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.
They were only indisputable long after the event, and there are people inspired by the work of Goethe, who was born 20 years after Newton died, (cf. Zinke) who dispute them to this day.
there are other possibilities for gamma ray production
I was just doing some bedtime reading of livechart,,
its soporific..
why did Arata get and Takahashi et al still do get good results by including zirconium?
maybe it is because of Zr90
it has an unusual longlived state at 2.3 Mevs
which indicates a nuclear state that can hold onto and then distribute 2,2 Mevs for almost a whole second
not too long and not too short
maybe this will distribute some of the 22 Mev from deuterium to other isotopes.Zr .Pd..Ni..
would we expect to see much 2186 keV gamma,?
no.. because the exchanges are mostly magnetic interactions BTS .. a river..not a trickle
the problem is,,, how to see the river....and is there a trickle?
Livechart - Table of Nuclides - Nuclear structure and decay data
Why did Arata get and Takahashi et al still do get good results by including zirconium
Because (perhaps) the diffusion constant of Hydrogen into Zirconium is pretty high at temperatures over 250C.
Right - even when you have very clear (certain) replicable experimental results there can be arguments about interpretation and theory.
What arguments do you make? Are you saying that a reaction that consumes no chemical fuel, produces 10,000 more energy per gram than any possible chemical reaction, produces helium in same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion, and produces tritium is not nuclear fusion?
What is it then? What "interpretation" do you propose instead of fusion? Be specific!
Neither you nor any other skeptic has proposed any alternative explanation, except this one: All experiments are mistakes. All researchers are incompetent idiots. The reactor safety experts at BARC, Los Alamos and the PPPL cannot detect tritium hundreds or millions of times above background, which makes you wonder why they are not dead.
Jed conflates certain and replicable results, with those which are never both.
Except for all of the examples of both in the literature. Which of course you have not read.
Also, as everyone knows, rocket launches are never certain and not as replicable as cold fusion. But of course you would never deny that rockets exist. You apply this nutty standard to cold fusion alone, and to no other claim in science or technology.
THH, I ask again, what is your goal? What exactly do you want people to believe? You seem to be asking people to ignore all of the reported behaviors because they are too confusing to have meaning. The behaviors are not reliable because the work was done poorly and without proper controls. Therefore, the claimed behaviors cannot be used to develop a theory. In other words, my efforts are useless and a waste of time. This being the case, you would rather argue with Jed about the flaws in how the science is done than focus on how the observations might be explained. Do I correctly summarize your intent? If so, you are in the wrong discussion group.
If a person wants to explain anything about reality, certain facts must be accepted as true. For example, to explain any chemical behavior, the laws of thermodynamics must be accepted, understood, and then applied. Cold fusion starts as a chemical process. Therefore, the laws of thermodynamics must be understood and applied. A discussion about LENR is pointless unless the people involved have this understanding.
Several other facts must also be accepted.
1. The chemical energy states and the nuclear energy states are incompatible and do not interact in a normal chemical structure. Assuming that phonons may be involved does not change this fact. Therefore, a special condition must be created in the material before nuclear interaction would be possible.
2. Fusion between two nuclei cannot occur until the distance between them is reduced to a critical value. This reduction requires either applied energy or the intervention of electrons. A special condition would be required to provide the required electrons.
Therefore, the basic question is, "What is the nature of the required special condition and how can it be created"? Unless this question can be answered, the discussion is useless. Can we focus on this question?
Ed
So, back to the cracks and their
size and configuration. Storms , do you think that is possible for a crack to remain stable for the process to happen many times on the same crack, or that is really a transient property of the material and that is key that the material be able to form these cracks again over and over as the process advances? I ask because I am thinking in the observations of Fralick in 1989 in the Johnson Mathey Hydrogen Purifier with the PdAg tubing and their 2020 revival and deeper exploration by Benyo et al. There are others that, inspired by that original Fralick work,
have seen similar temperature rises in experiments of D passing through a Pd film, and there’s also a similar result with H diffusing through a Nickel tubing done by the people of BrLP in the early 2000s. How do you interpret these results from the crack size perspective? Can we harness this kind of systems or these are just flukes?
The behavior shows that the gaps are stable and continue to support the fusion reaction. If they were destroyed after a fusion event, the observed power would gradually decrease as the number of active sites decreased. This does not happen. This means that the energy released by the fusion event is dissipated well away from the reaction site. Otherwise, the local site would melt and be destroyed. The video provided by Spack et al. is consistent with this conclusion. (Szpak, S., et al. (2003). Polarized D+/Pd-D2O system: hot spots and "mini-explosions". Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, MA, World Scientific Publishing Co.)
The required gap size can form in many materials. These gaps normally would be invisible and would be totally ignored. They are made visible when an isotope of hydrogen is made available and the amount of nuclear power is great enough to be detected. In some cases, transmutation will accumulate enough nuclear product for it to be detected when a proper search is made. In other words, this process might have always occured at a rate too low for it to be detected. The process was overlooked because an effort was not made to detect the nuclear products until F-P made such a search important.
The behavior shows that the gaps are stable and continue to support the fusion reaction. If they were destroyed after a fusion event, the observed power would gradually decrease as the number of active sites decreased.
I think in some instances, on rare occasions, the spots are melted. That is what Szpak reported. I hope this seldom happens, so the material generates power for months or years before it has to be replaced. If the material is inexpensive Ni or Ti, I suppose you could make the cathodes much larger than needed. You could operate at only ~10% of potential efficiency measured in surface area. It would take a long time to degrade down to 9%, when it has to be replaced.
I think in some instances, on rare occasions, the spots are melted. That is what Szpak reported. I hope this seldom happens, so the material generates power for months or years before it has to be replaced. If the material is inexpensive Ni or Ti, I suppose you could make the cathodes much larger than needed. You could operate at only ~10% of potential efficiency measured in surface area. It would take a long time to degrade down to 9%, when it has to be replaced.
But how we make a material with 10% of active surface area? Do we even know how much % of active area is available in these materials? I think that those are the questions that we need to answer and for that we need to know more about the active cracks.
My paper describes various ways the required gap size can be created. Each of these methods has been found to work but none have been studied in sufficient detail to achieve control. If someone wants to make the effort, I can provide advice.
Ed
But how we make a material with 10% of active surface area? Do we even know how much % of active area is available in these materials?
The whole surface would be active. Small pieces of it would melt occasionally, so it would gradually degrade. The melted portions are distributed at random. Let us say this is a surface effect, and a 10 cm^2 surface would be enough to produce the maximum power you want. But, because it slowly degrades, after 6 months it would produce only 90% of the power you want. Six months is not long enough for your application. * In that case, make the surface 100 cm^2 and and the gadget should last about 5 years.
Electric vehicle batteries are somewhat like this. They degrade over time. Suppose you buy a car with a 200 mile range in normal weather. Industry sources say that after a year, the range declines only 2.3%. I think the decline is more than that, but anyway, you want to keep the car 10 years before changing the battery. After 10 years the range will be ~154 miles. So, if you expect you will need more range than ~154 miles, you should start off by buying a car with 300 mile range.
* Let's say you want to put this gadget in a railroad crossing in Alaska, and you don't want to service it to change out the cathode every 6 months.
Hello, what kind of size do you expect ?
is this in relation with the former Piantelli patent ?
My paper describes various ways the required gap size can be created. Each of these methods has been found to work but none have been studied in sufficient detail to achieve control. If someone wants to make the effort, I can provide advice.
Ed
What arguments do you make? Are you saying that a reaction that consumes no chemical fuel, produces 10,000 more energy per gram than any possible chemical reaction, produces helium in same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion, and produces tritium is not nuclear fusion?
What is it then? What "interpretation" do you propose instead of fusion? Be specific!
Tritium: you assume a tritium concentration measured after the experiment higher than that before means tritium has been generated. That is clearly not the only explanation! There is the obvious reason, and then a whole load of less obvious ones...
That 10,000 per gram is an interpretation based on a whole load of assumptions which have been plausibly challenged: so I ask you to prove the 10,000 more energy per gram. Of course If that were the case a nuclear or pico-black-hole (just for completeness) explanation is needed.
I cannot give an alternative interpretation without the specifics, since there are a number of different possibilities why that calculated figure could be wrong and different experiments will have different correct interpretations.
Tritium: you assume a tritium concentration measured after the experiment higher than that before means tritium has been generated. That is clearly not the only explanation! There is the obvious reason, and then a whole load of less obvious ones...
I do not assume any such thing. Concentration is measured before the experiment, during the experiment, and after it. All possible sources of contamination are ruled out. Cathodes, heavy water, and the electrolyte materials are carefully tested for tritium content. With an open cell, any heavy water added is measured carefully, ruling out concentration effects. Tritium in the air and other surroundings is monitored. It would have to extremely high to penetrate into the cell as contamination. It would have to be thousands of times higher than the amount measured in the cell. So high, it would kill everyone in the lab.
Several other steps and precautions are taken to confirm that the tritium is produced during the experiment, and it was not initially present as contamination in the cell components. You would know this if you would read the literature. Clearly, you have not read it.
In short, the experimental methods prove that the tritium was generated. This is, clearly, the only explanation. The people doing these experiments include the world's top experts in tritium at BARC, Los Alamos, the PPPL and elsewhere. They know how to measure tritium, and how to ensure there is no tritium contamination, or concentration. Their lives depend on knowing these things. It is not possible they have overlooked some "obvious" cause that you know of.
Do you dispute that? Okay, tell us what other explanation there might be. Tell us what obvious or less obvious reasons there are, and BE SPECIFIC. If you cannot list any possible explanation, then you are waving your hands and making stuff up, without any knowledge of the experiments.
I cannot give an alternative interpretation without the specifics, since there are a number of different possibilities why that calculated figure could be wrong and different experiments will have different correct interpretations.
You will find all the specifics you need in the literature. Read it, and then spell out this number of different possibilities. List the possibilities, and BE SPECIFIC. If you cannot do this, you have no case. A negative or skeptical assertion must be supported by as much evidence and rigor as a positive assertion. You do not get a free pass.
That 10,000 per gram is an interpretation based on a whole load of assumptions which have been plausibly challenged:
Have been challenged where? Who challenged it? Did you? Describe this challenge, in detail, with the data and facts that support it, and BE SPECIFIC.
Of course If that were the case a nuclear or pico-black-hole (just for completeness) explanation is needed.
No explanation is ever needed to justify a replicated, high sigma experimental result. The result stands. It is an irrefutable fact. Any theory that says it cannot exist is wrong by definition. You turn the scientific method upside down when you refuse to accept irrefutable facts. You can only refute them by showing an error in the experiments. You have never done that. You have never once shown any error, in any experiment. You have only claimed that such error might exist.
Tritium: you assume a tritium concentration measured after the experiment higher than that before means tritium has been generated. That is clearly not the only explanation! There is the obvious reason, and then a whole load of less obvious ones...
In short, the experimental methods prove that the tritium was generated. This is, clearly, the only explanation. The people doing these experiments include the world's top experts in tritium at BARC, Los Alamos, the PPPL and elsewhere. They know how to measure tritium, and how to ensure there is no tritium contamination, or concentration. Their lives depend on knowing these things. It is not possible they have overlooked some "obvious" cause that you know of.
THH, As Jed says, these guys are experts at what they do. They did not become known as experts by being lousy at what they do. So, can you tell us laypeople why we should not accept their findings as the premise Storms/Jed suggest, and get onto the next level of the discussion he is trying to take us?
Maybe you aren't learning anything new, but I sure am.
Maybe you aren't learning anything new,
these guys are experts at what they do
for an expert in circuitology and QM.. what's new to learn?
