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

    I disagree with the first statement on the basis of a false dichotomy. All environments in our current understanding of physics are simultaneously chemical and nuclear, it's just systems at different scales. So I will disregard that statement as not being relevant to the discussion.

    2, 3, and 4 there is no disagreement according to the many scientific researchers have reported on, including your esteemed self. ;) Though I have not witnessed the phenomena first hand with the proper measurements, I tend to trust the surmounting evidence done independently by the many Scientists, Researchers, Experimentalists, and Engineers over the years.

    As a potential solution to your 5th statement, it could be possible there is a state transition of hydrogen which interfaces with neutrons that can best be described by something like Majorana's Fermions? This means there may be a configurations of hydrogen states that can be excited by electromagnetic stimulus to influence the supposed strong nuclear forces.
    Surely you can see how this has implications into certain cosmological constants and current accepted scientific orthodoxies?

    Hopefully this was clear to you what I am implying and gives some value to the dialogue in this thread.

    Quote from Diadon Acs

    I disagree with the first statement on the basis of a false dichotomy. All environments in our current understanding of physics are simultaneously chemical and nuclear, it's just systems at different scales. So I will disregard that statement as not being relevant to the discussion.

    Please identify a single example of why you disagree. in fact, the cold fusion idea was rejected simply because all conventional nuclear reactions act independently of their chemical environment because the energy levels are so different. This simple fact makes LENR uniquely impossible to explain using conventional understanding, the application of pure imagination notwithstanding.

    Edmund, I tried to explain to you ... But you did not understand me ... Alpha particle - not to be confused with the helium-4 molecule, this is the building material for reactions in LENR installations. It is not obliged to fly out of the installation, since there are no FORCES that would push it or throw it out of the local area in which LENR reactions take place ... Palladium, nickel and other magnetic systems only help the LENR process - they help with their magnetic field .. Electron clusters also help this process with their magnetic field ... Therefore, it is not clear why you are worried when you do not detect helium-4 or an alpha particle with detectors ??? Think about it...

    Quote from Storms

    Please identify a single example of why you disagree. in fact, the cold fusion idea was rejected simply because all conventional nuclear reactions act independently of their chemical environment because the energy levels are so different. This simple fact makes LENR uniquely impossible to explain using conventional understanding, the application of pure imagination notwithstanding.

    I only disagreed with your first statement and gave a clear reason why. It is unproductive to separate chemical and nuclear energy levels for us to explain the observed phenomena when there is obviously crossover happening.
    How can chemical processes be separated from nuclear one's, isn't that an illogical statement?
    This may be one of the reasons why so many researchers have decided to call this phenomenon electrochemical nuclear synthesis to be more specific in what seems to be a blurring understanding of new physics, like you have suggested.

    I have answered your questions, is there a possibility you could attempt to answer mine good sir?

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    Edmund, I tried to explain to you ... But you did not understand me ... Alpha particle - not to be confused with the helium-4 molecule, this is the building material for reactions in LENR installations. It is not obliged to fly out of the installation, since there are no FORCES that would push it or throw it out of the local area in which LENR reactions take place ... Palladium, nickel and other magnetic systems only help the LENR process - they help with their magnetic field .. Electron clusters also help this process with their magnetic field ... Therefore, it is not clear why you are worried when you do not detect helium-4 or an alpha particle with detectors ??? Think about it...

    I understand you perfectly well. You aren't in my reality. You are not discussing the reality that I accept based on 300 years of collective experience. You have created your own reality. Your description is not consistent with the observed behavior that I accept. You have created a new reality that lives in your imagination. I understand what you say. I simply do not want to enter your reality. I'm asking you and other people to leave their own reality and join mine.

    Quote from Storms

    1. LENR differs from all other nuclear processes because it takes place in a chemical environment. In addition, this environment has to have certain rare characteristics.

    2. This characteristic can be produced in a variety of materials, but most often in PdD.

    3. The required characteristic can be activated by many different treatments, including electrolysis, direct reaction with D2 or H2 gas, gas discharge at low energy, cavitation, and application of sonic vibration.

    4. When deuterium is present, He4 is produced in an amount that has a clear relationship to the amount of energy produced. The He4/energy ratio is consistent with the very unique value for D+D=He4 reaction.

    5. An energy barrier prevents D from fusing to form He4 under most conditions. For fusion to take place, this barrier must be overcome. It can be overcome by applying kinetic energy to the D nuclei. However, this fusion reaction does not produce He4.

    Ed, I have taken the liberty of writing my own version of your list, but I a tongue-tied in number 5.


    1. LENR differs from all other nuclear processes because it takes place in particular chemical and physical environments which have certain defined characteristics.

    2. This defined characteristic can be produced in a variety of materials, but most readily in PdD.

    3. The required characteristic can be activated by many different treatments, including electrolysis, direct reaction with D2 or H2 gas, gas discharge at low energy, cavitation, and application of sonic vibration or laser light.

    4. When deuterium is present, He4 is produced in an amount that has a clear relationship to the amount of energy produced. The He4/energy ratio is consistent with the very unique value for D+D=He4 reaction. When hydrogen is also present tritium may be produced.

    5. An energy barrier prevents D from fusing to form He4 under most conditions. For fusion to take place, this barrier must be overcome. It can be overcome by applying kinetic energy to the D nuclei. However, this fusion reaction does not produce He4.

    Quote from Diadon Acs

    I only disagreed with your first statement and gave a clear reason why. It is unproductive to separate chemical and nuclear energy levels for us to explain the observed phenomena when there is obviously crossover happening.
    How can chemical processes be separated from nuclear one's, isn't that an illogical statement?
    This may be one of the reasons why so many researchers have decided to call this phenomenon electrochemical nuclear synthesis to be more specific in what seems to be a blurring understanding of new physics, like you have suggested.

    I have answered your questions, is there a possibility you could attempt to answer mine good sir?

    Obviously, the chemical conditions create a condition that interacts with the nucleus in this one unique case. The challenge is to discover how and why this happens. Because the nuclear process happens only at certain sites, the situation at these sites becomes important. Consequently, the nature of these unique conditions must be identified in order to cause the effect to occur with control. Can you identify the required unique nature of these sites?

    Alan, why is #5 a problem for you? The ICCF-25 conference is focused on this problem. We have a simple fact. Cold fusion makes He4 while He4 is not made when kinetic energy is applied. Why is the behavior different when energy is applied compared to when no energy is applied? When energy is applied, the He4 fragments into 4 different parts. Why?

    Quote from Storms

    5. An energy barrier prevents D from fusing to form He4 under most conditions. For fusion to take place, this barrier must be overcome.

    After a detailed analysis of the P&F experiments/materials and the first LENR models I made for the Lipinski experiment I came to the conclusion that only resonant EM-flux transfer can speed up the formation of 4-He. Before I visited London I made a large and a short list of so called magnetic lines I expected to see in the highly energetic powders we had.

    Some isotopes have the ability to internally downscale a high gamma level excitation to the final phonon level. This has been known since long time...

    So most experiments (> 10 different ones) did show the expected behavior and gave us a set of so called magnetic lines.


    For the sceptics: I did not know what was inside a fuel. Every time I did see a line or a cascade I did ask whether it was in. The answer always was yes. So we can say that we, to a great extent, understand how LENR works.


    Ed is right that Pd is a good promoter as the lattice under external stimulation (current) may force the D-D spins to become parallel - but without a receiver of the first 495eV nothing will happen. Here the Pd gamma phase provides a broad band receiver for all phonon resonances as Hagelstein did show in his calculations. Once enough D*-D* has been formed the load factor can be reduced as other mechanisms can take over.

    Quote from Storms

    Obviously, the chemical conditions create a condition that interacts with the nucleus in this one unique case. The challenge is to discover how and why this happens. Because the nuclear process happens only at certain sites, the situation at these sites becomes important. Consequently, the nature of these unique conditions must be identified in order to cause the effect to occur with control. Can you identify the required unique nature of these sites?

    I am comfortable with saying I don't know with certainty. However, one could hypothesize that the purposed 2-10nm may be at a sufficient wavelength to influence heavier hydrogen excitations and a subsequent field collapses with an extremely high q value in a very localized environment?

    Many of these extremes of fermion density have been hypothesized by Majorana, Schwinger, Ulum, Teller, ect. It has also been demonstrated by Operation Ivy in cavitating Hydrogen dense nuclear bodies under extreme phase criticality, all be it at a much larger and inefficient scales for weapon systems. The difference is instead of confining and reflecting hard thermal x-rays back into a hydrogen dense medium, we may be reflecting soft x-rays at lower energy states into hydrogen dense mediums that are more locally restrictive on a nano-molecular scale?

    Just some ideas I had on the matter, not sure if they are correct but perhaps they are some interesting things to consider. 🤷

    1. LENR differs from all other nuclear processes because it takes place in a chemical environment. In addition, this environment has to have certain rare characteristics.

    Chemistry is only a way not a prerequisite... this is why we wasted time these last 30 years not especially because lack of money..


    2. This characteristic can be produced in a variety of materials, but most often in PdD.

    You postulated that because you spent most of the time in this way..no it's wrong.


    3. The required characteristic can be activated by many different treatments, including electrolysis, direct reaction with D2 or H2 gas, gas discharge at low energy, cavitation, and application of sonic vibration.

    Well, different engineerings can work..


    4. When deuterium is present, He4 is produced in an amount that has a clear relationship to the amount of energy produced. The He4/energy ratio is consistent with the very unique value for D+D=He4 reaction.

    Old school..


    5. An energy barrier prevents D from fusing to form He4 under most conditions. For fusion to take place, this barrier must be overcome. It can be overcome by applying kinetic energy to the D nuclei. However, this fusion reaction does not produce He4.

    To symplify yes, however to overcome it we need a local EM field enhanced this is what understood the kazakh ahahha

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    ... Before I visited London I made a large and a short list of so called magnetic lines I expected to see in the highly energetic powders we had.

    Some isotopes have the ability to internally downscale a high gamma level excitation to the final phonon level. This has been known since long time...

    So most experiments (> 10 different ones) did show the expected behavior and gave us a set of so called magnetic lines.


    For the sceptics: I did not know what was inside a fuel. Every time I did see a line or a cascade I did ask whether it was in. The answer always was yes. So we can say that we, to a great extent, understand how LENR works.

    You are saying that you have a theory that addresses Storm's point number 5. Moreover you are saying that the theory is predictive and that you have seen the predictions borne out in a sort of blinded procedure whereby you could state from a fuel's a gamma spectrum what was in it even before being told.


    Fine. That is a great procedure. So publish!


    And more than that, publish in such a way that other people can do what you did, i.e., make active fuels and then give them to someone else who would then use gamma spectral analysis to determine their makeup without knowing ahead of time. Results like that, widely replicated, would be very persuasive that you actually have something here. But without replication, the work of your whole group deserves skepticism.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    And more than that, publish in such a way that other people can do what you did, i.e., make active fuels and then give them to someone else who would then use gamma spectral analysis to determine their makeup without knowing ahead of time. Results like that, widely replicated, would be very persuasive that you actually have something here.

    Nice dreams but in a free mason greedy predator mafia universe the only logic is predefined.


    So we will not publish. We finally will sell a product. The only exception is the same I tell since 2018. We publish all stuff that others would like to patent...

    Quote from Bruce__H

    A revealing, informative answer. Thanks!

    Basically: what W says is entirely fair. He is not doing science, but gambling on a new invention which would certainly be revolutionary, which he and others here believe will work.


    It is worth noting that this is high stakes and also highly unusual, for the good reason that technology based on new science needs a good understanding of the science, and new science (usually) needs the criticism and multiple viewpoints that come from publishing.


    In the past there were lone inventors who revolutionised industry, and lone scientists who made advances. Pretty difficult for that to happen now, and even more difficult for technological success to follow scientific success without scientific validation. So the number of inventors claiming new scientific revolutions this century has been much larger than the number of inventors whose inventions actually are based on revolutionary new science.


    You can see why this is. For anything revolutionary that depends on new science (e.g. a practical inertialess drive aka antigravity) scientific proof of concept enormously increases the profitability for the inventor by allowing necessary very large investment at a lower equity stake. Whatever the excuses, it is therefore usually the case that those who do not get this cannot get it.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Basically: what W says is entirely fair. He is not doing science,

    Said by our forum clown a circuit board "scientologist". CERN e.g. does science... using a garbage model to find garbage... and still gets a Nobel... Why should people with a clear mind join this incestuous dark planet sect?


    Who wants a peer review from scientist that have no clue of basic physics? That believe that brilliant math = brilliant physics...?! It's totally ridiculous. If you want to listen to a comedian then reading a SM paper is the cheaper and more funny way to relax for a few minutes...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    free mason greedy predator mafia

    not the whole universe ...only on certain spots on civilised terra firma..

    LENR probably runs free in the subterra and superterra

    Quote from Alan Smith

    . It can be overcome by applying kinetic energy to the D nuclei.

    apparently it can be overcome by applying supercold conditions and a magnetic field to deuterium molecules,

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    he Pd gamma phase provides a broad band receiver

    a materials scientist suggests the delta phase is the site of the NAE..

    "These experimental measurements suggest that δ is the nuclear active environment (NAE) for low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) while δ′ is likely a high conducting state (phase). Which interstitial site (octahedral or tetrahedral) is occupied by isotopic hydrogen would determine whether the phase is nuclear active or highly conductive. These two phases are distinct and can coexist as minor volumetric components (phases) because they are both of low volume fractions, share the same composition (arrangement of Pd and lattice vacancy sites, and can also share the same D/Pd ratio), and result from hydrogen-induced vacancy formation. Thus, portions of the specimen can be producing nuclear energy (excess heat) while other portions can be highly conductive.

    Estimating volume fractions of superabundant vacancy phases and their potential roles in low energy nuclear reactions and high conductivity in the palladium – isotopic hydrogen system
    The addition of three superabundant vacancy (SAV) phases, γ (Pd7VacD6–8), δ (Pd3VacD4 – octahedral), and δ′ (Pd3VacD4 – tetrahedral) to the palladium …
    www.sciencedirect.com


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    incestuous dark planet sect

    Sorry for those who live near the heart of darkness\..ITER en Provence and the gnomes of CERN..are far away from downunder..

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    We finally will sell a product.

    Not too soon. but at least before 2055 ++ when ITER's mafioso gamble pans out :)

    there's still some AUS $ to be made from coal..

    "The department’s most recent data shows that Australian thermal coal made up 17% of global trade in 2022 and this is forecast to increase for another three years to 20% by 2026. Its outlook also points to supply-side issues, such as persistent weather-related disruptions, curtailing 2022 exports and highlights future growth markets for Australian coal"

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Said by our forum clown a circuit board "scientologist". CERN e.g. does science... using a garbage model to find garbage... and still gets a Nobel... Why should people with a clear mind join this incestuous dark planet sect?


    Said by our bad-tempered Baron Munchausen. Do we have any reason at all to think that he has anything of value, practical or theoretical?

    Quote from SearchMe

    Baron Munchausen

    cern did put on a movie in 2017... otherwise searchme's comment is irrelevant

    https://indico.cern.ch/event/654553/.


    for 1 billion $ year expenditure

    the LHC gev/tev collisions of TWO decades have yielded no useful insights into the structure of the proton/neutron....just farytales

    and the desired supercollider costing G$?? will not..

    https://press.cern/news/press-…lion-cerns-major-collider.

    The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider
    It would cost many billions of dollars, the potential rewards are unclear—and the money could be better spent researching threats such as climate change…
    www.scientificamerican.com

    https://en.as.com/latest_news/…2C%20France%20and%20Spain.

    on the other hand Mev collisions done recently have shown that the Standard Model is

    in error,,,

    this is relevant to another thread which is beyond searchMe's ambit..

    1 billion $ a year is a huge opportunity cost

    luckily downunder we are not paying any of 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.