about zero resistance, it is common to refer to zero or negative resistance as dynamic resistance
(r=dv/di). negative resistance is observed for arc, like for many avalanche/tunnel diodes.
of course, negative resistance is dynamic, or it would mean an energy source (you can simulate that with op-amp)
the key to the discussion is that using theoretical arguments against experiments is not the way Science do it.
Most pathoskeptics says it cannot happen so it does not happen, and at best throw wildcard arguments that have not and mostly cannot be checked.
axil says the theory is wrong. I can agree as long as it is observed, and his explanation is matching observations. Zephir_AWT disagree because of observations, which seems to be fair critic.
Not the same debate.
I caught this interesting post making a parallel between Emdrive critics today and Nuclear Fission critics at time of Fermi.
The parallell with LENR critics, is clear.
This article attack the critics based on "it is impossible".
http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html
Display More==Cold fusion as a violation of theory==
Most leading skeptics dismissed cold fusion because it appeared to violate the laws that govern high energy plasma physics. In a plasma reaction, copious neutrons "commensurate" with helium are produced, whereas with cold fusion the number of neutrons per helium atom is roughly 11 million times smaller. Skeptics say this means cold fusion is impossible. As Prof. H. Feshbach (MIT) put it in 1991:
"I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what's possible and what's not. . . . I don't want to see any more evidence! I think it's a bunch of junk and I don't want to have anything further to do with it." [1]
The books by F. Close [2] and J. Huizenga [3] are mainly devoted to proving that cold fusion violates theory and is therefore impossible. Huizenga, who was the head of the DoE ERAB panel that dismissed cold fusion in 1989, concluded his book with a 6-point summation. Point number six states that we know a priori that all positive cold fusion excess heat results must be wrong:
"Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."
Cold Fusion researchers feel that they subscribe to the traditional view, that experiments are the standard by which all claims must be judged. [4] [25] They believe this is fundamental to the scientific method. When a phenomenon has been replicated many times at a high signal to noise ratio, that proves it does exist, and if theory predicts it cannot exist, the theory must be wrong. Cold fusion theorists believe that cold fusion does not violate conventional theory. The number of neutrons produced by cold fusion is much smaller than plasma fusion because a metal lattice at room temperature is very different from the center of the sun. As cold fusion theorist Julian Schwinger put it, "The defense [of cold fusion] is simply stated: The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion". [5]
The reddit article is
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDri…y_of_theoretical_physics/
Display MoreI do not claim the EMDrive works but this is a critic on the unscientific logic by many commenters here claiming the EMDrive is impossible instead of improbable.
Science and Physics isn't a crime mystery where you eliminate all impossibilities until the one remaining is undeniably the right one ... This is not a proof and in many cases plain wrong.
Neither is something 100% impossible because current theories predict it along with some observations. But neither is it a proof everything is possible.
I understand that some of you here are theoreticians which trust our current observations but please do not make the same mistakes as the scientific community did 1938 ...
Fission was theoretically declared impossible and Fermi received a Nobel Prize for the wrong reason due to incorrect theories and observations...
Below some historic details:
‘The natural radioactivity of thorium and uranium made it hard to determine what was happening when these elements were bombarded with neutrons but, after correctly eliminating the presence of elements lighter than uranium but heavier than lead, Fermi concluded that they had created new elements, which he called hesperium and ausonium. The chemist Ida Noddack criticised this work, suggesting that some of the experiments could have produced lighter elements than lead rather than new, heavier elements. Her suggestion was not taken seriously at the time because her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium, and its claim to have discovered masurium (technetium) was disputed.’
'At that time, fission was thought to be improbable if not impossible on theoretical grounds. While physicists expected elements with higher atomic numbers to form from neutron bombardment of lighter elements, nobody expected neutrons to have enough energy to split a heavier atom into two light element fragments in the manner that Noddack suggested.'
‘She suggested the possibility that "it is conceivable that the nucleus breaks up into several large fragments, which would of course be isotopes of known elements but would not be neighbors of the irradiated element." In so doing she presaged what would become known a few years later as nuclear fission. However Noddack offered no experimental proof or theoretical basis for this possibility, which defied the understanding at the time. The paper was generally ignored.’
'Noddack was proven right after all. Fermi had dismissed the possibility of fission on the basis of his calculations, but he had not taken into account the binding energy that would appear when a nuclide with an odd number of neutrons absorbed an extra neutron. For Fermi, the news came as a profound embarrassment, as the transuranic elements that he had partly been awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering had not been transuranic elements at all, but fission products.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Noddack
There were other similar past instances and this was not an exception …
For those knowing Thomas Kuhn work, it is just boring usual situation.
It seems I recently implemented Poe's law.
My experience is that between a tragedy and a farce, only the reaction of the audience is important.
Wishing, not expecting, I'm wrong.
Just thinking how to name the behavior of Rossi,
if after the awkwardly defended unbelievable "discrepancies" observed during the "Florida show",
and the uncorrected emissivity mistake in Lugano (errors are human, not correcting them unprofessional),
the E-cat technology , QX, HT or LT, was really truly real...
it is challenging my level in Globbish. Maybe I would have to use real English, or Cockney, to find the good word.
I ask to all those who believe Rossi have a real technology to help me.
Just preparing to defend LENR and why not E-cat if it work. I understand why attorneys are so expensive.
You wrote it as I should have. The NAE system need to have many energy level.
As you say since it involve nuclei, strong force, it is breaking solid assumptions based on huge data...
NB: I don't take the hydroton as Ed propose as an assumption, just his concept of NAE with an insulated composite object having a quantum state, like atom, or nucleus have.
as you say, the intermediate energy level that the NAE should correspond to change in configuration of the NAE.
since we assume the NAE is insulated, maybe like a Schrödinger kitten, maybe those intermediate state may be superposition of many classical states...
let us say slight translations of the various nuclei distance, superposed and interfering...
Once you assume a Schrödinger Kitten is created as the NAE, this does not seems so crazy?
but making a kitten of that size, involving the nuclei states, strong force , is probably what make you say it is breaking known QM assumption.
anyway LENR is breaking assumptions (or laws, but let's start with the easiest to repair), or it would be understood since long.
about plasma experiments, I remember of Russian experiments, who are not pure plasma, but heterogeneous plasmoids with metal powder mixed in a plasma...
Note that many plasma experiments are using electrodes, where there is a metallic surface.
I'm quite convinced by the general ideas proposed by Ed, but the proposal of nanocracks, even if with good arguments, may be too precise, too premature.
More experiments may bring new ideas, as there are other candidates that Ed have rejected.
Vacancies are cited since long time, but Ed reject it because they are too frequent.
Maybe also some hybrid structures may be the NAE, like cracks connected to a vacancy (it make me think of a Helmholtz resonator), inspired by Hydroton + 4QD of Pr Takahashi...
There is a need for more experiments, and maybe they are underway...
Sorry Alan,
merged the threads!
Ruby published a post about that video on ColdFusion Now
http://coldfusionnow.org/edmun…n-a-model-of-cold-fusion/
Ruby Carat and the Cold Fusion Now! collective have released a new video documentary, this time tackling cold fusion theory with Edmund Storms HYDROTON A Model of Cold Fusion.
The 28-minute science special continues where the book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction left off. It features Dr. Edmund Storms describing his theory of the cold fusion/LENR reaction that focuses on the unusual form of hydrogen that can form in the nano-spaces of materials.
to rephrase my points, I realize that not only there should be a phenomenon to lower the coulomb barrier, but most important is the need for many barriers that prevent the nucleus to fuse immediately after the coulomb barrier is overcome. thus my naive model.
Proposal based on material science is evident, but this time the potential does not involve only electrostatic potential, but also strong force (and maybe weak force), between nuclei who are far away.
One misunderstanding is also that as I cannot, and don't want to, find a mechanism, I decided to consider that there exist one "system" whose "potential energy" follow a curve, like the famous d-d potential of hot fusion
(NB: my graphs are inverted left-right and naively shaped)
for LENR for sure it cannot be free-space dd system, but something that like many of you propose involve many particles, making eventually some pseudo particles emerge (like sea waves emerge from water molecule, or cooperpairs from metal lattice)
For Colf Fusion Now, Ruby Carat, published this video on Edmund Storm theory of Hydroton...
Some context information on LENR too, beside the theory.
I understand Zephir_AWT position, this way :
the way to make the DD->He4 energy dissipate with smaller quanta tha the 24MeV is by a situation where the "system" show a low dimensionality (1D, 2D)...
This is, removed the details (nb: no need to enter details, I search for the direction), what I suspect.
Do you agree that to dissipate (not a hot) fusion energy an energy spectrum full of bumps (multiple resonance, comb shaped...) is required, and that collective phenomenon in low dimensionality systems are a good direction ?
Axil position is too detailed for me, but it seems to propose that some pseudo particles (emerging excitation of a collection of QM particles, photons+electrons for polaritons, plasmons) allows the dissipation.
The point on need for heat is not so opposed to my position, as my vision is that basic energy availability (heat) may allows the system to get over or tunnel through the bumps.
If it is only heat that allows the tunneling, this mean in my model, that the bumps are not thick and thus very numerous (thus that mostly heat is produced).
one question is the relation between the energy absorbed to pass over the bumps, or tunnel through them, and the quanta emitted after transition.
my curves are not so good, as the barrier is huge while the energy produced is lower.
for hot fusion it seems the barrier is much lower than the energy dissipated (24MeV).
is it possible for example that the bumps are 0.1eV high, or higher but very narrow allowing tunneling at 0.1eV, while for example the step afterward is above 1keV ?
?
will such a potential allows "slow fusion" triggered by heat and chemical energy, emitting X-rays ?
Hi, all,
I'd like to have comments about some speculations, some question that turn in my head.
My vision of LENR is that one quantum object get assembled in the NAE and it emit energy, not as MeV photons like hot fusion, but by bursts of 10-100keV photons, until some He4 is formed from deuterium atoms...
The usual hot fusion process can be understood by the potential energy between two deuterium atoms. There is a huge potential barrier, that prevent the d-d system to fall easily into the lower He4 state. I simplify it as this potential graph (just sinus and slope):
I wonder how LENR can happen and for me, to have many intermediate steps to disspate the 24MeV you need many smaller barrier. The thickness of the barrier will slow the tunneling, and the distance between minima will determine the quanta emitted.
I propose something similar to that simplified version
Of course a usual d-d system cannot show that potential, but maybe hydroton, or a complex made of Pd and D in rare situation ...
maybe the idea of Pr Iwamura (4D fusion), or mixing of vacancies with cracks, or many unimagined situation, can allow such a quasi-periodic potential to emerge from the energy state of a multi-body system (or a 2 body under material science influence, like cooper pairs)...
is there known phenomenon, in material science probably, where this kind of potential appear.
the strange thing here is that it is not about electronic potential, but nuclear force...
many good reason for me to be wrong.
moreover when there is replicated experiments done by even competent experts, and no serious alternative explanation (beside theory), even if you are not sure rational behavior is to work more search more, not ignore or deny.
I am much more confident the skeptics are wrong, by the way they are sure of their point, which is irrational.
I am confident on Jed's position, given his arguments, but who knows? This is just a reason to search more, not less.
Never forget that point: someone facing ambiguous evidence that may be convincing, and say he is sure to be right against the experiments(normal), and ask for not searching (abnormal) is not a scientist.
And someone who see something that may be good for practical usage, and don't look/ask to confirm and harness it, is not an engineer.
Please stay on topic and avoid/forget the evil
Your exchanges are else interesting, let us enjoy it.
about denial consensus the best example if about Germs.
The denial of the work of Oliver de Aberdeen, then brilliant statistics by Semmelweiss, and the huge attacks finally vanquished by "commercial methods" (demo thak kids can understand, demo on innocents kids) by Pasteur, is a century wide denial of evident facts.
moreover it seems that at that time people were less dogmatic than today.
I see that by the theory fallacy (if it does not agree with theory, the experiment must be wrong).
it is hard to imagine today how openmind were the scientists of 19th and early 20th century.
An article in German on Brillouin..
It seems to be a bit "fringe" blog... and there are the usual call about conspirations...
https://baukultur44irmgardbrot…rstoff-und-kalter-fusion/
Brillouin-Energie auf Basis von Wasserstoff und Kalter Fusion
Eine kalifornische Firma hat Reaktor-Prototypen entwickelt, die die bisherige Energieversorgung von Haushalten revolutionieren können und wahrscheinlich bald kommerziell genutzt werden.
It won't change unconvinced people's opinion.
David J. Naget of Nucat Energy LLC wrote this report, as a synthesis of LENR state of the art.
Display MoreEvidence of Operability and Utility from Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Experiments
Abstract
An objective of this report is to remove doubt about measured results from Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) experiments, even though the mechanisms that produce LENR are not fully understood. The report demonstrates that there is much reputable evidence in available technical records, which shows LENR devices are capable of producing energy. It has been demonstrated experimentally and often that chemical energies can produce nuclear reactions. Significant energy gains are possible. The “excess heat” found by Fleischmann and Pons has attractive features. They include low levels of prompt and residual radiation, and no production of green house gases. Reaction by-products, such as tritium or helium, are also generated. They can only result from nuclear reactions. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions have great practical potential.
1. Introduction
2. Overview of LENR Experiments and Results
3. Information about and from LENR Experiments
4. Power and Energy Measurement Technologies
5. Energy Production Measurements
6. Tritium Production Measurements
7. Helium Production Measurements
8. Production of Other Elements in LENR Experiments
9. Conclusion
Appendix A. Selected Papers on Energy Production
Appendix B. Selected Papers on Tritium Production
Appendix C. Selected Papers on Helium Production
Appendix D. Papers from the U.S. Navy SPAWAR-Pacific Laboratory
About the Author
This report was made to support the effort of a company in the domain, and maybe it may be useful to some other actor.
If you use it, a great thanks sent to David Nagel will surely be appreciated
.
about LENR technology, beside probably Brillouin (if they have a productive embryo of theory), my own position is there is none.
What Darden seems to have funded with success is not entrepreneurs but lab scientists (at least many).
That is a good approach as I judge today (my judgement change with data and learning).
back to the lab, is my new moto. I believe in LENR-
in a recent post I remember saying Darden said 3 only remained among the 12.
ok, no matter if the cat is black or grey, provided it catch the mouse.
Best hope for the daring ones.
But never forget we need to understand first.
Interesting even if i don't catch the details.
I imagine that once LENR is understood, this direction have to be explored.
My point is that simply there are too many good direction, and since the oldest direction is still insufficiently explored, I propose to focus where there is clear evidence it works, and just much work to explore the phenomenon.
Abd made a post quith some quote
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/peep/
one explain the walk away idea
Quote
“They dropped everything – very interesting,” Cherokee Investment Partners CEO Tom Darden says of the plaintiffs Tuesday. “Right as the case was beginning, they said they’d walk away; we said fine.”
and what is the most interesting for us
QuoteBut Darden and team plan to continue exploring LENR development. Darden says Rossi’s device was just “one of a dozen that we were funding” in the cold fusion space.
I don't catch all here, especially because I did not find a paper describing that story...
some unrelated generalities.
Thinking out of the box is good to find what is not found in the box, but
1- key is "thinking" not dreaming.
2- Maybe it would be wise to study what is ignored in the box, before looking outside. (some look out of the box just because they don't face what is in)
PdD is very rich in information, not understood, and some line of experiment are very compatible with instruments.
Electrolysis, and best dry permeation, or thin films à la Iwamura, are easier to instruments (surface state, isotopic changes, metallurgy) than LENR involving powders or plasma...
People who deny LENr existence like it is done on Wikipedia support the idea
that some scientists are deluded, that some editor are not seriously working and are biased.
I follow many other controversies, and i fully agree.
questions is who is deluded, who is defrauding, who is biased, who is interested in what.
My discovery is that bias and interest are normally on the popular side (notion depending on the community who decide), where there is real money (public or private)., but not always erroneously.
On LENR in fact it is more simple, as the mass of experiments, pro and cons, once well interpreted neutrally according to correct epistemological rules (popper &al). 5/153 maybe be an interesting number to start with.
You can even improve the signal by weighting results according to the competence of their respective author.
The fact that consensus disagree is just another evidence that consensus have no value, for or against.
Sadly the text is behind a paywall...
After more than a year of back-and-forth filings, the court battle between a Raleigh investor group and the Italian inventor of a controversial nuclear reaction device appears to be over.
More revealing is the tweet of the journalist
https://twitter.com/TriBizTech/status/893094639275839489
Exclusive: Cherokee's Darden on the Rossi #ECAT suit - and why he's not ready to give up on #coldfusion http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/08/03/dispute-between-inventor-and-raleigh-investor-over.html … #LENR
I agree all is not clear, especially if you ignore the sources i use, despite I have cited them often (so often I don't cite them since nobody cares).
Beside the mass of replication which should talk on itself, especially if you make a non scientific "call by expertise" (eg Bockris, Fleischmann, vs Lewis,Hansen,Morrison) I refer to the Beaudette report about the 4 critical papers, proposing an alternative explanation.
Lewis and Hansen are proven wrong and Wilson pretended critical report bash (politely) those incompetent experimenters yet propose dubious and anyway insufficient correction .
Morrison is presented as "not even bad", a kind of work that cannot even be criticized, nor understood if you are competent.
Then Kirk Shanahan came, who is not covered by Beaudette.
Jed reports the key points to relativise his critics, another story.
If people cannot read the papers that Jed have cited since decades, there is no point in argumenting. I'm tired, and all my contribution to the debate is telling that talking to wall is not productive. If people cannot understand that refuted papers are not arguments against a hundreds of others... what can you do.
This way to refuse to considers others arguments is very common in "the age of stupid." (a concept raised about many other scientific debates today).
LENR denial in a way is a strangeness, maybe an pioneer, as it is not started by NGO or politicians (hum, was it ? ref to Seaborg), but by academic (and budget guys).
Just because you say it don't make it true.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - RationalWiki
indeed.
There is extraordinary evidence, with massive replications, huge sigma, varied measurement techniques, varied teams, no critc that is not ridiculously wrong and refuted without substantiated answer (remember ther was only 4 paper proposing an explanation, the last criticicize the first and just propose a correction that does not refute the best observations).
Then came Kirk.
now you say it is not extraordinary, but yes be cause you say it does not make it true.
basic of physics is symmetries: never forget to apply your claims to your claims.
NASA
The RUMOR I heard is that their work is Pd electrolysis based and NOT nickel based
As it is the most replicated line of experiments, it would be rational.
(NB as said Jed, and Ed Storms, PdAg is best, and Pd don't work... I've read of PdB too, PdPb...)
goal today is to understand. once understood, making NiH if it can work, will be easier than just blind testing anything.
About supracconduction, it is the exact example of forgotten hstory of science.
it happened much before the official moment is started, like the transistor.
http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf
before YBCo, strange superconduction was observed and ignored in heavy-fermions compounds (CeCu2Si2 UBe13 UPt3).
First reports were reported as footnote, proving publishing industry is dysfunctional as we know.
Same story for PdHx superconductivity.
Display MoreIn fact, says James L. Smith, director of the Center for Materials Science of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the first two heavy-fermion superconductors discovered were originally reported as footnotes, because they were so unbelievable.
Smith heads the Physical Metallurgy Group of the Materials Science and Technology Division at Los Alamos, and with colleagues Zachary Fisk and Jeffrey O. Willis, has done pioneering work in the discovery of new heavy fermion systems.
"In 1974," Smith says, "Ernst Bucher at Bell Labs was doing low-temperature experiments with a family of compounds
that had magnetic moments, including rare earth beryllium 13s, and uranium and thorium beryllium 13s.
One day, he noticed that uranium beryllium 13 went superconducting at a certain temperature. But he was a very good materials guy-—he knew superconductors—and so he knew that was utter nonsense. You put an enormous
magnetic field on it, and the critical temperature hardly changed. So he said that there must be something wrong with
the sample, which he hadn't prepared himself—some impurities at the grain boundaries.
"At the time, that suspicion was very logical, and in a footnote to a paper Bucher duly reported that the material had gone superconducting, and what he thought the problem was, allowing the whole thing to be forgotten."
The second case of this kind of accidental discovery going unrecognized—- indeed, merely being footnoted—came
in 1977. A group of researchers in Cologne, including a young scientist named Frank Steglich, were investigating cerium copper 2 silicon 2. It became a superconductor at low temperature. "And again," says Smith, "that was complete nonsense. All of its properties were those of a conductor. The group reported what had happened in a footnote to their paper, but again said there was obviously something wrong begical magician with crystals. cause it just couldn't be a superconductor. Steglich, however, continued to investigate the compound, because he was not satisfied. There was no consistency; some samples went superconducting, some didn't. It was really hairy. And the senior man of the group kept saying, 'Frank, don't work on this. You'll spend five years of your life until you learn what's going on and then it won't even be interesting.'" But it took only two years—till 1979—for Steglich and some colleagues in Darmstadt to demonstrate convincingly that the peculiar cerium compound was, in fact, a heavy-fermion superconductor. This was the first to be so proven. The second such compound to be rescued from footnote status, uranium beryllium 13 was observed because of a collaboration between the Los Alamos group and Hans Ott and colleagues at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich. Ott had been investigating heavy-fermion cerium compounds that had very heavy electron masses at low temperatures, but did not go superconducting. (One of them is cerium aluminum 3, which is even heavier than cerium copper 2 silicon 2.) When he came across Bucher's original
footnote on Uranium beryllium 13, he became curious.
by the way in this article , note the many reason an experiment in material science ca be very hard to reproduce, especially by non-experts (eg physicist).
See eg the behavior of normal SC :
QuoteFrank Steglich notes that ordinary superconductivity in a metal like lanthanum -"is completely destroyed" after doping with only trivial concentrations of trivalent cerium ions. This destruction "must be ascribed to the 4f-derived local magnetic moments that break up the Cooper pairs carrying the superconducting state."
and what they found was worse than that, it worked despite Ce.
I love this quote too, good synthesis of LENR :
QuoteTo borrow an Oxford University particle physicist's reply to a heckler's impertinent challenge
about the state of his field: "We're in a mess, [and] we're trying to understand the mess we're in. We're doing the best we can. If you can do any better, then by all means do, but it's hard."
My conclusion on why Science, and politics, like LENR show, are in so catastrophic state of dogma and blatant stupidity :
lack of historical culture.
PS: another reason is pathetic risk analysis because people are no more starving and dying from TB as was my dad.
but if I cannot produce any working reactors then what good am I?
this is not scientific, as normally a good lab experiment would convince to search.
anyway you seems to have the wrong way of mind that is very common today, and this explains why transistor was only accepted when it was, if not perfect, usable enough.
It remind me a lesson from the Army : "if you disobey alone, it is forbidden. if you do it in group, it is a form of obedience"
