Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    Quote from JedRothwell

    A leak out would reduce the tritium. A leak in would only admit the level of tritium observed in some experiments if the air around the cell had a level of tritium so high, the alarms would go off and the building would be permanently abandoned.

    Please read the attached paper before wasting our time with pointless comments. This paper summarizes the important information about PdD and its relationship to LENR. If after reading this paper you still think LENR is not real, I suggest you would be better served by spending your time discussing a different subject.

    Dear Ed Storms,


    I like how you have evolved, also for a prominent old guard's member, this is a proof of youth :)

    Some thoughts about NAE i have to share with you, now.

    If we consider the beta phase, as a full H/D lattice filling , as Mc Kubre states and alpha phase as a succinct H/D filling or each H/D atom remains well separated from each other, these 2 different states won't be able to do NAE alone, i suggest.

    Now, you saw better XH during unloading, so beta phase shouldn't be concerned in this case, only alpha phase could be.

    i say "could be" because i suggest the need of H+/D+ clusters to do NAE, as an half part of Lenr's secret, also during deloading these separated D+/H+ (inside lattice) should be concentrated again in small clusters inside cracks, barriers such as interfaces for example.

    You have seen much better XH with a Pd/D 0,5 concentration, in this case you well confirm Mizuno's words about R20 filling process, i'm also agree with this.


    DF

    Storms There's some discussion of tritium in the Wikipedia article including this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

    Quote

    In early May 1990 one of the two A&M researchers, Kevin Wolf, acknowledged the possibility of spiking, but said that the most likely explanation was tritium contamination in the palladium electrodes or simply contamination due to sloppy work.[67] In June 1990 an article in Science by science writer Gary Taubes destroyed the public credibility of the A&M tritium results when it accused its group leader John Bockris and one of his graduate students of spiking the cells with tritium.[68] In October 1990 Wolf finally said that the results were explained by tritium contamination in the rods.[69] An A&M cold fusion review panel found that the tritium evidence was not convincing and that, while they couldn't rule out spiking, contamination and measurements problems were more likely explanations,[text 4] and Bockris never got support from his faculty to resume his research.


    On 30 June 1991 the National Cold Fusion Institute closed after it ran out of funds;[70] it found no excess heat, and its reports of tritium production were met with indifference.[71]

    I know there is no fondness among LENR enthusiasts for Wikipedia so I will look for the other tritium discussions I found in the past, when I have time. I didn't just make it up, folks.

    Dear Ed Storms,

    Thank you for the excellent review paper of the different possible LENR theories. I think many of us here at LF would like to know what you think of Holmlid's work, specifically whether his ultra dense D orH corresponds to your Hydroton theory, both being theoretical Rydberg Matter states. Whilst Holmlid tends not to accept the existence of cold fusion per se his most recent work would certainly provide the theoretical basis for low-energy muon catalysed fusion being involved. Perhaps muon accumulation from spontaneous or laser-stimulated proton decay to mesons then muons and subsequent muon neutrinos plus electron-positron annihilation occurs within NAE's (with further D-muon-D fusion reactions). Certainly would be an explosive chain reaction, but Holmlid only thinks such low-energy muon production could be used linked to a hot fusion plasma reactor.

    Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion 

    https://www.tandfonline.com/do…080/15361055.2018.1546090
    by L Holmlid - ‎2019 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
    24 Jan 2019 - ABSTRACTFusion power generators employing muon-catalyzed nuclear ... Keywords: Muon-catalyzed fusion, nuclear fusion, ultra-dense hydrogen .... that the nuclear reaction process is above break-even.16 L. HOLMLID, ...

    Decay of muons generated by laser-induced processes in ultra-dense ...


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6551469/by L Holmlid - ‎2019 - ‎    Related articles

    4 Jun 2019 - Conclusions. The laser-induced pulsed signal previously concluded to be due to muons is now found to have a decay time constant in the expected range 1.0–2.3 μs. The best known decay time for free muons is 2.20 μs, and the measured decay time of (2.23 ± 0.05) μs from D(0) is concluded to be due to positive muons.‎Introduction · ‎Background · ‎Experimental · ‎Results

    Ultradense protium p(0) and deuterium D(0) and their ... - IOPscience

    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…1088/1402-4896/ab1276/pdfby L Holmlid - ‎2019 - ‎Related articles
    24 Apr 2019 - To cite this article: Leif Holmlid and Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen 2019 Phys. Scr. 94 .... decay from ultra-dense hydrogen clusters, muon spectra in.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Storms There's some discussion of tritium in the Wikipedia article including this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

    I know there is no fondness among LENR enthusiasts for Wikipedia so I will look for the other tritium discussions I found in the past, when I have time. I didn't just make it up, folks.

    The story that Taubes told and Science published was based on imagination and lies. The assertion was investigated and found to have no basis in fact. I even wrote a letter to science pointing out that the behavior of the tritium reported by Bockris did not correspond to the behavior if the tritium had resulted from contamination or spiking. My letter was ignored. That was the level of integrity that existed at the time in the skeptical community. The evidence for creation of tritium is now overwhelming. The story told by Taubes is just one more example of just how wrong and dishonest the skeptics really are. Taubes also lied about many other events. But the skeptics only believe information if it comes from a nonbeliever while honest people who were present when all this went down are ignored.

    Thanks for the support and the question about the Holmlid work. Holmlid clearly has demonstrated a very strange behavior taking place in a chemical structure. However, his claim of muon formation is hard to justify, but stranger things have been seen. Nevertheless, muons can not be the cause of cold fusion because muons are known to cause the nuclear products typical of hot fusion. In addition, the nature of this reaction is consistent with conventional nuclear theory. In contrast, the cold fusion reaction is not consistent with conventional nuclear theory. Something new and different is happening. People have to stop trying to apply an understanding of hot fusion to the cold fusion process. Also, I have no idea and no way of knowing whether the Holmlid effect has any relationship to cold fusion or not.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Doesn't matter. If Mizuno is vindicated, it won't matter in the "scheme of things." If he's not, it won't matter either. It's not important whether or not you publish something in Nature.


    I agree. But why did you say I am shooting myself in the foot by not writing a polite letter to Nature? And I remain curious: What exactly do you think I should say to them, polite or not?

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I know there is no fondness among LENR enthusiasts for Wikipedia so I will look for the other tritium discussions I found in the past, when I have time. I didn't just make it up, folks.


    I suggest that instead of reading "discussions" you should read scientific papers. The Wikipedia entry says that the tritium results from the NCFI were "met with indifference." Suppose that is true? It has no bearing on whether those results were valid. Rather than trying to determine whether the results were met with indifference, I suggest you read those results and judge them on their scientific merit. Or, if you cannot judge for yourself, I suggest you refrain from holding or expressing any opinion about them. Telling us that other people supposedly met a result with indifference is not useful. Because science it not a popularity contest. The NCFI results were described in several papers such as:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGreproducib.pdf


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf


    The latter begins:


    "Tritium up to fifty times background has been observed upon electrolyzing 1N D2SO4 in four out of four cells when using Pd cathodes "of a certain type". No tritium was detected in four control cells, containing H2S04 in H2O, employing Pd cathodes cut from the same wire spool. Tritium amounts were from 7 x 10^10 to 2.1 × 10^11 atoms, corresponding to average generation rates from 5.1 × 10^4 to 2 × 10^5 atoms/sec/cm2 . In all cases, D/Pd and H/Pd loadings of 1 ± 0.05 were attained. A cyclic loading/unloading regime rather than the usual continuous constant current regime was applied to attain these high loadings. Tritium analysis was performed in Pd, electrolyte and the gas head space of the sealed cells. Maximum tritium concentrations of 8.9 × 10^10 atoms/g Pd, 180 times the detection limit, were found in the D-loaded Pd cathodes, none in the Η-loaded Pd . . ."


    That is impressive. Whether it was met by indifference or not, it remains impressive.



    Looking for information on cold fusion in Wikipedia is like drinking water from a sewer.

    Thanks for the encouragement to stay young. So far I have reached 88 without too many health distractions. Perhaps if I out live the skeptics, my efforts will not be in vain.


    I agree, a cluster is required but with a unique configuration. Also, the D in this configuration has to be more thermodynamically stable than is the D in the surrounding lattice because otherwise it would not form. Consequently, a very different kind of condition in which the cluster can form would be required , but one that is not related to the normal crystal structure. Also, my studies as well as other behaviors show that once this structure forms, the rate of the LENR reaction is not related to the D/Pd ratio. The Mizuno experience is consistent with this conclusion.


    I propose nano-gaps are the unique structure. As is well known, physical separation of the atoms in a such a structure takes place most easily during deloading. That is why I propose a loading-deloading process is required.


    I don't understand how this process relates to your explanation.

    Here is more history about production of tritium by the LENR process. The initial attempt to replicate the F-P effect involved looking for tritium and neutrons because the process was thought to produce the same nuclear products as hot fusion. Neutrons were not detected by many efforts but tritium was detected without significant neutron production. The first success was by Bockris and at nearly the same time by my group at LANL. Detailed success in India was made public shortly thereafter. This success was followed by many more demonstrations, as I summarized in my first book.


    Initially, the work at LANL was accepted in the spirit of normal science, but with much review both at the laboratory and later by the journal. Only later after the DOE rejected the claim were the seeds of general skepticism planted, which grew into a dense weed patch. As result, people were encouraged to imagine all kinds of crazy sources of the tritium that had no relationship to reality. Nevertheless, each idea was tested and found not to apply. Unfortunately, this effort had no effect on the negative opinions. initially the skeptics were useful. Now they only reveal just how ignorant and unscientific they really are. Their role now is to protect the conventional energy sources, whether they realize this role or not. This behavior demonstrate just how difficult it is to change false ideas once the idea has become institutionalized. I would expect a modern scientist would think carefully about rejecting LENR because of the risk of being revealed as ignorant of basic facts, like claiming the earth is flat or that we never went to the moon. The reality of LENR has been demonstrated. Now we wait for the ignorant to finally learn this fact.


    The only unknown is how the process operates. A true scientist accepts this question as a challenge, not a reason to reject the idea as nonsense.

    @Ed


    Can you tell us how the tritium was measured?


    (And BTW, your paper investigating the claim of spiking in the Bockris (?, it was his lab right?) lab eliminated one of an infinite number of possibilities. It did not eliminate the potential of fraud or interference (deliberate or not) at all. As a process support chemist, I have been faced with things like that many times. The correct way to do it is to back-calculate what the exposure would have had to have been to obtain the results obtained, and then go and see if such an exposure mechanism could be found.)

    @Shane


    But that was what the whole thing was about. Taubes' claim samples were spiked and Ed's comment above about how that was proven wrong. It actually wasn't.


    Edit: I should add that was proven unreasonable was the idea that a simple, single spike would produce the results obtained.

    Storms you said below:


    I agree, a cluster is required but with a unique configuration. Also, the D in this configuration has to be more thermodynamically stable than is the D in the surrounding lattice because otherwise it would not form. Consequently, a very different kind of condition in which the cluster can form would be required , but one that is not related to the normal crystal structure. Also, my studies as well as other behaviors show that once this structure forms, the rate of the LENR reaction is not related to the D/Pd ratio. The Mizuno experience is consistent with this conclusion.


    You have to consider that "stacking fault energy" of lattice, in few words, that means the lattice deformation by cracks is an energy potential.

    When D+/H+ diffuses through lattice up to cracks, D+/H+ tends to realign / repair the lattice where crack takes place then it releases its energy ( lattice deformation "removed") that stabilizes H+/D+ cluster.

    this is well explained by this French ( sorry) file at the end i already shared here.

    This well explains both why Pd/Ag alloy seems better than only Pd, for example.

    Second stage of own recipe by MP.

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    @Ed


    Can you tell us how the tritium was measured?


    (And BTW, your paper investigating the claim of spiking in the Bockris (?, it was his lab right?) lab eliminated one of an infinite number of possibilities. It did not eliminate the potential of fraud or interference (deliberate or not) at all. As a process support chemist, I have been faced with things like that many times. The correct way to do it is to back-calculate what the exposure would have had to have been to obtain the results obtained, and then go and see if such an exposure mechanism could be found.)

    The tritium was measured by the scintillation method, which is the industry standard.


    So, you assume Bockris got some tritium water ( which is not easy to get), calculated how much had to be added each time (And by chance was close to the rate of production other people observed), and then risked his reputation by engaging in fraud. And why would he do this? He had nothing to gain. After the Taubes accusation, the university launched an investigation. They found no evidence of fraud. This was not a whitewash because there was great interest by certain faculty members at the university to take down Bockris for personal reasons.


    But you seem to think only your explanation can be believed. If Bockris had been the only person to detect tritium, a case for fraud or incompetence might be plausible. However, the element has been detected by numerous laboratories under conditions that completely eliminate a prosaic source.

    Are you willing to say that everyone who detected tritium also engaged in fraud or was too incompetent to know where the tritium came from?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.