And strangely, I am not saying that (to take the most well-attested and also most theoretically plausible nuclear reaction) those excess heat and He results are not caused by LENR. Just that it is not certain, and the mountain of variegated other evidence is even less certain. Treating it all as equally certain does a real disservice to any proper evaluation.
The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.
-
In this case you talk about the certainty of the tritium measurement. I agree, that is the most certain aspect of the thing.
Then there is:contamination (liquid)
contamination (from electrode)
concentration (from electrolysis).
no doubt a few other things I cannot think of.You cannot think of them because you have not read the papers. The researchers who wrote these papers thought about all of these issues. They addressed them in detail in the papers. They include many are world-class experts in tritium, so they know about contamination, concentration, and so on. By world-class experts, I mean, for example:
Ed Storms of LANL.
Roland A. Jalbert. CV from the EPRI/NSF proceedings:
*25 years working with tritium and tritium detection
*involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years
*for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly) (LANL).
*Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities
for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton) (PPPL)F. G. Will, whose papers you will never dare to read.
The reactor safety group at BARC, India's largest power reactor and nuclear research institute. As they said, "if we could not identify and measure tritium, we would be dead."
Do you seriously think such people do not know about contamination? Or they never discussed it in the papers you refuse to look at? You are living in a dream world. You are making a fool of yourself. Anyone who has read the literature can see that what you say is ignorant nonsense.
The same goes for the calorimetry and helium studies. You cannot think of the problems because you know nothing about the research, and you refuse to read anything. You list imaginary problems which the researchers addressed and showed are not significant. You have not listed any real, significant problems because there aren't any in the major papers. There are in the third-rate papers.
And strangely, I am not saying that (to take the most well-attested and also most theoretically plausible nuclear reaction) those excess heat and He results are not caused by LENR. Just that it is not certain, and the mountain of variegated other evidence is even less certain.
It is absolutely certain. Proven beyond any rational doubt by the tritium and helium. You think the tritium is a mistake or contamination, because -- as I said -- you know nothing about it. Or you imagine the reactor safety group experts at BARC are killed off every year, I suppose. If cold fusion tritium was caused by contamination in the buildings or the heavy water, it would kill the researchers. The buildings would have to be abandoned. That is not an exaggeration.
Waving your hands and saying "contamination" does not actually mean that contamination might really account for these results. It is like saying that the earth's magnetic field might be used to lift a rocket to the moon. Yes, there is contamination, and yes there is a magnetic field, but it is too weak to lift anything. Your proposed explanations fail by many orders of magnitude. You do not realize that because you never try to make a quantitative analysis.
-
Well, ok, what should happen when an Hydrogen or D will touch with its electron another nucleus when its external electrons stay exactly at opposite side ? That implies a kind of kinetic coupling between them.
That is what happens when a proton and a proper nucleus with additional 'neutrons' meet.... Hydrogen or protons, can fuse to a nucleus that way. The nucleus is structured and that provided this effect. Call it a screening effect or something else, structure of the nucleus is KEY to this!.
More in our past presentations (LENR conferences) and our website and book. But we can of course also ignore structure (the way protons and electrons organize themselves into elements and isotopes and perform fusion and fission) and continue invoking imaginary stuff no one can touch, prove, smell, or in most cases even decently conceive off in ones mind.
We show how the fission process for example leads to the different fission products in a completely logical sensible and understandable manner. It is a consequence of the structure!
"The nucleus has a specific structure for each element and each isotope has some extra specific located proton-electron-pairs (neutrons) hitch-hiking on the nucleus. Structure shows that on a localized point there is for example an excess amount of negative charge (the extra electron) in relation to the rest of the nucleus which is 2 p to 1 e on average, (so positive on a whole). That point with extra charge (neutron) can receive precisely an additional proton and the next basic building block (deuteron) is made and therefore the next element. "
regardless of what we think a proton or electron is, they have an actual reality to it, meaning they have volume, a definitive piece of space they occupy, and since they do not overlap, they must have some kind of organization!!!!! -
Within at least one experimental framework my good friend Ed Storms ( Storms above) has solved the problem of reproducible LENR.
If Edmund Storms solved the problem of cold nuclear fusion and performed reproducible experiments, then I propose to seriously discuss his solution at the Forum LENR.
-
Structure shows that on a localized point there is for example an excess amount of negative charge
The SOP Nickel model shows that most isotopes have internal - not reduced - electron masses, what explains that Ni+H fusion works very well (looks like adding a neutron) - as seen in the Brillouin process.
Of course some dumbheads like Widom believe that real neutrons are at work....
And please stop discussing with our forum clown (THH) that ignores the reality we see from diverse companies also from Mills research.
And once more H+H do never fully fuse. The result is spin matter H*-H* or UDH as Holmlid calls it or Dihydrino as Mills not so exact calculation alludes...
-
If Edmund Storms solved the problem of cold nuclear fusion and performed reproducible experiments, then I propose to seriously discuss his solution at the Forum LENR.
Your first step would be to read his papers Jed Rothwell has put in his library. There are a lot, but if you search Storms 2024 you will see the recent ones. Also watch Ed's recent video showing how he prepares Pd.
-
Your first step would be to read his papers Jed Rothwell has put in his library. There are a lot, but if you search Storms 2024 you will see the recent ones. Also watch Ed's recent video showing how he prepares Pd.
Dear Alan Smith!
Please provide here a link to the main article by Edmund Storms.
-
Historical tritium in rain. Wow! 1000X. Must be LENR
....thanks for making fun of us! Don't you have something better to do?
You have no idea how difficult it is to get some funds and try to setup experiments, as long as we still have to fight against dogmas. Your "support" here is not productive!
-
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthenatureoc.pdf
External Content youtu.beContent 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. -
If Edmund Storms solved the problem of cold nuclear fusion and performed reproducible experiments, then I propose to seriously discuss his solution at the Forum LENR.
Ed is very popular on this forum. His work is promoted because it has been valued. His work is promoted in more threads than anyone else. Some of them are very long. So, his work has been seriously discussed. It just isn't convincing for the reasons indicated by Huxley. The measurements are valid, but heat yields are too small to justify a commercial approach.
In contrast R Santilli had a busy doing millions of dollars of sales. However, his science was rejected even by people close to him, he was excluded from the business, the business was sold, the buyers tried to use their better conventional understanding to improve the business and therefore they run it to bankruptcy.
An explanation of nuclear fusion in AquaFuel and for Santilli's business can be derived by chemical engineering science. Stoichiometry can't be faked. This data should meet Huxley standard if he would look at it.
We can use this science to benefit mankind today: it been done. It seems to me serious attention should be applied to more useful approaches than Ed Storms'.
-
Ed is very popular on this forum. His work is promoted because it has been valued. His work is promoted in more threads than anyone else. Some of them are very long. So, his work has been seriously discussed. It just isn't convincing for the reasons indicated by Huxley. The measurements are valid, but heat yields are too small to justify a commercial approach.
Thanks for the support. I have described how cold fusion works using all of the observed behaviors which are described by a logical relationship. The implications are profound and show how new measurements should be made to achieve a full understanding. The model even shows how a practical generator could be designed. The amount of power is small at the present time only because we do not fully apply the conditions needed to produce increased power. My model shows how this can be done.
Rather than discuss nonsense based on imagination, why not discuss actual measurements and actual behavior? As for being convincing, I'm at a loss to understand how much more evidence a person needs. Dozens of experts working at major laboratories have produced the effect hundreds of times. We only need the will and money to apply the understanding.
-
The amount of power is small at the present time only because we do not fully apply the conditions needed to produce increased power.
Yes. The reaction has produced power density per cubic centimeter high enough to generate electricity. About as high as a fission reactor core. See:
"Power density is compared by volume or by surface area"
Temperatures have been too low for power generation, but I think that could easily be fixed. Control is what is needed. With control you can scale up to make a practical source of energy. Ed thinks he knows how to control and scale up. He may well be right, in which case the problem may soon be solved.
-
Rather than discuss nonsense based on imagination, why not discuss actual measurements and actual behavior? As for being convincing, I'm at a loss to understand how much more evidence a person needs. Dozens of experts working at major laboratories have produced the effect hundreds of times. We only need the will and money to apply the understanding.
Yes, we will gain more from analysis of actual measurements. In principle heat production is a matter of increasing the number of nuclear active catalysts or in your theory NAE. Agreed that the "weight" of the data supports that fusion outside Lawson criterion is real. As for the money, economic principles drive that.
Unfortunately, the nonsense based on imagination is not all nonsense (really who can truthy judge, consensus science is true until it isn't). Further, the real problem is that no amount of promotion will change a best guess into an engineerable design.
As for me, I don't mine the imaginative suggestions, but I follow the facts regardless of opinions. I haven't been right about everything I have shared on this forum. However, see above, I found a derived balanced equation that is accurate to four decimal places (which also is the limit of the measurement method). So, I let the data suggest where to go next. I trust the data more than consensus science.
You do good work. I know because I have found analysis of it to provide fundamental insights.
-
Thanks for the support. I have described how cold fusion works using all of the observed behaviors which are described by a logical relationship. The implications are profound and show how new measurements should be made to achieve a full understanding. The model even shows how a practical generator could be designed. The amount of power is small at the present time only because we do not fully apply the conditions needed to produce increased power. My model shows how this can be done.
Rather than discuss nonsense based on imagination, why not discuss actual measurements and actual behavior? As for being convincing, I'm at a loss to understand how much more evidence a person needs. Dozens of experts working at major laboratories have produced the effect hundreds of times. We only need the will and money to apply the understanding.
Dear Edmund Storms!
How do you view the use of tritium T or palladium Pd107 (which emit neutrinos) as a catalyst for a cold fusion chain reaction with deuterium and palladium?
In my opinion, success can be achieved along this path.
-
Let's see if we can agree on some basic facts. Perhaps this exercise can identify where the conflict is most intense.
1. Society needs a source of heat energy that is inexpensive, nonpolluting, and comes from a sustainable source.
2. The cold fusion effect supplies energy having these characteristics because the source is water and the nuclear products are not harmful.
3. In order to increase and control a source of energy, its operating mechanism needs to be understood and controlled.
4. The energy produced by the cold fusion effect results from fusion between hydrogen nuclei, either H or D.
5. Fusion between nuclei requires their separation to be reduced so that their nuclear energy states can interact.
6. The separation can be reduced only by the reduction of the Coulomb barrier.
7. The Coulomb barrier can be reduced by the presence of electrons.
Problems to be solved:
1. Identify how the NAE can be produced in large concentrations.
2, Identify how the D or H can be rapidly assembled in the NAE.
3. Identify how the electrons can be rapidly assembled in the NAE.
4. Identify how the energy resulting from fusion can be dissipated while momentum is conserved.
5. Identify how the mechanism can be controlled in a practical energy generator.
I can solve all of these problems using my model. Can you?
-
Dear Edmund Storms!
How do you view the use of tritium T or palladium Pd107 (which emit neutrinos) as a catalyst for a cold fusion chain reaction with deuterium and palladium?
In my opinion, success can be achieved along this path.
I have no answer to this question because the behavior shows no relationship to the presence of Pd107. The heat is generated ONLY by a fusion reaction involving isotopes of hydrogen. Transmutation makes some energy but too little to be important. Tritium is a nuclear product of the other fusion reactions that can fuse if it is present in the material. Normally, too little tritium is present to be important.
-
I have no answer to this question because the behavior shows no relationship to the presence of Pd107. The heat is generated ONLY by a fusion reaction involving isotopes of hydrogen. Transmutation makes some energy but too little to be important. Tritium is a nuclear product of the other fusion reactions that can fuse if it is present in the material. Normally, too little tritium is present to be important.
In fact, to start a chain reaction of cold nuclear fusion, I propose to “bombard” the nuclei of a hydrogen atom (protons) with neutrinos, since there is no Coulomb barrier for neutrinos.
-
In fact, to start a chain reaction of cold nuclear fusion, I propose to “bombard” the nuclei of a hydrogen atom (protons) with neutrinos, since there is no Coulomb barrier for neutrinos.
Surely you know that neutrinos hardly react with matter at all. The environment is awash in neutrinos so any you might add, even if you had a source, would be trivial. Please do some study before making suggestions. Here is a source of information.
Neutrino - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org -
Surely you know that neutrinos hardly react with matter at all. The environment is awash in neutrinos so any you might add, even if you had a source, would be trivial. Please do some study before making suggestions. Here is a source of information.
Dear Edmund Storms!
It is known that neutrinos are different. I propose to influence the proton with neutrinos of the appropriate energy and frequency, and not with those that are flooded in the environment.
The environment is flooded not only with different neutrinos, but, for example, with various electromagnetic waves, but our cell phone only responds to certain electromagnetic waves.
-
It is known that neutrinos are different. I propose to influence the proton with neutrinos of the appropriate energy and frequency, and not with those that are flooded in the environment.
But first you have to make them 'on demand'. I can propose running day-trips to Mars, but first I need the right spaceship,
