Nice post Abd. Just a terminology detail, I don't think "Q factor" is adequate for the heat released by a reaction. "Q factor" is a dimensionless factor used in resonance phenomena. I think you really mean "Q value".
Michel 2010/2/11 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>: > In a mail sent out, apparently, to NET subscribers, Steve Krivit continues > his campaign about heat and helium. I did make an additional reply on his > blog that he did not publish; it was published here when it did not show up > there after a day. I don't know if it got lost somehow or he elected not to > publish it, but other criticism contained in the other response that he > *did* publish, besides the obvious error of imagining that 10 x 10^15 and 1 > x 10^16 were different by an "order of magnitude," was edited out by him. > > So, instead of submitting this response to NET, I'm putting it here, and I'm > granting Krivit permission to publish this or non-misleading excerpts from > this, according to his editorial judgment, provided that he provides a link > to the original on the Vortex list. > >> "Cold Fusion" (but not LENR) Claims Questioned >> Follow-up to New Energy Times Issue 34 >> Feb. 9, 2010 >> >> Dear Readers, >> >> We published Issue 34 of New Energy Times on Jan. 31. In it, >> we reveal how scientists at SRI International and MIT, claiming >> evidence for the theory of "cold fusion," have misled the public, >> their peers, the Department of Energy and the reviewers of the >> 2004 DoE LENR review. > > That's a big claim. Was there any evidence provided that they actually > "misled" anyone? What I've seen is that Krivit misinterprets what they've > written, and then argues strongly against his own misinterpretation. The > error he made where he imagined that a change between 10 x 10^15 and 1 X > 10^15 represented a "change" in Violante's data (see below) revealed how > much he was searching for inconsistencies and how little he was paying > attention to what Violante was actually telling him. > > Since NET34 published, we have received no response, let alone > corrections, from any of the principal subjects of the story, > Michael McKubre (SRI International), Peter Hagelstein (MIT > and Naval Postgraduate School) and Vittorio Violante (ENEA > Frascati). The three are members of an informal consortium that > has collaborated on research, publications, intellectual property > claims and shared in federally funded LENR research. > > It is obvious from a careful review of the Violante report in NET that there > was no reason for Violante to respond. He was improperly accused of > stonewalling when, in fact, he'd answered Krivit's questions, as shown by > Krivit's report and the original slide show and later-published conference > paper, and then of making a huge error and of not retracting it. He'd > already responded several times to what amounted to badgering, patiently > explaining. The "no response" is, certainly for Violante, a non-story. > > As to McKubre and Hagelstein, I've examined those reports in much less > detail, but where I have, so far, I've found that Krivit misinterprets and > misrepresents what they actually wrote, and, I assume, by now, they are *so > over* responding to Krivit. And that's a shame. It would be better if Krivit > gets himself a real editorial board and listens to it. Otherwise he's likely > to continue shooting himself in the foot, to imagine that a few people > praising his boldness means that he's on the right track, and, in the end, > see the collapse of NET. > >> 1. "24 MeV/4He" Does Not Exist >> Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the >> purported best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear >> reactions as a "cold fusion" reaction, specifically >> the highly promoted >> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=12443158&msgid=222567&act=3CD9&c=229442&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iccf-14.org%2Fterminology.html>claim >> of ~24 MeV/4He, does not exist. > > With this, Krivit does effectively dismiss the strongest evidence for LENR > (not for "cold fusion," a much more complex subject that I will address as > well). The evidence is not a claim of 24 MeV. It is correlation between > excess heat as measured and excess helium as measured, at a Q value that is > "consistent with" D-D fusion (which would ostensibly produce, if gamma > emission is absent or other radiation where significant energy would escape > measurement, 23.8 MeV/He-4, if helium is formed. Which Krivit correctly > points out is "not expected." However, helium *is* formed, it is correlated > with excess energy, and the ratio of energy to helium is such that the > conversion of deuterium to helium, by whatever process, would predict energy > that is roughly the same as found. And this is multiply confirmed, many > research groups, and not just Hagelstein and McKubre and Violante. > > That the ratio is in the right range for D-D fusion does not at all prove > that the reaction is D-D fusion, what Krivit below calls "thermonuclear > fusion," nor have I seen claims that it does from any responsible > researcher, including McKubre, Hagelstein, and Violante. > >> 2. Helium-4 is Not Expected* >> Helium-4 is a rare product of D-D thermonuclear fusion. Its >> finding in LENR in significant quantities is inconsistent with >> thermonuclear fusion. Its promotion by the subgroup as >> evidence of D-D "cold fusion" is misleading. > > It certainly is a rare product of thermonuclear fusion. Obvious conclusion: > "Cold fusion," whatever it is, is not "D-D thermonuclear fusion." And I've > seen no recent claims that it is. Could it be some form of D-D fusion? > Perhaps. But 24 MeV (or Storms' 25 +/- 5 MeV/He4, more to the point) doesn't > prove that, and it would be an error to assert that it does. If the > researchers were making that error, Krivit's objection would be cogent. They > aren't, so it's not. > > However, that helium is being produced, and that it is correlated with heat, > is the strongest evidence for LENR to day. There is no way to produce helium > without nuclear reactions. The energy released will depend on the fuel. From > many evidences the most likely fuel in a Fleischmann-type cell, in an Arata > cell, etc., is deuterium. Even if the reaction is some kind of neutron > catalysis, for example, the energy produced would be expected to be in the > range found. Or if it is formation of Be-8 from four deuterons, per > Takahashi. Or if, indeed, there is some kind of Mossbauer-like effect in the > lattice, and it actually is D-D fusion and the normal branching ratio is > somehow suppressed and the energy is communicated to the whole lattice > (sounds very unlikely to me....), that would be the energy found. > > The point is not the actual energy or the actual reaction, at this point. > The point is that we are finding helium, in roughly the right amounts to > correspond to a deuterium fuel and helium ash, given the measured excess > energy. If the energy measurements are artifact, or the helium measurements > are artifact, or both, we would not find a correlation that was so > consistently in the right region. It would be way off. Indeed, in the 2004 > DoE report, the summary mangled the helium data, and what they reported > would actually have been an anti-correlation, if true. Here is what they > said: > >> The hypothesis that excess energy production in electrolytic cells is due >> to low energy nuclear reactions >> was tested in some experiments by looking for D + D fusion reaction >> products, in particular 4He, >> normally produced in about 1 in 10^7 in hot D + D fusion reactions. >> Results reported in the review >> document purported to show that 4He was detected in five out of sixteen >> cases where electrolytic cells >> were reported to be producing excess heat. The detected 4He was typically >> very close to, but reportedly >> above background levels. This evidence was taken as convincing or somewhat >> convincing by some >> reviewers; for others the lack of consistency was an indication that the >> overall hypothesis was not >> justified. Contamination of apparatus or samples by air containing 4He was >> cited as one possible cause >> for false positive results in some measurements. > > If it were true that 4He was only "detected in five out of sixteen cases > where electrolytic cells were reported to be producing excess heat," this > would have been a poor correlation indeed. However, given the far stronger > correlation known, (well covered by Storms based on results from Miles et > al, published long ago), the explanations of contamination from air would be > a serious stretch. Why only experiments with excess heat? Why the > correlation at roughly the same Q factor? When sources of error are > considered, the correlation is, just as has been said, "consistent with the > value expected from D-D fusion " but it's a serious mistake to assume that > this proves D-D fusion. It doesn't, and the reports show that understanding. > That's why they say "consistent with." > > I won't repeat the details of the correlation, how in all cells where there > was no excess heat, there was no helium, and how in almost all cells with > excess heat, helium was found, but this covers, in Miles' work along, much > more than sixteen cells. > > The DoE reviewer, it turns out, was following an error made by one of the > negative reviewers, and compounded the error. There is no result "reported > in the review document" that reads like what the reviewer stated. I did find > the source of the error; the appendix was a bit difficult to read and rather > easily misinterpreted if someone was not reading carefully. > >> 3. Only a Subgroup Is Responsible >> A subgroup of the LENR field comprising some of the most >> prominent leaders of the field (mostly Americans) is >> primarily >> responsible for causing this misperception. > > What misperception? I wasn't fooled. Who was? I'm suspecting that Steve was, > that he didn't read the statements and claims carefully enough, jumped to > his own conclusion, and now blames the researchers, who wrote with care and > accuracy -- at least generally -- for his own error. > > What's the cause of the misperception? Well, most notably, that researchers > are reporting a Q factor in a range that could be consistent with D-D > fusion, though certainly with not enough precision yet, or with not enough > independent replication, to nail down the number. > > Complicating this is the very real possibility that there is more than one > reaction taking place, and that some variation in results may be due to > variations in the reactions themselves. Suppose, for example, that what is > happening is Be-8 formation in a Bose-Einstein condensate. This can produce > secondary reactions which might absorb some of the energy or generate > additional energy. We know that other reactions are occurring (because, for > example, we know now that there are low levels of neutrons generated), but > the question is *how much*? From the Q factors found, it appears reasonable > to hypothesize that the *primary fuel* is deuterium and that the *primary > ash* is helim. But by no means is this the whole story. And it's still just > a theory. But, not, this is not a "thermonuclear fusion" theory. > > It isn't "thermonuclear fusion," and I know of nobody who thinks it is. Not > for CF, anyway. Bubble fusion would be that, it's not "cold" fusion, it is > very, very hot. Don't confuse the average temperature of a cell with the > temperature in a bubble that is collapsing! (I don't know of bubble fusion > is really happening and I have no opinion on it, but cold fusion, it isn't; > the whole issue is just how hot those bubbles get!) > >> 4. Other Potential Energetic Processes Discarded >> The subgroup misled the public into believing that excess >> heat and non-energetic helium-4 were the only confirmed >> evidence for LENR. This distracted the public from more >> closely analyzing why the D-D "cold fusion" hypothesis fell >> so short in explaining the many other observed phenomena >> in LENR. > > It's certainly not the only confirmed evidence for LENR, though it is > probably the most prominent among those who understand the field. Who has > claimed this? Where is this "misled" "public"? > > By the way, Krivit is generally confused on many aspects of the helium > issue. He refers to "non-energetic helium-4." Some theories would predict > non-energetic helium, such as a theory that proposes that energy is somehow > transferred to the lattice instead of a gamma ray being emitted. However, > other theories predict energetic helium, at various energies. Takahashi's > theory predicts helium with energy ranging from about 90 keV on up to the > maximum of 23.8 MeV, but very little would be that energetic, it depends on > how long the Be-8 sticks around before decaying into two alpha particles. If > it decays immediately, the He-4 will have maximum energy, but what will > happen with it will depend on the generation site. That helium will rapidly > lose its energy to the solid or liquid environment. If there is much very > high-energy helium, we'd expect to see Bremmstrahlung radiation in amounts > that are apparently not reported. But most of the energy would, in fact, be > emitted by the excited Be-8 nucleus as photons (in the EUV range?) and > would, again, end up as "non-energetic helium" and heat when absorbed, as it > would be. > > The "observed phenomena" in LENR are extremely complex, but fusion, if it > takes place, is likely to be pretty messy. The only theory that would > predict non-messy reactions would be one where fusion takes place in some > kind of "locked" relationship with the lattice or with the deuterium held by > the lattice (or both), so that the energy is mostly or entirely transferred > to the bulk, leaving too little to trigger secondary reactions. Since we do > see, apparently, secondary reactions, I tentatively assume that energetic > products are produced, or, as well, there are additional possible reactions. > For example, the Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate predicted by Takahashi > would be neutral and could itself fuse with either deuterium or palladium, > copiously present, or maybe with other minor nuclear species present. But, > mostly, it would not have time to hit anything and would spontaneously decay > into helium. Hot helium nuclei can also cause secondary reactions. > > There is no established D-D "cold fusion" hypothesis, explaining the variety > of phenomena that have been seen, sufficiently well to produce experimental > predictions that can then be tested, or, if one does, the predictions are > quite difficult to test. Or if easy, for some reason, the tests have not > been performed and published -- or they have, but the publications are > obscure. There is a *ton* of stuff out there. > > Behind Krivit's "story" is a semantic issue. Krivit seems to favor > Widom-Larsen theory, involving ultra low-momentum neutrons. Setting aside > many well-known objections to this theory, how does W-L theory explain the > generation of helium? You can't just take neutrons and mash them together to > make helium, not without Other Stuff Happening. But suppose, by a series of > reactions (and what I've seen of W-L theory requires a series of reactions, > leading to a question of how a long series of reactions could take place > with little detection, if any, of the intermediate products, and I don't see > how one could get from a neutron and a deuteron to a helium nucleus without > some intermediate product! However, perhaps the neutrons wander into some > heavier nucleus and cause it to fission, generating an alpha particle. But > why just this one reaction, and not many other known neutron activation > reactions?) > > In my book, however, adding neutrons to nuclei is a form of fusion. It's > building up heavier elements from lighter ones, the essence of fusion, > releasing the heat from mass loss. It's just a name that implies one of two > major nuclear reactions: fission or fusion. > > The Q factor found from experiment implies, but does not prove, that the > primary fuel is deuterium and the primary ash is helium, but more than that > it cannot yet do. Nor does this rule out LENR reactions that don't involve > deuterium. We could expect from them, though, different Q factors. > > To reiterate, the measurement of Q factor, thus far, is not accurate enough > to prove D-D fusion or equivalent (Be-8 fusion is equivalent in result, but > would completely resolve the branching ratio issue, it would be 4D -> Be-8 > -> 2 He-4 + 47.6 MeV, and the 47.6 would end up almost entirely as heat. 4D > fusion seems really unlikely to people, when this is first brought up, > because if 2D fusion is difficult, 3D fusion would be ridiculous, and 4D > fusion beyond impossible. However, 4D is just two deuterium molecules, and > Takahashi proposes, as I read it, that they form a Bose-Einstein condensate > in lattice confinement, which would put them in a symmetrical, tetrahedral > arrangement. And then he calculates that if the TSC forms, it will collapse > and fuse with 100% frequency within a femtosecond. I imagine it has > something to do with the deuterons, so to speak, backing up to each other, > neutron ends facing the center of the tetrahedron, and getting close enough > for the nuclear force to take over; the Coulomb forces act on the "proton > end" of these nuclei, and would be reduced, additionally, by the presence of > the molecular electrons. This, then, would explain why CF is a surface > effect, because deuterium gas is not present in the bulk; whereas at the > actual surface, there would be inadequate confinement. It would have to > happen just below the surface and, fortunately, it happens -- if this theory > is correct -- at a very low rate. Very rare to get two deuterium molecules > in a single lattice position, even one is necessarily transient, but I have > no idea if such phenomena have been investigated adequately. > > Just a theory. What impresses me is the results of the experiments finding > helium and heat, well-correlated. When I realize the significance of that, I > became, relatively speaking, a "believer." But I'll still listen to anyone > who can explain to me how heat and helium could be so well correlated > without fusion (or some other nuclear reaction that produces helium and > heat). > >> 5. Experimental Evidence of LENR Is Strong >> The consequences of attempting to sell people and the U.S. >> government on the speculative, unsupported theory of >> "cold fusion" caused them to have less confidence in the >> very real and strong experimental evidence of LENR. > > I saw the 2004 DoE report as an attempt to "sell" LENR. Not their particular > theory. They did propose a theory, but LENR does not depend on that theory. > I assume I'll look at this in more detail later. > > (A common claim of the skeptics is that there are no theories that could > explain CF. There are; as Storms points out, there really are too many! > Storms does not consider any of them adequate, so far, to explain all the > known observations. I don't necessarily agree, but his position is certainly > reasonable, and my understanding of TSC theory is primitive enough that my > opinion is proof of about nothing. I do wish someone would criticize > Takahashi's work in a peer-reviewed publication. It has been mentioned by > Mosier-Boss, simply as a possibility, in the triple-track paper. But has > anyone actually confirmed his math? Is there other work looking at > estimating the frequency of TSC formation? > > The helium correlation with excess heat is, in fact, the strongest evidence > for LENR that I've seen, at least that has been widely confirmed. There is > other strong evidence that doesn't enjoy such broad confirmation or > acceptance; for example, the Mossbauer spectroscopy results from Vyosotskii, > in an experiment that should, quite possibly, be easy to replicate. If his > report is accurate, it's actually conclusive that LENR is taking place, > managed by bacteria, biological transmutation. But confirmed, not. Why not, > I don't know. Too far out? I have seen no reports of attempts at replication > that failed. Somebody, at least, is taking the Vyosotskii reports seriously, > such as Krivit and Marwan in the ACS Sourcebook (2008). What Vyosotskii > shows is nucleosynthesis of Fe-57, confirmed with the very specific > Mossbauer spectroscopy, unique to that isotope, in the presence of deuterium > and manganese and a bacterium like deinococcus radiodurans. > >> 6. LENR Progress Delayed >> The subgroup's efforts to promote its "cold fusion" theory >> have come at the expense of the acceptance and recognition >> of the entire LENR field. > > Hogwash. > > I have elsewhere criticized the Hagelstein report to the DoE, but they were > faced with a difficult task. Given the magnitude of the task, they did > reasonably well. Being competent researchers does not necessarily equate to > being skilled politicians, and the issue has long been, really, political in > nature. Could they have done better? Probably. But the 2004 DoE review was a > stunning turnabout, compared to 1989. > > Krivit is attacking some of the best work that we have, and without showing > a clear understanding of it. His report on Violante was outrageous, and, > while he's corrected a detail, the very substantial errors in his analysis > have yet to be confronted. He expects researchers to retract errors that > they didn't even make, but he makes huge mistakes, and lets them sit. > Because? > > What I suggest is that the community start preparing another report, this > time a consensus report that is widely agreed as containing the clearest and > best evidence. It can contain minority reports, don't worry, it does not > require that everyone agree! But the best evidence would, indeed, be in > there, and clearly explained. Even skeptics could help prepare this report, > the genuine ones, who would point out where evidence is weak, who would > point out what research remains to be done to more solidly establish the > field (or, from another perspective, to point out how the whole thing might > be a Big Mistake -- but that's getting to be a more and more untenable > position). > > >
