Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?


  • Try this recent theory from Ed Storms. Not everyone in the field agrees with it, but it is derived from extensive data.

    Sorry Alan - I got tangled up here posting.


    I replied to this on the wrong thread


    lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/?postID=186752#post186752


    Have now deleted that and put reply here:


    ----------------------------------



    I agree with much of this speculation


    There are two parts I have issues with:


    1. This part that clearly could be substantiated in detail, but has not been. It would be good to do that quantitatively - it seems inherently unlikely:


    Fusion involving only D does not make tritium. Instead, 4H is formed and rapidly decays to 4He as the final product. Fusion involving only 1H will slowly make tritium, deuterium, and 4H, with 4He being the final nuclear product. All of these reactions dissipate their energy by the emission of energetic ions, electrons, and X-rays with each being unable to pass through the walls of the apparatus. Very few free neutrons are produced.


    2. This part is a truly unlikely assumption. In maths you can prove anything by assuming at some point that 1 = 0 (I mean that quite precisely - it is easy to prove). Similar in physics if you are allowed an arbitrary assumption contrary all direct evidence and with no rationale - you can make any hypothesis seem plausible:


    The 4H isotope, when made by bombarding T with D at high energy, is found to decompose immediately by ejecting a neutron. The model suggested here assumes that when 4H is made at low energy, the nucleus remains stable and eventually loses its energy by beta emission to produce 4He.


    So - there is something about the LENR 4H nucleus which makes it very stable when it is normally incredibly unstable (too many neutrons) so one gets ejected immediately.


    It is plucked out of thin air to make the rest fit. It needs, at least, a clear understanding of how the nuclei differ to be a hypothesis rather than ideas with a gap in the middle.


    If we had that understanding then it would probably put a lot of other constraints on LENR, if indeed there were such "special" nuclei. The real question is why there has been no hint of special nuclei in all the enormous quantity of carefully scrutinised data on particle collisions.


    Were I wedded to type 1 LENR (Storms's stuff does OK without the difficult bits for type 2) I would:


    • Work out - in ways that preserve quantities we know are preserved, how that 23MeV could be emitted and what range of energies the constituents would have.
    • Work out in detail whether they are all stopped by containers of reactions as is claimed. It seems most unlikely to me.


    The other bit - the magically different 4H nuclei - needs a completely new theory of nuclear physics which nevertheless gives identical results for all nuclear reactions except the LENR ones. A very big ask - but I'd be interested to see one.

    Then we could argue (about that bit).

  • Ed has measured emissions in detail before coming up with this hypothesis. And apparently NASA is marking his homework right now. Worth adding that radiation measurement and calculation was a great part of his remit when running the Los Alamos rocket propulsion reactor programme

  • Ed has measured emissions in detail before coming up with this hypothesis. And apparently NASA is marking his homework right now. Worth adding that radiation measurement and calculation was a great part of his remit when running the Los Alamos rocket propulsion reactor programme

    Great - well it will be very interesting to see the theoretical description of what are the reaction products. Should be pretty easy to do that?


    I think the least needed for an LENR theory is to specify precisely what is the nuclear reaction?

  • Ed has measured emissions in detail before coming up with this hypothesis.

    Ed's calorimetry is also useful

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • The LENR Doctoral Thesis


    An Experimental Investigation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in a DC Glow Discharge


    Final Examination (Dissertation Defense) for Erik Ziehm

    Alan Fletcher


    YES of particular interest.


    Erik Ziehm - Detection of Alpha Particles Using CR-39


    This presentation is my best choice... The LENR Doctoral Thesis it references establishes a great point of entry for newcomers. Erik Ziehm's successful defense of his thesis means that CMNS is established in the Department of Nuclear, Plasma & Radiological Engineering at Urbana-Champaign University in Illinois.


    Working in the arena of "cold fusion" no longer ruins your reputation.


    This is another project he is involved in right now.


    "Performance Analysis of HIIPER MPD Thruster"

    Rohan Puri, George H. Miley, Erik P. Ziehm, Raul Patino and Raad S. Najam

    AIAA 2021-3402

    Session: RF Thrusters II

    Published Online: 28 Jul 2021 https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3402


    View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3402.vid


    Abstract

    Helicon Injected Inertial Plasma Electrostatic Rocket (HIIPER) is an innovative magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster developed at the University of Illinois UC. It is considered a stepping stone towards nuclear fusion space propulsion system. It comprises of a two-stage mechanism – helicon injection into an Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) fusion chamber and plasma extraction, and expulsion, using the IEC cathode grid. Two salient features of HIIPER are explained as follows. Firstly, IEC cathode grids generate a stream of electrons which neutralize the exhaust plume and prevent the space vehicle from getting charged. Secondly, the presence of a helicon bias grid at the upstream end of the quartz tube increases the most probable ion energies inside the system. Langmuir probe analysis was done at various locations inside the system to check for wall losses. Ion density trends are established by changing the axial magnetic field, IEC grid voltage and helicon bias grid voltage. Retarding Potential Analyzer (RPA) is used to measure the most probable ion energy with changing helicon bias grid voltage. A Mach probe is also used to measure ion velocity distribution with changing bias grid potential. Although it was assumed that the helicon bias grid will collimate the plasma beam and reduce wall losses, the observed trend showed only a weak effect. However, it was established that the helicon bias grid increased the most probable ion energy and flow velocity. These results provide the basis for the next experimental setup, with an optimized quartz tube, replacing the metal bellow coupling to minimize wall losses.

  • "…. or even, it seems a popular topic here, "the whole thing is set up by secret russian agents" explanation for the experimental data.

    Some of it is true, in a way. Much intentional disinformation was disseminated about amazing new physics discoveries and even new sciences invented by military interests and the most genius of patriotic scientists. So much so that now it has come full circle and now they believe it and think it is being suppressed somehow by the PTB, or in some cases is now being advanced again for another round of propaganda, this time with additional buoyancy of popular belief.

  • He has some new things he wants to add after studying the LEC.

    So the LEC energy levels in the 10-20 EV ? range might be part of LENR?

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • So the LEC energy levels in the micro EV ? range might be part of LENR?

    Ruby and Alan doing the interview in 2 weeks, so will know then. Diadon Acs is our editing pro now, and should have the video out sometime in late Oct/ early November. Another interview by the team was completed last week, and will be out any day. I really enjoyed it, and look forward to the forum seeing it.

  • This presentation is my best choice... The LENR Doctoral Thesis it references establishes a great point of entry for newcomers. Erik Ziehm's successful defense of his thesis means that CMNS is established in the Department of Nuclear, Plasma & Radiological Engineering at Urbana-Champaign University in Illinois.


    Working in the arena of "cold fusion" no longer ruins your reputation.

    Yes, it is great news.


    To be clear: this is type 2 LENR where the credibility gap is maybe a bit less?


    Also, it removes the main excuse for the LENR community to be working in the shadows without well-written papers, peer-review of those papers by mainstream scientists, robust debate in the literature. That robust challenge from many different people will I think vastly improve the quality of science and prevent prejudices and group think!


    Although again perhaps the type 1 LENR, more difficult for mainstream science to accept, might still have that excuse.