At 05:02 AM 8/15/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:
I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I
guess it is a little too early for that.
Really, CE? Were you actually that naive?
Here is the situation. PdD cold fusion was discovered -- or
rediscovered -- over twenty years ago. There is still a lot that is
unknown about the reaction conditions and details.
The problem has engaged many highly knowledgeable people, including
theoretical physicists, specialists in quantum mechanics, and Nobel
Prize winners. Nobody has yet come up with a theory, to date, that is
satisfying, that successfully functions to predict experimental
outcomes, particularly when we look for quantitative predictions of
any accuracy. Sometimes theory has predicted a general outcome. For
example, Miles was aware of Preparata's theory, that predicted helium
as the primary ash, when he did his work to demonstrate the
heat/helium correlation.
But since helium was already on the table as a normal product of
fusion (albeit at a different branching ratio), this can't be seen as
much of a confirmation of Preparata's theory. And I'm not even
familiar with Preparata's actual theory, it's not given much shrift
today. Most of the early theories looked to the lattice as the
reaction site, it was only known later that the FPHE is a surface effect.
If everyone could get on the same page this fledgling industry can
generate some serious revenue and transform the World!
Cart before the horse, CE. We need more science, first. We need to
know more experimental results. You seem to think that the obstacle
is a lack of explanatory theory. No, it's been pointed out by many
that we have too many theories, and not enough testing. Many of the
existing "theories" have been inadequately developed to be used to
make specific predictions that can discriminate between theories.
Really, many of these theories are only conjectures, that *possibly*
this or that phenomenon is involved. I'm not seeing anything
different about your gremlin (singularity) theory. You simply assert
possibility, and you are asserting it about a phenomenon where we
don't have experimental evidence that the phenomenon even exists, and
what consequences it would have.
It's quite convenient for the formation of new theories. Since nobody
really knows how small singularities would behave, just make up
whatever behavior you can imagine might be so. You can then explain
all kinds of anomalies. However, producing real value, in terms of
increasing our predictive capacity, the goal of theory development in
science, is quite another matter, more difficult.
My theory explains the following observations:
Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon
observations the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of
the lattice. Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would
certainly occur in these locations due to concentrated energy
charges, hoop effect and collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the
same effect.
CE, this is totally made up. It's not stated why singularities would
only occur in cracks and voids. No clue is given for the actual size
of the defects. (A similar criticism can be made about Storm's
theory, though he does propose some limits. The crack cannot be so
large as to allow D2 formation, and obviously it must be larger than
the lattice spacing.)
Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously
seek thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof.
Celani witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with
hydrogen and had previously shown anomalous heat generation he could
shut the system down, transport it and it would immediately show
further anomalous heat upon excitation without additional loading.
The singularities remained within the lattice during transportation to Austin.
Or the cracks and loading remained, or Celani's work is showing a
heat artifact, or, or.
Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well
understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and
radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they
evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect
on the conductivity of a metal.
No explained observation. I'd expect uncharged singularities (and
some would be uncharged, it depends on what they have eaten) to be
promiscuous, they would be like ULM neutrons. There would be some
very observable effects.
Temperature Inversion. Dr. Brian Ahern mentioned temperature
inversion within samples in the nanometer range. It is well
understood that singularites can consume heat from their
environment, temporarily cooling their surroundings. Eventually,
they will evaporate that energy and entropy back to their
surroundings through Hawking radiation.
Of course, any kind of chemical storage effect can also explain
negative XP. There is no actual explanation here, only an assertion
that some effect *might* happen with singularities, conceived as a
Swiss Army Knife of anomaly causation.
Hawking Radiation should emit RELATIVELY low energy level radiation
due to quantum gravity redshifting of the radiation as it escapes.
This has been witnessed in most all anomalous heat events.
No quantification, and with claims like this, quantification is
essential. What "radiation" has been observed in "most" anomalous heat events?
The amount of energy released can be great. This has been witnessed
in the Intelligentry/Papp Engine as well as claimed by Rossi, DGT
and Celani. Since Hawking Radiation obeys e=mc2, very high levels of
energy may be released as the newly formed singularity seeks
thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium within its environment. Some
of this radiation may also be elementry atomic particles such as
quarks and gluons.
Essentially, gremlins can do anything. Really, they should be called
the God particle, not this Higgs thing. So, then, we can explain any
anomaly with Goddidit.
There is a long tradiion in Vortex of taking unconfirmed, unverified,
and often unquantified reports and then asserting them as proof of
this or that wild theory. Of late, I'm seeing Papp, Rossi, DGT, and
Celani used as proof of ... hey, if there are four anomalies in our
universe, isn't asserting a common cause what Occam's Razor requires?
What's wrong with this picture?
Rossi/DGT/Celani, okay, they are all working with NiH. But Papp?
Rossi/DGT assert XP, as heat. Very much as heat. Celani the same,
working as a scientist, openly, and not such a large amount of heat.
Papp? (I.e., the people now working with the Papp engine) Little or
no heat, but pressure, and reported very, very incompletely. The most
obvious things we'd want to know are not given. The Papp story is
*weird*. Truly weird, it makes Rossi look like a sober, reliable
character. Papp, it's known, actually faked some stuff, and likely
faked some more. You really want to build your theory on "evidence"
coming out of that mass of confusion?
Hawking radiation may create Fission and Fusion products within the
near vicinity. Since this radiation covers a wide spectrum, it will
bombard the local environment with low level, wide spectrum
radiation which over time should transmute additional elements. The
good new is that the quantum gravitational pull of the singularity
will lessen the radiations energy.
It's all vague as hell. I'm not seeing *anything* that would be a
guide to experimental verification. By not making truly specific
predictions, with rates, one avoids, then, the possibility that
already-existing data might rule the theory out. W-L theory pulls that trick.
Collapse of nearby matter by falling into the singularity may lead
to additional elements being transmuted in the local vicinity. The
radiation energy from that will also be redshifted to weaker energy emissions.
Again, only a vague prediction. Attempting to make quantitative
predictions would reveal the weakness. "Transmuted" by what. If
something is collapsing and gaining momentum as it collapses, what it
might collide with is also in the influenced region. So how would
these transmuted elements actually end up being observable?
The "heat after death" syndrome is caused by the ongoing evaporation
over time of the singularities as they continue to seek a
thermodynamically stable state in their immediate environment as
well as emit Hawking black body radiation. This has been witnessed
in many cold fusion situations.
Heat after death (which is simply continued or elevated XP after
electrolytic power is turned off, it doesn't apply to gas-loading
experiments) has been "witnessed." Not "ongoing evaporation over
time," and the time-behavior of heat after death doesn't seem to
match what would be seen as a relaxation -- evaporatoin --
phenomenon, which would show a particular kind of decline.
Since singularities emit charged particles they should aid in
sustaining the birth, evolution and evaporation of more
singularities in the vicinity.
Charged particle radiation is below certain fairly low thresholds, 20
KeV is what Hagelstein claims. There is no evidence that CP radiation
has any effect like this. As the effects of singularities are
described, they would be ubiquitous, but, then, useless as an
explanation for cold fusion, which is far from ubiquitous.
Now, to the point: the necessary consensus in the field of cold
fusion theory is very unlikely to be formed by someone with little
detailed and practical knowledge of quantum physics coming up with a
bright idea that nobody else ever thought of. Chances are that any of
these ideas has already been thought of, and rejected, by those with
more knowledge.
This doesn't mean, by itself, that you are wrong, CE. Just that some
humility might be in order. Just realize how many people have looked
at this, without fruit that can, as yet, actually be eaten.
Storms has proposed a general theory of cold fusion in his recent
paper. I suggest considering it as a series of hypotheses based on
his extensive experience of the field. He's probably right about some
of these, but he does stray into proposing a specific mechanism that,
to this observer, seems preposterous. (I call it "slow fusion.")
Nevertheless, it may turn out that the reality does, in some way,
resemble what he's proposing.
We won't know until we have far more data, very likely. I don't see
that your theory, CE, explains the existing data, it's really just a
series of conjectures that singularities might generate various
convenient phenomena, with no actual, specific prediction. And
certainly no verification.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that any physicist with a clear
understanding of singularities (if anyone like that exists, the field
is controversial) won't be quite so enthusiastic about your theory.
Of this I'm sure. A cold fusion theory that requires a whole new
field of phenomena, not simply an extension of what we already know
and observe, into perhaps some unfamiliar territory, isn't going to
be accepted unless it becomes completely unavoidable. We aren't even
close to that yet, as to requiring singularities to explain the
experimental phenomena.
Madness lies down this road, be careful, CE. One can easily become
convinced that one has The Answer, and if only others would listen....
