Atom-Ecology

  • That's it Bob. Since we have calibration curves for matched reactors we can precisely calculate any XSH. For example, if the control reactor is at (say) 600C and the test reactor is at 660C we can establish from the calibration curves that if we add 11 watts to the ohmic heater in the control it should also rise to 660C - and as we can actually do that we have a second source of confirmation. Equally if we switch off the test and control reactor main heating elements to check for 'heat after death' (HAD) we can use the (separately powered) ohmic heater in the control to mimic HAD in the control. It thus provides a means of doubly verifying several different phenomena of great interest.

  • They are not a secret Axil, but precisely described in the post above yours. Here it is again with the appropriate phenomena emboldened. I hope that helps.


    That's it Bob. Since we have calibration curves for matched reactors we can precisely calculate any XSH. For example, if the control reactor is at (say) 600C and the test reactor is at 660C we can establish from the calibration curves that if we add 11 watts to the ohmic heater in the control it should also rise to 660C - and as we can actually do that we have a second source of confirmation. Equally if we switch off the test and control reactor main heating elements to check for 'heat after death' (HAD) we can use the (separately powered) ohmic heater in the control to mimic HAD in the control. It thus provides a means of doubly verifying several different phenomena of great interest.

  • They are not a secret Axil, but precisely described in the post above yours. Here it is again with the appropriate phenomena emboldened. I hope that helps.


    That's it Bob. Since we have calibration curves for matched reactors we can precisely calculate any XSH. . . .

    So, the several different phenomena are excess heat and heat after death. Right? The meaning was a little unclear to me, as it was to Axil.

  • I think most gas loading experiments are in heat after death (HAD) mode, by definition, you might say. You just leave the gas pressure high. You do not add more energy to the system.


    However, in many cases, they require high temperatures, and the reaction does not generate enough heat to keep itself going. So, you have to have a resistance heater. The reaction would keep itself hot if you used a lot of insulation -- a whole lot! -- but that causes other problems. You cannot easily cool the cell down. You cannot regulate the temperature. Also, it takes hours or even days for the temperature to stabilize. Problems such as this led Srinivasan to break the vacuum seal in his Dewar calorimeter. That reduced sensitivity, but it made the instrument easier to work with, and faster. I suppose if you could generate 10 to 100 W in a fairly stable reaction, that would be enough to have a calorimeter without excessive insulation.


    Frankly, there have not been many convincing gas loaded experiments. Beiting is the first really good one, in my opinion. Many of the others look to me like a chemical reaction. Such as:


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


    (I am not saying I am sure it was chemical, but it wasn't convincing, for the reasons we gave in this paper.)


    Most gas loading experiments are in HAD, but not glow discharge, it seems. It resembles liquid electrolysis. The electrode is constantly deloading so it has to be fed new hydrogen.

  • XSH and HAD, aka SSM, and much more with definitive gamma spectra to support! By my book that reads as several incredibly interesting things, to put it mildly... Oh yeah was it mentioned that this work is the replication of years of understanding produced through experimentation brought to Alan (and Martin's) lab so as to benefit from their faithful help, observation, and friendship. This work is just the the appetizer part of the full course feast, much like a fine pate' on Melba toast, thanks Melba ;)

  • axil wrote:

    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.



    Maybe, I missed some new and recent research results, BUT since when can quantum mechanical mechanisms be revealed by a microscope ???

  • A) Knee XSH from a specific decay chain fits a specific Bateman equation


    I am foggy on the details of stimulation here, but given that the radiation seems to undergo autonomous bursting with a fairly well-defined period this doesn't sound like a linear system to me (which is what a Bateman system is).

  • I think the only difference that might be assumed is one of time. HAD might be visible as a slight 'knee'in a classic Newtonian cooling curve, where as SSM tends to imply evolution of heat over a longer period.

    I do not think that difference applies. HAD is sometimes quite steady for hours, sometimes for days. The duration tends to be longer with a bigger cathode, so it is probably related to the total amount of deuterium absorbed into the metal. The term HAD was originally coined by F&P. Here is a paper by Pons describing it in detail:


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


    The example he discusses continued for 3 hours in a fairly steady state. See Figs. 8 and 14. It continues long after the cell should have cooled down to room temperature, so it wasn't just a "knee" in the cooling curve, although HAD often does show up as that.


    Pons emphasized that cold fusion tends to stay in a steady state. He referred to this as a "memory." After a perturbation such as shaking the reactor or adding cold heavy water, the reaction rate may change but it wants to return to the power level where it was before. I suppose there is some mechanism similar to what causes burning wood in an open fire to return to the same power level after you disturb it. You blow on a fire, or throw a piece of paper on it, and it flares up. It soon goes back to about the same power level it was before, because conditions are the same. The total exposed area of burning wood, the air that can enter the system, the temperatures, the rate at which the wood is vaporized and water and other fluids are released are roughly the same before and after the perturbation, so the power level resumes. It continues until more wood is burned, or the logs collapse and change the amount of exposed surface.


    (There is a word I cannot recall for a physical system that returns to the same state. Such as a modern plastic toothpaste tube. You twist it or roll it up and it unrolls back to where it was.)

  • So are you suggesting that there is no difference? That would be fine by me.

    For gas loading I think they are the same. Not for electrolysis.

    However, I don't think you could describe a slight knee in a cooling curve as 'self sustain'. Or could you?

    Again, for electrolysis or some other method that requires input, that would not be self-sustaining. Especially if the cooling curve slows down but does not reverse direction (getting warmer). However, in the Pons paper, electrolysis has been turned off, and the cell should have cooled before 3 hours elapsed, but it was hot in a fairly steady state. I suppose it was in the same state as a gas-loaded metal sample undergoing cold fusion. I would say that is heat-after-death and it is also self-sustaining.


    I assume the reaction continues because the gas is deloading and gathering at the surface (just below it), and because the sample is hot. Fleischmann said that cold fusion needs an elevated temperature. I think at least 60 to 80 deg C. So, if you cooled off the cathode rapidly with a thermal shock, I expect you would quench the reaction and stop the heat. It will heat somewhat from a chemical reaction (D2 formation at the surface). Perhaps that would trigger cold fusion again?


    There is no particular engineering benefit to HAD or self-sustaining system. They are not a desirable quality. On the contrary, they would be a pain in the butt in a practical heat engine. They would resemble a large pile of burning coal that you cannot easily extinguish. It has to burn out before the power falls. Modern coal fired generators use coal that has been crushed into dust, that burns rapidly and then goes out, so you can extinguish the fire quickly, and you can control the power level.


    There is also nothing particularly convincing about HAD or a self sustaining reaction, despite what some skeptics say. Input power for most systems is stable direct current. It can be measured with enormous precision. To parts per million. Ordinary instruments can measure it with higher precision than just about any other quality. So, it is easily subtracted. It is ridiculous to claim that it interferes with detection or lowers the signal to noise ratio. In a practical reactor, it would be easy to minimize input power. That could be done already, for example by putting the anode and cathode closer together with electrolysis, or increasing the insulation with gas loading. It is not done because it would make the experiment more difficult and it would degrade the measurements and reduce the signal to noise ratio. That is also why people do not use larger samples, even though they would probably produce higher absolute power (all else being equal). It is better to measure 1 W from 10 cm^3 of powder in a small calorimeter (Beiting), than 100 W from a liter of powder in a big calorimeter. The s/n ratio is better, because small-scale calorimeters work better than big ones. People who think that absolute power is important do not understand experimental science.


    Granted, a power level of ~1 W is easier to measure with most conventional calorimeters than, say, 0.1 or 0.2 W. One watt could have been measured by any scientist after 1780. 10 W is even easier. But there is no particular advantage to 100 W. It is not "more convincing" except insofar as it is quite palpable. With a calorimeter of ~1 L, that much heat will burn you! Being palpable does not sway extreme skeptics such as Shanahan, who say the people's sense of touch cannot distinguish between a liter object at 100 deg C and room temperature.

  • I suppose it was in the same state as a gas-loaded metal sample undergoing cold fusion. I would say that is heat-after-death and it is also self-sustaining.

    Granted, this does begin to sound like a distinction without a difference.


    I have in mind that fully self-sustaining electrochemical cell would be one that produces so much heat, a thermoelectric device would convert some of it to electricity, which would sustain the electrolysis. It would be a Rube Goldberg machine. A self-sustaining gas loaded reactor is much easier, because they are inherently self-sustaining as long as you keep them hot. They are also easier to control because to turn them off, you just cool them down. As far as I know, that works. That's what Beiting did. Mizuno clobbered one of his reactions by allowing air into the cell. That's not reversible.


    That's another advantage to using a resistance heater instead of increasing the insulation. For a laboratory experiment, that's easier, it gives better control with a simple mechanism, and it does not interfere with calorimetry or complicate calorimetry the way it would if you removed insulation or injected cold gas to produce a thermal shock. For a practical device, I suppose you would have to keep the reactor insulated and turn it off with a thermal shock. A resistance heater would defeat the purpose.


    I doubt that electrochemical cold fusion can be made into a practical source of energy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study it. If it reveals the nature of the reaction and contributes to scientific progress, we should study it.

  • Russ George

    If you have a bit of time now, could you explain a bit about the "ecology" in "atom-ecology"? I'm not sure why that word is there. I am interested in why you think multiple nuclides are needed for LENR. Is this essential or does using a mix of nuclides all at once just shorten the search for something active?

  • A bit of time... sadly that era is over as more new reactor protocols are being baked. A second better Gamma Spectrometer has been ordered so as to provide a larger range as well as a coincident measure. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. These words are the only sign of Frost as things are heating up.