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

Thanks to Ahlfors for posting the (I assume recently available online) website of one of the ARPA-e funded projects, the one that is a collaboration between UC Berkeley and UC Davis.

FS & IBT - Low energy nuclear reaction

The project will focus on quantifying nuclear reactions, such as the deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction at relatively low reaction energies, below 500 eV. At…

ibt.lbl.gov

I post it here to highlight that one of the aspects they state will be explored is “In our project we will combine an electro-chemical cell with ion beams for deuterium loading and defect engineering of palladium.”be which is the topic that interests us in this thread. Its interesting they are attempting to engineer the cracks on the Pd lattice as one of the aspects of their research.

I post it here to highlight that one of the aspects they state will be explored is “In our project we will combine an electro-chemical cell with ion beams for deuterium loading and defect engineering of palladium.”be which is the topic that interests us in this thread. Its interesting they are attempting to engineer the cracks on the Pd lattice as one of the aspects of their research.

This description makes no sense. This word salad. I have no idea what "defect engineering" means. Also, cracks are NOT THE SITE of LENR. The sites are gaps having a critical dimensioin. The details are important yet getting the details understood seems to be impossible.

Quote from RobertBryant

it has an unusual longlived state at 2.3 Mevs

2.3 Mev is (close to) the proton- proton bond resonance. In fact it is an excited bond. This can help to transport fusion energy. Its a state with a large magnetic moment and an almost 100% IT (IT: Isomeric Transition: a level above the ground state decays via electromagnetic process) transfer what means phonon decay or internal energy transport.

Thanks for the encouragement, Alan. I realize invisible people may be reading what I write. However, I only have the feedback as an indication of what they hear me say. I realize that the same thing has to be said many times and in different ways for most people to understand an idea. I always hope that someone who has the knowledge will engage in an effective discussion. I do not expect my understanding to be the best but it is clearly better than most. A discussion is valuable to me because it forces me to consider Ideas that I have ignored. Normally, this kind of discussion would happen in an organization. Unfortunately, I'm not part of an organization. So, I have to get my reality testing done anyway I can.

Quote from Storms

I post it here to highlight that one of the aspects they state will be explored is “In our project we will combine an electro-chemical cell with ion beams for deuterium loading and defect engineering of palladium.”be which is the topic that interests us in this thread. Its interesting they are attempting to engineer the cracks on the Pd lattice as one of the aspects of their research.

This description makes no sense. This word salad. I have no idea what "defect engineering" means. Also, cracks are NOT THE SITE of LENR. The sites are gaps having a critical dimensioin. The details are important yet getting the details understood seems to be impossible.

Well probably my understanding that cracks are what cause the gap is totally wrong then, yikes!. Are the gaps associated then to what process?

A crack is a form of gap that is generally large enough to see. The critical gap size is very small and formed at a very special location. I explain how the gaps can be formed in the paper that started this discussion. They form by accident when different conditions are applied. Stress relief is one cause while sintering would be another. Electrodeposited Pd produces the gaps between the isolated crystals when an electrolyte containing PdCl2 is used. The gaps are produced on the cathode when ion bombardment is used. People need to focus on the unique conditions that are found to produce LENR and then identify where the gaps are located. The search has to be like a treasure hunt. We know what the treasure looks like but we do not know where it is hidden.

Storms, do you have any ideas on other geometrical features required for the cracks/gap to be LENR-active, apart from dimension? In particular, there could be gaps with a point-like shape (almost spherical), quasi-linear (one dimension is much longer than the others), and quasi-planar (two dimensions much larger than the other). Probably specific kind of preparation or treatment brings more one kind of these defects more than the others. Identifying which is the most effective in triggering LENR reaction could allow to focus on specific treatments or preparations methods.

This also would be a valuable information if we think to engineer and create an active material from scratch.

For example, I was thinking that it would be possible to build a planar Pd film (up to some 100s um thick) with an array of nanometric cavities of different sizes (let say from few nm to 1 um) patterned on it, by using common integrated circuit production technologies (masking, PVD/CVD, MBE, etc). Such an array of cavities would allow very easily to spot what is the right size of the gap required to trigger LENR effects. Also the inverse pattern would probably be interesting (array of isolated "pins" of different dimensions). Do you think it would be an effective approach? It would have the great advantage of being 1) completely controllable and reproducible; 2) employing electronic grade materials, that are very pure and so can exclude any contamination hypothesis in case of new elements are found post-reaction.

The idea of Stevenson is supported by an old but still very interesting Ahern patent

US5411654A

"As an alternative to mechanical and metallurgical techniques for producing nanometric surface features, lithographic wet-etch techniques may be used. For example, referring to FIG. 4A, in a first lithographic process, a bare substrate 30 of a selected host lattice material, for example, nickel, is provided with a selected crystallographic orientation, for example, the 110 or 100 orientation. The 110 crystal faces are favored in the case of a nickel host lattice substrate because the 110 planes support the highest solubility of hydrogen isotopes of any crystallographic planes.

As shown in FIGS. 4B, 4C and 4D, photoresist 32 is spun on the substrate and exposed using a patterned

lithographic mask 34 having a selected pattern of sub-micron sized geometries. Preferably, the maximum pattern dimension, d, or "duty cycle" of repeated pattern is about 0.2 μm in length. Such nanoscale features require the use of thin, state of the art photoresists. The unexposed resist is then removed using standard techniques to produce a photoresist etch mask. As shown in FIGS. 4E and 4F, the underlying substrate is then anisotropically etched using an appropriate etch to produce grooves in the substrate surface having a depth, h, of less than about 1 μm. Grooves of a greater height are less preferable because they would allow the prismatic faces of grooves exceeding about 1 μm to reconstruct to a more harmonic, high atomic coordination state. After removing the resist etch mask using standard photoresist processing techniques, the substrate 30 is provided with a topology of steps 36 which all ideally exhibit sharp corners and straight walls."

I predict that gaps made by nano machining will be the method used when LENR is finally applied. Therefore, the patent describing this method will be valuable. This means that too much public speculation about how to implement the method would not be in anyone's financial interest. Someone with imagination, courage, and money will try this method. They will fail initially but eventually will discover the effective conditions. They will become rich and the world will finally have the ideal source of energy. Meanwhile, too much public discussion would dilute the patent and the incentive to go down this path. This is part of the reality these days.

Quote from gio06

The idea of Stevenson is supported by an old but still very interesting Ahern patent

US5411654A

"As an alternative to mechanical and metallurgical techniques for producing nanometric surface features, lithographic wet-etch techniques may be used. For example, referring to FIG. 4A, in a first lithographic process, a bare substrate 30 of a selected host lattice material, for example, nickel, is provided with a selected crystallographic orientation, for example, the 110 or 100 orientation. The 110 crystal faces are favored in the case of a nickel host lattice substrate because the 110 planes support the highest solubility of hydrogen isotopes of any crystallographic planes.

As shown in FIGS. 4B, 4C and 4D, photoresist 32 is spun on the substrate and exposed using a patterned

lithographic mask 34 having a selected pattern of sub-micron sized geometries. Preferably, the maximum pattern dimension, d, or "duty cycle" of repeated pattern is about 0.2 μm in length. Such nanoscale features require the use of thin, state of the art photoresists. The unexposed resist is then removed using standard techniques to produce a photoresist etch mask. As shown in FIGS. 4E and 4F, the underlying substrate is then anisotropically etched using an appropriate etch to produce grooves in the substrate surface having a depth, h, of less than about 1 μm. Grooves of a greater height are less preferable because they would allow the prismatic faces of grooves exceeding about 1 μm to reconstruct to a more harmonic, high atomic coordination state. After removing the resist etch mask using standard photoresist processing techniques, the substrate 30 is provided with a topology of steps 36 which all ideally exhibit sharp corners and straight walls."

This is an interesting patent because it shows how not to write a patent. Instead of looking at the process from an atom's point of view while keeping the conditions as general as possible, an imagined model is applied to limit the conditions and behavior. Many methods are available to create gaps in a material. The successful patent will focus on the result, not on the method. The NAE has to have several unique features. These features need to be part of the patent. These unique features are presently unknown. I have identified only one of them as being the size. Obviously, several other conditions are required. The challenge is learning the nature of these conditions.

Quote from Storms

They will become rich and the world will finally have the ideal source of energy.

This, future money, is the wrong driver. We must save the planet and a golden tumb stone was the wrong idea as the old Egyptians did show.

We did produce nano hole nickel chips. Good to know that also this can no longer be patented. The challenges are of other kind. We must fully understand how we can get out the fusion energy without destroying the structure. So there are many parameters one must vary what will take a long time with just a little money

There are much cheaper approaches to get the same structures by using ALU oxid templates but here you need an SEM for some millions to control the width and depth of the cavities as we call the holes. So once we have the parameters mass production can be done either by templates or by advanced roll lithography.

Quote from Storms

I predict that gaps made by nano machining will be the method used when LENR is finally applied.

Can you estimate, approximately, what the size of these gaps should be, compared to what you call "cracks" (too big), and what Alan just called crazing? Do you think crazing might work? It might be an inexpensive way to test the hypothesis. If it works, you could then transition to nano machining.

Crazing is what happens to pottery glaze under too much tension. It is deliberately introduced in some pottery designs. It is visible. Maybe there is smaller scale crazing.

The size of the gap can only be guessed. I place the likely size between 10 nm and 50 nm. However, size is not the only important condition. I have explored a method that could reveal a more exact size. This method is described in the paper I gave at ICCF-24. Why not use what works rather than keep trying new methods?

I already related a french event ( i precise Biberian not involved at all) during a thermiionic emitter manufacturing.

It was an hollow cylindrical cathode with ZrO2 substrat which covered by sputtering by a nickle layer. When they added another layer by electrolosys from nickel sulfamate a flash appeared and the ZrO2 melted partly.

After analysis we have seen that by the sputtering way, appeared some nanorods at the oxide surface.

diameter 10nm height 100nm space between each less than 10nm.

Quote from Storms

The size of the gap can only be guessed. I place the likely size between 10 nm and 50 nm. However, size is not the only important condition. I have explored a method that could reveal a more exact size. This method is described in the paper I gave at ICCF-24. Why not use what works rather than keep trying new methods?

Quote from Cydonia

I already related a french event ( i precise Biberian not involved at all) during a thermiionic emitter manufacturing.

It was an hollow cylindrical cathode with ZrO2 substrat which covered by sputtering by a nickle layer. When they added another layer by electrolosys from nickel sulfamate a flash appeared and the ZrO2 melted partly.

After analysis we have seen that by the sputtering way, appeared some nanorods at the oxide surface.

diameter 10nm height 100nm space between each less than 10nm.

Very interesting. Was this method explored and made to work again?

it was a casual event from a former of Thomson TSF ( thalès now)

i investigated around that , around sputtering, nickel sulfamate, etc..

Dépending how you tune the sputtering you can do these rods as here in zone 1.

And here the @Alansmith proposal with 2 thins films of different matter to generate cracks by dilatation difference between them.

Quote from Storms

Very interesting. Was this method explored and made to work again?

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

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.

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.

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.

Display More

Jed. I am happy to be specific, but it is a lot of work and I need an original (not one of the re-analyses or meta-analyses) experimental report with all the details.

Please link one, and I will provide specifics on the "LENR is real" thread so as not to derail this one.

If I choose one myself you will say that is not right because there is some other (better) one. It is a lot of work doing even one - so i'd like it to be one you are happy with.