Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: ... A single SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to recover all the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV. That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein, McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the end to get all the D out. It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8 MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the one you suggested below. ... 2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and unavoidable leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible. What occurs to me is to dissolve the cathode. This seems a good idea. I forget the best acid to use, but I do know that palladium can be dissolved. As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd. Michel
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
Two things to consider: (1) reversing the current *does* dissolve the Pd surface, and (2) previous work has shown that helium production takes place near but below the surface (order of microns), while tritium production tends to take place on or very close to the surface (within a few atomic widths). This has been a classic problem with CF, converting the process into a bulk effect instead of a surface effect for all practical purposes. On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@loma xdesi gn.com: ... A single SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to recover all the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV. That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein, McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the end to get all the D out. It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8 MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the one you suggested below. ... 2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and unavoidable leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible. What occurs to me is to dissolve the cathode. This seems a good idea. I forget the best acid to use, but I do know that palladium can be dissolved. As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd. Michel Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Underground neutron counting
Underground work is practically a standard for use of energy discriminating neutron counters, due to the very low neutron flux from CF experiments. This low flux is why integrating plastic counters are useful. The following were taken from Dieter Britz's abstracts: Zhu R, Wang X, Lu F, Ding D, He J, Liu H, Jiang J, Chen G, Yuan Y, Yang L, Chen Z, Menlove HO; Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 349--353 Measurement of neutron burst production in thermal cycle of D2 absorbed titanium chips. ** Experimental, Ti, gas phase, neutrons, res+ A Chino-USA effort to find neutrons in a Ti/D2 gas system with thermal cycling - the Italian mode. The experiment was done 580 m underground to minimise cosmic influx. Humidity had to be avoided, to avoid fake neutron bursts from the (3)He detectors (18 of them). The setup was not sensitive to mechanical knocks. H2 dummy batches were run to eliminate other artifacts. There were 10 D2 batches and only 3 of these showed no neutron emissions. The others showed neutron bursts of up to 535 from a burst. The burst intensity was up to 2 orders of magnitude above the carefully monitored background. The bursts occur during the first one or two thermal cycles, between -100 degC and room temperature; thereafter, the Ti seems to be inactive. They could be reactivated by vacuum degassing and reloading but the activity was lower. The controls with H2 ruled out interference effects. 021991|111991 # Aberdam D, Avenier M, Bagieu G, Bouchez J, Cavaignac JF, Collot J, Durand R, Faure R, Favier J, Kajfasz E, Koang DH, Lefievre B, Lesquoy E, Pessard H, Rouault A, Senateur JP, Stutz A, Weiss F; Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 1196--1199. Limits on neutron emission following deuterium absorption into palladium and titanium. ** Experimental, neutron detector, res- This group has a new type of neutron detector which will detect any neutron with an energy 1MeV and allows discrimination against Compton electron background. This was used in an underground lab, where the neutron background was a low 1.7 n/day. Both electrochemical and pressurization cold fusion experiments were done, closely following the example of FPH, Jones+ and De Ninno+. In some of the electrochemical runs, the currents were abruptly changed several times, to test for dynamical effects. Dynamical effects were also attempted with the gas absorption runs (up to 60 bars), by temperature changes between that of liquid N2 and 950 degC, both fast and slowly. In all cases, something like 1E-26 n/pair/s was measured as an upper limit, or a factor of 100 below Jones et al's results. No bursts were observed. 121989|091990 # # Carpenter JM; Nature 338 (1989) 711. Cold fusion: what's going on? ** Discussion, polemic JMC was a referee of Jones+'s paper, and was invited by the editor to comment publically on the paper. He warns that cosmic ray neutrons must be eliminated from neutron measurements, or at least recognised. Their intensity is about the same as that reported for CNF, and there can be peaks at the energy 2.45 MeV. Suggests that going underground by two or three metres should reduce the cosmic ray problem by an order of magnitude. ?|041989 # Celani F, Spallone A, Pace S, Polichetti B, Saggese A, Liberatori L, Di Stefano V, Marini P; Fusion Technol. 17 (1990) 718--724 Further measurements on electrolytic cold fusion with D2O and palladium at Gran Sasso Laboratory. ** Experimental, electrolysis, Pd, neutron, gamma, res+ Electrolysis experiments with Pd were performed in the low-background underground lab, measuring gamma and neutron radiation. The diagram shows that two (3)He detectors, two NaI detectors and a plastic scintillator were used. It appears that the electrolyte was 0.1M LiOH in heavy water. Electrolysis current density was 60 mA/cm**2, at hyperpure, vacuum-annealed Pd. There were some definite gamma events on all detectors, calculating out as up to 1E-19 fusions/pair/s. These gamma events were unaccompanied by neutron events, so the authors conclude that an aneutronic process is taking place. They also state that it was not possible to exclude fractoemission effects. Future work is planned. 121989|071990 # # Chiba M, Shirakawa T, Fujii M, Ikebe T, Yamaoka S, Sueki K, Nakahara H, Hirose T; Nuovo Cimento 108 A (1995) 1277--1280 Measurement of neutron emission from LiNbO3 fracture process in D2 and H2 atmosphere. ** Experimental, fractofusion, superconductivity, neutrons, res+ This aims to confirm the results of Russian work, in which neutron emission was observed at the Curie temperature Tc during temperature scanning of superconducting ceramics, as well as earlier work by the present team on the title substance. The Russian workers ascribe the emissions to mechanical effects due to phase transitions. The title substance was mechanically crushed in a steel vibromill in an atmosphere of H2 or D2 while monitoring for neutrons, using
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
2010/2/7 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Two things to consider: (1) reversing the current *does* dissolve the Pd surface, True, but extremely slowly I believe. A Pd anode is known to dissolve relatively fast in acidic electrolytes such as D2SO4, but I don't think that's what they used. It is doubtful whether they reverted the current long enough to dissolve more than a few atomic layers. and (2) previous work has shown that helium production takes place near but below the surface (order of microns), while tritium production tends to take place on or very close to the surface (within a few atomic widths). I guess you mean they are *found* there, couldn't they be both produced on the surface, only with more kinetic energy in the helium nuclei (alphas) than in the tritium nuclei for some reason, so that the helium is implanted more deeply? I find the idea of two different nuclear reaction sites producing different products a bit unlikely. This has been a classic problem with CF, converting the process into a bulk effect instead of a surface effect for all practical purposes. Maybe it's just not possible, because you can't make large D fluxes collide head-on in the bulk, this can only happen at a significant scale on the surface (desorbing vs incident fluxes). In the bulk, it seems to me the deuterons just push and follow each other down the lattice's concentration gradients, and never really collide hard. Also, if Bose Einstein Condensates are involved, they requires cold bosons for their formation. Head-on collisions may be a plausible mechanism for deuteron kinetic energy removal. Michel On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@loma xdesi gn.com: ... A single SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to recover all the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV. That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein, McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the end to get all the D out. It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8 MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the one you suggested below. ... 2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and unavoidable leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible. What occurs to me is to dissolve the cathode. This seems a good idea. I forget the best acid to use, but I do know that palladium can be dissolved. As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd. Michel Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:CF in Physics Today
On Feb 6, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Jones Beene wrote: ... IOW muon fusion is ongoing but rare. I think cosmic ray triggering may be very important to triggering cold fusion burst events. Also to surface volcano creation frequently observed. Small but important distinction. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that MCF *always* occurs in palladium deuteride CF as a matter of course, in fact it would be difficult to restrain it from occurring, but the number of fusion events is so low over any given time span that it cannot explain the excess heating ... or rather it can explain only a small fraction of the excess heat - probably far less than one percent. It could, however, serve to explain a small diurnal variation. As for a larger diurnal variation, or as a real triggering event, that would be where the difficulty lies. Cosmic rays are isotropic. At the surface their effect is not isotropic due to a slight east-west bias due perturbation of cosmic rays by the earth's magnetic field, however diurnal *flux* variation is small. I think it is neutrino flux that varies daily due to the sun being the primary local source, and the earth (or in the case of an eclipse the moon) absorbing some of the neutrinos. Some component of the solar wind might be important? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
On Feb 7, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 2010/2/7 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Two things to consider: (1) reversing the current *does* dissolve the Pd surface, True, but extremely slowly I believe. A Pd anode is known to dissolve relatively fast in acidic electrolytes such as D2SO4, but I don't think that's what they used. It is doubtful whether they reverted the current long enough to dissolve more than a few atomic layers. I think the experimenters were competent. They knew what they were doing. Using a Faraday constant of 96,485 C/mol, and (conservatively) a valence of 4, n for moles produced, I for current = .2 A, t for time = 1 s, we get: n = I * t / (96,485 C/mol * 4) n = (0.2 A)*(1 sec) / (385940 C/mol) = 5.182x10^-7 mol This means that at 200 mA/cm^2, 5.182x10^-7 mol/s is removed, or 3.12x10^17 atoms per second. We also have for Pd: (12.38 g/cm^3)/(106.42 g/mol) = 0.1163 mol/cm^3 = 7.006x10^22 atoms/cm^3. The atomic volume is 1.427x10^-23 cm^3, and the atomic dimension is 2.426x10^-8 cm. The amount of Pd removed per second is (3.12x10^17 atoms per second) * (1.427x10^-23 cm^3 per atom) = 4.45x10^-6 cm/s, or 445 angstroms per second. The number of layers of atoms removed is (4.45x10^-6 cm/s)/(2.426x10^-8 cm) = 183/s. If this is correct (highly suspect! 8^), then at a current density of 200 mA/cm^2 we have a thickness of 183 atoms removed per second, or 445 angstroms per second. and (2) previous work has shown that helium production takes place near but below the surface (order of microns), while tritium production tends to take place on or very close to the surface (within a few atomic widths). I guess you mean they are *found* there, couldn't they be both produced on the surface, only with more kinetic energy in the helium nuclei (alphas) than in the tritium nuclei for some reason, so that the helium is implanted more deeply? I find the idea of two different nuclear reaction sites producing different products a bit unlikely. No, most of the 4He reactions occur sub-surface. What do you think produces a volcano? A surface reaction? The typical 4He produced by CF does not have MeV kinetic energy, and is not surface produced. If it were there would be massive alpha counts. There is not sufficient kinetic energy to push alphas that deep into the Pd. This has been a classic problem with CF, converting the process into a bulk effect instead of a surface effect for all practical purposes. Maybe it's just not possible, because you can't make large D fluxes collide head-on Head on collisions, i.e. kinetics, can not possibly account for cold fusion. in the bulk, this can only happen at a significant scale on the surface (desorbing vs incident fluxes). In the bulk, it seems to me the deuterons just push and follow each other down the lattice's concentration gradients, and never really collide hard. Also, if Bose Einstein Condensates are involved, they requires cold bosons for their formation. Head-on collisions may be a plausible mechanism for deuteron kinetic energy removal. This would only be the case if the collisions were almost all totally inelastic. The only way that can happen is if they are fusions. Michel On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@loma xdesi gn.com: ... A single SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to recover all the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV. That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein, McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the end to get all the D out. It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8 MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the one you suggested below. ... 2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and unavoidable leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible. What occurs to me is to dissolve the cathode. This seems a good idea. I forget the best acid to use, but I do know that palladium can be dissolved. As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd. Michel Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:CF in Physics Today
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner Cosmic rays are isotropic. At the surface their effect is not isotropic due to a slight east-west bias due perturbation of cosmic rays by the earth's magnetic field, however diurnal *flux* variation is small ... I think it is neutrino flux that varies daily due to the sun ... Yes. Thanks. I'm guilty of lumping the two (neutrinos and cosmic rays) together - both of them being possible triggers for LENR, and yet they are very different... the correction is important as it means a diurnal variation is probably neutrino-based, no? In theory, the solar wind should not be a factor... unless ... Aha! Time to get in the obligatory f/H or fractional hydrogen scenario. There could be a population of f/H from the solar corona, as Mills has claimed - and arriving with solar wind - and having the property of small size and inertness that could make them catalytic... Jones
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:52:36 -0900: Hi, [snip] No, most of the 4He reactions occur sub-surface. What do you think produces a volcano? A surface reaction? The typical 4He produced by CF does not have MeV kinetic energy, and is not surface produced. If it were there would be massive alpha counts. There is not sufficient kinetic energy to push alphas that deep into the Pd. [snip] ...or alternatively fast alphas are produced, but only so deep in the Pd that they don't make it to the surface. If lattice resonance is a factor, then some depth may be required to build up a strong enough resonance effect that the mechanism can operate. (analogous to adding more dipoles to a TV antenna). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:CF in Physics Today
On 02/07/2010 11:48 AM, Frank wrote: What is relativistic velocity of earth to micro and nanoscopic material in space? I don’t recall the earths orbital velocity Roughly 20 miles per second, or about 0.01% C (i.e, C/1) Escape velocity from the Sun is something like 40 miles per second in our vicinity (don't recally the exact number) or around C/5000. Anything we meet is likely to be traveling slower than that (or it would have left the system). but know MM were counting on it in their experiment and then there are also numerous other frames of motion (the solar system through deep spac etc..) Wouldn’t we expect most free floating gas in space to have a large relative motion to earth on the order of micrometeorites? My point is that shouldn’t we consider most matter that intercepts with our moving atmosphere to be relativistic? The term relativistic is kind of fuzzy. However, it looks to me like most collisions with the atmosphere will be at velocities far less than 0.1% of C. At 0.1% of C (C/1000) we have gamma ~ 1.005 which is pretty close to 1. Contraction on that order would be difficult to measure. Consequently, most people would probably say that's not a relativistic velocity. So, the answer appears to be no. Maybe not as high as the fractions of C of hydrogen from the corona but certainly still enough to generate Lorentzian contraction to produce lesser fractional states. I still say the biggest hurtle will begetting skeptics to accept relativistic contraction inside a stationary catalyst! If they can accept “equivalent” motion from a deep G well producing relativistic effects then they should be able to comprehend “equivalent” time due to Casimir force doing the same thing. In both cases it is relative motion between space and time – only the axis has changed to protect the innocent. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:CF in Physics Today
Stephen, thank you for the answer. It appears relativistic velocities like the muon are not as common as I imagined but even these lesser velocities you mention would accumulate into time dilation like the protracted decay of the muon just on a smaller scale. Normally this dilation is intangible as the atoms must exist in a different inertial frame only briefly passing our frame of observation. If we can accept time dilation due to mass acceleration relative to the time axis then we should also allow for the opposite case of a moving time frame relative to a stationary mass. I think this is already the case for equivalent acceleration when a crushproof spacecraft sits on a collapsed star but instead of inhibiting the flow of time like the dead star, the Casimir cavity takes that same sort of inhibition (accumulated pressure) and exhausts it out of a tiny cavity too small to exhaust the reservoir. This creates a steady stream many times faster than the isotropic field it is breaching. My point is this represents a difference in acceleration between inhabitants of the cavity vs outside the cavity such that velocity accumulates -I put velocity in quotes since from our perspective it is time dilation but from the local perspective of the gas atoms inside the cavity it is feeling equivalent acceleration and sees the cavity walls shrinking away into the distance even though its spatial coordinates are unchanged. This makes time dilation tangible in that We can use gas atoms in a stationary catalyst/reactor to exploit this environment. Best Regards Fran
