Re: Latest from Szpak et al.
Despite Ed Storms' shying away from Cold Fusion in the Szpak paper. :-) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf The heavier Stable elements shown up (Aluminum, Calcium, Zinc, Etc.) with XRF aren't going to go away by "throwing the baby out with the bath water". The Electronium Species (electron-positron-electron,) mass about 2 electron masses , charge minus 1, formed during electron-positron pair production, can take up one or more local electrons and catalyze Cold Fusion in the same manner as "Muon Fusion". Thus the Electronium (*e-) or [(*e-) + n e-] it can neutralize the charge of a Deuteron (1H-2), Triton (1H-3) , Helium-3 (2He-3), Helium-4 (2He-4) , Lithium-6 (3Li-6) or Lithium-7 (3Li-7), and effect the Cold Fusion Reactions of the LiCl and D2O contained in the electrolysis cell in/on the Pd (or other) interstices or surface. Most if not all of these "addition reactions" can release a few Mev to over 30 Mev as Kev Synchrotron Radiation (Heat) due to nuclear vibrations (internal acceleration) lasting minutes to days while building predominately Stable Isotopes. The Synchrotron Radiation rate is determined by the Larmor Equation: W = q^2*a^2/[6(pi)eo*c^3] This indicates how a vibrating-accelerating nucleus can dump energy slowly, hence the "heat after death" effect seen in the experiments. For instance: 1, 3Li-7 + 8O-16 ---> 11Na-23 + energy 2, 2 He-4 + 11Na-23 > 13 Al-27 + energy Many possibilities without abstract theories or violating the laws of physics. Frederick
Re: Latest from Szpak et al.
Jones Beene wrote: > Edmund Storms writes, > > > Personally I do not believe all that is claimed, even in > cold fusion :-). > > Instead of "even in cold fusion" some observers might "even" > be inclined to opine "espeically"... as that genius Bob Park > does on a regular basis - but in this case, there is some > reason for me to believe that Szpak et al. are indeed > exactly on-target. > > > I have seen such "boulders" on metal samples that clearly > result > > from the environment. > > If what Szpak has located in this image were purely a > one-of-a-kind, singularity type of thing, instead of > something which was not uncommon in the work, then yes you > could be right. But I do not think that they would have > taken the time to present it this way, if they did not think > that this feature was *normal* to their expeiment. One must > assume that they took the necessary precautions to avoid > contamination, since they do mention this factor as an > alternative explanation... for the skeptics to fall back on > (they are diplomatic, one should add)... The boulder was not, according to their own data, only Al as they state, but aluminum oxide. If, as they suggest, the aluminum had formed on the cathode in a reducing environment, it would not contain oxygen. This is a simple chemical fact. The only way aluminum oxide can be present in this environment is for it to have been present initially as Al2O3, probably from a polishing operation. In addition, they mention only one example of this anomaly, not a usual occurrence. I suggest it is always best to think first in simple explanations when trying to explain these strange observations before going to the more exotic ideas. Ed > > > > The normal environment has all kinds of small > > particles floating in the air, which can land on a sample > and be > > completely unnoticed until after the experiment. > > Perhaps this could explain a single instance, or it could > explain abnormally sloppy work, which is hopefully NOT your > implication, I am assuming. It all gets back to whether this > phenomenon is a regular feature of their work or not. If > they said that it is, then I would be inclined to suggest > that a proper resolution of the anomaly would NOT relate to > environmental contamination. > > > As you point out, it > > makes no sense for transmutation products to move from > where they are > > produced to form a boulder. This defies the concept of > entropy. > > I hope that I wasn't misconstrued on this. My intent may > have been just the opposite... > > What is wrong with "defying" the poorly understood concept > of "entropy" anyway? Sure, this experiment defies entropy in > several other ways - for one, in exactly the same way that > LENR defies the concept of entropy. IOW it presents a such a > clear violation, such as hot-nuclear energy itself once > presented, that the violation in itself forces the > pedagogues who believe in "entropy" to go back to the > drawing board and redefine it... to save face, if nothing > else. > > Entropy has been already revised more than once, for > instance to NOT inlcude the hot version of nuclear energy - > and now this work, and ZPE also becomes just a further > invitation to revise the 'entropy concept' further to > include a "bulk transmutation" BEC-like effect which can > occur in energy-neutral fashion, and in a rather large > particulates consisting of many atoms. If you have a > BEC-like reaction, it will seldom involve on a few atoms. > Not ot mention that any of regular BEC has entropy violating > issues which have nto been adequately addressed. > > I think that you are failing to grasp the critical point > that can possibly explain the Szpak results ... that when a > BEC-like QM reaction occurs at all, it usually IS a bulk > energy-near-neutral type of reaction, not confined to 'pair > of particles' or even a few particles. When you have the QM > wave functions involved, as with the putative bulk reaction > [Pd106 + D --> Cd1098 ---> four Al27 + four (*e-)] then > this can occur in the normal Pd nanaoparticle as a unit, and > if energy neutral, you do indeed end up with a "boulder" - > entropy-be-damned. > > But of course, one must first buy-into the concept of a > BEC-like reaction. > > Jones
Re: Latest from Szpak et al.
Edmund Storms writes, > Personally I do not believe all that is claimed, even in cold fusion :-). Instead of "even in cold fusion" some observers might "even" be inclined to opine "espeically"... as that genius Bob Park does on a regular basis - but in this case, there is some reason for me to believe that Szpak et al. are indeed exactly on-target. > I have seen such "boulders" on metal samples that clearly result > from the environment. If what Szpak has located in this image were purely a one-of-a-kind, singularity type of thing, instead of something which was not uncommon in the work, then yes you could be right. But I do not think that they would have taken the time to present it this way, if they did not think that this feature was *normal* to their expeiment. One must assume that they took the necessary precautions to avoid contamination, since they do mention this factor as an alternative explanation... for the skeptics to fall back on (they are diplomatic, one should add)... > The normal environment has all kinds of small > particles floating in the air, which can land on a sample and be > completely unnoticed until after the experiment. Perhaps this could explain a single instance, or it could explain abnormally sloppy work, which is hopefully NOT your implication, I am assuming. It all gets back to whether this phenomenon is a regular feature of their work or not. If they said that it is, then I would be inclined to suggest that a proper resolution of the anomaly would NOT relate to environmental contamination. > As you point out, it > makes no sense for transmutation products to move from where they are > produced to form a boulder. This defies the concept of entropy. I hope that I wasn't misconstrued on this. My intent may have been just the opposite... What is wrong with "defying" the poorly understood concept of "entropy" anyway? Sure, this experiment defies entropy in several other ways - for one, in exactly the same way that LENR defies the concept of entropy. IOW it presents a such a clear violation, such as hot-nuclear energy itself once presented, that the violation in itself forces the pedagogues who believe in "entropy" to go back to the drawing board and redefine it... to save face, if nothing else. Entropy has been already revised more than once, for instance to NOT inlcude the hot version of nuclear energy - and now this work, and ZPE also becomes just a further invitation to revise the 'entropy concept' further to include a "bulk transmutation" BEC-like effect which can occur in energy-neutral fashion, and in a rather large particulates consisting of many atoms. If you have a BEC-like reaction, it will seldom involve on a few atoms. Not ot mention that any of regular BEC has entropy violating issues which have nto been adequately addressed. I think that you are failing to grasp the critical point that can possibly explain the Szpak results ... that when a BEC-like QM reaction occurs at all, it usually IS a bulk energy-near-neutral type of reaction, not confined to 'pair of particles' or even a few particles. When you have the QM wave functions involved, as with the putative bulk reaction [Pd106 + D --> Cd1098 ---> four Al27 + four (*e-)] then this can occur in the normal Pd nanaoparticle as a unit, and if energy neutral, you do indeed end up with a "boulder" - entropy-be-damned. But of course, one must first buy-into the concept of a BEC-like reaction. Jones
Re: Latest from Szpak et al.
Personally I do not believe all that is claimed, even in cold fusion :-). I have seen such "boulders" on metal samples that clearly result from the environment. The normal environment has all kinds of small particles floating in the air, which can land on a sample and be completely unnoticed until after the experiment. As you point out, it makes no sense for transmutation products to move from where they are produced to form a boulder. This defies the concept of entropy. Ed Jones Beene wrote: > From: Jed Rothwell > > > Paper: > > > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf > > Which contains one of the most amazing understatements that > you are likely to ever see in any new energy technology (at > least it will be "most amazing" to the mainstream of nuclear > physics). That statement is found on page 8, where NOT just > traces of transmutation products were found, but instead, > well... in the authors own words: > > "Fig. 6. Analysis of the boulder-like segment showed the > presence of a single element, Al, [!]... > > Imagine that... in a Pd cathode one finds a micro-sized > "boulder" but not a mix of elements - a boulder of a single > transmutation product, aluminum... furthermore- > > "and that resembling a crater, the presence of two elements, > namely Mg and Al. Without the aid of a Maxwell demon, it > would be difficult to argue that such directed motion of > impurities can take place. The only sensible answer is that > they were produced in the course of electrolysis of D2O in a > cell placed in an external electric field by nuclear > events." > > Why would aluminum be favored? And how could the nuclear > events leading up to this substantial amount of aluminum > happen and at the same time have been close to "energy > neutral". IOW the formative events must have been "energy > neutral" or else one would have a deep cavity there rather > than a mound... > > Maxwell's demon goes mainstream ? > > Jones
Re: Latest from Szpak et al.
From: Jed Rothwell > Paper: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf Which contains one of the most amazing understatements that you are likely to ever see in any new energy technology (at least it will be "most amazing" to the mainstream of nuclear physics). That statement is found on page 8, where NOT just traces of transmutation products were found, but instead, well... in the authors own words: "Fig. 6. Analysis of the boulder-like segment showed the presence of a single element, Al, [!]... Imagine that... in a Pd cathode one finds a micro-sized "boulder" but not a mix of elements - a boulder of a single transmutation product, aluminum... furthermore- "and that resembling a crater, the presence of two elements, namely Mg and Al. Without the aid of a Maxwell demon, it would be difficult to argue that such directed motion of impurities can take place. The only sensible answer is that they were produced in the course of electrolysis of D2O in a cell placed in an external electric field by nuclear events." Why would aluminum be favored? And how could the nuclear events leading up to this substantial amount of aluminum happen and at the same time have been close to "energy neutral". IOW the formative events must have been "energy neutral" or else one would have a deep cavity there rather than a mound... Maxwell's demon goes mainstream ? Jones
Latest from Szpak et al.
Paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf PowerPoint presentation: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursorsa.pdf - Jed
