Cold fusion, Why not? Options

[Abd]

I'll just start this with a whimper, not a bang. JzG, the big meanie, just removed Yet Another Link to lenr-canr.org from Cold fusion. Waaa! Teacher told him not to do that! I'm going to take my marbles home! Now that I'm banned, I get to whine all I want! It's kinda fun!

No discussion, he gave the same argument that was discussed to death at Martin Fleischmann (T-H-L-K-D), that was discussed to death at MediaWiki talk:Whitelist, and always, in the end, rejected.

Pure wikilawyering: there is zero legal risk to Wikipedia from linking to that paper, the web site claims permission for all that it hosts, and if there is a defect with a couple of pages, it's basically irrelevant. (Very different situation with newenergytimes.com, they host under a claim of fair use, which they can get away with as a nonprofit until the publisher squawks.) The specific paper he delinked was approved by Beetstra at the whitelist page, after all the objections had been raised about copyright.

Ban the cat, the place is overrun with mice. Kind of cute, aren't they?

Wikipedia, you traded Abd and WMC's bit for JzG and Hipocrite. Enjoy.

[Apathetic]

Isn't this basically the same as the post you made earlier to which no one replied?

Abd, this moping around isn't becoming of you.

[Abd]

Isn't this basically the same as the post you made earlier to which no one replied?

Abd, this moping around isn't becoming of you.

Isn't becoming what? Terse? You expect that to happen from one day of being blocked?

All right, so it was redundant. I really just wanted to start a Cold fusion article thread, so picked what was on my mind at the moment, which, indeed, I 'd mentioned elsewhere. Just goes to show. Now, anybody have any complaints about the present Cold fusion article? After all, if we give credence to the complaints at RfAr, it's truly awful, promoting cold fusion with every other sentence, leading gullible elderly people to invest their life savings in get-rich-quick-while-doing-good-by-investing-in-brilliant-invention-to-make-energy-from-water, as a result of my six months of disruption. Or was it all fixed with JzG's edit, which simply made it more inconvenient for readers to find a copy of the article?

[Appleby]

Cold fusion is a spectacular example of the problems of NPOV. Virtually all experts reject cold fusion but a few WP editors seem determined to promote it using rather dubious references. Were there any proper editorial control or involvement of experts, these promoters would be shoved off.

[Eva Destruction]

Cold fusion is a spectacular example of the problems of NPOV. Virtually all experts reject cold fusion but a few WP editors seem determined to promote it using rather dubious references. Were there any proper editorial control or involvement of experts, these promoters would be shoved off.

Is that not what just happened?

[Peter Damian]

Cold fusion is a spectacular example of the problems of NPOV. Virtually all experts reject cold fusion but a few WP editors seem determined to promote it using rather dubious references. Were there any proper editorial control or involvement of experts, these promoters would be shoved off.

Is that not what just happened?

Not before quite a few previously sane people were driven insane. See my earlier post on another thread where I prove by pure logic that the only people who continue to edit on such subjects are the utterly deranged

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=194103

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[One]

Not before quite a few previously sane people were driven insane.

I don't think arguing cold fusion is analogous to witnessing the horror of the blind faceless god Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos, and his amorphous idiot flute-players.

I think it's pure self-selection.

This post has been edited by One:

[Abd]

Cold fusion is a spectacular example of the problems of NPOV. Virtually all experts reject cold fusion but a few WP editors seem determined to promote it using rather dubious references. Were there any proper editorial control or involvement of experts, these promoters would be shoved off.

Thanks, Appleby. You have made some claims here, some are time dependent, i.e., were true at one time, some are historical claims about Wikipedia. Since this thread is about the article, not the editors, I'll address only what relates to cold fusion itself, i.e., the topic, plus the "references."

Virtually all experts reject cold fusion. I really understand how you could think that. But it's a misleading statement. It is in the present tense, unsourced and probably unsourceable by WP standards. The statement would be more agreeable, a bit, if it was "By 1990, virtually all experts rejected cold fusion," though even that is POV, i.e., "virtually all" implies less acceptance of cold fusion than did exist and did persist through the rejection phase. I'd agree with "most," as to 1990 and for quite some time after that. But let's focus on the present.

Would you agree that we can generally assume that an established consensus continues until there is evidence to the contrary? As well, "Virtually all" implies very low difference of opinion. If no more than two-thirds of experts "reject" low energy nuclear reactions (nobody calls it "cold fusion" formally any more), would you agree that this is not "virtually all"?

A problem here is that there is no mechanism, ordinarily, for polling experts to find out if their opinions have changed, and opinions do change in science based on two factors: the availability of new evidence, and better analysis of old evidence. We have several mechanisms we can use:

(1) Peer-reviewed and academic secondary sources. What is found in reviews of the field, independently published by reputable publishers? Here, the more recent the secondary source, the more important it would be to assessing the present situation.

(2) Peer-reviewed primary sources. Are peer-reviewers approving articles? Here, if our task is understanding the status of the field, the quality of the publications may be important. Particularly relevant would be the availability of knowledgeable experts to review papers; but often this is largely speculative, we don't know who actually reviewed papers.

(3) Secondary reliable academic sources other than peer-reviewed, such as independently published monographs.

(4) Other formal reviews by independent bodies, an example would be the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review panel, which can be compared with the 1989 review panel. Those panels represent a selection of experts, and what the panels concluded would be an indicator of expert opinion. Was there any change between 1989 and 2004?

(5) And least reliable, other reliable source, particularly media reports.

In addition, there is another problem. Who are the experts? A rough generalization of the problem with cold fusion is that the electrochemists, experts in calorimetry, said that the excess heat found (in very many experiments by very many groups) could not be chemistry, it must be nuclear physics, and the nuclear physicists, who knew well how to measure radiation but had little or no experience with calorimetry, said that it couldn't be nuclear physics, it must be chemistry. The field of condensed matter nuclear science is cross-disciplinary. And what experts think may very much depend on their exact expertise.

It may be important to recognize that many working in the field no longer claim that the "Fleischmann effect" is fusion. It may be something else. But there remain two basic questions:

(1) Is there excess heat, i.e., heat other than explainable through known chemical reactions that would be expected to take place in these experiments?

(2) If so, is the origin of this heat nuclear in nature? (We can assume that someone who does not accept that there is excess heat will not accept that the excess heat is nuclear in origin!)

Do we agree so far? (Anyone can answer, of course, but I'll attend to those who are willing explore these questions.)

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Milton Roe]

It may be important to recognize that many working in the field no longer claim that the "Fleischmann effect" is fusion. It may be something else. But there remain two basic questions:

(1) Is there excess heat, i.e., heat other than explainable through known chemical reactions that would be expected to take place in these experiments?

(2) If so, is the origin of this heat nuclear in nature? (We can assume that someone who does not accept that there is excess heat will not accept that the excess heat is nuclear in origin!)

Do we agree so far? (Anyone can answer, of course, but I'll attend to those who are willing explore these questions.)

If there is this large isotope effect between deuterium and protium (H-2 vs. H-1) in the heat produced, as claimed, it can hardly be anything other than a nuclear effect. If it were chemical it would imply one-step complete electrochemical separation of the isotopes, which has never been seen in any other system. Yes, the isotopes do differ chemically, but the effects are subtle (polymerization of macromolecules in eukaryotes) and not gross, such as the idea that there is a system where one might freely participate in a highly exothermic chemical reaction releasing great free-energy, and other isotope, not at all. If that were so, one could use palladium disks as a one-shot production route to making heavy water. Or purifying out the last light water remnants in already purifed heavy water.

Perhaps everyone has their sights too high? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Abd]

If there is this large isotope effect between deuterium and protium (H-2 vs. H-1) in the heat produced, as claimed, it can hardly be anything other than a nuclear effect. If it were chemical it would imply one-step complete electrochemical separation of the isotopes, which has never been seen in any other system. Yes, the isotopes do differ chemically, but the effects are subtle (polymerization of macromolecules in eukaryotes) and not gross, such as the idea that there is a system where one might freely participate in a highly exothermic chemical reaction releasing great free-energy, and other isotope, not at all. If that were so, one could use palladium disks as a one-shot production route to making heavy water. Or purifying out the last light water remnants in already purifed heavy water.

Perhaps everyone has their sights too high? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yeah, you noticed.

Generally, in most experiments, use of light water as a control reduces the effect by more than three orders of magnitude. (Which, by the way, testifies to the sensitivity of the calorimetry....) Pons and Fleischmann, early on, were asked if they had done light water control experiments, and they were evasive. Later, they explained that they had done such experiments, and did not get the clean baseline they had expected. In the SPAWAR CR-39 detection of charged particle radiation, co-deposition shows charged particle radiation, at the far lower level, with light water, they speculate that this is due to the normal concentration of deuterium in light water.

Alternatives to "nuclear"? Let's start with the obvious:

(1) The calorimetry is bad. I can produce a whole pile of sources indicating differently. While there has been a lot of bad work published, the best of it has been done by world-class experts, starting with Fleischmann. Nevertheless, perhaps there is some effect that systematically throws off the calorimetry. However, it's speculation. Kirk shanahan has proposed a theory that basically punts: he suggests that there is an unknown effect which generates local heat that throws off the calibration of the calorimeter. Since this would be unlikely to affect all forms of calorimetry, it seems weak, and has gained little attention.

(2) Unexpected deuterium/oxygen recombination. (And this might be Shanahan's effect.) Again, this wouldn't explain that the effect still is found where all the deuterium and oxygen are accounted for. The magnitude of the effect in "heat after death" experiments would indicate much more energy storage than the chemistry could handle.

(3) Hydrino theory: the heat is the heat of hydrino formation. This hypothesis, of course, is more revolutionary than low energy nuclear reactions! It also wouldn't seem to explain the extremely high energy density found in some experiments. Palladium metal, immersed in heavy water is, on a very small scale, melted and vaporized. Tricky to explain that with anything other than nuclear.

Because there are other observed phenomena, most notably helium levels detected that correlate with the excess energy measured, there is validation of three things: the calorimetry and the helium measurements, on the one hand, because the usual explanations (calorimetry error for the heat, sloppy handling for the helium) don't explain the consistent correlation at about the right Q-value for d-d fusion. (That doesn't prove d-d fusion, there are other possible nuclear reactions that would do the same), and, on the other, since if helium is appearing where it didn't exist before, nuclear reaction is a strong conclusion.

But, back to the first question here: what is the mainstream view of low energy nuclear reactions? How would we know? I'll wait for an answer to the questions and issues I raised about "mainstream."

[Abd]

Example of recent presentation by SPAWAR group (U.S. Naval Research Lab) at ACS symposium, March, 2009. The 23 peer-reviewed publications described are just those by the SPAWAR group. Any questions?

[Angela Kennedy]

But, back to the first question here: what is the mainstream view of low energy nuclear reactions? How would we know? I'll wait for an answer to the questions and issues I raised about "mainstream."

Well, Abd, you won't find any arguments for me on what I think is your premise, that it is EXTREMELY difficult to quantify what is 'mainstream' view on any given subject that claims to be 'scientific'.

Even 'mainstream' as a concept is full of problems, as is the way 'fringe' is used on wikipedia (usually to mean 'lunatic fringe', or even 'extremist'). These are abstract, social and ideologically informed constructs, and therefore need to be avoided, unless their meaning is absolutely clear. But try telling Wikipedians that.

The trump games that ensue on Wikipedia even around which is the allegedly more 'respected' or 'reputable' peer-reviewed journal, and therefore 'the truth', is excrutiating to watch.

The so-called 'science' people on WP seem so unaware of these epistemological problems, or may be deliberately refusing to consider them, that it is highly frustrating to watch.

These are most obvious in areas where there is disagreement within the academic or professional communites, or where lay people have cause to disagree with the positions of some academics or professionals.

So- to answer your question, I have no idea what is the 'mainstream' view of cold fusion. I don't know who exactly is 'the mainstream'. Do you think you do? (honest question, bearing in mind my caveat about the term being an unstable metaphysical construct!)

Again- in light of the dearth of knowledge about these issues (some of which are addressed in social science, ironically) it would be better if WP wrote the shortest articles possible about subjects on which there is strong disagreement. I can't see that happening, for all sorts of crazy reasons, some of which are to do with control of knowledge and its power effects. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Moulton]

It would be better if WP wrote the shortest articles possible about subjects on which there is strong disagreement.

Indeed. But NPOV operates to increase the verbiage on both sides, since each side perceives that the other side has more than their fair share of coverage.

A tug-of-war that is in perfect balance can be said to be "neutral" even as the tension on the rope increases on both sides of the dividing line.

[Milton Roe]

If there is this large isotope effect between deuterium and protium (H-2 vs. H-1) in the heat produced, as claimed, it can hardly be anything other than a nuclear effect. If it were chemical it would imply one-step complete electrochemical separation of the isotopes, which has never been seen in any other system. Yes, the isotopes do differ chemically, but the effects are subtle (polymerization of macromolecules in eukaryotes) and not gross, such as the idea that there is a system where one might freely participate in a highly exothermic chemical reaction releasing great free-energy, and other isotope, not at all. If that were so, one could use palladium disks as a one-shot production route to making heavy water. Or purifying out the last light water remnants in already purifed heavy water.

Perhaps everyone has their sights too high? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yeah, you noticed.

Generally, in most experiments, use of light water as a control reduces the effect by more than three orders of magnitude. (Which, by the way, testifies to the sensitivity of the calorimetry....) Pons and Fleischmann, early on, were asked if they had done light water control experiments, and they were evasive. Later, they explained that they had done such experiments, and did not get the clean baseline they had expected. In the SPAWAR CR-39 detection of charged particle radiation, co-deposition shows charged particle radiation, at the far lower level, with light water, they speculate that this is due to the normal concentration of deuterium in light water.

Well, D-depeted light water (less than 1% background) is freely available at prices far below the rest of the budget for this stuff, so why are these SPAWAR CR-39 people speculating about a control experiment they should already have done? Again I have this feeling I'm being bullshitted, just as 20 years ago when P&F would not discuss light water controls.

Alternatives to "nuclear"? Let's start with the obvious:

(1) The calorimetry is bad. I can produce a whole pile of sources indicating differently. While there has been a lot of bad work published, the best of it has been done by world-class experts, starting with Fleischmann. Nevertheless, perhaps there is some effect that systematically throws off the calorimetry. However, it's speculation. Kirk shanahan has proposed a theory that basically punts: he suggests that there is an unknown effect which generates local heat that throws off the calibration of the calorimeter. Since this would be unlikely to affect all forms of calorimetry, it seems weak, and has gained little attention.

Okay, this amounts to suggesting 20 years of experimental error. Sigh.

(2) Unexpected deuterium/oxygen recombination. (And this might be Shanahan's effect.) Again, this wouldn't explain that the effect still is found where all the deuterium and oxygen are accounted for. The magnitude of the effect in "heat after death" experiments would indicate much more energy storage than the chemistry could handle.

And doesn't explain the huge isotope effect everybody reports. Which for reasons above, cannot be chemistry, unless there's some VERY brand-new chemistry here with the largest chemical isotope effect of any chemical experiment ever. By many orders of magnitude.

(3) Hydrino theory: the heat is the heat of hydrino formation. This hypothesis, of course, is more revolutionary than low energy nuclear reactions! It also wouldn't seem to explain the extremely high energy density found in some experiments. Palladium metal, immersed in heavy water is, on a very small scale, melted and vaporized. Tricky to explain that with anything other than nuclear.

Hydrino = collapsed H atom. Doesn't explain He production. Worse still, you have to modify quantum mechanics all out of recognizability, to permit it (the uncertainty principle must go, or else the value of Planck's constant, or both). And where are these hydrinos in other real fusion experiments, where we should have noticed them a long time ago (by energy being bled off into some channel and product we can't see). Pauli inferred the neutrino that way 25 years or so before it was seen. And we've come a long way from Pauli.

Because there are other observed phenomena, most notably helium levels detected that correlate with the excess energy measured, there is validation of three things: the calorimetry and the helium measurements, on the one hand, because the usual explanations (calorimetry error for the heat, sloppy handling for the helium) don't explain the consistent correlation at about the right Q-value for d-d fusion. (That doesn't prove d-d fusion, there are other possible nuclear reactions that would do the same), and, on the other, since if helium is appearing where it didn't exist before, nuclear reaction is a strong conclusion.

Not really! We don't have anything near the known product production for D-D fusion, so you have to postulate that our physics is predicting the energy but not the reaction. That's cherry picking of the highest order. Extraordinary claims (nearly neutron-free D+D fusion) have to be backed by extraordinary evidence. And BTW the idea of a quadruple D collision is really off the wall. Nature needs to work. Hoyle predicted the rare triple He collision in supernovae but realized there needed to be an unknown C-12 energy resonance to support it. This was found. You now suggest a QUADRUPLE H-2 collision to Be-8 with NO such resonanane to capture and support it. Meh. Unlikeliness piled on unlikeliness.

But, back to the first question here: what is the mainstream view of low energy nuclear reactions? How would we know? I'll wait for an answer to the questions and issues I raised about "mainstream."

The mainstream view is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There's a several kV potential barrier to cross. Where's the energy? It's not that the mainsteam wasn't willinig to believe in anything but hot fusion: they believed in cold bubble fusion until not long ago. Now, THAT has come into disrepute. If you can't repeat your findings all the time in science, you're in trouble. You can whinge about impure palladium and deuterium contamination, only for so long. Then people expect you to be serious and produce something reproduceable and dramatic, or else zip it till you do.

[Moulton]

If you can't repeat your findings all the time in science, you're in trouble. You can whinge about impure palladium and deuterium contamination, only for so long. Then people expect you to be serious and produce something reproduceable and dramatic, or else zip it till you do.

Well said.

[Abd]

But, back to the first question here: what is the mainstream view of low energy nuclear reactions? How would we know? I'll wait for an answer to the questions and issues I raised about "mainstream."

Well, Abd, you won't find any arguments for me on what I think is your premise, that it is EXTREMELY difficult to quantify what is 'mainstream' view on any given subject that claims to be 'scientific'.

Actually, my tentative conclusion is that we don't need to know, because, even if we know, it will warp our presentation of what is in the sources. If we present what is in reliable source, particularly reliable source of basic high quality (in a science article, peer-reviewed papers, non-fringe journal -- not "non-fringe author" or "non-fringe topic"), the article will show a reasonable approximation of mainstream opinion.

("Fringe journal") in this case means a journal dedicated to a field that is suspected of being fringe, such as the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science journal. The publisher is readily suspected of bias. But the American Chemical Society LENR Sourcebook, Oxford Universtiy Press, is p-r RS.

Even 'mainstream' as a concept is full of problems, as is the way 'fringe' is used on wikipedia (usually to mean 'lunatic fringe', or even 'extremist'). These are abstract, social and ideologically informed constructs, and therefore need to be avoided, unless their meaning is absolutely clear. But try telling Wikipedians that.

Been there, did that.

The trump games that ensue on Wikipedia even around which is the allegedly more 'respected' or 'reputable' peer-reviewed journal, and therefore 'the truth', is excrutiating to watch.

Where there is contradiction, this could be appropriate, to a degree. However, what I've seen is that the game gets played when there is no contradiction, but editors with a POV synthesize one. So, for example, if an RS from 2002 says that there are only ad-hoc theories, that shouldn't contradict later RS describing a theory that isn't "ad-hoc," whatever that means, especially if there is no reason to think that the earlier author was aware of the later-published theory.

The so-called 'science' people on WP seem so unaware of these epistemological problems, or may be deliberately refusing to consider them, that it is highly frustrating to watch.

Yes, indeed. It's refreshing to hear a cogent explanation of what I'd tried to explain, many times, perhaps not so clearly.

These are most obvious in areas where there is disagreement within the academic or professional communites, or where lay people have cause to disagree with the positions of some academics or professionals.

So- to answer your question, I have no idea what is the 'mainstream' view of cold fusion. I don't know who exactly is 'the mainstream'. Do you think you do? (honest question, bearing in mind my caveat about the term being an unstable metaphysical construct!)

My view has been that the term "mainstream" is of questionable application. To be at all accurate and verifiable, the meaning must be specified. And there is little high-quality source that actually examines the issue, but there is some source of medium quality that allows us to make some assessments, plus there are clues as to how scientists are receiving "cold fusion." But mostly I don't think we need to know, and making statements on it is an open door for synthesis and original research under the guise of being sensible. After all, don't we all, (as scientifically literate people, right?), know that cold fusion is pathological science, completely rejected?

I'm personally convinced that *most* scientists -- undefined -- think cold fusion is bogus. But if we define it more closely, I suspect that among chemists the question right now would be of indeterminate answer. Most might think there is possibly something to it. Ask nuclear physicists, though, I'm almost certain that most would be attached to "bogus." But there are plenty of exceptions, and what gets interesting is that the exceptions seem to be, at least usually, those who are actually aware of the continuing research. The ones who strongly reject seem to be those who dismissed the field long ago and don't want to waste time studying it. And it's complex, very complex.

Again- in light of the dearth of knowledge about these issues (some of which are addressed in social science, ironically) it would be better if WP wrote the shortest articles possible about subjects on which there is strong disagreement. I can't see that happening, for all sorts of crazy reasons, some of which are to do with control of knowledge and its power effects. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I can see the point, but I disagree. We should write thorough articles, meticulously negotiated for maximum consensus. It's known how to do it, and the problem is essentially arrogant laziness. I.e., "I know you are wrong, so I'm going to resist what you want to the bitter end, so go away, I don't want to waste time discussing this."

If we are seeking consensus, nobody gets excluded, most especially not the average editor! Nor, for that matter, the experts. Of all kinds.

[Abd]

If there is this large isotope effect between deuterium and protium (H-2 vs. H-1) in the heat produced, as claimed, it can hardly be anything other than a nuclear effect. If it were chemical it would imply one-step complete electrochemical separation of the isotopes, which has never been seen in any other system. Yes, the isotopes do differ chemically, but the effects are subtle (polymerization of macromolecules in eukaryotes) and not gross, such as the idea that there is a system where one might freely participate in a highly exothermic chemical reaction releasing great free-energy, and other isotope, not at all. If that were so, one could use palladium disks as a one-shot production route to making heavy water. Or purifying out the last light water remnants in already purifed heavy water.

Perhaps everyone has their sights too high? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yeah, you noticed.

Generally, in most experiments, use of light water as a control reduces the effect by more than three orders of magnitude. (Which, by the way, testifies to the sensitivity of the calorimetry....) Pons and Fleischmann, early on, were asked if they had done light water control experiments, and they were evasive. Later, they explained that they had done such experiments, and did not get the clean baseline they had expected. In the SPAWAR CR-39 detection of charged particle radiation, co-deposition shows charged particle radiation, at the far lower level, with light water, they speculate that this is due to the normal concentration of deuterium in light water.

Well, D-depeted light water (less than 1% background) is freely available at prices far below the rest of the budget for this stuff, so why are these SPAWAR CR-39 people speculating about a control experiment they should already have done? Again I have this feeling I'm being bullshitted, just as 20 years ago when P&F would not discuss light water controls.

They do report light water results, just not depleted water, AFAIK. They have twenty years of published work in this field, and you would be welcome to perform that experiment, and it's quite possible someone has. It's a trivial and cheap variation (cost of maybe 25 ml of deuterium-depleted light water) on the kits we will be making, and would nail this particular question down, but in a field where there are so many serious unanswered questions, it's like complaining about an explorer who discovered America, because he failed to sail up the Hudson.

Alternatives to "nuclear"? Let's start with the obvious:

(1) The calorimetry is bad. [...]

Okay, this amounts to suggesting 20 years of experimental error. Sigh.

Right. Not a very likely hypothesis.

(2) Unexpected deuterium/oxygen recombination. (And this might be Shanahan's effect.) Again, this wouldn't explain that the effect still is found where all the deuterium and oxygen are accounted for. The magnitude of the effect in "heat after death" experiments would indicate much more energy storage than the chemistry could handle.

And doesn't explain the huge isotope effect everybody reports. Which for reasons above, cannot be chemistry, unless there's some VERY brand-new chemistry here with the largest chemical isotope effect of any chemical experiment ever. By many orders of magnitude.

Indeed.

(3) Hydrino theory: the heat is the heat of hydrino formation. This hypothesis, of course, is more revolutionary than low energy nuclear reactions! It also wouldn't seem to explain the extremely high energy density found in some experiments. Palladium metal, immersed in heavy water is, on a very small scale, melted and vaporized. Tricky to explain that with anything other than nuclear.

Hydrino = collapsed H atom. Doesn't explain He production. Worse still, you have to modify quantum mechanics all out of recognizability, to permit it (the uncertainty principle must go, or else the value of Planck's constant, or both). And where are these hydrinos in other real fusion experiments, where we should have noticed them a long time ago (by energy being bled off into some channel and product we can't see). Pauli inferred the neutrino that way 25 years or so before it was seen. And we've come a long way from Pauli.

Look, Mills is way out there. He is indeed proposing a whole new version of quantum mechanics. If he's right, we'll know soon, because he's funded, and is claiming working prototypes, with some level of replication. There is some support for his theories, and plenty of reason, as you note, to be highly skeptical. Hydrinos, or, more accurately, deuterinos, could explain LENR effects by shadowing the Coulomb barrier as do muons. So it would explain helium, perhaps. I'm not terribly fond of trading one mystery for one that is even more mysterious, I'd rather wait to see what BlackLight Power comes up with. So far, confirmation has been way too narrow. From what I'm seeing from those with more knowledge on this than I, who are abundant, detecting hydrinos in a CF experiment would be very difficult, even if they exist.

Because there are other observed phenomena, most notably helium levels detected that correlate with the excess energy measured, there is validation of three things: the calorimetry and the helium measurements, on the one hand, because the usual explanations (calorimetry error for the heat, sloppy handling for the helium) don't explain the consistent correlation at about the right Q-value for d-d fusion. (That doesn't prove d-d fusion, there are other possible nuclear reactions that would do the same), and, on the other, since if helium is appearing where it didn't exist before, nuclear reaction is a strong conclusion.

Not really! We don't have anything near the known product production for D-D fusion, so you have to postulate that our physics is predicting the energy but not the reaction. That's cherry picking of the highest order. Extraordinary claims (nearly neutron-free D+D fusion) have to be backed by extraordinary evidence.

Example of possible reaction that produces no neutrons but takes in deuterium and produces helium: Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory. Lattice confinement increases the probability of two deuterium molecules (present at or very near the surface of the lattice) assuming a tetrahedral arrangement (the four deuterons are in a tetrahedron. Takahashi's published a quantum field theory analysis showing that if the TSC forms, it collapses and fuses immediately (femtosecond) and the resulting Be-8 is very unstable and immediately decays into two alpha particles, 23.8 MeV each. Also, the experimental Q value for excess heat/helium is 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4 (Storms). Suffice it to say that the Q value with helium makes it look like the reaction takes in deuterium and leaves helium ash, but what happens in the middle is unknown. Absolutely, if it were ordinary d-d fusion, the normal branching ratio would be way off, there are a series of problems, there would be fatal levels of neutrons given the excess heat reported. Nevertheless, some theorists do propose d-d fusion, with some mechanism causing preferred branching to helium (normally a tiny branch), and with the normal gamma ray being replaced by some direct coupling to the lattice, a la Mossbauer effect. And, yes, I know why that is unlikely. But when one has a blatantly anomalous effect, we may have to start looking at things that seem unlikely. My favorite unlikely is multibody fusion, and it looks like a number of peer reviewers are at least willing to pass this for publication (Takahashi, Kim, plus papers mentioning the theory include Mosier-Boss and others)

And BTW the idea of a quadruple D collision is really off the wall.

Plasma physics thinking. Not a "collision" through random motion in free space. Confinement in a lattice. That's like saying three marbles are insanely unlikely to collide because two marbles, rolling around a flat table, are very unlikely to collide. Put some grooves in the table, and the whole situation changes. A metal lattice is a complex set of grooves. Takahashi originally showed experimentally that lattice confinement greatly enhanced the cross-section for fusion, with multibody fusion being in evidence. (This was with energetic deuteron bombardment.) Apparently this led him to his TSC theory. What's involved isn't four independent particles, but two molecules. What configurations can two molecules assume in the lattice?

Nature needs to work. Hoyle predicted the rare triple He collision in supernovae but realized there needed to be an unknown C-12 energy resonance to support it. This was found. You now suggest a QUADRUPLE H-2 collision to Be-8 with NO such resonanane to capture and support it. Meh. Unlikeliness pilled on unlikeliness.

Please examine your logic. These are not deuterons in a plasma, they are in an environment that very tightly confines them. Further, deuterons themselves in a plasma are ionized, they purely repel, but in the molecular form, they have their electrons, and the shared electrons of the molecule may shield the repulsion to a degree. I think that "Condensate" is referring to Bose-Einstein condensate, and there is another paper published a couple of months ago on BEC theory and LENR, in Naturwissenschaften. Serious physicists are taking this seriously.

But, back to the first question here: what is the mainstream view of low energy nuclear reactions? How would we know? I'll wait for an answer to the questions and issues I raised about "mainstream."

The mainstream view is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There's a several kV potential barrier to cross. Where's the energy?

Following the plasma physicists, you are assuming brute force; further, you are assuming fusion. Remember, it may well not be fusion. I'll get to that below. The energy necessary, if Takahashi is correct, is the energy to cram two deuterium molecules into cubic confinement. That's tight, all right, but it doesn't have to happen very often and it only need last a femtosecond. Here is the real rarity: start with one deuterium molecule in the cube. That's unstable, it can't last long. What happens normally when deuterium enters the lattice is that it dissociates into individual deuterons, and the electrons become part of the whole cloud in the lattice. But the molecule may exist for a short time at or near the surface. And if another one comes along with enough energy, not to fuse with the other molecule, but to fit into the cube in the most efficient packing (tetrahedral), it might go Bang! The TSC forms and, if Takahashi has done the math correctly, it collapses and fuses and then fissions. I have lots of questions about this theory, and so do others, but it's notable, both peer-review published (primary source) and covered in secondary source (academic and peer-reviewed).

It's not that the mainsteam wasn't willing to believe in anything but hot fusion: they believed in cold bubble fusion until not long ago. Now, THAT has come into disrepute. If you can't repeat your findings all the time in science, you're in trouble. You can whinge about impure palladium and deuterium contamination, only for so long. Then people expect you to be serious and produce something reproduceable and dramatic, or else zip it till you do.

From what I've seen, the story of bubble fusion isn't over, but I know much less about it. It's not "cold," it's hot fusion. The temperature in the bubble, if the researchers were correct, is normal fusion temperature. But there is a similarity. It appears that there may also be hot fusion taking place in the palladium; that is theorized to be the source of the neutrons Mosier-Boss reported in 2008, in a very solid report that got wide attention. Very low levels of neutrons. Mosier-Boss theorizes classical fusion as a secondary reaction, and cites Takahashi as predicting hot alpha particles; and her own group's evidence, confirming others, is massive for extensive charged particle radiation, probably alpha particles, from the cathode; if they are 23.8 MeV to start, they would rapidly lose energy, only penetrating a very short distance, and sometimes they would collide with other nuclei and cause secondary reactions.

You mentioned "whinging" about impure palladium, but if I were inclined to "whing," I'd complain about two things: the British spelling for whine, which has long driven me nuts, and the lack of attention to detail. Not "impure palladium," that was largely a red herring, but simply palladium fabricated with microcracks that prevent adequate loading. In the 1990s, they figured out how to fabricate electrodes that work more often than not, but F-P electrolysis still produces highly variable effects even with the best electrodes, AFAIK. I think it's reached the point where they almost always get some effect, but the quantity is all over the map. Still, with correlation with helium, for example, that actually isn't a problem. Except for people looking for a practical application, where variability is a killer. And then there are the meltdowns. "WARNING! Your Ajax Home Cold Fusion Hot Water Heater usually works well, and will save you between $25 - $100 per month, depending on unidentified conditions, but sometimes when you turn the thing off, it melts. Sorry for the inconvenience. But it's cheap heat! That doesn't happen often!" Co-deposition completely avoids this problem, the lattice is created preloaded and apparently takes very little extra work to "overdrive" it into nuclear active environment. These are highly reproducible experiments. It's the original P-F technique that was seriously difficult. Co-dep is being reproduced both by amateurs and experts. You just have to know how to do it, and there is a fairly detailed published protocol that's been used, which is why I'm confident in the success of the kit project. It isn't new science at all. It's an experimental effect, Milton, not a theory. It just happens that the results are, as you have acknowledged, difficult to explain without expanding our thinking. Takahashi's theory actually isn't new physics, if I'm correct (I am utterly unqualified to critique Takahashi's math; I asked Mathsci and he didn't reply), but it seems to be standard quantum field theory applied to the condensed matter environment, where the simplified equations of ordinary quantum mechanics break down. (QM is based on a reduction of the situation to a two-body problem, which vastly simplifies the math.)

I promised an alternative to fusion. I personally think it is a bit of a quibble, but Krivit is very strong on not calling this "cold fusion," because there are theories which involve neutron capture and other nuclear phenomena which we wouldn't call "fusion." I won't go into it, it's been said that the problem with cold fusion isn't that there are no theories, but that there are too many.

But this is diverting us from the question of how cold fusion is seen today, and what balance an article on cold fusion should show. I'm claiming, in fact, that Wikipedia should simply report what is in the reliable sources, especially, for "science," peer-reviewed secondary sources, creating related articles as necessary. Until and unless it appears in reliable secondary source, we don't state what the "mainstream" believes. We allow the sources to speak. We should be careful about extrapolating from old sources to the present state, so we would report old sources as applying to the condition known to them, the state of the "mainstream" when they were writing (actually, the state a bit earlier, the latest skeptical tertiary source I've seen is from 2006, an off-hand mention, and not aware, AFAIK, of the details of the 2004 DoE report). There is tons of source for detailed history, for example, and history isn't science, there are different standards. Cold fusion has been called the "scientific fiasco of the twentieth century," and I agree, and the extent of the fiasco impeaches, in a sense, all sides.

Nobody, in fact, disagrees that there was a massive rejection of cold fusion in 1989-1990, and we would continue to report what we have from reliable source on that. But peer-reviewed secondary source on the rejection is notably absent, as far as I've seen.... The rejection is history, not exactly science. If I'm wrong, surely someone will provide counterexamples, I've been known to change my mind on occasion! Sometimes even with mere argument!

[Abd]

It would be better if WP wrote the shortest articles possible about subjects on which there is strong disagreement.

Indeed. But NPOV operates to increase the verbiage on both sides, since each side perceives that the other side has more than their fair share of coverage.

A tug-of-war that is in perfect balance can be said to be "neutral" even as the tension on the rope increases on both sides of the dividing line.

A tug-of-war is absolutely not consensus, it is unstable and will typically see-saw. In genuine, full consensus process, every side signs off on every decision, being in agreement with it. To bring it here, cold fusion "believers" will readily accept a statement that "cold fusion was broadly rejected by physicists in 1989-1990, ..." and, I'm sure, they will accept more than that. They will certainly accept attributed statements where problems with the author can also be shown. Such as what Park has written about cold fusion. (If ever there was a fanatic, on a crusade to ruin the career and reputation of everyone who dares to advocate cold fusion research, all the while bragging about it, it would be Park, at least as to his past behavior, there are signs of some softening, and I could prove both.)

What actually happens is that POV-pushers want the article to represent their view, and they want opposing views suppressed or weakened; typically they do not trust the reader to be able to understand accurate text. I'm not pretending that consensus process is easy, and it does, indeed, take a lot of discussion, but most discussion currently is wasted, comments are salvos in battles, not attempts to seek consensus. Where I was able to set up facilitated discussion between two editors in conflict, it generally worked to create partnerships between them.

Consensus is crucial to NPOV, that was a principle I proposed in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, and it was, in fact, surprising to me how vehemently this was rejected. Unfairly, perhaps, I will assert the opposition as being "We know what NPOV is, and those POV-pushers are wrong, and we don't want to give them any excuse to argue with us, it will waste our time." Basically, this is standard hardened dispute, typical in communities where consensus process is unknown or unused. I clarified my meaning as resting on the assumption that NPOV is not intrinsic to text, such that any individual can confidently assert, based on knowledge, that a particular text is NPOV. It's actually easy to craft true text, that is, verifiable, provable text, but NPOV also requires that we avoid cherry-picking; it's easy to mislead with the truth, if you can exclude or confuse contrary evidence. And our own inevitable POV can easily cause us to overlook non-neutral implications that someone with different POV will spot quickly.

No, NPOV is a quality we measure by the degree of consensus it enjoys. We can only be completely confident that text is NPOV if everyone agrees that it is fair and balanced. Everyone. For practical reasons, when the scale is very large, full confidence may not be possible, because some editors will be unreasonable to the end, and I tried to explain this, and was more or less shouted down, as if I were proposing that "unreasonable editors" should be excluded. My actual point was the opposite, and that it is more possible than we usually assume, and I've seen plenty of actual practice where consensus process is used. The vast majority of people will not continue to stand for a truly unreasonable position when the basis for it has been exposed, it's humiliating, and a person gains far more by showing reason. "Ah, now I see what you were saying! Couldn't you have explained that better." (And a sensible former opponent will say, "After our conversation, I'm sure!" But we bypass the process that would take us there.

When the goal becomes true consensus, to be approached as closely as possiible, Wikipedia will change. To me, the question resolves to how to negotiate broad consensus efficiently. It is obvious that having dozens of people taking positions in a battle, as a spectator sport, with some possibly uninvolved editors -- or arbitrators -- judging who wins, isn't going to find consensus. It finds winners by defining losers, which is very different from consensus. It buries disagreements for a time, but does not resolve them. Remember, "uninvolved" is often a synonym for "ignorant." It isn't enough to be neutral, knowledge is also necessary, and once people have knowledge, they are no longer neutral, with exceptions being extraordinarily rare.

[Moulton]

In contentious areas, the probability of consensus is vanishingly small. Conversely, the likelihood of non-terminating escalating verbiage is a virtual certainty, eventually requiring ArbCom to put a lid on it.

Whereupon the non-terminating verbiage migrates to blogs and W-R.

[EricBarbour]

If only we gave out barnstars here. Abd would have earned a barnstar for obsessive dedication to convincing the wrong people of his thesis. He should be ranting at physicists, not WR users......

[Abd]

If only we gave out barnstars here. Abd would have earned a barnstar for obsessive dedication to convincing the wrong people of his thesis. He should be ranting at physicists, not WR users......

Curious. Of what thesis am I attempting to convince "the wrong people"?

In fact, I was looking for one editor who would discuss the issues in detail, in a forum where others who might become interested can look at it later. And it seems that several persons have responded with cogent comment and knowledgeable discussion, which I appreciate. It's an error for me to respond to others, sometimes I do that, and I apologize. Once, maybe, is okay. Like this. Fuck off, Eric, I'm certainly not trying to convince you. I'll leave that to someone else, and a time when you are more ready. If ever.

[Moulton]

I'm convinced, more than ever, that smoke and mirrors have usurped the stage once boringly occupied by serious scientists.

[GlassBeadGame]

If only we gave out barnstars here. Abd would have earned a barnstar for obsessive dedication to convincing the wrong people of his thesis. He should be ranting at physicists, not WR users......

Maybe they wouldn't be all so impressed at his brilliance? Or maybe they would. I'm certainly not in any position to say, which is a good part of what Eric is saying. I does seem obvious to me if you really had the academic chops and rigors to discuss the merits of any position on this matter you would already know, without being told, that this wasn't the place for that discussion.

[Moulton]

"Be Ye Not Bamboozled." —The Big Bamboozler

Public Relations is about bamboozling the gullible.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm convinced, more than ever, that smoke and mirrors have usurped the stage once boringly occupied by serious scientists.

...and mostly mirrors, the ultimate web 2.0 platform.

[Abd]

I came across this peer-reviewed secondary source I had overlooked, and I see no sign that anyone else has noticed it. It's early, and quite interesting. It has information about the earliest interest in cold fusion or related that is entirely missing from the WP article. It shows a mainstream view of the field as of 1994, after it was supposedly and conclusively declared "dead" by the editor of Nature.

A lot has been found since then, for sure, and the multibody theories have, for example, been much more developed and analyzed in detail mathematically. This is far stronger than the weak sources currently used for the minimal comment on "proposed explanations" in the article. Together with other strong secondary sources (such as the American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook (Oxford University Press, 2008), there could be an article on "Low energy nuclear reaction theories" presented in summary style in "Cold fusion."

At least this source should be mentioned on Talk:Cold fusion (T-H-L-K-D)! Be aware: the Cab editors will attempt to remove any notice that originates with me as violating WP:BAN, if they remain true to form. They may also try to assert copyright violation if one links to the preprint. Note that Springer generally allows authors to put up the same exact text as they publish, if I'm correct.

Critical Review of Theoretical Models for Anomalous Effects (Cold Fusion) in Deuterated Metals
V.A. Chechin1, V.A.Tsarev1, M. Rabinowitz2, and Y.E. Kim3

Abstract
We briefly summarize the reported anomalous effects in deuterated metals at ambient temperature, commonly known as "Cold Fusion" (CF), with an emphasis on important experiments as well as the theoretical basis for the opposition to interpreting them as cold fusion. Then we critically examine more than 25 theoretical models for CF, including unusual nuclear and exotic chemical hypotheses. We conclude that they do not explain the data.

free preview
Link to journal page
The paper, apparently. Preprint?

I'd put this on my WP talk page where it might be seen by someone still able to work on the article, or I could email it to a sympathetic editor, but, instead, I'm putting it here to see if anyone will "do the right thing."

[Herschelkrustofsky]

FYI:

Deuteron Theory of Cold Fusion Proposed in Rome

Oct. 5 (LPAC)--A new theory of cold fusion is being proposed at an international conference currently underway in Rome, according to an advance report from radiochemist and materials expert Dr. Edmund Storms.

Dr. Storms believes that clusters of deuterons (the nuclei of the naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen) are able to penetrate the nucleus of palladium, transmuting it into a heavier element and releasing energy in the form of heat. The deuteron clusters, perhaps similar to Rydberg clusters, are charge-free configurations that are not repelled by the positive charge of the palladium nucleus. According to Storms' research, the reaction occurs not within the palladium crystal lattice, but in nano-particles of palladium mixed with other elements that form at the surface of the palladium cathode.

There is no unstable intermediate nucleus, and thus no radioactivity, released in the reaction. The absorption of deuterons produces an element of higher atomic number and mass, each deuteron releasing about 12 MeV of energy due to the mass defect.

According to Storms, who has been pursuing cold fusion since his retirement from Los Alamos National Laboratory in the early 1990s, his theory can explain all the known phenomena reported in cold fusion experiments to date. He believes it may also be the explanation for nuclear transmutation in biological systems first documented by Louis Kevran and subsequently pursued by researchers in Japan and Russia. Recently the Japanese have detected biological transmutation using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques that are more reliable than chemical analysis, Storms says. Russian researchers have shown transmutation by bacteria capable of reproducing in 100% heavy water (deuterium in place of the hydrogen).

Storms's idea also has implications for the theory of nucleosynthesis. According to prevailing theory, the heavy elements must be produced in a neutron star, such as is hypothesized to be associated with a supernova. However, a process of cold fusion by incorporation of deuteron clusters could account for the production of heavier elements from lighter ones, without the need for highly energetic systems which would likely be detrimental to life. Such a process might even be occurring within the Earth's crust. [1]

[Abd]

LaRouche Political Action Committee is the source, so this isn't exactly usable yet on Wikipedia! But I'll comment on the science.

FYI:

Deuteron Theory of Cold Fusion Proposed in Rome

Oct. 5 (LPAC)--A new theory of cold fusion is being proposed at an international conference currently underway in Rome, according to an advance report from radiochemist and materials expert Dr. Edmund Storms.

Dr. Storms believes that clusters of deuterons (the nuclei of the naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen) are able to penetrate the nucleus of palladium, transmuting it into a heavier element and releasing energy in the form of heat. The deuteron clusters, perhaps similar to Rydberg clusters, are charge-free configurations that are not repelled by the positive charge of the palladium nucleus. According to Storms' research, the reaction occurs not within the palladium crystal lattice, but in nano-particles of palladium mixed with other elements that form at the surface of the palladium cathode.

There are other current theories that involve Bose-Einstein condensates which function similarly. Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate, formed from two deuterium molecules under lattice confinment, which must be at the surface, since deuterium in molecular form cannot penetrate far into the lattice, it dissociates, is postulated to do two things: form Be-8, which is unstable and immediate decays into two alpha particles at 23.8 MeV each, avoiding the conservation of momentum problem, the branching ratio, and the lack of gamma radiation, but still forming helium (i.e., alpha particles), but it is also expected that it would transmute palladium, because the BEC is capable of, as the article notes, approaching a palladium nucleus. If it can get there before it decays!

There is no unstable intermediate nucleus, and thus no radioactivity, released in the reaction. The absorption of deuterons produces an element of higher atomic number and mass, each deuteron releasing about 12 MeV of energy due to the mass defect.

This can't be the complete explanation, but there is, in fact, radioactivity; further, Storms himself has reviewed the literature in his Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (World Scientific, 2007) and reports, from many studies, 25+/-5 MeV/He-4, which is consistent with a process that takes deuterium in and outputs helium (such as Takahashi's process would do, mostly).

According to Storms, who has been pursuing cold fusion since his retirement from Los Alamos National Laboratory in the early 1990s, his theory can explain all the known phenomena reported in cold fusion experiments to date. He believes it may also be the explanation for nuclear transmutation in biological systems first documented by Louis Kevran and subsequently pursued by researchers in Japan and Russia. Recently the Japanese have detected biological transmutation using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques that are more reliable than chemical analysis, Storms says. Russian researchers have shown transmutation by bacteria capable of reproducing in 100% heavy water (deuterium in place of the hydrogen).

This report may be a bit garbled, or not, because I'm certainly not aware of all the work. I do know the Russian work, it is Vyosotskii, and it's stunning. The bacteria are various, but they include the really cool deinococcus radiodurans, which is astonishingly resistant to radiation damage, and which does appear to produce Fe-57 from manganese, as shown by Mossbauer spectroscopy. Vyosotskii's report is credible, on the face, but unconfirmed, and, yes, the implications are great. Because Vyosotskii is covered in reliable secondary source, WP should cover the work, but, of course, noting it as unconfirmed. It's notable. Now, if the Japanese have confirmed Vyosotskii, this would be important news. But I'm a bit suspicious that the report has been garbled. I was unable to find any document released by Storms, but maybe it hasn't hit the web. The Rome conference, ICCF-15, also known as the 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, just started today. The prepublished abstracts are hosted by ENEA, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy, and the Environment. Yes, Virginia, the Italian government supports cold fusion research. I was unable to find any reference in the abstracts to a new theory by Storms. Storms has generally said that no theory accounts for all the known phenomena. Cold fusion theory remains an entirely open question, with continued publication of theories, some of which approach explanatory power, but none of which have been confirmed sufficiently to see any wide acceptance.

Storms's idea also has implications for the theory of nucleosynthesis. According to prevailing theory, the heavy elements must be produced in a neutron star, such as is hypothesized to be associated with a supernova. However, a process of cold fusion by incorporation of deuteron clusters could account for the production of heavier elements from lighter ones, without the need for highly energetic systems which would likely be detrimental to life. Such a process might even be occurring within the Earth's crust. [1]

Speculation. Sure. I consider the phenomena to be adequately established to start to make it reasonable to speculate on this level. However, it is insufficiently characterized to have much confidence in any predictions. Turns out, folks, we have some things to study and learn. I'm going to be happy if I can manage to replicate -- and sell kits to replicate -- an experiment that has already been replicated by a half-dozen groups, maybe half of them amateur, if I can coax some alpha radiation from a place where it shouldn't be, by classical theory, and even a few stray neutrons, as have been reported. In my kitchen. I'll certainly let you folks know.

[Abd]

In a thread where it's irrelevant, Mathsci posted this:

Mr. Abd's difficulties are largely self-inflicted. He needs no help from anybody else:

NORTHAMPTON, MA: Friday, October 3, 2009
Lomax Design Associates (LDA) announced today that it is developing kits for home demonstration of low energy nuclear reaction effects...

Dude, what was that for? Whether or not Mr. Abd's "difficulties" are "self-inflicted" isn't relevant to this conversation. If you're just trying to "out" him in some way (not that his identity is particularly hidden), or point out the various flaws you perceive in his business plan, could you maybe do that somewhere else? Like Wikipedia, maybe? They seem to be into that sort of thing.

This thread is munged up enough as it is!

Didn't you mention my username and then hinted at one of your own conspiracy theories concerning Abd's difficulties and me?

Of course this wasn't "outing", since Abd's RL name is on wikipedia. This particular topic was first mentioned on the ArbCom pages. Abd believes that people can check the claims of cold fusion (or LENR) in their homes with his kit. That seems unrealistic to me. [...]

Mathsci's opinion here shows exactly why he was such an idiot about this on WP. He has no idea of the state of the art. Because his primitive knowledge of the field has led him to a conclusion that the whole research effort, including hundreds of nuclear physicists, chemists, government agencies, and those usual naive dupes, peer-reviewers at, say, Naturwissenschaften and other journals, with thousands of published papers, not even counting conference papers, is pseudoscience, he has advocated for that position, based only on his own opinion and not reliable sources, or, for that matter, any primary sources actually conversant with the research, but only on fond memories of twenty years ago, when it seemed that the threat to established opinion, and careers built on that, had been comfortably crushed. I asked Mathsci for his opinion about the math in one paper by Takahashi, he ignored it, because he'd actually have to stretch his brain, and apparently that would likely break it, that happens when what would functionally be flexible becomes hard and brittle.

I have no difficulty with Wikipedia, because where there is no frustrated effort, there is no difficulty. It could be said that I had a difficulty at one time, because I did test to see if reliable source guidelines would prevail over cabal opinion. Like all tests, the result is valuable, and the only failure would be if no attention is paid to the actual results, as distinct from wishful thinking about what the answers should be.

Now, as to the LDA project. It's initially based on the published Galileo project, which was itself based on the published results (many publications, peer-reviewed journals, over the years) of the U.S. Navy SPAWAR group, as well as on specific recommendations from the SPAWAR researchers. Galileo results, from 2007 and maybe 2008, haven't made their way into Wikipedia-defined RS yet, but that doesn't matter to me, because I trust them sufficiently to make modest investments based on them. My work does not depend on the reality of cold fusion; rather, it depends on what has been confirmed by many, many observers, including skeptics who, unlike Mathsci, have actually reviewed some of the results in the field: there are unexplained phenomena being reliably reported, and my belief is that there is a market involved in assisting those who'd like to see some of these phenomena for themselves. It's standard business: buy in quantities (not exactly 'wholesale' yet, but still larger quantities than individual researchers will need), sell at retail, making a profit based on the price differentials as well as convenience. (So you could buy a part a little cheaper directly, but, if that's all you are buying, you'll pay shipping and it will be much less convenient than if you can buy it all at one place with one purchase.)

Because my approach is so different from that of most researchers in the field, it seems that it's opening up new possibilities. Developing and making easily accessible a standard experiment that can then, itself, be studied in detail by many investigators, exploring the parameter space, could answer many of the unanswered questions in the field. Some of what is necessary to develop and test theories of what's happening in so-called cold fusion cells isn't accessible to "home experiments." The most conclusive experimental results so far, showing a correlation between excess heat and helium production, involve double difficulties. To get really accurate calorimetry, SRI spent millions of dollars on sophisticated calorimeter development. Measuring helium is probably out of reach for home experimenters. But this work has all been done, with stunning results, published in peer-reviewed secondary source, though you would never know this from the Wikipedia article which, on the topic of helium/excess heat correlation, only the blatant error of the U.S. DoE anonymous bureaucrat is repeated, using a less reliable source to reject more reliable sources. A blatant error in a less reliable source, and my expose of this in Talk:Cold fusion was part of the evidence against me.... Too much talk, too confusing for some of the editors, tendentious, original research, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, original research: the kind that is directly verifiable by simply reading the already-accepted sources!

So what could be seen at home? Well, the Galileo protocol, first of all, seems to involved well under $100 worth of materials and, while caution is required in following the directions, with care to avoid contamination, nothing seems particularly difficult. No complex instrumentation is required; the biggest obstacle I'd see, right away, is that an analytical balance is required to weigh the materials; however, first of all, the exact quantities probably are not critical, and, secondly, that's something I can provide! I'll either provide pre-weighed packages with per-cell quantities, or complete mixtures, ready to roll. Pour it in, close the cell, attach the power supply and computer control, turn it on and watch.

What will the experimenters see? Well, I'm currently assembling the first cells and will be testing it myself, but this is what I expect. There will be two kinds of radiation detectors incorporated. Inside the cell, immersed in the electrolyte, immediately next to the cathode wire, will be a piece of CR-39 plastic, which is the same material, and which will be from the same source, as successfully used already by many groups. While experimenters, with perhaps two weeks of electrolysis, will see a little cloudiness appearing on this plastic, the real evidence will come when the plastic is etched in a hot sodium hydroxide solution. What's been widely reported is that pits in the plastic, characteristic of charged particle radiation damage to the plastic, and associated in physical position with the cathode wire, will appear. What's even more interesting is that, if enough reaction has been developed, triple-tracks characteristic of energetic neutron breakup of carbon into three alpha particles may be found. However, I'm adding something in addition.

Outside the cell, I will place a stack of LR-115 radiation detectors, and, in the middle of the stack, there will be a Boron-10 "neutron converter screen." There may also be various thicknesses of hydrogen-rich plastic as a neutron moderator; my hope is to capture evidence of more neutrons. And this is all terribly cheap, the most expensive thing is the Boron-10 material, which I'll be selling for about $20 per 1x2 cm piece. Only one is needed per neutron detector stack. The LR-115 detectors are very cheap: they consist of a 6 u layer of red cellulose nitrate on a 100 u clear polyester base. They are also developed in a sodium hydroxide solution, but the handling is easier and apparently they can handle much higher track density than CR-39.

From prior results by other researchers and teams, I expect that home experimenters will see charged particle radiation evidence on the internal CR-39, and little or no such tracks on the external detectors. However, this isn't particularly dramatic, except conceptually. (What is a little low-voltage electrolysis doing generating charged-particle radiation? That's been reported since 1990, covered in reliable secondary source.) The charged-particle radiation, even though it may have energy over 20 MeV, can't penetrate the cell walls, nor more than a centimeter or so of air. Neutrons, though, are, of course, penetrating. The Galileo replicators did see some triple tracks; however, a very low level of triple tracks are normal from background cosmic radiation. The SPAWAR group consistently found significant levels of triple tracks, roughly ten times background, as compared with controls. So this part of my effort is truly experimental; I'm trying to amplify the neutron signal so that more neutrons are detected.

But there are other, more dramatic, effects that may be associated with the radiation. I'll be monitoring cell temperature; I expect that I may see some anomalous elevation of cell temperature under some conditions. The Galileo protocol didn't even look for temperature increases. These increases won't, by themselves, prove nuclear processes are involved, because no precise calorimetry will be done. However, if they are associated with radiation detection, they become a correlation factor that adds weight.

Then there will be another replication: the SPAWAR group, in one experimental report, used a piezo microphone as the cathode substrate. (These are codeposition experiments. Bulk palladium isn't used, nor even palladium wire; rather, the Galileo cathode was silver, and a small amount of palladium chloride is used in the electrolyte, which is heavy water with, also, a little lithium chloride as well.) Codeposition is known in the field for high reliability, because, apparently, it creates fully-loaded palladium deuteride on the cathode, almost immediately; bulk palladium experiments, which only recently have become relatively reliable, and with great complexity, can take weeks of electrolysis before the palladium is sufficiently loaded to even begin the process.) Those microphones show the presence of shocks, compression waves. So experimenters will be able to see -- or hear -- these.

In addition, the SPAWAR and other groups have shown microphotographs of the electrodes, showing small spots where the cathode material has apparently melted and erupted, appearing to have been vaporized. These spots are small, on the order of 10 u. Has anyone looked for visible light emissions using a microscope during the experiment? I've asked. No response. Attempts were made to look for such emissions, including Cerenkov radiation, in the dark, with no results. Has anyone placed a spinthariscope screen inside a cell to look for charged particle flashes? Not that I'm aware of.

These are all effects that, if they exist, could be cheaply observed. By themselves, they don't prove, beyond doubt, nuclear reactions, but, collectively, they would make for an interesting demonstration, don't you think? I know I'm having fun. And if I can make a fair return on my investment and time, isn't that the holy grail for livelihood.

Cold fusion for fun and profit. Fabulous dreams of wealth based on finally figuring out how to scale up the effect for practical power generation? Those are for someone else to pursue, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the effort, and you may have noticed that there isn't a home cold fusion hot water heater on the market.... But that means nothing about the science, only about the engineering difficulty of scaling up what turns out to be a quite fragile effect in certain ways. If I'm lucky, these cells will put out a few percent more power than is put into them in electrolysis current, and I won't be doing calorimetry adequate to show that.

It's amusing, now, to read skeptical responses to what is overwhelmingly established in the peer-reviewed literature. On physics blogs, writers will raise objections, with great pride in their brilliance at suggesting them, that were answered more than fifteen years ago, conclusively, in the literature.

("Where's the ash? How come there isn't any ash, Huh? Huh? Why don't these idiots look for ash?" Helium, of course, and, yes correlated with excess heat at the expected Q value for deuterium fusion. But the reaction almost certainly isn't direct deuterium fusion, rather, it may end up with helium, having done something more complex with the deuterium than simply mashing it together as in hot fusion.)

("How come nobody could replicate the experiments?" Well, experiments have been replicated, many times. Most of the replications are not "exact" replications, but reviews of the literature have shown that when a simple set of experimental conditions are obtained, excess heat is reliably found. 153 of the excess heat reports have been published under peer review. Actually, more than that, the 2008 ACS LENR Sourcebook reports aren't included....)

and on and on....

"Wishful thinking" has been turned on its head. Wishful thinking that leads people to investigate anomalies is quite useful, as long as everyone isn't pursuing a will-o-the-wisp, and just a few. When it leads people to stick their heads in the sand to avoid questioning their established beliefs, as the evidence becomes overwhelming, it's another matter.

[Abd]

I'm moving this discussion from where it is uselessly off-topic to where it is merely useless and off.

This has nothing to do with the undertow. Be warned. Danger, wild-eyed fringe science, this nut case is going to try to set up a nuclear reaction in his kitchen, some time within the next two months.

Don't worry. The radiation levels are so low and so non-penetrating, most of it, that it takes extreme measures to even detect them. A dosimeter near the experiment would register nothing, you have to put the damn thing right inside the cell, within a millimeter of the cathode where the reaction takes place, to see anything. Except for a few stray neutrons, at levels low enough that with the most sensitive electronic detectors, they had a terrible time showing that it was even above cosmic ray background. Deep in a mine in Italy. That there truly was any neutron radiation at all was only shown conclusively by very recent studies published first in 2008, and that hasn't been widely confirmed. Except for some very low-cost experiments, including some done by amateurs, and only published on-line to my knowledge. That work began in 2007, before the neutron results were known, but ... as the results were being analyzed, and once they knew what to look for, the experimenters looked, and, sure enough, they found some characteristic neutron tracks. Enough to be sure that it was above background? That I don't know, but the SPAWAR work was definitely above background.

Why? None of this makes sense.

None?

If you're fusing 4 D's into one Be-8 which then fissions, each alpha gets (let me see) something like 23.8 MeV. Which makes them hotter than you'll ever see from alpha decay, and up there with helium nuclei from a small cyclotron. Range in air should be on the order of (let me see) about 26 cm, or 10 inches.

Yes, you have the energy right. The most common response to Takahashi Be-8 theory is that the alpha radiation (which is observed, that is, it is believed that the charged-particle radiation coming from CF cells is alpha) is not copious enough or hot enough. However, the helium is indeed produced at that Q value. You have given the range of the alphas in air. They are not generated in air, they are generated below the surface of a layer of palladium deuteride. So in order to reach a detector, they must travel through that material plus the electtrolyte plus a window of the cell plus, if the detector isn't built into the cell, another window for a Geiger counter.

More than hot enough to rip through a mica Geiger counter window (which after all is designed let in 4-5 MeV alphas), and to show up in all the ways that alphas show up normally.

They aren't that hot by the time they would reach the Geiger counter.

Because of the obvious hypothesis that the damage to the radiation detectors is chemical, from the electrolyte, they have run the cells with a thin mylar window; the charged particle radiation is much reduced, but still present. It may help to look at the cell geometry a little. The surface of the palladium-deuterium deposit must be exposed to the electrolyte. What they find with the CR-39 that is immediately next to the cathode is that there is no damage where the cathode is in actual contact with the CR-39, but it's on either side. (The cathode in this experiment is a wire, typically gold or silver, on which the palladium and deuterium are deposited.) (They don't get any radiation or other anomalous effects if they use copper cholride instead of palladium chloride in the electrolyte.)

But these alphas are partly stopped by paladium, you say! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Well, no. First of all, that's what your fine division treats-- you can even see fission fragment tracks from fissile materials if you spread it out in thin layers THAT way (that was historically how fission was first really truly confirmed, after it was suspected chemically).

Sure. But in that case, the radiation is being emitted from the fissile nucleus at random locations in the layer, whereas in this case, none, or very little, is being emitted from the surface itself. It's a surface effect, but it actually happens (if this theory is correct) in the transition zone, below the surface.

The other thing is that this theory has essentially all the heat coming from kinetic energy of these alphas, so in that sense there are so many of them that they're thick as flies. A sample of warm paladium should emit roughly as many alphas as the same size sample of plutonium-244, used in radiothermal isotope heat generators because most of its "heat" is from alpha emission. It's plenty alpha-hot anyway. Even the surface generates a lot of alphas at those powers, and here you are postulating alphas of 4 times nomal energy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

The level of heat is, in these codep cells, quite a bit below the level from that in a radiothermal isotope heat generator. Look, your argument is decent, as a first stab at this, but it's already known that palladium deuteride, when the effect is operating, generates heat and helium at the right Q value, i.e., following Storms' metanalysis, 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4. The right amount of heat is there, that's known, and it's correlated with the helium, i.e., what's left from those alpha particles if they are all captured and lose their energy as heat, so the question is only the physical profile, how far they travel before they have lost all their energy -- or enough of it to not penetrate a detector window.

Let me put it another way: the Americium-241 in your household smoke detector works by ionizing air with 5.4 Mev alphas. It's not hard to detect or make a useful instrument out of, and yet there is only about a quarter of a milligram of Am-241 in there. At 4e4 decays per second that's about 34 nanowatts if I haven't missed a decimal. And your powers are what?

I don't know the figure for these cells. It's low, these cells aren't optimized for power output. The SPAWAR group do calibrate their CR-39 chips with radiation from sources; the Galileo project replications used Am-241 from smoke detectors.

In that detector you have, okay, 250 nanograms of radioisotope. In the CF cell, you have deposited on the wire on the order of 25 milligrams of palladium, but the palladium is not the radiation source, the radiation comes from a tiny effect; I'd have to look up what level of energy is generated in these cells. I expect to see some temperature differential, but only a few degrees C at most, under peak conditions. And I might not even see that. The calorimetry used in modern CF experiments is sensitive in the milliwatt range. There have been assays of electrodes, bulk electrodes, where they dissolved the palladium and measured the helium found, that's one of the pieces of evidence for it being a surface or transition effect. My recollection is that most of the helium was found within 25 microns of the surface. (Roughly half the helium ends up in the electrolyte initially, and in outgas, the rest is trapped in the cathode, apparently.)

Ahem. "No improvement" is undefined. No improvement in what respect? QED is more accurate, so the issue is quantitative, and the whole point of Fleischmann's work was to test the boundary, the limits of the difference. You are simply repeating, Milton, the assumption he was testing, attempting to falsify. Your assumption was also his, he's reported, he expected to find no difference within his experimental error. He was wrong. Or right, depending on your perspective.

QED is more accurate, but the math, apparently, is horrific.

Yes, but it reduces to simpler math within the limit of weak fields, which we have here. Special relativity is more accurate than Newtonian mechanics, but there's no point in using it to analyze the impact of a baseball or even rifle bullet. The math is harder, but the differences don't make enough difference that your equipment can see it.

You are assuming the answer in your analysis of the question. I'll repeat it: what you have said was indeed the conventional wisdom. Fleischmann knew it, and knew the arguments for it. He was looking to measure an upper bound for a difference between QED and QM, and he did believe that it would be his measurement error, i.e., the difference would be undetectable. Because of all the flap later, people have often assumed he was after energy generation. That's not what he says. He was dong basic research into the boundary between QM and QED. What he found had potential energy implications, and university legal got involved, he has said that he was years away from publishing.

Note, the calculations have been done. Takahashi's theory predicts, from field theory math, fusion if a certain configuration appears. That configuration, at first glance, seems preposterously rare, I've had this discussion. But it isn't outside possibility, it isn't the fifty orders of magnitude problem that was asserted about cold fusion. The condition is that two deuterium molecules, not raw deuterons, are confined in a single cubic lattice space, and it only has to exist for under a femtosecond. The calculation of what would happen in that space involves, in addition to the palladium, four protons and four neutrons, as four deterium nuclei, plus four electrons, and the possible screening effect of those electrons. Takahashi refers to a "condensate," and that would be a Bose-Einstein condensate. Note that there was a paper by Kim published a few months ago in Naturwissenschaften on a Bose-Einstein condensate theory of cold fusion, this is clearly considered possible.

But I'm really with Jed Rothwell who says he doesn't understand theory and doesn't care. I might understand theory a little better than him, which would merely mean that the depth of my confusion might be greater. What matters to him and what matters to me is that there are known experimental effects from palladium deuteride at high deuterium packing ratio, and non-nuclear explanations start to get much hairier than a simple theory that, indeed, the condensed matter environment is catalyzing nuclear reactions. It's almost certainly not straight deuterium fusion, for all the reasons you would know: wrong branching ratio, thus no neutrons. A nuclear reaction can't have a single stable product because of conservation of momentum. So if it's deuterium fusing to helium, where are the gamma rays to conserve momentum? Multibody fusion was proposed early on, but rejected because of the supposed rarity upon rarity. Experimentally, though, it was shown that the condensed matter environment did, indeed, increase multibody fusion cross-section. So the question is "how much?" Not whether or not it happens. The difference between QM and QED is clearly measurable, i.e., it's necessary to do those more complex calculations to explain experimental results. Frankly, that's what I recall being taught by Feynman, that QM was a damn approximation and to get accuracy of prediction for complex environments was much more difficult. That was almost fifty years ago, Milton.

So what's the point? Non-use of QED introduces errors of parts per million in spectra, and it isn't even used to analyze "hot fusion," where the energies are far arger and the fields are similar.

"Spectra." Plasma or other environments where the multibody effects can be neglected. Higher energies? Plasma. But if you take hot particles and used them to bombard palladium deuteride, the predictions break down, and more fusion is seen than expected.

Paladium has a higher Z, to be sure, but it doesn't matter if has to get out of the way long before D hits D. You can't wave your hands and create an electrostatic screen at distances far smaller than Pd or D atoms...

You have this image of d hitting d. That's not what happens! Rather, if the Takahashi theory is correct, we'd have four deuterons and associated elections, which will have some screening effect, in a tetrahedral configuration. As with the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction, the deuterons would be polarized, with neutrons in toward the tetrahedral center and protons out, so the deuterons would approach more closely than with random orientation. At some point, the neutrons would get close enough for the nuclear binding force to take over. With the OP process, when this happens (bombardment of a high-Z nucleus with deuterons of insufficient energy to fuse, but the neutrons get captured anyway), the protons are expelled, ripped from the neutrons. But here there are more complications, there is a larger nucleus formed from the four neutrons being attracted, there are electrons involved and even possibly the palladium nuclei with their positive charges that would tend to create a small force toward the tetrahedral center.

What Takahashi predicts, regardless, is that the TSC, if it forms, will fuse 100%. So the whole reaction rate issue, from his math, boils down to how common the TSC configuration is. From intuition, it would be rare, very rare. But the apparent fusion observed is very rare. So the issue becomes "how rare!" Quite simply, all we know is that helium is being synthesized, there is heat evolved, and there is radiation.

And what I'm planning to do is demonstrate this; in the field, it's well known, it's not controversial (there were attempts to be skeptical of the charged particle radiation results, Kowalski, an amateur experimenter, retired physics teacher, published a criticism of the SPAWAR results, claiming that it must be chemical damage, but he was effectively answered. Chemical damage and other hypotheses, such as damage from dendrites, simply don't explain the behavior with controls and various conditions tested, and completely fails to explain the triple-track results showing neutrons, on the back side of the detectors. That's why, in March, when there was a presentation on this at the American Chemical Society meeting of the neutron findings, it created such a flap, with some physicists starting to say, "Well, maybe.... that looks like a nuclear reaction, all right."

You will remember the fiasco of Julian Schwinger, who came up with a cold fusion explanation toward the end of his career, and by the time they unpacked all that complicated math, they found out that he had forgotten to include a coulomb potential term. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Yeah, of course fusion goes like shot without that. But it does in ordinary QM also.

I wouldn't rely on any standard explanations of what happened in 1989-1990. Lots of people made mistakes, on all sides. Edward Teller came up with his own theory, immediately. Probably wrong. Suppose Takahashi is right. It means that all the complicated theories about Mossbauer-like transfer of fusion energy to the lattice were probably wrong. It means that the neutron Widom-Larsen theory is probably wrong. But as I tried to insert in the CF article, there is no theory that has been asserted that meets all the necessary criteria as enumerated by Storms. Storms might be wrong about that, too! I've asked him about Takahashi. He thinks there isn't enough radiation seen, but there are reasons to think that his analysis on that might not be deep. On the other hand, this guy is very smart and has been working in the field for twenty years. He thinks, also, that codeposition is difficult, and I'm not sure why, except that he may have tried it once and ran into some problem.

I asked a whole collection of CF researchers about Takahashi's theory. The objections were similar to yours; however, when I asked for a quantitative analysis, i.e., what energies would be expected after the alphas traversed so much palladium deuteride and so much electrolyte, nobody knew. It was all "seems unlikely," which, of course, applies to the entire field! It seems unlikely, but ... there are those damn experiments!

In any case, Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, developed out of experimental evidence that multibody fusion, shown in studies of fusion cross-section using deuteron bombardment of palladium deuteride targets, did occur at rates far higher than predicted by "normal low energy quantum methods," involves the use of quantum field theory calculation techniques, and his published work (under peer review, and covered in reliable secondary sources, if anyone cares about WP standards) predicts, from the calculations, that a particular configuration of two deuterium molecules (not "deuterons"), caused by deuterium gas entering solid-state confinement prior to the dissociation into deuterons that takes place in the palladium lattice -- so this only happens at the surface -- would collapse and fuse within a femtosecond to form Be-8, which then immediately fissions to form two energetic helium nuclei. The theory does explain many of the puzzles about cold fusion, but it is only one of many competing theories at this point.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like pathological science. You should be able to explain (or Takahashi should) in small words why QED is necessary to understand any of this.

Why should I be able to explain? Do you think I can follow his math? I can't. I asked Mathsci to look at it. Basically, he refused. He's convinced it's all pseudoscience so why should he task his brain?

This is what I can report for sure: Takahashi's theory has been published under peer review, more than once. It was considered credible enough that it was mentioned in the Naturwissenschaften paper by the SPAWAR group on the neutron triple-track findings, as a possible explanation for what's happening, i.e., what might be generating particles with sufficient energy to trigger secondary fusion reactions, which is what they propose as an explanation. I.e., the hot alphas, indeed, would be expected to cause secondary fusion reactions, and, this time, it's hot fusion, with the expected branching ratios, so there are neutrons. There would also be nuclear transmutations, and, Milton, I assume you know that there are many reports of such transmutations, it's one of the effects that Storms considers established.

I write about theory because it's fun, and it's nice to have some possible explanation. But if there was no "possible explanation," I'd be even more interested in the experiments. Wow! Create an unexplained physical phenomenon on your workbench! How often does one get to do that?

I really DGAF about the theory. My intention is to demonstrate radiation and other phenomena from a simple chemical process, apparently not difficult once you know how to do it, the formation of a thin layer of palladium deuteride at high deuterium concentration, and, in so doing, I'd only be replicating what's been done already by many researchers. What's actually happening at the atomic and nuclear level, I won't be able to observe; I'm interested in what would be visible with cheap integrating radiation detectors, and a cheap microscope, and a cell design that makes it possible to directly observe the cathode while also monitoring radiation, and with a piezo detector that will generate pressure wave information, i.e., sound. I want to make a video of a reaction taking place, with sound (which may require processing to bring it into the audible, it's high-frequency from the reports I read). From the publications, there are what appear to be melted spots that appear in the deposited palladium, and IR imaging studies, from the back of a foil cathode, show transient spots (winking on for a moment) that are substantially elevated above the general temperature of the electrolyte and the cathode. I've asked researchers, I've found no evidence that anyone has previously looked seriously in visible light, but if palladium gets hot enough to melt a small spot, there should be visible light, a flash, and this should correlate with the pressure waves, quite likely.

I'm not going to be monitoring instantaneous alpha radiation (I would if I could), because it's far more difficult under the conditions, it is such low penetration.

See discussion above. There is no reason why anything that makes 24 MeV alphas at any point should have low penetration. This amouts to an ad hoc assumption that fusion in Pd does not occur except at an equivalent depth of metal equal to 26 cm of air. Well, why is that? More handwaving about how the lattice has to be JUST thick enough that we never see hardly any of these hot alphas. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Riiiiight.

Well, we do see hot alphas. Allphas lose their energy at a certain rate, average, per thickness of given substance. I don't have numbers, but they won't make it far in the electrolyte. I think the numbers are cut down drastically by six microns of polyester. (Two orders of magnitude? I should get all this together for a paper on it.)

You are inspiring me, Milton, to try to seal a Geiger detector to the cell wall, so that there is just the cathode wire against the mica. From the other work, it should indeed be possible, with that configuration, to detect radiation immediately, which would be quite valuable. But I wouldn't be able, probably, to visually image that cathode surface, unless I do much more complex cell design. And for my purposes, finding some characteristic visual effects from the formation of nuclear active environment is the goal.

Remember, I'm designing kits and I want to sell them. I need to sell them, or the materials, at least. I don't think it's a speculative business, seriously, my investment will be small, perhaps a few thousand dollars, with which I might be in position to sell hundreds of kits at very affordable prices, for those who want to do such an experiment. One CF writer, who strongly dislikes the idea of selling kits for profit -- he'd want them to be given away by a nonprofit -- has said, nevertheless, that he'd probably buy one to try it. Jed Rothwell thinks it's all too hard and won't prove anything. Maybe he's right, but he might also be wrong, I think it's easier to get a small effect than he things; all his work and support has been toward work that might lead to significant energy production, and my approach is almost the opposite. I'm scaling down, not up, scaling down to keep the costs very low for each cell. You might say I'm making cold fusion toys. And I'm after the kids, the next generation, for one of the big problems with CF is that the major researchers are dying off, they are old, they were ready to retire in 1990, the researchers that need to have approval couldn't afford to be associated with cold fusion. You know the reputation! It's been documented and amply covered. Your career was toast if you tried to continue with cold fusion research.

I think it's a fascinating story, myself, dramatic, full of human interest, etc. There are heros (and heroines, at least one, hey, Pamela Mosier-Boss is such a babe!) and villains, hundreds of millions of dollars spent trying to scale it up, with some scientific progress from it, but no cigar on scale-up, and billions of dollars spent on hot fusion that was very, very threatened in 1989. You know, it's fascinating. One of the most common criticisms I've seen is the claim that this must be bogus since with twenty years of research, they still can't make a cold fusion home hot water heater. Well, with forty years of heavily funded effort, still no net energy generation from hot fusion. Of course, it's a difficult problem! But so is scaling up cold fusion. And whether or not it's useful for energy generation has nothing to do with the science, only with science funding.

If we mix a little beryllium (or less toxic carbon or oxygen) into the Pd, any alphas should give us the standard neutron spallation reaction from these light elements, a reaction used in neutron generators. So you don't have to see the alphas if they're deep. Any impurity from light isotopes and they should be producing neutrons like mad (even if it's 1 neutron per every 100,000 alphas, if you calculate numbers of alphas from the heat, it's still enough neutrons to fry you, if you have any C-13 or 0-17 in there at all).

Now, there is a useful comment. Really. You'll get credit for it if I find anything based on it. Simple, I mix a little beryllium chloride (probably) into the electrolyte. I haven't checked, but it might simply codeposit at a certain ratio. I might have to layer it, but I'd also expect that the beryllium would impede loading. The percentage might be critical, and it would probably have to be pretty small. Still, getting a few more neutrons would be very significant. With my present plan, I might not see significant neutrons, even if I use the boron-10 converter and some neutron moderator before it. The neutrons, by the way, are thought to be roughly 10 MeV neutrons.

I strongly suspect that the alpha radiation would come in bursts correlated with flashes of light, however. Neutrons are detected in these experiments, but the levels are very low, and I'm not going to be running the cells for as long as the runs where they find, with a 1x2 cm detector, about 10 neutron tracks. (Background is about 1 track). However, those are with raw CR-39 detectors. I'm going to try to amplify that neutron signal with a Boron-10 neutron converter screen. Expensive little piece of purified isotope... but I got a donation of enough to do the job.

Think about it. I was studying nuclear physics when I was under twelve years old. I thought I'd be a nuclear physicist. I went to Caltech and sat with Feynman and Pauling. Then I became a musician and did a lot of very different stuff. Here I get to try to do something that may be tantamount to watching and recording tiny thermonuclear explosions. I'm describing what I'm doing to a whole community of experimenters, and it's quite possible someone will do it before I do, but I might be the first person to actually see one of these things. I'd call that fun. Now, what did you do today?

I got a patent granted in Australia for a new self-cleaning cat litterbox.

Today. Do you do something like that every day? I'm impressed. You have one very lucky cat. Or are a lucky cat-owner. I probably have a cheaper solution: don't clean the litter box until it becomes necessary, and, with practice, it isn't necessary very often, and it keeps my soon-to-be ex-wife out of my apartment as a side-benefit. But the kids don't like it, so.... you can't please everyone. Let me know when your litter box is available.

That puts me one step closer to world domination in this field. So be nice. At this rate, I think the world will probably hear about me before it does you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Of course. There are a lot more cat-owners than kids interested in running a nuclear reaction in their room. But I was really thinking about what you've done that's interesting, not merely what would be profitable. I'd probably make more money being a greeter at WalMart. Well, maybe, maybe not. If I sell a thousand kits and make $50 on each one, it's not shabby, and that might be a year's sales. Maybe. But I'm not starting by pouring fabulous sums into inventory. I'll be buying the chemicals in batches sufficient to sell kits at a profit and still not motivate my buyers to go and buy the chemicals themselves. I'm simply buying more than I'll need for a modest series of experiments myself, and then I'll be selling these materials to recover my own costs. I'm not selling cold fusion. I'm just selling stuff and materials and equipment kits that are designed to show known experimental effects. I won't be making any claims that aren't solid. And if someone can find an explanation for the effects that isn't nuclear, great! But I'm kinda skeptical about that.

Of course, I might not find anything at all, that's what I'm being warned, but the people warning me (besides pure skeptics who generally reject the peer-reviewed literature and who seem to be unaware of it) are CF experimenters who worked with the very difficult bulk palladium method of Pons and Fleischman, notoriously chaotic and sensitive. From the Galileo project replication, I know that it can be done with reasonable reliability, maybe even 100% with uniform design and care in handling the materials, and once I have that design, and it works, the parameter space can be varied to optimize it for my purposes (maximum impression, minimum cost). And neutrons are impressive, if you can get them and detect them. Because the SPAWAR experiments actually were not optimized to detect neutrons, they were an accidental finding, I think that I may be able to up the detected neutrons by methods you can easily imagine and some of which I've described. They aren't detecting but a small fraction of the neutrons, whatever accidentally causes a carbon nucleus to fission in the CR-39 material.

Nobody has ever taken my approach before. It was probably impractical with the P-F method, way too difficult, way too unreliable. Recent developments have also made the field far more respectable.

The doorbell just rang and it was a postal carrier with a registered mail from France. It's my LR-115 radiation detector sheets. Kodak Pathe makes them, if anyone is interested. Expensive. But I can cut the sheets into tiny pieces that are individually cheap. The good news today: I'd been told, after much discussion, that I could get a sample of the Boron-10 neutron converter screen, a couple of square cm, for free with my detector order. He gave me 20 sq cm. That's enough for 10 1x2 cm pieces. I'll have enough for my own experiments (2 should be plenty, one is actually enough) and I can sell the rest, to help raise the money to buy a full screen (8x20 cm). So, in terms of inventory value, I've already made a profit.... of about $100. Shall I celebrate? Maybe I should wait until I actually sell some.

What is all this about? This is about life after Wikipedia. From my work on-wiki, I was exposed to a lot of research, I became somewhat familiar with it. I also made contacts in the CF community, because I thought it was silly to write about a field and not talk to experts in the field. I gained a little credibility there, from my work on-wiki. I wasn't aiming to use that other than to get help with finding sources for Wikipedia, but ArbComm decided my talents could be put to better use, and I agree. I'd rather do science and educate on the cutting edge of science, than write about it for a project and community that don't, generally, give a fig. i think Pcarbonn, also banned from cold fusion until this December, came to the same conclusion. Civil POV-pusher, supposedly, banned because he, off-wiki, wrote in a published article that he was trying to make the WP article reflect the state of the peer-reviewed literature, rather than what was often in media sources that simply regurgitated what was said in 1989-1990. Aha! Battlefield mentality! Ban!

[Mathsci]

<snip>
and on and on....
<snip>

I hope Abd's kitchen is properly insured against exploding jamjars.

[GlassBeadGame]

...
5,267 words
...

This might be a record of some kind.

[Cedric]

...
5,267 words
...

This might be a record of some kind.

Phil Spector had his Wall of Sound. Abd has his Wall of Text.

[Abd]

I hope Abd's kitchen is properly insured against exploding jamjars.

Well, I do have to be careful. Basic risk: the cell is electrolytic, and will be generating a small amount of deuterium and oxygen. The only CF fatality was from a closed cell where they were using a recombination catalyst, and it stopped working. The scientist picked up the cell and jarred it. The recomb started working. All at once.

I'll have probably less than 25 ml of D2O in the cell. I may use a fuel cell as a recombiner but really to recover the small amount of deuterium gas evolved, and I'm not sure about that. The cell may be purely open. The Galileo protocol is an open cell. No explosion risk. Meltdown has happened with CF cells, but I've never heard of such with codeposition cells.

Not in glass. Small com'l acrylic box. Detailed design not done yet. Galileo protocol is very simple, may just do that first except for more instrumentation. I'll be looking for phenomena that should be there from what is in the literature, but which may not have been seen together. Lights, camera, action!

[GlassBeadGame]

I hope Abd's kitchen is properly insured against exploding jamjars.

Well, I do have to be careful. Basic risk: the cell is electrolytic, and will be generating a small amount of deuterium and oxygen. The only CF fatality was from a closed cell where they were using a recombination catalyst, and it stopped working. The scientist picked up the cell and jarred it. The recomb started working. All at once.

I'll have probably less than 25 ml of D2O in the cell. I may use a fuel cell as a recombiner but really to recover the small amount of deuterium gas evolved, and I'm not sure about that. The cell may be purely open. The Galileo protocol is an open cell. No explosion risk. Meltdown has happened with CF cells, but I've never heard of such with codeposition cells.

Not in glass. Small com'l acrylic box. Detailed design not done yet. Galileo protocol is very simple, may just do that first except for more instrumentation. I'll be looking for phenomena that should be there from what is in the literature, but which may not have been seen together. Lights, camera, action!

Good to know there is only one known fatality from DIY kitchen fusion. But just await until its out of beta.

[Abd]

Good to know there is only one known fatality from DIY kitchen fusion. But just await until its out of beta.

Actually, this accident was at SRI International. Major research facility. Not a kitchen. However, there is a report on-line about a guy who did run a cell in his living room. Had the bright idea to have a closed cell with a spark gap. To cause immediate recombination. It ended up plastered on his ceiling. Not a great idea. I'm telling lots of people about what I'm doing. Some of these have lots of experience.

I have a history of doing weird stuff, outside the norms. Like delivering babies. Didn't lose any, nor any mothers. The rule was, if it wasn't familar, we consulted immediately.

Actually, that's like my WP work. I only did twenty deliveries, but set up a midwifery school and the students, I believe, have done thousands. By now, those babies are having their own babies....

[GlassBeadGame]

Good to know there is only one known fatality from DIY kitchen fusion. But just await until its out of beta.

Actually, this accident was at SRI International. Major research facility. Not a kitchen. However, there is a report on-line about a guy who did run a cell in his living room. Had the bright idea to have a closed cell with a spark gap. To cause immediate recombination. It ended up plastered on his ceiling. Not a great idea. I'm telling lots of people about what I'm doing. Some of these have lots of experience.

I have a history of doing weird stuff, outside the norms. Like delivering babies. Didn't lose any, nor any mothers. The rule was, if it wasn't familar, we consulted immediately.

Actually, that's like my WP work. I only did twenty deliveries, but set up a midwifery school and the students, I believe, have done thousands. By now, those babies are having their own babies....

Well I'm sure the kitchen stuff is much safer. Ever hear of "Cult of the Amateur?" Good to know about the midwifery.

[Abd]

I have a history of doing weird stuff, outside the norms. Like delivering babies. Didn't lose any, nor any mothers. The rule was, if it wasn't familar, we consulted immediately.

Actually, that's like my WP work. I only did twenty deliveries, but set up a midwifery school and the students, I believe, have done thousands. By now, those babies are having their own babies....

Well I'm sure the kitchen stuff is much safer.

Than Wikipedia? Definitely. Far more profitable, I'm predicting, as well. On paper, I've already made $100. I assume I can sell this stuff. The internet is good for weird things, you can now sell things that only a few people need, and reach them. I sell other weird stuff, like stainless steel yarn and shredded iridescent polyester.

Ever hear of "Cult of the Amateur?"

Not until today. Interesting.

Good to know about the midwifery.

Key to being successful as an amateur:

1. Remember that you are an amateur, that there are people who have devoted their lives to the topic or activity, and some of them know more than you ever will, unless you do this for a long, long time.

2. You may happen to learn more about some small area, don't be intimidated by experts. But listen to them. More often that not, they are right. Good ones will tell you exactly why and how you are wrong. Or, sometimes, will even admit that your idea is interesting. If it is.

3. Sometimes experts are wrong. Hardly ever, however, are all experts wrong.

4. Being wrong is the fastest way to learn, if you don't get stuck on being right. So don't give up until you've been shown why you're wrong, in a way you can understand. Otherwise it was all a waste. The value of the knowledge far exceeds any minor embarrassment over error.

5. Have fun. If you have enough fun, you might be able to turn it into a business, and you are no longer strictly an amateur!

[Abd]

The editing of the article is as silly as ever. Hipocrite objected to the use of a source because it didn't refer to "cold fusion," but probably to the "anomalous phenomena in the palladium deuteride system" or "low energy nuclear reactions." Of course, the article points out that researchers in the field don't use the term "cold fusion," it's a media term and a colloquialism. Hipocrite, of course, called the edit which he'd reverted "original research" and "synthesis."

The new editor is an expert, an academic, I know because I checked. He was arguing with idiots.

Meanwhile, on the cold fusion kitchen kit project, it's coming along swimmingly. I've spent about $4,000 buying materials in quantities large enough that I can make a profit selling them at "retail," and the stuff is expensive: platinum and gold wire, and palladium chloride. And since I had nothing, I've needed to outfit a lab, essentially, plus prepare for production of kits. Given that the standard advice was that to enter this field, you'd need at least $8,000 or so, I'm not doing badly at all, I'm under budget, and the Galileo project told experimenters to spend about $800 to set up perhaps two cells. I've bought enough for maybe 200. And I've developed a technique for utilizing CR-39 and other radiation detectors, optimized for neutron detection, that should have an impact on the field by almost completely eliminating the influence of background radiation on stored CR-39.

I've been given $1000 by a Wikipedia editor, a scientist, as a donation to help me set up, and I'm getting another $2000 as a loan with generous terms, plus this same person is likely to buy stock from me, as a way to loan me further money with security, so, altogether, the financing has exceeded the actual expenses. I didn't expect that.

Meanwhile, simply discussing the project has had an effect on experts in the field. One, who had been quite upset with me over another matter, wrote me, "I'm still angry about ...., but, I have to admit, you know what you are talking about, so, if I FedEx you [some supplies], would you accept them?" And that's about $300 worth of supplies, useful stuff. And a professor in India has written and wants to have kits by the middle of January to take back to India for graduate student projects. My guess is, at least four kits, maybe more.

All in all, it's been great. Thanks, ArbComm, without your assistance I would merely be an editor, reliant upon secondary sources. Soon I'll be a source or supporting sources; the Indians would be doing work for publication under peer review as confirmations of the SPAWAR work.

In spite of all the brou-ha-ha about this project, and its supposed fringe character, the actual experimental protocol has been published more than once, in major mainstream publications, and is highly likely to demonstrate the production of neutrons (in modest quantities, but way, way above background) from palladium deuteride at room temperature.

To paraphrase an old saw, "A few months ago I couldn't even spell sinetist, now I are one." Except, of course, I could spell.

I wasn't about to risk my slender savings and my credit on some stupid nonsense. If you have a power supply capable of supplying current at a range of values between 100 microamps and 100 milliamps, I'll be selling, within a month, single cells with all materials ready to move the supplied CR-39 detectors into position, hook up the leads to the power supply, pour in the electrolyte (supplied with the cell), and run the current protocol, which takes 10-14 days for the first phase, low current until the palladium chloride plates out, and then another week at progressively higher currents. Then you remove the CR-39 detectors from the cell (there are four) and develop them in hot 6.5N sodium hydroxide solution. For the faint of heart, I believe I'll be offering an etching service. A single cell with heavy water electrolyte will cost $95, and the exact same cell with light water will cost $66. So, for a measly $161, plus a little hot lye, you can do a cutting edge experiment and a light water control, generating neutrons in your kitchen, garage, basement, or wherever. It's safe, the cells are open, no explosions expected, the evolution of deuterium gas is very slow. From prior work, if you see any neutron tracks with the light water, it will only be very few, three orders of magnitude down.

(At best, I expect to see less than 1 neutron track (knock-on protons, mostly) per minute, on a detector that is up close and personal with the cathode wire. These tracks will be seen on the back of the CR-39, not on the face toward the cathode; the back is about 100 microns ,the thickness of the CR-39, away from the cathode, so intensities much further away would be so low as to be undetectable, by the inverse square law. Background might be less than a track a day, I'm not sure. I'll know, because there will be control detectors).

I won't have the results of my own trial for about a month and a half, I estimate, so the *exact* configuration hasn't been tested, and "cold fusion" experiments have a way of being highly sensitive to unexpected variables, but the particular protocol I'm following is very close to the SPAWAR-recommended protocol and I don't expect it to fail. If it does, I'll have to announce that, consult, and try to find out why. (I'm using slightly different material for the CR-39,. for example, it's unlikely to cause a problem unless it interacts chemically with the electrolyte, in which case it would show hazing. I may be using less palladium chloride and a correspondingly shorter cathode wire, and that's about the only difference I can think of. Chemicals are the same grade of purity.)

How long is it going to take before all this hits reliable source? Any bets?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Viridae]

Fuck.