At 12:40 AM 9/15/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we
don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has
provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted
from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product.
This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document titled:
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS & PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION'S
HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT.
I'm going to repeat, *we* don't know what the ash is. That paper is
inadequate to establish the ash, except as speculation from a single run.
The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a
mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions.
What ash description? Ash would be material produced that was not
there previously. Ash would be confirmed through correlation with
heat, this can't be done with a single-point analysis. The report
does show a "before a test run" and one "after a test run," but
1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they
are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis
numbers are "07/18/12 #25 " for the "before," and " 07/18/12
#23" " for the "after."
2. There is no report of the energy generated.
3. In Miles' work with PdD, the samples were analyzed blind. There is
no indication that any similar precautions were taken.
4. They claim that the analyses are of the "NAE," which is Storn's
term, and they distinguish between the NAE and the material, but they
say nothing about how they manage to analyze the NAE without
analyzing the material. Do they mean "surface"?
5. Surface composition of a material may shift as a result of
hydrogen activity, without any transmutation at all. That is why
correlation with heat is so important. Helium alone, in PdD
experiments, would not be strong evidence of transmutation. It was
correlation that made the identity of helium, as the ash, clear.
"We" don't know the ash until reports are independently confirmed,
and the paper states that this is not possible, essentially. Whatever
tests are done must be done in Defkalion's lab, they say, under NDA.
This is proprietary and confidential commercial activity, not science.
Note that they have the right to do this. However, they, by the same
token, have the right to operate outside of scientific protocols and
the process of the development of scientific knowledge.
There is more information in that paper than we had before, but it's
all single-source information. They say they operated a cell for 6
weeks as the "longest test protocol run" with the same charge. Great.
What was the heat performance of that cell? They don't say! They
merely say that there wasn't "any drop in performance."
This is not a peer-reviewed paper, and I'd consider it inadequate to
pass reasonable peer review. It's a company report, and it's heaviest
on what the company knows least: theory. They know what they actually
did, and they know what the actual results were, and they are not
telling. They are speculating about theory, wandering off into
Widom-Larsen, the solar corona, and other distractions to justify
LENR, as if LENR needs justification.
We don't need to know if LENR is real, we need to know if Defkalion
has an approach that works reliably, and, for confirmation and the
development of theory, we need to know the heat/ash ratios.
(a working product will be its own proof, but we will still need, for
the long term, to know the ash, and its relationship with energy, so
that theories about mechanism can be vetted.)
I found the paper at
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf
