Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdThe only reason to do it is to convince dodo-head skeptics, which is not enough of a motive to spend the several hundred thousand dollars that would be risked. And from what I've seen, skeptics would *still* not be convinced, quite likely. Especially if it exploded.
    And here I thought the lack of funding for CF was dodo-head skeptics. If so, I bet 15 kilowatts sustained for days or weeks would convince them. I'm not involved in funding but it would certainly convince me (if it wasn't some Rossi phony dog and pony show).

    BTW, the idea that cold fusion has to be a product for sale to be believable is an idiotic believer argument that keeps being recycled. It's a really stupid notion. A very expensive (even if large, heavy and complex) one-of device that made impressive power for long periods without fresh fuel when properly independently tested would be convincing. The argument against the current crop of measurements is that it's easy to make an error when dealing with very low levels of power (or helium), especially if the energy measurements are thermal. The MFMP has reinforced this idea recently. They are muddling about in noise and it seems to keep them perpetually befuddled.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: hairykrishnaHave I missed something? Where's the danger? There are no neutrons or gammas so no rad hazard. Why not build a 50kW one?

    They heat up and break up violently. Apparently nobody in cold fusion understands *cooling* systems and heat exchangers. Except Rossi of course. He understands them all too well.

    It all adds to the expense.

    I've always said they need a big bang, so to speak. But they refuse to do it. Just take a cell to the desert and have a huge explosion, measure the yield, voila!


    There is a lost performative here. *Who* "needs" a big bang? Not the researchers in the field!
    A big bang will have zero impact on the central research questions. It would cost, I'd assume, somewhere north of $100,000. And anyone who has that money to spend on this will not spend it on a big bang. Why should they? All the need to do is read the existing research, and they'll be in one of three conditions.

    1. They'll know that it works, that helium is being produced commensurate with the heat, and they don't need the Big Bang for that. If they are interested, the will spend the money on real research to answer open questions, such as the influence of H/D ratio on results, and the correlation of tritium with energy and the H/D ratio.

    2. They are not convinced, but interested. If they have that money to spend on blue sky research, they will replicate heat/helium, in modest experiments, which they can do from somewhere between $10,000 and $100,000, depending on how accurate they want the results to be. No big bang, no bunker needed. Reasonable safety precautions, that's all. Mostly danger of chemical explosions. If one only wants rough helium results, you can run it as an open cell, much safer. But for the most accurate results, sealed cells are needed, with recombiners, it's more complex, and recombiners do fail. That was the cause of the one fatality so far in this research.

    3. They aren't interested.

    Cold fusion researchers already know that helium is being produced, it is *not* in controversy, unlike many other things. The controversy only exists among those who do not know the body of research, and the questions and comments show that. (I'm not just talking about here, I'm talking about a lot of commentary since heat/helium became known in 1993.)
  1.  
    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    Posted By: Abdd+d->4He, your example, isn't actually possible.

    That is *probably* correct. However, there are *conceivable* mechanisms. The big problem with dd fusion is that we already know what is likely to happen if you single-body cold-catalyze dd fusion, you get the same branching ratio as hot fusion, it's demonstrated by muon-catalyzed fusion. To be more precise, d-d fusion would be expected to generate neutrons and He-3, which are not observed. But we do not necessarily know all possible *mechanisms* for d-d fusion, which is why we cannot rule out d-d fusion with certainty. It's unlikely, though, hence other possibilities are explored, including multibody fusion in various forms, plus, for some -- very unlikely also -- neutron formation and activation.


    Simple conservation of momentum rules out d+d->4He. I don't know about the 4D stuff.
  2.  
    Fuck me. I start answering one post point by point and another wall of text appears.
  3.  
    Posted By: Abd
    If CF is real, why not build a big one?

    For what purpose? It will not be more reliable because it is larger, it will simply be more dangerous. It will be impractical as a commercial application, so there is no motive there. The only reason to do it is to convince dodo-head skeptics, which is not enough of a motive to spend the several hundred thousand dollars that would be risked. And from what I've seen, skeptics would *still* not be convinced, quite likely. Especially if it exploded.


    If by 'dodo-head' skeptics' you mean 'the entire nuclear physics community' then yes, that's it's purpose.
  4.  
    Posted By: Abd
    When the quantities involved are below what most people consider sensible detection limits they're not all that convincing.

    The detection limits are *far below* what is detected. This is nuts. The difficulty is not in detecting the helium, it is capturing all of it. So results are above the 23.8 MeV level, as much as double it or so, depending on measures taken to capture and measure all the helium.

    A more reasonable argument, on the face, is that the helium is often below ambient levels, so it's an easy charge that the helium is leaked from ambient. However, two facts:

    1. The levels in some experiments rise above ambient, and enough energy has been released to explain and expect that. Generally, where helium levels have been continuously plotted, they do not slow in rise as ambient levels are approached, but remain proportional to generated energy. ("anomalous heat")
    2. There is no anomalous helium detected in otherwise identical experiments that don't generate heat, so-called "dead cells." That includes hydrogen controls. (That's a fact that was missed in the 2004 DoE report, they assumed that *all cells were generating energy.* It was a blatant misreading. There were hydrogen controls, no heat and no helium.)

    Leakage from ambient does not explain the correlation.


    The levels are similar in scale to ambient. Unless that changes you're not going to convince many people with helium levels. Apparent correlation or not. Maybe something gets leakier when it gets warmer? There, correlation explained. No need to invoke mythical nuclear processes.

    Maybe not, but I'm not convinced.

    Have you ever measured low helium levels, for any purpose, in a lab? With a helium leak detector for instance?
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdAnd anyone who has that money to spend on this will not spend it on a big bang. Why should they?
    Because, at the moment, nobody in main line science believes them.

    If they want funding to do something more clever about theory and optimization, they need to be convincing to main line scientists. I'm not suggesting seriously that a huge explosion is needed (though it would be interesting). I am suggesting robust levels of heat are required. Hundreds of watts for days or weeks in a small device without fresh fuel would be a good start. Rothwell says that has been done but every time I asked him to cite the work, he couldn't and instead told me I'm stupid for not finding the information on his giant web site.

    A proper cooling system is an excellent device for measuring enthalpy properly (with a good calibration and blank run). It doesn't matter if it costs more than an insufficient and inadequate and unconvincing experiment.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: hairykrishnaSimple conservation of momentum rules out d+d->4He.
    That's a naive expectation, but a very reasonable one. Those who are working on d+d theories are physicists, generally. They know about conservation of momentum, and so do I. If you want a description of how they are attempting to deal with the problem, I could give that, and it would simply irritate more people, and for little benefit.

    To make it explicit, if we get He-4 from d+d, what actually happens is that we get He-4*, a nuclear excited state. This energy is not released yet. If the excited state could be maintained, no energy would be found. If energy is found, it must be released, and the He-4 state is *highly* unstable, it's considered, and that release is immediate, as a single gamma photon with 23.8 MeV. The helium nucleus recoils, conserving momentum. Most of the energy is carried by the gamma, which is penetrating radiation, most of the energy would leave the cells, only a little would show up as heat. The experimental evidence is that all, or nearly all, of the energy ends up as heat.

    The approaches that exist, that are being attempted, are multibody fusion -- which avoids the problem if they go through Be-8 *or* if they involve condensates, allowing momentum sharing across a larger collection of particles, or similar quantum mechanical phenomenon. The "d-d fusion" theories *actually involve larger structures,* so even if only two deuterons are fused, it's a shared process. And it still takes multibody analysis. This work is also being undertaken, with government funding, at Los Alamos National Laboratory, they are analyzing resonances, using the Schrodinger wave equation, between an incident proton and a row of hydrogen atoms, linearly confined. In prior funded work, they found deep resonances, indicating the possibility of fusion. So maybe.

    It's necessary to realize that this theoretical speculation would be totally dead if not for the experimental fact, that helium is being produced in PdD, at the deuterium fusion ratio. That's what's keeping this alive. That is why heat/helium is so important, and why I encouraged Dr. Storms to write about it. If heat/helium is artifact, if someone can show that, I go spend more time with my children and grandchildren.... That might even be the good news.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    I love quotations like this on artists' web sites, LOL!

    Jan. 25, 2013 -On day 4, Prof. Hagelstein began with evidence, based upon PdD and D2O as the detectors, that de novo Helium 4 must be “borne” with energies below 10 keV or less, and that the upper limit for neutron production must be less than 0.01 neutrons/joule. Then, having demonstrated that destructive interference in the spin boson model prevents its use in CF/LANR, he corrected that, and expanded the Hamiltonian to now include coupling parameters and examined the quantum exchange characteristics based upon coherence.

    Successful energy transfer was demonstrated to require interactions of all the atoms in the lattice. For further analysis, a donor-receptor system was then included. At that point, he showed how the Coulomb barrier need not be overcome, because by this method the factor is linear, rather than quadratic (needed for classical analysis of D+D interactions). Supporting this analysis is the Karabut data in glow discharge on Pd which yielded both diffuse emissions and collimated x-radiation. with beamlets of energy bandwidth which were consistent with the theory Prof. Hagelstein developed. Finally, he used the Foldy-Wouthuysen rotational operation, and demonstrated how this analysis is becoming assymptotic [sic] with what is being observed in CF/LANR, with the use of his corrected condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) Hamiltonian. Finally, with the addition of nonlinear Rabi oscillations (which yields Dicke superradiance), his model was shown to also be near-complete and consistent with both the observed pulse emissions and the wide bandwidth.


    The only things they left out are Rydberg hydrogen, Einstein-Bose condensates, and of course, dark matter. Also dog bones, qi birds, and unicorns.

    http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusWe've now got a poster called Abd
    -ul Rahman Lomax. To the Blab
    He's addicted it seems,
    For he types it by reams
    In a style that is more drab than fab.
    BIPS, BIPS, BIPS, wonderful BIPS.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: hairykrishnaFuck me. I start answering one post point by point and another wall of text appears.
    BIPS, BIPS, BIPS, wonderful BIPS.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: AbdAnd anyone who has that money to spend on this will not spend it on a big bang. Why should they?
    Because, at the moment, nobody in main line science believes them.

    That's not true. I've cited sources showing quite the opposite. They are ignored by ... dodo-head skeptics. Who mostly live *here* and in places like this. They include the editors of certain journals, that heavily committed themselves, editorially, over twenty years ago, to the concept that the whole thing was preposterous nonsense. They do not include the reviewers at mainstream journals like Naturwissenschaften (which has access to the best peer review, I'm told from those who have been through it that it's tough). They do not include the reviewers at many mainstream journals, just those most centrally important to most physicists, who, like Angus here, rely on them to filter information. I have little doubt that "most physicists" are still skeptical, but not necessarily because they are dodo-heads, but because they have not had the opportunity to become informed.

    We saw what happened when a skeptical physicist, Robert Duncan, was asked by CBS Sixty Minutes to review cold fusion. He investigated, and was amazed at what he found. And from what he wrote later, and from his speeches, he had only found a fraction of what's known, he's still learning. He took a lot of flack for openly saying what he found. He's old enough and established enough not to care. His institution supported him. The reaction he got shows, in fact, why the cascade has lasted so long. People who violated the "rule" that you do *not* give cold fusion the time of day, were attacked by their colleagues. That's not a "conspiracy theory," it was a cascade. It's a social phenomenon.

    If they want funding to do something more clever about theory and optimization, they need to be convincing to main line scientists.

    Problem is, cart before the horse. Both DoE reviews suggested basic research to resolve open issues, under existing programs. The physics community, which, because of the massive hot fusion program, very much has a vested interest, consistently intervened to block all such funding through the DoE, which has never implemented the *unanimous* recommendations of it's own panels. (Clearly unanimous with the 2004 DoE review.) So the approach I'm working on is to present an alternative: if heat/helium evidence is already sufficient, fund other basic research to quantify the "parameter space," and provide some level of support for theoretical investigation. If the heat/helium evidence is not considered satisfactory, then, fund heat/helium replication at increased accuracy. After all, if this is "pathological science," increased accuracy should debunk it. At the same time, of course, efforts would be made to hypothesize and test alternatives, possible artifacts and to demonstrate the artifacts though controlled experiment.

    It should be realized, and this is clear, that no artifact was ever proposed and demonstrated, through controlled experiment, to be behind the extensive heat results, nor behind the helium results, and *especially* not behind heat/helium.

    {quote] I'm not suggesting seriously that a huge explosion is needed (though it would be interesting). I am suggesting robust levels of heat are required. Hundreds of watts for days or weeks in a small device without fresh fuel would be a good start. Rothwell says that has been done but every time I asked him to cite the work, he couldn't and instead told me I'm stupid for not finding the information on his giant web site.

    Jed Rothwell is blunt, and you *are* stupid, or "obtuse" would be more accurate. But I'm not sure of the exact claim you are referring to. I don't know of any work that is "just like" what you just said, so my operating hypothesis is that the conversation was not *exactly* understood by you. You can send me an email for comment if you like. Jed is not always careful, and he's been dealing with "dodo-heads" for over two decades. I've disagreed with his comments, and strongly, on occasion.

    Basically, the question is off. You are expecting large heat results, when the state of the art is low but significant results. There are plenty of experiments where energy out *greatly* exceeded energy in. Is that what you want to see? None of this, though, has proven sufficient to convince skeptics, like Richard Garwin, who simply fall back on "there must be some mistake," which is a very cheap shot. It can apply to any experimental result you don't like. *This is why we rely on wide and independent replication!*

    A proper cooling system is an excellent device for measuring enthalpy properly (with a good calibration and blank run). It doesn't matter if it costs more than an insufficient and inadequate and unconvincing experiment.

    You really don't get it. It would cost a *lot* more. Not just a little. The work is already done, by labs like SRI, with very accurate and reliable calorimetry, and with various kinds of controls -- including hydrogen controls for deuterium experiments.

    I've written and have delivered a talk at a conference on the famous SRI P13/P14, which was the source of an illustration in the 2004 DoE review paper, about what it showed, clearly and conclusively, confirming Pons and Fleischmann and the general body of experimental data available at the time. It showed, in one chart that compares the response of a deuterium cell and hydrogen cell, to the same conditions, the strong response of the deuterium cell in excess heat, and a mere increase in noise in the hydrogen control. But what that chart did *not* show, and that should have been shown, was that the *same conditions* had been set up for both cells twice before, this was the third current excursion. Both times before, both cells showed no response. So P13/P14 showed, in one series, both strong response and missing response. The unreliability, right there. Clearly missing, twice, like all the negative replications. Then strongly present, unmistakeable.

    If by 'dodo-head' skeptics' you mean 'the entire nuclear physics community' then yes, that's it's purpose.

    No. A "dodo-head skeptic" is one who isn't going to look at the experimental evidence, and that's a "dodo" position, it's dying. There are nuclear physicists, who, in spite of opprobrium from colleagues, have investigated cold fusion for decades. Takahashi is one. Mizuno is another. Hagelstein is a physicist. And now, Robert Duncan is a physicist, and I've met others who are working in the field, one from China --- and there are many Chinese working in this field -- and a Russian physicist, Vyosotskii, is very active. There have been, in the past, many others. Norman Schwinger resigned from the American Physical Society because they refused to publish his work on cold fusion. Edward Teller immediately proposed a theory, a new particle, he called the meshugatron, because its behavior was so unexpected. Norman Cook is a solid-state physicist whose recent textbook on the quantum mechanics of the solid state covers cold fusion. I found a source where, in something like 1989 or 1990, he pointed out what I always knew to be correct, that we didn't have the math to make solid predictions about fusion in condensed matter.

    No, there will be funding, I'm sure of that, but it will only go to physicists who are willing to do the heavy lifting. So far, the DoE has only funded, through your favorite, ORNL, Kirk Shanahan, to write an article that was *creamed* by cold fusion researchers in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring. Total waste of money. But the last gasp of the extreme skeptical position in the journals.

    (Kirk Shanahan believes that there *is* an anomaly involved, some new effect, but it just isn't "fusion." So he has argued tenaciously against cold fusion since the early 1990s, on the internet. And has developed totally preposterous theories to explain away cold fusion results. This field has attracted it's share of wing nuts, on all sides. If there is a new effect, *what is it*? What the sociologists of science have pointed out is the amazing lack of curiosity on the part of the physics community. N-rays and polywater were debunked by controlled experiment that revealed the artifacts. That was *never done* with cold fusion.)

    That is *not,* as some here have pretended, a "not proved wrong therefore true" argument. It is, instead an argument that cold fusion *was* never proved wrong, and that therefore the experimental evidence *for* it still stands, unrebutted. All that has been done is to assert seemingly-plausible reasons that it *might* be artifact, and those reasons collapse when the actual experimental evidence is known. So there we go.

    I'll say this again. It's *over* in the journals. In 2002, Beaudette titled his book, "Excess heat, why cold fusion prevailed." That was *bold* for 2002. But he was right. The skeptical position retired about then, except for very few comments and papers. Positive papers on cold fusion had outnumbered negative ones, since about 1991, the Britz database shows that. Sure, confirmation bias. But ... what's the substance?

    And if you look carefully, it is heat/helium. The responses to heat/helium *all* neglected or misunderstood the correlation. Miles' *heat* results were attacked by Jones, completely neglecting the correlation with helium -- which essentially confirms the heat.

    The strongest skeptical argument in the early days was the missing ash. That ash was *reported* even by Pons and Fleischmann, but without correlation with heat, and P&F also did not realize that the helium *would not be found* in the bulk, except very near the surface. So that whole issue was confused until finally Miles showed the correlation. Once confirmed, that should have iced it. But it didn't, and it's obvious why.

    The cascade had become firmly embedded, and unquestionable.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: joshsBIPS, BIPS, BIPS, wonderful BIPS.

    Eventually I'll be the only one talking at Abd. Maybe his ass won't be so sore by then.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: AbdStorms has concluded that there is only one mechanism, and that it will explain both PdD and NiH results.

    There are NiH results worth explaining? Whose are those? Where are they published?

    I hate to break it to you, since you think Storms is so reasonable, but he does think that there are NiH results, and thought that Rossi had managed to enhance those results. To be fair, he reported on NiH results in his 2007 book. It's long been around. It's simply not nearly so widely confirmed as PdD reactions. From the book, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, p. 127:
    Deuterium is not the only active hydrogen isotope. Nickel exposed to hot H2 gas was discovered by Piantelli to produce heat and nuclear activity. This behavior has been studied by Focardi and co-workers at the University of Bologna and University of Siena (Italy) for many years and has been replicated by Cammarota and co-workers.
    and then he gives more details. He gives 10 references on this, of which five seem to be conference papers, some of which might be peer-reviewed, some not. The reports seem to go back to 1993, and did not begin in Italy. Nickel results were always a puzzle. Deuterium fusion is unlikely enough! But experiment is experiment. Nobody had proposed a plausible and confirmed ash, and that's still so.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: E-Man
    Posted By: joshsBIPS, BIPS, BIPS, wonderful BIPS.

    Eventually I'll be the only one talking at Abd. Maybe his ass won't be so sore by then.
    Where the brain has been fully anesthetized sensory feedback has little effect.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Abdhe does think that there are NiH results, and thought that Rossi had managed to enhance those results.
    If Storms thinks anything about Rossi is credible, then he is more woowoo than I thought. As far as Piantelli is concerned, I browsed some of his reports and found them to be unconvincing.

    Someone pointed out elsewhere that Rainey nickel has been around for decades and has been exposed to hydrogen and no nuclear reaction has ever been found. At the same time, some vigorous chemical reactions exist with these materials.

    I wonder if Storms still thinks Rossi might have something. If he does, he hasn't been paying enough attention. I suspect that even Josephson is becoming skeptical of Rossi, especially since he made a direct email inquiry to Levi (about why he never repeated his no-phase change experiment) and received no reply at all.

    Posted By: AbdThe skeptical position retired about then, except for very few comments and papers. Positive papers on cold fusion had outnumbered negative ones, since about 1991, the Britz database shows that. Sure, confirmation bias. But ... what's the substance?


    If what you say is true, it is incomprehensible that copious private, if not government funding can not be found to do whatever experiments are needed in cold fusion. I am sure, if it were credible and properly demonstrated, that you could get one of the usual suspects formerly with eBay, PayPal, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, or similar or something like the Howard Hughes Institute or any number of university physics departments and graduate students to do experiments. And to do them properly. There is no shortage of billionaires and venture capital firms to invest in promising new ventures and they generally don't care what the academic or government establishment thinks and says.

    Instead you have weirdo stuff like Ruby Carat quoted from Hagelstein which I cited above and strange (and to me meaningless) confusing web pages like the one from Swartz.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: maryyugoI love quotations like this on artists' web sites, LOL!
    "P-word" habitues love to write "LOL," but my guess that they don't actually laugh out loud. They sort of snort or sneer.

    The web site is Cold Fusion Now, run largely by Ruby Carat, who is an *activist*. She's very nice, not confrontive or skeptical, and so not such a great reporter. But here, CFN has simply put up a summary of the Cold Fusion 101 course at M.I.T., with Hagelstein (and others) lecturing to a full audience. I've listened to Hagelstein speak, in person, several times now. He's thoughtful, and careful. If he says it, there is a reason for it. It is *not* word salad. And people ask questions. And he answers them, or says, "I don't know."

    Jan. 25, 2013 -On day 4, Prof. Hagelstein began with evidence, based upon PdD and D2O as the detectors, that de novo Helium 4 must be “borne” with energies below 10 keV or less, and that the upper limit for neutron production must be less than 0.01 neutrons/joule.

    This is the substance of his Naturwissenschaften paper that established what I refer to as the "Hagelstein limit." It's possible that it's overstated, and that is under review among scientists at this point. Be-8 theories require de novo alpha generation at 45 KeV, but the bulk of the energy would be released by another mechanism, so maybe he assumed that all the energy was in the energetic alphas, and that *this* would be detected. In fact, if Be-8 is the intermediary and it's the ground state decay to two alphas that is happening, it would only be 0.1% of the energy, so it might not be so easily detected.
    Then, having demonstrated that destructive interference in the spin boson model prevents its use in CF/LANR, he corrected that, and expanded the Hamiltonian to now include coupling parameters and examined the quantum exchange characteristics based upon coherence.

    Hagelstein talks like this. He wrote the review paper for the 2004 DoE review. Bad Idea.

    He does *not* talk down to audiences. After all, doesn't everyone know what a Hamiltonian is, and the role of destructive interference in the spin boson model? If not, will those in the audience who know it, please explain it to the rest during the break.
    Successful energy transfer was demonstrated to require interactions of all the atoms in the lattice.

    Yeah, that's part of his theory. I find it implausible, but ... until we know, we don't know. The rude question I'd ask would be how all the helium ends up on the surface or escaping, since helium is not mobile in palladium, generally.

    For further analysis, a donor-receptor system was then included.

    I'd expect he's talking about resonances
    At that point, he showed how the Coulomb barrier need not be overcome, because by this method the factor is linear, rather than quadratic (needed for classical analysis of D+D interactions).
    Supporting this analysis is the Karabut data in glow discharge on Pd which yielded both diffuse emissions and collimated x-radiation. with beamlets of energy bandwidth which were consistent with the theory Prof. Hagelstein developed. Mmmmm.... color me skeptical, but maybe. I'd need to see the specific application.
    Finally, he used the Foldy-Wouthuysen rotational operation, and demonstrated how this analysis is becoming assymptotic [sic] with what is being observed in CF/LANR, with the use of his corrected condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) Hamiltonian.
    Hey, Swartz didn't get an A in spelling. I'm not familiar with the terms and am not looking them but my comment so far is that the summary was not well-written to explain clearly what was covered. I might try to write something myself as I watch the video. The audience for those videos is who? If it's quantum physicists, fine. They might be able to follow it. But if it's the general public forgeddaboudit.
    Finally, with the addition of nonlinear Rabi oscillations (which yields Dicke superradiance), his model was shown to also be near-complete and consistent with both the observed pulse emissions and the wide bandwidth.
    So Hagelstein is explaining his theory. That's actually a bit unfortunate. His theory is considered a reasonable candidate, but is *not* accepted, and there are problems. We'll see.

    My basic position is that those interested in supporting cold fusion research agree on what Storms used to write. There is no adequate theory. There is only the experimental fact of helium production, at -- or close to -- the deuterium fusion ratio to heat. To discriminate between theories requires much more experimental data. Mostly, I'm being successful. Cold fusion theorists, for years, have been savaging each other, ridiculing each other's theories. I'm asking them to back up and agree on certain things. And then generate the support, collectively, for research that might actually confirm or falsify theories.

    And for those who are still skeptical, it could easily start with a more accurate confirmation of heat/helium, which could also have some theoretical implications.

    I have not watched that video series yet, I need to. The report is a very brief summary, just giving topics by name. And *of course* those are going to make little sense.

    But here is something from Day Two:
    Jan. 23, 2013 – On day 2, Prof. Peter Hagelstein presented his original theory involving de novo helium formation in CF/LANR, specifically at vacancies surrounded by loaded octahedral sites, and made very clear -in that light- exactly why early attempts at reproduction of CF were so difficult to achieve. The roles of loading (Volmer, Tafel, and Heyrovsky reactions), chemical potential, sigma-bonded hydrogen, codeposition, embedded atom theories, vacancy diffusion and stabilization by loading, and the important differences between Pd and Ni were also made clear; as he tied these together based upon years of condensed matter data.

    I've heard Hagelstein speak on these things, the terminology is totally appropriate. Hagelstein's theoretical approach is heavily criticized by Storms for certain things stated in this summary. One of two things would be so, here. Either Hagelstein's comments have been misstated or he's making an error that has already been subject to criticism from others.

    I really want to emphasize that we don't know what is happening in cold fusion. Hagelstein and Takahashi are about the best around, and it's not enough. If Hagelstein really thinks that the reaction is taking place in *ordinary vacancies*, he's not paying sufficient attention to the experimental evidence. Which is what Storms says. However, it's also likely that vacancies play a role, which is where Storms goes overboard.
    The only things they left out are Rydberg hydrogen, Einstein-Bose condensates, and of course, dark matter. Also dog bones, qi birds, and unicorns.
    Indeed. There is a person who advances dark matter to explain cold fusion. To be blunt, he's crazy. You can read him on Vortex. Dog bones, qi birds and unicorns would require a revision of my model of reality, to be clear. As to Rydberg hydrogen and BECs, there are some theories that involve them, or at least BECs. If they were not mentioned in the course, that's too bad, because these are notable theories, they have been published under peer review, they are part of the mix.

    The site:
    http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/


    This was the second week of lectures. I've watched none of it so far.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Where the brain has been fully anesthetized sensory feedback has little effect.
    Well, I recently suffered a rather striking loss of hearing. I no longer can hear my children's mice squeaking. Are there mice squeaking here?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Today

    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Because, at the moment, nobody in main line science believes them.

    That's not true. I've cited sources showing quite the opposite. They are ignored by ... dodo-head skeptics. Who mostly live *here* and in places like this.



    Two days ago

    Posted By: AngusWho was it here who ever said categorically that no fusion could ever occur in the kind of experiment Pons and Fleischman did?
    Posted By: AbdDid I say that someone here said it? I don't recall either (someone saying it or my saying someone had said it.)



    Discuss and reconcile in twenty-five words or less.