Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

Well, he talked and probably worked only to define a "special" Lenr matter but never evolved a kind of dynamic needed in the same time ( for example flux, other things i know, etc) ..

I checked out the paper; isn't Mizuno-style plasma electrolysis considered as a possible method for creating NAE?

Many processes and effects observed with other methods take place at the same time with plasma electrolysis.

CaO may play also another role:

par. 7 of Electron Structure, Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

"An interesting hypothesis could derive from considering the formation of ultra-dense deuterium(UDD) at the interface between calcium oxide and palladium, an area in which the high difference in the work function between Pd and CaO favors the formation of a layer with high electron density (Swimming Electron Layer or SEL)[23]. The ultra-dense deuterium could subsequently migrate to the area where the atoms to transmute are present.Therefore, aggregates of neutral charged ultra-dense deuterium would be, according to this hypothesis, the probable responsible for the transmutation of Cs into Pr and Sr into Mo. It is possible that strontium oxide, with its very low work function, substitutes the calcium oxide role in Celani’s experiments [24]."

Quote from Alan Smith

Ed Storms has very kindly given me permission to use this space to publish a preprint of his latest paper, and hopes to see discussion of the contents here. As many of you know Ed (now in his 90's but still very much a force of nature) has been working in the LENR field for decades. Ed has used his considerable scientific experience, technical skills and observational powers to construct a working hypothesis about the nature of cold fusion, and based on his own findings is confident that he knows exactly how to create the NAE (Nuclear Active Environment) in which LENR appears. This paper is principally a materials science study, but as with all of Ed's work based on patience, persistence, truth (where did I hear that before?) and years of practical experimentation, either with others or solo. I commend it to you all.

This thread will be moderated closely- just a reminder.

The Material Science Aspects of Low Energy Fusion. Edmund Storms Kiva Labs, Santa Fe, NM

Abstract

The fusion reaction called “cold fusion” is difficult to initiate. This difficulty has hampered research and slowed acceptance of the effect. Progress requires this unique fusion reaction to be produced with greater reliability. This paper describes the treatments found to improve success.

INTRODUCTION

Thirty-four years ago, Profs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons(F-P)[1] claimed to produce the fusion of deuterium in PdD using electrolysis of D2O + LiOD. The claim was soon rejected because most efforts failed to reproduce the claim and the claimed fusion process conflicted with the common understanding of how such nuclear reactions are known to behave. The phenomenon was initially called cold fusion. Now the preferred name is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) because nuclear reactions in addition to fusion have been found to occur......cont.

Storms - Aspects of Low Energy Fusion.pdf

Display More

This is a useful summary of current views about the material science here.

Section 8.

D/Pd ratio

It seems reasonable that a high D/Pd ratio is needed. A flat statement that this is not could be improved with a reference to the real questions raised by previous work. How confident is anyone that their estimates of D/Pd ratio in a given experiment are accurate given the dynamics, the fact that it is a surface effect? I know the google guys claim to have done a lot of work looking at how to get high D loading. Also that they claim to have tested different estimation methods and found some more accurate than others. A state-of-art survey paper like this I think would be improved by referencing and appraising these claims. This is an area directly related to material science so a big omission here.

Section 9.

Effect of temperature.

I think that with a discussion of Arrhenius curves and other effects the bald statement here could be improved (as a summary of so much work). It is unexpected that any fusion reaction would be so exquisitely sensitive to the difference between 290K and 360K. Whereas many mechanisms related to boiling would be so. Now, maybe one of those mechanisms could affect NAE activation, or calorimetry, or whatever. There must be material science relevant to this.

Section 10.

D vs H.

It is again unexpected that nuclear reaction rates should be independent of D vs H. For many years D vs H controls were used. The section here would benefit from more discussion of this issue. If there are good mechanisms that lead to expectations of no difference referencing them would be an improvement. There are mat sci issue here - e.g. that D vs H loading and loading vs temperature (NB section 9) is different.

Hope that helps - I've highlighted the areas where I know a lot has been done and I'd like more understanding of how the literature could be appaised.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It seems reasonable that a high D/Pd ratio is needed. A flat statement that this is not could be improved with a reference to the real questions raised by previous work.

It is definitely needed with the bulk-Pd-D electrolysis, the original method. It is needed during initial loading until the reaction is triggered. Later on, during heat after death, the cathode degasses, and loading falls, yet heat continues. Apparently, high loading is not needed in this phase. Perhaps the near surface layers are still at high loading, as gas comes from inside the bulk and gathers at the near surface. Several people have observed heat after death so I think this observation is well established. Storms pointed this out in previous papers. I will suggest to him that he should say it again here.

As Storms says, high loading is not needed with D2 gas. Loading is very low.

I think the high loading is needed, but it is a special case rather than a general requirement for all forms of cold fusion.

This graph from McKubre shows the importance of high loading:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg

More generally - I think attempts to formulate a definite NAE-based mechanism for LENR would benefit from not trying to explain all LENR results. Strong predictions could be made for types of experiment that will not work - and given the mat sci difficulty in being sure that any experiment will work - such negative predictions could be helpful.

I think the LENR field suffers from a surfeit of politeness towards unreplicated work which weakens summary papers like this one. Less is more.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is unexpected that any fusion reaction would be so exquisitely sensitive to the difference between 290K and 360K.

I believe the chemical reactions are sensitive to the temperature difference. The chemical reactions give rise to the nuclear fusion reaction. It is not as if fusion itself is directly responding to the temperature increase.

The increased chemical activity arranges the deuterons in way that makes them react more readily. It is often said that chemical reactions cannot cause nuclear reactions. That is true in the sense that they cannot cause them directly. But they can indirectly with a chain of events. For example with an implosion fission bomb. The chemical explosion causes mechanical pressure from all sides (the implosion) and this, in turn, triggers the nuclear reaction. I am not suggesting that microscopic implosions occur in a cold fusion cathode. I mean that some chemical reaction causes a physical or mechanical re-arrangement of the deuterons, and this, in turn, gives rise to fusion. I have no idea what the re-arrangement is, but increased chemical activity has to move things around or vibrate things, so this is what increases the reaction rate.

Quote from THHuxleynew

More generally - I think attempts to formulate a definite NAE-based mechanism for LENR would benefit from not trying to explain all LENR results.

I agree, because not all LENR results have been replicated. Some, I believe, are probably experimental errors. A theory or model should explain the results that have been widely replicated. The ones that only a few people have seen should be put aside for now. For example, Ohmori got robust results from gold cathodes. He was a superb electrochemist and I expect his results are real. But no one else has tried this, so it would be a mistake to include it the list of positive results which you need to explain with a comprehensive model.

You might also devise a less-than-comprehensive model, that explains some results and ignores others. It would be a model for special cases only. That sounds useless, but it is not. Scientific progress has often been made with theories and models that explain a special case only, ignoring other known facts. Special relativity, for example, only applies to bodies in motion at a constant speed. Everyone knew a theory for acceleration was also needed, but special relativity was a start.

Geocentric Ptolemaic navigation is another example of a model that works well with a special case: navigation on the earth's surface. It fails to explain the movements of the planets. At least, it does not explain them with elegance. I like to quote Guy Murchie's book, “Song of the Sky,” 1954, p. 85. Murchie taught navigation during WWII. He wrote:

. . . [T]he most remarkable thing about Ptolemy’s work is that so much of it is still standard today, especially in elementary celestial navigation. Inevitably Ptolemaic astronomy is archaic, provincial and very limited in perspective. It is astronomy as looked at by the earth lubber who has not yet journeyed in his imagination to the sun or beyond. Ptolemy had almost no idea where or what or how big the sun is. Yet his basic calculations are the most convenient ever devised for navigation. They are a representation of the apparent movements of the sun, moon, planets, and “fixed” stars. And they make practical sense too, for even after you learn the larger, simpler view that the earth and planets revolve around the sun, it is still true (relatively speaking) that all the celestial bodies revolve around the earth. To a practical navigator remaining on earth, it is a lot easier to let it go at that and keep the old simple earth view, the view expounded in Leonardo da Vinci’s down-to-earth advice that “small rooms or dwellings set the mind in the right path, large ones cause it to go astray.”

Quote from Alan Smith

You would be wrong to describe Ed's work as unreplicated, he tells me that this is underway,

Most of it was replicated long ago. The latest findings are now being replicated. The latest findings are not so different from previous ones that they need to be replicated before we can begin to believe them. They are a continuation or variation. There are some sui generis cold fusion results that do need a clean slate start over replication, such as Ohmori's gold cathode results, or Swartz's Nanor gadgets. They are so different from other results I think they need more replications before we can be sure they are real.

I think it is partly a matter of opinion. There is no hard-and-fast line between a claim that is supported by many other claims, and a sui generis claim. Along the same lines, I do not think you can decide exactly how many replications it takes to confirm something. I usually say 5 quality replications is enough to convince me. I would be lot less certain with 20 so-so poor quality replications with low signal-to-noise ratios. Other people might hold out for 10 quality replications. When you demand more than that, you gradually leave behind rational science and real-world considerations. You wander into Cloud Cuckoo Land, where nothing is real, nothing is proven, and reality is whatever you feel like. People such as THHuxleynew do not accept the original F&P bulk Pd results even though they were replicated hundreds of times in over 180 labs, often at very high signal to noise ratios, with the best equipment in the history of electrochemistry. Even though in many cases they were correlated with helium. This is far, far over the line into magical thinking Cloud Cuckoo Land. A person who is not convinced of the original claims will never be convinced by any scientific experiment. He will not believe it until Nature magazine or the DoE tells him what he should believe, or until commercial cold fusion generators are sold.

The other distinguishing characteristic of people such as THHuxleynew is that they have no scientific or rational basis for their opinions. I mean none whatever. They have never given a single reason to doubt any major study. They just make stuff up, and the stuff never has any technical meaning. It cannot be pinned down. For example, THH just told us Storms' results have not been replicated, when anyone familiar with the literature knows it has been. He did not claim that Storms' Seebeck calorimeters do not work for thus and such reasons, or McKubre made this or that mistake. Those would be technically debatable statements. He will never allow himself to be pinned down to a statement that can be examined, confirmed, or show to be incorrect. He makes only vague handwaving assertions.

I would like to clarify several misunderstandings. My paper has two goals. First, I wanted to show many of the treatments that have caused LENR to occur. This information is important because it demonstrates that LENR can be made to occur in many different ways, as would be true of a phenomenon of Nature rather than it being the result of experimental error. In other words, the claim has been replicated many times while using many different treatments and materials, as is required for science to accept the claim. Second, I wanted to show that a universal feature resulted from each of these treatments which was always present when excess energy was measured. The proper identification of the critical feature would allow LENR to be produced in many different ways, with this feature being present as the only requirement. In other words, many parts of the complex treatments people use are not required. For example, the method used by Mizuno is not unique because it is simply another method to form the required gaps. Many effective methods can be imagined and then explored. We only need to know where to look to find the needle.

We are long past the value of questioning the reality of LENR. Trivial comments are now a waste of time and need to be ignored. We now need to work together to understand how LENR works. This paper is a step toward that goal. My next paper will take the next step. Hopefully, a person more skilled than I am will see the future path clearly enough to finally explain how LENR works. The mechanism is different from how people have explained the fusion process in the past. People need to start being more creative and clever. This requires the observed behavior to be accepted and used to guide the search.

I hope I can have your help in this effort.

ED

Also, the readers need to know that this paper is brief on purpose. This is only a guide, not a source of proof. I hope that if the reader wants more information, the cited papers will be read. All the questions are answered in detail in other papers.

Didn't McKubre (?) show years ago that high loading was required at some point in the preparation cycle, and not at the time of operation. Most likely just to form cracks, through expansion, which could then be re-populated with low densities of H or D.

Quote from JedRothwell

The other distinguishing characteristic of people such as THHuxleynew is that they have no scientific or rational basis for their opinions. I mean none whatever. They have never given a single reason to doubt any major study. They just make stuff up, and the stuff never has any technical meaning. It cannot be pinned down. For example, THH just told us Storms' results have not been replicated

I never said that. And while my being misunderstood on this site is something I am used to - I think it mostly happens when people have prejudices.

My comment about lack of replication was that Ed was, as I understand it, summarising work in the field. If he is summarising his own work then I'd again expect more specific details of results - then I or he could comment on replication or lack of it. I have no idea whether Ed's work has been replicated because the paper here is not a precise description of it. Nor was I addressing that. My point remains that the less specific the findings are as to what works/what does not work the less strong the results. I think from what Ed says above that his intent is to isolate precisely what is definitely necessary and discriminates working from not working - an intent I applaud.

I thought the aim of this paper was to draw together known results relating to Material Science aspects of LENR: for the three sections I highlighted I think (though I could not do it myself, not being a Material Scientist) there is likley stuff to say.

If however it is to describe Ed's own results - then I apologise - it had the form of a review paper so I misunderstood.

In that case my comment would be that more details are needed: and would be very welcome since removing the "some materials work and others do not" uncertainty would be a major achievement, and helpful in many ways.

They have never given a single reason to doubt any major study

Well - not to labour a point - I have given specific reasons here recently to doubt the boil-off and HAD phase of F&P boil-off experiments as documented in videos and a much posted here paper. Personally - I do not see that as a major study - there is a lot of other much better and more careful work. I only wish others here would agree with me and not insist on that one experiment as being a major piece of evidence: when it has such very clear flaws. To continue to insist on its seminal importance to the field does a disservice to much of the better later work.

I have also given specific reasons to doubt the aggregated He4 vs excess heat data, reviewed here - the reasons for a possible artifactual correlation are subtle and to do with the exact details of which experimental results are included and which are not included, when the experiments were terminated and checked for leaks, how long those experiments were run for, and the known artifact (leakage from atmospheric or higher than atmospheric lab He4). This is dismissed in that reference on the basis of glass diffusion rates, when other papers note that many experiments needed to be terminated and equipment seals checked because of He4 ingress from leakage at joints.

I wish very much we had better modern evidence from excess heat / He4 correlations, since it would be strong and also give real information as to LENR mechanisms. I think it is a good although experimentally very challenging way to convince the skeptics.

Yes, Mike demonstrated that a high D/Pd ratio was required to activate the material he was using. I explained and then demonstrated why in his case the high D/Pd ratio was required. The material I use does not require a high D/Pd ratio to be activated. Also, the behavior shows that once activated, the fusion process can continue at even low values of D/Pd, as Jed has explained.

As Alan said, Mike is an advocate of the superabundant vacancy idea. I have argued that this location is not the site where LENR can occur because such vacancies are not present at the temperature and pressure used to cause LENR. In addition, the structure required to cause fusion can not exist in a vacancy because this would violate the rules that govern crystal formation. What Mike now believes is not clear to me.

The evidence for the formation of He4 as the source of the measured energy is so strong, I'm amazed this evidence is questioned. In fact, this behavior represents the critical feature in the discovery by F-P. The 2003 review you cite by Mel Miles only involves his work. I have reviewed this work as well as all of the other studies in the attached papers.NAWI-S-10-00209.pdfTwenty.edited(corrected).edited.pdf