Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Active sites vs. NAE, is there a priority?

In 2005, Steve Krivit and I have published a Survey based on 4 essential questions about cold fusion. You can compare the answers of Ed Storms and my answers to be able to judge if the Stormsian concept of NAE adds (or subtracts?) something to/from my original 1992 description of active sites and if I have the moral obligation to cite Ed whenever I write about NAE; or “Environment” is just a sophisticated renaming of “site” Please consider that I disagree with Ed’s ideas regarding both the structure and the function of HISNAE-now..See please:http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/2005GluckKrivitSurvey.shtml  

WHAT IS COLD FUSION (LENR, CANR, CMNS)? 

Cold fusion, or LENR, is the initiation of various nuclear reactions within special solid structures without the need to apply an amount of energy normally required to overcome the Coulomb barrier. - E. Storms  

CF is a quasi catalytic, surface, local, dynamic (SURFDYN) class of phenomena. Hypersensitive and complex. Nanoscience at its best and worst. The active sites are very difficult to be visualized, measured… and generated.- P. Gluck  

HOW DOES IT WORK? 

An unknown process can occur in a unique structure of a suitable small size that can neutralize the Coulomb barrier between atoms. This process involves a collective interaction between electrons and/or between hydrogen isotopes when either are present in sufficient amounts.The process involves a resonance interaction that is controlled by the size of the solid structure. For fusion between deuterons to occur or if a hydrogen isotope is added to another element, the structure must dissolve a critical quantity of the required hydrogen isotope. When the amount of energy applied to the structure is small, the condition of the structure is very important to achieving anomalous results. However, as applied energy is increased, the nature of the structure becomes less important, until at a sufficiently high energy, behavior becomes completely conventional.- E. Storms  

This is actually a three part question: where, what, how-i.e. topology, nature mechanism and the answers will lead us to why it works? The first question is determinant i.e. "topology is the key".It is a deep mystery for me why my paper was ignored and why Ed Storm's concept and solid ideas re "nuclear active environment" was not seriously considered. Both are based on facts and are logical- in the frame of the experimental situation.There are many theories and part of them have elements of a very fragmented truth, but no one is complete. In my personal opinion, Akito Takahashi's theory is the closest to reality.My late friend, Chris Tinsley, had a bright intuition when he told : “Cold Fusion is for Hot Fusion what biochemistry is for chemistry” This means that: “Cold Fusion needs a complex, multi-level, multi-step, multi-center, theory as has, for example photosynthesis”HOWEVER- in this case "what does NOT work is as important as what does work" and the problem of reproducibility is vital, seemingly endemic for CF. The curse of it. If we understand why, we understand how CF works. Therefore any theory that is not explaining this R-problem is not good and if it used too dominantly, a bad theory can be an impediment to progress. It generates bad answers and what's more dangerous, bad questions.Speaking about reproducibility the good question is- what to reproduce?My taxonomy of the experimental results is based on technological reproducibility. During the 16+ years of CF history we had three category of experiments, or generators or cathodes:HEALTHY- they gave over 1000% excess and heat after death.There were less than 10 such events- F&P, Mizuno (the most powerful,see his book, introduction), Piantelli, Patterson, Szpak and now, Energetics Technologies (cathode 64). Very rare events.THESE HAVE TO BE REPRODUCED! Only these have technological significance.ILL- usually weak, 10-30% heat excess- good to keep hope in better results alive. Some 10exp3 results during the whole history of CF.

DEAD- no measurable heat excess some 10exp4 experiments.The situation of technological reproducibility is dreadful and I think perhaps we are doing systematically something extremely wrong, an unknown fatal error and we kill sistematically the cathodes- after a laborious empirical process of building nuclearly active sites. I think about a serious possibility that any contact with the air is killing irreversibly the active sites, ergo we need perhaps anaerobic cathodes. Perhaps otherwise protected cathodes.The possible culprit is pollution, those traces of impurities from air that - everybody believes it- can change the climate of Earth, but cannot do harm to CF.?It seems the nuclearly active sites (they give a special electronic environment that catalyses the birth of neutral entities) is very difficult to obtain but extremely easy to destroy. Up to now we have worked probably in the manner of Ulysses (correct Sisyphus!!!) and the clue is to protect the cathodes, in a smart way. In any case, there is a deep dark secret of the R-problem and till this is not revealed, CF will be in trouble, as it is now.- P. Gluck  

WHAT CHANCES DOES IT HAVE TO BE SCALED UP TO A TECHNOLOGY? 

So far, no reason has been found that would prevent the process from being scaled to any level required. The only challenge is to identify the unique structure and make it in a large amount. In addition, the energy producing process appears to be very safe, free of significant radiation, and self limiting.- E. Storms  

If the reproducibility problem/conundrum can be solved- the way to many technologies generating energy and transmuting elements is wide open. My guess is that these will be based on gas-phase and not on electrolysis or other wet processes.- P. Gluck  

WHAT MUST WE DO IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THIS? 

Two issues must be investigated. We need to know the characteristics of the unique structure and we need to know the mechanism that operates within that structure. So far, most workers have assumed the structure is PdD and have applied various mechanisms to this simple structure. In fact, many observations show that the real structure is much more complex. As a result, the proposed mechanisms may not have any relationship to the real world. E. Storms

 First of all we have to convert the huge volume of negativeinformation from the field in positive knowledge. That means understanding CF by the R-problem."We" are in the same boat and we have to cooperate if we want the field to survive and even prosper. In principle, that's simple: let's be serious, organized, intelligent, and lucky! Coopetition is essential – the problem is too difficult for small teams"Serious"- was defined by the Romanian thinker Mihail Ralea- "to be focused on essential,important things and not on the halo of less significant events and ideas around them"Let's focus on reproducibility!Let's focus on enhancement and not on measurement! (Till we will need good, sensitive calorimetry to show the effect, CF is not good for engineers and entrepreneurs and we have to wait for good money as for Godot)Let's focus on high(er) temperature processes!(these are good for thermodynamics)Let's include the R-problem in the future theories! We need first class, i.e. preduictive theories."Organized" means real exchange of ideas, using well the opportunities given by meetings, symposia, congresses for real dialogue and not parallel monologs.ICCF’s and other gatherings were fine but the system they work is not good for real exchange of ideas re. the essentials.“Intelligent”- let’s use Mihail Ralea’s negative definition: “to be intelligent means to NOT mistake the points of view”. I think that – for example, it is not intelligent to ignore Storm’s ideas because they contradict our pet theory. It is also not intelligentto reject completely Randy Mills hydrino concept, because that is heterodoxia. There are great chances that deuterium collapse is a phase of the CF process. And even Paolo Correa had some promising ideas – and at least he is aware of the complexity of the phenomena, this has nothing to do with other aspects of his behavior. And to discard the valuable negative results as xperimental errors that’s … very bad.To be intelligent means to be very open to alternative ideas and approaches."Lucky" - we clearly need luck- in different form: a solid breakthrough now, good ideas, a billionaire CF lover, a David Sarnoff or Jack Welch, an open minded young theorist, many creative experimenters, new ideas and brains. Let’s hope, CF deserves great luck.- P. Gluck 

9 comments:

  1. Peter is right :"We" are int he same boat and we are to cooperate.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, dear Nicu!
      You are right- in theory (principle) but not so in practice. The community is divided painfully as any society in crisis or as the
      non-team that has built the Babel Tower. Without renewal, stagnation will continue and no inner solutions will be possible.
      Peter

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Folks,

    one sober moment:

    It is website of company which publicly told, that they are going at TSE Toronto Stock Exchange tomorrow ???

    http://defkalion-energy.com/

    This sort of joke is called in our country: "Hurvínek is talking about war"

    This is great joke or they again hide some big problems (my guess: not capable to sustain reactions for more then few hours maybe days).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Guru,

      Please accept this is a thread having not much to do with Defkalion
      but the subject is quite important. Just go to the last point and compare my prediction -hopes with what really happened even if
      you do not understand it perfectly.
      I friendly advise you, do not worry for DGT- actually you can but why?
      A personal request- do not use this nasty postlogical nickname here
      guruship and fanship are harmful things just for the immature.
      MOUDRY will be better. Thanks
      Petr

      Delete
  4. 30 years back GuruOctober 2, 2013 at 1:53 AM

    Dear Peter,
    I respect You to maximum. Although I gained nickname "Guru" 30 years back at Mandatory Army Service.
    I have hypothesis, that more close to reality are Dr. Keshe hypothesis or Dr. Guglinski hypothesis, then all above mentioned hypothesis (of Dr. Storms etc.). Simply: A physics need some update/overhaul (more dramatic then is Dr. Storms bid)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very nice thanks! Write me please to peter.gluck@gmail.com
      about how do you think thte Keshe & Guglinski hypotheses can be
      connected to the real reality of LENR (tautologically speaking)
      Ahoj!

      Peter

      Delete
    2. Very nice thanks! Write me please to peter.gluck@gmail.com
      about how do you think thte Keshe & Guglinski hypotheses can be
      connected to the real reality of LENR (tautologically speaking)
      Ahoj!

      Peter

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete