make it sound like none of their calorimetry is fit for purpose.
It took Takahashi and Iwamura awhile(years) to develop the C-system
which worked up to 300C-400C
and then another while to develop the D-system..which works at 800C
Schenkel might be there in 5 years..
but I doubt that the ARPA $ will cover the development cost
of course he can try to use the existing kitchen sinks..
https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021LENR_workshop_Narita.pdf
Great. What's your point?
Good luck with the kitchen sink
Display MoreIt took Takahashi and Iwamura awhile(years) to develop the C-system
which worked up to 300C-400C
and then another while to develop the D-system..which works at 800C
Schenkel might be there in 5 years..
but I doubt that the ARPA $ will cover the development cost
of course he can try to use the existing kitchen sinks..
Firstly, your answer is a non-sequitur. Secondly, what has Schenkel's work got to do with high temperature calorimetry?
Schenkel's work got to do with high temperature calorimetry?
Schenkel has NO idea about calorimetry
whereas Takahashi and Iwamura who both
also trained in nuclear stuff
DO have experience
"His research interests include novel accelerator concepts, materials far from equilibrium, exploration of fusion processes, and spin qubit architectures."
I don;t expect much about LENR from Schenkel,
but we live in hope.. perhapsThomas could catch up with
Akito and Yasuhiro..tomodachi freunde?
..
Display More
Schenkel has NO idea about calorimetrywhereas Takahashi and Iwamura who both
also trained in nuclear stuff
DO have experience
"His research interests include novel accelerator concepts, materials far from equilibrium, exploration of fusion processes, and spin qubit architectures."
I don;t expect much about LENR from Schenkel,
but we live in hope.. perhaps he could catch up with
Akito and Yasuhiro..tomodachi freunde?
..
Are you confusing Schenkel and Duncan?
I really don't understand what you're driving at. We were talking about the calorimetry at CEES, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Schenkel.
Moreover, in so far as I understand it, Schenkel's experiments have no need for calorimetry.
his experiments have no need for calorimetry.
and there is the problem
I guess I shall have to write to him again
Leider
and there is the problem
I guess I shall have to write to him again
Leider
Another non-sequitur.
With respect, that doesn't really go to the substance of my question, which was a request for a critique of the specific projects announced, as well as what we might reasonably infer about them from what's in the public domain.
For instance, if we accept as a working hypothesis that John Dodaro has been funded, why is his experimental approach inappropriate? What's so bad about Duncan getting funding? Or more co-dep work?
I'm just trying (again) to ask for a more granular conversation.
I have an opinion on the John Dodaro system. I like it.
The Lattice assisted fusion systems are based on nano/micro particles. A science called nanoplasmonic has been developed to optimize the EMF fields produce by these particles over many years. As stated by NASA which I beleive also uses particles as their lattice, field amplification can reach 20 orders of magnitude.
There is an optimized method that increases amplification of EMF in nanoplamonics by using particles over a wide range of sizes. Dodaro does not seem to be using this method.
The method is described here using a gear analogy.
QuoteDisplay MorePlasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf
If document does not load, copy link to the command line and load.
Dodaro should use clusters of variable sized particles in his system rather than uniformly size nanoparticles. The field amplification that result will be huge as has been seen in nanoplasmonic experimentation.
One issue to be overcome however in this type of system is the welding of particles together as the fusion energy increases between these particles.
and there is the problem
I guess I shall have to write to him again
Leider
It is my understanding that a well calibrated gamma spectroscopy and temperature aquisition close to fuel is more important than calorimetry? Overall (at an early stage) focus on COP might not be so important.
Do we know yet whether this is Hagelstein? The expanded description states that:
I did not mean to include MIT. I do not know what they are up to.
I did not mean to include MIT. I do not know what they are up to.
I believe it is Florian Metzler and Peter Hagelstein. I have seen this mentioned elsewhere, not independently or directly confirmed yet.
The vacuum calorimetry is one type among a number. You (and Jed) make it sound like none of their calorimetry is fit for purpose.
It is not ideal for the latest gas loaded experiments. I think Storms and Takahashi are both using higher temperatures.
It might work. No instrument is perfect. But I wish these people had talked to the others more. If you are going to make a high temperature calorimeter, you should make it high enough for the latest batch of experiments.
I asked Ed Storms what he thought of the DoE candidates. Here is his response, posted with his permission:
The driving force behind most studies and the choice of studies being supported by the DOE is based on the belief that LENR, if real, is caused by a variation of the hot fusion mechanism. People can not accept that a new mechanism involving a chemical system could be operating. In fact, this idea is even harder to accept than the LENR process itself.
The evidence is obtained by bombarding a material containing D with energetic ions of D+. People have observed the rate of the fusion reaction to increase above the rate expected when a plasma is used. The rate is increased when the applied energy is reduced. Therefore, the observed rate of LENR might be expected when the applied energy is reduced to the amount present during LENR. In any case, this gives an experimenter the ability to study electron screening, which is thought to be the cause of LENR.
This approach ignores the FACT that the mechanism causing LENR is completely different from the mechanism causing hot fusion because the nuclear products are different. The approach ignores the FACT that the rate of fusion decreases when the energy is reduced far more than can be compensated by electron screening. The approach ignores the true nature of the radiation produced by LENR. In other words, the lack of imagination forces people to explore behaviors that have no relationship to LENR.
In addition, the experimental approach used by new people in the field is very slow to learn from other people's experience. Everyone seems to think they know more than anyone else. This happens because the field lacks the true experts that normally guide new discoveries. This problem is amplified because the field lacks the university education that normally helps remove nonsense from popular beliefs. And finally, the work is mainly guided by the creation of a useful device rather than by obtaining basic understanding.
So, the problem is not the mystery of LENR. The problem is the basic attitude and skill of the people who have chosen to explore this mystery. They do not have the attitude and skill that has allowed progress to be made in other fields of scientific discovery. I see very little process until this condition changes.
Edmund Storms
I asked Ed to respond because he knows a zillion times more than I do. I have the same feeling he does that the DoE projects treat cold fusion as a variation of plasma fusion, with things like the electron screening experiments. He discusses that example. As I see it, whacking metal with "higher energy ion beams" may reveal important new information about plasma fusion. But there are no ion beams in cold fusion. There are no inputs anywhere near as powerful, even though these are far less powerful than the ones in conventional plasma fusion. So I do not see how these findings can contribute to cold fusion. Such experiments have been done for a long time in cold fusion. I wouldn't know, but I do not think they have contributed to progress.
Years ago -- and even now -- I have heard cold fusion theorists say things like this (imaginary example): "Cold fusion is impossible by 16 orders of magnitude because of the Coulomb barrier. My theory reduces this by 5 orders of magnitude! I am working on reducing it by another 4 orders." I think to myself, "great, but you still have 7 orders to go." It seems as if they think Mother Nature is saying to herself:
"I want this to happen. I want these deuterons to fuse. I am going to use plasma fusion in a very convoluted way. In a way that overcomes 16 orders of magnitude! It will happen extremely rarely, but enough to produce excess heat. It will not produce any of the other plasma fusion products. Yet it will be plasma fusion! Because I thought of plasma fusion first. I am also making every effort to trap those neutrons. Gotta catch 'em all! Like Pokemon."
It was the scientists who found plasma fusion first. They assume that whatever they found next must be a variation of the first one. It must be based on similar physical principles. Why not assume that plasma fusion has to be based on whatever makes cold fusion work? Nature did not "invent" cold fusion later. It has been part of the fabric of the universe since the Big Bang. Whatever makes it happen has no difficulty. It does not "stop" neutrons. It does not reduce them by 3 orders this way, and 3 more orders that way. It never generates them in the first place.
Display MoreI asked Ed to respond because he knows a zillion times more than I do. I have the same feeling he does that the DoE projects treat cold fusion as a variation of plasma fusion, with things like the electron screening experiments. He discusses that example. As I see it, whacking metal with "higher energy ion beams" may reveal important new information about plasma fusion. But there are no ion beams in cold fusion. There are no inputs anywhere near as powerful, even though these are far less powerful than the ones in conventional plasma fusion. So I do not see how these findings can contribute to cold fusion. Such experiments have been done for a long time in cold fusion. I wouldn't know, but I do not think they have contributed to progress.
Years ago -- and even now -- I have heard cold fusion theorists say things like this (imaginary example): "Cold fusion is impossible by 16 orders of magnitude because of the Coulomb barrier. My theory reduces this by 5 orders of magnitude! I am working on reducing it by another 4 orders." I think to myself, "great, but you still have 7 orders to go." It seems as if they think Mother Nature is saying to herself:
"I want this to happen. I want these deuterons to fuse. I am going to use plasma fusion in a very convoluted way. In a way that overcomes 16 orders of magnitude! It will happen extremely rarely, but enough to produce excess heat. It will not produce any of the other plasma fusion products. Yet it will be plasma fusion! Because I thought of plasma fusion first. I am also making every effort to trap those neutrons. Gotta catch 'em all! Like Pokemon."
It was the scientists who found plasma fusion first. They assume that whatever they found next must be a variation of the first one. It must be based on similar physical principles. Why not assume that plasma fusion has to be based on whatever makes cold fusion work? Nature did not "invent" cold fusion later. It has been part of the fabric of the universe since the Big Bang. Whatever makes it happen has no difficulty. It does not "stop" neutrons. It does not reduce them by 3 orders this way, and 3 more orders that way. It never generates them in the first place.
Have you read the recent preprint from Metzler et al.?
Have you read the recent preprint from Metzler et al.?
It is over my head! But right here, it says what I described above. It has Mother Nature starting off with plasma fusion and doing her darndest to overcome 40 orders of magnitude:
"What known mechanisms can increase nuclear fusion rates in the solid state?
We offer no single mechanism that could increase fusion rates by 40 orders of magnitude. However, there are known mechanisms across fields that could individually increase fusion rates up to 30 orders of magnitude each (Figure 1). Identified mechanisms are discussed with supporting calculations.
The possibility of cascading these mechanisms provides a first-principles research map for studying solid-state fusion. We present a combination of enhancement mechanisms that could cumulatively provide a 50 orders of magnitude fusion rate increase (Figure 1). We conclude with examples of how hypothesis-driven research could be conducted in — and across — each field to probe the plausibility of technologically-relevant fusion in the solid state at ambient conditions."
I do not think a theory will work when it has to overcome 40 orders, and there are at least 10 more to go. When you gotta catch all those orders of magnitude and catch all those neutrons -- to keep not a single neutron from getting out! -- you are doing it wrong. The theory cannot bat down one order at a time, or 30 orders. It has to start with the assumption that cold fusion has no difficulty with fusion rates, and nothing to overcome. There are no neutrons not because they are being stopped by some combination of heroic legerdemain. When the correct cold fusion theory emerges it will be shown that it cannot produce even one neutron. There is no mechanism in cold fusion that produces neutrons, any more than a chemical reaction produces transmutations.
You do not "increase the fusion rate" in cold fusion, by a long list of various esoteric methods, each batting out 5 or 10 or 20 orders of magnitude in a way that no plasma fusion scientist ever imagined is possible. A way that most of them would still say is impossible. They are probably right. Cold fusion generates fusion by some simple mechanism that depends on the physical configuration of the cathode, and the chemical state of the deuterons. It has to be simple because the cathode is pretty simple, and nothing is simpler than a proton or deuteron. There is no huge amount of energy being poured into the system. Nothing dramatic is happening. Conditions are not extreme, like the core of the sun. Everything is happening in ordinary room temperature condensed matter.
As you see, mine is more of a gut feeling or commonsense outside-the-field view of things. No theory. I just have a sense of how successful theories work. They do not strain the quality of feasibility; they droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven. To mangle Shakespeare. You see that in the progress of theory for something like Ptolemy's astronomy. Trying to account for the movement of planets, it becomes more and more infeasible, more complex with add-ons, special cases, explanation piled on explanation (or excuse upon excuse, really). Then along came the heliocentric theory. Much simpler. All the apparent difficulties vanished. When you see people trying to eliminate 40 orders of magnitude, they are starting off with too many special cases and too much to explain. Theory progresses by becoming simpler. More obvious. Not more complex. It explains less, not more.
The discovery of DNA was another grand simplification. It erased many complex theories. They turned out to be "baloney" as Watson unkindly put it. See p. 13:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
I probably see this about the way a scientist in 1840 would, sans theory, if a cold fusion experiment had been done back then. It could have been. A shame it was not. Palladium was discovered in 1803 and Faraday established the laws of electrolysis in 1834.
recent preprint from Metzler et al.?
Its a wonder how Metzler writes
"Claims that nuclear fusion is achievable at ambient temperatures
and pressures in solid-state materials have surfaced repeatedly, but were
dismissed for lack of plausible explanations–"
It seems Metzler et al have not even dismissed but just ignored over two decades of ongoing research ..
as if it never happened... maybe they live on a different planet?
Is there just a blank sheet waiting since "dismissed" on the Metzler planet?
Example..
Did Akito Takahashi pass away after 1990?
Metzler et al write
In Takahashi et al. 199094
, the authors report the observation of neutron emission in the 3-7 MeV
range from electrochemically loaded PdD samples stimulated by electric current pulses...
Takahashi, A., Takeuchi, T., Iida, T. & Watanabe, M. Emission of 2.45 MeV and higher
energy neutrons from D2O-Pd cell under biased-pulse electrolysis. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 27, 663–666 (1990).
Well since 1990 Takahashi has worked on LENR for over two decades..
no Mev collisions ,no neutrons, no gamma, just excess heat and a pretty good calorimeter
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akito-Takahashi-2
An experiment that relies only on neutrons to prove LENR is doomed to fail.
But they still need to be measured to a high degree of precision, as close-to-background neutrons is a signature.
An experiment that relies only on neutrons to prove LENR
Well this one seems precise.enough even at 5+-1 c/s
and easy to do
it doesn't prove LENR but it questions the crash-the-Coulomb barrier model of D_D fusion.
Its hard to crash the barrier at -196C
.
Mizuno,Takahashi and Celani were witnesses around 2004..
since then they have gone their separate ways
Its got neutrons which should make the neutronophiles happy..
INIS Repository Search - Single Result
Display MoreIts a wonder how Metzler writes
"Claims that nuclear fusion is achievable at ambient temperatures
and pressures in solid-state materials have surfaced repeatedly, but were
dismissed for lack of plausible explanations–"
It seems Metzler et al have not even dismissed but just ignored over two decades of ongoing research ..
as if it never happened... maybe they live on a different planet?
Is there just a blank sheet waiting since "dismissed" on the Metzler planet?
There's absolutely nothing controversial about that statement. The lack of theory has been a serious impediment to acceptance. Results were consistently dismissed for that reason. He's just describing what happened.
Metzler hasn't ignored anything. He's very well read. Your accusation that he's ignored two decades of research doesn't even follow logically from your quoted text.
I think you just want to pick a fight.
