At 02:14 PM 9/15/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash
description seems to be a mix of complex fusion
and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of
reactions might be expected when the coulomb
barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range
from slight to total. This lowering seems to
happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It
also points to the likelihood these various
nuclear reactions occur respectively many time
to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted
elements and are not restricted to just nickel
(Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes).
Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented.
Agreed. Â Ni/H has been confirmed, in a sense,
unless we are to quibble over the meaning of the
word, in which case we must ask what it means
for the Pd/D experiments to be confirmed where
the Ni/H experiments are not. Â See sec. 4.5 of
Ed Storms's book. Â Although there are fewer
experiments reporting on Ni/H, there are enough
to be able to adopt some working assumptions
about the existence of the Ni/H reaction.
You can play with ideas all you want. The
information in the subject article from Defkalion
is primitive, it's hard to tell what it means.
Not just in terms of implication, but in terms of
what they actually did to collect it. Read the
article and see how ambiguous it all is. Now, of
course, maybe I missed something. That happens.
As a side note, I notice that Storms concludes
in this section that there must be something
like capture of p or D or more complex species
within nuclei that make up the different
substrates (Pd, Ni, W, Ti, etc.) and in
impurities that form in the substrates. Â There
are several significant details that support
this conclusion. Â They include a lack of
radioisotopes that would be expected to linger
around after the reaction shuts off if there
were neutron capture going on, the shift in
stable isotopes and the unexpectedly low
correlation of neutrons with anomalous heat. Â
Although catalyzed capture of D and p sounds
like a crazy idea, on the basis of the
reasonable objection that there is Coulomb
repulsion to be dealt with, IÂ suspect that
Defkalion and Andrea Rossi will be vindicated in
the end. Â I am not a betting man, but perhaps
some of you would like to start up a pool?
Storms is talking about low levels of
transmutation, not about major levels. "The ash"
does not cover all possible products of rare
branches or secondary reactions, it refers to the
main reaction. If fusion is taking place, even
under conditions that usually produce no other
transmutation, relatively rare secondary
reactions are quite likely to occur. SPAWAR has
reported very low levels of neutrons at about 14
MeV (and those produce proton tracks, plus rare
triple tracks). That tells us practically nothing
about the main reaction, the levels are so low.
(As I recall, They theorize that the neutrons are
from D-T fusion, perhaps from rare hot deuterons or the like.)
The helium seen in Pd/D systems seemsÂ
compatible with catalyzed D or p capture, if
there is some kind of subsequent alpha decayÂ
occurring within a palladium substrate; it is
possible that this is not energetically
favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case
you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in
Ni/H. Â It is common in the experiments to see
reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments.
Actually, it isn't common. There are reports of
CR-39 tracks, but the work is problematic,
confirmation rare. SPAWAR's non-neutron results
are difficult to distinguish from chemical
damage. I personally think they might be produced
by massive low-energy alphas, under 20 KeV, but
that's not a strong belief at all. Referring to
the main reaction, there isn't anything above 20 KeV, the "Hagelstein limit."
Storms thinks that NiH is operating by the same
mechanism, fed by protium and/or deuterium, but
that's actually an explicit *assumption* of his.
It might be correct, it might not be.
I would compare what's in the "before and after"
Defkalion charts, but basic details are missing:
1. Is this a before and after from the same material?
2. Or is it one material for "before" and a different material from "after."
3. How are the error values determined? Is that
variance from multiple analyses *of the same sample*?
4. What is the range of values for different
samples from the same basic material?
5. Lastly, how does the analysis vary based on
different levels of energy generated from the sample?
As others have pointed out, there are multiple
possible sources for anomalous elements. If high
voltage discharges are used, these might produce
transmutations themselves. Hence controls would
be appropriate, probably many different kinds of controls.
Only very primitive science is done with
anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately, a lot of cold
fusion work has been like this. "We did X and Y,
and we saw this amazing result, Z."
While it's interesting, and the kind of stuff
that people share at conferences or informally,
it's far more interesting, scientifically, if we
have "We did X and Y, 50 times, and this is the
range of results we saw. We altered Y to Z, and
this is the range of results we saw." And then
when someone else independently confirms this, we
have real science. If someone tries to confirm it
and fails, we have not necessarily lost anything,
because confirmations can fail for lots of
reasons; what we then have is more work to do....
