Edmund Storms: Q&A ON THE NAE

Holmlid is indeed pushing his pet model everywhere in the same way, like you do (except that for you the fundamental theory changes each month, because you're just collecting the ideas of others).

But I don't think, that the formation of some special phase of hydrogen is necessary and it could be even process competing the cold fusion, once we admit that the cold fusion runs as a result of collisions of nickel and hydrogen nuclei (proton capture leading to copper or beryllium at the case of lithium presence) - not hydrogen nuclei itself. The proton capture has been routinely observed during electrolysis of alkali-metal carbonate solutions at nickel cathode, during which the potassium, strontium or barium ions gets formed. Such a mechanism disfavors the role of dense hydrogen formation, because the leading step will be the reaction of proton with metal nuclei, not with another proton. So that the formation of larger islands of dense hydrogen would inhibit the fusion instead of promote, because the fusion couldn't run inside these islands.

We still don't know, what gets really primarily formed inside the ECat: helium or copper. Once the copper would be formed primarily, then the proton-nickel capture would be leading step of cold fusion and the dense hydrogen phase would have no meaning there, on the contrary - the islands of dense hydrogen would be inert to fusion because the cold fusion could run only at the nickel and hydrogen interface.

Another problem with dense hydrogen concept is the Occam razor principle: OK, so it's present during cold fusion - but what it does really explain? How it could help the cold fusion? Does the presence of dense hydrogen during cold fusion lead into some testable predictions? In this moment I can see none - except that it disfavors all proton capture based mechanisms (which were already proven experimentally). In construction of physical theories a simple rule exists: "hypotheses non fingo" (don't invent hypothesis, if you don't have to).

Until you have no practical usage for some concept, don't use it.

The existing hot fusion models are also based on random particle collisions. But due to chaotic and high dimensional nature of plasma collisions the impact of three and more protons at the same moment remains improbable. From this reason the distribution of collisions energies will be described with equipartiton function and the high energy and temperature of plasma collisions necessary for initiation of hot fusion follows from thermodynamical principles. It brings the vicious circle for hot fusion: with increased temperature the collision energy increases, but it also decreases the time, for which the neutrons will get a time for fusion. And it also decreases the overall yield of fusion, because much energy will get wasted during fast acceleration and braking of particles with synchrotron radiation. Above certain temperature limit the further increase of plasma temperature will neither speed-up the hot fusion, neither increase the yield of energy. In addition, the high energy of reaction products, neutrons and X-rays in particular makes the practical utilization of fusion reaction difficult, because they will induce radioactivity in all materials which they impact.

The situation will radically change once we admit the motion of particles along two or one dimension only, which is common inside the metal lattice, their dislocations the more. From this perspective the crystal lattice is the miracle of nature - its mathematically perfect arrangement of atoms brings quite new opportunities from entropic perspective, the outcome of which would significantly differ from naive random collisions models in many orders of magnitude.

The simplest way how to imagine the cold fusion is the system of many pistons and anvils which collide mutually along lines of atoms within crystal lattice and which multiply the inertia and momentum of individual atoms. In addition, there are many other favorable effects, which will apply to the arrangement of atoms along single line. In dense aether model this arrangement strongly promotes the entanglement and formation of one-dimensional condensate. It's sorta small scale analogy of Alais effect, which occurs during conjunctions of planets and it results from Le-Sage shielding model of interactions. Under such a situation the gamma rays and neutrons will propagate slowly and they will be guided with area of dense vacuum (pilot wave) formed along connection line of atom nuclei, which would prohibit their scattering into outside. The slow motion of neutrons increases the time for fusion reaction from Lawson criterion perspective and it also makes the thermalization of reaction products easier. The shielding of electrons can also apply more effectively in lower number of dimensions.

From this perspective the low-dimensional effects promoting the cold fusion within crystal lattices are gift from heavens, because they enable to run the fusion in much cleaner and effective way, than the hot fusion could ever do.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Does the presence of dense hydrogen during cold fusion lead into some testable predictions? In this moment I can see none - except that it disfavors all proton capture based mechanisms (which were already proven experimentally). In construction of physical theories a simple rule exists: "hypotheses non fingo" (don't invent hypothesis, if you don't have to).

[Ultra-]Dense deuterium atoms will eventually fuse each other spontaneously due to their short interatomic distance, and this can already predict many of the reported results in the LENR field. The material can also be stimulated for particle emission. Proton emission was reported in 2012 by Holmlid et al. in Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense protium p(-1): Laser-initiated self-compression from p(1). A possible hypothesis/mechanism for this was provided (read excerpts below). This could predict several of the results of LENR researchers using protium with specific activation methods that include short energetic impulses.

Before you start ranting (once again) that the laser used by Holmlid has a too high intensity and so it doesn't apply for LENR, complete Nd:YAG devices with similar laser pulse specifications are available for 1000-1500 euro on Ebay and are used among other things used for tattoo removal. They can be dangerous but they're actually not as powerful and specialized devices as you routinely make them seem to be. Economy of scale could probably make them much cheaper.

The problem with most of the LENR hypothesises is the implausible mechanism. For example: collisions. There are all kinds of circumstances in industrial processes where heat generated collisions between atoms occur, inclusive hydrated metals in static electrical fields. Nevertheless, there are no reports of frequently occurrences of exceptional heat production.

Unfortunately, nearly every supposed mechanism is absurd. Because palladium hydride isn’t a reactive chemical or nuclear active mixture of elements. It doesn’t bond to atmospheric chemicals in a spontaneous way and it doesn’t radiate or adsorb elementary particles and quasi-particles. So when we propose a “hidden” mechanism with the help of these extravagant phenomena, we face the challenge to elucidate why other simple mixtures don’t show these extraordinary properties.

May be one of the problems in LENR is the origin of the researchers. Some are electrochemists like Fleishmann and Pons, and others are chemists or experimental physicists. Theoretical physicists are overrunning these researchers with all kinds of exotic particles and quasi-particles (and their related composed fields) so most researchers are “shopping” within this abundantly supply to find a nice hypothesis.

I don’t want to say that theoretical physicists have a perfect model of the micro reality (99% are adepts of phenomenology). However, non-theoretical physicists are mostly fixated on the distinct phenomena. So they don’t think about the causation behind the general properties of these particles and forces because they take them for granted.

When people investigate unknown phenomena one should expect that after decades of fruitless attempts, there must come a time that researchers start to doubt about their theoretical approach of the problems. It is strange, but it seldom happens. In theoretical physics they are searching for the cause behind quantum field theory for nearly a century. Fruitless.

LENR-forums are the source of a never ending story of proposals. It doesn’t stop. Visitors post their opinion and after some time of fruitless discussions they start other activities. New visitors take their place and the same proposals start again. The question is: must we take it as a problem or can we smile about it?

In physics the energy density is what matter for initiation of reactions. For example, even the gigawatt microwave oven will not split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, because the activation energy for water splitting (1.24 eV) is higher than the energy density of microwave radiation (1.7e-5 eV for 4.2 GHz microwave radiation). This applies for noncoherent black body radiation, only. Once you're using laser, then the effective temperature and energy of such coherent radiation depends on the spectral width, which can get extremely narrow for laser. The effective temperature and energy density of such monochromatic radiation is actually a much higher. That means, you can heat the object at nearly arbitrary temperature, once you're using a powerful enough laser.

Quote

LENR-forums are the source of a never ending story of proposals. It doesn’t stop.Visitors post their opinion and after some time of fruitless discussions they start other activities. New visitors take their place and the same proposals start again. The question is: must we take it as a problem or can we smile about it?

This is not a problem of some LENR forum only, but cold fusion research in general. Everyone wants to gets his five minutes of glory, everyone wants to be listened and everyone is lazy or even dismissive in reading the opinion of others, or just opinions expressed at previous web page of forum. The byproduct of this stance is general unwillingness for exact citations and replications of experiments - everyone wants to be remain creative at least a bit. This is general evolutionary trait, which utilizes the mutations for acceleration of progress.

But at the moment, when the success of subject depends on number of parameters, the influence of which isn't known yet, such an attitude leads into slowing of progress instead and into premature dismissal of many accidental observations, because no one uses the same conditions, like the original successful study. At the case of findings of economical importance the original authors of original experiments even intentionally hide these experimental details before public - which renders their replication virtually impossible.

It's evident, that existing scientific methods lose their effectiveness during research of emergent phenomena under the situation, when technological progress enables to see the reality more complex instead of simpler. This is quite new situation in physics, because the technological progress before one century enabled us to simplify the models of reality instead (quantum mechanics and general relativity). In sociology it corresponds the situation, when the democracy loses its effectiveness and the dictatorship and totalitarian regimes become more effective than democracy, which may justify the policies of Donald Trump of Chinese politburo, because the wisdom of crowd fails in determining of the most effective path of future progress due to limited timespan and scope of interest of its peers.

My dense aether model deals with this gnoseologic problem in detail, because it's emergent by its very nature.

Quote

The problem with most of the LENR hypothesises is the implausible mechanism. Forexample: collisions. There are all kinds of circumstances in industrial processes where heat generated collisions between atoms occur, inclusive hydrated metals in static electrical fields. Nevertheless, there are no reports of frequently occurrences of exceptional heat production.

The analogies for cold fusion mechanism already exist, but they're widely ignored like every other boundary phenomena, which seemingly of factually violates established theories. One of them is the unreasonable effectiveness of electromagnetic waves of certain particular frequency in splitting the water molecules. In this case this effectiveness comes on par with the effectiveness of initiation of cold fusion reactions. For example in 2007 radio-engineer John Kanzius observed splitting of water by polarized radiowaves. During tests of his device he observed an evolution of hydrogen, which can be ignited by lighter and these observations were confirmed and replicated by materials scientist at Pennsylvania State University. Recently we could read about another replication of this effect at the Gigahertz scale with Petros Zorographos. I'm linking these reports here from good reason.

What makes these observations remarkable is the fact, we can observe the splitting of water molecules, requiring activation energy of about 1,3 eV by radiowave frequency energy density range (13 MHz) - i.e. 5.10E-8 eV). This is the same ratio of energy density, like the inducing cold fusion requiring 10 MeV for activation by electrochemical potential 1 eV in palladium cell. Both these phenomena can therefore share similar high-level mechanism - and this mechanism must remain independent of distance and energy density scales. Which excludes all proposals based on special particles (muons, pions, hydrino etc) or phases (superconcuctivity, rydberg matter or metallic hydrogen) - because these mechanisms cannot apply for water, yet the similar amplification of energy occurs there. Therefore if you could explain the 10⁸ amplification of energy density during splitting of water molecules, you should be also able to explain the 10⁸ amplification of energy density during cold fusion activation - this indeed makes the search for underlying mechanism a way more trivial.

Well, the subject are the questions of Ed Storms: palladium based cold fusion. So I don’t want to dive into all kinds of examples that propose a LENR mechanism. I only conclude that after many decades there isn’t a reliable theory. And when – after so long – there is no theory I personally expect that there must be a “restart” of the theoretical base instead of introducing more and more “hocus pocus” physics.

I don’t say that quantum theory is a failure, I only say that physicists are searching for the underlying mechanism and after nearly a century of theoretical research, there is no reliable result. Just to underline that we humans have difficulties to examine our previous assumptions over and over again.

There are people at the LENR-forum who are “longing” for results. Undoubtedly because a new save source of thermal energy is highly needed for a crowded planet. However, reality shows that there is no result. So my question is: how do we face our own position when we continue our talks about LENR? Just being amused about our curiosity or is there another aim? Because nobody has to be uncertain about the information supply of successful cold fusion applications. The media will inform us all.

Quote

So I don’t want to dive into all kinds of examples that propose a LENR mechanism. I only conclude that after many decades there isn’t a reliable theory. And when – after so long – there is no theory I personally expect that there must be a “restart”

versus

Quote

LENR-forums are the source of a never ending story of proposals. It doesn’t stop.Visitors post their opinion and after some time of fruitless discussions they start other activities. New visitors take their place and the same proposals start again.

This is just what I'm talking about - the people simply don't listen the others. Instead of it they propose another cycle of proposals - exactly the one, which they're just complained against. It's just you, who cannot stop with development of new theories - not me.

Quote

there must be a “restart” of the theoretical base instead of introducing more and more “hocus pocus” physics.

One idea about LENR that must go is that LENR is based on fusion.

Zephir_AWT,

The questions of Ed Storms are a request by AlainCo for a reliable hypothesis. That’s the subject of this topic. Sorry, I cannot help it.

However, I blame no one for the way it goes. I only tried to figure out the nearly dead-end situation.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Which excludes all proposals based on special particles (muons, pions, hydrino etc) or phases (superconcuctivity, rydberg matter or metallic hydrogen) - because these mechanisms cannot apply for water, yet the similar amplification of energy occurs there. Therefore if you could explain the 10⁸ amplification of energy density during splitting of water molecules, you should be also able to explain the 10⁸ amplification of energy density during cold fusion activation - this indeed makes the search for underlying mechanism a way more trivial.

This paper explains how the cavitation bubble produces Surface plasmon polaritons. SPP can amplify EMF by a factor of 10^9.

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

The Study of Cavitation Bubble- Surface Plasmon Resonance
Interaction For LENR and Biochemical processes

Quote

SPP can amplify EMF by a factor of 10^9

This mechanism must be able to amplify the energy at the energy scales both 5.10E-8 eV (radiowaves) both 1 eV (heat waves). Surface plasmons cannot apply to Kanzius process, because there are 1) no surfaces 2) no freely movable electrons (surface plasmons apply to metals) 3) energy of microwaves is too low (surface plasmon absorbtion applies to the ultraviolet spectrum, only few metals (gold, copper) absorb with plasmons in visible range).

Quote from Zephir_AWT

This mechanism must be able to amplify the energy at the energy scales both 5.10E-8 eV (radiowaves) both 1 eV (heat waves). Surface plasmons cannot apply to Kanzius process, because there are 1) no surfaces 2) no freely movable electrons (surface plasmons apply to metals) 3) energy of microwaves is too low (surface plasmon absorbtion applies to the ultraviolet spectrum, only few metals (gold, copper) absorb with plasmons in visible range).

Please provide references that contradict the reference that I provided.

Unfortunately the available literature sources about absence of pink unicorns at Mars are still very sparse - you cannot cite them as an evidence of this absence. But why to adhere on surface waves, once the water is elastic and it mediates longitudinal waves as well? And why to adhere on bubbles, once the water contains some clusters? Why to invent the stuffs, which we actually don't have to?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Unfortunately the available literature sources about absence of pink unicorns at Mars is still very sparse - you cannot cite it as the evidence of this absence. But why to adhere on surface waves, once the water is elastic and it mediates longitudinal waves as well? And why to adhere on bubbles, once the water contains the clusters? Why to invent the stuffs, which we actually don't have to?

Why do you invent stuff when it is obviously apparent. Prove this modus operandi invalid with references.

There are no surface plasmons inside the water: water has no surfaces and no free electrons, being nonconductive.