Posts by Hermes

    Happy Grappa! That's close for me...

    Ha ha. I hate grappa myself, but I see it is on the menu!!

    See http://www.iscmns.org/work12/MenuTigli.pdf

    And I counted 15 dishes to eat! And this is not even the banquet!! These Italians certainly know how to eat and drink!


    For the more technically inclined, an initial detailed program with titles and abstracts can be found at

    http://www.iscmns.org/work12/program.htm

    Once Rossi found out that IH was funding a bunch of other LENR outfits, and had no obligations to keep his secrets confidential (as per the contract), Rossi was probably shocked and outraged.

    Why should IH not fund other "outfits"?

    What confidential secrets did IH reveal?

    All the IP was supposed to have been transferred exclusively to IH who could do what they liked with it in the designated territories. If Rossi was maintaining technical secrets, then he probably invalidates the patents.

    Krivit is not a scientist and maybe he doesn't understand that temperature is a measure of energy whereas voltage determines power. He's comparing apples with oranges. If you heat something more slowly (by reducing the heater voltage) then the temperature can still continue to increase. A further complexity is loading , if you reduce the voltage, the rate of loading will decrease and indeed may become negative. As loading can be endothermic, this may appear as unexpected heat.


    Whether or not any of this was the case in the F & P experiment is another matter. :) 

    I have frequently been challenged to substantiate my claim that Darden et al. basically defrauded investors

    So why don't you attempt to substantiate? All you have done is to claim without any evidence that investors were not informed. If investors were defrauded, why are they not suing Darden et al.?

    No wonder readers are having difficulty understanding this paper! Lots of wild conjecture and little experimental evidence in support.


    But let's look at the details. Under the heading "Experiment" they write, "most stable nucleon have a ground state of 0+and all seen receiver nucleons are of this state"!? Evidently they are unaware that even/even nuclei are more stable than their neighbours and ALL have a spin of zero.


    6He is proposed to be a product. If this is so, why has its intense beta radio-activity not been observed? Why not design experiments to test conjectures and actually look for predicted effects?


    The proposal that neutron transfers might explain CMNS is hardly new, but the authors make no reference to the previous work Hagelstein's neutron hopping, Bazhutov's Erzions, and Fisher's Poly-neutrons, Collis' Exotic Neutral Particles. Fisher in particular, identified 64Ni as a neutron pair donor. This would neatly side-step the problem of why no radio-active 59Ni is observed.


    It is all very well proposing that bound protons are somehow transmuting 27Al to stable 28Si. But why don't we see radio-active 28Al from neutron transfers? What about all the other reactor components including the resistor, container etc.? Why are they not transmuted too?


    And missing from all the proposed reactions is any role for hydrogen. What then is its role? At least some discussion of the issues might be in order!

    But try selling a water heater with Nickel powder and Lithium inside it, and there's a good chance you're infringing the patent...

    The idea of using lithium came from Focardi who in turn got it from Piantelli. Piantelli was the inventor. Anyone else claiming to patent technology knowing that it was someone else's IP may find himself in trouble.

    Perhaps you misunderstand. As Fleischmann said, heat is the principal signature of the reaction. If there is no heat, then the cold fusion reaction did not occur

    Fleischmann was not a nuclear scientist and he never identified the reaction, so to claim that the principal signature is heat is mere conjecture. The fact is, and I think this is quite undisputed, that nuclear measurements can be up to a trillion times more sensitive than crude calorimetry. So it is a fallacy to claim that "the cold fusion reaction didn't occur" merely because you weren't using the appropriate instruments.

    which particular scientific questions do you think we should be answering- there is a huge choice?

    I answered this already:-

    Experimental measurements will identify the mass, charge, energy, intensities, decay rates of LENR products.

    Once we know fuels and products it should be easy enough to identify reactions. Once we identify reactions, we can design reactors.

    And what kind of armchair would you be sitting in while you did that?

    A lab stool. It never ceases to amaze me that non scientists, who have never published a LENR paper in their lives, think they know what the scientific method is, and that trying out random changes counts as exploration. One professor used the analogy of a drunkard trying to turn on the light switch by hitting his head on the wall. Rarely he finds the approximate spot but the light just flickers on briefly.


    Obsessive monitoring so called excess heat is an example of this pathological attitude to science. If you seriously want to investigate what you believe to be a nuclear phenomenon then you need nuclear measurements. A lot of garage researchers can't afford that or they don't have the expertise. Fine. But I was commenting on what to do with millions in research funding.


    Alan you seem to confuse theories galore, with scientific experiment. Yes of course there are far too many crack pot theories. It will be experiment that will root them out. Experimental measurements will identify the mass, charge, energy, intensities, decay rates of LENR products. Ask yourself why so few have done this? How is it possible that the principle fuels have NEVER been identified experimentally? My answer is that researchers have been far too busy chasing the red herring of personal glory and excess heat. This is why after 28 years

    we are stuck with an unknown and unexplored continent, LENR Land

    More of the same failed policies are not going to work. Leave obsession with excess heat to the LENR advocates and other non scientists. Real scientific exploration is not the result of interminable and inconclusive replications, but by implementing novel experiments to answer novel scientific questions.

    if I had the 10 million that Rossi was given, I wouldspread about 8M around to about 4 researchers allocated over about 4 years with thepurpose of developing something that can be engineered to levels above 100 W oror better to 1k

    If there's one lesson we have learned over the last 28 years, it is that developing excess heat producing reactors without any attempt to understand the underlying processes producing that heat, is hugely unproductive and time wasting. Science proceeds by devising experiments to test hypotheses. Little progress has been made, or will be made by randomly changing parameters or scaling up a device. The top priority should be elucidating the basic science not blindly racing towards an improbable commercial reactor. Once we understand the basic science (e.g. the reactions responsible) it will be obvious how to engineer safe reliable working devices.

    Many LENR mechanisms may not indeed involve the strong interaction or even fusion - but just the experiment above linked is the pure fusion by its products Li6 + D —> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV.

    If D can approach Li, then why not 2 Ds which have a lower mutual Coulomb barrier and lower reduced mass? The above reaction IS a strong interaction (as there is no electromagnetic transition, and isospin is conserved).

    Here we go again, confusing science with invention. AR is not a scientist, he is an inventor looking to cash in on his time and effort inventing something remarkable.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. AR has invented almost nothing original - he has merely taken Piantelli's technology via Focardi and applied it (with scale up). Because he doesn't understand the science, he is unable to apply it effectively and reliably. AR is looking to "cash in" on the work of others without creating any new IP himself which others can use. The remarkable things about AR's technology were the absurd claims made and the extraordinary delays before people realized!


    My point, which you have ignored, was to show why people believe in the Ni/H system without having coinfidence in Rossi. Any distinction between science and invention is irrelevant.

    most people here - regardless of their opinion of Rossi - believe that at least some version of the e-cat actually does produce excess energy. Can anyone explain why they think so?

    That's easy to answer. Since the early 90s peer reviewed papers have claimed anomalous heat in the Ni/H system. In contrast, Rossi doesn't have a single peer reviewed paper to his name and has not permitted any successful independent validation the Ecat technology.

    Once you involve muons into cold fusion mechanism, you should also explain, how the muons could form there.

    Not only. Experimentally (and theoretically) we know muon catalyzed fusion produces hot fusion products. So if we don't observe hot fusion products at appropriate rates we know muons are not involved. The same goes for any other exotic negatively charged catalysts. :)

    a possible low-energy fission reaction in which 204Pb fissioned into 7Li and 197Au (204Pb → 7Li + 197Au).

    Alas this "fission" reaction is endothermic (by 8.875 MeV). It also violates parity conservation. If you want to make gold this is probably not the way to go!

    I disagree. It is possible that the reaction is so fast that melting happens later...

    Can you cite some evidence for such a conjecture? Just how fast would your reactions have to be? As I have already explained it takes at least tens of thousands of nuclear reactions to make a visible molten hot spot. How are these reactions all synchronized when there isn't enough room in a nano crack (according to Storms) to fit so much deuterium fuel? Just how would an ordered state like a Hydroton form if there had just been a nuclear reaction in the neighborhood raising the local temperature? Don't the laws of thermodynamics apply?

    Just wanted to remind you that a cubic nanoparticle of 40nm contains only about 4 mio Ni atoms. Most experimenters use smaller particles and not cubic ones...

    The point is not that you can get anomalies without molten hotspots, but the contrary namely that heat production must be created in molten hotspots! Is this concept so hard to grasp? It implies that the NAE if any, is not a special physical nor chemical structure which could be destroyed by melting. It is irrelevant to this argument what most experimenters do or how nano-particles behave. I challenge anyone to come up with an alternative explanation.

    The energy of one alpha 23.6MeV particle is enough to create a hotspot and a new cavity.

    24 MeV could melt some 10 million atoms (assuming no heat loss), far too few to cause any visible hot spot. I repeat, you need tens of thousands of reactions, all occurring in the same vicinity to cause visible hot spots. Any model needs to take this into account.

    It is possible that the reaction is so fast that melting happens later...

    The speed of individual nuclear reactions is not relevant because you need tens of thousands of reactions just to create a microscopic hot spot. The conclusion is obvious: there can be a major source of heat in molten metal.

    Is it unreasonable to assume that when a nanocrack gets hot enough it will melt the metal around it?

    Yes. First it would melt and remove the source of heat. But if the source of heat could survive melting you would and we do see melted hot spots, usually circular in shape suggesting that the heat source is near the centre. This is what we observe. Consequently we can conclude that the site of heat production is localized, but it is NOT a chemical or physical structure that would be destroyed my melting. I'd be happy to hear any alternative explanations. (N.B. The fact that most of the heat does not cause melting is irrelevant.)

    Cracks don't survive molten metal, that is normal,

    Good. Now how do you explain the observation of approximately circular hot spots where metal has melted? Hint: Jacques Ruer has shown that it takes at least tens of thousands of localized nuclear reactions to create a molten hot spot.

    It's important to realize, that nanocracks of Eduard Storms are merely

    These nano-cracks are conjectured to exist, and probably we would not disagree. But they exist everywhere not just on a metal surface. We know that solid palladium cubes becoms spheres whgen loaded / del;oaded a dozen or so times. Stress which produces cracks must exist in the bulk too. But as not much helium cannot be released from the bulk we kbow that cracks are not the source of helium.