Atom-Ecology

  • There is another level of analysis that Russ et al is not doing that is required to understand what is going on in LENR. Looking at instrument counts and tables of data only gets you so far. A detailed microscopic analysts of the LENR reactor structure and used fuel will show the quantum mechanical mechanisms that underlay LENR.


    This post was original submitted in the Atom-Ecology thread and if not found there has been considered by the moderators to be a crazy idea.

    More nonsense in the form of pointed insinuations which ignore my years of history working with the finest technologies in the world on detailed gross scale and microscopic materials science studies of known to be active cold fusion materials in before and after studies. Assisting me in my materials science pursuits of cold fusion have been many world class institutions and individuals. This ain't my first rodeo, nor do I sit in the stands and merely watch and make cat calls, the only way to learn rodeo is to ride. Yippie ki yay.

    :)

  • This would be a long and complex debate veering into philosophical territory that lies far outside of the scope of this forum. That is not to say that these discussions don't take place in our laboratory. In brief I can say that we have attempted - in only the most shallow manner TBH - to build the kind of environment inside the reactor that might be found in the exosphere of Jupiter, in a cool brown star or close to a volcano places where we posit that LENR might be occurring. Volcanos after all emit Tritium at times, an isotope with such a short half-life it must have been created 'de novo'. That volcano (or whatever) is a rich and complex atomic ecosystem, not a stripped-down 3 or 4 element fuel canister. We have 17 elements in the fuel, plus tramp elements, which between them have over 60 stable isotopes. It is a carefully developed holistic approach to LENR that Russ has been working on for decades, and it certainly seems to work.


    Emergence is the wrong term. Sounds like a good idea though.

  • Inner space. and you would be wrong to say no other LENR systems have produced gammas, just as you were wrong when you said none have produced neutrons.


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

    I provided that reference to Russ when he request such info.


    All the LENR reactions that I have read about can produce momentary Gammas, not the sustained and constant gammas that LookingForHeat is seeing. The same is true for neutrons. This sustained gamma production behavior is unusual and possibly singular. It is something that experimentation should be designed to understand in detail. If you'll don;t undertake to understand how this gamma is occurring, then how will you design to thermalize this regulatory unacceptable radiation,

  • I provided that reference to Russ when he request such info. (ETA http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf)


    But did you actually read it? I quote Focardi et al. 'Radiation was emitted early in the run with peaks that showed high intensities for many days, they decreased slowly and persisted for 78 days'. Our experiment has been running since 2nd May. How many days is that?


    All the LENR reactions that I have read about can produce momentary Gammas, not the sustained and constant gammas that LookingForHeat is seeing.


    How do you square your comment above with the experimental evidence we have produced and the work of Focardi?

  • I'm sure you will tell us.

    I have in the past. And those posts were moved to clearance. This won't happen again. I will henceforth keep my own counsel and I hope it won't be long for you'll to find the REAL answers through experimentation. You will find that it is easier to ask questions then to provide answers.

  • Alan Smith has postulated that all the gammas that are being produced by the RUSS LENR reaction are all coming from the few grains of rice sized fuel. Alan must know by now how much energy is generated by the LENR reaction centered on those grains. Has he or any other associates calculated the energy density required to produce that much energy from those few grams of fuel? Would that energy density reduce that fuel to a plasma? Has the core temperature where the fuel is contained been measured? Is the fuel being vaporized?

  • axil The 'move to clearance' problem mostly happens when you start providing answers to questions nobody wanted to ask.

    Experimentation should be designed to answer questions and to support, refute, or validate a hypothesis. What is the hypothesis and the list of associated questions that this series of experiments is designed to answer? How will those questions be satisfied?

  • Is the fuel the size of a few grains of rice? I recall someone said that earlier in the discussion. Perhaps I misremember? That would put a limit on the maximum power density. Not sure how much.


    I think a grain of rice is basically a cylinder 6 mm x 2 mm, meaning 0.02 cm^3 in volume. Right? I guess 10 grains at 100 W is 500 W/cm^3, which is not that extreme . . . It depends on how quickly the heat is conducted from the fuel.


    Uranium oxide fuel pellets are limited to 180 W/cm^3 but that is because the zirconium rods cannot stand high temperatures. Burning chemical fuel has much higher power density but of course it is vaporized.

  • Anyway, turns out the oddity is really Helium-4 from volcanoes.

    See also:


    Jiang, S., et al. Observation of 3He and 3H in the volcanic crater lakes: possible evidence for natural nuclear fusion in deep Earth. in 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals. 2007. Sicily, Italy.

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JiangSobservatio.pdf


    This is a well written paper, in my opinion. Easy to understand.

  • What is the hypothesis and the list of associated questions that this series of experiments is designed to answer?


    That hot dry LENR is possible, and that the higher the temperature the greater the XS power output. It is primarily an exercise in experimental science, not (for now) a test bed for quantum mechanical theories. Other experiments are available.

  • Recently someone, a 'professional' quipped, to put it nicely, about amateurs vs. professionals in this field. I have for 50 years worked as a professional in science, inside and outside institutions and government ministries, and in my experience I don't find the binomial classification of people into 'professionals' and 'amateurs' is either useful or appropriate. I classify people into 'those who can do' and 'those who cannot'. Sadly the population of 'those who can' do is a tiny slice of those who try, not unexpectedly that slice of 'those who can do' is many times greater amongst the population of so called 'amateurs' than is found amongst the 'professionals.'


    Russ,


    That may be the case from your own perspective, but keep in mind that all members here are "professionals" in their own special field. We are "doers" also. Accomplished. Few decided to pursue LENR, or Ocean Iron seeding like you, but we pursued our own dreams. No reason IMO then to denigrate them, and all the reason to embrace their opinions.

  • in my experience I don't find the binomial classification of people into 'professionals' and 'amateurs' is either useful or appropriate. I classify people into 'those who can do' and 'those who cannot'. Sadly the population of 'those who can' do is a tiny slice of those who try, not unexpectedly that slice of 'those who can do' is many times greater amongst the population of so called 'amateurs' than is found amongst the 'professionals.'

    :thumbup:

  • Russ,


    That may be the case from your own perspective, but keep in mind that all members here are "professionals" in their own special field. We are "doers" also. Accomplished. Few decided to pursue LENR, or Ocean Iron seeding like you, but we pursued our own dreams. No reason IMO then to denigrate them, and all the reason to embrace their opinions.

    I do not denigrate all who are here on this forum, I would not be here if I did not value the useful ideas and brainstorming that takes place here. I have made a handful of fabulous contacts, even new friends because of this forum. Ces't bon la vie. But regarding those who seek self-engrandizement from their anon armchairs by belittling the work of people actually doing something do not deserve any treatment different than they dish out.

  • You have me on that. I have messed up badly due to a imperfect memory. So there are two gamma capable systems. Be as it may, how are these systems to be explained?

    There are MANY pathways in cold fusion based on my experiments and observations. 1. Most cold fusion reactions produce 4He where the energy must be coupled to the lattice in some coherent manner. This was proposed in the very first days of cold fusion and confirmed by many, the only two experimentalists who ever produced palpable heat and commensurate helium were Arata and myself. That is why he invited me to bring my sonofusion kit to his lab which I did under the terms that he'd show me his if I showed him mine. Both of our experiments produced vast amounts of helium orders of magnitude about the 5.22 ppm 4He found in the atmosphere. A few others have run experiments which yielded orders of magnitude lower helium and the argument over that helium being real cold fusion or a leak have never ceased. Helium is born in cold fusion as an alpha emission.


    2. A much less prolific branch of cold fusion produces gammas and there are so many in the gamma forest that it will take considerable effort to identify they all. Some jump right out of the computer screen with obvious and understandable identities, luckily the gamma channels are not so prolific as the helium channels or experimentalists seeing the gammas would prove cold fusion via the dead experimentalist proof.


    3. Neutrons are yet more proof of additional channels of cold fusion, it seems to me they are, thankfully, at a much lower level than the gammas.


    4. There is growing evidence that will prove that the lenr reactions with ordinary hydrogen is explained by the trace deuterium found in ordinary hydrogen and the cold fusion atom-ecology propensity for mining and aggregating the deuterium in form and place for cold fusion to occur. Hint if cold fusion radiations is seen to be increased with titrated enrichment of deuterium into ordinary hydrogen LENR experiments, it is the deuterium not the protium that is the functioning nuclear fuel.


    So what does the 30 year history of cold fusion demonstrate, 1. Most claims in the field have been artifacts. 2. Claims that are real are those rare ones accompanied by nuclear emissions. 3. Dogmatic reductionist scientific method can't see the forest for the trees. That is why a new scientific venue I have named atom-ecology is the productive path forward to cold fusion engineering.


    A much better rendition of these ideas is to be found on my blog at http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…the-forest-for-the-trees/

  • ... "as the helium channels of experimentalists seeing the gammas would prove cold fusion via the dead experimentalist proof."


    >>>


    ... "as the helium channels OR experimentalists seeing the gammas would prove cold fusion via the dead experimentalist proof."

  • 3. Dogmatic reductionist scientific method can't see the forest for the trees. That is why a new scientific venue I have named atom-ecology is the productive path forward to cold fusion engineering.


    I still don't understand how you formalize the holistic viewpoint that you have named atom-ecology. Alan Smith has tried to explain to some extent, but given what I have seen so far it seems that the "ecology" part of things is more like a source of inspiration rather than something that would guide engineering.


    Alan mentioned that the Androcles fuel mixture is modelled after a presumed geological environment. The insight here is that fusion may occur within the earth. I think this is fundamentally a bright idea but it isn't automatically a holistic approach. At present, given what I have heard so far, I don't see how to separate this procedure from simply trying all sorts of volcanic-type fuel elements at once because you don't know which are most important. It could be, for instance, that only 1 or 2 elements are important for abundant fusion.


    So having the good idea that geothermogenesis should inspire Androcles is not, in itself, a holistic or ecological approach. I am aware, however, that you tend not to discuss all parts of your theories or experiments so I am wondering if there is a part of your atom-ecology that genuinely does use holistic concepts to guide your engineering.


    Here is an example of the kind of thing I have in mind. In ecology (well, in population genetics actually) the genetic diversity of a population actually becomes a player in shaping the genome. This is because the rate of evolutionary change of the population as a whole is proportional to the amount of diversity present (it is called "the fundamental law of natural selection"). Is this the sort of reason that Androcles has so many atomic species? Does diversity itself play a role in fusion engineering? That is what I would call an ecological view of things and so far I don't see it in your ideas. So far all I see is that the diversity of atomic species in Androcles is just a research shortcut ... i.e., if you don't know what works just try a whole bunch of things at once. I hope it is more than a shortcut although I think the shortcut itself is a good idea.

  • Alan mentioned that the Androcles fuel mixture is modelled after a presumed geological environment.


    Or astrophysical. But these are just examples of complex environments that in a feeble way we are no more than attempting a pastiche of. I think to look for a reductionist explanation of a holistic approach is not necessarily going to move us further forward -but Russ may care to comment on this himself, he's probably tied up for the rest of the day though, so be patient.

  • ... be patient.



    No problem. From my side I regard it as an ongoing conversation.


    I have a 40+ year interest in holism vs reductionism which has coloured my career. The challenge is to turn issues of emergence and holism from a philosophical discussion into a "productive path forward to ... engineering", as Mr George would have it. I'm not sure that has actually been done here, but if it has it would be interesting. Which is why I am asking questions.

  • Alan's very considerable brainpower as well as craftsman's hands and sensibilities is the reason I accepted his invitation to carry on the replications of my work in his lab which I judged was an appropriate 'peoples' venue. There I have intended to prove the practicality of the technologies that provide intense useful energy and irrefutable nuclear emissions that are common to those few who have been able to produce the cold fusion environments where the interaction of a great many nuclides defines a highly complex atom-ecology. Don't expect to immediately understand this complex ecosystem as conveyed via a series of tweets, unless of course you are of Trumpian inclination and tweets are all you can handle ;)

  • ... Don't expect to immediately understand this complex ecosystem as conveyed via a series of tweets,


    I won't. Can you direct me to a longer-form technical explanation of your atom-ecology viewpoint. For instance on your blog site? The posts have read there are more like descriptions of what inspired you to your present viewpoint than explanations of what your actual ideas are.

  • RussGeorge

    Quote

    Both of our experiments produced vast amounts of helium orders of magnitude about the 5.22 ppm 4He found in the atmosphere. A few others have run experiments which yielded orders of magnitude lower helium and the argument over that helium being real cold fusion or a leak have never ceased.


    Link to publication please? (thanks) Also for the heat results. Yours, not Arata's.


    Quote

    Dogmatic reductionist scientific method can't see the forest for the trees.


    I'm not sure what "Dogmatic reductionist" means. I hope you are not disparaging experiments involving calibration with blank runs and even, where appropriate, statistical methods and double blind studies because without such things, we are back to the stone age of science.


    Quote

    Don't expect to immediately understand this complex ecosystem


    You don't need to understand a "complex ecosystem" to appreciate experiments which yield significant, reproducible and error-proof measurements of large and "irrefutable" heat production and/or isotope/radiation generation.

  • I hope you are not disparaging experiments involving calibration with blank runs


    All of the experiments we are doing have carefully constructed and exactly matched controls. Post calibration our best pair of reactors have heating/cooling curves matched to better than 0.5% at any temperature. The next best pair are within >1.5% of each other after calibration over a week at various temperatures from 120C up to 850C.

  • We are also using 'ohmic heaters' to assist in XSH measurements and calibration generally. These are inserted into a tightly bound and cemented together triplet bundle along with the test (or control) sample and another tube containing a thermocouple. The ohmic heater is a simple 'there and back again' length of 0.9MM Kanthal wire which has it's own separate metered power supply, and is capable of generating up to 25W of heat. The little white insulators along the return side of the heater wure are are ceramic beads- good for very high temperatures as are the fused pure alumina fuel tubes they inhabit inside the reactor.




  • . These are inserted into a tightly bound and cemented together triplet bundle along with the test (or control) sample and another tube containing a thermocouple


    To confirm I understand, you are inserting the "ohmic heaters" even in the "Active Reactors" to keep enclosed mass equivalent? The only difference is that power would not be applied to them.


    My understanding is that your theory is that by having an unfueled control reactor being heated by ~25 watts of power not included in your control circuit, you should be able to clearly measure any excess heat calculated from the possible power from the control circuit.


    I like it! Well done.


    Are you testing 3 sets of data to review?


    A: Unfueled / no heater power vs. fueled no heater power


    B: Unfueled with heater power vs . fueled no heater power


    C: Unfueled with heater power vs. fueled with heater power. (To verify if the results are additive)


    Again, Well done.