Storms Verified User
  • Male
  • Member since Oct 9th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Storms

    I have shown that the SAV idea is not related to LENR because this structure does not and can not form under the conditions present during LENR. Consequently, it is pointless to continue using this idea to explain LENR. Nevertheless, I realize people will continue to waste their time using this idea because they do not care to study all the literature. In my case, I have no interest in wasting my time arguing about the subject. I suggest, people who are interested should study the full range of what is known to be true rather than making guesses.

    As for the cracks, I propose stress causes a gap to slowly grow wider until a dimension is reached that allows the compound I call the Hydroton to form in the gap. Its formation stabilizes the gap, thereby preventing the gap from growing wider. Stress can be produced many different ways but the most common results from the reaction to form the metal hydride. After a gap has achieved this condition, a fusion process will be initiated by a random event in the gap, thereby releasing energy and photons from the Hydroton. The d lost to fusion will be replaced by diffusion from the surrounding lattice. The fusion process will repeat at each site as each experiences fusion and then replaces the d atoms to form a new Hydroton. The measured power results from many such sites combining to produce random bursts of energy.

    Consequently, the structure required for fusion to take place requires application of stress in the presence of d atoms in the lattice. One without the other will not produce LENR.

    This model has clear implications that when followed consistently have been shown to produce LENR.

    I agree, this claim is counter-intuitive. I would suspect the rapid change in conditions created an error in the calorimeter measurement. A very low pressure would keep enough d in the structure to cause some LENR but its complete loss would stop the process as result no fuel being present.

    I don't have any skin in this game, but I hate to see so much talent and money wasted.

    Success requires following a procedure that actually describes the events leading up to LENR. Application of random conditions and treatments will not do the job. So, please follow a process that is known to work.

    First, a condition needs to be created in the material in which a chain of d can form. This condition can be caused by reacting Pd with d to achieve a high D/Pd ratio. This process causes stress that results in the formation of the required gaps. The burnished Pd used by Mizuno has many weak regions that would form such gaps (cracks) when subjected to this stress.

    Mizuno added d by subjecting the material to gas discharge in D2 gas. Without this treatment, the required D/Pd ratio would not occur and the gaps (cracks) would not form.

    After the gaps form, the material needs to be stored in D2 gas to prevent complete loss of d. Complete loss would happen rapidly, thereby making the material inactive unless it were again subjected to gas discharge.

    When heated, the over pressure of D2 needs to be as high as practical. Impurities in the gas are not important, except the H content of the gas needs to be low. Any H will dilute the D, thereby reduce the amount of power resulting from each fusion process. The D2 gas is necessary to keep some d in the structure. The heating should be done slowly in stages while excess power is measured. The excess power, if real , will be found to increase linearly with respect to log power vs 1/T. Failure to see this temperature effect is evidence that LENR did not occur.

    I can predict that failure to follow these guide lines will result in certain failure.

    This interest in LENR is certainly good news. However, unless the leaders take great pains to avoid the mistakes made by other large programs, this effort will fail just like all the others. The LENR effect is complex, unusual, and requires an approach novel to conventional science. In addition, a great deal of information is available in sources that are not easy to access. Unless the mistakes and understanding these sources can reveal are correctly applied, I would have very little confidence in the success of this effort. So far, the LENR effect has been a black hole into which a large amount of money has disappeared with very little to show for the effort. My advice is to leave your ego at the door and be very careful to understand what is known before committing to any approach. .

    THH, I would like to ask a personal question. You seem to have a continued interest in evaluating claims for the LENR effect, which frequently is useful, but at the same time you admit you do not believe the LENR effect to be real. So, why invest so much of your time in an effort you believe has no reality, an opinion you maintain in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Even if you think the LENR effect just might be real and important, so as to justify an evaluation in order to reveal this small possibility, your approach makes no sense to me. We who are studying LENR are well aware of the errors and do not need coaching, even though such discussions are frequently useful and welcome even when they are not necessary.

    In my case, I have concluded the effect is real based on seeing it for myself and having mastered what other people have seem. Consequently, my effort is to understand how it works. Of course, this goal has to take errors into account in the same way you require, but my goal in doing this is much different from yours. In my case, I will have something of value to show for my efforts. I see nothing of value coming from your efforts. So, please tell me what value do you intend to achieve?

    THH, thanks for making your opinion clear. I have attached two graphs I would like you to explain without having to assume a nuclear reaction is taking place. These behaviors were observed using ordinary electrolytic cells without any of the normal conditions thought necessary to cause a nuclear reaction, yet nuclear products were detected, helium with extra energy in one case and tritium with a few neutrons in the other. People have evaluated each of the measurements but I know of no effort to evaluate such a comparison of the various independent variables.

    In the case of helium, such a correlation is essentially impossible if the He and heat energy were not related through a common event. This event MUST be the same nuclear reaction. Why do you reject this conclusion?

    How is tritium produced without there being a nuclear reaction? The absence of an equal number of neutrons demonstrates the source is NOT the normal hot fusion reaction.

    Even if these were isolated behaviors, rather than actually being part of a larger collection of behaviors, this evidence would normally require the conclusion that a very unusual nuclear process was possible in ordinary material. Yet, in this case, the entire huge data set is rejected by conventional science. Why is such a total violation of normal standards of evaluation possible these days?

    I suggest, any attempt to explain away these nuclear products as error or contamination must conflict with logic and with well established scientific principles, thereby revealing a serious lack of objectivity and basic knowledge. So, if your opinion is to be taken seriously, you need to apply it to this data and demonstrate why my evaluation of your approach is flawed. After all, if you insist certain criteria be satisfied for LENR to be accepted, you must also accept certain criteria be met to reject the claim. Logic does not make rejection of an idea the automatic default. You must have a reason. So far, your reasons seem to be that all the data can be explained by assuming ordinary error as being the source of the claimed behavior. I would like to see how you apply your "error" explanation to the two attached sets of behavior. In both cases, the effect has been replicated by independent studies and a correlation is found between two independent variables, which is the requirement science demands for behavior to be accepted as real. Can you show why this normal required criteria is not valid in these cases?

    TH Huxley, after reading your comments, I get the impression that, in your mind, acceptance of LENR requires publication of a single study containing no detectable error and with such solid data that it alone proves the existence of the LENR effect. Ideally, the paper should also provide an explanation consistent with this "perfect" data. You reject all the imperfect papers published so far no matter how consistently they show the same behavior, including correlations between heat energy and helium production as well as the production of tritium. Frankly, I do not see how the criteria you impose can be applied to any discovery, even ones that are now accepted. All would fail because the perfect study is so rare to be an event by its itself. We all can and do nitpick over details in papers we read but we seldom reject the basic claim based on this approach, except in your case when LENR is discussed

    For example, the Mizuno study clearly contains error, which makes the heat energy uncertain. We all agree about this fact. But, why does this study have to be so error-free that it alone can prove LENR is real? That fact has been already established by hundreds of papers and consistent correlations. We are now exploring ways to make the effect work better, as Curbina noted previously. When this viewpoint is applied, the Mizuno method is important because it provides another way to cause the effect that might be better than the many others revealed so far. Consequently, the discussion should be focused on how to make the Mizuno method work better, not on errors it will always contain.

    The cost is largely related to sizr. I keep seeing the mistake of trying to go large in order to impress the ignorant that an application of LENR would be possible. Such scale up is much too premature. In fact, even the Mizuno apparatus is much too large for scientific research. An effective study of LENR requires the ability to easily, quickly, and cheaply explore a variety of conditions and materials. Fleischmann had the right idea about doing the work on a small scale. In my case, I designed the calorimeter so as to allow its use for any kind of study (electrolysis, gas loading, or gas discharge) without having to redesign and remake the apparatus. The sample size is no more than a few grams with accuracy of less than 10 mW.

    Working on a small scale saves money and allows for more rapid turnaround. Also, achieving increased sensitivity and greater accuracy is easier. At this stage the object is to understand how the process works, not make a large amount of energy. The often quoted COP is meaningless at this stage. In the case of using a vacuum system, the smaller the system, the fewer the number of leaks would be likely and the faster the pump-down. Contrary to how ignorant skeptics think, proof of LENR does not require making a large amount of power or energy. The generated power only has to exceed the uncertainty in the detection system, which can be made very small when a small system is used. But as always, I do not expect this advice to have any effect on what people do. As Jed so correctly observed, "everyone does their own thing" regardless of how pointless it might be in view of what is known.

    In other words, trial and error have given us a somewhat reproducible experiment. Perhaps we can use that as the key to developing a theory, which will then obviate the need for more trial and error.

    I also think that back in the day, F&P made progress in France, until they were shut down by politics and stupidity.

    Jed, trial and error has already resulted in many hundreds of examples of LENR. Mizuno's work is just the most recent.example. His method is important because he used an unique technique for producing the active Pd. He has added to the already 7 different kinds of material (dense metals, powdered metals, electroplated metals, sputtered metals, chemical compounds, mixed materials, catalysts) known to produce the effect. I think its safe to assume each of these materials has some unique feature in common when LENR occurs. Why not use this huge experience base to develop a theory rather than wait for the results using the Mizuno method? I have done this and have a theory that has been successful in explaining and improving the LENR process. Why is this idea not acknowledged and applied? In fact, I suggest the Mizuno method can be more easily replicated and explained by applying my theory. Why is this approach not considered?

    Jed, all of your examples miss the mark. In every case you cite, progress was no made by repeating the same treatment or action. People learned from their efforts and made improvements. We do not need to call this effort science although that is exactly what science attempts to do, but with increased sophistication.

    The efforts made by people in the LENR field apparently do not teach because I can see no progress being made toward achieving reproducible behavior. Instead, we have been subjected to a series of "theories" and explanations that not only ignore most experience but are too complex to allow application to real systems. One by one they have died while taking money, time, and confidence with them

    In the case of Mizuno, we have a very simple and easily understood process, consisting of transferring one metal to the surface of another. The only odd feature is its ability to cause the LENR process. To understand what might cause LENR, which is a process that takes place on the atomic level, we must look at the material from the viewpoint of an atom. An atom does not know that it is present on a mesh. Therefore, the physical form of a mesh is not important. In fact, the mesh was apparently chosen by Mizuno for reasons having no relationship to the LENR reaction mechanism.

    From an atom's point of view, burnishing causes a thin layer of amorphous Pd to be applied over the Ni. Because the Ni is covered by a very thin layer of NiO, the process will remove some of the NiO layer, which is then mixed with the Pd, while some of the Pd will cover the NiO in other regions. The question is, "Why would such a complex structure support a nuclear reaction"? Nothing about such a material is similar to materials observed to support LENR in the past. What unidentified common feature can be present in both this material and in a piece of common Pd wire or sheet, such as used to achieve most examples of LENR? This is the kind of question we must answer. This is the question I have attempted to answer. Does any one have a better answer? Without such an answer, we are only playing the lottery.

    Unfortunately, the "exact replications" are not exact, for various reasons beyond our control, as I explained here.

    Jed, I'm glad we agree about this problem. Each attempt to replicate will cause a random variation in many conditions, some of which are important to causing LENR and some are not. Success in causing LENR would result only when the important condition just happened to be produced. This approach is not science. It is more like playing the lottery. Even the Wright Brothers did not attempt to exactly duplicate their design after each experiment, as you made clear earlier. They learned from their experience and used this knowledge to improve each following effort. We in the LENR field have been working for 30 years and have accumulated a huge collection of success. Yet, this effort and this success is not used to make improvements. Why is this the case? Why do people not learn from experience in this field?

    I have mastered the literature and done hundreds of studies in my own lab. Based on this experience, I propose a condition and a mechanism for creating the condition that this experience supports as being necessary for causing LENR. But, I find this idea has no more value in this field than the most casual speculation by the most ignorant student. Apparently, in this field, everyone considers themselves an expert and able to use their imagination to solve the problem. What is worse, the failure to replicate based on this ignorance is used to justify rejection of the effect based on the result of error. Consequently, success is not considered real until each success is replicated. As StevieH very accurately observed, this process is making people insane. This approach has got to stop!!!!

    Let me follow the reasoning. Mizuno (as reported by him and JedRothwell ) constructed a reactor which outputs 500W well measured and another similar reactor which outputs 3kW roughly estimated. These have not yet been replicated outside of Mizuno's lab, the 3kW machine was taken down for study and even Mizuno can't get the same results again, if I understood Rothwell. And we believe Mizuno accomplished what he and Rothwell reported. And the best way to proceed is to take off on a completely different path? Based on a theory? Respectfully, that makes no sense whatever.

    It's as if the Wright Brothers had said in 1903, "The current airplane design we have flies but not very well. The engine is reliable but not very strong. We won't replicate it carefully and maybe later try some cautious improvements. Instead, we think we should switch the propulsion to rubber bands. And we need some large holes in the wings to make the craft lighter."

    7 of 20 - Every action of nature is controlled by a mechanism that science tries to understand. When a new is behavior was first observed, the action seems to make no sense until the controlling mechanism is understood. Using your analogy, the Wright Brothers learned that successful flight required creation of lift and use of control to cause the airplane to go where intended. Until these mechanisms were understood, flight was not reproducible. Simply replicating what other people were doing was not effective. In the case of LENR, we are simply reproducing what other people did without knowing what unique condition must be present in the material. Consequently, the effect is not reproducible no matter how exactly the experiment is duplicated. In contrast, once the basic mechanism is known, the method can be modified to make the effect reproducible using many different treatments. Only the critical treatment becomes important, which is what I'm trying to identify. My idea might be wrong but it has been very successful in guiding my research. Perhaps, if you make an effort to apply the idea, perhaps you also will have better success.

    In any case, failure to replicate any action of Nature simply means the important variable is being ignored and not caused to function as required. As scientists, our job is to identify the important variable, in this case to cause the Mizuno effect to be reproducible. As Einstein said, simply repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. We need to find out why the method can not be reproduced, not keep doing the same thing.

    Stainless steel is an interesting choice Ed. Would you expect the Ni/Cr fractions of the alloy to be the ones that cause LENr, or the Fe? When I consider that Mizuno and many others use stainless steel reactors it certainly gives me pause for thought.

    Alan, I'm applying my theory to make my predictions. According to my explanation, the active sites are gaps or cracks that can be created around inclusions in the Pd as the Pd expands when it reacts with D. The chromium oxide and iron oxides would be scraped off by burnishing and included in the smear of Pd . According to my idea, the substrate on which the Pd is applied plays no role in the LENR process. An active material results only when gaps of a critical small dimension form. Right now these gaps are the result of stress relief when a material reacts with hydrogen. Success requires the required mechanism needed to cause the gaps to be identified and replicated.

    I have proposed how this mechanism operates and can be reproduced using the Mizuno method. In his case, I believe the NiO was deposited in the Pd as inclusions. If this is the case, using Ni with a coating of NiO would be essential. I suggest heating the Ni mesh to 600° C in air before applying the Pd would improve reproducibility. Unfortunately, people keep trying to reproduce exactly what he did, which I suggest is not the best treatment.

    An interesting alternative to the nickel mesh used by Mizuno might be this titanium 'expanded' mesh. Not woven like the nickel, so not containing so many 'crooks and nannies' but it is bother reasonably priced, and as everybody knows, titanium loves hydrogen.…89359b:g:NGgAAOSwDTlc2RGF

    Alan, why use a mesh for this purpose? The mesh plays no role and makes interpretation more complex. A solid sheet, I predict, would produce more heat and be easier to interpret. As for use of Ti, I suggested use of this element months ago on CMNS. However, the Ti itself would not be the site of the LENR reaction. Yes, Ti reacts with D2 but the result would be a powder. The process is observed to cause radiation produced by fractofusion according to Menlove et al. and some heat according to the work of John Dash. A better material, I predict, would be stainless steel.

    Special Feature: SAFIRE PROJECT 2019 UPDATE

    Has anyone heard of the Safire Project?

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Apparently they have discovered how to cause LENR using gas discharge while not acknowledging the existence of LENR. This is very good work that is well presented. If the people doing work on LENR had been so well funded and so well supported by such talented people, the LENR problem would have been solved by now.

    The claim for complex transmutation is especially important, which is similar but not identical to the transmutation reported by people studying LENR. The challenge is to figure out how this process works in view of the large Coulomb barrier and the need for the reaction to be exothermic. I proposed a mechanism when the possible reactants were known. Here in this work the reactants are not revealed, so the problem can not be solved based on this video. Can more information be obtained?


    Special Feature: SAFIRE PROJECT 2019 UPDATE

    For three years the SAFIRE Project team has been holding back so as not to overstate what has been happening in ...

    Deformed space time doesn't have to be outside of known and accepted understanding. In relativity the contraction and dilation of time-space is represented by a Riemann constant. In special relativity some particle is accelerated close to the speed of light to cause that effect. In general relativity it is the combined density of energy and mass that causes that effect. Chemical structures are not immune to relativity.

    When there are states (particle or chemical structures or large field effects), they are determined by hypothesis followed by measurement. The hypothesis of superpostioning weak states on hydrogen predicts several things. 1) that hydrogen can exist in contracted and dilated time-space and due to the dipole from relativity that these states will cluster independence of any matrix. 2) that the weak state changes when it extents to the nucleus. It becomes part of a giant nuclear dipole. Part of this prediction is that a giant nuclear dipole creates a magnetic field because that is how the magnetic field is described by relativity. So magnecules form when this energy is transferred to the nucleus. 3) that energy transferred in the nucleus causes new energetic states in the nucleus. This means that radioactive material acquires an accelerated decay rate. 4) that if we could measure the shielding factor, we could add it to the coulomb equation and predict exactly how much less energy is required for fusion. 5) that the cluster (mentioned in one) is a catalyst for fusion. 6) that it is not surprising that reactions thought only to occur in supernova will happen or that micro-organism can use such a catalyst. 7) that the routes to fusion are many: via a waveguide at solid surface, via sonication, via an electric arc, via plasma discharge, via an oxidation-reduction reaction in the present of water, in certain combinations of gases in a florescent tube, via a laser's interaction with a metal particle in a solution of water via a microbe and likely others situations that I haven't though much about.

    Having one model to study all of these routes to fusion, fission and transmutation is not a disadvantage. Each investigator will choose his/her preferred route and if indeed it all fits together, so much the better.

    Chemical states are explained very well without the need to apply relativity corrections or space-time distortions. These concepts are applied when high energy is involved because they are needed to explain the behavior. They are not needed to explain the behavior of a chemical system because the energies are not large enough to justify such correction factors.

    I suggest explanations of LENR start by using the simplest and the least ambiguous approach. When a chemical system is involved, as is the case with LENR, the known and accepted understanding of chemistry should be applied first. Only when this approach fails to explain the behavior would added complexity be justified. I suggest the NAE can be explained adequately using accepted chemical understanding. Justification for added complexity comes only when the nuclear process is addressed. However, explaining the nuclear process requires all the known behavior to be considered, not just that small part used to support a particular idea.

    You predict hydrogen atoms can cluster independent of any matrix. I know of no evidence for the formation of hydrogen clusters outside of normal chemical interaction. If they should form, the conditions in the chemical structure must be very different from those normally present in a chemical system. A very rare and unusual condition must form first in which normal chemical behavior no longer applies. Simply using the description "superpostioning weak states" adds nothing of value because it does not give any information about how the rare condition can be produced. An explanation is useful only when it allows understanding to move forward by allowing the idea to be tested. How would you plan to cause and then test this behavior in the lab?

    Dear Mr. Storms, I agree that these different ideas can’t be assumed to be the same but, as a person looking from a wider perspective, I (among many) see points of encounter between those concepts, that you say are not related, which tells us that they can be the expressions of a same underlying phenomena.

    Nuclear reactions of transmutation have been observed in solid samples of ferrite and stainless steel completely in absense of hydrogen loading, and also in liquid mercury without hydrogen loading (at least not voluntarily induced). This has been achieved by inducing cavitation on those samples, so one could deduce that the Action of the NAE does not require the formation of the hydroton. The team of Cardone et al, the performers of plenty of cavitation experiments with nuclear effects, have concluded that what creates the NAE in these cases is the transitory collapse of nanometer sized bubbles formed by the ultrasound. They have also learnt that there are controllable parameters that need to be pushed beyond a threshold to cause the nuclear effect. They derived an extension of Einstein’s relativity which they call Deformed Space Time to explain how the cavitation causes the nuclear effects that are completely outside of what conventional theories could expect or predict. All of this is just to say that the NAEs could be more than a lattice condition as you suggest and that the hydroton is not the only way to obtain LENR.

    I think this paper by Albertini and Rogante summarize the cavitation induced NAE very well.…tini-final-version_02.pdf

    While all these strange and new behaviors might be related, trying to understand the relationship without knowing how each works is folly. Why make a difficult problem more difficult? Why not focus on each alone until it is understood, then see if a relationship exists? Also, I find a tendency here to ignore observed behavior, redefine the words used to describe a behavior, and introduce pure imagination into the discussion. I see no serous effort to truly understand these behaviors. The goal seems to involve demonstrating just how much imagination a person can bring to bare. In my case, I like to start simple and use as little imagination as possible. If the behavior can be explained without imagination, so much the better. Only when this approach fails would imagination be justified. The word imagination in this context means ideas that are far outside of known and accepted understanding, which includes such ideas as space-time when applied to a chemical structure.

    I might add, SEM pictures in isolation of the treatment mean nothing. Also, the SEM does not give a true representation of reality. Figuring out what the picture means requires more than imagination. At best, such a picture is only a rough guide to understanding and cannot alone be used as proof for anything.

    I find only confusion in the effort to combine LENR with the EVO of Shoulders, the hydrino of Miles, the Muon of Holmild, and the Hydroton of Storms. These concepts are each so incompletely understood and so different, trying to talk about them in the same discussion is rather pointless.

    As for the Hydroton idea, I believe and the behavior shows that this chemical structure is only stable in a gap having a very narrow range of values. It forms by a normal chemical process involving release of Gibbs energy and it remains stable as long as the Gibbs energy required to cause decomposition is not available. However, once formed, it allows an unusual kind of nuclear interaction to take place that results in fusion of the hydrogen isotopes in the Hydroton and transmutation with nuclei present in the gap structure. Once form, it does not move because this would require too much chemical energy, which is not available.

    If you want to understand how the Hydroton forms and remains chemically stable, you only need to apply the well known laws of thermodynamics. Nothing about how the Hydroton forms or remains chemically stable is unusual. Except for its ability to support nuclear reactions, it acts like an ordinary chemical structure. Even if the condition is called "the proton-metallic lattice form a complex intermediate nucleus" (Miley), chemical rules and behavior are involved and must be acknowledged.

    If you want to apply your imagination, I suggest you focus on how a chemical structure can cause a nuclear reaction and how the energy can be dissipated as heat without producing radiation detectable outside of the apparatus. Nevertheless, the radiation is detectable when measured inside the apparatus without the intervening mass. Rather than generating word salad, I suggest any effort to create a theory acknowledge what is known in chemistry because this is not just a physics problem.

    Dear Ed.

    The micro cavity is a source of LENR activity as you propose, but with the advent of LENR fuel, it has been found that the NAE is mobile. SEM micrographs from many experiments have shown that once the NAE has formed, it can move as a particle. Before me356 went dark, he shared with us some SEMs that show how the NAE can exit the place where it formed and move over a surface transmuting elements as it goes. See this here below. The evolution of elements from transmutation is shown by increased atomic weight as the transmutation tracks get whiter near the ends of the tracks. These tracks are forming on carbon tape.…zA5LzMtNzY4eDgxNi5qcGc%3D

    Axil, although this is a very unique picture, I suggest it has no relationship to LENR. This looks like a material that was placed at low temperature in an atmosphere from which crystals of solid condensed and grow at active sites on the surface.

    If the NAE is proposed to move, the mechanism must be consistent with how we know materials behave. The movement of materials, which would be involved in the movement of the NAE, is not novel and is not open to speculation as is the nuclear mechanism on which LENR is based. In other words, LENR is novel because of its nuclear process, not as result of how the NAE forms or behaves. The NAE forms by a conventional process and behaves like a conventional process. Therefore, it would not behave as shown in the picture. I suggest, something else is happening to cause this behavior.

    It makes me think about the 81.924 MHz , 365.608 MHz , 533.688 MHz previously found to help excess heat in Pd D

    The Pd used by Bockris came from the same batch I used to make excess energy when I worked at LANL.

    This was the first example of an active batch of Pd being found to make excess energy by independent studies at laboratories in the US, Canada, Japan, and Italy using the Pd from this batch. Of course, this ability to reproduce LENR when an active batch was used was completely ignored by the skeptics.

    The role of the RF is not clear. It could affect the rate of diffusion or the nuclear reaction itself.