Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.

  • I had not bothered to read the Arxiv paper, but seeing that it was quoted in Nature, Picked my curiousity. I think the weaselese was mandatory because this experiment has all the hallmarks of a classic plasma discharge LENR publication, and has also things in common with the SAFIRE project.


    Now I understand why it was only accepted by Arxiv. JedRothwell , this paper could be perfectly added to the LENR-CANR.org repository.


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03400.pdf


    I'm happy to declare myself a cold fusion convert if that paper describes cold fusion. And any other plasma discharge work using acceleration voltages of 2kV - 15kV and finding evidence at low levels of D-D fusion from neutron detection that increases at larger acceleration voltages.


    This is interesting because the shielding potentials are higher than expected. Though as this paper points out there is some uncertainty in the data. But anything not understood is worth further exploration.


    I don't understand "weaselese" nor why it is like other CF papers where there is no detection of neutrons, and no accelerating potential that is large enough to overcome (at small rates) the Coulomb barrier.

  • Well, Ball

    I'm happy to declare myself a cold fusion convert if that paper describes cold fusion. And any other plasma discharge work using acceleration voltages of 2kV - 15kV and finding evidence at low levels of D-D fusion from neutron detection that increases at larger acceleration voltages.


    This is interesting because the shielding potentials are higher than expected. Though as this paper points out there is some uncertainty in the data. But anything not understood is worth further exploration.


    I don't understand "weaselese" nor why it is like other CF papers where there is no detection of neutrons, and no accelerating potential that is large enough to overcome (at small rates) the Coulomb barrier.

    Weaselese , said in jest, is a way to describe a form of speech or writing that uses carefully picked words to say anything and at the same time give plausible room for ambiguity and deniability of actually having meant what the direct interpretation of the words suggests.


    This paper is indeed a much strong proof of LENR than it seems prima facie.


    But is presented in a way that suggests otherwise.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • This paper is indeed a much strong proof of LENR than it seems prima facie.


    Why? And how does the presentation make it seem less so? They have done a decent job of estimating the effect of collisions on plasma ion energy distribution, and in any case this is not crucial to the results.


    Perhaps we could start with: what energy do you consider low?

  • THHuxleynew , if you need to see neutrons I suggest this paper:



    Deformed Space-Time Neutrons: Spectra and Detection

    F Cardone, G Cherubini, A Rosada

    Journal of Advanced Physics 7 (1), 17-25, 2018
    In this work we present all the results obtained from 2009 to 2013 regarding the measurement of the neutron spectra coming from new forms of nuclear reactions. In particular, we referred the measurements of such spectra to the neutrons produced in condition of Deformed Space-Time (DST) which are a consequence of the Lorentz violation: when the breakdown of the Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI) occurs. The spectra obtained have completely new unique characteristics and differ from normal known neutron sources. To make a comparison, we reported both spectra is the photographic images of the neutrons emitted by three 'classic sources:' thermal neutrons from a model TRIGA nuclear reactor, fast neutrons from a nuclear reactor, uranium enriched to 94% and neutrons from an Am-Be source. In the light of the results obtained we also have concluded that in presence of DST neutron spectra, and thus in general with new forms of neutrons from nuclear reactions, it is not possible to use detection methods such as indium activation or fission of Uranium. Finally, in this work we have again shown the problem of the 'directionality' of the DST neutron emissions.


    (added the full article as it is available from researchgate)

    Files

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Ahlfors , you should know that Carpinteri was subject to an intense discrediting campaign. However, no one was able to do the same to Cardone et al (and they really tried!!!). Read the paper by Cardone, Cherubini and Rosada I suggested, if you want to have a different perspective.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Ligands Affect Hydrogen Absorption and Desorption by Palladium Nanoparticles
    Noah J. J. Johnson, Brian Lam, Rebecca S. Sherbo, David K. Fork, Curtis P. Berlinguette


    We report herein in situ X-ray diffraction experiments that show that surface ligands affect the rates of hydrogen absorption and desorption in octahedral palladium nanoparticles. This observation was made possible by: (i) using a UV-driven photolysis and ozonolysis treatment to convert the ligand-stabilized palladium nanoparticles to pristine (i.e., ligand-free) nanoparticles while maintaining the size and shape of the core; and (ii) tracking in situ the phase transformation under a hydrogen environment. Our experiments revealed that pristine nanoparticles absorb and desorb hydrogen 10-fold faster than the corresponding ligated samples. This finding is supported by comparing octahedral nanoparticles stabilized by two different types of ligand coatings that both show faster hydrogen absorption and desorption after ligand removal. The data indicate that in addition to nanoparticle shape, surface structuring, and size, the ligand shell must be taken into account when examining hydrogen absorption and desorption in palladium nanoparticles.


    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b02193

  • Getting back to Schenkel et al success to publish their pre print in the Journal of Applied Physics, I can’t help but noticing certain paralells with the general tone and cautious wording of this article published in 1989 by Nature.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Johann_Rafelski/publication/32046171_Observation_of_cold_nuclear_fusion_in_condensed_matter/links/00b49517f2ae215d11000000/Observation-of-cold-nuclear-fusion-in-condensed-matter.pdf

    Jones used the term Cold Fusion, but he focused in the consistent evidence of emission of neutrons in a noticeable level above background, and not at all in the energy measurement. Schenkel et al are taking the same approach, focusing on neutrons. I wonder if they ever had changed the target to not palladium...

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Getting back to Schenkel et al success to publish their pre print in the Journal of Applied Physics, I can’t help but noticing certain paralells with the general tone and cautious wording of this article published in 1989 by Nature.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Johann_Rafelski/publication/32046171_Observation_of_cold_nuclear_fusion_in_condensed_matter/links/00b49517f2ae215d11000000/Observation-of-cold-nuclear-fusion-in-condensed-matter.pdf

    Jones used the term Cold Fusion, but he focused in the consistent evidence of emission of neutrons in a noticeable level above background, and not at all in the energy measurement. Schenkel et al are taking the same approach, focusing on neutrons. I wonder if they ever had changed the target to not palladium...

    I think if a non palladium target produced substantially more energy with a lower neutron flux than any existing commercial nuclear energy product, why wouldn't we use it! You think they maybe using unrefined uranium/thorium or an alloy containing them to up yields?

  • I think if a non palladium target produced substantially more energy with a lower neutron flux than any existing commercial nuclear energy product, why wouldn't we use it! You think they maybe using unrefined uranium/thorium or an alloy containing them to up yields?

    I ask that only because of the concept of control experiment. They say they get 100x the expected number of protons when using a Pd target. Hence, this begets the question “Do they see the expected number of protons with a non Pd target? “. The paper of Jones et al in 1989 talks about seeing Neutrons with both Pd and Ti, but apparently not with other materials as electrodes.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.