At 12:13 PM 7/24/2005, Ed Storms wrote:
The issue is what we consider to be useful. A laboratory instrument is
useful when it produces reproducible results based on an understandable
process. The level of power only has to exceed the sensitivity of the
detection devices by a suitable amount. Many cold fusion devices do this
including the calorimeter used by Mitchell Swartz.
Some many errors in a few sentences requires some clarification.
First, our multiring calorimeters are not the cold fusion devices --
which are Phusors.
Everyone at the misnamed LENR site seems to get that wrong.
The multiring calorimeters, with time integration in each of the rings,
require multiple forms of calibration including ohmic (thermal controls).
They have shown that thermoelectric and vertical mass flow calorimeters
are at risk to be seriously non-quantitative - even though some such as Ed
prefer them
and worse, some sometimes run them without multiple controls and in the
illusion that
it does not matter where heat source is positioned.
re: multiring calorimetry: Swartz. M., "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature
of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the
Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material", Fusion
Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997)
======================================================================================
A device useful in solving the energy needs of the world, which was the
basis of the discussion in NG, is an entirely different animal. Granted,
once CF is understood, small devices producing 50-100 watts will be very
common. However, as far as I can determine, no one understands the effect
well enough to create such a device or to amplify the effect in a
practical way to levels that would be useful outside of a laboratory. I
suggest the debate needs to focus on the real world and not on what we
want to see happen some time in the unknown future.
I suggest those who want to seriously pursue cold fusion examine the
facts. The papers
published, including the quasi-1-dimensional model of loading which
predicts codeposition
and optimal operating points (and other things) indicates that we DO
understand the effect
and its preconditions very well.
Swartz, M., "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of
Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22,
2, 296-300 (1992)
Swartz, M., "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled to Reactions at an Electrode",
Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994)
Futhermore, each and every issue of the COLD FUSION TIMES which is put
out (24 pages this issue),
and every Conference proceeding (albeit with some 'cherry picking')
demonstrates that we DO understand the effect,
and many of us do build devices which some of us have shown outside of the
laboratory
such as during the week of ICCF-10.
It is understood that some prefer to ignore engineering and solid state
physics on this, and good luck them.
====================================================================================
The debate is now shifting from the reality of the effect to its
"usefulness". If we in the field want to be part of that debate, we need
to acknowledge the important issues in this debate, not the issues in the
last one. The important question in the present debate is how can the
effect be amplified using a device that is simple, cheap, and long
lasting. I suggest the electrolytic method, although useful for study,
does not qualify. Even the plasma methods would not scale easily. The
only method that looks practical is direct gas loading of the nuclear
active environment (NAE). The limitation to scaling to high power using
any technique is not knowing the characteristics of the NAE. Therefore,
this is where I suggest the discussion needs to focus.
Ed
Sorry your low-level devices are not long lasting, Ed.
FWIW, mathematics and engineering are the key, and they indicate that
the desired reactions
are NEITHER low energy nuclear reactions nor chemically assisted
reactions. They are
lattice assisted high energy nuclear reactions, where the lattice and low
temperature bring the Bremsstrahlung
down to the IR and locks it in due to skin depth. The lattice facilitates
through quanta called
Phusons which couple the energy of the excited nuclear state to the lattice
through very large number sof phonons.
Swartz, M, G. Verner, "Bremsstrahlung in Hot and Cold Fusion", J New
Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999)
Swartz, M., "Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids", Fusion Technology,
31, 228-236 (March 1997).
Hope that clarifies.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
==============================================================
Update of Cold Fusion Times
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
also http://world.std.com/~mica/cftrev12-2.html
