Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

  • Robert - you are as has happened before over-interpreting what I have posted.

    I've said multiple times that I, too, find these high screening values interesting. So do many people, and I referenced (based on a quick LS I did a while ago) the an interesting substantive connected set of experimental work in this area, combined with theoretical models to explain the results. Czerski finds consistent (after experimental issues have been explored and eliminated) high screening from metallic systems. He proposes a low energy resonance as responsible: but this is work in progress.

    If you read my previous posts I've never said anything about precision modelling. In fact you are the one introducing 4 sig fig precision into stated calculations for reasons that I do not understand.

    "established theories of electron screening". I guess it depends what you mean by "established". I agree established theories for gasses do not do this.

    The $^{2}\text{H(d,~p)}^{3}\text{H}$ reaction cross-section has been measured for deuteron energies below 25 keV in a deuterized Zr target under improved ultra-high-vacuum conditions and controlled target surface contamination. The increase of reaction enhancement factors towards lower energies is much weaker than that determined before and can result not only from the electron screening effect but also from a suggested 0+ threshold resonance in 4He. The cross-section calculations performed within the T-matrix approximation enable to estimate a coherent resonance contribution and explain the observed energy dependence of the enhancement factors. Additionally, indications for the increase of the screening energies due to impurities at the target surface could be found.


    Introduction paras:

    Czerski published a set of v high screening energies, but then, after better UHV experiments, worked out that some of the apparent variability in screening was due to impurities at the target surface, and the high energies from a (suggested) threshold resonance in 4He.

    I would not exactly say this theory is "established" but it is out there and has been in experimental investigation for a few years now. For me it is the best explanation I've seen, and entirely possible, but of course it may be wrong because the data on which it rests is pretty incomplete.

    My point about the google guys was to agree with what they say which is that this region of nuclear cross-sections is not well explored and because of the complex lattice effects well worth exploring. Obviously it is still unclear for sure what is going on, especially because Schenkel cannot measure his cross-sections directly, but must extrapolate them from the shape of the ion energy vs reaction count curve and theory that says how this varies with screening potential. So more data is welcome.

    Science is about putting together experimental clues with theoretical models and getting a best fit. LENR remains outside of most people's interest because thus far the experimental clues and theoretical models do not fit together well. I find that quite frustrating myself: I keep on hoping for such a fit. In that situation you need clear experimental results to progress, and while Jed says that existing results clearly indicate LENR without possibility of error, others don't.


    PS - Alan and Wyttenbach here claim to have found such a fit. If so that is very welcome. However, I do not understand W's theory except as a loose set of evolving ideas that have been specifically fit to given experimental results, and said experimental results have not been described here clearly, so I cannot comment on those claims except to be generally skeptical of radical high energy physics theories that are adjusted to explain specific results and not widely critiqued. There are a lot of these around.

  • Yes, use the old idea - interaction of 7Lithium with protons to achieve Lithium fission to produce energetic alpha particles through the intermediate formation of 8Beryllium. So, at the end the energetic alpha particles (helium atoms) as source of heat production.

  • it seems unsurprising that a 1000eV effective screening can be observed. My point was that you can get

    high experimental screening values naturally from known theory.

    Czerski's theory hasn't moved much since 2005.

    Experimental and theoretical screening energies for the

    2H(d; p)3H reaction in metallic environments

    K. Czerski1;2;a, A. Huke1, P. Heide1, and G.

    His theoretical screening energy is 130 eV. for Palladium13% of 1000 eV.

    I think he's abandoned the theory?... not plausible.

    THH, Which known theory explains 1000 EV screening energy ?? or even 500 eV?

    I am not asking for four figure precision.. 50% will do.

    Do some proper reading. Unsurprise me.

    Why is THHuxleynew suddenly more expert than…Vaw09xt9L2sjep87pUskc1UZA

    Dr Thomas Schenkel who states


    But an electron screening potential of ~1000 eV is not consistent with established theories of electron screening,

    which reproduce measured values from gas phase experiments of ~27 eV [1, 5-11]. "

  • more specific thread directed at Team Google

    Tom Schenkel's work is paid for 2019.. if he finds time it might be useful to look at some of

    the reactor material that worked before in LENR

    - Biberian's siivery keepsake from Fleischmann

    - The 5% Rhodium Pd from the USNavy

    -plus the effect of nanostructures on a Pd surface.

    He's probably got lots of other things in mind anyway.

  • From the Prados-Estevez paper (above link):

    The proposed hydrogen lattice confinement by vacancies in a metallic lattice may apparently explain the observed common features
    of so called ‘cold fusion’ or ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)’phenomena. For example, the long electrolysis time (several weeks)
    required for McKubre et al., [54] to observe any anomalous excess heat by applying voltage to a Pd electrode in deuterated water is possibly because the diffusion rate is too low to generate vacancies with hydrogen atoms in them at near 100 °C. Indeed, generation of the Superabundant vacancies (SAV) reported by Fukai [26] in Pd or Ni requires h at at an external hydrogen gas pressure of 3 GPa. However, in the experiments by Mosier-Boss, et al. [55] on the
    electrolysis of Pd and D, an electroplated Pd film made in deuterated PdCl2 solution was used. They claimed that no incubation period or
    long electrolysis time was required to detect emission of neutrons and/or excess heat. In our opinion, this is because the hydrogen-vacancy
    clusters were codeposited with Pd in the electroplating process due to its extremely high current density and low cathode efficiency.
    Furthermore, in a paper by Takahashi [56], the cold fusion reaction sites were speculated to be “Sub Nano Holes (SNH)” on the surface of nanoparticles with sizes in the 10–20 nm range. In our view the SNHs in his work are vacancies in Ni or Ni-Cu alloys with hydrogen atoms in them which are created during the gas charging process. In this process the system is going to a state with lower free energy via formation of H-V clusters with high binding energy and lower surface

    The Google gang should read this & maybe do the co-deposiition expts to show XS heat. (also- these H-vacancies are beginning to sound rather like Holmlid's ultra dense hydrogen).

  • The existence of sub-nano holes (SNH) fits in well with Wyttenbach's theories proposing hydrogen atoms forming magnetic rotators within <1nm holes in the Ni metallic lattice. Collapse of these rotatoral fields transfers energy through the lattice. Time to write it all up maybe have a go at Nature?

  • Robert - I think, as has happened before - you are not reading what I write with care.

    I admit to sometime being careless on writing stuff - mea culpa - but you are definitely careless in reading it.

    The issue is that Czerski thinks there is a threshold resonance responsible for the higher apparent screening - as I said above. Suggest you read his papers, or look at the parts I imaged here (sorry - it is paywalled and I can't post more than a small amt of it).

    Now, I don't know whether he is right or not: perhaps you do. Or, perhaps Schenkel does. I have not a clue. I'm just pointing out that one sentence you keep on quoting, about 27ev and gas phase screening - is expected because this is metallic phase screening and although still a bit higher than expected, what is expected is higher than 27eV.

    As a matter of procedure can I suggest that if you want to obtain the most accurate view of any scientific problem, for yourself or any reader, you pay attention to any relevant information, and process it without personalisation or prejudice? Comments like: Why is THHuxleynew suddenly more expert than XXX? personalise an issue. Your posts here appear as though this is some sort of political debate you are having with me, where rhetorical stances and repeated slogans will help win votes. I see no need for it: especially because as you well know on this site I am doomed to lose any popularity contest due to having quite a skeptical view of the various LENR evidence that has been marshalled here over the years. (That is - I'm not usually skeptical of the evidence - unless it comes from Rossi - but I am often skeptical of the interpretation as implying nuclear reactions of a highly unusual sort).


  • Thankyou Ahlfors. We looked at this paper (or something very similar) a while ago and it is very thought provoking. It is what caused me to do a LS and find the Czerski stuff as best experimental evidence I could find.

    First, it summarises theory showing that high (>> 27eV) screening potentials are possible in these metal target systems.

    Second, it shows this weird and counter-intuitive theoretical effect where the screening effect gets larger as temperature decreases

    Thirdly: however it does not show useful levels of fusion as existing.

    It is enough to stay interested in this stuff. But it is not correct to view this as something unexplained by existing physics and requiring new physics.

    If, given some extra circumstances, this screening did result in large levels of reactivity - enough to give excess heat for example - it would still from all evidence to be d+d -> standard branching ratios => lots of neutrons. That is not proven - I suppose it is possible they could at very low impact energies, or in some special situation, suddenly change - but the google guys do not encourage that view finding standard ratios or near at 1keV energy.

  • Lots of useful quantitative data too;

    We can estimate the nuclear fusion reaction rate in D-V and
    D-2 V clusters in Pd and Ni, taking into account the high density of
    segregated H isotopes in monovacancies and divacancies, reported
    by Subashiev, and Nee [33], and in [34]. Then, for a single Ni D-V
    cluster the reaction rate is R = 3X10>13 s>-1.

    Which is 30 X higher than the R = 10>12 s>-1 for muon catalysed fusion, all subject to assumptions made but its an interesting comparison.

  • It is not logical to assume that fusion is caused by lattice compression of deuterium when the release of that pressure produces excess heat. The basic posit of fusion caused by lattice compression might well be wrong.

    What theory can explain how the release of lattice generated deuterium pressure can cause the LENR reaction be become active?

    The graphs I posted are experimental data which conflict with the idea that high-loading is necessary to MAINTAIN the reaction.

    Other experiments will give excess heat ASAP, upon demand, like Brillouin can do.

    Could high-loading occur so quickly? with their complex material? I do not think that is established at all. It seems unlikely.

    Also, given the fact that Ni-H produces excess heat, and other metals produce excess heat, and these other metals do NOT accept such high-loading as Palladium, it doesn't make sense to me that the high-loading is the crucial factor for a reaction.

    But then I reason from the view that there is only one mechanism responsible for all these effects.

  • Also, given the fact that Ni-H produces excess heat, and other metals produce excess heat, and these other metals do NOT accept such high-loading as Palladium, it doesn't make sense to me that the high-loading is the crucial factor for a reaction.

    I think the data is pretty clear about this. High loading is a crucial factor with bulk Pd-D. Perhaps it is not a factor with Ni-H or other forms of cold fusion. It sure looks crucial in this graph:…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg

    Storms suggested that with bulk Pd-D, high loading may be needed to trigger the effect, but the heat sometimes continues even after the cathode gradually deloads below high levels. ("High" is 90% or better, as shown in the above graph.)

    There is not much data for Ni-H cold fusion, so I don't think we can generalize about it. I am not even 100% sure it exists.

    But then I reason from the view that there is only one mechanism responsible for all these effects.

    Even if loading is needed with Pd-D but not with Ni-H, that does not preclude the possibility that one mechanism is responsible for both of these effects. Combustion is the same in all materials, but some ignition temperatures are low, and some are high. Some materials burn more readily than others. The mechanism is the same but the performance is not.

  • I like the posit of Dr George Miley who has produced a productive LENR reaction.

    See page 9 of

    I am convinced that Dr Kim is correct in his posit that a Bose condensate of hydrogen ions is the major causative factor in the LENR reaction. Lattice compression does not produce fusion, instead it produces a coherent superconductive quantum mechanical structure when deuterium is highly compressed that produces energy and transmutation that are not released until the Bose condinsate is terminated. MFMP has seen this reaction energy and transmutation product release behavior in experiments in the melt down ash of the LION reactor(all on YouTube).

    Dr Kim as coined the term Bose nova to describe the process wherein the Bose condensate releases its store of energy.

    By the way, Ruby, you shoud look into setting up an interview with Dr. Kim, Dr Miley, and Bod Greenyer for your future pod casts.

  • Quote

    It would have been understandable had the Nature articles authors published, and then gone into hiding until the smoke cleared. They did just the opposite though, and tackled the PR stigama issue head on, with interviews, and comments given by the MIT, Berkeley Lab, and UBC authors. Burlinguette (UBC), even tweeted photos of his team, and the 4 leaders. All young, which is good to see. It seems to have been a good move on their part, as so far there have been only a few criticisms, and those have not been all that bad by CF standards.

    That is what legitimate researchers and scientists do. They do not hide and disappear and refuse to interact like the "Swedish scientists" who supported the Rossi fiasco.

    JedRothwell posted:


    These people got in because they are from Google and from big-name universities.

    Perfectly legitimate reason in addition to which the work was peer reviewed and was most likely found by reviewers to be of high quality. That's why claims by Brillouin and other current claimants of impressive success should be reviewed by a major testing lab and replicated by "big-name" universities to be credible.