Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be
operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later
release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which
showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being
charged.
As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of
cold fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be
more physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it
involves "one less miracle."
For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood
properties - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or
both) arguably could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow
(in palladium electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy
released later.
In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come
from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after
months of "hypercharging" ;-)
This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on
our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is
known about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold
fusion. There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead
to the reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is
absent.
BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question,
"average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but
in terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it
is really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere
that LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?
H LV wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beenewrote:
The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero
effort" - the very best result to have occurred in 28 years
was itself little more than a yawner. People tend to forget
that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was statistically
very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
did not point the way to a useful device.
"Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment
produced no heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100
W for 30 days in one test and 70 days in another. Computing the
average including the time before it turned on would be like
computing the average speed of an airplane including the time it
is sitting at the gate and the time waiting in line to take off.
There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We
know there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because
you cannot store that much energy.
- Jed
"You cannot store that much energy" is working hypothesis.
That much energy could be stored in nuclei.
Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave
the nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to
speculating how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another
coupling mechanism? Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in
reverse where externally driven oscillations of the pendulum from
outside the clock serve to wind the clock up.
Harry
