Cold nuclear fusion is a chain reaction of reverse beta decay according to the scheme:
ῡe + n → p + e- + ῡe + 13,6 eV →
For example:
→ ῡ + 63Ni28 +1H→ 63Cu29 +e - + ῡ +1H + Q=E (energy)
No evidence exists to support this explanation. This is based only on your imagination. Unless you acknowledge the observed behavior, further discussion would useless.
No evidence exists to support this explanation. This is based only on your imagination. Unless you acknowledge the observed behavior, further discussion would useless
I must agree with Storms on this. We can't spend our time discussing a hypothesis that we cannot understand. Was it Einstein who said;If you cannot explain it to a 12 year old, you probably don't understand it yourself.?
However Focardi talked about beta POSITIVE reactions involving electron + positron anhilition..
Sure the fashion D wasn't involved nor Pd 
We are talking about powerfull lenr here 
.
These things were related in US patents.
To stay on US Side, pretty sure that your DOE/DOD wouldn't have wasted time auditioning jokers...
No evidence exists to support this explanation. This is based only on your imagination. Unless you acknowledge the observed behavior, further discussion would useless.
Yet, I have explained cold fusion and it's impossible to falsify an observed behavior.
I don't mean to quibble, but let's look at how people such as THH and editors at Scientific American claim they can falsify observed behavior. They say that all of the observations are mistakes, or fraud. Let us grant that if that were true, cold fusion would be falsified.
What I say in response is: Observed behavior that has been replicated in hundreds of labs cannot be a mistake. If hundreds of scientists could be wrong, experimental science itself would not work. In normal scientific discourse, no one would say that widely observed, high sigma behavior can be falsified. Ed is 100% right about that.
I also say to THH: if that is your hypothesis, then read the leading papers and show us what mistakes have been made. You have to show why these experiments are wrong. You don't get to claim "there may be mistakes somewhere" without specifically telling us what experiments you mean, and what mistakes were made. A negative opinion does not get a free pass. You have to support your assertion with facts and rigor, just as the researchers support their claims.
THH and the editors at Scientific American refuse to read papers or give any evidence for their claims. THH says the tritium might be caused by contamination. He does not address the papers by F. G. Will and others that show contamination is ruled out.
I must agree with Storms on this. We can't spend our time discussing a hypothesis that we cannot understand. Was it Einstein who said;If you cannot explain it to a 12 year old, you probably don't understand it yourself.?
The criterion for the truth of a theory is experiment, not its understanding.
“The question that puzzles me is: “Am I crazy, or is everyone else?” A. Einstein.
“If at first the idea does not seem absurd, it is hopeless.” A. Einstein
“Only those who make absurd attempts will be able to achieve the impossible.” A. Einstein.
“Only crazy ideas can become true” N. Bohr
No evidence exists to support this explanation. This is based only on your imagination. Unless you acknowledge the observed behavior, further discussion would useless.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, while imagination embraces the whole world, stimulating progress, giving rise to evolution.” A. Einstein
I don't mean to quibble, but let's look at how people such as THH and editors at Scientific American claim they can falsify observed behavior. They say that all of the observations are mistakes, or fraud. Let us grant that if that were true, cold fusion would be falsified.
Jed, an observation is always true. Only the explanation can be false. F-P measured behaviors they interpreted as being caused by the production of heat energy. The behaviors were real. The skeptics claimed the behaviors were not caused by heat energy. This claim did not falsify the behaviors. Only a mathematical equation can be falsified by showing that it conflicts with other mathematical equations. This might seem to be quibbling but the distinction is important to logic. The THH objection is more psychological than scientific. This is also an important distinction to make.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, while imagination embraces the whole world, stimulating progress, giving rise to evolution.” A. Einstein
The imagination is your personal interpretation of reality. It may or may not have any relationship to the universal reality that we all share. We are trying to understand the reality that we all share.
Drgenek, you are not describing cold fusion. You are describing an entirely different phenomenon for which no experimental observation exists. I suggest you are in the wrong discussion group. As for my being submissive, if you can not tell the difference between imagination and reality, you have problems far beyond cold fusion. I see nothing wrong with using imagination but its use needs to be clearly identified.
The word was dismissive, not submissive. Your respond indicates you are doing exact what I suggested you would. You say it not cold fusion. Correct it is catalyzed fusion. The rest of your response shows just how dismissive. How you want me to go to some other discussion group. You even got personal. If you rather not discuss catalyzed fusion, that's fine. As I say this discussion is better on another thread.
As for no experimental observations exist, my derived balance nuclear reaction equation is based on measurements. Measurements are observations. I presented the basis with all its assumptions in a thread for that purpose. Things are very clearly defined. The mass balance and stoichiometry are standard tools in my profession. I have degrees, long experience and I am good at it. All will be explained in that thread due time. Thanks for your interest. Hope to see you on a different thread.
Jed, an observation is always true.
I agree! I am with you 100%. I am just pointing out that THH says the observations are not true. He claims they are all mistakes. All close to the margin of error. That is his method of "falsifying" the claims. It does not hold water. As I said, this is not normal scientific discourse. THH applies this standard to cold fusion only. He would never say this about any other set of experiments. I am sure he knows this is batty. Imagine claiming that the reactor safety group at BARC cannot detect tritium!
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, while imagination embraces the whole world, stimulating progress, giving rise to evolution.” A. Einstein
It may be a good idea to state that LENR as we deal with it here is mainly an experimental science. If you can propose, or even better, perform an experiment that would provide evidence for your theory, we would probably be much more able to grasp your ideas.
We have other theoreticians here that have been able to propose and perform experiments with the aid of experimentalists. The case I personally have been more interested into as an example of theoretical/experimental coupling as presented and discussed in this forum, is the work of Wyttenbach with Alan Smith . It is not an easy theoretical framework to understand, and thus the experimental work is also not easy to interpret, yet it is published and one can peruse it at any pace one is comfortable with.
I have also been intrigued by the work of Alexander Parkhomov, who has done a range of experiments, most of them could be said that are rather crude from an academic research point of view, but at least he has put forward experimental results that are really intriguing, at least to me, specially with regards to the change in concentrations of elements in a solution being circulated around a lightbulb in a closed loop.
I have also spent significant time, and pretend to keep reading more and more of it, as it has become recently available in great amounts, the experimental and theoretical work of Storms , who has IMHO a very exhaustive and comprehensive body of work as evidence in Pd based systems, that I find rather infuriating the world keeps trying to ignore.
I also have to mention that albeit I don't grasp it entirely, the work that Drgenek has done with analysis of experimental results of the so called "Aquafuel" is also interesting to me, mainly because even if there is no agreeement that the phenomena is even possible to be catalogued as LENR, the controversial experimental results and theoretical postulates of Santilli, Randell Mills and Leif Holmlid are fascinating and tantalizing suggestions of non radioactive nuclear energy, and Drgenek has worked extensively to propose a way to explain these results.
Display MoreIt may be a good idea to state that LENR as we deal with it here is mainly an experimental science. If you can propose, or even better, perform an experiment that would provide evidence for your theory, we would probably be much more able to grasp your ideas.
We have other theoreticians here that have been able to propose and perform experiments with the aid of experimentalists. The case I personally have been more interested into as an example of theoretical/experimental coupling as presented and discussed in this forum, is the work of Wyttenbach with Alan Smith . It is not an easy theoretical framework to understand, and thus the experimental work is also not easy to interpret, yet it is published and one can peruse it at any pace one is comfortable with.
I have also been intrigued by the work of Alexander Parkhomov, who has done a range of experiments, most of them could be said that are rather crude from an academic research point of view, but at least he has put forward experimental results that are really intriguing, at least to me, specially with regards to the change in concentrations of elements in a solution being circulated around a lightbulb in a closed loop.
I have also spent significant time, and pretend to keep reading more and more of it, as it has become recently available in great amounts, the experimental and theoretical work of Storms , who has IMHO a very exhaustive and comprehensive body of work as evidence in Pd based systems, that I find rather infuriating the world keeps trying to ignore.
I also have to mention that albeit I don't grasp it entirely, the work that Drgenek has done with analysis of experimental results of the so called "Aquafuel" is also interesting to me, mainly because even if there is no agreeement that the phenomena is even possible to be catalogued as LENR, the controversial experimental results and theoretical postulates of Santilli, Randell Mills and Leif Holmlid are fascinating and tantalizing suggestions of non radioactive nuclear energy, and Drgenek has worked extensively to propose a way to explain these results.
Sorry that I proposed a crazy theory that is impossible to understand.
I respect the theory and experiments of outstanding scientists who participate in the work of this Forum, but “Plato is my friend and teacher, but the truth is more precious.”
All our experience of knowledge shows that without theory there is no experiment. Wandering in search of truth, one can emerge from the dense forest of the orthodox paradigm only with the help of the compass of the new theory and looking at the Sun.
A corollary of my theory is that in order for a cold fusion chain reaction to succeed, an appropriate source of neutrinos must be introduced (like a match lights a fire). I suggest using nickel Ni63 for practical reasons, but in Edmund Storms' Storms experiments it could be tritium and palladium Pd107.
I have already written in detail in my messages, comments and articles.
Does this mean in your mind a chemistry involvement ?
The word was dismissive, not submissive. Your respond indicates you are doing exact what I suggested you would. You say it not cold fusion. Correct it is catalyzed fusion.
Does this mean in your mind a chemistry involvement ?
Reactions happen that are chemical and nuclear. In either case mathematical theory requires a balanced equation. In the case of Santilli's ICFP and AquaFuel a combination of mass balance and stoichiometry indicate not a single elementary balanced equation, but a sequence of balanced equations occurs. One good way to explain this is that the reaction occurs on a surface, hence the idea of a cluster-based reaction in a gaseous medium. Further, high energy is required to overcome the coulomb barrier (except if cold fusion exists) and high energy products would be produced if not in some way converted to something else. One good way to explain this is that the cluster uses the energy available and redistributes it. Which distribution includes an energy high enough to overcome the coulomb barrier. Further, part of that energy redistribution is responsible for absorbing energy from nuclear reactions. Hence, an accelerator/ energy absorber model. There are others in this forum with versions of such a model.
The next questions are: What is the mechanism of this accelerator/ energy absorber? What data and analysis might increase or decrease the probability of the model? I will address that next in the thread for the purpose.
Thank your for your answers
Reactions happen that are chemical and nuclear. In either case mathematical theory requires a balanced equation. In the case of Santilli's ICFP and AquaFuel a combination of mass balance and stoichiometry indicate not a single elementary balanced equation, but a sequence of balanced equations occurs. One good way to explain this is that the reaction occurs on a surface, hence the idea of a cluster-based reaction in a gaseous medium. Further, high energy is required to overcome the coulomb barrier (except if cold fusion exists) and high energy products would be produced if not in some way converted to something else. One good way to explain this is that the cluster uses the energy available and redistributes it. Which distribution includes an energy high enough to overcome the coulomb barrier. Further, part of that energy redistribution is responsible for absorbing energy from nuclear reactions. Hence, an accelerator/ energy absorber model. There are others in this forum with versions of such a model.
The next questions are: What is the mechanism of this accelerator/ energy absorber? What data and analysis might increase or decrease the probability of the model? I will address that next in the thread for the purpose.
A magnetic confinement nuclear fusion mechanism for solar flares
https://iopscience.iop.org/art…20in%20solar%20atmosphere.
Abstract
We propose a magnetic confinement nuclear fusion mechanism for the evolution of a solar flare in the solar atmosphere. The mechanism agrees with two observed characteristics of explosive flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that have proved to be very difficult to explain with previous mechanisms: the huge enrichments of 3He and the high energy gamma ray radiation. The twisted magnetic flux rope is a typical structure during the solar flares, which is closely related to the solar active region that magnetic fields have almost complete control over the plasma. Consequently, the plasma inside the flux rope is heated to more than 1.0 × 107 K by an adiabatic compression process, and then the thermonuclear fusion can take place in the flux rope accompanied with high energy gamma rays. We utilize the time-dependent ideal 2.5-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation to demonstrate the physical mechanism for producing flares, which reveals three stages of flare development with the process of magnetic energy conversion and intense release during the solar flares and CMEs in the solar atmosphere. Furthermore, we discuss the relationship between magnetic reconnection and solar eruptions.
Alan,
I see no purpose in this discussion. The comments have no relationship to how cold fusion actually behaves and the proposed explanations are mostly word salad having no relationship to scientific reality or logic. It’s nice that people are interested in this subject. But this is not a game of who can suggest the most creative explanation. We need a serious effort to understand a phenomenon that might well save civilization if it can be applied. So, I’m leaving this discussion and looking elsewhere for inspiration.
Alan,
I see no purpose in this discussion. The comments have no relationship to how cold fusion actually behaves and the proposed explanations are mostly word salad having no relationship to scientific reality or logic. It’s nice that people are interested in this subject. But this is not a game of who can suggest the most creative explanation. We need a serious effort to understand a phenomenon that might well save civilization if it can be applied. So, I’m leaving this discussion and looking elsewhere for inspiration.
“You grab the zipper instead of answering, that means you’re wrong!” - Prometheus' appeal to Zeus.
So, I’m leaving this discussion and looking elsewhere for inspiration.
That would be a huge shame. Also I think you are here to inspire others, not the other way around. If you want to light a fire you have to use the wood that's available. Even if it's a little damp.
That would be a huge shame. Also I think you are here to inspire others, not the other way around. If you want to light a fire you have to use the wood that's available. Even if it's a little damp.
Unfortunately, the people who need to be inspired are not present in this discussion. Also, I can only inspire a mind that is not already filled with other ideas. It's not useful to discuss theories that have no relationship to the behavior. Even when I try to inject a reality, this effort is ignored. So, I see no path to a useful conclusion. Meanwhile, I believe my time can be better spent working on a paper that will be read by people who actually want to understand cold fusion.
