- When you have two protons or two deuterons at less than 1 picometer, as Holmlid claims for UDH and UDD, then fusion can happen spontaneously. In other words there are two types of fusion possible with UDH and UDD,
- its interesting to speculate what is going on here - as yet there is no clear explanation for meson emission from UDD/H either spontaneously or laser induced - but maybe its caused by p-p or D-D high energy collisions within the sample - the accelerator energy coming from spontaneous then laser-enhanced fusion reactions (which would have to be in the GeV range to simulate cosmic ray or particle accelerator - proton fragmentation) Then once mesons have been emitted, a fraction of these decay to -muons to induce further fusion reactions in UDH/D and in less-dense molecular H2/D2. Or maybe there is completely new physics here that mesons form spontaneously from quark pairs naturally during fusion reactions (possibly observed in H-bomb tests but not reported?) an observation overlooked perhaps in high temperature D-T fusion experiments? How would you notice a few mesons against a massive neutron background?
Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.
-
-
Initiated by Matt Trevithick of Google in Mountain View, California (which supplied the funding), this project brings together teams led by Yet-Ming Chiang at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Curtis Berlinguette of the University of British Columbia, and Thomas Schenkel of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. They have revisited the electrochemical experiments and also explored a different approach to fusion that uses deuterium plasmas surrounding charged palladium wires.
Producing High Concentrations of Hydrogen in Palladium via Electrochemical Insertion from Aqueous and Solid Electrolytes (PDF preprint), Time-lapse video of a representative foil cathode in an aqueous cell during a simultaneous XRD and electrochemical H insertion experiment
X-Ray diffraction enables to study expansion of Pd lattice due to absorption of hydrogen. The first set experiments has been widely criticized for its low saturation of hydrogen, which is important predictor of cold fusion success - this new study adressed reaching higher hydrogen load (H:Pd ratios 0.7-0.9) under standard three electrode arrangement. In one version experiment utilized BZCY ceramic electrolyte operating at 700 °C, whereas others utilized aqueous sulfuric acid and Nafion polymeric electrolyte at room temperature.
But the study utilizes only thin sputtered layers of palladium (50 nm thick Pd thin films sputtered onto a 127 μm thick Kapton film substrate). It's debatable, whether thin porous layer of sputtered metal can provide high enough volume for formation of whisker dislocations and propagation of polarons along them. At any case, it's interesting and thorough electrochemical study - but it still cannot be counted as a seriously minded attempt for replication of Fleischman-Pons experiments, which consistently used bulky samples.
-
Palladium Warning Bells This article aims to provide insight into some issues regarding the future supply of essential minerals that are needed for the global adoption of environmental sustainability.
-
what uncultivated are you ?
you should know that these 50 nm are the exact surface plasmons resonance thickness (+/- 2nm) of most metals !
About Google, a lot of money but no original concept/Ideas, only back in 1989, it's shaky...
Display MoreInitiated by Matt Trevithick of Google in Mountain View, California (which supplied the funding), this project brings together teams led by Yet-Ming Chiang at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Curtis Berlinguette of the University of British Columbia, and Thomas Schenkel of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. They have revisited the electrochemical experiments and also explored a different approach to fusion that uses deuterium plasmas surrounding charged palladium wires.
Producing High Concentrations of Hydrogen in Palladium via Electrochemical Insertion from Aqueous and Solid Electrolytes (PDF preprint), Time-lapse video of a representative foil cathode in an aqueous cell during a simultaneous XRD and electrochemical H insertion experiment
X-Ray diffraction enables to study expansion of Pd lattice due to absorption of hydrogen. The first set experiments has been widely criticized for its low saturation of hydrogen, which is important predictor of cold fusion success - this new study adressed reaching higher hydrogen load (H:Pd ratios 0.7-0.9) under standard three electrode arrangement. In one version experiment utilized BZCY ceramic electrolyte operating at 700 °C, whereas others utilized aqueous sulfuric acid and Nafion polymeric electrolyte at room temperature.
But the study utilizes only thin sputtered layers of palladium (50 nm thick Pd thin films sputtered onto a 127 μm thick Kapton film substrate). It's debatable, whether thin porous layer of sputtered metal can provide high enough volume for formation of whisker dislocations and propagation of polarons along them. At any case, it's interesting and thorough electrochemical study - but it still cannot be counted as a seriously minded attempt for replication of Fleischman-Pons experiments, which consistently used bulky samples.
-
Such studies of ‘low-energy nuclear reactions’, as the topic was rebranded, have largely been confined to the fringes. But a paper published in May in Nature2 might bring them back into the mainstream.
But the new work shows that, whatever really happened in Utah 30 years ago, there is plenty still worth investigating in this unusual and potentially fertile field of metal hydrides.The amount of fusion seen so far is minuscule, and nowhere near the level needed to be of practical value in energy generation. All the same, it exceeds theoretical predictions by two orders of magnitude, for reasons not yet understood.
Looking beyond the obligatory swipe at FP's, and the history of CF, I see a lot of positive press for LENR in this Nature editorial. Along with the above comments, the title is "Coming in from the cold". There is no ?, making it a statement, and not a question. May not seem like much, but little things like that are usually purposeful, and a subtle signal. In this case I think a signal of growing acceptance for LENR.
It is almost as if Nature is giving their mainstream readers the green light, their tacit approval, to join Team Google in the search. With this editorial in hand, a young, bright scientist wanting to enter the field, would have less chance of committing "career suicide", which threat of has handicapped the field for 30 years.
If correct, and I believe so, no doubt we can thank Team Google for making this happen. Even Nature credits them...with their May 2019 paper, as the reason for this change of attitude. At ICCF22, McKubre also emphasized the same, as he credited Trevithick, and his team, with providing cover for the next generation of LENR researchers. Without which he said, the field would have soon died off for lack of new blood.
As Alain so poignantly asked though: "Why"...why this rather sudden change in Nature policy from CF being a fringe science, to being acceptable to pursue? Has Google had some new, positive, development we have not heard of yet? Has Nature had a chance to think more about this, and realized they have been an obstacle for a legitimate field of research? Or have the Google team leaders made a persuasive case in private? I really do not know, but it is interesting *why* the change.
Whatever...this IMO is good news. At a minimum, the science will go on now as the baton is passed on to the next generation. No doubt they will discover new effects within the CMNS space, in addition to what they already discovered. But will they prove the LENR effect?
-
Looking beyond the obligatory swipe at FP's, and the history of CF, I see a lot of positive press for LENR in this Nature editorial.
I see nothing good in it. It is all lies and bullshit. It reads like the attacks published a few weeks after the 1989 announcement. They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing, as Talleyrand said.
Ed Storms agrees with me.
-
One could even perceive it like change of tactic: when apparently crippled and faked cold fusion replications at MIT and elsewhere didn't discourage physicists from research of cold fusion, the establishment organized some more trustworthy ones for Google money and gave them publicity provided by Nature journal. But zero result is still zero result - and this last study even didn't bother to look for cold fusion (heat, radiation and/or reaction products). It's solely normal electrochemical study, which shouldn't be connected with cold fusion research in any way.
But the disgust for responsible exact replications remains widespread even across cold fusion community - so that the above study comes as no big surprise even from solely disinterested position.
-
One could even perceive it like change of tactic: when apparently crippled and faked cold fusion replications at MIT and elsewhere didn't discourage physicists from research of cold fusion, the establishment organized some more trustworthy ones for Google money and gave them publicity provided by Nature journal.
Of course this is a change of tactics by Nature. That was the whole point of what I said. But where you and others may want to find fault in it, I see it is an opportunity for the field to capitalize on. Yes, they were instrumental in crippling the fledgling science 30 years ago, but since then there has been a changing of the guard at the prestigious journal. No reason then to hold grudges for the past...if by doing so it is to your best interest. And clearly in this case, burying the hatchet is in the best interest of the field.
But zero result is still zero result - and this last study even didn't bother to look for cold fusion (heat, radiation and/or reaction products). It's solely normal electrochemical study, which shouldn't be connected with cold fusion research in any way.
I believe you are mixing your anger of Nature, with Google. Without doubt, Google has done a tremendous service for LENR, while the role Nature played, and it's benefit to the field by allowing the Google paper, and this follow-up editorial, are indeed debatable. Few know, but Google actually enlisted the help of the old guard. They responded, and only when that effort failed did Google opt to move on independently.
-
Few know, but Google actually enlisted the help of the old guard.
I have heard they enlisted help from McKubre. I asked Storms, Miles and several others in the old guard. The Google team only contacted one of them, and they ignored his advice.
I did not contact every member of the O.G. There may be some I did not hear about.
Without doubt, Google has done a tremendous service for LENR,
I do not think they have done any service, but they may yet.
A few people think Google and Nature are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy cold fusion once and for all. I don't think so. That's silly. They don't need to do that. It is dying anyway.
-
I have heard they enlisted help from McKubre. I asked Storms, Miles and several others in the old guard. The Google team only contacted one of them, and they ignored his advice.
Will leave it up to others in the Old Guard to respond.
A few people think Google and Nature are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy cold fusion once and for all. I don't think so. That's silly. They don't need to do that. It is dying anyway.
In my position, I have been fortunate to be privy to some of the internal gossip. Conspiracy theories run rampant, which actually has been a turn-off to me. But I soldier on trying to do my part. I do disagree with what you say, that LENR "is dying anyway". It would have...were it not for Google.
-
I did wonder (but do not know) to what extent a place like Nature is not so much a monolith, but rather, more like a series of factions or fiefdoms. If one were to think about it the way you would think about parliamentary politics, then managing change is often the process of shepherding incremental moves past those who would arc up and block them.
I agree with Shane, and think that this, as well as TG's original Nature article, have to be read as being both sociological and scientific documents.
The older I get, the more I think that interpersonal management and a capacity for nuanced, strategic and self aware rhetoric are crucial in most every occupation.
If you read it purely as a scientific report then it's a let down. But read with the above in mind, it makes more sense, imo.
-
I do disagree with what you say, that LENR "is dying anyway". It would have...were it not for Google.
So far, they have done nothing to revive it, as far as I know. Bill Gates probably has done something. The Japanese program may have helped. It ended in 2017. I hope it can be restarted.
I am not saying the Google program is bad. I certainly do not think it is part of a conspiracy to make cold fusion look bad, although I have heard that one person in the Google team is opposed to cold fusion and would like to hammer the last nail into the coffin. Others seem enthusiastic. Opposed or enthusiastic, the problem is that so far the project has not produced a positive result. It seems inconclusive. I says "seems" because there is little technical information in the Nature paper so I cannot judge what they did, how many tests they did, or what results they obtained. Other than McKubre, the O.G. who have looked at this research are not impressed. They say much of it appears to be about plasma fusion rather than cold fusion. McKubre seems enthusiastic. I have not heard his views in detail.
If Mizuno is replicated, that may revive the field.
The Nature presentation of the Google results is separate thing. I do not mean the results themselves; I mean the reporting on them. I mean the way the Nature paper was written, and the two editorials and the recent report that this thread refers to. That was a conspiracy! Several people contributed, including some who actually know something about the field. Either they are deluded, extremely stupid, or blatant liars -- I can't tell. It was a hatchet job. Ham-handed but effective. People who read Nature and who know nothing about cold fusion will get an extremely distorted view. I do not see how that can help.
-
In my position, I have been fortunate to be privy to some of the internal gossip. Conspiracy theories run rampant, which actually has been a turn-off to me.
Some background on Trevithick:
Venture capitalist Trevithick (Venrock) related that one of his formulative experiences was when he found out he was related to Richard Trevithick, the inventor of the locomotive, a realization which may have presaged a career in venture capital for new technology.
“I went to MIT in 1988 as a freshman, and in the spring of my freshman year was the Fleischmann-Pons announcement,” he related. At the same time, he was studying quantum mechanics under the brilliant Peter Hagelstein. A short time after graduation, he started and sold software companies. In 2002, he worked on Project Cobalt with Dennis Cravens, Dennis Letts, Michael McKubre and Peter Hagelstein to stimulate LENR-produced power using a laser. In December 2002, they thought they saw an excess heat phenomenon, which they presented at ICCF10. It was early in the development to form a company based on a hoped for technology. For Matt, that ended experiments in cold fusion, but as a result of contacts he made working in this area he found himself “tapped on the shoulder by Venrock,” a top VC firm that has invested $2.6 billion in 450 companies since 1969.
Accordingly, he projected a number of slides with messages of much inspiration for the LENR community: “Good news! Resources are ready! The smart money in New York, Washington and Silicon Valley is paying attention to LENR and talent wants to ‘Stop doing incremental things.’” “I can vouch for that,” Trevithick assured the audience. “With the hydrogen isotopes in metal systems, something unusual is going on.” He projected a slide of someone sitting on a fence gazing at the sunset, signifying all those people in Washington, California and New York who would be wont to otherwise jump off the fence as far as LENR is concerned.
“Due diligence is difficult,” it read.
[...]
Venture capitalist Matthew Trevithick (Venrock) related that he got an MBA and did his first start-up a few years out of school. “The only way to earn a living was to be an entrepreneur.” But he found his perspective changed when he learned that “being a boss was responsibility. The first crisis
you have to deal with is that it involves not just your buddies and peers, but people depending upon you. You come out of it a changed person. You’ve been thrown into the deep end of the swimming pool.” He was drawn to the world of future energy technology and LENR, and had worked with Peter Hagelstein of MIT and Mike McKubre of SRI. His worst experience had been a project four years earlier for which he’d raised money for LENR research and ended up in a position of “ambiguity, which was the worst place. If it was negative, I could let it go. . .”
-
Opposed or enthusiastic, the problem is that so far the project has not produced a positive result. It seems inconclusive. I says "seems" because there is little technical information in the Nature paper so I cannot judge what they did, how many tests they did, or what results they obtained.
What I said on the thread Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" , and which probably most missed, is that all the "technical information in the Nature paper", are in the references at the bottom. Trevithick said that one day when he gets the time, he will package them up better. I think Ahlfors and Zephir_AWT have made reference to them.
-
all the "technical information in the Nature paper", are in the references at the bottom. Trevithick said that one day, when he gets the time he will package them up better.
Yes, he told me that. I have been meaning to get those papers. I shouldn't criticize the research itself until I do. However, I can criticize the Nature paper for being so vague. It is like eating snow.
-
Display More
I did wonder (but do not know) to what extent a place like Nature is not so much a monolith, but rather, more like a series of factions or fiefdoms. If one were to think about it the way you would think about parliamentary politics, then managing change is often the process of shepherding incremental moves past those who would arc up and block them.
I agree with Shane, and think that this, as well as TG's original Nature article, have to be read as being both sociological and scientific documents.
The older I get, the more I think that interpersonal management and a capacity for nuanced, strategic and self aware rhetoric are crucial in most every occupation.
If you read it purely as a scientific report then it's a let down. But read with the above in mind, it makes more sense, imo.
It also occurs to me that, to extend (perhaps erroneously) the parliamentary party analogy, public policy is amended by different interests as it winds through a deliberative process, and so the final work is often a piece that is not necessarily highly fidelitous to its origins, but rather, a product that contains a set of accomodations that, hopefully, work to preserve some core aim and truth whilst balancing the conflicting motivations and interests of other, perhaps hostile, forces.
-
whatever their strategy, we can't blame Google for having injected money in the field !
Perhaps Lenr leaders are responsible for failure so far, sucking in money for irrelevant scientific postulates, dragging Lenr followers behind them?
Post edited- too personal. Alan
-
Well, lets not turn on each other (over the Trevithick - McKubre connection). Nature will always be negative towards LENR (given negative data) and would only ever sit on the fence (given positive data). Maybe at the end of the day Trevithick may stay true to his Cornish origins, and like good old Sir Humphrey Davy produce some irrefutable positive results.
-
Quote
No reason then to hold grudges for the past...if by doing so it is to your best interest
This is not about grudges or even precautionary principle - but about stating bare truth: results of Google subsidized research were all negative, they were based on naive experimental approach well proven to be futile by previous researchers - thus no help for cold fusion research. Millennials looking for jobs no matter how useless they are may still see it interesting, these ones with deeper background not. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - except that energetic and environmental crisis is looming and time is running out.
QuoteTeam Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"
I seriously doubt that someone recommended in situ X-ray study of expansion of lattice with using of Nafion electrolyte. Maybe they collected know-how from community, but they safely ignored it.
-
They could easily replicate/verify Holmlid's vastly more important recent work as a basis for cold fusion replacing the X-rays in their system with a Nd-YAG laser and using some KFeO2 UDH catalyst!
