As for explaining my method, I gave all the critical information. If a person wants to replicate my method, they need only to contact me to obtain the details. The paper is not designed to provide a recipe. I have only shown where the recipes can be found.
Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!
-
-
I think Ed's paper is an important piece of work for the LENR field: I never read a similar detailed historical review that comparatively analyzes treatments, methods and obtained results. Also some information contained in the paper are quite new to me, and they for sure worth spreading. It's a great reference for people that approaches this field, and a valuable starting point for further research!
Thanks Ed!
-
Well difficult to well understand the meaning here, it seems to be the same porposal as me356, call me and you will be able to done/replicate my understanding.
Now ok, i fell Storms expectations more relevant but nothing is really clear to imagine what could happen inside his cracks ? no hypothesis formulated by him anywhere since i have read his first papers.
As for explaining my method, I gave all the critical information. If a person wants to replicate my method, they need only to contact me to obtain the details. The paper is not designed to provide a recipe. I have only shown where the recipes can be found.
-
From our experience cracks works the best. If you can create them then starting LENR is super simple. It is only matter of how many cracks you can create at the surface.
There are several types of LENR you can achieve as I described few times in this forum.
-
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
I think this topic (He4 evidence) is maybe OT for this thread, so I do not want to argue here, although I would happily on another thread, if anyone wishes to do this.
From Ed's review:
Because energy and helium involve independent measurements with separate errors, the probability is essentially zero for this close agreement within the data set and with the expected amount based on the mass change to result from random chance or a combination of systematic errors. If such errors were present, the ratio would be expected to fall at random values from near zero to infinity instead of being tightly clustered.
This statement is incomplete - as a matter of statistics.
All that is required is systematic errors, or selection effects (not the same as errors) which depend on other variables, where both the excess measured energy and the excess measured He4 both depend on the same variables.
I don't want to elaborate on this here because looking in more detail at the evidence would require the source data, and the details of the experiment protocols from which the data is derived, to determine what are the selection effects. For example, in any set of experiments, He measured due to leakage from atmosphere, and excess heat measured, will both correlate identically with experiment time, leading to a graph as shown. The correspondence of (from leakage) He with that expected can be explained by a reasonable methodology in which experiments are monitored for obvious leaks (He > expected) and when this happens the runs are stopped and equipment changed. These two effects + central limit theorem can possibly deliver a histogram of the form shown.
I say possibly because obviously the above argument is not proven and needs to be elaborated, and this requires a lot more details of the experiments aggregated in the histogram - how many from each source, methodology of each source, selection criterion for an experiment to be included, etc. I'd welcome doing this on another thread.
As a general point - where individual experiments deliver variable results and so statistical processing is required to obtain the real effects, I distrust (greatly) all results when there are uncontrolled confounding variables and the dependencies are unclear. A good data scientist will be able to look at all these issues and state the uncertainties, or the potentially erroneous conclusions. For a great example of this see the many statistical analyses of COVID vaccine effect on excess deaths as deconstructed here. I am not saying that He4/excess heat measurements are as complex as COVID death statistics. But equally, they are complex, and statistically aggregated evidence of He4/excess heat correlations needs to engage with the complexity.
I am also happy to engage with anyone on these matters privately - public forums are not always conducive to clear argument. The mods here have my details.
THH
-
Well, this wasn't to intend a theory paper however in my mind linking the need of cracks and some EVO's remains a postulate in which you believe.. Now right or wrong.... ?
Cydonia. This was not intended to be a theory paper, as the title makes clear. It's about material science- creating the physical conditions in which cold fusion can flourish and grow. Ed's theory (if I understand it correctly) is that D or H diffuses into gaps of a critical size in the metal substrate together with what are initially unbound electrons (from the Fermi sea?) join them. Together they form something very similar to Ken Shoulders' EVOs.
This assembly of atoms (ions) and electrons has a collective high-energy state, which is reduced by the fusing of H/D in several stages. The final nucleus contains an extra electron from the EVO.
There are several more steps - but when the gas used is D the product is 4H. More on this later.
-
All the above steps can be influenced in terms of rate. For example, increasing system temperature increases diffusion into the active sites (Nuclear Active Environments - NAEs) and so increases the fusion rate
It is exactly such dependencies which are worth studying.
Looking at Ed's results (Fig 1) the form of the temperature vs excess power graph he quotes does not look like this effect because it is not just linear but proportional to deltaT from room temperature. Unless I have misunderstood this graph. Any number of calorimetry errors might scale in that way - but not diffusion which would be proportional to temperature in K.
If I was, as (and it is a bit annoying) some people here say - close-minded and interested disproving LENR - I would leave this stuff. It is exactly because the NAE hypotheses look half plausible, the lattice confinement fusion stuff is real although it requires a lot of wishful thinking to get to useful fusion rates, that I stay interested. It frustrates me when people do not critically appraise the diverse evidence but instead look for anything that might be consistent with LENR while ignoring inconsistencies that would allow some invalid hypothesis to be excluded. That is a general comment, not one directed specifically at this thread.
THH
-
Dennis and Cravens expected rather a "frequency" involvement regarding the laser need.
laser stimulation also does this by increasing the temperature and also the availability of electrons.
-
but not diffusion which would be proportional to temperature in K.
Actually the clustering of hydrogen in gaps and cracks is not a classic diffusion process. Unless you think otherwise?
-
This is the Airbus patent principle around their Holmlid expectations in which they believed.
Actually the clustering of hydrogen in gaps and cracks is not a classic diffusion process. Unless you think otherwise?
-
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
It would appear you did not read the paper. There are 64 footnotes listing his sources. Most of them list other people's work.
-
All that is required is systematic errors, or selection effects (not the same as errors) which depend on other variables, where both the excess measured energy and the excess measured He4 both depend on the same variables.
I don't want to elaborate on this here because looking in more detail at the evidence would require the source data,The methods used to measure energy are totally different from those used to measure helium. In most studies, helium is measured after the experiment concludes, from samples taken during the experiment. With Miles and some others it was measured with 2 or 3 different mass spectrometers, in double blind tests, in labs that did not measure heat. There is no conceivable systematic error that could cause these values to correlate. The systems (instruments) used to measure them are totally different in principle and construction, located in different labs, and operated by different people.
In short, your suggestion is preposterous.
The papers give you all of the "source data" you need to understand it is preposterous. I cannot imagine you read them because anyone who reads them would know what I just said. You wish to avoid "elaborating" is an excuse to avoid reading the papers, or stopping to think for a moment.
To give credit were it is due, some people suggested that the increased helium in Miles tests were caused by heat which allowed more helium to permeate into the cell. That is, at least, a testable hypothesis, unlike the blather above. It is easily disproven. In many null tests with no heat, input power was higher than the input power plus excess heat in the positive tests, so the temperature was higher, but no helium above background was detected.
-
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.
I do not recall that he said "not at the time of operation." His empirical equation does not say that. But he might agree, based on heat after death. He observed heat after death. He might agree that loading must be lower when it occurs.
The empirical equation is:
Pxs = M (X-X°)2 (I-I°) |ID|
p. 3:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
p. 15:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJpowersmate.pdf
The graph of loading and heat the I linked to yesterday is here:
Fig. 1. Excess Power vs. Maximum Loading.
I asked Mike about this. I will let you know if he responds.
-
-
Building a theory is like building a house. The project starts with the foundation. In science, the foundation is observed behavior. Of course, the observed behavior has to be trusted as being a true representation of how Nature behaves. When every observation is rejected as the result of potential error, no progress can be made.
Every measurement made by even the most careful study contains errors. Normally, the basic conclusions resulting from good studies are not rejected just because some error is present or can be imagined, especially when several people see the same behavior. Only in this field is everything rejected because an error can be imagined. In fact, the behavior is actually rejected because the behavior does not match the expected behavior predicted by a chosen theory. In other words, in this field, theory always comes first. Of course, no one admits to this approach. Instead, people look for imagined errors because the behavior is in conflict with the theory they keep hidden in their minds. It's impossible to have a rational discussion when this happens because the real issues are kept hidden and never discussed.
I agree, cold fusion conflicts with conventional understanding. The reported behaviors can not be explained using QM nor any other accepted mechanism. The reported behaviors make no sense, hence must be the result of an error. Consequently, a large number of professional scientists must be incompetent because they keep making these errors and seem to have no ability to understand how to do proper scientific studies. Rather than being a new discovery of how Nature works, cold fusion is instead a test of hidden incompetence. Do you agree? If not, can we talk about the reported behaviors as being the real and correct representation of how Nature actually behaves? Can we try to find a path to understanding the unique mechanism that must be operating?
-
It is definitely needed with the bulk-Pd-D electrolysis, the original method. It is needed during initial loading until the reaction is triggered......
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.
I believe one of Storms' conclusions is that high-loading is not needed. I believe Storms explains the early F&P experiments, and McKubre's data, as needing all that time to create the NAE, as opposed to needing all that time to load highly. it is not the high-loading, but the cracks and voids that the high-loading creates that makes the NAE.
What is true for gaseous hydrgen should be true for all hydrogen if this is a universal mechanism, allowing for some flexible amount to initiate the reaction for different materials, as Storms says.
So a talking point of Storms is: High-loading is not necessary to initiate or sustain a reaction.
I need to read this new paper and confirm this is the case.
-
Building a theory is like building a house. The project starts with the foundation. In science, the foundation is observed behavior.
You claim that high-loading is not necessary to initiate or sustain a reaction.
Is this an accurate statement of your model?
