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

Quote from THHuxleynew

And please note

those with better calorimeters achieved much smaller results. indicating the original large results were errors?

That is complete bullshit. You made that up. You say things like that because you have never read the literature and you do not know the first thing about it.

If I am wrong . . . List three experiments with better calorimeters that achieved much smaller results. I can list 50 experiments with much worse calorimeters, or no calorimeters, that produced much worse results. Or no results. Have you thought about them?

Define your terms. "Large" in what sense? Signal to noise ratio? Absolute power? Power per square centimeter of surface area, or cubic centimeter of bulk? Or do you pick the most irrelevant and absurd metric: the ratio of output power to input power?

Explain the major parameters that control how "large" the heat is, by each of these metrics.

Bonus point:

Explain why some calorimeters, such as McKubre's, cannot be expected to produce such large results, all else being equal. The reasons were given by McKubre himself, and by Fleischmann, and explained by me. (Since you have not read any of these sources you wouldn't know.)

Quote from JedRothwell

If I am wrong . . . List three experiments with better calorimeters that achieved much smaller results

Bonus, Bonus Point: Regarding these imaginary calorimeters that you claim achieved much smaller results . . . Which calorimeter were they "better" than? F&P's? That was one of the best calorimeters in the history of electrochemical calorimetry. It was difficult to use and difficult to understand in some ways, but as Biberian, Miles and Fleischmann pointed out, it was incredibly accurate and precise.

Or do you mean these imaginary calorimeters were better than the ones used by McKubre, Miles, Storms or the microcalorimeters in various labs? Are they better than Seebeck calorimeters, and if so, why? Better in what sense? Are they more accurate, precise, or stable? Do they have the required characteristics needed to trigger or sustain the reaction? In other words, are they even capable of producing a larger reaction, or would anyone expect them to? (Trick question! Obviously you know nothing about that, as we see from your other made-up assertions.)

Define your terms!

If you have difficulty answering any of these questions, I suggest you consult with my Invisible Friend. In other words, cheat! Give yourself instant, out of the box expertise. It is easier than reading the literature or trying to learn anything yourself. Not that you would do that. The only problem is that my friend tends to hallucinate. But her hallucinations are no worse than your made-up bullshit about "better calorimeter that achieved smaller results" or Miles throwing away data from leaking flasks, or any other assertion you have made here. Every single thing you claim is wrong. Anyone who reads the literature will see that. You make a fool of yourself saying things that anyone can see are false. Why do you do that? What is the point?

Quote from JedRothwell

It has accumulated hundreds of replications. Perhaps not "exact" by your exacting standards, but no one other than you would claim these are not replications, or they do not prove the original experiment was correct. As I said, the wide variety of different instrument types is a strength, not a weakness. It give more proof to the claim, not less. Only you would claim it is a problem, and you have no reason or rational basis for saying that. You are just looking for an excuse to dismiss the claims.

No, it's not only mine, it's McKubre's position. He added another point to his slide:

"d. Until an experiment is reproducible more-or-less at will, producing more-or-less the same results (including magnitude and timing) more-or-less every time then we cannot know that it is real and fully under our control."

As for these words, you can't say that CF is real, unless McKubre is wrong.

Quote

. . . You might have learned this if you had bothered to read the literature. Of course you and THH will never read it, except perhaps to pull out a few cherry-picked quotes which you misunderstand, such as the one from McKubre above. Regarding Miles' calorimeter with the sheath, you might have asked my Invisible Friend. She would tell you what I just did, in more detail:

I've read the F&P literature very carefully, but I've examined very well the F&P videos too. They contradicts each others.

Anyway, my best compliment, Jed, for you big work with "her". You made a very interesting and useful tool, even if for the moment she can't say nothing else of what she reads from your library.

Maybe a next AI generation will also be able to interpret pictures and videos so she will substitute me in explaining to you what really happened in the F&P experiments.

AHAHAHAHAHA you went at Cydonia's school

Quote from Alan Smith

@Ascoli. Please no more on F&P here. Right now we are discussing Ed Storms work, you have a dedicated thread you can post in regarding foamy issues.

You know what foam is btw? Structurally weak and fill of holes.

Quote from Shane D.

The interest is there, as this forum being healthy and growing proves. But I do tend to agree when you say: "the problem is too difficult to solve, and my questions are too difficult to answer".

But that is not a reflection on you, the forum members who participated in this discussion, or most of your old guard colleagues who have tried as hard as you to solve the LENR mystery. It is simply a tough nut to crack. Like dark matter/energy, it is not one of nature's low hanging fruits. You are not the first to try to solve this, nor (probably) the last.

My hat is off to you. Instead of slipping off into a comfortable retirement, you have decided to fight. Hopefully you keep the fight up here on the forum.

Shane, thanks for the encouraging words. The subject has three strikes against it. First, a myth was created by the establishment claiming the discovery was not real. That myth still lives. The other two flaws would be too insulting to describe.

The problem would not be difficult to solve if it were discussed with that goal in mind. Instead, the discussion does not have that goal. The people who are actually trying to solve the problem are not interested in such discussions because they already think they know how it works. Ego and habit will not allow them to consider other possibilities. That is why I expect to see no progress until after the present leadership dies, which has been noted before as a requirement for progress after other new discoveries were made. In fact, the behavior is so predictable, the process has become boring.

From my point of view, I only gain benefit by being encouraged to state my beliefs clearly and because I'm occasionally forced to consider a good question. Otherwise, this would be a waste of time. Instead, my time would be best spent publishing my ideas so that future researchers might learn other ways to look at the problem.

As I have attempted to explain, the LENR reactions has several separate stages. Most explanations ignore one or more of these stages. But, I can not even get this simple and basic idea accepted and discussed. In other words, a useful discussion has not even started here nor have any beliefs been changed, as best I can tell. So, what is the value of such an effort?

Quote from Alan Smith

@Ascoli. Please no more on F&P here. Right now we are discussing Ed Storms work, you have a dedicated thread you can post in regarding foamy issues.

You know what foam is btw? Structurally weak and fill of holes.

Ok, Alan. Thanks for the dedicated thread. Feel free to move my comments there, if you wish. I don't want to disturb or to be OT, here.

Anyway, Dr.Storm mentions the controversial F&P experiment at the beginning of paragraph 9 (Effect of Temperature) of his draft paper, which is under discussion here. How can I interact with him in order to know his opinion on that experiment?

Quote from Ascoli65

Ok, Alan. Thanks for the dedicated thread. Feel free to move my comments there, if you wish. I don't want to disturb or to be OT, here.

Anyway, Dr.Storm mentions the controversial F&P experiment at the beginning of paragraph 9 (Effect of Temperature) of his draft paper, which is under discussion here. How can I interact with him in order to know his opinion on that experiment?

Anyone who has a question can contact me at [email protected].

You argued to well know how doing cracks...

In this way, how do you proceed ?

I have seen that cavitation equipement are used to reduce size of micrometer particles up to nanometer.

In fact this is the main way to do nanosize powder.

Now how do you suggest to do cracks inside mesh or foam, it could help many people here ?

To conclude, what about highly alloyed steels as SS304, 316 or 309 ? Do they have already a lot of cracks nativelly because martensitics ?

Quote from Storms

Shane, thanks for the encouraging words. The subject has three strikes against it. First, a myth was created by the establishment claiming the discovery was not real. That myth still lives. The other two flaws would be too insulting to describe.

The problem would not be difficult to solve if it were discussed with that goal in mind. Instead, the discussion does not have that goal. The people who are actually trying to solve the problem are not interested in such discussions because they already think they know how it works. Ego and habit will not allow them to consider other possibilities. That is why I expect to see no progress until after the present leadership dies, which has been noted before as a requirement for progress after other new discoveries were made. In fact, the behavior is so predictable, the process has become boring.

From my point of view, I only gain benefit by being encouraged to state my beliefs clearly and because I'm occasionally forced to consider a good question. Otherwise, this would be a waste of time. Instead, my time would be best spent publishing my ideas so that future researchers might learn other ways to look at the problem.

As I have attempted to explain, the LENR reactions has several separate stages. Most explanations ignore one or more of these stages. But, I can not even get this simple and basic idea accepted and discussed. In other words, a useful discussion has not even started here nor have any beliefs been changed, as best I can tell. So, what is the value of such an effort?

Display More

Quote from Ascoli65

"d. Until an experiment is reproducible more-or-less at will, producing more-or-less the same results (including magnitude and timing) more-or-less every time then we cannot know that it is real and fully under our control."

As for these words, you can't say that CF is real, unless McKubre is wrong.

I doubt he would say that now. If he said it, he would be wrong.

Quote from Storms

As I have attempted to explain, the LENR reactions has several separate stages.

I think this is VERY important, and often overlooked.

It seems to me that cold fusion generates tritium in some stages, neutrons in some stages, and then heat. Takahashi found the neutrons are anticorrelated with heat. That suggests the neutrons are generated in some precursor stage before a lot of heat appears. It is analogous to smoke being generated before open flames appear. Incomplete combustion is combustion, of course. It is the same thing. But it looks different. It produces different chemical products. Cold fusion tritium, neutrons and heat are all products of the same reaction, but at different stages or in different conditions. Neutrons may be an effect caused by some other effect. I guess that would be called a side-effect, or secondary effect.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think this is VERY important, and often overlooked.

It seems to me that cold fusion generates tritium in some stages, neutrons in some stages, and then heat. Takahashi found the neutrons are anticorrelated with heat. That suggests the neutrons are generated in some precursor stage before a lot of heat appears. It is analogous to smoke being generated before open flames appear. Incomplete combustion is combustion, of course. It is the same thing. But it looks different. It produces different chemical products. Cold fusion tritium, neutrons and heat are all products of the same reaction, but at different stages or in different conditions. Neutrons may be an effect caused by some other effect. I guess that would be called a side-effect, or secondary effect.

Jed, the stages I'm discussing involve the chemical conditions that allow fusion to occur. Once initiated, the fusion reaction has a single path. The occasional neutron, I suggest, results from T+D fusion or fractofusion. The occasional gamma-ray results from the decay of a transmutation product. The cold fusion process gives H4 that decays into He4 gas. The energy and momentum are carried mostly by the emitted electrons. The radiation Swartz measures results from the electrons interacting with the surrounding crystal structure. We do not need additional speculation to explain all the observations.

Until an experiment is reproducible more-or-less at will, producing more-or-less the same results (including magnitude and timing) more-or-less every time then we cannot know that it is real and fully under our control."

Being real and being under total control are two entirely different requirements. They should not even be discussed in the same sentence. Cold fusion is real. However, it will not be under total control until it is understood. Unless a person is helping to obtain this understanding, their comments are useless.

Quote from Storms

The cold fusion process gives H4 that decays into He4 gas. The energy and momentum are carried mostly by the emitted electrons.

Have you considered the hypothesis that He can be generated from a coherent pico-metric structure H₄(0) of ultra-dense hydrogen?

Production of ultra-dense hydrogen H(0): A novel nuclear fuel

Quote from Storms

. The occasional gamma-ray results from the decay of a transmutation product.

there are other possibilities for gamma ray production apart from transmutation

Quote from Storms

Anyone who has a question can contact me at [email protected].

Thank you, Sir, for your willingness to answer my questions.

If you don't mind, I'd prefer a public conversation, but I can't do it in this thread. So I asked you my questions in "The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.": RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

I hope it doesn't make a big difference to you.

Quote from Storms

Being real and being under total control are two entirely different requirements.

YES!!! Rockets have been developed since WWII, but they are not under total control. Elon Musk's rocket exploded the other day. The Japanese H3 rocket launched on March 6 failed to reach orbit. Rockets are extremely unreliable when you consider that at least $600 billion has been spent developing them since 1940. Despite this, no one would claim that rockets do not exist. Yet that is exactly the argument THH and other skeptics make against cold fusion. It makes no sense.

Quote from Storms

Once initiated, the fusion reaction has a single path. The occasional neutron, I suggest, results from T+D fusion or fractofusion.

If neutrons are anticorrelated with heat, as Takahashi suspects, that suggests they are caused by low level cold fusion which changes in some way as it ramps up. It might produce some heat even at low levels when there are neutrons, but the heat is too low to measure. Anticorrelated neutrons would indicate some sort of change in conditions even if the neutrons are a byproduct of some other reaction. If they are from transmutations, I suppose it would mean there are more transmutations when the heat is very low.

Takahashi's results have not been replicated as far as I know, so this is speculation.

Combustion is a single path as well, but it varies with conditions, producing different chemical products. (This is not to suggest that the mechanisms that produce chemical products are anything like nuclear fusion reactions.)

Quote from Alan Smith

It is worth mentioning that Newton's work on prisms as described in his 'Optiks' was controversial in its day and to a certain extent long after. And the most vocal critics were Hooke and Huygens, who were not unfamiliar with optics. This lecture by a friend of mine gives an interesting insight into the arguments, and shows how the orthodox view does not always prevail and is not always correct. To discuss Newton's work properly, one must consider it in the context of the time it was published.

Right - even when you have very clear (certain) replicable experimental results there can be arguments about interpretation and theory.

My point here is that the experimental results in that case were indisputable and enough to push things on. LENR needs the same if it is to result in new theory.

Jed conflates certain and replicable results, with those which are never both.