Other than the excess heat, tritium, X-rays, and gamma rays, of course.
None are credible or (importantly) commensurate.
"Wouldn’t a nuclear reactor help out by producing it’s own additional neutrons, chain reaction style?"
If they were relying on chain reactions in U-235 e.g., they wouldn't need LENR.
The idea is that fast neutrons can cause fission of the much more abundant U-238 (or even Th-232). However, unlike U-235, U-238 and Th-232 do not sustain chain reactions.
Tom Claytor, who is working with these guys knows as much about particle detection as anybody on the planet. If he signed off on this, you can bet he has analysed it 6 ways from Sundays
Claytor spent a decade chasing tritium in cold fusion in the 90s, and in the early part, he was confident, but in the last report I found of that work in 1998, it's clear they hadn't answered any interesting questions about it, and hadn't gotten a single prestigious publication out of it. That 1998 paper explains that "due to the subtle and weak nature of the signals observed, we have taken many precautions and checks to prevent contamination and to confirm the tritium is not due to an artifact". And of course the tritium claims have led to nothing, so I wouldn't put much weight on him signing off on anything.
Well, no. GEC will pay GRC 341 k to conduct tests of GECs reactor. GRC will provide space and utilities, and assist in data recording, The two organizations are not partners in anything other than running some tests. The responsibilities of GRC are quite specific, and participating in development is mentioned nowhere.
WRB,
They say right there in the agreement that GEC is to be referred to as "partner", and that the partnership "shall be for the purpose of NASA and GEC to develop a 10kW thermal power generator".
So the headline is not sensational, and is factual. That said, after further reading of the agreement, I made a comment in a later post that GEC is "doing the heavy lifting".
This is quite a newsworthy story in LENR land, and it baffles me that you choose to focus on that, instead of the ramifications of NASA and GEC partnering up.
And this is not all there is to the collaboration, as Ahlfors hinted to you about in his pictorial message.
There are other areas of cooperation between NASA/JWK/GEC/SPAWAR that have been the topic of a few other threads.
Also, it should be noted that NASA is pretty careful in this agreement to insist that the agreement does *not* constitute endorsement from NASA. They, after all, do participate in some pretty far out ideas, like anti-gravity.
In spite of the confidence expressed over on ECW, I'm all but certain that this too shall pass.
LR,
You are nit-picking. This is just a legal formality that in no way diminishes the significance of this partnership.
And your attempt to discredit the NASA/GEC partnership by linking it to anti-gravity won't work. GEC is a legitimate company, and NASA is one of the finest, and most respected institutions in the world.
You need to leave your Ivory Tower more often. Your ad-homs are a little rusty. 
And you shall see soon, real soon for sure, that this one may not pass as the others before.
LR,
You are nit-picking. This is just a legal formality that in no way diminishes the significance of this partnership.
NASA has been involved in various capacities with LENR since the beginning, probably peaking with the Bushnell and Zawodny tag-team. Never led to anything significant before, so there is not much significance to diminish.
"GEC is a legitimate company, and NASA is one of the finest, and most respected institutions in the world."
GEC claimed to have a deal to sell working power reactors to Guam (was it?). If they're legit, then why would they go from selling working power reactors to validating a tiny reactor many years later? Their web site, when it existed, did not suggest legitimacy to me.
NASA is fine and respected, yes, but they are huge, and huge companies can't help but hire a few crack-pots. Which is why they have investigated anti-gravity and cold fusion.
GEC claimed to have a deal to sell working power reactors to Guam (was it?). If they're legit, then why would they go from selling working power reactors to validating a tiny reactor many years later?
Good point. With Forsley and Mosier-Boss becoming more accessible, maybe we will eventually get an answer to that.
LR,
Curious what you and your colleagues think about all the transmutations being reported? Nothing new as they have been observed for 100 years, but it seems nowadays, whoever looks specifically, finds them; India, Japanese, Russians, Safire.
Contaminants are easy to find when you look.
It is a remarkable coincidence that of the new nuclides observed, they are all stable, and present in nature with very similar isotopic ratios.
Of the more than 3000 nuclides that have been experimentally characterized, only 253 are stable, so the production of unstable products in nuclear reactions (especially involving larger nuclides) is overwhelmingly favored, and in many of the claimed reactions, are necessary intermediates. Plus, the sensitivity and specificity for unstable nuclei is a million times better. Yet they only claim stable, naturally occurring nuclides. Contamination is the only statistically plausible explanation.
They are very emphatic about what they are seeing also. Nothing subtle at all about their comments.
Yea, all the Rossi supporters were very emphatic and non-subtle about the ecat too. Some still are. And yet you seem to have abandoned Rossi.
Updating your beliefs in accordance with new information? A difficult concept for some, perhaps.
Updating one's interpretation based on new evidence should come as easily as breathing for anyone serious about science. Changing one's beliefs based on how emphatic or non-subtle the latest prophets are, especially *without* good evidence, should be avoided by anyone serious about science. Rossi demonstrates that in spades.
BEC,
I do not interpret it that way. If you keep reading, it is clear that GEC is paying NASA a nominal fee for the services/facilities they will provide, and that it is GEC doing most of the heavy lifting.
No argument but is seems like people thought GEC was being paid by NASA not the other way around.
Good evidence in todays world would be handed to the same group teaching high school kids calling on gun control and the need to band guns from other adults.
Display MoreWRB,
They say right there in the agreement that GEC is to be referred to as "partner", and that the partnership "shall be for the purpose of NASA and GEC to develop a 10kW thermal power generator".
So the headline is not sensational, and is factual. That said, after further reading of the agreement, I made a comment in a later post that GEC is "doing the heavy lifting".
This is quite a newsworthy story in LENR land, and it baffles me that you choose to focus on that, instead of the ramifications of NASA and GEC partnering up.
And this is not all there is to the collaboration, as Ahlfors hinted to you about in his pictorial message.
There are other areas of cooperation between NASA/JWK/GEC/SPAWAR that have been the topic of a few other threads.
And you are working very hard to misunderstand.
Yes, GRC and GEC are partners - within the bounds of the contract described.
And that contract does not in any way, shape or fashion imply that GRC (let alone NASA as a whole) is attempting to develop GEC's concept. The two organizations are partnered to run tests of one or more reactors which GRC will provide. And the only certain benefit which GRC stands to gain is $341 k.
If you will refer to your OP, you stated that " this important document that shows GEC, represented by Dr. Jay Khim, signing an agreement on 12/20/2017, to partner with NASA GRC to develop an LENR based 10kW (later to be scaled to 100kWs) generator" . It's only "important" if NASA is involved in attempting to help develop such a generator. If GRC is simply being paid to run tests, it's interesting but not important.
And GRC is simply being paid to run tests. Read the documents you linked to.
Some interesting discussion and debate after a long dry spell.
Of the more than 3000 nuclides that have been experimentally characterized, only 253 are stable, so the production of unstable products in nuclear reactions (especially involving larger nuclides) is overwhelmingly favored
This is assuming something like neutron addition. If the process is akin to spontaneous fission, stable and very short-lived radionuclides might be expected.
(Here I am weighing in on the matter of what are purportedly stable daughters, not the matter of generating neutrons to drive further reactions.)
This is assuming something like neutron addition. If the process is akin to spontaneous fission, stable and very short-lived radionuclides might be expected.
Many of the claimed transmutations are from neutron or "dineutron" or proton capture, sometimes several steps with unstable intermediates. And fission usually produces unstable products because of excess neutrons. Stable products are characteristic of very long time periods for the unstables to decay. Immediate products of most reactions involve unstable products in general. And since they claim dozens of transmutation products, it is not plausible that not one would be sufficiently unstable to generate measurable radiation.
The SPAWAR group is claiming to be able to induce fission and to stabilize radioactive waste. Well, instead of making such claims based on supposed evidence of stable starting and ending points, or disputed evidence of neutrons, why doesn't someone somewhere take a radioactive source and demonstrate that they can reduce the activity? Or take a stable sample, and demonstrate they can increase the activity? *That* kind of transmutation could be detected at far far lower levels, and the measurements would be far more specific than mass spectrometry of stable atoms.
In spite of all the blue sky talk of waste remediation, I am not aware of a single claim where they have been able to change the activity of any sample up or down. Or for that matter, produced a stable nuclide not abundantly present in nature.
And you are working very hard to misunderstand
Or you are not being very clear.
And that contract does not in any way, shape or fashion imply that GRC (let alone NASA as a whole) is attempting to develop GEC's concept
In my other post, I replied to you that the agreement states:
"shall be for the purpose of NASA and GEC to develop a 10kW thermal power generator". So?
And then I went on to explain that, after reading the rest of the document, it is clear that GEC does most of the heavy lifting. Understandable, as they are the ones having nurtured this technology for 11 years, or more.
But in re-reading the agreement just now because you told me to , it appears NASA signed onto more of an active (partner) role than I previously thought after first read.
And knowing government like I do, I will venture to say that they will be all over this project, and provide far more man power, and provisions than what the contract envisions.
If you will refer to your OP, you stated that " this important document that shows GEC, represented by Dr. Jay Khim, signing an agreement on 12/20/2017, to partner with NASA GRC to develop an LENR based 10kW (later to be scaled to 100kWs) generator" . It's only "important" if NASA is involved in attempting to help develop such a generator. If GRC is simply being paid to run tests, it's interesting but not important.
We have NASA actively partnering with GEC on what could be described as a cutting edge, LENR related technology. If it is real as GEC claims, it will revolutionize space travel, and shortly thereafter upend science here on terra firma...embarrassing the hell out of Louis in the process. I say that is important. You say it is not.
Louis,
"Many of the claimed transmutations are from neutron or 'dineutron' or proton capture, sometimes several steps with unstable intermediates."
I agree that if there were neutron capture, "dineutron" capture, proton capture or detueron capture, the products would generally be unstable. The first thing I do when reading a LENR paper is to ignore or forget whatever suggested explanation is provided and just focus on the experimental section.
"And fission usually produces unstable products because of excess neutrons."
Because fission in general is a synonym for actinide fission, the parents are so heavy that the daughters lie far from the line of stability.
"Stable products are characteristic of very long time periods for the unstables to decay. Immediate products of most reactions involve unstable products in general. And since they claim dozens of transmutation products, it is not plausible that not one would be sufficiently unstable to generate measurable radiation."
There are multiple claims of short-lived radiation (e.g., half-lives of hours). This would be expected of very light fission daughters if fission of a medium mass nucleus could be engineered.
"The SPAWAR group is claiming to be able to induce fission and to stabilize radioactive waste. Well, instead of making such claims based on supposed evidence of stable starting and ending points, or disputed evidence of neutrons, why doesn't someone somewhere take a radioactive source and demonstrate that they can reduce the activity? Or take a stable sample, and demonstrate they can increase the activity? *That* kind of transmutation could be detected at far far lower levels, and the measurements would be far more specific than mass spectrometry of stable atoms."
I very much agree. I await the day that LENR researchers who claim reliable results will take a a closer look at radioactive nuclides and try to tackle these questions.
"In spite of all the blue sky talk of waste remediation, I am not aware of a single claim where they have been able to change the activity of any sample up or down."
Not sure I fully understand your complaint, but there are several such claims, e.g., as made in this 1987 patent by William Barker:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5076971
I vaguely recall claims to change activity among LENR researchers, e.g. George Miley. The question for me is whether there is any reproducible "lab rat" experiment to be found among or derived from such experiments.
"Or for that matter, produced a stable nuclide not abundantly present in nature."
This would surely be interesting, but possibly inconsistent with whatever mechanism might be at play assuming a subset of LENR results are real.
Not sure I fully understand your complaint, but there are several such claims, e.g., as made in this 1987 patent by William Barker:
From the patent:
"The stimulus can be applied to the radioactive materials by placing such materials within the sphere or terminal of a Van de Graaff generator where they are subjected to the electrical potential of the generator, such as in the range of 50 kilovolts to 500 kilovolts, for at least a period of 30 minutes or more."
This is stupid. Things cannot be subjected to an electric potential, only to electric fields. There is no electric field inside the terminal. It forms a Faraday's cage.
Hair raising patent ... and physics:
I agree that if there were neutron capture, "dineutron" capture, proton capture or detueron capture, the products would generally be unstable. The first thing I do when reading a LENR paper is to ignore or forget whatever suggested explanation is provided and just focus on the experimental section.
The experimental sections claim transmutations from the existing elements that correspond to captures, and could not be explained by fission. So the absence of unstable nuclides remains a valid objection.
“Because fission in general is a synonym for actinide fission, the parents are so heavy that the daughters lie far from the line of stability.”
If fission is to be exothermic, then there has to be an excess of neutrons (not counting alpha decay as fission). The increase in binding energy per nucleon resulting from fission is because of the long-range repulsive Coulomb force is compensated by additional neutrons as the size increases beyond mid-size.
“There are multiple claims of short-lived radiation (e.g., half-lives of hours). This would be expected of very light fission daughters if fission of a medium mass nucleus could be engineered.”
Again, fission of a medium mass would not be exothermic (not considering alpha decay as fission). And the unstable products are not necessarily short-lived. Ni-64 to two Si-28 (half-life 153 years). Ni-58 to Al-26 (700,000 years) and P-32 (14 days). In any case, radiation associated with such unstable nuclides (even short-lived) would be highly specific identifying the nuclide unambiguously. I have not seen such claims. Claims of radiation in cold fusion experiments are usually vague, non-repeatable, and unidentifiable: tracks or elevated count rate in a GM tube. The one gamma energy reported by Piantelli of a lone 661 keV peak happens to correspond to Cs-137, a common calibrant found in many physics labs.
