Posts by Longview

    Maybe you Shane are a better judge of age, I'm getting up there, so they all look young now ;). Certainly the field needs not only young enthusiastic supporters but, as you may suggest, it needs a new crop of physicists, chemists, electrochemists and condensed matter theorists, in my humble opinion.

    Diamonds have a low work function but are not conductors.


    Certainly diamonds such as natural type IIa, across specific planes / axes, are among the world's best electrical insulators, shared with some varieties of polystyrene and perhaps ultraclean PTFE. Low electron emission work function is often identified with high bulk electrical resistivity.


    But, thermally diamonds can be the worlds best conductors:


    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19920000747


    https://www.google.com/url?sa=…Vaw2Dvi0JrXGXALq9PlIXfynq


    Thermal conductivity, especially in specific orientations is closely associated with effective electron mass. Apparently reprising aspects of W-L theory.





    and in the spirit of scientific discussion gave their pet theory, only to quickly learn what the "gothca" was...Any LENR theory is impossible by known physics. Therefore you are a quack, and LENR is pseudoscience.


    Please Eric, many reading here are not following over the hours, days and months. Your paste out might be misinterpreted for lack of context, and might even be quoted as is. I add a little context for the benefit of what used to be known as newbies and/or lurkers. Thanks.

    Just checked the WPCT chart and the blog....

    https://woodfordfunds.com/words/insights/wpct-november-2017/

    Some people there are not not at all amused about the performance of their investment.


    One commentator at the cited WPCT blog recommended a scientific advisory committee in view both of the poor performance of the Fund and

    in view of the fact that many of the shareholders themselves had scientific backgrounds. The focus of the Fund appears to be pharmaceutical

    in the main. I did not see much, if any mention of the IH issues. It is a shame to see somewhat retail investors taking on the risks of venture or

    "private placement" capital.

    In following on the subject of Kerr effect, just in case there might be something there. I see that Kerr cells were likely attempted in early mechano-optical (my name, AFAIK) television efforts in the 1920s and 30s. Then they were completely superseded by the Jeffree cell, which uses ultrasonic rather than electrostatic modulation of a liquid orthogonal (perpendicular) to the light beam path. Up to 200 times more light intensity achieved this way, than with Kerr. There may be something instructive there. Certainly we have seen ultrasonic stimulation attempted and reported in LENR work.


    By the way: Mechano-optical pre WWII TV gave way to the CRT with the great advances due to the impetus in developing radar in WWII. See: http://www.earlytelevision.org/yanczer_scoph.html

    and:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scophony


    Interesting to me is that radar and stereo developer Alan Dower Blumlein (perhaps a timely note: a half immigrant and early on quite illiterate), was very instrumental in successfully arguing to abandon mechano-optical and go to all electronic TV. Blumlein died very young (nearly 39 years), I thought to myself "all that radar exposure?" but no, at least not directly, he and other important engineers / scientists died in a plane crash while researching aspects of radar.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Blumlein

    Yes, the use of mercury in everything is reduced greatly from say 50 years ago. LED lamps have replaced CFLs which in turn replaced conventional fluorescents (which date from around 1937 by the way). I doubt if you can still buy a mercury thermometer for anything but laboratory use. The big rectifier valves used in HVDC up through the 1960s required months of preparation and likely contained many grams of mercury in each such valve (they were truly man-sized). But as long as the smaller tubes you picture remain intact, there should be little or no problem.


    And you know what to do to avoid mercury toxicity, I suspect. Certainly avoid any situation which will create aerosols, avoid spilling the mercury-- tiny mercury globules you likely cannot see will greatly increase its surface area and hence even at its relatively low vapor pressure, will bring it into the body, via lungs. Always handle mercury with great caution, use disposable gloves. I believe there are special cartridges for breathing masks, designed for mercury vapor. Work outdoors if you don't have a hood.... and still be careful and avoid letting any enter the soil or water bodies and streams, please.

    The above reminds me to convey a concern for experimenters: virtually any transition metal is likely to be toxic. We all know about lead, mercury, cadmium, manganese, chromium and quite a few others. The only reason we know about those is that major epidemiological evidence has been created by industrial or other exposures. In my view any transition metal can end up in cellular lysosomes where the chemically polyvalent nature leads to manifestations of their famous and often useful catalytic activity. In that biological locus such catalytic activity is unwelcome and essentially gums up the works at the subcellular and protein trafficking level. Further there is scant ability of the cells to rid themselves of such a burden. Eventual cell death, clean up of the debris by macrophages.... then yet another target for toxicity.


    [Longview is a toxicologist by training.]

    No, don't please!


    When the LENR reaction starts the mercury will splatter all over the room including you


    Very good advice! I see that it is likely to create aerosols of mercury, even without LENR. While still being a very interesting demonstration


    Reminds me that Isaac Newton likely gave himself quite a case of mercury poisoning. Maybe the experience opened up his brain for insights....


    http://rsnr.royalsocietypublis…ynotesrec/34/1/1.full.pdf

    effect produces a change of state when the speed of light is changed in which the symmetry of the laws of nature are broken and in which time runs backward. The speed of light can slow below nominal

    So that would apply to any transparent material with a refractive index greater than one.

    Axil: please read this link explaining the difference between effective mass and mass (in the context of these claims). Then, note that polaritons do not have negative mass.


    Sympathetic with THH here, but don't quite see how that set of responses at Physics Forum clarifies things. How about your own synopsis and clarification, THH. Thanks in advance.

    Wow, the Google translate, or whatever it is, becomes quite imaginative. I assume "rated sportsmen" are perhaps "electrode gaps".


    Let me see, without any Russian background:


    "The third day of experiments, was not like the earlier ones at all. (About) 250 times more current / power ?. Not clear why that would be. I reduced the gaps on both electrodes. Large change with very revealing result after about one minute."


    Hopefully my bumbling attempt will get someone with real Russian language expertise to help us out.

    That ETI information caught my attention as well. This is one reason I suspect that LENR may already have been strongly developed. Where did it go? Too important for defense and offense to be allowed out of the bag, so to speak?

    The MIC of Eisenhower's speech:



    The MIC is still in place and it apparently does not care a whit about our globe where it all began.


    It is important that amateurs repeat these efforts with enough publicity to remove the cover. Important for preserving our planet.


    This is muon catalyzed fusion, the original "cold fusion". To the best of my knowledge the decay products from this reaction are the same as those from the corresponding hot fusion.


    Julian Bianchi above also points to this as a key piece of data. I don't see conclusive evidence yet in casual browsing. Perhaps the question has been examined and answered empirically.


    If there is little or no difference in branching ratios, that would admittedly be a strong piece of evidence against a whole category of cold fusion theories.


    We are by no means first to ask this question. Here at SJ Byrnes' blog: http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/muons/


    "Experimentally, there are tons of muon-catalyzed fusion experiments, but in my (cursory) search I have not found any papers that took the appropriate data to figure out whether or not this branch actually happens."


    Unfortunately Byrnes is not even addressing a change in the usual branching ratios, that is:

    • D+D → neutron + helium-3 (~50% of the time),
    • D+D → proton + tritium (~50% of the time),
    • D+D → helium-4 + a gamma-ray (0.0001% of the time)

    But instead is concerned with what Byrnes calls the "spectator" branch, which might enable practical muon catalyzed fusion:

    • D+D+muon → helium-4 + muon

    So, in spite of the interesting discussion at the Byrnes blog, I will continue to browse.

    But if you take a closeup picture of the jumper at the peak of his trajectory it will look pretty much the same for a jump of 1.55 meters as for on of 2.46 meters. (The main difference being that in the latter case the spectators will be overjoyed by the new world record.)


    I suggest you familiarize yourself with catalysis and with reaction coordinate diagrams, which are a common way to visualize catalyzed reactions.

    Actually the barrier is far higher than your high jump analogy. In the case of the Lipinskis (UGC patent), it is likely 30 to 300 times higher than an an ordinary chemical reaction "activation energy". In the case of the many examples of Fleischman & Pons type electrolytic fusion it may be thousands of times higher.


    I do not expect there is any way to surmount such a barrier with conventional chemistry. However I do expect that the "high jumper" in some manner simply walks under the bar, as happens experimentally, industrially and biologically on a continuous basis in ordinary chemistry.


    As you must know, the muon is able to more easily enter a nucleus for the simple reason that it has 207 times the mass of an electron, hence "orbits" at 1/207 the distance from a candidate nucleus (otherwise it has the same one electron charge).


    There are too many theories of how coulomb can be surmounted or "tricked". But let me remind you that a proton carries exactly one positron's worth of charge, and it is almost exactly 1836 times the mass of a positron or electron. Based on the muon analogy, guess how close it (or for charge balance an antiproton) might "orbit" a candidate nucleus?


    I will have much more to write on this subject, but this is enough to get you started.

    This is why a LENR reaction must produce easily detectable ionizing radiation.


    As you likely know, this has been discussed since the beginning of the CF era (1989). What I like to call "collisional physics" is at the base, and is the source of all of those nuclide tables whether the old and very handy wall charts from GE in the 50s and 60s, or the Norman E. Holden of Brookhaven's National Lab's high flux beam reactor "Table of the Isotopes" occupying well over 100 pages in my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (e.g. 1993-94 74th ed.), or the Table of Isotopes, 2 volume encyclopedia of Firestone and Shirley 1996 etc:

    https://books.google.com/books…e=gbs_book_other_versions

    or the likely even more compendious IAEA online database.


    The branching ratios seen may be considerably artifacts of the form of activation of such nuclear reactions.


    How one excites or activates a reaction can have an influence on its products. In other words how one travels over, or through, a reaction coordinate surface can determine what final products are seen, and also how rapidly, or in what form photonically or subatomically, the energy component appears. So in addition to all the efforts that have gone into finding ways to explain how MeV energies might be doled out piecemeal, there is also the possibility that the energy never gets out as a multi MeV photon, because that particular path was an artifact of high energy activation (such as a subatomic collision).... rather than some catalytic activation where an activation barrier such as coulomb was somehow simply undermined. Let me suggest that, unlike in collisional systems, in condensed matter and especially in metals, Fermi's "electron sea" may easily accommodate and disperse very large energies without creating a commensurate MeV photon.


    In such a system one would very well expect to see for example "craters" of molten metal. Such craters have been repeatedly reported.

    See for example EM images in SPAWAR data presented at March 2009 American Chemical Society: https://www.google.com/search?…zAF#imgrc=TNNS-zF-85HdxM:


    Of course I mention these because they have been documented in considerable detail and analyzed for the likely energy released in creating such "melts" in a metallic Pd (mp 1555 C, specific heat of Pd: 0.24 J/K; latent heat of fusion of Pd: 17.6 kJ/mol.) and aqueous milieu (water heat of vaporization 40.65 kJ/mol, 5 times the energy needed to get from 0 to 100 C). Needless to say the energies are huge, and they are often, if not always, apparently completely thermal from the "get-go" so to speak.


    So while CF / LENR / CANR / LANR may sometimes produce ionizing radiation, it is not a necessity, and in fact often is not nearly commensurate with the thermal energies observed.

    The gold nucleus by contrast is close to 60% neutrons, reducing the coulombic electrostatic interaction and favoring the magnetic.


    Taking that idea one step further: Compare lithium 6 with lithium 7. The 7 isotope has a 4:3 neutron to proton ratio, that is about 57% neutron content, v. the 50% of Li6.


    Perhaps this explains the Lipinskis' notion that Li6 and its proton adduct Be7, with its possibly dangerous decay, is simply insignificant, even with the Li6 nominal 7.5% natural abundance. The Li6 nucleus might fail to have a low energy "Lipinski window" and thus not produce a fusion product with nearly the cross section of Li7.

    A little arithmetic shows that the predominant gold nucleus (197) has a considerably higher percentage of neutrons than the predominant aluminum (27). Ignoring the unbaked theory of the physicists in that article, for the moment. Perhaps the greater likelihood of a proton-neutron interaction skews the results, at least statistically since, to my knowledge, these experiments are nearly always statistically summarized to conclusions-- something Feynman taught us/me. The proton-neutron interaction is far more a magnetic one, since there is no coulomb involved there by contrast with a proton-proton interaction. Similarly, proton-proton should be more characteristic of aluminum, where the neutron:proton ratio is very near 50:50. The gold nucleus by contrast is close to 60% neutrons, reducing the coulombic electrostatic interaction and favoring the magnetic.


    Just some ideas, welcoming criticism and/or refinements. Such as: Why would a more magnetic interaction skew protons to the opposite side?

    There is no connection between input and output power in Pd-D cold fusion. The two are independent. Input is governed by electrochemistry and output by the McKubre equation. You often have one without the other (input with no output or vice versa). They are not proportional. Input does not trigger or modulate output. A cold fusion device is nothing like an amplifier. Input power is only needed to form the material and to keep it from degassing. Other methods have been used. Also, it is easy to lower the input power, for example by bringing the anode and cathode closer together.


    Jed wrote : "There is no connection....."


    Might I suggest: No apparent connection.....


    So, we are studying something of a black box. The box does exhibit some behaviors. Good anti-analogy: "it is nothing like an amplifier". It is not a switch. It requires substantial inputs (until Storms recently, it seemed to nearly always require a specific high level of D loading). I have read of other "inputs" that might be more switchable. For example quite low power laser stimulation (Letts, Cravens and Hagelstein, 2009) in the style of surface plasmon resonance, but nominally two laser (difference frequency) phonon generation.


    Jed wrote: 'Also, it is easy to lower the input power, for example by bringing the anode and cathode closer together." Is that surprising? It seems that current or potential per unit of electrode area might be a parameter. Am I reading that right? Lower distance allows one to sustain say areal current density at lower voltage? And then with lower input power and closer electrodes, one gets the same anomalous heat per unit area?


    Perhaps some of these anomalies of "acausality" are actually the consequences of inadequate funding. Vastly too few graduate students and post-docs. Too much shaming and ostracizing of senior scientists. Frankly a ridiculously tragic failure of science.


    Are there unifying CF / LENR positives in there? I look for those. Some show up in my posts over the years. But, I don't pretend to do anything substantial other than ask questions at my age, and quite a ways from my expertise, such as it might have been.


    In any case thanks for these observations Jed, which I take to be one sort of a summary of some your wide reading and experience.

    If your point is that LENR in its present form is less efficient than a heat pump . . . We know that. So is a multi-billion dollar Tokamak reactor. So what? That has nothing to do with how LENR is likely to perform once it is understood and controlled.


    Thanks Jed, for the thoughtful response.


    I did not intend to suggest LENR was a heat pump effect. Clearly LENR is unlikely or even certainly not a heat pump, at least not in an ordinary sense-- and I accept your analysis there as presented... But, now that the issue is on my mind, a few speculative points: The heat pump issue is not completely null for me in that a refrigerative phase could be temporally separated rather than spatially separated from the heat output. I have to assume this has all been thought through, but bear with me even as only a weak possibility: Hydrogen dissociation (as I understand it) into Pd has (claimed) what seems to me to be anomalous thermodynamics. Shanahan and I discussed this here over a year ago. Abd jumped in there as well. By anomalous I mean, taking the dogma I was given by those commentators, that is that H / D dissociation into Pd is a spontaneous and EXOthermic process. This, in direct contrast to H / D dissociation energy in the gas phase.... well known to be quite ENDOthermic i.e. requires work.


    To answer my concerns, I was given a reference by Shanahan: Topics in Physics series: ed by Alefeld & Völkl "Hydrogen in metals II"; 'Hydrogen in Palladium and Palladium Alloys', by E. Wicke and H. Brodowsky with cooperation of H. Züchner., Springer Verlag 1978. And that appeared to directly address the issue (I am a continent away from my library, don't have it at hand). Unfortunately the reference had repeated changes of sign for the very parameter in question (possibly delta G, and/or possibly TdeltaS), making it still a bit of a question (for me) as to whether one might use energy to load a Pd cell with H or D (which I recall from the lit), or one might see distinct heating (as I recall was implied by Abd and Shanahan). The long loading times for many reported Pd D cells seems to make this an important uncertainty for me. Particularly in view of a plethora "heat after death" reports, which would either be increased or decreased in magnitude by that change of sign for loading energy. That would in turn add or subtract from the magnitude of excess energy produced by CF / LENR / CANR.


    If that issue can be answered from your experience or wide reading, I would much appreciate it.

    You do realize that this comment applies quite often (probably more often) to vocal supporters of LENR here and yet they are never the recipient of your dismissive scorn. Just sayin’.


    Our beloved Jed, who I first started following at sci.physics.fusion, in was it the mid 90s? Anyway Jed has polished his weapons and deserves to be treated as a worthy adversary in any CF / LENR conflict. But even he can still make errors, if I recall correctly. He may remember those more vividly than we do. I don't think Jed is interested so much in correcting the ignorant, he is more inclined to take on the incorrigible dogmatists.


    But, by and large, the currently participating "supporters" you may mean some of those who have been chastened by the Rossi experiences, and now have become much more dedicated to empirical results. Most of them continue to learn something, do follow at least the relevant JCMNS articles and do click out to many of the links posted here. I would say they are not ignorant of the literature, although few likely would even pretend to have the encyclopedic grasp of the deeper lit than say Jed, Abd or Ed Storms.

    who imagine, for example, that the "COP" is somehow meaningful


    Unfortunately, rejecting COP is akin to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak. COP calculations admittedly can be fudged by the dishonest or mistakenly evaluated by the naive. But that can be true of any thermodynamic observation, and certainly true of any such computation of efficiency as in COP. If one is concerned with "excess" heat, then COP is a one accepted way to get to a number for at least comparative purposes.


    Ideal COP allows a net assessment of performance for heat machines performing similar work. As a comparative tool in LENR it could allow assessment of performance, but only if all the variable inputs are either held constant or are very carefully accounted. When someone comes up with any "infinite" COP, they are undoubtedly ignoring or neglecting inputs.


    It is well known that COP quotients can substantially exceed "one" without invoking cheating, error or any bizarre chemistry or nuclear energy. As I mentioned in the quote below, COP for heat pumps can have a COP of 3.5. I see on review that there are experimental rigs as high as 4.5, with a theoretical maximum over 7. So, in spite of its rather ludicrous name, "lenrisnotreal" is setting such a low bar for LENR evaluation as to call into question the whole exercise.

    Since LENR is supposed to represent nuclear reactions, they surely must greatly exceed the energy expectations of ordinary chemistry and physics. On circumspection, I was being generously low in suggesting COP of 4 or 5 as a criterion. But at least that gets us beyond ordinary thermodynamics of the usual heat pumps. Perhaps a COP of 10.... properly measured might be a better criterion. But that itself may be too arbitrary and perhaps too low for evaluating whether an LENR reaction is truly nuclear.


    Nevertheless Mitchell Swartz has shown COP calculations in his evaluations of his phusor and/or nanor devices, although I don't recall that he takes them much above 6 or so, without getting into the region of excessive positive feedback and hence catastrophic failure.


    Personally I (and others) like the idea of measuring transmutation and/or fusion products, even though we have seen even those measurements challenged. I have hopes that more critically defensible results such as those might be forthcoming soon.

    I suggest the criterion should be somewhat higher than 1.5. That is so low that a heat pump out performs it (up to 3.4, if I recall correctly). Further 1.5 is about the variation seen in historical heats of enthalpy for many reactions. COP of 4 or 5 gets us beyond a reasonable doubt.


    Very large valves of this design were used up through the late 60s for rectification to HVDC for efficient long distance high voltage transmissiion lines. I don't know if any of the valves still exist, since solid state and fiber optically triggered solid state devices may have completely replaced them. The huge powers and voltages (hundreds of kV) there make a great "natural experiment" to exaggerate the possible isotopic shifts seen in fluorescent lamps. But did anyone save even one of those valves? And more difficult: did anyone bother to save the mercury contained therein? The last of those valves I know of were manufactured or at least marketed by ASEA (essentially "the Swedish General Electric Company", If I recall ithe translation and acronym correctly).

    But I suspect that weak bases or Amphoteric or Quasi-Amphoteric electrolytes are better in some circumstances. Sodium Citrate, Aluminium Hydroxide, Sodium Bicarbonate all seem readier to produce 'strangeness' than (for example) Sodium Hydroxide.


    Interesting. And also taking from Cydonia's question above: So it might be predicted that diprotic or triprotic acids as their salts would be advantageous since there is the possibility of both an H+ and a bound H (Ho, or H- , OH- ) present in close proximity. All those examples you list Alan have this quality of more than one dissociation energy for protons or for OH- thus enabling simultaneous presence of shielded and unshielded protons / deuterons. Aluminum is also a quite novel metal for having the quality of substantial Lewis acidity as well.


    Along these same lines I was interested in the patent recently posted here that made use of tetramethylamine complexed with a cage-like polysiloxane "POSS". Tetramethylamine is inherently rather unnatural and unstable, in my opinion, the siloxane cage giving at once a very amphoteric milieu, I suspect. In any case TMA is the source of OH- in aqueous solutions.


    ...... but the frequency is even more important than the speed, what is unknown to their theory.


    Which frequency are you referring to here, Wyttenbach? If I recall correctly, the Lipinskis don't address why using a square wave at particular frequency ranges greatly increases their alpha yield. I don't think they address the apparent great increase in yield when the lithium target is positively biased (much of the time).


    There is a curious parallel with F & P electrolysis experiments. If I recall correctly, the use of an alkaline electrolyte is almost universally necessary, where acidic electrolytes fail. Acids would be the only ones likely to have any "naked" protons / deuterons. In both situations it is suggestive of some sort of electron shielding, that is electrons most likely accompany successful fusion events.


    That in turn suggests, to me anyway, that F & P cells might benefit by having square wave AC impressed on the electrolysis. And I don't claim that has not already been tried.