Posts by Storms

THH, notice in my paper that energy is produced when D2 is present and the energy goes away when the D is removed. Does this have no meaning to you? Does this not demonstrate that the calorimeter is actually measuring excess energy?

As for the Staker paper, his type of calorimeter may look good to the unskilled but this type has been found to have hidden errors. I do not have the time or patience to do a critique. I have discovered that such critiques are a waste of time, as the present discussion has demonstrated. If a person wants to avoid the kind of discussion we are presently experiencing, he needs to actually address the known errors using a proper design.

I have done this. So why is my work not used to prove that LENR is real? I have provided a series of papers based on a proper design that produces values that are consistent with other measurements. For example, I used the method to measure the enthalpy of formation as a function of H/Pd ratio. The values agree with other measurements done by other people, thereby demonstrating that the calorimeter and method are accurate. No one else has done this kind of test, yet you keep using their proposed errors to reject the LENR. Why?

Quote from Curbina

Huxley’s wish, at most.

I have a question for Storms :

In my original professional field calorimetry is generally used only for nutritional and or livestock raising purposes.

The classic bomb calorimeter is used to determine the content of chemical energy in a feedstock, and it implies burning the sample with an electric resistance of known energy expenditure and seeing which temperature rise it causes in a known volume of water.

My question for Storms is: do you think that an LENR experiment could be designed that could use a bomb calorimeter to reveal excess energy?

Only asking because the local university does bomb calorimetry as routine.

Display More

A bomb calorimeter would not work because this is used to measure a one-time event. LENR produces continuous energy that sometimes needs to be triggered.

Here is a figure showing the relationship between recombination and applied current. Notice that recombination is neglectable at a high current. Therefore, this is not an issue for Staker.

THH, you misunderstand how a Seebeck calorimeter works. Each TEC does not have to be at the same temperature and the heat loss does not have to leave through the same area each time. Each TEC responds to how much heat is passing through its individual surface by generating a voltage directly related to the amount of heat passing through this location. All of the TEC are in series so that the individual voltages add regardless of where the heat is leaving the box. Therefore, the total voltage is related to the total amount of heat lost regardless of where it left the box. My use of different sources of heat located at different positions that produced identical behavior demonstrates that the source of the heat is not important. The fan simply speeds up the loss rate and shortens the wait for equilibrium.

Why would a person even bother to study LENR with the goal of explaining its behavior if the behavior were not caused by an unusual phenomenon? You seem to be so unwilling to change your approach that you're starting to look ridiculous.

Yes THH, a false measurement can lead people astray, but not about LENR being the result of error. We have to start by accepting the effect as real and then evaluate the behavior in the search for the correct explanation. The approach and goal really matter.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes. I just now reiterated what you and others said. The way you phrased it above is perhaps a little confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject:

"For example, is having a high D/Pd important? Some people believe this is an important condition when it might not be important."

The answer is that it is both an important condition and not an important condition, depending on circumstances, the type of experiment, the phase of the experiment, and other factors.

Because it is my post, and I get to say what I think.

Jed, You only need to read the paper that I cited to fully understand. I cannot provide all the details here. That is what the paper is designed to accomplish. I gave the same explanation in my book years ago, but that information costs money, hence has no value to you.

As for this being your post, that same approach is taken by everyone these days. Consequently, we have a vast collection of explanations and opinions with no agreement between anyone because people feel free to give their own opinion.

Display More

Jed, I explained why the D/Pd ratio can be important under some conditions and not others. Why not quote my explanation rather than speculate about how you think this works? This paper is available on LENR.org. For some strange reason, everyone thinks they can explain LENR better than I can.

The Nature of Cold Fusion (Cold Fusion Made Simple)

Based on the talk given at the Solid State Energy Summit, ICCF24, Mountain View, Calif. July 25-28, 2022.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think it is important in the initial phase of a bulk-Pd D electrochemical experiment. McKubre's graphs from SRI and ENEA show this:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpres…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg

It does not appear to be important -- or even necessary -- later on an electrochemical experiment. It does not seem to be needed at all with gas loading and other techniques. So, it is a special case.

I cannot speculate why it is needed, or whether this need has anything directly to do with the underlying nuclear process. It may be needed to shape the physical structure, and this structure, in turn, gives rise to the nuclear effect. Or it may affect chemical conditions, which trigger the nuclear effect. What I am saying is that high loading may not be producing a nuclear effect by "pushing the deuterons together" into lattice positions, or something like that, which is what people suggested years ago.

Display More

THH, thanks for the comments. As you have observed, not everyone who publishes about LENR is fully skilled in the techniques of research or even knowledgeable about the rules of science. Nevertheless, we have to take what we can get and then extract the good from the bad. This is where skepticism can be best applied. While skepticism was needed initially, it is no longer useful as a way to decide whether LENR is real or not. It is real!! So let's stop beating the dead horse.

The skepticism now needs to be applied to determine which claimed behavior is real and which is not related to LENR. For example, is having a high D/Pd important? Some people believe this is an important condition when it might not be important. Also, skepticism now needs to be applied to the many explanations. They all cannot be true.

Truth in science is accepted when several people see the same behavior while using different methods and treatments. That is now true of LENR. The same behavior is seen when electrolysis is used and when direct exposure to D2 is used. This means that LENR is not uniquely caused by electrolysis. Also, the potential errors and conditions present during this method are not the cause of the observed behavior.

I can supply other papers in which I explore the gas loading method using the same kind of calorimeter and careful analysis. Over the last 34 years, I have identified the errors, eliminated the errors, and caused LENR using two different methods. This is exactly what science requires, yet my work is ignored in favor of less careful work. So perhaps you can understand why I have little interest to continue my study of this subject and why I think it has no future.

The paper is Storms, E. (2016). "Anomalous Energy Produced by PdD." J. Cond. Matter. Nucl. Sci. 20: 81-99.

Thanks for the suggestion, Alan. The whole paper is too big to download but here is the link. https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081 to the JCMNS journal containing the paper.

This paper uses electrolysis, so as not to exceed the bandwidth of THH. I have other papers using D2 gas.

After reading the exchange between THH and Jed, my conclusion is that any study that allows this kind of conflict in understanding is useless. The Staker work, like many studies of LENR, is poorly done because it contains too many uncertainties. In my work, I tried to eliminate ambiguities. But instead of my studies being used as proof of LENR, the skeptics focus on studies where they can find "errors". I suspect this is done on purpose because otherwise they would have nothing to complain about and would have to accept LENR as real.

The LENR effect has now been seen using closed cells in which fluid loss and recombination are not issues. The effect has been seen using direct reaction with D2 gas. And it has been produced using low-energy gas discharge in D2. All of these measurements have used unambiguous calorimetry. Why are these studies not addressed by skeptics? Why do we waste time discussing the bad measurements?

THH, I have also studied and published information about the electrolytic method. I explored the effect of temperature gradients in the electrolytic cell, the relationship between recombination and applied current, and studied the effect using three different kinds of calorimeters. I have produced both excess energy and tritium. I have also measured the reaction rate between Pd and D2O. I explored three different methods to measure the D/Pd ratio. I have done more background work than anyone, yet this work is ignored. Why?

I have been trying to understand why no one evaluates my work. Instead, they go to great effort to evaluate what Staker and other people have done. I concluded, no one pays any attention to my work because they can not find any flaws to evaluate. I like to think this is true. Am I kidding myself? If THH can find no flaws, would not my work be the required proof that LENR is real? Just asking.

Quote from THHuxleynew

From the post you critique I quoted

9. Effect of Temperature

The increased temperature was known since 1990 to increase power production.[36] Since then, this effect has been studied in greater detail.[35, 37-40] Of importance, most of the samples I have studied made no detectable power at room temperature yet would produce significant power when heated. Perhaps more success would have been reported if the samples had been simply heated.

From

https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…of-low-energy-fusion-pdf/

Now, here's the thing.

• 0 at room temp => 290K
• 0 below room temp
• non-zero and increasing with temp at temp > 290K

=> sudden increase (from gradient 0 to gradient > 0) at 290K.

1. You previously did not like my pointing out that for a nuclear process this behaviour - with room temp as a key temperature - was surprising and told me to justify saying this
2. I quoted Ed Storms who said this in his authoritative recent summary
3. Now you call this a bedtime story?

Display More

I see I need to be exact. The amount of power at 20° C (293K) is too small to be detected by the present calorimeters but this does not mean that no power is being produced. The amount of power would continue to decrease as the temperature was further reduced. We have no reason to believe that the effect starts suddenly at a particular temperature. We simply do not have the ability to measure below a certain temperature, which would depend on the number of active sites. Zero degrees C is equal to 273.15 K.

Please THH, if you want to keep people honest about their work, please study and understand what is actually being claimed. I have explained the effect of temperature in papers and in my last book. This description is obvious and supported by the observed behavior. So, please change your opinion.

When D is converted to a nuclear product, the D has to be replaced. The surrounding PdD lattice provides the source of D. Therefore, a D must diffuse from its source location to where the fusion reaction occurs. This replacement rate determines how fast power can be produced. Diffusion is sensitive to temperature. Therefore, the power will increase when the temperature is increased. This description is supported by the activation energy for power production being very close to the activation energy for the diffusion of D in PdD. This effect shows a steady behavior from 20° C up to at least 500* C with no change in the smooth increase at 290° C.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I gave the answer earlier on this thread; saying that I realised no-one in the LENR community would agree.

LENR experimental evidence has a higher bar to meet than that to support most other theories - because LENR - as a theory - is not highly predictive as to exactly what the results of experiments should be. Indeed there is no possible experiment that would disprove LENR: whatever the results. That makes for a higher needed standard of evidence.

And all of these uncertainties about experiments could be settled to everyone's satisfaction by repeated exact replication (of a good experiment) adding instrumentation and doing parametrization. In one lab till all uncertainty is removed. Then in another independent lab. Many now think they have decent replicability - say 1 in 5. You would need more repetition than you think necessary. And more instrumentation than you think necessary. But it can be done. So why not?

You ask why not. The reason is that you demand the impossible. it is impossible to replicate LENR exactly because all of the variables that affect the process have not been identified, and, therefore, they cannot be controlled. Nevertheless, people have replicated close enough and measured exactly the same behavior. For example, I reacted Pd with D using either electrolysis or D2 gas and caused excess energy with the same magnitude and with the same effect of temperature. But, that is not good enough for you. The same agreement is found when both energy and He are measured.

Yes, LENR is impossible to explain using the mechanisms that apply to conventional nuclear reactions. This means that a new kind of nuclear reaction has been triggered. But, such a novel idea is not acceptable these days. In the past, new ideas in physics were accepted, QM being one of them. But not anymore. Only the most obvious behavior that has an obvious engineering application is accepted. LENR has not only revealed a new source of energy but it has also revealed just how unwilling physicists are to accept new ideas. Increasingly, in both science and politics, personal belief tells more about the nature of the individual's mind and rationally than about the subject. Human behavior has never been particularly rational. But, based on my 92 years of observation, this flaw seems to be getting worse.

The accepted values for the enthalpy of formation of most chemical reactions in the field of chemistry are based on the use of a calorimeter. This technique is well understood and obviously very accurate. No one challenges these measurements. They are accepted with an error band that is assigned using well-accepted methods. But when the same method is used to study LENR, suddenly, all kinds of hidden errors are proposed to make the measurements invalid.

People have been measuring tritium at very low levels for many decades. These measurements are accepted as accurate and reliable. But when the same methods are used to measure tritium produced by LENR, suddenly all kinds of "hidden" errors are suggested to make the measurement invalid.

People who are considered competent to make measurements involving chemistry, public safety, and national security are deemed incompetent when they make measurements involving LENR. The double standard borders on how the insane behave.

Yet, this double standard is allowed to flourish. Why?

I agree with Alan, having a skeptic in residence is useful. However, such a skeptic needs to play by certain rules and be learned in the subject. For example, I have written a total of 10 reviews of the experimental work as well as two books. These publications attempted to show what was real, what might be the result of error, and how the patterns of behavior might identify the mechanism. These evaluations are never cited by the skeptics. The observed patterns are never discussed. Instead, the focus is on a few details in a few old papers, with no acknowledgment of how the LENR process was studied by other people using different and better measurements while seeing exactly the same behavior.

Everyone knows that all measurements contain errors. Everyone knows that measurements improve over time. If the same behavior is observed, confidence that the same phenomenon is being observed is increased. That process has happened. LENR has been replicated and studied in so many different ways, all showing the same basic behavior, that its reality has been established. So, why are we still discussing the reality of LENR? Why is our time wasted this way? Why is the nature of this amazing discovery not discussed instead? Civilization has been gifted the ideal energy source and a clue to a very unusual kind of nuclear process having broad implications. Why is this not discussed?

Quote from Cydonia

I already related a french event ( i precise Biberian not involved at all) during a thermiionic emitter manufacturing.

It was an hollow cylindrical cathode with ZrO2 substrat which covered by sputtering by a nickle layer. When they added another layer by electrolosys from nickel sulfamate a flash appeared and the ZrO2 melted partly.

After analysis we have seen that by the sputtering way, appeared some nanorods at the oxide surface.

diameter 10nm height 100nm space between each less than 10nm.

Very interesting. Was this method explored and made to work again?

The size of the gap can only be guessed. I place the likely size between 10 nm and 50 nm. However, size is not the only important condition. I have explored a method that could reveal a more exact size. This method is described in the paper I gave at ICCF-24. Why not use what works rather than keep trying new methods?