Posts by Storms

Thanks Jed. Only you understand what I'm trying to say because you do not have the psychological problem I'm identifying. The problem with psychological problems is that the people who have the problem seldom know they have a problem. These discussions go nowhere because the people involved are not describing the same reality. Everyone is in their own little world with no ability to see anything else.

Quote from JedRothwell

Ed refers to the quote from Max Planck that progress in science occurs "funeral by funeral." He explained: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

The problem of whether cold fusion is real is no longer related to anything scientific. The problem is psychological. The problem is only in the minds of people who do not share a common reality. Everyone who has examined the data using the normal criteria agrees that the effect is real. The only conflict is in its explanation. Everyone has a different explanation depending on which data set they choose to believe. All of the explanations are in conflict either with other data sets or with accepted Natural Laws. We have to allow the funeral process to resolve the conflicts because they will not be resolved by discussion, as these discussions have demonstrated.

Knowing what is known is important. However, this is not the problem. The problem starts when the behaviors are combined to create a model explaining their relationship to the fusion reaction. Everyone selects a different set of behaviors to support their imagined models. As a result, no agreement is possible no matter how much is known about the behaviors. I did this data collection the hard way and published the results in two books. Although the books are occasionally cited, the ideas and conclusions are very seldom acknowledged. In other words, no matter how much information is available, people will use only the part that confirms what they want to believe. This problem can only be solved by teaching new minds what is known at university where new relationships between the behaviors can be explored under the supervision of someone who understands material science and nuclear behavior.

Quote from Alan Smith

There are two or more sources in the public domain which refer to this.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SECRE…psc=1&smid=A2SJHTPSSMFIB8 Co-author Emilio Del Guidice. (look him up)

And amongst others this research report...

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_in_Palestine_and_Lebanon

Both strongly suggesting the use of enriched rather than depleted Uranium.

;

Display More

This amount of enrichment is too small to be useful as a source of energy or neurons. I suspect this is cross-contamination caused by melting the U in crucibles that have been used to melt some enriched U.

Quote from Alan Smith

Some of that came 'from the horse's mouth' But I have a book somewhere with some other details. I'll go look for it.

Alan, I doubt enriched U is used in tank rounds. The fission reaction would add too little energy to make the cost of the depleted U worth the effect. As for D being present, this source of fusion energy was explored years ago and found to be too small to be important. So, I doubt this claim. Nevertheless, the use of uranium in the round is bad enough. This is just another method we humans are using to wipe ourselves out. For every person who is making life better, 10 others are working to destroy what is created. These ten are now winning.

Quote from JedRothwell

Most of the expense is not for the device itself, but rather for the equipment such as vacuum pumps, and diagnostic equipment such as SEM. So, my offer to help pay for LEC replications is not very generous. I am offering money to pay for materials and perhaps an upgrade or repair to equipment such as a vacuum pump. I cannot afford to build an entire lab. Anyone who wants to replicate this must already have the equipment they need, and the skills to operate it. You cannot start from zero. Suppose I found an enthusiastic but inexperienced person who wanted to replicate. Even if I handed them $200,000, they probably could not do it.

Very true!! This is not a project for amateurs. Even when the fusion reaction can be produced, the resulting behavior is not unambiguous. The reality comes only from many measurements being combined to show a common mechanism. Even when this universal mechanism is demonstrated, as I have done, people will not accept the results. I see no hope for progress until serious and trained people get involved while being supported at a level consistent with modern scientific study.

Quote from Shane D.

I'm curious; if you have read their most recent work as presented at ICCF24/25, which, if any, do you think is on the right track?

Shane, people are so far from the right track to be useless. This situation is typical of how all great discoveries are eventually developed. Progress is only made after all possible mistakes are made and corrected. We are still a long way from success.

Quote from Ryoji Furui

Dear Dr. Edmund Storms,

I wanted to reach out to you after completing an application process for supercomputer simulations. In our application, I referenced your latest paper because it could provide valuable justification and additional information for our LENR project.

So I am lucky to have seen your comment in this forum in advance. I do not want to draw attention to the subject that I quoted from your comment, as it is not permissible to engage in debates here. However, as a Japanese citizen, I believe that LENR has the potential to become a major energy source in the future, and its impact on society could be far-reaching, affecting many aspects of our lives beyond just the energy sector.

The only/best solution to avoid such tensions lies in semiconductors or AI. I believe that making LENR's core technology open-source and patent-free would be the most effective way to address these issues.

I am not an expert in intellectual property, but I presented the idea at the 24th Meeting of Japan CF-Research Society (JCF24) last year. I have presented my LENR experiment project, which aims to directly generate electrical output from LENRs. If you are interested, please take a look.

https://github.com/nanofusion/…n/JCF24presentationA.pptx

There is also a draft version of the proceeding. Both were developed in the communication on this forum.

https://github.com/nanofusion/…4proceedings_RFurui2D.pdf

Display More

Dear Dr Furui,

Thanks for your interest in my work and your unusual design for making electrical energy from cold fusion. I suggest you are getting too far ahead of the process to be useful. First, you need to find a way to cause the fusion reaction in an environment that is required to produce electric power. Second, you need to couple the energy generated by the fusion reaction to this environment. Both of these efforts will be very difficult. and without a clear path to success at the present time. I simpler method would be to use the heat energy to generate electrical power using thermoelectric converters. This method is well-known and easy to apply. But first, you would need to design an effective heat generator.

I agree that any basic design would be useless to patent because most of the money would be made by the lawyers. I expect the final design of a useful generator will have very little relationship to our present limited understanding. Cold fusion involves a new kind of nuclear process that we do not yet understand. Eventually, a correct understanding will lead to an entirely different approach. We are still a long way from that goal.

Quote from Alan Smith

The broad range of conditions under which cold fusion occurs and the wide range of materials it can be made to happen in is indeed a problem for the reductionist school of science. However, natural phenomena can be very diverse, life itself is so since it comes in a mind-boggling variety of types and can flourish in a wide variety of environments. Nobody seems to have any argument with that

I’m also a member of the reductionist school of science. I believe cold fusion occurs by the same mechanism regardless of the material or the method used. It’s just like life, which also uses the same mechanism regardless of the life-form. The challenge is to identify this common mechanism. Right now, everyone is proposing a different mechanism, many of which are in direct conflict with observed behavior. But, complaining is also a waste of time.

I agree, we need people to replicate the effect. Unfortunately, this is not easy to do. I was able to do this only because I could design and make the required apparatus. Thanks to several wise individuals, I had the money to buy the parts. Cold fusion makes heat, which requires a sensitive calorimeter that costs in excess of $25,000 even when it is self-made. Helium and tritium are even more difficult and expensive to detect. Radiation detection requires special skill because it can be detected mainly within the apparatus. Now energetic electron emission is found to occur. Unfortunately, its relationship to cold fusion is not agreed upon so that it cannot be used to demonstrate fusion as the cause. What is worse, each proposed model identifies different behaviors as proof that fusion occurs. Consequently, a person does not even know what to measure in order to prove that anything special is happening. People like THH will always find a reason to reject any claimed replication.

I predict the phenomenon will be studied seriously in the US and elsewhere only after it has been developed as a practical source of energy in China or Japan. Then economic desperation will be the driving force. Meanwhile, people will entertain themselves with mind-games having no value.

Opinions are frequently based on reasons other than a search for the truth. Psychological issues, political goals, or economic benefits can determine the reasons. If any one of these motivations applies, neither facts nor logical argument will have any effect on the opinions. We see these motivations operate in the political environment all the time.

Without naming names, many of the opinions expressed here are driven by psychological issues. The flawed opinions of Scientific American and the other skeptics are driven mainly by political goals. Some of the flawed theories such as the W-L theory were driven mainly by economic expectations. The people who actually make progress by searching for the truth are largely absent from cold fusion because it’s not worth their effort. Besides, the truth is difficult to find because it is so diluted by nonsense. These conditions make any progress impossible, as the experience here demonstrates on a small scale. The conditions have to change before progress is possible. Meanwhile, we can only sit back and wait, which is what I intend to do.

THH, I'm at a loss to understand what you intend to accomplish with your comments. Cold fusion is real. The only unknown is why and how the nuclear mechanism works. I have described the basic behaviors in my paper and suggested a mechanism. This description is based on well-documented and replicated behaviors. If you want to be useful, I suggest you explore the logical implications of this body of work. Simply claiming that errors are present is not only useless but demonstrates a juvenile approach to a serious problem. You are able to make a useful contribution but not by the path you have taken here. We need creative ideas but only when they are connected to the well-documented reality. Are you willing to do this? Will you help find the correct explanation?

Quote from Alan Smith

That would be a huge shame. Also I think you are here to inspire others, not the other way around. If you want to light a fire you have to use the wood that's available. Even if it's a little damp.

Unfortunately, the people who need to be inspired are not present in this discussion. Also, I can only inspire a mind that is not already filled with other ideas. It's not useful to discuss theories that have no relationship to the behavior. Even when I try to inject a reality, this effort is ignored. So, I see no path to a useful conclusion. Meanwhile, I believe my time can be better spent working on a paper that will be read by people who actually want to understand cold fusion.

Alan,

I see no purpose in this discussion. The comments have no relationship to how cold fusion actually behaves and the proposed explanations are mostly word salad having no relationship to scientific reality or logic. It’s nice that people are interested in this subject. But this is not a game of who can suggest the most creative explanation. We need a serious effort to understand a phenomenon that might well save civilization if it can be applied. So, I’m leaving this discussion and looking elsewhere for inspiration.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, while imagination embraces the whole world, stimulating progress, giving rise to evolution.” A. Einstein

The imagination is your personal interpretation of reality. It may or may not have any relationship to the universal reality that we all share. We are trying to understand the reality that we all share.

Quote from JedRothwell

I don't mean to quibble, but let's look at how people such as THH and editors at Scientific American claim they can falsify observed behavior. They say that all of the observations are mistakes, or fraud. Let us grant that if that were true, cold fusion would be falsified.

Jed, an observation is always true. Only the explanation can be false. F-P measured behaviors they interpreted as being caused by the production of heat energy. The behaviors were real. The skeptics claimed the behaviors were not caused by heat energy. This claim did not falsify the behaviors. Only a mathematical equation can be falsified by showing that it conflicts with other mathematical equations. This might seem to be quibbling but the distinction is important to logic. The THH objection is more psychological than scientific. This is also an important distinction to make.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

Cold nuclear fusion is a chain reaction of reverse beta decay according to the scheme:

ῡ_e + n → p + e^- + ῡ_e + 13,6 eV →

For example:

→ ῡ + ⁶³Ni₂₈ +¹H→ ⁶³Cu₂₉ +e ^- + ῡ +¹H + Q=E (energy)

No evidence exists to support this explanation. This is based only on your imagination. Unless you acknowledge the observed behavior, further discussion would useless.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

In the course of my theoretical research, I came to the conclusion that, within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm, it is in principle impossible to explain cold nuclear fusion.

I propose a specific critical falsification experiment in laboratory conditions, but no one wants to do it yet.

Yet, I have explained cold fusion and it's impossible to falsify an observed behavior. In other words, what you say makes no sense.

Quote from Drgenek

Yes, I can for catalysis. But comparison of my model and your is like comparing apples and oranges.

The first difference is that your model is in or on a solid and mine works in a gas and likely will explain what happens in dislocation loops a solid. The second is your reaction is between hydrogen or deuterium. From the data derived balance nuclear equation, you should see that deuterium-to-deuterium fusion happens in case of catalysis. If you read my latest post in the other thread where I explain in the detail (which needed for a good analysis), you should see that there can be hydrogen to hydrogen fusion. However, the stoichiometry indicates fusion of hydrogen or deuterium produces oxygen. Further the main nuclear reaction sequence includes the reactions in the alpha cycle but terminates by fission to nitrogen. If oxygen is present, then oxygen is the main target of hydrogen fusion. In catalysis the coulomb barrier is not lowered rather the distribution of energy available from the catalysis supplies the MeV energies necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier.

I will not compare these things further in this thread because the facts and details of the analysis matter. You can just say the stoichiometry can't possibly be true and your believers will just go along. Likewise, you can be dismissive in other reasonable conclusions which you can call just imagination. Discussion here will prevent people from reading what they would need to understand my model. They would believe the lie that stoichiometry is fake. So, the discussion would be promotion rather than discussion of analysis and facts. I don't believe in consensus science: it is too political. As I said these things will be made clear in due time in the other thread.

Drgenek, you are not describing cold fusion. You are describing an entirely different phenomenon for which no experimental observation exists. I suggest you are in the wrong discussion group. As for my being submissive, if you can not tell the difference between imagination and reality, you have problems far beyond cold fusion. I see nothing wrong with using imagination but its use needs to be clearly identified.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

My vision of the cold fusion problem LENR:

Thanks for the information. I do not know how to respond because I can not understand what you describe. Your view of Nature is entirely different than mine. I have no idea how you can do what you intend or why the described behavior would result from your efforts. In short, you are not describing the reality I know.