Posts by Eric Walker

    I worry that this might be a little bit of curve fitting together with wishful thinking to make the spin come out to 1/2, especially the sea quark/gluon contribution. (And on inspection I note that the bars for the individual contributions do not cleanly add up to the total, so there's something subtle going on in the graphs.) Has anyone read the paper and gotten a sense of whether this is the case or not?

    From conspiracy theorist to conspiracy theorist, your theory makes no sense, while mine merely describes standard practices from industrial/financial interests when the technologies they profit upon, are threatened by a scientific breakthrough that will usher in a new paradigm and sweeping technological changes.

    Paradigmnoia is sticking to concrete details, some of which he himself has investigated empirically. You keep yourself limited to vague generalizations. I appreciate that the difference in persuasiveness in these two approaches may not be apparent to you. But I think you and others would benefit from understanding how wide is the chasm between them. Arguments addressing concrete details and based on empirical investigations are infinitely more persuasive than vague generalizations. Paradigmnoia is not pushing a theory that makes no sense — he's discussing concrete details that, taken individually, make a lot of sense.

    Plus an extended 30 day trial with some consideration of the mass of fuel expended

    I'm having a hard time going along with the possibility that the mass of the fuel would measurably change for a system heated slightly by small amounts of transmutations over a 30 day period. If there were enough transmutations happening to result in a significant mass difference, there would have been dangerous amounts of power, even if for the sake of argument you rule out the usual forms of penetrating radiation.

    This is only a hunch, but I've done this kind calculation in the past. It is hard to wrap one's head around the amount of energy released by a nuclear reaction.

    I think if I have a minor objection to ITER NIF in the context of LENR, it is something along these lines:

    • I don't get the sense that dropping a series of hohlraums into an intense laser field will ever provide a practical path to power generation (echoing Jed's point 1). If at some point they discover something valuable from that research, they'll still need to scrap the whole setup and try something new, almost from scratch. Just my hunch/intuition.
    • It seems to me that if something as speculative as ITER NIF is awarded years and decades of funding, with what amounts to a blank check, an amount that is orders of magnitude less could profitably be invested in exploring the empirical claims (in contrast to theoretical ones) pertaining to LENR, in the event that there is something there. (In my view a non-trivial possibility.) If there is something shown to be there, it is much more easy to envision a viable engineering path to a practical energy source than ITER NIF, which (per the previous point) will need to be reworked even if something comes out of it.

    ETA: Meant NIF (not directly pertinent to this thread) rather than ITER.

    Aabout pilot wave, I'm told it is incompatible with the experiment around Bell inequality which rule out hidden variable "excuses" in quantum physics.

    I think it's more subtle than this. According to Wikipedia, Bell had discovered Bohm's work (and presumably liked it), and he wondered whether the explicit non-locality of the de Broglie–Bohm theory could be removed. That inspired Bell's famous inequality. The experiments looking into Bell's inequality are believed to rule out "local hidden variables." That was not the answer Bell was hoping for, as I understand the story. But since the de Broglie–Bohm theory was already non-local, the experimental support for Bell's inequality did not rule out the theory. I believe the current understanding in physics is that the math for both traditional quantum mechanics and the pilot wave theory produce the same predictions in most cases and diverge in only a few corner cases for which there are currently no experiments to decide between the two approaches, making them indistinguishable in practice.

    Take this description with a big grain of salt. Perhaps someone else can better elucidate this matter.

    Fine, then I have no idea why me356 is suddenly being so secretive.

    At no point has me356 been something other than secretive. From early on he claimed that he was unsure he wanted to release his potentially dangerous technology into the world. When MFMP visited him, he took special steps to make it difficult to know what was happening inside his device. The only difference in recent months is in the amount of the unsubstantiated claims he has been making. Early on he made many unverifiable claims. Now he makes only a few. I think this is far better. That is not more secretive. That is making fewer remarkable and amazing claims that people have no way to verify.

    Unless he does this, he will not convince people or make any money.

    I wish that were the case! I wish that no one who made empty claims got a dime until they put up. But we've learned from different examples that where there are people with money, there are people with money who will give it away on the basis of empty claims. (More immediately relevant to this forum: another reason for asking for evidence for claims is to raise the level discussion and make it more rigorous than conjectures to the effect that "me356 or Rossi used lithium in this special way and saw such and such, so we can conclude that the right way to do things is to use lithium in this special way." We are starting from a conversation that is at a very basic level and should do our part to help educate people.)

    I hope others can stop lambasting or chastising me356 over the issue.

    Respectfully, it is not lambasting someone to say, "You claimed to be seeing radiation where none is expected. That's pretty remarkable. Please provide evidence for your remarkable claim." And when weak excuses are provided for not doing so, it is not lambasting someone to say, "The reason you give for not supporting your claim with evidence is a weak one that mischaracterizes people's willingness to accept rigorous evidence."

    Eric Walkerin your opinion, what is reasonable amount of time and inventor should be spending replying to individual queries in proportion to the time spend advancing tech to the commercial level?

    Please provide at least one example where inventor of something significant were as open as you want them to be. I believe everybody was doing bare minimum of public information release to ensure steady flow of financing to support their research.

    Max Nozin , I don't ask that inventors give away trade secrets. I ask only that people that make claims in public venues back them up with solid evidence. And if evidence is produced that is not solid, perhaps because there's some flaw or potential flaw in the methodology, if the inventor wishes to persist in making the claim I hope they they will iterate on their approach and deal with the methodological flaw.

    If an inventor does not wish to substantiate a claim made in a public venue such as this one, especially a claim that could easily be verified, they should not make the claim. There are many startups that operate in stealth mode that are very secret about what they do. If an inventor wishes to make big claims in a public venue without being willing to substantiate them, they should not be surprised if this is called out. There is money that funders are willing to part with, and I would like those potential funders to be adequately informed as to the considerations at play before pursuing an opportunity with someone making big claims. LENR Forum is not an advertising board.

    Take any inventor in another field that has something significant. They will generally either keep quiet about it while they develop their product, or they will allow people to take a look at it, or they will have it examined by a well-established laboratory and reported on, or they will be open to criticism for potentially false advertising.

    You are saying that evidence can be radiation. I can produce few kinds of strong radiation with no excess heat or measurable transmutation. You can produce X-rays pretty easily.

    It is also relatively easy to put a radioactive source shielded by moving absorber to fake that something is happening inside.

    If this is true, you have at your disposal everything you need to produce fairly convincing evidence of a subset of your claims. If you decide to make use of this opportunity to give some substance to such claims, which you have been willing to voice publicly and repeatedly, this is an option at your disposal. Whether your claims continue to remain unsubstantiated is your choice alone. It is not, for example, a function of an overly-skeptical audience that cannot be persuaded of anything.

    There are many people with similar attitude like yours. They can't be convinced by a papers, since there will be always some kind of a "flaw".

    I think you misread my attitude. I am willing to take a paper seriously that does rigorous controls and is carried out by people with recognized expertise in the measurements that are being made. There are a number of LENR papers that I take seriously, for example. I do not necessarily consider them proof positive, but very interesting nonetheless. Ironclad proof is not something I require.

    Confirmed transmutations are probably of the highest value since it is immediately clear the process is nuclear.

    Possible transmutations can generally be open to question about contamination, and your SEM images do not rule out contamination, or even constrain the source of whatever is in the images to something your device is doing. These are interesting and suggestive images, if someone with the proper qualifications can interpret them for us. But not proof by any means.

    Earlier you remarked that you sometimes see evidence of weak radiation. If properly examined and controlled, this kind of evidence would make it clear that something at the nuclear level is going on in your device.

    It is obviously no good to wave away rigorous testing with an excuse such as "You are served with undeniable facts. But as you can see, even this is not enough for normal people," which suggests that there has been rigorous testing that has borne out your claims, which there has not been, at least not made publicly available, or that people would not be satisfied with positive results coming out of rigorous testing, when some of them would.

    I predict that there will be an element of willful shoddiness to the upcoming QuarkX demo, going beyond the minimum needed to make it hard or impossible to verify any claims that are made. These demos seem to have become a game for Rossi, perhaps to see how people react.

    It's been a while since I've read the paper, but I share your pessimism that Simakin and Shafeev have identified the missing parameter. But my own bias in this case is towards something happening with electron screening, which is broadly related to their suggestion.

    The best calculations of the alpha decay rate that I am aware of can diverge from the experimental rate by up to two orders of magnitude (or more?). If one steps back, one can allow that a model is still decent despite the lack of precision, given the enormous range in alpha decay rates. But my assumption is that there are one or more additional parameters at play that are not being incorporated into calculations. This opens up the possibility of significant variation in the experimental value under the right (unknown) circumstances. The Simakin and Shafeev study, if correct, provides evidence for this possibility.

    Back to the basics of nuclear decay:

    Julian, THH's point was germane and correct: what you're describing is the electromagnetic decay mode for the dd resonance obtained in dd beam collisions. But the strong decays, to 3He + n and t + p, predominate by many orders of magnitude. At L=0, the 4He* has strong decay pathways available to it.

    - therefore the usual hot fusion branches are forbidden.

    - with no parity change, electric dipole radiation is forbidden.

    - therefore the usual hot fusion branches are forbidden.

    Electromagnetic decay is forbidden in certain parity and angular momentum states. But you must explain why strong decays are forbidden by certain angular momentum and parity states.

    For the production of helium in a PdD electrolytic cell, here are some specific reactions:

    e- + 190Pt → e- + 4He + 186Os + 3252 keV (in nature, α, →α)

    e- + 192Pt → e- + 4He + 188Os + 2422 keV (in nature, α)

    e- + 194Pt → e- + 4He + 190Os + 1522 keV (in nature, α)

    e- + 195Pt → e- + 4He + 191Os + 1176 keV (α, →β-)

    e- + 198Pt → 2·e- + 2·ν + 198Hg + 1049 keV

    e- + 196Pt → e- + 4He + 192Os + 812 keV (in nature, α)

    e- + 198Pt → e- + 4He + 194Os + 107 keV (α, →β-)

    There will be extreme differences in the cross sections for these decays, and the relative amount of the precursor isotope will vary greatly, so these reactions are merely a shortlist. Presumably the Os and Hg daughters would potentially be susceptible to the same process.

    "e-" is not a precursor or daughter, but just shorthand to note that there's something going on with electron screening.

    Right now we mostly clamp down on spam, uncivil behavior, and certain topics which are known from experience to lead to weeks of futile debate, such as politics, religion and global warming. Apart from these simple and obvious measures, we largely try to stay out of the job of moderating content. So the quality of the posts is highly variable.

    If there is a forum member whose posts are distracting for one reason or another, I recommend blocking the user. You will still be able to see his posts by clicking on them.

    So, that is fine, but it is not an alternative unless you propose the specific (nuclear) non-fusion reaction that you propose is happening? The same applies to Eric - though I realise he has a specific reaction in mind.

    Just to clarify my thinking, my working hypothesis is that there's the following mix going on in the PdD case (although not necessarily other cases):

    • Induced fission of heavy nuclei into lighter nuclei through some mechanism, possibly involving electron screening, yielding the bulk of the measurable heat
    • Induced decay of alpha emitters and potential alpha emitters, not producing much heat but yielding measurable helium
    • Beta decay of short-lived beta emitters which are daughters of the preceding two processes that are somewhat too far from the line of stability

    So although I have a mechanism vaguely in mind and have been tossing around different ideas with people who are more knowledgeable about the mechanics of the nuclear interactions, I have few specific reactions in mind (although there is one that falls under the second bullet point involving platinum, which is generally present in electrolytic experiments as the anode).

    From the blog post:


    A lot of these collective-action theories are futile for a simple reason. There’s an important constraint on collective effects modifying the branching ratio, and it’s the following inequality:

    d < tc (1)

    where d is the distance of a participating particle from reaction center, t is the duration of the interaction, and c is the speed of light.

    I feel like this argument is accessible and straightforward. Consider the hypothetical case of a dd compound nucleus following upon fusion resulting from some heretofore unknown mechanism of overcoming the Coulomb barrier. The most likely decays of the unstable dd resonance are via the extremely fast-acting strong interaction, to t + p or 3He + n. In order for a collective dispersal mechanism to suppress these branches, it must work before these decays can happen. But in collective dispersal theories, the other agents purportedly influencing the decay of the dd resonance might as well be light years away from it. Experimental physics knows of no physical influence that can travel faster than the speed of light, and something traveling the speed of light will not get far from the unstable resonance before the whole process is over.

    I have made this argument myself on several occasions. It is not clear to me what persuades Peter Hagelstein that this not a huge issue with his proposal.

    There is another line of reasoning that evades this problem: the so-called "BOLEP," or "burst of low-energy photons," that Akito Takashi proposes. To me that sounds like fishing for anything to get rid of the branching ratio problem. But he seems to know his mathematical physics. Also like Hagelstein, he seems to view the world solely from a mathematical perspective.

    So: who agrees with it? Who disagrees (and if so what is the loophole). Who reckons their favourite fusion happens theory avoids it?

    My favorite LENR fusion theory avoids this problem because I don't think fusion is occurring. :)