Posts by Storms

Quote from THHuxleynew

On the contrary - I was assuming nothing other than what you said, which means all I knew was > 5mW.

Now I know "a lot more than 5mW"

I will quantify "a lot" at the lowest value I think is feasible - 2X. And my comments remain.

However, maybe you mean - by "a lot" 10X. or 100X. Who knows?

That (10X) would then mean that I would condition my comments as remaining valid if you had a "typical" electrolysis power of 10W or so. I think 0.5% change in calibration constants for a significant change in experimental conditions is true for many calorimeters. Perhaps not for yours, but testing that is not simple, so without details no-one could assume it had been correctly tested.

So many unknowns. My point is, any scientist, given unknowns, must make no assumptions, and hence be uncertain! But, if these uncertainties can be closed by more transparency and perhaps dealing with a few issues that need to be ruled out, and could easily be ruled out, something unconvincing to mainstream scientists becomes something convincing. Or at least that is my view.

This is, if you like, just a reminder of how mainstream science views these things.

Display More

You responded as if what I say here is the only information available and that I need to be reminded that more information must be provided. I said the calorimeter has a sensitivty and uncertainty of ±5 mW. I said nothing about the measured amount and you did not ask. You missed this fact so that you could lecture me on the obvious. Do you realize I have been doing scientific research probably longer than you have been alive and that I know more about the process than you can know? You might consider that you are not lecturing to a college freshman.

The samples are always x10 and sometimes x20 when heated to 500°C. But, we are not debating the accuracy of the data here. I'm trying to have the focus be on the explanation.

Quote from Alan Smith

Though we are far apart in terms of background I like to think we sjare a worldview - though your exploding binoculars have a shorter fuse than mine.

Lets think about what's what.

Gaps- how are they made?

There are several possibilities - stress-cracking for one. Though I think this is likely to be unpredictable and variable - no two alike territory. That is where F&P were I suspect.

Sintering powders - this seems more promising, since particle size before sintering can be controlled - surface treatments (for example acid de-scaling) readily applied, and the sintering time, temperature and compaction pressure can be controlled.

How to make and sinter powders? For example chemistry would probably give you some control over particle size and form by varying conditions...

This paper describes a method for making nano-Pd for example.

http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/laar/v37n2/v37n2a02.pdf

This is an interesting patent for making nano-nickel that xould be run at bench scale....though I'm not certain what a 'water discharge reduction oven' is.

https://patents.google.com/patent/CN100363134C/en

"The present invention provides a method for preparing nanometer nickel powder by a precipitation-hydrogen reduction process, which belongs to the technical field of the preparation of metal powder. In the process, salts containing nickel ions are dissolved in water and react with a prepared (NH4)2CO3 solution to generate Ni2(OH)2CO3 precipitates, after the solution is stilly placed, a clear blue solution at the upper layer is extracted out. Nanometer precipitate slurry at the lower layer is centrifugally separated by a centrifugal machine, and centrifugally separated powder agglomerates are placed in a backing oven to be dried, are sieved and are reduced in a strong water discharge reduction furnace at 200 to 500 DEG C to obtain the nanometer nickel powder. The present invention has the advantages of simple equipment, short processes, low production cost and rapid and continuous large scale industrialized production."

A less exotic method would be ball-milling commercial Ni powders but this would also require a lot of study, since nano-nickel particles will start to re-agglomerate if the process goes to far...

Sintering such materials is not too difficult I expect. Does it need to be done in a vacuum furnace?

Display More

Here is a paper that describes one way to create the gaps while having control of the process. NATURE OF CF.pdfNATURE OF CF.pdfNATURE OF CF.pdf

Gaps are easy to make. Getting the size right is difficult. Consequently, the efforts produce a range of sizes, a small fraction of which have the right size. The challenge is to increase the number with the right size. Nevertheless, a sample having some activity is better than a completely dead sample. Some activity allows the mechanism to be studied. That should be our main goal, not the creation of a useful reaction rate or COP. The useful material will come much later after the mechanism is understood.

Quote from THHuxleynew

While I do not doubt the accuracy of your calorimeter as tested, such a tiny power, as a fraction of a presumably significant input power, requires the assumption that the response is very close indeed to its calibration run response. It is difficult to test all possible condition changes. So it can be quite difficult to get that certainty unless the calorimeter has a high thermal mass that would allow enough near isothermal surfaces to make changes in conditions impossible. Of course perhaps it has that.

So I cannot agree with your statement that COP has no meaning, when compared with other variables, for science, since whether the excess heat is certain and beyond any possible chemical effects (which again would require long runs at a ~5mW output power unless the reactor volume was tiny) is a scientific matter. NASA's belief at high levels would I am sure change with a replicable, as your experiment is, and certain - as it might be but you have as yet given little indication of this, quoting as certain an excess power 5mw that seems very challenging indeed to make certain.

I am not being a tiresome skeptic saying this, because if what you say is in fact correct any remaining questions about possible experimental errors could be ruled out and your experiment would become what the LENR field badly needs. So I'd think it might be in your interest to prove this.

THH

Display More

THH, I have proven that my calorimeter design is as good as I say it is. The fact that you do know about these studies means nothing. But, this never stopped you from speculating.

As for the idea of COP, this has no relationship to basic science because the value is determined by the experimental design and not by the nuclear process. I can create an apparatus that can give any value of COP that I want because I use direct reaction with the gas, not electrolysis. Nevertheless, increasing the magnitude of sustained power is a major challenge. People need to focus on how this can be done, not on some arbitrary COP that is clearly not big enough to be useful.

The quoted ±5 mW is only the uncertainty. The samples ALWAYS make far more power than this. Why would you assume I'm claiming only the smallest possible amount of measured power?

Quote from Diadon Acs

Happy belated birthday Dr. Storms.
All is not lost and perhaps there is a social science problem that hinders the exploration, replication, and developments of your models? You are not a failure, you have contributed a large body of work into this field and have helped to keep it alive.

Thanks, this realization is somewhat reassuring.

As for the social science problem, I was working with Larsen when he promoted the Larsen-Widom theory. I watch him make a successful effort to have it accepted, discussed, and explored, even when the theory was pure nonsense, as was later made clear. Clearly, BS is more powerful than reality, as politicians keep demonstrating. It's sad when this fact applies to science. I fail because I do not have the energy nor the incentive to sell BS.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Energy (net !) transfer needs a source and a sink. One sink is the so called H*-H*/D*-D* bond. For 30 years many people claimed the we need a resonant material that can provide an energy hole for the 495eV that are freed by the reaction.

But also phonon resonance or better a soft plasma can couple with the lower energy state. But without ordering force the H/D spin will never align. E.g. M. Swarz measured the D fine structure resonance (327Mhz) in his NANOR what indicates that the spins do flip at least.

Phonon = EM coupling is infinite fain grain and only if your reaction hits a resonance (harmonic) relation an energy transfer may happen. So the trick may be to over a very broad range of possible resonant energy levels.

You need to be careful not to mix cause with effect. I believe Swartz is measuring the effect of the energy released from the nuclear reaction on the chemistry of the surrounding material. He is not measuring the nuclear reaction itself.

The energy released by the nuclear reaction is 23.8 MeV. Where does the 495 eV you quote come from? Why would any energy go to the site you identify? Energy does not simply flow for no reason.

Quote from Daniel_G

Ed what kind of power range of XSH can you produce? What COP? Why you don’t get some labs to validate your results?

The amount of power my samples produce is greater that the sensitivity and accuracy of my calorimeter (±0.005 W), which is all that matters. The COP has no meaning when basic science is being done. This is an engineering criterion that only has value when engineering is being done. We are nowhere near the engineering level.

I have published many papers showing my work. So, people know what I can do. My calorimeter has been replicated and has been found to work as claimed. NASA is interested but they have a limited belief at high levels that LENR is real. The labs that got the 10M$ from the DOE show no interest. Everyone has their own beliefs about how to do the work.

If I were younger and if success would result in a job or in a patent, the effort to get my claim replicated would be worth the time. I see no benefit at the present time. The effect is too far from a useful understanding for it to be applied and patented. Therefore, many millions of dollars would have to be invested by a research group that was not focused on an application before any money could be made. I know of no one who shares this belief or has the money. So, I see no future in this approach. Such people existed and invested in the past but they ran out of interest and money. The problem is just too difficult for the limited attention span of modern science to solve without political support, which is missing in this field.

I have discovered that my approach is entirely different from what I hear described here.

My approach can be described by the following statements. A model is only useful if it can show what needs to be done to a material to make it active. My model does this. A model is only useful if it can show a consistent and logical relationship between the various observed behaviors. My model does this. And finally, a model cannot be believed unless it is consistent with known and accepted physical laws. My model has this relationship.

So, why is my model not discussed and applied? Why is the interest focused on models that have none of these requirements? When you can correctly answer this question, you will finally see a possible path to understanding LENR.

I can now cause LENR to occur anytime I wish. I can now study many aspects of the effect including heat production over a large temperature range, electron emissions, and the electron energy of this radiation. With collaboration, I can study the gaseous nuclear products. My approach is to work on a small scale and try to understand the basic mechanism. I'm not interested in creating a useful source of energy just yet.

But, I'm only one person with a limited budget. I'm obliged to design and make the equipment, run the experiment, write the papers, and find a place to publish. Meanwhile, I'm trying to get other people to pay attention to what I have discovered and what actually works. Being now 92 is not an advantage.

So, I'm starting to wonder whether I'm wasting my time because I have no ability to change how other people study the phenomenon or what they believe. The system has its own ideas about how research is done these days and how knowledge can be communicated and accepted. These common policies are not effective in achieving an understanding of LENR, as the last 34 years of failure have demonstrated. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is apparently not working. In addition, it's too late for this ideal source of energy to save civilization from its fate. So, I need to reexamine how I spend my time. In fact, we all need to reexamine this question because what is happening is not working.

Quote from Cydonia

This is a great problem that those involved in research at the lowest scale and the others who are working at the highest scales never meet themselves or too little.

It was probably also the Einstein case that didn't allowed him to well understand the quantum physic, for example.

Do you agree that a person can understand an idea without agreeing that it is correct?

Quote from Cydonia

Well, yes, in the other cases they could be hidden because less important than the main process.

Now, i think that is however involved to create complex molecules onto comets. In this way, by resonances involved by strong UV comics rays, that induce endothermic fissions from Calcium (stones) to phosphorous and next to C, N and O.

If this level of energy transfer were possible, no explosive would be stable. This is an example of making assumptions without considering any other application of the assumption. Too many people live in their own small reality without looking at how the rest of the world works. A theory that can explain LENR MUST be consistent with all other behaviors and explain more than just LENR. People need to stop wasting time on nonsense.

I have no idea what happens in comets and won't even try to guess.

Quote from Cydonia

Dubinko talked rather about discrete breathers than phonons.

Thanks for the reference. Here are his other papers. Once again, the idea of phonons is used with only the words being changed. Apparently, this process only applies to LENR, not to chemical reactions or to other nuclear processes.

Ed

[1] V.I. Dubinko, F. Piazza, On the role of disorder in catalysis driven by discrete breathers, Lett. on Mater. 4 (2014) 273-8.

[2] V.I. Dubinko, D. Laptev, K. Irwin, Catalytic Mechanism of LENR in Quasicrystals based on Localized Anharmonic Vibrations and Phasons, JCMNS 24 (2017) 75-86.

[3] V.I. Dubinko, Jitterbug transition analysis, (2016).

[4] V.I. Dubinko, Quantum Tunneling in Breather ‘Nano-colliders’, JCMNS 19 (2016) 56-67.

[5] V.I. Dubinko, Low-energy Nuclear Reactions Driven by Discrete Breathers, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 14 (2014) 87-107.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ed's question is really interesting - my best attempt at an answer below. Broadly it lines up with what Daniel says - but there is a lot of necessary detail.

(1) Phonons are a proper description of physical vibration in solids which like all phenomena is in principle quantised. The quantisation can be observed at low temperatures, or in special circumstances, and the (fundamental) quantum description of this phenomenon approximates classical thermodynamics.

(2) Physical vibrations in gasses are very different, because unlike lattices the vibrating objects are not strongly coupled - so the behaviour is completely different (and less interesting). Most people do not call these phonons.

(3) Phonons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in a material lattice, just as photons are a word that describes quanta of vibration in an electromagnetic field. Both are descriptions of a quantum mechanical system that can have discrete states - where states close to the ground state correspond to a small number of quanta (photons or phonons). Both single photon systems, and single-phonon systems have been studied and manipulated according to all of the laws of quantum mechanics.

(4) Whether you would "hear" wave-particle duality, if you coupled a solid lattice to your ear, would depend on how sensitive was your hearing at the relevant vibrational frequencies. In fact our retinas can detect single photons, although we cannot perceive this because multiple detections are needed to send a signal to the brain. (from the reference - maybe it is not entirely accurate). However I doubt our ears are sensitive enough to detect single external phonons! Single phonons have been observed https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08967. However our ears couple external vibrations to a fluid in the cochlea. In this fluid hairs are suspended that each form little tuned oscillators sensitive to different frequencies. it is amazing. I do not know whether individual hairs are sensitive to single phonons or vibration - just like a lattice, a vibrating resonator has quantum states described as phonons.

(5) Phonons are not fundamental particles, in the way that photons are. Phonons come from the strongly coupled behaviour of many atoms in a lattice: the energy results from the way that lattice vibrations expand and compress the lattice bonds, which themselves are electrostatic but include nuclei and the coupled quantum state of the lattice electrons. Very complex. So in fact both electrons and photons represent electromagnetic energy - but in the case of photons it is direct, in the cases of phonons it is very indirect. Even so, vibrational quanta obey the normal qunatum mechanical rules and are "real" in that sense when the whole system is couples (to itself) and has minimal coupling to other things that would act is QM observers and make an isolated quantum mechanical description impossible.

(6) Also worth noting that lattice vibrational energy is what determines lattice temperature.

(7) Since phonons describe vibrations in solids it is not surprising that edges are special and vibration modes of edges can be described by topological phonons. All these phonons are just descriptions of vibration modes allowed by QM. No-one should be surprised that such things exist, we after all understand that on a macroscopic scale vibrational waves are constrained by geometry to specific frequencies, which is how musical instruments work. I know nothing about topological phonons except that they have muhc working theory and many applications https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co…bs/10.1002/adfm.201904784.

Display More

THH. I agree with your clear description of phonons. The basic question is whether the physical vibration that a phonon represents can interact with and cause energy to be moved to or from the nuclear energy state. In other words, can the energy present in the nucleus as mass-energy be directly coupled to the surrounding atoms as a physical vibration? Or said another way, can the physical vibration of atoms in a material add energy to the nucleus such as to cause a nuclear reaction? That is what the phonon is claimed to do. The mass-energy resulting from the creation of a nuclear product is claimed to be transferred directly to the surrounding atoms as a physical vibration, using the phonon as the transfer agent.

This idea is in direct conflict with my understanding of nuclear behavior. All other nuclear reactions transfer the mass-energy as kinetic energy, not as a vibration. The kinetic energy is turned into heat, i.e. vibrations, as the radiation interacts with the absorber atoms. Initially, the energy is present in the nuclear products as kinetic energy or as photons, not as phonons. The phonons would be created later.

Apparently, people have created a new kind of particle that they misname as the phonon. This new particle can dissipate the mass-energy from a nuclear product without being detected. Apparently, it only functions during LENR. Consequently, this new particle allows people to ignore the observed radiation as being noise or other kinds of error. I claim this new particle is nonsense.

"Phonon is to sound what Photon is to light, it really is that simple in the "universal understanding" of the physics. One is measured in a solid material, the other in a perceived vacuum, other than that there is no difference in the measuring of there wave functions. "

If the phonon is a proper description of a physical vibration, then the sound I hear would be caused by phonons hitting my ear drum. If these phonons are identical in their properties to the photon, as you claim, then I should be able to detect the sound I hear as particles. Do you know of anyone who has done this? Ed

I have tried several methods to make the proper gap. Loading and unloading is tricky because the gap size is important. Reloading changes the gap size, sometimes making it too large to work. You need to understand the full extent of my model and how I have observed Nature works before making suggestions. The use of questions rather than suggestions is a better approach.

Ed

Quote from Diadon Acs

I apologize, I didn't link the article properly that showed your assumption of a lack of interaction between phonons and photons was incorrect. I do hope you take the time to read it as it's short and pertains to this research. There are many other observations and research in this field if you would like more information on it.

Phonon is to sound what Photon is to light, it really is that simple in the "universal understanding" of the physics. One is measured in a solid material, the other in a perceived vacuum, other than that there is no difference in the measuring of there wave functions. To suggest I am hand waiving is an unfortunate turn in what I thought could be a healthy debate. It does more to attack my character than the argument that I made.

I won't pretend like have any of this figured out as I think it's better to try to understand something than to know it in absolutes. Again, I see a contradiction in your reasoning that I stated above, but perhaps it's just a matter of interpretation of the physics as it relates to quantum mechanics? Arguing doesn't really achieve much and I don't particular have the time for it in these endeavors.

If I had the means, I would send you the resources you need to test your hypothesis. At the moment I do not, but I very much appreciate all the work you have done. I wish nothing but the best for you and hope you have the ability to enjoy each precious moment to the best of your ability.

"There is a difference between knowing and understanding; you can know a lot about something and still not really understand it."

-Charles Kettering

Display More

Please understand, I am not attacking your character. Nevertheless, we have a different opinion about the nature of the phonon. I know that physicists like to make assumptions about how nature works. These assumptions eventually become a reality. I have watched in dismay as the conventional understanding of the phonon has been distorted and then applied to LENR as if the assumptions are correct. As a result, a new kind of "reality" has been created that is in conflict with the reality that I have studied and applied for the last 70 years. What is worse, this new reality does not lead to a useful understanding. It does not tell us what needs to be done to a material to make it active. It does not correctly predict the behavior except when the idea is applied to only a few selected behaviors. Nevertheless, this new reality has influence because science is ruled increasingly by physics, its concepts, and its math. As F-P learned, if an idea does not fit this paradigm, it is rejected. I'm trying to get people to correct the flaw in how the idea of phonon is applied.

Quote from JedRothwell

Miles et al. reported good results with boron. Go to the LENR-CANR.org Library screen and enter All Authors: Miles, Search All: boron. See, for example:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/…Pjcondensedzb.pdf#page=10

Yes, he reported good results when using a single kind of boron-containing sample. No other alloy has been found to work, as far as I know. It's important that people understand this detail.

Quote from Curbina

Ok, thanks for answering that. I was under the impression that the idea of using boron was based in the knowledge of Johnson Mathey Pd batches used by Fleischmann and Pons were found to have B impurities. And I was also under the impression that Pd B samples prepared based on that idea were shown to be more active. But if you tell me is not the case I am surprised but I trust you.

Now, focusing in the gaps in the materials, I recall that after your ICCF 24 presentation during the Q&A someone mentioned being from an industry that could help with developing a material at nano scale, I don’t know if there was any follow up to that.

Fleischmann claimed CaB6 was added but the boron was expected to be removed when its oxide floated to the surface after it reacted with

oxygen. People have interpreted this process in different ways, which has led to different treatments. I have suggested a new interpretation having no relation to boron. I focus on the small CaO particles and their ability to make gaps.

No one has contacted me about gap machining, which is typical in this field.

Quote from Diadon Acs

It seems interesting to me one would disregard the virtual particle as a convenient mathematical construct to help us visualize the particle/wave complexity of sub-atomic fields. Than use the same physical construct to state that photons don't have vibrations as a matter of fact. Yet the photon is just a convenient construct of quanta in electromagnetic waves of radiation.

Maybe I am incorrect in my understanding of the standard model of physics, but aren't photons are our best interpretation of packets of electromagnetic waves traveling through relativistic perceived spatial fields?
Have you ever witnessed a wave with no mode of vibration? Perhaps our theoretical interpretation on these things is incorrect? This is has been a major source of concern with all of this theoretical pontification that does very little to advance the field of fusion.

Perhaps photons do not carry "vibrational" energy in a neutral medium, but can photons carry information they transfer to other EM fields? There are spin resonances in angular momentum aren't there? How else would you be able to read this statement on the screen?

This is a topic that is so deeply theoretical still that one should be careful to state things as facts considering we have not been able to reconcile the particle wave duality.

You are confusing the vibration of the zero-energy field, as needed to cause photon existence, with the physical vibration of a physical object, such as is often seen as sound when it occurs in the air. The phonon is a physical vibration. Energy is stored in this vibration. It is not stored as a phonon. The word is used only to make the description easier to visualize. The phonon is not a thing that can be measured. In contrast, the photon is a thing that can be measured as an object, i.e. as a particle. The fact that the photon can also act as a wave does not change this understanding.

Quote from Cydonia

Yes this is the Hagelstein postulate also Dubinko has proposed interesting papers too in this way.

Now, these lasers experiments gave apparently some xsh at certains frequencies, could be their results wrong, not serious ? Or these lasers triggered finally real xsh by another way ? Metzler suggested notably harmonic oscillators ?

The material used by Letts had gold on the surface. We have no idea what this Au did. Therefore, the idea that the DOS of PdD was involved is a

stretch. I suggest the frequencies resonated with the active gap size causing the local temperature to increase, thereby increasing the reaction rate. In other words, the results can be explained many different ways.

Quote from Cydonia

There is so many papers on the net explaining how induce nanocracks inside micro particles by a cavitation equipment.

I did not mention boron because it does not work most of the time. The only success has been reported when a special treatment was applied. I have no way of knowing what this treatment did to cause an active material. The addition of boron is not an effective method.

Quote from Diadon Acs

Ah yes, the challenges of the money game in our modern society. Doesn't most organizational endeavors require money since that is the representation of humans doing work over time? This seems like it is the product of our engineering socio-economic design and a game most of us in the western world must play. Perhaps the utilization of LENR will bring about a new age of energy abundance where this won't be as much of an issue?

It may make no sense to you, but does this mean it is wrong or off topic? I think a good question to ask ones self is, am I trying to prove myself right about LENR, or are we working together to learn the truth of the LENR phenomenon?

You are suggesting we are dealing with nanostructured wave guides in the (NAS gaps) of a crystalline lattice which I think everyone on this thread agrees with. Phonon vibrations are a term we use to describe particles moving in wave in molecular matrices as Curbina stated. It seems unclear to me how this would have no contribution to the LENR phenomenon? Here is one article out of many on how photons and phonons being quanta of electromagnetic energy have inter-relationships.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211008160507.htm

I have stated "my" hypothesis on how to reliably create hydrogen fusion. It is however, not "my" hypothesis alone as many people have helped contribute to the emergent understanding of the operation of stars, which is what we are talking about here when we are talking about fusion isn't it?

Can it be possible for several theories to be partially true without having a complete understanding? After all, isn't that what science is, the exploration of finding more truth in the beautifully immense patterns of nature?

Out of curiosity as it pertain to LENR, what are your thoughts on Arthur Eddington's 1920 hypothesis of stellar nucleosynthesis?

Display More

When I say something "does not make sense", this is shorthand for saying that the statement violates all that I have learned after 70 years of doing studies of materials. If you want to apply the concept of phonons, then at least use the convention and universal understanding. Do not add assumptions that have no relationship to the idea. Also, to have an idea accepted by conventional science, it needs to be accepted by people educated in science. Simply using hand-waiving or imagined ideas will not fly. The idea must have a clear relationship to what is known. I'm trying to achieve this clear relationship in our understanding of LENR.

What happens in stars has no relationship to what happens in a material at room temperature because the conditions have no relationship to each other. All reactions, both nuclear and chemical are influenced by their environment. A star clearly has a different environment compared to PdD.