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

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Right. But you are making assumptions when you say it is not possible. There is a mountain to climb, but there are many possible things to help that climb.


    I am not saying it is likely - but if LENR exists it has a mechanism - and the possible mechanisms need to be considered, not dismissed out of hand.

    THH, the possible mechanisms are not being dismissed. Only the impossible mechanisms are dismissed, just as you like to do. Perhaps we need to eliminate all of the impossible mechanisms so that only the possible remains as the truth. This will eliminate all of the presently accepted mechanisms. So, we will need to start over. Can we do this?

    Quote from Storms

    This will eliminate all of the presently accepted mechanisms

    Was the H mode predicted by "QM"? not at all..

    Much of nuclear physics is in the unknown unknowns sector..

    beyond the myopic scope of QM


    "Experimenting on the ASDEX tokamak at the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP) in Garching, Germany, the German scientist Fritz Wagner was confronted by a totally unexpected "transition" in the neutral beam heating experiment he was conducting. "It came out of nothing," recalled the recently retired 65-year old physicist during a visit to ITER. "It wasn't predicted, it just happened..."


    How Fritz Wagner 'discovered' the H-Mode

    Quote from Storms

    ...

    Why the gap encourages this assembly process is unknown. We can imagine the very large negative field present in a small gap might play a role. Clearly, the gap size is important, which would determine the magnitude of the negative field and how the electrons might form a structure. We have to assume that electrons want to form such a structure and only need the correct environment. Why they want to form the structure is unknown and would be the focus of a theory."

    The gap size may be critical for the formation of ultra-dense hydrogen and may be related to a resonant energy transfer


    "An hypothetical very simple structure formed by a proton centered in the middle of the electron charge orbit would have a potential energy of −e2/re≈ −3.728 keV, corresponding to a photon wavelength of λφ≈3.325×10−10 m. This structure may  be created only in presence of particular catalytic environments. A “resonant cavity” with dimensions comparable to λφ= 332.5pm [or its multiples] may facilitate the photon emission, acting as an “impedance matcher” with the external environment. Nickel has a lattice constant of 352.2pm, a value not very far from λφ, and each Ni lattice cell may act as a resonant  cavity and as an “energy emission catalyzer” in presence of Rydberg State Hydrogen, atomic hydrogen or hydrogen plasma, in systems very far from equilibrium."


    The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum as Theoretical Framework for Ultra-dense Deuterium and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions


    Electron Structure, Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions


    Unified Field Theory and Occam's Razor

    The last link for Occam's Razor is dead. I am curious about the unified field theory you present as they usually very fun to imagine. :)


    In biology everything is complex and extraordinary things can come out of nowhere from that complexity.


    In physics many-body complex systems can exhibit surprising unexpected behaviour (H-mode as above). This is especially true of plasma which has been a big topic for so long because it is complex and nonliear, it is often true of phase transitions which because they relate to collective behaviour can be difficult to model.


    QM is the deeper description of physics for small scales - just as GR is deeper for large scales - and has these same characteristics.


    However - both QM and classical physics - those complex many-particle systems are subject to strong laws that limit what is possible based on fundamental constraints and conserved quantities. You don't see that so obviously in biology (maybe you don't see it at all there). You don't see it so obviously in chemistry. Biologists looking at physics might therefore tend to see things in terms of the complexity, and the surprising order that can come from it, rather than in terms of the fundamental always obeyed constraints.


    Now - whether particular hypothesised behaviour is "impossible" or not clearly depends on does it inhabit the "fundamentally not allowed" bit or the "all the complex systems we have seen obey this so lets call it a law" bit. To engage with that you need to start by looking at all of the known fundamental laws - and that includes a lot of QM stuff.


    It is not always easy to know which is which. But, to make that judgement in an informed way you need very sound and detailed understanding of QM, etc.


    I am willing to bet that those here dismissing QM, QED, etc have not fully learnt it: because if they had, their arguments would be much more specific and include acknowledgement of the fundamental constraints that all physical systems operate under.




    THH

    Yes, THH, what you say is true. People who believe that QM and QED are true must reject LENR as impossible. On the other hand, if LENR were real, QM must contain serious flaws. The question is, "How do we solve this dilemma"? It would seem like QM is believed with the greater intent, so the emphasis is placed on believing that LENR is not real and that more effort would reveal this to be true. Finding the flaw in QM does not seem to be important to most people.


    Can we develop a description that is consistent with the behavior without having to use QM or QED? I have done this. Can you accept my description so that the discussion can move on?

    Quote from Storms

    Yes, THH, what you say is true. People who believe that QM and QED are true must reject LENR as impossible.

    Needless to say, that violates the scientific method. You can never reject replicated, high signal to noise experiments based on theory. It only works the other way around. When theory and replicated experiments conflict, the experiments always win, theory always loses.


    THH will say the experiments were not replicated, or they were flawed. But he cannot give a reason why they were flawed. He has never even tried to come up with a reason, except imaginary nonsense such as "Miles threw away data from cells that leaked."


    Any experiment might be wrong, but to assume that widely replicated ones are wrong would invalidate all scientific knowledge. Tycho Brahe's measurements of the orbit of Mars might be wrong. Newton's prism experiments might be wrong. So the laws of gravity and light might be invalid. Might be . . . but until you find a reason and then prove by experiment these things are wrong, you have no case. Just waving your hands and saying "prisms don't work" or "calorimeters don't work" does not prove anything.


    THH and other "skeptics" who put theory ahead of experiments are not doing science. They are doing a debased form of faith-based religion.

    Well-designed experiments and careful measurements always trump theory, or show ways in which it can be improved. The question sometimes is (in the words of Lewis Carroll) 'Who is to be master'.


    Newton's gravitational theory worked well for most purposes, but there is a tiny anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, only 43″ of arc per century, This tiny excess was eventually explained by Einstein some 200 years later. Mercury is not the only planet that has an anomalous precession - so do all the others. To the very best measurements, none of the planets obey Newton’s laws of gravitation, it’s not only Mercury that stands out. They are not huge corrections , but the reason they are required was not explained until Einstein came up with the concept of general relativity.

    Jed, I think that all objective scientists who examine the information about LENR would accept the phenomenon as real. THH and other similar people have a problem because the very basis of their scientific reality is being challenged. Yes, their response is very similar to how people respond when their religious

    beliefs are challenged. We know that such beliefs can not be changed by discussion. So, we need to look elsewhere for the cure.

    As I understand from far, stating that QM and QFT exclude LENr effect is a bit prelature, as our mastering of QM/QFT in complex multibody systems is not total.

    By the way, When I was reading papers one thing shocked me, between LENR and hot fusion or even fission.

    (Please forgive my ignorance)


    It seems that

    1/ LENR results mostly ends with low energy outcome, and

    2/ energy is dissipated in low quanta...

    I've learned basic QM in the domain of semiconductors, and this behavior recalls me two phenomenons/situations:


    Dr Storms made a good argument about the experience of Iwamura in thin film; where heavy atoms seems to absorb pairs of deuterons, but only to stable outcome.


    When a quantum isolated system is in a state above it's lowest energy state, it may radiate, disintegrate spontaneously, and the outcome is necessarily made of more stable results. This happens for nuclear spontaneous radioactivity, or for electrons desexcitation...

    Note also that sometime, the emission may be stimulated and coherent as MASER/LASER.

    It reminds me of the THz excitation by dual LASER (even if some states that it may just allow higher peak power because of beat effect).


    When many quantum systems like atoms are regularly associated like in a crystal, the energy level of the system obey a dense structure that allows very small quanta, if not simply heat.



    The question if it is KeV band structure, or even e degenerated band like conduction band... (I'm not competent enough to see how semiconductor band structure could be adapted to a LENr system)

    Lecture 2 OUTLINE Semiconductor Fundamentals (cont'd) – Energy band model – Band gap energy – Density of states – Doping Reading: Pierret , 3.1.5; - ppt download


    For my naive eye, LENR show the system is a large group of quantum system, regularly organized, that is excited by the fact that fused hydrogen nucleus (helium/H3/H4) are in a lower energy state than unfused hydrogen...


    I admit this makes me consider Hydroton theory, Fukai phase (Super Abundant vacation), and 4QD with a favorable eye... I let the experts criticize each of those theories.

    “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
    twitter @alain_co

    Like 1 Thanks 1

    Alain, you seem to be describing a chemical system. Fusion can not happen in a normal chemical system because the nuclei are held too far apart by the electron cloud. The nuclei and electrons need to acquire an entirely different relationship for fusion to occur. This different relationship can not form within the chemical structure that is normally present because its formation would violate the rules that caused the normal structure to form. In other words, the new kind of structure can not form in a vacancy. Because this fact is ignored, people keep going down the wrong path. A change in belief seems almost impossible to achieve. The required structure can form in a gap because this condition is outside of the normal chemical structure. Therefore, the rules do not apply. In addition, the gap contains electrons having entirely different energy relationships compared to the electrons in a crystal structure. These novel relationships make LENR possible.

    Quote from Storms

    Yes, THH, what you say is true. People who believe that QM and QED are true must reject LENR as impossible.

    If you look back at my post you will see I reject both the idea of truth and (in general) impossibility as applied to scientific theories. They are, as you say, both beliefs. i may loosely use those words - I mean them in the sense of how predictive a theory is and how well supported by experiments. If both are high, then there is a high bar for an alt better theory. It must be as predictive, and identical, over all of those results but different in some other way.


    Examples: QM vs classical physics. GR vs Newtonian physics. In both cases the better theory is simpler than the approximation, and provably reduces to the approximation except in a defined set of cases where there are predicted differences.


    Whereas the point I am making about some things (e.g. breaking things conserved for fundamental reasons) being low on my list of what is likely is surely what any rational person would say. I've not, on this thread or elsewhere, said or implied LENR is impossible. Nor do I think that way.


    However, I do think that whatever LENR is it can be understood rationally and that means various things:

    • Preferring the idea that it is rare and therefore many of the claimed LENR results have non-LENR explanations. The more common it is, the less likely it would not have been found in some mainstream experiment.
    • Preferring the idea that it comes from some highly unexpected aspect of collective behaviour, than the idea there is a different theory of particle physics which is identical with standard over all those other experiments and only show differences (which, however, are not predictive) in LENR experiments. For example, LEC behaviour would be an example of something unexpected which could reasonably be supposed a result of collective behciour (maybe it could also be other things, like some unusual shaped catalytic surface).
    • That, thus far, no LENR theory has proven highly predictive means either (1) no LENR theory exists or (2) We do not yet have a viable theory. Until (1) or (2) happens, the search for a viable LENR theory is interesting - but also interesting is the possibility that none such exists and the apparent LENR anomalies are all just unexplained (or explained but the explanations are incorrectly dismissed) results of methodological or experimental errors. To dismiss either alternate is to be prejudiced. A good (certain and replicable) experiment which was replicated by different groups with different methodology, and in a progression that gave better insight over time would rule out (2). LENR does not yet have that although if Daniel et al are correct there is no reason now why it could not have that. We will see.

    I think these things would be commonly held by everyone except those who adopt a magical mindset towards LENR. What I mean by "magical mindset" is that those experiments are so extraordinary and inexplicable that they break all known rules and therefore no known rules can be trusted.


    I think, if LENR breaks rules, than it is more likely to be the result of a smaller number of or less definite rules being broken, than a larger number of or more fundamental rules being broken.


    Now Ed here is someone with the same motivation as me - he sees the merit of theory. Unlike me, he has specific experimental detail he wants to explain. However, if such an explanation is to be helpful, it is worth rating possible explanations as above. Saying something works - when it manifestly causes problems in other ways, is problematic. Of course something that works in some ways can be made to work regardless of problems in others - but only by admitting those problems as real and finding ways round them.


    Ironically, I am less likely to dismiss possible explanations on grounds that I do not see how they could work than most here. I am well aware that what I can imagine is finite, and being human I am capable of getting things wrong, capable of signing up to groupthink. The LENR community would do well to have a similar humility.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Newton's gravitational theory worked well for most purposes, but there is a tiny anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, only 43″ of arc per century, This tiny excess was eventually explained by Einstein some 200 years later.

    Alan we should not use old cheats to explain LENR. The precision of Mercury has been explained a long time before Einstein by Keller using advanced level rotator mechanics (only a few did understand at that time). Einsteins prediction was a fake as he had to simplify the formula and ended up in the old known solution.

    The other problem is that there are no real 1/r potentials except for rigid point object.

    Yes - so Hagelstein is the person who has put most effort into "how can the product nuclear energy (large) couple to many quanta of band energy (small)" problem.


    Maybe the same coupling mechanism in reverse can surmount the CB. But it is actually easier to do that - because we can have collective coherent wave functions which enhance the probability of a high energy result taking energy from all. No additional coupling needed. And then the higher energy can surmount CB.


    The other possibility is that the high nuclear reaction energy deltas are not seen - because there are no nuclear reactions.


    With regard to energy levels. In a lattice there are electronic energy levels (what we normally think of) and nuclear energy levels. There is some coupligf (read hagelstein on this) because nuclear spin couples with electronic wave functions - quite weakly.


    If nuclei could be coupled coherently - we would be in a different ball park. Chubb (IBSL) has proposed this, ignoring the great difficulty in keeping that coherence.


    Electrons can be coupled coherently - we see it in superconductivity, and in plasmons, and there are lots of interesting special cases. So getting higher energies out of electron band energies via such a mechanism seems plausible. But it does not, without something else significant, give you all you need for LENR.


    You will see from my post above that I am not absolutist, and I am incremental. So, I prefer solutions building on partial solutions. While not assuming they exist.


    THH

    Quote from Storms

    Fusion can not happen in a normal chemical system because the nuclei are held too far apart by the electron cloud. The nuclei and electrons need to acquire an entirely different relationship for fusion to occur. This different relationship can not form within the chemical structure that is normally present because its formation would violate the rules that caused the normal structure to form. In other words, the new kind of structure can not form in a vacancy. Because this fact is ignored, people keep going down the wrong path.

    I think "facts" of that sort - which rely on ideas of chemistry which are often broken by collective behavior in complex many-body systems - should not be assumed true.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Well-designed experiments and careful measurements always trump theory, or show ways in which it can be improved. The question sometimes is (in the words of Lewis Carroll) 'Who is to be master'.


    Newton's gravitational theory worked well for most purposes, but there is a tiny anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, only 43″ of arc per century, This tiny excess was eventually explained by Einstein some 200 years later. Mercury is not the only planet that has an anomalous precession - so do all the others. To the very best measurements, none of the planets obey Newton’s laws of gravitation, it’s not only Mercury that stands out. They are not huge corrections , but the reason they are required was not explained until Einstein came up with the concept of general relativity.

    I agree with the question, but not that experiments always triumph.


    If your definition of "well designed" is that the experimental assumptions are all correct - then by definition experiment wins.


    But in practice we can never be sure that some unexpected and effect (ants easting the cables or whatever) does not break experimental assumptions. When checking experiments we can never be sure we have not missed something unexpected, and therefore not imagined.


    So when experiments go against well-established theory we look for coherence, replicability, certainty of interpretation, before thinking we need new theory rather than new types of ants.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    an understatenent

    example

    gamma "decay" transitions for 300 or so nuclear isotopes

    including those from which humans are made..

    mastery is "not total" :)

    https://web1.eng.famu.fsu.edu/…to%20the%20ground%20state.

    "

    Please, your mouth is hang­ing open. It makes you look very goofy.

    You can al­most pre­tend that the mag­netic data are not re­ally as bad as they look,

    if you cover up those num­bers along the ver­ti­cal axis with your arm.

    There is no doubt that if en­gi­neers got data like that, they would con­clude

    that some­thing is ter­ri­bly and fun­da­men­tally wrong.

    Physi­cists how­ever pooh-pooh the prob­lems


    First of all, physics text­books typ­i­cally only present the ${\rm {M4}}$ data graph­i­cally like this.

    Yes, the ${\rm {M4}}$ tran­si­tions are typ­i­cally only an or­der of mag­ni­tude or so off.

    Ac­cord­ing to the fig­ures here, this good agree­ment hap­pens only for the ${\rm {M4}}$ data.

    Have a look at the ${\rm {E1}}$ and ${\rm {E2}}$ data.

    They end up pretty much in the same hu­mon­gous cloud of scat­tered data.

    \begin{figure}\centering<br>\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}<br>\begin{picture}(404,56...<br>...n-odd}}<br>\put(353,375.8){\makebox(0,0)[bl]{odd-odd}}<br>\end{picture}<br>\end{figure}

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.