This is an open access document - and makes interesting reading (well I found it interesting, anyway)

Mechanisms of hydrogen embrittlement in steels: discussion | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

This discussion session interrogated the current understanding of hydrogen embrittlement mechanisms in steels. This article is part of the themed issue ‘The…

royalsocietypublishing.org

Mechanisms of hydrogen embrittlement in steels: discussion

From Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Published 28 July 2017. Volume 375 Issue 2098

The whole issue appears to be open access,. The references at the end of the document are from other publications, so their availability might vary.

N.B. It isn't all steel. Titanium and zirconium are also discussed, albeit briefly.

Quote from magicsound

Here's a link to my paper analyzing a LEC sample from Frank Gordon.

https://magicsound.us/MFMP/LEC_Analysis-2.pdf

My conclusions:

* The sample cell produced ~220 nW / cm2 , and up to 1 volt into 100 megohms.
* Surface morphology is complex and granular, particles ranging <100 nm - 2 um.
* The co-deposition layer contains substantial amounts of Zinc and Sodium.
* There is no significant x-ray emission from the sample cell 150 eV...100 keV .

And below, from Page 7:

Quote

The sample was then repositioned to directly in front of the Si-PIN detector of the EDX system. A onehour spectrum sample was taken in vacuum, with the SEM electron beam turned off. The detector did not see any emission in its range of 150 eV to 20 keV. The noise floor for this data collection was not measurable, at least 103 below the usual EDX operating level.

Quote from Stevenson

Was their energy lower than the probe sensensitivity region?

I thought magicsound wrote that the probe, in the vacuum, wasn't able to detect any electromagnetic radiation below 150 eV. It is in the report, somewhere (I'll hunt it out).

The Helium test sounds good.

Quote from Curbina

the effect is probably much more widespread than one might initially suspect.

I've been wrestling with some of the effects for nearly 40 years - but it was called hydrogen embrittlement 

Quote from Curbina

“it’s all the same thing”

Quote from Charles Fort (Wild Talents)

“I had used all except peach labels. I pasted the peach labels on peach cans, and then came to apricots. Well, aren't apricots peaches? And there are plums that are virtually apricots. I went on, either mischievously, or scientifically, pasting the peach labels on cans of plums, cherries, string beans, and succotash. I can't quite define my motive, because to this day it has not been decided whether I am a humourist or a scientist. I think that it was mischief, but, as we go along, there will come a more respectful recognition that also it was scientific procedure.”

Quote from Curbina

but to explain the X ray fogging something else must be happening.

Be careful not to conflate the reported results of different experiments, using different materials, and different loading regimes.

As far as I am aware, no X-rays have been detected coming from a LEC WE. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I've been thinking a little more about the possible VUV (Vacuum Ultraviolet) activity of some LEC working electrodes...

To recap: the VUV band is from 10 nm (124 eV) to 200 nm (6.2 eV). It isn't often detected on earth, as stellar VUV is blocked by the atmosphere. I understand the VUV band is also below the lowest energy level detectable in magicsound 's modified electron microscope (which was used on a WE sample obtained from Frank Gordon).

The Lyman series (spectral lines for hydrogen) is contained within the VUV band. Interestingly, the limit of the Lyman series is 91.2 nm (13.6 eV). This is the energy to ionise the hydrogen atom, and also the energy of the recombination photon ejected when an H⁺ ion fully captures an electron. It is usually claimed that interstellar hydrogen ions, atoms, and electrons are kept in equilibrium, by the continual exchange of 13.6 eV photons. i.e:

What if a similar situation exists between hydrogen ions and atomic hydrogen when suspended within the electron clouds of a metal lattice? If one H⁺ ion "grabs" an electron from the lattice clouds, it will emit a 13.6 eV photon - and that photon could stimulate another existing hydrogen atom to reject its electron and return to the ionised state.

If no photons escaped from the surface of the Working Electrode (maybe due to internal reflection), then there could be a continual exchange of photons between the hydrogen atoms/ions trapped inside the lattice, keeping ions and atoms in equilibrium. You could say that the WE was "buzzing", to coin a phrase

However, some of these 13.6 eV photons are likely to escape from the surface of the WE - into the surrounding gas. It seems that the first ionisation energy for O₂ molecules is only 12.2 eV - so an escaping photon could ionise any oxygen molecules in the gas. (We know air works well in a LEC, although it is corrosive)

This effect might be able to continue until all the hydrogen ions inside the lattice have become neutral atoms, and the buzzing eventually stops. The rate of buzzing decay might depend on the ease by which the 13.6 eV photons can leave the surface of the WE - so surface texture (possibly defects around 90 nm in size, maybe?) might have an effect.

This certainly can't "explain" all of the odd behaviours seen in the LEC tests (especially with some of the "outlier" materials), but this mechanism (if it exists) might possibly be involved in some.

This is just a thought. You can ignore it if you want.

There was a Stirling Engine rally in Hereford last Sunday. Here is a short video (under 3 minutes) of some of the engines on display.

Have a look at the principles behind the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube.

Its possible modes of operation still cause some debate.

Quote from Shane D.

Now let us change the focus of the thread from what presentation would "Sway a skeptic", to "what was your favorite ICCF24 presentation, and why". There were so many, so let's hear from you.

I think you have hit on the problem, Shane D. right there. Who feels that they can sit through hours and hours of video - especially videos of the dry "conference presentation" type? Yes I've sat through a few - but only ones that have been mentioned in this thread - because trying to watch too many videos like that in one go means I lose the will to live

Personally, I'm much happier studying something in written form than watching a presentation. I can go at my own pace, scan through to look for salient points relatively quickly, stop to look up stuff mid-way through, and re-read passages that don't gel on the frist pass. A video forces you to go at the pace of the presenter (although I sometimes increase playback speed, if the voice is clear enough) - which is not too bad as long as you know that the presentation time will be short. But I am certainly not going to sit looking at a "talking head" for an hour.

I don't know what the solution is. The "conference presentation" has evolved for a specific purpose, in a specific setting. They are not good theatre (usually) - but they have a captive audience in the hall, even if some people in that audience are asleep. I find most "talking head" videos appallingly bad - and, for instance, have never been able to watch more than five minutes of any TED talk.

I would certainly like to discuss this a bit more - but this is not the thread for it (this is about ICCF24 presentations).

Quote from Curbina

we also have a special section of the forum for a less cluttered discussion, and, to our amazement, is rarely used.

I suspect most people do what I tend to do - which is click on "Latest Posts" from the drop-down menu (at least on a PC. I have no idea what this forum looks like on a phone). That means I get presented with theads that are "hot" - and so it's natural to start reading (and commenting on) these first.

Using the "latest posts" tab seems to mean that all threads are displayed in reverse chronological order of last "update" - regardless of which "topic/board" the thread actually sits in. To me, this seems to render the topic divisions slightly redundant. And it also means that "hot" threads start to wander away from the subject of the original title very quickly.

I guess that trying to achieve the ideal forum structure is always going to be problematic. Users are like cats, and are not really amenable to herding.

Curbina Is there a different "special section" that I'm unaware of?

Alan Smith The hot bar discussion reminded me of the Jominy End Quench Test - which is used by metallurgists to determine the hardenability of steels. This is different, of course, as the whole bar starts off hot.

I did wonder whether a rapid chain of grain disruption/recrystalisation might sweep along the bar - with some form of exothermic effect at the 'cool' end.

However can 's story of the resistor wire, starting off from room temperature, might suggest that some type of grain disruption/reformation is not at play.

Some members of the Stirling Engine Society have been playing about with various designs of Thermal Lag Engine. I'm hoping that there will be some examples at the midlands exhibition later this month, to have a tinker with. (I do know that one of the people who has been building these devices will be there.)

There have been various theories suggested for how these odd little engines work - some slightly more feasible than others. But there still seem to be a number of unknowns. I suspect it is high time that thermal plasmonics was thrown into the mix - just to confuse matters still further

If you google around, you can find examples of some thermal lag engines online - along with some videos. The challenge (as always) is to improve the efficiency of the current devices - so that they might find more of a use than just being cute.

I also see that our friend Allan Organ is now getting in on the act - with his latest (unaffordable) textbook.

Quote from JedRothwell

Also, in most universities and national labs, if a professor were to begin a cold fusion experiment, or even talk about cold fusion, she would be summarily fired. Even if she had tenure, they would cook up a false reason to fire her, and to deport her if possible.

About a decade ago my partner and I were at a Cafe Scientifique talk - which was being given by a nuclear physicist from our local university. He was nearing retirement, and had worked on a lot of different projects, in various universities and research institutes, over the years. He was also a proponent of, and strong advocate for, Thorium Fueled Accelerator-driven Subcritical Reactors - which was the main subject of his talk.

He was certainly not a fan of Hot Fusion - and during the Q&A related a whole catalogue of problems with how the various HF projects had unfolded over the years.

Then someone in the audience mentioned cold fusion. If you have ever seen someone overcome by the red mist - this was it. His face went a light shade of purple, he started to shake, and spluttered "but that's... that's... that's... FRAUD!" A stunned silence fell across the room. Eventually one of the hosts had to ask a totally unrelated question to get things moving again.

My partner was shocked. She had not really believed me when I'd previously told her about the attitude to CF research within the "science establishment". But this was a clear and graphic example of the pure anger that could be invoked by simply mentioning the phrase 'cold fusion'...

Quote from Alan Smith

Now here's something to ponder. Ed thinks that phonons cannot exist in bulk metal, being a surface phenomenon. I think he's probably wrong. Here's a test that you might care to try and then explain the result. It is a phenomenon ignored by most physicists, but well known to most engineers - especially those who got their fingers burnt.

Take a piece of steel bar, 30 cms long x 1cm in diameter will do. Heat one end of it with a blowlamp as quickly as you can until it is bright cherry red. The end you are holding will barely become warm. Then plunge the hot end into around 10 cms of cold water. The cold end will almost instantly quickly get hot enough to burn your hand. No physics - and no tables of thermal conductivity - can explain that except for it being heat transport by bulk phonons moving through the lattice.

The above fascinating quote stolen from this thread.

I've long suspected that the designers of regenerative "Caloric" engines, such as John Ericsson (1803-1889) believed that Caloric possessed some form of inertia. I don't think Ericsson (or his contemporaries) could quantify it - but it might explain some of the design features of the early engines, which seem slightly bizarre today (with our currently accepted thermal theories).

Some academics, such as Dr Allan J Organ, have made it their life's work to analyse thermal regenerators - but the damned things have been peculiarly difficult to model, over the years, despite the ever increasing power of digital thermal analysis software. I fear that poor Dr Organ may have even been driven slightly mad by the topic - having now retired without being able to fully answer some of the fundamental questions that most people expected to be solved, once computers became powerful enough.

Hmmm. Thanks Alan Smith - some food for thought, there....

Quote from GRMattson

Which leads to the question of how do you properly evaluate the performance of the windmill when in a wind tunnel?

There has been plenty of work done on this problem, over the last century or so. And yes, all fluid flow measurement methods either affect the system you are trying to measure, in some way, or they are affected by proximity geometric issues (turbulence, stagnation, Bernoulli effects, etc).

Measuring fluid flow is never easy. Everyone will sell you a meter that they say is accurate and perfect for your task, but then blame you for using it incorrectly when it gives a bogus result.

Going back to the Martin Fleischmann interview, from IE (linked by Gregory Byron Goble )

Quote

MF: I think there was a very unfortunate development in the 70's, a sort of "anti-Francis Bacon development." People developed a view that a subject is not respectable unless it is dressed up with a suitable overload of theory, and consequently we have had this "top dressing" of theory put on the subject which has tended to make the approach very rigid. Also, the theories are of course written in terms of rather old-fashioned ideas.

Fleischmann's reference to Francis Bacon is very important here. Bacon's publication of the Novum Organum in 1620 was a landmark in philosophical and scientific thought. In it he criticised the Aristotelian method of Deduction that was regarded as the proper way to enhance knowledge at the time. Aristotle had basically said that by thinking deeply enough, and by making various assumptions, which appeared logically correct to a skilled philosophical thinker, it would be possible to reveal truths about the natural world. Francis Bacon insisted that the only way to gain information about the natural world was through direct observation, and by testing any ideas that are prompted by those observations by carrying out actual physical experiments. The Baconian method formed the original basis for what later became known as the scientific method.

Francis Bacon was well aware that human nature would drift towards the internally Deductive, rather than the externally Inductive, and that a formal method was needed to counter that drift. He wasn't against deduction in its proper place, and was aware that it was central to areas such as mathematics and theology, but he knew that natural phenomena needed to be treated differently.

Now read this piece, published only last week, in the Guardian - written by Sabine Hossenfelder:

No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless | Sabine Hossenfelder

In private, many physicists admit they do not believe the particles they are paid to search for exist, says physicist Sabine Hossenfelder

www.theguardian.com

Basically, the "natural drift" has reoccurred - and some areas of science have reverted back to Aristotelian Deduction.

Rob if you didn't read the ZETA wikipedia piece (linked above), just have a read of this section of the article. It gives a bit of background as to why people assumed that a particular kinetic energy was required for D+D fusion.

That accelerator in Rutherford's lab provided the initial data.

How much of that data might be an artifact of shooting high velocity ionised particles at metal foil, is difficult to say.

(Whereas "cold deuterons", squeezed into the metal lattice, might behave differently)

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

An Interview with Professor Martin

Fleischmann

By Christopher P. Tinsley

On page 2 there was mention of ZETA. This was a massive embarrassment for Harwell, and the UK, at the end of the 1950s.

In later years some of the older staff could not even be persuaded to talk about the escapade - it was that painful. Just watch this newsreel, from 1958:

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/VLVAE9NNP6WUTXLCQMCBFY2MHCWEX-ENGLAND-THE-WONDERS-OF-ZETA-AT-HARWELL

Quote from Curbina

And talking about Heat on Jupiter.

Nice. Barbecuing a whole planet using its aurora. Isn't astronomy fascinating