Experimental evidence to date for He / excess heat correlation in LENR experiments to have nuclear mechanism

Quote from Wyttenbach

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

How many neutrons do You personally expect from D-D fusion? 1/event, 0.001/event or even less?

(Or bettter look up the figure...)

Personally? 0.5, it's well-known and easy to remember, so even though I'm 72, I don't need to look it up at all. The normal excited 4He* nucleus is highly unstable and has two basic ways to split, well known. The settling as an intact 4He nucleus is extremely rare, and this is all reasonably well understood.

Could there be some flaw in this? Yes. Maybe. But I don't expect it.

What I expect, from the evidence, is that the FP reaction is not "D-D fusion." I usually state it as "deuterium conversion to helium," and often add, "mechanism unknown."

As to the rate of neutron formation vs helium formation, neutrons have never been correlated with heat; however a rough rule of thumb is that tritium (also not correlated, or weakly correlated with heat) is down a million times from helium and neutrons are a million times down from tritium.

Quote from Eric Walker

Hermes wrote:
The third issue is that the gamma decay curve is irregular - there are times when the count rate actually increases in a way incompatible with decay statistics.

This is a good thing! It suggests that it's not a simple decay, and that something might be spiking the process over the short term. Yet another reason not to ignore the paper.

So don't ignore it! However, this is not, by far, the most significant and clear unexplored finding.

Sure, if someone has the knowledge and inclination to replicate the result, that's a great thing. However, what are the odds? That's an assessment that those who fund research must make, and those who invest their time and energy.

Is this something for MFMP to take up? Certainly that could be a possibility: MFMP will make decisions by whatever mechanism they have set up. They could also ask the opinion of the LENR scientists, as to what to look for, what is understood about this and this kind of experiment. MFMP has access to the CMNS list. Questions are answered with kindness, normally. Challenges on the level of "you are a bunch of idiots because you have not considered MY GREAT IDEA" tend to run into a brick wall. Or more accurately, into "nothing."

Quote from Eric Walker

I think Oriani's work has been unfairly characterized here. It is easy to understand his results if one allows for residual alpha-radioactivity in particles that are escaping from the surface of Oriani's cells. The best course for Oriani's work is to try to explain it, even using a mundane hypothesis. And then re-test. Unfortunately Oriani has passed away, but perhaps someone else (Fisher?) knows how to do the experiment.

The points have been missed.

1. Kowalski attempted to replicate Oriani, with Oriani's assistance, and failed.
2. There was no correlation with electrolytic current, across a wide range of currents, and radiation results.
3. The controls were inadequate.

I think this needs to be understood, it may apply to a number of radiation reports. An electrolytic cathode is like a garbage dump attracting every cation in the vicinity. Electrolysis experiments may literally pull radioactive elements out of the air, or out of any cell materials. However, if the effect is due to garbage collection *or* some nuclear effect in the cathode, we would expect correlation with current, and that this was missing (I did look for it) is telling.

In this experiment, the radiation was low-level (in spite of what was said about it) and no particular significance was shown, other than the usual "How the hell is a nuclear event taking place *here*?"

We do not normally stick SSNTDs, which can detect extremely low levels of radiation, in various places and see what happens. It's an experiment I plan to do, in fact, because it's easy and I could: just place some SSNTDs around in various places and see what I can find. OMG! Nuclear reactions in my bathroom! Yeah, I knew that gas was bad, but not that bad!

Seriously, having fun is a very important part of any research program.

Quote from Eric Walker

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
3. The controls were inadequate.

This is a common complaint with LENR experiments. It's been a while since I've looked at Oriani's and Fisher's work, but I would not be surprised at all if the controls could be tightened up. That's an argument for doing the experiment again with a better methodology.

See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLonemission.pdf ...
and then see the Curie Project, which Kowalski organized to look at Oriani's work.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/362curie.html
http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…i/cf/401confirmation.html
http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…cf/403memoir.html#chapt22

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…JPjcondensedd.pdf#page=40 is the Curie project report.