I'm impressed!
Posted on 01/11/2014 12:24:45 PM PST by Kevmo
Stanislaw Szpak ∗ , † and Frank Gordon ‡
SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CA 92152. USA
Abstract
A selected group of experimental evidence indicates that the Pd/D–D 2 O system can be put in its nuclear active state. This is done by negatively polarizing the system which (i) starts the process of self-organization, i.e. development of coherent processes involving protons/deuterons and lattice defects to produce the pre-nuclear active state and (ii) creates conditions for the electron capture by proton/deuteron reaction to occur. The low energy neutrons transform the pre-nuclear active state into an active state, i.e. display of features such as hot spots, transmutation and particle emission which, in turn, yields information on participating reactions and processes.
© 2013 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2227-3123
Keywords:
Hot spots, Modeling, Particle emission, Transmutation
1. Introduction Shortly after the ICCF–2 meeting Fleischmann was asked by the Royal Society to give an account of the status of research in cold fusion. In his address he stated that In the development of any area of research (and especially in one likely to arouse controversy) it is desirable to achieve first of all a qualitative demonstration of the phenomena invoked in the explanation of the observations. It is the qualitative demonstrations which are unambiguous: the quantitative analyses of the experimental results can be the subject of debate but if these quantitative analyses stand in opposition to the qualitative demonstration then these methods of analysis must be judged to be incorrect [1].
Two of such phenomena are observed in operating cells Pd/D 2 O,Li + ,OD − /Pt employing massive Pd cathodes namely (i) excess enthalpy generation and (ii) time separating complete saturation and the onset of thermal activities, the incubation time. The first was examined in great detail [2,3].
It is the second that can be explained only through the participation of processes that put the system in its pre-nuclear active state. Fleischmann et al. [4], noted that, in this time period, nuclear reactions in a host lattice are affected by coherent processes, and that ... there are appropriate thermodynamic conditions for the formation of large large clusters of hydrogen nuclei or of regions of the lattice containing ordered arrays of hydrogen nuclei at high H/Pd ratios , resulting in the formation of clusters of deuterons dispersed in palladium lattice that would lead to the formation of ordered domains having high D/Pd ratios .
The formation of clusters of deuterons suggests that excess enthalpy generation is localized and can be displayed by infrared photography [5]. The thermodynamic arguments may be extended by the teachings of the non-equilibrium thermodynamics. To start, an equilibrium is defined as a state generated by the balance between operating forces.
Mathematically it is expressed by a minimum of the free energy (thermodynamic interpretation) or by the equality of forward and reverse velocities (kinetic interpretation), As the departure from equilibrium is increased, the system becomes unstable and evolves to form new structures exhibiting coherent behavior [4]. The system undergoes “self-organization”, the process of formation of new structures, which is complex [6]. It is quite accurately described by an interplay of kinetic and thermodynamic quantities. The interaction between them takes the form of a struggle – some are eliminated others are formed, i.e. there exists a state of dynamic equilibrium.
Concluding Remarks
Nearly a quarter century ago, a new phenomenon – the room temperature nuclear reaction in a test tube – was disclosed by Fleischmann and Pons. Since this effect was discovered by two professors of chemistry – one would expect that methods and reasoning of chemistry would be helpful in the interpretation and further development of the understanding of this phenomenon. But such has not been the case. The chemical aspects were replaced by topics of interest to physicists. Theories based on specific assumptions elegantly executed, were followed by a search for the predicted behavior. Here, we propose another approach, that advocated by Born [19], who wrote “My advice to those who wish to learn the art of scientific prophesy is not to rely on abstract reason, but to decipher the secret language of Nature from Nature’s documents,the facts of experience.”
In following this advise we relied on two observations, viz. hot spots and production of new elements, and drew conclusions based on chemical reasoning. The conclusions reflect our current understanding of the F–P effect. We conclude this communication with a statement that a lot can be gained by examining the chemical aspects of the polarized Pd/d–D 2 O system.
The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
Vortex-L
http://tinyurl.com/pxtqx3y
How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries
Thanks! 162 pages of light reading ;-)
From the paper:
“The authors claim to produce a source that emits approximately a few Hz, perhaps 10 Hz, 14 MeV DT neutrons.
This is a formidable source. The rate of 2.5 MeV DD neutron source should be considerably (many order
of magnitudes) stronger. Such a strong source of 2.5 and 14 MeV neutrons should be easily detectable with
live electronical [sic] neutron detector. The fact that the authors did not make an attempt to measure these
neutrons with the more reliable neutron detectors speaks volume of the less than adequate research effort.”
From the paper:
“The authors claim to produce a source that emits approximately a few Hz, perhaps 10 Hz, 14 MeV DT neutrons.
This is a formidable source. The rate of 2.5 MeV DD neutron source should be considerably (many order
of magnitudes) stronger. Such a strong source of 2.5 and 14 MeV neutrons should be easily detectable with
live electronical [sic] neutron detector. The fact that the authors did not make an attempt to measure these
neutrons with the more reliable neutron detectors speaks volume of the less than adequate research effort.”
“Even if we use the referee’s erroneous value of 2 ×107 n/cm2/hr, a
neutron dose over a two-week period of 480 REM is still far below the lethal limit of 6000 REM.”
If you get 480 REM, you will be VERY VERY sick. It speaks loads that the dudes were not monitoring.
“An integrated neutron radiation dose of 6 Gy is considered lethal [25]. This is equivalent to 6000 REM.b F”
Example of the fact that these guys do not know what they are talking about.
If you read the article, it’s the reviewer that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And yes, I have worked in a nuclear center for a number of years.
bfl
“If you read the article, it’s the reviewer that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And yes, I have worked in a nuclear center for a number of years.”
I stayed in a Holiday Inn. Duh.
I did my doctoral dissertation research at the Puerto Rican Nuclear Center in Mayaquez under the direction of Frank Lowman with AEC support.
Did you really stayed in a Holiday Inn?
If there is anything known about LENR from experiment, it is that the main energy-producing path is aneutronic. Other pathways that have much lower occurance rates produce tritium, gamma rays, and a VERY FEW neutrons.
“I did my doctoral dissertation research at the Puerto Rican Nuclear Center in Mayaquez under the direction of Frank Lowman with AEC support.”
Then you should know how stupid it would be to be carrying out ‘nuclear’ experiments with no neutron monitoring ..... DUHHHH
“Did you really stayed in a Holiday Inn?”
Yes. Many times. I did my post graduate work under Dr. Nils Diaz. Director NRC.
“If there is anything known about LENR from experiment, it is that the main energy-producing path is aneutronic.”
I love LENR. It produces no evidence of its existence. Perfect scam.
Tons of published results, most peer-reviewed. See LENR-CANR.org for a reasonably comprehensive bibliography of papers. All by reputable researchers from reputable institutions.
Rossi is the ONLY exception to the above.
“Tons of published results”
None of which shows that it actually works ...
I'm impressed!
I have seen done (and done myself) quite a few. You set up monitoring equipment for the type radiation you know you will be working with or likely to produce. Ge(Li), Si(Li) or NaI(Tl) if gammas and you want spectral data. GM tubes if not. GM/BF3 w. neutrons. And so on.
The folks at the SPAWAR lab have done probably hundreds of runs under these and similar conditions, so they can be reasonably sure that the maximum neutron flux will be within safety limits with data from earlier work.
Sorry, Dudley.......wrong. I've read sufficient of the papers to know what data is and isn't there. The published data say it DOES work. Difficult to produce "on demand", but definitely a real phenomenon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.