Posts by Storms

Quote from Wyttenbach

Yes this is 1000% true. The standard model is outraging garbage and has been experimentally refuted by dozens of experiments. The latest total fail has been linked here 4 days ago.

This is 100% wrong.

Chemistry happens among excited electron levels not (always) directly related to the nucleus.

The coulomb barrier always is/was measured by kinetic experiments. Cold fusion has no kinetics. This is key for understanding the energy transfer of CF. In kinetic experiments excess energy is added to decay particle momenta. This does not work if you have a symmetric excitation in the form of D*-D* due to the most basic lay in physics = momentum conservation. 4-He also has no gamma spectrum, that would allow an asymmetric transfer mode. So the only active mode is fine structure radiation like Schwarz did measure.

Display More

Every day that liquid H2 or D2 does not fuse demonstrates that a barrier exists. Even D in Pd does not fuse most of the time. This also demonstrates the existence of a barrier. I suggest you read my paper and comment on my description rather than simply speculating based on your imagination.

I agree, the standard model is incomplete but what is missing is the question.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Ed, you should start to forget teh old physics garbage of Coulomb barrier. In neutral mass there is no barrier at all! Charge is only formed if you separate e - p. A bound electron behaves as EM flux and is a part of the total mass structure.

Did you ever look at the Gold (AU) spectrum? It does not exists as the (most) electrons are included in the mass structure.

If I model some Nickel Isotopes then we see that the core contains extra electron masses what explains why external resonant stimulation like done by Brillouin works.

In other words, all of the present understanding of nuclear structure is wrong. All of the present understanding of the electron structure on which chemistry is based is wrong. All of the measurements of the Coulomb barrier are wrong. According to your understanding, nature is organized in entirely different ways. Frankly, I'm not willing to reject the basic understanding that has resulted from over two centuries of effort.

Quote from Cydonia

Nanogaps imply no more than 15 eV maximum...

The energy is not the issue. The question is whether enough electrons can assemble into a stable structure that can cause the nuclei to get close enough to interact. This is a new kind of electron assembly. You need to stop thinking in ordinary ways.

Quote from gio06

Seems however that it's not sufficiently clear that "a new kind of electron interaction" requires necessarily a new realistic electron model.

If not then the present model must be applied in a different way because this behavior has not been predicted or explained by the present model. That is why the EVO claim has been rejected by conventional scientists.

Quote from Curbina

I think I already mentioned this, but this "new kind of electron interaction" is most likely what the late Kenneth Shoulders termed "EV" and also the late Takaaki Matsumoto acknowledged to be what he was observing and that he likened to the ball lightning phenomena and called Micro Ball Lightning, and proposed the term electro nuclear collapse to explain the observed phenomena.

I know this is highly controversial, but there is evidence that this interaction can happen without the need for a gap in a metal lattice, as an equivalent phenomena has been observed in hydrodynamic systems (ultrasound or mechanical driven cavitation systems in aqueous systems) and also in magnetohydrodynamic systems where self organizing plasmas can be formed. The gaps in metal are probably a favorable condition to form this electro estructure capable of rearranging matter to produce heat, as the phenomena outside metals tends to be much more prone to transmutation than heat.

I agree, the EV and ball lightning both involve an electron assembly process similar to that required for cold fusion. I note this in my paper. The process might also aid the operation of chemical catalysts and certain chemical reactions.

However, the assembly of enough electrons needed to cause a nuclear process would be an extreme example of this mechanism. Therefore, fusion would need a very special environment in which to occur. I believe nanogaps are required because these would encourage a high concentration of electrons to form. These gaps can be formed by many different processes including cavitation.

Also, transmutation has such a high Coulomb barrier that its occurrence is considered impossible without the added energy supplied by a local fusion event. So, I suggest people stop thinking of transmutation as a separate process. Instead, This event makes sense only as a secondary process as the result of a fusion reaction. The Iwamura work is consistent with this conclusion.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ed - you do realise that is an oxymoron?

Perhaps, but I would say this is the same as the difference between a liar and a person who fails to detect the lie.

Quote from Curbina

Another semi famous skeptic paper that claims that the origin of excess heat in LENR comes from an ion exchange process between H and D, at least shows clearly that it is initially endothermic, and the reasons they give to justify this as “the origin of excess heat claims” completely ignore that a calorimeter catches this process right away.

https://www.colorado.edu/facul…d-files/dmitriyeva12b.pdf

It's obvious and common knowledge that all kinds of chemical processes can generate temporary energy in a chemical system. This paper describes such a source. The authors made the error of relating this chemical energy to the energy resulting from cold fusion. The two sources have no relationship in magnitude, duration, or logic. Consequently, this paper should be an embarrassment to the authors and to anyone using the paper as support for the rejection of cold fusion.

Quote from THHuxleynew

In the case of this skeptic - it was ignored because you did not reference it in the paper you posted here. (Or at least not explicitly in that context). I realise thought that was only a draft!

THH, I'm not faulting you personally. The paper you quoted contains the original ignorance. You only failed to apply your critical skills.

Quote from Alan Smith

Is it possible that a small additional amount of heat energy comes from the physical re-ordering of the lattice when the D2/H2 is desorbed?

Alan, The reported value for the formation reaction contains all sources of energy. The reverse reaction must have exactly the same value as the forward reaction. Otherwise, energy could be produced forever simply by reversing a reaction.

Let me clarify. There is a graph showing the amount of energy released when Pd reacts with H2. When this reaction takes place in an electrolytic cell, the H2O must first be decomposed to obtain the H2 before the PdH can form. The energy needed to decompose the H2O is far greater than the energy that is produced when the H2 reacts with Pd, hence the overall reaction is endothermic.

For the same reason, the loss of H2 would produce an overall exothermic reaction, but only to the extent that O2 is available. Very little O2 is available in a thpical cell, so the overall reaction after the small amount of O2 has been used up would be endothermic. The sudden heating that is observed lasts too long for it to be explained by an H2O reaction. The failure of the skeptics to acknowledge this fact is one of the many examples of just how ignorant the skeptic belief system really is.

By the way, I was able to justify the accuracy of my calorimeter by replicating this behavior. Why is this fact ignored?Storms, E. (2019). "The Enthalpy of Formation of PdH as a Function of H/Pd Atom Ratio." J. Cond. Matter. Nucl. Sci. 29: 275-285.

Ed

Quote from THHuxleynew

Just to compress all that.

This guy Galushkin says what I think everyone here would agree - that electrode deloading is exothermic. His experiments replicate F-P and quantify heat available from deloading, also they show sudden energy release (explosion) from the same mechanism.

THH, the removal of H from PdH is endothermic, i.e. energy is used. Energy is released only when the H2 reacts with the surrounding O2. A small calorimeter seldom retains all of the O2 required to fully react with the amount of H2 contained in the PdH. So, significant self-heating can not result from this chemical process. Occasionally, a cell will explode because the gas contains a mixture of O2 and H2 after the PdH has become fully loaded. This chemical reaction, while violent, releases very little energy.

Why do these poor studies get so much attention? If you want to prove or disprove cold fusion, why not examine the best studies? Why not examine the studies that made both He and energy. Then explain how both excess energy and He could result from the same cell with nearly the correct He/energy ratio? Why not spend your time on a REAL problem?

Ed

Quote from THHuxleynew

You are making a good point. And of course I think that would be pretty well impossible (over many experiments).

It is more that Staker's experiment (and maybe we should not generalise to all experiments from it - but we can to some) appears superficially well-written but the calorimetry - which has been in many ways carefully done - contains gaps in the write-up of what was measured that make decoding what was actually done very difficult.

In this situation - even though you can try and bound all the errors and say - "well there is still and above chemical anomaly" - you do not have confidence that this is real, rather than some other undocumented thing in the experiment that no-one (including Staker) has considered. because you know the experiment does not document things that could be significant - even though they are not.

So incomplete write-ups lead to uncertainty. Which is a shame when it is an interesting experiment with potentially useful results, and potential replicability.

Display More

THH, as you know, every measurement contains errors. The Staker work has a greater uncertainty than many other measurements because he used a calorimeter of poor design. The question is, "Was any part of the heat he measured the result of LENR?" Or, to the larger question, "Was any part of any measured heat the result of LENR?" If any heat was produced by LENR, then LENR is real. If any helium was produced by LENR, then LENR is real. If any tritium was produced by LENR, then LENR is real.

Most papers in all fields of science can be shown to have flaws in logic when an effort is made to find a flaw, either real or imagined. In fact, I have peer-reviewed hundreds of papers in my long career. I have seen very few papers I would describe as perfect, including my own. So, when you ask and require a complete write-up, you are asking for the impossible. Nevertheless, many papers that describe LENR are as close to complete as is commonly accepted in normal science, yet they are ignored. Why would you believe that any paper about LENR would not suffer the same fate no matter how well it was written? In any case, you are asking for something that will not and can not be supplied. So, please stop. Please change your focus to something useful.

All measurements contain errors. In the case of cold fusion, THH claims that the magnitude of the error is equal to the total measured value in every case. In addition, this situation occurs no matter what property is measured or by whom. The error is always equal to the total measured value when heat is measured regardless of the type of calorimeter being used, the error is equal to the amount of measured helium regardless of how the measurement is made, and all reported tritium results from an error in the measurement no matter how skilled the measurement. In other words, only incompetent scientists who have no ability to understand how errors can be produced end up making such measurements.

He makes these assertions with conviction and sincerity. His statements are valuable because he is speaking for most of the scientific profession, which he takes pride in doing. So, THH is providing a valuable reminder of what is believed by most leaders in the scientific establishment. This general belief will not be changed by anything THH suggests. The belief is too strongly held to be changed by a few experiments, no matter how simple. The change will come only after a working generator is made available by a country or company. So, our job should be directed toward that end. In other words, stop wasting time trying to address the issues THH raises and start trying to discover how LENR actually works and how it can actually be made useful.

The LEC effect contains serious irony. For the electron emission to be produced, the cold fusion nuclear reaction must occur. Therefore, the LEC observation is important because the electron current is easier to measure at much lower rates than any other diagnostic for LENR. Consequently, Gordon's experience demonstrates that LENR is much easier to produce than previously thought, although only at very low rates. While the electrons have no practical value, they do provide an easy way to demonstrate that LENR is actually happening.

The same irony applies to the use of high temperatures. LENR is very sensitive to temperature. As a result, many of the failed attempts done at room temperature would have been successful if the temperature had been increased. Sadly, McKubre worked hard to keep the temperature in his calorimeter constant, which denied this important insight for many years even though Fleischmann said that increased temperature was important.

The problem now is the absence of the correct description of the conditions required to produce LENR and its mechanism. This flaw will not change because the leadership in this field is no longer able to change their beliefs as new behaviors are discovered. We are now seeing the same rigid beliefs inside the field as is a problem in general science. The ability to ask questions and explore new ideas has been lost.

THH, the cold fusion effect has been replicated many tmes. I have replicated it many times The other people who kept working in the field have replicated it. I can show anyone who is interested how to replicate the process. Of course, skill is required. The proper equipment is required. The willingness to follow instructions is required. Very few people have these characteristics. Also, the replication must be done by a well-known and respected organization and by well-known researchers. My success does not count.

As Jed points out, serious money is also required. Google, Gates, and NASA have made a serious effort. Only NASA has succeeded. They have described their efforts in print. This description has had no effect on any opinion, including yours. Their success has no effect because the results can not be published in an accepted journal.

So, rather than keep telling people what they ought to do, why not try to find out what has been done and the consequences? You may have the ability to find errors. I also have this ability because I have seen and studied the errors firsthand. Why not ask questions and learn what other people know before making suggestions?

Quote from Cydonia

I heard that at next ICCF no more P&F type experiment will be presented.

Maybe one day chemistry will also resume its place, 10 exp-6 further from Lenr truth.

You are right. The sponsors of ICCF-25 are focused on a hot fusion process that can be made to occur in a material. This approach has several advantages; the nuclear products are well-known and the behavior can be explained by an acceptable model. Unfortunately, this process and explanation have no relationship to cold fusion. But this fact does not matter. The studies can now be accepted by science. The hot fusion program has wasted billions on a failed effort and now the mechanism will be used to avoid actually investigating the novel and potentially useful cold fusion mechanism. The justification is based on electron screening being an easily observed process when hot fusion occurs. They then pretend this screening effect has a relationship to cold fusion. So, once again the real mystery will be ignored.

Quote from Alan Smith

There I agree with you. I spent a lot of time working in that field, everything from polymers and adhesive formulations to combustion technology to metallurgy. I think of it as cookery, even the beat recipes are not always a guarantee of success. And that is of course, what LENR is, a particular branch of materials science.

I agree with THH and Alan. A study of material behavior at the human level of observation is like a black art. Physics can be applied successfully only at the atomic level, with examples being the design of microprocessors and quantum computers. We are not yet at that level of understanding about cold fusion. Cold fusion needs to be studied like a chemical process, using intuition and logic, not QM and mathematical description. But getting physicists to agree has proven to be impossible. We are not at the level where "proof" is possible. We have to be guided by common sense and logical relationships. We also have to be willing to change our minds as new behaviors are observed. Unfortunately, this ability has been largely lost. I seldom see agreement about anything in this field. I see only fixed ideas based largely on ego. This is especially true at the leadership level. Increasingly, I suspect this discovery will have importance only to psychologists and to people who study how science has failed.

Quote from Daniel_G

Stainless steels oxidize in an approximately 20 micron layer at high temperatures so I’m trying to calculate the maximum potential heat of oxidation of 1400 mm3 of stainless steel

Daniel, what is your purpose? The reaction would be rapid at first and then stop after a thickness of oxide had formed. If this happened in a calorimeter, some heat would e generated as the stainless was heated. By the time the temperature had reached a high temperature, the stainless would have become inert because a stable oxide layer would have formed. No additional energy would be detected. Therefore, such a calculation has no meaning.

Quote from Shane D.

Thanks for the recap Ed. Few in the mainstream are aware of your story, but most everyone who has become a "believer" does. And your account is not at all unusual among the old guard, and increasingly many more of the new. No one doing the lab work that I recall, started off knowing CF was real.

Yes, some may have hoped, or thought, it could be real, and then followed their confirmation bias to the results they wanted. But the vast majority started as skeptics like you, and let the data lead them to their beliefs.

On a more somber, sarcastic note; we are 63 pages into trying to convince one, just 1, mainstream, and well placed scientist. If we eventually get him on our side, we only have a few hundred thousand more to go! Each of them, in turn, will need to be taken by the hand through the same laborious, and frustrating, process as THH. Even were he (THH) to start proselytizing for LENR to his colleagues that he "sees the light", they will not believe him, as he doesn't believe you.

He will then be become the "believer", and they the skeptics. Then his story will be just like every one of you left from the old guard. And the cycle continues...until something irrefutable comes out of the lab.

Display More

I agree with you Shane, the challenge that THH provides can be useful. As you said, he sharpens the arguments. But his response would be more useful if it were not focused on how LENR could be proven real. That ship has sailed. Now the issue is why and how does it work. Everyone has their own favorite explanation, most of which are not only inconsistent with the observed behavior but are not even supported by accepted science. The raw material for a useful critique is huge. I got involved in these discussions because I had hoped to learn how people would explain LENR and why they chose their beliefs. And, in the process, hopefully, change some mimds.

As for proving to the average scientist that LENR is real, success will not result from a better experiment because people have no way to learn about the study, which is the present reason why people are ignorant about what has already been done. Unless the results are published in NATURE or in a similar source, no one will pay any attention. In fact, most scientists are ignorant about what is new outside of their own field of interest. They rely on a few publications, such as Popular Science, Scientific American, and a few other journals to find the information. LENR is denied access to these publications, except to show that the skeptics were probably mostly right. No one wants to admit that the scientific establishment has made a serious mistake that could doom mankind.

Yes, coal is being phased out in the USA but not in China. The oil that we do not use in our electric cars is being sold to the rest of the world at a profit. Yes, the stockholders will lose money, but in the case of oil, the economies of several countries are based on the sale of oil. Lose of this income would cause national collapse. This situation is not like most economic changes. I predict the transition would be very painful. Of course, a lot of pain could be avoided by competent regulations. However, we can see from past experience that competent regulations are seldom applied.

The companies can replace coal with natural gas without too much cost. However, cold fusion would require an entirely different structure, especially if the power can be produced by many local generators.