At 08:28 PM 2/6/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
Based on this google translation it seems the
Italian Committee Against the Claims of the
Paranormal is seeking to discredit Rossi et al.
http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.net1news.org%2Fcorsa-alla-fusione-fredda-litalia-passa-il-testimone-alla-grecia.html
http://tinyurl.com/6za8ler harry
They keep repeating this "violates the laws of
physics" crap. It is impossible to say that an
"unknown nuclear reaction" violates the laws of
physics, unless the reaction is specified adequately to apply the laws!
With Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion, at least,
there was an understandable if
totally-stopid-in-hindsight assumption that the
reaction was d-d fusion, but even there, the
claim that d-d fusion under P-F conditions was
impossible was not based on sound physics,
because there was obviously, if this was real,
something not understood. The same "impossible"
claim could have been made about muon-catalyzed
fusion, before it was theorized and verified. If
MCF had been discovered first, experimentally,
the same pronouncement of "impossible" would have
been possible on the same basis (failure to
consider a possible catalyst that overcomes the Coulomb barrier).
My own operating assumption has become that the
reaction is not "d-d" fusion, for all the obvious
reasons. But "fusion" it is, we know by the fuel
and the ash, deuterium and helium, and all the
flapping about transmutation and neutrons is just
fluff. Minor. Not part of the main show. Krivit's
nonsense about neutron absorption, with the
neutrons being made from deuterium, not being
"fusion" is semantic quibbling. The reaction is
one which *accomplishes* fusion, mechanism unknonw.
Why is neutron activity not part of the main
show? I can't actually say with complete
certainty that it isn't. It's just
extraordinarily unlikly, because of reaction rate
considerations, multiple miracles required, and
other expected effects from such that are not
observed. The concept of gamma suppression by
heavy electrons, an effect that has no known
experimental support, with the suppression being
*almost perfect,* would be, itself, a major
discovery, of vast importance. Not seen, not
observed, no confirmation at all. Widon-Larsen
theory only matches a piece of the experimental evidence, and not the rest.
If we have a black box into which deuterium flows
and inside the box, deuterium is broken into
protons and neutrons, and the neutrons proceed
through some pathway to create helium, and helium
flows out of the box, and 24 MeV of energy is
released, we have a "fusion box." It looks like a
duck, it acts like a duck, and it smells like a duck. It's a duck!
So the claim of Widom and Larsen, and of Krivit,
that if W-L theory is correct, it's not "fusion"
is just bogus polemic, intended to sanitize the
image of cold fusion -- and, by the way, quite
recognized as such by critics of cold fusion. It
doesn't work except transiently with a few people.
Instead, because we do know that P-F activity is
turning deuterium into helium, because the
signature energy is observed and the product is
observed correlated with that energy, very
strongly, it's time to simply call it "cold
fusion." LENR is a field that is broader, and
which may encompass completely different
reactions, some of which might not be fusion,
i.e., might not be synthesizing higher-Z elements
as ash. More likely, though, the possible other
reactions being observed through unusual
products, are from rare branches or secondary
reactions; if fusion is taking place, energy is
being released that can, under some conditions, do Other Stuff.
The Hagelstein limit of 20 KeV for charged
particle products from the P-F effect does not
prohibit minor side-effects and branches,
because, in fact, what Hagelstein notes as
missing is not *entirely* missing, the observed
levels are simply way too low for high-energy CP
radiation to be a normal product of the main
reaction. In the case of tritium, as the most
prominent example, there is plenty of tritium
found, it's not artifact, at least not all the
time, but -- this was an early argument that
tritium findings must be artifact -- the level of
tritium is far, far too low to explain the excess
heat through fusion to tritium. Tritium and
excess heat, according to Storms, are not well-correlated.
I'm amazed that Krivit is making all this fuss
about Rossi, who may turn out to be fabulously
wealthy, or who may end up broke and discredited,
who may have originated some idea or may have
stolen it, or may have simply figured out a way
to generate a lot of heat for a short time from a
black box, contents not disclosed, with or
without some nuclear reaction, but, as far as I
can tell, Krivit has not covered, at all, the
Naturwissenschaften review, "Status of cold
fusion (2010)", Storms (2010), a
mainstream-published peer-reviewed extensive
review of the field of "cold fusion," named such,
without shame, which is perhaps the most
important event of the last decade in the history
of cold fusion, unless Rossi turns out to be real
CF, which remains quite speculative. The review
is a breakthrough, as to acceptance.
What has been the reaction to this review? Has
Krivit asked the major critics of CF to comment
on it? No, he's busy navel-gazing, Krivit has
become the story, Krivit and his Amazing
Adventures Among Fanatics. The
Naturwissenschaften review is not linked in his
Recent Papers page,
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SelectedPapers.shtml.
Instead, we have, as the most recent important
paper, Srivastava et all, "A primer for
electroweak induced low-energy nuclear
reactions/" W-L theory, which practically nobody
else is taking seriously, which presents
speculations as if they were established facts,
and which completely ignores the obvious objections to W-L theory.
According to the paper, if ULM neutrons are
formed, they will be 100% absorbed, which seems
reasonable. However, as they state, a "plethora
of nuclear reactions are thereby possible." To
get to helium, as one example, they propose Li-6
+ n -> Li-7, Li-7 + n -> Li-8, Li-8 -> Be-8 + e +
neutrino, and, of course, then Be-9 -> 2 He-4. What is wrong with this picture?
Whatever is happening in CF cells, the rate is
very low, and products other than helium and
energy are *rare*. So the rate of the complete
series is low. If, however, intermediate products
do not high-rate convert to the next stage, they
will remain. The reaction describes what must be
*two* rare reactions, in series, neutron
absorption by lithium. If neutron flux were high
enough to ensure substantial conversion of all
the Li-7 to Li-8, it would be high enough to
produce hosts of other effects. Instead, we must
recognize that the rate of the second reaction
would be similar to that of the first, excepting
only the capture cross-section difference between the two nuclei.
And what happens to the Li-7 that would necessarily predominate as a product?
Srivastava et al conclude:
The analysis presented in this paper leads us to
conclude that realistic possibili-
ties exist for designing LENR devices capable of
producing `green energy', that is,
production of excess heat at low cost without
lethal nuclear waste, dangerous °-rays
or unwanted neutrons. The necessary tools and
the essential theoretical know-how
to manufacture such devices appear to be well
within the reach of the technology
available now. Vigorous e®orts must now be made to develop such devices whose
functionality requires all three interactions of
the Standard Model acting in concert.
Now, the missing context: nobody has confirmed
one single prediction from W-L theory. There are
no published reports of excess heat optimized by
devices designed to confirm W-L theory and to use
it for development. Prediction is the whole
purpose of the development of theory, yet there
is no record of confirmation of the theory, it's
completely missing. Could W-L theory explain
Rossi? Sure, but that hasn't actually been done,
and there is way too little information about
Rossi's approach. The concluding comment above is
preposterous, unless, of course, there is
something under development that has not been announced.
One of the critical aspects of W-L theory is
glossed over in the paper: the absorption of
gammas by heavy electrons, i.e., an assumption
that gammas would be *100% absorbed* -- or
almost so -- by the same heavy electrons that
allegedly allow neutron formation. At one point,
Larsen was asked by Garwin about experimental
evidence for this effect, and Larsen's answer,
upon probing by Krivit -- he used to actually do
some serious investigative reporting -- was that
this was proprietary information.
In other words, W-L theory is being proposed
publicly, without revealing the alleged
experimental basis. And Krivit, instead of
noticing the obvious, concludes that W-L theory
is rejected because everyone else "believes in"
d-d fusion. Krivit has generally confounded "d-d
fusion" with "deuterium fusion," the former being
a specific class of mechanism, the latter being a
result, not a mechanism at all. Krivit lost it,
making his "bold reports," became highly involved
and attached to his own views of the field and of
the people involved, and failed to maintain his
independence. And refused to recognize this when
people started warning him, and started bailing out from supporting him.
I predict this: W-L theory will be forgotten,
like the other huge pile of CF theories that
failed to make accurate predictions. I see in the
Srivastava paper, not one proposed test of the
theory, not one falsifiable specific prediction.
Could this be the basis of later theory? Maybe.
But it is far from what we would need to engineer
better devices, and that this statement about
such devices was allowed in the paper
demonstrates, to me, inadequate peer review.
In this, Larsen et al are like Rossi: the core of
the work, if it exists, is hidden, for commercial
advantage. That could be a real consideration,
but it is also a refuge of scoundrels and con
artists, who are looking to find investors who
will, perhaps, see some private demonstration,
and private demonstrations can, history has
shown, be readily faked, ingenuity is endless.
I have no opinion that Rossi's public
demonstration was faked. What I think is that we
should all simmer down and let Rossi prove what
he needs to prove. Harassing Rossi to try to
force him to reveal his secrets is not really
fair, if I assume that Rossi is real. Jed has
been trying to advise him, sincerely, I believe,
but the advice is fairly obvious, and Rossi obviously doesn't want the advice.
But I will note a generic way to fake Rossi's
work, others have proposed other possibilities,
and, if it's fake, the truth might even be a
hybrid. I have no doubt but that it could be
done, that even more convincing demonstrations
could be done. But not independent replications,
and that is why we all want to see such, not
simply inventor-managed "demonstrations."
Independent replication can be done under
non-disclosure agreements that would protect
Rossi's commercial rights. But Rossi is not going
that way, which is his privilege. It is also our
privilege to ignore his work until we see something more solid.
The damage to our field, though, can be
tremendous. Rossi is already the subject of
attack from pseudo-skeptics, who lump Rossi in
with the rest of the field, when there is a vast
difference. Those of us who are ready to give
Rossi particular credence are risking a great
deal, and for no gain that I can see.
The experiment could easily be faked by modifying
the elecrical outlet that the device is plugged
into to deliver, under particular conditions of
load, high voltage, thus allowing more input
power than has been expected from estimating the
current capacity of the power supply wiring. The
"difficulties" shown in the public demonstration
could easily be diversions. A private investor
would be shown a smoothly-functioning device.
While most sensible investors would investigate
more carefully, it only takes one sucker with a
big wallet for the payoff to exist. The purpose
of the public demonstration is to attract
possible investors. Rossi is complaining about
how much work he's having to do, which any
potential investor would recognise as having an
obvious solution: a pile of money.
(If the plugged-in input power devices were
independently supplied and monitored, then this
theory can be tossed in the junkpile, there would
have to be some other power source, and it gets a
bit more difficult, but still not impossible.)
Is this an accusation of fraud? No. I have *no*
evidence to show that there is fraud. There are,
however, *many* obvious grounds for suspicion,
others have described these in detail. Suspicion
does not equal proof, it does not even equal
accusation. It is just normal skepticism, a very necessary faculty.
From the history of other "flashes in the pan,"
however, if this is fraud (or, given what we've
been shown, the much less likely possibility of
simple error), come the end of the year, we will
see this or that excuse as to wny the promised 1
MW reactors don't exist. 1 MW reactors aren't at
all necessary to comprehensively demonstrate that
this is real: independent replications, of what
was already supposedly demonstrated, would do
that, and Rossi would then have more than enough
money and resources to do what he needs to do. If
Rossi is real, he is comprehensively shooting himself in the foot.
