At 02:24 PM 3/21/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/acs-fm030810.php>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/acs-fm030810.php
This was also copied to:
<http://www.physorg.com/news188377829.html>http://www.physorg.com/news188377829.html
I find it a little disturbing that they put the word "calorimeter"
in quotes, in the figure caption. It gives the impression they have
never heard of a calorimeter.
Where is that proofreader when we need him?
I can practically hear Krivit rolling over in the grave he isn't in
yet (and I wish him a long life). Krivit's presentation was not
allowed. He's sent it out:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/RealityOfLENRMythologyColdFusion.shtml
Is there anyone whom he listens to who might explain to him how he
makes a major error in almost every slide? Maybe it gets better
toward the end. I literally couldn't watch it, and it wasn't because
it was "contracticting dogma." It's because he misrepresented, badly,
each time, the "dogma," and he substitutes serious hand-waving for
actual alternate mechanism, which seems to be, more or less, the
Widom-Larsen approach, though I rather doubt anything from W-L is as
bad as Krivit's presentation. Maybe they would talk to him? Bad
advocacy could give them a bad name, if they allow it.
There is no dominant cold fusion theory, except for one thing, which
Krivit misses. It's widely and properly accepted that helium is
produced as a *major* reaction product. Tritium is produced as a
minor product by comparison. And in the most commonly studied forms,
the fuel is deuterium.
There is no single nuclear reaction. However, most possible reactions
involve deuterium as a fuel, i.e., they don't work if you substitute
hydrogen for the deuterium. At the very least, the deuterium would
have to be an important catalyst. Now, if you look at these cells,
what could be fuel and what could be ash? We know that helium is an
important ash, and the quantities of helium found are (for palladium
deuteride experiments), at the very least, in rough correlation to
excess heat found, assuming deuterium as a fuel.
Remember that in the early days the big objection to the cold fusion
hypothesis was the missing reaction products, particularly those
expected: tritium and neutrons. Preparata had predicted helium, from
his theoretical work. Miles confirmed it.
But contrary to Krivit's straw man arguments, this does not prove
that the reaction is simple d+d -> He-4, and there are lots of
reasons to think it isn't that. Krivit loves to point them out, as if
d+d was the only kind of fusion possible. I'd say it's still
possible, but I've seen no *convincing* and *proven* theory as to how
the normal branching ratio is suppressed and how momentum is
conserved should two deuterons fuse and form helium without gamma rays.
Krivit is now saying that he believed cold fusion was real through
appeal to authority. The people telling him it was fusion had
"PhD's," and apparently that was enough to convince him. Apparently
he didn't think for himself then. Is he thinking for himself now?
I find it very difficult to follow how W-L theory explains the
phenomena of cold fusion. Krivit, for example, naively claims that
"cold fusion" doesn't explain the production of tritium. Which is
preposterous, actually. But first, let's look at the other side. How
does W-L theory explain the production of tritium? Well, very simple:
d+n -> t. Neat, eh? Beyond the problem of where the neutrons come
from, there is a worse problem: How, then, does it explain the
production of helium? Ah, simple, too. d+n -> t, then t+n -> H-4 -> He-4 + e.
This is hand-waving. Why?
Because of reaction rates. Neutron capture must be rare, even under
"cold fusion" conditions, or else the material would vaporize itself
and anything close. So if d + n is rare, given how much deuterium is
present, i.e., most deuterium never captures a neutron, then the same
would presumably be true of a small amount of tritium produced by the
deuterium/neutron process. So the ratio of deuterium to tritium would
be roughly the same as the ratio of tritium to helium. But, in fact,
tritium is a rare product and helium a common one. This indicates,
strongly, one of two things: whatever reaction produces tritium is
more rare than whatever reaction produces helium, or we have a
special case: tritium is produced as a secondary reaction from
whatever is producing helium. And the truth may be some combination.
I use Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory as a kind
of operating hypothesis. This theory has not been proven by any
means, but it's plausible, and it depends, mostly, on the rate at
which a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) will form in the palladium
deuteride environment; the basic tetraahedral configuration would be
expected for double deuterium molecule confinement. Most people,
encountering this, who understand the environment, reject it because
the confinement of a single molecule of deuterium would be rare;
ordinarily the lattice causes deuterium molecules to dissociate into
individual deuterons, with the electrons being shared across the
metal. So double molecular confinement would be doubly rare (and very
unstable, the forces would quickly rupture the lattice). But, to my
knowledge, nobody has actually determined the rarity, and, one thing
is clear about "cold fusion." It's very rare. Fortunately! Or there
would be a few missing labs.
It's important to realize that TSC theory is not a two-step theory.
The hypothesized fusion is a single fusion caused by a particular
configuration. It is not a sequential process, building up a higher-Z
nucleus from a series of additions, each one obviously unlikely.
Instead, it's a single unlikely configuration! No intermediate
products that could stick around.
Takahashi's theory was developed because he'd seen evidence, in "hot
fusion" (bombardment of palladium deuteride with deuterons) of a
higher cross-section for multibody fusion than would be expected, so
he apparently started looking for theoretical explanations. And he
did the difficult math of analyzing the multibody problem, using
quantum field theory, and came up with a prediction that the TSC
would fuse to Be-8 within a femtosecond. This is remarkable, all by
itself. It's a *prediction* from quantum mechanics (using the more
complex work necessary for multibody problems) of fusion, under a
certain very rare physical condition; and the problem then reduces --
if his math is correct -- to understanding the rate of formation of
that physical condition. And there may be other configurations that
could fuse as well. He studied one possibility, an interesting one,
because it's simple: two deuterium molecules, in the natural
efficient packing in cubic confinement.
TSC theory clearly involves fusion. Yet it generates no neutrons or
tritium, not directly. "Not directly" is very important. It will
generate a range of secondary reaction products, as will any reaction
that produces energetic helium, and tritium will be among them, as
well as a few neutrons.
This is the serious flaw in Krivit's rejection of "fusion." He, first
of all, limits his critique to the simplest kind of fusion imagined,
straight d+d fusion, which is not only highly unlikely ab initio, but
which would almost certainly produce other effects that are not
observed. (However, I don't want to rule out, for example, various
mechanisms that might transfer energy and momentum to the lattice,
nor do I want to rule out W-L theory entirely, but what I've seen of
it is no better as an explanation for the known phenomena than TSC
theory, and seems quite a bit weaker.)
What would TSC fusion produce? Well, the excited Be-8 nucleus will
live for a very short time. In that time, it will radiate energy with
a series of photon emissions, down through the nuclear excitation
levels. These photons will be absorbed by the environment, their
energy appearing as heat. At some point, the nucleus will fission,
into two alpha particles, i.e., helium nuclei. If the Be-8 nucleus
reaches the ground state before fissioning, the helium nuclei, as I
recall, will have about 90 KeV each. But if fission takes place
before that, they could have up to 23.8 MeV each. Because there are
two products, there is no conservation of momentum problem.
In other words, a range of alpha particle energies might be expected.
However, being produced inside a metal lattice (though probably close
to the surface), and not being "visible" -- as with reactions in a
cloud chamber or the like -- what alphas are detected would be at
average lower energy than what is actually being produced.
But there can be other effects as well. While the collapsed BEC
exists, it might cause, directly, nuclear transformations. It is
neutrally charged, it could occasionally fuse with additional
deuterons during its short lifetime. It could fuse with palladium.
But the *main reaction* would be simple: 2(D2) -> Be-8 -> 2He-4 plus
47.8 MeV heat, the heat being mostly radiated as photons from the
Be-8 nucleus, the rest transfered by the alpha particles to the cell
environment as they lose their energy and become ordinary helium.
And that is what is experimentally found, within experimental error.
Krivit attempts to impeach or explain away those results. But they
come from multiple research groups, and the *general* result is not
refuted if some specific finding has an error in it. Absolutely, it's
not to be considered proven that the Q factor is 23.8 MeV/He-4. There
*are* other reactions, in any case, so the exact Q factor is not
going to be exactly 23.8, even if the heat is measured very
accurately and all the helium is captured. But it's probably pretty close.
However, *any* nuclear process which produces energetic products, at
least part of the time, can produce other secondary nuclear effects,
such as transmutation and secondary radiation. The biggest problem
with W-L theory, as has been explained here many times by Mr.
Heffner, particularly, is that we don't see the expected other
effects of neutron activation. Sure, you can explain tritium
production with neutron capture. But when you look at reaction rates,
and the necessary chains of reactions to produce higher-Z products
such as helium, it makes no sense. What happens to the intermediate
products? They should be present in higher concentrations than any
product further down the chain of reactions, not lower, unless
somehow the reaction rate can go so high as to consume all the "fuel"
for the next step. Consider the neutron flux that would be involved!
And why doesn't this very high flux cause most of the deuterium to be
transmuted?
Cold fusion, quite likely, is what is happening. If the fuel is
deuterium, dump it in your black box furnace, and the ash falling out
of the box is helium, it's fusion, no matter what fancy-foot dancing
takes place inside the box and what other names we might give it.
Steve has become a highly biased political advocate for W-L theory,
using polemic and selective argument, and he's already beginning to
complain about how the idea is being suppressed. If that's true, we
should be careful not to repeat the mistakes of 1989. But I can
easily see why Marwan would not give his presentation space at the
ACS meeting. Look at who was presenting, look at the quality of the
work, and its importance, and, sorry, Steve, your presentation wasn't
even close to being up to snuff. A cogent presentation by Widom or
Larsen, sure, I'd hope. Even that, though, would depend on content.
I'm not going to be terribly impressed by further work from them that
doesn't address the reaction rate problem.
W-L theory deserves a place at the table, I believe. We should
remember that there is no basic principle requiring that only one
kind of nuclear reaction take place in the condensed matter
environment. Proof for one mechanism, if it is found, is not
refutation of the possibility of others. It just seemed at the
beginning -- and may still be true -- that since nobody had found,
before, even one proven mechamism (outside of muon-catalyzed fusion),
and the existence of even one seemed very unlikely, two must be
impossible. But it's not.
What if Mills is right, and hydrinos really do exist? Hydrino theory
doesn't explain the phenomena of cold fusion particularly well, but
it might be a factor. (I have no bets placed on Mills, and while it's
interesting work, it simply hasn't been widely enough supported yet.
Give it time, we'll eventually know. I wish the investors well, and
hope they did their due diligence.)
To me, this is all a colossal distraction. We need more experimental
work, better understanding of the conditions under which these
anomalous reactions take place. We need the theoreticians to come up
with testable predictions. In my view, TSC is great as a post-hoc
hypothesis. Now, what new phenomena, not already known, would it
predict? Is there any way to detect the formation of the necessary
BEC? (It could be extraordinarily difficult, the only observable sign
could be the resulting fusion. This is taking place in a screened
location, probably just below the surface of the lattice.)
We don't need argument over the definition of "fusion." As far as I'm
concerned, neutron capture is a form of fusion, of neutronium with
another element. One way of looking at it, in fact, would be that it
would be proton fusion, allowed by the "shielding" of the close
association of a proton and an electron within a neutron. I.e.,
neutron capture is a form of hydrogen fusion. Plus an electron. But
to explain the formation of helium, starting with deuterium fuel,
though neutron capture, takes two steps. Each would have its own
reaction rate, probably roughly the same, and if the first reaction
is rare, the second would be rare upon rare. That's not what's seen.
There seem to be simple and obvious predictions falling out of W-L
theory that are not matched by experiment.
Krivit has, in the attempted presentation to the ACS, repeated his
highly misleading evidence about the ENEA work that I earlier
dismantled here. It's as if nothing was said. That work was not an
attempt to assert 23.8 MeV, it actually used that value as an
assumption for its own purposes. Krivit presents it as if this were a
significant source for the 23.8 MeV theory. Krivit has not published
the text of his paper, yet, AFAIK. I decided to skip ahead in his
video and see if it got better, and I went to the middle, where he's
repeating his old claims about the ENEA paper.
Does Krivit anywhere give W-L theory the critical examination it
deserves? He attempts to impeach the experimental work that underlies
the heat/helium finding that is broadly accepted. But he only touches
on the surface of this, and thinks he's found some misbehavior, and
he uses polemical language about it (elsewhere, I haven't analyzed
his presentation this time, and prefer to wait for a written text).
But what is the experimental work supporting W-L theory? What
predictions would be made by W-L theory, and how does actual
experiment support the theory or indicate otherwise.
He's claiming to want us to return to science, but he's not following
science, he's following the practices of yellow journalism, polemic.
I'm afraid he's trashing his reputation, thoroughly. He thinks it
courageous. It's foolish, because he's not listening. He is ignoring
criticism, not addressing it, and not incorporating it in what he
then later produces. That's not science, it's dogma, in fact, he's
just substituted one dogma for another (which often happens with
dogmatic thinkers who somehow change their minds). Science is based
on open and thorough conversation, and detachment from fixed
conclusions and advocacy (beyond ordinary patience and persistence
when one's points aren't being understood). Where is Krivit
addressing, with his journalism, the defects (or "alleged defects")
in W-L theory? Where are his interviews with experts in the field on
this topic? He's gone completely out of balance.
I have no axe to grind about cold fusion theory. I don't care about
it, really, somewhat like Rothwell. It's important if there are some
possible explanations, and good theory will lead to better prediction
of experimental results, which will lead to better engineering,
later. Bad theory will confuse everything, but it's important not to
conclude too soon that a theory is bad. The real issue for theory is
predictive power, and, philosophically, theory isn't truth, in
itself. The truth might be that there are gremlins in everything,
teeny gremlins, that make every "decision" according to a master
plan, creating every appearance. Not likely? How would you know? What
would you compare it with? Occam's Razor rules it out, but Occam's
Razor is not a definitive law, it's merely a way of avoiding
over-complicated theories with no predictive value. The "Gremlin
theory" doesn't produce *any* predictions that I can think of. So,
while it can't be falsified, it's useless.
Can W-L theory be falsified? Sure it can. Looks to me like sufficient
experimental work already exists to do that, as to it being a major
factor. Has Krivit looked at this? Why not? Does W-L theory predict
LENR with deuterium fuel and not with hydrogen? (Probably. But Krivit
hasn't reported in detail on W-L theory, AFAIK, creating clear,
popular explanations of it. Instead, he's tracking that holy grail
for some journalists, the Big Mistake that then leads to the
Exclusive Scoop.). What predominant reaction products does it
predict? If it can't predict reaction product, it's weak indeed, but
if it does predict helium, then we have reduced this to an exercise
in semantic trickery.
What is this: deuterium -> [W-L reactions] -> helium (and some other
stuff and energy)?
There is a word for it: fusion. That's why Krivit's approach is truly
insane. He's trying to avoid the word fusion, imagining that this is
going to reduce opposition to LENR. It won't.
The field is absolutely correct in moving to neutral language.
Fleischmann-Pons Effect is neutral, it simply refers to what was
found and confirmed (excess heat in palladium deuteride), while
setting aside mechanism entirely. LENR does assume nuclear
mechanisms, while still avoiding specificity. As we learn more, other
terms will be used, and there is a good chance that "fusion" will be
in there.... researchers are quite properly dropping the shame.
Fusion is a respectable hypothesis, that is, the formation of
higher-Z elements from lower-Z ones, by whatever mechanism. There was
no reason to utterly reject it in the first place, and, contrary to
Krivit's claim, the critics were wrong to rule fusion out. They were
correct to note that simple deuterium fusion was very unlikely as an
explanation for the F-P effect. Probably it isn't.
