At 04:07 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR
paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and
as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to
measure, much more sensitive, and much less disputable proofs of LENRs
than calorimetry aren't they?
Not in my opinion. I will not put words in Martin's mouth but I
doubt this is his opinion either, and it is his dictum.
Nuclear reactions were first discovered in the late 19th century
because they produce excess heat. For some purposes, sensitive
calorimetry is still the best way to detect them. I realize that for
many purposes particle detection is far more sensitive. But everyone
knows that particles are difficult to detect with cold fusion. I
presume this is because the ratio of neutrons to heat is 9 to 11
orders of magnitude lower than with conventional fusion, and
neutrons appear to be missing altogether in many cases. As far as I
know this is also true with co-deposition. I have not heard that the
SPAWAR technique boosts the number of neutrons per joule of heat,
but only that they have managed to detect the neutrons despite the
inherent difficulties. Their cells probably produce macroscopic
heat, but they cannot detect it because the equipment is optimized
to detect neutrons.
The neutron results have been misunderstood by some. I'm fairly well
convinced that they aren't involved in the primary reaction; the
neutrons are the effect of secondary reactions caused by the hot
helium nuclei; but some of the possible transmutations produced,
aside from helium, may produce neutrons. The levels of neutrons,
though energetic, are so low that they are obviously not part of the
main reaction.
But they indicate that nuclear process is taking place in the cell.
Hot alphas, hot enough to create the secondary reactions, could only
be from nuclear process, just as the neutrons must be from a nuclear
process, at those energies.
The people at SPAWAR have already confirmed heat. They do not need
to do this. People starting out on this experiment do need to, in my
opinion. Walk before you run. Confirm that you have the effect
first, then look for particles. Otherwise you are probably fishing
in a dry hole.
Could be. If I don't see neutrons or other radiation, sure. But if I
catch a big fish, is it a dry hole?
I do not think many people have been convinced by the SPAWAR
results, although of course I acknowledge these results are important.
That announcement caused a vary large shift. It was the Holy Grail,
remember? Where are the neutrons? Neutrons were reported, of course,
but at such low levels and under conditions that the claim that this
was cosmic ray background was at least sort of plausible. Well, now
we know: there are neutrons. Very few, but present, not background,
not contamination, not equipment failure, etc. And this has mattered
to some physicists, who are starting to say, "Well, maybe ...." And
that's the foot in the door.
I was convinced by the helium, but didn't think it would be easy to
get attention to that. Jed, if I do manage to pull this off, it could
easily get some media attention. What do you think that would cause?
See, even if there is no coverage, I'll start *advertising*. Real
stuff, backed with real reports in peer-reviewed journals. Not Free
Energy, the Solution to the World's Energy Problems, not something
speculative, merely a reproducible experiment. I can't predict
exactly what will happen, but I do predict, it will not be "nothing."
I am not opposed to looking for neutrons! But before you look for
them you should confirm that you have a cold fusion reaction, and
the one and only certain method of doing this is to confirm excess heat.
Well, the cell is going to be surrounded by styrofoam, holding it in
place but also insulating it. The arrangement of the space will be a
bit tricky, because I'm planning on mounting the cell to the stage of
a somewhat better microscope than I first purchased. I'll try
calibrating the setup at least roughly, i.e, such and such a
temperature differential corresponds to so much heat being released
in the cell, and I'll know the voltage and current, I'll have some
idea; I just don't have any particular hope of being able to actually
show more than instantaneous excess. I.e., maybe it would be
recombination a la Shanahan or something.
Eventually, I want to handle the deuterium gas in a more
sophisticated way, but I'm starting out with a purely open cell.
Calorimetry is complicated, Jed, I knew that even before you
attempted to convince me this was all too hard....
Perhaps in the future particle detection will become the primary
means of detecting cold fusion but that is not how things are today.
Well, that started shifting in 2007, with Galileo. Proof of radiation
with no attention paid to heat is quite possibly more convincing than
proof of heat with no radiation, until the heat *reliably* gets to
levels that clearly show nuclear origin (or other unknown process).
Radiation shows "nuclear" directly, even small amounts, as long as it
can't be ascribed to radon or the like.
Triple tracks, radon? I don't think so.
Lomax suggested that audio noise or possibly light flashes may also
be a means of detecting cold fusion. Perhaps that is true. The way
to find out is to first confirm there is heat, then listen for audio
noise with a microphone. We know there is heat. We do not know if
there is audible noise. So look for what you know has to be there if
the reaction is occurring, and then look for what you suspect may
also be there.
I don't expect "audible noise," as such, though, apparently,
according to Ed, there is a lot of bubble noise. But eventually, I'd
put together a circuit that would make the high-frequency shocks
audible. Filter out the bubble and other ambient noise and process
what's left. As to light, it seems likely, that's all. Somebody
should look, and it will be very convenient for this project if there
is light. People like to *see* stuff, don't you? In fact, if I get
sound and no light, I might make light, i.e., use four mikes and
process the signal to show location of the epicenter in a visual
display. But I prefer real light!
