Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Horace Heffner  
 wrote:



 Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens.


And how!


My oversight.  8^)  Once again a bad choice of words on my part.   
Ultimately no one can answer why.





T

(intended double entendre)


And how!


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Horace Heffner  wrote:

>  Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens.

And how!

T

(intended double entendre)

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Horace Heffner]

It strikes me as a good thing to have debate of public interest  
regarding the causes of cold fusion and heavy element low energy  
nuclear reactions.  Better to argue about why it happens than if it  
happens.  However, it is also clearly useful to assume the integrity  
of the scientists involved and focus the debate on the facts and  
theories. Given the current rancor over issues as comparatively  
simple as the categorical imperative of universal health care,  
perhaps it is too much to hope debate over LENR can avoid such  
degeneration into personal attacks, bad feelings, and the inability  
to cooperate for the common good.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:05 AM 3/23/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Nick Palmer wrote:

Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any 
other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the 
Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the 
popular perceptions of mainstream science that Cold Fusion cannot 
happen because of the Coulomb barrier and the lack of the 
"expected" quantity of neutrons.


That is my impression of what he is saying. However, it seems to me 
that if you start with light elements and end up with heavy ones, 
that's fusion, as Abd explained. It seems to me that saying it isn't 
fusion is making a distinction without a difference.


It is certainly not beyond the pale to argue that the term "fusion" 
is politically inconvenient or unwise. However, I did quite a bit of 
work with a largely skeptical community, and I can tell you exactly 
what they thought about "LENR" and "CMNS." They beleived that these 
were attempts to whitewash the reality, it was all about "cold fusion."


Note that I fully support the use of these terms, LENR (CANR), and 
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. It is appropriate, because it 
avoids even a well-established hypothesis.


That fusion is taking place, i.e., the synthesis of high-Z elements 
from lower-Z constituents. In my book, if you could somehow mash four 
neutrons together, with them emitting two electrons and leaving a 
helium nucleus behind, you'd have accomplished fusion. Hey, maybe the 
neutrons could just remain as the captured neutrons of the helium atom!


Fusion. Fusion. Fusion. Sometimes it is necessary to deny repression 
and refuse to conceal one's disagreement.


Krivit's political strategy, if that's what it is, to "protect" LENR 
research by using a different name, won't work. At all.


But he goes much further, attacking some of the best researchers in 
the field, claiming misbehavior where there is no reasonable evidence 
of it. He finds some slip or anomaly and leaps from that to a 
conspiracy to promote the "fusion theory," though, in fact, every 
understanding of what's going on, that isn't simple "Artifact! Bogus! 
Mistake!" is that fusion is taking place. I'll leave out hydrino 
theory, which sort of straddles a gap, and which is just as 
unpopular, if not more unpopular. 

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

[snip a bunch of stuff with which I agree]

I wrote: "Windom and Larsen estimate slow neutrons to be absorbed in  
less than a nanometer, 10^-9 meter, about 10 angstroms. That is about  
10 hydrogen atoms, or 3 Pd atoms in width. If neutrons can make it  
0.5 Å into a nearby hydrogen nucleus they can make it 1.79 Å into Pd  
or another lattice element just as well. There are no other nuclei in  
the way, so cross sections are not even an issue. Heavier atoms are  
not all that much bigger than light ones because atomic radius does  
not grow much with atomic number, e.g. radii in angstroms: Pd 1.79,  
Au 1.79, Ni 1.62, Li 2.05, K 2.77, Al 1.82, Cu 1.57, Pb 1.81. If  
fusion is occurring at a rate sufficient to account for excess heat  
then NA should occur at a huge rate also, one that could not possibly  
be missed."


There is a hopefully fairly obvious typo I made in the above. The  
"0.5 Å" should be "3.5 Å", a rough approximation.  The lattice  
constant for room temperature Pd is 3.89 Å and for Ni is 3.52 Å.  I  
should also note that "NA" stands for neutron activation.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Jones Beene]

Nick,

Please look at Horace's prior comments on this in the archive. They are
right on. 

By claiming a beta decay and an "ultra-low momentum neutron" - W-L do NOT
avoid the problem of "fusion" (including NA and transmutation). They merely
make it a secondary step and avoid talking about it. Plus they are relying
on a non-physical "invention" that has no precedent - except in the known
ultra-cold neutron experiments - and those have results contrary to what
they claim. 

Can you distinguish an "ultra-cold neutron" from an "ultra-low momentum
neutron"? If so, please let them know, as they probably are close to getting
a few answers to some problems; but the "best explanation" for LENR is
simple. 

There cannot be a single all-inclusive explanation ! 

It is as simple as that. Ockham be damned. W-L have laid claim to one of
probably many contributing QM (or QM related) reactions, which are all
different. However, each may synergize another through alteration of a
"probability field". Let's not throw out Oppenheimer-Philips and QM
tunneling either. I can think of five relevant theories that could all
contribute.

Otherwise, I would agree with you on the validity of Steve's tactic and that
it makes some sense ... but that would only apply to "new skeptics" anyway.

I have included the relevant posting from Heffner below.

IOW - but for the one huge problem (and half a dozen smaller ones) there
would certainly be an advantage to having "no nuclear fusion" in an
underlying theory but that is not what W-L are doing. Mills theory has "no
fusion", but he intentionally avoids looking for transmutation, which is
probably there. 

Any explanation needs to cover all the observations, including the
"helium-to-heat correspondence" - and not just a select few that you pick
and chose. The W-L theory as it stands now is essentially dead-in-the-water
for all of the reasons that Horace, Ed and dozens of other keen observers
have mentioned. At least insofar as it wants to be the one-and-only. There
is still a chance of it being "one-of-many."

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Nick Palmer 

ABD

Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any other method
that does not involve brute force smashing of the Coulomb barrier) as not
fusion to differentiate it/them from the popular perceptions of mainstream
science that Cold Fusion cannot happen because of the Coulomb barrier and
the lack of the "expected" quantity of neutrons. [snip]


PRIOR POST of Heffner from Dec.

SK: Have you considered ultra-low momentum neutrons, as proposed by WL that
never even leave the local environment, and which therefore would not cause
NA, or very little NA?


HH: Yes, I have considered that. If ultra slow neutrons cannot move far
enough to effect NA then they cannot effect heavy element transmutation LENR
with the closest atoms, the lattice heavy elements. Fusion with a hydrogen
atom that is typically even further away than the nearby lattice heavy
elements is then also precluded.

CF is known to happen below the surface, within the lattice. Whether it also
happens on the surface due to collective surface oscillations as suggested
by Windom and Larsen is immaterial. An explanation of CF needs to cover all
observations, not just a select few.

The distance between lattice sites, i.e. the distance from the potential
well an absorbed hydrogen nucleus occupies (a lattice site) and the adjacent
potential well another hydrogen atom can occupy, is less than the distance
between a lattice site and the adjacent lattice atoms.

Windom and Larsen estimate slow neutrons to be absorbed in less than a
nanometer, 10^-9 meter, about 10 angstroms. That is about 10 hydrogen atoms,
or 3 Pd atoms in width. If neutrons can make it 0.5 Å into a nearby hydrogen
nucleus they can make it 1.79 Å into Pd or another lattice element just as
well. There are no other nuclei in the way, so cross sections are not even
an issue. Heavier atoms are not all that much bigger than light ones because
atomic radius does not grow much with atomic number, e.g. radii in
angstroms: Pd 1.79, Au 1.79, Ni 1.62, Li 2.05, K 2.77, Al 1.82, Cu 1.57, Pb
1.81. If fusion is occurring at a rate sufficient to account for excess heat
then NA should occur at a huge rate also, one that could not possibly be
missed.

Heavy LENR is known to occur, has been observed, and thus requires just as
much explanation as other CF results. The lack of high energy radiation
signatures for both CF and heavy transmutation LENR, both of which are known
to occur both very close to and below the surface, requires an explanation.
The unusual branching ratios observed require an explanation. The presence
of ultra-slow neutrons in the lattice provides no explanation for these
things.

Gammas from NA should be readily observed from heavy element transmutation
if it is due to neutrons. The presence of hypothesized high mass electrons
on a cathode surface, near surface hydrogen fusion reactions, were suggeste

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Nick Palmer wrote:

Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any 
other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the 
Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the 
popular perceptions of mainstream science that Cold Fusion cannot 
happen because of the Coulomb barrier and the lack of the "expected" 
quantity of neutrons.


That is my impression of what he is saying. However, it seems to me 
that if you start with light elements and end up with heavy ones, 
that's fusion, as Abd explained. It seems to me that saying it isn't 
fusion is making a distinction without a difference.


There are academic disputes about the nature of the reaction. Some of 
the views listed by Krivit seem correct to me, such as the one on p. 
46, about S. Chubb's claim that the Ni-H cells are producing D-D 
fusion from the deuterium in ordinary water. That seems like a 
stretch to me. You could test that hypothesis by adding some heavy 
water to a working Ni-H cell, but as far as I know, this has not been 
done. Some of the other technical objections by Krivit, such as his 
discussion of helium, seem incorrect to me, as we discussed here.


However, Krivit takes there academic disputes and makes them into 
imaginary suppression and political disputes. That uncalled for. He 
also ridicules perfectly legitimate assertions, as in slide 54:


Chubb: Nonsensical, Novel Use of the Word "Fusion"

"Transmutations of 133Cs into 141Pr apparently are fused to a 
substrate nucleus during gas loading experiments."


Cs is atomic number 55 and Pr is 59. That's heavier. So that's 
fusion. If it were lighter it would be fission. It does not seem 
nonsensical or novel to me, and I do not think it adds anything to 
the discussion say it is.


Chubb's hypothesis about D-D reactions in light water; Iwamura's 
opinion that his observations are caused by the FP effect; and 
Krivit's ideas about the helium correlation are academic disputes. 
Legitimate academic disputes. They are not politics, and no one is 
suppressing any point of view. The use of the term cold fusion does 
not "makes everyone in the field look like true believers or idiots." 
(slide 55) It is not "pathological science" (slide 56). That kind of 
language is uncalled for. It contributes nothing to our 
understanding. It is inane. Such statements should not be allowed 
during a lecture in a chemistry conference. A poster session is fine.


Alternatively, if you removed all of the political slides and left 
only the technical objections (including of course, the ones that I 
happen to think have no merit), then this would be okay to present.


Krivit claims that someone told him:

"Keep Your Opinions to Yourself or
We Will Get Your Funding Cut and
Remove Your Access to Sources"

- "Prominent" U.S Leaders of the LENR Field

(slide 61)

That would be a high-handed thing to say, unless the person saying it 
is providing his funding, or is on the review board. In that case, it 
would be part his job description. People are never under an 
obligation to fund publications they disagree with.


Krivit's publication has been very good in many issues, but he should 
learn his own limits. He knows no more about theory than I do, which 
is to say practically nothing. He has absolutely no business 
promoting the W-L theory over others, although of course it is fine 
to report on it, or describe what Larsen has to say about other 
theories. He does not understand the helium studies. He sees politics 
and suppression where there are only honest disagreements and the 
free exchanges of ideas. This degrades his publication, hurts his 
credibility and hurts the reputation of the field. As Abd often says, 
he should have someone with more technical knowledge review his work 
before he publishes. You can be darn sure I always do this!


The people at SRI and China Lake and I think their results justify 
the assertion that helium correlates with the heat at approximately 
24 MeV per helium atom. Krivit disagrees. That's fine, but he should 
not frame his disagreement in political terms, or pretend that 
someone is suppressing his views, or use ridicule and insult and 
quote people out of context (slide 38) or use loaded words 
inappropriately such as "allegedly" ("Blue line allegedly represents 
24 MeV" -- slide 34). This is childish. It is not how you conduct a 
scientific debate. Just stick to the data and say what you have to say.


Furthermore, if the "skeptics" ridicule people in this field such as 
Iwamura, because Iwamura thinks his reaction is a variation of the 
Fleischmann-Pons effect and a form of fusion -- cold fusion, to be 
exact -- and if these skeptics agree with Krivit that such views make 
Iwamura and others "look like true believers or idiots" then I say to 
hell with the skeptics, and to hell with Krivit. Iwamura, Chubb and 
everyone else has a right to their opinions. They may be wrong, but 
that not justify insulting them. These are le

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Nick Palmer]

ABD

Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any other method 
that does not involve brute force smashing of the Coulomb barrier) as not 
fusion to differentiate it/them from the popular perceptions of mainstream 
science that Cold Fusion cannot happen because of the Coulomb barrier and 
the lack of the "expected" quantity of neutrons.


Face it, the barriers against getting mainstream science to acknowledge the 
reality of these effects are still high because the consensus view was 
crystallised decades ago. The mainstream got used to that idea - it's almost 
unconsciously accepted now. Unless busy scientists accidentally encounter 
the published work, they will just assume that any papers must be wrong so 
they can safely ignore their existence. In their mind fusion=coulomb 
barrier+neutrons therefore cold fusion is impossible.


By promoting/introducing a theory or theories that are not classical vanilla 
fusion, which won't set off the alarm bells and defence mechanisms of the 
mainstream, perhaps Steve is indeed using "semantics" but it is the 
semantics inside the heads of the mainstream that is the barrier to 
acceptance of the phenomena as real...



Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Fusion confusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Looking about, I noticed the New Energy Times FAQ, updated April 15, 
2009. We can see, in it, that NET had lost objectivity by that time, 
reporting as fact what isn't proven or broadly accepted, apparently 
based on the theories that Krivit personally prefers.


What is 
LENR? ... the fuel is deuterium or hydrogen One of the main 
reaction products is helium-4. ... A variety of models has [sic] 
been proposed to explain LENR. Some models speculate the mechanism 
as fusion, some speculate neutron catalyzed reactions, specifically, 
processes relating to the weak interaction.


So far, not bad. The only problem is that he's already described that 
it's fusion. The "mechanism" of fusion is fusion? Any process with 
d/h as fuel and helium as ash is fusion. What kind of fusion is 
another story, the mechanism isn't necessarily smashing deuterons 
into each other, classical hot fusion. Obviously, by definition! 
"Neutron catalyzed reactions" that transform deuterium into helium 
would be, in fact, "neutron catalyzed deuterium fusion."


Krivit has nailed himself to a purely semantic dispute.

What 
Is "Cold Fusion"? "Cold fusion"is a highly speculative, 
little-supported theoretical process by which two like-charged 
atomic nuclei overcome the Coulomb barrier at normal temperatures 
and pressures.


Now he's become misleading. "Cold fusion" is the popular term for 
LENR. The name came from a theory, to be sure, that fusion was 
involved. But for "two like-charged nuclei [to] overcome the Coulomb 
barrier" is not the only possible form of fusion. Krivit is actually 
promoting one form, neutron-catalyzed fusion, presumably through a 
series of reactions. Which is "highly speculative" and 
"little-supported." However, that fusion is taking place, that 
deuterium is being transformed into helium, isn't in controversy. Is 
this "overcoming the Coulomb barrier"? I'd have to say, yes. But 
probably not as conceived by Krivit here, "two like-charged atomic 
nuclei" doing this. Something else.


If I understand W-L theory (shaky!), one deuteron plus one neutron 
gives us one tritium nucleus. One tritium nucleus plus one neutron 
gives us one very unstable hydrogen-4 nucleus which would lose an 
electron immediately to become helium, the neutron is transformed 
into a proton. Fusion. But not by two like-charged nuclei banging 
their heads against a barrier. Takahashi's TSC theory also involves 
something other than two nuclei, it seems that it may involve two 
molecules, neutrally-charged. That's "like charged," but no Coulomb barrier.


No way around it, Krivit is defining fusion narrowly, to refer only 
to one kind of fusion, instead of the general case, the formation of 
heavier elements from lighter ones.


Is "Cold 
Fusion" Real?  Q2. Is the underlying process or processes 
responsible for the observed LENR phenomena the result of a fusion process?

A2. Probably not.


But if the answer re LENR is true, it is, by definition, fusion, and 
what accomplishes that must be a "fusion process." Again, what Krivit 
has done is to delude himself into thinking that the only kind of 
fusion is two nuclei being mashed together, which, after all, takes a 
lot of energy ordinarily. Is there a way to put two together without 
that much energy? Sure there is. Muons can do it. So might some other 
form of catalysis. Hydrinos might be able to do it. But there is also 
what seems more likely: more than two nuclei! Or, sure, something to 
do with neutrons, but the problem with neutrons is that they can only 
jump one AMU at a time, and if the reaction rate is high enough for 
more than one jump to occur with much frequency, it would be high 
enough that drastic effects would be observed, and the first reaction 
product would be the most common. Not helium, which is two steps up. 
Now, if somehow a neutron could directly catalyze the fusion of two 
deuterons, you would get, I'd expect, a hot helium nucleus plus an 
energetic neutron. No problem with momentum but ... as many hot 
neutrons as helium nuclei. Dead graduate students. Damn! There goes a 
perfectly good idea My point is, there are lots of possibilities, 
but all of them, if you have deuterium as fuel, and helium as ash, 
are some kind of fusion.



Q4. Is LENR better than "cold fusion"?
A4. Yes.


It ''is'' cold fusion, as he defined LENR. In fact, LENR is a broader 
field, it should cover all nuclear reactions with low initiation 
energies. Known and long accepted examples would be muon-catalyzed 
fusion, accelerated radioactive decay caused by the chemical 
environment, or, speculatively, neutron activation that doesn't 
involve creating neutrons with high-energy sources, and, of course, 
cold fusion. Aside from facilitated decay, which is a kind of 
fission, there isn't much you can do wi