Peter Gluck is on target when he draws distinction in the cold fusion arena between what he calls LENR and LENR+.
The major characteristic that describes LENR is that it is accidental whereas LENR+ is intentional. I believe that Ed Storms theory on what causes LENR is on the mark. Specifically, it is nano sized cracks in the material that are central to the nuclear active environment (NAE). The formation of these cracks is accidental and inconsistent. When cracks form, their number might be large or small. The shape of the cracks will vary, some cracks will be ideally shaped while others will be misshapen and therefore ineffectual. The resulting induced nuclear reactions may be small or may be great; but this is all beyond human control. It is all accidental. LENR+ takes the concept of cracks and optimizes it. Through standardization of size, shape, and number, the production of these nuclear active cracks is made totally reliable and consistent. Such cracks are manufactured intentionally. The question is what characteristics of these cracks make them actors in the nuclear active environment. I believe that Dr. Miley provides us with the telling clue. In his research, through the use of the appropriate probes, he tells us that these cracks are superconductive. To determine the cause of the NAE, what characteristic of a crack can make it superconductive? Only in the last few years is the answer to this riddle available to us. It is its shape. A long thin structure whether it is filled with hydrogen or not will be superconductive because of one dimensional ballistic electron flow. The crack will concentrate electrostatic charge to such an extent that it will screen the coulomb barrier at or near its tip and fusion in this region will subsequently occur. How do we test this theory? The key is to intentionally manufacture cracks on the surface of nickel micro-powder. This is done as follows: Coat nickel micro-powder with nanotubes. Then lightly cover the new surface with a coating of just enough nickel to keep the nanotubes in place. Place the prepared powder in a high pressure hydrogen envelope. Heat the hydrogen envelope to a temperature that exceeds the curie point of nickel. This will suppress gamma radiation. A successful experiment will find the NAE develop on the surface of the specially prepared nickel micro-powder. Cheers: Axil On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 05:10 AM 5/31/2012, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> I have just published my answer to COLD FUSION NOW's >> Ruby Carat question "What if?" >> >> <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com/2012/05/answering-to-ruby-** >> carats-what-if.html<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/answering-to-ruby-carats-what-if.html> >> >http://**egooutpeters.blogspot.com/**2012/05/answering-to-ruby-** >> carats-what-if.html<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/answering-to-ruby-carats-what-if.html> >> >> My answer is not demonstrable but it can have some traces of realism. >> > > The "What if" can be useful if it leads to a better understanding of how > to approach the situation today. > > First of all, we must understand the quite strong reasons for skepticism. > We cannot blame anyone for being skeptical, then, or even now. > > With each passing year, the skeptical position becomes both weaker and > stronger. > > Weaker is obvious: the balance of publication in peer-reviewed journals > long ago flipped to positive. The core experiment demonstrating the reality > of cold fusion beyond reasonable doubt is the heat/helium work of Dr. > Miles, and this has been confirmed, and most thoroughly reviewed by Dr. > Storms in "Status of cold fusion (2010)" (Naturwissenschaften.) That is a > peer-reviewed review, and the abstract is quite clear on the probable > reality of cold fusion. > > So why does extreme skepticism persist? Well, first of all, what are the > ways in which the skeptical position becomes stronger with time? > > Most of these ways are "logically defective." I'll note that, but it does > not help us in "spreading the news" to call the extant arguments "logically > defective." We need to either directly address them, with respect, or > side-step them with something overwhelming. > > 1. The absence of a practical application or readily-available > reproducible demonstration that is not itself highly controversial, in > spite of hundreds of groups around the world that have worked on CF. > Logically defective. > > 2. The weakness of the heat/helium work. It is strong enough to be > considered prima facie conclusive, we may say, but someone attached to the > skeptical position will notice the weaknesses. > > 3. The continued lack of a "plausible mechanism." We cannot even agree > among ourselves as to the plausibility of any of the many proposed > mechanisms. Logically defective. > > Notice that the only not-logically-defective criticism is about something > remediable through further work on heat/helium, which can have value all of > its own. > > For more than twenty years, much experimental work in the field seems to > have been aimed at finding ways to improve the reliability of the effect, > or its amplitude. While that is quite understandable, it is not what the > *science* needed. Miles' work was so important because he moved around the > "unreliability," to a study of a correlated result. In such a study, > "unreliability," through "dead cells," becomes a control. > > Further, many have attempted to invent mechanisms. Dr. Storms, most > recently, has proposed a mechanism that seems logical and plausible to him, > but that is tantamount, at the core, to proposing an entirely unknown > phenomenon, I could call it "gradual nuclear fusion." That simply postpones > the mechanism issue, though in a narrow and testable way. Some of Dr. > Storms' ideas can be tested, and what leaps out at me is that some of the > tests are things that involve experimental data that well may have already > existed, *but that was not published.* It was considered useless, or even, > in the context of the attempt to convince the general physics community, > "negative." > > An example would be the production of tritium which was not strongly > correlated with excess heat. Miles apparently collected tritium data for > his cells, but because it was not correlated with excess heat, because the > levels were way too low, at least, to allow tritium to be a part of the > main reaction, Miles did not publish the data. Levels of tritium are a clue > to the mechanism, likewise neutrons, even though the levels were > *extremely* low to non-existent. Data on H/D ratio in experimental cells is > scanty, yet the ratio is known to have a strong effect on results. > > What is missing from the experimental record is thorough study of the > already-discovered effect. Each group, with few exceptions, invented its > own specific approach, so results cannot be easily compared across various > reports. There seems to have been no widespread recognition of the value of > a method that, with persistence, produces results a substantial percentage > of the time, that such a protocol is quite adequate for the kind of work > that was needed. > > Dr. Storms has pointed out how even the simplest and cheapest experimental > techniques were often not used. For example, it would seem that a careful > investigation would include radioautography of the cathode or other > materials from the cells. And, of course, complete work would include > radiography of *all cathodes* in a series. Is a radioautograph showing > radiation from a used cathode correlated with excess heat? With helium? > With other effects? > > Much work in the field represents little more than anecdotal evidence. > That's great as a basis for further exploration, but it's lousy as a way of > establishing a world-shaking effect. To be widely and readily convincing, > in such a context, such an anecdotal effect must be wildly visible, not > merely measurable. > > So, there are five ways to proceed, given the situation. > > 1. Encourage and support experimentation to develop full analytical data > for methods known to work. This can be done, there is nothing speculative > about this approach. This is the kind of work that was recommended by both > DoE LENR reviews. This is also not expensive work, and political support > should be developed to make graduate student labor available again. > Discrimination against graduate students who did good work on cold fusion, > in the early days, was an *outrageous* abuse and imposition of a kind of > orthodoxy inimical to science itself. That must not be tolerated. It will > take bold professors and bold graduate students, interested in real > science, to break this. Cold Fusion Now may be of great help. > > 2. Spread the news about what already exists with respect to cold fusion > research. The experimental record is adequate to establish the reality of > the effect by the preponderance of evidence. Most skeptical arguments have > become mere assertions of some unlikely possibility without any > experimental backing or confirmation. If cold fusion was a medicine, it > would be approved and would be routinely prescribed. Cold Fusion Now, > again, can help with this. However, I caution Ruby and CFN not to support > *unsubtantiated* reports, merely because they know that LENR is possible. > That LENR is possible does not mean that every report of LENR is valid. > Further, reality of an effect does not equal commercial application, and an > attempt to apply an effect commercially will run into major issues of > reliability, and can fail for reasons not related to some underlying real > effect. I understand that we are impatient to see a solution to the world's > energy problems. But it was jumping the gun on this in 1989-1990 that led > to widespread rejection and cynicism. > > 3. Increase awareness of the insanity of spending billions of dollars on > hot fusion research, which remains a long shot in spite of sixty years of > work, while denying even the smallest funding for LENR research, which, if > a practical route to implementation can be found, could make hot fusion > into a pile of very expensive but useless junk. Cold fusion has, many > times, produced far more energy than was put in, the problem being that > nobody has yet found a way to make this reliable. Hot fusion has produced > mere breakeven, rarely, at enormous expense. Even if successful, it will > almost certainly require enormously expensive and dangerous installations. > This is nuts, and the insanity should be made very obvious to politicians. > Use the DoE reports to establish the advisability of this research. Why > have funding agencies ignored the recommendations of both DoE panels, > clearly unanimous in 2004? > > 4. Support continued research into new approaches to LENR, while, at the > same time, encouraging stronger standards for publication. There is much > published work in this field that is of low quality. It's not that such > work should not be published, it is that, when published under peer review, > but with inadequate review and editing, it damages the reputation of the > field. Preliminary reports, undigested results, all this, can and should be > internet-published. Indeed, as anyone who attempts to replicate CF work > will find, published articles typically contain inadequate data. Some > journals now publish appendices with expanded data on-line. That practice > should be encouraged. > > 5. Support extended peer review and criticism within the field. I find it > appalling, myself, that Takahashi can publish a theory that might be a > piece of an explanation of how CF might be happening, based on known > quantum field theory, as far as I can tell, but his work is not reviewed > and either confirmed or criticised by anyone sufficiently knowledgeable in > that quite esoteric field. Indeed, I have no indication that the work was > adequately reviewed before publication (but that would not necessarily be > visible). Kim's somewhat-parallel, but, AFAIK, less-specific work was > published by Naturwissenschaften, and I assume that does mean competent > review. But Kim and Takahashi do not ordinarily reference each other. > > And then, an idea: recruit physicists to review the theoretical work that > has been published. Encourage them to submit such reviews for publication. > What matters for choosing these physicists is their dedication to science > and to the scientific method, not their position on cold fusion. > > The pseudo-skeptical position thrives in an atmosphere of incaution and > inattention, of holding to assumptions while avoiding the hard work of > actually examining evidence, not to mention setting up experimental > demonstrations of artifact. If cold fusion had merely been a few isolated > reports in 1989 and later, it's understandable that people would not want > to waste time with it. However, it isn't that. It has been so extensively > corroborated that an attempt at experimental refutation is very, very > likely to fail. Such a clear refutation was never done. > > The early "negative replications" were entirely failures to replicate, not > *successful replication* of what has been widely reported, with, then, > demonstration of the artifact, as was done with N-rays and polywater. > > What stood as if it were refutation were *corroborations* of the observed > phenomenon, in a negative sense. I.e., a paper that showed neutron > radiation in cold fusion experiments must be below some quite small > threshold was considered a "blow" to cold fusion, but only because of an > assumption that fusion must produce neutron radiation. The effect, per > Storms (2010, produces no significant radiation of any kind, as to what has > been detected. Reports from "reputable groups" that found no excess heat, > and these reports were considered very important in 1989-1990, where they > looked for helium, also found no helium. This *confirms* the heat/helium > ratio, in part. No heat, no helium. That validates both the heat and helium > measurements! > > It remains true that many approaches to cold fusion are difficult to > replicate. Even for the same researcher, what has worked last year may not > work this year, with the reasons being quite unclear. Great persistence and > patience is needed, and "negative" results should not be deprecated. *All > results should be published." Otherwise, the field remains wide open to a > possible criticism that I did not mention above: > > 4. Too often, only positive results are published. A research may run a > dozen cells and, say, three show excess heat. The researcher only publishes > the data for the three cells. But one of the crucial pieces of information > we need about a protocol is the *rate* at which it shows results. Further, > in such a series, if possible, helium should be sampled (if this is a PdD > experiment), or other likely nuclear effects measured and correlated with > the heat. All the data is important. Note: had Pons and Fleischmann > published their full data, for their most recent protocol, in 1989, the > whole field would very likely have gone in a very different direction. If, > in their press conference, they had simply mentioned that only one out of > six cells exhibited the effect, and that only after months of electrolysis, > it would not have been possible to "refute" their announcement, as to > political effect, by a feeble effort with a few cells for a month. > > And this leads to another recommendation: > > 6. Researchers and those with access to analytical resources should > cooperate. Standard analytical methods should be developed, and new > experiments designed to allow efficient use of these resources. If any > resource is overwhelmed with requests, the resource should be > "commodified," i.e., analysis should be available for sale, at reasonable > prices, but adequate to fully support the work (and the difference between > for-profit and non-profit here is typically only a small margin). Then, > those interested in supporting the field overall may wish to subsidize > testing for qualified researchers. Or for students, the next generation. > > I'd love to be able to send a vial of heavy water somewhere, with a small > sample, and get back an H/D ratio. I don't even know where to start with > that. Sure, there might be some lab service available, but my guess is that > there are institutional resources that could do it for free, or for a small > fee, and if we, collectively, arrange something, even a for-profit service > might offer this at a discount, with coordinated submission of samples. It > could be anywhere in the world. >
