Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
At 05:08 PM 12/19/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder mailto:hveeder...@gmail.comhveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. Incorrect. Most cold fusion devices that produce excess heat do not produce measurable gamma or neutron emissions. Cold fusion is not plasma fusion. If it were, I would be dead. Variation on the dead graduate student effect. The dead philanthropist or dead editor/translator effect.
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
At 03:43 PM 12/19/2012, Harry Veeder wrote: STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus: http://www.22passi.it/coherence2012/coherence%2014%20dicembre%202012%20Celani%20wire.pdf On page 2 it says over a couple of charts: Neutron and gamma continuous recording in ST lab. No difference for spectra during experiments showing extra heat and background Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. Jed already replied to this, I've seen, but I wanted to add my two cents. Lack of gamma/neutron emission was considered evidence against cold fusion, initially. Reports of neutrons, in particular, cluttered the landscape, and were generally, if high-level (no reports were really high in an absolute sense), found to be artifact, in some prominent cases, or were low-level and thus subject to doubt about whether or not they were simply unusual events as to background radiation, i.e., cosmic rays. The evidence for radiation never became truly strong and confirmed, such as it was. Storms is now reporting X-rays from certain experiments, but that's not confirmed. However, the evidence is very strong, now, I consider it rebuttably conclusive (with it being difficult to even imagine a rebuttal), that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is due to the conversion of deuterium to helium, for the heat/helium ratio, based on results from a dozen research groups, is consistent with the right value, and the correlation between heat and helium is so clear as to be quite solid, chance-in-a-million artifact. Or less than that, really. Yet there is no detectable gamma radiation, generally, and similarly with neutrons; any asserted contrary findings, so far, have been at ridiculously low levels, and probably represent, if real -- as they seem to be, see the SPAWAR neutron findings -- very minor, rare side-reactions, reactions with rare cell constituent elements, or sequelae, i.e, some occasionally hot products, like hot alphas, prodice some secondary reactions. At extremely low levels. So the lack of radiation from any experiment is not evidence against excess heat. It is the absence of a particular kind of evidence that could confirm excess heat. That's all. To think otherwise is to repeat the error of 1989-1990, where absence of expected nuclear products was considered reason to doubt the heat results. In 1989-1990, it was expected that if cold fusion were occurring, it would be d-d fusion, nothing else. That assumption was behind much criticism. Pons and Fleischmann knew that what they were observing was not ordinary d-d fusion, that's why they called it, in their original paper, an unknown nuclear reaction. But they also had found, they thought, neutrons, and they dedicated way too much space, in hindsight, to speculating on an obvious possible source, some kind of d+d - He-3 + n reaction as a rare branch. But He-3 was not detected, except at very low levels, as expected from tritium found -- at levels 10^6 or so below the level expected if the reaction was d-d fusion, which branches 50% to T + p, and 50% to He-3 + n. T decays, slowly, to He-3 + e. The PF finding of neutrons was quickly exposed as artifact. Yes, many people thought that, then, no neutrons = heat artifact. It was a total error. The reaction is clearly, almost entirely, 2 * N * d - N * He-4, where N is as low as 1, but could be higher, and if higher (N = 2 has been studied), could explain the neutron-free reaction, through, for example, 2 D2 - Be-8 - 2 He-4. The problem with this, as stated, and with a naive analysis, is that this would be expected to produce very hot alpha particles, and a recent Hagelstein study placed an upper limit on *common* charged particle energies of 20 KeV. So theorists continue to labor with the problem. But deuterium is being converted to helium, mechanism unknown, that is a real scientific consensus at this point. Yes, there are lots of scientists who doubt it, but they have not published under peer review for roughly a decade. It's actually over, in the journals. That news simply has not gotten around, has not penetrated completely the fog of the anti-cold fusion cascade that occurred over 20 years ago. It can take time. Cascades create an impression of scientific consensus where there is none (or, more accurately, there is a kind of consensus, but it's not based on the scientific method, it's a social phenomenon). I got the term from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?pagewanted=all_r=0 It's ironic. Gary Taubes helped create the cold fusion cascade, but he's now spent more than a decade debunking two: positions on salt in the diet, and fat, similarly.
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
Karabut also found signs of x-rays, before Storms announced, since 2005, presented in ICCF12: Karabut A. *Research into Energy and Temporal Characteristics of X-ray Emission from Solid State Cathode Medium of High-Current Glow Discharge*, *Proc. ICCF12* (2005), www.iscmns.org/iccf12/Karabut_2.pdf See more from Karabut: http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm See the papers concerning the same subject, even in the JCMNS vol. 6, where Karabut published with Hagelstein: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf 2012/12/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com The evidence for radiation never became truly strong and confirmed, such as it was. Storms is now reporting X-rays from certain experiments, but that's not confirmed. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
At 07:34 PM 12/19/2012, Harry Veeder wrote: I meant that if the excess heat is real and whatever the cause of the excess heat, the excess heat might force a limited number of transmutations and emit a small amount of gammas and neutrons. Sure, the FPHE appears to do that, but the small amounts are difficult to detect, and the apparatus and approach used in this case would be expected to come up empty. One must consider background radiation, which is ubiquitous, and, as well, the inverse square law that has radiation decline in intensity as the square of the distance from the source. SPAWAR has detected low levels of neutrons by using solid state radiation detectors which are very close to the source, and they can accumulate radiation over weeks. They are, under those conditions, apparently observing roughly ten times background. This is extremely low level. You would not see this with detectors outside the cell, unless the reaction site is next to the cell wall, and the detectors are right next to the cell wall on the outside, and even that will reduce the signal. It's easy to look for radiation as they did, and cheap. But negative findings mean nothing, beyond setting an upper limit on radiation. We have not found LENR effects that produce much prompt radiation, or much of any radiation. That's quite an interesting observation, itself. There may be something about LENR mechanisms that suppresses unstable products, that takes the reaction all the way to stable products (like helium) while non-photon/phonon emissions remain at low levels. And the photons cannot be high-energy, or they would easily be detected. Storms takes this and runs with it, postulating a series of photon emissions at low energies, instead of one big photon dump. He's proposing a specific mechanism for this that seems shaky to me, but the basic idea is sound. There are, very likely, a series of emissions that are not individually large. For example, Be-8, if formed from 4D fusion, will first exist as an excited nucleus. That excited nucleus will start to emit photons in a series of emissions down to the ground state. If it reaches the ground state, eventually it will fission and we would expect two alphas at roungly 45 KeV each. That's above the Hagelstein limit, but *not far.* So call me, maybe. The fly in this ointment is that Be-8 has a normal half-life of a femtosecond. It doesn't seem like it would have time to decay as described, so the alphas would have *much* higher energy, and that *would* be observed. You don't have 20 MeV alphas zipping around with no observable effects. Even if there is no prompt gamma, there will be secondary radiation, and plenty of it. So something else is happening. Maybe a fusion product being formed inside of a condensate remains stable for a while. I still don't get it. I'd think that if a condensate started radiating photons, it would uncondense, very rapidly. But ... we do not know. That's the central message about cold fusion at this point. We don't know what it is, and I suggest a healthy dose of skepticism for *any theory* that, at this point, proposes to explain it. This mystery has survived for twenty years, with some very powerful minds having worked on it. Almost certainly, we need more information about the conditions of cold fusion before theory will start to catch up. Of course, if someone has a theory and uses it with success to predict CF behavior *quantitatively* -- or qualitatively under new, unexpected conditions -- the *experimental results* should be respected and confirmed. Not to do this wouldn't be skepticism, it would be pseudoskepticism.
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
BTW, as someone pointed out, It seems other people have also detected x rays even earlIer. Just check the paper by Ed Storms, JCMNS, nov. 2012 2012/12/20 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com Karabut also found signs of x-rays, before Storms announced, since 2005, presented in ICCF12: Karabut A. *Research into Energy and Temporal Characteristics of X-ray Emission from Solid State Cathode Medium of High-Current Glow Discharge*, *Proc. ICCF12* (2005), www.iscmns.org/iccf12/Karabut_2.pdf See more from Karabut: http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm See the papers concerning the same subject, even in the JCMNS vol. 6, where Karabut published with Hagelstein: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf 2012/12/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com The evidence for radiation never became truly strong and confirmed, such as it was. Storms is now reporting X-rays from certain experiments, but that's not confirmed. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
Finding X-rays from a glow discharge (plasma, basically) is one thing, finding them from a low-energy environment is quite another. This is not to denigrate the research cited. It's just not relevant to what had been mentioned, Storms finding of X-radiation *without* a glow discharge. Yes, there had been lots of reports of X-rays before, see Storms' book. However, the circumstances of X-ray production, and association with other LENR evidence, is important. Correlated reports are rare. Rather, someone runs an experiment, say, and has some X-ray film sitting there, and it ends up with some exposure, and then people argue about causation and possible artifacts. Correlation with other, independent effects, cuts through this noise. At 02:04 PM 12/20/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Karabut also found signs of x-rays, before Storms announced, since 2005, presented in ICCF12: Karabut A. Research into Energy and Temporal Characteristics of X-ray Emission from Solid State Cathode Medium of High-Current Glow Discharge, Proc. ICCF12 (2005), http://www.iscmns.org/iccf12/Karabut_2.pdfwww.iscmns.org/iccf12/Karabut_2.pdf See more from Karabut: http://www.iscmns.org/library.htmhttp://www.iscmns.org/library.htm See the papers concerning the same subject, even in the JCMNS vol. 6, where Karabut published with Hagelstein: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdfhttp://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf 2012/12/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com The evidence for radiation never became truly strong and confirmed, such as it was. Storms is now reporting X-rays from certain experiments, but that's not confirmed. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comdanieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: We have not found LENR effects that produce much prompt radiation, or much of any radiation. That's quite an interesting observation, itself. There may be something about LENR mechanisms that suppresses unstable products, that takes the reaction all the way to stable products (like helium) while non-photon/phonon emissions remain at low levels. And the photons cannot be high-energy, or they would easily be detected. Note that there are multiple findings of collimated x-rays, which adds an interesting twist to the trail of evidence. The fly in this ointment is that Be-8 has a normal half-life of a femtosecond. It doesn't seem like it would have time to decay as described, so the alphas would have *much* higher energy, and that *would* be observed. You don't have 20 MeV alphas zipping around with no observable effects. Even if there is no prompt gamma, there will be secondary radiation, and plenty of it. This leads one to suspect that some of the momentum of whatever reaction is occurring is being shared with the heavier lattice atoms. Eric
[Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus: http://www.22passi.it/coherence2012/coherence%2014%20dicembre%202012%20Celani%20wire.pdf On page 2 it says over a couple of charts: Neutron and gamma continuous recording in ST lab. No difference for spectra during experiments showing extra heat and background Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. Harry
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:43:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus: http://www.22passi.it/coherence2012/coherence%2014%20dicembre%202012%20Celani%20wire.pdf On page 2 it says over a couple of charts: Neutron and gamma continuous recording in ST lab. No difference for spectra during experiments showing extra heat and background Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. Harry It's still possible that any putative excess heat is either non nuclear, or a form of nuclear that doesn't produce gammas and doesn't rely on neutrons. (e.g. Takahashi). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
In the report, STM doesn't say where the neutron and gamma are measured. If neutron and/or gamma have low energy, they might be absorbed by the vessel before reaching the detector. Outside the reactor is not the best place for the detector. Regarding the input power versus temperature, it's clear that the reactor has small size. It would be difficult to include also the detector inside the reactor as well. But without pictures or drawings, this is just thoughts and assumptions. Arnaud -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: mercredi 19 décembre 2012 22:34 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:43:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus: http://www.22passi.it/coherence2012/coherence%2014%20dicembre%202012%20Ce lani%20wire.pdf On page 2 it says over a couple of charts: Neutron and gamma continuous recording in ST lab. No difference for spectra during experiments showing extra heat and background Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. Harry It's still possible that any putative excess heat is either non nuclear, or a form of nuclear that doesn't produce gammas and doesn't rely on neutrons. (e.g. Takahashi). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. Incorrect. Most cold fusion devices that produce excess heat do not produce measurable gamma or neutron emissions. Cold fusion is not plasma fusion. If it were, I would be dead. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Harry Veeder's message: Neutron and gamma continuous recording in ST lab. No difference for spectra during experiments showing extra heat and background Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. RvS: It's still possible that any putative excess heat is either non nuclear, or a form of nuclear that doesn't produce gammas and doesn't rely on neutrons. Or ... both, depending on semantics. In fact, the vast majority of nuclear reactions in stars do not produce gammas or neutrons. 99.+ % of all stellar nuclear reactions consist of only a single reversible reaction. It can be called reversible proton fusion (RPF), and has been generally ignored by science. Due to the short lifetime of the new nucleus, it is confusing to use the word fusion at all. Two protons temporarily bind to helium-2 (aka the diproton) and then, after a tiny delay, the reaction reverses. Only rarely does anything else happen. The Pauli exclusion principle tells us that two identical fermions - particles with half-integer spin like protons - have a combined wave function that is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles and cannot really fuse (with one extremely rare exception - which is why the sun can eventually produce heat in a very slow burn). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction In the Sun, deuterium-producing events are rare (diprotons, the much more common result of nuclear reactions within the star, immediately decay back into two protons) In short, almost all stellar fusion in reversible and it is likely that this proton reaction happens in condensed matter as well. RPF always produces quantum color change in quarks, due to same wave function incompatibility - which can be exothermic or endothermic. It is possible that some solar heat derives from this mechanism. RPF apparently occurs in Casimir cavities or within a metal matrix in an earthly environment, and it seems from all of these Ni-H experiments going back to 1991, that the process can be engineered to be exothermic with no gammas. This is a strong working hypothesis for Ni-H energy gain. It involves excess heat, no gammas and no neutrons. Average proton mass is depleted. Color change is coupled to the matrix via magnons. Jones
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
I agree. My take on it is the sun as well as the gas giants (and other planets) all produce the protons due to beta decay at the surface of their dark matter nucleus. The sun's nucleus is much more massive than the planets and thus the larger entropic gravitational flux/radiation triggering RPF in its gas cloud and bathing us in sunlight. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Wednesday, December 19, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com javascript:; In reply to Harry Veeder's message: Neutron and gamma continuous recording in ST lab. No difference for spectra during experiments showing extra heat and background Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. RvS: It's still possible that any putative excess heat is either non nuclear, or a form of nuclear that doesn't produce gammas and doesn't rely on neutrons. Or ... both, depending on semantics. In fact, the vast majority of nuclear reactions in stars do not produce gammas or neutrons. 99.+ % of all stellar nuclear reactions consist of only a single reversible reaction. It can be called reversible proton fusion (RPF), and has been generally ignored by science. Due to the short lifetime of the new nucleus, it is confusing to use the word fusion at all. Two protons temporarily bind to helium-2 (aka the diproton) and then, after a tiny delay, the reaction reverses. Only rarely does anything else happen. The Pauli exclusion principle tells us that two identical fermions - particles with half-integer spin like protons - have a combined wave function that is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles and cannot really fuse (with one extremely rare exception - which is why the sun can eventually produce heat in a very slow burn). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction In the Sun, deuterium-producing events are rare (diprotons, the much more common result of nuclear reactions within the star, immediately decay back into two protons) In short, almost all stellar fusion in reversible and it is likely that this proton reaction happens in condensed matter as well. RPF always produces quantum color change in quarks, due to same wave function incompatibility - which can be exothermic or endothermic. It is possible that some solar heat derives from this mechanism. RPF apparently occurs in Casimir cavities or within a metal matrix in an earthly environment, and it seems from all of these Ni-H experiments going back to 1991, that the process can be engineered to be exothermic with no gammas. This is a strong working hypothesis for Ni-H energy gain. It involves excess heat, no gammas and no neutrons. Average proton mass is depleted. Color change is coupled to the matrix via magnons. Jones
Re: [Vo]:STMicroelectronics report on their version of the Celani apparatus
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Does this mean they did not detect any anomalous gamma or neutrons emissions? If so then it is more evidence that the Celani doesn't produce excess heat. Incorrect. Most cold fusion devices that produce excess heat do not produce measurable gamma or neutron emissions. Cold fusion is not plasma fusion. If it were, I would be dead. I meant that if the excess heat is real and whatever the cause of the excess heat, the excess heat might force a limited number of transmutations and emit a small amount of gammas and neutrons. Harry
