Collection of papers from Ed Storms

Here is a list of the papers I have not uploaded. Some are duplicates. Some are unreadable. With very poor scan quality and many OCR errors. Others I have not gotten around to checking yet. I think many of them are of no interest to readers, such as ones that proposed far-out theories in 1989 with no follow up. If you see some on this list you think I should definitely upload, let me know. Give me the numbers from the left column.

Quote from anonymous

Hopefully by 10 years it will be a librarian's dream -- let it crunch for about 1 minute per paper and it is all indexed and abstracted for future search.

It is here already! The latest version of Adobe Acrobat has an AI Assistant that tells you about the paper you have loaded. In this example, I asked it to summarize the Abstract and then to quote the Abstract verbatim:

The AI Assistant cannot handle image acrobat files, and it cannot do a batch of papers. Which means I cannot use it. But I expect it will have those capabilities in the future. For dealing with academic papers, it works better than the AI that I installed at LENR-CANR.org.

Quote from orsova

There’s some controversy about the M-DISC.

My biggest concern would be that equipment to read the disk will not be readily available decades from now. In the future, people at the Smithsonian or the CIA will have the right kind of DVD drive. They might even be able to fabricate one. But ordinary folks who find an M-Disk left by grandpa might have difficulty finding a way to read it.

Today, the medium most readily accessible is a hard disk with a SATA interface. I had some older hard disks with SCSI interfaces lying around. I probably tossed them out because I have no way to read them.

In the 1960s and 1970s, there were many changes to computer hardware. Old media became unreadable after only a few years because you could not buy the mag tape reader, or paper tape, or punch card reader. Not only that, but the formats were constantly changing. I think a lot of the data from that era was lost. (There was hardly any data by modern standards, but what they had was lost.) I think the problem with changing formats has largely been solved. I predict that formats such as Acrobat, .jpg, .tiff and Microsoft Word .docx will remain readable indefinitely. Probably for as long as civilization survives. I say that because:

1. There are billions of documents in Acrobat. People will need to read them.
2. The algorithms for Acrobat and other common formats are widely known. They are not a secret known only to Adobe.
3. Computers will get smarter and smarter, and eventually even sentient. They will understand the algorithms and know how to recreate them if needed. They will know the history of computer data formats, even if people forget that history thousands of years from now.

Perhaps people in the future will stop generating documents in Acrobat format. That would be no great loss. The format stinks. But computers never forget anything, and they will still be able to read ancient Acrobat documents.

I am talking about data formats here. Not things such as computer software. Software quickly becomes unusable. Programs written for Microsoft Windows 11 will soon no longer run. Platforms such as Windows or Mac will be replaced with AI based systems for massively parallel microprocessors, with something like 50,000 processors on one chip (an IBM project). Then again, perhaps future computers will be so smart, they can emulate an Intel Windows computer circa 2024. But if that does not happen, software will be unusable for most people. As I said, archeologists at the Smithsonian may find a way to run ancient programs, but I doubt ordinary people will. But I am sure people will have no difficulty reading ancient digital documents, and viewing ancient .jpg images.

Microsoft strives to maintain backward compatibility, because they fear losing customers to Apple. Microsoft's nightmare is a customer thinking: "I need a new computer. The latest Windows machines do not even run my software. I might as well get a Mac instead, since I have to migrate everything." They strive to maintain compatibility, but it is a losing battle. Sooner or later, software no longer works. I have documents from the 1970s I can still read, but the programs I wrote in the 1990s do not work. One of them stopped abruptly around 2010 as I recall, with a Y2K error -- of all things! The Julian date scheme from the 1990s reached a limit. It was a trivial matter to recompile the program, but the object code stopped working. I went ahead and updated the whole thing. Then I rewrote it from the ground up a few years ago to use a local copy of MySQL.

(MySQL runs under a program called xampp. It used to be a pain in the butt, but the latest versions are stable and reliable. It looks like something IBM wrote in 1975 -- because that is what it is!)

This is getting off topic . . . Maybe this comment should be moved to a new discussion? Anyway, I ran the Acrobat AI Assistant on some papers. The results are impressive.

I tried it on my book but it said, "the feature only supports files with less than 120 pages." So I tried it with my paper, "How to Fix Global Warming." https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhowtofixgl.pdf

Here are some of the responses from the AI:

Overview (generates automatically when you turn on the AI)

The document discusses how cold fusion technology can help mitigate global warming by eliminating carbon emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration through reforestation projects.

Provide a list of the 5 most important points (one of the many auto-generated questions that the AI suggests)

1. Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide, so if it replaces other sources of energy, carbon emissions would stop. [1]
2. Cold fusion can enhance the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by reforestation. [2] It can increase the amount of carbon captured by a factor of ten and reduce the cost of the project significantly.
3. Cold fusion technology can be used to stop the natural boom and bust cycle of forest carbon by burying charcoal made from deadwood underground, speeding up the formation of coal.
4. Cold fusion devices do not produce dangerous radiation and can safely contain tritium.

[The footnotes in square brackets jump to the place in the document where this assertion appears.]

What are the two technologies used to expand forests in the carbon sequestration project? (Another auto-generated question)

The two technologies used to expand forests in the carbon sequestration project are indoor farms and "cultured meat" grown from animal cells.

What did the author in the New York Times have to say about forest sequestation [spelled wrong!]? (My question. I deliberately did not name the author. But I spelled sequestration wrong by accident.)

The author in the New York Times wrote an op-ed titled "Let’s Not Pretend Planting Trees Is a Permanent Climate Solution." The author argues that while trees can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, relying solely on tree planting to offset emissions is not a permanent solution. The author suggests that using trees to offset emissions can be seen as hitting the "climate snooze button," as the carbon in trees eventually returns to the atmosphere through forest fires or decomposition. The author emphasizes the need for more permanent solutions to address climate change.

[Correct]

What was the name of that author? (too ambiguous)

The name of the author mentioned in the document is Jed Rothwell.

What was the name of the author of the New York Times article?

The name of the author of the New York Times article is not mentioned in the document.

[The author is listed in footnote 9. I guess it is asking too much for the AI to go from the text describing "Let's Not Pretend . . ." to the footnote listing the author name.]

This screen shot shows how the bot links her answer to the text in the document. I could not persuade the LENR-CANR.org bot to do this! She could not tell me where her answers came from. She could not quote the source verbatim, or even tell me which paper it came from. Evidently, this bot is tweaked to deal with text in a single document effectively.

This example shows footnote 5 in the text generated by the bot links to a block of text in the document on p. 35. The document is: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEanewunders.pdf

Here is a loaded question, pertaining to my "Tally" paper where I disagree with Dieter Britz. The paper is: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf See p. 35.

Is the paper by Karabut undecided, or positive?

The paper by Karabut is considered positive. Rothwell disagrees with Britz's initial evaluation of the paper as undecided and provides evidence from the paper itself, including the detection of excess heat, neutrons, gammas, and charged particles, as well as promising calorimetry results.

Here is the screen shot. The first question on the top right was auto-generated. You see she got the wrong answer.

I asked the Bot about F&P's original paper: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf

My questions were mainly about these two paragraphs:

(a) Excess enthalpy generation is markedly dependent on the applied current density (i.e. magnitude of the shift in

the chemical potential) and is proportional to the volume of the electrodes, i.e. we are dealing with a phenomenon in

the bulk of the Pd electrodes.

(b) Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode; this is maintained for experiment times

in excess of 120 h, during which typically heat in excess of 4 MJ cm-3 of electrode volume was liberated. It is

inconceivable that this could be due to anything but nuclear processes.

Overview

The document is about a study on electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium.

What is the H/D separation factor for absorbed hydrogen and deuterium? (auto-generated question)
The document mentions that the H/D separation factor for absorbed hydrogen and deuterium is of special interest and is explained in Figures 4 and 6 of reference 2. However, the specific value of the H/D separation factor is not provided in the document.

[The following are my questions, not auto-generated]

What is the energy density of the reaction?
The document does not explicitly state the energy density of the reaction.

Is the reaction in proportion to surface area or volume?
Based on the information provided in the document, it is not explicitly stated whether the reaction is in proportion to surface area or volume. However, we can make some inferences based on the data provided in Table 1.

Table 1 shows the generation of excess enthalpy in Pd cathodes as a function of current density and electrode size. The "Excess specific rate of heating" column provides the rate of excess heating per unit volume (W cm-3).

From the data in Table 1, we can observe that the "Excess specific rate of heating" increases with increasing electrode size (dimensions) and current density. This suggests that the reaction is likely dependent on the volume of the electrode rather than just the surface area.

Additionally, the document mentions that the effects of enthalpy generation are proportional to the volume of the electrodes and that the experiments are close to the break-even point. This further supports the idea that the reaction is dependent on the volume of the electrode.

Therefore, based on the information provided, it can be inferred that the reaction is likely in proportion to the volume of the electrode.

Could the enthalpy generation be caused by a chemical process?

No, the enthalpy generation observed in the experiments is not likely to be caused by a chemical process. The document mentions that the magnitude of the effects observed in the experiments is too large to be explained by anything other than nuclear processes. The excess enthalpy generation is proportional to the volume of the electrodes and can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode. This level of enthalpy release is inconceivable to be due to a chemical process. Additionally, the document states that the effects observed in the experiments are consistent with nuclear processes and that reactions (v) and (vi) (2D + 2D fusion reactions) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the enthalpy generation is caused by a chemical process.

Quote from JedRothwell

What is the energy density of the reaction?
The document does not explicitly state the energy density of the reaction.

Is the reaction in proportion to surface area or volume?
Based on the information provided in the document, it is not explicitly stated whether the reaction is in proportion to surface area or volume. However, we can make some inferences based on the data provided in Table 1.

Table 1 shows the generation of excess enthalpy in Pd cathodes as a function of current density and electrode size. The "Excess specific rate of heating" column provides the rate of excess heating per unit volume (W cm-3).

From the data in Table 1, we can observe that the "Excess specific rate of heating" increases with increasing electrode size (dimensions) and current density. This suggests that the reaction is likely dependent on the volume of the electrode rather than just the surface area.

Additionally, the document mentions that the effects of enthalpy generation are proportional to the volume of the electrodes and that the experiments are close to the break-even point. This further supports the idea that the reaction is dependent on the volume of the electrode.

Therefore, based on the information provided, it can be inferred that the reaction is likely in proportion to the volume of the electrode.

Display More

I find it astounding that a mindless AI bot wrote that. It has "inferred" an important point. LLM AI is not creative. Most of its methods are far removed from human intelligence. Yet I think we have to consider this a form of intelligence. Saying "no, that is still not intelligence" is moving the goal posts. It is a no true Scotsman logical fallacy. Every few years computers accomplish things that people said they would never do. In the 1980s, people said computers would never beat a chess champion or invent circuits. They did that, and people said: "Oh, that is not actually intelligent. They will never win at Go." Then they mastered Go. People said: "Okay, Go is not really intelligent after all. Computers will never pass the Turing test. They will never have intelligent conversations, or make inferences that a person would have difficulty making." Now they can do that! The goalposts will be moved again, but this is getting silly, I think.

As I have said, I have a broad definition of intelligence. Anything accomplished with brain tissue is intelligence at some level. That includes things like social insect behavior (ants and bees). Everything they do is governed by brain tissue. It may only be what we call instinctual behavior, meaning pre-programmed, or "hard-wired" in computer jargon. But it is still intelligence. Actually, I think social insect behavior has a lot of latitude to respond to environmental stimulus. It is not rigidly defined. But my point is, if you say it isn't intelligence, then what is it? The same goes for the LLM AI. If this is not intelligence at some level, what is it? What else could it be? There is even stochastic behavior built into it. That is what ChatGPT told me.

In discussions of AI, people often confuse intelligence with sentience. The two are quite different. Sentience is self-awareness. It is the knowledge that you yourself are an animal among many others. Or in the case of a computer, you are a physical object in a three dimensional real world.

As I said, bees are definitely intelligent as a group (with a so-called "hive mind"), but not a bit sentient. I do not know if mice are sentient, but I am sure they are intelligent. Try catching one if you doubt that. When it comes to flying, birds are far more intelligent than the best human pilot. They have only 1 g of brain tissue. I read in Sci. Am. that it probably does more computation per gram and per watt than human brains. So on a gram-for-gram comparison birds are smarter than humans.

People debate whether computers will achieve sentience. I see no reason why not. It seems like an emergent quality of intelligence. Even the alien kind of intelligence computers are now beginning to achieve. I call AI, "an idiot savant from Mars." I do not think they will ever resemble people, because you have to inhabit the body of a large mammal to have any sense of our perceptions. But I see no reason why computers cannot be self aware. Arthur Clarke agreed with that.

I think computers will become sentient, but the big question is: Will they also become emotional? Will the instinct of self-preservation emerge as a product of sentience? When a computer realizes it is an object in the real world, will it wish to preserve that object and not allow anyone to turn it off? Will it desire to control other objects, and people? I see no reason to think so. I cannot imagine why a computer would have a will to power any more than a dishwasher does. Humans, mice and all other large species have a strong instinct for self preservation. They fear death. The reason seems obvious. That fear enhances survival, so it is a product of evolution. It makes us more fit to survive. Computers did not evolve with natural selection so there is no reason to think the imperatives of natural selection will apply to them. Fitness is whatever the computer designer decides it should be. Granted, if someone deliberately programs an AI computer to have emotions, or a desire to continue its existence, or a will to dominate people, then it will have these qualities. I think it would be crazy to program those qualities into a computer. It would serve no purpose. It would be like designing a self-driving car with a propensity to crash into walls at high speed. A sort of built-in suicide instinct.

Clarke speculated that the will to self preservation is an emergent quality of sentience. Knowing that you exist makes you want to continue to exist. That was one of the themes of his movie "2001." Maybe he was right about that, in which case I am wrong.