“Rainey Nickel
Raney Nickel,, not very readily available.unlike constantan..
any nickel or other'hydrogen' catalyst once modified may need
to be protected from oxygen H2O..(nitrogen? attack..
since it difficult for little H2 molecules to penetrate an oxide layer?
a tank of Argon is readily available..
but don't do as IH did and heat the catalyst in air...at 300 C more..or so
That is what Hagelstein claims. That does not mean the idea is true. Hagelstein has distorted the entire concept of the phonon. The phonon is a local physical vibration equilivant to temperature. The energy in each laser-generated photon is trivial compared to the energy needed to influence a nuclear process. The idea that the energy of many photons can keep adding to the local vibration makes no sense. This addition would first cause local melting long before a nuclear reaction would be initiated. Instead, Hagelstein simply makes an arbitrary assumption without any justification. Once again, another "theory" is created having no relationship to accepted understanding. But, this is too much to justify here and is off-topic.
Ed
Yes this is the Hagelstein postulate also Dubinko has proposed interesting papers too in this way.
Now,these lasers experiments gave apparently some xsh at certains frequencies, could be their results wrong, not serious ? Or these lasers triggered finally real xsh by another way ? Metzler suggested notably harmonic oscillators ?
There is so many papers on the net explaining how induce nanocracks inside micro particles by a cavitation equipment.
Display MoreStorms , I went back to your preprint in post #1 of this thread and re read the “deposit of impurities in the surface” section. I think this is probably one of the “relatively easier” things to do in order to create different gap sizes, and also gap stabilities, in the search for increased active material.
(BTW, the first time I read it I only skimmed that part without realizing that you had not mentioned the use of boron as an impurity, I just assumed you had to have included it, do you consider that research not succesful?)
Anyway, I wonder if you consider the approach of impurity of materials to have been sufficiently explored in other metals than Pd. I think it has not.
We know Celani works with Constantan because he says that the material needs to be affordable. He also is using pulses to estimulate gas flow, which he considers absolutely required to see excess heat. Flow is also something that happens in the excess heat experiment done within the PdAg tubing by NASA in 1989 and replicated several times with the most recent results published at ICCF 24 by Theresa Benyo. How do you think that this flow would help the process, if it does it at all as Celani and NASA (and I think also Iwamura) claim?
Another think comes to memory about Nickel impurities: At one point early in his development, BrLP used to say that “Rainey Nickel” (probably not correctly spelled) was the most suitable material to cause the reaction of excess heat with hydrogen.
Display MoreAh yes, the challenges of the money game in our modern society. Doesn't most organizational endeavors require money since that is the representation of humans doing work over time? This seems like it is the product of our engineering socio-economic design and a game most of us in the western world must play. Perhaps the utilization of LENR will bring about a new age of energy abundance where this won't be as much of an issue?
It may make no sense to you, but does this mean it is wrong or off topic? I think a good question to ask ones self is, am I trying to prove myself right about LENR, or are we working together to learn the truth of the LENR phenomenon?
You are suggesting we are dealing with nanostructured wave guides in the (NAS gaps) of a crystalline lattice which I think everyone on this thread agrees with. Phonon vibrations are a term we use to describe particles moving in wave in molecular matrices as Curbina stated. It seems unclear to me how this would have no contribution to the LENR phenomenon? Here is one article out of many on how photons and phonons being quanta of electromagnetic energy have inter-relationships.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211008160507.htm
I have stated "my" hypothesis on how to reliably create hydrogen fusion. It is however, not "my" hypothesis alone as many people have helped contribute to the emergent understanding of the operation of stars, which is what we are talking about here when we are talking about fusion isn't it?
Can it be possible for several theories to be partially true without having a complete understanding? After all, isn't that what science is, the exploration of finding more truth in the beautifully immense patterns of nature?
Out of curiosity as it pertain to LENR, what are your thoughts on Arthur Eddington's 1920 hypothesis of stellar nucleosynthesis?
When I say something "does not make sense", this is shorthand for saying that the statement violates all that I have learned after 70 years of doing studies of materials. If you want to apply the concept of phonons, then at least use the convention and universal understanding. Do not add assumptions that have no relationship to the idea. Also, to have an idea accepted by conventional science, it needs to be accepted by people educated in science. Simply using hand-waiving or imagined ideas will not fly. The idea must have a clear relationship to what is known. I'm trying to achieve this clear relationship in our understanding of LENR.
What happens in stars has no relationship to what happens in a material at room temperature because the conditions have no relationship to each other. All reactions, both nuclear and chemical are influenced by their environment. A star clearly has a different environment compared to PdD.
There is so many papers on the net explaining how induce nanocracks inside micro particles by a cavitation equipment.
I did not mention boron because it does not work most of the time. The only success has been reported when a special treatment was applied. I have no way of knowing what this treatment did to cause an active material. The addition of boron is not an effective method.
Yes this is the Hagelstein postulate also Dubinko has proposed interesting papers too in this way.
Now, these lasers experiments gave apparently some xsh at certains frequencies, could be their results wrong, not serious ? Or these lasers triggered finally real xsh by another way ? Metzler suggested notably harmonic oscillators ?
The material used by Letts had gold on the surface. We have no idea what this Au did. Therefore, the idea that the DOS of PdD was involved is a
stretch. I suggest the frequencies resonated with the active gap size causing the local temperature to increase, thereby increasing the reaction rate. In other words, the results can be explained many different ways.
It seems interesting to me one would disregard the virtual particle as a convenient mathematical construct to help us visualize the particle/wave complexity of sub-atomic fields. Than use the same physical construct to state that photons don't have vibrations as a matter of fact. Yet the photon is just a convenient construct of quanta in electromagnetic waves of radiation.
Maybe I am incorrect in my understanding of the standard model of physics, but aren't photons are our best interpretation of packets of electromagnetic waves traveling through relativistic perceived spatial fields?
Have you ever witnessed a wave with no mode of vibration? Perhaps our theoretical interpretation on these things is incorrect? This is has been a major source of concern with all of this theoretical pontification that does very little to advance the field of fusion.
Perhaps photons do not carry "vibrational" energy in a neutral medium, but can photons carry information they transfer to other EM fields? There are spin resonances in angular momentum aren't there? How else would you be able to read this statement on the screen?
This is a topic that is so deeply theoretical still that one should be careful to state things as facts considering we have not been able to reconcile the particle wave duality.
You are confusing the vibration of the zero-energy field, as needed to cause photon existence, with the physical vibration of a physical object, such as is often seen as sound when it occurs in the air. The phonon is a physical vibration. Energy is stored in this vibration. It is not stored as a phonon. The word is used only to make the description easier to visualize. The phonon is not a thing that can be measured. In contrast, the photon is a thing that can be measured as an object, i.e. as a particle. The fact that the photon can also act as a wave does not change this understanding.
I did not mention boron because it does not work most of the time. The only success has been reported when a special treatment was applied. I have no way of knowing what this treatment did to cause an active material. The addition of boron is not an effective method.
Ok, thanks for answering that. I was under the impression that the idea of using boron was based in the knowledge of Johnson Mathey Pd batches used by Fleischmann and Pons were found to have B impurities. And I was also under the impression that Pd B samples prepared based on that idea were shown to be more active. But if you tell me is not the case I am surprised but I trust you.
Now, focusing in the gaps in the materials, I recall that after your ICCF 24 presentation during the Q&A someone mentioned being from an industry that could help with developing a material at nano scale, I don’t know if there was any follow up to that.
Yes the stretch is important in relation with the lattice structure and the alloy compound as we can see below:
Sometimes the strain is compressive and sometimes it's relaxed.... depending of the alloyed couple.
It gives good indications about what could happen about the Clean planet process or even Brillouin.
The material used by Letts had gold on the surface. We have no idea what this Au did. Therefore, the idea that the DOS of PdD was involved is a
stretch. I suggest the frequencies resonated with the active gap size causing the local temperature to increase, thereby increasing the reaction rate. In other words, the results can be explained many different ways.
I did not mention boron because it does not work most of the time. The only success has been reported when a special treatment was applied.
Miles et al. reported good results with boron. Go to the LENR-CANR.org Library screen and enter All Authors: Miles, Search All: boron. See, for example:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf#page=10
Ok, thanks for answering that. I was under the impression that the idea of using boron was based in the knowledge of Johnson Mathey Pd batches used by Fleischmann and Pons were found to have B impurities. And I was also under the impression that Pd B samples prepared based on that idea were shown to be more active. But if you tell me is not the case I am surprised but I trust you.
Now, focusing in the gaps in the materials, I recall that after your ICCF 24 presentation during the Q&A someone mentioned being from an industry that could help with developing a material at nano scale, I don’t know if there was any follow up to that.
Fleischmann claimed CaB6 was added but the boron was expected to be removed when its oxide floated to the surface after it reacted with
oxygen. People have interpreted this process in different ways, which has led to different treatments. I have suggested a new interpretation having no relation to boron. I focus on the small CaO particles and their ability to make gaps.
No one has contacted me about gap machining, which is typical in this field.
Miles et al. reported good results with boron. Go to the LENR-CANR.org Library screen and enter All Authors: Miles, Search All: boron. See, for example:
Yes, he reported good results when using a single kind of boron-containing sample. No other alloy has been found to work, as far as I know. It's important that people understand this detail.
When I say something "does not make sense", this is shorthand for saying that the statement violates all that I have learned after 70 years of doing studies of materials. If you want to apply the concept of phonons, then at least use the convention and universal understanding. Do not add assumptions that have no relationship to the idea. Also, to have an idea accepted by conventional science, it needs to be accepted by people educated in science. Simply using hand-waiving or imagined ideas will not fly. The idea must have a clear relationship to what is known. I'm trying to achieve this clear relationship in our understanding of LENR.
What happens in stars has no relationship to what happens in a material at room temperature because the conditions have no relationship to each other. All reactions, both nuclear and chemical are influenced by their environment. A star clearly has a different environment compared to PdD.
I apologize, I didn't link the article properly that showed your assumption of a lack of interaction between phonons and photons was incorrect. I do hope you take the time to read it as it's short and pertains to this research. There are many other observations and research in this field if you would like more information on it.
Phonon is to sound what Photon is to light, it really is that simple in the "universal understanding" of the physics. One is measured in a solid material, the other in a perceived vacuum, other than that there is no difference in the measuring of there wave functions. To suggest I am hand waiving is an unfortunate turn in what I thought could be a healthy debate. It does more to attack my character than the argument that I made.
You are confusing the vibration of the zero-energy field, as needed to cause photon existence, with the physical vibration of a physical object, such as is often seen as sound when it occurs in the air. The phonon is a physical vibration. Energy is stored in this vibration. It is not stored as a phonon. The word is used only to make the description easier to visualize. The phonon is not a thing that can be measured. In contrast, the photon is a thing that can be measured as an object, i.e. as a particle. The fact that the photon can also act as a wave does not change this understanding.
I won't pretend like have any of this figured out as I think it's better to try to understand something than to know it in absolutes. Again, I see a contradiction in your reasoning that I stated above, but perhaps it's just a matter of interpretation of the physics as it relates to quantum mechanics? Arguing doesn't really achieve much and I don't particular have the time for it in these endeavors.
If I had the means, I would send you the resources you need to test your hypothesis. At the moment I do not, but I very much appreciate all the work you have done. I wish nothing but the best for you and hope you have the ability to enjoy each precious moment to the best of your ability.
"There is a difference between knowing and understanding; you can know a lot about something and still not really understand it."
-Charles Kettering
They explain the behavior by assuming that diffusion through the deposited layer is the controlling variable, with the small particle size being important. The behavior can be equally well explained by a gap size change caused by mismatched expansion when the H content is changed. Their successful application would depend on which explanation is correct. I see no effort being made to resolve this question. Apparently, they plan to work at higher temperatures while using bigger samples, which is a typical engineering approach. I predict the approach will fail because the amount of power will slowly decrease as the material is cycled, especially when high temperatures are used. Of course, my prediction means nothing because it will be forgotten when the prediction comes true.
I agree with you. This development came after Mizuno published data showing increasing excess heat with reduced pressures which suggested that diffusion might be the important variable. I never personally believed that. The gap hypothesis makes more sense in my opinion.
Have you tried loading H first, removing it, and then loading D which could provide more gaps? It has to be something along these lines for the data to make sense.
Mastromatteo has been successfull by this way.
Have you tried loading H first, removing it, and then loading D which could provide more gaps? It has to be something along these lines for the data to make sense.
Phonons are stationnary waves which are able to "compress" a while electrons together. Something already strange if we are thinking of Bohr postulates.
Display MoreI apologize, I didn't link the article properly that showed your assumption of a lack of interaction between phonons and photons was incorrect. I do hope you take the time to read it as it's short and pertains to this research. There are many other observations and research in this field if you would like more information on it.
Phonon is to sound what Photon is to light, it really is that simple in the "universal understanding" of the physics. One is measured in a solid material, the other in a perceived vacuum, other than that there is no difference in the measuring of there wave functions. To suggest I am hand waiving is an unfortunate turn in what I thought could be a healthy debate. It does more to attack my character than the argument that I made.
I won't pretend like have any of this figured out as I think it's better to try to understand something than to know it in absolutes. Again, I see a contradiction in your reasoning that I stated above, but perhaps it's just a matter of interpretation of the physics as it relates to quantum mechanics? Arguing doesn't really achieve much and I don't particular have the time for it in these endeavors.
If I had the means, I would send you the resources you need to test your hypothesis. At the moment I do not, but I very much appreciate all the work you have done. I wish nothing but the best for you and hope you have the ability to enjoy each precious moment to the best of your ability.
"There is a difference between knowing and understanding; you can know a lot about something and still not really understand it."
-Charles Kettering
Display MoreI apologize, I didn't link the article properly that showed your assumption of a lack of interaction between phonons and photons was incorrect. I do hope you take the time to read it as it's short and pertains to this research. There are many other observations and research in this field if you would like more information on it.
Phonon is to sound what Photon is to light, it really is that simple in the "universal understanding" of the physics. One is measured in a solid material, the other in a perceived vacuum, other than that there is no difference in the measuring of there wave functions. To suggest I am hand waiving is an unfortunate turn in what I thought could be a healthy debate. It does more to attack my character than the argument that I made.
I won't pretend like have any of this figured out as I think it's better to try to understand something than to know it in absolutes. Again, I see a contradiction in your reasoning that I stated above, but perhaps it's just a matter of interpretation of the physics as it relates to quantum mechanics? Arguing doesn't really achieve much and I don't particular have the time for it in these endeavors.
If I had the means, I would send you the resources you need to test your hypothesis. At the moment I do not, but I very much appreciate all the work you have done. I wish nothing but the best for you and hope you have the ability to enjoy each precious moment to the best of your ability.
"There is a difference between knowing and understanding; you can know a lot about something and still not really understand it."
-Charles Kettering
Please understand, I am not attacking your character. Nevertheless, we have a different opinion about the nature of the phonon. I know that physicists like to make assumptions about how nature works. These assumptions eventually become a reality. I have watched in dismay as the conventional understanding of the phonon has been distorted and then applied to LENR as if the assumptions are correct. As a result, a new kind of "reality" has been created that is in conflict with the reality that I have studied and applied for the last 70 years. What is worse, this new reality does not lead to a useful understanding. It does not tell us what needs to be done to a material to make it active. It does not correctly predict the behavior except when the idea is applied to only a few selected behaviors. Nevertheless, this new reality has influence because science is ruled increasingly by physics, its concepts, and its math. As F-P learned, if an idea does not fit this paradigm, it is rejected. I'm trying to get people to correct the flaw in how the idea of phonon is applied.
I have tried several methods to make the proper gap. Loading and unloading is tricky because the gap size is important. Reloading changes the gap size, sometimes making it too large to work. You need to understand the full extent of my model and how I have observed Nature works before making suggestions. The use of questions rather than suggestions is a better approach.
Ed
"Phonon is to sound what Photon is to light, it really is that simple in the "universal understanding" of the physics. One is measured in a solid material, the other in a perceived vacuum, other than that there is no difference in the measuring of there wave functions. "
If the phonon is a proper description of a physical vibration, then the sound I hear would be caused by phonons hitting my ear drum. If these phonons are identical in their properties to the photon, as you claim, then I should be able to detect the sound I hear as particles. Do you know of anyone who has done this? Ed
