Nevalinna on Cobraf : Yeong E Kim funded by Industrial Heat and Cumberland & Western Resources

  • on cobraf, Nevalinna spotted a funding of Yeong E Kim by Industrial Heat
    https://www.purdue.edu/researc…rds/pdf/May2016Awards.pdf

    Kim, Yeong E; physics, from Industrial Heat LLC, $469,327, “Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research (LENRR).”


    and by Cumberland & Western Resources


    http://www.purdue.edu/research…-data/research-awards.php

    Yeong E. Kim, from Cumberland & Western Resources, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, $2,488,596

  • If he follows the bread crumb trail left on this forum by Me356, which is absolutely amazing if you following it from start to finish, he could perform some outstanding tests in a very short time period with all that cash. Heck, for $400,000, he could leap frog beyond Rossi in short order if he was willing to openly disclose his work, discuss findings, and rapidly improve upon it via continual non-stop testing. The E-Cat tech could be verified in short order.


    I just hope IH hasn't advised him to muck around with deuterium-palldium electrolytic systems.

  • Billionaire behind Loveland project - BizWest
    <http://bizwest.com/billionaire-behind-loveland-project/>


    It’s not easy to keep a low profile once you’ve made your first billion, but Brad M. Kelley has been better at avoiding the limelight than most billionaires.


    Kelley is the moneyman behind Cumberland & Western Resources, the Kentucky company that won (and paid $5 million for) the rights to redevelop Loveland’s former Agilent Technologies plant, which is now being called the Rocky Mountain Center for Innovation and Technology.


    Unlike most of his billionaire brethren, Kelley has taken anonymity to a near art form. Cumberland & Western has no website touting its successes. Not only did company vice president Bill Murphree turn down the Business Report’s request for an interview with Kelley, but he strongly suggested that writing about Kelley might have negative consequences for Cumberland & Western’s interest in doing business in Northern Colorado.


    ...

  • If he follows the bread crumb trail left on this forum by Me356, which is absolutely amazing if you following it from start to finish, he could perform some outstanding tests in a very short time period with all that cash. Heck, for $400,000, he could leap frog beyond Rossi in short order if he was willing to openly disclose his work, discuss findings, and rapidly improve upon it via continual non-stop testing. The E-Cat tech could be verified in short order.


    I just hope IH hasn't advised him to muck around with deuterium-palldium electrolytic systems.


    Kim is a theoretical physicist, not an experimentalist. There are two physicists with cold fusion theories involving Bose-Einstein Condensates. Kim has been writing about this for years, so what this is showing is that IH and others are supporting theorists. I'm not sure that's where I'd go first, the big problem with cold fusion theory is that there are too many with not enough data to clearly discriminate between them.


    (Akito Takahashi has also long studied Bose-Einstein Condensates and LENR, and is also an experimentalist, finding a standard 3-body fusion rate elevated 10^26 over naive expectation in palladium deuteride bombarded by deuterons. That was not LENR, perhaps, but showed that classical, over-simplified, predictions were far off.)


    Any cold fusion theory that focuses on what is not well-established (i.e., NiH reactions) and ignores what is far better known (PdD) and, within PdD, electrolytic systems, would be unlikely to find the mechanism.


    With PdD the ash is known, so at least we know what the reaction actually does (based on the preponderance of the evidence, for sure, with work under way to confirm this with increased precision), i.e., it converts deuterium to helium. Kim knows that. With NiH, there has been no correlation between heat and any specific product or class of products. The state of the NiH field is primitive.


    Peter Gluck is treating the reporting of fact about this as if it were an attempt to "kill LENR+." No, it's just being honest and practical. Nobody is trying to stop NiH research, and it is included in that major Texas Tech/ENEA project well funded by Gates. If the Rossi Effect were real and verifiable, the high-power output would make exploration of ash relatively easy, and thus there could be far more focus on NiH.


    Unfortunately, the Rossi results, if they exist at all, have likely been greatly exaggerated. And that work has never been accessible to confirmation; what is sometimes presented as confirmation is very weak, and the equivalent of Miles, who found the heat/helium correlation in 1991, confirmed many times over the years -- with true confirmation, not merely something "similar," -- does not yet exist for NiH.


    Overall, the funding of Kim shows dedication on the part of those who funded, to pure research. Kim is not likely to be generating anything like a product. This is science.

  • Dr. Kim has a storied history in both the commercial, and academic aspects of LENR...DGT/Cyclone Engines, and of course his theories respectively. Good to see IH investing in him. They (IH) are good at vetting their investments, so their commitment to him somewhat negates his association with DGT. I always wondered what happened to the Cyclone Engine collaboration?


    I used to follow Nevanlinna on Cobraf, but the translations were just too difficult to decipher/understand, so I gave up on the site. He does seem to find things no one else does. Always another angle not seen elsewhere. Too bad he does not bring his talents here.

  • I'm going to attempt to articulate a very complicated topic into simple terms. For the record, I'm not saying I understand all the precise metallurgical details.


    In my opinion, the fundamental basis of most LENR is the production of extremely high pressures in isolated voids, defects, or cavities inside of the nickel lattice. These high pressures, for some reason or another, produce LENR effects. Microcavities and other features on the surface may be important, but the hydrogen pressure does NOT increase dramatically there upon thermal shocking or "triggering." Instead, these surface cavities are areas of higher hydrogen loading. The hydrogen permeates through the nickel and fills INTERIOR voids in which desorption is NOT a rapid process. In these interior sites, triggering produces very high pressures because the hydrogen literally cannot migrate out of the lattice fast enough.


    In a nutshell, the fact hydrogen does not absorb into nickel as rapidly as palladium makes it the better choice. This is because if it is very easy for hydrogen to migrate through the lattice into interior defects, it will be easy for the hydrogen to migrate out. This means the pressures induced will usually be lower in palladium. Basically, if it takes you very little effort to load hydrogen into a metal lattice, you're going to get relatively little heat out upon triggering. Nickel is in a sweet spot for LENR: it absorbs/desorbs hydrogen (not talking about adsorption here) at a rate that isn't too slow or too fast. Also, due to the tensile strength of nickel (compared to lets say aluminum) the cavities can survive higher pressures at higher temperatures.


    My guess is that in most metals, LENR works by this same concept. In Rossi's first patents he mentions copper can be interchanged with nickel. My guess is that this same mechanism would work inside of copper cavities, but that getting the hydrogen into the copper is very difficult (making loading almost impractical all together) and the lower melting temperature of copper compared to nickel reduces the working temperatures capable of being achieved.


    Nickel is the superior LENR element, IMO.

  • /* Nickel is the superior LENR element, IMO. */


    At high temperatures maybe, but at low temperatures the Nickel-Palladium combinations provided most reliable effects (Craven, Patterson and others..), particularly because palladium absorbs hydrogen way faster and in greater extent.

  • Zephir,


    Faster absorption of hydrogen doesn't specifically mean a combination of elements is better for LENR. Actually, faster absorption could mean easier desorption which could reduce the maximum pressures capable of being produced inside internal voids, defects, and cavities. Palladium does absorb and desorb hydrogen *very* easily and at room temperature and to huge amounts. However, you don't need massive amounts of hydrogen absorption for LENR. You only need to reach a certain level of loading. If you can achieve that certain level very quickly, your final result may be poor because as soon as you attempt to thermal shock the loaded material all of the hydrogen may migrate out too rapidly. Basically, nickel is a great material because even though it takes MORE effort to get hydrogen loaded into the lattice, the hydrogen does not desorb extremely rapidly. This allows a higher level of nuclear reactions being produced.


    Again, this is a trade off. Some lower level of excess heat may be easily achieved with shorter loading times when using palladium. But the final excess heat may be less due to the rapid migration of hydrogen out of the critical cavities/dislocations/voids during thermal shocking.


    What I do find interesting (although I do not like the idea of using Pd at all due to its high cost) is peppering an oxide free, cleaned nickel particle with dozens or hundreds of much smaller palladium particles that can act as reverse spillover catalysts. The palladium adsorbs the hydrogen, breaks it down into atomic hydrogen, and then allows it to "spill over" onto the nickel substrate. Rossi utilized this in his earliest of systems. But again, I don't think the use of palladium is required to achieve sufficient loading in nickel. Primarily, what's required is PRACTICE and EXPERIENCE. Me356 learned how to load hydrogen into his nickel wire and powder with no problem. Other replicators can learn to do the same.

  • /* However, you don't need massive amounts of hydrogen absorption for LENR */


    Negative Actually the low saturation of hydrogen was the primary reason of premature failure of Fleischmann/Pons replications, as Hagelstein/McKubre demonstrated clearly. My recommendation: read more, think less, write even less - or you will increase noise/signal ratio here...



    /* I don't think the use of palladium is required to achieve sufficient loading in nickel.*/


    Of course not, Cellani/Piantelli started with plain nickel wires. But at low temperatures the speed of hydrogen saturation remains low, Cellani had to wait whole weeks for onset of LENR. Palladium shortens this time significantly as it dissolves hydrogen fast and well. This is well known effect as so-called phase-transfer catalysis from classical chemistry after all. I even suspect, that palladium is inert with respect to cold fusion: all this LENR runs at the foreign atoms in its lattice. This could explain failures of many replicators, once they did try pure palladium samples for the sake of "better reproducibility" - the reproducibility of their experiments decreased instead. With increasing temperature the ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen decreases faster, than at the case of nickel, so that for high temperature LENR the palladium would be probably useless.


    /*Rossi utilized this in his earliest of systems*/


    Do you have some info about it (link)? Rossi is notoriously secretive regarding the composition of his catalyst - I would be surprised, if he would publish it explicitly.


    /* Me356 learned how to load hydrogen into his nickel wire and powder with no problem */


    How he learned it? He reported success only after he implanted the hydrogen with corona discharge beneath the surface of nickel - and he remained silent from this moment. If I remember well, his experiments with LiAlH4 were as negative as the attempts of another Parkhomov replicators. This is also one of reasons, why I didn't recommend this mixture for you.

  • In palladium you are correct. But nickel high loading across the entire nickel powder particle is probably low. The high loading that needs to take place is near the surface of the nickel particle. It's very tough to get hydrogen to fully diffuse into bulk nickel even at the temperatures and pressures produced by Parkhomov and Songsheng. Most likely, overall their loading was low, but at the surface it was higher.


    And your statement about Me356 is totally false. He was able to produce a COP of around 1.5 to 3 with just nickel and hydrogen supplied from a tank -- no exotic coronal discharge whatsoever. I've read through every single post he's ever made on this forum, twice. He was able to produce high levels of excess heat with nickel and hydrogen, nickel and LiAlH4 (although he warned that this could be tricky without gaining the proper experience from repeated testing), and then later he began work on his more exotic glow discharge systems.


    I'd like to say that I admit I should try to be even more precise in my language. When we talk about high or low loading of hydrogen, we need to specify if we are talking about throughout the entire particle or in certain regions. So, for the record, my opinion is that with NiH LENR you need high loading near the surface of the nickel powder, but utilizing hundreds of bars of pressure to push hydrogen throughout the ENTIRE particle is probably not required. Songsheng utilized a maximum of around five for six bars of hydrogen pressure, and Parkhomov probably only achieved a similar level of pressure due to the leakiness of his sealing method. These levels of pressures and temperatures are not going to produce 90% to 100% loading throughout the entire nickel particle.


    EDIT: Look at his posts again. He had success with LiAlH4 and nickel! He specified that it can produce excess heat. However, it's just tricky because of a number of different issues such as waiting for pressures to drop. He suggested using a hydrogen generator or hydrogen tank instead. However, most replicators probably would rather work with LiAlH4 due to convenience.

  • /* I've read through every single post he's ever made on this forum, twice */


    OK, you may be right with it, but I still don't see any clue for LENR from me356 posts about LENR with hydrogen. His experiments were rather qualitative and not convicing for me.



    /* He suggested using a hydrogen generator or hydrogen tank instead. However, most replicators probably would rather work with LiAlH4 due to convenience. */


    This is not just about the way, in which hydrogen is added to the mixture, but also about the presence of lithium, which is IMO the key difference here. We know, that deuterium can fuse with lithium without presence of any other catalyst even under low voltage discharge conditions. The nickel is not required for fusion at all, after then. The lithium was also mentioned in Piantelli patent, so that Rossi did use it too (being probably advised with Focardi in this matter). Maybe the nickel is actually inert for cold fusion in the same way, like the palladium - it just provides lattice effects for dissolved hydrogen and supporting layer for lithium. The first claims of Rossi, that the nickel converts itself into a copper during LENR were dismissed with Rossi himself as a bogus.

  • The problem is that he never revealed data for probably 98% of the tests he conducted. According to Bob Greenyer, he's the kind of person who will work all day, come home, and then test all evening. He is similar to Rossi in that he will perform many series of tests over a short period of time. The difference is, I think, Me356 has a slightly more "modern" understanding of data collection.


    I wish Me356 would reveal more data from his later tests.


    ---


    Nickel is not inert. Just nickel and hydrogen is sufficient to produce excess heat. Now, I'll totally admit that the the mechanism for this excess heat is not fully understood. Piantelli found all sorts of transmutation products on his nickel rods that had been, "active." Also, he saw particle emissions that he thinks were ejected protons. I think these emissions from whatever nuclear process is taking place with only nickel and hydrogen (either H-H fusion or Ni-H fusion or some other reaction) then interacts with the lithium to produce a secondary nuclear process that produces far more energy than the first. This is why Me356 claimed that the addition of lithium was a shortcut to even higher levels of excess heat. He claimed to be able to place a small bit of lithium into an active reactor (probably he could see it because of using a sapphire tube) centimeters away from the nickel and seeing it glow brilliantly. When the same lithium chunk was surrounded by powder, he claimed it looked like it was almost floating, suspended in the powder. He said even trace amounts of vaporized lithium could boost the output of his cells enormously.


    Basically, I think there is a reaction that only requires nickel and hydrogen which can then produce emissions that somehow stimulate further reactions with lithium that is supported on the surface of the nickel particle.

  • I used to follow Nevanlinna on Cobraf, but the translations were just too difficult to decipher/understand, so I gave up on the site.


    No wonder, as he does it on purpose, by using a somewhat archaic style and by nicknaming in a very personal way the protagonists of the Rossi saga (Rossi being "Quinlan" - from Orson Welles's "Touch of Evil"- more often than not). He is an interesting character indeed, beyond his investigating skills. And he does enjoy a good laugh when referenced by ECW folks who appreciate his findings but systematically fail to understand his comments.

  • Negative Actually the low saturation of hydrogen was the primary reason of premature failure of Fleischmann/Pons replications, as Hagelstein/McKubre demonstrated clearly. My recommendation: read more, think less, write even less - or you will increase noise/signal ratio here...


    @Zephir: The new picture is slightly different: According to Storms (actual ICCF20) there is no need for a Palladium high load to sustain the LENR reaction.


    But: An initial high load is needed to completely stress (transform) the lattice. That's where the early replicators failed.

  • Kim was roundly and thoroughly bamboozled by Defkalion and Hadjichristos. He has no business asking for grants in LENR as he clearly has no judgement in this field. And none should have been given. A sad waste of money. Actually, it's shocking. I wonder if the grantors know the history. If they do, they're morons. If they don't, they should have researched Kim better.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2013…efkalion-nickel-hydrogen/

  • /* According to Storms (actual ICCF20) there is no need for a Palladium high load to sustain the LENR reaction. */


    Yes, this is what follows from above curve too. The high load kills the reaction often by uncontrolled runaway and overheating.


    Hmmm...from Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 441 (2006) 210–214


    "However, the field is still plagued by the assumption that bulk loading level (in reference to Pd) is a key parameter. So far, no one has reported that Pt can be made to form a bulk hydride, so clearly this is not a key parameter."


    and from Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 428 (2005) 207–212
    "Obviously, since Pt does not form hydrides, bulk loading is not the relevant number."


    This is "obvious" from the original report of Storms' work on Pt from ICCF8 (2000), which I reanalyzed in my 2002 publication, which I wrote in 2000. I guess it takes Ed (and others) awhile to catch on...

  • /* since Pt does not form hydrides, bulk loading is not the relevant number */


    I don't understand such a logics. Actually, just the lack of well defined hydrides opens the way for increasing yield of LENR with increasing partial pressure of hydrogen within lattice, as its concentration may rise for ever. Once the material forms defined hydride, then the excessive hydrogen will get consumed by formation of hydride and its saturation curve will stall...


    There is another, less apparent limit for saturation load: the metal lattice of palladium - which is otherwise able to dissolve lotta hydrogen - loses its strength and expands, once the palladium dissolves too much hydrogen. This expansion can be observed by naked eye and it may lead into destruction (tear off) of palladium membranes in hydrogen generators. The further increasing of hydrogen will therefore not lead into increase of partial pressure of hydrogen within lattice.


    BTW The (over)doping of superconductors with holes has similar effect: above certain concentration of holes the critical themperature doesn't increase - but it decreases again (and the pseudogap phase gets formed)... Just in this case it's the mutually repulsive electrons instead of protons, what expands the material lattice.



  • The very high hydrogen loading level teaches a lesson to the LENR experimenters in that it is the NUMBER of cavities in the lattice that is important and not an interaction between the palladium and the hydrogen.


    A nickel microparticle with a maximum cavity count is the best type of lattice to use in LENR experiments.


  • Shanahan became obsessed about that paper, which is about platinum, not palladium. I have written about this elsewhere here. As an isolated report, the Storms' work on platinum is largely irrelevant. Storms does claim that palladium is not necessary, that NAE can form in other materials, but that remains to be established clearly. There is anecdotal evidence, only.


    Shanahan was correct in that "bulk loading" would not be relevant to platinum results. However, he is here making it appear that this was more general, that he anticipated what is not being mentioned in his paper. He did not, unless his paper confused the platinum results with the palladium results. From his CCS theory, it is all artifact, and if that is correct, he would still, then, have the correlation with loading in palladium to explain.


    Storms does explain the correlation, or it can easily be supplied. Storms' theory has the effect take place in cracks at the surface of the palladium, and the particular kind of cracking that is effective is caused by stress to the material from loading. His theory would predict then that other methods of forming the required cracks or similar structures of the required dimensions (they are "nanocracks," very small) could produce heat without the high loading.


    His actual experimental result was that he set up a reaction with high loading, generating the heat, and he maintained the electrolyte temperature with a heater, then shutting off the electrolytic current. His measurements continued to show anomalous heat, with no decline, even though with the current shut off, loading declined. This continued for hours, I forget how long. This, if confirmed, would indicate that the actual reaction does not depend on loading, but on palladium structure and the availability of enough deuterium as fuel, and apparently much lower loading is enough.


    (Maintaining the environmental temperature of a reaction is not clearly "input power." We don't think of the room temperature as a power input. He was maintaining with thermostatic control an elevated temperature in the electrolyte, that's the difference. This is environmental temperature for the cathode. I have suggested similar approaches for working with nickel hydride. XP would up as a decline in input power necessary to maintain the constant elevated temperature, and this works as long as the XP is not great enough to take the temperature out of control range. In theory, one could then cool the cell.)

  • The number of intragranular hydrogen bubbles or micro-cavities in the metal is important. It is inside of these tiny pockets of hydrogen gas that pressures can reach enormous values. Interestingly, these features increase as hydrogen loading increases. They are also found mostly near the surface of the metal powder (why LENR is more or less a surface phenomenon). And I've also found out why "cracks" and SURFACE cavities seem to be associated with excess heat generation. Hydrogen can be "trapped" by surface cracks and pores. In these areas, there can be greater levels of hydrogen absoprtion into the lattice. Basically, as the crack propagates into the metal via hydrogen embrittlement, intergranular bubbles form nearby. But it is important we make a distinction between surface cavities (in which the trapped hydrogen has a clear path of migration out during desorption) and INTERIOR bubbles/cavities inside the lattice. In these bubbles, there is no path for the hydrogen to escape except back through the lattice. This means when the hydrogen bubbles are re-heated rapidly, the already very high pressures can be boosted to incredible levels. If the rate is fast enough and the pressure peaks, LENR can form. Or, in some cases, the cavities can literally rupture damaging the lattice.


    All of this was in the literature when Andrea Rossi launched the JONP. I want to slap myself for not tracking down all this literature sooner.

  • I don't understand such a logics. Actually, just the lack of well defined hydrides opens the way for increasing yield of LENR with increasing partial pressure of hydrogen within lattice, as its concentration may rise for ever. Once the material forms defined hydride, then the excessive hydrogen will get consumed by formation of hydride and its saturation curve will stall...


    I don't agree. Once a metal hydride is at a temperature above it's dissociation temperature the the bound hydrogen (which may be deep within a newly evolved lattice structure) becomes another source of the 'increasing partial pressure' you talk about.

  • Abd wrote: “
    “kirkshanahan wrote: Hmmm...from Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 441 (2006) 210–214
    "However, the field is still plagued by the assumption that bulk loading level (in reference to Pd) is a key parameter. So far, no one has reported that Pt can be made to form a bulk hydride, so clearly this is not a key parameter."


    ”Remarkably, Shanahan is assuming that a report of possible heat from platinum is then applicable to all the palladium work, where loading is clearly a "key parameter" as to what was known. “


    Remarkably Abd fails to understand that what chemists typically do is contrast and compare chemical reactions between and amongst near neighbors in the Periodic Table. Pd and Pt are nearest neighbors, nominally having the same outer shell level electron configurations. That would suggest similar chemistries, but amazingly enough, as we know, Pd hydrides while Pt does not. *But* - the fact that a non-hydriding material produced a small but significant apparent excess heat signal *suggests strongly* that the causative process is a surface phenomenon. That in turn suggests it may be possible to observe apparent excess heat with *any* metal, as long as its surface has the special characteristics needed to do so (the ‘special active state’ or ‘SAS’).


    So what about Pd. What does high loading do? I believe I already went thru this in this thread some time ago, but quickly, what it does is causes the lattice to expand. This creates stresses inside the material which in turn are relived in various ways. Primarily, dislocation loop punching occurs, which creates steps and edges (to use some surface chemistry terms) on the Pd surface, which I contend are at least helpful to forming the ‘special active state’. Cracks also occur, which can also participate in the ‘SAS’. But it is the surface that matters.


    Abd then wrote: “That is, a huge body of experimental work correlated heat with loading.”


    That would be McKubre and his Degree of Loading experiments conducted in the 1993-4 timeframe and reported in his 1998 EPRI report (not generally available to the public). However, there were several people (just ask Jed) that reproduced apparent excess heat signals in the 1990-2 timeframe, before the ‘high loading’ mantra became cold fusion doctrine, and it is not actually known *exactly* what loading they achieved. High loading in Pd helps form the SAS, but time, temperature, and chemistry can replace that, as was shown by the earliest work in the field.


    More Abd: “What has now come up is the possibility that high loading results in a condition (NAE formation, Ed would say) that then does allow reaction, if the condition is maintained, at lower loading, and Ed has shown this experimentally, in recent work that is, as yet, unconfirmed but which is quite plausible.”


    Loading can assist in the SAS (the non-nuclear ‘NAE’) formation. From the accumulated experience it is also clear that the SAS is quite fragile, which makes studying it a very difficult task. As long as the SAS is present, at-the-electrode recombination can occur, which induces the heat distribution change that causes the calibration constant shift, which in turn if not accounted for produces apparent excess heat signals.


    Abd quotes Shanahan:
    “and from Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 428 (2005) 207–212
    "Obviously, since Pt does not form hydrides, bulk loading is not the relevant number."This is "obvious" from the original report of Storms' work on Pt from ICCF8 (2000), which I reanalyzed in my 2002 publication, which I wrote in 2000. I guess it takes Ed (and others) awhile to catch on...”


    Then Abd writes:
    “Shanahan became obsessed about that paper, which is about platinum, not palladium. I have written about this elsewhere here.”


    And I have responded, but you have not adapted. I am ‘obsessed’ with this picture just like I am ‘obsessed’ with quantum mechanical descriptions of electron shells and thermodynamic relationships between enthalpy, entropy, and chemical potential. It’s too bad you aren’t. Perhaps you’d quit trying to insult me and understand me instead.


    “As an isolated report, the Storms' work on platinum is largely irrelevant.” This is absolutely incorrect. The Pt work is probably the most relevant work extant that shines light on what is happening in an F&P-type electrochemical cell. However, when one pathologically insists “It must be nuclear”, then perhaps the Pt work is not relevant. But ‘relevance’ in a pathological belief is rarely defined logically. Emotionally is usually the pathway used. I prefer the non-emotional, non-nuclear picture derived from studying the Pt work myself.


    “Storms does claim that palladium is not necessary, that NAE can form in other materials, but that remains to be established clearly. There is anecdotal evidence, only.”


    Just as I explained above. If the surface conditions are right, you get the effect. And it requires no nuclear reactions.


    “Shanahan was correct in that "bulk loading" would not be relevant to platinum results. However, he is here making it appear that this was more general, that he anticipated what is not being mentioned in his paper. He did not, unless his paper confused the platinum results with the palladium results.”


    In 2000, when I wrote my first paper on it, I presented a chemical mechanism for a non-nuclear Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect that explained how and why one gets apparent excess heat signals in the F&P-type electrochemical cell set-up. That mechanism was not metal-specific, but as any good chemist knows, different metals will express the chemistry in slightly different ways. So Yes, I did present a general description derived from a specific case. It's called 'inductive reasoning'.


    “From his CCS theory, it is all artifact, and if that is correct, he would still, then, have the correlation with loading in palladium to explain.” - See above…


    “Storms does explain the correlation, or it can easily be supplied. Storms' theory has the effect take place in cracks at the surface of the palladium, and the particular kind of cracking that is effective is caused by stress to the material from loading. His theory would predict then that other methods of forming the required cracks or similar structures of the required dimensions (they are "nanocracks," very small) could produce heat without the high loading.”


    He supplies a suggestion as to why it exists, just like he presumes nuclear reactions. He might be right, wrong, or anywhere in between. Until full reproducibility is achieved however, it is all just speculation (my stuff too!) that may or may not aid in reaching that fully reproducible experiment.


    “His actual experimental result was that he set up a reaction with high loading, generating the heat, and he maintained the electrolyte temperature with a heater, then shutting off the electrolytic current. His measurements continued to show anomalous heat, with no decline, even though with the current shut off, loading declined. This continued for hours, I forget how long. This, if confirmed, would indicate that the actual reaction does not depend on loading, but on palladium structure and the availability of enough deuterium as fuel, and apparently much lower loading is enough.”


    And given that he refuses to believe that his calorimetry has a flaw in it, we have no idea what his experiments actually mean. We know what he claims, but we don’t know how real those claims are.


    “(Maintaining the environmental temperature of a reaction is not clearly "input power." We don't think of the room temperature as a power input.”


    Really? Then how do you account for spontaneous reactions that occur at room temperature? You statement is ridiculous on the face of it. What we need to know from the new Storms’ work you are discussing is “how much power is he putting into the cell (at all times)?” and “How accurately and precisely is he measuring things?” (i.e. what is(are) the relevant calibration equation and constants?) *Any* heat applied is “Power in”.


    “He was maintaining with thermostatic control an elevated temperature in the electrolyte, that's the difference. This is environmental temperature for the cathode.”


    Repeat - *Any* heat applied is “Power in”.


    {snip}

  • @MrSelfSustain


    “The number of intragranular hydrogen bubbles or micro-cavities in the metal is important.” Possibly. Until there is a fully reproducible experimental protocol, we can’t be certain. Don’t forget intergranular too.


    “It is inside of these tiny pockets of hydrogen gas that pressures can reach enormous values.”


    “Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.


    “Interestingly, these features increase as hydrogen loading increases.”


    What increases is the effective external gas pressure needed to achieve that loading. 'High' loading allows structural changes to begin in an attempt to relieve the stresses. Such as more dislocations, bubble nucleation and growth, possibly crystal structure changes, and so on. Any bubbles (internal voids) formed can be populated by gaseous molecular hydrogen, at pressures equivalent to the actual or apparent (in the electrochemical loading case) external pressure.


    “They are also found mostly near the surface of the metal powder” Proof of that? SEM/TEM studies of cross-sectioned electrodes, etc.? They should be everywhere. There is a slight possibility that at the surface the lack of the normal ‘capping’ metal layers will make bubble formation easier, but I don’t believe we can quantify that well.


    “(why LENR is more or less a surface phenomenon). “ In your ‘It must be nucklear’ explanation. See my many posts on this for a non-nuclear explanation.


    “And I've also found out why "cracks" and SURFACE cavities seem to be associated with excess heat generation. Hydrogen can be "trapped" by surface cracks and pores.” No, these points are ‘leak’ points, so just the opposite is happening. The hydrogen is not held more strongly, which is what a ‘trap site’ does.


    What I believe Storms is saying is that since the very region of the tip of the crack is a highly unusual one, this allows for his 'NAE' to form there.


    “In these areas, there can be greater levels of hydrogen absoprtion into the lattice.” No, lesser. The conditions at the tip of a crack would cause a deloading of the local material (thus the possible local bubble formation).


    “Basically, as the crack propagates into the metal via hydrogen embrittlement, intergranular bubbles form nearby.”
    Possible I suppose. I’m not positive ‘embrittlement’ causes cracking. These are technical terms with specific definitions, especially in the corrosion science arena, and I’m not an expert on them. But I believe I am correct in saying that crack propagation is an active research area in corrosion science.


    “But it is important we make a distinction between surface cavities (in which the trapped hydrogen has a clear path of migration out during desorption) and INTERIOR bubbles/cavities inside the lattice.”


    In the field of tritium aging effects, decay He agglomerates into bubbles very quickly, and then the large bubbles grow at the expense of small bubbles. Eventually, the large bubbles get close enough that the wall between them cracks and they link. Sometimes this crack is to the surface, which allows the He to escape in a process known as ‘breakout’. Hydrogen bubbles should do the same thing. Also, steam embrittlement studies have shown water bubbles inside a metal formed near the surface can pop out a ‘cap’ of material, leaving a cavity behind.


    “In these bubbles, there is no path for the hydrogen to escape except back through the lattice.” In fact, the internal surface is no different from an external surface and you have an equilibrium established where some H recombines and desorbs as H2, and some H2 dissociates and absorbs as well.


    “This means when the hydrogen bubbles are re-heated rapidly, the already very high pressures can be boosted to incredible levels.” Incredible? No, just up to the point where stuctural cahnges can occur…


    “If the rate is fast enough and the pressure peaks, LENR can form.” Supposition.


    “Or, in some cases, the cavities can literally rupture damaging the lattice. “ Yes…see above.


    “All of this was in the literature when Andrea Rossi launched the JONP.” - Yup.


    “I want to slap myself for not tracking down all this literature sooner.” – Keep working.

  • “It is inside of these tiny pockets of hydrogen gas that pressures can reach enormous values.”


    “Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.


    Well, it may have been more than 20 kp - as you yourself say 'his pressure sensor topped out.' And regardless of that, it seems like a lot of pressure to me. I like some of your other points though :)

  • “He was maintaining with thermostatic control an elevated temperature in the electrolyte, that's the difference. This is environmental temperature for the cathode.”


    Repeat - *Any* heat applied is “Power in”.


    So we must take into account heating the room?


    The Storms approach is actually brilliant, and not done enough. The same approach would apply to, say, NiH experiments where a fuel mixture, say nickel and lithal, is heated. One would want to know the behavior of the system when it is simply being heated, all conditions as close as possible to the same as when a fuel mixture is tested.


    Direct heating of the reactor is tricky, because of issues of heat distribution relating to the heat conductivity of the fuel.


    Properly done, heating the electrolyte by a resistance heater is very, very different from joule heating from electrolysis power, where there is an interaction between the heating and other effects of that current, even including the recombination possibility. Maintaining the electrolyte temperature is not "input power to the reaction," it is, instead, looking at the effect of temperature on the reaction, whatever reaction is taking place.


    What Ed was showing was an indication that, once the reaction has been set up, temperature becomes a more critical factor than loading. By isolating the variable, he was able to show that -- or at least a strong indication.


    When I was studying Letts data, I ran into difficulties. Letts was using "constant power" input, which is a bit misleading. The actual situation is constant current, from a programmable constant current power supply, but, then, with feedback so that the current is adjusted when the voltage varies, to maintain constant power. This created a shift in conditions, and I was looking, in his data, for effects associated with onset of apparent XP, since he was turning it on with his lasers. What I found, and when I mentioned it, others said they had seen it, was a drop in cell resistance as the first sign of XP onset. What would cause that?


    Kirk, you know enough to come up with a suspicion, if you will allow yourself to think of a broader range of possibilities. What would predictably cause a sudden drop in electrolytic cell resistance as possibly the first sign of XP?


    You object to what you see as my insulting behavior, but do not realize, apparently, just how insulting you have been, over the years. What goes around comes around. On Wikipedia, I acted to attempt to see that your ideas were expressed, within policy. You basically spat in my face. When you made a major error in your JEM letter, and I pointed it out to you privately, you responded with an insult.


    However, you are the major standing published critic of cold fusion. That deserves a certain level of respect.

  • Well, it may have been more than 20 kp - as you yourself say 'his pressure sensor topped out.' And regardless of that, it seems like a lot of pressure to me. I like some of your other points though


    Baranowski is known for his high pressure work with metal hydrides. He published an article in 1972 on Pd-H at high P (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/…0000016/00000001/art00003).


    In it he discusses Pd-H behavior in the vicinity of up to 25000 atm. That's ~3,675,000 psi. That's 'enormous'...


    20000 psi is reachable by mechanical compressors I believe. The ~4 million psi range requires diamond anvils or other special techniques.

  • “So we must take into account heating the room?”
    When I determine hydrogen absorption isotherms in my lab, I see fluctuations in the pressure of a static system correlated to the room temperature variation. In my case, this is usually not a problem.


    What you wrote indirectly supports the position that one can hand-wave away some considerations, which means that you assume they are unimportant to your experiment. One of my zeroth order Rule of Thumbs is “If you don’t look, you don’t _know_”. One of the primary failings of many scientists is violation of that rule. Instead of saying “I haven’t looked, so I don’t know for sure”, they wave their hands vigorously and say “we all know that…”. So do you need to take room HVAC intro account? I don’t know, have you looked? (And by that I mean all the way through the measurement and interpretation process…)


    “The Storms approach is actually brilliant, and not done enough. The same approach would apply to, say, NiH experiments where a fuel mixture, say nickel and lithal, is heated. One would want to know the behavior of the system when it is simply being heated, all conditions as close as possible to the same as when a fuel mixture is tested.” It’s called a ‘blank’….


    “Direct heating of the reactor is tricky, because of issues of heat distribution relating to the heat conductivity of the fuel.” Really? Heat distribution can be an issue? Who’d a thought…


    “Properly done, heating the electrolyte by a resistance heater is very, very different from joule heating from electrolysis power, where there is an interaction between the heating and other effects of that current, even including the recombination possibility.”


    Well, calorimetrically speaking, not that different. My reanalysis of Storms’ data produced a +/- 2.5% variation in cal. constants (due to chemistry, not randomness), while the difference Storms reported between electrolytic and Joule heater calibration was maximally about 1.7%. A pair-wise diff of ~1% is a common value obtained when sampling a distribution with a span of +/-2.5% (assuming randomness). Storms’ repeated electrolytic calibrations had a diff of ~0.5%. (So the diff in Joule vs. electrolytic was encompassed by the systematic effect I detected.)


    But I agree it is different, especially when you consider mixing that is absent when no bubbles are being formed by electrolysis. That alters the heat transfer.


    I repeat, if you add heat to the system for any reason, it needs to monitored and worked into the interpretation. In fact, it is obvious that if the electrode was producing enough excess heat, you would have to cool the system to maintain temperature, as you yourself noted. Wouldn’t you need to know that to estimate the heat purportedly being produced at the electrode?


    “What Ed was showing was an indication that, once the reaction has been set up, temperature becomes a more critical factor than loading. By isolating the variable, he was able to show that -- or at least a strong indication.”


    So what? We all know that loading and temperature are interrelated…. If the temperature changes the loading will also change in an unconstrained system. Constraints will alter the relationship. All that needs to be characterized.


    “Maintaining the electrolyte temperature is not "input power to the reaction," it is, instead, looking at the effect of temperature on the reaction, whatever reaction is taking place.”


    When you ‘maintain the temperature’, don’t you heat or cool the system? When you heat or cool the system, isn’t the electrode part of that? Don’t you all claim that excess heat is being produced? How can you know that without accounting for the ‘maintenance’ heat and its effects?


    “When I was studying Letts data, I ran into difficulties. Letts was using "constant power" input, which is a bit misleading. The actual situation is constant current, from a programmable constant current power supply, but, then, with feedback so that the current is adjusted when the voltage varies, to maintain constant power. This created a shift in conditions, and I was looking, in his data, for effects associated with onset of apparent XP, since he was turning it on with his lasers. What I found, and when I mentioned it, others said they had seen it, was a drop in cell resistance as the first sign of XP onset. What would cause that?”


    “Kirk, you know enough to come up with a suspicion, if you will allow yourself to think of a broader range of possibilities. What would predictably cause a sudden drop in electrolytic cell resistance as possibly the first sign of XP?”


    Cell resistance comes from two generic places, the electrolyte and the electrodes (and wires). So a drop in cell resistance can come from either place. So first let’s consider the wires, including the electrodes. What causes R to drop? Doesn’t cooling? What could cause cooling? How about unloading….(endothermic remember…) What would cause unloading? How about the formation of a surface state that fosters such? Like would occur if cracking occurred, or if localized surface states (‘SAS’) had a higher propensity to release H2? Both would form new bubbles (or bigger ones), possibly faster, giving an increased amount of reactant for the transported O2, which would result in at-the-electrode recombination and apparent excess heat…after the appropriate time lag due to calorimeter time constant. The electrical detection of this would not be as lagged.


    You say above you get a drop at the onset of XP, but you don’t say if you get XP only when laser is irradiating. If that is true, the laser itself should produce localized heating on the electrode, which will drive that endothermic desorbtion, and you’re back to the above, with an apparent excess heat showing up after the time lag due to the fact that your interpretive calorimetric model is incapable of modeling the two zone heat capture efficiency effect.


    I also would need confirmation of how the amount of laser power deposited is calculated.


    Looking at the electrolyte, a drop in resistance usually implies an increase in charge carriers, i. e. more ions in the liquid. I don’t see too much going on there myself. I suppose the laser might break down ionic clusters and form some new ions, but that is pure guesswork on my part. Feel free to suggest your own method to increase the charge carrier count.


    Enough speculation, as I just realized you didn’t specify the timing of this observation of yours. If it fits the above then fine, otherwise I’d have to rethink things.


    But my point is, ‘mundane’ reasons can easily be brought up that need to be eliminated before we turn to the less likely answer of LENR.


    “You object to what you see as my insulting behavior, but do not realize, apparently, just how insulting you have been, over the years. What goes around comes around. On Wikipedia, I acted to attempt to see that your ideas were expressed, within policy. You basically spat in my face. When you made a major error in your JEM letter, and I pointed it out to you privately, you responded with an insult.”


    What you fail to mention is the weeks and months *prior* to that that I had to deal with you and your obstruction to my editing attempts at Wikipedia. You had me well-conditioned to expect your commentary to be flawed, just as it is here, so it took a bit for the ’mistake’ to become clear. In fact as I have responded to you here, it ended up giving me an even stronger case against the imaginary heat-helium correlation.The primary problem with you however, is you keep attempting to attribute certain mental states to me with no evidence of such. You don’t have ESP, and you have no clue what I do or don’t know, so just can the attributions and stick to discussing facts.


    “However, you are the major standing published critic of cold fusion. That deserves a certain level of respect.”

  • “So we must take into account heating the room?”
    When I determine hydrogen absorption isotherms in my lab, I see fluctuations in the pressure of a static system correlated to the room temperature variation. In my case, this is usually not a problem.


    What you wrote indirectly supports the position that one can hand-wave away some considerations, which means that you assume they are unimportant to your experiment. One of my zeroth order Rule of Thumbs is “If you don’t look, you don’t _know_”. One of the primary failings of many scientists is violation of that rule. Instead of saying “I haven’t looked, so I don’t know for sure”, they wave their hands vigorously and say “we all know that…”. So do you need to take room HVAC intro account? I don’t know, have you looked? (And by that I mean all the way through the measurement and interpretation process…)


    You already know. Variation in the room temperature can affect experimental results. So ideally, one controls the temperature. It is possible but less satisfactory to record the temperature and factor this into results, but this then can introduce possible analytical errors.


    HVAC is a method of obtaining constant room temperature. Cold fusion experiments do consider and record room temperature. Constant room temperature is considered desirable, and I would hope you would agree.


    However, "room temperature" really refers to the environment of the experiment. Pons and Fleischmann used highly-controlled constant temperature water baths that their experiments were submerged in (if I'm correct). The heating of those baths, as long as they were adequately stirred so that there weren't hot spots, would not be considered input power to the experiment.


    It was merely maintaining a constant temperature that was probably elevated from room temperature. Critique could be, of course, as hinted, if the temperature was not actually uniform.


    As a legitimate concern, for example, Storms heated his electrolyte. I have not given and don't recall the details, but suppose it was simple immersion heat. If the electrolyte was not stirred, this could certainly introduce error.


    So details matter, but the concern there is not about "input power," it is about something that could throw calorimetry off by having an "environment" that is not constant temperature.


    In the case of Songsheng Jiang, environmental temperature matters. Songsheng ran an NiH experiment, with a Chinese box type arrangement, an inner core that contained the fuel and a thermocouple, call it T1, then two layers with two thermocouples, and then T4 on the outside of the large insulating container of the experiment. In the middle of the experiment, apparently since T4 was getting quite hot, he turned on a fan, cooling the whole experiment. That was a calorimetry disaster, one of the possible sources of problems with that experiment. Failure to maintain constant conditions. This was not surprising for a first run! The problem with Songsheng Jiang was that he attempted to draw conclusions from an exploration that was poorly controlled and where two out of four thermocouples failed in operation. He'd used the wrong type of thermocouple if he was going to go as hot as he went. And in a hot hydrogen atmosphere, thermocouples may fail rapidly. Lack of experience. You want to cool the outside, control that condition, do it from the beginning and the placement of the fan could be quite important.

  • “Kirk, you know enough to come up with a suspicion, if you will allow yourself to think of a broader range of possibilities. What would predictably cause a sudden drop in electrolytic cell resistance as possibly the first sign of XP?”


    I actually was hoping that Kirk could think of a LENR cause. He got close, but no cigar. He was only able to think of possibilities consistent with his view that it's all artifact. Let's look:


    Quote

    Cell resistance comes from two generic places, the electrolyte and the electrodes (and wires). So a drop in cell resistance can come from either place. So first let’s consider the wires, including the electrodes. What causes R to drop? Doesn’t cooling? What could cause cooling? How about unloading….(endothermic remember…) What would cause unloading? How about the formation of a surface state that fosters such? Like would occur if cracking occurred, or if localized surface states (‘SAS’) had a higher propensity to release H2? Both would form new bubbles (or bigger ones), possibly faster, giving an increased amount of reactant for the transported O2, which would result in at-the-electrode recombination and apparent excess heat…after the appropriate time lag due to calorimeter time constant. The electrical detection of this would not be as lagged.


    Let me be a bit more specific. The resistance drop is quite sudden, abrupt, then followed by the rapid appearance of XP. If one does not look closely at the data, the resistance drop is easily overlooked. I was unhappy with the "constant power" set up because it created an additional variable.


    I would expect surface state change to take place more slowly. The change in conditions was not great, merely quite noticeable if one looked at the data. Voltage dropped. Then current was increased to compensate. Remember, constant-current supply, until the programming is changed. And the feedback in the system was such that the computer changed the input current to maintain constant power. But power input is not particularly considered a causative variable, input current is (because it affects gas evolution rate and has some other effects that may be involved in the reaction). That voltage drop was distinct. Now, I haven't looked at this data for years, to go over it in detail would take time that I don't have right now. However, my recollection is that, as well, the lasers were turned on -- or polarization was rotated.


    Quote

    You say above you get a drop at the onset of XP, but you don’t say if you get XP only when laser is irradiating. If that is true, the laser itself should produce localized heating on the electrode, which will drive that endothermic desorbtion, and you’re back to the above, with an apparent excess heat showing up after the time lag due to the fact that your interpretive calorimetric model is incapable of modeling the two zone heat capture efficiency effect.


    You are thinking only of possible artifacts as against a LENR conclusion. I'm asking if you can think in the other direction, not suggesting that you *conclude* in the other direction, but merely in a hope that your thinking can expand to encompass a wider set of possibilities. In no way would this force a conclusion.


    In the version of the experiment I am describing -- which may be at some variance with the actual experiment, because of memory failure -- yes, the laser turns on and the resistance drop is seen rapidly, then the XP shows up in the calorimetry after a normal delay. I think his calorimetry was fairly fast-response isoperibolic, in these experiments.


    Yes, heating of the cathode by the laser is conceivable. Against this is that the laser is relatively low power and most of the energy is reflected. As well, the effect depended on the beat frequency of two lasers, whereas direct laser heating would not care about the beat frequency (in the THz region). Heating the cathode would produce, as the cathode heats up, a lowering of resistance, I'd expect, but not the rapid dip seen. Let's suggest, for the purpose of discussion, that laser stimulation off-resonance produces no effect. The beat frequency only contains a small percentage of the laser power, and would have little or no effect on absorption. So discard the heating hypothesis for the moment.


    Quote

    I also would need confirmation of how the amount of laser power deposited is calculated.


    In order to what? This is, at this point, a thought experiment. Assume that the absorbed laser power is negligible.


    Quote

    Looking at the electrolyte, a drop in resistance usually implies an increase in charge carriers, i. e. more ions in the liquid. I don’t see too much going on there myself. I suppose the laser might break down ionic clusters and form some new ions, but that is pure guesswork on my part. Feel free to suggest your own method to increase the charge carrier count.


    Once again, you are looking for an artifact, not what Letts actually concludes, though Letts did not discuss the resistance drop, it is merely something that I noticed in his data and that was then confirmed by others, yes, they had seen that also.


    I obviously have an idea and I am seeing if you can come up with it. It should not be difficult. I will give a hint below.


    Remember, I am looking at possibilities, not something proven. However, if we cannot see possibilities, we become highly likely to miss reality, if it is something we would not ordinarily expect.


    Quote

    Enough speculation, as I just realized you didn’t specify the timing of this observation of yours. If it fits the above then fine, otherwise I’d have to rethink things.


    But my point is, ‘mundane’ reasons can easily be brought up that need to be eliminated before we turn to the less likely answer of LENR.


    To you, LENR is less likely. Are you aware that this is subjective? I am suggesting opening up and developing multiple possibilities (which would include all the possible artifacts, as many as we can imagine), but if we have an established Baysian prior, as you apparently do, this can bias how we examine the possibilities, and we may not even think of what is really happening. This occurs on all sides, by the way. You think that researchers are biased in the other direction, and refuse to look at your ideas because they think them improbable.


    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


    You only need to go one small step from where you were. You noted that anything that would increase ionization in the electrolyte would lower resistance. What could increase ionization?


    Consider the "hamburger" in SPAWAR experiments. It is often attributed to chemical damage, and Earthtech appeared to confirm this. What would increase chemical damage, because it is not directly caused by immersion in the electrolyte, the damage only occurs in very close proximity to the cathode, maybe actual contact or with only a very thin presence of electrolyte?


    I am asking you to come up with an explanation that involves LENR, and that also fits with other data. That is not proof. It merely creates a possible testable hypothesis.