NASA: New Paper about Experimental Progress

TTHuxley "At very least I will properly explain Figure 2"

I look forward to Tom Tom and Tom explaining Figure 2 with their revitalized A-level chemistry skills.

TTHuxley "At very least I will properly explain Figure 2"

I look forward to Tom Tom and Tom explaining Figure 2 with their revitalized A-level chemistry skills.

@Bocjin

Personal arguments here are not necessary - I actually don't like them - nor do they help your case.

I'll do what I promised for this paper, since it and the work on Ichimaru on which it depends interests me, and I think should interest others here. But, I understand my presence on this site is perhaps not much wanted, and I'm not one to stay here in that case. You will notice my posts have scaled down recently, and will no doubt do so more in the future.

"and the work on Ichimaru on which it depends interests me"

Equation 17 depends on

A.I. Chugunov, H.E. DeWitt, D.G. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2) (2007) 025028.

It makes interesting reading. In turn it depends on

G. Gamow, Z. Phys. 51 (1928) 24. and a whole host of other competent physicists.

I will not be sorry to see such generalised political statements such as

"don't ask, just accept authority" go from this forum

and your idea that IH is some kind if scientific authority.

@THH

I value your contributions very highly, as I am sure many others do, because of;

Your ability for technical analyses.

The clarity of your posts.

You are always willing to look at the counter evidence and consider that you may need to change your mind.

You are always polite and civilized, in short a gentleman.

Your postings have certainly played a significant part in shaping my opinions and 1,990 likes received suggests I am not the only one.

It is true that the postings have dropped off since the trial concluded and there is less data to pick over, but the search for LENR continues while we wait for the fog to clear. You are one of the main individuals helping the rest of us to see through that fog.

There is always a background noise of various parties suggesting that this site would be better off if a view they do not like was no longer voiced. There are many echo chambers on the Internet for such people.

By all means step back, I am sure you have more important things to do, but please do not let some ill-mannered insults cause you to abandon this site.

In a small way this is perhaps what some LENR researchers have to put up with.

Sure, replication helps. But only if the replicated results are released.

The US govt has put quite a bit of money into way out projects with high risk/reward, as many would argue it should. Look, for example, at Polywell (funded by Navy for a long time trying to get Bussard's fusion ideas to work). This is one such way out idea, now starting to enter a validation phase. There does not seem to have been much validation so far, just better understanding, which as you know can mean a lot or nothing according to whether the assumptions under which it is got are correct. And getting to this stage does not mean a high chance of success - there are lots of these way out ideas funded, and few ever pan out. They would however be interesting, were it not to be enmeshed in non-disclosure.

I seem to remember the NIAC ideas were at one time all nicely open. A shame these are not.

Following the trail. One of the clear mysteries, noted by Prados-estevez et al, is the discrepancy between theoretical and measured screening potentials in these low energy systems with strongly coupled plasma.

There is been quite a bit of experimental and theoretical work since the theory is highly relevant to Astrophysics. The nice thing about following this trail is that most of the people concerned don't have a clear vested interest in what the enhancement factors and screening potentials are - they just want to get things right. Czerski seems to have a reasonably good overview of the work (having done a good deal himself) and I have not found anything yet more complete than Czerski16. Still not a finished story but it looks like a D-D resonance relevant at low energies that generates the apparent higher than expected screening potentials in D-D fusion when measured at medium low energies. At lower energies the enhancement is less and this is consistent with the theoretical value +/- 10%. But, as I say, not a finished story yet.

Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 2005

Observation of ion temperatures exceeding background electron temperatures in petawatt laser-solid experiments (Norreys et al)

Shows that it is possible to get transient ion temperatures in a plasma much higher than electron temperatures given the right stimulation. It requires care because normal e-m stimulation will transfer more energy to electrons than ions (because they are lighter and so absorb much more energy from electric and magnetic fields) but there are ways round this.

In the above paper they measure best case 150keV ion vis 900ev electrons in a thin film stimulated by the laser pulse.

The normal state of a metal hydride would be (in equilibrium) ion temp = electron temp = temp. Given decent electric or magnetic stimulation: electron temp > ion temp ~ temp.

Worth pointing out that normally electrons and ions equilibrate in 100s of ps or less (for example copper the figure is < 10ps) so these temperature differences need continuous stimulation.

• Thanks Lars .Supercomputer "debug"?

This multi-author supercomputer simulation is not my cup of tea..

Not sure what parameters are used.

Perhaps through a combination of heuristics/ parameter checking

the authors are approaching reality?

Screening/tunnelling is a grey area. the discrepancies between theory and reality are large

Neither the Wavefunction model nor Mills so called'classical' model are very successful

at least with alpha particle decay rates

www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/mp/doc/qp_se_fdm.pdf

lenr-forum.com/attachment/3220/

lenr-forum.com/attachment/3220/

The best calculations of the alpha decay rate that I am aware of can diverge from the experimental rate by up to two orders of magnitude (or more?). If one steps back, one can allow that a model is still decent despite the lack of precision, given the enormous range in alpha decay rates. But my assumption is that there are one or more additional parameters at play that are not being incorporated into calculations. This opens up the possibility of significant variation in the experimental value under the right (unknown) circumstances. The Simakin and Shafeev study, if correct, provides evidence for this possibility.

Hi Eric. its good to agree on something finally

definitely "there are one or more additional parameters at play that"are not in the theoretical calculations ...even GU Mills would agree on that.

I'm not sure if

Simakin and Shafeev's

"The most probable mechanism of laser acceleration of nuclear decays is the perturbation of electronic shells of unstable elements in the field of intense laser wave "

is true..but it sounds OK to me

It's been a while since I've read the paper, but I share your pessimism that Simakin and Shafeev have identified the missing parameter. But my own bias in this case is towards something happening with electron screening, which is broadly related to their suggestion.

Quote from Ahlfors

Microstructure Evolution of Ti Tritides During Aging

https://www.cambridge.org/core…6E3F811A0CFB8A4317A002B01

10 GPa, not bad.

If you read the whole paper:

But most researchers think all the helium are in helium bubbles. To
figure it out, we comparing the images of sample with and without tilt 4º, The contrast of the helium
bubbles have great changes and some helium bubbles disappear, some new helium bubbles appear.
When observing the sample through the other side, all the helium bubbles are renewed, only several
helium bubbles could be figured out, but their intensities faded very much. Thiebaut had simulate the
bubble contrast in Pd tritides showed that the contrast is affected by the position of the bubble in the
sample thickness, It increase when the bubble is close to the lower surface of the specimen [3]. This
means only helium bubbles close to the one side of surface are observed by TEM, and there are many
more helium bubbles have not been observed in the current TEM analysis technique. Considering the
loss of helium from both surface of samples, the density of helium bubbles obtain by TEM should be
increased by several times to one order of magnitude.

They (in this paper) think the pressure is 2 - 10 X smaller than 10GPa (because the number of bubbles larger than was previously thought).

As always, the devil lies in the detail!

THH

Subashiev replied to my enquiry about the lattice confinement paper.

The authors use 394 eV for Ni ,and 800 ev for Pd for Uo to calculate the KT values for Ni and Pd

They use U/KT as a saddlepoint? at value=170.

Their screening factors of 147 and 152 follow from that.

Since these are exponential terms( as in" e" not "10") they have a huge effect on reactivity.

Tue 3/10/2017 3:49 AM "Dear Robert,

Thank you for your message and the preprint by Mizuno Tadayuki, we also had ideas along these lines.

As to your question:

Fig 2 shows the log(R) variation calculated using Eqs. (14) and (17). According to Eq. (16) the former Eqs., as well as Fig. 2, are applicable till U/kT <170. At U/kT >170 the enhancement factor fails to grow and the exponential decline of reactivity resumes. So, the optimal excitation energy is calculated as kT=U/170, which gives the values kT = 2.317 eV for Ni, kT = 3.941 for Pt and kT = 4.706 eV for Pd. These values are presented in the paper. As to the values of the enhancement factor logarithm, they also should be calculated at U/kT =170 as the difference between the screened and unscreened values, so, they are considerably larger than your estimates (as can be seen in Fig. 2). Finally, note that the values of the factor presented in the paper correspond to Eq. (17) . I.e. they give the values of ln (R), while in Fig. (2) depicted is log(R). Therefore the values estimated from the Figure in a way that you did will be 2.3 times smaller than what is presented in the paper. I hope that this note will give an answer to your concerns,

Best regards,

For the authors:

Arsen Subashiev "