Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Frederick Sparber wrote: I see and appreciate your approach Ed, but being impatient after almost two decades of waiting on those figuring out the mechanism suggests trying a bigger hammer. This gets back to the point I made during the discussion of Professor Susslick's comments. Induced nuclear reactions, whether hot or cold. are anomalous, the Professor and I are in agreement on that. I don't care how you do it, as long as it produces some usable energy. One other line that I'm going to include in my response to Professor Susslick. The violin maker who lives down the street from me, can't make a Stradivarius, that doesn't change the fact that Stradivarius's exist. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Here is my take on the crux of the debate about neutrons in LENR: Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory several years ago, which since that time has evolved into a rather logical and insightful explanation for many (but not all, by any means) of the 18 years of experimental results coming from LENR investigation. It involves a subthermal or cold neutron and the weak force, but *without* the need for D-D fusion at all, nor for tunneling through a high Coulomb barrier. It is consistent with present-day physics (almost). Widom, Larsen, Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces. I should have cited W-L in my original posting in this thread several days ago, wrt the subthermal neutron although I do not believe that they are the first to recognize the possibility. Anyway, W-L theory is controversial among long-time observers here on Vortex because it flies in the face of strongly-held prior assumptions, particularly of D+D fusion being the most relevant M.O., leading to some considerable acrimony among interested parties ... as witnessed recently in this thread, where merely being a proponent of W-L apparently makes one seem agressive to those who do not choose to recognize its validity. Here is a critique of the W-L theory, which (contrary to the writer's goal -Dr Robert Deck), ends up demonstrating some of the overlooked weaknesses of that theory instead: http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/WLTheoryDeckCritique.htm ... in which Deck says [with my comments]: Finally, despite the reservations expressed above, I conclude that the mechanism proposed in the Widom-Larsen papers provides a far more compelling explanation of the anomalous phenomenon observed in electrolytic chemical cells than previous theories. [he is at fault for lumping all of these experiments together]. Unfortunately, this implies that electrolytic cells using metal hydride electrodes are unlikely to provide a practical source of energy. [this is another center of controversy, esp. for those who have a large personal investment is seeing LENR emerge as the savior of the US, in its energy crisis]. RD: Given that the Widom-Larsen theory is correct, the energy you can expect to generate in the electrolysis cell is much less than it would be if the process involved in the cell was the fusion of deuterium nuclei. [He gives no good rationale or citations for this conclusion]. RD: This is because in the Widom-Larsen process, the production of neutrons via the merger of an electron and a proton actually requires input energy; whereas the capture of neutrons by nuclei produces some energy in the form of hard gamma photons and beta particles (which gets turned into heat) [that much is true]... therefore, it's not comparable to that produced in fusion. [This conclusion does not follow logically, esp if/since the all-important rate of the reaction could be enhanced considerably] I would like to stress that IF - one allows for the possibility of several different varieties of LENR, then W-L theory certainly rings truer and more logical than anything yet put forward to explain that variety of experiment. The SPAWAR experiment is indeed in that variety, but many others, including those of Ed Storms are not. Edmund Storms wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not influenced by the boron. This clarifies why you are negative about boron. I take it that you are also unconvinced that the SPAWAR tracks (pits) are indicative of neutrons. However, are you saying that none (no substantial population) of those SPAWAR tracks is consistent with neutrons? They see something that is neutron-like. However, the results are not consistent with any other observation. Also, the production rate of these particles is very low, perhaps too low to be detected any other way. There seems to be substantial disagreement on this point, as the Kowalski pages indicate... There is disagreement about almost every human idea if you search for the right people to ask. You need to examine the facts. ... BUT if any substantial number of these tracks are due to neutrons, and there are a number of experts who believe this -- then you will agree that the presence of boron would add substantial energy to any such cell producing them, no? If neutrons are involved at at a sufficient rate, they will add energy by by being absorbed by any nucleus. The practical issue is how many are actually present. Obviously, too
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold fusion. It makes the following unsupported assumptions: 1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. 2. This electron can react with a proton to make a neutron. The electron gains mass only by acquiring kinetic energy. As far as I know, the electron is not believed to contain internal energy states that would allow it to store energy as mass. The rare occasion when energetic electrons are found to react, the rate is very low. 3. This neutron reacts with elements in the environment causing isotopic shift without producing radioactive products. Many of the required isotopes are radioactive with a half life that is easy to detect. They are not observed. 4. The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported by Miley. The claimed agreement is poor at best. These are the facts. Of course, it is possible to ignore the facts or be unaware of the conflict with observation. Nevertheless, I find it strange that a theory containing so many flaws in logic and conflict with observation would be considered. Apparently, this shows the desperation theoreticians have been reduced to. I have no complaint about discussing theories based on imagination. However, they should at least be logical and consistent with all observation, not just those that support the idea. It is even possible that more than one mechanism is operating and more than one nuclear path is followed. Nevertheless, I suggest it is a waste of time making arbitrary assumptions unless these have strong support. Otherwise, this is just a game of whose imagination and salesmanship is better. Ed Jones Beene wrote: Here is my take on the crux of the debate about neutrons in LENR: Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory several years ago, which since that time has evolved into a rather logical and insightful explanation for many (but not all, by any means) of the 18 years of experimental results coming from LENR investigation. It involves a subthermal or cold neutron and the weak force, but *without* the need for D-D fusion at all, nor for tunneling through a high Coulomb barrier. It is consistent with present-day physics (almost). Widom, Larsen, Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces. I should have cited W-L in my original posting in this thread several days ago, wrt the subthermal neutron although I do not believe that they are the first to recognize the possibility. Anyway, W-L theory is controversial among long-time observers here on Vortex because it flies in the face of strongly-held prior assumptions, particularly of D+D fusion being the most relevant M.O., leading to some considerable acrimony among interested parties ... as witnessed recently in this thread, where merely being a proponent of W-L apparently makes one seem agressive to those who do not choose to recognize its validity. Here is a critique of the W-L theory, which (contrary to the writer's goal -Dr Robert Deck), ends up demonstrating some of the overlooked weaknesses of that theory instead: http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/WLTheoryDeckCritique.htm ... in which Deck says [with my comments]: Finally, despite the reservations expressed above, I conclude that the mechanism proposed in the Widom-Larsen papers provides a far more compelling explanation of the anomalous phenomenon observed in electrolytic chemical cells than previous theories. [he is at fault for lumping all of these experiments together]. Unfortunately, this implies that electrolytic cells using metal hydride electrodes are unlikely to provide a practical source of energy. [this is another center of controversy, esp. for those who have a large personal investment is seeing LENR emerge as the savior of the US, in its energy crisis]. RD: Given that the Widom-Larsen theory is correct, the energy you can expect to generate in the electrolysis cell is much less than it would be if the process involved in the cell was the fusion of deuterium nuclei. [He gives no good rationale or citations for this conclusion]. RD: This is because in the Widom-Larsen process, the production of neutrons via the merger of an electron and a proton actually requires input energy; whereas the capture of neutrons by nuclei produces some energy in the form of hard gamma photons and beta particles (which gets turned into heat) [that much is true]... therefore, it's not comparable to that produced in fusion. [This conclusion does not follow logically, esp if/since the all-important rate of the reaction could be enhanced considerably] I would like to stress that IF - one allows for the
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
--- Ed, The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported by Miley. The claimed agreement is poor at best. This could be a very important point to clarify, due to the reputation of Miley. Are you certain that Miley considers the agreement as poor at best ? I was under the impression that he considers it to be convincing. Jones
[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Japanese automobile accident deaths decline
Somewhat off topic, I guess. Japanese automobile accident deaths have declined to lowest levels recorded in 54 years. In 2007 approximately 5,700 people were killed in auto accidents, 609 fewer than 2006. Per capita this is much lower than the U.S., I assume because people drive less there. Here is the story and video in Japanese: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/2008/01/03/k2008010243.html The number of fatalities caused by drunk driving declined sharply, by 31%, to a total of 395 as of November 2007. This decline was caused by tightened penalties and increased police vigilance in response to some recent horrific drunk driving accidents. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones, I have no idea what Miley believes. Take a look at the Larsen paper where they make a comparison to a selected set of the Miley work and tell me what you think. The fit is even less good to other data sets. The logic of the fit is even flawed. When a neutron is added to an element, the isotopic ratio is shifted. To get a new element, a beta must be emitted. The dead times of the elements involved in this process are well known and do not permit the claimed distribution to form no matter how many neutrons are available. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Ed, The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported by Miley. The claimed agreement is poor at best. This could be a very important point to clarify, due to the reputation of Miley. Are you certain that Miley considers the agreement as poor at best ? I was under the impression that he considers it to be convincing. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:10:44 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] The dead times of the elements involved in this process are well known and do not permit the claimed distribution to form no matter how many neutrons are available. Could you please explain what dead times means in this context? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
