Wyttenbach “Never heard that bullshit. Did he also explain ...” If you’ve never heard of it, how can you know whether it is BS or not??
I'm looking forward to Your Helium, enrichment process , which should work like LENR without reaction...
May be You took a ten years nap and missed that 105 above ambient measurments... (they often directly measure alphas...)
/* Please choose 1 paper from that list that supports your contention that CF has produced greater than atmospheric levels of helium and let me know which one it is. */
All of them support it, deal with it. You're anonymous on-line twaddler without single scientific evidence, just face it... 
/* Please choose 1 paper from that list that supports your contention that CF has produced greater than atmospheric levels of helium and let me know which one it is. */
All of them support it, deal with it.
No, there are several studies of helium well below atmospheric concentration. Miles is a good example. The sample collection time was limited by the technique. The fact that concentration was below atmosphere was not a problem, and there is no chance the helium was contamination. The reasons are complicated and to understand them you have to read the papers carefully.
See my review:
Nice review - but it just demonstrates, that the formation of helium during cold fusion (at least these ones involving lithium and/or deuterium) is out of any discussion - under or above atmospheric concentrations. It's also the reaction dominating the E-Cat http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01261
I presume the blue glow around X-Quark reactors belongs to / originates from just alphas..
This morning I posted a bevy of likes and dislikes. I did this because a raft-load of dis- and mis-information suddenl appeared in this thread, as well as evidence of clique-voting that I felt needed to be countered. I actually think the like/dislike system is garbage and shouldn't be used to suppress opinions, but that's just my opinion...
Yes, I agree. The feature of likes and dislikes is a little bit adolescent, and it is susceptible to voting in cliques, which only adds noise to any signal that is there. It would be better to just turn off the feature.
May be You took a ten years nap and missed that 105 above ambient measurments... (they often directly measure alphas...)
Maybe I did, since I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Care to be more specific, as in citing a reference paper I can study?
So how dangerous can LENR be and is this why the security services are trying to subvert its development:
Extract:
"In 1929, Walter Hernann Nernst (1864-1941), Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1920, remarked on experiments on hydrogen
gas interaction with uranium metal in the Zeitschrift magazine: “Hydrogen will dissolve into cretin metals as if the metal was
acting like a dry sponge absorbing water.” If deuterium is dissolved in uranium metal beyond a critical threshold concentration, an interaction between the deuterium and uranium was expected.
If it is a form of deuteron disintegration, it becomes an avenue of energy release from the heavy metals without the need to reach a critical mass of the fissile elements.
Glow-ischarge experiments were conducted using Crookes-Geissler tubes filled with deuterium gas and uranium foils. These were precursors to the Farnsworth Fussier experiments attempting the electrostatic fusion of deuterium in the1960s. Niels Bohr suggested that this approach could lead to the production of small nuclear devices instead of the critical mass approach, which would be more suitable for large devices".
http://mragheb.com/NPRE 402 ME 405 Nuclear Power Engineering/German Nuclear Program.pdf
Best regards
Frank
Nope. As described in the papers linked to these images, some of these explosions produced ~400 times more energy than all of the available chemical fuel could have. Most of these are open cells, so there is hardly any H2 and O2 in the cell. It is vented. It was confirmed that the vents were clear. Not plugged up.
I seriously doubt the computation used to come up with the '~400 times' numbers were done correctly, but i will look at them. Why do I doubt? becasue from 1976-1979 I worked with explosives at Sandia Lab in Albuquerque. I blew things up a few times, and I had a couple of experiments go up. One in particular is relevant here. I was trying to collect the sublimate that formed during the thermal decomposition of a new explosive we were developing, so I was heating the explosive to near its autoignition point and it apparently decided it was too close and it blew up. 99% of the glass sublimation apparatus (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_apparatus for a picture) had turned to dust. I then had the joy of cleaning up the hood this occurred in (these special hoods were certified for explosives work, one had had 1 pound of TNT detonated inside it and it had survived and did not endanger the 'theoretical' user that would have been standing in front of it if 'real') which was covered in the silicone oil from the bath used to heat the apparatus and which contained the glass dust. The only piece bigger I found was the tip of the cooling water connection point, smaller than the tip of your little finger, which was still embedded in the Tygon tubing. The metal 250cc beaker that had held the oil was bowed out at the bottom quite nicely, and the hot plate had a matching dent in it, about 1/4 to 3/8" deep in the center. I still have the beaker... So when I look at you pictures I say, "Yup, looks familiar", actually they seem to have arisen from a weaker explosion than I experienced. I think the computations you cite have bad assumptions in them. The results from the computations are out-of-line with my experience at least.
The thing is, you can't just declare "In fact the damage shown is easily encompassed by the chemical energy resulting from H2 + O2 explosions." Just saying this does not make it true. You have to take into account actual facts and measurements. You have to understand that when the gas is vented out of the cell through a 1 cm tube, it is not available to cause an explosion.
So, yes I can say that the pictures you show are fully consistent with my personal experience, which was NOT with a small nuclear explosion in a lab apparatus... You do have to take into account actual facts and measurements, AND the assumptions behind them and in addition to them. And given my experience, I also seriously doubt that one could tell if the vent line was actually plugged or not after the fact. There's a very good chance any such plug disappeared in the 'flash' so to speak. (So the forced assumption of 1 atm pressure in the cell is not a fixed requirement for example. One needs to consider other pressures too. And in the end, how can you tell which assumed pressure is correct?))
Shananhan invents endless impossible phenomena, such as ...[see above], and noise that magically works in one direction only, always producing a positive effect, never a negative. (See p. 4: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf).
Jed again demonstrates that he has no idea what I have written regarding the noise level in cold fusion calorimetry. Just to be explicit for the rest of you (since I know Jed won't hear me on this, the true Shanahan CCS says that you will always see a positive excess heat signal from the at-the-electrode recombination-driven heat source distribution change because all calibrations are done with inert (inactive) electrodes. That establishes the starting heat distribution. The redistribution moves the heat from the lossy zone to the less lossy zone, thereby registering more heat than is actually there because the normal calibration had to bump the heat values up more when the heat was in lossy zone. This is trivially obvious if you take the time to understand what I say, but it was obvious that no CFers has done that, since they think I was proposing some random process when I clearly and multiple times said it was systematic.
{added} That brings up an interesting question too. Is it noise if you know what causes it is a systematic chemical process, or is it an effect?
Ya know...it brings up an important realization to note that Jed can't even accept what I say about what I wrote, which can be directly checked for truthfulness. Whether the chemistry I propose is correct or not is irrelevant to this realization. Jed just won't listen to you if you offer any skepticism. Y'all need to fold that into your thinking when you consider what Jed says.
All of them support it, deal with it.
No they don't. That was my point...
You're [an] anonymous on-line twaddler without [a] single scientific [piece of] evidence, just face it...
Devolving to name calling now? Tsk, tsk. And for the record, the people who are claiming the new discovery are the ones who have to supply the evidence to back up the claim. Then the rest of us get to evaluate that to the best of our ability.
Seems to me you don't really want to have a good, scientific discussion Zephir, so don't be surprised if I don't reply to you again.
Alan
Here is the link again: http://mragheb.com/NPRE 402 ME 405 Nuclear Power Engineering/German Nuclear Program.pdf
See page 12.
Best regards
Frank
Oxy-Hydrogen in a stoichiometric mix is the very devil. I have suffered a few such explosions in my own laboratory. However, it is not terribly destructive unless both enclosed and under pressure- simply because even a a few litres of gas at BarG contains such a small amount (by weight) of explosive material. You get a bang like a pistol being fired and that is generally it. Were the P&F cells pressurised? (I don't at the moment have time to check myself.)
@franktwu - works fine- thank you.
Were the P&F cells pressurised?
Usually not, the cells typically had vent lines that were often claimed to have plugged up, which would allow pressure to build and thus to get an explosion.
The other way to do it is to have closed cells (i.e. no vents) which necessitates inclusion of a recombination catalyst in the gas space to prevent pressure build-up. However, the catalysts seem to stop functioning every now and then, leading to a pressurized cell, which sometimes explodes.
the maintained closeness of the ratio to the theoretical deuterium fusion ratio across many different experimental conditions and setups would be an astonishing coincidence.
If you only compare the measured Q/He ratio with only one possible cause then of course you will get the expected coincidence. But of course the ratio does not coincide exactly so you then have to make lots of ad hoc assumptions to explain the error.
But maybe I'm wrong. In which case please tell us what other helium producing reactions were considered? The real problem is that we do not expect any d-d fusion. In which case, any corresponding result is likely a coincidence and nothing more.
Were the P&F cells pressurised?
Some cells have been closed, with recombiners. Few have been pressurized. In one case, a closed cell recombiner failed, causing an explosion that killed a researcher. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IkegamiHthirdinter.pdf#page=147
The explosions I listed in the web page and in my book were all with open cells. The vent lines were not plugged up in any of these explosions. The researchers and accident investigators checked this carefully. As you see from one one photo, the vent tube is large and could not have been plugged up.
But of course the ratio does not coincide exactly so you then have to make lots of ad hoc assumptions to explain the error.
The assumptions are not ad hoc. In most cases they are common knowledge. For example, it is often assumed that some helium remains in the metal. When the metal has later been dissolved in acid or melted, the helium was released, so this assumption has been proved right. That is not an ad hoc assumption; it is common knowledge that helium can be trapped in metal.
/* No they don't. That was my point... */
@kirkshanahan You didn't prove your point. Please choose 1 paper from my list of scientific publications that supports your contention that CF hasn't produced greater than atmospheric levels of helium and let me know which one it is. And prove it with another publication - this is how the science works.
/* it is common knowledge that helium can be trapped in metal */
The helium may not be even formed during cold fusion and transmutations at all. But its presence was proven beyond a doubt at the case of many of them - so it's impossible to say the helium formation during cold fusion is doubtful without any proof.
The helium may not be even formed during cold fusion and transmutations at all.
Researchers check for that by looking for helium in an unused piece of palladium. Sometimes that sample is cut from the cathode. They dissolve or melt the unused sample, looking for helium. They also look for helium in samples that do not produce excess heat. These two methods establish how much helium was present in the cathode before the experiment.
The assumptions are not ad hoc. In most cases they are common knowledge. For example, it is often assumed that some helium remains in the metal. When the metal has later been dissolved in acid or melted, the helium was released, so this assumption has been proved right. That is not an ad hoc assumption; it is common knowledge that helium can be trapped in metal.
I think that's wishful thinking. Let's suppose, as many have done, that half the helium remains trapped. In that case we expect a Q/He4 ratio of 48 MeV if d+d fusion were the overall and only reaction. And if other reactions were also occurring then the ratio would be even higher. The real question is, did any of the Q/He4 measurements involve melting? After initial failures I have managed to melt palladium (in an induction furnace) but I suspect that any attempt to do so without contamination by ambient helium would be exceedingly difficult.
The point I am trying to make is that the measured ratios tell us nothing except that helium appears to be a product. Bloggers may see an astonishing coincidence, but maybe scientists would not. The second point is that just because you can find one assumption based on known behaviour of helium in metals, doesn't mean other assumptions are not ad hoc.
