Yea, verily.... and my thoughts exactly. M.
--- On Tue, 4/6/10, Michel Jullian <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Michel Jullian <[email protected]> > Subject: Inexpensive convincing Cold Fusion generated helium (was Re: > [Vo]:Krivit comments...) > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 2:50 AM > Ok, Jed and Abd, you have convinced > me that a helium free environment, > or a highly helium impermeable cell, would be difficult to > get, and > more importantly that it would be disputable. > > Then how about letting a not-so-impermeable (e.g. sealed > plastic) > closed PF cell, with recombiner inside, run in ambient air > for a > sufficiently long duration for helium to build up to an > indisputable > *above ambient* concentration? Jed says this has never been > done. > > A single current source could drive hundreds of identical > test cells > at a time (in series arrangement) for weeks or even months. > Finding > helium above ambient in only a single cell among those > hundreds would > be an indisputable proof of LENRs wouldn't it? > > Such an experiment, where only helium would be looked for, > would be > IMHO several orders of magnitude cheaper, faster, and, > importantly, > *more sensitive* than doing calorimetry and input energy > measurement > on the same number of cells. And, even more importantly, it > could be > easily analyzed or even run in a skeptic's lab. > > Michel > > 2010/4/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>: > > At 05:02 AM 4/2/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> > >> Re Stephen's argument that it can be argued that > He can leak in in > >> spite of positive pressure, we could easily bathe > the cell in a He > >> free environment, or simply make the cell He > impermeable (metal or > >> metal coated cell casing). > > > > Uh, how do you get an He free environment? Mind you, > it's done, but this > > begs the question. If your experiment depends on the > environment being > > helium free, the suspicion of contamination can > remain. Contamination can > > occur anywhere in the system, from contamination of > materials (say the > > palladium contains dissolved helium, which it will > ordinarily) to > > contamination of any of the equipment. > > > > Indeed, with care, plenty of experiments have shown > helium, but the way we > > really know that a particular experiment was accurate > with respect to helium > > is by comparing the helium production with another > sign of the reaction > > having taken place, and the major marker, by far, is > excess heat. And the > > quantitative relationship simultaneously starts to > tell us something more > > about the nature of the reaction. > > > > Remember, the original sign that something was > happening was excess heat, > > but it was mysteriously missing the expected markers > of fusion. Helium is, > > by expectation, a truly minor marker. That helium is > appearing in amounts > > roughly commensurate with the expected value for d-d > fusion is a huge clue > > to what's going on, that the fuel is deuterium and the > ash is helium. Not > > exclusively, necessarily, but, at least, in bulk. > > > > Remember, as well, what Huizenga wrote about this, > when he commented, in his > > later edition, on Miles' work. He recognized the > importance, but rejected > > the report because it was unconfirmed, and the > blinders of his "d-d fusion" > > knee-jerk theory kept before him all the reasons why > "d-d fusion" was > > impossible. He knew that if helium was confirmed, he'd > have a breakfast > > before which he'd need to accept that *some kind* of > deuterium fusion was > > probably taking place; if not that, then some other > nuclear process. Miles' > > work confirms helium production in a way that can't be > matched by mere > > findings of small amounts of helium. > > > > Sure, in a sane world, the helium reports could be > enough. But if you are > > getting helium, you are getting nuclear reactions, and > the obvious question > > will be "what were your controls?" The controls in > Miles' work are all the > > experimental cells that were otherwise identical but > that did not generate > > excess heat. This turns a lemon (unreliable cold > fusion cells) into > > lemonade! There are quite a few early experiments that > looked for heat and > > helium, and found neither. This all become extended > control experiments! > > > >> Re Abd's argument that no "sizable" amount of He > can be produced, it > >> seems to me that since a _measurable_ > concentration has been found in > >> spite of high dilution in the gaseous output of > open cells, then a > >> fortiori we should be able to accumulate a > _sizable_ concentration in > >> the head space of a closed cell. Plus, it is > easier to measure excess > >> heat accurately in a closed cell, for those who > insist that heat > >> should be measured too. > > > > Michel, this work is extremely difficult to do. It's > been done, but because > > of the difficulty, there are only a few reports. > > > > It's not necessary, in fact. Long-running cells with > accurate calorimetry, > > and, more importantly, with measures taken for full > recovery of the helium, > > will be important. The highest-output methods also > tend to be unreliable, so > > one must run many cells to get some that generate > large amounts of excess > > heat. But we can know quite a lot from statistical > analysis of low-output > > cells (now defined as cells that produce less than > ambient helium > > concentrations). I'm not, in fact, convinced that > high-accuracy > > investigation of the heat/helium ratio is a proper > priority now. > > > > What we need is more investigation of the predictions > of theories. Once the > > mechanism(s) are elucidated, engineering cells for > better performance will > > become much easier. Ruling out incorrect theories is a > major part of this, > > but that is not necessarily easy. > > > > At this point, to return to the major controversy, > simple d-d fusion, i.e., > > two deuterons with no other reactants (such as > electrons) is a very unlikely > > prospect, but not impossible if the branching ratio > and energy transfer > > problems can be solved *and confirmed*. > > > > And this remains true even if it turns out that the > heat/helium, after full > > recovery, is right on 23.8 MeV/helium atom. > > > >
