MFMP: LENR LIVE proposal 1: The neutron sparkler

I'm all for this. A replicable neutron source would indeed prove LENR beyond all doubt!
500X background level is definite if it can be reliably switched on and off, and so not due to a one-off GCR cascade etc.

Seems unlikley such an obvious sign would go undetected for so many years though...

Quote from THHuxley

I'm all for this. A replicable neutron source would indeed prove LENR beyond all doubt!

Google "neutristor". Does it prove LENR? I think not.
http://newatlas.com/sandia-neu…ron-generator-chip/23856/

Google "neutristor". Does it prove LENR? I think not.newatlas.com/sandia-neutristor-neutron-generator-chip/23856/

Only because it uses hot fusion not cold fusion! 100keV...

You are right that you'd need to make sure there was no high voltage source present. That device has decent yield at only 10kV and I guess a faker could put together a minituarised 10keV supply with enough effort that was not obvious.

One needs to be careful of the conditions created during the experiment before calling it LENR. Edmund Storms would call the proposed MFMP LENR LIVE experiment an example of hot fusion.

Read here why:

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-co…torms-JCMNS-published.pdf

Quote

2.2. Additional requirements for evaluating an explanation

Behavior initiated by hot fusion needs to be identified and not used to explain LENR. Because both hot fusion and LENR can occur in the same materials and sometimes at the same time, the results of these two independent reactions need to be separated. Crack formation is known to initiate nuclear reactions in material containing deuterium. This process, called fractofusion [42–45], creates brief high voltage in the crack that can cause fusion by the hot fusion process with the expected energetic nuclear products. Because neutrons result, they are frequently detected as brief pulses, which must be carefully evaluated before they are attributed to LENR. Another example of potential hot fusion is obtained when solid materials are bombarded by energetic deuterons [46–48]. The resulting hot fusion-like reaction is sensitive to the electron concentration in the material when applied energy is low. This is not an example of LENR because the reaction products are very energetic and are the ones expected to result from conventional hot fusion, not LENR. A clear separation between how LENR and hot fusion are caused to happen must be maintained because entirely different mechanisms are apparently operating.

Quote from gameover

One needs to be careful of the conditions created during the experiment before calling it LENR. Edmund Storms would call the proposed MFMP LENR LIVE experiment an example of hot fusion.

Here is the obvious point where the old Storm definition of LENR fails!

There is hot-fusion like LENR because only the results and not the initial condition defines whether its LENR or hot fusion.

If DD fusion mainly leads to He₄ and not to a mix of He₃/He₄ +N, then its LENR!

The DD sono-fusion (Stringham) is hot fusion ignition, but produces He₄/He₃ with a ratio of 10¹¹:1! --> LENR

Thus the following must be clarified:

Quote from gameover

Behavior initiated by hot fusion needs to be identified and not used to explain LENR. Because both hot fusion and LENR can occur in the same materials and sometimes at the same time, the results of these two independent reactions need to be separated.

Wyttenbach,

I am simply saying that the proposed experiment, which is based on neutron detection, may not necessarily prove LENR beyond all doubt. Opposition to such proclamation would to some extent come from the LENR community itself. Similar argument may also be used by LENR skeptics.

Putting this aside, there is a related patent application from Mark Prelas:

"Method and apparatus for generating neutrons from metals under thermal shock"
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014028361A1

Quote from Alan Smith

Right on, Gameover! - I spent 72 hours in the lab last week testing the crap out of this very patent. Works like a charm.

Quote from gameover

So the MFMP now only needs indications from you on how to proceed to replicate the replication. Looking forward to seeing data and information from these 72 hours of testing.

Sorry guys: Why not doing the simplest LENR test available?

Stringham tested his machine also with Titanium, which works too, with a somewhat lesser COP. Because there is also He₃ produced in LENR DD Fusion, you also get the neutrons. Neutrons in the S* setup get buffered by the liquid OD₂, which in a gas phase of Ti-D₂ is not case...
I propose You ask him in Sendai, whether he will allow You an independent test.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I spent 72 hours in the lab last week testing the crap out of this very patent. Works like a charm.

I have added to the MFMP Neutron Sparkler doc some ideas for the experiment design. Perhaps you could comment on the proposal?

The description is at the bottom of the live doc at: https://goo.gl/yZKpuK

Quote from BobHiggins

Wyttenbach wrote:
I spent 72 hours in the lab last week testing the crap out of this very patent. Works like a charm.

I have added to the MFMP Neutron Sparkler doc some ideas for the experiment design. Perhaps you could comment on the proposal?

Hello BobH: You shoot around the corner! The citation is of an Alan post...

But this is what I have: Spontaneous bursts in TiD

http://cpl.iphy.ac.cn/fileup/PDF/2012-11-112501.pdf

What has already been done.

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

The outcome of the experiment is a D-D hot fusion like process (He₃ + N -->P). But if you read through the papers, within D-D-Ti something special must happen. (It's always active, with random bursts - no cosmic stimulation stipulated by an other paper.)

I would be interested if at low temperature you see more/less cammas! <-- because the 'reaction mode' might change.

@Wyttenbach ... Thanks very much for the references. Bob Greenyer just proposed this experiment and I have had little time do any literature research. I am pretty busy working on my experiment that Bob G named (Clamshell). It is a good time to plan this "Neutron Sparkler" experiment and determine the background art.

Bose condinsation produces LENR. But when that condinsation is not GLOBALLY connected to each other in an entangled network, the condinsation is localized in separate islands of condinsation and does not reach the energy threshold required to thermalize nuclear reactions. LENR produces hot fusion results if the LENR reaction is not thermalized by strong Bose condinsation typified by a globally connected condinsate.

To draw and analogy, weak condinsation acts like instant coffee spooned into cold water. The crystals of instant coffee do not completely dissolve into the water. However, if the water is heated, the coffee crystals will combine into a uniform solution. The low energy of the water molecules don't move fast enough and are not vigorous enough to activate the crystals of coffee through thermal pumping.

LENR condinsation gets energy from pumping. This pumping is produced by very high heat. A cold LENR reaction produces localized Bose condensation and only hot fusion results in localized islands of reactivity are produced. A pumped LENR reaction is globalized and interconnected by strongly induced quantum entanglement. Such a global LENR reaction produces nuclear reactions but those reactions are thermalized and absorbed by the global condinsate and no gamma or neutrons are produced.

As gameover pointed out, I believe LENR and hot fusion need to be evaluated as separate phenomenon. As for neutron production, if neutrons are made, He4 can not be the nuclear product because neutrons are not available when He is made.

Neutrons are easy to make simply by subjecting a material containing D to sudden shock. Simply hitting LiD with a hammer will make neutrons. This is well known and proves nothing about LENR. However, in all cases, the total flux is trivial and has no application.

As for production of neutrons using TiD, this material was studied extensively 25 years ago. Why are valuable resources being wasted on an effect that is already known and understood? If people want to make a contribution, they need to actually read the literature and talk to people who have some understanding of the phenomenon rather than simply speculate.

[1] H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, M.C. Miller, M.A. Paciotti, R.R. Ryan, S.E. Jones, Measurement of neutron emission from Ti and Pd in pressurized D2 gas and D2O electrolysis cells, J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 495.
[1] H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, A. Mayer, M.C. Miller, R.R. Ryan, S.E. Jones, The measurement of neutron emission from Ti plus D2 gas, J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 215.
[1] H.O. Menlove, High-sensitivity measurements of neutron emission from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas, in: F.G. Will (Ed) The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, National Cold Fusion Institute, University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1990, pp. 250.
[1] H.O. Menlove, M.A. Paciotti, T.N. Claytor, H.R. Maltrud, O.M. Rivera, D.G. Tuggle, S.E. Jones, Reproducible neutron emission measurements from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas, in: S. Jones, F. Scaramuzzi, D. Worledge (Eds), Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, "AIP Conference Proceedings 228", American Institute of Physics, New York, Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT, 1990, pp. 287.
[1] H.O. Menlove, M.A. Paciotti, T.N. Claytor, D.G. Tuggle, Low-background measurements of neutron emission from Ti metal in pressurized deuterium gas, in: T. Bressani, E. Del Giudice, G. Preparata (Eds), Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion", Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy, Como, Italy, 1991, pp. 38
[1] R. Zhu, X. Wang, F. Lu, D. Ding, J. He, H. Liu, J. Jiang, G. Chen, Y. Yuan, L. Yang, Z. Chen, H.O. Menlove, Measurement of neutron burst production in thermal cycle of D2 absorbed titanium chips, Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 349.
[1] R. Zhu, X. Wang, F. Lu, L. Luo, J. He, D. Ding, H.O. Menlove, Measurement of anomalous neutron from deuterium/solid system, Yuanzineng Kexue Jishu (Atomic Energy Science and Technology) 25 (1991) 84 (in Chinese).

Quote from Storms

If people want to make a contribution, they need to actually read the literature and talk to people who have some understanding of the phenomenon rather than simply speculate.

Read the literature?!? Heck, that's no fun. Too much like work.

Ed Storms,
I completely sympathize with your comments. But I still think that there are two interesting questions which remain to be answered:

(1) How many neutrons were claimed to be produced in the experiments mentioned by MFMP which were presented at ICCF 17?

(2) Is the number of neutrons much larger than would be expected from standard physics calculations of the effects of an impact/shock, e.g. without taking into account some unknown and/or not well understood screening and/or many-body effects?

My understanding is that in most if not all of the experiments you cited - including some experiments presented at ICCF18 by Carpinteri (see http://iccf18.research.missour…ydrogen_Embrittlement.pdf) which if I remember correctly were one of the first experiments MFMP together with HUG set out to replicate (they were unsuccessful) - the number of neutrons in the original experiment was relatively small and not much above background and so even if the original experiment was correct it would not require any "exotic" mechanisms to explain. On the other hand, MFMP seems to be pointing to an experiment presented at ICCF17 which produced copious neutrons, e.g. much more than could be explained using "standard" mechanisms due to shock. Am I wrong about this? If this is so, then the successful replication of this experiment WOULD prove clearly - in contrast to the earlier experiments in which extremely small amounts of neutrons were produced - that nuclear reactions CAN occur in condensed matter at low temperature/energy.

I don't care if you want to label it "hot" fusion because neutrons are produced or "cold" fusion, but in my book if we have an experiment in which nuclear effects occur to an extent which is orders of magnitude more than expected by standard theory, then this is LENR. Or at the very least it is condensed matter nuclear science, and is worth investigating.

Note: I have just corrected the experiments I mentioned, it was ICCF18 and the presentation (see link above) was given by Dr. Alberto Carpinteri.

During the latest glowstick MFMP test gamma was produced up to 1.4 MeV(corrected in edit) in the segment 7 observation. Rossi's reactor produced a gamma burst back in 2011 during a demo at startup and DGT produced a steady 300 KeV gamma output. The take away is that LENR can produce hot fusion like radiation by products. Theory must explain what causes this LENR radiation output to be turned off and on.

Quote from quizzical

Ed Storms,
I completely sympathize with your comments. But I still think that there are two interesting questions which remain to be answered:

(1) How many neutrons were claimed to be produced in the experiments mentioned by MFMP which were…

I've just realized that I may have given a rather poor example when I cited the presentation at ICCF17. It turns out that 11 papers of Prof. Alberto Carpinteri, including 8 on piezonuclear reactions, were retracted in 2015 (see http://retractionwatch.com/201…-journal-he-used-to-edit/) by the journal for which he used to be Chief Editor ("Meccanica") apparently because of conflicts of interest in the editorial process. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Carpinteri

Is this an example of poor science, or a highly political editorial process in Italy, or both?