Posts by Hermes

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

that report by Bush and Eagleton, a conference paper, claims correlation of radiation and excess heat, but, in fact, a single coincidence does not establish correlation.

I agree. What it does establish there was a significant production of gammas of unknown energy which decayed over time. This is far better evidence than any meausurement of stable helium of a nuclear phenomenon.

This is a cheap experiment to repeat, and if properly instrumented would give direct information regarding the underlying gamma emitter(s). This in turn would probably allow identification of the reaction(s).

In a previous post I mentioned I found 3 issues with the Bush & Eagleton paper. The first was that the authors appeared to be unaware that natural rubidium is radio-active! A gamma measurement at least should have been made. My initial feelings were to ignore the paper without further consideration. But subsequently I looked up the 87Rb with NUDAT and found that there are no gammas accompanying the beta decay. So I had been wrong.

Lomax my remark on your likes is not offensive, at least not intended to be. Is it not the case you remain unconvinced about the light hydrogen anomalies notwithstanding countless independent verifications in the literature (far more than Q/4He results)? The problem as I see it, is that your objectives are sociological to demonstrate some historical claim in order to convince people. This is not science which, in contrast attempts to understand a phenomenon. This is why it is perfectly appropriate to speak of likes / dislikes. So long as the science is ignored we shall never make progress. Maybe you will tell us that we will never have the resources to do the right science unless we convince the establishment. And I answer why not do good science, cheaply, AND convince the establishment with clear nuclear evidence at the same time?

Back in 1927 Friedrich Paneth and Kurt Peters claimed helium nucleosynthesis from hydrogen, but they later retracted the result and suggested that the measured helium was from the environment. Such possible artifacts (and other issues) continue to cast suspicion on helium measurements today. In contrast massive radio-activity is incontrovertible evidence of a nuclear source. I cannot explain this any more clearly! Dismissing this result as an isolated conference paper without good reason seems bizarre. But maybe you have a good reason, (as I thought I did). If so, what is it?

Quote from Eric Walker

I also like Hermes's suggestion of looking for radiation (and very short-lived radioactivity) when a theory predicts it. Do you not think that experiments along these lines could potentially be tightened up enough to show something interesting? I will caution that someone with strong opinions might stomp in here at this point and say something definitive like, "there is no radioactivity in LENR apart from occasional, minute levels of tritium, and that's the way it is."

Thanks Eric! On another thread I noted:-

Quote from Hermes

Bush R., Eagleton R. Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells With Light Water Rubidium Salt Electrolytes, Proc. ICCF4 3, (1993), p 27 lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceedingb.pdf .

So massive radio-activity was found. When I first read this paper I saw what appeared to me to be 3 issues, but now I am much more sympathetic. I've changed my mind. I wonder what other people think? What theories predict this result and why?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Thus to my understanding classical LENR is fully contained in a close NAE which confines products and radiation.

LENR is not magic. It has to be consistent with the laws of physics. You can't just wave your hands and say we only get helium when deuterons get sufficiently close to each other. Hot or cold, they will produce standard hot fusion products. This is what we observe with muon catalysed fusion too. If we get helium and we don't get neutrons and tritium then there must be another mechanism woirking which explains why. Please don't call it hot fusion.

Quote from IH Fanboy

As I have mentioned before, preparation of the Ni (rather than Pt)
sponges requires heating a mixture of 50% caustic solution and Ni/Al
alloy to leach out the aluminium and leave the Ni sponge. Depending on
the type of sponge (fine powder or honeycomb chunks) the mixture
requires heating to 90C and maintaining for many hours. Some of the
"multiple boil" processes will require repeating this procedure.

Additionally, from what is known, the heat is also used to boil down the aluminate residue solution to make disposal easier.

Display More

Unfortunately 50% caustic soda boils at a temperature well above 100 C so Rossi's device would be useless. The same is true for the aluminiumate residue. Worse still, the reaction is very exothermic! No heat would be consumed, but extra chemical heat would be produced (as well as hydrogen gas).

Quote from MrSelfSustain

The question as to the destination of the heat produced has been answered -- an endothermic chemical process.

Let's examine this possibility. First of all, if the conjectured process is spontaneous, it would get cold spontaneously. For example, the evaporation of liquid air. You wouldn't bother to apply expensive heat to do this. So it is reasonable to suppose that the endothermic reaction is not spontaneous at room temperature but it is around 100 C. So the reaction must be close to equilibrium. As it absorbs considerable enthalpy, there must be a corresponding very large increase in entropy (almost certainly a phase change). The evaporation of water might be a possible candidate except for the difficulty of disposing of the very visible steam (36 tons per day). I suggest no process fits the facts.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Sono-fusion is LENR, albeit the underlaying process is hot-fusion!!!

If the underlying process is hot-fusion why wasn't Roger Stringham killed by the neutrons? Maybe it's a quite different process.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

This is bizarre. Heat/helium is only asserted and found in deuterium experiments, not hydrogen.

The bizarre part is that nobody attempts to measure helium in light hydrogen systems. If you close your eyes you won't see anything of course. If you don't carry out obvious control experiments with light hydrogen then one wonders why. All these Q/4He experiments suggest the researchers are simply trying to verify only their pre-conceived ideas, so it's not surprising this is the result they find. This is not a proper way to do science.

Quote from THHuxley

None of the He experiments, individually, demonstrate a direct He causal link with excess heat.

I agree. There is a weak correlation. In some cases that correlation is also correlated in time. This is why I think it such a waste to pursue such inconclusive speculation. Even if there existed some deuterium reaction which created helium, it is unlikely to be significant in light hydrogen systems. And in the event you believe in some form of fusion, then surely the proton, with its reduced mass is going to dominate ALL possible fusion reactions! If 23.8 MeV is expected, it is expected only by non scientists!

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

The lack of radiation at significant levels is a well-established characteristic of LENR. This has been confused by reports of radiation at very low levels.

Do you have any evidence for this or is it just wishful thinking? Oh! Forgive me! Is citing "wishful" thinking an appalling ad hominem attack? Or is it as Eric Walker said, just "calling a spade a spade".

Your pretence that there is a "lack of radiation at significant levels is a well-established characteristic of LENR" is contradicted by experimental evidence such as:-
Bush R., Eagleton R. Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells With Light Water Rubidium Salt Electrolytes, Proc. ICCF4 3, (1993), p 27 www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceedingb.pdf
Let's be quite clear, this was not at any "low level" as you imagine. On the contrary these workers demonstrated over 3 million counts per day (obviously many more actual events).

I appreciate Lomax that you don't like clear cut nuclear evidence from light hydrogen experiments. Perhaps you have or can find criticism of the experiment?

Quote from THHuxley

Well, one reason for doing this experiment properly would be

I suggest it is a waste of resources to replicate an experiments which have generally been done properly. Of course it's easy to pretend there are defects in individual experiments. But when ALL of them demonstrate that there is helium when there is excess heat then you must demonstrate that ALL of them are defective.

There's a good chance that any new experiment will also be defective (probably in minor details). It's all very well wishing for greater precision but unless you have concrete proposals to make at a reasonable cost, then this wishful think lacks any substance. Calorimetry is by its very nature imprecise when it comes to analysing multiple nuclear reactions. Whatever precise result is measured, whether 23.8 MeV or not, will add very little information to what we already know.

There is no such thing as an "expected" ratio. I challenge anyone to reference a theory which predicts this.

Quote from JedRothwell

The problem is, cold fusion does not produce radioactivity. So you are demanding the impossible.

But your own library denies this assertion!! What about Gozzi or Bush & Eagleton?

In conventional set-ups little or no radio-activity is detected. And usually attempts are not even made to detect it. Of course any viable theory must explain both the failure to detect radio-activity and the success when it is detected. I am not demanding the impossible but rather, suggesting the investigation of what others have already found. If that conflicts with LENR dogma, does it matter?

I think we need to be clear about one fundamental concept, and that is that ALL the technology in the Ecats was first discovered and developed by Francesco Piantelli. Rossi merely made use of lapsed patents and the secrets revealed by Sergio Focardi.

As an engineer Rossi has attempted to scale up this technology. On the other hand his lack of scientific laboratory and lack of scientific skills means that his version of the acquired technology usually doesn't work. Rossi knows this and it explains some of his ambiguous behavior.

Piantelli has shown beyond doubt that there is excess heat and that nuclear reactions are involved, (fast charged particles, neutrons). Let's focus on science and not on the claims of get rich quick entrepreneurs.

Quote from Alan Smith

Bianchini used a whole heap of different particle detection methods during early experiments at Bologna

Great! Did he write any paper? What particles did he try to detect?

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Doubts persist, obviously, they have been expressed many times over the 25 years since heat/helium was discovered. It's time to nail this, don't you think? Crush the tests.

I think it's time to choose an experiment where the conclusions are beyond reproach, where accuracy is not a relevant factor. Repeating the same errors of the distant past looks pathological to say the least.

Quote from THHuxley

Well, one reason for doing this experiment properly would be that people I'm aware of outside the LENR field who have looked at the existing data do not find it convincing.

You are missing the point. First of all the historic experiments were already/usually done "properly". By pretending they were not, without evidence, simply casts inappropriate doubt on the pioneers. I have explained in detail why many are not convinced by Heat/4He. Simply repeating previous measurements will not change their conclusions. It would be a major waste of resouces which the sector can ill afford.

It is difficult to explain to non scientists that the search for Nature's answers does not always coincide with the need to convince, to demonstrate and to entertain.

If people "outside the LENR field" find the production helium unconvincing then please explain how repetition would help? It will cost millions to repeat, yet still remain unconvincing. We already know that the Q/4He ratio is about 30-40 MeV. If that is not convincing why would exactly 23.8 MeV be more so? No theory predicts 23.8 MeV. Nobody expects it (except a few non scientists).

Quote from cschumacher

Radiation measurements of e-cats were examined several times in by an expert from Bologna University, David Bianchini, who found no radiation above background level. Following your logic, can we conclude there is no LENR in ecats?

You are surely aware that many nuclear reactions produce penetrating radiation at all. Some have been reported in the LENR literature. And some of those reported reactions are predicted by theory. And the same theory predicts heat but little penetrating radiation from Ni/H or Pd/D systems. I'm not talking about a few events slightly above background but millions of actual counts.

So Bianchini did not detect anything. What did he expect? Did he have some model to verify? Did he try to detect radiation inside the cell? Or did he limit himself to external gamma measurements? It's this sort of dubious experimentation that gives LENR a bad name.

If Rossi finds gammas, there will be all sorts of regulatory problems for commercialization. In fact at the January 2011 demonstration Rossi prevented Francesco Celani from making gamma measurements. Why did he do this? Do you think Rossi et al. really want to detect radiation?

BTW David Bianchini according to LinkedIn is an "Assegnista di ricerca presso Dipartimento di Medicina University of Bologna". Does that make him an expert?

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

A rigorously-done set of heat/helium determinations by more than one reputable laboratory, published in a major journal, will transform the field,

This has already been done and the field was not transformed. The reason is fairly obvious. In order to demonstrate a novel nuclear phenomenon to nuclear scientists you need to present nuclear evidence. The nuclear scientists expected such observations as tritium, nueutrons, gammas etc. This is what they are experts in evaluating. Helium and calorimetry may appear convincing to chemists.

Helium is a poor choice of product to investigate. Firstly it has not been possible to demonstrate any anomalous isotopic ratios (e.g. a nuclear effect). Secondly there is helium in the air (and everywhere) as a possible source of contamination. Thirdly these experiments are expensive.

Trying to demonstrate a particular Q/4He ratio is not a scientific approach. If you are only looking for one result sooner or later you will find it. Instead scientists should investigate with an open mind. They should try to prove themselves wrong.

So my advice would be to replicate experiments which produce radio-activity but instrument them properly so the products and reactions can be identified. It's all very well finding helium, but it is such a common product that we know nothing about its origin.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

So the first Plan B project I declared was to confirm the heat/helium ratio in the Fleischman-Pons Heat Effect with increased precision

If you already know that heat and helium are correlated,and this result had already been replicated several times, why would you waste resources on yet another useless and expensive replication? What possibl;e interest is there in increased precision? Are you trying to say that the historic measurements are not reliable? What possible scientific insight is gained?

Quote from Eric Walker

I will try to figure out why even in the case of alpha decay your code is producing a Gamow factor of between 2 and 9 less than that used behind the scenes in the HyperPhysics model.

I appreciate any critique! I don't recall exactly what the RMS error was when I made a least squares fit. I suspect it was about < 2 (orders of magnitude) against known alpha decays. I have no experience with the HyperPhysics model, but maybe you could compare it with experiment too.

I have discussed my model with other nuclkear physicists. Many seem to be quite unaware that Gamow theory can accurately predict the assymmetric fisssion of actinides! Others, perhaps better informed, approve saying this is exactly correct. My view is that both sides are right. The correct solution requires consderation not only of the barrier penetration probability, bur also the (binomial) probability that fission daughters materialize at all! I have not applied such corrections. Maybe we could write a paper?

Quote from sifferkoll

James Bass is found, playing soccer for the Johnson Matthey team in Royston, UK.

If this James Bass was playing soccer in England how is it possible that he was playing director of Engineering in Florida with a pathetically unrealistic visiting card? impersonation?