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

Quote from Storms

"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

Ed's question is really interesting - my best attempt at an answer below. Broadly it lines up with what Daniel says - but there is a lot of necessary detail.

(1) Phonons are a proper description of physical vibration in solids which like all phenomena is in principle quantised. The quantisation can be observed at low temperatures, or in special circumstances, and the (fundamental) quantum description of this phenomenon approximates classical thermodynamics.

(2) Physical vibrations in gasses are very different, because unlike lattices the vibrating objects are not strongly coupled - so the behaviour is completely different (and less interesting). Most people do not call these phonons.

(3) Phonons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in a material lattice, just as photons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in an electromagnetic field. Both are descriptions of a quantum mechanical system that can have discrete states - where states close to the ground state correspond to a small number of quanta (photons or phonons). Both single photon systems, and single-phonon systems have been studied and manipulated according to all of the laws of quantum mechanics.

(4) Whether you would "hear" wave-particle duality, if you coupled a solid lattice to your ear, would depend on how sensitive was your hearing at the relevant vibrational frequencies. In fact our retinas can detect single photons, although we cannot perceive this because multiple detections are needed to send a signal to the brain. (from the reference - maybe it is not entirely accurate). However I doubt our ears are sensitive enough to detect single external phonons! Single phonons have been observed https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08967. However our ears couple external vibrations to a fluid in the cochlea. In this fluid hairs are suspended that each form little tuned oscillators sensitive to different frequencies. it is amazing. I do not know whether individual hairs are sensitive to single phonons of vibration - just like a lattice, a vibrating resonator has quantum states described as phonons. But, even if they were, the imperfect coupling through the cochlea means it is likely they would need many external phonons.

(5) Phonons are not fundamental particles, in the way that photons are. Phonons come from the strongly coupled behaviour of many atoms in a lattice: the energy results from the way that lattice vibrations expand and compress the lattice bonds, which themselves are electrostatic but include nuclei and the coupled quantum state of the lattice electrons. Very complex. So in fact both electrons and photons represent electromagnetic energy - but in the case of photons it is direct, in the cases of phonons it is very indirect. Even so, vibrational quanta obey the normal qunatum mechanical rules and are "real" in that sense when the whole system is couples (to itself) and has minimal coupling to other things that would act is QM observers and make an isolated quantum mechanical description impossible.

(6) Also worth noting that lattice vibrational energy is what determines lattice temperature. These vibrations are decoherent and described by many uncoherent phonons (in which case there is not much point thinking about phonons, because QM effects disappear).

(7) Since phonons describe vibrations in solids it is not surprising that edges are special and vibration modes of edges can be described by topological phonons. All these phonons are just descriptions of vibration modes allowed by QM. No-one should be surprised that such things exist, we after all understand that on a macroscopic scale vibrational waves are constrained by geometry to specific frequencies, which is how musical instruments work. I know nothing about topological phonons except that they have much working theory and many applications https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co…bs/10.1002/adfm.201904784.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ed's question is really interesting - my best attempt at an answer below. Broadly it lines up with what Daniel says - but there is a lot of necessary detail.

(1) Phonons are a proper description of physical vibration in solids which like all phenomena is in principle quantised. The quantisation can be observed at low temperatures, or in special circumstances, and the (fundamental) quantum description of this phenomenon approximates classical thermodynamics.

(2) Physical vibrations in gasses are very different, because unlike lattices the vibrating objects are not strongly coupled - so the behaviour is completely different (and less interesting). Most people do not call these phonons.

(3) Phonons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in a material lattice, just as photons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in an electromagnetic field. Both are descriptions of a quantum mechanical system that can have discrete states - where states close to the ground state correspond to a small number of quanta (photons or phonons). Both single photon systems, and single-phonon systems have been studied and manipulated according to all of the laws of quantum mechanics.

(4) Whether you would "hear" wave-particle duality, if you coupled a solid lattice to your ear, would depend on how sensitive was your hearing at the relevant vibrational frequencies. In fact our retinas can detect single photons, although we cannot perceive this because multiple detections are needed to send a signal to the brain. (from the reference - maybe it is not entirely accurate). However I doubt our ears are sensitive enough to detect single external phonons! Single phonons have been observed https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08967. However our ears couple external vibrations to a fluid in the cochlea. In this fluid hairs are suspended that each form little tuned oscillators sensitive to different frequencies. it is amazing. I do not know whether individual hairs are sensitive to single phonons or vibration - just like a lattice, a vibrating resonator has quantum states described as phonons.

(5) Phonons are not fundamental particles, in the way that photons are. Phonons come from the strongly coupled behaviour of many atoms in a lattice: the energy results from the way that lattice vibrations expand and compress the lattice bonds, which themselves are electrostatic but include nuclei and the coupled quantum state of the lattice electrons. Very complex. So in fact both electrons and photons represent electromagnetic energy - but in the case of photons it is direct, in the cases of phonons it is very indirect. Even so, vibrational quanta obey the normal qunatum mechanical rules and are "real" in that sense when the whole system is couples (to itself) and has minimal coupling to other things that would act is QM observers and make an isolated quantum mechanical description impossible.

(6) Also worth noting that lattice vibrational energy is what determines lattice temperature.

(7) Since phonons describe vibrations in solids it is not surprising that edges are special and vibration modes of edges can be described by topological phonons. All these phonons are just descriptions of vibration modes allowed by QM. No-one should be surprised that such things exist, we after all understand that on a macroscopic scale vibrational waves are constrained by geometry to specific frequencies, which is how musical instruments work. I know nothing about topological phonons except that they have muhc working theory and many applications https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co…bs/10.1002/adfm.201904784.

Display More

THH. I agree with your clear description of phonons. The basic question is whether the physical vibration that a phonon represents can interact with and cause energy to be moved to or from the nuclear energy state. In other words, can the energy present in the nucleus as mass-energy be directly coupled to the surrounding atoms as a physical vibration? Or said another way, can the physical vibration of atoms in a material add energy to the nucleus such as to cause a nuclear reaction? That is what the phonon is claimed to do. The mass-energy resulting from the creation of a nuclear product is claimed to be transferred directly to the surrounding atoms as a physical vibration, using the phonon as the transfer agent.

This idea is in direct conflict with my understanding of nuclear behavior. All other nuclear reactions transfer the mass-energy as kinetic energy, not as a vibration. The kinetic energy is turned into heat, i.e. vibrations, as the radiation interacts with the absorber atoms. Initially, the energy is present in the nuclear products as kinetic energy or as photons, not as phonons. The phonons would be created later.

Apparently, people have created a new kind of particle that they misname as the phonon. This new particle can dissipate the mass-energy from a nuclear product without being detected. Apparently, it only functions during LENR. Consequently, this new particle allows people to ignore the observed radiation as being noise or other kinds of error. I claim this new particle is nonsense.

Dubinko talked rather about discrete breathers than phonons.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ed's question is really interesting - my best attempt at an answer below. Broadly it lines up with what Daniel says - but there is a lot of necessary detail.

(1) Phonons are a proper description of physical vibration in solids which like all phenomena is in principle quantised. The quantisation can be observed at low temperatures, or in special circumstances, and the (fundamental) quantum description of this phenomenon approximates classical thermodynamics.

(2) Physical vibrations in gasses are very different, because unlike lattices the vibrating objects are not strongly coupled - so the behaviour is completely different (and less interesting). Most people do not call these phonons.

(3) Phonons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in a material lattice, just as photons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in an electromagnetic field. Both are descriptions of a quantum mechanical system that can have discrete states - where states close to the ground state correspond to a small number of quanta (photons or phonons). Both single photon systems, and single-phonon systems have been studied and manipulated according to all of the laws of quantum mechanics.

(4) Whether you would "hear" wave-particle duality, if you coupled a solid lattice to your ear, would depend on how sensitive was your hearing at the relevant vibrational frequencies. In fact our retinas can detect single photons, although we cannot perceive this because multiple detections are needed to send a signal to the brain. (from the reference - maybe it is not entirely accurate). However I doubt our ears are sensitive enough to detect single external phonons! Single phonons have been observed https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08967. However our ears couple external vibrations to a fluid in the cochlea. In this fluid hairs are suspended that each form little tuned oscillators sensitive to different frequencies. it is amazing. I do not know whether individual hairs are sensitive to single phonons of vibration - just like a lattice, a vibrating resonator has quantum states described as phonons. But, even if they were, the imperfect coupling through the cochlea means it is likely they would need many external phonons.

(5) Phonons are not fundamental particles, in the way that photons are. Phonons come from the strongly coupled behaviour of many atoms in a lattice: the energy results from the way that lattice vibrations expand and compress the lattice bonds, which themselves are electrostatic but include nuclei and the coupled quantum state of the lattice electrons. Very complex. So in fact both electrons and photons represent electromagnetic energy - but in the case of photons it is direct, in the cases of phonons it is very indirect. Even so, vibrational quanta obey the normal qunatum mechanical rules and are "real" in that sense when the whole system is couples (to itself) and has minimal coupling to other things that would act is QM observers and make an isolated quantum mechanical description impossible.

(6) Also worth noting that lattice vibrational energy is what determines lattice temperature. These vibrations are decoherent and described by many uncoherent phonons (in which case there is not much point thinking about phonons, because QM effects disappear).

(7) Since phonons describe vibrations in solids it is not surprising that edges are special and vibration modes of edges can be described by topological phonons. All these phonons are just descriptions of vibration modes allowed by QM. No-one should be surprised that such things exist, we after all understand that on a macroscopic scale vibrational waves are constrained by geometry to specific frequencies, which is how musical instruments work. I know nothing about topological phonons except that they have muhc working theory and many applications https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co…bs/10.1002/adfm.201904784.

Display More

Quote from Cydonia

Dubinko talked rather about discrete breathers than phonons.

Thanks for the reference. Here are his other papers. Once again, the idea of phonons is used with only the words being changed. Apparently, this process only applies to LENR, not to chemical reactions or to other nuclear processes.

Ed

[1] V.I. Dubinko, F. Piazza, On the role of disorder in catalysis driven by discrete breathers, Lett. on Mater. 4 (2014) 273-8.

[2] V.I. Dubinko, D. Laptev, K. Irwin, Catalytic Mechanism of LENR in Quasicrystals based on Localized Anharmonic Vibrations and Phasons, JCMNS 24 (2017) 75-86.

[3] V.I. Dubinko, Jitterbug transition analysis, (2016).

[4] V.I. Dubinko, Quantum Tunneling in Breather ‘Nano-colliders’, JCMNS 19 (2016) 56-67.

[5] V.I. Dubinko, Low-energy Nuclear Reactions Driven by Discrete Breathers, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 14 (2014) 87-107.

Well, yes, in the other cases they could be hidden because less important than the main process.

Now, i think that is however involved to create complex molecules onto comets. In this way, by resonances involved by strong UV comics rays, that induce endothermic fissions from Calcium (stones) to phosphorous and next to C, N and O.

Quote from Storms

Thanks for the reference. Here are his other papers. Once again, the idea of phonons is used with only the words being changed. Apparently, this process only applies to LENR, not to chemical reactions or to other nuclear processes.

Ed

[1] V.I. Dubinko, F. Piazza, On the role of disorder in catalysis driven by discrete breathers, Lett. on Mater. 4 (2014) 273-8.

[2] V.I. Dubinko, D. Laptev, K. Irwin, Catalytic Mechanism of LENR in Quasicrystals based on Localized Anharmonic Vibrations and Phasons, JCMNS 24 (2017) 75-86.

[3] V.I. Dubinko, Jitterbug transition analysis, (2016).

[4] V.I. Dubinko, Quantum Tunneling in Breather ‘Nano-colliders’, JCMNS 19 (2016) 56-67.

[5] V.I. Dubinko, Low-energy Nuclear Reactions Driven by Discrete Breathers, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 14 (2014) 87-107.

Display More

Quote from Cydonia

Well, yes, in the other cases they could be hidden because less important than the main process.

Now, i think that is however involved to create complex molecules onto comets. In this way, by resonances involved by strong UV comics rays, that induce endothermic fissions from Calcium (stones) to phosphorous and next to C, N and O.

If this level of energy transfer were possible, no explosive would be stable. This is an example of making assumptions without considering any other application of the assumption. Too many people live in their own small reality without looking at how the rest of the world works. A theory that can explain LENR MUST be consistent with all other behaviors and explain more than just LENR. People need to stop wasting time on nonsense.

I have no idea what happens in comets and won't even try to guess.

This is a great problem that those involved in research at the lowest scale and the others who are working at the highest scales never meet themselves or too little.

It was probably also the Einstein case that didn't allowed him to well understand the quantum physic, for example.

Quote from Storms

I have no idea what happens in comets and won't even try to guess.

Quote from Cydonia

This is a great problem that those involved in research at the lowest scale and the others who are working at the highest scales never meet themselves or too little.

It was probably also the Einstein case that didn't allowed him to well understand the quantum physic, for example.

Do you agree that a person can understand an idea without agreeing that it is correct?

Yes, especially those who have a problem with their ego OR those who highlight themselves by always staying in the front during the ICCF event global picture. For my side i worked... a lot.

Unfortunately today i have a crazy headache that prevents me to stay concentrated on my current experiment. This is why i chatted a lot today to ventilate my brain ahaha.

Quote from Storms

Do you agree that a person can understand an idea without agreeing that it is correct?

Quote from Storms

"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

Right, the same question would apply to the photon in the eyes? These are just descriptive physical terms we use in mathematical communication in an attempt to explain the nature of our reality. This is kind of why I have been suggesting we stick to field equations and not stress so much about the transitions of particles. Both are probably necessary at varying scales but they become more probabilistic and hard to comprehend at the extremes of micro or macrocosmic system scales. I don't personally have the math chops for this, but I am sure it plays an importance for predictable results.

Just some theoretical musings I have had sloshing in my mind for some time if that is the focus of this conversation.

Could these be subatomic energy fields interacting like the electron, another convenient term we use to describe our observations, moving in dynamic degrees of freedom depending on the known laws of electrodynamics/thermodynamics? Some oscillatory modes may perhaps collapse and form difficult to be perceived "voids/vacuum" fields to which nature attempts to fill depending on varying system conditions and equilibriums "ground states"? The idea would be efficiently use predictable oscillations that may be fundamentally synchronize with a state change in hydrogen as a beginning step. (Since it is essentially the easiest and most abundant element to do this with) Again, these are just fun theoretical models which can be enhanced with mathematical descriptions, but testing them experimentally is probably the more pressing matter.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ed's question is really interesting - my best attempt at an answer below. Broadly it lines up with what Daniel says - but there is a lot of necessary detail.

(1) Phonons are a proper description of physical vibration in solids which like all phenomena is in principle quantized. The quantization can be observed at low temperatures, or in special circumstances, and the (fundamental) quantum description of this phenomenon approximates classical thermodynamics.

(2) Physical vibrations in gasses are very different, because unlike lattices the vibrating objects are not strongly coupled - so the behavior is completely different (and less interesting). Most people do not call these phonons.

(3) Phonons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in a material lattice, just as photons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in an electromagnetic field. Both are descriptions of a quantum mechanical system that can have discrete states - where states close to the ground state correspond to a small number of quanta (photons or phonons). Both single photon systems, and single-phonon systems have been studied and manipulated according to all of the laws of quantum mechanics.

(4) Whether you would "hear" wave-particle duality, if you coupled a solid lattice to your ear, would depend on how sensitive was your hearing at the relevant vibrational frequencies. In fact our retinas can detect single photons, although we cannot perceive this because multiple detections are needed to send a signal to the brain. (from the reference - maybe it is not entirely accurate). However I doubt our ears are sensitive enough to detect single external phonons! Single phonons have been observed https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08967. However our ears couple external vibrations to a fluid in the cochlea. In this fluid hairs are suspended that each form little tuned oscillators sensitive to different frequencies. it is amazing. I do not know whether individual hairs are sensitive to single phonons of vibration - just like a lattice, a vibrating resonator has quantum states described as phonons. But, even if they were, the imperfect coupling through the cochlea means it is likely they would need many external phonons.

(5) Phonons are not fundamental particles, in the way that photons are. Phonons come from the strongly coupled behavior of many atoms in a lattice: the energy results from the way that lattice vibrations expand and compress the lattice bonds, which themselves are electrostatic but include nuclei and the coupled quantum state of the lattice electrons. Very complex. So in fact both electrons and photons represent electromagnetic energy - but in the case of photons it is direct, in the cases of phonons it is very indirect. Even so, vibrational quanta obey the normal qunatum mechanical rules and are "real" in that sense when the whole system is couples (to itself) and has minimal coupling to other things that would act is QM observers and make an isolated quantum mechanical description impossible.

(6) Also worth noting that lattice vibrational energy is what determines lattice temperature. These vibrations are decoherent and described by many uncoherent phonons (in which case there is not much point thinking about phonons, because QM effects disappear).

(7) Since phonons describe vibrations in solids it is not surprising that edges are special and vibration modes of edges can be described by topological phonons. All these phonons are just descriptions of vibration modes allowed by QM. No-one should be surprised that such things exist, we after all understand that on a macroscopic scale vibrational waves are constrained by geometry to specific frequencies, which is how musical instruments work. I know nothing about topological phonons except that they have much working theory and many applications https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co…bs/10.1002/adfm.201904784.

Display More

This is very nuanced description and I appreciate you taking the time to put that together. I guess I should have just read this before responding to Storms
It looks like we can all agree on this, so that is good, we are getting somewhere!

Perhaps a real simplified theory of LENR is a cascading state chain between phases of energy/matter. It's probably a lot easier to cascade these state changes in an ionic liquid because of it's predictability and outer transition layering in the effected EM fields. Doing this in a gaseous medium seems like it would require a lot more advanced subatomic waveguides with higher frequency regimes. Which to me seems like an engineering nightmare that perhaps our grandchildren can sort out... maybe the AI ones
I guess on the engineering front I am suggesting an iterative reactor like co-deposition, but with a concentrating effect of the hydrogen state to breed more deuterated substrate over time as well as maintain a nominal conditions of pressure, heat, and EM field changes which transition the incident "phenomena" to usable work.

Quote from Storms

Thanks for the reference. Here are his other papers. Once again, the idea of phonons is used with only the words being changed. Apparently, this process only applies to LENR, not to chemical reactions or to other nuclear processes.

Ed

[1] V.I. Dubinko, F. Piazza, On the role of disorder in catalysis driven by discrete breathers, Lett. on Mater. 4 (2014) 273-8.

[2] V.I. Dubinko, D. Laptev, K. Irwin, Catalytic Mechanism of LENR in Quasicrystals based on Localized Anharmonic Vibrations and Phasons, JCMNS 24 (2017) 75-86.

[3] V.I. Dubinko, Jitterbug transition analysis, (2016).

[4] V.I. Dubinko, Quantum Tunneling in Breather ‘Nano-colliders’, JCMNS 19 (2016) 56-67.

[5] V.I. Dubinko, Low-energy Nuclear Reactions Driven by Discrete Breathers, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 14 (2014) 87-107.

Display More

Chemical reactions and the valence bond theory is perhaps another example of degrees of freedom in systems that have a particular atomic organization. Dubinko's work is fantastic btw. Thank you for bringing him up Cydonia

Quote from Cydonia

Well, yes, in the other cases they could be hidden because less important than the main process.

Now, i think that is however involved to create complex molecules onto comets. In this way, by resonances involved by strong UV comics rays, that induce endothermic fissions from Calcium (stones) to phosphorous and next to C, N and O.

I have considered the relation as well in tests I did some years ago. I essentially tried many types of material under electrolysis and each had very different properties and gave off varying light spectra. Some where very challenging to find a stable excited mode of plasmas. In particular Magnesium gave off a distinct aquamarine green/blue color that was beautiful. It degraded quite fast under the electromechanical/sonic field changes.

It was quite enjoyable to see the conversations be like this, where we can focus on the possible paths forward in testable designs. This is what makes the this multidisciplinary field of LENR so exciting imo!

Kind regards to all of you and yours.

Here a video from Dubinko

I have discovered that my approach is entirely different from what I hear described here.

My approach can be described by the following statements. A model is only useful if it can show what needs to be done to a material to make it active. My model does this. A model is only useful if it can show a consistent and logical relationship between the various observed behaviors. My model does this. And finally, a model cannot be believed unless it is consistent with known and accepted physical laws. My model has this relationship.

So, why is my model not discussed and applied? Why is the interest focused on models that have none of these requirements? When you can correctly answer this question, you will finally see a possible path to understanding LENR.

I can now cause LENR to occur anytime I wish. I can now study many aspects of the effect including heat production over a large temperature range, electron emissions, and the electron energy of this radiation. With collaboration, I can study the gaseous nuclear products. My approach is to work on a small scale and try to understand the basic mechanism. I'm not interested in creating a useful source of energy just yet.

But, I'm only one person with a limited budget. I'm obliged to design and make the equipment, run the experiment, write the papers, and find a place to publish. Meanwhile, I'm trying to get other people to pay attention to what I have discovered and what actually works. Being now 92 is not an advantage.

So, I'm starting to wonder whether I'm wasting my time because I have no ability to change how other people study the phenomenon or what they believe. The system has its own ideas about how research is done these days and how knowledge can be communicated and accepted. These common policies are not effective in achieving an understanding of LENR, as the last 34 years of failure have demonstrated. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is apparently not working. In addition, it's too late for this ideal source of energy to save civilization from its fate. So, I need to reexamine how I spend my time. In fact, we all need to reexamine this question because what is happening is not working.

Ed what kind of power range of XSH can you produce? What COP? Why you don’t get some labs to validate your results?

Quote from Storms

If this level of energy transfer were possible, no explosive would be stable.

Energy (net !) transfer needs a source and a sink. One sink is the so called H*-H*/D*-D* bond. For 30 years many people claimed the we need a resonant material that can provide an energy hole for the 495eV that are freed by the reaction.

But also phonon resonance or better a soft plasma can couple with the lower energy state. But without ordering force the H/D spin will never align. E.g. M. Swarz measured the D fine structure resonance (327Mhz) in his NANOR what indicates that the spins do flip at least.

Phonon = EM coupling is infinite fain grain and only if your reaction hits a resonance (harmonic) relation an energy transfer may happen. So the trick may be to over a very broad range of possible resonant energy levels.

Quote from Daniel_G

Ed what kind of power range of XSH can you produce? What COP? Why you don’t get some labs to validate your results?

The amount of power my samples produce is greater that the sensitivity and accuracy of my calorimeter (±0.005 W), which is all that matters. The COP has no meaning when basic science is being done. This is an engineering criterion that only has value when engineering is being done. We are nowhere near the engineering level.

I have published many papers showing my work. So, people know what I can do. My calorimeter has been replicated and has been found to work as claimed. NASA is interested but they have a limited belief at high levels that LENR is real. The labs that got the 10M$ from the DOE show no interest. Everyone has their own beliefs about how to do the work.

If I were younger and if success would result in a job or in a patent, the effort to get my claim replicated would be worth the time. I see no benefit at the present time. The effect is too far from a useful understanding for it to be applied and patented. Therefore, many millions of dollars would have to be invested by a research group that was not focused on an application before any money could be made. I know of no one who shares this belief or has the money. So, I see no future in this approach. Such people existed and invested in the past but they ran out of interest and money. The problem is just too difficult for the limited attention span of modern science to solve without political support, which is missing in this field.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Energy (net !) transfer needs a source and a sink. One sink is the so called H*-H*/D*-D* bond. For 30 years many people claimed the we need a resonant material that can provide an energy hole for the 495eV that are freed by the reaction.

But also phonon resonance or better a soft plasma can couple with the lower energy state. But without ordering force the H/D spin will never align. E.g. M. Swarz measured the D fine structure resonance (327Mhz) in his NANOR what indicates that the spins do flip at least.

Phonon = EM coupling is infinite fain grain and only if your reaction hits a resonance (harmonic) relation an energy transfer may happen. So the trick may be to over a very broad range of possible resonant energy levels.

You need to be careful not to mix cause with effect. I believe Swartz is measuring the effect of the energy released from the nuclear reaction on the chemistry of the surrounding material. He is not measuring the nuclear reaction itself.

The energy released by the nuclear reaction is 23.8 MeV. Where does the 495 eV you quote come from? Why would any energy go to the site you identify? Energy does not simply flow for no reason.

Quote from Storms

I have discovered that my approach is entirely different from what I hear described here.

My approach can be described by the following statements. A model is only useful if it can show what needs to be done to a material to make it active. My model does this. A model is only useful if it can show a consistent and logical relationship between the various observed behaviors. My model does this. And finally, a model cannot be believed unless it is consistent with known and accepted physical laws. My model has this relationship.

So, why is my model not discussed and applied? Why is the interest focused on models that have none of these requirements? When you can correctly answer this question, you will finally see a possible path to understanding LENR.

I can now cause LENR to occur anytime I wish. I can now study many aspects of the effect including heat production over a large temperature range, electron emissions, and the electron energy of this radiation. With collaboration, I can study the gaseous nuclear products. My approach is to work on a small scale and try to understand the basic mechanism. I'm not interested in creating a useful source of energy just yet.

But, I'm only one person with a limited budget. I'm obliged to design and make the equipment, run the experiment, write the papers, and find a place to publish. Meanwhile, I'm trying to get other people to pay attention to what I have discovered and what actually works. Being now 92 is not an advantage.

So, I'm starting to wonder whether I'm wasting my time because I have no ability to change how other people study the phenomenon or what they believe. The system has its own ideas about how research is done these days and how knowledge can be communicated and accepted. These common policies are not effective in achieving an understanding of LENR, as the last 34 years of failure have demonstrated. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is apparently not working. In addition, it's too late for this ideal source of energy to save civilization from its fate. So, I need to reexamine how I spend my time. In fact, we all need to reexamine this question because what is happening is not working.

Display More

Happy belated birthday Dr. Storms.
All is not lost and perhaps there is a social science problem that hinders the exploration, replication, and developments of your models? You are not a failure, you have contributed a large body of work into this field and have helped to keep it alive.

Quote from Storms

The amount of power my samples produce is greater that the sensitivity and accuracy of my calorimeter (±0.005 W), which is all that matters. The COP has no meaning when basic science is being done. This is an engineering criterion that only has value when engineering is being done. We are nowhere near the engineering level.

Quote from Storms

My calorimeter has been replicated and has been found to work as claimed. NASA is interested but they have a limited belief at high levels that LENR is real.

While I do not doubt the accuracy of your calorimeter as tested, such a tiny power, as a fraction of a presumably significant input power, requires the assumption that the response is very close indeed to its calibration run response. It is difficult to test all possible condition changes. So it can be quite difficult to get that certainty unless the calorimeter has a high thermal mass that would allow enough near isothermal surfaces to make changes in conditions impossible. Of course perhaps it has that.

So I cannot agree with your statement that COP has no meaning, when compared with other variables, for science, since whether the excess heat is certain and beyond any possible chemical effects (which again would require long runs at a ~5mW output power unless the reactor volume was tiny) is a scientific matter. NASA's belief at high levels would I am sure change with a replicable, as your experiment is, and certain - as it might be but you have as yet given little indication of this, quoting as certain an excess power 5mw that seems very challenging indeed to make certain.

I am not being a tiresome skeptic saying this, because if what you say is in fact correct any remaining questions about possible experimental errors could be ruled out and your experiment would become what the LENR field badly needs. So I'd think it might be in your interest to prove this.

THH

Quote from Diadon Acs

Happy belated birthday Dr. Storms.
All is not lost and perhaps there is a social science problem that hinders the exploration, replication, and developments of your models? You are not a failure, you have contributed a large body of work into this field and have helped to keep it alive.

Thanks, this realization is somewhat reassuring.

As for the social science problem, I was working with Larsen when he promoted the Larsen-Widom theory. I watch him make a successful effort to have it accepted, discussed, and explored, even when the theory was pure nonsense, as was later made clear. Clearly, BS is more powerful than reality, as politicians keep demonstrating. It's sad when this fact applies to science. I fail because I do not have the energy nor the incentive to sell BS.