I want to thank Guenter for thinking about this and taking the time
to write it out. Comments interspersed.
At 01:58 AM 4/6/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote:
Von: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 4:13 Freitag, 6.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Stimulation of LENR using dual lasers, creative
engineering needed
> Maybe it is the case of cooling the experiment with liquid
nitrogen, to avoid self interference with the experiment.
> 8THz blackbody is a peak around 140K, so 71K is far away from that peak.
This sounds like too low a temperature.
My two cents:
1) using a blackbody to generate the 15&22THz will produce a small
power-density per area. My estimate is, that it will be in the 10 to
100uW range per mm2, depending on the bandwidth. Remember that this
radiation cannot be focused. So the target power-density can be at
most the source power-density.
2) another idea would be the coating of the (blackbody-source) with
molecules, which resonate at the desired frequencies.
Something akin to this here: "Laser spectroscopy and mass
spectrometry of doped clusters"
http://fys.kuleuven.be/vsm/nano/master.php?mastercat=5
3) If You think about (2) a bit, You get the impression, that it is
more effective to heat the target (NiH-reactant) directly, and let
the target do the sorting out of the frequencies via resonance.
22THz -> approx 15um wavelength.
Okay, let me be clear that I'm asking about the use of dual laser
stimulation with PdD experiments. I have no evidence that this
approach is effective, at all, with NiH. Maybe, maybe not. I'd assume
the frequencies would be different.
The dual laser approach was designed to produce the beat frequency on
the gold-plated surface of the electrolytic cathode. There are a
number of experimental characteristics that have been inferred. (I'm
writing this from memory and might get some detals wrong.) The laser
power used is higher than necessary to see the effect. The threshold
power has not been explored. The spot size does not seem to matter,
within what has been tried. Expanding the spot size (same power over
larger area) did not have an effect.
A magnetic field is used. The laser stimulation does not appear to be
effective without the magnetic field.
The cathode is primarily heated through the electrolytic current.
Laser heating is small compared to that.
The reaction is, however, sensitive to heat; increasing the
temperature increases excess power.
( Provided that the radiation need not be coherent or narrowband, ofcourse).
Which also gives an indication for the minimum/optimum-size of the
particles/crystals.
Surprisingly large! Not nano!
At this point this work is generating indications, and some
surprising ones. Not proof. While the work is openly being published,
it has not been replicated. I'm aware of one replication attempt that
failed; but it is not clear how close to the protocol the attempt
hewed. Cold fusion is famous for this: change one little thing, and
it doesn't work, and it can be almost impossible to keep *everything*
the same. That's why helium measurements are so important.
My general impression is, that this dual-laser stimulation maybe
results in a more pronounced effect, but is not necessary. Simple
heating basically will do the job also.
Apparently not. Under the conditions set up, there is no XP to speak
of without the dual laser stimulation. It turns on the reaction,
heating does not. Heating increases the reaction if it's turned on.
Plus maybe some RF-pulses (Godes/Brillouin, catalyst, secret sauce, whatever.)
Which would be consistent with the other LENR-experiments.
One of the goals I've been promoting is easily reproducible
experiments, standard cells, if you will. If there is a design that
can be cheaply reproduced, exactly, and that reliably shows a LENR
effect, it becomes a base from which to test many different
variations. I was originally working with codep, the Galileo
protocol, and do need to finish up that work, but I was invited to
look at this dual laser work, and found that there are elements here
of high interest.
For the science.
This is my common-sense-back of the napkin approach.
Laser-based stimulation in any case would be a costly solution.
Sufficient: maybe, necessary: not.
Dual laser stimulation is costly, true, and there are other ways to
obtain the reaction; however, the goal here is not cheap power. The
goal is reliably reproducible research. A laser system might be
shared among many experiments. The work so far only observes the
effect of laser stimulation over fairly short time periods, mostly.
Letts wants to see how much power increases when he turns on the
lasers. It does appear reasonably stable.
Variations on the protocol will be tested, I'm sure. A deposited wire
cathode may be used, which may be easier to prepare and more uniform.
My approach is generally to attempt to scale experiments down, that's
important with PdD work because the materials can be so expensive. It
also makes the work safer, one of the little worries of cold fusion
is over the unexplained explosions. That was likely due to the famous
variability. Pons and Fleischmann got "lucky" when their apparatus
melted down with a 1 cm cube of palladium. How lucky did they get?
Until we know what the nuclear active environment is, and what the
mechanism is, we can't really be sure that we won't stumble over some
threshold and BANG!
This work did not take place in a vacuum, it was not an accidental
discovery. Hagelstein suggested that stimulation at certain
frequencies could enhance the reaction, following his own theories
involving vacancy formation in PdD.
These cells are not operating in the normal excess power region, they
are not quite as highly loaded. That's why, perhaps, there is no XP
without laser stimulation.
The goal here is not to improve power output. The goal is to control
the reaction by using stimulation that can give us a clue as to the
nature of the nuclear active environment and/or the mechanism.
The pseudoskeptics believe that cold fusion research is fueled -- and
misled -- by dreams of cheap power. While some researchers might be
blinded by this dream, there are certainly researchers whose primary
interest is the science. In my view, out understanding of cold fusion
was heavily impeded by the continual attempt to "improve" the
performance of cold fusion cells, instead of carefully studying them
as they were, by designing experiments that shifted only a single
variable and that better controlled conditions. Sold palladium
cathodes are persnickety. How they load and how they behave appears
to depend on micro- or nano-structure, a product of their history.
Codeposition has a reputation for increased reliability and rapidity
of response, but I'm not certain this is true.
One of the reasons for that uncertainty is the paucity of exact
replications. Everyone wants to try their own ideas.
