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

Quote from THHuxleynew

I think you mean in some cases, leaks did not correlate with excess heat.

No, that never happened with Miles, or anyone else as far as I know. There are no reported cases of excess helium without corresponding excess heat. There were no leaks at all; only permeation. As I said, leaks would produce hundreds to thousands of times higher levels of helium.

There were no leaks or permeation not correlated with excess heat, but in one case there was apparent excess heat not correlated with helium. That was probably false excess heat. See p. 19:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf

"Our only gas sample in nine experiments that showed excess power, but no detectable helium, was sample 12/17/90-B (References 14 through 16). Eight days later at the end of this experiment, the D2O level in cell B was 5.1 mL lower than in its companion cell A. An unusual voltage increase with time was observed the previous day (12/16/90) for cell B but not for cell A, suggesting that the D2O level was already much lower than normal and was not completely covering the electrodes in cell B. We later demonstrated that the low D2O level observed in cell B could yield a false excess heat effect. . . .

Well to give a deep reply, he well summarized what was attempted for the beginning.

Now, according to my understanding only sporadic effects have been seen, that should mean some other chapters/items have to be added who he unexpects.

Quote from Alan Smith

This thread is wandering off topic, back to 'is it real'.

I and presumably Ed would be interested to hear more comments about the paper that started this thread. for example, considering it's length, is it comprehensive enough? I will post some more questions when I get out of my next meeting.

I have an important question for TTH. What is your motive for taking the time to reply here? What is your goal? An answer would help structure a proper reply. Right now the discussion is going in circles. You seem determined to suggest any idea that can show the claim for cold fusion is wrong. Even when the results are presented using accepted arguments and formats, you suggest a flaw. Even when independent measurements agree, you suggest reasons why the results can not be believed. Even after 34 years of study by dozens of professional scientists, the results of which are published in over 2000 peer-reviewed papers, you find reasons to reject the conclusions. What is your motive? Why would you now only believe the results that result from the work funded by the DOE? Your approach made sense 30 years ago. Now it does not look rational. In any case, your approach is useless to me and to the other people who are trying to solve this important mystery.

Ironically, 34 years ago civilization was given the means to avoid the catastrophe that will result from global warming. This critical energy source was rejected with your help. Now, it's too late. I hope you are pleased with the result of your efforts.

Ed

Alan, skeptics can be very useful. I consider myself a skeptic about certain things. But, the skepticism must be focused where it counts. That cold fusion is real is no longer a subject for skepticism. Now the skepticism must be focused on the explanation. We have dozens of explanations with no agreement between them or even, on many occasions, no agreement with conventional scientific understanding. The behaviors need objective and rational analysis to discover how they are related to each other and to a universal mechanism. The cold fusion mechanism is obviously unique and not described by the present understanding of nuclear interaction. We are now confronted by a new kind of nuclear interaction that takes place in a chemical system where nuclear interaction is considered to be impossible. These are the ingredients from which Nobel Prizes are constructed. Let's focus on what matters.

I agree with you 100% Storms

We must put energy for debate into the right direction. We will not tolerate off topic in this thread.

Stay focused dear friends!

Quote from JedRothwell

Okay, so you meant excess energy increases with runtime. Researchers measure excess power (when present) and compute total excess energy, so the total energy is known.

Technically, I meant excess heat.

For example, an exothermic chemical reaction converts chemical energy to heat energy.

The excess energy of interest here is specifically heat. "Excess energy" is unclear - after all, chemical reactions are energetically neutral if you include chemical and heat energy.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Technically, I meant excess heat.

For example, an exothermic chemical reaction converts chemical energy to heat energy.

The excess energy of interest here is specifically heat. "Excess energy" is unclear - after all, chemical reactions are energetically neutral if you include chemical and heat energy.

So that we all can understand, the power is measured and the amount of energy is calculated.

Power is measured as watts. The power is multiplied by time to obtain the total energy.

Excess power is normally observed and identified as being the result of LENR.

Let's try to use conventional terminology.

Ed

The term "excess energy, is implied when excess power is measured. The measured excess power results from nuclear energy being converted to heat energy within the calorimeter after all sources of prosaic power are subtracted. The energy contained in radiation that escapes the calorimeter is not measured. Fortunately, all radiation emitted from the cold fusion reaction is captured and its energy is converted to increased temperature within the calorimeter.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The excess energy of interest here is specifically heat. "Excess energy" is unclear - after all, chemical reactions are energetically neutral if you include chemical and heat energy.

I meant total excess heat energy as opposed to instantaneous excess heat power. "Excess" in the context of cold fusion means heat above the levels produced by electrolysis power and by ordinary, known chemical reactions. It means heat that has no chemical source, and produces no chemical changes. It is also called "anomalous heat." In helium studies, the excess helium is correlated with this anomalous heat and with nothing else. Not with conventional, known chemical heat, or chemical changes. Not with the duration of the experiment (as you suggested above). Not with any other parameter.

In this context "excess helium" means helium above the levels measured from permeation.

Of course if there is a leak, you will get thousands of times more helium than from permeation or a cold fusion reaction. If a cold fusion reaction were to produce as much helium as a leak does, it would cause a megawatt-scale explosion large enough to destroy the building. If you find ~1000 ppb of helium and you are still alive, with no explosion, you can be sure it came from a leak.

(Something tells me you knew all of this, and you are nitpicking. Perhaps not. If you did not know this, you have not read the cold fusion literature and you should not be commenting on it.)

Those who are speaking continually about xsh or COP never understood nothing.

If someone have the choice to fill his car tank by a 10% less expensive fuel, he will do that.

Now if this special low cost fuel can start the engine only one time on 2, finally the customer will prefer using the more expensive, ever.

All these things to say if you aren't able to replicate what you argue full time, your device, your words, your expectations will never have an over value..

it was the same problem about P&F, Mizuno, Me336, you, MFMP and others others others...

And now if you aren't able to do that this is because you don't master the theoretical principles behind that.

Quote from Storms

The term "excess energy, is implied when excess power is measured. The measured excess power results from nuclear energy being converted to heat energy within the calorimeter after all sources of prosaic power are substrated. The energy contained in radiation that escapes the calorimeter is not measured. Fortunately, all radiation emitted from the cold fusion reaction is captured and its energy is converted to increased temperature within the calorimeter.

Quote from Cydonia

And now if you aren't able to do that this is because you don't master the theoretical principles behind that.

Do you know anyone who does? (master the theoretical principles).

These are uncharted waters.

Quote from Cydonia

Those who are speaking continually about xsh or COP never understood nothing.

If someone have the choice to fill his car tank by a 10% less expensive fuel, he will do that.

Now if this special low cost fuel can start the engine only one time on 2, finally the customer will prefer using the more expensive, ever.

All these things to say if you aren't able to replicate what you argue full time, your device, your words, your expectations will never have an over value..

it was the same problem about P&F, Mizuno, Me336, you, MFMP and others others others...

And now if you aren't able to do that this is because you don't master the theoretical principles behind that.

Display More

Cold fusion is not even close to being a useful source of energy, which is why the COP makes no sense. At the present time, the amount of power is just enough to allow the mechanism to be studied. By analogy, we are still at Kitty Hawk. We need to focus on understanding how cold fusion works before a useful energy source can be imagined. In fact, the actual generator design will probably have no relationship to what is being imagined and patented.

Ed

A former french physicist 20 years before (more or less) P&F time understood..

Quote from Curbina

Do you know anyone who does? (master the theoretical principles).

These are uncharted waters.

Quote from Storms

Alan, skeptics can be very useful. I consider myself a skeptic about certain things. But, the skepticism must be focused where it counts. That cold fusion is real is no longer a subject for skepticism.

I don't see that a ball pack "is real" or "is not real" determination can be helpful when there is as yet not definitive theory "is real" attaches to.

Perhaps others here could explain to me in what way a more careful (skeptical view) of the corpus of evidence is less useful than a less careful view.

I refuse to answer the question "is LENR real" when it is not well defined.

if this site wishes to define that question as "most of the anomalous results discussed here in fact are the result of some unexpected nuclear reaction mechanism"

Then I would point out it probably - historically - is not true. Many of the results discussed here turn out to be explained by non-nuclear mechanisms. Some things under active discussion here, e.g. LEC, will probably be agreed eventually to be non-nuclear - although they are undoubtedly interesting and anomalous.

If however the question is: "what is the mechanism behind that subset of high quality LENR results that are most resulting from likely nuclear reactions?" then i think you will find everyone has a different core subset.

However - if this site has a certain set of core "it must be nuclear" beliefs - perhaps one would be the He from electrolysis results - they could be stated clearly and if I find them too different from my sense of what has to be true I will know to abstain from certain questions on this site.

THH

Quote from Storms

So that we all can understand, the power is measured and the amount of energy is calculated.

Power is measured as watts. The power is multiplied by time to obtain the total energy.

Excess power is normally observed and identified as being the result of LENR.

Let's try to use conventional terminology.

Ed

Display More

Yes, Ed, I agree. I think you are agreeing with me? Because heat is the conventional nomenclature for (heat) energy, and has units energy.

Thermal power is something different, it is rate of heat transfer.

Be quit, i'm very very focused, in this way, i started in the past by reading your books.

However the researchers are so many BUT as the whale bands followed only a few leaders and preachers. That is why so many have been washed up... As you make the same observation as mine, that is why you are hoping here for new ideas..

Quote from Storms

Cold fusion is not even close to being a useful source of energy, which is why the COP makes no sense. At the present time, the amount of power is just enough to allow the mechanism to be studied. By analogy, we are still at Kitty Hawk. We need to focus on understanding how cold fusion works before a useful energy source can be imagined. In fact, the actual generator design will probably have no relationship to what is being imagined and patented.

Ed

Quote from Cydonia

All these things to say if you aren't able to replicate what you argue full time, your device, your words, your expectations will never have an over value..

Just because I like to examine all sides of an argument, I will raise an obvious counterexample.

QM. The probabilities in QM mean that observed events happen mysteriously some times, and not others. Many particle creation events are very rare and hardly ever happen. Yet, physicists (after a lot of initial resistance, admittedly) have no problem accepting these things.

You will say this is not the same. I agree. that is the point of this example: in what way is it not the same?

THH

Let's talk about theory. Cold fusion occurs in a chemical environment. Therefore, the process MUST play by the rules that govern chemical behavior. By analogy, hot fusion occurs in plasma. Therefore, its process MUST play by the rules governing plasma behavior, as has been found to be the case.

Consequently, the process must start as a chemical process to which the Laws of Thermodynamics apply. The nuclear fusion reaction would be an unexpected consequence. In other words, a theory that starts with QM being applied to the nuclear process is bound to fail.

We know that the fusion process is rarely produced and occurs only at certain isolated sites in the material. Therefore, these sites must have unique chemical properties. The first challenge is to identify these sites and discover their unique properties. That was the goal of the paper that started this discussion. Can we go one step at a time and focus first on the unique characteristic needed to cause the fusion process?

Ed