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

Let me summarize. We know that He4 is made by D-D fusion, which releases 23.8 MeV /event. We know that this energy has to be released without producing significant energetic radiation. We know from Karabut and my work that only a fraction of this energy is dissipated as kinetic energy of the nuclear product. In other words, a large amount of energy is missing. We also know that no obvious way exists to conserve momentum.

We would save a lot of time if these facts were accepted for the sake of this discussion. After all, these facts are accepted by the various theories and explained in several different ways. The question is, "Which explanation actually describes the process".

I argue that any theory that uses phonons is useless. That has been the subject most recently given attention.

I would like to add another possible explanation for discussion. Gordon has observed the emission of energetic electrons from a material known to support LENR. I have observed that the electron flux and the excess energy are affected in the same way by temperature when the same material is studied. I suggest these electrons carry the missing energy resulting from fusion and allow momentum to be conserved. They would be able to do this only if they had been part of the energy state that caused the fusion reaction. In other words, these electrons were initially assembled around the D nuclei and caused their seperation to be reduced enough for strong-force interaction to occur. Perhaps this is the new kind of electron-nucleus interaction that could get the Nobel Prize after it is explained. What are your thoughts?

Quote from Wyttenbach

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.

Display More

So, you are not talking about fusion and the production of He4. Instead, you are describing the energy released by hydrino formation. Is that correct? As for understanding the physics of LENR, that is why we are studying it. We are trying to learn the physics.

Quote from Diadon Acs

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?

As I described in my paper, Codep is a method that can be used to create a layer of Pd containing the required gaps. Please describe the PEO process.

Quote from Daniel_G

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.

Yes, LENR will be scalable to practical power levels but not yet. The samples being studied at the present time produce LENR by random chance while giving very little ability to control the process. Therefore, they provide nothing of value in evaluating how effective the better-designed materials might be.

You note several features that might be created on purpose to give greater power. Other people have identified other conditions and treatments. Gradually, the picture is getting clearer. But, useful power will only be made after the correct path has been identified. I'm trying to do this. I suggest we are not yet on the correct path.

I am guilty as charged, being an engineer, of rushing things to application before good understanding is achieved. We see a phenomena and try to harness it for usefulness, focusing on that and nothing else.

Coming back to the issue ot finding the right size of gaps, I see that tte processes of sintering metal powders, or cold rolling metals, with or without impurities, is a process that, being repeatable, still contains much randomness and a lot of pre and post experimental characterization needs to be done to gain understanding about the right size and 3D configuration of “the right gap”, which becomes the holy grail of LENR.

In that sense, finding a “nano scale printing” partner seems crucial to be able to sistematize the research to find “the right gap”.

I recall one of the videos of NASA’s Dr. Zawodny that showed a “chip” of materials with an array of different surface treatments that they were using. They were using Widom-Larsen theory as guide and they talked about each surface having different treatment to create “surface plasmon polaritons”.

I just mention this because I think the same idea, but with different sizes and shapes of gaps on each surface, could be the way to find our holy grail. We have to find the right nano printing partner.

Quote from Curbina

I am guilty as charged, being an engineer, of rushing things to application before good understanding is achieved. We see a phenomena and try to harness it for usefulness, focusing on that and nothing else.

Coming back to the issue ot finding the right size of gaps, I see that tte processes of sintering metal powders, or cold rolling metals, with or without impurities, is a process that, being repeatable, still contains much randomness and a lot of pre and post experimental characterization needs to be done to gain understanding about the right size and 3D configuration of “the right gap”, which becomes the holy grail of LENR.

In that sense, finding a “nano scale printing” partner seems crucial to be able to sistematize the research to find “the right gap”.

I recall one of the videos of NASA’s Dr. Zawodny that showed a “chip” of materials with an array of different surface treatments that they were using. They were using Widom-Larsen theory as guide and they talked about each surface having different treatment to create “surface plasmon polaritons”.

I just mention this because I think the same idea, but with different sizes and shapes of gaps on each surface, could be the way to find our holy grail. We have to find the right nano printing partner.

Display More

You are right about how the process needs to be studied. The Widom-Larsen experience shows how a sincere effort can be wasted because only a few people have the ability to tell nonsense from reality. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to explore my ideas properly and I do not have the pursavive power to get the resources. So, I can only tell you all how to find the gold and hope that someone is listening.

Quote from Storms

So, I can only tell you all how to find the gold and hope that someone is listening.

Agreed. That's why when I say "We have to find the right nano printing partner." I mean We LENR-Forum, need to find one and point that partner in the right direction.

Quote from Curbina

I am guilty as charged, being an engineer, of rushing things to application before good understanding is achieved. We see a phenomena and try to harness it for usefulness, focusing on that and nothing else.

I would be sympathetic with that myself, except that good engineers use a mix of theory and experience - without the theory we do inferior work. You might perhaps view the last 50 years of people trying to optimise and harness the LENR phenomenon, with little success, as more evidence that in this effort more solid understanding is likely to be needed.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I would be sympathetic with that myself, except that good engineers use a mix of theory and experience - without the theory we do inferior work. You might perhaps view the last 50 years of people trying to optimise and harness the LENR phenomenon, with little success, as more evidence that in this effort more solid understanding is likely to be needed.

Yes, that is exactly the point I have been trying to make. WE NEED BETTER THEORY. The present theory is based mostly on imagination without having a connection to observed behavior. An engineer can not use such a theory to guide the work, yet that is what is happening.

Quote from Storms

I have observed that the electron flux and the excess energy are affected in the same way by temperature when the same material is studied.

Ed, I understand that for you the mechanism to initiate LENR is clear: Everyone can do it if using your instructions. You know your ‘GAP-theory’ that initiates LENR is right. The only thing that is missing is how Helium is being formed. There is no known nuclear theory nor known observation that can can explain how He4 can be formed based on the observed release of particles and radiation. Therefore you suggest that a great part of the energy flows away through an ‘electron flux’ that you have observed. I hope I did summarize your words well.

Can you tell us what electron flux you have observed?

Quote from Gerard McEk

Ed, I understand that for you the mechanism to initiate LENR is clear: Everyone can do it if using your instructions. You know your ‘GAP-theory’ that initiates LENR is right. The only thing that is missing is how Helium is being formed. There is no known nuclear theory nor known observation that can can explain how He4 can be formed based on the observed release of particles and radiation. Therefore you suggest that a great part of the energy flows away through an ‘electron flux’ that you have observed. I hope I did summarize your words well.

Can you tell us what electron flux you have observed?

Yes, you are correct. The formation of He4 is impossible based on conventional understanding. Yet it happens. People can no longer reject the idea without looking irrational. So we have a problem to solve.

As Gordon (Gordon, F. E. and H. J. Whitehouse (2022). "Lattice Energy Converter." JCMNS 35: 30-48.) has described, an electron emission occurs when a deposit of Pd is exposed to D2 or H2. The source of this current is a mystery.

I have measured the excess power and the amount of current at the same time. The number of emitted electrons is much greater than the number of fusion reactions. If these electrons are emitted with the energy produced by fusion, the mass-energy must have been added to many electrons. This behavior may provide a rich source of information about how the energy is dissipated by the fusion reaction and how the Coulomb barrier is reduced. So far, this is only an idea needing further study.

The electron current is increased by temperature just as the excess power is increased. The maximum electron energy is about 100 V. The behavior has several features that add to the mystery. In other words, we have another strange behavior to study and explain.

By mass energy are you talking about gluons ?

Now, you made a link between the LEC way and Lenr's it doesn't disturb me however could disturb peoples involved in this way because always avoided to cross this gap...(for some unclear reasons).

Probably because the LEC way MUST have a chemical explanation.

Quote from Storms

Yes, you are correct. The formation of He4 is impossible based on conventional understanding. Yet it happens. People can no longer reject the idea without looking irrational. So we have a problem to solve.

As Gordon (Gordon, F. E. and H. J. Whitehouse (2022). "Lattice Energy Converter." JCMNS 35: 30-48.) has described, an electron emission occurs when a deposit of Pd is exposed to D2 or H2. The source of this current is a mystery.

I have measured the excess power and the amount of current at the same time. The number of emitted electrons is much greater than the number of fusion reactions. If these electrons are emitted with the energy produced by fusion, the mass-energy must have been added to many electrons. This behavior may provide a rich source of information about how the energy is dissipated by the fusion reaction and how the Coulomb barrier is reduced. So far, this is only an idea needing further study.

The electron current is increased by temperature just as the excess power is increased. The maximum electron energy is about 100 V. The behavior has several features that add to the mystery. In other words, we have another strange behavior to study and explain.

Display More

Quote from Cydonia

By mass energy are you talking about gluons ?

Now, you made a link between the LEC way and Lenr's it doesn't disturb me however could disturb peoples involved in this way because always avoided to cross this gap...(for some unclear reasons).

Probably because the LEC way MUST have a chemical explanation.

I'm not talking about gluons, which is an imaginary concept. The term mass-energy refers to the mass that is converted to energy when He4 forms from two D.

And yes, as Alan so eloquently describes the situation, the idea of a chemical source is dead and belly-up. The people who like to believe QM and other conventional ideas have another conflict to explain.

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.

Your suggestion of some type of self assembly mechanism in the fluid fuel medium is also something I have considered and spent a fair bit of time researching.

The 'Resonant' considerations don't have to be in the catalytic substrate alone or in one particular degree of freedom, do they?
What I am mean by this is that the hydrogen "fuel" source also may need a particular consideration in electrochemical, thermal, and kinetic energy states. Perhaps a good larger scale example is in thermoacoustic refrigeration that would help illustrate what I am suggesting on a microscopic scale.

Are you familiar with such a system Dr. Storms?

Also along those same lines are two other documented observations of "ionic" hydrogen fluids and boundary layer interactions which relate to the NAE/NAS postulate you also propose.

Cambridge Study

Korean Study

There are a lot more studies done than this of course, but I two examples of other possibilities within an electrolytic cell and likely many other hydrodynamic systems.

Hopefully these are some ideas you can entertain as possibilities for how the energy is moving around in the system

Quote from Storms

Yes, you are correct. The formation of He4 is impossible based on conventional understanding. Yet it happens. People can no longer reject the idea without looking irrational. So we have a problem to solve.

As Gordon (Gordon, F. E. and H. J. Whitehouse (2022). "Lattice Energy Converter." JCMNS 35: 30-48.) has described, an electron emission occurs when a deposit of Pd is exposed to D2 or H2. The source of this current is a mystery.

I have measured the excess power and the amount of current at the same time. The number of emitted electrons is much greater than the number of fusion reactions. If these electrons are emitted with the energy produced by fusion, the mass-energy must have been added to many electrons. This behavior may provide a rich source of information about how the energy is dissipated by the fusion reaction and how the Coulomb barrier is reduced. So far, this is only an idea needing further study.

The electron current is increased by temperature just as the excess power is increased. The maximum electron energy is about 100 V. The behavior has several features that add to the mystery. In other words, we have another strange behavior to study and explain.

Display More

Those same LEC observations can be explained by a non-fusion mechanism, in which some surface phenomenon results in a few of the surface electrons being emitted with an energy larger than normally expected from thermal emission. There are plasmonic effects which could do that.

I cannot say I am sure what the LEC mechanism is, just that something along the lines of the previous sentence, with no nuclear activity, is a candidate to consider.

It would be, in my judgement, the preferred candidate. Anyway, if true, it provides an alternative explanation for the discrepancy in powers.

Quote from Storms

And yes, as Alan so eloquently describes the situation, the idea of a chemical source is dead and belly-up. The people who like to believe QM and other conventional ideas have another conflict to explain.

I'd welcome more detail on what that conflict is? I see no conflict relating to LECs.

Quote from Storms

I'm not talking about gluons, which is an imaginary concept.

Just a terminological point here. I am not clear how one can have a definition of physics concepts which makes some "imaginary" and others "real".

It is possible to consider concepts related to theories which are proven incorrect, have strong predictive power (the closest we can get to proven correct), or which have not yet been (in some cases cannot be - in which case they are not physics) tested.

I guess the untestable concepts might be considered imaginary?

Anyway gluons are testable. (Short form for "gluons are a concept in a theory (QCD) which makes predictions that are testable").

We have had definite experimental evidence for gluons for a long time:

https://www.physlink.com/educa…y%20are%20first%20created.

If you want to replace gluons with something better and incompatible, you need to predict all those jets, and many other things...

If you want some deeper model of which gluons and other things are an approximation - then that is what everyone wants. It would not make gluons imaginary in the same way that GR does not make Newtonian gravity imaginary.

Quote from Storms

As I described in my paper, Codep is a method that can be used to create a layer of Pd containing the required gaps. Please describe the PEO process.

It's an electrolytic process using plasma. PEO = Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation.

It can also have codep in the process but it forms more resistive/dielectric and hydrophobic surfaces. It is often used in the aerospace industry for corrosion resistance.
I have yet to experiment with them as a cathode catalyst and don't know how well it would perform. I have a video on how to make one particular type if you would like to see the crude process of mine
My silly video

The reason I have not perused this a lot more rapidly is both learning curve and equipment. The typical case for probably most of the people reading this.
My biggest challenges have been calorimetry of course. Something you are very good at, or so I have read Not having a very accurate pump and flow meter has been a bane to my existence for the past 3 years after trying several times. Mostly because I wish to test the plasma reactions, as I don't think all of hot fusion is wrong. This is an important bridge we should all cross together imho. Paradoxically, it might be the only way we can do it.. just like the hydrogen organizing for us in experiments.

Family comes first so I have to save up for necessary funds. If you have any suggestions on these parts it would greatly be appreciated.

Alan gave me a good suggestion on used Gamma Metering pumps from Ebay. I already have a chiller unit. Should I use something like an ultrasonic flow meter? The cheap hall effect sensor ones have a margin of error of about +/- 5%

Quote from Storms

So, you are not talking about fusion and the production of He4. Instead, you are describing the energy released by hydrino formation. Is that correct?

Yes and No! H*-H* = Mills di-"Hydrino".. is a dead end. The fusion stops there and the product is ultra stable.

But D*-D* will fuse to 4-He with a half live of about 23 hours...This explains why classic P&F reactions start that slowly and all a sudden have a runaway. D*-D* can convert to more deep states that can fuse much faster. But the high symmetry of D*-D* blocks the energy release only resonant EM transfer to magnetic gammas states is allowed as we could see in our experiments.