At 05:16 PM 4/9/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Interpretations of work can involve theory. McKubre is an
electrochemist, not a nuclear physicist. While his opinions about
theory may not exactly be irrelevant, neither should we expect them
to be authoritative . . .
As far as I know, McKubre feels that Hagelstein's theories are the
most helpful in the field. I have never heard or read anything from
him about the W-L theory.
Having met Peter and having heard him speak a number of times, I
agree. Peter is quite cautious, and is proceeding step-by-step
through what it is necessary to understand to understand cold fusion.
He became quite interested in the possible formation of D2 in the
lattice, which could form in vacancies. Indeed, it appears, *would*
form in vacancies.
Some CF theories suggest the presence of D2 in confinement.
I believe he is hoping to confirm Brillouin's calorimetry. That
would not necessarily give credibility to their theory. It might, if
-- for example -- they can control the reaction well, and their
method of control is predicted by the theory.
Yup.
When a theory makes a successful prediction, particularly something
not expected, it gets a right to a higher notch in the process of
acceptance. However, what is truly important is that process of
prediction/experimental design/confirmation or falsification.
A theory may suggest a new experiment which has positive results.
That doesn't prove that the theory is "true." But it takes us closer
to such a conclusion. If results are *quantitatively predicted*, with
accuracy, the theory becomes the default understanding. It might
still be incomplete.
Pons and Fleischmann, in 1989, falsified standard LENR=zero
expectations. It was reasonable, before the FPHE was confirmed, to be
quite skeptical.
Cold fusion theories have not been useful or predictive so far.
Two exceptions that I know of.
1. Preparata predicted helium. Miles checked and found that helium
was being produced, correlated with the heat. That was a major
milestone in cold fusion history, and still has received inadequate
attention, especially given that Miles has been confirmed. That can
only partially be blamed on stubborn pseudoskepticism. As a community
with interest in cold fusion, we also need to take responsibility for this.
2. Hagelstein predicted resonances (generating increased heat) at 8
and 15 THz. Letts confirmed it, using dual laser stimulation with
beat frequencies from 3 - 22 THz, and an additional unexpected
resonance was found below 22 THz, which may have been due to hydrogen
impurities.
What's the importance of this? After all, "dual laser stimulation"
isn't apparently necessary for cold fusion to happen!
The Hagelstein-Letts experiment, published in 2008, takes what might
be called "subcritical" PdD, it apparently has no heat without both
laser stimulation and a magnetic field, and "turns it on." The
cathode is not a normal FPHE cathode. It is a piece of carefully
prepared palladium foil, a standard Letts cathode, to which has been
added a bit of gold plating, after the foil has been loaded with deuterium.
(The gold may help reduce deuterium loss, but it is apparently
necessary for laser stimulation, the gold particles on the surface
absorb the laser light, and, with dual lasers, are the "non-linear
mixer" necessary to produce the beat frequency.)
This is a heads-up, for those reading. The Letts-Hagelstein
experiment may not directly represent a practical approach to cold
fusion, but it gives us a handle on the reaction under the specific
conditions. It may be possible to further explore heat/helium, for
example, with this approach. It may be possible to explore vacancy
theory, or other theories. If the effect is reliable, as it seems it
is, it becomes possible to vary specific conditions and see
quantitative changes.
For example, to get results from dual laser stimulation, a magnetic
field appears necessary. What is the *quantitative* relationship of
magnetic field to heat, under dual laser stimulation at resonance?
What level of field is necessary? Indeed, with dual-laser
stimulation, we don't know how the effect varies with laser
intensity. 1 mW lasers seem to produce the effect. It might not take much!
How much natural radiation is present at the resonant frequencies?
A host of experimental questions are raised, that will have general
implications. That's exciting, that there is now beginning
experimental work to more carefully and quantitatively explore what
McKubre called the "parameter space," at that ACS Conference where
Krivit made such an ass of himself.
It's about time.
