Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
On Jan 6, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: snip We can debate all day about what the arrangement of electrons looks like and how they might in theory behave. Nevertheless, if electrons can in fact gain the required 0.78 MeV from their surroundings to make a neutron, why is this process not detected? There is in fact much more than 0.78 MeV feasibly available from electron-nucleus interaction, so energy is not the issue. Horave, the energy is the issue! A free neutron, as W-L propose, can only be made by an electron adding to a proton. This takes energy. This energy must be available at the time the neutron is formed, not later when the neutron might react with a nucleus. . On the above we certainly agree. . . Therefore, it must be accumulated from the environment and added to the electron. I'm saying that no mechanism exists, other than imagination, that can make this happen. If it were to happen, many chemical effects would be produced by the energetic electron long before a neutron was produced. Such effects are NOT observed. ' The above then spotlights a major source of disagreement or at least miscommunication. My viewpoint is that a particle pair represents an infinite amount of potential energy, providing they can approach close enough. ' From the electric potential energy Pe for separating an electron and proton we have: ' Pe = k (-q)(q)(1/r) = -(2.88x10^-9 eV m) (1/r) ' which we can rearrange to obtain r for a given potential energy, ' r = (1.439965x10^-9 eV m) (1/Pe) ' and we have for 0.78 MeV: ' r = (1.44x10-9 eV m) (1/(0.78x10^6 eV)) ' r = 1.846x10-16 m ' I'll explain below why a small nucleus size is not a problem here. ' From my point of view the problem is thus not one of energy. There is an infinite amount of energy available. The problems then are how close can the particles get and under what conditions and for how long? The main thing that prevents approach to zero distance is uncertainty in the apparent size of the particles, their Zitterbewegung, their de Broglie wavelength. This problem diminishes with increased approach velocity because the de Broglie wavelengths of the particles diminishes with increased velocity and thus increased momentum or increased kinetic energy. ' Since EC reactions clearly occur with some types of nuclei, it is clear the fact the electron involved is an orbital electron is not important. The wave function of orbital electron thus accommodates its entry into a nucleus sized volume. The fact the electron is orbital vs free kinetic does not impair its ability to interact with the tiny nucleus. ' In ordinary spherically symmetric orbitals electrons have a very low probability of being found in the nucleus, or even in close vicinity. However, when they *are* observed there their kinetic energy and momentum is consistent with the loss of potential energy gained falling into the Coulomb well to the observed radius. Orbital mechanics itself depends on invariance in the sum of potential and kinetic energies. ' Of great interest and relevance to the issue of available energy is the fact that all orbitals are not like the ordinary spherical ground state orbital. Slight changes in environment or excitement, involving energies merely at the chemical level, can change orbital structure dramatically. Orbitals can be changed from a spherical cloud into a lobed form, or other perturbed forms, which involve plunges deep toward the nucleus with high probability, and relativistic electron momenta. The probability of the electron being found within the nucleus or very close to the nucleus can increase by orders of magnitude, as does the probability of the electron having momentarily enormous kinetic energies, in these special orbitals. ' When an electron approaches sufficiently close to the nucleus, additional binding energies come into play from magnetic binding. This provides even more kinetic energy to the approaching nucleus. I showed this in some detail in the following calculation: ' http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf ' Now, here is something you might find useful for your side of the argument. Here I take the alternate view that the following is a revelation of an exciting possibility. The kinetic energies involved in relativistic orbitals provide an increase in the mass of the atom, all with nominal energy input from the environment. From a normal physics point of view, there is no antecedent for this energy. The mere collapse of two opposed charges into a smaller volume can provide an increase in mass. Amazing if true. It is further amazing that zero point energy supplies kinetic energy and thus mass to particles increasingly confined in volume, i.e. degenerate matter. See: ' http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf ' The pool of energy available for
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Let me try that one more time! As usual I made a slight error. ' From the electric potential energy Pe for separating an electron and proton we have: ' Pe = k (-q)(q)(1/r) = -(2.88x10^-9 eV m) (1/r) ' which we can rearrange to obtain r for a given potential energy, ' r = (1.439965x10^-9 eV m) (1/Pe) ' and we have for 0.78 MeV: ' r = (1.44x10-9 eV m) (1/(0.78x10^6 eV)) ' r = 1.846x10-15 m === exponent -15, not -16 ' [snip] Here's another issue I think is not commonly recognized or considered, but which I think is valid. The size of the nucleus is dependent on its de Broglie wavelength in the frame of observation. However, the reference frame that is important to the nuclear reactions discussed is that of the electron, not the laboratory. In the electron's reference frame, the nucleus is very small, and can be orders of magnitude smaller than in the lab frame, when the electron is at near c velocity. This explains why a nucleus radius of 1.846x10-15 m can be no problem for the calculation made above, and further why neutron formation is an unlikely event. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory Let me try that one more time! As usual I made a slight error. ' From the electric potential energy Pe for separating an electron and proton we have: ' Pe = k (-q)(q)(1/r) = -(2.88x10^-9 eV m) (1/r) ' which we can rearrange to obtain r for a given potential energy, ' r = (1.439965x10^-9 eV m) (1/Pe) Mmm, all you did is multiply both sides by r/Pe it seems, how come your constant got halved and changed sign from one line to the next? Michel ' and we have for 0.78 MeV: ' r = (1.44x10-9 eV m) (1/(0.78x10^6 eV)) ' r = 1.846x10-15 m === exponent -15, not -16 ' [snip] Here's another issue I think is not commonly recognized or considered, but which I think is valid. The size of the nucleus is dependent on its de Broglie wavelength in the frame of observation. However, the reference frame that is important to the nuclear reactions discussed is that of the electron, not the laboratory. In the electron's reference frame, the nucleus is very small, and can be orders of magnitude smaller than in the lab frame, when the electron is at near c velocity. This explains why a nucleus radius of 1.846x10-15 m can be no problem for the calculation made above, and further why neutron formation is an unlikely event. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory Let me try that one more time! As usual I made a slight error. ' From the electric potential energy Pe for separating an electron and proton we have: ' Pe = k (-q)(q)(1/r) = -(2.88x10^-9 eV m) (1/r) ' which we can rearrange to obtain r for a given potential energy, ' r = (1.439965x10^-9 eV m) (1/Pe) Mmm, all you did is multiply both sides by r/Pe it seems, how come your constant got halved and changed sign from one line to the next? Because I was cutting a pasting from a 2 deuteron intermediate fusion state calculation which assumed: Pe = k (-2q)(q)(1/r) = -(2.88x10^-9 eV m) (1/r) because there are two deuterons in the state. I dropped the two, but then started updating the rest with the second line upon recalculating. The above should be Pe = k (-q)(q)(1/r) = -(1.439965x10^-9) (1/r) The formula: r = (1.439965x10^-9 eV m) (1/Pe) I think is correct, thus r = 1.846x10-15 m as posted. Radius is an absolute value. All just more errors due to my clerical incompetence! Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Horace Heffner wrote: snip We can debate all day about what the arrangement of electrons looks like and how they might in theory behave. Nevertheless, if electrons can in fact gain the required 0.78 MeV from their surroundings to make a neutron, why is this process not detected? There is in fact much more than 0.78 MeV feasibly available from electron-nucleus interaction, so energy is not the issue. Horave, the energy is the issue! A free neutron, as W-L propose, can only be made by an electron adding to a proton. This takes energy. This energy must be available at the time the neutron is formed, not later when the neutron might react with a nucleus. Therefore, it must be accumulated from the environment and added to the electron. I'm saying that no mechanism exists, other than imagination, that can make this happen. If it were to happen, many chemical effects would be produced by the energetic electron long before a neutron was produced. Such effects are NOT observed. The main issue is time. Making a neutron requires a weak reaction and the availability of a neutrino. Such a reaction would be highly improbable to observe because it would have a huge half-life. Further, the radius of the particle I computed would likely preclude a neutrino-proton-electron reaction. Further I am not advocating for neutron formation as being possible or even the creation of a more than attosecond order neutron like deflated state as even being likely. What I have said is there is a *possibility* of a neutron like entity being created, and there may be a chance for a longer bound entity. I just don't know, but the calculations I provided in this thread earlier seem to support the possibility. Such an entity represents a major energy deficit to a fusion reaction though, as I explained in my theory, and would be unlikely to be detected at all by nuclear physicists or anyone looking for nuclear reaction signatures. My main point though was not that such things exist, but rather that your argument for their non-existence does not hold water. Other arguments may. What argument would you think would hold more water? Do you know of any experimental observations, other than EC, that would support this idea? That is the issue of this discussion. Sorry that I did not make clear earlier my reasons for mentioning EC. I did not intend to imply EC was relevant at all to making an actual neutron from a proton. EC clearly demonstrates (a) the ability of an orbital electron to enter into and stay in the nucleus, (2) the energy level of the electron must be appropriate to its proximity to the nucleus and thus on the order of MeV, a relativistic energy, and (3) the de Broglie wavelength of the electron is not an issue in preventing it from entering the nucleus. I think that further provides evidence that, since nuclear transit events at light speed should occur with very short durations, they must necessarily occur with great frequency in order to make EC feasible and observable. Another way to state that common sense notion is that (4) the wave function must provide for a high probability of observing the orbital electron in the nucleus. I have no problem believing that the electron wave function must somehow involve the nucleus so that when the nucleus finds that addition of an electron results in a lower energy, the electron can be sucked in. However, this process does not always occur when addition of an electron would result in lower energy. Therefore, other factors must operate. But, this is not the issue of this discussion. The additional experimental evidence required is: A Water Molecule's Chemical Formula is Really Not H2O”,Physics News Update, Number 648 #1, July 31, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein, http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/648-1.html This I think confirms the notion that a very brief nuclear bound state exists between the electron and proton even in water. Water examined on an attosecond scale is not H2O but actually H1.5O, despite the fact it reacts in all chemical reactions as H2O. Some of the hydrogen is thus frequently, but very briefly hidden. A brief electron-proton bound state is a very sensible explanation as to how the protons can disappear to an incident neutron beam. I do not think this is evidence of formation of a neutron. On the contrary, I think it is evidence of a fairly high probability non-radiating degenerate state for the orbital electron. I don't know of any way to detect such a state except by means similar to those used in the above experiment. However, I think CF provides further evidence to the existence of such a state. More to the point of this thread, it provides some evidence that a *neutron-like* entity with half life more than a few attoseconds might be formed by orbital electrons in the right
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Sorry for the delay in responding. Time seems to be in short supply of late. On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold fusion. It makes the following unsupported assumptions: 1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. I think electrons can gain energies (with some finite probability of a very high energy state that is) from environmental (i.e. chemical) conditions. Orbital electrons can gain energy from the environment through orbital modifying mechanisms. Electrons gain mass from increased velocity, i.e. m = m0*gamma. Relativistic orbitals do exist, where gamma is significant. Not all orbitals, even proton orbitals, are spherically symmetric near the nucleus, as we typically visualize them, with probability density being smaller the closer to the nucleus. In some molecules, or even lone hydrogen atoms, orbital states can exist in which the electron plunges deep toward, and periodically (or with some probability), even into the nucleus. It is only by virtue of the fact orbital electrons can and do enter the nucleus that electron capture occurs. Further, the electron capture rate for heavy nuclei has been demonstrated to be affected by the chemical (electron orbital) environment. Chemically assisted nuclear reactions are a proven reality. See: Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages”, Physical Review Letters, 10, September 2004 Ohtsuki et al.,“Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron- Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007) The Larsen-Widom mechanism requires the electrons gain mass without gaining velocity. If the energy is supplied by velocity, the resulting neutrons will not be subthermal. I am not familiar with the WL theory, nor do I see the relevance of subthermal (and I assume free) electrons, except maybe that Jones referred to subthermal neutrons. My remarks here are directed only at your comment: Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. Besides the electron has to be on a collision course toward a proton, which is not possible if it gets its energy from being in an orbit. This is simply not true. Orbitals as well as conduction bands can be highly modified by their environment. Magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, and molecular structure, and ionization states can all create deep plunging orbitals where the probability of electron locating in the nucleus is orders of magnitude increased. Rydberg orbitals, for example, involving excited state electrons, contain electrons that exhibit non-wavelike behavior when remote to the nucleus, and then plunge deep toward the nucleus. Rydberg oritals can be induced or enhanced by powerfull magnetic fields as well as EM stimulation. Similar orbitals can be formed through electrostatic stimulation. With regard to nucleus plunging orbitals, there are huge numbers of such configurations even in unstressed molecules. For example see: http://tinyurl.com/2thgs7 and be sure to note: Warning! If you aren't happy with describing electron arrangements in s and p notation, and with the shapes of s and p orbitals, you really should read about orbitals. and click on the word orbitals in that text, which is shown in green. In the environment of a fully loaded lattice, electrons ionically bound to the adsorbed nuclei exist in partial orbital state, have a dual existence as conduction band electrons and orbital electrons, because there is insufficient space for orbital formation. Further, the thermal environment stresses and perturbs the orbitals, providing even more opportunities for deep plunging excursions for electrons. Electron capture only involves a complex nucleus. It happens when the gain of an electron results in a lower energy for the entire system. When a proton gains an electron, energy is increased, not reduced. Therefore, this is not the same as the EC process. 2. This electron can react with a proton to make a neutron. The electron gains mass only by acquiring kinetic energy. As far as I know, the electron is not believed to contain internal energy states that would allow it to store energy as mass. The rare occasion when energetic electrons are found to react, the rate is very low. The reaction rate of
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Sorry for the delay in responding. Time seems to be in short supply of late. On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold fusion. It makes the following unsupported assumptions: 1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. I think electrons can gain energies (with some finite probability of a very high energy state that is) from environmental (i.e. chemical) conditions. Orbital electrons can gain energy from the environment through orbital modifying mechanisms. Electrons gain mass from increased velocity, i.e. m = m0*gamma. Relativistic orbitals do exist, where gamma is significant. Not all orbitals, even proton orbitals, are spherically symmetric near the nucleus, as we typically visualize them, with probability density being smaller the closer to the nucleus. In some molecules, or even lone hydrogen atoms, orbital states can exist in which the electron plunges deep toward, and periodically (or with some probability), even into the nucleus. It is only by virtue of the fact orbital electrons can and do enter the nucleus that electron capture occurs. Further, the electron capture rate for heavy nuclei has been demonstrated to be affected by the chemical (electron orbital) environment. Chemically assisted nuclear reactions are a proven reality. See: I was really impressed with the above paragraph. I'm wondering about this gamma is? Is there some way to manage this Gamma? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
On Jan 4, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Sorry for the delay in responding. Time seems to be in short supply of late. On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold fusion. It makes the following unsupported assumptions: 1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. I think electrons can gain energies (with some finite probability of a very high energy state that is) from environmental (i.e. chemical) conditions. Orbital electrons can gain energy from the environment through orbital modifying mechanisms. Electrons gain mass from increased velocity, i.e. m = m0*gamma. Relativistic orbitals do exist, where gamma is significant. Not all orbitals, even proton orbitals, are spherically symmetric near the nucleus, as we typically visualize them, with probability density being smaller the closer to the nucleus. In some molecules, or even lone hydrogen atoms, orbital states can exist in which the electron plunges deep toward, and periodically (or with some probability), even into the nucleus. It is only by virtue of the fact orbital electrons can and do enter the nucleus that electron capture occurs. Further, the electron capture rate for heavy nuclei has been demonstrated to be affected by the chemical (electron orbital) environment. Chemically assisted nuclear reactions are a proven reality. See: Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages”, Physical Review Letters, 10, September 2004 Ohtsuki et al.,“Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron- Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007) The Larsen-Widom mechanism requires the electrons gain mass without gaining velocity. If the energy is supplied by velocity, the resulting neutrons will not be subthermal. I am not familiar with the WL theory, nor do I see the relevance of subthermal (and I assume free) electrons, except maybe that Jones referred to subthermal neutrons. My remarks here are directed only at your comment: Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. Besides the electron has to be on a collision course toward a proton, which is not possible if it gets its energy from being in an orbit. This is simply not true. Orbitals as well as conduction bands can be highly modified by their environment. Magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, and molecular structure, and ionization states can all create deep plunging orbitals where the probability of electron locating in the nucleus is orders of magnitude increased. Rydberg orbitals, for example, involving excited state electrons, contain electrons that exhibit non- wavelike behavior when remote to the nucleus, and then plunge deep toward the nucleus. Rydberg oritals can be induced or enhanced by powerfull magnetic fields as well as EM stimulation. Similar orbitals can be formed through electrostatic stimulation.With regard to nucleus plunging orbitals, there are huge numbers of such configurations even in unstressed molecules. For example see: http://tinyurl.com/2thgs7 and be sure to note: Warning! If you aren't happy with describing electron arrangements in s and p notation, and with the shapes of s and p orbitals, you really should read about orbitals. and click on the word orbitals in that text, which is shown in green. In the environment of a fully loaded lattice, electrons ionically bound to the adsorbed nuclei exist in partial orbital state, have a dual existence as conduction band electrons and orbital electrons, because there is insufficient space for orbital formation. Further, the thermal environment stresses and perturbs the orbitals, providing even more opportunities for deep plunging excursions for electrons. We can debate all day about what the arrangement of electrons looks like and how they might in theory behave. Nevertheless, if electrons can in fact gain the required 0.78 MeV from their surroundings to make a neutron, why is this process not detected? There is in fact much more than 0.78 MeV feasibly available from electron-nucleus interaction, so energy is not the issue. The main issue is time. Making a neutron requires a weak reaction and the availability of a neutrino.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:20 PM, thomas malloy wrote: I was really impressed with the above paragraph. Gamma is the greek letter that stands for the Lorentz factor in special relativity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity and locate Lorentz factor. gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) I'm wondering about this gamma is? Is there some way to manage this Gamma? The bigger the relative speed, the bigger the gamma. In this case the closer the orbital to the nucleus, the bigger the gamma. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
This CalTech Electric Field Applet can show how Protons or Deuterons bombarding a target lattice or gas with a Z up to +9 and the surrounding electrons can come in close and allow the Proton-Electron-Proton or Deuteron-Electron-Deuteron Cold or Hot Fusion reactions to occur. Unfortunately it's not programed for Lattice Vibrations too. *http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/EField/EField.html*http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/EField/EField.html If I read Ed Storms' paper correctly he got the same anomalous radiation by bombarding Copper and Silver with Deuterons as he did with a Palladium cathode which implies a near-surface effect that makes Deuterium loading of bulk Palladium a Red Herring. Fred
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
For the adventurous Googling Lattice Vibrations, Diffusion, Applets brings up this Phonon Applet. *http://dept.kent.edu/projects/ksuviz/leeviz/phonon/phonon.html*http://dept.kent.edu/projects/ksuviz/leeviz/phonon/phonon.html This suggests that Cold Fusion-LENR-CANR experiments would be cheaper using a computer (SuperComputer?) program. On Jan 3, 2008 4:47 AM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This CalTech Electric Field Applet can show how Protons or Deuterons bombarding a target lattice or gas with a Z up to +9 and the surrounding electrons can come in close and allow the Proton-Electron-Proton or Deuteron-Electron-Deuteron Cold or Hot Fusion reactions to occur. Unfortunately it's not programed for Lattice Vibrations too. *http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/EField/EField.html*http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/EField/EField.html If I read Ed Storms' paper correctly he got the same anomalous radiation by bombarding Copper and Silver with Deuterons as he did with a Palladium cathode which implies a near-surface effect that makes Deuterium loading of bulk Palladium a Red Herring. Fred
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Sorry Robin, I meant to type half-life. When I'm fasting, my mind has a mind of its own. I'm now back on food so that, hopefully, I might make more sense. Regards, Ed Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:10:44 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] The dead times of the elements involved in this process are well known and do not permit the claimed distribution to form no matter how many neutrons are available. Could you please explain what dead times means in this context? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Sorry for the delay in responding. Time seems to be in short supply of late. On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold fusion. It makes the following unsupported assumptions: 1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. I think electrons can gain energies (with some finite probability of a very high energy state that is) from environmental (i.e. chemical) conditions. Orbital electrons can gain energy from the environment through orbital modifying mechanisms. Electrons gain mass from increased velocity, i.e. m = m0*gamma. Relativistic orbitals do exist, where gamma is significant. Not all orbitals, even proton orbitals, are spherically symmetric near the nucleus, as we typically visualize them, with probability density being smaller the closer to the nucleus. In some molecules, or even lone hydrogen atoms, orbital states can exist in which the electron plunges deep toward, and periodically (or with some probability), even into the nucleus. It is only by virtue of the fact orbital electrons can and do enter the nucleus that electron capture occurs. Further, the electron capture rate for heavy nuclei has been demonstrated to be affected by the chemical (electron orbital) environment. Chemically assisted nuclear reactions are a proven reality. See: Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages”, Physical Review Letters, 10, September 2004 Ohtsuki et al.,“Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007) 2. This electron can react with a proton to make a neutron. The electron gains mass only by acquiring kinetic energy. As far as I know, the electron is not believed to contain internal energy states that would allow it to store energy as mass. The rare occasion when energetic electrons are found to react, the rate is very low. The reaction rate of electrons with hadrons is low because they are weak reactions, and typically require the interaction of a neutrino, or manufacture of a neutrino pair from the vacuum. Creation of a state that can spawn electron capture thus requires a condition in which that state can exist for long periods (long from a nuclear perspective). It may well be possible an island of feasibility exists in which the de Broglie wavelength of the electron is small enough to avoid field overlap, and the energy of magnetic binding plus Coulomb binding are sufficient to overcome the centrifugal force. For the proton see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf For the deuteron see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf This provides some interesting possibilities. (1) If electron radiation can occur from this state then the electron becomes energetically trapped, plus the energy so radiated is free energy and beyond chemical energy. (2) If electron radiation can not occur from this state, then the state is quasi-stable. (3) If the state is quasi-stable, then the entity can act like a neutron (or di-neutron in the case of deuterium) for purposes of overcoming the Coulomb barrier because the binding energy can even exceed the energy of fusion. The problem is determining the mechanism by which an electron can enter into (i.e. tunnel into) this very small state. While this is a problem, it is not a serious problem in that electron capture presents exactly the same problem. If it is assumed the electron actually is comprised of one or more highly flexible and expandable strings, then it is not so difficult to imagine how such tunneling mechanisms, or even ordinary ones, might exist. What is most interesting is the fact the EM fields of the nucleus plus electron are capable of creating enormously energetic states, states so energetic that their relativistic masses exceed the rest masses of the particles themselves. This, however, is due to the fact particles are point like, or at least string like, but with wave- like characteristics. If charged particles can be arbitrarily small, then they can carry an arbitrarily large amount of energy when opposed charge particles interact. Coulomb binding energy goes to infinity as the particle separation distance becomes small. The vacuum's bank of energy appears to be extremely large, though not infinite because it is constrained by the Planck scale. Obtaining some is apparently just a matter of learning how to make transactions at the bank's window. 3. This neutron reacts with elements in the environment causing
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Horace Heffner wrote: Sorry for the delay in responding. Time seems to be in short supply of late. On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold fusion. It makes the following unsupported assumptions: 1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. I think electrons can gain energies (with some finite probability of a very high energy state that is) from environmental (i.e. chemical) conditions. Orbital electrons can gain energy from the environment through orbital modifying mechanisms. Electrons gain mass from increased velocity, i.e. m = m0*gamma. Relativistic orbitals do exist, where gamma is significant. Not all orbitals, even proton orbitals, are spherically symmetric near the nucleus, as we typically visualize them, with probability density being smaller the closer to the nucleus. In some molecules, or even lone hydrogen atoms, orbital states can exist in which the electron plunges deep toward, and periodically (or with some probability), even into the nucleus. It is only by virtue of the fact orbital electrons can and do enter the nucleus that electron capture occurs. Further, the electron capture rate for heavy nuclei has been demonstrated to be affected by the chemical (electron orbital) environment. Chemically assisted nuclear reactions are a proven reality. See: Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages”, Physical Review Letters, 10, September 2004 Ohtsuki et al.,“Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007) The Larsen-Widom mechanism requires the electrons gain mass without gaining velocity. If the energy is supplied by velocity, the resulting neutrons will not be subthermal. Besides the electron has to be on a collision course toward a proton, which is not possible if it gets its energy from being in an orbit. Electron capture only involves a complex nucleus. It happens when the gain of an electron results in a lower energy for the entire system. When a proton gains an electron, energy is increased, not reduced. Therefore, this is not the same as the EC process. 2. This electron can react with a proton to make a neutron. The electron gains mass only by acquiring kinetic energy. As far as I know, the electron is not believed to contain internal energy states that would allow it to store energy as mass. The rare occasion when energetic electrons are found to react, the rate is very low. The reaction rate of electrons with hadrons is low because they are weak reactions, and typically require the interaction of a neutrino, or manufacture of a neutrino pair from the vacuum. Creation of a state that can spawn electron capture thus requires a condition in which that state can exist for long periods (long from a nuclear perspective). It may well be possible an island of feasibility exists in which the de Broglie wavelength of the electron is small enough to avoid field overlap, and the energy of magnetic binding plus Coulomb binding are sufficient to overcome the centrifugal force. For the proton see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf For the deuteron see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf This provides some interesting possibilities. (1) If electron radiation can occur from this state then the electron becomes energetically trapped, plus the energy so radiated is free energy and beyond chemical energy. (2) If electron radiation can not occur from this state, then the state is quasi-stable. (3) If the state is quasi-stable, then the entity can act like a neutron (or di-neutron in the case of deuterium) for purposes of overcoming the Coulomb barrier because the binding energy can even exceed the energy of fusion. The problem is determining the mechanism by which an electron can enter into (i.e. tunnel into) this very small state. While this is a problem, it is not a serious problem in that electron capture presents exactly the same problem. If it is assumed the electron actually is comprised of one or more highly flexible and expandable strings, then it is not so difficult to imagine how such tunneling mechanisms, or even ordinary ones, might exist. What is most interesting is the fact the EM fields of the nucleus plus electron are capable of creating enormously energetic states, states so energetic that their relativistic masses exceed the rest masses of the particles themselves. This, however, is due to the fact particles are point like, or at least
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Frederick Sparber wrote: I see and appreciate your approach Ed, but being impatient after almost two decades of waiting on those figuring out the mechanism suggests trying a bigger hammer. This gets back to the point I made during the discussion of Professor Susslick's comments. Induced nuclear reactions, whether hot or cold. are anomalous, the Professor and I are in agreement on that. I don't care how you do it, as long as it produces some usable energy. One other line that I'm going to include in my response to Professor Susslick. The violin maker who lives down the street from me, can't make a Stradivarius, that doesn't change the fact that Stradivarius's exist. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Here is my take on the crux of the debate about neutrons in LENR: Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory several years ago, which since that time has evolved into a rather logical and insightful explanation for many (but not all, by any means) of the 18 years of experimental results coming from LENR investigation. It involves a subthermal or cold neutron and the weak force, but *without* the need for D-D fusion at all, nor for tunneling through a high Coulomb barrier. It is consistent with present-day physics (almost). Widom, Larsen, Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces. I should have cited W-L in my original posting in this thread several days ago, wrt the subthermal neutron although I do not believe that they are the first to recognize the possibility. Anyway, W-L theory is controversial among long-time observers here on Vortex because it flies in the face of strongly-held prior assumptions, particularly of D+D fusion being the most relevant M.O., leading to some considerable acrimony among interested parties ... as witnessed recently in this thread, where merely being a proponent of W-L apparently makes one seem agressive to those who do not choose to recognize its validity. Here is a critique of the W-L theory, which (contrary to the writer's goal -Dr Robert Deck), ends up demonstrating some of the overlooked weaknesses of that theory instead: http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/WLTheoryDeckCritique.htm ... in which Deck says [with my comments]: Finally, despite the reservations expressed above, I conclude that the mechanism proposed in the Widom-Larsen papers provides a far more compelling explanation of the anomalous phenomenon observed in electrolytic chemical cells than previous theories. [he is at fault for lumping all of these experiments together]. Unfortunately, this implies that electrolytic cells using metal hydride electrodes are unlikely to provide a practical source of energy. [this is another center of controversy, esp. for those who have a large personal investment is seeing LENR emerge as the savior of the US, in its energy crisis]. RD: Given that the Widom-Larsen theory is correct, the energy you can expect to generate in the electrolysis cell is much less than it would be if the process involved in the cell was the fusion of deuterium nuclei. [He gives no good rationale or citations for this conclusion]. RD: This is because in the Widom-Larsen process, the production of neutrons via the merger of an electron and a proton actually requires input energy; whereas the capture of neutrons by nuclei produces some energy in the form of hard gamma photons and beta particles (which gets turned into heat) [that much is true]... therefore, it's not comparable to that produced in fusion. [This conclusion does not follow logically, esp if/since the all-important rate of the reaction could be enhanced considerably] I would like to stress that IF - one allows for the possibility of several different varieties of LENR, then W-L theory certainly rings truer and more logical than anything yet put forward to explain that variety of experiment. The SPAWAR experiment is indeed in that variety, but many others, including those of Ed Storms are not. Edmund Storms wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not influenced by the boron. This clarifies why you are negative about boron. I take it that you are also unconvinced that the SPAWAR tracks (pits) are indicative of neutrons. However, are you saying that none (no substantial population) of those SPAWAR tracks is consistent with neutrons? They see something that is neutron-like. However, the results are not consistent with any other observation. Also, the production rate of these particles is very low, perhaps too low to be detected any other way. There seems to be substantial disagreement on this point, as the Kowalski pages indicate... There is disagreement about almost every human idea if you search for the right people to ask. You need to examine the facts. ... BUT if any substantial number of these tracks are due to neutrons, and there are a number of experts who believe this -- then you will agree that the presence of boron would add substantial energy to any such cell producing them, no? If neutrons are involved at at a sufficient rate, they will add energy by by being absorbed by any nucleus. The practical issue is how many are actually present. Obviously, too
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold fusion. It makes the following unsupported assumptions: 1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. 2. This electron can react with a proton to make a neutron. The electron gains mass only by acquiring kinetic energy. As far as I know, the electron is not believed to contain internal energy states that would allow it to store energy as mass. The rare occasion when energetic electrons are found to react, the rate is very low. 3. This neutron reacts with elements in the environment causing isotopic shift without producing radioactive products. Many of the required isotopes are radioactive with a half life that is easy to detect. They are not observed. 4. The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported by Miley. The claimed agreement is poor at best. These are the facts. Of course, it is possible to ignore the facts or be unaware of the conflict with observation. Nevertheless, I find it strange that a theory containing so many flaws in logic and conflict with observation would be considered. Apparently, this shows the desperation theoreticians have been reduced to. I have no complaint about discussing theories based on imagination. However, they should at least be logical and consistent with all observation, not just those that support the idea. It is even possible that more than one mechanism is operating and more than one nuclear path is followed. Nevertheless, I suggest it is a waste of time making arbitrary assumptions unless these have strong support. Otherwise, this is just a game of whose imagination and salesmanship is better. Ed Jones Beene wrote: Here is my take on the crux of the debate about neutrons in LENR: Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory several years ago, which since that time has evolved into a rather logical and insightful explanation for many (but not all, by any means) of the 18 years of experimental results coming from LENR investigation. It involves a subthermal or cold neutron and the weak force, but *without* the need for D-D fusion at all, nor for tunneling through a high Coulomb barrier. It is consistent with present-day physics (almost). Widom, Larsen, Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces. I should have cited W-L in my original posting in this thread several days ago, wrt the subthermal neutron although I do not believe that they are the first to recognize the possibility. Anyway, W-L theory is controversial among long-time observers here on Vortex because it flies in the face of strongly-held prior assumptions, particularly of D+D fusion being the most relevant M.O., leading to some considerable acrimony among interested parties ... as witnessed recently in this thread, where merely being a proponent of W-L apparently makes one seem agressive to those who do not choose to recognize its validity. Here is a critique of the W-L theory, which (contrary to the writer's goal -Dr Robert Deck), ends up demonstrating some of the overlooked weaknesses of that theory instead: http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/WLTheoryDeckCritique.htm ... in which Deck says [with my comments]: Finally, despite the reservations expressed above, I conclude that the mechanism proposed in the Widom-Larsen papers provides a far more compelling explanation of the anomalous phenomenon observed in electrolytic chemical cells than previous theories. [he is at fault for lumping all of these experiments together]. Unfortunately, this implies that electrolytic cells using metal hydride electrodes are unlikely to provide a practical source of energy. [this is another center of controversy, esp. for those who have a large personal investment is seeing LENR emerge as the savior of the US, in its energy crisis]. RD: Given that the Widom-Larsen theory is correct, the energy you can expect to generate in the electrolysis cell is much less than it would be if the process involved in the cell was the fusion of deuterium nuclei. [He gives no good rationale or citations for this conclusion]. RD: This is because in the Widom-Larsen process, the production of neutrons via the merger of an electron and a proton actually requires input energy; whereas the capture of neutrons by nuclei produces some energy in the form of hard gamma photons and beta particles (which gets turned into heat) [that much is true]... therefore, it's not comparable to that produced in fusion. [This conclusion does not follow logically, esp if/since the all-important rate of the reaction could be enhanced considerably] I would like to stress that IF - one allows for the
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
--- Ed, The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported by Miley. The claimed agreement is poor at best. This could be a very important point to clarify, due to the reputation of Miley. Are you certain that Miley considers the agreement as poor at best ? I was under the impression that he considers it to be convincing. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones, I have no idea what Miley believes. Take a look at the Larsen paper where they make a comparison to a selected set of the Miley work and tell me what you think. The fit is even less good to other data sets. The logic of the fit is even flawed. When a neutron is added to an element, the isotopic ratio is shifted. To get a new element, a beta must be emitted. The dead times of the elements involved in this process are well known and do not permit the claimed distribution to form no matter how many neutrons are available. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Ed, The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported by Miley. The claimed agreement is poor at best. This could be a very important point to clarify, due to the reputation of Miley. Are you certain that Miley considers the agreement as poor at best ? I was under the impression that he considers it to be convincing. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:10:44 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] The dead times of the elements involved in this process are well known and do not permit the claimed distribution to form no matter how many neutrons are available. Could you please explain what dead times means in this context? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
The Cold Fusion heat source in this Java Applet, Ed? ** *Role of inelasticity in granular medium:* ** *The theory is from Y. Du, H. Li, and L.P. Kadanoff Phys. Rev. Lett. (1995). * ** * http://www.haverford.edu/astronomy/Gollub/vib_granular/inelastic/inelastic.html *http://www.haverford.edu/astronomy/Gollub/vib_granular/inelastic/inelastic.html
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Ed Storms wrote. *It depends on what you mean by relationship.* Ed *Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium* *http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf*http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading the Pd cathode with Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding it with Deuterons to get Hot Fusion energy multiplication. Doping the Pd cathode with Lithium and/or Boron by Sputtering and/or Ion Implantation might enhance the Hot Fusion yield. Otherwise you're stuck with good science and low-grade heat. Fred
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Just the Ticket for a Farnsworth Fusor design? On Dec 31, 2007 5:29 AM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed Storms wrote. *It depends on what you mean by relationship.* Ed *Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium* *http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf*http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading the Pd cathode with Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding it with Deuterons to get Hot Fusion energy multiplication. Doping the Pd cathode with Lithium and/or Boron by Sputtering and/or Ion Implantation might enhance the Hot Fusion yield. Otherwise you're stuck with good science and low-grade heat. Fred
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Fred, Hot fusion initiates the neutron producing path, cold fusion does not. This is the basic difference based an observation. The glow discharge does not produce neutrons. In addition, the voltages are too low to produce a hot fusion reaction. As for heat production, the glow discharge technique is designed and being used to understand the mechanism. Once the basic information is obtained, development of a practical device will be easy. At this point, speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose. In fact, the mechanism is very unconventional. Ed Frederick Sparber wrote: Ed Storms wrote. It depends on what you mean by relationship. Ed Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading the Pd cathode with Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding it with Deuterons to get Hot Fusion energy multiplication. Doping the Pd cathode with Lithium and/or Boron by Sputtering and/or Ion Implantation might enhance the Hot Fusion yield. Otherwise you're stuck with good science and low-grade heat. Fred
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Ed, I'm not a mind-reader, but I think that what Fred (and other assorted non-skeptics tuned-in to Vo) really want to know is this: Does LENR glow discharge benefit significantly from boron content in the electrode? If it does, then many of us would (at least partly) disagree with your conclusion that speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose... ... this is because there could be one critical thing (pathway) which you are missing here, even though your logic is based on the voluminous past findings of lack of neutrons in LENR. That would be the likelihood that cold fusion, like hot fusion, does indeed initiate a neutron producing reaction, but that the neutrons themselves are highly (extremely) subthermal and not detectable in the same sense (same equipment) that hot neutrons, or even thermal neutrons, are detectable. This would indicate that the prior non-detectability is itself what is flawed, and that is due to lack of a proper neutron detector being placed extremely close. One might even surmise that CF neutrons could possibly have a negative effective temperature, in the sense of low compreture (combined pressure and temperature property). Such a species might still interact with high cross-section elements like boron of gadolinium, however, IF (and only if) that element were close-by and did not require neutron transport over a few nanometers. An extremely subthermal neutron might spend most of its lifetime locked in a lattice vacancy, where its negative near-field and the electron cloud of the the Pd keep it relatively frozen for extended periods. That is: A neutron of very low kinetic energy, formed in any LENR electrode, which is produced in a situation of high relative compression but modest temperature, is most often locked in place till its low-energy decay, leaving a proton. Or if it eventually emerges into an ambient pressure situation, might show an effective kinetic profile which would make it so highly subthermal that it would not go far in distance. If such a neutron does not become thermal in its normal lifetime (latest average lifetime: 886.8 seconds (about 14.8 minutes) plus or minus 3.4 seconds according to NIST), then no one would suspect that they were ever present, except for more hydrogen than expected. Nevertheless, if such a neutron was exposed to a local absorber of high cross-section, then that secondary reaction would be the evidence, but that scenario would require extremely close proximity. BTW - Far better than boron would possibly be gadolinium, element 64, which is more than an order of magnitude improvement over boron. This sounds crazy until one realizes that any neutron interacts so slowly with low-cross section elements anyway - that a highly subthermal neutron might never approach the kinetic energy necessary to propel it into a detector, even if that detector was able to register the interaction. Futhermore, the decay itself might not be detectable in some detectors. Jones Edmund Storms wrote: Fred, Hot fusion initiates the neutron producing path, cold fusion does not. This is the basic difference based an observation. The glow discharge does not produce neutrons. In addition, the voltages are too low to produce a hot fusion reaction. As for heat production, the glow discharge technique is designed and being used to understand the mechanism. Once the basic information is obtained, development of a practical device will be easy. At this point, speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose. In fact, the mechanism is very unconventional. Ed Frederick Sparber wrote: Ed Storms wrote. It depends on what you mean by relationship. Ed Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading the Pd cathode with Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding it with Deuterons to get Hot Fusion energy multiplication. Doping the Pd cathode with Lithium and/or Boron by Sputtering and/or Ion Implantation might enhance the Hot Fusion yield. Otherwise you're stuck with good science and low-grade heat. Fred
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
I see and appreciate your approach Ed, but being impatient after almost two decades of waiting on those figuring out the mechanism suggests trying a bigger hammer. From your results of getting the same radiation by bombarding Copper or Silver as well as Pd and Pd-Pt with deuterons in the glow discharge one can assume that follow-on bombardment at higher energy levels (in the early 1960s I implanted Copper ions in Tantalum and Molybdenum at Sandia) could yield some interesting information, Hot Fusion or not. Copper clad steel air rifle BBs (about 0.170 inches diameter) plate nicely with Copper or Silver. A poor boy's catalyst. Fred On Dec 31, 2007 8:53 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fred, Hot fusion initiates the neutron producing path, cold fusion does not. This is the basic difference based an observation. The glow discharge does not produce neutrons. In addition, the voltages are too low to produce a hot fusion reaction. As for heat production, the glow discharge technique is designed and being used to understand the mechanism. Once the basic information is obtained, development of a practical device will be easy. At this point, speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose. In fact, the mechanism is very unconventional. Ed Frederick Sparber wrote: Ed Storms wrote. It depends on what you mean by relationship. Ed Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading the Pd cathode with Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding it with Deuterons to get Hot Fusion energy multiplication. Doping the Pd cathode with Lithium and/or Boron by Sputtering and/or Ion Implantation might enhance the Hot Fusion yield. Otherwise you're stuck with good science and low-grade heat. Fred
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones Beene wrote: Ed, I'm not a mind-reader, but I think that what Fred (and other assorted non-skeptics tuned-in to Vo) really want to know is this: Does LENR glow discharge benefit significantly from boron content in the electrode? No, boron has no effect. If it does, then many of us would (at least partly) disagree with your conclusion that speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose... ... this is because there could be one critical thing (pathway) which you are missing here, even though your logic is based on the voluminous past findings of lack of neutrons in LENR. That would be the likelihood that cold fusion, like hot fusion, does indeed initiate a neutron producing reaction, but that the neutrons themselves are highly (extremely) subthermal and not detectable in the same sense (same equipment) that hot neutrons, or even thermal neutrons, are detectable. This would indicate that the prior non-detectability is itself what is flawed, and that is due to lack of a proper neutron detector being placed extremely close. Low energy neutrons will activate many elements in a normal cold fusion environment producing radioactive isotopes. This kind of radioactivity is seldom detected even though it would be easy to detect. One might even surmise that CF neutrons could possibly have a negative effective temperature, in the sense of low compreture (combined pressure and temperature property). Such a species might still interact with high cross-section elements like boron of gadolinium, however, IF (and only if) that element were close-by and did not require neutron transport over a few nanometers. An extremely subthermal neutron might spend most of its lifetime locked in a lattice vacancy, where its negative near-field and the electron cloud of the the Pd keep it relatively frozen for extended periods. I don't understand how a subthermal neutron can be made. If it results from a nuclear reaction, it will take up some of the energy produced by this reaction and not be subthermal. That is: A neutron of very low kinetic energy, formed in any LENR electrode, which is produced in a situation of high relative compression but modest temperature, is most often locked in place till its low-energy decay, leaving a proton. Or if it eventually emerges into an ambient pressure situation, might show an effective kinetic profile which would make it so highly subthermal that it would not go far in distance. If such a neutron does not become thermal in its normal lifetime (latest average lifetime: 886.8 seconds (about 14.8 minutes) plus or minus 3.4 seconds according to NIST), then no one would suspect that they were ever present, except for more hydrogen than expected. Nevertheless, if such a neutron was exposed to a local absorber of high cross-section, then that secondary reaction would be the evidence, but that scenario would require extremely close proximity. BTW - Far better than boron would possibly be gadolinium, element 64, which is more than an order of magnitude improvement over boron. This sounds crazy until one realizes that any neutron interacts so slowly with low-cross section elements anyway - that a highly subthermal neutron might never approach the kinetic energy necessary to propel it into a detector, even if that detector was able to register the interaction. Futhermore, the decay itself might not be detectable in some detectors. I don't understand the issue. You assume a thermnal neutron can form. You assume that it does not react with the surrounding elements to make a radioactive isotope, yet you assume it can react with deuterium to make I presume tritium, which is not see. Or perhaps it reacts with protium to make deuterium. What exactly do you expect to happen that would explain the observations and make this a hot fusion process? In any case, this is not hot fusion. Hot fusion makes energetic neutrons. It does not use neutrons for subsequent reactions. Ed Jones Edmund Storms wrote: Fred, Hot fusion initiates the neutron producing path, cold fusion does not. This is the basic difference based an observation. The glow discharge does not produce neutrons. In addition, the voltages are too low to produce a hot fusion reaction. As for heat production, the glow discharge technique is designed and being used to understand the mechanism. Once the basic information is obtained, development of a practical device will be easy. At this point, speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose. In fact, the mechanism is very unconventional. Ed Frederick Sparber wrote: Ed Storms wrote. It depends on what you mean by relationship. Ed Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading the Pd cathode with Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding it with
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Here is a message from Ed Storms, not me. Ed sent me this yesterday, but he meant to send it to Vortex. I use the Mindspring on-line mail server at times, and that causes people to accidentally send Vortex responses to me directly. I do not see any options for the on-line program to fix that problem. - Jed Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: It depends on what you mean by relationship. Both hot and cold fusion produce the same end products ... ...snip... ... the error bars are very large. (However, I took your suggestion that I drop that comparison in the article I was writing.) The same amount of energy results from each fusion to make helium no matter how it is initiated. Of course, the other paths produce different amounts of energy. The reactions in each case involve the fusion of deuterium. However, the two process are completely different in the mechanism ... ...snip... ... the same mechanism as combustion (oxidation). It sure didn't look the same. The differences are all due to the environment. The Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This is done during hot fusion by using brute force. This mechanism is not possible at room temperature. Therefore, a different mechanism must be involved. In fact fire and metabolism are different and not a good analogy. Not only do they result in different reaction products, but the mechanism is entirely different. Fire causes the chemical reactions to go to the lowest energy state. Metabolism does not produce this result even though both involve oxidation. A better analogy can be obtained by comparing a controlled reaction involving a catalyst and an explosion. Both produce the same products, but by a different process. As a result, saying that a relationship exists between hot and cold fusion has no meaning because the only relationship that exists is trivial. Of course, the hot fusion process can be accelerated by changing the conditions. For example, bombarding a solid with D+ results in hot fusion, but at a higher rate than theory based on a plasma would expect. This does not mean cold fusion is involved. It just means that the theory describing hot fusion is incomplete, at least when a solid is involved. Cold fusion involves an entirely different process that has no relationship to hot fusion even though both result in fusion. Ed
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Edmund Storms wrote: Does LENR glow discharge benefit significantly from boron content in the electrode? No, boron has no effect. Well, that answers the question then. Many observers had hoped that Miles' work with boron and his reported 100% reproducibility was accurate. Apparently not. Miles did go to the trouble to patent it: #6,764,561 - although Uncle Sam picked up the tab: it was assigned to the US Dept of Navy. Palladium-boron alloys and methods for making and using such alloys Guess the LENR powered sub will have to wait... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones Beene wrote: Many observers had hoped that Miles' work with boron and his reported 100% reproducibility was accurate. Apparently not. I am sure it was accurate. Miles is a very reliable source. However, the boron made not have played a role in the nuclear reaction. Perhaps it only helped the electrochemistry. Let's please be careful not to dismiss reports as inaccurate just because they do not seem to jibe with other reports. Experimental data is often right even though it may not seem logical or understandable. It is huge mistake to think that just because your hypothesis is apparently wrong and boron does not contribute to the nuclear reaction, the data you based it upon must also be wrong. You have probably misinterpreted; the results probably stand. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jed Rothwell wrote: I am sure it was accurate. Miles is a very reliable source. However, the boron made not have played a role in the nuclear reaction. Perhaps it only helped the electrochemistry. Nonsense! First off, boron is contra-indicated for electrochemisty. No question whatever about that. It is an absolute poison for any chemical reaction, does not conduct electricity well, does not alloy well, melts at an extraordinarily high temperature, and is extremely problematic to handle. The whole Miles patent, in fact, is a litany of reasons for how hard it is to use in electrodes, and how he overcomes these problems. Without knowing more, it would be FAR more accurate to surmise that boron would NEVER be used by any sane person unless it played a key role in the nuclear reaction itself. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones Beene wrote: Perhaps it only helped the electrochemistry. Nonsense! First off, boron is contra-indicated for electrochemisty. As I recall, Miles and Imam told me it strengthens the cathode, the way silver does. These people are not fools, and their claims are not nonsense. I am sure they have a good reason for using boron, and I am sure their boron cathodes worked well. Perhaps that was a coincidence, and their reasons for selecting this alloy are invalid, but Imam knows a lot about metallurgy and he has good reasons. Without knowing more, it would be FAR more accurate to surmise that boron would NEVER be used by any sane person unless it played a key role in the nuclear reaction itself. Without knowing more . . . it is dangerous to jump to conclusions. I suggest you learn more before yelling nonsense. I do not recall that Miles said he thinks boron takes part in the nuclear reaction, but perhaps he did say that. Many people have suggested that. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jed Rothwell wrote: As I recall, Miles and Imam told me it strengthens the cathode, the way silver does. These people are not fools, and their claims are not nonsense. No, it is your claim which is nonsense, not theirs ! I am sure they have a good reason for using boron, and I am sure their boron cathodes worked well. Yes they DO have good reason! The nuclear reactivity of boron. Perhaps that was a coincidence, and their reasons for selecting this alloy are invalid, but Imam knows a lot about metallurgy and he has good reasons. Precisely the point why they would never use boron unless it were active in the nuclear sense. Did you even look at the patent? Without knowing more, it would be FAR more accurate to surmise that boron would NEVER be used by any sane person unless it played a key role in the nuclear reaction itself. Without knowing more . . . it is dangerous to jump to conclusions. I suggest you learn more before yelling nonsense. You still do not get it, do you? Geeze! I suggest you read prior postings more carefully before jumping into a thread with a silly comment that only highlight the point that you have not understood the original context. Bottom line, since apparently I must spell it out for you: either Miles or Storms is wrong about boron being active in LENR, and my comment initially mentioning Miles work was NOT to disparage Miles at all, but to implicitly use his patent as an indication to Ed that boron is active in at least some types of LENR without saying Ed you may be right about the glow discharge, but are wrong about the more general case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones Beene wrote: Precisely the point why they would never use boron unless it were active in the nuclear sense. As I said, I recall they said it helps stiffen the alloy. It inhibits high loading, but it also prevents deloading. Quote: The addition of boron to palladium does not affect the initial loading rate but slows further loading to higher levels. The presence of boron in the palladium significantly slows the rate of the deloading process. . . . Tables 1-3 show that small amounts of boron added to the palladium can produce major changes in the deuterium deloading rates. The initial rates of loading, based on calorimetry, are similar for palladium and palladium-boron alloys. Perhaps boron accumulates in the grain boundaries during the initial loading and then hinders both the further ingress and egress of hydrogen or deuterium into and out of the metal lattice. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrocheb.pdf Did you even look at the patent? No, I didn't. Please cite it, and quote the relevant portions if it says they selected boron for the nuclear effects. I have their papers but no patent. . . . my comment initially mentioning Miles work was NOT to disparage Miles at all . . . I think you overstated it, in that case. You said: . . . his reported 100% reproducibility was accurate. Apparently not. That sounds disparaging to me. It sounds like you doubt the statistics published by Miles, which clearly show 100% reproducibility for Pd-B alloys. . . . but to implicitly use his patent as an indication to Ed that boron is active in at least some types of LENR without saying Ed you may be right about the glow discharge, but are wrong about the more general case. If that is what you meant, why not say it? I suggest you tone down your statements overall. Frankly, I find them too aggressive, categorical and irritating. If others agree with me they will not read what you write, so it is in your interests to tone things down. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Hi Jones, Here is some background information. Boron is used to remove oxygen from palladium, which makes the palladium brittle. Addition of boron was done to prevent cracking, which I showed prevents the required high composition from being achieved. Miles used a Pb-B alloy to measure the He/energy relationship and found that this sample gave the same relationship as the samples without boron. Therefore, boron plays no role in the nuclear process. Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not influenced by the boron. The situation is much more complex than you are taking into account. Ed Jones Beene wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Does LENR glow discharge benefit significantly from boron content in the electrode? No, boron has no effect. Well, that answers the question then. Many observers had hoped that Miles' work with boron and his reported 100% reproducibility was accurate. Apparently not. Miles did go to the trouble to patent it: #6,764,561 - although Uncle Sam picked up the tab: it was assigned to the US Dept of Navy. Palladium-boron alloys and methods for making and using such alloys Guess the LENR powered sub will have to wait... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Edmund Storms wrote: As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. I was going to mention that, and I am glad Ed brought it up. Clearly, the Pd-B alloy is helpful in some cases, but not sufficient. There must be a critical electrochemical difference between the Miles and Storms cells. Storms said the difference is probably in the impurities deposited on the surface electrochemically, which forms the NAE. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Ed, Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not influenced by the boron. This clarifies why you are negative about boron. I take it that you are also unconvinced that the SPAWAR tracks (pits) are indicative of neutrons. However, are you saying that none (no substantial population) of those SPAWAR tracks is consistent with neutrons? There seems to be substantial disagreement on this point, as the Kowalski pages indicate... ... BUT if any substantial number of these tracks are due to neutrons, and there are a number of experts who believe this -- then you will agree that the presence of boron would add substantial energy to any such cell producing them, no? That is to say - if that particular type of cell (SPAWAR) is producing neutrons, then that type would benefit (energy-wise) from boron, but this does not mean that other variations of LENR technique are going to do the same, as they may or may not produce neutrons. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
On Dec 31, 2007 2:10 PM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a message from Ed Storms, not me. Ed sent me this yesterday, but he meant to send it to Vortex. I use the Mindspring on-line mail server at times, and that causes people to accidentally send Vortex responses to me directly. I do not see any options for the on-line program to fix that problem. It's a function of your email program. You need to find the reply to line and delete your email address and leave it blank. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not influenced by the boron. This clarifies why you are negative about boron. I take it that you are also unconvinced that the SPAWAR tracks (pits) are indicative of neutrons. However, are you saying that none (no substantial population) of those SPAWAR tracks is consistent with neutrons? They see something that is neutron-like. However, the results are not consistent with any other observation. Also, the production rate of these particles is very low, perhaps too low to be detected any other way. There seems to be substantial disagreement on this point, as the Kowalski pages indicate... There is disagreement about almost every human idea if you search for the right people to ask. You need to examine the facts. ... BUT if any substantial number of these tracks are due to neutrons, and there are a number of experts who believe this -- then you will agree that the presence of boron would add substantial energy to any such cell producing them, no? If neutrons are involved at at a sufficient rate, they will add energy by by being absorbed by any nucleus. The practical issue is how many are actually present. Obviously, too few are present to be detected outside of the cell even while over 10^12 fusion events are taking place within the cell. That is to say - if that particular type of cell (SPAWAR) is producing neutrons, then that type would benefit (energy-wise) from boron, but this does not mean that other variations of LENR technique are going to do the same, as they may or may not produce neutrons. The issue involves the rate of the reactions. Neutrons are only important if they are generated at a sufficient rate. A few neutron/sec reacting with boron, while making energy, will be totally invisible and unimportant, which seems to be the case. Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
You wrote: It's a function of your email program. You need to find the reply to line and delete your email address and leave it blank. This is the on-line Webmail program from Mindsprings, not my regular e-mail program. It does not seem to have any options, or I can't find 'em. I should probably surrender and use Google mail. Google: You will be assimilated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Frederick Sparber wrote: IOW, Is Cold Fusion-Deuteration Target Factory, the required preliminary step for attaining Hot Fusion? I have no idea, and I do not understand the technical issues in this case, but I have long had an intuitive feeling that hot fusion and cold fusion must be the same phenomenon in different domains. Two sides of the same coin, in other words, or as Chris Tinsley liked to say, like metabolism and fire. It would not surprise me to learn that cold fusion reactions are a necessary precursor to hot fusion. I do not think that nature has two completely unrelated ways of fusing deuterons to form helium and produce heat in the same fixed ratio. Although the other day when I talked about that ratio in a manuscript, Ed Storms suggested I leave out hot fusion because it confuses the issue, and I should just say the heat-to-helium ratio is fixed. I think Ed's recent plasma experiments also point to a relationship between hot fusion and cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jed, It depends on what you mean by relationship. Both hot and cold fusion produce the same end products, but in different ratios. The reactions in each case involve the fusion of deuterium. However, the two process are completely different in the mechanism that allows the fusion to occur. As a result, saying that a relationship exists between hot and cold fusion has no meaning because the only relationship that exists is trivial. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Frederick Sparber wrote: IOW, Is Cold Fusion-Deuteration Target Factory, the required preliminary step for attaining Hot Fusion? I have no idea, and I do not understand the technical issues in this case, but I have long had an intuitive feeling that hot fusion and cold fusion must be the same phenomenon in different domains. Two sides of the same coin, in other words, or as Chris Tinsley liked to say, like metabolism and fire. It would not surprise me to learn that cold fusion reactions are a necessary precursor to hot fusion. I do not think that nature has two completely unrelated ways of fusing deuterons to form helium and produce heat in the same fixed ratio. Although the other day when I talked about that ratio in a manuscript, Ed Storms suggested I leave out hot fusion because it confuses the issue, and I should just say the heat-to-helium ratio is fixed. I think Ed's recent plasma experiments also point to a relationship between hot fusion and cold fusion. - Jed
