Tag Archives: cold fusion

Conclusion: Key to understanding FPE is temperature

electrolytic-cell-1The Progress Reports have revealed some important behaviors having a relationship to attempts at replication and to the various proposed theories. Its time to put these behaviors in context and suggest some conclusions.

If you are tempted to speculate on your own, please do read the reports first and make yourself knowledgeable about what has been observed in other studies published over the last 26 years. We now have enough information, when considered in its totality, to arrive at some very firm conclusions.

Progress will be made only when this understanding is accepted and used as a guide to support additional understanding.

As anyone who is familiar with the many observations will understand; the conclusions noted below are totally consistent with past observed behavior. The only conflict is with the past conclusions. Many of these past conclusions are now shown to be wrong.

1. The LENR process is not initiated when a sample of Pd is initially loaded to high composition. Additional treatment is required to cause the LENR process to start. Once this additional treatment is successful, LENR will take place over a very wide range of deuterium concentration, even after all D is removed and the sample is again reacted with D.

2. Only certain batches of Pd can be activated. One of the requirements for successful activation is lack of significant excess volume formation when the Pd is reacted with D.

3. Excess power produced by an activated sample is very reproducible once it is initiated as long as the surface is not removed. This behavior is consistent with the surface being the location of the nuclear reaction based on the behavior of helium release.

4. Once the LENR process starts, the amount of current applied as electrolytic current has no effect on the amount of excess power produced. Only the temperature of the active surface has any effect on excess power production, with higher temperatures producing greater excess power. We can assume that once a sample is activated, simply exposing it to D2 gas and heating it would cause excess power production. In other words once the sample of Pd is activated, use of electrolysis is no longer necessary.

5. The activation energy for excess power production based on the temperature effect is similar to the value for the activation energy for diffusion of D in PdD. We can assume excess power production is controlled by how fast the D can diffuse from the surrounding lattice to the NAE where the nuclear reaction occurs.

6. So called life-after-death will result in eventual destruction of the sample if the temperature is not controlled, as some people have observed. In other words, the system suffers from positive feedback as Rossi has also experienced using the Ni-H2 system. This positive feed back is generally not observed because the amount of power produced relative to the rate at which it can be lost is small.

7. Once the role of electrolytic current is understood, the F-P method can be seen to have the same basic behavior as all methods found to initiate LENR, including the Ni-H2 system. In other words, no reasons exists based on observed behavior to consider the Pd-D2 system different from the Ni-H2 system. Only the reacting isotopes are different which naturally would produce different nuclear products.

All of behaviors and conclusions resulting from this study are consistent with the Nano-crack theory I proposed. Most other proposed theories are not consistent with all the observations and conclusions. These conflicts need to be resolved for any progress to be made.

See also:

Progress Report #6

Progress Report #5

Progress Report #4

Progress Report #3

Progress Report #2

Progress Report #1

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather

Progress Report #6

This report extends the insights described in Report #5 and shows that several common conclusions about LENR are wrong. These errors have handicapped efforts to achieve reproducibility and have lead several theories in the wrong direction.

PROGRESS-REPORT-6 Additional behavior of pure PdD (1.3Mb)

Temperature plays a significant role in affecting the amount of power produced by LENR. The activation energy for power production is very similar to the activation energy for diffusion of D in PdD. This behavior is consistent with my theory in which temperature is described as helping D reach the NAE by diffusion through the surrounding lattice.

Comments are welcome.

Figure 9 from Progress Report #6 showing surface of the Pd cathode after the study.
Figure 9 from Progress Report #6 showing surface of the Pd cathode after the study.
Figure 10 from Progress Report #6 shows surface of Pd before the study.
Figure 10 from Progress Report #6 shows surface of Pd before the study.

Read more from PROGRESS-REPORT-6 (1.3Mb)

See also:

Progress Report #6

Progress Report #5

Progress Report #4

Progress Report #3

Progress Report #2

Progress Report #1

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather

Progress Report #5

Here is the latest progress report. Shown are some important behaviors that have been misinterpreted in the past, so a careful reading would be useful. This report will appear with the other Reports on www.LENRexplained.com. Because these are quickly written informal reports, some typos and other errors are to be expected. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

PROGRESS-REPORT-5 (20Mb) (corrected)

This study is an example of having available an apparatus that can detect new behaviors only because such behaviors are expected. We see only what we are permitted to see by the apparatus. Consequently, the design of the apparatus is basic to understanding LENR. In this case, the design was influenced by the behaviors predicted by my theory.

Fig. 9 from Report #5. Overall view of the calorimeter showing the position of a laser. A laser is positioned to apply laser light to the cathode surface at various angles and locations. The laser can be focused to change the spot size on the target, heated to change its frequency, and rotated to change its polarization relative to the target. A second laser can also be used either together or independently. A hole through the back of the calorimeter allows insertion of a fiber optical cable to measure the frequency of the laser. The laser is not being used at the present time.
Fig. 9 from Report #5. Overall view of the calorimeter showing the position of a laser. A laser is positioned to apply laser light to the cathode surface at various angles and locations. The laser can be focused to change the spot size on the target, heated to change its frequency, and rotated to change its polarization relative to the target. A second laser can also be used either together or independently. A hole through the back of the calorimeter allows insertion of a fiber optical cable to measure the frequency of the laser. The laser is not being used at the present time.

Production of excess energy is once again claimed, but this time it is correlated with radiation being generated by the energy-producing process. This correlation is new and provides powerful evidence for the excess energy being real and being caused by a nuclear reaction.

As for the importance of radiation. I have gradually come to the conclusion that claims for excess energy can not be attributed to a nuclear process unless they are correlated with the products of a nuclear process. The correlation with helium production meets this requirement. However, these measurements are difficult and expensive. Detection of radiation also meets this reqirement. In this case, the measurement is easy and cheap. The only requirement is to actually use a sensitive detector within the apparatus. Radiation with the energy being detected can not be made by a chemical reaction. This is proof of a nuclear process. As for reproducibility, I have already reproduced the effect several times and intend to use the correlation to justify my claims for producing LENR.

The role of temperature was largely misinterpreted in the past. Production of power is controlled by the ambient temperature, not by using pulses, although pulses will have an effect because they change the average ambient temperature. This realization has profound importance to any proposed explanation.

The composition of the PdD is not the most important variable in determining whether excess power will be produced. This study shows that temperature is one of the most important variables, which according to my theory affects the rate at which the D can diffuse to the NAE where the nuclear reaction takes place.

Of course, the NAE must be first created before any excess power will be produced regardless of the temperature. Temperature alone does not create the NAE nor does the composition alone create the NAE.

The ultimate challenge is to discover exactly what does cause the NAE to form. That is the goal of this study.

PROGRESS-REPORT-5 (20Mb) (corrected)

See also:

Progress Report #5

Progress Report #4

Progress Report #3

Progress Report #2

Progress Report #1

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather

How To Evaluate LENR Theory?

It has been posed that a major criterion for evaluating theory is “comparison with the observations we expect it to ‘explain'”, such as

1) A failure to observe intense penetrating radiations.
2) A failure to observe secondary hot reactions (recoil etc.)
3) Why the reaction takes place mainly outside the bulk.
4) How tritium / neutrons are produced.
5) How energy is transmitted to the lattice as heat.
6) How the above can occur in both light and heavy hydrogen systems.
7) Iwamura’s transmutations.

I have studied LENR now for 26 years. I found the difficulty in creating the effect very frustrating. Most of my attempts failed. When a sample made energy, it seemed no different from the samples that did nothing. Finding an explanation for this difference became my goal. Use of trial and error was not practical because I did not have the resources to run the required large number of experiments.

I turned to the explanations that were being proposed and found that they ignored the unique conditions required to initiate the nuclear reaction and focused on the nuclear process using selected behavior. In other words, they were useless in showing me how to make success more reliable.

Having a chemical background, my first question was, “What was unique about the material that could cause a nuclear reaction”? After all, for over 100 years, scientists failed to detect any indication that a nuclear reaction could be affected by the chemical environment no matter how extreme the conditions and no matter how hard they looked. Clearly, a very rare and unique condition had to be created. In 1996, I identified this condition as the nuclear active environment (NAE).

Once the NAE is accepted, the question has to focus on where in the material this rare and unique condition is located and how can it be created.

Obviously, the condition is not part of the structure normally present in all materials, such as vacancies or dislocations. If these common conditions were the NAE, LENR would be much more common and much easier to replicate.

An answer to this quandary is basic to explaining LENR.

The second problem involves the mechanism. The mechanism must only affect a nuclear reaction. The process must have no effect on the chemical behavior. After all, chemists have been studying Pd/D for over 100 years and have detected nothing unusual about its chemistry. The material acts like any other hydride, except it is more reactive to H than most other elements.

A mechanism involving electron energy levels would affect the chemical conditions. Chemistry has failed to find such a mechanism. Simply put, DDL, neutron formation, and any other mechanism involving the electrons can be eliminated from consideration, at least at first.

Nevertheless, electrons are required to reduce the Coulomb barrier to a level permitting the observed reaction rate. This means electrons are involved, but how?

Finally, LENR creates helium rather than fragments of helium, as does hot fusion. Somehow a mechanism must overcome the barrier while at the same time dissipating the nuclear the energy. In the case of hot fusion, these two events are separated in time. In LENR, the two events must occur at the same time and be part of the same basic process. This requires a very unique mechanism.

In conclusion, LENR requires a unique and rare condition in the material and a very rare and unusual mechanism must operate in this condition. This path immediately eliminates most explanations and forces the discussion to ask different questions. I asked these questions in my book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, and provide detailed answers to each of the questions posed, along with many others.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather

Storms Book Review by Nikita Alexandrov

Book Review of The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction by Nikita Alexandrov, President of Permanetix Corporation, was originally published in Infinite Energy Magazine issue #117 September/October 2014 and is reproduced here.


Dr. Edmund Storms, one of the foremost experts in cold fusion/LENR research has recently published a new book titled The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation. Dr. Storms worked at Los Alamos labs for 34 years studying energy related chemistry, specifically advanced nuclear projects. This book is currently the most up-to-date compilation of LENR research and contains over 900 references, but is written in such a way that it is organized and conducive to a well rounded understanding. According to the preface by Dr. Mike McKubre of Stanford Research Institute, “There is no better synthesis of knowledge and understanding presently available to us and I know of no other person capable of making an evaluation at this level.” While this could be considered a reference material for experimental results, it differs from Dr. Storms’ previous books in that it introduces his theory of the mechanism behind the LENR effect, an oscillating linear cluster of two or more hydrogen or deuterium atoms called the Hydroton.

The first half of the book contains a wealth of knowledge regarding the experimental results obtained in the field. This includes the physics of the various experimental systems as well as an overview of instrumentation and general trends in the collective data. There are a large amount of pictures and graphs which really help to mentally process some of the complex relationships in the data. This section of the book is critical for anyone interested in LENR because it organizes and condenses the experimental procedures and results in a way which makes the huge amount of seemingly contradictory research much simpler to understand. Dr. Storms takes a first-principles approach and imposes certain limits on the parameters of LENR theory based on what has been observed and basic chemical and physical principles. The experimental techniques used in the field are explained as well as the limitations and some reasons all of the facets of the LENR effect have eluded researchers. An overview of the physics of radiation from various nuclear reactions which may be present is very helpful in explaining the odd experimental results of the field. It is proposed that only a few types of radiation are produced directly from the LENR reaction but secondary radiation is produced from either the interaction of radiation with other matter in the system, traditional nuclear effects such as fractofusion (example: Ti-D experiments) or combination fusion-fission reactions (very unique part of the Hydroton theory). Dr. Storms goes into detail about how he believes various triggering methods initiate or improve the production of the LENR effect.

Dr. Storms’ theory revolves around a linear oscillating cluster of two or more hydrogen or deuterium atoms called a Hydroton. Under certain conditions this structure forms in the nano-cracks of metallic substrates. This differs significantly from the early theories of LENR in that it does not take place in the metallic lattice. Many theories are based on the fact that hydrogen or deuterium loaded into a metallic lattice inherently become pushed very close together, a shortcut towards fusion. These same theories require that the nuclear energy be communicated directly from the nucleus to the electrons (lattice) which is not unheard of but is not a traditional nuclear pathway and requires a complex explanation. Dr. Storms examines the lattice vs. nano-crack argument from a chemical, thermodynamic and transport standpoint, pulling from what we know of nuclear product production in LENR and the physics and chemistry of hydride/deuteride systems. Dr. Storms insists that it is simply not possible to both produce fusion and dissipate the energy inside of a lattice. His model does not rely on energy dissipation via the lattice but through a steady release of bursts of low energy photons as the Hydroton oscillates and fusion occurs. Another significant difference compared to most theories is that it explains the different results obtained using deuterium vs. using hydrogen via two different mechanisms. This is important because many early theories only focused on deuterium fusion ignoring hydrogen all together, but modern experiments show that hydrogen does indeed participate in the LENR effect. Lastly, Dr. Storms explains the various methods of producing transmutation products, either via a fusion-fission reaction of a hydrogen containing Hydroton or by the substrate atoms becoming part of the Hydroton in deuterium containing Hydrotons. The mechanism producing tritium and helium is explained in detail as well, but will not be explained here. Dr. Storms’ theory explains all known aspects of LENR in a very new way, not requiring the limitations of the mechanism taking place directly in the substrate lattice.

This theory is testable in various manners. Dr. Storms makes some suggestions in the book including the confirmation of predicted transmutation products as well as the detection of soft radiation such as low energy photons, betas, alphas and energetic ions. Dr. Storms points out that the reason radiation is not often detected is that the expected types and energies of radiation can simply not be detected outside of the experiment, requiring in-situ soft radiation detectors. So far it seems that experimental results line up with Dr. Storms’ theory but since his theory was built around this data it is important that future experiments be compared to what is expected using his model. Single or multiple deuterium addition to the substrate in deuterium containing Hydrotons, or fusion-fission products in hydrogen containing Hydrotons, would be expected and a good place to examine the theory experimentally.

Overall this is an excellent theory which can make some predictions; it will not allow us a complete mastery of LENR but is a large step in the right direction. Most of Dr. Storms’ theory is based on traditional physics and chemistry but there are certain aspects which are not fully understood, specifically how a Hydroton releases controlled bursts of photons at very low energies before the completion of the fusion process. This is the sticking point of LENR theory—it is not so hard to explain how two atoms fuse, but how they release their huge amount of energy without creating standard hot fusion products and detectable radiation as well as destroying the lattice local where the event took place.

By investigating experimental results and applying his physics and chemistry understanding, Dr. Storms is able to produce some basic equations which explain the power produced by LENR systems and show optimal operating conditions. Like everything else Dr. Storms produces, these equations are created using first principles and basic science; a Ph.D. is not required to wrap your head around this book as well as his theory in general.

Dr. Storms’ book contains a chapter of modern theories of LENR including limitations and possible shortcomings. This inventory of theories is great because it provides an excellent balanced overview of the field from a theoretical standpoint. This combined with the overview of the field from an experimental standpoint makes this the best reference book in the field of LENR. This book is highly recommended for anyone from the student interested in learning about LENR for the first time to highly trained scientists working in the field of LENR. There will be no disappointment in the level of detail and with over 900 references it provides an incredibly organized wealth of information regarding LENR experiments and theory.

The final chapter “Future of LENR” provides a road-map forward, listing the requirements for mastering the LENR effect as well as what needs to be done experimentally to get there. One thing the book does not mention is that Dr. Storms is ready and willing to put his LENR skill-set and understanding to the ultimate test—along with other researchers Dr. Storms has proposed an experimental research program to further the understanding of LENR. Dr. Storms is currently in the process of raising money for this research program and at millions of dollars per year, this could be the Manhattan project of LENR. The only thing standing between mankind and a guaranteed increased understanding of LENR is research funding and public awareness. I urge anyone interested in LENR to inform others about this book and the field in general and those which are financially independent to contact Dr. Storms about his research proposal.

Read the original article published on Infinite Energy.

Related Links

The Explanation of LENR Homepage http://lenrexplained.com/

Nikita Alexandrov Advanced analytic and highly parallel Cold Fusion Experimentation [.pdf] presented at the 2014 CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather