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.
One does not need large, impressive pieces of apparatus to produce good and valid work. In fact, sometimes it is the very smallness that is needed (as in my current work in microfluidics). Our motto is "don't use a milliliter if a microliter will do".
“The published data say it DOES work.”
OK. Point me to a ‘published data’. Not a site. A piece of data.
“Difficult to produce “on demand”, but definitely a real phenomenon.”
hmmm. I thought that one could put in his order for one of these wonder machines ... deliverable soon.
“Our motto is “don’t use a milliliter if a microliter will do”. “
Or ... “We don’t need a kilowatt, when a microwatt will do ...
Nope. Not gonna happen. I will tell you where to start (either the excerpt from Beaudette's book at LENR-CANR.org, or Storms "Students Guide to Cold Fusion"), but I expect you to expend a little effort. Search terms (Beaudette LENR-CANR.org PDF) and (Storms "Students Guide")...omit the parentheses, of course.
Why do I do that?? To separate the honest skeptics from the skeptopaths. An honest skeptic will take the start source and check it out...his scientific ethics will not allow him to do anything else. A skeptopath will refuse to, and blather on about "there is no data". Since the skeptopath has no ethics, he will refuse.
Saves me a lot of work, and is an infallible test for skeptopathy. Works better than garlic for vampires.
"...hmmm. I thought that one could put in his order for one of these wonder machines ... deliverable soon.
We're talking about the science....not power plants.
Me: “OK. Point me to a ‘published data’. Not a site. A piece of data.”
You: Nope. Not gonna happen.
Because no piece of data exists. Thank you.
A link with your shared interest:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x223663
This is your SCIENCE! From your source:
“Many people want to know how to replicate the claims. This Guide does not provide such
information because no certain method has been published.”
From your source:
“Energy generators can be located in each home.”
Rossi said he would deliver in 2012 ...
Rossi said he would deliver in 2013 ...
When will Rossi say he will deliver in 2014?
Thanks for outing yourself, Mr. S.
Of course no single reference exists....the evidence is scattered across multiple publications. As is the case with EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC PHENOMON in the research stage.
It's always interesting watching you skeptopaths trying to come up with excuses as to why you can't/won't read the published works. Some really creative excuses show up.
But it's fun to watch.
“Of course no single reference exists....the evidence is scattered across multiple publications. “
Evidence is scattered. Good argument. Let me know when you have some real evidence. Thank you.
“It’s always interesting watching you skeptopaths trying to come up with excuses as to why you can’t/won’t read the published works.”
I read some. Total crap.
Are you the same warthog on the pimping LENR websites?
LOL. Proving my point with every word. Garlic to vampires. Skeptopaths absolutely will NOT read the published data.
"I read some. Total crap."
LOL. You haven't had TIME to digest either the Beaudette material OR the Storms material and follow up with reading even a single full paper. But just for grins....which specific full paper did you read??
"Are you the same warthog on the pimping LENR websites?"
Why do you think it matters?
Me: “Are you the same warthog on the pimping LENR websites?”
You: Why do you think it matters?
Follow the $$$$ and you will find the scammers.
“LOL. You haven’t had TIME to digest either the Beaudette material OR the Storms material and follow up with reading even a single full paper. “
Uh, I learned to read before today ...
I probably studied cold fusion before you were born.
The article being discussed concerns the suppression of funding and publication of break-through research, or anything else, that wobbles the existing concepts held by the higher panjandrums in any scientific field.
What are your opinions on Anthropogenic Global Warming?
“publication of break-through research,”
Then why are we discussing LENR?
Since I have no financial interest in ANY LENR effort, and don't plan to have any, I fail to see how you think it matters. I follow LENR because my studies have convinced me that LENR is a real phenomenon that could be of great benefit to mankind. And no other reason.
Why are you so invested in shouting down the subject???
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.