Abd, Great informative post with ego left out unlike others.
On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 09:31 PM 8/5/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: > >> Jed and Craig, >> >> It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention >> to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think >> we should write. >> >> You complain endlessly about "sloppy journalism" and how the theories of >> cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the >> average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses >> them as "establishment goons" ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was >> one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for >> cold fusion! >> >> Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. >> >> [mg] >> > > Well, Mark, perhaps you should factor for Jed having faced twenty years of > sloppy journalism. Your report wasn't bad, but you, yourself, might profit > from taking a sympathetic look at what he pointed out. > > Yes, "establishment goons" is an ad hominem attack, and silly. > "Perpetually angry," from you, likewise, is a projection. Jed is mostly > resigned, and not so much about lack of attention -- that's people's right, > after all -- but about ... sloppy journalism. Your article is not as sloppy > as many, so something must have pushed him over the edge. > > I'll point out some problems with your post, below. But first, let me > appreciate the positive. You are paying attention to the field. Great. You > have effectively acknowledged the reality of the effect. That's great as > well, but in the context of reams of truly sloppy journalism, that's easily > overlooked, it will slide right past most people. > > It's an old confusion, often mixed up in critique of cold fusion: > > 1. Cold fusion doesn't exist. > 2. It is too unreliable to be practical. > > Those are contradictory. Scientifically, for anyone willing to look at the > evidence, and not firmly nailed to a position by prior commitment, cold > fusion exists. That is, the heat effect is real, and it is nuclear, this > was established through helium correlation, long ago discovered, and > confirmed amply. > > There was a remarkable event in 2010 that has gone almost entirely > unnoticed. There was a featured review of the field in a major mainstream > peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften, where cold > fusion came in out of the cold, came out of the closet, being called "cold > fusion," rather than the less definitive "low energy nuclear reactions." > That's "Status of cold fusion (2010)," Edmund Storms. There is a preprint > on lenr-canr.org, but the abstract alone is remarkable. > > Cold fusion had already come a long way by the time of the 2004 U.S. > Department of Energy review, as can be seen by reading it and comparing it > with the 1989 review. It was almost a majority position (it was evenly > split, 9/18) that the heat effect was conclusively established, a vast > difference from 1989, where probably only one or two out of 15 reviewers > thought that it might be real. > > There is no accepted theory of how cold fusion works. But "fusion" is a > term that includes any reaction that takes lower-Z elements and converts > them to higher-Z. I.e., deuterium to helium. That conversion, regardless of > mechanism, releases a characteristic amount of energy, a signature. That > signature has been observed by many, and there is no contradictory > experimental record. The early "negative replications" *confirm* the > correlation, because they found no heat and no helium. There is now a > simple harmonizing interpretation of all the experimental record with > palladium deuteride: there is an unknown nuclear reaction that converts > deuterium to helium, with little or no observed radiation, taking place on > the surface, probably in cracks of a certain size. > > It's an error to think that a single reliable experiment is necessary to > establish something as a scientific fact. In lots of cases, statistical > analysis is necessary, because single experiments can turn out many > different ways, sometimes. Plasma physicists are accustomed to running what > amount to vast numbers of trials at once, where statistical variations even > out. Cold fusion, however, so far, as manifest in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat > Effect, requires a very specific structure in the palladium, that is not > present in pure palladium, but that *sometimes* appears there with repeated > loading of deuterium into the lattice. And this structure is fragile, it > does not remain indefinitely, it's probable that the reaction itself > destroys the reaction sites. > > The reproducible experiment, then, involves running a series of cells > according to the state of the art so that anomalous heat, measured with a > reliable method, shows up some percentage of the time, and collecting and > measuring (generally blind) helium in the outgas. The result of the > experiment is a correlation. Is anomalous heat correlated with helium > production? At what value? > > Nobody who has done this has failed to find the correlation. The "dead > cells" are effectively the controls. The variability in the amount of heat > results in correlated variability in the amount of helium. This effectively > validates both the heat and helium measurements, because it is highly > unlikely that an artifact would simultaneously affect both the heat and the > helium, such that the two results would track each other, and that the > ratio was close to the expected deuterium fusion value was considered > astonishing by Huizenga in 1993. He simply expected that the result would > not be confirmed, because of no gamma radiation. That revealed his basic > error: assuming that if the reaction is real, and if it is producing > helium, it must be d+d -> He-4 plus gamma. But if it isn't that reaction, > the argument completely fails. > > Science moves on. The myth that Pons and Fleischmann's work was never > reproduced should be laid to rest. It was reproduced, hundreds of times, by > hundreds of research groups. People continued to argue about the > significance of that, and there is one lone crank who got a letter > published in Journal of Environmental Monitoring, who argues for a > systematic error in calorimetry, neglecting that the results have been > confirmed using many different methods of calorimetry, and neglecting the > corrrelation with helium. He was massively refuted in that journal, and > remains frustrated that the editors denied him the right of further reply. > The tables have been turned. > > However, skepticism about claims of commercial reliability, that's > entirely in order, still. There is no confirmed evidence for it, only > claims by certain entrepreneurs, with, in the case of Rossi, some very > shaky public "demonstrations." > > You seem to be aware of the difference between the reality of the effect > and the practicality of commercial application, but your article doesn't > make that clear. Given the widespread opinion that cold fusion is some kind > of pseudoscience, it would be important to dispel the myth, so that we can > move on to searching for ways to understand the effect. It's probably going > to take a massive effort by the best minds in quantum physics to understand > it, my guess. Nobody should think that this would be an easy task, or that > it should have been accomplished by twenty years of restricted effort. > > The funding, so far, has been large enough to allow some exploration, but > Fleischmann's opinion was that it would take a Manhattan-scale project to > make this commercial. There hasn't been enough funding to develop the > science to the point where such could even be rationally considered. Both > DoE reviews recommended modest funding to resolve basic issues. That was > never done by the DoE, and it's pretty clear why. > > This is a huge story, Mark. Thanks for addressing it to the degree that > you have. > > Now, to the article itself: > > Fleischmann, along with Stanley Pons, another major league >> electrochemist, claimed to have discovered "cold fusion" in 1989 but for >> reasons that are still not completely clear, had significant problems with >> the repeatability of their experiments. >> > > The reasons are quite clear. > > The role of micro- or nanostructure of the palladium was not understood. > Some batches of palladium produced the effect, some not. Many small > variations in experimental technique, contamination that might seem > harmess, produced drastic effects on the result. For example, contamination > of the heavy water with ordinary water reduced the effect, to the point > that 2% light water almost completely eliminated it. > > Pons and Fleischmann had developed techniques of loading palladium to very > high ratios. Later work showed that the effect did not begin to be visible > until above 80%, with most reports requiring 90%. The early replicators did > not exceed 70%, which was, at the time, widely considered the limit. > > The same palladium rod, as a cathode, would show no effect, then after > many hundreds of hours of electrolysis, show a clear effect. A great > example of this was SRI P13/P14, run sometime around 1991. Two cells in > series, one with light water, one with heavy water. Both were loaded to > above 90%, maintained with a trickle current. Then a current ramp was > applied. The first two times this was done, both cells showed no anomalous > heat. The third time, the hydrogen cell showed only an increase in noise > (to be expected). The deuterium cell showed a clear anomalous heat signal > that tracked the current. I can imagine the excitement in that lab ... the > chimera had made its very clear and unmistakeable appearance. > > Consider this: SRI P13/P14 effectively confirmed both the negative > replications *and* the Pons and Fleischmann work. The variable? They could > not show it, but it's pretty obvious: the microstructure of palladium > shifts when the palladium is repeatedly loaded with deuterium, the material > expands, cracks form, etc. Cracks that are too large, the material will > deload, not maintain high loading. Cracks too small or no cracks: no effect. > > It is now known that PdD cold fusion is a surface effect, it doesn't > happen in the bulk, and Storms makes a very good case that the nuclear > active environment is cracks. What's happening in the cracks? Beyond > something that results in fusion, *we don't know.* There is no theory that > explains all the evidence. There are pieces of theory that are "plausible," > i.e, not completely impossible. And when we try to look closely at this, > there is something missing: adequate experimental evidence. For example, > tritium is produced at low levels in PdD cold fusion, apparently. Is it > correlated with the heat or with H/D ratio in the heavy water? Early work > dismissed this, but because the levels of tritium were too low to explain > the main reaction (i.e., if it was classical deuterium fusion). They did > not report the actual heat and tritium levels such that correlation could > be examined. And this is quite important to theory! > > Many have argued that the discrediting of Fleischmann and Pons was driven >> and used by others in the science world to further their own careers and to >> promote "big science" experiments with "hot fusion." >> >> These same conspiracy theorists also argue ... >> > > There is "conspiracy theory" argument, but there are also some simple > facts. "Conspiracy theorist" tends to dismiss the ideas. You do recognize > that there might be some truth here, but, in fact, there is a lot known and > written about what actually happened, in reliable sources. The original DoE > review was designed to reject cold fusion, that's pretty clear. It was > rushed, depending on reports from replication attempts that were entirely > inadequate. It took months of prep for a FPHE demonstration. The negative > replications on which the ERAB panel depended took weeks, and they flat out > did not know what they were doing. Those replications were doomed, from > what we now know. What was the rush? > > It's obvious. The rush was because of the "big science" projects, on which > various institutions depended. If cold fusion might be real, then there was > a possibility that the big science would be cancelled, and these were truly > large projects. Now, what the ERAB panel *actually concluded* was modest. > It found the evidence for cold fusion "not convincing," which was > reasonable *at that time*, but it recommended further research, simply not > a massive federal program. The panel result was presented, however, by > skeptics, as if it had concluded that cold fusion was bogus, and the > American Physical Society, through Robert Park, made sure that all funding > requests were torpedoed. Even though the 2004 DoE panel similarly made such > a recommendation, no funding has been provided by the DoE. Requests by > competent scientists, with experience and credentials, have been made. The > rejections often treat cold fusion as if there were no evidence for it. > That's a sign of an entrenched and maintained position, a *political* > position, not based on science. > > The big question is whether the output will be substantial enough as too >> small a gain would make the effect just a laboratory curiosity. >> > > I just want to congratulate you for saying this. Cold fusion is actually > *established* as a "laboratory curiosity." The "gain" issue is only > relevant to commercial application. If the gain were so small as to be > difficult to distinguish from noise, there would also be a scientific > issue, a result close to noise might be artifact or some kind of systematic > error. While *some* cold fusion results are close to noise, many are not, > and helium correlation ices the matter. > > So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments >> performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various >> reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these >> effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of >> energy and operate reliably still isn't clear. >> > > Jed would have preferred that you not mix the reality issue with the > scalability issue. That's all. He's a tad sensitive about this.... But I do > think he has a point. > > "Anomalous heat" is the term used in cold fusion work for "output more > energy," roughly. It really means heat that is not explained by known > sources. Those include input energy and known chemical reactions (some of > which absorb energy). For example, with an electrolytic cell, where the > evolved deuterium is recycled through using a recombiner (which releases > heat from recombination), anomalous power will be output power minus input > power. If the cell is open (as with Pons and Fleishmann's original work), > it will be output power minus input power plus power stored in released > gases. > > With gas-loaded PdD cold fusion, there is no input energy, per se. When > the palladium -- or alloy -- is loaded with deuterium gas, there is a > release of heat, as the heat of formation of palladium deuteride, it's > exothermic. That heat dies off rapidly, and the anomalous heat is what > remains, typically steady, if the material works, for many hours. It's not > clear how long, Arata's experiments were terminated at 3000 minutes. The > heat was still steady at that point. > > Here is what I'd have preferred to see: > > So, is cold fusion real? Yes. >> >> From the thousands of experiments [...] >> >> However, whether these effects can be scaled up [...]. >> > > A few more comments. Rossi, Defkalion, and Brillouin are reportedly > working on LENR effects, i.e., "cold fusion," though what the actual > reaction is remains a mystery, and there no adequate public evidence on > which to base a judgment. There is rumor only. The cold fusion research > community, the scientists, do think that Nickel hydride heat is possible, > there have been scientific reports at modest levels, but there is nowhere > near as much evidence for NiH heat as for that from palladium deuteride. > Potential investors should watch their wallets carefully. There have been > many enthusiastic announcements over the two decades, that led to > bankruptcies and failures. > > The most likely situation, that would explain the delays, is that the > effect is real, and substantial heat is sometimes generated, but it isn't > reliable. Even some test standards proposed would be inadequate to validate > the work for commercial application. Suppose that a NiH heater works for a > week, then heat drops off as the reaction sites are destroyed. Rossi's > megawatt plant might actually work for a few days! Then what? > > If these companies wanted to do it, and if they have what they have > claimed to have, they already have a commercial product, they could sell it > immediately. A reactor that will demonstrate the effect, for a time. It > would be sold to those who want to research the effect! It would not need > to be particularly reliable, and one would sell many of them in a lot, and > it would only be guaranteed that some would perform for a certain time. > > And, contrary to what has often been claimed, such a device would be > patentable, because demonstrations could be arranged. > > Most of us in the cold fusion field are skeptical of the commercial claims > at this time, at the same time as being hopeful that there is *something* > there. PdD, even gas-loaded, is very expensive. NiH should be cheap. > > BlackLight Power is working on a reaction involving, allegedly, hydrinos, > Mills developed hydrino theory, not generally accepted. It's possible that > this is really the same as LENR, the difference might be theoretical. As to > claim, though, this is not cold fusion; it would be, rather, a new > chemistry. You correctly point out that there have been unfulfilled > promises. > > Nanospire, however, is either a nutty fantasy or is working with a form of > hot fusion. Not cold fusion. If this is real, it's very dangerous stuff. > LeClair was working with cavitation, basically similar to bubble fusion, > which would be, if real, hot fusion, with the resulting neutrons, and > LeClair reports "radiation sickness," you might note. People have attempted > to verify LeClair's reports. So far, no verification. Was a HazMat team > actually called to his lab? If so, what did they find? Were he and his > partner actually ill with radiation sickness? Were radioactive materials > created in his lab? All this could be verified if true. Samples that > LeClair submitted for analysis to an independent scientist showed nothing > unusual. I would place no credence in LeClair's theoretical claims, he's > not competent in the physics he spouts. He is a cavitation engineer, > though, and that he might have found a way to create extreme cavitation > pressures, adequate for hot fusion, is not impossible. Indeed, if he's a > bit nutty, it might be a result of the radiation poisoning. > >
