JulianBianchi Member
  • Member since Jun 3rd 2016

Posts by JulianBianchi

    It is very interesting that Scientific Reports accepted to publish a so controversial paper.

    Of course the critical point is how D-D->He fusion can be catalyzed by neutral pions. Fukuhara assumes that neutral pions are coming from 2 gammas "produced by emission of excited electrons derived from the [metal] atoms". His theory is not new and known by cold fusion researchers with articles published at the end of the 1990's and beginning of the 2000's. See for example his paper Neutral pion-catalyzed fusion in palladium lattice, Fus Sci Tech, 2003, freely available on researchgate, in which he tries to find an explanation for the formation of He in F&P type experiments.

    The main criticism is that the creation of neutral pions would require an energy of 135MeV/c2, hardly a low energy reaction anymore. Therefore I doubt that the mainstream will change the conventional view that cold fusion is impossible. That said, the publication of this new article remains excellent news for the LENR community because it emphasises that the conditions that exist in the earth's inner core are similar to the conditions LENR researchers have in their labs (a lattice of metal with the presence of H or D at high pressure - even though not at GPa levels), and that in both cases a theory remains to be developed to explain the presence of He and the heat balance.

    A question as a non-expert in neutron detection. Can a muon signal (as Holmlid is detecting) be in some cases mistaken for a neutron signal, especially when muons are not expected? I guess this would not be the case with a cloud chamber, but what about when a cloud chamber is not used?

    My guess is that the slower muons could undergo capture in the detection material, giving rise to an elusive neutron-like signal. I could be wrong, however.

    This is an excellent question. I have started a series of experiments in which a cloud chamber will sit next to a few neutron detectors. Hope this will give some hints.

    As gameover pointed out, I believe LENR and hot fusion need to be evaluated as separate phenomenon. As for neutron production, if neutrons are made, He4 can not be the nuclear product because neutrons are not available when He is made.

    Neutrons are easy to make simply by subjecting a material containing D to sudden shock. Simply hitting LiD with a hammer will make neutrons. This is well known and proves nothing about LENR. However, in all cases, the total flux is trivial and has no application.

    As for production of neutrons using TiD, this material was studied extensively 25 years ago. Why are valuable resources being wasted on an effect that is already known and understood? If people want to make a contribution, they need to actually read the literature and talk to people who have some understanding of the phenomenon rather than simply speculate.

    With all due respect, your post shows an arrogance that does no good to the LENR community.

    If "the effect is already known and understood", then one must know:
    - what is the underlying nuclear process
    - what are the energy levels of the neutrons
    - why neutrons are also observed in experiments involving H and not D

    I read all articles you mentioned, and way more (thank you Jed), and I was not able to find answers to the above questions. It is not a waste of valuable resources to find answers to these questions. On the contrary, it is my opinion that a good understanding of any radiation signatures will bring LENR out of the cage it is trapped today.

    I also find the distinction "LENR->no neutron" vs "thermonuclear fusion->neutrons" restrictive, not saying simplistic. In practice the detection of neutrons in a system running at low temperature is strong evidence that it is possible to access the energy levels of the strong interaction using "low energy" triggers. Putting aside any health hazard, the detection of neutrons is as good evidence of LENR as the detection of He.

    Current melodrama is entertaining however the main losers are not Rossi nor IH but all of us who would like to see LENR become a reality. Good for the sales of pop-corn, bad for a true energy revolution.

    Nevertheless, I still see a ray of hope in all this mess. The fundamental question remains whether the E-cat is capable to deliver a COP high enough to further develop the technology. Not necessarily the extravagant performance claimed by Rossi. Let's forget about claims of COP>50 and outputs >1MW, there is enough indirect evidence to infer that such values do only exist in Planet Rossi. To design a test on a phase change was a terrible idea and I don't see why we should not trust someone like Jed Rothwell about this. Also, I have reservations (to say the least) that a consumer requiring 1MW to manufacture real products has ever existed. Some may see extenuating circumstances in the reluctance of IH to perform the 1MW test, as shown by the delay in finding a real customer, however my feeling is that Rossi is living in a lie and is clinging to it.

    This does not say however that the E-Cat technology is worthless. We may see light at the end of the tunnel. Simply because the guaranteed performance test required the IN and OUT temperature to be measured and the values of 60 and 100°C have been mentioned. I can't imagine that the ERV screwed up something as easy as the measurement of a temperature of 60°C. And since we don't have any evidence that Penon is a fraud, this means a COP higher than 3. A COP of 3 without any phase change. Just plain water heating. A COP of 3 in the KW range is already enough for a true energy revolution. At least on planet Earth.

    As foolish as it may sound, my personal opinion is that Rossi may be a fraud and at the same time have the goods. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. A genius and a mountebank. An inventor and a megalomaniac. Some may say they go hand in hand. Kudos to Rossi for having pioneered nanopowder and LiAlH4. But shame on him to continuously avoid an elementary application of the scientific method.

    Does he truly believe that 1MW were delivered? Was he greedy enough to exaggerate the claims? Probably we will never know. I'm nevertheless confident that we will know if the COP was or was not higher than 3. Therefore yes still a ray of hope in all this mess.

    Michio Kaku speaks with a lot of charisma but is out of touch with most of particle physics. His personal contribution to string field theory is fine but not up to the level of Mandelstam, Venziano, Schwarz, Green, Yoneya and Scherk (Kaku's work is not even mentioned in Schwarz's seminal review of string theory...). Kaku left active research quite young, from the time I started my PhD. He has a tendency to exaggerate some things about physics for the sake of getting more attention and publicity (read $$$, nice haircut à la Einstein isn't it?).
    In comparison, his theory of human teleportation, his speculations on the inflaton scalar field, his spacetime theory of consciousness, etc... have a much more fragile and tendentious basis than CF/LENR. For this yes Michio Kaku can be viewed as an idiot.

    I had something written to put here, but the length restriction kept me from placing it. So I did copy the end. However, as I worked on it to finish it up, more ideas came to me. and. ... discretion is the better part of valor. I'm going to share this with Storms first. At the end of what I was going to write was:

    The New Fire. You saw it here first.

    This much I will say: study Storms recent work. The thinking was based on it.

    I'm sure the LENR community would appreciate to know more about your view of Storms' recent work. No need to be secretive. Thank you.

    when the concentration of hydrogen increases, the property of the electron in the metal nanoparticle further changes; and a mass of the electron becomes a large value.

    Using the word "mass" unqualified is unfortunate because the word on its own is usually be taken to mean invariant mass. Normally, physicists follow Einstein's convention when discussing the dependence of the mass of a particle upon its energy content. As a general rule the mass of the electron means invariant mass and the term relativistic mass is used when the mass increases with kinetic energy.

    Independently of this regrettable reference, to suggest that the mass of the electron can change - by someone as influential as Mizuno - is disastrous for the LENR field. Such a controversial statement should be supported by some evidence. The same applies to other theories such as Piantelli's one of H- anions entering the electronic structure of Ni atoms. More generally, hypotheses written in scientific articles should prevail over the extraordinary claims made in LENR patents.