Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
On May 6, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker wrote: I wrote: Eric, you need to consider some basic requirements. If an energetic particle is produced, such as an alpha, a second particle must be present to carry away the momentum. Yes -- we are in agreement here. There are various ways to accomplish this apart from the Hydroton. There is an f/H tunneling into a deuteron, for example, where an electron is expelled instead of a gamma (if I have understood Robin). And there is Ron Maimon's approach, where a heavy nuclide in the vicinity of the reaction shares in the momentum of the reaction. I fear we are repeating ourselves now. In addition, an upper limit exists to hte energy of an alpha, calculated by Peter, above which the alpha would produce detectable secondary radiation. Yes -- there are Peter Hagelstein's calculations. Is there anyone else who has looked into this, or is the weight of the conclusion about the detectable secondary radiation resting on Hagelstein's calculations alone? The various theories all try to find a way for this energy-momentum to be lost gradually in the form of photons or phonons that are too weak to be detected. Such a process, once started, must drain all the mass-energy out of the He. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of everyone who has studied the process. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hagelstein's approach involves a slow release -- I think the quantum is released all at once, but across countless lattice atoms via phonons, a process that has the effect of subdividing it up into something harmless. There's no "leaking" in that case. It's a fast reaction, it just isn't concentrated in a single place. It's quite possible that I am mistaken in this understanding. The release rate proposed by Peter is ambiguous. He does not explain exactly what happens. He assumes atoms cluster in a metal atom vacancy, at some point they fuse into He, phonons are emitted, and these are converted to photons in order to account for the observed radiation. The process is described by mathematical equations having no relationship to what can be identified as a physical process. Nevertheless, some time has to be involved in the process to avoid melting the local environment by release of 24 MeV/He. Ed Storms Eric
[Vo]:Spinning nickel for warm regards
Dear Vorticians, In assessing the likelihood that Rossi's astounding success (claimed success) with Ni-H heat is factual, his insistence that a single isotope is responsible (to wit: nickel-62) is actually helpful to his cause. If true, it would answer many questions about the lack of replication by others and the notable differences between Ni-H and Pd-D reactions. And this isotope explanation is elegant in surprising ways, including the partial model or metaphor of uranium fission and the corresponding requirement of a critical-mass equivalent of some kind, but without real neutrons. The Ni isotope could be the unknown factor which makes the impresario's staged productions of the past 2 years slightly more believable, especially to those former fans who have panned his recurrent Pagliacci role ... as a falsetto-techno-castrato. Ya gotta laugh at Rossi's bravado, if it is a scam. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks Rossi is clever enough for a more serious role - is he a genius inventor or a vain pretender - an opera-buffa-diva? In an informal poll - how many give Rossi's Ni-62 claim more than a passing chance of being the real breakthrough? I may give it better than a passing chance, even if it is only 51%. That could change quickly if there were more dots to connect. Here is one more dot - at the 10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals, last year in Siena, Italy - a professor or two with connections to Kurchatov and the Russian paper cited earlier were there. Could mean nothing - Russians like to get out of Moscow in April, as Spring comes late. However, they have been notably silent on what they are doing during those long winters, if it involves LENR. A few other factoids. The preferred gaseous nickel compound for use in a centrifuge cascade appears to be nickel tetrafluorophosphine, Ni(PF3)4, called tetrakis. The Russians can enrich to 80%. The cost can only be guesstimated, but would be favorable based on the sunk cost of having lots of unused time on a billion-buck centrifuge array - which quite a few Countries, like the USA do have available... IOW Ni-62 could be factor of 1000 less than what you pay at a chem. supply house. It could be about a tenth the cost per gram of 235U enrichment. Nickel tetrafluorophosphine is known as "tetrakis" nickel since in geometry and polyhedron notation, tetrakis is used to describe a certain solid shape, which this molecule presents. Palladium also has a tetrakis form. Has a certain Dune reminiscence, no ? OTOH, we can't put much faith in coincidence or Conference attendance. "Spice" is a bit less alluring when you realize that it is basically sandworm guano. <>
RE: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
From: Eric Walker The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman suggests, and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it is not 4He but something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling. 1. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman suggests, and there is no nuclear reaction; instead there is a chemical reaction that is poorly understood -- perhaps Jones's RPF. Let me say the major weakness of RPF, in the minds of those who think that LENR should be simplified ala Ockham, is that it speaks to protons only. It does not apply to deuterium. The helium evidence - which is strong - would apply to deuterium only, and has no bearing on reactions involving protons in metals. Although technically the same element - deuterium is far different from protium, double the mass and different in almost every other significant physical property – so one feels justified in treating the two as different elements, essentially - since there is no way to reconcile the two types of gainful reactions as being similar IMO. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
I wrote: Eric, you need to consider some basic requirements. If an energetic > particle is produced, such as an alpha, a second particle must be present > to carry away the momentum. > Yes -- we are in agreement here. There are various ways to accomplish this apart from the Hydroton. There is an f/H tunneling into a deuteron, for example, where an electron is expelled instead of a gamma (if I have understood Robin). And there is Ron Maimon's approach, where a heavy nuclide in the vicinity of the reaction shares in the momentum of the reaction. I fear we are repeating ourselves now. > In addition, an upper limit exists to hte energy of an alpha, calculated > by Peter, above which the alpha would produce detectable secondary > radiation. > Yes -- there are Peter Hagelstein's calculations. Is there anyone else who has looked into this, or is the weight of the conclusion about the detectable secondary radiation resting on Hagelstein's calculations alone? The various theories all try to find a way for this energy-momentum to be > lost gradually in the form of photons or phonons that are too weak to be > detected. Such a process, once started, must drain all the mass-energy out > of the He. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of everyone who > has studied the process. > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hagelstein's approach involves a slow release -- I think the quantum is released all at once, but across countless lattice atoms via phonons, a process that has the effect of subdividing it up into something harmless. There's no "leaking" in that case. It's a fast reaction, it just isn't concentrated in a single place. It's quite possible that I am mistaken in this understanding. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
On May 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. Ha. Yes, I stand corrected. I think I had "excess heat" in mind. Also, Jed brings up a good point about the CR-39 trials -- we don't know one way or another. If Abd were here, it would be very difficult to discuss the CR-39 trials, because he'd complain about every little point one tries to make. ;) We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha emission are not related. I'm afraid we keep on going around in circles on this point. You are assering that prompt alphas comparable to the heat that is generated are not produced, and I'm trying to figure out what the basis is for your assertion. Until I have convinced myself that this is correct on the basis of something other than your assertion, I won't be able to follow you to your conclusion of slow helium formation. I think it's not as bad as when we started -- I now have some more details to work with and Hagelstein's papers to read. Eric, you need to consider some basic requirements. If an energetic particle is produced, such as an alpha, a second particle must be present to carry away the momentum. That is why when He is produced by hot fusion, either a gamma is emitted as the second particle or the He fragments into two particles. In the case of cold fusion, no gamma is emitted and the He does not fragment. Therefore, a new mechanism must operate to carry away the momentum while keeping the He intact and without producing a detectable gamma. This is the unique behavior of CF, which has lead to its rejection. You simply can not produce a single particle with high kinetic energy without the energy being shared with another particle. The He produced by CF shows no evidence for a second particle. In addition, an upper limit exists to hte energy of an alpha, calculated by Peter, above which the alpha would produce detectable secondary radiation. The various theories all try to find a way for this energy-momentum to be lost gradually in the form of photons or phonons that are too weak to be detected. Such a process, once started, must drain all the mass- energy out of the He. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of everyone who has studied the process. Ed Storms And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered. You've gone further than I can go yet. :) I haven't convinced myself that there's ever 4He formation without kinetic energy. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
I wrote: > >1. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that >Hoffman suggests, and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it >is not 4He but something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling. >2. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that >Hoffman suggests, and there is no nuclear reaction; instead there is a >chemical reaction that is poorly understood -- perhaps Jones's RPF. > > I pressed "send" a little too quickly. Jones's reaction is a nuclear one I suppose, technically speaking, although it sure seems chemical. I should add that what I mean by the Hoffman suggestion is related to the assays that were done by B.M. Oliver at Rockwell International on various cathodes and flasks, including China Lake, reproduced in an appendix in his book. I think the China Lake samples were from Miles, and the suggestion that the levels of helium witnessed were from atmospheric helium leaking in sound a little far-fetched, but this is not something I have any expertise in. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
I wrote: Until I have convinced myself that this is correct on the basis of > something other than your assertion, I won't be able to follow you to your > conclusion of slow helium formation. > I should be more specific. What I'm hoping to do is come up with a plausible case that we have not sufficiently established that the levels of prompt alphas are incommensurate 4He formation; I'm optimistic that this might be possible. If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside), I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives: 1. There is 4He formation with little kinetic energy. 1. There is 4He formation in which 24 MeV is released all at once, but diffusely, across the whole lattice (along the lines of Hagelstein's approach) 2. There is 4He formation, but it occurs slowly over time (along the lines of your approach, Ed) 2. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman suggests, and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it is not 4He but something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling. 3. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman suggests, and there is no nuclear reaction; instead there is a chemical reaction that is poorly understood -- perhaps Jones's RPF. I'm not a big fan of (3), nor of (1)(1) or (1)(2). I'm really hoping to find that there have been some mistaken assumptions about what a large flux of prompt alphas would look like hidden behind a reactor housing or the wall of a glass beaker. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, ken deboer wrote: No, Eric, this is not tiresome to us poor unwashed voorts. Except when it > occassionaly degenerates into a pissing contest, it is entirely interesting > to see ideas (many immediately shot down) spin out. > I don't think the voorts are unwashed -- just a captive audience that can sometimes be imposed upon. I'm glad there's broader interest in this topic. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Ed, Could you find another name for "hydroton" that can be used with google? That keyword is utterly swamped even if qualified by "fusion". -- Jim On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Stress generated cracks are important for the following reason. A NAE can > not exist in a normal chemical environment. Consequently a change must take > place. Any change requires energy because the chemical environment is at > its lowest energy. Stress supplies this energy. When a crack forms, it > contains the energy required to promote the electron associated with the > hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy level, which is required to form the > Hydroton. Simply having several particles come together as Axil proposes > would not work because this process lower the energy, thereby making it > unavailable to form the Hydroton. > > My model uses only conventional chemical processes to create the structure > that eventually initiates mass-energy release. Up to the formation of the > Hydroton, the rules of chemistry are followed exactly. Once the Hydroton > forms, the process gets more complicated. However, this later process does > not need to be understood to start the process. To start CF, you only need > to create the conditions required to form the Hydroton. I propose how > these conditions can be created. Most of this process was described months > ago in my first paper describing my proposed process. > > Ed Storms > > > > > On May 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > > On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of > cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface > region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration > gradients, or temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while > the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress > continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap > because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size > is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip] > ** ** > Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps > on a particle surface are “stress” type and that the stress always trumps > stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a > skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to > close the gap, any “metal rain” or loose conductive material should want > to backfill the cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter > particle geometries formed in light of Axils proposed “metal rain” because > this is equivalent to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to > activate/elevate the Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of > dynamic medium formed by plasma between the particles would be continually > reforming new geometries. The concept would also lend some support to > Rossi’s seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes. > Fran > ** ** > ** ** > ** ** > *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com > ] > *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Cc:* Edmund Storms > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love > ** ** > OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps > are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The > stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature > gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional > requiring no magic. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains > small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be > created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less > material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only > important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is > required. > ** ** > Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something > (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce > the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error > and now has a recipe that works most of the time. However, he shows no > indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. > ** ** > If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different > impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel. The > role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap. > Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the > gap. If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to > replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is > only required to make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved > at this stage. > ** ** > If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they do > not describe what
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear > reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. > Ha. Yes, I stand corrected. I think I had "excess heat" in mind. Also, Jed brings up a good point about the CR-39 trials -- we don't know one way or another. If Abd were here, it would be very difficult to discuss the CR-39 trials, because he'd complain about every little point one tries to make. ;) We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a > comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha > emission are not related. > I'm afraid we keep on going around in circles on this point. You are assering that prompt alphas comparable to the heat that is generated are not produced, and I'm trying to figure out what the basis is for your assertion. Until I have convinced myself that this is correct on the basis of something other than your assertion, I won't be able to follow you to your conclusion of slow helium formation. I think it's not as bad as when we started -- I now have some more details to work with and Hagelstein's papers to read. > And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes > alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is > too improbable to be seriously considered. > You've gone further than I can go yet. :) I haven't convinced myself that there's ever 4He formation without kinetic energy. Eric
[Vo]:Polar Excursions to yhe Moon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/8716302328/ Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
The application of heat in the Ni/H reactor is required to get the dipoles moving. If the LENR reaction was only due to Casimir force geometry, a cold Ni/H reactor would produce power. Heat must be applied to the Ni/H reactor to get the alternating current going on the surface of the micro-particles. Heat is the dynamo of the LENR reaction. LENR is an electrical reaction. The higher temperature of the heat, the greater becomes the dipole voltage and the more vigorous will become the LENR reaction. When we spin up a generator to higher RPMs, more power is produced; the same is true for LENR. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I believe that Fano resonance is what produces massive concentrations of > electric charge. > > In the same way that gravity accumulates matter in an open ended and > unlimited extent so that the accumulation can destroys space/time in a > black hole; the same may be true for extreme concentrations of other > fundamental forces. > > How much EMF can be concentrated in space before the laws of nature are > distorted? > > Fano resonance between nano-particles was discovered only three years ago. > The Nanoplasmonic research community has not optimized the formation of > Fano resonance to any degree yet. They have only gotten it up to 10^^15 > amplification. What limits them is as follows: > > These experimenters only use gold or silver because these metals are > relatively safe if ingested. > > Nickel is far more reactive, powerful, and dangerous with regards to the > formation of electron dipole strength. > > Micro-particles are not used yet because they are counterproductive to the > goals and products they want to produce such as nano-computers and optical > telecommunications. > > Furthermore, the Nanoplasmonic experimenters never use hydrogen as the > dielectric, they use ordinary air. > > They use lasers to stimulate dipole movement. Because the laser light is a > plain wave, it does poorly in producing vigorous dipole movement. > > The micro-particle is a wonderful storehouse for dipoles. > > Very small nano-particles use Fano resonance to amplify this dipole energy > (powerful source of alternating current) to a huge degree. > > This micro/nano particle configuration produces a nano-sized tesla-coil. > > Think of the resonant windings of a tesla coil, were the main winding > resonantly drives the few windings > > A Tesla coil's windings are "loosely" coupled, with a large air gap, and > thus the primary and secondary typically share only 10–20% of their > respective magnetic fields. Instead of a tight coupling, the coil transfers > energy (via loose coupling) from one oscillating resonant circuit (the > primary) to the other (the secondary) over a number of RF cycles. > > As the primary energy transfers to the secondary, the secondary's output > voltage increases until all of the available primary energy has been > transferred to the secondary. A well designed Tesla coil can concentrate > the energy initially stored in the primary capacitor (the micro particle) > to the secondary circuit (the nano-particle). The voltage achievable from a > Tesla coil can be significantly greater than a conventional transformer, > because the secondary winding is a long single layer solenoid widely > separated from the surroundings and therefore well insulated. Also, the > voltage per turn in any coil is higher because the rate of change of > magnetic flux is at high frequencies. > > The dipole operates a infrared frequency. This is very high. > > With the loose coupling the voltage gain is instead proportional to the > square root of the ratio of secondary and primary inductances. Because the > secondary winding is wound to be resonant at the same frequency as the > primary, this voltage gain is also proportional to the square root of the > ratio of the primary capacitor to the stray capacitance of the secondary. > > The micro-particle nano-particle resonance packs the entire energy content > stored on the surface of the micro-particle into the atomic level volume > between one nanometer sized particles. > > This produces nano-lightning between atoms. In this unworldly environment > any nuclear reaction can take place including anything that Ed Storms can > imagine. > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> Stress generated cracks are important for the following reason. A NAE can >> not exist in a normal chemical environment. Consequently a change must take >> place. Any change requires energy because the chemical environment is at >> its lowest energy. Stress supplies this energy. When a crack forms, it >> contains the energy required to promote the electron associated with the >> hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy level, which is required to form the >> Hydroton. Simply having several particles come together as Axil proposes >> would not work because this process lower the energy, thereby making it >> unavailable to form the Hydr
[Vo]:Abandon all hope;All ye who enter here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/8707063671/ Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
I believe that Fano resonance is what produces massive concentrations of electric charge. In the same way that gravity accumulates matter in an open ended and unlimited extent so that the accumulation can destroys space/time in a black hole; the same may be true for extreme concentrations of other fundamental forces. How much EMF can be concentrated in space before the laws of nature are distorted? Fano resonance between nano-particles was discovered only three years ago. The Nanoplasmonic research community has not optimized the formation of Fano resonance to any degree yet. They have only gotten it up to 10^^15 amplification. What limits them is as follows: These experimenters only use gold or silver because these metals are relatively safe if ingested. Nickel is far more reactive, powerful, and dangerous with regards to the formation of electron dipole strength. Micro-particles are not used yet because they are counterproductive to the goals and products they want to produce such as nano-computers and optical telecommunications. Furthermore, the Nanoplasmonic experimenters never use hydrogen as the dielectric, they use ordinary air. They use lasers to stimulate dipole movement. Because the laser light is a plain wave, it does poorly in producing vigorous dipole movement. The micro-particle is a wonderful storehouse for dipoles. Very small nano-particles use Fano resonance to amplify this dipole energy (powerful source of alternating current) to a huge degree. This micro/nano particle configuration produces a nano-sized tesla-coil. Think of the resonant windings of a tesla coil, were the main winding resonantly drives the few windings A Tesla coil's windings are "loosely" coupled, with a large air gap, and thus the primary and secondary typically share only 10–20% of their respective magnetic fields. Instead of a tight coupling, the coil transfers energy (via loose coupling) from one oscillating resonant circuit (the primary) to the other (the secondary) over a number of RF cycles. As the primary energy transfers to the secondary, the secondary's output voltage increases until all of the available primary energy has been transferred to the secondary. A well designed Tesla coil can concentrate the energy initially stored in the primary capacitor (the micro particle) to the secondary circuit (the nano-particle). The voltage achievable from a Tesla coil can be significantly greater than a conventional transformer, because the secondary winding is a long single layer solenoid widely separated from the surroundings and therefore well insulated. Also, the voltage per turn in any coil is higher because the rate of change of magnetic flux is at high frequencies. The dipole operates a infrared frequency. This is very high. With the loose coupling the voltage gain is instead proportional to the square root of the ratio of secondary and primary inductances. Because the secondary winding is wound to be resonant at the same frequency as the primary, this voltage gain is also proportional to the square root of the ratio of the primary capacitor to the stray capacitance of the secondary. The micro-particle nano-particle resonance packs the entire energy content stored on the surface of the micro-particle into the atomic level volume between one nanometer sized particles. This produces nano-lightning between atoms. In this unworldly environment any nuclear reaction can take place including anything that Ed Storms can imagine. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Stress generated cracks are important for the following reason. A NAE can > not exist in a normal chemical environment. Consequently a change must take > place. Any change requires energy because the chemical environment is at > its lowest energy. Stress supplies this energy. When a crack forms, it > contains the energy required to promote the electron associated with the > hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy level, which is required to form the > Hydroton. Simply having several particles come together as Axil proposes > would not work because this process lower the energy, thereby making it > unavailable to form the Hydroton. > > My model uses only conventional chemical processes to create the structure > that eventually initiates mass-energy release. Up to the formation of the > Hydroton, the rules of chemistry are followed exactly. Once the Hydroton > forms, the process gets more complicated. However, this later process does > not need to be understood to start the process. To start CF, you only need > to create the conditions required to form the Hydroton. I propose how > these conditions can be created. Most of this process was described months > ago in my first paper describing my proposed process. > > Ed Storms > > > > > On May 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > > On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of > cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Stress generated cracks are important for the following reason. A NAE can not exist in a normal chemical environment. Consequently a change must take place. Any change requires energy because the chemical environment is at its lowest energy. Stress supplies this energy. When a crack forms, it contains the energy required to promote the electron associated with the hydron from the 1s to the 2p energy level, which is required to form the Hydroton. Simply having several particles come together as Axil proposes would not work because this process lower the energy, thereby making it unavailable to form the Hydroton. My model uses only conventional chemical processes to create the structure that eventually initiates mass-energy release. Up to the formation of the Hydroton, the rules of chemistry are followed exactly. Once the Hydroton forms, the process gets more complicated. However, this later process does not need to be understood to start the process. To start CF, you only need to create the conditions required to form the Hydroton. I propose how these conditions can be created. Most of this process was described months ago in my first paper describing my proposed process. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip] Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps on a particle surface are “stress” type and that the stress always trumps stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to close the gap, any “metal rain” or loose conductive material should want to backfill the cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter particle geometries formed in light of Axils proposed “metal rain” because this is equivalent to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to activate/elevate the Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of dynamic medium formed by plasma between the particles would be continually reforming new geometries. The concept would also lend some support to Rossi’s seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes. Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional requiring no magic. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is required. Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error and now has a recipe that works most of the time. However, he shows no indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel. The role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap. Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the gap. If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is only required to make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved at this stage. If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they do not describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the critical conditions to be produced. We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical studies have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial efforts, I believe, are wasting their time and money. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wr
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
On Monday 5/6/13 Ed said [snip] this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. [/snip] Ed, does the gap always grow too wide? You sound convinced that the gaps on a particle surface are "stress" type and that the stress always trumps stiction force. What about leaching pits that would be created to make a skeletal catalyst? My thought is that pits of a skeletal cat would want to close the gap, any "metal rain" or loose conductive material should want to backfill the cavity closed. I also think we should consider the inter particle geometries formed in light of Axils proposed "metal rain" because this is equivalent to Jones suggestion of backfilling a cavity to activate/elevate the Casimir force only the metal rain or other forms of dynamic medium formed by plasma between the particles would be continually reforming new geometries. The concept would also lend some support to Rossi's seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes. Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional requiring no magic. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is required. Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error and now has a recipe that works most of the time. However, he shows no indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel. The role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap. Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the gap. If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is only required to make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved at this stage. If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they do not describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the critical conditions to be produced. We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical studies have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial efforts, I believe, are wasting their time and money. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in the same way that rain renews water in a puddle. I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H reactors. A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that falls on the surface of micro particles. Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and reliably and are self-renewing. This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote: I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Sorry, here it is. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-freedom-scientists- nanoparticles-larger-real.html Freedom of assembly: Scientists see nanoparticles form larger structures in real time The connection point between each of these nano-particles could be a NAE site. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I posted this video not long ago. The cracks are self assembling. watch > the video on how the nano-gaps form. > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > >> Axil, >> >> Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your >> plasmonics posit? I always liked wet cells from a neo Julian Schwinger >> concept of sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression >> plates of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were >> exposed to a dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive >> energies we see as the dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem >> to be suggesting that the plasma and solid geometries can be forming >> similar structures, A metal rain would form dynamic cavities just like >> bubbles in sono fusion without the self quenching heat sinking effect of a >> totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma caught in these cracks during >> such a “rain storm” being effected equivalent to backfilling a cavity but, >> what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a catalyst to just keep >> creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to something and would love >> to see you put the pieces together. >> >> Fran >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM >> *To:* vortex-l >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love >> >> ** ** >> >> The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable >> cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in >> the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in >> the same way that rain renews water in a puddle. >> >> I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H >> reactors. >> >> A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that >> falls on the surface of micro particles. >> >> Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these >> metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the >> lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical >> processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal >> nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and >> reliably and are self-renewing. >> >> This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the >> inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms >> wrote: >> >> I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on >> purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. >> Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though >> once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies >> to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known >> laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same >> requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in >> the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining >> the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry >> were used to create the materials in most cases. The only question of >> importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF? Unless you can >> answer this question, you do not know what you need to make. So, please >> focus on this question. >> >> ** ** >> >> Ed Storms >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Ed Storms stated: >> >> >> >> “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known >> about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some >> consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. >> So, put your thinking cap back on.” >> >> >> >> In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that >> are game changing in how matter behaves. >> >> >> >> These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, >> physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts >> with common sense. >> >> >> >> The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the >> material itself and not absolute. >> >> >> >> You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern >> age. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms >> wrote: >> >> Ha
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
I posted this video not long ago. The cracks are self assembling. watch the video on how the nano-gaps form. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > Axil, > > Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your > plasmonics posit? I always liked wet cells from a neo Julian Schwinger > concept of sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression > plates of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were > exposed to a dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive > energies we see as the dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem > to be suggesting that the plasma and solid geometries can be forming > similar structures, A metal rain would form dynamic cavities just like > bubbles in sono fusion without the self quenching heat sinking effect of a > totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma caught in these cracks during > such a “rain storm” being effected equivalent to backfilling a cavity but, > what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a catalyst to just keep > creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to something and would love > to see you put the pieces together. > > Fran > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love > > ** ** > > The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable > cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in > the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in > the same way that rain renews water in a puddle. > > I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H > reactors. > > A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that > falls on the surface of micro particles. > > Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these > metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the > lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical > processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal > nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and > reliably and are self-renewing. > > This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion > of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment. > > > > > > > ** ** > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms > wrote: > > I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on > purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. > Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though > once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies > to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known > laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same > requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in > the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining > the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry > were used to create the materials in most cases. The only question of > importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF? Unless you can > answer this question, you do not know what you need to make. So, please > focus on this question. > > ** ** > > Ed Storms > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > > > > > Ed Storms stated: > > > > “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known > about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some > consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. > So, put your thinking cap back on.” > > > > In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are > game changing in how matter behaves. > > > > These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, > physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts > with common sense. > > > > The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material > itself and not absolute. > > > > You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern > age. > > > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms > wrote: > > Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not > very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent > with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and > chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. > Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. > This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The > interaction of an alpha with matter is well
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Axil, Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your plasmonics posit? I always liked wet cells from a neo Julian Schwinger concept of sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression plates of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were exposed to a dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive energies we see as the dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem to be suggesting that the plasma and solid geometries can be forming similar structures, A metal rain would form dynamic cavities just like bubbles in sono fusion without the self quenching heat sinking effect of a totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma caught in these cracks during such a "rain storm" being effected equivalent to backfilling a cavity but, what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a catalyst to just keep creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to something and would love to see you put the pieces together. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in the same way that rain renews water in a puddle. I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H reactors. A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that falls on the surface of micro particles. Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and reliably and are self-renewing. This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote: I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry were used to create the materials in most cases. The only question of importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF? Unless you can answer this question, you do not know what you need to make. So, please focus on this question. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms stated: " We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on." In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are game changing in how matter behaves. These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts with common sense. The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material itself and not absolute. You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern age. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote: Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration gradients, or temperature gradients. Regardless of the cause, the process is totally conventional requiring no magic. The cracks are active at first while the gap remains small, but the gap grows too large and CF stops if stress continues to be created. The smaller the particle, the smaller the gap because less material means less stress. In other words, the particle size is only important to keep the gap size small and stable. Again, no magic is required. Rossi apparently uses a small particle size and reacts it with something (he calls a catalyst) to generate the correct amount of stress to produce the required gap size. He has discovered this process by trial and error and now has a recipe that works most of the time. However, he shows no indication he understands what is actually happening in his material. If I'm correct, the correct gap can be produced using many different impurities, different particle sizes, and metals other than nickel. The role of the metal is to form a gap and then suppy hydrons to the gap. Again, no magic is required. The magic happens once the hydrons enter the gap. If this model is correct, the process becomes very simple and easy to replicate once creation of the gap is mastered. The electric discharge is only required to make H+ available to the gap. Again, no magic is involved at this stage. If I'm right, all the patents issued so far are worthless because they do not describe what is actually happening in a manner that allows the critical conditions to be produced. We have to wait to see if my idea is correct after the critical studies have been done. Meanwhile, Rossi and the other commercial efforts, I believe, are wasting their time and money. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in the metal lattice. These drops are self- renewing and totally recyclable in the same way that rain renews water in a puddle. I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H reactors. A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that falls on the surface of micro particles. Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and reliably and are self-renewing. This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry were used to create the materials in most cases. The only question of importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF? Unless you can answer this question, you do not know what you need to make. So, please focus on this question. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms stated: “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.” In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are game changing in how matter behaves. These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts with common sense. The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material itself and not absolute. You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern age. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not very useful. My guiding principle i
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in the same way that rain renews water in a puddle. I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H reactors. A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that falls on the surface of micro particles. Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these metal drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the lattice. They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical processes that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal nano-drops are the same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and reliably and are self-renewing. This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion of a potassium salt in a LERN experiment. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on > purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. > Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though > once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies > to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known > laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same > requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in > the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining > the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry > were used to create the materials in most cases. The only question of > importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF? Unless you can > answer this question, you do not know what you need to make. So, please > focus on this question. > > Ed Storms > > > > On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Ed Storms stated: > > “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known > about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some > consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. > So, put your thinking cap back on.” > > In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are > game changing in how matter behaves. > > These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, > physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts > with common sense. > > The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material > itself and not absolute. > > You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern > age. > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not >> very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent >> with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and >> chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. >> Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. >> This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The >> interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does >> not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would >> occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been >> observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, >> but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas >> that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF >> behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and >> observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: >> >> The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire". >> Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced. >> >> starting a fire with hand drill >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA >> >> Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire" >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: >> >>> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not >>> invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be >>> shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the >>> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible >>> to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, >>> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be >>> true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the >>> observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for thems
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies to the new materials you describe. They will be created using the known laws even though once created, they will have unusual properties. This same requirement applies to all aspects of materials science and has resulted in the unusual materials we presently enjoy. They were not made by imagining the need for "magic powers". The known and conventional laws of chemistry were used to create the materials in most cases. The only question of importance is: What has to be created to initiate CF? Unless you can answer this question, you do not know what you need to make. So, please focus on this question. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms stated: “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.” In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are game changing in how matter behaves. These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts with common sense. The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material itself and not absolute. You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern age. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire". Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced. starting a fire with hand drill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs Harry On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are given, a counter argument can always be provided. I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms states: “We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha emission are not related.” This could be a false assumption as follows: When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39. In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed. This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their associated behavior and
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Fran, Have you considered using paragraphs as well as ellipses? It would make you posts so much easier to read. Ron --On Monday, May 06, 2013 7:33 PM + "Roarty, Francis X" wrote: I guess my comment is biased heavily toward my pet theories regarding geometry and only regarding a low powered visible example of the effect- not something that could ever heat your home. If special isotopes are required as Jones' suggest then of course we aren't going to find them at Wall Mart, but, if milling geometry and zero point considerations happen to be at the heart of this effect then the possibility of home milled powders and materials goes way up.. I have always suspected a geometrical link between pyrophoricity and these anomalies where hot coals put ambient gases very close to combustion levels that become concentrated when gas flow is increased in a parallel way to that by which LENR+ seems to occur with gas loading into and out of the lattice. If I had the lab equipment I would love to mill nickel and possibly Tungsten in an inert glove box and then keep the powder permanently mixed with either inert gas or mixed with percentages of hydrogen while being simultaneously heat sunk.. perhaps an upside down "reactor bowl" under liquid to trap the desired atmosphere while providing heat sinking… my thought being that the geometry is far more capable than we suspect but being constantly torn down by nature at the nano scale before ever achieving these anomalous effects we only see in a stunted short lived effect when conditions are just right..activating without oxygen in situ.. I suggest that preventing combustion in a super catalytic environment can discount disassociation of H2 to the point of OU and serve as the bootstrap energy for the nuclear effects others are researching…. I don't think this violates COE but rather that COE falsely implies that HUP can never be exploited while Casimir geometry is providing the loophole to that rule .. The radioactive half life anomalies suggest the normal cancellation of gas motion/ HUP is being biased spatially.. I am convinced that the individual radioactive gas atoms never experience any change in half life from their own local perspective but rather become accelerated in a negative inertial frame from our perspective [we slow down like the paradox twin near C], This Pythagorean relationship between "it's" spatial frame and ours outside the suppression geometry is what I posit can allow HUP to be exploited.. a sort of self assembling Maxwellian demon that can differentiate h1 from H2 by opposing motion of one more than the other between different suppression/inertial zones. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial Roarty, Francis X wrote: The funny thing about your comment is that you just know 30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle behind these effects that they really will "Mcgiver" together a working example out of off the shelf products at Wall Mart. .. :_). I doubt it. Here are some mass produced devices similar to a cold fusion cell. An ordinary person at home cannot make them with off-the-shelf components: NiCad battery Computer CPU chip Catalytic converter Fuel cell I expect that cold fusion will always call for precision manufacturing, pure metals and clean, automated production lines. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Ed Storms stated: “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.” In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are game changing in how matter behaves. These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts with common sense. The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material itself and not absolute. You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern age. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not > very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent > with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and > chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. > Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. > This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The > interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does > not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would > occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been > observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, > but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas > that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF > behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and > observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on. > > Ed Storms > > > > On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire". > Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced. > > starting a fire with hand drill > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA > > Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs > > Harry > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not >> invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be >> shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the >> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible >> to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, >> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be >> true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the >> observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which >> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such >> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are >> given, a counter argument can always be provided. >> >> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe >> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. >> >> Ed Storms >> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> Ed Storms states: >> >> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission >> at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and >> alpha emission are not related.”* >> >> This could be a false assumption as follows: >> >> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to >> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to >> penetrate the surface of the CR-39. >> >> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very >> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed. >> >> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the >> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their >> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: >> >>> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear >>> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction >>> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown >>> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. >>> >>> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at >>> a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha >>> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the >>> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? >>> >>> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This >>> helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. >>> Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire". Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced. starting a fire with hand drill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs Harry On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are given, a counter argument can always be provided. I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms states: “We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha emission are not related.” This could be a false assumption as follows: When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39. In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed. This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission is clearly not related to CF. And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Eric Walker wrote: But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat. I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do not know whether there was heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
I guess my comment is biased heavily toward my pet theories regarding geometry and only regarding a low powered visible example of the effect- not something that could ever heat your home. If special isotopes are required as Jones' suggest then of course we aren't going to find them at Wall Mart, but, if milling geometry and zero point considerations happen to be at the heart of this effect then the possibility of home milled powders and materials goes way up.. I have always suspected a geometrical link between pyrophoricity and these anomalies where hot coals put ambient gases very close to combustion levels that become concentrated when gas flow is increased in a parallel way to that by which LENR+ seems to occur with gas loading into and out of the lattice. If I had the lab equipment I would love to mill nickel and possibly Tungsten in an inert glove box and then keep the powder permanently mixed with either inert gas or mixed with percentages of hydrogen while being simultaneously heat sunk.. perhaps an upside down "reactor bowl" under liquid to trap the desired atmosphere while providing heat sinking... my thought being that the geometry is far more capable than we suspect but being constantly torn down by nature at the nano scale before ever achieving these anomalous effects we only see in a stunted short lived effect when conditions are just right..activating without oxygen in situ.. I suggest that preventing combustion in a super catalytic environment can discount disassociation of H2 to the point of OU and serve as the bootstrap energy for the nuclear effects others are researching I don't think this violates COE but rather that COE falsely implies that HUP can never be exploited while Casimir geometry is providing the loophole to that rule .. The radioactive half life anomalies suggest the normal cancellation of gas motion/ HUP is being biased spatially.. I am convinced that the individual radioactive gas atoms never experience any change in half life from their own local perspective but rather become accelerated in a negative inertial frame from our perspective [we slow down like the paradox twin near C], This Pythagorean relationship between "it's" spatial frame and ours outside the suppression geometry is what I posit can allow HUP to be exploited.. a sort of self assembling Maxwellian demon that can differentiate h1 from H2 by opposing motion of one more than the other between different suppression/inertial zones. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial Roarty, Francis X mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote: The funny thing about your comment is that you just know 30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle behind these effects that they really will "Mcgiver" together a working example out of off the shelf products at Wall Mart. .. :_). I doubt it. Here are some mass produced devices similar to a cold fusion cell. An ordinary person at home cannot make them with off-the-shelf components: NiCad battery Computer CPU chip Catalytic converter Fuel cell I expect that cold fusion will always call for precision manufacturing, pure metals and clean, automated production lines. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire". Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced. starting a fire with hand drill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs Harry On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite > a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown > to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the > arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible > to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, > Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be > true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the > observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which > possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such > details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are > given, a counter argument can always be provided. > > I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe > and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. > > Ed Storms > On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Ed Storms states: > > *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at > a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha > emission are not related.”* > > This could be a false assumption as follows: > > When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to > the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to > penetrate the surface of the CR-39. > > In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very > low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed. > > This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the > lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their > associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable. > > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear >> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction >> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown >> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. >> >> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a >> comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha >> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the >> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? >> >> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium >> does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. >> Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question >> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are >> trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha >> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission >> is clearly not related to CF. >> >> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes >> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is >> too improbable to be seriously considered. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> Eric Walker wrote: >> >> >>> But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to >>> conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the >>> alpha particle flux when there is excess heat. >>> >> >> I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do >> not know whether there was heat. >> >> - Jed >> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
One of the advantages of Nanoplasmonics is that an experimental methodology and associated tools have been developed that might impact on this sort of experimental ambiguity. This is why I recommend this science to you. The recently referenced experiment on the acceleration of alpha decay shows that Nanoplasmonics can have an impact on the alpha particle formation process. An important part of the scientific method is to select the right tools to observe the points we are interested in sorting out. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite > a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown > to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the > arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible > to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, > Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be > true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the > observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which > possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such > details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are > given, a counter argument can always be provided. > > I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe > and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. > > Ed Storms > > On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Ed Storms states: > > *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at > a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha > emission are not related.”* > > This could be a false assumption as follows: > > When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to > the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to > penetrate the surface of the CR-39. > > In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very > low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed. > > This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the > lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their > associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable. > > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear >> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction >> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown >> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. >> >> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a >> comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha >> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the >> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? >> >> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium >> does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. >> Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question >> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are >> trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha >> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission >> is clearly not related to CF. >> >> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes >> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is >> too improbable to be seriously considered. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> Eric Walker wrote: >> >> >>> But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to >>> conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the >>> alpha particle flux when there is excess heat. >>> >> >> I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do >> not know whether there was heat. >> >> - Jed >> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
what you say remind me what I've learned about markets, risk management. most of the time financial models are right, but you lose all the cash gain whan it worked when they get suddenly wrong. one blackswan lost can kill all the benefit of the chicken farm. 2013/5/6 Edmund Storms > Let me clarify my pithy and brief comment. Yes the scientific method works > fine when applied to studies that have no importance to anyone other than > the person doing the study. However, once the subject becomes important to > a larger group, such as global warming or cold fusion, to give recent > examples, the method is distorted and does not work. Having done studies > that used the scientific method with good effect and in cold fusion where > the method has broken down, I'm naturally more sensitive to the > implications of the failure rather than bering proud of the success. Yes, > we can all be proud that the scientific method works, but its failures > cause the damage that needs to be addressed. > > Ed > > On May 6, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > > On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Edmund Storms wrote: > > I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the >> application frequently sucks! >> > > Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not > other times. > > > I think that in general scientific method is very loosely defined. Science > is based on a method, but what is exactly the method, it is defined case by > case. Science is very practical institution. > > And everything that is practical is very difficult for common people to > grasp. People are typically used to theorize *a priori* generalities in > ivory towers. Therefore they have often hard time to understand what > constitutes science. > > Practicality in general is under-appreciated in philosophy. > > Also I disagree with Edmund. Scientific method does indeed work very often > and very well. People are just biased to notice when the application of > method is erroneous and science fails and thus they think that errors are > more frequent than they actually are. However, more than often science > works brilliantly, but when science does good, people do not appreciate it > enough. > > —Jouni > > >
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua Cude states without any basis with or proof from experimentation: “LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR. Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy water, but you still have to mine nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses ordinary soil and tap water. Just mix the dirt with water 2:1 by mass in an empty tin (I find Libby's bean cans work best, especially if you eat them beforehand), add a secret catalyst, which I can't disclose, turn it upside down, and hit it with a hammer, and it begins to glow red hot. Pictures at 11. DGT has shown that twice as much nickel comes out of their LENR ash as goes into it. So the DGT LENR reaction is a net producer of nickel. LENR++ will be a technology similar to the production of microcomputers. Such technology is being perfected now in the fabrication of new gen solar panels and optical telecommunication equipment. Joshua Cude is reminiscent of the old geezers who righteously proclaimed from their wheelchairs that man would never fly, set in their sclerotic attitudes pressed into their brains through years behind the reins of their horse drawn wagons. Such antediluvian attitudes are mercifully removed from youthful civilization by the natural progression of mortality. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR. > Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy > water, but you still have to mine nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses > ordinary soil and tap water. Just mix the dirt with water 2:1 by mass in an > empty tin (I find Libby's bean cans work best, especially if you eat them > beforehand), add a secret catalyst, which I can't disclose, turn it upside > down, and hit it with a hammer, and it begins to glow red hot. Pictures at > 11. > > > As for the WL theory, I think Larsen is running a scam. It's too > preposterous to imagine that anyone educated could take it seriously. He > tricks his intended audience (with dense and colorful slides) by cleverly > getting rid of the Coulomb barrier, and somehow they are not in the least > bothered by the fact that the energy barrier to making neutrons is 10 times > higher. Thieberger calls it going from the frying pan to the fire: > http://www.scribd.com/doc/83026935/Cold-Fusion-and-LENR. As he says, the > theory is totally beyond any reasonable credibility. > > > There are many implausible parts to the theory, including the ad hoc > additions to explain the absence of neutrons or gamma rays. Here's a > recent paper showing why the electron capture has negligible probability: > Tennfors, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128 (2013) > > > But the most blatant problem is not an intrinsic part of the theory, but > it illustrates that they are either completely clueless (not true of > Widom), or they are trying to pull a fast one. It also shows that the > referee for their paper was sleeping. > > > As part of the chain of reactions, they propose 4He + n -> 5He. 4He is a > highly stable (doubly magic) entity, and therefore adding a neutron > actually produces a decrease in average binding energy per nucleon, and is > therefore *endothermic*, requiring something close to an MeV to proceed. > WL insist the neutrons are cold, so where does the energy come from? Simple > kinematics show that the alpha would have to have energy 9 times the > Q-value (no more and no less) to conserve both momentum and energy with > only one product. Not only would 9 MeV alphas be trivial to detect (from > other reactions they would produce, if not directly), but the probability > of producing them with the exact energy would be vanishingly small. And > while WL do spin a great yarn trying to justify the "heavy" electrons > needed to make protons, they don't even try to explain where the energy for > this reaction comes from. And yet somehow Larsen has kept his company alive > with an angel investor for 6 years. There really is a sucker born every > minute. And they seem to be concentrated in the cold fusion business. > > > Rossi, for his part, has yet to provide evidence of anything nuclear, let > alone commercial. Anyway, I though his first delivery was back in 2011. > > > > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Joshua Cude >> >> I wonder if you have been keeping up with the new thinking in LENR. >> Specifically, I would like your opinion of the new theories posed by NASA >> and Widom-Larsen centered on the polariton. >> >> These theories are more applicable to the Ni/H reactor (LENR+) rather >> than the older LENR theories witch are still the mainstream on this site. >> >> I believe that LENR is essentially useless. Your opinion on the Rossi and >> DGT reactors would be interesting. >> >> Frankly because LENR is useless and uninteresting, your abuse of LENR is >> tedious regardless if LENR is real or not. >> >> LENR+ is a completely new principle which is comi
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are given, a counter argument can always be provided. I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms states: “We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha emission are not related.” This could be a false assumption as follows: When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39. In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed. This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission is clearly not related to CF. And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Eric Walker wrote: But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat. I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do not know whether there was heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Ed Storms states: *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha emission are not related.”* This could be a false assumption as follows: When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to penetrate the surface of the CR-39. In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed. This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear > reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction > was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown > is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. > > We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a > comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha > emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the > source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? > > When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium > does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. > Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question > is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are > trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha > comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission > is clearly not related to CF. > > And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes > alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is > too improbable to be seriously considered. > > Ed Storms > > > > On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Eric Walker wrote: > > >> But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude >> we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha >> particle flux when there is excess heat. >> > > I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do > not know whether there was heat. > > - Jed > > >
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Roarty, Francis X wrote: > The funny thing about your comment is that you just know > 30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle behind these > effects that they really will “Mcgiver” together a working example out of > off the shelf products at Wall Mart. .. :_). > I doubt it. Here are some mass produced devices similar to a cold fusion cell. An ordinary person at home cannot make them with off-the-shelf components: NiCad battery Computer CPU chip Catalytic converter Fuel cell I expect that cold fusion will always call for precision manufacturing, pure metals and clean, automated production lines. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Not if the active material is a few grams of highly enriched nickel-62 :-) From: Roarty, Francis X The funny thing about your comment is that you just know 30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle behind these effects that they really will "Mcgiver" together a working example out of off the shelf products at Wall Mart. .. :_). <>
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission is clearly not related to CF. And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is too improbable to be seriously considered. Ed Storms On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Eric Walker wrote: But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat. I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do not know whether there was heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Monday May 5 Joshua said [snip] LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR. Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy water, but you still have to mine nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses ordinary soil and tap water. Just mix the dirt with water 2:1 by mass in an empty tin (I find Libby's bean cans work best, especially if you eat them beforehand), add a secret catalyst, which I can't disclose, turn it upside down, and hit it with a hammer, and it begins to glow red hot. Pictures at 11. [/snip] Joshua, The funny thing about your comment is that you just know 30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle behind these effects that they really will "Mcgiver" together a working example out of off the shelf products at Wall Mart. .. :_). Fran From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR. Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy water, but you still have to mine nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses ordinary soil and tap water. Just mix the dirt with water 2:1 by mass in an empty tin (I find Libby's bean cans work best, especially if you eat them beforehand), add a secret catalyst, which I can't disclose, turn it upside down, and hit it with a hammer, and it begins to glow red hot. Pictures at 11. As for the WL theory, I think Larsen is running a scam. It's too preposterous to imagine that anyone educated could take it seriously. He tricks his intended audience (with dense and colorful slides) by cleverly getting rid of the Coulomb barrier, and somehow they are not in the least bothered by the fact that the energy barrier to making neutrons is 10 times higher. Thieberger calls it going from the frying pan to the fire: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83026935/Cold-Fusion-and-LENR. As he says, the theory is totally beyond any reasonable credibility. There are many implausible parts to the theory, including the ad hoc additions to explain the absence of neutrons or gamma rays. Here's a recent paper showing why the electron capture has negligible probability: Tennfors, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128 (2013) But the most blatant problem is not an intrinsic part of the theory, but it illustrates that they are either completely clueless (not true of Widom), or they are trying to pull a fast one. It also shows that the referee for their paper was sleeping. As part of the chain of reactions, they propose 4He + n -> 5He. 4He is a highly stable (doubly magic) entity, and therefore adding a neutron actually produces a decrease in average binding energy per nucleon, and is therefore endothermic, requiring something close to an MeV to proceed. WL insist the neutrons are cold, so where does the energy come from? Simple kinematics show that the alpha would have to have energy 9 times the Q-value (no more and no less) to conserve both momentum and energy with only one product. Not only would 9 MeV alphas be trivial to detect (from other reactions they would produce, if not directly), but the probability of producing them with the exact energy would be vanishingly small. And while WL do spin a great yarn trying to justify the "heavy" electrons needed to make protons, they don't even try to explain where the energy for this reaction comes from. And yet somehow Larsen has kept his company alive with an angel investor for 6 years. There really is a sucker born every minute. And they seem to be concentrated in the cold fusion business. Rossi, for his part, has yet to provide evidence of anything nuclear, let alone commercial. Anyway, I though his first delivery was back in 2011. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote: Joshua Cude I wonder if you have been keeping up with the new thinking in LENR. Specifically, I would like your opinion of the new theories posed by NASA and Widom-Larsen centered on the polariton. These theories are more applicable to the Ni/H reactor (LENR+) rather than the older LENR theories witch are still the mainstream on this site. I believe that LENR is essentially useless. Your opinion on the Rossi and DGT reactors would be interesting. Frankly because LENR is useless and uninteresting, your abuse of LENR is tedious regardless if LENR is real or not. LENR+ is a completely new principle which is coming to perfection in the short term with the first delivery of a Rossi reactor this last week and the upcoming demo of the DGT reactor at the NI conference in August. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com>> wrote: The recent editorial in Infinite Energy by Hagelstein represents the incoherent ramblings of a bitter man who is beginning to realize he has wasted 25 years
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Eugen Leitl wrote: > Were other investigators able to reproduce your results in > experimental setups of their own? > The best illustration of reproducibility between different labs is Fig. 3, here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Eric Walker wrote: > But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude > we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha > particle flux when there is excess heat. > I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do not know whether there was heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Well, thanks Joshua Cude -- maybe Lomax will provide a comparable review of his heat-helium correlation claim -- together, the two contrasting reviews might attract attention by experts -- historians of science will make comparisons with similar conundrums, such as the actual identity of "dark matter", many times more mass in total than baronic matter in our universe bubble, and also of "dark energy", again many times more mass than known energy, and of searches for "sterile neutrinos" and other exotic particles, including Robert Foot's "mirror matter". The putative existence of our own unique universe bubble, in which these very little crooked black and white le t t er marks appear in the visual space of awareness, along with rapid memories and subtle comprehensions, is the ultimate strange beastie, the prototypical "bump in the dark"... Google "nonduality"... within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > On May 6, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > Murray wrote: Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an impasse, > talking right past each other? > > You are right. We have hashed this over several times, and ceased to make > any progress a long time ago. After all, the discussion is about results > mostly a decade or more old. It was hashed out here 2 years ago, and more > recently in moletrap. But since you ask, I can cut and paste and augment a > recent summary that expresses my view of the correlation situation. > > *Heat Helium correlation* > > A correlation between heat and helium is clearly an important and > definitive experiment for cold fusion. To justify a claim of such a > correlation, Lomax points to a Storms' 2010 review in Naturwissenschaften. > Unfortunately, the experiments that Storms cites represent a real dog's > breakfast of mostly unrefereed and marginal work, and the conclusions > depend rather heavily on Storms' own data interpretation, which does not > add confidence considering he takes Rossi's results seriously. > > > This is an example of the approach that makes your comments irrelevant, > Joshua. First of all, all data requires interpretation. Either a > knowledgeable scientists does this and explains the reasons behind the > interpretations, as I did in the quoted paper, or you do the job and > distort what has been observed to fit your conclusions. Unless you show > what is wrong, your comment is just your opinion, which people are learning > not to trust. As for taking Rossi seriously, I do not. I have explained > what I accept and what I do not, and why. I take him no more seriously > than I take you. > > *Peer review* > > Peer-review is a rather modest requirement for credibility, but Lomax > seems to think that a citation in a refereed review article confers upon > the data the equivalent credibility of peer-review of the original work, > but that's nonsense. The referees for a review paper cannot possibly be > expected to critically review each of the papers cited. And a look at some > of the cited papers makes it clear they did not. > > The most recent peer-reviewed results that Storms uses to get a quantified > heat/helium correlation come from a set of experiments by Miles in the > early 90s. These were very crude experiments, in which peaks were eyeballed > as small, medium, and large, the small taken as equal to the detection > limit (which seemed to change by orders of magnitude over the years). The > correlation was all over the map, and barely within an order of magnitude > of the expected DD fusion value. > > > Again, you distort the data to fit your attitude. Miles published two sets > of results. You quote only the first and least accurate. The results were > confirmed by Bush and later by McKubre. > > > Miles results' were severely criticized by Jones in peer-reviewed > literature. There was considerable back and forth on the results, and in > Storms view (of course) Miles successfully defended his claims, but the DOE > panel in 2004 agreed 17 to 1 with Jones, that there was no conclusive > evidence for nuclear effects. In any case, that kind of disagreement and > large variation in such a critical experiment simply cries out for better > experiments. So what else have we got? > > *The replications* > > Storms cites (and Lomax parrots) a dozen groups (including the Miles > results) that have claimed a heat-helium correlation, but a look at his > list paints a different picture. > > Storms admits that one group (Chien) does not measure heat, so they can't > claim a correlation. Another group (Botta) also does not measure heat, > although Storms claims they do. > > Storms cites Aoki's 1994 claim of a very weak helium signal, but fails to > cite their follow-up work in Int J Soc Mat Eng Resources 6 (1998) 22, where > they report no helium (nor any other products) above background, but they > do measure excess heat. That's an *anti-correlation*, isn't it. > > The Takahashi
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
No, Eric, this is not tiresome to us poor unwashed voorts. Except when it occassionaly degenerates into a pissing contest, it is entirely interesting to see ideas (many immediately shot down) spin out. It seems to me that eventually some new useful insight, or synthesis might give either a combatant or cheerleader another idea. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > Eric, you need to do some calculations. The CR-39 is an accumulator. The >> flux, which determines power , is very small during these studies even >> though the final result looks large. At no time could heat be detected >> from the reactions producing these products. >> > > This suggests that the CR-39 experiments have in general been done in > connection with null results -- i.e., trials in which there was no reason > to think there was excess heat. This is interesting on several levels, > since there were pits in the chips. But if there was no clear excess heat, > we have little reason to conclude we have learned anything from the > CR-39 experiments about the alpha particle flux when there is excess heat. > > I fear that this thread may be becoming tiresome for the poor Vorts. I > will mull over the information you have provided. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On May 6, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: Murray wrote: Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an impasse, talking right past each other? You are right. We have hashed this over several times, and ceased to make any progress a long time ago. After all, the discussion is about results mostly a decade or more old. It was hashed out here 2 years ago, and more recently in moletrap. But since you ask, I can cut and paste and augment a recent summary that expresses my view of the correlation situation. Heat Helium correlation A correlation between heat and helium is clearly an important and definitive experiment for cold fusion. To justify a claim of such a correlation, Lomax points to a Storms' 2010 review in Naturwissenschaften. Unfortunately, the experiments that Storms cites represent a real dog's breakfast of mostly unrefereed and marginal work, and the conclusions depend rather heavily on Storms' own data interpretation, which does not add confidence considering he takes Rossi's results seriously. This is an example of the approach that makes your comments irrelevant, Joshua. First of all, all data requires interpretation. Either a knowledgeable scientists does this and explains the reasons behind the interpretations, as I did in the quoted paper, or you do the job and distort what has been observed to fit your conclusions. Unless you show what is wrong, your comment is just your opinion, which people are learning not to trust. As for taking Rossi seriously, I do not. I have explained what I accept and what I do not, and why. I take him no more seriously than I take you. Peer review Peer-review is a rather modest requirement for credibility, but Lomax seems to think that a citation in a refereed review article confers upon the data the equivalent credibility of peer-review of the original work, but that's nonsense. The referees for a review paper cannot possibly be expected to critically review each of the papers cited. And a look at some of the cited papers makes it clear they did not. The most recent peer-reviewed results that Storms uses to get a quantified heat/helium correlation come from a set of experiments by Miles in the early 90s. These were very crude experiments, in which peaks were eyeballed as small, medium, and large, the small taken as equal to the detection limit (which seemed to change by orders of magnitude over the years). The correlation was all over the map, and barely within an order of magnitude of the expected DD fusion value. Again, you distort the data to fit your attitude. Miles published two sets of results. You quote only the first and least accurate. The results were confirmed by Bush and later by McKubre. Miles results' were severely criticized by Jones in peer-reviewed literature. There was considerable back and forth on the results, and in Storms view (of course) Miles successfully defended his claims, but the DOE panel in 2004 agreed 17 to 1 with Jones, that there was no conclusive evidence for nuclear effects. In any case, that kind of disagreement and large variation in such a critical experiment simply cries out for better experiments. So what else have we got? The replications Storms cites (and Lomax parrots) a dozen groups (including the Miles results) that have claimed a heat-helium correlation, but a look at his list paints a different picture. Storms admits that one group (Chien) does not measure heat, so they can't claim a correlation. Another group (Botta) also does not measure heat, although Storms claims they do. Storms cites Aoki's 1994 claim of a very weak helium signal, but fails to cite their follow-up work in Int J Soc Mat Eng Resources 6 (1998) 22, where they report no helium (nor any other products) above background, but they do measure excess heat. That's an *anti- correlation*, isn't it. The Takahashi results also suggest anti-correlation. They are not completely clear about the various cells in the two different reports, but as I read it, in the ICCF-7 paper about half the cells give heat, and half show helium, and only one shows both. Likewise, in the ICCF-8 paper, only one of the cells that showed helium also showed heat. And the amount of heat was more than an order of magnitude below the expected value based on the helium. Then there is the Gozzi reference, one of the few in a readily accessible (not Japanese) refereed journal. This is claimed as a replication, but in fact Gozzi admits in the latest 1998 paper that the helium results are too weak to be definitive. Maybe it's not anti-correlation, but it certainly can't be counted as replication. Interestingly, Gozzi appears to have gotten out of the field after that paper. The Luch results from 1994 claim helium and heat but did not attempt to quantify the ratio. The odd thing is that, as Storms says, their work on essentia
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:38:23AM -0600, Edmund Storms wrote: > Eugen, here is a list of my publications. I wonder why you limit Thank you, I see I can get some of them online from LENR-CANR, which is convenient. > youself to peer reviewed publications. I have been working in In a field as contentious as cold fusion it is a good idea to vet as rigorously as possible. > science for 65 years and have never found a peer reviewed > publication to be more useful than other sources. A trained > scientist should be able to tell what is correct and what is not Unfortunately nobody is paying for my time spent doing that (while I have another literature review way overdue), so anything to reduce the workload is highly desirable. > without a less than perfect reviewer doing the job for him. I wonder > how you got through school if you ignored the information in books. Pretty much all cutting edge happens in online preprints and specialist journals, with occasional review articles get get one oriented -- most books are structured by chapters to be effectively review articles as well. > Nevertheless, I agree some papers are better written than others, > but a review does not correct this limitation. Thanks! > Ed Storms > 1. Talcott, C.L., et al. Tritium measurements: Methods, > pitfalls, and result. in EPRI/NSF Planning Workshop. 1989. > Washington, DC. p. > > 2. Storms, E. and C. Talcott, Electrolytic charging of > palladium with deuterium to high stoichiometry, P. Report, Editor. > 1989. > > 3. Storms, E. A New method for initiating nuclear reactions. > in First International Conference on Future Energy. 1989. > Washington, DC: Unpublished. p. > > 4. Talcott, C.L. and E. Storms. An overview of "cold > fusion". in JOWOG-12 Meeting, Atomic Weapons Estab. 1990. > Aldermaston, England. p. > > 5. Storms, E.K. and C.L. Talcott. A study of electrolytic > tritium production. in The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. > 1990. University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah: > National Cold Fusion Institute. p. 149. > > 6. Storms, E. and C.L. Talcott, Electrolytic tritium > production. Fusion Technol., 1990. 17: p. 680. > > 7. Storms, E., Review of experimental observations about the > cold fusion effect. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 433. > > 8. Storms, E.K. and C. Talcott-Storms, The effect of > hydriding on the physical structure of palladium and on the release > of contained tritium. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 246. > > 9. Talcott, C.L., et al., Effects on the palladium deuteride > lattice constant upon alloying with lithium, draft, Editor. 1992. > > 10. Storms, E. Measurement of excess heat from a Pons- > Fleischmann type electrolytic cell. in Third International > Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya > Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. p. 21. > > 11. Storms, E.K., Measurements of excess heat from a Pons- > Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell using palladium sheet. Fusion > Technol., 1993. 23: p. 230. > > 12. Storms, E. Some characteristics of heat production using > the "cold fusion" effect. in Fourth International Conference on Cold > Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 > Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. p. 4. > > 13. Storms, E. The status of "cold fusion". in 28th > Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. 1993. > Atlanta, GA,. p. > > 14. Storms, E.K. Statement of Dr. Edmund Storms before > Congress. in Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy of the > Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U. S. House of > Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session. 1993. > Washington, C.D.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 114. > > 15. Storms, E., Chemically-assisted nuclear reactions. Cold > Fusion, 1994. 1(3): p. 42. > > 16. Storms, E. Methods required for the production of excess > energy using the electrolysis of palladium in D2O-based electrolyte. > in International Symposium, “Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy > Sources”. 1994. Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus. p. > > 17. Storms, E.K., Some characteristics of heat production > using the "cold fusion" effect. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. > 26(4T): p. 96. > > 18.Hansen, L.D., et al., Cooperative investigation of > anomalous effects in Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells. 1994, A proposal > submitted to the Department of Energy (1994). > > 19. Storms, E., Cold Fusion: From reasons to doubt to reasons > to believe. Infinite Energy, 1995. 1(1): p. 23. > > 20. Storms, E.K., Cold fusion, a challenge to modern science. > J. Sci. Expl., 1995. 9: p. 585. > > 21. Storms, E. Status of "cold fusion". in 5th International > Conference on Cold Fusion. 1995. Monte-Carlo, Monaco. p. 1. > > 22. Storms, E. The nature of the energy-active state in Pd-D. > in II Workshop on the
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Eugen, here is a list of my publications. I wonder why you limit youself to peer reviewed publications. I have been working in science for 65 years and have never found a peer reviewed publication to be more useful than other sources. A trained scientist should be able to tell what is correct and what is not without a less than perfect reviewer doing the job for him. I wonder how you got through school if you ignored the information in books. Nevertheless, I agree some papers are better written than others, but a review does not correct this limitation. Ed Storms 1. Talcott, C.L., et al. Tritium measurements: Methods, pitfalls, and result. in EPRI/NSF Planning Workshop. 1989. Washington, DC. p. 2. Storms, E. and C. Talcott, Electrolytic charging of palladium with deuterium to high stoichiometry, P. Report, Editor. 1989. 3. Storms, E. A New method for initiating nuclear reactions. in First International Conference on Future Energy. 1989. Washington, DC: Unpublished. p. 4. Talcott, C.L. and E. Storms. An overview of "cold fusion". in JOWOG-12 Meeting, Atomic Weapons Estab. 1990. Aldermaston, England. p. 5. Storms, E.K. and C.L. Talcott. A study of electrolytic tritium production. in The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. 1990. University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah: National Cold Fusion Institute. p. 149. 6. Storms, E. and C.L. Talcott, Electrolytic tritium production. Fusion Technol., 1990. 17: p. 680. 7. Storms, E., Review of experimental observations about the cold fusion effect. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 433. 8. Storms, E.K. and C. Talcott-Storms, The effect of hydriding on the physical structure of palladium and on the release of contained tritium. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 246. 9. Talcott, C.L., et al., Effects on the palladium deuteride lattice constant upon alloying with lithium, draft, Editor. 1992. 10. Storms, E. Measurement of excess heat from a Pons- Fleischmann type electrolytic cell. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. p. 21. 11. Storms, E.K., Measurements of excess heat from a Pons- Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell using palladium sheet. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 230. 12. Storms, E. Some characteristics of heat production using the "cold fusion" effect. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. p. 4. 13. Storms, E. The status of "cold fusion". in 28th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. 1993. Atlanta, GA,. p. 14. Storms, E.K. Statement of Dr. Edmund Storms before Congress. in Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U. S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session. 1993. Washington, C.D.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 114. 15. Storms, E., Chemically-assisted nuclear reactions. Cold Fusion, 1994. 1(3): p. 42. 16. Storms, E. Methods required for the production of excess energy using the electrolysis of palladium in D2O-based electrolyte. in International Symposium, “Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy Sources”. 1994. Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus. p. 17. Storms, E.K., Some characteristics of heat production using the "cold fusion" effect. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 96. 18.Hansen, L.D., et al., Cooperative investigation of anomalous effects in Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells. 1994, A proposal submitted to the Department of Energy (1994). 19. Storms, E., Cold Fusion: From reasons to doubt to reasons to believe. Infinite Energy, 1995. 1(1): p. 23. 20. Storms, E.K., Cold fusion, a challenge to modern science. J. Sci. Expl., 1995. 9: p. 585. 21. Storms, E. Status of "cold fusion". in 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1995. Monte-Carlo, Monaco. p. 1. 22. Storms, E. The nature of the energy-active state in Pd-D. in II Workshop on the Loading of Hydrogen/Deuterium in Metals, Characterization of Materials and Related Phenomena. 1995. Asti, Italy. p. 23. Storms, E.K., The nature of the energy-active state in Pd-D. Infinite Energy, 1995(#5 and #6): p. 77. 24. Storms, E. Some thoughts on the nature of the nuclear-active regions in palladium. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. p. 105. 25. Storms, E., A review of the cold fusion effect. J. Sci. Exploration, 1996. 10(2): p. 185. 26. Storms, E., How to produce the Pon
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
Edmund Storms wrote: > However, once the subject becomes important to a larger group, such as > global warming or cold fusion, to give recent examples, the method is > distorted and does not work. > I would say it does not work as well. It works to some extent. After all, cold fusion was replicated, and those replications were published in the peer-reviewed literature. When the subject becomes important, many institutions become dysfunctional because of politics, greed, fear, and other human foibles. That statement applies to banking, health care, national government, the military, higher education, setting computer standards, agriculture . . . everything, really. In the events leading up to the crash of 2008, banking became highly dysfunctional because of the housing bubble and the separation of mortgages and the lending institutions. However, just because banking is sometimes dysfunctional to some extent in some ways, that does not mean that all banks are hopeless and they can never play a constructive role in the economy. It means they have their limits. They must be regulated carefully and reformed from time to time. Just because mainstream science has been largely dysfunctional in the cold fusion fiasco, that does not mean all major scientific institutions have failed, or that the method itself always fails when politics interfere with its workings. The ENEA has not totally failed. Cold fusion may yet succeed, after all. Wikipedia is an example of a dysfunctional institution, overrun by politics, because of the way the institution is designed. Despite the many inherent problems, there are good articles in Wikipedia. It is not a total failure, by any means. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:04:57AM -0600, Edmund Storms wrote: > > On May 6, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > >On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 07:26:42PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >>Edmund Storms wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. > >> > >> > >>Me neither! I promise to shut up. > > > >Have any of you personally been able to reproduce anomalous > >heat generation in your own experimental setups? > > Yes Eugen, I have been able to produce heat, tritium, and/or > radiation on numerous occasions using a variety of methods. These Excellent. How strong were the anomalous effects (in terms of power output, of the transmutation rate, the type and intensity of radiation produced), and where can I read your most important publications? Were other investigators able to reproduce your results in experimental setups of their own? > studies are published and can be studied by anyone. In addition, I > published a book describing what other people have observed. I > suggest you get the book from Amazon. (The Science of Low Energy > Nuclear Reaction). Thank you, but I prefer articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On May 6, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 07:26:42PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. Me neither! I promise to shut up. Have any of you personally been able to reproduce anomalous heat generation in your own experimental setups? Yes Eugen, I have been able to produce heat, tritium, and/or radiation on numerous occasions using a variety of methods. These studies are published and can be studied by anyone. In addition, I published a book describing what other people have observed. I suggest you get the book from Amazon. (The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction). Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
Let me clarify my pithy and brief comment. Yes the scientific method works fine when applied to studies that have no importance to anyone other than the person doing the study. However, once the subject becomes important to a larger group, such as global warming or cold fusion, to give recent examples, the method is distorted and does not work. Having done studies that used the scientific method with good effect and in cold fusion where the method has broken down, I'm naturally more sensitive to the implications of the failure rather than bering proud of the success. Yes, we can all be proud that the scientific method works, but its failures cause the damage that needs to be addressed. Ed On May 6, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the application frequently sucks! Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not other times. I think that in general scientific method is very loosely defined. Science is based on a method, but what is exactly the method, it is defined case by case. Science is very practical institution. And everything that is practical is very difficult for common people to grasp. People are typically used to theorize a priori generalities in ivory towers. Therefore they have often hard time to understand what constitutes science. Practicality in general is under-appreciated in philosophy. Also I disagree with Edmund. Scientific method does indeed work very often and very well. People are just biased to notice when the application of method is erroneous and science fails and thus they think that errors are more frequent than they actually are. However, more than often science works brilliantly, but when science does good, people do not appreciate it enough. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 07:26:42PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > > > > Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. > > > Me neither! I promise to shut up. Have any of you personally been able to reproduce anomalous heat generation in your own experimental setups?
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR. Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy water, but you still have to mine nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses ordinary soil and tap water. Just mix the dirt with water 2:1 by mass in an empty tin (I find Libby's bean cans work best, especially if you eat them beforehand), add a secret catalyst, which I can't disclose, turn it upside down, and hit it with a hammer, and it begins to glow red hot. Pictures at 11. As for the WL theory, I think Larsen is running a scam. It's too preposterous to imagine that anyone educated could take it seriously. He tricks his intended audience (with dense and colorful slides) by cleverly getting rid of the Coulomb barrier, and somehow they are not in the least bothered by the fact that the energy barrier to making neutrons is 10 times higher. Thieberger calls it going from the frying pan to the fire: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83026935/Cold-Fusion-and-LENR. As he says, the theory is totally beyond any reasonable credibility. There are many implausible parts to the theory, including the ad hoc additions to explain the absence of neutrons or gamma rays. Here's a recent paper showing why the electron capture has negligible probability: Tennfors, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128 (2013) But the most blatant problem is not an intrinsic part of the theory, but it illustrates that they are either completely clueless (not true of Widom), or they are trying to pull a fast one. It also shows that the referee for their paper was sleeping. As part of the chain of reactions, they propose 4He + n -> 5He. 4He is a highly stable (doubly magic) entity, and therefore adding a neutron actually produces a decrease in average binding energy per nucleon, and is therefore *endothermic*, requiring something close to an MeV to proceed. WL insist the neutrons are cold, so where does the energy come from? Simple kinematics show that the alpha would have to have energy 9 times the Q-value (no more and no less) to conserve both momentum and energy with only one product. Not only would 9 MeV alphas be trivial to detect (from other reactions they would produce, if not directly), but the probability of producing them with the exact energy would be vanishingly small. And while WL do spin a great yarn trying to justify the "heavy" electrons needed to make protons, they don't even try to explain where the energy for this reaction comes from. And yet somehow Larsen has kept his company alive with an angel investor for 6 years. There really is a sucker born every minute. And they seem to be concentrated in the cold fusion business. Rossi, for his part, has yet to provide evidence of anything nuclear, let alone commercial. Anyway, I though his first delivery was back in 2011. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Joshua Cude > > I wonder if you have been keeping up with the new thinking in LENR. > Specifically, I would like your opinion of the new theories posed by NASA > and Widom-Larsen centered on the polariton. > > These theories are more applicable to the Ni/H reactor (LENR+) rather than > the older LENR theories witch are still the mainstream on this site. > > I believe that LENR is essentially useless. Your opinion on the Rossi and > DGT reactors would be interesting. > > Frankly because LENR is useless and uninteresting, your abuse of LENR is > tedious regardless if LENR is real or not. > > LENR+ is a completely new principle which is coming to perfection in the > short term with the first delivery of a Rossi reactor this last week and > the upcoming demo of the DGT reactor at the NI conference in August. > > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> The recent editorial in Infinite Energy by Hagelstein represents the >> incoherent ramblings of a bitter man who is beginning to realize he has >> wasted 25 years of his career, but is deathly afraid to admit it. He spends >> a lot of time talking about consensus and experiment and evidence and >> theory and destroyed careers and suppression but scarcely raises the issue >> of the *quality* of the evidence. That's cold fusion's problem: the quality >> of the evidence is abysmal -- not better than the evidence for bigfoot, >> alien visits, dowsing, homeopathy and a dozen other pathological sciences. >> And an extraordinary claim *does* require excellent evidence. By not >> facing this issue, and simply ploughing ahead as if the evidence is as good >> as the Wright brothers' Paris flight in 1908, he loses the confidence of >> all but true believers that he is being completely honest and forthright. >> >> >> *1. On consensus* >> >> >> Hagelstein starts out with the science-by-consensus straw man, suggesting >> that consensus "was used in connection with the question of the existence >> of an excess heat effect in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment." >> >> >> Please! No one with any familiarity with the history of scien
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Murray wrote: Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an impasse, talking right past each other? You are right. We have hashed this over several times, and ceased to make any progress a long time ago. After all, the discussion is about results mostly a decade or more old. It was hashed out here 2 years ago, and more recently in moletrap. But since you ask, I can cut and paste and augment a recent summary that expresses my view of the correlation situation. *Heat Helium correlation* A correlation between heat and helium is clearly an important and definitive experiment for cold fusion. To justify a claim of such a correlation, Lomax points to a Storms' 2010 review in Naturwissenschaften. Unfortunately, the experiments that Storms cites represent a real dog's breakfast of mostly unrefereed and marginal work, and the conclusions depend rather heavily on Storms' own data interpretation, which does not add confidence considering he takes Rossi's results seriously. *Peer review* Peer-review is a rather modest requirement for credibility, but Lomax seems to think that a citation in a refereed review article confers upon the data the equivalent credibility of peer-review of the original work, but that's nonsense. The referees for a review paper cannot possibly be expected to critically review each of the papers cited. And a look at some of the cited papers makes it clear they did not. The most recent peer-reviewed results that Storms uses to get a quantified heat/helium correlation come from a set of experiments by Miles in the early 90s. These were very crude experiments, in which peaks were eyeballed as small, medium, and large, the small taken as equal to the detection limit (which seemed to change by orders of magnitude over the years). The correlation was all over the map, and barely within an order of magnitude of the expected DD fusion value. Miles results' were severely criticized by Jones in peer-reviewed literature. There was considerable back and forth on the results, and in Storms view (of course) Miles successfully defended his claims, but the DOE panel in 2004 agreed 17 to 1 with Jones, that there was no conclusive evidence for nuclear effects. In any case, that kind of disagreement and large variation in such a critical experiment simply cries out for better experiments. So what else have we got? *The replications* Storms cites (and Lomax parrots) a dozen groups (including the Miles results) that have claimed a heat-helium correlation, but a look at his list paints a different picture. Storms admits that one group (Chien) does not measure heat, so they can't claim a correlation. Another group (Botta) also does not measure heat, although Storms claims they do. Storms cites Aoki's 1994 claim of a very weak helium signal, but fails to cite their follow-up work in Int J Soc Mat Eng Resources 6 (1998) 22, where they report no helium (nor any other products) above background, but they do measure excess heat. That's an *anti-correlation*, isn't it. The Takahashi results also suggest anti-correlation. They are not completely clear about the various cells in the two different reports, but as I read it, in the ICCF-7 paper about half the cells give heat, and half show helium, and only one shows both. Likewise, in the ICCF-8 paper, only one of the cells that showed helium also showed heat. And the amount of heat was more than an order of magnitude below the expected value based on the helium. Then there is the Gozzi reference, one of the few in a readily accessible (not Japanese) refereed journal. This is claimed as a replication, but in fact Gozzi admits in the latest 1998 paper that the helium results are too weak to be definitive. Maybe it's not anti-correlation, but it certainly can't be counted as replication. Interestingly, Gozzi appears to have gotten out of the field after that paper. The Luch results from 1994 claim helium and heat but did not attempt to quantify the ratio. The odd thing is that, as Storms says, their work on essentially the identical experiment continued until recently (maybe the present), but none of their subsequent papers refer to helium at all, which is presumably why Storms does not cite them specifically. But if it is generally agreed that the main nuclear product is helium, and if they claim to have seen it early on, failure to mention it subsequently, let alone attempt to quantify it, suggests they probably didn't see it, or have abysmal judgment as to what's important. That means 5 of the claimed replications do not support (or contradict) the correlation, and one is questionable, which should shake anyone's confidence in Storms. Of the remaining 5, only Arata's results were published in refereed journals. They are Japanese journals, but some are written in English. Still, they seem quite cryptic and incomplete, as though Arata's reputation trumped effective peer-review. In any case, although there are at least 9 papers, indicating exte
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > >> I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the >> application frequently sucks! > > Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not other > times. I think that in general scientific method is very loosely defined. Science is based on a method, but what is exactly the method, it is defined case by case. Science is very practical institution. And everything that is practical is very difficult for common people to grasp. People are typically used to theorize a priori generalities in ivory towers. Therefore they have often hard time to understand what constitutes science. Practicality in general is under-appreciated in philosophy. Also I disagree with Edmund. Scientific method does indeed work very often and very well. People are just biased to notice when the application of method is erroneous and science fails and thus they think that errors are more frequent than they actually are. However, more than often science works brilliantly, but when science does good, people do not appreciate it enough. ―Jouni
