Posts by cam

@Eric Walker

Quote

Along these lines, one question I've had is where does the excess heat arise in a PdD electrolytic system?

You can read about excess heat only in Jed Rothwell's collections and in the various ICCF. Nothing about that exists in the ordinary nuclear data banks. Jed Rothwell's accurate list has nothing to do with Generally Accepted Science represented by EXFOR. They are two parallel worlds. As for me, I only rely on Exfor.
The first excitation function for dd I have found dates back to 1946, seventy years ago.

J.H.Manley, J.H.Coon, E.R.Graves
Cross section of D(d,n)3He reaction
Physical Review; Vol.70, p.101(A3) 1946

Is this the first paper on this interesting and useful nuclear reaction? I don't know.

@axil

Quote

Have you heard about electroweak unification?

Weak and electromagnetic force were separated after 10^-10 s after the big bang.
Do you think that internal conversion is ruled by electroweak force?

@Joshua Crude

Quote

It doesn't matter how many times you say it's not a conspiracy theory, it *is* a conspiracy theory. It's obvious the reason you are so reluctant to describe it in any detail is because the more you say about it, the more conspiratorial it appears.

Indeed.
Ascoli65:

Quote

Suppose for a moment that one entity hired Rossi.

Wouldn't that be a conspiracy? Ascoli65 may be a reductionist but he describes real conspiracies where Rossi occupies an important role. He says they are "machineries", but things don't change changing a word.

@Mary Yugo

Quote

We won't see neutrons or gamma rays, but we will see muons.

Sorry lady Yugo, I don't understand.
Where and when do you see muons?

@Eric Walker

Quote

I don't think the electrons would be mono-kinetic exactly.

I fully agree. Let me add that conversion electrons are ruled by the electromagnetic force, while beta decay is ruled by the weak force. They are completely different phenomena.

@Mary Yugo

Quote

most successful scientists, apart maybe from the most exotic cosmology and pure mathematics, are quite conversant with "pipes, probes... and vapor" as well as scientific method, controls and calibrations, theory of science and knowledge, principles of instrumentation, and much more.

Nuclear measurements are much more sensitive than calorimetry. You must consider that producing one joule of energy needs 6,24 exp 12 beta or alpha 1 MeV events. A nuclear measurement expert can detect very few particles in a second. Cold fusionists must face reproducibility problems and still insist on using calorimetric measurements. Detecting neutrons or gamma rays is very easy and doesn't require pipes, probes, wet or dry vapour. This is old, good, classical Technical Physics, very interesting and very useful, but not in cold fusion, where sensitivity matters and nuclear events are claimed.

@Eric Walker

Quote

In 1989, one of the reasons that scientists rejected the possibility of LENR ("cold fusion" back then) was that there were none of the expected gammas.

For the F&P reaction neutrons are the hallmark. No neutrons, no reaction. Looking for a few neutrons is easier than looking for millijoules. If you can measure heat easily in a F&P reactor, then you will be killed by neutrons soon.

@Jed Rothwell

Quote

You cannot expect progress in cold fusion without investing lots of research dollars.

Things were already settled on 1-4 May 1989 in Baltimore: incompetence and delusion, do you remember?

@Eric Walker, Hermes
Luckily the Forum puts the calorimetry aside and deals with nuclear matter. Enough with pipes, probes, dry or wet vapour. We are not plumbers but physicists and chemists.

@'Hermes

Quote

We need to look for different explanations for the absence of gammas. The obvious candidate is fragmentation.

Do you mean fission? Fission products are always beta/gamma emitters.

@Eric Walker

Quote

My understanding is that in regular fission, the daughters are often left in an excited state; or is this wrong?

Correct. Fission products are typically beta/gamma emitters.

@Eric Walker

Quote

But the excited states that normally produce them might relax via other channels, e.g., something akin to internal conversion, when taking place in an electron-rich environment.

A fraction of the gammas may be converted into monocinetic electrons. Internal conversion is not a problem, is it. You can see it as an internal photoelectric effect concerning a fraction of the gammas. Does it matter?

@Mary Yugo,
In this Forum much has been written about calorimetry; nothing about gamma radiation detection. Focardi reaction - the one reported in Rossi's first patent patent application - delivers prompt gammas, easily detectable.
Takahashi writes:
... an example is the wish of 64 Ni + p to 65Cu(g.s.) + Q without prompt (lethal) gamma-rays from the intermediate excited state 65Cu(Ex)*. Such a primitive mistake should be avoided in any nuclear reaction theory.
Any nuclear reaction delivers promt gammas, doesn't it.

@Ascoli65

Quote

There should be some other deep and diverse reasons, so that the most incredible myth in the LENR history got so many exceptional supporters and was so widely reported in some major media.

Where do you see exceptional supporters? The academic world of Germany and UK has always been uninterested in cold fusion. The same in Italy, but for the University of Bologna where Prof. Focardi influenced his environment for at least two decades. After his death the silence in Bologna is total and very impressive.
Supporters have not been so exceptional if not even one cold fusionist could be admitted in EXFOR. Sure, Jed Rothwell is a supporter, but he is a man of letters.

@Rothwell
While we are waiting for the answer of the Secretary of Defense in September or later, you could let us have some LENR that, in your opinion, are interesting for practical or theoretical purposes. I can plot their excitation functions for the followers of this Forum. Progress in scientific knowledge must be based on deep and severe knowledge of the Generally Accepted Science.
Thank you

@Rothwell

Quote

Krivit did not make any effort to measure temperatures or the flow rate.

No nuclear expert would have done it. Krivit was right. I myself wrote the article for the CICAP just a month later the test in Bologna, without considering the calorimetry or the water flow rate.
“A la guerre comme à la guerre” may be paraphrased “au nucléaire comme au nucléaire”.
You only need to look at the attached diagram.
You understand immediately that the reaction first suggested by Focardi is fantasy.
Anyway Krivit was subtle enough to understand the matter was slippery much sooner than many others. Praise where praise is due!

And anyway, no, I don't think he [Jed Rothwell] is gullible, not for sure on the matter we are talking to.
JR has been overthinking for five years before admitting:
2011, when Rossi came on the scene, he has caused more harm to cold fusion than the DoE, Nature magazine, and the other mainstream opponents combined.
He trashed the reputation of cold fusion.
Steve "snake" Krivit has been the smartest among the science jounalists involved in the Focardi/Levi/Rossi affair. Most of them have only been able to wait for good news.

Ascoli65, addressing to MaryYugo:

it is unfair, and probably not legit, calling someone a fraudster in public, unless there is a sentence of a judge.

I understand your position: Rossi is so much used to suing anybody crosses his road, that you are afraid of using direct words.
Instead of "scam" you can use a lighter expression such as "as nobody has never seen one of his reactors, one could doubt they exist". Same meaning, other words.

Quote

You don't expect your views to be too welcome in a Forum devoted to proving cold fusion

I don't think so. In this Forum people are sincerely devoted to science. I think that everybody is aware that nuclear science is collected in some important nuclear data base; the most important among them are surely BNL and IAEA I have recently quoted, but there are many others:

Japan Charged Particle Nuclear Reaction Data Group, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
Center of Nuclear Physics Data, Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia
China Nuclear Data Center, Beijing, China
OECD/NEA Nuclear Data Bank, Issy Les-Moulineaux, France
Nuclear Data Centre, Obninsk, Russia
KAERI Nuclear Data Evaluation Group, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Indian Compilation Group: BARC and others, India

All these data bases are accurately kept updated. In fact it is needless looking elsewhere for getting information on a particular nuclear reaction.
Queries are easy for those who belong a normal competence in nuclear field. They can be deceiving for amateur scientists.
In most cases getting the excitation function for a reaction is all we need.
Saluti

@Anvil

Quote

Does the IAEA and BNL nuclear data bank deal with proton decay?

As a chemist, I am only interested in nuclear reactions. In fact I am only familiar with EXFOR. Your question can be treated by a physicist. I hope that a physicist in the blog can answer your question.