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.

(Leonard Cohen)

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