[split] reconsidering Spawar, craters, micro explosions

Branzell,

Regarding your "electrolytical induced pit corrosion" hypothesis.

Let's test it against known science:

1. you suggest corrosion happens at cathode, but it would would be the anode that should be subject to pit corrosion. So What new-to-science pit mechanism do you propose at cathode?

2. cathode is made of a Nobel material, not normally subject to corrosion, in this case Palladium cathode.

3. Normal Pit corrosion is visually very different on the surfaces (rough surface) than the LENR pictures of "volcanic smooth lava type" surfaces. How would you explain this using corrosion hypothesis?

My conclusion: the cause that produce these craters is something very different than corrosion mechanisms.

To me it's just another indication of LENR reality. We have not reached the end of science, and nature will show more surprises in the future. Like the recent discovery of antimatter produced during thunderstorms, another phenomenon yet to be explained.

-

Quote from H-G Branzell

where I suggest for a more modest mechanism to be the excavator of these pits. What do you think about it Eric?

The corrosion pits in the Google search don't look much like the craters to me. Here is one of the more extreme examples of a crater, from p. 5 of the JCMNS pdf you link to:

That looks like a series of hot ejections that emerged from below the surface of the cathode. Do you agree?

It is possible that the craters go back to a slow, gradual process rather than a fast one, like the building of a coral reef. I think the anyone who suggests this would need to propose an explanation. This conjecture would then sit alongside the conjecture that micro-explosions cause it, as one for people to weigh its plausibility.

About the density of these craters not matching up with the sparkles in the IR thermography video -- I'm not sure what the density of these things on the cathode surface typically is. The one above, which looks large, is about 70 um wide. How many of those things would fit on a cathode that is captured in the IR video? How many sparkles were there? At least from the standpoint of the video, they were happening slowly enough for people to observe them, so the number is bounded. The number we would really want would be the density of craters or blisters on the SPAWAR co-dep cathodes, assuming that is the same experiment as the SPAWAR cathodes that show craters (which it might not be). (I think a co-deposition experiment results in a very rough surface, with all kinds of spikes, and I see a smooth surface surrounding the crater images.)

Another point to keep in mind is that whatever process causes the craters may only cause them when it happens very close to the surface, and in other cases it could happen too far into the cathode to create a crater, but still register as a temperature spike. Related to this is the possibility that these larger craters may only go back to the most-energetic occurrences, and ones resulting from lower-energy occurrences are far more common, but are still sufficiently energetic to register as a temperature spike.

I don't have specific electrochemical facts to contribute to this debate, but I'd like to reflect on possibilities.

The observation of these pits, linked to electrolysis, is as far as I know unexplained. That is interesting and a proper matter for investigation. What I don't understand is why it should be linked to nuclear reactions?

(1) lack of explanation remains even if the broad phenomena of LENR is accepted, because no-one has a theoretical mechanism for this. So adding LENR to the equation does not solve this mystery.

(2) Although the material science / electrochemistry here is opaque to me, it seems entirely possible that protons pulled into the cathode surface during electrolysis could subsequently either undergo or catalyse chemical or electrochemical reactions that cause these crators.

This is a concrete example of an important consideration when evaluating evidence for any extraordinary hypothesis with no theoretical explanation. It is easy to look for unexplained phenomena, and see every such thing as positive evidence for the extraordinary hypothesis. This is not correct. Unexplained phenomena have a different status from extraordinary phenomena. We expect many unexplained phenomena in physics, but don't usually view them as unexplainable, just as things where teh precise mechanism is not yet known.

Unexplained phenomena are always interesting, and always worth investigating - but they are very seldom extraordinary phenomena.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The observation of these pits, linked to electrolysis, is as far as I know unexplained. That is interesting and a proper matter for investigation. What I don't understand is why it should be linked to nuclear reactions?

The reason is that transmuted elements are found in and around the cavities and nowhere else. Transmutation happens as a nuclear process.

Quote from Eric Walker

The corrosion pits in the Google search don't look much like the craters to me. Here is one of the more extreme examples of a crater, from p. 5 of the JCMNS pdf you link to:

There is a concept in LENR called "Exotic neutral particles". These particles are the active agents that produce the LENR effect. They produce LENR by the emission of a LENR active agent. J. Fisher found evidence of one of these things floating out of an an open electrolytic cell producing overunity heat using RC-39.

The was a path of alpha particle emission seen following this ENP as it lifted out of the open reactor beaker. The pits in the RC-39 showed evidence of a point source of the reaction as the angle at which the pits were bent in the CR-39 were traced back to a point source.

From an old post:

Quote

http://www.markfisher.net/johnfisher/papers/Bigshower.pdf

Energetic particle shower in the vapor from electrolysis
R. A. Oriani
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55419
J. C. Fisher†
600 Arbol Verde, Carpinteria, CA 93013
(Dated: December 19, 2004)

This article informs us about the nature of the NAE. The experiment related in this article uses CR-39 particle detectors to show the production of energetic particles in the mobile NAE afloat in the vapor above an electrolytic LENR cell. This NAE has becomes mobile after it has become detached from its point of creation somewhere on the lattice of the electrodes within the cell as it moves upward in the vapor produced by the action of electrolysis and the heat that this electrode produces. This NAE produces hundreds of thousands of charged particles as it floats upward out of the cell. This reaction most probably produces alpha particles as the NAE rises on the vapor currents upward out of the cell. The analysis in the article finds that this NAE is a point source of these alpha particles by correlating the angles of the pits produced by the charged particles as the NAE rises. This behavior implies that the NAE supports a continuous and long lasting LENR process that precedes over a considerable duration of time. This mobile type of NAE must decouple from its point of creation on the lattice of the electrode and floats on air currents like a particle of dust. The mesoscopic NAE must be massive in size to be so driven by molecules of air and water vapor.

Display More

Think of the ENP as a source of a beam of EMF that disrupts the structure of matter as it floats above the surface of the cathode. If the pit on the cathode is deep, the ENP sets on top of the pit and gradually excavates the pit over a limited period of time. If the ENP moves or vibrates the excavation is as shown above.

I believe that the ENP is hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) which has been activated by a covering of surface plasmon polaritons the are focused toward the positively charge tip of the HRM nanoparticle. A monopole beam projects from the tip of the ENP up to a distance of 100 microns and disrupts protons in any matter upon which the beam falls.

Also See:

LENR is a catalytic process

@Tom,

I think your distinction between unexplained phenomena and extraordinary phenomena is a good one. Even agreeing that something is an unexplained phenomenon can be difficult. But the discussion is worthwhile and necessary. Once a phenomenon advances into the realm of being unexplained (e.g., it's not mere corrosion, but actual ejecta from something hot), then the discussion can turn to whether the phenomenon is mundane or extraordinary.

It seems to me that good controls and a strong correlation between the craters and findings of excess heat, piezoelectric impulses, x-rays, helium, transmutations (along the lines of Axil's suggestion), etc., would move the craters from an unexplained phenomenon to a potentially extraordinary one. Do you agree?

Even before we get there, it is interesting to try to speculate on what might be causing the craters. Whatever it is, to me they look like craters left over from hot ejecta from explosions. Kirk Shanahan goes with the conjecture that they're due to chemical recombination on the cathode (I think -- this could be a misreading on my part). If they are due to ejecta, a calculation can be attempted to guess at how much energy is involved and within what timeframe. This has been done several times, although I do not have an opinion on how good the attempts are.

A cluster of post-electrolysis tracks discovered by Oriani (8). This cluster was produced when the CR-39 chip was exposed to an o-ring removed from the electrolytic cell. The mean density, about 30000 tr/cm2, is 2000 times higher than outside the cluster.

The source of the LENR reaction is located in the O ring. Note the spray of alpha particles from what looks like a point source coming out of the O ring.

There seems to be to types of craters: those with rough edges and Those with smooth lava like flows.

Smooth surfaces indicates high temperature event, while rough indicate possibly a more mechanical type cause.

The high temperature eruptions don't necesarily mean explosions. It could be they are slower eruptions of hot Events. Fast explosions possibly would throw material further away.

Anyhow, something to consider:
1. LENR kicks in an active site near surface. Remember also CR39 indicating hot spots.
2. Helium4 is a product of LENR, and may be that this is the gas that erupts in these Events.

The Shanahan hypothesis of chemical recombination has been tested and found not a possible explanation.

Ref.
Ruer J. Response to Comment on the Article ‘Simulation of Crater Formation on LENR Cathodes Surfaces’, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 14, (2014), p 5
www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol14.pdf

Interesting simulation:
Iccf19:
http://www.iccf19.com/_system/download/poster/PS49_Ruer.pdf

Also:
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol10.pdf

Many of those craters/pits look like the products of laser ablation-caused coulomb explosions.
Like this, for example:http://www.orslabs.com/images/sem o1 blast 1000x.jpg

Some quick comments/responses:

Craters - back when Russ George started talking about craters in the foils he subjected to ultrasonic waves, he suggested that the cavitation bubbles ejected water breakdown products into the material in 'jets'. I understand this and assume it is true, since I am used to the idea of explosively ejected jets from shaped charges. The key point is that it injects H2 (or D2) and O2 into the metal. What Russ didn't mention and which I pointed out is that there are known processes for things dissolved in metals to nucleate and form bubbles. H2 + O2 gives water in the bubbles, usually as steam. H2 + C gives methane. These bubbles, if near the surface, can obtain pressures sufficient to cause the bubble to 'pop' and release the gas. These processes are called 'steam embrittlement' and 'methane embrittlement' and have been known since at least the 50's.

Likewise, there are a series of papers by Y. Fukai on 'superabundant vacancies' formed in Pd after high pressure hydrogen exposure. Again, he has seen 'holes' in his Pd under the microscope, but I don't know if he looked at the magnification the CFers use. I have noted that CFers have finally begun talking about them in the last few years. Bottom line: multiple mundane chemical processes that can explain the craters. No need to use 'nuclear'.

Also, CFers are fond of looking into the craters and seeing metals other than the base metal used (i.e. Pd). They claim transmutation. The problem is, no metal is 100% pure, it will have contaminants. It is also well know that in some cases (based on chemical considerations like minimizing system energy) contaminants will segregate to defects. It is also well known that loading H into an alloy can cause rearrangements of the alloy such as disproportionation coupled with phase separation, so the process of loading the Pd to high equivalent pressure easily has the potential to migrate contaminants around and collect them if they were originally well-dispersed. That H loading also can cause bubbles and segregate contaminant species to them or simply nucleate a bubble on a pre-exiting contaminant cluster.

And to oystia, why do you think people who refuse to understand my thesis have adequately tested it? They have not. Instead they have utilized their hand-waving arguments, which I routinely refute, to avoid doing anything towards considering the CCS problem.

Shanahan, " hand-waving arguments" ?

So That's what you think of Ruer's detailed and mathematical papers and simulations, which proves your recombination hypothesis is not a possible explanation.

And I consider the Japanese research of transmutations better evidence than analysis of material in these craters.

Reference:

psc.edu/science/Wolf/Wolf.html

Onset of the beta phase in palladium hydride at 300 degrees Kelvin. This phase change occurs as the concentration of hydrogen atoms (yellow) in the palladium (purple) increases. At early stages (the alpha phase), hydrogen atoms randomly populate small interstices in the lattice structure. At a critical point, the lattice expands, allowing hydrogen to cluster at higher density, as visualized here. This image shows the lattice from the (001) direction.

The term cluster means the formation of hydrogen Rydberg matter (HRM) which is a solid form of hydrogen. High hydrogen loading in palladium produces increased pressure in hydrogen concentrations to a level sufficient to form metalized hydrogen, a solid nanoparticle form of hydrogen. This condition in highly loaded palladium is critical in setting the stage for the formation of the exotic neutral particle(ENP) that is the active agent in LENR in the Pd/D system. High hydrogen loading in palladium is the method that increases the pressure of hydrogen to a level high enough to form HRM.

Interesting find.

Quote

Other types of hydrogen damage are “blistering” and “hydrogen attack”. Blistering is a result of atomic hydrogen in solution that recombines to form high pressure hydrogen gas at inclusions, grain boundaries and other interfaces near the surface. Due to the high pressure, voids expand by plastic deformation causing swelling at the surface. Hydrogen attack, also called “hydrogen reaction embrittlement” (HRE), is found when materials such as steels and copper are exposed to hydrogen at elevated temperatures, giving hydrogen diffusion and reaction with carbides and oxides. As a result high-pressure methane and steam, respectively are created resulting in internal voids and cracks.

Maybe this is what's going on. Note that we're talking about hot spots, here.

This image was from the paper:

These look a lot more like the images from the corrosion Google search; e.g., no protruding walls, evidence of ejecta or evidence of high-temperature deformation. Note also the difference in scale between these vacancies and the ~ 70 um cauliflower one shown in a previous post, although I don't think that's too important a detail, as these things are likely to span a range of sizes in both cases.

If you're up to it, you could approach Rolf Sandström and show him a link to the cauliflower image and ask him if he has seen these things in his research.

Quote

After reading the last post of Shanahan, I can only say Sigh!He has Obviously not read much about the science of CR39 plastic, how CF researchers have investigated false signals on CR39, implemented measures to avoid false signals, avoid chemical tracks, performed careful background measurements, etc.etc. and still got track records orders of magnitude above background radiation.

(1) Let me remind you of our previous [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon]. You had then no evidence of these "orders of magnitude above background" except one throw-away anecdote in one paper not substantiated by recorded data. That is not valid evidence, anecdotal comments are notoriously unreliable. Unless you have found some other paper? Please post it here with the relevant page highlighted?

(2) Shanahan has proposed a possible mechanism that accounts potentially for excess heat and CR-39 artifacts. You claim as far as CR-39 goes that his comments are invalid because the experiments have checked for a number of possible artifacts. That again is not good enough (and, due to your phrasing, an ad hom). There are very many possible artifacts in CR-39 pits. The issue is whether the controls and checks rule out that proposed by Shanahan. My recollection is that they do not. But, if you think they do then a direct and careful attempted rebuttal of his post would be possible and might lead to further elucidation.

.

Thomas, you must have missed some of my posts

anyhow:

I said Shanahan Obviously had not read much of use of CR39 in CF research, since he easily throws out arguments like possible chemical artifacts as an "obvious possibility", when this has been avoided with mylar films on CR39 by LENR researchers.

Referrence? , yes:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAreproducib.pdf