At 04:52 AM 4/6/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote:
friends,
this is just an idea I want to put into discussion.
The background is, that although LENR maybe proven, there is a gap
between theory and experiment.
Apart from the experiment-setup itself, we have the diagnostic tools.
Which are
a) in-process:
a1) nuclear particle detection
a2) He_x detection
a3) calorimetry
b) after process:
b1) microscopic surface analysis of the reactant
b2) analysis of possible transmutations, nanospire/LeClair maybe an
extreme case.
I see some difficulties in (a), although those give us realtime insight:
(a1): important, but maybe mainly absent
(a2): important, but difficult to detect, and often shifted to
after-process analysis.
(a3): difficult with small reactors, hence highly disputed.
So my idea:
i1) Use a 'dry' process, i.e. no fluids over the reactant.
Fluids blur the process and make it difficult to observe, and force
using debatable calorimetry.
The debate over calorimetry is a red herring. Calorimetry of cold
fusion experiments (with PdD) can be confirmed by measuring helium.
However, the chemistry of a PdD cathode, with loading created and
maintained by electrolysis, is insanely complex. It seemed simply in
1989. It was not and is not simple. Sure, there is an appeal to
gas-loading work, but it typically is done under pressure and is not
necessarily easy to observe either. The effective deuteirum pressure
produced by electrolytic loading is pretty high....
i2) make the reactant flat mm2's up to cm2's
i3) observe the reactant via Thermal imaging.
Thermal imaging of a cathode has been done. I'd hope to see it done more.
T.I. is sensitive enough to monitor the surface with 10um2 pixel size.
See e.g. thermal imaging of power semiconductors, which every
manufacturer does on a routine basis.
Yeah.
What would be the advantage?
Well. Hopefully evident.
--real-time monitoring of heat-production, orders of magnitude
better than calorimetry.
Yes, I've thought the same myself.
--spatial resolution (eg gradual variations of material properties
and their response could be monitored)
It is possible to combine many experiments into one, with some caution.
--after-process analysis via SEM or other methods would profit from
this real-time-identification of hot spots, And hot spots there are,
I'm quite convinced. This is NOT a process, homogenous across the reactant.
Certainly not sometimes. Depends on the approach.
This ofcourse does not make the hopefuls happy, who wish their e-cat
could be purchased next month.
Anyone who expects to purchase an e-cat next month might as well
expect to win the lottery, it may be more probable. But, Guenter, I'm
staying away from NiH entirely. I wish those who work with it every
success in the world, but .... we have far more experimental evidence
wtih PdD. We know that the ash is helium and that the heat/helium
ratio is consistent with deuterium -> helium. From a scientific point
of view, we need to finish this work and elucidate the mechanism.
Frankly, before I'd turn to NiH, myself, I'd start looking at
Vysotskii's work with biological transmutation, he's done some
stunning work, convincing on the face. But not replicated. Some of it
could be cheap to replicate.
But would narrow the gap between theory and experimental evidence/practice.
And we need that!
There is enough worry out there, that this is a potentially
dangerous process to require, that the theory-practice-gap should be
closed. Relying on say Rossi's statements or what some
administrative branch says about safety, does not make me feel comfortable.
What do You think?
I think that relying on anything Rossi says is nuts. If he says the
time of day, I'd want to check my watch or phone. He has richly
earned this lack of credibility, some of us think that it's
deliberate (and that could make some commercial sense).
If I had to guess, I'd guess that he found a reaction that was fairly
strong. Sometimes. Not reliable. Not ready for commercial
application. But that's a guess, and I'd not invest anything based on
that guess, without seeing some independent confirmation of solid results.
There are scientists who, if they said they'd found a way to enhance
the reaction with refried beans, I might rush out and stock up.
Because they would not say that if it weren't so. Rossi is not a
scientist, he's made that abundantly clear.
