Posts by Storms

Cold fusion has required physicists to consider chemical issues, which seems to be a problem for them. In a chemical system, the energy is distributed in several different forms, but with the potential chemical reactions limiting the magnitude of each form. For example, the enthalpy of melting limits the amount of energy present as the so-called phonon energy. For example, it's not rational to pretend that 23.8 MeV can be dumped into the local phonon environment without massive local melting being the consequence. Normally, nuclear energy is dissipated and converted to phonons well away from the source and throughout the general environment by means of the radiation converting its kinetic energy to heat. Why would cold fusion be different?

In any case, energy is not an absolute. It is always measured with respect to two states or conditions. Also, energy only flows down hill. So, when THH says that lots of energy is present, his comment is not useful unless the source is identified.

In fact, a chemical system tries to go to the condition of the lowest energy. The attempt fails only because some conditions having a lower energy may require an activation energy. Consequently, this energy is not available until the activation energy is supplied. If you want to use this source of energy, you need to identify how the activation energy can be applied. For example, increased temperature causes the fusion rate to increase because it supplies the activation energy for diffusion, which limits the supply of D to the fusion sites. This explanation has been demonstrated to be correct.

Also, the chemical energy states do not interact with the nuclear energy states. That is why the idea was rejected as being impossible. Obviously, this rule does not apply to cold fusion. We need to discover why not.

So, we have several basic rules that MUST be applied. Pretending they do not exist has kept a useful understanding from developing.

Quote from Wyttenbach

There is kinetic physics that sees a coulomb barrier. And there are CF reactions that see no coulomb barrier.

We all live in the same physical reality but CF cannot be explained with the classic bang bang model.

The Holmlid reaction definitely sees no coulomb barrier.

Almost ever true....

But chemistry usually is defined over an equilibrium what enters the Gibbs equation as dS (entropy term). So if one side kinetically is more stable then a reaction does run uphill albeit it consumes energy and hence e.g. cools the environment.

Display More

When you say that some reactions see no Coulomb barrier, I assume you mean that a mechanism is operating in the material that has reduced the barrier enough so that it no longer influences the measured behavior. I'm trying to understand that mechanism.

THH points out that conventional theory can only be applied when added energy is used to overcome the barrier. We are confronted with the fact that cold fusion occurs without added energy. So, we have a problem to solve.

I'm beginning to realize that this problem is too difficult for it to be solved here.

Thanks THH, I discovered what I wanted to know. The Coulomb barrier cannot be reduced by a local assembly of electrons according to conventional theory. Conventional theory can not be used to evaluate an assembly of electrons other than the assembly that creates chemical bonds. Therefore, we have to look outside of conventional theory for the explanation. Is it possible for you to think outside of conventional theory?

Yes, chemical bonds form because they are stable. Therefore, the electron assembly that allows cold fusion to occur would also be stable- until it is destroyed by the nuclear reaction.

I just downloaded Prins' book from Amazon, "The Physics Delusion" and discovered a kindred spirit. Prins describes the reality of physics as I have learned to see it. He says, "The book is a robust attempt to redirect physics from the present realm of fairytales." Apparently, he has suffered at the hands of physics in the same way we have. Perhaps cold fusion is not alone in revealing the flaws in how physicists view reality. I suggest this be required reading by everyone who thinks they understand reality.

Quote from gio06

Is there a common explanation for these structures and Prins experiments ?

"How is it possible that a structure consisting exclusively of electrons can be stable despite Coulomb repulsion? Prins recognizes the importance of this problem writing [9]: 'why does it remain stable when the power supply is switched off?' 'There must be some other mechanism. This mechanism should also explain why the electrons do not repeal each other and 'fly out of the gap' when switching off the applied potential.' "

Phys. Commun. 6 085005

Thanks, this is the kind of information I'm looking for. It's important that other phenomena are having to deal with the same issues.

Quote from THHuxleynew

(1) I think you mean negative potential. Fields are vector qtys and therefore cannot be negative.

(2) It is true that electron-electron interactions can be complex. However superconductivity and chemical bonds are all described by the same QM equations. The spookiness of superconductivity comes from electron pairing: after which the pairs can interact as bosons. There are many interesting and not fully understood options for this sort of thing (and therefore superconductivity). The not understood stuff is just exactly what are the solutions to complex many body wave function equations for electrons in lattices where many bound electrons are interacting. They obey the normal laws and those laws do not allow very large local charge build-up. The HUP prevents it without high energy. And, with high energy, there is nothing to hold electrons in place. Certainly electrons cannot hold electrons in place at high energy: there is no force from the equations strong enough to hold electrons together.

So while high energy electrons are possible, with energy enhanced by resonance and coherence effects, or in some other not understood way, I don't see how high charge density electrons - as would provide very high screening, are possible. You would need something to "box" the electrons that exerted a very large force on the electrons. All we know that can do that is more electrons (an even higher charge density). Which just makes the problem of how you hold the electrons in place worse.

You assume that energy is required for electrons to form a structure when this is never the case. The assembly of electrons that form chemical structures always gives off energy when it forms. The electron pair that is asssumed to explain superconductivity gives off energy when it forms. Why would you assume that only the kind of assembly needed to cause fusion would require energy to form?

Also, you assume the electrons repeal each other. The electrons do not repel each other when they assemble to form chemical bonds. Obviously, the electrons interact with each other to form a stable structure based on Gibbs energy release. In other words, electrons have a property that can override the negative charge, which some people have considered to be magnetic. We need to look more deeply at this possibility.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is the traditional picture. A bound electron behaves as EM flux. Only if you perturb the flux orbit charge is produced to restore the flux balance.

Physics has been defined by the old bang-bang guys, unluckily without understanding the real physics of mass. There is no coulomb barrier at all as matter itself always is neutral = free of charge.

Thanks for the comment. But when you say that the Coulomb Barrier does not exist, I know immediately that we are not discussing the same reality. This would be like discussing geology with someone who claims the Earth is flat. Therefore, any additional comment has no meaning because your understanding starts with a basic flaw. You really need to rexamine your basic understanding.

A person asked a very good question during a different discussion. Here is my answer. I would like to hear your comments.

"Yes, electrons are involved to reduce the Coulomb barrier and to allow strong force interaction. We know that electrons can assemble to produce chemical bonds. Apparently, they can assemble in a different way when certain conditions are present. They would do this because such an assembly is part of the electron nature, just like chemical bond formation happens because this is the nature of the electron. Clearly, electrons have several ways they can assemble. One is common and the other is rare. Conventional theory has focused on the chemical-assembly process. We now need a theory describing the other process. People have explored other kinds of assembly to explain superconductivity. We now need to expand this understanding to explain LENR.

Why the gap encourages this assembly process is unknown. We can imagine the very large negative field present in a small gap might play a role. Clearly, the gap size is important, which would determine the magnitude of the negative field and how the electrons might form a structure. We have to assume that electrons want to form such a structure and only need the correct environment. Why they want to form the structure is unknown and would be the focus of a theory."

Quote from Gerard McEk

Dr. Storms, are you sure that only D+D=>He fusion should be considered? Did you investigate the locations in the nano-gaps that caused He? Are you sure that no other nuclear reactions took place, like e.g. fission of the palladium around the crack?

You measured unexpected currents&voltages, so I assume you could do that in a process that uses electrolysis. If not how did you became aware of this voltage and current?

Do you believe that the energy of these excess electrons sufficiently explains the missing excess energy of forming He4, or was your lab instrumentation insufficient to do this?

I have seen hydrogen embrittlement of cold-deformed steel. Large cracks all over the place. It seems to me a a similar but much coarse process in comparison of that you use for LENR, which is on nano scale. This embrittlement happens when large mechanical tension is build into the metal while exhibited to hydrogen. I assume that the same happens when e.g. a metal wire is being put under (controlled) stress in a hydrogen environment. Would this be an approach for further investigation?

Thanks for your comments. You really need to read what I and other people have published. I can focus only on a single subject here. All of your questions are answered in my two books.

Quote from Cydonia

By mass energy are you talking about gluons ?

Now, you made a link between the LEC way and Lenr's it doesn't disturb me however could disturb peoples involved in this way because always avoided to cross this gap...(for some unclear reasons).

Probably because the LEC way MUST have a chemical explanation.

I'm not talking about gluons, which is an imaginary concept. The term mass-energy refers to the mass that is converted to energy when He4 forms from two D.

And yes, as Alan so eloquently describes the situation, the idea of a chemical source is dead and belly-up. The people who like to believe QM and other conventional ideas have another conflict to explain.

Quote from Gerard McEk

Ed, I understand that for you the mechanism to initiate LENR is clear: Everyone can do it if using your instructions. You know your ‘GAP-theory’ that initiates LENR is right. The only thing that is missing is how Helium is being formed. There is no known nuclear theory nor known observation that can can explain how He4 can be formed based on the observed release of particles and radiation. Therefore you suggest that a great part of the energy flows away through an ‘electron flux’ that you have observed. I hope I did summarize your words well.

Can you tell us what electron flux you have observed?

Yes, you are correct. The formation of He4 is impossible based on conventional understanding. Yet it happens. People can no longer reject the idea without looking irrational. So we have a problem to solve.

As Gordon (Gordon, F. E. and H. J. Whitehouse (2022). "Lattice Energy Converter." JCMNS 35: 30-48.) has described, an electron emission occurs when a deposit of Pd is exposed to D2 or H2. The source of this current is a mystery.

I have measured the excess power and the amount of current at the same time. The number of emitted electrons is much greater than the number of fusion reactions. If these electrons are emitted with the energy produced by fusion, the mass-energy must have been added to many electrons. This behavior may provide a rich source of information about how the energy is dissipated by the fusion reaction and how the Coulomb barrier is reduced. So far, this is only an idea needing further study.

The electron current is increased by temperature just as the excess power is increased. The maximum electron energy is about 100 V. The behavior has several features that add to the mystery. In other words, we have another strange behavior to study and explain.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I would be sympathetic with that myself, except that good engineers use a mix of theory and experience - without the theory we do inferior work. You might perhaps view the last 50 years of people trying to optimise and harness the LENR phenomenon, with little success, as more evidence that in this effort more solid understanding is likely to be needed.

Yes, that is exactly the point I have been trying to make. WE NEED BETTER THEORY. The present theory is based mostly on imagination without having a connection to observed behavior. An engineer can not use such a theory to guide the work, yet that is what is happening.

Quote from Curbina

I am guilty as charged, being an engineer, of rushing things to application before good understanding is achieved. We see a phenomena and try to harness it for usefulness, focusing on that and nothing else.

Coming back to the issue ot finding the right size of gaps, I see that tte processes of sintering metal powders, or cold rolling metals, with or without impurities, is a process that, being repeatable, still contains much randomness and a lot of pre and post experimental characterization needs to be done to gain understanding about the right size and 3D configuration of “the right gap”, which becomes the holy grail of LENR.

In that sense, finding a “nano scale printing” partner seems crucial to be able to sistematize the research to find “the right gap”.

I recall one of the videos of NASA’s Dr. Zawodny that showed a “chip” of materials with an array of different surface treatments that they were using. They were using Widom-Larsen theory as guide and they talked about each surface having different treatment to create “surface plasmon polaritons”.

I just mention this because I think the same idea, but with different sizes and shapes of gaps on each surface, could be the way to find our holy grail. We have to find the right nano printing partner.

Display More

You are right about how the process needs to be studied. The Widom-Larsen experience shows how a sincere effort can be wasted because only a few people have the ability to tell nonsense from reality. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to explore my ideas properly and I do not have the pursavive power to get the resources. So, I can only tell you all how to find the gold and hope that someone is listening.

Quote from Daniel_G

Ed I think it’s a very valid question whether LENR is scalable to practical power outputs. Therefore the numbers which THH requested are valid. in my humble opinion this is key to the future of LENR technology. I think it’s abundantly clear that as a desktop physics experiment we can produce LENR results 1000 times out of a thousand.

Your theories about NAS represent a possible pathway to scale up. In Mizuno’s old experiments where they found cratering in the electrodes those sites were very sparse and covered a tiny percentage of the total surface area. So it’s an obvious target for improvement of power output and power density.

Yes the taboo factor of working with LENR is a well known issue. Mizuno was shunned out of the university for doing so and was only able to continue his research through generous donation of around several million dollars. However today I think that this taboo factor is declining as NASA, US Army, Navy, DOE, EU and more and more credible institutions are endeavoring to study this field.

Yes, LENR will be scalable to practical power levels but not yet. The samples being studied at the present time produce LENR by random chance while giving very little ability to control the process. Therefore, they provide nothing of value in evaluating how effective the better-designed materials might be.

You note several features that might be created on purpose to give greater power. Other people have identified other conditions and treatments. Gradually, the picture is getting clearer. But, useful power will only be made after the correct path has been identified. I'm trying to do this. I suggest we are not yet on the correct path.

Quote from Diadon Acs

Have you considered using a PEO process as a way to shape the catalytic topological substrate?
It can be done with NiTi but unsure if there is any process for Pd. There is likely some very expensive sputter coating deposition processes, maybe PEO or a specific protocol of co-deposition to make the desired material?

As I described in my paper, Codep is a method that can be used to create a layer of Pd containing the required gaps. Please describe the PEO process.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The energy comes from SO(4) physics modelling and R.Mills exact measurement. Mills model is > 1% off for the energy.

Holmlid measures clusters of H*/D* what is unreliable as the splitting leads to asymmetry.

There are higher energy proton spin resonances (1keV) that have been measured by two teams with different experiments and have been "explained" with standard "model bullshit"...

Normally experimental people do not believe theorists but I and Mills are both and I never would publish fake facts.

Lipinsky's did not believe what I told them (non uniform radiation!) and later had to scratch the research...

I would never spend anymore time in LENR research without understanding the physics behind it.

Display More

So, you are not talking about fusion and the production of He4. Instead, you are describing the energy released by hydrino formation. Is that correct? As for understanding the physics of LENR, that is why we are studying it. We are trying to learn the physics.

Let me summarize. We know that He4 is made by D-D fusion, which releases 23.8 MeV /event. We know that this energy has to be released without producing significant energetic radiation. We know from Karabut and my work that only a fraction of this energy is dissipated as kinetic energy of the nuclear product. In other words, a large amount of energy is missing. We also know that no obvious way exists to conserve momentum.

We would save a lot of time if these facts were accepted for the sake of this discussion. After all, these facts are accepted by the various theories and explained in several different ways. The question is, "Which explanation actually describes the process".

I argue that any theory that uses phonons is useless. That has been the subject most recently given attention.

I would like to add another possible explanation for discussion. Gordon has observed the emission of energetic electrons from a material known to support LENR. I have observed that the electron flux and the excess energy are affected in the same way by temperature when the same material is studied. I suggest these electrons carry the missing energy resulting from fusion and allow momentum to be conserved. They would be able to do this only if they had been part of the energy state that caused the fusion reaction. In other words, these electrons were initially assembled around the D nuclei and caused their seperation to be reduced enough for strong-force interaction to occur. Perhaps this is the new kind of electron-nucleus interaction that could get the Nobel Prize after it is explained. What are your thoughts?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ed, are you saying this conflict is between phononic mechanism and collective electron mechanism to reduce barrier?

Yes, this would be a simplified description.

And, also, are you proposing collective electron mechanism is screening, or high energy electrons doing something?

I propose the screening is 100% the result of a complex assembly of electrons. No extra energy is required.

I don't have a clear view about these things, but would note:

(1) Plasmons can have quite high Q making the local energies potentially much higher than expected (amplifying that 0.1eV) - although that is not necessarily a getout because high Q only works if the plamonic resonance stays linear - and at high electron energies it is pretty obvious (?) it would be nonlinear.

Here you are making assumptions about how the plasmons work. I do not what to get into a debate about the nature of plasmons.

(2) There are nuclear resonances which might potentially reduce that barrier

For a nuclear resonance to be involved, the ambient energy has to couple to the energy states present within the nucleus. I know of no evidence that this can happen because of the frequency and energy mismatch. For example, people have tried to determine whether the half-life of a radioactive element could be changed by the local energy environment, such as would result if this energy transfer were possible. As far as I know, only K-capture is sensitive to the local environment for obvious reasons. So, I suggest you take this idea off your plate.

(3) While I don't see phonons as a good route to anything, the situation might be complex where phonons and electron oscillations interact. I say this with some hesitancy, my hunch is you would get low coupling because of different frequencies, but I might be wrong. I really know nothing in any detail about this stuff. But there are people who do know about it.

If you want to suggest coupling, then you need to show why this happens only during LENR and not when chemical reactions occur. Materials do not look for ways to cause only LENR. All of the possible paths to fusion have to apply to all events that can occur in a material.

(4) Re Gibbs energy emitted. Could you clarify that? a high local electronic charge density, even if close to a nucleus, will require energy as soon as total electronic charge is > - nuclear charge. In addition, a high local charge density will require higher than normal energy levels due to H.U.P. This effect is in addition to the Coulomb effect.

You have described the common understanding. I propose that Cold Fusion violates the common understanding. That is why it has been so difficult to understand. Explaining this violation is where the Nobel Prize is located, so I will not do that here.

Display More

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ed,

I have no intention of insulting you. Indeed personalising our conversation would be supremely unhelpful.

You were asked by somone else explicitly what were your results, and gave information that was not highly informative. I could have badgered you, asking the same question again, but that seemed impolite. Especially because this conversation is meant to be about your theoretical views. So I went with what you were prepared to divulge without making any assumptions.

Now I know that whenever I would like more information about your experiments you would prefer me to ask, I will do so, to avoid any future misunderstandings. I am interested in them because of the definite replicability, and also they sound as though they would be quite easily replicable.

What was:

(1) the input power?

(2) the excess power?

(3) the length of time said excess power was sustained?

(4) the ratio of total excess energy / per atom of D/H or molecule of D2/H2.?

What were the tests done to alter heat distribution inside calorimeter when determining +/-5mW accuracy (or what other assumptions were made to do this)?

Thanks, THH

Display More

THH, without access to the detail that would be provided in a paper, the answer to these questions would not provide much insight. For many years, my goal was to determine what had to be done to a material to make it active. Some treatments would produce power and some would not. I knew the difference between success and failure because the judgment was based on a clear understanding of how the calorimeter worked. Giving the details here would serve no purpose. The studies gradually allowed me to determine which treatments worked and which did not. I'm now using the successful methods to make samples that can be studied to understand the mechanism. Again, the details will be published later. I had hoped this discussion would focus on the mechanism.

Yes, the success is easy to replicate, as described in my paper . A person only needs to read the cited papers and ask a few questions. However, a person has to believe that gaps are important. People fail because they accept a different explanation that causes them to use a different treatment, sometimes without realizing what they are actually doing. By analogy, a person can learn how to cook by reading a recipe. However, to learn how to be a chef, a person has to train. No one is interested in the training.

Good observation, Shane. Yes, we are stalled. We are stalled because people keep wanting to supply energy in order to overcome the barrier by initiating a resonance.

The phonon is proposed as the transport particle to move the ambient energy to the site where the resonance can occur. I have pointed out the flaw in this idea. Not only does the energy in the phonon not match the energy required to overcome the barrier but energy does not move uphill. Remember, the ambient energy is less than 0.1 eV while the resonance process must overcome an energy barrier of more than 1 keV. Even if many phonons can be imagined to add energy, the addition would make the hill steeper. This looks a lot like a gross violation of the Second Law. But, that does not seem to be a problem when QM is applied.

I propose the barrier has to be reduced by a large assembly of electrons. Such an assembly requires Gibbs energy to be EMITTED from the process, not added. So, we have a basic conflict in how basic science is known to work. I do not know how to resolve such a basic conflict.