Thursday, August 22, 2013

CONTINUING TO CRACK THE ‘CRACK IS N.A.E.’ THEORY


MOTTO:

“Eppur si fissure” (Edmund Storms)

There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.

My second paper about active sites and N.A.E. had 328 pageviews in two days compared with 254 for the first; this shows the subject is of some interest for my readers and I have decided to continue the up-hill battle against the theory of cracks being the Nuclear Active Environment created and developed by Dr. Edmund Storms. He does not abandon this theory on the contrary – as the first Motto shows he defends it valiantly
Actually, he was the very first reader to help me with criticizing my paper i.e. my ideas. He has started  by asking me with a shade of reproach: Peter, why do you write about subjects that you know nothing about?” Being given that I have published the first paper ever about CF taking place in catalytic active sites when everybody was still convinced that the Pd lattice does the trick, I have considered the question just a figure of speech, however in no case an ad hominem attack used only by confused people lacking scientific arguments.  He has not answered directly to my anti-crack arguments (I will repeat and clarify them later) and is very upset for the low standards in the field that make possible such unnecessary disputes. Yes, cracks are able to do all those wonderful things from Fleischmann and Pons and all the users of their cells to Arata and Piantelli and Ahern and Kidwell and to Rossi and Defkalion (the list was compiled by me) He says:
“The NAE in my theory are cracks of a especially small gap size that are generated by stress relief in the material. They permit formation of a structure that is able to lower the Coulomb barrier and dissipate the energy by emission of low energy photons from the nucleus. The theory shows how helium, tritium and deuterium are made by the fusion process, what conditions are required for the process to work, and identifies engineering variables that are needed to control the process.  Many details are descried in the papers I have already sent to CMNS and more will be provided in …his coming papers” 

Ed has written repeatedly that ‘N.A.E is a very simple concept’ and I have found this very disquieting  till I have understood that he refers to the principle, the raison d’etre of these NAE- special places where interesting things happen (something already well known from catalysis or from pilgrimage places) and NOT to the structure and function of the N.A.E.

As expected my opponent friend Abd has given fast a documented pro-crack answer, please read it at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/604  It is an illuminating paper in more senses.

First- quite unusual for Abd, his answer has 732 words compared to 531 in my article; typically his writings are at least 5 times more loquacious than what he criticizes or contradict. This is in part because he knows amazingly many facts but also a question of style and of tactic. Many words are or seem always smarter and stronger than few in disputes...

A blog paper is not strictly scientific; there are also personal feelings and even fears in it. As all old cold fusionists I was also educated (read culturalized, memefied) in the spirit of cult of palladium and of the FP Cell- however due to some personal traits and experience I became very discontented with the situation, have discovered myself and have learned from people more knowledgeable than me- that CF/LENR has to get out of its cradle and must find entirely new ways. And it had done this! It is not pleasant to be a dissident to have ideas in direct opposition with those of my more disciplined and less speculative comrades. In this case I have made a diplomatic suggestion that my idea re cracks
should be considered only as wishful thinking and I am just an inoffensive heretic. However I know that speaking about the Pdisaster I went already too far.
Being my friend and, I dare to think knowing that I am right in a much greater extent as he will ever state, Abd  has accepted this game. Yes it is mainly childish wishful thinking I simply want that cracks are the N.A.E. but cannot prove it in any rational and/or scientific way

Abd explains:
“Storms is not writing about a limit to possibilities, he's writing 
about the LENR that is known and confirmed and replicated all over the world, and specifically, about palladium deuteride, 
electrochemically loaded. The Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect.”

Abd is frequently using the argument that because we know so much about the PdD system, so much more than e.g. about the NiH system we have to get our LENR truths from the FP system. Here I disagree- we do not know so much about PdD! What we know is in low position on the DIKW scale (please read about this scale on my blog) It is tragic that the theory of cracks as NAE comes from the PdD experience. We know the defining conditions for PdD starting with the high saturation ratio but we have only one certainty, it is true wonderful as such, 3 words: SOMETIMES IT WORKS i.e. it gives excess heat. Why it does it, why other times it does not work, how exactly this happens we simply still don’t know. At the Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology where I retired from in 1999 there are all the pre-CF books and papers re the metallurgy of palladium and the palladium – hydrogen system; there are cracks in this metal in such conditions but the morphology and metallurgy are much too complex to be controllable. Old stuff.

If NAE is cracks theory is valid for the Pd system that means for the experiments: “if Pd cracks well, it will work well’ –the opposite is true too. Is this an alternative to my ait-poisoning hypothesis of irreproducibility? It reminds me the joke from the Ceausescu era:
“What is small, crippled  and black and knocks at the door?” “Answer “The future!” Dear Abd, what is the future of PdD LENR if cracks are NAE? It is about the future of both the science and the technology of LENR.

My mental reception is not perfect here, but I have a hazy impression about Abd‘s minor doubts re crack orthodoxy.

When it was about holes, micro- or nano-cavities Ed’s theory was more attractive for me.

Back to the fight of ideas: actually has not confronted my arguments directly and attacks on the periphery not at the core of the things. I repeat my arguments in amore aggressive mode:

“Cracks as NAE” is in direct opposition with:
- the reality of existence of almost-technological intense LENR processes as Rossi and DGT, you cannot build a technology on inherently incontrollable cracking;

- the knowledge coming from outside re. catalytic active sites that are complex not simple cracks;

- the knowledge coming from inside the field re the determinant role of the nanostructures that are sophisticated and smart not something primitive like a crack;

- if cracking is the key of success, CF/LENR will remain irreproducible and uncontrollable forever,

- cracking cannot explain why two forms, levels of LENR exist-LENR+ with enhanced excess heat is the way to useful energy.

Suppose PdD  really functions in/with cracks- why should nanostructures- based and nanoplasmonics based forms of LENR use the same cheap, primitive, anti-technological anarchic and inefficient trick?
For a start, please read what says Piantelli about nanostructures and re-read Defkalion’s ICCF-17 paper.

Eventually a point seemingly outside this dispute but essential to understand the difference between the thinking of Abd and me.

Abd writes: We are successful with Nature when we respect What Happens more than we demand to have what we want. Nature, in fact, in my experience, often has a Better Idea.”
Homo sapiens speaks so. Homo faber, homo technologicus thinks differently he goes mercilessly for what he wants; he uses the laws of Nature to achieve what he needs. He has a disrespectful respect for Nature; sometimes he makes fatal errors but makes a sometimes very hostile world better for him. Nature knows it better has followed a long and smooth learning curve, had eons to elaborate solutions but never had what we perceive as problems.
We can perhaps understand now better the difference between the Scientific Method and the Technological Method. Both are based on questions we put to Nature. The scientific questions are perhaps more polite, more smarter while the technological ones are rude, even inquisitorial. Mother Nature was much to secretive sod even a bit perverse with the answers regarding LENR. The time is ripe for putting new questions and forcing her to answer. Otherwise She will send us to search for productive cracks.

Peter 



COMMENTS BY ABD- you will see we are still light years from consensus but that's no problem; LENR starts to cope with its situation:


Let's see if we make a blog publication of this exchange of ideas.
Whatever.


>First- quite unusual for you, your answer has 732 worda compared
>to 531 in my article, typically your writings are 5 times more wordy
>than what you criticize or contradict.; this is in part because you know
>many facts
>but also a question of style and of tactic. Many words are or seem
>smarter and stronger than few.
Well, my writing varies with purpose. Most of what I write is as if 
it were a conversation. Because you may read at leisure, or not at 
all, someone else may read, I don't pay attention to the relative 
number of words, at all.

I'm *not* contradicting or criticizing. I'm *responding*. I do happen 
to be a dialectical thinker, so if you say A, I may say not-A, but 
that doesn't meant that I think not-A is better than A, but I want to 
compare them.

But that's just a general principle, what I actually do may be different.



>A blog paper is not strictly scientific there are also personal feelings
>and even fears in it.
Yes, of course. Same with much e-mail.


> As all old cold fusionists I was also educated >(read culturalized, memefied) in the spirit of cult of palladium and of the
>FP Cell-
Do remember that I'm *not* an "old cold fusionist."


> however due to some personal traits and experience I became very
>discontented with the situation, have discovered myself and have learned
>from people more knowledgeable than me- that CF/LENR has to get out of its
>cradle and find entirely new ways.
Of course. But you don't just grab children and demand they grow up. 

Strictly speaking, you are not writing about CF/LENR, but about the 
community. It seems you do get them mixed up sometimes.



> And it had done this! It is not pleasant to be a dissident.
>In this case I have made a diplomatic suggestion that my idea re cracks
>should be considered only as wishful thinking and I am just an inoffensive
>heretic.
Peter, you have some ideas about yourself that I'd challenge, but I'd 
prefer to do it in person. I hope you will be at ICCF-19 in Venice.



>Being my friend and, I dare to think knowing that I am right in a much
>greater >extent (and being an old fox even if not so old as me) you have accepted
>this game.
We talk, we play with words.


>Actually you have not confronted my arguments directly and you attack on
>the periphery not the core of he things
If you say so.


>Cracks as NAE is in direct opposition with:- the reality of existence of almost-technological intense LENR processes >as Rossi and DGT, you cannot build a technology on inherently
>incontrollable cracking;
You have confused cracks as an *explanation* of the FP Heat Effect, 
and an *attempted explanation* by Storms of NiH results, with a 
*recommendation* of cracks as an approach. Storms in asserting cracks 
as universal is weak. But in asserting cracks as an explanation of 
the variability of the FPHE, he's pretty likely to be correct.

Now, with cracks in mind, he proposes the hydroton. That's a linear 
structure and would be fostered by linear structures in the host 
metal. How long are these structures? We don't know. My own guess is 
that the active structures are *not* linear, or, if they are, it's not long.

But we *start* with cracks, as something that *works* -- sometimes -- 
in the FPHE. But that doesn't mean that we will engineer devices with 
cracking. Or we could, it's one approach to creating small 
structures, and cracking can be engineered to be quite precise. You 
have in mind something very limited, uncontrolled.

Yes, the original work was *very* uncontrolled, nobody had a clue.

Peter, understand the idea of "crack" by comparison with "bulk." Not 
by comparison with engineered cavities and similar organized, 
designed structures.


What you call LENR+ is just LENR, engineered.  Peter: But engineered to a huge quality jump, density of NAE in LENR+ is at least 100 times greater than in LENR classic! New mechanisms of NAE-genesis.


>- the knowledge coming from outside re. catalytic active sites that are
>complex not simple cracks;
We don't know the characteristics of the active sites. Defkalion is 
attempting to engineer them, but we don't know how sophisticated they 
have gotten with this. I wish you could have been along with us, 
visiting SKINR and the labs they have access to, and seeing the kind 
of nanotech work they are doing.



>- the knowledge coming from inside the field re the determinant role of the
>nanostructures that are sophisticated and smart not something primitive like
>a crack;
A crack is just a separation of two pieces of material. Nanocracks 
may be very controlled, it's possible. You'd call them "cracks" based 
on how they were formed. It's simply an approach. The fuel doesn't 
care how the structure was built, whether it was assembled from 
pieces with a controlled separation, or made from a single piece 
broken apart, separated. The key is design of the structures, that's 
where the field will go, it's obvious.


We have a pretty good idea of the gross structure of the Hyperion. 
What we don't have is the details of the active nanoparticles. We 
have some rough ideas.

What's your point, Peter? Do you think that I'm saying that we should 
reject these attempts and just take some palladium and stress it? 
That there is only one way to get LENR, the Holy Fleischmann Method?

No, Peter. PdD is useful for the science, as a fairly well-known 
example of LENR, rather easily accessible for study, with a large 
body of work. Hardly anyone thinks that PdD LENR will ever be 
practical for power, though I just learned about a design from 
Fleischmann that was never built, with very high density predicted. 
So maybe. But I'm certainly not holding my breath for it, nor should anyone.

I'm proposing going back to verify heat/helium with higher accuracy. 
The only thing that has to do with practical applications is that, if 
heat/helium is confirmed with higher accuracy, it might shake loose 
some serious funding, but I'd expect most of that funding, by the 
time this happens, will go into NiH research -- including identifying 
the fuel/ash relationship for NiH.

It's about politics and science.


>- if cracking is the key of success, CF/LENR will remain irreproducible and
>uncontrollable forever,
Straw man argument, Peter. I certainly did not argue that. But LENR 
is already reproducible. You've bought that old canard.

You've been fighting ghosts. Wake up, Bad Dream, Peter. It's over, 
the sun is rising.

Are coin tosses reproducible? Have I told you what I did with my 
daughter the other day? I told her I would toss a coin, "Heads."

And then I did. Of course, as luck (?) would have it, it wasn't until 
the eighth toss. And I filled the space with negative self-talk, 
like, "I must be doing something wrong."

The next day, I said the same thing and then tossed a Head the first 
time. "See! I'm getting better at this!"

She laughed and laughed.

But we are like that.


Very nice story thanks; due to my limits I am unable to get the correlation
between coin tosses and reproducibility. "Should your car, personal airplane,
PC, smartphone, pressure cooker etc. work so reproducible as a PdD experiment!
Is this a blessing or a curse?
Do not ask superior understanding from a technologist, please.
Peter


17 comments:

  1. Dear Peter
    Cracks as a synonymous of the NAE was first introduced by Arata in 2002.
    dr Ed Storms just reintroduced it in his attempt to unify under one theory most probably non correlated heat anomalies as observed phenomena in metal/hydrogen interfaces.

    A. Friend

    ReplyDelete
  2. While I cannot contribute to this debate in a scientifically significant way, I can predict that soon after either Defkalion or Rossi releases their devices we will learn the secret(s) of their operation, probably within months, or years at the outside. It would be preferable if the mechanism responsible for the (Rossi?), effect were to be discovered autonomously by one of the “open” LENR researchers that we have become familiar with over the years. ideally, before the information is “leaked” in a nefarious manner ie, stolen industrial secrets. Obtaining the correct theory in that manner would not enable it to be discussed in a scholarly fashion and be properly written up, published and taught in schools as it would be if independently and openly discovered. If the correct questions are asked, the answers are there, the pieces of the puzzle in hand now are probably sufficient to get an answer. With both Rossi and Dekfalion teasing all with deliberately enigmatic peeks at their reactors, time is running out for truly independent and open discovery of LENR Plus. A question arises in my mind, which set of circumstances offers the most benefit to the world at large? A rapid spread through industrialization and commercialization, or dissemination through traditional academic channels?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best protection of the secrets is complexity.
      It is in both structure and function and only very skilled and informed people could do reverse engineering of these devices.
      The scientific part- broadly transdisciplinar is not easier.

      Peter

      Delete
  3. It is highly unlikely that Rossi understands the physics of whatever he has. It's a little more possible with Defkalion, but still unlikely. Science has already turned the corner with cold fusion, but cascades can persist among those poorly informed for decades. A commercial device would tip this over, no doubt. It would force "traditional academic channels" to address the scientific issues, i.e., the blockaded journals (which don't own science, they are merely widely trusted by some). If you can buy a device at Home Depot, or even on-line, and it works, it will become entirely too embarrassing to maintain the stone wall.

    I'm working, mostly, on the academic side, it's just my approach and not the only approach

    What could be "leaked" is probably not some controlling theory, about which Rossi, in particular, has shown no knowledge, but specific recipes and protocols for generating the effect.

    My summary: don't worry about it. It will all come out in the wash. Support those who are doing real research, and maintain skepticism, because this field could attract fraud, which is not a specific accusation against anyone, it's general.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Defkalion puts great emphasis on the scientific part and builds a theory made of more theories. Nanoplasmonics plays
      a key role. This is anew approach in our field.
      Peter

      Delete
  4. Abd: What you call LENR+ is just LENR, engineered.

    Peter: But engineered to a huge quality jump, density of NAE in LENR+ is at least 100 times greater than in LENR classic! New mechanisms of NAE-genesis.

    Not accurate. What you have done, Peter, is to compare the worst results of "classic LENR" with the best results of "LENR+". Yes, new mechanisms will be developed that will improve results.

    What you are calling LENR+ is mostly NiH work, I think you will agree with that. From the PdD work, it may have begun, in earnest, with the famous 1984 meltdown. Once we realize that the FP Heat Effect is a surface effect, that was one whopping energy density, and must have represented a high density of NAE, it vaporized palladium and did a lot more.

    As a result, Pons and Fleischmann scaled down their PdD work. That has been maintained, and scaling back up with PdD is very expensive (and, in fact, dangerous). The NiH work is very largely scaled up, so it has higher total energy output, generally, but not necessarily higher energy density. The operation of PdD LENR is understood, it is the conversion of deuterium to helium. The operation of NiH is *not* understood, though that's coming soon, I can readily predict. It is quite likely that the theoretical energy density is much lower.

    Nickel and hydrogen are so much cheaper, though, that NiH is far more likely to be the basis for a commercial product than PdD. *Whatever approach is used,* obtaining control over NAE is critical, practically the whole banana. It is possible that some niche applications will use PdD because of the substantially higher energy density. Spacecraft applications, as an example.

    But what is needed for all this is *reliability*. And we have *no* reliability data from Rossi *or* Defkalion, and some evidence that they still are not in accurate control of the reaction. Those who jump up and down over high energy output completely miss this. Look at the Rossi "third party review." (A misnomer, in fact.) Three devices. Three radically different results. Look at the July Defkalion demo. No clear prediction of output, and a set-up for a ready explanation for failure. (I.e., gee, we must not have gotten rid of enough of the argon.) If they had reliable heat, would they have defined "success" as a COP of 1.1?

    We have indications that they have a *relatively reliable* device, specifically their pure isotope tests would have been a waste of a lot of money if they didn't have that. For those tests, if positive results were defined as *any significant heat,* it would have been enough for their purposes. But this only shows some incremental improvement over PdD results.

    I've seen no clear study on this. Nor do I expect one soon. The quantitative reliability of the Rossi and Defkalion reactors would be expected to be closely-held secrets, until and unless some shift occurs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Abd,\

      I am ready to compare the best results of LENR classic-
      if you have ~ quantitative data with the worst data of LENR+

      I have discussed many times with Martin Fleischmann about
      scale up, but he never told a word of scale down.

      What you say here about the DGT demo is - sorry to say this
      absolutely unfair- Yiannis has explained to you personally in detail the case with degassing and i also wrotee abput it as a proof that alian gases kill NAE
      Please retract this part- this is not your style.

      Peter

      Delete
    2. I wrote:
      "Look at the July Defkalion demo. No clear prediction of output, and a set-up for a ready explanation for failure. (I.e., gee, we must not have gotten rid of enough of the argon.) If they had reliable heat, would they have defined "success" as a COP of 1.1?"

      I did *not* write that there was anything fake or deceptive about the demo. I know the problem with argon. What I pointed out stands, i.e, the *situation* was a set-up to explain low heat, and that includes the test protocol that considered 1.1 COP a success. The two aspects of the test were under Defkalion control: the choice to reduce degassing, risking poor results, and the choice to define the target COP.

      My *only* point here is that there is a possible indication of unreliability from those two facts. There is no data from Defkalion on reliability. I have, myself, indicated that they have *some kind of reliability*, inferred from the pure isotope results and the unlikelihood of them running that test with a very unreliable system. Waste of money, it would be, for the reasons that Storms has explained.

      Peter, sometimes you aren't understanding what I'm saying. It's worrisome. You fall into combativeness and a sense that something is wrong, quite quickly. Are you okay?

      Delete
  5. Peter [quoted]>- if cracking is the key of success, CF/LENR will remain irreproducible and
    >uncontrollable forever,

    Abd:

    Straw man argument, Peter. I certainly did not argue that. But LENR
    is already reproducible. You've bought that old canard.

    You've been fighting ghosts. Wake up, Bad Dream, Peter. It's over,
    the sun is rising.

    Are coin tosses reproducible? Have I told you what I did with my
    daughter the other day? I told her I would toss a coin, "Heads."

    And then I did. Of course, as luck (?) would have it, it wasn't until
    the eighth toss. And I filled the space with negative self-talk,
    like, "I must be doing something wrong."

    The next day, I said the same thing and then tossed a Head the first
    time. "See! I'm getting better at this!"

    She laughed and laughed.

    But we are like that.

    Peter:

    Very nice story thanks; due to my limits I am unable to get the correlation
    between coin tosses and reproducibility. "Should your car, personal airplane,
    PC, smartphone, pressure cooker etc. work so reproducible as a PdD experiment!
    Is this a blessing or a curse?
    Do not ask superior understanding from a technologist, please.

    new response of mine:

    Reality is neither a blessing nor a curse. It's simply reality, and it is our interpretation that can make reality "blessing" or "curse."

    I asked if a coin toss is reproducible. It is, and it is not. That is, any individual coin toss is not reproducible. However, collections of coin tosses show statistical behavior, and an effect that is not individually reproducible can show statistical reproducibility.

    Is this enough for commercial application? Yes. It's been done. The manufacture of integrated circuits was subject to poor yield, the slightest bit of dust or random variation in minute structures could make a device non-functional. So they made lots of devices, and tested them, and the non-functional silicon went back into the furnace or the scrap heap.

    An energy device that is only statistically reliable, if it can be made very small, can then be ganged in a device that incorporates many such devices. Looks like both Rossi and Defkalion are setting up to do this, their plans for higher-output devices are to be constructed from many smaller devices. No industrial product is 100% reliable. Rather, products are *managed* so that net reliability is *high enough*. Far more of interest would be the *stability* of devices. Have Rossi and Defkalion managed to create devices with adequate stability, i.e., continued function over some substantial period of time?

    We have no clue, really, only certain anecdotal reports, unconfirmed, from Rossi, subject to a massive possibility, with him, of, shall we say, "optimistic description." I.e. supposedly he heated a factory for a long time. But was this a single device, or did he swap out devices, or was it a set of multiple devices. We don't know, and he's not a reliable source for knowledge.

    If I need to toss a coin and have it come up Heads, I can do it, and I know the risks, which I can balance with the payoff.

    This is ultimately moot. Eventually, the integrated circuit manufacturers learned to increase the reliability of their process. We will learn to increase the reliability of LENR, though stability I can't be so sure about, yet.

    This will happen with both PdD and NiH.

    Peter, here, is "attacking" the "crack theory," but it's actually a misunderstanding of what has been suggested, or, at least, of what *I* suggest. Storms may be overstating the matter, and what he's written may apply only to PdD work. I have *never* said, or intended to imply, that future would would use relatively uncontrolled cracking as a way of creating more reliable NAE. It *might* use controlled cracking, I've proposed that with PdD work, but not with NiH, because the application of "crack" to nanoparticle work is unclear.

    (Continued)

    ReplyDelete
  6. What I've said is that what is critical is the formation of specific sizes or character of cavities, apparently, and cracks are merely one way, a relatively primitive way, to form such, and a more engineered approach may well not use cracking, but specific construction, and I've suggested "biological" or other nanotech approaches.

    Defkalion appears to be using something intermediate, constructing complex nanoparticle matrices of nickel with ceramics and other components. This could be enough for improvement, but possibly less than optimal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have to wait for more experimental results, I get the impression we are speculating too much. We that includes me
      Mea culpa.
      Peter

      Delete
  7. The state of LENR Pd/D technology is reminiscent of the state of radio back at the turn of the 20th century.


    At that time, a crystal radio receiver, also called a crystal set or cat's whisker receiver, was a very simple radio receiver, popular in the early days of radio. It needs no battery or power source and runs on the power received from radio waves by a long wire antenna. It gets its name from its most important component, known as a crystal detector, originally made with a piece of crystalline mineral such as galena. This component is now called a diode.


    As a youngster, I can remember spending many frustrating hours moving the cat’s whisker to and fro endlessly across the face of the crystal hoping to get some sound from the air. It was so long ago, I do not remember if I ever succeeded. The pain of the search has clung to my soul as a original sin of stubbornness. I just remember endless frustration of constant trial and error inspired and confident that some other amazing people had gotten that dammed thing to work. If they did it, by golly I was going to do it too no matter how long it took or what the price paid in suffering.


    That is how LENR is. This is no science behind it, It is all trial and error.


    Now LENR+. is analogous to the first vacuum tube radios. There is a degree of science nad methodology behind it and LENR+ works well almost every time.

    If you study Nanoplasmonics, you will find parameters that can be adjusted to increase the power output and controllability of the reaction,

    There is solid science behind the LENR+ technology developed since 1974 when Martin Fleischmann himself founded Nanoplasmonics.


    Some people like to spend their lives endlessly dragging that cat’s whisker across the face of the crystal to find that magic spot…just one…if they can get it to work just once it will all be worth it. They must enjoy the large amount of pain in their stubborn search in the hope that someday they will hear some those small squeaks out of the headphones.


    Others take the more practical road…and easier road and use science to receive that long sought after signal that contains the exalted music that will lift mankind to the nine choirs of the heavily chorus: the Seraphim and the Cherubim…and all the lower orders…


    Those unfortunate others need the purification of the pain of the search to atone for their sins of stubborn intransience.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very entertaining and a good read when little else is 'out there'.

    Is what Peter is saying that complex ? - what I am reading (perhaps in my simplicity) is that 'cracks' are accidental structure warps that appear to be the heart of activity.

    Peter says, if we are going to rely on accidental structure locations for the effect we are going nowhere fast.

    Peter says, that what is needed (and thus what DGT may be doing), is engineering a far better structure of the faces of the nano particles of Ni used in their reactor.

    Peter says, that the process is multi-staged. My reading of this is that DGT have adopted an approach that
    1) Structures the faces of the lattice in their nano particles
    2) Prepares the H by way of ionization which combined with heat causes the ions to behave in a particular way (atom becomes polarized dipole with highly elliptical orbit of electron)
    3) Feed the ions to the lattice also at a particular heat
    4) Effect is generating anomalous heat from the combination of factors

    The other process questions seem to relate to the contamination of H by deuterium and that the anomalous heat effect is greater at particular D contamination levels. So if this all makes sense one might ask what makes the difference & that to me is the D's neutron ?. I totally lack the knowledge to be able to offer calculations on potential energy release from an adsorbed H atom vs a D atom assuming they can and are able to be disguised as neutrons to a Ni atom. I did see David French's comment about an H atom (proton + electron) being just short of the energy mass of a neutron.

    David listed relative mass as
    Neutron = 1
    Proton = 0.99862349
    Electron = 0.00054386734

    Difference = 780 keV

    But what of a D atom manipulated in the same manner ?

    DSM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right , dear Doug- we have learned from Mathematics that even: "The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. --Robert Coveyou. This is exactly Pi times more true for technologies, especially revolutionary
      new technologies.Cracking is beyond the control of Gods Or "Against cracking even Gods are fighting in vain'
      Morphology, metallurgy of Pd fragilized by hydroggen or deuterium= black art(s)
      Peter

      Petr

      Delete
  9. If anyone wants to understand the issue better - please listen to this youtube by Ed Storms. It helps explain why he thinks like he does and creates a better context for Peter's issues re cracks and NAEs

    Cheers - form your own conclusions (I side with Peter's perspective for a number of reasons)

    DSM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNodilc6su0

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Peter, you have some ideas about yourself that I'd challenge, but I'd
    prefer to do it in person. I hope you will be at ICCF-19 in Venice."

    JWOW ^^

    Dont worry Peter...
    Ill come with you! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ultrasonic crusher is a kind of new method which can be used to calculus breaking on clinic. More about it, please see here: www.toption-china.com/products/ultrasonic-cell-crusher-ordinary-type. External ultrasonic calculus breaking can inflict focused ultrasound out of the body then make an ultrasonic fluctuation with certain strength.

    ReplyDelete