Posts by Longview

See my earlier warning about ordering LiAlH4. I realize that chemically it may be the best way to go, but you will find it is probably easier to get or make other hydrides. You can always electrolyze water to generate modest amounts of hydrogen (it is the side of the cell producing twice the volume....) and do not let the two gases (H2 and O2) comingle! Handling hydrogen WAS under intense regulation as a consequence of the Hindenberg, but perhaps the subsequent interest in hydrogen as a fuel has lessened the fear a bit. Still, I understand working with hydrogen is particularly dangerous, like a few other reagents, it can literally be burning and you may not see the flame. I would caution anyone here to be very observant for all the reasons outlined here and elsewhere and perhaps for reasons about which I know nothing.

Thanks AlainCo, the English language clarification helps greatly.

[My comments below are as often from my own readings, and not in this case from any personally conducted experiments, but can include much of my own inductive and deductive conclusions] :

Entanglement usually transpires when subatomic objects are created in the same instant of time. Disentanglement occurs when objects undergo differnent histories, or time line following their creation. While Bell's Inequality based experimentation definitely proves there are no "Local Hidden Variables" or LHV, the results either say nothing about "Universal Hidden Variables" or the interpretation I find useful: the results of such experiments imply that there is or are definitely UHV.

How many UHVs are there?

One possibility is that there are several UHVs and that at least one of them is a fundamental oscillation inherent in our Universe that has a period of Planck time (10 e -43 sec). Other UHVs might be universal such as mass oscillations on the Planck time scale, and / or further elaboration might involve fundamental oscillations in spatial dimensions [recall that if any aspect of string theory or M theory pertains, then there may be a surprising number of those dimensions folded up in our physical world, but only at very fundamental dimensions such as the Planck quantum of length 1.61619926 × 10 e-35 meters ]-- Because UHVs are universal, they would not propagate at any "speed" within our Universe, but instead would underlie everything and every observational tool we have.

We already encountered another theoretical Planck oscillation, that is the possibility of mass oxcillation on that time scale. [see thread here at LENR Forum: deBroglie's equation and heavy electrons

But, please don't mistake me for someone who necessarily believes in any of this, it just happens that it appears to constitute a fairly parsimonious way to explain a huge amount of very incontrovertible and otherwise puzzling QM data accumulated over the last 100 years and retested in many different ways.

Later I will argue elsewhere that fundamental flaws may come from the dogmata of "collisional physics" if it is applied to slower speed events, the very events that might well be key to understanding CF and LENR. So you may find that I agree to some extent with the idea of "entanglement" being involved.

But I would warn that "entanglement" is not something that can be easily synthesized, other than by simultaneous creation. So I suppose this supports Alain's (and other's) idea that simultaneous generation of 4 nucleon assemblies as a key to the Iwamura observations.

Anyway, about enough for now. I do recommend Storms' new "blue book" The Explanation of Low Energy Reaction for its spirit and the comprehensiveness of his views. I don't quite like his treatment of Gibbs Free Energy, since "pressure" is not the only variable to influence "S" i.e. entropy in the Delta G formulation-- but certainly it is an important and accessible handle. More on that some other time.

Longview

Alain,

Just a brief question since I am unfamiliar with your terminology here. "Intricated" and "disintricated". Can you get to a definition in English for your conceptual or definitional meaning.... since this term comes up a lot in your post above. A posting that I would hope to comment on, and certainly not in the vein of the previous post.

Thanks,
Longview

Perhaps, and that might not be good. Better that everyone take Mitchell Swartz' approach. Make your experiments and devices small, particularly if the components and conditions are new to you and / or new to the LENR community at large.

My father's college chemistry book dated 1938 shows a photo of a very impressively flattened chemical plant somewhere. It leave an impression to this day. That combined with all the crazy homemade explosions some kids are prone to. I still have piece of shrapnel in me from one such "experiment"-- that is another form of impression.

Beware of positive feedback loops in your designs. That is something like "the higher the temperature, the faster the reaction, the more heat generated" and so on. I am fairly certain these characterize some of Rossi's and probably others, including the famous F&P "meltdown". Also remember pressure as a possible participant in a positive feedback loop.

And yes, Nickec is correct, that was the source of the 1000X, if one follows it back. So there is the possibility of releasing much more energy in an LENR reaction, if we believe the Lugano Report (I would like to believe it). So the important isssue is not only the 1000X total energy... But also the unknown RATE at which it might be released. The potential for disaster is there. Fortunately the high energies involved have not involved huge powers and//or large power densities, that is, there yet appears no ominous evidence--- that is nothing like say a kilowatt hour LENR reaction showing any tendency to produce the exact same ENERGY equivalent much faster, for instance as a megawatt over say 3.6 seconds, or a gigawatt over 3.6 milliseconds--- the latter being truly an explosion.

And in terms of power density, the small, under aqueous electrolyte craters in Pd electrodes do show that there is the potential for very high power density, so far under very spatially and/or temporally limited conditions.

Bottom Line: Extra caution is in order, since the Lugano graph suggests it could be essentially 1000X times easier to get to a disasterously large energy release, so it could match a chemical explosion with a 1000X less material. Or viewed another way it might match a chemical disaster but it may need only to run 1000X slower to get there, because the POWER (per unit of "reactant' or other comparative metric) may be 1000X larger.

But as the theory develops and the engineering follows, without appropriate safety concerns, the chances of that "safety concern" write up in C&EN or even Physics Today may become very real.

Very briefly. There are NO 1000X chemical reactions. The BTUs, calories, joules, watt-seconds, horsepower hours, kilowatt hours or any measure of ENERGY in a pound of oak firewood, or a pound of table sugar is very close to that in a pound of dynamite. Perhaps you are asking about the relative reaction RATES such as the self oxidation of some high explosive, which can easily be a thousand or even a million times FASTER than burning wood in your fireplace, or sugar in your metabolism.

[Annoying change of format here at LENR Forum. So, I just happened to find this interaction you (Alain) and I were having. And quite by accident looking at my own posts.]

Anyway, if Storms claims thermalization then he has to specify how it is that neutrons are able to be pushed around by atoms. Otherwise there is no obvious route to thermalization. Neutrons are not going to directly interact with electronic structures of atoms. At least from my reading ULMs have very high reaction rates or cross sections with atomic nuclei in their environments. Hence few if any ULM neutron-atom collisions result in thermalization, but instead have a high probability to result in isotopic changes to atoms in the vicinity.

With all due respect to Ed Storms, we would have to take exception to "neutrons" if that were his exact words. The words would have to be amended to indicate "energetic neutrons" or at least neutrons that are energetci enough to be detectable. Ultracold neutrons are not easily detectable, other than [perhaps] by the generation daughter isotopes that themselves may have some characteristic decay signature.

Unless Storms meant to exclude all Widom-Larsen-Srivastava types of "fusion"--- and that would be a great surprise to most including I imagine Storms himself.

For a possible means of separating and measuring ultracold neutrons please see the thread here under "Replication Attempts" titled "Ultracold neutron isolation and detection".

I've only read a few hundred patents in my life. But I have to say this one surely has the highest BS coefficient of any I've seen.

One of many examples therein: VA or Volt Amperes as "energy".

Sheesh!

Volt-ampere. A volt-ampere
(VA) is the unit used for the apparent power in an electrical circuit,
equal to the product of root-mean-square (RMS) voltage and RMS current.
In direct current (DC) circuits, this product is equal to the real power
(active power) in watts.

I'm growing weary of folks who don't take the time or make the effort to distinguish "power" from "energy".
Is this another USA phenomenon of ill-education? Or is it in Europe as well?

I continue my "dialog": The reference given below is interestingly close to some of the work that OEL did years or decades ago. Although OEL indicated that the retention of the green color that would indicate there was not [complete?] reduction of nickelous oxide in that system. And I would agree that the retention of green has this implication.

J Mater Sci (2013) 48:2893–2907
DOI 10.1007/s10853-012-7001-2

"Reduction of nickel oxide particles by hydrogen studied
in an environmental TEM"

Authors: Q. Jeangros et al

Perhaps it is only me, but I do not want my identity out here, at least not currently. LENR is becoming an area with powerful interests as potential or actual players. I have no problem with giving you my identity... it is this context that is problematic.

I've not tried any sort of email address exchange here.

I'm currently in the southeast US, some of what I can offer materially is still on the West Coast. We can exchange email addresses elsewhere.

And, OK, I imagine that some of the Rossi and Lugano experiments may have inadvertently oxidized their nickel. But I appreciate your specificity, which is certainly the right thing in this sort of exploratory and confirmatory context. If you read my threads elsewhere you know that I am interested in the role of oxides specifically.... mainly with respect to immobilizing electrons which somewhat paradoxicaly seems to give unusual properties, including increased mass and so on.

Lou Pagnucco, I very much appreciate your comments on this issue and others. You are raising the level of the discussion, to be sure.

I too have thought that perhaps "heavy" is a misnomer. But I took this in the direction of allowing "weight" to substitute for "mass". That is under the argument that "effective mass" is surely something like "weight". The result cannot have been operative. Simple acceleration could make the weight of any mass thousands of times greater at far below velocities where relativity prevails. In retrospect I am sure that idea of mine was not correct. I am not certain my idea is far from what you suggest above. But, I'm open to consider the idea again.

Moving on a bit:

Certainly k-shell electron capture is a real phenomenon that can be the equivalent of inverse beta decay. But basically I read Hagelstein's JCMNS article as making it hard to argue for relativistic mass increase in the context of most if not all LENR / CF situations. In my initial post of this thread I offered my amateur assessment of what seems like another possibility based on the deBroglie relation.

Here for some of the flavor of his critique, in the form of a brief quote from Hagelstein's article cited:

"The biggest issue in the consideration of the part of the Widom–Larsen model from our perspective is the origin
of the mass enhancement in the Coulomb gauge when transverse fields are not present. Consequently, our focus

initially was on examining how such a mass enhancement could come about, since in the Coulomb gauge there are no
quantum fluctuations associated with the longitudinal field."
Further, I would note however that Prof. Hagelstein does not seem to acknowledge the by now well-known absence of radiation from electrons in what were once known as Bohr orbits. And in fact there is of course no such acceleration induced radiation that would be classically expected from orbiting charges. Instead QM has replaced the term "orbit" with orbital for this reason among others. So, while inner shell electrons might have enhanced momentum or increased effective mass, that does not seem to impress Dr. Hagelstein. Still I find most of that discussion of his compelling, even though his arguments, while very interesting and perhaps convincing, do not seem quite up to date with this aspect to Schroedinger et al.....

On another theme in his JCMNS article Dr. Hagelstein makes his blanket discountive assertion about the Coulomb gauge a couple of times, but I cannot help wonder if the assertion is true in the case of Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)in which very short range fields are orthogonal to the plane of reflection as I understand it. Curiously, he, Cravens and Letts did work that had some relation to SPR. That work would, in my mind anyway, implicitly manifest possible coulomb gauge effects. So in their article for example in the J. of Scientific Exploration 2009, the THz additive and subtractive laser excitations, which I believe corresponded in at least some cases to the "magic" angle of incidence necessary for SPR / evanescent waves. As I understand it these waves or transitory "fields" may be in the Coulomb gauge, and this confers some of the power of SPR as a tool. But, I should add, that I only know what I have read about SPR and evanescent waves.

So in short, I accept that relativistic effects cannot explain "heavy electrons" thanks mainly to Hagelstein, in spite of the reservations mentioned. This motivates my search for another source for the missing mass. A simple test of the nature of "effective mass" may once again be found in centrifugation. If mere "weight" is operative, then simple devices such as LED should have profound color shifts at high g-forces--- since the electron / hole recombination events would involve much more "massive" particles and hence yield much higher energy photons. Somehow I doubt that much other than a failure due to mechanical stress is likely to result from such a trial. But, at least that is easy to test....

Still no response???

I think it is a significant problem with your video feed or execution. I don't have this problem with any other YouTube videos.... but consistently here. Let's correct this. I want to see the videos, but I'm not in the position to correct the problem.

Thanks!!

There may have been word around certain scientific circles well before the "official" 1989 announcement. You may have been privy to some of that talk, I'm guessing. Clearly F&P were doing their "over unity" research as early as 1984 and possibly considerably earlier.

Establishing your priority is one thing which can aid in preventing others from claiming priority. That can benefit all the "little guys" by placing the underlying technology firmly in the public domain.... important because greed always comes up and some entity (a corporation with lots of attorneys, most likely) will be driven to claim recent priority forestalling broad individually motivated developmental efforts. Even though I was heartened to see a technology "whiz" apparently take a recent interest in LENR, we have to remember what his company under his direction did for a living.... and unfortunately there is little other way to put it than it "ate" smaller competitors, and the vast majority of those smaller companies were completely destroyed by the process... that is they and their often superior technology did not become part of the monolith other than perhaps as additions to the monolith's "Intellectual Property portfolio".... the underlying motive and name of the game was simply a very unecological elimination of competition.

By now I think that many of the issues with F&P work are identified. One big issue was the loading, which really makes the electrode into Pd deuteride, that is the loading must approach 100%, which can take a long time without foil-like electrodes or co-deposition of Pd with deuterium. And I believe it is widely thought that the later Pd of commerce, was much purer Pd, and for one or more reasons was not nearly as likely to be successful. This accords with your recollection.

I always recall the example where one of the "pioneers" and their group happened to hammer Pd extensively and had great resulting COP. I often think this may represent one or more of several things. Hammering with say a steel hammer can introduce tiny amounts of iron or even other minor steel constituents such as carbon very near the surface being hammered. Further it smashes the ideal crystal structure of the Pd, perhaps making "dead ends" and other unusual structures that might end up as something like Storms' Nuclear Active Environments (NAE).

But returning to priority, your work seems much more to relate to the Nickel and hydrogen work now receiving so much publicity. I am not up to date on patent law and probably never really was, in spite of some study in the area. To forestall others from patentability, at least in the USA, in circumstances like this, one could demonstrate that the claimed new invention is not new. So how does one do that? I suspect publication in any form back when you made your observations would qualify. But I imagine you probably did not publish, but perhaps may have presented a poster or some less than peer-reviewed form of "publication" at a regional or national professional meeting.

My offer to you was simply to try to put together a replication. I personally would love to pursue such an attempt. But I imagine the obstacles of time and space may make it difficult. I did mention the pieces of the potential project that I have laying around too far away, just to get it out there in this Forum that something reasonably matching your pioneering effort could be done with the appropriately motivated team. In other words the issue is not money or equipment so much as personnel, location and time.

"[NiFe] hydrogenases: A common active site for hydrogen metabolism
under diverse conditions"

In Biochimica et Biophysica Acta Bioenergetics Volume 1827, Issues 8–9, August–September 2013, Pages 986–1002

downloadable pdf at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S000527281300025X

An interesting possibility is posed by the transition metal cofactors that are often, if not universally present in hydrogenases of varying sorts. Virtually all utilize NiFe.

A common theme in evolutionary biochemistry is that many enzymes and other actively functional proteins have apparently evolved to elaborate or enhance the existing chemical activities of their transition metal active site cofactors. So turning that idea around, it may be useful to examine Nickel Iron alloys or their intermetallics for useful hydrogen chemical manipulation.

Or put more briefly, perhaps we are focused too exclusively on nickel itself.

[With my apologies for what might seem to be relentless anonymous "self" promotion, see note below.[

To see how difficult it is to make and/or isolate ultracold neutrons (UCNs), please see http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1944
and another at this link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0703079&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3NNWL779b6OIO7MCvHDICLDDBwIw&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

Both approaches cited use cryogenic ⁴He. The output of these methods might well be matched and exceeded with much greater simplicity using the method suggested here in the thread "Ultracold neutron isolation and detection". Assuming that UCNs are truly generated in LENR.

Note: My goal in this case is to advance the tools in the field for LENR and CF researchers. Here it seems that one really does NOT need a million dollar laboratory to isolate and generate UCNs. If it comes to the attention of the wider Physics Community, so much the better for all.

Longview has renamed this thread to reflect its possible significance. Professor Peter L. Hagelstein had written in the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Volume 12, 2013 an article titled "Electron Mass Enhancement and the Widom-Larsen Model" which deposed the notion of relativistic mass gain as an explanation of the source of heavy electrons. The lead article in this newly renamed LENR Forum thread may offer another route to an explanation of enhancement of electron or proton mass.

Longview has renamed this thread. The new name should reflect the significance of a method to solve this problem. To my knowledge there has been no practical way to separate ultracold neutrons from the matrix where they are generated. This method allows such separation and allows good localization and registration of such neutrons. Ultracold neutrons play a key role in theories such as that of Widom, Larsen and Srivastiva. Ultracold neutrons are there claimed to result from direct interactions of protons and heavy electrons. If this is truly the case, then we should at least attempt to isolate the claimed intermediate ultracold neutrons. Otherwise, as in so much of physics today, the hypothesized entities remain invisible or without any direct means of verification.