Peter has asked me to write a “guest editorial
in which you tell what YOU suggest as he best ideas and most recommended modes
of thinking- for the future you wish to LENR.”
I'm tempted to dismantle this, so I'll get that out of the way first:
The Best Ideas are the Correct Ones. Get rid of all the others immediately. The Most Recommended modes of thinking are, of course, the Clear ones. Especially the ones where you think like me.
Ahem. It's a fair request, and I take it as a sincere one.
There are two approaches here. The first is totally generic; it's not just about LENR. It is about every aspect of life. I do talk about this, but instead of doing that here, I'm simply going to recommend The Curriculum for Living, Landmark Education, and, to the extent practical, advanced training, and I'll be happy to communicate personally with anyone who wants a conversation over this.
So the second approach is to talk about LERN, what is happening and what might be missing.
It's easy to go back and identify "errors" in the past, but the present and future are not only built from the past, they are a new creation that is not limited by the past. However, it can be useful to identify what was missing, in situations in the past, that led to what happened.
We cannot change what happened, but we can change what it *means*, because that is an ongoing creation of ours.
So, I’ve been pointing out that the announcement of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989 contained claims that, in hindsight, at least, were premature. They were presented as if they overturned accepted physics, yet the evidence presented was circumstantial. An established paradigm, established based on long success in predictive power, will not be overturned merely because an anomaly appears. Pons and Fleischmann were the worlds' foremost electrochemists, perhaps, and were eminently qualified to do accurate calorimetry, but the physicists were not impressed. Claims were being made that were, they perceived, *in their territory.* And they immediately recognized every error. At the same time, there was a perceived threat to a billion dollars a year in hot fusion research, which heavily employs physicists. That's nothing to sniff at.
(It's likely that, as Peter Hagelstein wrote earlier this year in Infinite Energy, that cold fusion will not, when the mystery is resolved, overturn physics, just some inadequately considered approximations and assumptions.)
So, derived principle: don't claim the overthrow of an established paradigm, on which many careers and reputations depend, without *first* establishing the necessary evidence, beyond doubt. I can imagine exceptions. Don't try them at home. They would be exceptions like, you have unlimited funding and you have no concerns about career and public acceptance. Even then, watch your back!
So here we are, almost 25 years later. Now what? Well, what we think about this might not be all that important. I consider it a good possibility that Defkalion will have a product, or at least be arranging for independent testing, before the end of next year. Rossi, it's possible, but less likely, in my judgment. That will make what I have to say about progress in LENR moot, it will blow the lid off. So what I write now is Plan B. And LENR is so important, as to the possibility of effectively limitless green energy for humanity, that we cannot wait and simply hope. Commercial enterprises fail, for lots of reasons. We don't yet know how reliable these NiH products will be.
So Plan B. We do not need to wait for LENR to appear at Home Depot. The scientific evidence is clear that LENR is real. However, that fact is not particularly well known. LENR research is still somewhat suppressed. For over two decades, it was a career killer to be involved in LENR research, and we still see signs of lingering effects.
So my proposal is fairly simple. What it would mean, in practice, may vary from nation to nation, but for the
Both U.S. DoE reviews recommended "modest funding" to answer open research issues. The second review, in particular, showed substantial recognition of the reality of the heat effect, and far more recognition of the possibility of it being nuclear in nature than was the case in 1989. We would be asking the DoE to follow their own recommendations.
We can look at the second review and can see why it was as successful as it was, and why it was as unsuccessful as it was. We will learn from this. This time, we will go back prepared, and on our terms. We will not mix weak evidence with strong, or circumstantial evidence with direct evidence. We will not present a confusing farrago of anomalies, unexplained effects, but focus on *one mystery*. What is happening in the PF Heat Effect?
And we will have specific recommendations, with budgets, ready. We will propose two avenues of research.
First, we will suggest that leaving the question of the reality of cold fusion open, unresolved, maintains massive uncertainty. The direct evidence for cold fusion reality is clear, but funding limitations have limited the accuracy of those measurements. Nailing this down is thus essential. We will request support or direct funding for definitive and accurate measurement of the heat/helium ratio.
Second, we will propose support for research into the character of the Nuclear Active Environment, what conditions, precisely, facilitate this reaction? Part of this involves exploring the parameter space around existing protocols.
The first avenue of research establishes reality. (Theoretically, it's possible that heat/helium could turn out to be artifact. I can't imagine it, but failure of imagination isn't proof of anything. Remember 1989? *We need to know,* and the "we" here includes physicists, policy-makers, genuine skeptics, etc.)
The second avenue of research will open up the possibility of reliability. Success in this avenue could create massive opportunity for practical applications.
There are other avenues to be explored. I'd mention NiH work, except that, at this point, it is not scientifically established, as is PdD work. That may shift at any time, and if the first two avenues are explored, we can be quite sure that others will be, as well.
We will recommend, to the Department of Energy, a systematic approach to the research.
We will do the same with other possible funding agencies. Again, this is too important to place all our eggs in one basket. The same presentations that we will develop will be useful for other venues.
What can individuals do?
Well, all these activities require some level of funding. For me to go to ICCF-18 cost about $700. I was able to keep costs down by taking the bus, and by not registering for the Conference and instead obtaining a press pass. I have received $350 so far in donations to support this. I'm living on a fixed income, and I'm still out of pocket.
So ... support the people working in the field. Ruby Carat has herself been funding her public work, for years, and it's a drain and a strain for her.http://coldfusionnow.org/
Take a look at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/ . That's me, so far. Volunteer to create web resources, edit, report. As the project I'm creating gains steam, there will be funding, but we aren't there yet.
Encourage students to learn about cold fusion. We will need a whole new generation of researchers. It will happen rapidly if the commercial efforts break though, but if not, we will *still* need those fresh faces and minds.
I'm doing this work because I'm told, by the scientists and others, that I'm useful. I can explain things in a way that communicates. If I'm supported, I can do it better.
Commit yourself! Throw your hat over the fence! Are we going to make this happen? I want to hear a thousand people shout, Yes!
There is an insurmountable conceptual divide that will make it impossible for the DOE to except LENR. A nuclear physicist will never believe that you can do nuclear physics without neutrons.
ReplyDeleteNuclear physicists have spent their whole lives learning how matter can only be manipulated through the application of neutrons to matter. Neutrons for of nuclear physicist are like what paint is for a painter, he cannot do anything in his field without using neutrons.
This need to hold on to the current paradigm in nuclear physics is why the Widom-Larsen theory still holds on to the concept that those high energy electrons will somehow produce neutrons, an absolute requirement for nuclear physics to occur.
This need of neutrons is why LENR holds on tightly to the requirement for deuterium and palladium because nuclear reactions must use neutrons that are carried in deuterium.
You cannot propose an avenue of research that counters the hegemony of the neutron at the DOE, such is just too much to ask for the high priests of the Bomb to accept.
Even Lomax is tainted by the neutron addiction when he proposes accurate measurement of the heat/helium ratio.
We must somehow convince the world that brute electromagnetic force can disrupt and reorganize the heart of matter, and that neutrons need not be involved in the LENR reaction.
In this rejection of the current neutron paradigm is where the nub of the question lies.
When you commit yourself and throw your hat over the fence, you are going against 100 years of nuclear physics. That is a lot to ask from anyone and yet it must be done to give birth to a new era of science.
What do neutrons have to do with increasing the accuracy with which the heat/helium ratio is measured? The heat/helium ratio is not based on theory, it is a confirmed experimental discovery that has theoretical implications. I'm not terribly interested in Axil's crackpot certainties. Theory be damned, what's that ratio?
DeleteI think ABD is wishful, but his assumptions are not well founded. The evidence is not clear. It is spotty to scientists outside the field.
ReplyDeleteNiH has the potential to blow things open, but DGT is giving themselves another 'data holiday'.
I prefer the judgment of hundreds of scientists *inside* a field to armchair pseudoskeptics, and I prefer the judgment of the informed over the uninformed. "The evidence" is heat/helium, read Storms "Status of cold fusion (2010)." That's a peer-reviewed review. What is clear is the *correlation.* There are about 16 other peer-reviewed reviews since 2005 that similarly conclude or even assume the reality of cold fusion. The extreme skeptical position is *dead* in the journals, while positive publication continues. But if "brian" -- whoever he is -- isn't convinced, then surely he will support the request for a more accurate confirmation. If it were not for residual skeptical opinion, we wouldn't go to the DoE at all for support for confirmation. NAE investigation would have priority, because of the massive practical implications.
DeleteThrough experiment we have to learn how D+D->He4 in PdD systems. Where does it happen? Surface, near surface, cracks, voids, etc... When does it happen required impurities, required densities (we have this one), required phonon population, flow is required how deep does this go, is there a bulk component, how does co-dep work if flow is required,
ReplyDeleteWhat are the exact rates for all systems and configuration? Exact rates for all reactants?, Upper bounds on radiation of all types. Measurements of electric and magnetoc fields produced, etc...
Just because we see a few facts that are interesting does not mean we are done. We are in fact just beginning.
Ed Pell
The tendency for Helium production in LENR transmutation could well be the result of the inherent nature of the nucleus to be constructed out of alpha particle clusters. The alpha particle cluster model is one of the enduring concepts that run through all the various theories of nuclear structure.
DeleteAs background, one of the original motivations behind the alpha-particle model of the nucleus in the 1930s was the fact that, among the naturally radioactive nuclei, the alpha particle was known to be one of the principal emissions. Since such radioactivity is conceptualized as the evaporation of alpha-particles from the nuclear surface, the high rate of alpha particle production suggested that alphas might exist, at least transiently, as bound systems on the nuclear surface.
Quasi-fission and multi-fragmentation experiment conducted in the early 1970s inspired interest in nuclear clustering in light of experimental findings that when medium and large nuclei are bombarded with relatively high-energy particles – not merely enough to strip the nucleus of one or a few nucleons, but enough to shatter it into small fragments, there is an unexpectedly large number of alpha particles and multiples of alpha particles among the break-up fragments. Such results are strong indication that there is alpha clustering throughout the interior of all nuclei – small, medium and large (MacGregor,1976).
Furthermore, experimental elements transmutation results released by DGT in their ICCF-17 paper that document a large accumulation of lithium, boron and beryllium transmutation products support the alpha cluster model of the nucleus. These light elements are just bigger chunks of nuclear alpha particle modulo fragments blasted off the nuclei of heavy elements as a result of a fission based transmutation process.
The ash assay from the Rossi reactor has shown that 10% of the nickel was transmuted into iron. The Iron nucleus is just one alpha particle lighter than the nickel nucleus. Most F-P advocates deny this experimental result as damaging to the deuterium fusion genesis of helium.
Low energy LENR experiments as typified by the Fleischmann and Pons experiments might be only strong enough to chip of a piece of the nuclear structure in a fission reaction thereby releasing some nuclear binding energy. It is an unsubstantiated assumption the D+D->He4 in PdD systems even exists let alone if that reaction correlates with power output in a LENR reaction.
"Just because we see a few facts that are interesting does not mean we are done. We are in fact just beginning."
DeleteThat's correct, Ed. I focus on heat/helium because it is widely confirmed, and the ratio can be compared across different protocols, though obviously it has no relationship to NiH reactions. The ratio appears to be characteristics of the most significant effects with PdD, so it's a major clue to the main reaction. There are *many* details.
Axil wrote:
Delete"The ash assay from the Rossi reactor has shown that 10% of the nickel was transmuted into iron. The Iron nucleus is just one alpha particle lighter than the nickel nucleus. Most F-P advocates deny this experimental result as damaging to the deuterium fusion genesis of helium."
Typical crackpottery, mixing experimental results under one set of circumstances with those from another. Essentially, scientists in the field are nowhere near as stupid as Axil claims.
First of all, none of the analytical results from Rossi or Defkalion are of a character to admit as scientific evidence. They are essentially anecdotal. They are of interest, but are not probative, yet, for anything other than "this is what is claimed by so-and-so."
Secondly, the ash from NiH is not expected to be the ash from PdD. Nobody expects helium from NiH, so why would those results be denied out of an insane conclusion that they "contradict" deuterium conversion to helium? Quite simply, they don't.
Is Axil serious?
When Deuterium fusion is achieved through the reaction of deuterium with itself, the reaction has two branches that occur with nearly equal probability:
DeleteD + D → T + 1H
D + D → 3He + n
Where are the neutrons and the tritium?
They are products from two branches of the D+D reaction, which do not occur in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Nor does the rare branch, D+D -> He-4 + gamma, occur. Imagining the cold fusion must involve these reactions was a major cause of the rejection cascade. What's Axil's point?
DeleteWe cannot prove that D-D fusion occurs in preference to alpha decay and associated fission to lighter elements from palladium or nickel. Even heat correlation can prove nothing. If D-D to He4 could have been proved after 25 years, it would have been done already.
DeleteBut transmutation has been proven.
This D-D to He4 is one of the stubborn and counterproductive illusions that Peter is forcefully and persistently referring to. Such D-D fusion fantasies must be killed off in order for progress in LENR+ to be made.
Progress in LENR+ means acceptance of transmutation to lighter elements through fission and heaver elements through fusion.
Reference:
http://166.111.26.4/3progress/3transmutation/32Miley/2005MileyGHoverviewofa(ICCF12Paper).pdf
OVERVIEW OF LIGHT WATER/HYDROGEN-BASED LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS
A quantitative measure of the yield of transmutation products (and isotopic shifts from natural distribution in key products) in 4 major atomic groups (6-18, 22-35, 44-54, 75-85) were obtained by Miley, Patterson et al. [1]. Others also have reported significant nuclear reaction products and isotopic shifts in light water LENRs. In some cases of the observed elements were from the Lanthanide Group, including Lu, Tb, Pr, Eu, Sm, Gd, Dy, Ho, Nd and Yb. It is widely accepted that these rare earth elements are less likely to be found as impurities, strengthening confidence in their results (although most researchers have tried to rule out mistakes due to impurities vs. the common "product" elements such as Fe, Cu, Ag, Zn, Au, etc via analysis of cell components, electrodes and electrolyte prior to LENR runs).
Isotopic shifts are another key feature often cited against mistaken identification of impurities as reaction products. Violante’s study showed that the 63Cu /65Cu isotopic ratio shifted [33]. In this Ni-hydride film work the most abundant copper isotope was 65Cu with a shift from natural distribution by 1360%. Cirillo and Iorio found Re, Os, Au, Hf, Tl, Er, and Yb on the surface of the cathode, which was not present before the reactions [9]. Ohmori et al. reported finding Hg, Kr, Ni and Fe with anomalous compositions in Au electrodes during light water electrolysis [29]. In addition Si, Mg with other anomalous compositions were also detected in the precipitates separated from the Au electrode after 4 electrolysis at extremely high current densities. They found significant deviations from natural values. Minor product elements such as Os, W, and Ru in particular showed large deviation, whereas elements with larger yields like Pb and Ag rarely showed significant deviations.
And so on...
"This D-D to He4 is one of the stubborn and counterproductive illusions that Peter is forcefully and persistently referring to. Such D-D fusion fantasies must be killed off in order for progress in LENR+ to be made."
Delete"D-D to He-4" is an interpretation. I'm pointing to the experimental fact, i.e., the production of He-4 in PdD experiments, correlated with heat at a value *consistent with* deuterium fusion, not the interpretative theory. All theories are fantasies; some are nevertheless useful.
Axil has pointed out that more complex interpretations have not been ruled out, that's a positive interpretation of his ravings. They are, however, unlikely, but this is not the place to work that out.
The paper Axil pointed to is interesting but is *irrelevant* on this point because it is entirely about light water experiments. The possible existence of light hydrogen LENR has *no bearing* on deuterium fusion, which obviously is not going to take place with ordinary hydrogen.
Axil's ability to see clearly is afflicted by his attachment to his own theories and his belief that others are ignorant.
"Nuclear physicists have spent their whole lives learning how matter can only be manipulated through the application of neutrons to matter. Neutrons for of nuclear physicist are like what paint is for a painter, he cannot do anything in his field without using neutrons."
ReplyDelete-
This is really a stupid argument. Not only is it not true for most physicists but it also doesn't matter. If anybody were able to show in a credible manner what Defkalion and Rossi claim they can do reliably every day, everyone would accept LENR and it would become mainstream. All it would take is a few truly independent tests showing kilowatts of power -- a power level which has been claimed by Defkalion and Rossi for more than 2 years now -- more than 6 if you count Rossi's "factory heater ecat".
The scientific community doesn't care about low levels of supposed excess heat or helium, either of which could be measurement and method artifacts. But nobody could ignore proof of kilowatt level sustained power. Sadly, such proof has not been provided by anyone.
Rossi and Defkalion should be placed under immense pressure from the LENR community. It's not skeptics which hold back recognition of their supposed accomplishment. It's their refusal to submit their claims to independent evaluation.
Want to help LENR? Get on Rossi and Defkalion. INSIST that they have independent tests or agree that they are not credible and investors should stay away from them. And that goes double if Defkalion attempts a stock offering without acceptable independent tests.
There is system engineering, testing and evaluation protocols that are currently well established in industry that your campaign of slander cannot penetrate.
DeleteWhen a company decides to invest in a technology, they extensively test that technology to characterize it against the product line they intend to utilize that technology in.
DGT used that protocol to test the early Rossi reactor and found that at that early juncture Rossi’s technology was wanting.
However, that testing experience allowed DGT to come up with a product development plan of their own that mitigated the problems that they saw in this early Rossi product.
I do not believe that DGT needed you for any direction as to the path they needed to take to get to a viable product line. This is true for all the firms that may be interested in the application of LENR.
All you do is waste electrons in your incessant repetition of the same old tired counterproductive propaganda. You most probably suffer from some deep seated pathological needs and compulsions that force you to follow the behavior that you suffer from. But be most assured that your deviant behavior has no influence on corporate decision making worldwide.
"There is system engineering, testing and evaluation protocols that are currently well established in industry that your campaign of slander cannot penetrate."
ReplyDelete-
I have no idea what that means. Probably not very much.
"When a company decides to invest in a technology, they extensively test that technology to characterize it against the product line they intend to utilize that technology in."
-
Some investors test, others take it on faith. That's how scams are sold. For example: Steorn, Mylow, Papp, and convicted felons Dennis Lee and Carl Tilley. Their investors failed to check and got bitten.
"DGT used that protocol to test the early Rossi reactor and found that at that early juncture Rossi’s technology was wanting."
-
It was wanting alright. Most likely, Rossi had no technology at all.
"However, that testing experience allowed DGT to come up with a product development plan of their own that mitigated the problems that they saw in this early Rossi product."
-
And you know this how? Oh wait. I know. Because they told you!
"I do not believe that DGT needed you for any direction as to the path they needed to take to get to a viable product line. This is true for all the firms that may be interested in the application of LENR."
-
I never said DGT needed *me* to do tests but they sure need someone to help them test properly if what I saw exhibited by video at ICCF18 was any example.
"All you do is waste electrons in your incessant repetition of the same old tired counterproductive propaganda. You most probably suffer from some deep seated pathological needs and compulsions that force you to follow the behavior that you suffer from. But be most assured that your deviant behavior has no influence on corporate decision making worldwide."
-
Well, Axil, you can't have it both ways. If you're sure my "deviant behavior" (you're very comical) can't affect decision making, why do you even reply? For sure, you never reply with any facts or counterargument-- only with more old claims which only amount to what Rossi or Defkalion TOLD you and which you accepted solely on faith.
As for who has the emotional problem, I'm no psychiatrist but I suspect of the two of us, it's not me!
Abd ul-Rahman
ReplyDeleteHave been away traveling and just read your POVs as in the lead article. Just want to say I really appreciated the bulk of what you had to say & wanted to register this in this quick post. I'd like to take time to go through para by para with pro/con (very mostly pro) feedback comments.
I did take a quick look at some of the responses & was disappointed to feel some (even from the good side) may have missed many of your very good and thoughtful points.
But then I read some of MaryYugo's comments and after the first few it was pretty clear they are as unhelpful as anyone should expect from a person utterly committed to negative input and commentary on anything LENR/LENR+.
I am hoping I can add some thoughtful feedback that is constructive and positive.
Thankyou for this effort.
DSM
Hi DSM. "Negative input and commentary" is simply an opinion which doesn't help your case.
DeleteIf you have credible evidence that either DGT or Rossi have obtained proper independent testing, knock yourself out.
I hasten to point out that what *they* tell us isn't credible evidence. Neither are insufficient and badly done demos and experiments involving themselves or gullible professors and colleagues.
If you think I made some identifiable errors in what I assert, go for it-- say what those errors are!
MARYHUGO
ReplyDeleteDjms1 did not reference anything about ROSSI or DGT in his post.
You have developed a knee jerk reflex about those two companies, a sort of Paroxysmal attack of slanderous venom, in the instinctual way that a snake strikes forth at a passing victim.
LENR/LENR+ is comprised of many other systems that I am sure you know nothing about.
Your knowledge base is invented in a state of pathological illusion, in a state artifice that you consider yourself as a unparalleled expert.
Anyone who takes you seriously, anyone who joins you in your puzzle palace of illusions should also have their head examined.
Dear Mary Yugo,
ReplyDeleteIt is more and more difficult to believe that you are
a human being and not a machine programmed to attack LENR.
I ahe no time to make tests to establish what you really are
but I will ask you:
a) if you have something NEW to say, please write me on my private address;
b)Help us to make my blog maryyugoless at least for this September.
Thank you,
Peter
Axil pointed to a Miley paper, a possibly more stable URL for it would be: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHoverviewofa.pdf
ReplyDeleteThis paper is of high interest, but it displays what was clearly missing from transmutation reports in the past, and it still is missing: quantity, and correlation with heat. Helium is of high interest because it is the only transmutation product that has been confirmed as being correlated with anomalous heat. What Miley does, and what a lot of papers do, is report that this or that element was found, and lists of elements found are reported. Yet with modern analytical techniques, very small traces of elements can be detected. Further, it is additionally possible that rare nuclear reactions are taking place, either completely separately, or as secondary reactions to a main reaction, or rare branches of the same.
What Axil has done is not unusual, it's common. Evidence about rare events is confused with evidence about events that are nowhere near as rare. The value of the heat/helium ratio from PdD has only been determined to roughly 20%. That leaves room for other conversions than deuterium -> helium, but no other candidate products have been identified, with PdD, much less correlated with heat. At this point, Ockham's razor leaves us with deuterium fusion in PdD work.
Tightening up the heat/helium value could increase this simplicity. However, this is *not* necessary for the most urgent work: nailing down the NAE, and that has very little to do with theory.
Further, Peter is correct that the practical future of LENR power is likely with NiH. Progress will continue to be made by researchers who are not blinded by theory, and who actually test the response of materials and conditions. Some of this work may indeed be suggested by theory, there is a place for that. But the core of this is Reality, as revealed by direct experience.