[split] reconsidering Spawar, craters, micro explosions

Quote from H-G Branzell

No, I do not leave it as a conjecture that the white pixels are not mini-explosions but instead just out of range. This is quite obvious if you care to look at (and are able to understand the meaning of) the temperature scale at the bottom of the picture.

Please do something other than reassert your conjecture as not conjecture. I consider the matter closed until you bring further information to the discussion.

In a couple of prior messages,H-G Branzell wrote:“The whirling snowflakes are not explosions, they are pixels out of false color range, please see debate here: “and Eric Walker wrote:“In the thread that HGB links to, you'll see that he raises a conjecture that the sparkling pixels do not correspond to heat transients, and leaves it as a conjecture. Which is fine, but not sufficient to establish the conclusion above”

The comments refer back to a discussion in a different thread about CR-39 plates and tracks on them, and to the ir camera video from the Szpak group at the San Diego SPAWAR lab. I am very familiar with both and they are reasonably separable discussions, with the caveat that they both are studying the F&P CF cell.Regarding the ir video:

Yes H-G, I know they are false color, and it doesn’t matter. What is important is that it is a video of a working cathode purportedly showing excess heat (as determined calorimetrically). Szpak, et al claim this heat comes from mini-nuclear explosions in the Figure caption of at least one of their peer-reviewed publications, probably in all. It is not clear to me that the individual white spots are just 1 pixel, but that also isn’t too relevant. There is something going on in that cell producing apparent excess heat signals, and they have photographed it, and offered an explanation. I disagree with the word ‘nuclear’, as I feel that H2 + O2 burning really quickly (or maybe even ‘exploding’) would give the same picture. The individual white spots do take up approximately a 0.2 mm diameter, which is just about right for a bubble. I consider these photos to be valid evidence, but once again, the assignment of ‘nuclear’ to them is in the minds of Szpak, et al. There is no compelling evidence supporting the need to invoke nuclear reactions. Normal chemistry will do just fine, thank you.

The other important point arising from those pictures is the localization of the ‘hot zone’. It offers a good example of the ‘special active sites’ concept.

You will recall I claim apparent excess heat signals in F&P cells come from H2 bubbles combining with O2 bubbles at the electrode (maybe both) and then maybe actually exploding under the right conditions, but burning quickly at a minimum. What is a prime characteristic of an explosion? How about a shock wave? That does normally occur. So, what do shock waves do when they encounter material objects? They pick them up, throw them around, and ever tear them apart don’t they? That’s how most explosives do their thing, it’s the shock wave that does most of the business. The shock wave also causes the ‘boom’ one hears with big explosions.

So in an F&P cell, what will the little shock waves from the exploding bubbles do? Pretty much what their bigger cousins from industrial or military explosives do. That means we should expect the same phenomena to occur in the F&P cell, and they apparently do. There is a YouTube video out there of Frank Gordon (SPAWAR) giving at talk at a conference held at the U. of Missouri a few years ago where he describes results from experiments where they made their electrodes right on top of piezoelectric crystals, and they picked up all kinds of little pressure excursions from the piezoelectric signal when the cell was running. Those pressure excursions are the little shock waves from the little bubbles (or mini-nuclear explosions if you insist) blowing up. That leads into the CR-39 stuff.

Re: CR-39: Lots to say…but to continue the thought from above…In the CF literature, you have to be careful to distinguish between CR-39 plates that have been placed *in* the electrolyte as opposed to those placed just outside the cell. There tends to be at least an order of magnitude more tracks (pits) in the plates from *in* the electrolyte, and possibly many more than that. Dealing just with those from in the electrolyte, the plates tend to be placed as near as possible to the active electrode. This is because they believe the electrolyte will stop alpha and beta particles from reaching the plate if it is far away. However… remember those shock waves? Remember how shock waves rip and tear? What stops that from happening in an F&P cell? Nothing. The shock waves impinge on the CR-39 plate and deposit their energy, most likely in localized areas. That should ‘rip and tear’ the plastic just like any of their bigger cousins. But will you see it? Probably not since we are now talking very small explosions. At least, not until you develop the plate by etching.

CR-39 works because neutrons (usually what they are used for) strike an atom of the plastic molecules and deposit enough energy in that collision to break one or more chemical bonds at that point. Normally the neutron has lots more energy left, and goes on to do this again and again until it exits the back-side of the plate. This leaves a trail of broken bonds. To see these trails, which are of atomic dimensions, the CR-39 material is etched with concentrated base. This slowly eats away the plastic, but it eats faster where the bonds are broken, so you develop ‘pits’ where the damaged material has been removed faster that the surrounding undamaged material. OK, so far so good, we theoretically have a way to measure number of neutrons by counting the pits.

But as with any analytical technique, there are noise sources in our measurement…that means we see pits from things other than neutrons (or other radiation from our putative source). One obvious source is cosmic radiation background. This is handled by exposing other plates to the ambient environment with the source radiation blocked off or absent. Then the pits from cosmic radiation are just subtracted off the experiment plates’ pit count. But, there are still other problems. Several CFers have noted that simple mechanical damage can cause pits. Mechanical damage can come from scraping the plate with something. Scott Little, EarthTech Int’l, even reported that just carrying a plate around in his pocket caused the appearance of pits. If you read the studies done by George Miley, you will see he recommends only trained personnel count the pits in the CR-39 plates, so as to distinguish between real and false pits. Can anyone say “N-rays”?

So what is going on? The mechanical damage is *also* breaking bonds, and you don’t even have to remove material to get it. So in the F&P cell what did we say was happening? Lots of little explosions _creating damaged bonds in the plastic_! What will happen to those points when the plate is etched? You will get pits! So the CR-39 plates located *in* the electrolyte will show copious pits due to the mechanical damage sustained. The damage even produced an image of the electrode ‘etched’ into the plate, as shown in the photos repeated in the infamous “10 authors” paper. The identification of the source of the pits as radiation is completely unjustified, but it fits the predisposition of the CFers, so that’s all they can think of.

BTW, the CR-39 discussion in my and the “10 authors” paper was the only point they made not invalidated by their “random = systematic” error. However, their arguments against the above explanation fall short of being compelling, especially if you believe the CCS issue invalidates excess heat claims and you see no evidence of nuclear reactions. Until someone actually goes and tests out my explosion-formed pits hypothesis the issue remains open however.

Moving to CR-39 plates placed outside the cell, I do NOT claim these mini-explosion shock waves reach the plates. However, I do claim insufficient background characterization has been done, and that is based partly on a personal anecdote. I used to work in a lab that had a neighboring lab that had a very nice camera or microscope setup sitting in it, unused during the couple of years I was around. I once saw a senior researcher from the group that used that lab, and I asked him what exactly that camera setup was for. He relied (paraphrasing) “Oh, that was used by one of our group. He was trying to use CR-39 plates to count radiation, but he gave it up because he could never get a stable background count level from them.”

There are substantially fewer studies with plates outside the cell, and with the above comment in mind, and the comments from the CF researchers as well, I simply say we need to see more data before we come to a conclusion. I’m not convinced the background count problem has been adequately addressed, even though the researchers did try. Note that the pits in external plates must be from neutrons or xrays, something with a long penetration range in normal matter like water and glass. If you are seeing that, you should be seeing other things too, especially heat, but the presence of excess heat remains unproven too. I give you this though, this field of “cold fusion” research certainly is well-stocked with anomalies!

This will be my last long post, because there is really no point to arguing here about this. The primaries in the field ignore what I say (and probably what you say too), so I do the occasional post to let aficionados of the field know that ‘mundane’ explanations exist for most of the observations, and that “insufficient data” is usually capable of dealing with the rest. If you want to do CF research, feel free. Just remember there are standards of proof, and screaming about how ‘unfair’ they are doesn’t do any good. If people comment or ask questions and I can answer briefly (very briefly!) I will, otherwise I won’t.

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.

Typical you hear this critisism again and again from talkers.

The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do.

Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons said it started with an idea, a dream.

And we noted then and now the sceptics that likes to talk.

Unfortunately, talkers are usually more articulate than doers, since talk is their specialty.

But talkers have never been good doers. It's the doers that change this world.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Eric, how is your email communication with Pamela Mosier-Boss proceeding? For my part, I still did not get any answer.

I wrote to Pam Mosier-Boss and asked for clarification. I'm not sure my question was sufficiently clear to point out the issue with the 49+°C threshold, but here is the reply I got, which she gave me permission to quote:

Quote

The folks we were working with (who had done IR imaging in the past) did not seem to think that what we seeing were just transients [i.e., threshold fluctuations] in the temperature. In Figure 5a of that reference, the cathode is the that entire circular region (dark blue to red) so you can see the temperature fluctuations over the entire cathode surface is greater than 1 degree C. Figure 5b shows the T of just a single transect and they chose a region which was pretty homogeneous to calibrate the temperatures.

Mitchell Swartz and Larry Forsley did IR imaging more recently and saw the same things we did.

The reference to which she refers is this one.

Fig. 5, the image to which she refers, is from the period that was maxed out. I think there was a misunderstanding about what the 1°C delta that my question was referring to, and her reply suggests she was thinking that I was asking about the temperature delta across the cathode as a whole. Note that Fig. 4, which looks similar in appearance to Fig. 5, was not at the operating limit of the camera. Fig. 4 suggests that those intermittent white spots might still be ~ 1°C threshold fluctuations without simply being white noise due to the camera operating outside of its limits.

I note that Mosier-Boss's group delegated to some folks with some experience doing IR imaging, who seemed to think that there were significant deltas, and that they will have consulted a number of transects beyond the one that was shown in the paper. Also, at face value the finding of hot spots was replicated by Forsley and Swartz.

Note that Kirk Shanahan assumes hot spots as well in his cathode recombination hypothesis.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Eric, in Fig. 4, where there are not white spots, instead look at the light blue spots. They exhibit the same pattern as the white spots. I think logic demands that you call them mini-explosions as well.

I was suggesting that the white spots in Fig. 5 might be comparable to the light blue spots in Fig. 4, not that the spots in Fig. 4 were white. And I think they might go back to hot spots. The pixel covers a large area on the surface of the cathode, so the camera software will be doing some kind of average.

Here are two additional images from the same reference. In the first, we learn that the upper limit of the operating range of the camera, assuming it's the same camera (which it might not be), is perhaps a bit higher than 49°C, and up to 60°C or higher:

In the second image, showing a transect, we can see that the delta in temperature in at least one case well exceeded 1°C:

Quote from H-G Branzell

Yes I noted that too, but two wrongs doesn't make a right. I am trying to enlighten him to. Perhaps the last ring in his mental resistance color code is less than green.

I think you have to convince the people who did the original IR thermography as well, and also Swartz and Forsley. It's possible that you could pull it off. I'm open to this being threshold noise rather than hot spots, although I think the probability is low at this point. If they are indeed hot spots, whether the hot spots go back to mini-explosions is a separate question. But I also think there is circumstantial evidence for this as well, although I am only very broadly familiar with it at this point.

The source of the reaction seems to be concentrated in a limited area from which the density of the reaction is highest to where it becomes less dense as the distance from the reaction center is increased.

Its too bad that this picture does not cover the evolution of that reaction spot over an extended timeframe which might include its possible termination.

Quote from H-G Branzell

axil, there is no "reaction spot". Look at Figure 5b, this is the temperature curve along a cross section of the electrode. The temperature profile is flat within section A-A. And the "snow" is just values that are spilling over ever so little from the "dark red" temperature band.

The two red lines in figure 2 show that there was a preponderance of marked temperature variations(AKA hot spots) within a temperature range. What is your opinion on this?

My view of this LENR reaction is envisioned to be a main reaction site producing many alpha particles that radiate in a spray of ejecta from the central site. The main reaction site might well be marked by the production of a crater as seen in many LENR experiments. The heat produced in this central site through highly localized is high enough and concentrated enough to melt palladium and even tungsten.

padam,

There is at least a known unusual effect where H in a transition metal lattice has a much larger enthalpy than you might expect - so that is a possible chemical explanation for anomalous positive or negative enthalpies. I've lost the paper now, but it is referenced by me somewhere on this forum.

Once you allow the possibility of systematic calibration shifts (and it is certainly more a priori likely than nuclear reactions with no measurable nuclear products) you need to be much more careful in how you estimate calorimetry errors.

On another thread I hinted at some possible physical mechanisms (in the case of isoperibolic calorimeters) for such shifts. But the whole point here is that if the results can equally be explained by extraordinary nuclear reactions or unknown but ordinary calibration shifts the latter wins - no precise mechanism needed.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Axil, thank you for bringing up the craters, presumed locations for mini-explosions.

An argument against a one-to-one correspondence between craters and the fireflies that we have discussed earlier is, that if true there would be many more craters than actually observed. Admittedly, I have not found any data regarding number of craters per unit area.

In this document http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol10.pdf ,

Characteristics and Energetics of Craters in LENR Experimental Materials
by David J. Nagel you will find some nice pictures of craters.

Display More

The pits are caused from the outside. They are produced by cavitation. The collapsing cavitation bubble produces a form of Hexagonal crystallized water called a water crystal. This is a form of Hydrogen Rydberg Matter that focuses a beam of monopole magnetic force onto the surface of the substrate. The monopole beam produces proton decay inside the atoms of the substrate.

In the successful 64 cathode experiment, both ultrasound and electric superwave stimulation was used. The surface of the palladium cathode was pitted by the ultrasound stimulation.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf

I also believe that the 64 experiment stop producing LENR effects when the water crystal, the causative LENR agent, escaped confinement from that experiment.

Quote from Mary Yugo

My question about the Dardik paper would be why doesn't the reaction continue indefinitely after the power is shut off? If it makes "3000%" output power compared to input power, exactly why do you need input power at all to avoid the reaction eventually stopping? Also I object to the term "heat after death" to mean heat evolving after power is shut off. It's at best bizarre. But why does the device cool if it makes so much power on its own?

The reaction is based on Surface Plasmon Polaritons(SPP) which require "pumping" of infrared photons to retain their structure. For example, if you stir a cup of tea to create a vortex, the vortex will loss power and eventually stop spinning after a time. We need to reapply a spoon back into the cup and stir it some more. This is a subcritical reaction. But the SPP can produce its own heat from it interface with matter. This is called a positive feedback loop. As the SPP gets stronger, more heat is produced until it generates enough to survive on the energy that it produces on its own. This is called a critical reaction.

When the SPP produces more energy than it needs to stay alive, it starts to run away and pull so much energy out of matter. So much so that everything melts. This is called a supercritical reaction.

It is very hard to keep the SPP at the critical stage. It is like balancing a broom with your finger, one false move and you drop the broom. Heat after death is when the reaction stays critical for some timeframe. But it will either eventually revert to the subcritical condition and cool down or become supercritical and burnup the reactor.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Energetic Technologies don't even exist anymore, I wonder why.
Probably their research was so successful that they were silenced by Big Energy.

It is very difficult to form a company to commercialize LENR. You need somebody with a billion dollars who does not take the naysayers seriously and has the business knowhow to form a viable company. Getting LENR is produce kilowatts is easy compared to building a product from it.