Posts by Debarium…on-reactor-by-alan-smith/

    OK so it looks like in this experiment a bunch of (seemingly random) chemicals and metals were packed in a tube and heated to 800C. There was no calorimetry. What is the point of this experiment? Looks worthless to me.

    So the metals oxidized and there were some chemical reactions. Thats predictable and expected.

    This experiment would appear to have zero scientific value.

    Can someone provide a link to a description of this "LION" experiment? What did they do?

    The MFMP group on their twitter page promotes the bogus and ridiculous "Hutchison Effect" by the ignorant crank John Hutchison. That MFMP believes Hutchison's nonsense indicates scientific illiteracy and incompetence. Anyone that believes the Hutchison garbage sucks at science.

    99.9% may sound like a lot, but perhaps in this context it isnt. I agree that neutron and gamma measurements set a limit for the branching ratio, and this limit is quite restrictive. Your calculation is a reasonable thing to consider. But I dont think it means much because we cannot assume there must be limits on the branching ratio that are incompatible with electron screening.

    "Perhaps there are other explanations that do not require such narrow tolerances and so many ad hoc assumptions."

    I have looked at other theories and they don't make sense to me. They generally require more speculative and unreasonable assumptions. For example, Widom-Larsen theory IMO lacks supporting experimental evidence.

    "the mainstream experiments give no hope of such efficiency, no matter how much screening occurs"

    The electron screening experiments also use impact energies many thousands of times higher than LENR (like about 100,000X higher). This higher impact energy may impact the branching ratio. One way this could happen is by differences in angular momentum and the "centrifugal barrier". With high impact energy, the product nucleus can have very high angular momentum (for non-zero impact parameter, i.e. off-axis collision). With low impact energy, the product nucleus will always have very low angular momentum. It is known that the centrifugal barrier can affect the branching ratio in nuclear reactions/collisions.

    Also, it should be noted that the electron screening experiments may be underestimating the effectiveness of screening! This is because the experiments measure high energy particles to determine the fusion rate. So, the experiments will miss reactions that do not produce high energy particles (i.e. LENR-type reactions). There could be lots of undetected LENR-type reactions occurring in these experiments.

    I think you minimize the difficulties. The connection to PdD LENR requires a stretch of the imagination:

    • Not just fewer gammas, but practically no gammas in PdD LENR.
    • Not just fewer than 50 percent neutrons/3He, 50 percent fast protons/tritium, but almost no neutrons, 3He and tritium in PdD LENR.
    • Attaining energies comparable to those seen in the screening experiments when the average energy in a metal lattice is on the sub-eV level.

    So yes, I'd say it's probably coincidence if I had to guess. :) By contrast, you state that "The screening experiments are definitely related to LENR-Pd reactions, no question about it". That is a lot of certitude for still having to fill in so many gaps.

    All those differences are due to the electron screening and low impact energies. Its a different reaction involving 3 particles instead of two, and in a different environment of high electron density. IMO there is no reason to presume the reaction products will resemble

    products from 2-particle, unscreened hot fusion.

    I am convinced, but I dont necessarily expect others to be convinced. This is material to me because I am working on LENR experiments and using electron screening models as a guide.

    Recall that these electron screening experiments, while interesting, are not yet obviously related to LENR as observed in the PdD system. In the screening experiments, the usual branching ratios are seen (or are assumed to be seen), including energetic gamma photons, while in PdD LENR, you have deuterium and palladium as inputs and helium and heat as outputs and few gammas reported. The relevance of the d(d,ɣ)4He reaction or some variant, to take the obvious example, where ɣ is somehow quietly thermalized, is not apparent in these electron screening experiments.

    I suggest that fusion of deuterium is infertile ground for seeking to understand LENR and that other kinds of explanation should be sought.

    The screening experiments are definitely related to LENR-Pd reactions, no question about it IMO. The above paper provides an explanation as to why the branching ratios are different: the impact energy is higher in the screening experiments than LENR. According to the reasoning in the paper, with higher impact energy, the screening electron is less likely to carry away some energy of fusion.

    Pd is the best screening material in the beam experiments, AND the best material for LENR fusion. Is that a coincidence?

    Steorn = free energy scam. Their claims are pseudoscience.

    Only a couple of the links are relevant to thermoelectric generation.

    The thermoelectric effect refers to a specific mechanism that converts temperature differences into electricity. The best example is a thermocouple.

    Its not a generic term for any heat to electricity conversion.

    What is the point of this thread?

    There are thousands of nuclids and their modes of decay have been thoroughly investigated. It does not matter how an excited nuclid was created, be it cold or warm fusion, it will meet the same fate: sudden death with a small number of pieces flying off in various directions.

    You may seach the chart of nuclids from left to right, from top to bottom and you will never find a nuclid that disposes of 1 MeV suplus energy in 1 M cosy 1 eV packages. This is why a LENR reaction must produce easily detectable ionizing radiation.

    The conditions present in LENR have not been experimentally tested for nuclear effects in fusion reactions. For example, if fusion is catalyzed by electron charge screening, then there will be an electron between the deuterons as they fuse. This may affect the type of energy emission from the product nucl

    Muon-catalyzed fusion does illuminate the question of how low deuteron momentum may affect the reaction. But the muon catalyzed fusion experiments provide no information about the other characteristics: effects of nearby screening electrons or metallic high electron density environment. And these "electron factors" may interact with the low impact momentum feature of LENR.

    So, the theoretical arguments against LENR are reasonable, but they are not experimentally supported with regards to the specific characteristics of LENR. IMO, the anti-LENR theoretical arguments do not have experimental support strong enough to rule out LENR.…on-Energy-Development.pdf

    14 MeV neutrons are produced.

    So at least in this case we can see that catalyzed fusion produces high energy particles not compatible LENR experiments.

    That experiment used D-T gas, not pure deuterium. So its different and the results cannot be used for your argument. Also, the reactions occurred in pure D-T, without metal. Hence the reaction occurred in a low electron density environment.

    Cold fusion in deuterated metal has several characteristics that (alone or in combination) may plausibly alter the branching ratio and type of energy emitted:

    1) high electron density environment
    2) deuterons have extremely low energy/momentum at impact
    3) charge screening by electron (instead of muon)

    I understand there are theoretical reasons for arguing that these will not affect the branching ratio and/or gamma emission. But these are theoretical arguments which are NOT based on experimental tests of the above characteristics. It is not proper scientific logic to use an experimentally-unproven theoretical argument to rule out an empirical result.

    Debarium. let me improve on your corollary:

    "If LENR was real, then it would emit a lot of ionizing radiation and everybody would already believe it. Since it doesn't, it cannot be real."

    That statement is not supported by empirical evidence. I agree its reasonable to expect LENR to produce the same ionizing radiation as fusion occurring in other situations. But this is an ASSUMPTION. There is not empirical evidence for the assumption.

    There is no empirical evidence showing that fusion in LENR conditions (high electron density within metal, very low deuteron impact energy/momentum, and electron charge screening of coulomb barrier) produces the same ionizing radiation produced from fusion in different (e..g plasma) conditions. There is some ionizing radiation in LENR, but not as much as from nuclear reactions in plasmas or particle beams. For example, the branching ratios for the D+D fusion reaction might not be the same as in a hot plasma. He4 appears to be favored in LENR.

    LENR conditions are very different from hot plasmas or particle beams. Hence it cannot be assumed that the reaction products must be the same.

    There are plausible theoretical arguments for why ionizing radiation would not be emitted in LENR conditions.

    For example, Mossbauer spectroscopy demonstrates that immobilization within a lattice affects photon interactions with nuclear energy levels. Nuclear reactions can be affected by chemistry, neighboring atoms and nearby electrons.

    If these effects were so convincing, why hasn't there been massive investment in them? Why haven't they been scaled up to the level of a power plant?


    Your argument is a form of circular reasoning, which of course is illogical and produces wrong conclusions.

    Skepticism is why there has not been massive investment. You cite the lack of investment as reason for skepticism! Hence, the reasoning is circular. Your argument here is based on an unstated and false assumption: that allocation of research funding always efficient, i.e. that it identifies the best research questions, and is never wasted on wrong ideas.

    A corollary of your argument is this: "If LENR was real, then a majority would already believe it. Since only a minority believe it, it cannot be real." This reasoning is erroneous because it assumes that there can never (at any time) be truths believed/known by a minority of people. This reasoning is obviously wrong, because it precludes the possibility of true knowledge starting in a minority and growing over time to become consensus. For some true discoveries (especially controversial ones based on equivocal evidence), it takes lots of time for consensus to form.

    Do you really think that all truths are instantly accepted by a majority? That belief in new, true discoveries cannot start small (as minority opinion) and grow over time?

    Your argument is equivalent to an assertion that the majority is always right. Its not logical and there are many invalidating counter-examples in the history of science.

    This presentation indicates big problems at GF. They have abandoned the original idea to use shockwaves and piston-hammers, and instead are working on a very different machine that uses pistons pushing molten metal and a much larger spherical plasma.

    This indicates the original fusion concept is unworkable.

    The "puffs" are basically "smoke rings" of magnetized plasma. The technical term is a "field reversed configuration".

    The magnetic field is trapped in the plasma because the plasma is electrically conductive. During compression, the magnetic field intensity increases dramatically. The field helps to confine the plasma and prevent the charged particles from impacting the liquid metal surface and thereby prevents cooling off. So the magnetic field essentially provides thermal insulation for the plasma. This maintains the high temperature in the plasma long enough for fusion burn. A magnetic field in the plasma is absolutely essential for GFs process to work.

    The presence of a small capsule (perhaps you can blame me for that part) containing compressed D and T is inserted in the center of the liquid metal sphere immediately prior to each compression cycle (as in the NIF model).

    OK I see. But this is not consistent with GFs process. GF requires a magnetized plasma target. Compressing cold gas, without a magnetic field, cannot conceivably produce fusion. At most, GF is hoping to achieve 1000-fold (by volume) compression. Thats not nearly enough for fusion unless the plasma is very hot and magnetized prior to compression.

    Because a magnetized plasma target is required, there must be a vortex tube for injecting it.

    BTW, GFs process uses TWO magnetized plasma puffs, injected from top and bottom of the vortex. The plasma puffs collide in the center and stay there (momentum is equal and opposite).

    General Fusion failed to perform a critical proof-of-principle experiment: demonstrating symmetrical compression of a fluid vortex from impact. They could have done this with water or low melting point metal, for example.

    It would seem that compression in the axial direction will be difficult because of conservation of angular momentum. The spinning liquid metal will resist collapse to the axis of rotation. So, there may not be enough compression axially. Will the plasma simply squeeze out in the axial direction?

    I am confident General Fusion's method will fail, because they will not be able to achieve either 1) symmetrical target compression, which is required, or 2) repeated reactions, because each reaction cycle will create splashing and turbulence. Even if they can get one good shot, they will not be able to create repeated shots necessary for useful power generation.

    I believe that practical fusion energy production can only be achieved with a metal catalyst. Magnetized plasma fusion is a dead end. It will never be economically, practically viable, no matter how much money is thrown at it.

    The likely reaction mechanism for cold fusion in metals is charge screening, like muon-catalyzed fusion. Within weeks or months of the P&F announcement in 1989, some scientists had already identified charge screening as the most likely or only plausible explanation. See the attached paper. Recent (last 5-10 years) experimental work has shown metals can catalyze D-D fusion, and that the reaction rate enhancement is much larger than predicted by theoretical models. So the models are wrong. Some metals are excellent catalysts for D+d fusion reactions (and other fusion reactions) and we dont know why. Palladium is the best metal for cold fusion, and also the best metal for D+D fusion catalysis in deuteron beam experiments. Isnt that interesting and a remarkable "coincidence"? I dont think its a coincidence; I think the reaction mechanism is the same. Palladium is simply a great charge screening catalyst in either situation: electrochemical loading or deuterium beam impact.

    Cold fusion is already far ahead of magnetized plasma fusion in terms of COP.

    Plasma fusion is greatly advancing science budgets and the wasting the careers and talents of fusion researchers on doomed projects. Its a shame.

    The solution to all this problems is simple. Two new materials will be designed. One is a room temp superconductor and second is a material for reactor wall which had thermal conductivity of copper, strength of titanium, melting temp of tungsten and neutron absorption of led, transpearancy of quartz. Easily recycleable and cheap to manufacture.

    lol! Im sure the smarty-pants scientists will come up with something! No problem is too hard for science!

    No solutions for these problems have been found yet, but all it takes is just a little more money!


    Li carbonate decomposes and releases CO2 starting at 700C. This will contaminate the plasma with C and oxygen. This is a problem because heavy elements greatly accelerate energy loss, by bremstrahlung (X ray emission). This cools the plasma and makes it harder to achieve sustaining fusion burn.

    Carbonate in the first wall will become activated into radioactive C and O and daughter products.

    The first wall and neutron activation problems are likely fatal for magnet confined plasma fusion. Claims that these problems can be solved are not persuasive because the constraints are so severe, and requirements for success are well understood. Solving the problem seems to require "unobtanium", i.e. materials with impossible properties and cannot be made from the periodic table.