RIP Dr. Michel Buxerolle - suppressed research

  • Sad news, Michel Buxerolle died on December 30th, aged 85. In 1989, with his colleague Jacques Kurdjian, at the French Atomic Research Center in Cadarache, he demonstrated neutron production during electrolysis of a palladium tube. This work has (for reasons you can see mentioned below) never been published before. It is published in the JCMNS Volume 21.


    An Historical Experiment of Neutron Detection Near an Electrolytic Cell
    Michel Buxerolle and Jacques Kurkdjian.


    Abstract

    An electrolysis experiment performed in April 1989, with a hollow palladium cathode in heavy water showed neutrons production. The results were sufficiently reliable to exclude any experimental error. Unfortunately a similar experiment has never been attempted since then. The presence of neutrons is the signature of nuclear reactions. c 2016 ISCMNS.


    Introduction

    At the time of the March 23 annoucement by Fleischmann and Pons [1] of possible nuclear fusion reactions at room temperature inside a palladium cathode, we were working at the Centre d’Etudes Nucleaires de Cadarache in France. Our laboratory was devoted to neutron dosimetry and we had access to suitable equipment for neutron measurements. For us, the easiest method to check the validity of Cold Fusion was to proceed with neutron measurement near an electrolytic experiment. We had several old palladium–silver tubes used to produce ultra pure deuterium gas for an ion accelerator. The palladium–silver tubes were 10 cm long, 2 mm outer diameter, 0.2 mm thick walls and closed at one end. We succeeded in detecting neutrons. In spite of this success, our work was quickly stopped by the head of the French Atomic Energy Commission, and no further experiments were possible.

    See page 7 in : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedt.pdf

  • In spite of this success, our work was quickly stopped by the head of the French Atomic Energy Commission, and no further experiments were possible.


    This brings me to think the big picture. I am not interested about any conspiracy, but it's a known fact that the Nuclear power development was driven by the need to build nuclear bombs. ie; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
    I have approached this whole Fusion issue through quite another angle, my path went from Gravitation via Fission to Fusion. It must be known, that QED can explain everything in physics, except gravity and radioactive decay.


    So after I noted that the first, and up to now only Gravitation theory was principally correct, and the problem was merely the wrongly interpreted critics.
    This is the theory;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#Predictions_and_criticism
    And here's the way I sort it out.


    So on the way I noticed tha Radioactive decay must have quite simple reasons. And Then I ended up working with planck constant and nucleus and so on. Then I suddenly realized that if this all is correct, then Fusion must be endothermic, and it actually even explains a lot of things better then the present theories; (ie. Entropy turning point, Sun corona) So I ended up wondering "But how the Hell the Hydrogen-bomb has worked then?"


    And Immediately I noticed the very disapointing answer;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_yield

    WE (humans) HAVE BUILD THIS SHIT, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT WE ARE REALLY DOING!


    -sorry about yellling- but it's quite important. And here we come to the "problem" with "LENR" research. At 1989 the world was in historical turning point. All those in power, had fears.
    And ie. the developer of Tsar Bomb, must have known that they were not really knowing what they were doing.
    He was the one who porposed tokamak. And "funnily enough" died 14.12.1989 just not to be able to have an "important speech" in congress. This was the timing.


    It might be interesting to know the content of this speech. Anyhow, the truth can and will be found in the lab.


    This paper in thread states clearly;
    - the lack of a valid hypothis (page 8)
    - The production of neutrons (figure 1. Page 8)
    - No radioactivity (page 9, must mean Alpha, beta and gamma?)
    - the lack of 5.48 MeV gamma (page 11)


    My hypothesis is plain and simple. The electricity provided an oscillation on the particles
    (page 10) and it started to simply fission the Deuterium in to parts. D -> H + n
    and though this reaction is thought to releace a "binding energy" of 2.22 MeV, I think this is not true. I need to think a bit more about this particular case to continue....


    Added with edit;
    I wondered what might have really been triggered the proposed reaction, but after reading the Appendix A again, I noted that the phenomenon occured as following (page 10) ;

    Quote

    After some trials of electrolysis current (variation 40–10 mA/cm2) the amperage was set to 10 mA/cm2 for a night. During this time, about 16 h, the counts of Bonner sphere were the stable background. Then, the counts showed (Fig. 1) a surprising and roughly linear increasing during about 5 h, up to a level four times greater than background. Unfortunately, the experiment stopped because of a shutdown of the electric power in the laboratory, due to a thunder storm. About 30 min later, with the return of electric power, the counts were about at the same level, but they decreased rapidly to return to the background level in less than 2 h.


    I mean my thought problem was, that simply because the atomic scale compered the experimental scale is in order of 108 "wrong" the development of these oscillations must take a lot of time. -and this was exactly what happened.
    (This is actually also a further prove for my turbulence theory) As, what also happened, was that after this oscillation was disturbed, the process stopped, and was impossible to restore. (btw, The current must have been DC!?)

  • Oh, My post here is quite a mess; Links are broken and even missing;

    Quote


    And Those 8) means Page 8.


    This is actually really interesting stuff. I mean the reproductibilty of such an experiment is definetly extreme difficult. If you are not aware about the need of having "laminarized" fluid, the only way to get it work is such an random occasion.
    In these videos; NSF Fluid Mechanics Series , it was somewhere (oh I rembered, i.e. here) clearly stated that the difference of the experiment is totally different (factor 1.5) if the fluid is left undisturbed for a time.


    The settling of the fluid can thus be crucial for the succes of the experiment. In the linked video serie, they left the water to rest over night, to get the stabile, reproducible experiment results.
    Thanks for Wyttenbach for clearing the current source. It was not clearly stated in the paper, and the adjustabilty of the current made me to expect some instabile power source connected to electic grid.
    I mean here it's not really about from settling the fluid. It's much more about making it to fluctuate in some atomic scale. This means the power source which produces these fluctuations must be very stabile, such as a DC from chemical source is.
    And this then makes a settled fluctuation in the fluid, which then leads to LENR reactions.


    The possibilty of explanation is extreme high. I mean if the linearily growing line in figure 1 in the paper under discussion ends it's growth only in some disturbance?
    I mean there actually is no limitations on which material are fissile. If this process suddenly starts to split oxygen, then Your lab will blow sky high, as 16O -> 4 4He and the "Heat" which comes purely from the 4 times "n", from Ideal gas law is extreme, added with the simultaniously gasifying water; H2O -> H2 + 4He. ....The volumetric expansion can be quite remarkable.
    This Water is yet quite safe, as the 17O and 18O are quite rare, there might not be expected any true atomic Explosion.
    Unless all the Deuterium is suddenly split to free neutrons and protons ... well it might be possible.

  • Quote

    Fusion must be endothermic - But how the Hell the Hydrogen-bomb has worked then? And Immediately I noticed the very disappointing answer; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_yield


    To be honest, i lost your logic after first sentence. So that fusion is endothermic, OK - but how it explains high yield of Castle Bravo?
    You're looking like nice and quite sane person at the photos available at the web, but the absence of sense in your posts is striking.

  • but how it explains high yield of Castle Bravo


    Well, ofcourse no Endothermic process can explain any High Yield. The clou is, that it can be explained though the Fission of Lithium-7.
    So, actually it's the whole Binding energy concept based on E=mc2 which is wrong. (This doesn't mean that E=mc2 is wrong)
    You basically can't predict any energy production from the atomic mass. If you study this closer, the whole concept is empty. The heavy elements (above iron) have more or less constant energy production / fission.
    And the light elements? Well, You have LENR. You have Castle-Bravo.


    Thanks for your vid-link; I raise with this;


    Back to business; from the wiki you find the Castle bravo reactions;

    Quote

    In addition to the fusion reactions, the following reactions with neutrons are important in order to "breed" tritium in "dry" fusion bombs and some proposed fusion reactors:


    n + Li-6 → T+ He-4 + 4.784 MeV
    n + Li-7→ T+ He-4 + n – 2.467 MeV


    The latter of the two equations was unknown when the U.S. conducted the Castle Bravo fusion bomb test in 1954. Being just the second fusion bomb ever tested (and the first to use lithium), the designers of the Castle Bravo "Shrimp" had understood the usefulness of Lithium-6 in tritium production, but had failed to recognize that Lithium-7 fission would greatly increase the yield of the bomb. While Li-7 has a small neutron cross-section for low neutron energies, it has a higher cross section above 5 MeV.[27] The 15 Mt yield was 150% greater than the predicted 6 Mt and caused unexpected exposure to fallout.


    So I simply think that these MeV energies + or - ,,, ARE WRONG. And the very explanation for the high yield of Castle Bravo is simply;


    n + Li-6 → T+ He-4 + n
    n + Li-7→ T+ He-4 + n


    and can be calculated by the Ideal gas law, where the "n" means the amount. I mean the above equations goes for pressure and Volume;
    PV -> 1.5 PV, and the free neutrons just gaining more velocity remains there to keep up the Chain reaction.


    But of course this can idea can be wrong. I would appreciate if you could show me an experiment which does not fit in my theory.
    But don't bother do deliver some stuff where you show how the old "binding energy" theory works with heavier isotopes.
    I already know and agree it works there in the measurable range, and even the gamma radiation is produced for a good reason.


    My sanity doesn't influence in anything. If I am wrong then so be it. But the present theories doesn't seem to be right either. So something MUST BE CHANGED. If you need mental support to accept the need of this kind of change, I propose the Book of John Gribbins, Page 255 -> It's ideas are mostly not usable. But it shows the scale of the problem.


    There is no mass. It's a pseudo thing. And as a such, you can't expect anything from the measured atomic mass.

  • Quote

    I mean the above equations goes for pressure and Volume; PV -> 1.5 PV, and the free neutrons just gaining more velocity remains there to keep up the Chain reaction

    I don't understand. IMO you're dismissing well working and widely used binding energy concept on behalf of incoherent thought, which you're unable to understand yourself. Please, don't take it personally - but I think, you're suffering with schizophrenia (cognitive delusions).

  • I don't understand. IMO you're dismissing well working and widely used binding energy concept on behalf of incoherent thought, which you're unable to understand yourself. Please, don't take it personally - but I think, you're suffering with schizophrenia (cognitive delusions).


    No, I am not dissmissing anything "well working". If you go through this list from nuclear weapons tests (as i have done) you find mostly that ie. ALL first Fusion bomb tests have produced a much Higher Yield than expected. And still it's said that most of the energy came from Fission. There is also a huge amount of fizzle tests. Even if you study the peaceful nuclear power production, you find that you can actually calculate the Energy production with almost any isotope combination, and you will get about the same results. This is far from being accurate and well working concept.


    It's irrelevant if something is "widely used".


    I am able to understand it myself. This concept is actually even more simple, after you get into it.


    ...and finally, Thank you for your mental-analysis. I am used to hear such a proposals in a weekly basis. Unfortunately your inability to understand can't be explained with my "cognitive delusions". I have a confidence for this, as Swiss-state just invested >200 kCHF and a year for trying to find out if I am insane and whats the problem. This is related to my divorce, the main problem lies in deep cultural difference between Scandinavia and Swiss. The result was, that only verifiable abnormality is my IQ. (Even though the test was made with my 4th language.) So that's my problem, and cause I have been aware about this serious problem for 20 years, I have learned to live with it. According to plain statistic, I cannot even have a proper dialogue with over 80% of the population. This produces a behavior model, which lead the mental-analysts to assume that I may have a "Narcissistic personality disorder". But if this is properly tested, my results are ~12 in the scale of 0-40, when average is 15. If you really want to continue a dialogue about this issue, I do have solid arguments. Left over is a weak suspicion that I might have a "sensitive paranoia", --just because I don't trust to other people's abilities. Well, it comes simply from my life experience, but if someone wants to use word "paranoia" to describe this, I am fine, as it doesn't influence in reality. If you want to study this issue further, I do have 168-page 125 Mb scanned PDF in German language available.


    But I would like to talk about science; i.e. If my hypothesis is wrong, I am fine with that. You actually need only one good argument to change my mind.
    Here, in this forum, I am just trying to have a proper open minded dialogue about the science. And I am fully aware about the problems of discussing from my hypothesis. (I've faced these problems already myself) I mean if there is no Mass, how do you actually can define anything with the current language?
    Energy? Force? Power? Everything is messed with mass. What is Mass-less energy? Or What is Massless power?
    Luckily this was actually already solved allready by Leonhard Euler. I mean you can i.e. completely define a Turbomachine without a mass.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_pump_and_turbine_equation
    And the Gravitation can be defined with Froude's law. Everything was actually allready known. I only needed to rearrange it. But I must admit, that I am still in this situation (Youtube video);
    Feynman: 'Greek' versus 'Babylonian' mathematics
    I propose to look atleast 3:00->4:00
    So I am Babylonian. OK.
    And 8:20 -> to end.
    Maybe you understand, or maybe not, but can you even define me the mass ANY OTHER WAY than with a prototype?
    This is also advising video


    So I am sorry if I sometime Do write ie. the Pressure and Volume wrong, like I did in my previous comment. Writing first (PV=nRT) P1V1=3 P2V2 though the n1 vs. n2 was Obviously only 1.5x So, I simply forgot the incoming neutron and corrected my mistake.
    If this is my "Understanding problem",well no, I will definitively NOT take it personally. :)


    Ps. I even added my foto, for helping those who are defining the quality of arguments from speakers appearance. :)

  • An argument of authority may still have some merit here, especially if the subject claims to have already generated 168-pages of medical reports at the >200 kCHF cost. This is not meant to be pejorative in any way - it rather means, one should be prepared to switch into dual mode of reasoning separated from common reality with event horizon in causality space.


    Quote

    And the Gravitation can be defined with Froude's law.

    And does it? That means, can you be more specific (and coherent, if possible) about it?

  • If somebody fancies replicating the Buxerolle paper....


    [/b]and they are really serious about it, some time ago LFH were donated a gallon-can sized vintage hydrogen separator - the kind that has palladium/silver alloy tubes. Probably similar to those used in the original experiment above. As we currently have no use for it - and see no use for it in the future either - We are quite prepared to take a hacksaw to it and cut out a couple of the tubes and mail them free of charge - to a serious experimenter who will make the results public in LENR-Forum of course. ETA- sadly you must supply your own heavy water.


    Just another example of the hard-nosed commercial approach we take to LENR at www.Lookingforheat.com. ;)


  • And does it?


    Yes. It simply means that the "force" defines the mass through Accelaration.
    F/a=m. But you actually don't need to define any "force" [kg*m/s2], you can define everything with velocity squared [m2/s2], this is often denoted with Y, ie as "Theoretical Spesific supply" But we can call it with any name. This gives that Y/a=l, Means, divided with acceleration gives some length. [m]


    So take ie. "G" and divide it with "g" and get "AU". But the units are "wrong", no they are not. [kg= m3], so you end up wondering that the Earths density is 5.8 kg/m3 and this is impossible. Well, but what actually is the "surface" of a planet which defines it's "Volume".
    Why should it be the Material condensing point? I mean the Earth's atmosphere extends quite high. Ask from your "authority" what this means. My "authority" (calculator) provides me coherent answers.


    That means, can you be more specific (and coherent, if possible) about it?


    Please follow the Advice of Alan Smith and concentrate on science. It's only painful to me try to sort out your incoherence.
    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/coherence

    Quote

    When you say policies, arguments and strategies are coherent, you’re praising them for making sense.

    ... But I just might not be able to help you.


    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
    Albert Einstein


    So, pls. Just questions and arguments. And let's keep in mind, that we might never reach consensus about what is "right". I mean it's fully aloud for people to believe in ie. Geocentric model. There is nothing wrong about that. This model is so much easier to understand. It just left out the rest of the universe, and as such, the information is limited to a more comprehensive levels. I think 40% of the humans living now, can more easily follow this guy;

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    I follow rather this guy;

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Yet, not trying to forget that ONLY the NATURE has Right at the end.


    So what are you actually asking? And what you actually expect me to answer?


    There is no mass. It's pseudo thing. If you take the Mass prototype to moon, and start defining all the stuff in physics with this prototype. Do you expect to get the same results? Will the physics and all it's constants remain the same? (Ofcourse, if you use the scales calibrated in Earth.) But how would you calibrate your scales? Ofcourse the difference is very small in the case of the moon, but it still would a difference. -> This simple statement means that the "concept of MASS" is WRONG.
    The G is not even today constant; (not even in Earth)

    Quote

    Between 1973 and 2010, the lowest average value of G was 6.6659, and the highest 6.734, a 1.1 percent difference. These published values are given to at least 3 places of decimals, and sometimes to 5, with estimated errors of a few parts per million. Either this appearance of precision is illusory, or G really does change. The difference between recent high and low values is more than 40 times greater than the estimated errors (expressed as standard deviations).


    Your question is perfect, and waiting for a "Coherence" is gut thing to do. But what do you Want to Know;

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    How does a Person answer "why something happens?" (from 0.55->)


    There is no mass. It's pseudo thing. So thus ie. the Mass difference of isotopes can't provide any source of energy. If something is happening, like in Fusion and Fission indeed does, it's based on other reasons.
    Photon hasn't got mass, but it has energy. This should be already enough to give you the impression that there is something WRONG in mass-energy causality.

  • If somebody fancies replicating the Buxerolle paper....


    Why it should be replicated? Wasn't it already a replication itself? I personally accept the results, and have no particular means to have doubts that the test was honestly made.


    I also consider it potentially dangerous experiment. I mean the linear growing neutron-flux might first end from a disturbance. (Potential Explosion danger)
    I'd rather develop the hypothesis forward and tried to find some consistent theory behind this. At least for the critical level of neutron flux, where the test should be stopped, if the linear growth continues, as I expect it will.

  • Alan Smith wrote:
    If somebody fancies replicating the Buxerolle paper....


    Why it should be replicated? Wasn't it already a replication itself? I personally accept the results, and have no particular means to have doubts that the test was honestly made.


    You obviously didn't read the paper. The author says "Despite several trials, this experiment is unique and a single experiment is insufficient to understand the observed phenomena." So only performed a few times by the same team, not a direct replication of anything else either.


    Apart from that, the fact that you personally have no wish to perform a particular experiment is no reason to discourage anybody else. As for the risk profile - you would be amazed at the skill and experience some members could bring to bear on such and experiment.

  • You obviously didn't read the paper. The author says "Despite several trials, this experiment is unique and a single experiment is insufficient to understand the observed phenomena." So only performed a few times by the same team, not a direct replication of anything else either.


    Your right, I didn't read the full paper. I mostly skip the non-technical part. This text in Technical part made me to believe that this was a Replicating experiment. -Sorry.


    Quote

    Consequently, we conclude that an unexplained neutron emission was certainly observed. The largest net count
    was: 0.7 pulse/s. The estimate total neutron emission was: 3.8x 104 neutron/s with an uncertainty of about 20%. We
    note that, in the initial paper of Fleischmann and Pons ([1], p. 306), the neutron emission is nearly the same: 4 x 104
    neutron/s with a cathode 10 cm long and 4 mm in diameter.


    I don't want to discourage anyone from replicating the experiment. I just consider it's not quite safe. And I would at least stop the experiment after the same level of neutron emission is reached, as in these previous non-dangerous tests.
    And then I would like to run the test few times, to see if the turbulence has a role in this.


    Do you have the needed heavy water available in UK? If this is only about some third party testing, and just replicating the stuff?