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

Quote from Storms

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?

Of course not. Stop trying to make me out as a pathoskeptic. You know better.

Quote from Storms

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

Well, that's nice, but that's hardly adequate. You have defined the fact that liquid scintillation was used, which means a class of experimental methods using LSC devices and cocktails was used. Which ones? (cocktails , instruments, prep methods, etc.)

Quote from Storms

So, you assume Bockris got some...

I assume nothing here. I simply pointed out that the appropriate way to define how a particular time profile (in this case of T in water) came to be is not to assume an exposure profile and show it doesn't match. That simply eliminates one of an infinite number of possibilities. The correct way is to back-calculate the exposure profile necessary to obtain the results obtained, and see if that could happen accidentally or deliberately due to contamination.

BTW, that generic approach is exactly what I did in my reanalysis of your Pt results. I assumed no excess energy, back-calculated what had to have happened to get the signal you got, and postulated a reasonable mechanism to do so. The fact that the changes required were very small was a bonus, especially when a systematic trend was found in them.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Well, that's nice, but that's hardly adequate. You have defined the fact that liquid scintillation was used, which means a class of experimental methods using LSC devices and cocktails was used. Which ones? (cocktails , instruments, prep methods, etc.)

I suggest you read papers by Bockris to learn these things.

Quote from JedRothwell

I suggest you read papers by Bockris to learn these things.

I did. The info isn't there. In fact, it isn't there in any tritium studies reports in this field. Which is my point....

Quote from Shane D.

How about you skeptics stay away from this kind of stuff, and stick to keeping us honest about the science?

Your bias is showing Shane. You are consistently reading stuff into what I have said today that isn't there. Please stop.

I have no opinion or comment to offer on the Taubes affair.

You may not have refreshed yourself enough to note that Ed published a paper claiming that he showed that spiking could not have been the cause of a particular tritium result. I indicated I thought he was referring to Bockris but wasn't sure, but Ed can correct me on that. I further indicated that his method did not prove that. That is Ed's method. Nothing to do with Bockris or Taubes.

With Jed's comment above, I have now indicated that the methodology used to detect tritium is never adequately described. I will add here there is reason (probably two in reality) to be suspicious of 'industry standard' (to use Ed's term) results.

We shouldn't base any belief/disbelief on questioned results.

Quote

No talk of fraud, or deliberate interference unless it is in reference to Rossi.

Oh please! It was not in any way an accusation. It was simply included in a list of possible explanations for a result. We mention those items in that context here all the time. For example when talking about Mizuno's claims and the fact that while we don't think it probable, delusion and deliberate deception have to be ruled out. Again, not an accusation- a simple statement of fact. And BTW, it doesn't take a lawyer to realize that put that way, this can never be a cause for a defamation action. And of course, it is unquestionably true that those items have to be considered.

Quote

One of the 2 or 3 best electrochemists in the world, and this little weasel Taubes takes that away from him. There is a story here about fraud, but it is not about Bockris.

There you go, Shane D. , doing exactly what you asked others not to do. Not that I object to it but man, be consistent!

Quote from Shane D.

Will accept your word as the last, with the exception of me being biased. I may be biased in believing there is something to LENR, but that does not extend to you skeptics. Yes, I always hope you lose an argument on the scientific merits, but only because the planet wins, if you lose. And hey, we all want to save the planet...right?

The whole point about science is that you try to separate your beliefs from your hopes. I'm not saying anyone succeeds, but the idea that those skeptical of LENR do not, just as much as anyone else, hope for a new cheap carbon-free energy source is a misreading of the reasons of skepticism.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The whole point about science is that you try to separate your beliefs from your hopes

So where is that scientific quote from the scientific literature which reveals that 1000eV screening is predicted by conventional theory.

Is this is a hope or a belief from THHnew?

Quote from RobertBryant

So where is that scientific quote from the literature which reveals that 1000eV screening is predicted by conventional theory.

Is this is a hope or a belief from THHnew?

RB - What "technical content" does the above post have? (As you are always saying) Or is it just more of your usual juvenile BS that shows your maturity level?

Yes indeed.

Oh by the way... you have never answered :

Was your support and technical contributions to ME356 " a hope or belief" from RobertBryant ? What did your "technical content" ability get your there?

Was your support and technical contributions to Rossi " a hope of belief" from RobertBryant? What did your "technical content" ability show of your discernment here?

Was your support and technical contributions to "he who shall not be named and has disappeared" a hope or belief from RobertBryant ? Indeed, "your technical content" has shown a lot of fruit? NOT.

Let's see.... all those who RobertBryant have elevated to be the "Real Deal" and RobertBryant bought into has shown that RobertBryant's

"technical ability" to discern or judge scientific matters amount to squat! Too bad!

Yet he cannot keep his self righteous mouth shut and cannot learn from the past. He just keeps making a fool of himself in his juvenile taunts while his history shows his true ability! Quite sad indeed. (Yes he is blocked but occasionally visit without logging in and his posts pop up)

Quote from Bob#2

What "technical content" does the above post have

1000ev Is the technical content

The problem is that Thomas Schenkel from GoogleX measured 1000eV screening potential as an explanation

of the unexpected neutron output from metal bombardment and said in an interview that anomalies not explained by theory

are what prompts his further investigations with bombardments in the

lower energy regions such as 500EV and below

but THHNew maintains that this is all unsurprising because it is explained by current theory..

unfortunately THHnew has never been able to quote which theory it comes from

giving vague references....Czerski Ishimaru... something

this is hope or belief?

Perhaps B2 can help

Do you have a technical comment on 1000EV screening?? bTW B2 try to stay on topic.. and God Bless

Quote from RobertBryant

Do you have a technical comment on 1000EV screening??

Bob 2 .. according to THHnew this is all unsurprising..

""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].""

Please read Thomas Schenkel' et als publication in arxiv and comment technically on it... please try to stay on topic

Investigation of light ion fusion reactions with plasma discharges

Authors: T. Schenkel, A. Persaud, H. Wang, P. A. Seidl, R. MacFadyen, C. Nelson, W. L. Waldron, J. -L. Vay, G. Deblonde, B. Wen, Y. -M. Chiang, B. P. MacLeod, Q. Ji

The tritium story seems to have world-wide acceptance now - here's a quick expt for TG to replicate:

Institute for Metals Superplasticity Problems RAS, 39 Khalturin St., Ufa, 450001, Russia

The main proof of fusion reactions of deuterium nuclei is the presence of nuclear reaction products. When detecting tritium after saturation of titanium powders with deuterium reproducible results of its high concentration have been found. Titanium powders of two different batches have been used. According to metallographic studies, powder # 1 had an average particle size of d = 110 ± 5 μm; lazer diffraction analyzer of particle sizes registered one more maximum near the size of d = 0.2 μm. Powder # 2 was a sifted fraction with sizes in interval 80 < d < 150 μm. For powder # 1 the measured concentrations of tritium amounted about cT = (11 – 14) ∙ 103 dpm and for powder # 2 cT = (1.45 – 1.57) ∙ 103 dpm, a concentration typical for deuterium used.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm not saying anyone succeeds, but the idea that those skeptical of LENR do not, just as much as anyone else, hope for a new cheap carbon-free energy source is a misreading of the reasons of skepticism.

I had (long time ago) many discussions with the boss of the Swiss power grid management. His dream was a C0₂ free Swiss power system entirely based on nuclear power plants. Such plants 50 years ago already needed 15% of grey (CO₂) energy for construction not included the grid and the fuel. Today producing the fuel also consumes 15% of the energy finally produced. Just these two factors totally carbon bound make nuclear energy at least 30% carbon equivalent. (disposing the used fuel at least adds 10 more %...)

Thus it would be nice to know what kind of dream(s) THH has for a carbon free fuel system.

It would also be nice if he once definitely could make a statement whether he believes that there is no physical effect called LENR or whether LENR as an energy source will no have success.

Not reading Russian, is it possible that the different forms of titanium are just absorbing different amounts of tritium from the deuterium? i.e. deuterium contains tritium and the tritium maybe absorbed preferentially in some matrices compared to others.

It may be possible that the authors burnt the deuterium and measured the tritium in the resulting deuterium oxide and concluded that the TOTAL exposure of the various Ti particles to deuterium (total D2 used) was insufficient to explain the tritium results. Can someone clarify that from the original article?

Quote from Dr Richard

The tritium story seems to have world-wide acceptance now

World-wide? Doubtful. Within the LENR community. Of course.

Which is why I was bringing up the method for detecting tritium. The 'industry standard' is the method described in:

"Tritium Analysis in Palladium with an Open System Analytical Procedure", K. Cedzynska, S. Barrowes, H. E. Bergeson, L. C. Knight, and F.G. Will, Fus. Tech., 20, (1991), 108

In fact, the paper above was recommended to me by a colleague for some work we were doing jointly. In the conclusions, they mention this is the method used by Wolf, one of the first to claim T detection in F&P cells.

They also say: "Unfortunately, in evaluating the applicability of this analytical procedure for reliable tritium determination, we find the open-system technique to be sometimes subject to artificially high count rates (due to color effects in the solution and, possibly, to metal contaminants in the palladium), and also to artificially low count rates (due to possible loss of gaseous tritium during the various steps involved in the open-system procedure)."

Elsewhere in that section they note that "improper analytical procedures" could introduce tritium contamination. They go on to say; "the use of reliable techniques should be mandatory" and "A reliable technique ... has been developed and will be described in the near future".

IOW, the 'industry standard' method has some issues, at least according to Will, et al.

Will later published this:

"Closed-System Analysis of Tritium in Palladium", K. Cedzynska and F. G. Will, Fus. Tech., 22, (1992) 156,

that describes the improved method. However, that method uses a microdistillation, which is a real pain to do, very labor intensive. Plus, it also incorporates a catalytic gas recombination to catch lost tritium. As such it isn't normally used, since most samples in the nuclear business are well above the T limits where problems can arise with the interferents Will lists in his 1991 publication. The last sentence of the paper is: "Application of the closed-system procedure...is advisable to ascertain that there is no possibility for tritium contamination." IOW, "the best technique is this one". But the 'best' is not the 'standard', because of the work load of the best technique.

The 'standard' technique requires the use of quench compensation to offset the sample coloring by dissolved Pd in these analyses. This is why contaminants can alter the results. But everyone knew from the earliest days that Pt could be found on the Pd cathode, i.e. the electrolyte was dissolving some of the anode and depositing it on the cathode. The reverse of that was never investigated to my knowledge, an interesting omission. Dilute enough Pd won't show visible color but can still affect the tritium

measurement. Other elements or particles can do that to, especially nanoparticles. For ex., solutions of gold nanoparticles are red-colored. If you have nanoparticles floating around, the quench correction would need to be adjusted. When might that happen? How about during codep, when sometimes macroscopic chunks break off (as per comments made in this forum recently). Nanosized deposits forming in solution or breaking off the cathode are clearly possible.

The point is, the CF researchers never talk about this. They just say, as Ed did, "We used LSC." There's a lot more to it than that.

Oh BTW, Will was the director of the National Cold Fusion Institute that was set up in Utah after the F&P announcement when he published these papers.

Quote from DAK

Not reading Russian, is it possible that the different forms of titanium are just absorbing different amounts of tritium from the deuterium?

Isotope effects are possible but Ti doesn't show a strong isotope effect in most cases. I'd look elsewhere if I were you.

Might be a surface area effect. The sieved sample would have fewer small particles which have a larger surface/volume ratio, i.e. more m^2 per gram. Thus they might absorb more. You'd need to look at the whole of the particle size distribution results and follow up with some other fractions I would guess.

Quote from Dr Richard

The tritium story seems to have world-wide acceptance now - here's a quick expt for TG to replicate:

Institute for Metals Superplasticity Problems RAS, 39 Khalturin St., Ufa, 450001, Russia

The main proof of fusion reactions of deuterium nuclei is the presence of nuclear reaction products. When detecting tritium after saturation of titanium powders with deuterium reproducible results of its high concentration have been found. Titanium powders of two different batches have been used. According to metallographic studies, powder # 1 had an average particle size of d = 110 ± 5 μm; lazer diffraction analyzer of particle sizes registered one more maximum near the size of d = 0.2 μm. Powder # 2 was a sifted fraction with sizes in interval 80 < d < 150 μm. For powder # 1 the measured concentrations of tritium amounted about cT = (11 – 14) ∙ 103 dpm and for powder # 2 cT = (1.45 – 1.57) ∙ 103 dpm, a concentration typical for deuterium used.

In 1989, cold fusion was looked for when Ti and D2 were combined. The results are described in:

Menlove, H. O.; Fowler, M. M.; Garcia, E.; Mayer, A.; Miller, M. C.; Ryan, R. R. In Workshop on Cold Fusion Phenomena Santa Fe, NM,, 1989.

Menlove, H. O.; Paciotti, M. A.; Claytor, T. N.; Tuggle, D. G. Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion", Como, Italy, 1991; p 385.

Menlove, H. O.; Paciotti, M. A.; Claytor, T. N.; Maltrud, H. R.; Rivera, O. M.; Tuggle, D. G.; Jones, S. E. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, "AIP Conference Proceedings 228", Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT, 1990; p 287.

Menlove, H. O.; Fowler, M. M.; Garcia, E.; Miller, M. C.; Paciotti, M. A.; Ryan, R. R.; Jones, S. E. Measurement of neutron emission from Ti and Pd in pressurized D2 gas and D2O electrolysis cells. J. Fusion Energy 1990, 9 (4), 495.

Menlove, H. O.; Fowler, M. M.; Garcia, E.; Mayer, A.; Miller, M. C.; Ryan, R. R.; Jones, S. E. The measurement of neutron emission from Ti plus D2 gas. J. Fusion Energy 1990, 9, 215.

Lipson, A. G.; Sakov, A. G.; Klyuev, V. A.; Deryagin, B. V.; Toporov, Y. P. Neutron emission during the mechanical treatment of titanium in the presence of deuterated substances. JETP 1989, 49 (11), 675.

De Ninno, A.; Frattolillo, A.; Lollobattista, G.; Martinis, L.; Martone, M.; Mori, L.; Podda, S.; Scaramuzzi, F. Emission of neutrons from a deuterium-titanium system. Energ. Nucl. (Rome) 1989, 6, 9 (in Italian).

De Ninno, A.; Frattolillo, A.; Lollobattista, G.; Martinis, L.; Martone, M.; Mori, L.; Podda, S.; Scaramuzzi, F. Evidence of emission of neutrons from a titanium-deuterium system. Europhys. Lett. 1989, 9 (3), 221.

De Ninno, A.; Frattolillo, A.; Lollobattista, G.; Martinis, L.; Martone, M.; Mori, L.; Podda, S.; Scaramuzzi, F. Emission of neutrons as a consequence of titanium-deuterium interaction. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A 1989, 101, 841.

Campbell, R. B.; Perkins, L. J. A study of 'cold fusion' in deuterated titanium subjected to high-current densities. Fusion Technol. 1989, 16, 383.

The reaction was found to produce neutrons, which indicated that the hot fusion process was operating. Of course, the hot fusion process also produces tritium. The explanation was found to involve what was called fractofusion during which crack formation generates enough voltage to cause a brief hot fusion reaction in the cracks as they form. This phenomenon was given a lot of attention resulting in many publications over the years. Fractofusion is not cold fusion but is an unusual way to cause hot fusion. Once again, people have to be careful to keep these two kinds of fusion separated in their understanding and discussion.

Yes, and after all this work Tom Claytor & Co working at Los Alamos conducted further exhausting studies of T production using scintilator counting under various controlled conditions ruling out hopefully all probable artifacts. The evidence is strong justifying a positive result if TG attempted to replicate this.

TRITIUM PRODUCTION FROM A LOW VOLTAGE DEUTERIUM DISCHARGE ON PALLADIUM AND
OTHER METALS
T. N. Claytor, D. D. Jackson and D. G. Tugglc
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 8754S
ABSTRACT
Over the past year we have been able to demonstrate that a plasma loading method produces an exciting and
unexpected amount of tritium from small palladium wires. In contrast to electrochemical hydrogen or deuterium loading
of palladium, this method yields a reproducible tritium generation rate when various electrical and physical conditions
are met Small diameter wires (100 - 250 microns) have been used with gas pressures above 200 torr at voltages and
currents of about 2000 V at 3-5 A By carefidly controlling the sputtering rate of the wire, runs have been extended to
hundreds of hours allowing a significant amount (> 10's nCi) of tritium to accumulate. We will show tritium generation
rates for deuterium-palladium foreground runs that are up to 25 times larger than hydrogen-palladium control
experiments using materials from the same batch. We will illustrate the difference between batches of annealed
palladium and as received palladium from several batches as well as the effect of other metals (Pt, Ni, Nb, Zr, V, W, Hf)
to demonstrate that the tritium generation rate can vary greatly from batch to batch.
1. INTRODUCTION
We will report on our tritium generation results from a palladium wire-plate configuration subjected to periodic
pulsed deuterium or hydrogen plasma. This configuration is reproducible within a batch and produces a measurable
amount of tritium in a few days. As in other work in this area, it has been found that the output is very batch dependent
and sensitive to material impurities that prevent hydriding. As in our previous work1

3
, all tritium data was obtained from
several batches of 100 or 250 micron wire and 250 micron thick plate from J&M or Goodfellow metals. In these
experiments most of the tritium data was obtained with on-line tritium gas monitors. Several times, the gas was oxidized
and tested with a scintillation counter.
Some have criticized the detection of tritium because the signals seem to be (a) insignificant, (b) tritium is
ubiquitous, and (c) the palladium metal is subject to possible tritium contamination. The magnitude of the signals,
discussed in this paper are multi-sigma and are sometimes over a hundred times the tritium background in the supply
gas. Furthermore, the rate of tritium evolution in the sealed system may be the most sensitive and rapid indicator of
anomalous nuclear behavior in deuterided metals. As such, it is well suited for parametric investigations. We will
briefly discuss the possible avenues for contamination and show mat each is negligible, or not a factor, in the
experiments described.