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

Posts by Storms

    Since some of the results seem to be consistent with my theory, let me clarify exactly what I propose.

    I propose the NAE is a gap slightly wider than the normal distance between the planes of Pd atoms in the fcc structure. Such a gap can form at several different places in a structure. The gap can form between two different metals, for example between Pd and Ni, it can form between Pd and an inert material present as an inclusion, for example between Pd and CaO or B2O3, and can form at grain boundaries in the Pd structure. Once formed, this gap becomes populated by many hydrogen atoms (any isotope) by forming a chemical molecule as result of a normal chemical process. This chemical molecule, which I call the Hydroton, has the very unusual ability to cause fusion between the hydrogen atoms in the molecule. This molecule can also interact with surrounding atoms to cause their transmutation. The presence of hydrogen in the material causes dimensional changes that can cause these gaps to form. Consequently, hydrogen isotopes are both a fuel and also provide the mechanism by which the gaps are formed. The challenge is to keep the gaps from growing too wide for the Hydroton to form.

    My explanation of the NAE is totally consistent with normal chemical and observed behavior. Once the NAE forms, the nuclear process begins without further intervention as long as hydrogen isotopes are present. The nature of this reaction is novel and not understood. Nevertheless, this unusual kind of nuclear reaction plays no role in causing or influencing the NAE. Formation of the NAE and the resulting nuclear process are two separate and independent events. This being the case, other molecules might become nuclear active under certain very rare and special circumstances. In other words, some of the behavior reported to cause transmutation might result thanks to this unusual ability of certain chemical molecules to support a nuclear process. This idea is new and will, I'm sure, blow the minds of some people. Pass the word and see what happens. :)


    When reviewing science, the average scientist is easy to fool, often even in their own field, if someone takes the deliberate steps to deceive them. They don't expect deception and almost always have no reason to expect it. Of course there are exceptions to the generalization and there are scientists good at detecting fraud and errors but you don't seem to like them very much. Scientists who have studied magic are much harder to fool. Those who particularly look for deception also. But they are rare.

    While Rossi may have been convincing the first few months he made claims for his original rusty junk, it rapidly became clear to anyone skeptical that he was a third rate con man who was practicing deception. Clear to anyone other than many principals in LENR, the ones I and others often refer to as "the usual suspects" after the famous line by the Humphrey Bogart character in the classic movie Casablanca. Rossi was only able to fool as many as he did and amass millions of unearned dollars because scientists who examined his work were desirous and gullible. Rossi's single solitary skill was in detecting gullible people and making sure that for the most part, they were the only ones working close to him. He was amazingly good at that!

    Let's discuss skepticism. You seem to have knowledge about the average scientist I do not have. I have worked with scientists for over 65 years without detecting the gullibility you seem to see. If find scientists to be even more skeptical than the average person because, as Jed noted, they know what is real and possible based on a greater scientific education than the average person.

    On the other hand, I find people who call themselves skeptics are prone to being ignorant about the subject they are criticizing. This characteristic was made even more obvious when LENR was evaluated by such people. I have no problem with applied skepticism, in fact I welcome it. Instead, I object to ignorance and the ego being the motivator. Skeptics reveal their real motivation when they insist only they can see the error and only they can suggest the solution. At the same time, any critical evaluation of their idea is met with arrogant dismal. Of course, not all people who apply skepticism behave this way. The problem seems to be characteristic of those people who take pride in being called a skeptic, as if this were a special calling only they have the skill to follow.

    As for Rossi, you keep ignoring a very important fact. Rossi did a bait and switch. The bait appeared to show excess energy. He later described a material and method that did not produce excess energy. Meanwhile, he attempted to scale up the first method and failed. He lied to cover the failure. You seem to be so traumatized by the lies, you are unable to see what was real. Of course, more evidence would be needed before a person should invest money in his claim. Unfortunately, the effort to replicate was applied to the wrong material using the wrong method. We still do not know for sure what material Rossi actually used to produce the claimed energy. As long as you and other people keep throwing the baby out with the bath water, we will never know.

    The skeptics that evaluated F-P took the same emotional approach. Because the effect did not emit neutrons, F-P must be lying or were deceived, especially after their mistake in interpreting the gamma spectrum. The skeptics could not see the part that was real. Now we know F-P were right and the skeptics were wrong. I wonder when the skeptics will admit to and suffer the shame they attempted to inflicted on F-P?

    Yesterday they told me they did talk to Storms, but they decided not to act on his advice, for the most part.

    They also confirmed my impression that in their Pd-D experiments, they probably did not achieve high enough loading to produce cold fusion, according to McKubre's graph. (…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg) In one case, they may have come close. However, as you see in the graph, at borderline loading ratios below 0.96 you may get heat or you may not. Bear in mind that various method of measuring loading will produce varying ratios.

    I'm glad the people you talked to have the same understanding as I have about my advice being followed. My advice is based on my interpretation of the reported behavior. This interpretation differs from that of certain influential people in the field. As is always the case, the path taken is based on which map a person thinks is the most accurate.

    My map is based on the following conclusion. The need to achieve a high D/Pd ratio is a diagnostic of a condition present in the material that must be present for LENR to occur. The high D/Pd ratio, itself, has no effect on the process. I propose a high D/Pd ratio can not be achieved unless a special condition is present in the material. This special condition also affects the amount of excess volume that forms when the material reacts with D, with the least production of excess volume allowing a greater D/Pd ratio and an increased production of LENR. This concept is important because it shifts the focus from what the experimenter is doing to what was done to the Pd before the experimenter started the loading process. In other words, the production of LENR requires Pd to have a particular characteristic that is revealed by its ability to achieve a high D/Pd ratio and a small production of excess volume.

    In contrast, the common belief is that the high D/Pd ratio, itself, creates the condition needed to cause LENR. These two different conclusions suggest different paths to follow to achieve success. Google is following the conventional path and Gates is following my path. The future will reveal which path was more correct.

    You are doing a good job of an implied personal attack. I get that you have a large political following. I am not building on imagination but reproducible observations well out of the error range. The thing is, that results are more powerful in the long run than an exclusive opinion. Your theory is basic correct. I just disagree that that solid state is best approach and thus that the results are not reproducible is the gaseous state.

    I mean no personal attack any more than you did by your comment. I'm simply pointing out that the characteristics of LENR are based on thousands of results. These results need to be acknowledged. If you are working in the gaseous state and detecting nuclear reactions, I suggest you either look for the source in the walls of the solid container or consider a different mechanism than that identified as LENR.

    Respectfully disagree. Skeptics potentially weed out scum like Rossi. If Tom Darden had enlisted skeptics to recommend ways to test Rossi's claims properly before he was given $11+ million, that money would most likely still be available for legitimate research like that performed by Drs. McKubre and Storms and others. Instead, it has gone to pay for a crook's condominium investments, as proven by property records.

    It does not take a skeptic to weed out bad data or lairs. Any good scientist, especially one who knows something about LENR and how it is known to behave would have done a good job of advising IH. What is worse, the skeptic tends to overlook supporting information while focusing on the claim not being real. For example, the initial Rossi tests clearly showed excess power. But then he did a bait and switch by changing the material and the way it was treated. No one seemed to notice. Then he lied big time. The people who ran Defkalion, who tried to rip off Rossi, also lied. Being a skeptic was not required to know this. But people were so intent on proving the skeptics wrong, they were willing to overlook the obvious flaws in the claims. The skeptics did nothing useful. In fact, the skeptics have been nothing but a distraction to advancing our understanding of LENR. I expect being called a skeptic of LENR will eventually be used as a form of insult, like being called a flatearther or a global-warming-denier.

    Nice analogy, but we needed to present TG with the true one and only 100% accurate satellite-verified road map to the final destination of fully understanding cold fusion before they will advance any further, having already invested $10 million in what turned out to be a negative result. They say they may take it further but who knows?

    In other words, you think Google wants a free ride with everyone doing the hard work while they wait for the secret to be revealed to them so they can apply the information to their advantage. I expect they will have a long wait. People who discover the secret would not be expected to tell Google. I expect Gates, as well as people in other countries, will not share what will be very valuable information. Even Rossi knew enough not to share what he actually did. Once shared, the value contained in the information would be lost to the original owner. Unless Google pays to have research done, they will know nothing of value. I do not expect Google to be the leader in this subject. They simply do not have an effective attitude. If they actually spent 10M$ trying to understand LENR, then most of this money was wasted because it was not applied in an effective way. But, as IH demonstrated, the person with the gold gets to lose the gold.

    Maybe McKubre is a bit disillusioned because we failed to come up with a cut-and-dried experimental proposal for TG to proceed with - we made lots of suggestions for them to play with - but basically until we understand the underlying science endless experimentation has proven little advance in the last 30 years. All we know is we can show that it works (sometimes) we should by now know fully how it works, We all have our own pet theories. These need to be rigorously tested and narrowed down/disproven/eliminated to one remaining overall theory of LENR/cold fusion.

    I would like to suggest a different attitude toward theory than is normally expressed, especially in physics. The goal is not to prove or disprove a theory. This approach only applies to mathematical theories. In experimental science, a theory is used as a guide or map in order to help summarize what is known. It can be best viewed as an incomplete map a traveler might use to locate a better route to a goal. The map does not have to be perfect. It only needs to be good enough to help avoid the dead ends and false ideas. Gradually as a chosen path is taken, the intention is for the map on which the path is based to improve until it can lead to the goal every time. Unfortunately, we now have a collection of maps showing different locations for the rivers and mountains with the goal frequently placed in the wrong quadrant. As result, the travelers are moving in many directions over the landscape with very few going in the correct direction. Clearly, one particular map is better than all the others. Obviously, the people who use this map will reach the goal before the other explorers. Which map are you using? Which map do you think will allow the goal to be reached first? Your choice will determine your success.

    My hat is off to McKubre, for once. That is exactly what I and many skeptics have been claiming albeit less eloquently, for at least eight years now, since Rossi raised his ugly head in 2011.

    This has been a problem from the beginning. McKubre has said nothing new. Several people, myself included, published several methods known to improve success years ago. Since then, while understanding has improved, this knowledge has not been accepted and applied. Everyone who gets into the LENR field seems to have their own ideas about what is important. Furthermore, people want a recipe that can be used without having to think much about the process. Acquiring the required skill and knowledge seems to be too much trouble for many people.

    Once again, the skeptics are adding nothing new to the discussion. If you actually want to cause LENR, you need to identify the condition in which the nuclear process must occur. Unfortunately, you have several of choices of this condition and how it needs to be created. Your success will be determined by which procedure you choose and how successfully you apply the required treatment. In any case, achieving success would require skill and patience, two qualities in short supply. If you want success, ask the right questions and then actually apply the answers.

    It is only in the LENR field (little interest in peer-reviewed publication, little interest in open and robust critique) that somone can have stable >> error excess heat claimed devices for several years and yet no independent measurement. let us hope that soon changes.


    THH, when you state such conclusions, you reveal no understanding of what is happening. Independent testing requires money and the equipment needed to do the test. Both are in short supply. Nevertheless, I know for a fact that many attempts to perform independent measurements have been made, some with success and some without success. More are underway. Consequently, making such general statements further amplifies the lie being told by skeptics. Also, most papers are peer reviewed. Granted, JCMNS is willing to accept papers that are not of the highest quality. This is done because we still do not know everything about the effect. No one wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. Nevertheless, the good papers demonstrate the reality of LENR without any doubt. Only the details are unknown. Although you frequently do a good job of finding error and suggesting improvement, you at the same time do a lousy job of being objective and accurate about what is known and what is happening in this field. We need people of influence to support the importance and reality of LENR so that the money and willingness needed to study the effect become available. Your efforts toward this goal would be more valuable than making silly comments having no justification.

    Restricting LENR to condensed matter or requiring neutron/ and or other high energy nuclear products is a private definition. I do not agree. It seems like protecting you interests over finding the science.

    No Drgenek, this is not a private definition. This is how the effect is described by people who have actually studied the effect. This describes what is observed. In order to find the science, as you say, what is observed needs to be acknowledged. It does no good to simply imagine what is happening. The imagination is useful only when it is applied to what is known. Otherwise, you would be building on sand without any relationship to reality.

    That statement is only true, if one rejects the production of what was call magnegas as not resulting from the same mechanism behind LENR. But the truth maybe that a commercial company has been making millions of dollars per year by the application of LENR. I haven't seen a better explanation than that the extreme magnetic fields that cause magnetic bond in magnegas are a result of nuclear excitation.

    LENR is by definition the initiation of various nuclear reactions without the need to apply significant energy. The reactions take place on;y in special conditions present in condensed matter and result in heat energy along with nuclear products without significant radiation being detected. In other words, this is an unusual nuclear process that result in conventional types of nuclear products while generating mostly heat energy. If you want to explain Magnegas, I suggest you use a different word. Trying to relate or mix different behaviors is a good way to create confusion, especially since neither LENR nor magnegas are understood.

    Your comment is right on and very important. NO METHOD CAN PRODUCE LENR WITH RELIABILITY. That fact needs to be accepted. We can say only that some methods work more often than others.

    For example, I have explored the Pd-B system in detail, including material that was claimed to work. The conditions required to make such material work are not known and are difficult to control. Success requires this material be studied in detail to figure out exactly what condition must be created in the material to support LENR. In other words, rather than expect success from use of a particular batch of PdB, the approach should be designed to explore the material to find out exactly what is happening in the material that might support LENR. Furthermore, the reduction in oxygen content, which is the favorite explanation for the beneficial effect of B, is very unlikely to be correct in spite of this being the explanation proposed by Fleischmann .

    This approach would require a long term project based on the belief that success would be possible. In addition, rather than speculate about how such an alloy behaves, I suggest an effort be made to ask the right people what is actually known about the material. I would be glad to share what I have observed.

    The same can be said of the other method proposed to work. For example, I have found the co-deposition method to be far more complex than has been described. The electroplating of Pd is a highly developed art that needs to be understood and applied because the electroplating approach called co-deposition is not unique in supporting LENR. Other methods also support LENR. We need to discover what common condition results from this method.

    I propose both PdB and electrplating of Pd produce the same NAE. If this were true, the nature of the NAE can be further defined. Why not explore this possibility as a path to to understanding the true nature of the NAE?

    In my world, burnishing involves sliding one surface over another. The process can have a variety of consequences to the conditions on the surfaces. A rough surface can be made smooth, a smooth surface can form groves, and the material in the one surface can transfer to the other surface. The latter process is important in the Mizuno method. Pd is transferred to the Ni surface as an amorphous film of Pd metal. In addition, the thin NiO layer on the Ni surface would be disrupted and mixed with the Pd as it is applied. Because this is a chaotic process, the properties and thickness of the Pd layer and the NiO content of the layer will be highly variable. Apparently, an accidental combination of properties will produce local regions of NAE when the layer is repeatedly reacted with D2. If the NAE is as I propose, it would form as small gaps as result of local stress relief. This process is also chaotic and impossible to reproduce with reliability. Consequently, every attempt to replicate the LENR effect can be expected to produce different amounts of power at the same temperature because different numbers of NAE sites will be caused to form. We can only hope to make excess power more frequently than is possible using other methods but we will never be able to produce the same amount of power with any predictability. In other words, this will never be a reliable method for commercial energy production.

    We first need to determine the nature of the NAE. The burnishing method might provide a way to do this if the process were examined in the proper way. After we know what the NAE actually consists of, we can make it on purpose. The work needs to focus on this goal.

    I am of the understanding that one of the best shots at 3. we will ever get, is to take the "lucky" Mizuno meshes, analyse the crap out of them, and work hard on the logic. So we are waiting for the analysis.

    Yes, the Mizuno method is one of several methods I can suggest that can or have worked. However, each is influenced by unknown variables that can make them difficult to reproduce without suitable efforts being made to understand and apply this understanding. In the case of Mizuno, the burnishing process is the important variable not the mesh. I predict progress will be slow until this conclusion is acknowledged and applied. In fact, a mesh would be the worst of all possible materials to use. The best material would be a sheet of metal, perhaps Ni, thick enough to resist the pressure applied by the burnishing process. This is a well known mechanical process. What is preventing people from applying what is known rather than guessing. The nuclear reaction is a lucky consequence of this conventional process and does not need to be considered in order to understand what the burnishing process is doing to the surface. Can we focus on what is known about the normal and completely conventional aspects of the burnishing process?

    In order to avoid confusion and long winded discussions that mean nothing, I would like to suggest several facts needing acknowledgement.

    1. LENR has been found to produce energetic radiation but not with sufficient energy for most of it to be detected outside the apparatus. Because this energy has a spectrum of values, radiation at the upper end of that energy spectrum is occasionally detected. Also, secondary radiation produced by the primary radiation interacting with materials in the apparatus can be produced. This kind of behavior needs to be acknowledged to avoid making useless comments.

    2. The NAE describers a chemical or physical condition existing in a solid structure in which a nuclear reaction can take place. Creation of the NAE is a normal chemical-physical process having no relationship to the subsequent nuclear reaction. While different kinds of NAE might exist, the rarity and difficulty to cause the subsequent nuclear process argues for there being only one kind of NAE. Nevertheless, different nuclear products can form as result of the nuclear process occurring in the same kind of NAE, but when different reactants are present. The challenge is to figure out how such an unusual nuclear process works. What kind of nuclear process can cause hydrogen isotopes to fuse, cause helium and hydrogen nuclei to be inserted into a heavy nuclei, cause the resulting transmuted nucleus to fission, and cause transmutation in biological systems? I suggest a Nobel Prize is waiting for the people who can figure this out.

    3. I believe the Coulomb barrier is real and must be overcome for any nuclear process to occur. This barrier can be obviously overcome when high energy is applied. Apparently, it also can be overcome with high efficiency without using high applied energy. The challenge is to figure out how this is possible. While Nature might have several mechanisms for doing this, all of the mechanisms seem to require a similar NAE. The challenge is to figure out how to make this condition with predictability. Right now it is apparently made by luck and an accidental combination of uncontrolled variables. These important variables need to be identified. Can we focus on this problem?

    Why do you or anyone focus on the nature of the mesh? The LENR reaction involves interaction between individual atoms. From an atom's point of view, a mesh does not exist. The mesh consists of regions were Pd can be deposited and regions were it can not be deposited, with no control over how much of each region exists in the material. Consequently, use of mesh creates a totally random and chaotic environment. What is the value in trying to reproduce something that simply cannot be duplicated? Mizuno used mesh only to allow better thermal contact with the wall, not because it would be expected to be a better material for producing LENR. His use came from his early work involving gas discharge during which Pd was transferred from the anode to the mesh. Absolutely no reason exists to expect a mesh would be beneficial when burnishing is used. In contrast, a sheet of Ni would provide a controlled active area, would provide a reproducible surface, and would allow better control of the burnishing process. Remember, you are trying to discover whether burnishing can cause LENR, not whether the Mizuno approach is required. Please look at the process from an atoms point of view. This is not an engineering problem that is related to the shape and size of the object being used.

    Figure six could be mad with 1 MM platinum wire, I do know that VWR sells platinum mesh, using a jewelry welder it can be made in minutes. On another note where there gas samples taken? Or is there no way to take them? Just wondering if there was excess helium?

    I have created a model that explains all the observed behavior in a logically consistent way, including conservation of momentum and spin. I have made several testable predictions, including predictions based on the Mizuno work. Yet, this effort is ignored. Why? Unlike the other theories, no behavior is in conflict basic knowledge about the material or nuclear physics. Of course, the theory contains unique processes as is required to explain the unique behavior of LENR. Nevertheless, the ideas are no more crazy than those used in other theories that are given attention.

    Granted, I'm not known as being a theoretician, as is Hagelstein, but perhaps that is an advantage in this field. Perhaps being able to look at the collection of behavior without being distracted by the thinking process theoreticians like to apply is a benefit. We have a puzzle game for which we need to find the rules by observing a response. Theoreticians tend to bring an attitude or basic conclusion to the problem that can be distracting. I bring no such baggage. I look at all behavior and ask what rules would allow this behavior to take place without violating any of the chosen rules or any accepted rule of Nature. Although a chosen rule may not be correct, at least the collection is internally consistent and not in conflict with what is known. Is that not a requirement of all effective theories? But if no one pays any attention to the effort, what value does it have?

    Also, I would like to point out, the process of looking at natural behavior in new ways has revealed unusual behavior having no relationship to LENR. To avoid confusion, this behavior needs to be kept separate from the behavior associated with the LENR phenomenon. Please avoid putting every strange behavior in the same pot.

    Fralick's diffused H or D from Pd bulk to outside, XH with D nothing with H, what is here the relation NAE/XH ?

    According to my theory all isotopes of hydrogen will fuse. D+D makes He and 23 MeV/event. H+H makes D with about 2 MeV/ event, which is why the H+H fusion is seldom detected. H+D fusion makes tritium. In every case, the rate of reaction is determined by how fast the hydrogen isotope can get to the NAE by diffusion through the surrounding hydride . Of course, the greater the number of NAE sites, the greater the amount power will be produced.

    The so-called boil off is simply the result of the exponential increase in power as temperature is increased. Why not simply measure the effect of temperature, as I and Mizuno have done, instead of causing the electrolyte to boil. Calling the effect feedback, as Fleischmann did, causes confusion. Many exothermic reactions show this kind of behavior. The only question is what causes the temperature to have this effect. I have suggested the obvious answer, that for fusion to take place the D atoms have to diffuse to the location where this happens. The rate of diffusion, which increases exponentially with temperature appears to be the rate determining process. Once this idea is understood, the effect of temperature becomes obvious and controllable.

    Yes, LENR is impossible. Nuclear reactions are not influenced by a chemical environment. This is a well known fact. Like all well known facts, exceptions seem to keep happening. Like all exceptions, the the reason for their existence needs to be discovered. Scientists make a living by exploring exceptions. Why is this one so hard to explore?

    I can understands the confusion common when discussing LENR. It comes from having a basic belief or attitude toward the phenomenon through which all information is filtered. People are frequently unaware this is happening. I'm sure you all have had this happen in other subjects when the person to whom you are describing your ideas does not seem to catch on and keeps jumping to conclusions that have little relationship to what you said. In contrast, some people can see your point immediately. This does not mean such people agree, only that they can understand what you are saying. Most people respond in the former way when discussing LENR including the people at Google- they do not catch on. Consequently, a great deal of time and effort is required to have the basic ideas understood. Unfortunately, most people do not have the time and patience to fully understand, including the people at Google. Such people think they understand but in fact they do not.

    I see this process operate here in the response some people have to my comments. Some people understand immediately and others do not. Normally this failure does not matter unless the person is in charge of research. Ignorance in this role has important consequences. That is why I believe Google will fail even though their intentions are good. They simply do not understand what is required. Their intention of being an explorer without a map was only useful during the first few years of the LENR history. Now that approach is a waste of time. Now a very good map can be drawn based on thousands of pieces of information. But, to draw such a map, the information must be believed and placed in logical order. For example, THH could not draw such a map because he does not believe what has been observed has any relationship to LENR. The people at Google could not draw such a map because they do not believe LENR is a new kind of fusion. They believe it is a variation of hot fusion, i.e. a reaction that is consistent with the conventional understanding of the fusion process. Unfortunately, changing attitudes at this level is not possible. The people simply have to learn by experience. They need to go over the cliff that was clearly marked on the map but ignored. Other people who follow the map will avoid the cliff and find the gold. The future will reveal which is which.