Crack hypothesis gets community response

Today’s successes in cold fusion energy generators have been hard-won by trial and error, with each system developed by a select criteria amassed over years of painstaking success and failure.

Ironically, the many labs with commercial prototypes each follow a different mental model of how their system works, a problem for developing a technology, as the criteria to enable the anomalous effects of excess heat and transmutations are not universal over all cells.

Prototypes appear to suffer from either one of two extremes: i) there is control of the reaction, but not high-enough power output, or ii) there is plenty of thermal output, but engineering control and/or stability are at issue. No definitive theory describing how to make cold fusion happen on-demand with maximal efficiency exists, for any type of system.

When an accurate model of the reaction is finally articulated, it will spell-out exactly how to build energy-dense, ultra-clean batteries charged for life.

While there are many researchers in condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) modeling the reaction, few can agree on what the features of a theory should be, and the lack of consensus is keeping a revolutionary new-energy technology from a world in need of a solution.

The names given to cold fusion over the years reflect various streams of focus:

  • low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) differentiates the phenomenon from hot fusion and is the most commonly used term today.
  • lattice-assisted nuclear reactions (LANR) focuses on the crystal-lattice structure as enabling excess heat.
  • quantum fusion attempts to describe the reaction using 20th-century physics.
  • nickel-hydrogen exothermic reactions describe the elements involved in generators being developed for commercial use.
  • anomalous heat effect (AHE) labels a reaction without any reference to cause.

Finding the recipe

“This is the most ideal energy you could possibly imagine,” says Dr. Edmund Storms, a former-Los Alamos National Lab nuclear chemist and long-time researcher in cold fusion.

Describing the conditions needed to make the reaction happen is essential to producing a usable technology. To move forward, “what are the basic theoretical criteria that we can collectively agree upon?”

iecover108Issue #108 of Infinite Energy magazine attempts to answer that question by gathering leading researchers and moderating a discussion on the properties a theory should have.

Edmund StormsCold Fusion from a Chemist’s Point of View begins the process by asking the community to justify where the location of the reaction is.

David J. Nagel, Xing Zhong Li, Jones Beene, Vladimir Vysotskii, Jean-Paul Biberian, Andrew Meulenberg, and Ed Pell all responded to the call, each writing their thoughts with various focus.

But for all that brain power, and a seemingly simple question – where does the reaction occur? – there is little agreement on the answer.

The NAE is something special

Storms notes that nuclear reactions don’t generally spontaneously erupt in ordinary materials. He asks, what changes occur in the chemical environment of a regular piece of metal to make a reaction happen? He describes those special conditions as the Nuclear Active Environment (NAE).

An array of atom constitutes a solid.
An array of atom constitutes a solid.

Many theories today apply to only one system, either Pd-D or Ni-H, and put the reaction within the metallic lattice. Mathematics is utilized to explore how enough energy might accumulate at one spot to overcome the Coulomb barrier, or initiate electron-capture.

Storms asks these theories to explicitly state how it is that enough energy can spontaneously accumulate locally in the lattice without first affecting the chemical bonds that hold the atoms together, or, violating the laws of thermodynamics? Justifying all theoretical assumptions is essential to weeding out dead-end ideas and accelerating those that appear more promising.

Whereas Storms sees physicists by-and-large concentrating on the cause of the reaction, asking ‘what possibilities exist that could start a nuclear reaction inside a metal?’, he differentiates his chemist’s approach to modeling by remaining tethered to the known chemical properties of solids, and how materials are witnessed to behave in the lab.

“Any theory of cold fusion must begin and end with the experimental results,” says Storms. “A theory that does not explain what we see and measure in the lab must be abandoned.”

Where does the reaction occur?

In palladium-deuterium systems, which have been most studied, and for which there is the most publicly available data, measurements of nuclear products helium, tritium, and transmutation products point to origins within a few microns of the metal’s surface.

Ni surface on which Cu was deposited
Ni surface on which Cu was deposited
Following a chain of reasoning commanded by the experimental data, Storms hypothesizes that the NAE are cracks that form on the surface of bulk metals due to stress. Expanding the idea of cracks to apply to all types of systems, he includes the tiny nano-spaces that exist within metallic powders and biological organisms.

Nano-sized cracks and spaces satisfy the criteria that puts the reaction near the surface in metal-hydrides and they can be found in all types of systems. In addition, a nano-space provides a special environment separate from the rest of the solid, relieving the burden that the chemical environment imposes, allowing the space to respond differently from the lattice, subject to appropriate stimuli.

Still, questions remain. For instance, David J. Nagel asked how could these cracks be formed so perfectly as to be just the right-size for a string of hydrons to form? And where is the mathematics to quantitatively model this hypothesis?

The nuclear mechanism

Getting these questions out in the open and discussed is the point of IE’s exercise and Storms plans to respond in the next issue, but he has made clear he does not find it fruitful to provide a mathematical argument before first describing the location of the NAE.

“If you don’t know what the initial conditions are to make the reaction happen, how can you describe what is actually happening quantitatively?”

Storms believes if theorists first focus on finding the location of the reaction, and can describe the initial conditions that make the reaction happen, then a theory of the nuclear mechanism will begin to take shape.

Supposing Storms’ idea of the NAE is confirmed, he does speculate qualitatively on the nuclear mechanism by first having the tiny cracks and spaces become filled with hydrogen to form hydrotons.

Subject to some stimulus, the hydrotons in the crack resonate, beginning a process whereby mass is slowly turned to energy according to Einstein’s E=mc2 without the dangerous radiation associated with hot fusion. This nuclear mechanism would be a new type of reaction not yet understood in the context of conventional theory.

Testing theory

Only experimental results will confirm or deny any proposed theory. However, the lack of coordinated research programs amongst the community, exacerbated by an absence of funding and patent-protection, is a huge problem.

Peter H. Hagelstein has attempted to model cold fusion since 1989, chewing through multiple versions of ideas, and abandoning them when they are no longer feasible. For all his work, he has endured two-and-a-half decades of isolation from mainstream science.

In IE#108, he opens the series on theory with a guest editorial On Theory and Science Generally in Connection with the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment [.pdf], available free compliments of Infinite Energy and

If his closing statement to The Believers movie was a devastating admission of defeat by SNAFU, this new essay shows a wit that won’t back down despite the massive challenges. With unblunted satire, Hagelstein deconstructs the scientific method, updating the hallowed steps-to-discovery for 21rst century conditions.

While the scientific method might lead to unambiguous data, its effectiveness is lost in an atmosphere of hostility.

Storms’ hypothesis on the NAE leads to twelve new predictions, providing a rubric to test the idea. The simplest test is to detect deuterium from Ni-H systems; a mass spectrometer on an active cell would suffice for that one. But who with access is willing to perform these experiments? Money is now being raised by interested parties to pay for co-operation.

Infinite Energy magazine is undertaking this effort to bring theorists together over a model of cold fusion with a series of issues. Jean-Paul Biberian, a researcher from Universite Sciences de Luminy and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science will be leading the next issue focused on theory this winter. We hope it begins a productive renaissance in collaborative science on the greatest scientific question of our time.

A world is waiting.

Cold Fusion Now!

Related Links

Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2 by Edmund Storms and Brian Scanlan [.pdf]

An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms [.pdf] from Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 9 (2012)

An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions video interview with Edmund Storms by Ruby Carat summer 2012.

The Nuclear Active Environment and Metals That Work video interview with Edmund Storms by Ruby Carat summer 2011.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditby feather

8 thoughts on “Crack hypothesis gets community response”

  1. What a shame that we live in a time when main-line Science is at it’s lowest intellectual and competence level since before the Enlightenment.
    Never since the Inquisition are True Scientists so afraid to even talk about anything that is not sanctioned by the establishment holy orders.
    Thankfully I am no scientist and therefore free to follow the Truth and Evidence of Cold Fusion and many other forbidden subjects.
    In the Future this period of science with it’s fearful, closed-minded following of Dogmatic “expert opinion” and refusal to follow Evidence will surly be know as the wasted years.

    1. I agree. When you see the billions being wasted on global warming – both the grants for the so-called “climate science” and the funding of misguided policies on reduction of CO2 emissions, it is enough to make you weep. Almost all the policies to fight climate change end up lining the pockets of the already wealthy at the expense of the poor.

      A fraction of this money could have been invested into research on cold fusion/LENR. Potentially, by now, we would have a solution (should CO2 be a problem) and a source of energy that could transform the world and make it a much better place for the poorest.

  2. Years ago I was amazed to learn the carbon in the water filter under my sink contained about half an acre of surface area.

    George Miley talks about discovering unperfect beads being more likely to harbor the CF process. I wonder if “cracks” are a similar phenomenon to an expansive surface area.

  3. Dimensionality is the key for Lenr and the right values can be found experimentally, dependig on the materials and their internal structure. You need “3D islands” of matter, according to the “Fermi-Pasta-Ulam” Paradox, which is very instructive and the general background. Some of these islands in a powder mixture have the right dimensionaluty and structure to start the reactions, so they occurr in hot spots. You can easily observe where they occurs in your experiment with a thermal camera. So, a systematic search can be done. You need SEM analysis also.

  4. Great article, Ruby. Thanks for the very clear analysis of where we are at — and all kudos to Edmund Storm, Peter Hagelstein, and all the other courageous researchers who have kept this torch lit for the past twenty years.

  5. I am learning about crowdsourcing and crowdfunding: (about crowdsourcing rocket design), (about crowdfunding projects), ( about crowdsourcing software production)

    Did you know there was a website devoted to crowdsourcing protein strand creation?

    What I am trying to say is that currently LENR (LANR, FPE, cold fusion, whatever) research is inefficient because the scientific community nor the business, political, or social communities, have adopted this new paradigm in nuclear reaction/energy production. Unfortunately, I think first a LENR generator needs to hit the market (a third-party verification report alone won’t do it). There is a whole sector of journalism devoted to bringing the “next big thing” into the public view, but that thing must be explicit, not simply a R&D concept cloaked in secrecy due to patient and proprietary right concerns.

    Specifically, Dr Storms appears to be a rational hard working scientist, but “detect deuterium from Ni-H?” Really? I thought Brillouin had already made clear that they’ve found that to be the case. Is it just that they too have proprietary concerns, so haven’t released their tests in a form Dr Storms can have confidence in?

    Another thing: “Subject to some stimulus, the hydrotons in the crack resonate, beginning a process whereby mass is slowly turned to energy…” Defkalion claims to have an “instant on, instant off” LENR generator. Although I hear that Leonardo’s does take something like an hour to warm up, and another hour to cool down.

    Hopefully this April, Leonardo is going to hit their mark of mass produced 1 megawatt LENR generators going to waitlisted customers, plus the long awaited third party verification will be published. That is just the sort of thing that will GREATLY speed up LENR research and R&D.

Comments are closed.