Phonon Energy to replicate MFMP Glow Stick experiment

Quote from DAK

Alan,

I assume that you are following all the numerous regulations in UN Transportation Number (IATA): 1414 including have a certified packer?

I hope that this was simply a friendly question.

I know many people would rather all scientific research be left in the hands of academic institutions, government labs, and billion dollar businesses.

Thank you for not only the update, but more importantly the effort itself.

It probably is a bit discouraging that "positive" results were not seen, but I am sure you realize that all tests have attributes that are positive in reality. By careful tracking of variables, environment and process, you can rule out what does not work, which is indeed valuable and thus a positive. I know this is obvious and it may take many attempts. Stay encouraged!

When baking muffins, the simple act of stirring can cause the outcome to be quite a "failure". Too much stirring or too agitated of a stir can cause the gluten to become strong enough to trap gas bubbles. It can also cause chemical reactions in the baking soda to become depleted before the time it is needed. The point is, that one can have all the correct ingredients, but the simple process of how they are put together might change the outcome. (I know this example is simple, but a fair picture none the less).

You may or may not have the correct formula. It may be the mixing, the rise in temperature, the "agitation method" (possible radio frequency etc.) Or it may be that the "baking soda" was unknown and left out. In any case, keep up the good work and I hope you discover the key that will bring to light a technology that could truly benefit our planet. (Or as with many ground breaking inventions, bring disaster, which I hope not)

Godspeed!

Quote from AlainCo

Let us be positive.
It is not negative, it is an exact calibration.

Yes. Once one has gone this far, I highly recommend continuing the testing. In particular, confirming earlier results is of extreme value, even if one then shows that they were likely artifact (by then using better controls or more precise measurements). The goal should never be "success," as naively defined. A "negative" result shows, perhaps, that the conditions set up did not create the effect, and if these conditions were close to original report conditions, then it does create some impression that there may be some unidentified artifact, but it is also possible that there is some unidentified but necessary condition.

This is very common with cold fusion research. The "Rossi Effect" confused many for five years, since it looked like he had a reliable and controllable effect. If he did, he hasn't disclosed how it was done to anyone, most likely. And maybe he didn't. And then there is the file drawer effect. It may take years of patient work to sort all this out, unless someone gets lucky.

If you do get lucky, I recommend sitting on it until you have done your best to prove the results wrong. Otherwise, prematurely announcing can cause harm. This is something that MFMP might not understand, I'm not sure. I appreciate the enthusiasm, I always have, but there are reasons why traditional scientists don't operate that way. At least, caution in publication is in order. Parkhomov had some quick-and-dirty results in December, 2014. And immediately published them, causing massive fuss. And then he started to look more closely. He presented his continuing results optimistically, emphasizing the positive. Not pointing out that the absolute levels of heat were declining strongly. A mess. As I have written, his most recent work looks better, but .... is he only presenting his positive results and not the full experimental record? His history doesn't inspire confidence. The proof will be, as always, in independent confirmation, and especially when full efforts exist to identify possible artifact.

Congratulations on your work, David. Nice lab. Lovely, actually.

In my view, the highest priority for cold fusion research is replicating existing work with increased precision and the most careful investigation of possible artifacts as possible. Exploratory research is not a priority, my opinion, unless working close to what is known. However, if it's fun, that is its own value.

As I assume you know, PdD is relatively well-established, but there are still many, many mysteries, and there is much work that has not been confirmed, even when reasonably well-documented. Recent discussions on the CMNS list pointed up, for me, some possible work that relatively modest effort might explore. This is the SPAWAR work with CR-39. What was being discussed was the Coolessence effort, which, like the Earthtech effort, may have been a replication failure, though there is some argument from some that the "SPAWAR" tracks were due to chemical damage.

What is apparent is that the SPAWAR work has not been clearly confirmed. One the face of it, it is a relatively simple and inexpensive experiment. However, to give an example of possible complexity, the Galileo project protocol that was attempted by both Earthtech and Coolessence uses an open cell. If heavy water is exposed to air, it will gradually absorb light water, and 1% light water is known to stop the FP Heat Effect. However, an open cell with a narrow opening and continual evolution of gas from electrolysis will actually increase in deuterium ratio, because light water is preferentially evolved. A closed cell, however, will maintain its initial light water percentage, and if it was put together under humid conditions, say, it might also not show the effect. The Galileo protocol, as I recall, did not mention the issue, and thus differences in humidity between the labs and other variations not considered important may have made all the difference.

Coolessence saw apparent chemical damage to the aluminum on the outside of a 6 micron mylar window (with the cathode against the inside of that window, I think). They saw "SPAWAR tracks" on the inside of a piece of CR-39 against that window, but when they pulled the CR39 50 microns back, the "tracks" disappeared. Analysis of the aluminum showed chlorine. Chlorine is evolved early in the protocol, during the plating phase, from the lithium chloride used to make the electrolyte conduction. Apparently the solution also becomes highly acidic, from a reaction that produces HCl. (or DCl, of course).

It is claimed that SPAWAR used adequate control experiment to exclude chemical damage from what they found. Coolessence thinks the controls were inadequate.

SPAWAR shut down. The researchers are still active, but are probably unlikely to attempt this work again.

However, there is more. The most interesting work was not the subject of Coolessence/Earthtech investigation, it is the SPAWAR finding of apparent neutron-caused tracks. Triple-tracks, in particular, are far less likely to be the result of chemical damage .... and these tracks were produced on the far side of the CR-39, not adjacent to the cathode. At the time the Galileo protocol was written, Pam Mosier-Boss was not at liberty to suggest a gold wire cathode, though, in a way, she tried, setting up the protocol to use the experimenter's choice of silver, platinum, or gold wire substrate. The gold wire substrate was far more effective in apparent generation of neutrons. Steve Krivit, running the Galileo Project, said, no, everyone should use the same, so she chose silver. Much cheaper, if nothing else!

But something major is missing from that work: measurement of heat. The size of the experiment could mean that not much heat is evolved, but if one is not obsessed about "nuclear" levels of heat, but simply something measureable with reasonable precision (10% would be okay), then combining a search for heat with a search for either charged particle emission or neutrons could be of high interest.

Nobody has done it in this way. Key would be creating numerical results, not dependent on subjective measures. One of the problems with the Coolessence and Earthtech projects is that they called tracks "SPAWAR" tracks that may not have been, they might actually have been chemical damage, or some combination.

Fleischmann-Pons calorimetry was famously complex. In fact, though, if it's calibrated well, it doesn't matter how complex the equations are, one can display them with Labview or the like, and calibration is King. FP calorimetry is reputed to have a precision of +/- 100 microwatts.

And then if one can find another measure of the reaction, such as track count, it becomes possible to investigate correlations, by running the experiments many times. In this work, of course, looking for correlation, one must set up a protocol first, anticipating contingencies, and then report all work according to that protocol. Where possible, independent measures should be blinded. (If track count can't be automated, then one would run many experiments and those counting the tracks would have no idea what, say, the heat was from those experiments. That is, human counting can be used, with precautions to avoid contamination of results by expectations.)

The original and definitive FP Heat Effect correlation work was done by Miles, and is now being investigated anew with increased precision. That work, however, requires being able to measure helium, which with the necessary mass resolution, is expensive. So looking for other correlated effects could be very useful. (Others are infrared or visible light, and sound, i.e., shock waves from the experiment, as reported by SPAWAR.)

This work can be extremely difficult and much more complex than it appears at first sight. Or ... maybe with careful study before starting the work, substantial consultation with those who have done similar work before, it just might produce results of interest.

David Dagget,

I would really like to speak to you via text chat or phone ASAP.

I urge you to hold off on this test until we speak.

Do you have a Skype address?