well founded on his experimental knowledge, and his general knowledge of the field. In my view, the job of developing cold fusion theory will involve materials scientists and nuclear physicists, and that the latter bailed in 1989-1990 was a loss of opportunity for them. They now have another opportunity, as a community, but there is still quite a shortage of the necessary experimental data. That will be remedied.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 12:25 PM 4/9/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, First, thanks for putting in so much effort into your review. I think most of us find the reaction pathways bewildering complicated. I am perplexed, though, that you say that McKubre's experiments provide no evidence for W-L theory, since he is now a technical advisor for Brillouin Energy. Brillouin's video claims that (W-L theory) electron capture initiates a reaction chain that ends with alpha-particle production. I'm, in turn, perplexed by your perplexity. What does McKubre being a technical advisor for Brillouin Energy have to do with whether or not his experimental work (which Larsen attempts to shoot down) provides evidence for W-L theory.? McKubre is a consultant, hired to do this or that. I'd guess Brillouin is paying him. It increased their credibility, but, again, whether or not they have an operating reactor is not established by the fact of McKubre's being an advisor -- if that's true, I haven't heard it from him. Nor is the theory used to explain their results relevant. If they developed the device based on predictions of the theory, that could have some relevance. Did they? What predictions? Has this been published? Do you communicate with McKubre and have any update on his theory? - especially wrt Brillouin's LENR hypothesis. I do communicate with McKubre, on occasion, but one of the reasons I can communicate with McKubre is that I don't ask him questions unless I need to have an answer from him. I don't, not about this, not at this point. If I do, I'll ask. Note that my concern has been and remains, for the most part, PdD results. NiH is very possibly a different animal, and it may be, for example, that the products are different and that there is radiation from NiH. This is really very, very simple. Scientific theories are, as part of the scientific method, developed to predict experimental outcomes. A scientific theory is successful if it increases predictability over that state of knowledge -- or ignorance -- that precededs it. That does not mean that the theory is true. It merely means that it is useful. So, is W-L theory useful? How? Where has it shown *predictions* that could not otherwise have been anticipated? Post-hoc analysis of experimental data is interesting and can suggest hypothesis formation, but is not adequate, normally. There is a gray area. If there are complex experimental results, and a theory, upon analysis, can be shown as *accurately* predicting the results, it enters an intermediate state, a state where it may be entitled to some assumption of usefulness, but this should properly always be subject to verification (or falsification). I do not see any experimental reports where this was attempted. And it could easily be done, W-L theory does make possible some quantitative predictions. Where is that work? Missing. There is also no post-hoc analysis showing quantitative predictions, only some results that are then cited as confirmation of the theory *without* quantitative analysis. And that seem to make no sense as realizations of the theory when examined. I.e., that claim that the 31 MeV findings confirm W-L theory because a reaction can be postulated that was designed to fit 31 MeV, but there is no explanation even attempted as to why this particular reaction would so dominate. Rather, it's assumed that because the result was 31 MeV, the reaction must be the one picked. Out of a large family of reactions that could have been asserted. And that reaction requires multiple activations, which seem totally unlikely. So not only no experimental confirmation, there no post-hoc analysis to even establish W-L theory as reasonably possible. Instead there is a barrage of what seems to be irrelevant information, speculation about a carbon cycle, without the experimental observation to establish is. All woven together, effectively obscuriing the radical unlikelihood of what is being claimed, because the reasons that it would be unlikely are *ignored.* Without experimental confirmation of the elements of the theory, it's a house of cards. Given that confirmation *should be* easy, what's going on? If it's not easy, where are the reports of attempts and failures? Absent. It could be like Rossi. Larsen, asked about experimental confirmation of gamma screening, years ago, responded that this was proprietary information. Great. Might even be true. But ... sorry, we do not develop a community understanding of scientific fact based on secret information!
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Interpretations of work can involve theory. McKubre is an electrochemist, not a nuclear physicist. While his opinions about theory may not exactly be irrelevant, neither should we expect them to be authoritative . . . As far as I know, McKubre feels that Hagelstein's theories are the most helpful in the field. I have never heard or read anything from him about the W-L theory. I believe he is hoping to confirm Brillouin's calorimetry. That would not necessarily give credibility to their theory. It might, if -- for example -- they can control the reaction well, and their method of control is predicted by the theory. Cold fusion theories have not been useful or predictive so far. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Von: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 0:35 Dienstag, 10.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation In my view, the job of developing cold fusion theory will involve materials scientists and nuclear physicists, and that the latter bailed in 1989-1990 was a loss of opportunity for them. They now have another opportunity, as a community, but there is still quite a shortage of the necessary experimental data. Excellent assessment of the situation That will be remedied. --- How? When? My own attempts of triggering something like open-source LENR are definitely amateurish. I know that. As amateurish as premature attempts to commercialize the effect, I'm afraid. But if the scientific community is so fragmented and underfunded -talk about a billion over the course of say 5 years- this also is a political issue, ie the political will to spend such an amount of money. And here we are again. The political will to spend a billion can be lobbied away, by whatever force, may it be industry or a branch of science, lobbying for its own existence. Not-yet-existing science per definition has no lobby. It has to lobby itself into existence by hard evidence. Once you are there, very little further evidence is needed. The LENR crowd is not there yet. The scientific community, I'm afraid, is compromised by its own interests. No need for Popper here. See the hot-fusion crowd, quite a lot of those is in spitting-distance from my place. They are currently in deep trouble, because there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the ITER-design, i.e. dust particles in the vacuum, which cannot be avoided IN PRINCIPLE, and thus the vaccum breaks down. But the directorate wo'nt admit that, because it would mean that the existence of 10k scientists would be in jeopardy.. So this is also a social issue, not only one of scientific sincerity. Politicians on the other hand lack the expertise to decide, so the whole thing is self-blocking. - BAU. We do not even have to consider sinister forces like the energy-industry to block that. Science does this by its own. This is the sad state of affairs.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
consider this: Hagelstein -an intermediate figure at MIT- does a borderline experiment with a couple of students. He proves something, ie something akin to 'cold fusion'. The result looks convincing, but does not enter the MIT establishment, because they would loose funding in hot fusion, which they supported for quite some time. It could have been a strategic decision of the scientific establishment, to promote both hot-fusion AND cold fusion. But this is not what happened. They rode the hot-fusion train. This was an establishment-decision, simply because of the money-flow. Now MIT is confronted, that the hot-fusion budget was seriously cut. What would the MIT-administrative establishment do? Well. obviously they decided, that the tiny plant of cold fusion, which maybe has some reality on it, has to be funded with a couple of 10k$. Just to have a foot in the issue, and not be completely ridiculed, that they missed the train. Call this clever or not. I call this opportunistic. Because other institutions do not invest a significantly larger amount, this is enough to keep a foot in the door. Sort of race to the bottom. On the other hand, if say South Korea would suddenly decide to spend a Billion, this would be a game-changer. Because everybody looks at the other, a bold move from one side would trigger a stampede. Rossi or DGT wo'nt do that. They just stir the pot. Which is better than nothing. Right?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:51:25 -0500: Hi, At 12:31 AM 4/8/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:34:24 -0500: Hi, [snip] Widom-Larsen theory completely fails to explain the actual experimental results of cold fusion experiments, particularly the PdD reactions of the Pons-Fleischmann Heat Effect. Not that I'm a fan of WL :), but: D + e- = 2 n Pd106 + 2 n = Ru104 + He4 + 11.9 MeV What experimental result does this explain? Pd106 + 2 n would become Pd108, which is stable. Actually Pd106 + 2 n would give Pd108 + 15.76 MeV. IOW a highly excited Pd108 nucleus which has to find some way of getting rid of that energy. One fast way of doing so, is some form of fission, such as e.g. emission of an 11.9 MeV alpha particle. Note that this type of reaction (i.e. a fusion reaction followed by a fission reaction is not without precedent. Two examples: N15 + p = C12 + He4 (rather than O16, by a wide margin; see stellar carbon cycle.) U235 + n = fission into a wide variety of fragments. In the case of Pd106, is may appear less likely because Pd is closer to the peak of the binding energy curve, however the addition of two neutrons concurrently provides roughly twice the excitement energy involved in the other two examples provided. Granted 11.9 MeV isn't 23.8 MeV, but it is about half, and I'm not convinced that the He4/heat ratio has been measured all that accurately. The problem, Robin: the difficulty in measuring helium release is in capturing all the helium. The released energy is reasonably well measured through the calorimetry. It is suspected that, in general, about half the helium is trapped in the cathode. If the reaction is a surface reaction, and if helium is born with some energy (it could be below the 20 KeV Hagelstein limit), half the helium will have a trajectory inward to the cathode. The rest will come off with the evolving gas, and be measured. So the heat/helium numbers from experiment, unless adjusted according to some assumption like this, tend to be higher than the actual reaction Q, double or so. Not lower. Yes, but as you said the trouble is in measuring the He. Suppose that the reaction is not as much a surface reaction as you think, and even more than half is trapped in the cathode. That would imply a lower reaction energy. (Note also surfaces are rough at the atomic level and that cavities may have little or no line of sight connection with the environment. IOW nearly all energetic alphas formed there may end up in the cathode metal rather than in the environment.) As I said I'm not convinced the heat/helium ratio has been determined with sufficient accuracy to rule out reactions of the type I suggested. I personally find it frustrating that more work on measuring Q, and improving accuracy, with more complete capture of the helium, hasn't been done. As do I. I've been suggesting that experiments be run with a platinum wire cathode, on which would be plated palladium. (This is done in some SPAWAR co-deposition experiments. I'm putting codeposition in quotes because these are apparently not actually codeposition, because they first plate out the palladium, then raise the voltage to start evolving deuterium. The experiments I know of with a platinum wire cathode were not designed to measure heat or helium, though.) In any case, once the experiment is done and XP measured, then the electrolysis would be reversed and the palladium dissolved, which should release all the helium. Excellent idea! Alternatively, the cathode might be melted. It needs to be a platinum base wire for the cathode or it would break up. Just my idea. Storms, however, estimates 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, and it's reasonable from the data. 12 MeV would not be. Furthermore, Pd104 + 2 n = Ru102 + He4 + 13.75 MeV and Pd102 + 2 n = Ru100 + He4 + 15 MeV If I'm correct, there is no evidence that dineutrons are even formed, I said I was no supporter of WL. I was just pointing out a possibility (playing devil's advocate if you will ;) but without the dineutrons, you would have two reactions necessary, and a serious rate problem. There is no evidence that dineutrons would be absorbed in toto, the dineutron is a transient phenomenon. Indeed (in fact I share your objections to WL). With two consecutive neutron absorptions, you would almost certainly get serious gamma radiation, because e.g. the Pd106 would first go to Pd107 (producing a gamma), then almost none of it would go to Pd108 (because the percentage of Pd107 present would be minute). This would thus also leave radioactive Pd107 in the cathode. W-L theory would predict a complex of transmutations, but none of them release as much energy as the transmutation of deuterium - helium. These transmutations would show a predictable relationship to the elemental mix in the close environment of the cathode surface. Palladium
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
In reply to Alain Sepeda's message of Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:30:42 +0200: Hi, [snip] just to quote Larsen in his cite: - He criticize the ide that He4 is trapped, and an ad hoc excuse - he claims that some transmutation cycle produce much more coherent energry by He4 than DD fusion you can fin their reasoning in http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewcarbon-seed-lenr-networkssept-3-2009 The carbon cycle they show on page 11 is silly. The bottom line is that almost all the carbon present will initially be C12, so the entire chain simply won't happen. Any neutrons formed would combine with C12 to form C13. There would be so little C13 formed that the next step would be extremely rare. In short virtually no helium should be formed at all. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: W-L theory allows for a farrago of proposed reactions, so one can pick and choose for a large and complex field, to find a reaction that might explain a particular result. And that the required reaction series might be way-silly-improbable is ignored. Essentially, there will be, if W-L theory of neutron formation is correct, there will be N neutrons being formed. It is proposed that these have a very high absorption rate, so N transmutations will be caused. But this is N/T, where T is the total number of possible targets. (Roughly.) A transmuted element becomes just another target, and would presumably be exposed to the same neutron flux. The probability of a second reaction in the cycle would be the square of N/T. That would be, for all intents and purposes, close to zero. Can you further explain this calculation? Are you assuming a low flux, where N/T 1? You're also thinking that T is large and includes the Palladium atoms in the lattice? The intermediate product would be left. If neutrons are being created in significant numbers, we would expect to see specific results that are not observed, and gammas are only one aspect of this. I think you mentioned a great deal of heat as being another missing observable in addition to gamma radiation. Just to make sure I understand your position -- you're relying on branching ratios and reactions that are known from previous experience with fusion? I have no reason to doubt this approach, I'm just trying to understand. What are the other missing observables in addition to heat and gamma rays? Looking through some of the other slides, what Larsen is doing is searching through experimental records, finding anomalies that W-L theory *might* explain. There is an absence of quantitative analysis. I think Jed had a nice thread about the merits of qualitative analysis not too long ago, but point taken. There is an absence of clear experimental prediction. A good indicator of wishy-washy thinking. This is pure ad-hoc speculation, and all it can do, scientifically, is to suggest avenues for exploration. Arriving at new avenues for exploration doesn't seem all that bad a result, but we should strive for better. Just to make sure I understand your position -- you don't like neutron flux because you don't find sufficient evidence for it and you find strong evidence against it. For there to be sufficient flux to have a carbon cycle and so on would entail effects that aren't seen experimentally, such as high levels of heat. You don't see a strict requirement for a D+D - He reaction, but you see compelling reason not to give serious consideration to alpha decay. Regarding transmutations, such as that of Barium into Samarium reported in Iwamura et al. [1], you either find evidence for them to be unreliable and ultimately untenable, or, alternatively, something that arises by a process other than neutron flux. Have I misunderstood anything? Eric [1] Iwamura et al., Observation of Nuclear Transmutation Reactions Induced by D2Gas Permeation Through Pd Complexes, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006cmns...11..339I (I'm having trouble finding the lenr-canr.org version, but I have a copy of the PDF if you'd like one)
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 12:31 AM 4/8/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:34:24 -0500: Hi, [snip] Widom-Larsen theory completely fails to explain the actual experimental results of cold fusion experiments, particularly the PdD reactions of the Pons-Fleischmann Heat Effect. Not that I'm a fan of WL :), but: D + e- = 2 n Pd106 + 2 n = Ru104 + He4 + 11.9 MeV What experimental result does this explain? Pd106 + 2 n would become Pd108, which is stable. Granted 11.9 MeV isn't 23.8 MeV, but it is about half, and I'm not convinced that the He4/heat ratio has been measured all that accurately. The problem, Robin: the difficulty in measuring helium release is in capturing all the helium. The released energy is reasonably well measured through the calorimetry. It is suspected that, in general, about half the helium is trapped in the cathode. If the reaction is a surface reaction, and if helium is born with some energy (it could be below the 20 KeV Hagelstein limit), half the helium will have a trajectory inward to the cathode. The rest will come off with the evolving gas, and be measured. So the heat/helium numbers from experiment, unless adjusted according to some assumption like this, tend to be higher than the actual reaction Q, double or so. Not lower. I personally find it frustrating that more work on measuring Q, and improving accuracy, with more complete capture of the helium, hasn't been done. I've been suggesting that experiments be run with a platinum wire cathode, on which would be plated palladium. (This is done in some SPAWAR co-deposition experiments. I'm putting codeposition in quotes because these are apparently not actually codeposition, because they first plate out the palladium, then raise the voltage to start evolving deuterium. The experiments I know of with a platinum wire cathode were not designed to measure heat or helium, though.) In any case, once the experiment is done and XP measured, then the electrolysis would be reversed and the palladium dissolved, which should release all the helium. It needs to be a platinum base wire for the cathode or it would break up. Just my idea. Storms, however, estimates 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, and it's reasonable from the data. 12 MeV would not be. Furthermore, Pd104 + 2 n = Ru102 + He4 + 13.75 MeV and Pd102 + 2 n = Ru100 + He4 + 15 MeV If I'm correct, there is no evidence that dineutrons are even formed, but without the dineutrons, you would have two reactions necessary, and a serious rate problem. There is no evidence that dineutrons would be absorbed in toto, the dineutron is a transient phenomenon. W-L theory would predict a complex of transmutations, but none of them release as much energy as the transmutation of deuterium - helium. These transmutations would show a predictable relationship to the elemental mix in the close environment of the cathode surface. Palladium would, of course, be a common activation target, and if the targets decay by alpha emission, then we'd have hot alphas. I have seen no experimental evidence that such a mix of transmuations is actually found. Transmutations are certainly reported from FPHE experiments, but at very low levels compared with helium. The reactions described would all produce anomalous isotopes of Ruthenium. Hot alphas, i.e., energetic helium nuclei, above 20 KeV, break the Hagelstein limit, they would be observed. Charged particle radiation from FPHE experiments are at quite low levels, not the high levels that would be necessary if the helium is being produced by alpha emission. Pd-104 is stable, so why would Pd102 + 2 n not simply become Pd-104?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Lou, Show this to one of your non degree tech guys working at your transducer based instrument factory shop in N. J. : http://www.icpig2009.unam.mx/pdf/PB13-3.pdf He could assemble it in an hour. Use Ar instead of He. Next day check for He. Surprise! The C deposit is conical nano structure and has a trapped H within. No need to check for excess heat. Where there is He there is Rossi Fusion. The ECat appropriated Chan one Hydride mix and must be changed every six months because of He build up. His attempt to get patents on Hydride fusion ran into prior pending obstacles. Hence the rush to cheap mass production. Warm Regards, Reliable pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, I intend to do some more research on this - plasmonics is pretty dicey. I'm not sure whether a nanowire has a cross-section large enough to scatter gammas originating at any significant distance, thoug, unless they are extremely collimated. But, I am more optimistic than you are that W-L would pass this test. According to the calculations in the paper I cited, the enormous effective (not relativistic) mass of those electrons make each look like a subatomic battering ram to any particle unfortunate enough to collide with one. I will try to find a local college with appropriate lab resources. There's a slim chance I can get it done. Probably expensive. Too bad I lost the lottery. Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 03:29 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, Regarding the absence of gammas - ... is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before escaping as a less energetic photon? If this is plausible, could we confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally scattered during current flow? Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real, drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this should not be difficult to detect. Since Larsen patented this, it's really on him to demonstrate it. I'm not about to try setting up some complex experiment just to prove a wild theory wrong. Now, if I had a reason to believe W-L theory, if I were a proponent of it, then, sure, the experiment would be very much in order. Widom and Larsen are raising a highly unlikely theory *without any experimental evidence specifically supporting it.* If they published a gamma screen paper, with sufficient detail for replication, and showing their own results, *then* we'd see some movement on this. Until then, it's fancy pie in the sky. That wouldn't prove W-L theory, but a successful prediction is golden for moving ahead with new science.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:08 AM, fusion.calo...@gmail.com fusion.calo...@gmail.com wrote: Where there is He there is Rossi Fusion. He has never been claimed to be a byproduct of the Rossi eCat. T
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:08 AM, fusion.calo...@gmail.com fusion.calo...@gmail.com wrote: Where there is He there is Rossi Fusion. He has never been claimed to be a byproduct of the Rossi eCat. Terry, That does not mean it's not there, though. It should be checked for. One of the first experiments to report anomalous LENR effects - EXPERIMENTAL ATTEMPTS TO DECOMPOSE TUNGSTEN AT HIGH TEMPERATURES - Amer. Chem. Soc. 44 (1922) http://www.uf.narod.ru/science/WendtIrion.pdf - did report possible He production. Possibly a mistake. It would be nice to know if it was.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Reliable/fusion.cal, If an experiment this simple produces He, it proves LENR. Now, for sure, one of the objections raised would be that the He detected was mixed in with the methane - even if the Argon is used. Has anyone ruled out this possible artifact? fusion.calo...@gmail.com wrote: Lou, Show this to one of your non degree tech guys working at your transducer based instrument factory shop in N. J. : http://www.icpig2009.unam.mx/pdf/PB13-3.pdf He could assemble it in an hour. Use Ar instead of He. Next day check for He. Surprise! The C deposit is conical nano structure and has a trapped H within. No need to check for excess heat. Where there is He there is Rossi Fusion. The ECat appropriated Chan one Hydride mix and must be changed every six months because of He build up. His attempt to get patents on Hydride fusion ran into prior pending obstacles. Hence the rush to cheap mass production. Warm Regards, Reliable pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, I intend to do some more research on this - plasmonics is pretty dicey. I'm not sure whether a nanowire has a cross-section large enough to scatter gammas originating at any significant distance, thoug, unless they are extremely collimated. But, I am more optimistic than you are that W-L would pass this test. According to the calculations in the paper I cited, the enormous effective (not relativistic) mass of those electrons make each look like a subatomic battering ram to any particle unfortunate enough to collide with one. I will try to find a local college with appropriate lab resources. There's a slim chance I can get it done. Probably expensive. Too bad I lost the lottery. Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 03:29 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, Regarding the absence of gammas - ... is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before escaping as a less energetic photon? If this is plausible, could we confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally scattered during current flow? Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real, drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this should not be difficult to detect. Since Larsen patented this, it's really on him to demonstrate it. I'm not about to try setting up some complex experiment just to prove a wild theory wrong. Now, if I had a reason to believe W-L theory, if I were a proponent of it, then, sure, the experiment would be very much in order. Widom and Larsen are raising a highly unlikely theory *without any experimental evidence specifically supporting it.* If they published a gamma screen paper, with sufficient detail for replication, and showing their own results, *then* we'd see some movement on this. Until then, it's fancy pie in the sky. That wouldn't prove W-L theory, but a successful prediction is golden for moving ahead with new science.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Terry, That does not mean it's not there, though. It should be checked for. The fact that I have not searched for invisible pink unicorns does not mean they are not there. However, I have no reason to look for them. No theory I have seen indicates that you can fuse H and get He. They require D unless the neutron lives with the pink invisible unicorn. T
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: That applies to cold fusion theories. There is the sun. :-) T
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Terry - the helium would presumably come from alpha decay, not fusion. It should be noted that the WendtIrion paper cited - also assumed alpha decay; but tungsten is much heavier than nickel. Ni is not known to have an alpha channel where this paper suggests that W does: http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0408006 Perhaps a rare but natural alpha decay indicates that this kind of transmutation can be stimulated by massive electrical discharge- so that He4 is observed in fact. Even so, that has no relevance to Ni-H. J. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton That does not mean it's not there, though. It should be checked for. The fact that I have not searched for invisible pink unicorns does not mean they are not there. However, I have no reason to look for them. No theory I have seen indicates that you can fuse H and get He. They require D unless the neutron lives with the pink invisible unicorn. T
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry - the helium would presumably come from alpha decay, not fusion. Since we know there are likely a myriad of subatomic reactions flitting about these days, I tend to get a bit sensitive to the use of the word 'fusion'. I know that many group them all under that topic. I should not be so ultrasemantic! T
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Terry, Brillouin's theory starts with H and ends up with He - what is going on in between seems to be the land of the pink unicorns and includes rattling the metal lattice cage with EMF to shake loose some energy. They mention having to purge the system of He every once in awhile. http://brillouinenergy.com/BrillouinEnergyHypothesis.pdf On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry - the helium would presumably come from alpha decay, not fusion. Since we know there are likely a myriad of subatomic reactions flitting about these days, I tend to get a bit sensitive to the use of the word 'fusion'. I know that many group them all under that topic. I should not be so ultrasemantic! T
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
that is the point that Lewis larsen put the focus on in his Slides. like this one http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcmany-lenr-paths-may-produce-he4march-03-2012 2012/4/7 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry - the helium would presumably come from alpha decay, not fusion. Since we know there are likely a myriad of subatomic reactions flitting about these days, I tend to get a bit sensitive to the use of the word 'fusion'. I know that many group them all under that topic. I should not be so ultrasemantic! T
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:34:24 -0500: Hi, [snip] Widom-Larsen theory completely fails to explain the actual experimental results of cold fusion experiments, particularly the PdD reactions of the Pons-Fleischmann Heat Effect. Not that I'm a fan of WL :), but: D + e- = 2 n Pd106 + 2 n = Ru104 + He4 + 11.9 MeV Granted 11.9 MeV isn't 23.8 MeV, but it is about half, and I'm not convinced that the He4/heat ratio has been measured all that accurately. Furthermore, Pd104 + 2 n = Ru102 + He4 + 13.75 MeV and Pd102 + 2 n = Ru100 + He4 + 15 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 09:40 PM 4/5/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real, drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this should not be difficult to detect. I was thinking about this for an experiment as well. Â But how would you establish a negative finding? Â What if you got some variable such as the frequency wrong, causing the hypothesized electron patches not to work? The hypothesized electron patches must be 100% effective for a range of gamma energies, and specifically for those from expected neutron activation. Indeed, one of the ways to test this would be to use actual neutron activation! Perhaps with a beam of neutrons. But it may be possible to design a gamma source that would fit the bill, my guess. I am *not* recommending this research, except for those who become critically concerned -- or, alternatively, who are inspired by W-L theory and wish to pursue the necessary falsification effort.
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 09:55 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: You are right - I did not intend to sound dogmatic. Great. I am beginning to wonder whether a couple of different phenomena, perhaps sharing a common denominator, are occurring - depending on experimental materials and procedures. Nature may be getting a little perverse here. Pons and Fleischmann discovered a new territory, and a fabulous beast living there. If we look carefully at the new territory, we may find many beasts. Assuming there is only one is narrow. Maybe. Maybe not. The Wendt-Irion exploding wire experiment did appear to produce Helium. Their original paper is - EXPERIMENTAL ATTEMPTS TO DECOMPOSE TUNGSTEN AT HIGH TEMPERATURES - Amer. Chem. Soc. 44 (1922) http://www.uf.narod.ru/science/WendtIrion.pdf Would this provide some link between CF and LENR if reproduced? It could. However, it's a stretch to assume that techniques which get that hot will be the same as techniques relying on effects involving a lattice and that aren't known to exist at higher temperatures. So my starting assumption would be that they are different as to environment and mechanism. However, it's possible that *in the process of vaporization something is forced that is similar to what happens at lower temperatures. More likely, we might see channeled fusion, i.e, hot fusion with an increased cross-section because of particle channelling. The FPHE doesn't behave like hot fusion, as to product. I prefer to use the term cold fusion, then for temperatures below the melting point of metals. But, as mentioned, one might be seeing a transitional effect. The metal hasn't melted yet, except maybe for part of it. There were other observations, published and not, which hinted at LENR. They were explained away as error, once a *possible* error was identified. It was not necessarily shown that there was *actual error.* Some scientists observed phenomena and didn't report it, a good example is Mizuno, who saw very substantial mysterious heat in highly loaded PdD, and just shrugged it off, until he later saw Pons and Fleischmann's announcement. Then he understood what he'd seen. These were anecdotes, and not easily reproducible, they were rare.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Von: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 19:37 Freitag, 6.April 2012 Betreff: RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation If we look carefully at the new territory, we may find many beasts. Assuming there is only one is narrow. Maybe. Maybe not. You are nearing Whitehead: ... The main tenets of Whitehead's metaphysics were summarized in his most accessible work, Adventures of Ideas (1933), where he also defines his conceptions of beauty, truth, art, adventure, and peace. He believed that there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil. ... G.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Abd, It is not obvious what you want to falsify. The paper by Pendry - Low Frequency Plasmons in Thin Wire Structures - JB Pendry http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/wires.pdf - presents very simple calculation (based on wires array geometry) of nanowire surface conduction electron effective mass, and hence effective momentum. An important question is whether these heavy electrons actually scatter gammas consistent with their theoretical momenta. Why not irradiate a quasi-ballistic conductor like Au nanowire to create a small number of gamma-emitters (Au-isotopes). Shouldn't gamma energies and directions change as current flow is modulated? If not, is the calculated effective electron momentum incorrect, are the electron surface density or scattering cross-sections too low, or is my interpretation wrong? Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The hypothesized electron patches must be 100% effective for a range of gamma energies, and specifically for those from expected neutron activation. Indeed, one of the ways to test this would be to use actual neutron activation! Perhaps with a beam of neutrons. But it may be possible to design a gamma source that would fit the bill, my guess. I am *not* recommending this research, except for those who become critically concerned -- or, alternatively, who are inspired by W-L theory and wish to pursue the necessary falsification effort.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
There are a number of constrains we must meet to get a positive result. One of these constrains is that the reaction takes place in a lattice comprising an even atomic numbered host metallic element. Gold will not work with an atomic number of 79. Tungsten at 74, Platinum at 78, nickel at 28, palladium at 46 will work. On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, It is not obvious what you want to falsify. The paper by Pendry - Low Frequency Plasmons in Thin Wire Structures - JB Pendry http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/wires.pdf - presents very simple calculation (based on wires array geometry) of nanowire surface conduction electron effective mass, and hence effective momentum. An important question is whether these heavy electrons actually scatter gammas consistent with their theoretical momenta. Why not irradiate a quasi-ballistic conductor like Au nanowire to create a small number of gamma-emitters (Au-isotopes). Shouldn't gamma energies and directions change as current flow is modulated? If not, is the calculated effective electron momentum incorrect, are the electron surface density or scattering cross-sections too low, or is my interpretation wrong? Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The hypothesized electron patches must be 100% effective for a range of gamma energies, and specifically for those from expected neutron activation. Indeed, one of the ways to test this would be to use actual neutron activation! Perhaps with a beam of neutrons. But it may be possible to design a gamma source that would fit the bill, my guess. I am *not* recommending this research, except for those who become critically concerned -- or, alternatively, who are inspired by W-L theory and wish to pursue the necessary falsification effort.
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
This is hot, so to speak. Cough, cough ... that can be understood in a slightly derogatory way. Well, it is a slick presentation, glossy and well-prepared - and very convincing for LENR in a most superficial way. Cheerleaders for W-L, like Steve Krivit will be quick to heap on the praise. Put on your waders. However, there is little or no indication that this information has the least bit of relevance for anything other than exploding wires and lightning - where everyone has known for a long time that nuclear reactions do occur. These are not LENR reactions, but are hot. Very hot. Too bad, with all Larsen's funding, that he cannot muster a decent experiment of his own with real data - but instead must depend on slick side-shows and shills to promote a theory that is almost absurd for its intended purpose. Lou, your asked: tried to reproduce... what? Exploding wires? There is a megaton of RD on exploding wires - and no one doubts that it is good data, but how does it relate to LENR? The exploding wire field kind of languished a decade ago, due to lack of a way to go from wires, one at a time - to higher output. Almost every issue of FT (Fusion Technology) in the 1990s had papers on this (before Miley retired as editor). Too bad FT never went digital. There are a couple of patents on ways to continuously feed wired into electrodes but none of them got traction, as far as I know. Jones -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III) review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce - using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 08:59 AM 4/5/2012, Jones Beene wrote: This is hot, so to speak. Cough, cough ... that can be understood in a slightly derogatory way. Well, it is a slick presentation, glossy and well-prepared - and very convincing for LENR in a most superficial way. Cheerleaders for W-L, like Steve Krivit will be quick to heap on the praise. Put on your waders. However, there is little or no indication that this information has the least bit of relevance for anything other than exploding wires and lightning - where everyone has known for a long time that nuclear reactions do occur. These are not LENR reactions, but are hot. Very hot. Too bad, with all Larsen's funding, that he cannot muster a decent experiment of his own with real data - but instead must depend on slick side-shows and shills to promote a theory that is almost absurd for its intended purpose. Yeah, I've been looking for evidence that W-L theory is more than a castle in the air, with no foundation. I've been looking in vain. It's all post-hoc analysis, with ad hoc explanations presented as if it were established fact. I read with interest widom and Larsen's paper on Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces. That's the rabbit that they pull out of the hat to explain lack of gamma radiation from metal hydride LENR. This should actually be relatively easy to validate experimentally, and they know that it would have some value on its own, hence they have patented the idea of using these heavy electron patches to absorb gamma radiation. Fine. Demonstrate it. Once upon a time Larsen was asked by Garwin -- Krivit reported this conversation -- about experimental evidence for the gamma absorption. That's proprietary information, Larsen replied. Great. But now that it's patented? The slide show is well produced, except it's all gee-whiz, *explanations* of stuff with no grounding. And I still have seen no expanation, anywhere, of the basic problems with W-L theory. W and L essentially notice what is fairly obvious: if neutrons can be formed, LENR will take place. But what kind of LENR? So they make up a way that neutrons might be formed, then treat this as if it were established fact. Okay, that's part of how we form imaginative hypotheses. But then real science starts, in the effort to falsify this lovely construct. And I see very little of this. W and L do address one obvious problem, the lack of observed gammas, though they understate it. They say that the expected copious gammas are not seen. They understate the problem drastically. If neutrons are formed on the surface of metal hydrides, they will produce predictable specific frequencies of gamma radiation, and, yes, copiously. In order to explain away the lack of observation of these gammas, they have to imagine a really prefect gamma-capture device. So they make one up. So we now have two rooms built in our castle in the air. This is little or no improvement over open ignorance. At least I don't know is intellectually honest. I can imagine is great, as long as we don't believe what we imagine. Ever. Imagination is useful when it leads to real creation and real understanding, as demonstrated by an ability to predict what would otherwise be a mystery or miracle. Simply creating more miracles that aren't grounded is not what the field of LENR needs. We need far more basic science, far more real data, far more establishment of controlled experimental conditions. Theories? We have *way too many.* Storms is right about that. So I'll be posting something here about a very specific piece of equipment that is needed to do some of this work. I hope that those with some hands-on experience with lasers will assist us. There is some very exciting stuff going on. So, the third miracle that Widom and Larsen theory involves. Intermediate products vanish. We obviously have, with LENR, a process that results in a neutron only rarely. If copious neutrons were produced, reaction rates would be much higher. The only known ash that is found in substantial quantity, adequate to explain the heat, is helium. To get to helium requires, if neutrons are the agent, multiple reactions, and the intermediates must all be converted to the final product, helium. That requires a very high reaction rate for the second transmutation. Yet the second transmutation simply requires that another neutron encounter the intermediate product. If the probability of the first reaction is 1/N for any given initial target, the probability of the second reaction would be on the order of 1/N itself, so the final product would only appear as 1/N of the intermediate product. Yet the final product, helium, completely dominates, the intermediates aren't found (at all, as far as I know, but there might be traces). Widom-Larsen theory completely fails to explain the actual experimental results of cold fusion experiments, particularly the
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well, it is a slick presentation, glossy and well-prepared - and very convincing for LENR in a most superficial way. Consultant's motto: It always works in the PowerPoint presentation. T
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Great to see you all back from the future to reality.
See the following Chan links:
http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.html
http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/chan-formula-update-i-5.html
See Hideki
at:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints#CATALYST_CHARACTERISTICS
See Tengzelius at:
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/first-commercial-cold-fusion-steam-heat-generator-for-sale/#comment-1895
See Lucky Saint at:
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
See Te Chung
at: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64616.html
Question, take your best shot at designing a LERN apparatus that should
produce excess heat. One that you are capable of putting together by
yourself for under $500. Specify what and where ro buy materials.
Enought of the pipe dream boring BS. This is a challenge for you. Are
you all more than just passing wind?
Warm Regards,
Reliable
pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled -
"Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at -
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective
motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can
form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events.
Slides 18-20 ("Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III")
review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on
whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce
transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf).
Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled
electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of
uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence
trumped Wendt's more modest reputation.
Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce -
using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's.
Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Von: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 18:34 Donnerstag, 5.April 2012 Betreff: RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation And I still have seen no expanation, anywhere, of the basic problems with W-L theory. Abd ul. Do you know this: A short rebuttal to the proponents and protagonists of Widom Larson Theory by goatguy Here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/short-rebuttal-to-proponents-and.html He is generally very skeptic wrt LENR, but he is tough, witty and mostly up to the point. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Von: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:22 Donnerstag, 5.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation Great to see you all back from the future to reality. This is a challenge for you. Are you all more than just passing wind? Warm Regards, Reliable Yeah. This Chan guy is a real wizard. ...By using a generous molar excess of MgH2 within the previously described reaction mixture with a 3% by weight of commercial gun powder (Thoroughly mixed and manipulated in a glove box) an explosive results which exceeds possible chemical reactions (many factors of 10). Place inside of the drilled cavity of a 32 cartridge head, Carefully tamp and seal with epoxy. Fire at a 2\' diameter section of a tree trunk. Result is an incredibly massive explosion reducing the target to splinters. ... now the admin got a bit worried: ... Update IV I have decided to stop publicizing the Chan Method. I have repeatedly asked him for pictures and some evidence but all I ever hear is that he is too busy and he now apparently has his own website. I don\'t have a lot of time check the procedures of listed replicators but it would be irresponsible to lead people astray. ... Regardless the Copper/RFG combination doesn\'t make sense, the use of mineral oil at that temperature doesn\'t make sense, the exploding comments don\'t make sense. I would not recommend Chan\'s Method and by association Phen\'s method. I have added Peter Roe\'s analysis so that this thread can come to an end. Thanks to Peter. ... http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/chan-formula-update-ii-plus-17.html The NSA probably is watching him closely. At least he gets THOSE guys busy. Amen. Guenter
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Abd, Regarding the absence of gammas - Don't nanoscale currents store far more inductive momentum/energy than macro currents do per conduction electron? For example, see - Low Frequency Plasmons in Thin Wire Structures - JB Pendry http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/wires.pdf The surface electrons behave as a low density plasma of very heavy charged particles. Correct me if I am wrong, but I surmise that these high effective mass electrons propagate with extremely high momentum - due to inductive coupling to other neighboring conduction electrons. I believe they appear effectively far more massive in the current flow direction. If so, is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before escaping as a less energetic photon? If this is plausible, could we confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally scattered during current flow? Thanks, Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:59 AM 4/5/2012, Jones Beene wrote: This is hot, so to speak. Cough, cough ... that can be understood in a slightly derogatory way. Well, it is a slick presentation, glossy and well-prepared - and very convincing for LENR in a most superficial way. Cheerleaders for W-L, like Steve Krivit will be quick to heap on the praise. Put on your waders. However, there is little or no indication that this information has the least bit of relevance for anything other than exploding wires and lightning - where everyone has known for a long time that nuclear reactions do occur. These are not LENR reactions, but are hot. Very hot. Too bad, with all Larsen's funding, that he cannot muster a decent experiment of his own with real data - but instead must depend on slick side-shows and shills to promote a theory that is almost absurd for its intended purpose. Yeah, I've been looking for evidence that W-L theory is more than a castle in the air, with no foundation. I've been looking in vain. It's all post-hoc analysis, with ad hoc explanations presented as if it were established fact. I read with interest widom and Larsen's paper on Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces. That's the rabbit that they pull out of the hat to explain lack of gamma radiation from metal hydride LENR. This should actually be relatively easy to validate experimentally, and they know that it would have some value on its own, hence they have patented the idea of using these heavy electron patches to absorb gamma radiation. Fine. Demonstrate it. Once upon a time Larsen was asked by Garwin -- Krivit reported this conversation -- about experimental evidence for the gamma absorption. That's proprietary information, Larsen replied. Great. But now that it's patented? The slide show is well produced, except it's all gee-whiz, *explanations* of stuff with no grounding. And I still have seen no expanation, anywhere, of the basic problems with W-L theory. W and L essentially notice what is fairly obvious: if neutrons can be formed, LENR will take place. But what kind of LENR? So they make up a way that neutrons might be formed, then treat this as if it were established fact. Okay, that's part of how we form imaginative hypotheses. But then real science starts, in the effort to falsify this lovely construct. And I see very little of this. W and L do address one obvious problem, the lack of observed gammas, though they understate it. They say that the expected copious gammas are not seen. They understate the problem drastically. If neutrons are formed on the surface of metal hydrides, they will produce predictable specific frequencies of gamma radiation, and, yes, copiously. In order to explain away the lack of observation of these gammas, they have to imagine a really prefect gamma-capture device. So they make one up. So we now have two rooms built in our castle in the air. This is little or no improvement over open ignorance. At least I don't know is intellectually honest. I can imagine is great, as long as we don't believe what we imagine. Ever. Imagination is useful when it leads to real creation and real understanding, as demonstrated by an ability to predict what would otherwise be a mystery or miracle. Simply creating more miracles that aren't grounded is not what the field of LENR needs. We need far more basic science, far more real data, far more establishment of controlled experimental conditions. Theories? We have *way too many.* Storms is right about that. So I'll be posting something here about a very specific piece of equipment that is needed to do some of this work. I hope that those with some hands-on experience with lasers will assist us. There is some very exciting stuff going on. So, the third miracle that Widom and Larsen theory involves. Intermediate
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
I was referring to explanations by proponents or others, justifying W-L theory in the face of serious objections (not the pseudoskeptical it's impossible objections, but the real thing). Goatguy, there, does come up with some of what I've mentioned, plus other stuff. He's focusing on NiH, though which is a huge red herring for this entire field. We have very little experimental evidence on NiH -- and practically nothing trustworthy on Rossi's work -- compared to PdD. I'll reply to one of his objections (which is similar to one of mine). Goatguy is pointing that full absorption implies isotropic emission of gammas, amazing by itself, but this doesn't apply if the NAE is entirely contained (all directions). That seems terribly unlikely, however. Especially since the neutron generation effect is proposed as a surface effect. My objection to the gamma absorption device is simply that there is no known experimental evidence that it exists. And it would be easy to demonstrate, as Goatguy points out. Goatguy doesn't seem to address the rate problem, not in the same way, but he does point out that far more transmutation would be expected than is observed. In PdD cold fusion, the ash is helium, almost entirely. That's why Krivit is attacking the excess heat/He-4 results. Those are, effectively, fatal to W-L theory, but Krivit does not seem to realize that all the alleged errors he finds could only push the Q a little bit, not do away with the findings. W-L theory would predict very little helium. Look, these objections are *obvious*, yet they are unaddressed in the W-L promotional literature, which unfortunately includes Krivit's New Energy Times. At 02:07 PM 4/5/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: Von: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 18:34 Donnerstag, 5.April 2012 Betreff: RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation And I still have seen no expanation, anywhere, of the basic problems with W-L theory. Abd ul. Do you know this: A short rebuttal to the proponents and protagonists of Widom Larson Theory by goatguy Here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/short-rebuttal-to-proponents-and.html He is generally very skeptic wrt LENR, but he is tough, witty and mostly up to the point. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 02:22 PM 4/5/2012, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: Great to see you all back from the future to reality. See the following Chan links: http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.htmlhttp://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/the-chan-formula-4.html http://www.buildecat.com/blog_detail/chan-formula-update-i-5.html See Hideki at: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints#CATALYST_CHARACTERISTICShttp://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints#CATALYST_CHARACTERISTICS See Tengzelius at: http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/first-commercial-cold-fusion-steam-heat-generator-for-sale/#comment-1895http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/first-commercial-cold-fusion-steam-heat-generator-for-sale/#comment-1895 See Lucky Saint at: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.htmlhttp://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html See Te Chung at: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64616.htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64616.html Question, take your best shot at designing a LERN apparatus that should produce excess heat. One that you are capable of putting together by yourself for under $500. Specify what and where ro buy materials. Enought of the pipe dream boring BS. This is a challenge for you. Are you all more than just passing wind? It is crucial to distinguish between the explosion of speculation and gaseous emission based on Rossi (with some sideshows involving Defkalion and a few others), and the more than twenty years of peer-reviewed and other published research on PdD cold fusion (with only a little on NiH work, i.e., what Rossi is claiming). Designing a LENR device (not LERN, though maybe integral.property.service is French, except then it wouldn't be LE) that is reliable is the classic problem. It is possible to reproduce certain experiments for on the order of $100, but those aren't the most convincing ones, and there are many pitfalls, it is easy to come up empty. (I can supply everything you would need except for power supply and meters and hookup wire, to run an attempt to replicate the SPAWAR neutron findings -- but this has practically zero implications for power generation, and was not designed to make it easy to measure heat, it's been scaled down, and it only looks, in the simplest incarnation, for neutrons). It's the wrong request, way premature. Take it back. Miles ran a series of cells in the early 1990s, and got 21 out of 33 cells to show excess heat. Is that reliable? Reliable enough for what? For energy generation, probably not! However, for exploring the science of this, which has been my interest, it could be quite enough. Now, run that kind of series, using the state of the art, and measure helium in the generated gas. Presto! A single replicable experiment. It's been run many times, and the famous negative replications confirm what everyone else has found. The helium is correlated with the excess heat. In 2004, one of the U.S. Department of Energy reviewers looked at the heat/helium evidence that was presented, and misinterpreted it, and based his report on this misinterpretation. Then the summarizing bureaucrat again misunderstood what the reviewer presented, further mangling the report, such that a clear correlation between anomalous heat and helium production was reported, through this comedy of errors, as an anti-correlation. No wonder they concluded that the evidence wasn't conclusive! The primary evidence that the anomalous heat of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is not only real, not artifact of calorimetry error, and that it is nuclear in origin, was missed. Why? I'm not sure. I found a strange lack of emphasis on heat/helium in my communications with LENR scientists as well. It would be mentioned here and there, but always with far more focus on calorimetry alone, or this or that theory of what's happening. But there it is: determining heat/helium in the Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect, the single replicable experiment that everyone has been clamoring for, since 1989, and it's existed since about 1993. Storms reports a dozen groups confirming the correlation. There are none in the other direction. That it is statistical in nature (if individual cells are unpredictably erratic in heat generation) is not something normally expected by physicists, that's all. It's just as convincing, once understood. (Cold fusion is famous for replication failure, at the beginning. People who confirmed it were largely those who didn't give up at one or a few cells that show nothing, who kept at it. Miles' ultimate result of 21/33 was quite high for the time. Miles, of course, was one of the researchers whose initial negative reports were the
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Jones, Sure, some of those experiments produce hot plasmas, but there are many experimental results which appear to produce transmutations with temperatures too low to produce collisions energetic enough for fusion - unless the energy is focused and hidden in infinitesimal volumes. My suggestion is that transmutations be the litmus test for LENR - not the calorimetry results which never seem definitive enough for everyone. If the reported successful experiments were well conducted, then they will be reproducible. Jones Beene wrote: This is hot, so to speak. Cough, cough ... that can be understood in a slightly derogatory way. Well, it is a slick presentation, glossy and well-prepared - and very convincing for LENR in a most superficial way. Cheerleaders for W-L, like Steve Krivit will be quick to heap on the praise. Put on your waders. However, there is little or no indication that this information has the least bit of relevance for anything other than exploding wires and lightning - where everyone has known for a long time that nuclear reactions do occur. These are not LENR reactions, but are hot. Very hot. Too bad, with all Larsen's funding, that he cannot muster a decent experiment of his own with real data - but instead must depend on slick side-shows and shills to promote a theory that is almost absurd for its intended purpose. Lou, your asked: tried to reproduce... what? Exploding wires? There is a megaton of RD on exploding wires - and no one doubts that it is good data, but how does it relate to LENR? The exploding wire field kind of languished a decade ago, due to lack of a way to go from wires, one at a time - to higher output. Almost every issue of FT (Fusion Technology) in the 1990s had papers on this (before Miley retired as editor). Too bad FT never went digital. There are a couple of patents on ways to continuously feed wired into electrodes but none of them got traction, as far as I know. Jones -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at - http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III) review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce - using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
-Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Jones, Sure, some of those experiments produce hot plasmas, but there are many experimental results which appear to produce transmutations with temperatures too low to produce collisions energetic enough for fusion... Lou - yes that is absolutely true. But there is a middle ground. This goes back a few decades to Philo Farnsworth - the inventor of television. He was obsessed with fusion at lower but not low energy. The Farnsworth Fusor is the main case in point for the middle ground (and exploding wires is next). This is a completely different regime than LENR. Indeed W-L may have some relevance to warm fusion, but none to LENR. Copious neutrons from both these devices (Fusor and exploding wire) are documented at input energies of about 10 keV instead of the fusion threshold of over 1 MeV for real fusion (100 times less). Thus, the name often applied to these two reactions is warm fusion. They are triggered with 100 times more energy than LENR, but are 100 time colder than thermonuclear fusion. Mas o menos. The wild card which explains everything is the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect, aka the deuteron stripping reaction, or OP effect which is the removal of a neutron from deuterium. Wiki has an entry but it is probably the most flawed Wiki entry I have read. There is better information in the Vortex archive. Jones
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 03:29 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, Regarding the absence of gammas - ... is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before escaping as a less energetic photon? If this is plausible, could we confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally scattered during current flow? Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real, drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this should not be difficult to detect. Since Larsen patented this, it's really on him to demonstrate it. I'm not about to try setting up some complex experiment just to prove a wild theory wrong. Now, if I had a reason to believe W-L theory, if I were a proponent of it, then, sure, the experiment would be very much in order. Widom and Larsen are raising a highly unlikely theory *without any experimental evidence specifically supporting it.* If they published a gamma screen paper, with sufficient detail for replication, and showing their own results, *then* we'd see some movement on this. Until then, it's fancy pie in the sky. That wouldn't prove W-L theory, but a successful prediction is golden for moving ahead with new science.
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Jones, Good points. I do not know the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect. I will research it tonight. There could be a number of confounding effects that coexist. Our tendency to look for a relativistic collision behind every nuclear event (except radioactivity) could be the problem. Lou Pagnucco Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Jones, Sure, some of those experiments produce hot plasmas, but there are many experimental results which appear to produce transmutations with temperatures too low to produce collisions energetic enough for fusion... Lou - yes that is absolutely true. But there is a middle ground. This goes back a few decades to Philo Farnsworth - the inventor of television. He was obsessed with fusion at lower but not low energy. The Farnsworth Fusor is the main case in point for the middle ground (and exploding wires is next). This is a completely different regime than LENR. Indeed W-L may have some relevance to warm fusion, but none to LENR. Copious neutrons from both these devices (Fusor and exploding wire) are documented at input energies of about 10 keV instead of the fusion threshold of over 1 MeV for real fusion (100 times less). Thus, the name often applied to these two reactions is warm fusion. They are triggered with 100 times more energy than LENR, but are 100 time colder than thermonuclear fusion. Mas o menos. The wild card which explains everything is the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect, aka the deuteron stripping reaction, or OP effect which is the removal of a neutron from deuterium. Wiki has an entry but it is probably the most flawed Wiki entry I have read. There is better information in the Vortex archive. Jones
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Abd, I intend to do some more research on this - plasmonics is pretty dicey. I'm not sure whether a nanowire has a cross-section large enough to scatter gammas originating at any significant distance, thoug, unless they are extremely collimated. But, I am more optimistic than you are that W-L would pass this test. According to the calculations in the paper I cited, the enormous effective (not relativistic) mass of those electrons make each look like a subatomic battering ram to any particle unfortunate enough to collide with one. I will try to find a local college with appropriate lab resources. There's a slim chance I can get it done. Probably expensive. Too bad I lost the lottery. Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 03:29 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, Regarding the absence of gammas - ... is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before escaping as a less energetic photon? If this is plausible, could we confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally scattered during current flow? Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real, drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this should not be difficult to detect. Since Larsen patented this, it's really on him to demonstrate it. I'm not about to try setting up some complex experiment just to prove a wild theory wrong. Now, if I had a reason to believe W-L theory, if I were a proponent of it, then, sure, the experiment would be very much in order. Widom and Larsen are raising a highly unlikely theory *without any experimental evidence specifically supporting it.* If they published a gamma screen paper, with sufficient detail for replication, and showing their own results, *then* we'd see some movement on this. Until then, it's fancy pie in the sky. That wouldn't prove W-L theory, but a successful prediction is golden for moving ahead with new science.
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 04:37 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: My suggestion is that transmutations be the litmus test for LENR - not the calorimetry results which never seem definitive enough for everyone. If the reported successful experiments were well conducted, then they will be reproducible. There are some highly questionable assumptions here. First, it appears that the predominant reaction (by far) in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect does not involve transmutations *other than to helium.* Helium has been found to be correlated with heat. Helium had been reported, early on, by Pons and Fleischmann and by others, but the results were not widely accepted and were not convincing. Miles, however, ran a series of cells, finding excess heat in most, and collected gas samples from all the cells, submitting it for blind analysis. His results were clear: no excess heat, no helium. If there was excess heat, there was helium, in amounts well within an order of magnitude of what would be expected from fusion of deuterium to helium (by any mechanism; if the fuel is deuterium and the ash is helium, this value, 23.8 MeV/He-4, will result. The major difficulty is collecting all the helium for measurement; Storms figures that roughly half is trapped in the cathode.) Secondly, individual cold fusion experiments, in PdD, continue to be highly erratic. Success rates, i.e., finding some excess heat, have increased over the years until nearly every cell shows such a result, but the quantity of heat varies greatly. It is not a problem of how well the experiments are conducted. Rather, the very method involves physical conditions which are quite difficult to control. It appears that the FPHE involves defects in the palladium, and the palladium itself changes during the process. A cathode which is showing no effect, later, under what would appear to be the *exact same conditions*, then shows the effect, and not marginally; rather, clearly, far above noise. What is constant, though, whenever it has been tested, is the correlation of helium with the heat. There is no contrary experimental evidence; the early negative replications, the ones that tested for helium -- and some did -- actually confirm this. They found no helium and they found no heat. From what we know now, we can say for certain that they simply failed to set up the necessary conditions, and from other later work, it's quite clear what this likely involved. They ran at a loading of roughly 70%, whereas the FPHE required loading of something on the order of 90% or better. (Effects are not seen, at all, below 80%). To get that high loading requires special palladium. Before the work of Pons and Fleischmann, it appears that 70% was considered about the best you could get! And high loading, by itself, isn't necessarily adequate. In any case, the calorimetry, in the hands of experts, is quite adequate. It alone won't convince those who are not confident about calorimetry, which is why helium is so important. The helium and calorimetry confirm each other. The only thing that connects them would be transmutation, i.e., the fusion of deuterium to helium. There have been attempts to impeach the helium results, but every one of those attempts that I've seen simply ignores the experimental conditions. It's as if someone says, Helium has been found in cold fusion cells and the person, without looking at the data at all, says, Must be leakage from ambient helium. End of topic. That could make some sense when the helium levels are below ambient. It makes no sense when they rise above ambient, as they do on occasion, and it does not explain -- at all -- how the helium could be correlated with the heat, and not just at some random value, at roughly the fusion value. Once this was known and confirmed, by rights, the shoe should have been on the other foot. That happened long ago, and here we are, still flapping about. With a preposterous theory gaining attention because, it's claimed, It's not fusion! Where are the experimental results to back it up? The confirmed predictions?
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
At 05:15 PM 4/5/2012, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Jones, Sure, some of those experiments produce hot plasmas, but there are many experimental results which appear to produce transmutations with temperatures too low to produce collisions energetic enough for fusion... Lou - yes that is absolutely true. But there is a middle ground. This goes back a few decades to Philo Farnsworth - the inventor of television. He was obsessed with fusion at lower but not low energy. The Farnsworth Fusor is the main case in point for the middle ground (and exploding wires is next). This is a completely different regime than LENR. Indeed W-L may have some relevance to warm fusion, but none to LENR. Copious neutrons from both these devices (Fusor and exploding wire) are documented at input energies of about 10 keV instead of the fusion threshold of over 1 MeV for real fusion (100 times less). Thus, the name often applied to these two reactions is warm fusion. They are triggered with 100 times more energy than LENR, but are 100 time colder than thermonuclear fusion. Mas o menos. The Farnsworth Fusor runs classic hot fusion. Using deuterium, it produces neutrons from half the fusions. Fusion rates can be calculated down to much lower temperatures, the Coulomb barrier isn't an absolutely fixed thing, tunneling allows fusion below the theoretical temperature to overcome the barrier. http://www.rexresearch.com/farnsworth/fusor.htm#ligon talks about getting significant fusion at 13 KV. Which corresponds to about 150 million degrees. One fusor is described which operated at about 150 KV. The wild card which explains everything is the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect, aka the deuteron stripping reaction, or OP effect which is the removal of a neutron from deuterium. The OP effect is interesting, and may have some peripheral relationship to cold fusion mechanisms, but it is a true form of warm fusion, where a deuteron with incident energy inadequate to reach a nucleus nevertheless loses its neutron to the target nucleus. A key to understanding the OP effect can be to visualize the deuterons as little dumbells, with a neutron end and a proton end. The proton end is repelled from the target nucleus, but the neutron end can approach the nucleus. If the neutron end approaches closely enough, the nuclear forces take over, stripping the neutron, but the proton is still repelled, and will be ejected. It can be accelerated beyond the initial approach velocity, under some conditions. Wiki has an entry but it is probably the most flawed Wiki entry I have read. There is better information in the Vortex archive. Hmmph! I ended up writing much of the page on the O-P process, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process It was originally mangled by one of the editors who was squatting on the Cold fusion article, and in the process of working on O-P process, he revealed his utter ignorance of all things scientific, at least in this area. I noticed that and rescued the article. He was resistant until ScienceApologist, a pseudoskeptic with regard to cold fusion, but who, at least, knew his physics (he was an astrophysics grad student), came along and worked with me for a bit. In understanding what might happen during the collapse of two deuterium molecules to form a Bose-Einstein Condensate, which has been calculated by Takahashi to fuse within a femtosecond to Be-8, the Oppenheimer-Phillips Process can provide some clues. I think of the deuterons as backing up to each other, till their butts stick. Sort of like that Rough, but, whatever it takes Please, don't propose this as an accurate model!
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real, drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this should not be difficult to detect. I was thinking about this for an experiment as well. But how would you establish a negative finding? What if you got some variable such as the frequency wrong, causing the hypothesized electron patches not to work? Eric
RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Abd, You are right - I did not intend to sound dogmatic. I am beginning to wonder whether a couple of different phenomena, perhaps sharing a common denominator, are occurring - depending on experimental materials and procedures. Nature may be getting a little perverse here. The Wendt-Irion exploding wire experiment did appear to produce Helium. Their original paper is - EXPERIMENTAL ATTEMPTS TO DECOMPOSE TUNGSTEN AT HIGH TEMPERATURES - Amer. Chem. Soc. 44 (1922) http://www.uf.narod.ru/science/WendtIrion.pdf Would this provide some link between CF and LENR if reproduced? Lou Pagnucco Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 04:37 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: My suggestion is that transmutations be the litmus test for LENR - not the calorimetry results which never seem definitive enough for everyone. If the reported successful experiments were well conducted, then they will be reproducible. There are some highly questionable assumptions here. First, it appears that the predominant reaction (by far) in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect does not involve transmutations *other than to helium.* Helium has been found to be correlated with heat. Helium had been reported, early on, by Pons and Fleischmann and by others, but the results were not widely accepted and were not convincing. Miles, however, ran a series of cells, finding excess heat in most, and collected gas samples from all the cells, submitting it for blind analysis. His results were clear: no excess heat, no helium. If there was excess heat, there was helium, in amounts well within an order of magnitude of what would be expected from fusion of deuterium to helium (by any mechanism; if the fuel is deuterium and the ash is helium, this value, 23.8 MeV/He-4, will result. The major difficulty is collecting all the helium for measurement; Storms figures that roughly half is trapped in the cathode.) Secondly, individual cold fusion experiments, in PdD, continue to be highly erratic. Success rates, i.e., finding some excess heat, have increased over the years until nearly every cell shows such a result, but the quantity of heat varies greatly. It is not a problem of how well the experiments are conducted. Rather, the very method involves physical conditions which are quite difficult to control. It appears that the FPHE involves defects in the palladium, and the palladium itself changes during the process. A cathode which is showing no effect, later, under what would appear to be the *exact same conditions*, then shows the effect, and not marginally; rather, clearly, far above noise. What is constant, though, whenever it has been tested, is the correlation of helium with the heat. There is no contrary experimental evidence; the early negative replications, the ones that tested for helium -- and some did -- actually confirm this. They found no helium and they found no heat. From what we know now, we can say for certain that they simply failed to set up the necessary conditions, and from other later work, it's quite clear what this likely involved. They ran at a loading of roughly 70%, whereas the FPHE required loading of something on the order of 90% or better. (Effects are not seen, at all, below 80%). To get that high loading requires special palladium. Before the work of Pons and Fleischmann, it appears that 70% was considered about the best you could get! And high loading, by itself, isn't necessarily adequate. In any case, the calorimetry, in the hands of experts, is quite adequate. It alone won't convince those who are not confident about calorimetry, which is why helium is so important. The helium and calorimetry confirm each other. The only thing that connects them would be transmutation, i.e., the fusion of deuterium to helium. There have been attempts to impeach the helium results, but every one of those attempts that I've seen simply ignores the experimental conditions. It's as if someone says, Helium has been found in cold fusion cells and the person, without looking at the data at all, says, Must be leakage from ambient helium. End of topic. That could make some sense when the helium levels are below ambient. It makes no sense when they rise above ambient, as they do on occasion, and it does not explain -- at all -- how the helium could be correlated with the heat, and not just at some random value, at roughly the fusion value. Once this was known and confirmed, by rights, the shoe should have been on the other foot. That happened long ago, and here we are, still flapping about. With a preposterous theory gaining attention because, it's claimed, It's not fusion! Where are the experimental results to back it up? The confirmed predictions?
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
Eric, The plasmon conduction electrons in nanowires can be very heavy - i.e., they possess a huge effective mass when they impact a particle in the direction of the current flow (- but not in orthogonal directions.) Similar to a light metal plate that penetrates a strong barrier because it is mechanically coupled to a battering ram. I surmise that electron effective mass is only converted to real relativistic mass as it climbs a potential barrier impeding its flow. As it ascends, E=mc^2 converts the exchange photons inductively coupling it to neighboring conduction electrons into a cloud of its own photon dressing possessing real, relativistic, omni-directional mass. (Maybe this happens when it tries to climb a proton's effective electroweak barrier when pressed forward by a constant Lorenz force.) So, I expect that, if the conduction current on a nanowire surface is high enough (and quasi-ballistic), gammas originating in the bulk of the wire will be attenuated and scattered consistent with current flow. This might be testable by including radioactive isotopes in wire's bulk. If the gamma energy and directions were not altered, my guess is wrong. In case you are interested in how magnetic fields can act as reservoirs for delocalized momentum, you might want to read - Thoughts on the magnetic vector potential Am.J.Phys. Nov-1996 http://www.uccs.edu/~jmarsh2/links/AJP-64-11-1361.pdf Lou Pagnucco Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real, drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this should not be difficult to detect. I was thinking about this for an experiment as well. But how would you establish a negative finding? What if you got some variable such as the frequency wrong, causing the hypothesized electron patches not to work? Eric
