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

    THH, I have proven that my calorimeter design is as good as I say it is. The fact that you do know about these studies means nothing. But, this never stopped you from speculating.


    As for the idea of COP, this has no relationship to basic science because the value is determined by the experimental design and not by the nuclear process. I can create an apparatus that can give any value of COP that I want because I use direct reaction with the gas, not electrolysis. Nevertheless, increasing the magnitude of sustained power is a major challenge. People need to focus on how this can be done, not on some arbitrary COP that is clearly not big enough to be useful.


    The quoted ±5 mW is only the uncertainty. The samples ALWAYS make far more power than this. Why would you assume I'm claiming only the smallest possible amount of measured power?

    Here is a paper that describes one way to create the gaps while having control of the process. NATURE OF CF.pdfNATURE OF CF.pdfNATURE OF CF.pdf


    Gaps are easy to make. Getting the size right is difficult. Consequently, the efforts produce a range of sizes, a small fraction of which have the right size. The challenge is to increase the number with the right size. Nevertheless, a sample having some activity is better than a completely dead sample. Some activity allows the mechanism to be studied. That should be our main goal, not the creation of a useful reaction rate or COP. The useful material will come much later after the mechanism is understood.

    Quote from Storms

    Here is a paper that describes one way to create the gaps while having control of the process. NATURE OF CF.pdfNATURE OF CF.pdfNATURE OF CF.pdf


    Gaps are easy to make. Getting the size right is difficult. Consequently, the efforts produce a range of sizes, a small fraction of which have the right size. The challenge is to increase the number with the right size. Nevertheless, a sample having some activity is better than a completely dead sample. Some activity allows the mechanism to be studied. That should be our main goal, not the creation of a useful reaction rate or COP. The useful material will come much later after the mechanism is understood.

    Have you considered using a PEO process as a way to shape the catalytic topological substrate?
    It can be done with NiTi but unsure if there is any process for Pd. There is likely some very expensive sputter coating deposition processes, maybe PEO or a specific protocol of co-deposition to make the desired material?

    Quote from Storms

    THH, I have proven that my calorimeter design is as good as I say it is. The fact that you do know about these studies means nothing. But, this never stopped you from speculating.


    As for the idea of COP, this has no relationship to basic science because the value is determined by the experimental design and not by the nuclear process. I can create an apparatus that can give any value of COP that I want because I use direct reaction with the gas, not electrolysis. Nevertheless, increasing the magnitude of sustained power is a major challenge. People need to focus on how this can be done, not on some arbitrary COP that is clearly not big enough to be useful.


    The quoted ±5 mW is only the uncertainty. The samples ALWAYS make far more power than this. Why would you assume I'm claiming only the smallest possible amount of measured power?

    On the contrary - I was assuming nothing other than what you said, which means all I knew was > 5mW.


    Now I know "a lot more than 5mW"


    I will quantify "a lot" at the lowest value I think is feasible - 2X. And my comments remain.


    However, maybe you mean - by "a lot" 10X. or 100X. Who knows?


    That (10X) would then mean that I would condition my comments as remaining valid if you had a "typical" electrolysis power of 10W or so. I think 0.5% change in calibration constants for a significant change in experimental conditions is true for many calorimeters. Perhaps not for yours, but testing that is not simple, so without details no-one could assume it had been correctly tested.


    So many unknowns. My point is, any scientist, given unknowns, must make no assumptions, and hence be uncertain! But, if these uncertainties can be closed by more transparency and perhaps dealing with a few issues that need to be ruled out, and could easily be ruled out, something unconvincing to mainstream scientists becomes something convincing. Or at least that is my view.


    This is, if you like, just a reminder of how mainstream science views these things.

    Quote from Storms

    First, the atoms have to assemble. The discussion is still at this stage.
    Second, the Coulomb barrier has to be overcome. This is where the discussion will get difficult.

    Third, the fusion process has to occur. This process is expected to produce unexpected products.

    And finally, the energy has to be dissipated. This will be a difficult part of the discussion even though many observations are available as a guide.

    Did I miss something, or did we stall at the first question? The 4 questions Ed proposed seem to get to the heart of the matter, and I think all of us were a bit excited to see where a consensus would take us. It was a good approach also...form a consensus on #1, then move on to 2, and so on. If we made it all the way to #4 as Ed planned/hoped, we would have had a better understanding of how LENR works, which is one of the goals of the paper.


    Seems to have gotten side-tracked along the way though, which is not at all uncommon here on the forum, nor unexpected with the collection of personalities we have. All good, and no cause for frustration. Sometimes the road to discovery is not always a straight one after all.


    So?

    Quote from Shane D.

    Did I miss something, or did we stall at the first question? The 4 questions Ed proposed seem to get to the heart of the matter, and I think all of us were a bit excited to see where a consensus would take us. It was a good approach also...form a consensus on #1, then move on to 2, and so on. If we made it all the way to #4 as Ed planned/hoped, we would have had a better understanding of how LENR works, which is one of the goals of the paper.


    Seems to have gotten side-tracked along the way though, which is not at all uncommon here on the forum, nor unexpected with the collection of personalities we have. All good, and no cause for frustration. Sometimes the road to discovery is not always a straight one after all.


    So?

    We got to - CB overcome because nuclei are close together - but not how this could happen. I think. so really still at "overcome CB".

    You responded as if what I say here is the only information available and that I need to be reminded that more information must be provided. I said the calorimeter has a sensitivty and uncertainty of ±5 mW. I said nothing about the measured amount and you did not ask. You missed this fact so that you could lecture me on the obvious. Do you realize I have been doing scientific research probably longer than you have been alive and that I know more about the process than you can know? You might consider that you are not lecturing to a college freshman.


    The samples are always x10 and sometimes x20 when heated to 500°C. But, we are not debating the accuracy of the data here. I'm trying to have the focus be on the explanation.

    Good observation, Shane. Yes, we are stalled. We are stalled because people keep wanting to supply energy in order to overcome the barrier by initiating a resonance.


    The phonon is proposed as the transport particle to move the ambient energy to the site where the resonance can occur. I have pointed out the flaw in this idea. Not only does the energy in the phonon not match the energy required to overcome the barrier but energy does not move uphill. Remember, the ambient energy is less than 0.1 eV while the resonance process must overcome an energy barrier of more than 1 keV. Even if many phonons can be imagined to add energy, the addition would make the hill steeper. This looks a lot like a gross violation of the Second Law. But, that does not seem to be a problem when QM is applied.


    I propose the barrier has to be reduced by a large assembly of electrons. Such an assembly requires Gibbs energy to be EMITTED from the process, not added. So, we have a basic conflict in how basic science is known to work. I do not know how to resolve such a basic conflict.

    Quote from Storms

    You responded as if what I say here is the only information available and that I need to be reminded that more information must be provided. I said the calorimeter has a sensitivty and uncertainty of ±5 mW. I said nothing about the measured amount and you did not ask. You missed this fact so that you could lecture me on the obvious. Do you realize I have been doing scientific research probably longer than you have been alive and that I know more about the process than you can know? You might consider that you are not lecturing to a college freshman.

    Ed,


    I have no intention of insulting you. Indeed personalising our conversation would be supremely unhelpful.


    You were asked by somone else explicitly what were your results, and gave information that was not highly informative. I could have badgered you, asking the same question again, but that seemed impolite. Especially because this conversation is meant to be about your theoretical views. So I went with what you were prepared to divulge without making any assumptions.


    Now I know that whenever I would like more information about your experiments you would prefer me to ask, I will do so, to avoid any future misunderstandings. I am interested in them because of the definite replicability, and also they sound as though they would be quite easily replicable.


    What was:

    (1) the input power?

    (2) the excess power?

    (3) the length of time said excess power was sustained?

    (4) the ratio of total excess energy / per atom of D/H or molecule of D2/H2.?


    What were the tests done to alter heat distribution inside calorimeter when determining +/-5mW accuracy (or what other assumptions were made to do this)?


    Thanks, THH

    Quote from Storms

    Good observation, Shane. Yes, we are stalled. We are stalled because people keep wanting to supply energy in order to overcome the barrier by initiating a resonance.


    The phonon is proposed as the transport particle to move the ambient energy to the site where the resonance can occur. I have pointed out the flaw in this idea. Not only does the energy in the phonon not match the energy required to overcome the barrier but energy does not move uphill. Remember, the ambient energy is less than 0.1 eV while the resonance process must overcome an energy barrier of more than 1 keV. Even if many phonons can be imagined to add energy, the addition would make the hill steeper. This looks a lot like a gross violation of the Second Law. But, that does not seem to be a problem when QM is applied.


    I propose the barrier has to be reduced by a large assembly of electrons. Such an assembly requires Gibbs energy to be EMITTED from the process, not added. So, we have a basic conflict in how basic science is known to work. I do not know how to resolve such a basic conflict.


    Ed, are you saying this conflict is between phononic mechanism and collective electron mechanism to reduce barrier?


    And, also, are you proposing collective electron mechanism is screening, or high energy electrons doing something?


    I don't have a clear view about these things, but would note:


    (1) Plasmons can have quite high Q making the local energies potentially much higher than expected (amplifying that 0.1eV) - although that is not necessarily a getout because high Q only works if the plamonic resonance stays linear - and at high electron energies it is pretty obvious (?) it would be nonlinear.


    (2) There are nuclear resonances which might potentially reduce that barrier


    (3) While I don't see phonons as a good route to anything, the situation might be complex where phonons and electron oscillations interact. I say this with some hesitancy, my hunch is you would get low coupling because of different frequencies, but I might be wrong. I really know nothing in any detail about this stuff. But there are people who do know about it.


    (4) Re Gibbs energy emitted. Could you clarify that? a high local electronic charge density, even if close to a nucleus, will require energy as soon as total electronic charge is > - nuclear charge. In addition, a high local charge density will require higher than normal energy levels due to H.U.P. This effect is in addition to the Coulomb effect.

    THH, without access to the detail that would be provided in a paper, the answer to these questions would not provide much insight. For many years, my goal was to determine what had to be done to a material to make it active. Some treatments would produce power and some would not. I knew the difference between success and failure because the judgment was based on a clear understanding of how the calorimeter worked. Giving the details here would serve no purpose. The studies gradually allowed me to determine which treatments worked and which did not. I'm now using the successful methods to make samples that can be studied to understand the mechanism. Again, the details will be published later. I had hoped this discussion would focus on the mechanism.


    Yes, the success is easy to replicate, as described in my paper . A person only needs to read the cited papers and ask a few questions. However, a person has to believe that gaps are important. People fail because they accept a different explanation that causes them to use a different treatment, sometimes without realizing what they are actually doing. By analogy, a person can learn how to cook by reading a recipe. However, to learn how to be a chef, a person has to train. No one is interested in the training.

    Ed I think it’s a very valid question whether LENR is scalable to practical power outputs. Therefore the numbers which THH requested are valid. in my humble opinion this is key to the future of LENR technology. I think it’s abundantly clear that as a desktop physics experiment we can produce LENR results 1000 times out of a thousand.


    Your theories about NAS represent a possible pathway to scale up. In Mizuno’s old experiments where they found cratering in the electrodes those sites were very sparse and covered a tiny percentage of the total surface area. So it’s an obvious target for improvement of power output and power density.


    Yes the taboo factor of working with LENR is a well known issue. Mizuno was shunned out of the university for doing so and was only able to continue his research through generous donation of around several million dollars. However today I think that this taboo factor is declining as NASA, US Army, Navy, DOE, EU and more and more credible institutions are endeavoring to study this field.

    For a nuclear resonance to be involved, the ambient energy has to couple to the energy states present within the nucleus. I know of no evidence that this can happen because of the frequency and energy mismatch.


    This is I believe an example of "all or nothing" thinking.


    Nuclear resonances can increase a specific reaction-rate that dominates at lower energies. That is separate from the matter of where or how the lower energy is obtained.


    No-one to my knowledge suggests that nuclear resonances could be all of the solution to LENR. Some have suggested it could be part of the solution, and I cannot see any argument ruling that out except proving that no such resonant effects exist.

    You have described the common understanding. I propose that Cold Fusion violates the common understanding. That is why it has been so difficult to understand. Explaining this violation is where the Nobel Prize is located, so I will not do that here.


    I can understand that.


    There are good reasons to prefer, for LENR, explanations that are largely compatible with the rest of physics. The HUP is very fundamental, and is a barrier to squeezing too may electrons together. We know this from very many things, not least the existence of elements, and the observations that support electronic QM wave functions with specific rules as driver for this are many throughout physics. We can now calculate chemistry pretty well from QM and wave function dynamics (we did not used to be able to - but computers have got a lot better and unlike QCD the simulations are tractable).


    So, any theory of different electron behaviour would of course if successful gain a Nobel prize of two. But, to be successful, it would need to prove compatible with QM in all circumstances except a very few selected ones. And, those few selected circumstances would be relatively easily tested (we can test stuff about electrons). So the good news is that any new fundamental theory of electrons will make specific predictions and can be tested (and accepted) quite easily, if it exists. The bad news is that for the same reason it is not likely to exist.


    In contrast a derived theory - not breaking QM (e.g. such as superconductivity) can be surprising and not so easy to understand. But such derived theories do not break fundamental rules like HUP. (HUP is a vague term and not itself a specific rule - I am using it as a catchall for the bits of maths that show you cannot have simultaneously accurate measurement of electron momentum and position, as would be needed for a very high local charge density).


    THH



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So, any theory of different electron behaviour would of course if successful gain a Nobel prize of two. But, to be successful, it would need to prove compatible with QM in all circumstances except a very few selected ones. And, those few selected circumstances would be relatively easily tested (we can test stuff about electrons). So the good news is that any new fundamental theory of electrons will make specific predictions and can be tested (and accepted) quite easily, if it exists. The bad news is that for the same reason it is not likely to exist.

    So- no EVOs in your universe?

    Sorry - I should have said at low energy (it was the context Ed gave)


    You can have high charge density at high energy - of course!


    But whereas I understand FRCs, I am not sure EVOs are as yet well-defined things? Half of the time they look like FRCs to me.


    THH

    If you mean FRC Plasmas' there may be some overlap there, I don't no enough about it. However Bostick and Shoulders described and defined EVO's with a considerable amount of supporting evidence, There were also contributions by Fox, Eric Davis and Puhoff, this was something that was initially rejected by Feynman and then accepted.


    This is a more recent paper. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712717114

    Quote from Alan Smith

    If you mean FRC Plasmas' there may be some overlap there, I don't no enough about it. However Bostick and Shoulders described and defined EVO's with a considerable amount of supporting evidence, There were also contributions by Fox, Eric Davis and Puhoff, this was something that was initially rejected by Feynman and then accepted.


    This is a more recent paper. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712717114

    Ok, well those are fine. If they are EVOs then I don't think EVOs are exotic, although the are interesting, as are all quasi-stable plasma configurations.


    They have no relationship to the issue at hand of a very high local charge density to screen CB in lattices - because the electronic charge density - while 10X higher than in He gas (it is a plasma, and plasmas can have higher electron densities than gases) is much lower than that in solids.


    THH

    Quote from Storms

    Where does the 495 eV you quote come from? Why would any energy go to the site you identify?

    The energy comes from SO(4) physics modelling and R.Mills exact measurement. Mills model is > 1% off for the energy.

    Holmlid measures clusters of H*/D* what is unreliable as the splitting leads to asymmetry.


    There are higher energy proton spin resonances (1keV) that have been measured by two teams with different experiments and have been "explained" with standard "model bullshit"...


    Normally experimental people do not believe theorists but I and Mills are both and I never would publish fake facts.

    Lipinsky's did not believe what I told them (non uniform radiation!) and later had to scratch the research...

    I would never spend anymore time in LENR research without understanding the physics behind it.

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.