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

  • The whole fractofusion story seems to have been dropped since 1992 , Strange since it fits in well with NAEs originating from crack formation on D orH absorption by Pd, Ni or Ti.

    The fractofusion mechanism of coldfusion is investigated theoretically. The conditions necessary for fractofusion during the absorption of deuterium atoms by palladium specimens (the condition of so-called coldfusion experiments) is clarified, including crack generation at grain boundaries, the high orientation angle of grains, rapid crack formation, the increase of electrical resistance around a crack, the large width of cracks, and the generation of many cracks. The origin and quantity of the electrical field inside cracks in the conductor are clarified also. By the fractofusion mechanism, the experimental facts that neutron emissions are observed in bursts, that sometimes they coincide with the deformation of a palladium specimen, and that in many experiments excess neutrons were not observed are qualitatively explained. The upper limit of the total fractofusion yields during the absorption of deuterium atoms by palladium specimens are estimated. The upper limit of the total yield increases to 7 × 106/cm3 palladium as the grain size increases to 1 mm. This value is larger than those observed in many experiments. It indicates that the experiments can be explained by the fractofusion mechanism.

    I wonder why this idea was dropped? Dropped out of fashion or relegated to a hot fusion mechanism?

  • Claytor used Femototechs to produce those results. Femototechs are susceptible to interferences from other chemicals in the gas phase which is why Tom notes the extremes he went to to supposedly clean the surfaces with a plasma before he ran the experiments. However, being a pathoskeptic, I wanted to know how he assured himself the experimental conditions didn't cause 'additional' cleaning, i.e., how did he know his cleaning was adequate, so, I emailed him. He replied, 'read the paper' (paraphrase). I replied 'I did, but I still have a couple of questions, which are...'. He never replied.

    Some time later I asked Dale Tuggle about the paper, expressing that I was a little skeptical. He replied that I was right to be so. No further discussion ensued.

    Replication answers all.


  • Claytor has had access to the world's experts on tritium detection. He has addressed all the issues you can imagine and then some. He does not have the time or interest to feed the pathoskeptics. He is focused on making LENR work and finding out what kind of materials are required. He has demonstrated that the nuclear process is material specific. Also, that tritium production requires both D and H to be present in the material, Neutrons are not produced at the rate expected from hot fusion. In other words, LENR is a new and different process that can make tritium as well as He4 and various transmutation products. His results are totally consist with what other people have observed. Its about time the discussion focus on how and why LENR occurs not on whether it occurs or what mistakes he might have made..

  • @Cy - I started into study of cold fusion in 1995, when I joined the hydrogen processing group here at the Savannah River National Laboratory. The claims made by CF pundits directly threaten my safety, and the safety of my coworkers. Therefore, I try to stay abreast of the field and I have studied specific aspects of interest in the past, which led to my publications in the field. I personally work with almost all of the materials people claim do LENR. Previously I worked for 8 years with pure tritium. I am currently setting up a small gas handling manifold for work on materials with small amounts of tritium in them. I have much relevant experience beyond that as well. Is that 'big long enough' for you?

    • Official Post

    I have much relevant experience beyond that as well. Is that 'big long enough' for you?

    I think what Cydonia means, is you do not have to be so blunt. No need for that here, as subtlety is more effective. Good for the blood pressure too...not only on the one writing the post, but those reading it. Instead of cringing when you post, people will pay attention.

    Claytor was under no obligation to respond to your questions. He no doubt knew who you were, or checked around and found out, and decided to avoid an argument he could never win. No reason to keep on hammering him. He is one of the old guard also, and like I said...they have had to put up with enough already. They should not have to worry about becoming LF members, and going through the same crappolla they suffered through the past 30 years.

  • RB,

    I will do this once. One can generically divide the scientific process into 3 phases. (This is not the only way, nor perhaps the best, but it is what I will use here.) Phase 1. - Formulating and studying the question - what is it you want to research, what has already been done, what might you do, what do you need to do it, getting funding/permission/whatever is needed to proceed to Phase 2. Phase 2, - Doing it. Buying equipment, assembling it, testing it, calibrating it, running it on unknowns. getting data. Phase 3. Turning data into conclusions and 'writing it up'.

    Phase 3 is done in one's office most of the time. Therefore, if another gets the same raw 'Phase 2' info you have (such as I did with Ed's data in 2000), that other can theoretically do Phase 3 as well as you. So far, w.r.t. F&P cells, all of my commentary is on Phase 3. I don't need to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time to do Phase 3 as well as anyone else. All I need to be able to do is analyze data.

    My suggestions w.r.t. Mizuno's work are often w.r.t. Phase 3 also. Sometimes I speculate on what could be done differently in Phase 2, but so does everyone else here.

    You, for example, have never suggested what might be wrong with my reanalysis of Ed's data. You also have never suggested what might be wrong with my recent reanalysis of the original F&P calorimetric method. Instead you try to insinuate I have to do some kind of Phase 2 work. I don't. Phase 3 is separable from Phase 2. I have done the Phase 3 work. I published some in 2002. I responded to critics in 2005 and 2006, and in 2012 with my whitepaper, a less satisfactory method but I wasn't allowed to do the normal thing. I posted here in 2017 on the F&P methods. Your suggestions I need to do Phase 2-type work is nothing but trolling. Please stop trolling.

    P.S. Give up on Researchgate, I have. Try literature searching instead.

  • Claytor was under no obligation to respond to your questions.

    You are totally and completely correct on that. Except for the generic responsibility to the 'progress of science'. Science is a consensus activity. The saying is "You don't have a discovery until someone confirms it." If we were to follow Claytor's example, we would all stand in our respective corners, shouting out ('publishing') what we all believe to be 'the facts', and ignore everything else.

    Oh wait, that is what you guys do...

  • kirkshanahan

    75% of Lenr papers turn around Pd/D both with high loading stipulated by too much followers researchers.
    it seems that things are less obvious nowadays.
    What credibility to give today to these great institutions such as yours, or French CEA for example ?

    Mc Kubre said recently:

    “Our field is dying. Our average age increases nearly one year per year. I was 40 when we started in 1989 and near the peak of my career. Now I am 70 and retired. The problem is not just age and inactivity, it is unwillingness and inability to learn or change. We need fresh new ideas and perspe ctives and to incorporate technically modern concepts.