Does LENR produce plasmoids + harmful radiations?

Quote from kirkshanahan

[Significant recombination never happens in an open cell.] This is the truism that the CF community holds onto for dear life.

No, it is a fact that is easy observed using techniques that every electrochemist has know since Faraday's time. 19th century techniques are sufficient to measure recombination. (Obviously this must be true, because Faraday measured faradaic efficiency, which is to say the lack of recombination.) You measure the make-up water, and the gas using a bubbler and an inverted test tube. All electrochemists check for recombination. Fleischmann, Miles and others reported the exact amounts in their papers. The amounts are far too small to affect the conclusions.

Furthermore, even if there were 100% recombination, the anomalous excess heat often far exceeds the heat that would be produced by this recombination.

Quote from kirkshanahan

No, ATER means 'at-the-electrode-recombination', which is below the waterline

That never happens. It is easy to test for this, and many people have tested for it. There is never any significant recombination below the waterline with the geometry, materials and power levels used in cold fusion. * You could confirm this by doing some conventional electrochemistry yourself, but of course you never will.

You could also insert x-ray film into a conventional electrochemical cell, and see for yourself that it never develops images of the anode of anything else. But, of course, you will never do this or any other test of your assertions. You could read the literature and see that such tests have been done, and they prove you are wrong. But, of course, you will never read the literature.

* As Steve Jones demonstrated, it is easy to arrange other geometry, power levels and so on that do produce recombination. Any electrochemist can tell you how to do this.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Enough from me on xray film. I haven't found any of it compelling

Oh yes, you do find it compelling! You have not given us a single valid reason to reject the x-ray film findings. If you had a valid reason, you would list it. Instead, you are flailing around writing impossible nonsense such as hydrogen damage can cause distinct sharp images to appear, or an anode is as hot as soldering iron and the x-ray film is touching it. These hypotheses are proof that you have no valid reasons to reject the claims. This is the closest you will ever come to admitting you are wrong.

Along the same lines, THHuxley here keeps saying he is sure the boil off experiment are wrong, but he never gives a reason. He once claimed there is pure entrained water lost from the cell, but Fleischmann showed that does not happen. He will not address any of the 5 or 6 issues I gleaned from Fleischmann's papers. Obviously, he cannot address them, so he pretends they don't exist, and he airily declares as fact that the boil-off method does not work. This is how pathological skeptics roll. You can tell they have nothing when they refused to address any issue or answer any questions.

Quote from interested observer

If it isn't in the form of radiation of some type, what is it supposed to be?

Quite a bit of LENR heating maybe via the Induction heating of electrons via alternating magnetic flux... a bit like the heating on a copper pan on an induction cook top

"

This process, for its nuclear neighborhood, finally has the same characteristic (shaking electron cloud) as a

fast thermal movement of a nucleus. Thus, after a critical distance, we see induction heating by strong

nuclear fields. In adjacent nuclei the amplitude of the induced thermal movement is tiny because of the high

frequency. The turning point is the distance where the magnitude of the magnetic force and the coulomb

force are close. K-electron will be the first that try to fallback into classic orbits what leads to turbulent

movements and finally thermal oscillation of the coulomb-cloud.

J.Wyttenbach

https://www.researchgate.net/p…r-and-particle-physics-20

Leif Holmlid added something on the topic of this thread in his latest paper (although he doesn't consider his work to be LENR he writes that the processes he observes are similar to those observed in the field):

http://doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2018.1546090

Quote

IV.D. Radiation Damage on Biological Systems from the Muon Source

From the collected evidence discussed above and in previous studies, we argue that the particles emitted into the laboratory environment by the muon source are not mainly charged kaons which would give dangerous, maybe even lethal radiation levels to the personnel in the laboratory. The radiation in our laboratory has been checked by hand-held G-M counters (mainly Mirion RDS-80) close to the muon source, and no dangerous radiation levels have been observed. Of course, the G-M device response is limited to one count per laser shot so the real intensity may be higher. The sensitivity of this type of device is otherwise high enough to easily observe random radioactive decay in antireflective coatings on optical parts like lenses and windows. Instead of charged kaons, mainly neutral kaons seem to pass out into the laboratory, and the interaction of such particles with matter is believed to give considerably lower radiation levels, maybe mainly due to their longer decay times which allow them to move further before decay, thus depositing much of their energy in the building walls and in the laboratory equipment. They will also have a smaller direct Coulomb interaction with atoms in materials. Further, more energy is given off by gamma radiation from neutral kaon and pion decay, also distributing the radiation energy over a larger volume of materials. Certainly, more radiation research is required to give secure conclusions on this point.

Another important factor is that the muon-matter and kaon-matter interactions are not well known. We have observed and studied a dominating pair-production interaction mechanism which is not yet understood completely (paper submitted) and which is not included in the radiation generating mechanisms normally considered for muons, pions, and kaons. First experimental results are published in Refs. 32, 33, and 43.

Quote from Shane D.

Good background information from the beginning, but if you want to get to the part about penetrating radiations, start at 20:10.

At about 5:15 this reference to a 1996 Fleischmann interview by Infinite Energy could be relevant as well, hinting at X-rays that might not be conventional X-rays - in either case some sort of emission that can leak away from the typical cell, whose lack of thermalization (so to speak) could account for the lack of excess heat in some cases and "strange radiation" observation in others.

Quote

F: But we do now know that there are high energy X-rays. Gozzi has observed them to over 120 keV.

T: That's a big number.

F: That's a big number, which, incidentally, can't arise from the electrons in k-shells.

T: What is the maximum for that? About 15 keV?

F: Well, whatever it is, but.....

T: It's a lot more.

F: Yes. It cannot arise from anything in the electronic shells.

T: 100 keV? No way.

F:    No way, no way. So this has got to be some peculiar phenomenon. Incidentally, this is a fairly important question because, as Preparata pointed out in Japan, if you have got high energy X-rays coming out - and this goes back to Stan Szpak - lots of people then say, "Well it's soft X-rays," but soft X-rays would never get out of the cells. So they had to be hard X-rays. Those could dump their energy outside the cell, so you can see a lot of the complications with the thermal measurements could be just that people have missed the excess enthalpy with their cell design: the cell is too small, it won't catch the excess energy, and in any case it's only the lower bound that you catch, you must design a cell to trap all the energy in the X-rays. Once you have got the X-rays, you can ask what sort of X-rays, what is going on? Are these coherent X-rays? What would they do? Will they yield some sort of photo-fission processes in the nuclei?

So I could think of lots of processes which could be going on, and it will take a long time to sort that out.

Display More

Quote from can

At about 5:15 this reference to a 1996 Fleischmann interview by Infinite Energy could be relevant as well, hinting at X-rays that might not be conventional X-rays - in either case some sort of emission that can leak away from the typical cell, whose lack of thermalization (so to speak) could account for the lack of excess heat in some cases and "strange radiation" observation in others.

Thanks for the reference to that 1996 interview, Fleischmann had it pretty much spot on, the readily observable rays leaving good cold fusion are most commonly found in the domain of hard x-rays but they are clearly not said 'hard' x-rays. They are more akin to 'soft' gamma rays.;) In any case they represent not a primary signature of cold fusion but rather are clear evidence of one of the many rare side reactions. Therein lies new speciation opportunities for taxonomists and new opportunities to understanding the complexity of this atom-ecology.

from the 1996 interview

F." I think, really, that a correct understanding of condensed matter physics in general, and electrolyte solutions in particular, is a pre-requisite for taking our next steps in chemistry and biology. "

Maybe a correct understanding of biology (ecology) , is a pre-requisite for taking our next steps in LENR

Were the DVD-Rs in Parkhomov's case etched as customary with CR-39 detectors or chemically treated in a similar way? It doesn't look like they were, but it's probably worth asking/clarifying.