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

  • Curbina ,

    please could you send me again paper you refered ?

    It's a strange understanding to me so i have to explain why.

    Quickly, by Lenr studies, you must find new ideas, you are forced to imagine/creating new things because current theories don't stick well.

    So , i found a model which explain well by nuclei's clusters oxygen, helium, carbon abnormalities inside binding energy chart, for example.

    Then i moved forward by a specific universe model linked with this which led me to idea that universe dimensions were anisotropic.

    Lenr science appears as an esoteric one, I don't even mention flying saucers...But if I drove one, following this model, I think it would move by zig zag ways.

    All this to say that it has been regularly seen zig zag traces onto Lenr surfaces both. Would be a way to avoid gravity ?
    In any case, this paper shared by Curbina is worth deep reading.


    DF

  • I am also confused.


    Confused why Ascoli and Huxley cannot understand that to do boil off, you would have to know FIRST If the Palladium Cathode is LENR active or not.


    And to find which Palladium cathodes are LENR active, you would NOT just jump to boil off, but OF COURSE do more controlled calorimetry experiments.


    So, boil off is NOT used to prove LENR, but an EXTENSION of LENR at higher temperatures in wet Pd/D cells.

    Exactly right. Well said.

  • Ascoli65 wrote:

    As we know, theorists excludes that LENR is possible (at any measurable extent), but LENR supporters counter that these phenomena are real because they have been experimentally observed by many reputable scientists that have published their results in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers.

    I wonder what people would make of the phrase "hot fusion troll" outside of this context. Perhaps it will trend on twitter #hotfusiontroll ?


    THH


    At least people that teach circuit board design are interested...


    But you have to answer the same question since some days and fail too.


    THHuxleynew :: Please give us all/forum members the famous theory that tells why LENR is unphysical and not possible... May be you should first ask hot fusionist Ascoli that is closer to the business.

  • THHuxleynew :: Please give us all/forum members the famous theory that tells why LENR is unphysical and not possible... May be you should first ask hot fusionist Ascoli that is closer to the business.


    I've never said LENR is impossible.


    LENR theories are not physical theories (yet) because they do not (yet) make definite predictions which would allow the theory to be rejected if prediction found wrong. That is a characteristic of all physical theories - except possibly evolutionary theory which is a special case and strange - but even that predictions were made (that phenotype is inheritable) that have been found correct now we have better genetics.

  • The so-called boil off is simply the result of the exponential increase in power as temperature is increased. Why not simply measure the effect of temperature, as I and Mizuno have done, instead of causing the electrolyte to boil. Calling the effect feedback, as Fleischmann did, causes confusion. Many exothermic reactions show this kind of behavior. The only question is what causes the temperature to have this effect. I have suggested the obvious answer, that for fusion to take place the D atoms have to diffuse to the location where this happens. The rate of diffusion, which increases exponentially with temperature appears to be the rate determining process. Once this idea is understood, the effect of temperature becomes obvious and controllable.


    Yes, LENR is impossible. Nuclear reactions are not influenced by a chemical environment. This is a well known fact. Like all well known facts, exceptions seem to keep happening. Like all exceptions, the the reason for their existence needs to be discovered. Scientists make a living by exploring exceptions. Why is this one so hard to explore?

  • Clearly then the diffusion of D to the NAE sites is optimized in Mizuno's reactor resulting in these sustained excess energy releases, So more heat increases the diffusion rate and what is usually a burst-like transient reaction (seen in Zhang's replication) becomes finely tuned to be continuous and controllable? Studying the Pd/Ni mesh for evidence of other LENR's and transmutation of elements will hopefully give us some of the answers. Please come up with the funds for this research IH or Google.

  • Fralick's diffused H or D from Pd bulk to outside, XH with D nothing with H, what is here the relation NAE/XH ?

    According to my theory all isotopes of hydrogen will fuse. D+D makes He and 23 MeV/event. H+H makes D with about 2 MeV/ event, which is why the H+H fusion is seldom detected. H+D fusion makes tritium. In every case, the rate of reaction is determined by how fast the hydrogen isotope can get to the NAE by diffusion through the surrounding hydride . Of course, the greater the number of NAE sites, the greater the amount power will be produced.

  • He is right: LENR can neither be proved nor disproved (by experiments). LENR can only be excluded theoretically, the way he and his team have already done on Nature (1) by reminding us that: "…


    You made that up. TG did not disprove anything, and you of all people would, and *do* know that. This is a serious thread, and your input to it has been tolerated, simply because until now you have at least *pretended* to be sincere...although no one was fooled. Entertaining though. I suggest you go back to pretending your intent is good. This did not even come close.


    TG is as excited now, as back in 2015 when it was being formed. Maybe even more so. There will even be additional input now from some in the mainstream. Those are not indications of a defeated team.

  • Storms


    you talk about NAE but don't have any hypothesis to share about what's happen inside ?


    We can consider NAE as a pseudo surface, so it's a D+/H+ cluster which tends to recover its electrons.

    Things happens when some electron's should be braken to disrupt in an unconventional way electric field between nuclei. remember that radical's species have a non-zero magnetic field that should be important since Piantelli already.

    I read that it takes a certain duration of exposure for an pseudo slow electron between 2 nuclei for that reaction takes place.

    Some more skilled than me, says it's impossible, so I suggest rather unconventional electronic trajectories (zig zag ??) that could play a role on their mass.

    I found a nice name to describe that, "crazy electronic syndrom" :)

    This particular behavior remains my explanation for Groszek's work, where in a very small picometers volume, both H mono must be recombined because dissociated onto Ni catalyst, O2 must be dissociated... to do again water.

    Radicals or transient chemical species should generate a strong, very messy magnetic field (shaped like a ball?)


    and you what should be your explanation Storms about what's happen inside your NAE concept ?

  • LENR theories are not physical theories (yet) because they do not (yet) make definite predictions

    This is one of the usual sweeping THHNew generalisations, which sounds like THHnew has read a whole lot.

    but he hasn't


    Which LENR theories is THHnew suggesting ..do not make predictions....


    all of them

    some of them

    none of them


    because there are a lot of them.

    such as Takahashi's TSC

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…0f7e9bcfab2477dc/download

    Widom Larsen neutron...

    Hagelstein phonon....

    I've never said LENR is impossible.

    Glad to know that THHnew believes LENR is possible.. I was confused about that.


    But I'm not sure what THHnew believes about the many results showing evidence of LENR

    anomalous heat far in excess of chemical heat

    transmutations..

  • You made that up. TG did not disprove anything, and you of all people would, and *do* know that.


    I didn't made anything up. I didn't write that TG "disproved" LENR or anything else, I actually said that the authors of Nature's article "Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion" reminded us that LENR is theoretically impossible. This is the entire second paragraph of the chapter "An historical view", in which the sentences I'd mentioned have been emphasized:

    From https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6


    These results were met with immediate scepticism because nuclei at room temperature should not penetrate the Coulomb barrier. The probability of fusion drops exponentially as particle energy is reduced. Known fusion processes, at rates high enough to be quantified in current experiments, require particle energy greater than about 2 keV in the centre-of-mass frame, corresponding temperature greater than 20 million kelvin. However, to this day, disparities remain between predicted and observed fusion reaction rates at low particle energy (in the kiloelectronvolt range), which have been attributed to electronscreening effects that enhance the rate of tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier.


    Quote

    This is a serious thread, and your input to it has been tolerated, simply because until now you have at least *pretended* to be sincere...although no one was fooled. Entertaining though. I suggest you go back to pretending your intent is good. This did not even come close.


    I don’t understand why you are arguing about my sincerity and my intents, now. This is not the first time I've pointed out that LENR is (practically) impossible on a theoretical basis (*), as it was also stated by Focardi in 2010:

    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf


    The tunneling probability becomes, as a consequence, P=4.7x10-1059, so small to make the capture of a single proton by a Nickel nucleus impossible. Nevertheless we have an experimental evidence of a large energy that can only arise from nuclear reactions between Nickel and Hydrogen, the only two elements existing in our apparatus.


    Quote

    TG is as excited now, as back in 2015 when it was being formed. Maybe even more so. There will even be additional input now from some in the mainstream. Those are not indications of a defeated team.


    I didn't say they are defeated. Why should it be so? They have published on Nature, so they are engaged with the broadest scientific community to solve the CF cold case. Whatever the final outcome of this commendable effort, they will win when they will discover and report the scientific truth. Thanks to your kind hospitality, I'm offering them my modest contribution to achieve this common goal.


    (*) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • I didn't made anything up. I didn't write that TG "disproved" LENR or anything else, I actually said that the authors of Nature's article "Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion" reminded us that LENR is theoretically impossible. This is the entire second paragraph of the chapter "An historical view", in which the sentences I'd mentioned have been emphasized:

    From https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6


    These results were met with immediate scepticism because nuclei at room temperature should not penetrate the Coulomb barrier. The probability of fusion drops exponentially as particle energy is reduced. Known fusion processes, at rates high enough to be quantified in current experiments, require particle energy greater than about 2 keV in the centre-of-mass frame, corresponding temperature greater than 20 million kelvin. However, to this day, disparities remain between predicted and observed fusion reaction rates at low particle energy (in the kiloelectronvolt range), which have been attributed to electronscreening effects that enhance the rate of tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier.

    Ascoli65


    As you are not a native English speaker I will forgive your untruthful/innacurate description of what was written in that piece you quoted. That paragraph does not say anything is 'theoretically impossible' (your words). It says it 'should not' happen. They do not say 'could (cannot) not' happen. The difference between should not and could not is same as the difference between 'possible but unlikely' and 'totally impossible'. That is the door into cold fusion and the Google gang have not shut it, they are looking to find it, characterise it and (probably) commercialise it..


    Then they go on to say  'However, to this day, disparities remain between predicted and observed fusion reaction rates at low particle energy (in the kilo electronvolt range), which have been attributed to electron screening effects that enhance the rate of tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier.'


    In other words, data shows that there is a cold fusion effect. And they say in the same piece 'Nonetheless, a by-product of our investigations has been to provide new insights into highly hydrided metals and low-energy nuclear reactions, ' which suggests that they have seen things that give them reason to continue.



  • RB: perhaps I should say: no LENR theory that makes significant physical predictions has been proven right. Thus, for example, Kim BEC expected greater activity at lower temperature.


    I'd be very excited for you to list the one theory you think is correct that has made such validated predictions, stating the prediction. Or, if not yet validated, sating the thing predicted that will lead to validation when it is measured?


    Obviously, since these theories are contradictory, it is not likely more than one is real, but if you think more than one is compatible and has such a prediction i'd be interested in that too.


    Widom Larsen neutron: so who has looked for this and what were the results?

    Hagelstein phonon - grasping at straws here - all material has phonons - how do you observe a "Hagelstein phonon". But if Hagelstein's fractionating ideas are observable i'd expect him to have experiments that check that. Paper?


    I'm not saying that LENR theories could not make such predictions. just that the ones that have made such predictions have always (in my knowledge so far) not stood up. And I'll be very happy if you can outline the one with predictions that turned out correct. In absence of which we have a vague collection of ideas too indistinct to make definite predictions.


    If there are such predictions testable but not yet tested, and significant, that would be a candidate for google?


    THH

  • Hagelstein phonon - grasping at straws here - all material has phonons - how do you observe a "Hagelstein phonon". But if Hagelstein's fractionating ideas are observable i'd expect him to have experiments that check that. Paper?


    Very difficult to find this information of course. Go to Jed's library at https://lenr-canr.org/ and in the search bar type in 'Hagelstein and Phonon'. I get 163 hits - take your pick.

  • Then they go on to say 'However, to this day, disparities remain between predicted and observed fusion reaction rates at low particle energy (in the kilo electronvolt range), which have been attributed to electron screening effects that enhance the rate of tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier.'


    In other words, data shows that there is a cold fusion effect. And they say in the same piece 'Nonetheless, a by-product of our investigations has been to provide new insights into highly hydrided metals and low-energy nuclear reactions, ' which suggests that they have seen things that give them reason to continue.


    The keV electron screening data is interesting, and worth following, but it is a far stretch to call that LENR as it is known here. Such screening effects are theoretically predicted but neither theory nor experiment show "a cold fusion effect". i agree, if you had enough screening you might get LENR, but that would be D+D fusion with the expected products, which does not well fit the LENR 9as defined here) corpus.


    I'm not completely dismissing this, but before getting a cold fusion effect with measurable excess heat you would need:

    • Much higher screening than current experiments or theory suggest
    • Something different and extraordinary to explain lack of high energy products.

    Their work does provide new insights into low energy nuclear reactions if you define low energy as 1keV, which most nuclear physicists would. It also provides some (negative) insight into LENR as known here through other experiments.


    THH

  • Very difficult to find this information of course. Go to Jed's library at https://lenr-canr.org/ and in the search bar type in 'Hagelstein and Phonon'. I get 163 hits - take your pick.


    Hi Alan, I'm well aware of Hagelstein's attempts to find significant coupling between nuclear and phonon energy levels. But not aware of any specific predictions for an observable lattice phonon distinct from normal phonons. I was hoping RB could tell me, because obviously in that case experiments to find those special phonons would be interesting to the LENR community.


    The best effort in this direction i know is Siyuan LU thesis:


    During the past three decades, there were approximately 25 different anomalies in the field of condensed matter nuclear science reported by researchers. One example involves collimated X-rays coming from metal samples with vibrations without a clear explanation or understanding of the underlying physics involved. Another example involves unexpected non-exponential decay of radioactive sources. These anomalies have motivated a research effort by my Ph.D. advisor at MIT, Professor Peter Hagelstein, to investigate the physical phenomena involved. Hagelstein came up with a theory predicting coupling between phonons and internal nuclear states, leading to excitation transfer between nuclei. The aim of this Ph.D. thesis is to experimentally test Hagelstein's theory. In this research, we used Co-57 as the sample to investigate the nuclear excited states. Unexpected non-exponential decay was seen in the first attempt to look for excitation transfer effect. Heat pulse can trigger X-ray signal increments. We performed angular anisotropy experiments which appears to support the conjecture that slow resonant excitation transfer occurs for the 136 keV excited state of Co-57. We also performed delocalization experiments which appears to support the conjecture that fast excitation transfer occurs for the 14.4 keV excited state of Co-57. Our conclusion is that the experimental data are not inconsistent with Hagelstein's theory.


    They did a variety of experimental work and found some unexpected things (a bit like LENR tends to do). What is missing is specific predictions made by Hagelstein's theory that would disprove it if not found (hence specific) which were found. And i'm not talking here about coupling that does not explain LENR - there is evidence for some coupling! But "not inconsistent with" is very different from "specific prediction made is observed". You need a much more sharply defined theory for the latter.


    Had such been found it would be a big deal: and I still hope for such a breakthrough, but have not found it. Which is why I was excited at what RB said.

  • I have created a model that explains all the observed behavior in a logically consistent way, including conservation of momentum and spin. I have made several testable predictions, including predictions based on the Mizuno work. Yet, this effort is ignored. Why? Unlike the other theories, no behavior is in conflict basic knowledge about the material or nuclear physics. Of course, the theory contains unique processes as is required to explain the unique behavior of LENR. Nevertheless, the ideas are no more crazy than those used in other theories that are given attention.


    Granted, I'm not known as being a theoretician, as is Hagelstein, but perhaps that is an advantage in this field. Perhaps being able to look at the collection of behavior without being distracted by the thinking process theoreticians like to apply is a benefit. We have a puzzle game for which we need to find the rules by observing a response. Theoreticians tend to bring an attitude or basic conclusion to the problem that can be distracting. I bring no such baggage. I look at all behavior and ask what rules would allow this behavior to take place without violating any of the chosen rules or any accepted rule of Nature. Although a chosen rule may not be correct, at least the collection is internally consistent and not in conflict with what is known. Is that not a requirement of all effective theories? But if no one pays any attention to the effort, what value does it have?


    Also, I would like to point out, the process of looking at natural behavior in new ways has revealed unusual behavior having no relationship to LENR. To avoid confusion, this behavior needs to be kept separate from the behavior associated with the LENR phenomenon. Please avoid putting every strange behavior in the same pot.


  • Thank you for your patient explanation of the nuances of the English language. Actually, my inaccuracy was to have omitted to add the adverb "practically" in my words "theoretically impossible", as I did in the second part of my reply to Shane (where I specified: "LENR is (practically) impossible on a theoretical basis") and as I usually do when I venture in this critical subject. Anyway, I used "impossible" the same way Focardi did in 2010, after having calculated a tunneling probability of 4.7x10-1059.


    I think we all agree that the pluri-decennial controversy on CF is based on the conflict between established theory and some sensational experimental claims. I think that its core can be summarized by this scheme:

    Year

    2010 (1)

    2019 (2)

    Authors

    Focardi et al.

    Team Google

    Theoretical approach …

    The tunneling probability becomes, as a consequence, P=4.7x10-1059, so small to make the capture of a single proton by a Nickel nucleus impossible.

    The probability of fusion drops exponentially as particle energy is reduced. Known fusion processes, at rates high enough to be quantified in current experiments, require particle energy greater than about 2 keV in the centre-of-mass frame, corresponding temperature greater than 20 million kelvin.

    … in conflict with …

    Nevertheless …

    However,

    … sensational experimental claims

    … we have an experimental evidence of a large energy that can only arise from nuclear reactions between Nickel and Hydrogen, the only two elements existing in our apparatus.

    to this day, disparities remain between predicted and observed fusion reaction rates at low particle energy (in the kiloelectronvolt range), which have been attributed to electronscreening effects that enhance the rate of tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier.


    Since January 2011, and for many years afterwards, many people around the world - including almost all the main protagonists of the CF history – had ruled out that Focardi and his academic colleagues could have been so wrong about the "experimental evidence" they claimed to having seen during the Ecat tests (3). Today, most of these former supporters have solved the Ecat controversy by realizing that the claimed evidences were illusory.


    What I'm suggesting to the Team Google is to just check first if the same straightforward solution could also apply to the more general LENR controversy, by verifying if the CF effects claimed by F&P after their most famous and best documented experiment (4) were equally illusory.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf

    (2) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6

    (3) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    (4) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf