I loved the trailer. I wish I had trailers like that to greet me every time I entered a lab. Plus some inspiring cinematic music to keep me from falling into utter hopeless despair every 3 or 4 hours. You could sell that, you know, as some kind of background system for most academic labs, some kind of mood-elevating motivational system for scientists and grad students to keep them from jumping out the window so often.
Dave Hein: my estimate for my first attempt regarding actually getting excess energy is about 70% confidence. Proving it is a different matter - no matter how well I personally can demonstrate that the energy is coming from the reaction, and not some external source, or chemical reaction of unknown origin (energy levels for these devices are usually on the order of thousands of times greater than any known chemistry can account for) - ultimately, my proof will be in 1) being able to replicate the effect for more qualified researchers at accepted, recognized labs, and 2) having them be able to replicate the effect to their satisfaction and perform the much more rigorous calorimitry and other tests that I do not have the facilities or equipment to perform to "true" highest-quality scientific standards (my own included).
That PUBLIC proof aside, I will know myself if what I see is valid or not. I'm sure everyone on here who has experience with electrochemistry can look at a reaction and watch the thermometers, and know if there is any way that the heat being produced can be accounted for by the possible chemical and electrical energies involved. Seriously, if I'm putting 5.00vdc at 200mA into 200ml of D2O & 0.1 molar LiSO4 with Platinum and Palladium electrodes, and the D2O boils (not fizzing electrodes, I mean boiling D2O) I will be fairly certain, even without calorimitry, that *something* is happening that exceeds the chemical/electrical potentials involved. At that point, if I can replicate the event reliably, I'll be trucking myself and my experiment to (probably) MIT and Peter Hagelstein to start verifying the results rigorously.
Others who have commented here or in PM about the trailer: Glad you enjoyed it. I just made it with plain old Windows Movie Maker. The orbital clip was from Pond5.com (I get all my video/audio stock stuff there - some's cheap... some not). I've got a lot more material for the movie, mostly background covering the history and the actual process as we understand it to this point in time. It's going to be designed to present CF in a manner that non-technical folks can understand it - something I've been doing an apparently very good job of with a lot of the people I know who are interested in this - so hopefully I can do that same thing in video format as well.
Project status - Have Platinum wire available now, going to get the Pt/Pd laser welds done hopefully by Wednesday - photos will be forthcoming. I should have the scaffolding for the anode coil form and cathode holder done soon as well. Then I get my D2O!
If you acheive fusion and you can't prove it to others, then how could you have any confidence that you actually did it?
To reiterate a section of my post in direct reply to this:
"...ultimately, my proof will be in 1) being able to replicate the effect for more qualified researchers at accepted, recognized labs, and 2) having them be able to replicate the effect to their satisfaction and perform the much more rigorous calorimitry and other tests..."
To translate - I will let others who are more qualified prove it. If I suspect I have achieved some sort of inexplicable excess-energy output, I will first verify that I can do it again (self-reproducible), and then if I can do that, I will bring it to researchers who are more qualified than I in determining exactly what I am getting for output energy vs. input energy. If I achieve fusion, it will be provable to others. I'm not understanding how you have formulated that question given the above information presented. Basically, no one would believe any "proof" that I, a run-of-the-mill electronics engineer, could provide, hence my recognition that I must, should my experiment produce seemingly anomolous results, turn to individuals with more recognized authority to review my procedures and experimental observations first-hand, such that they could perform any type of test necessary to eliminate the possibility of experimental error, misinterpretation of observational data, or outright fraud. Does this answer better explain my process for experimental proof/validation?
If you acheive fusion and you can't prove it to others, then how could you have any confidence that you actually did it?
Oh there will be confidence to go around. I have seen some absolutely breathtaking videos and stories about the amazing world we will live in when the potential of radionics, orgone energy, astrology, crystals, and such things are finally realized. Making trailers and writing books is easier than actually making the technology work when the technology doesn't work.
Pons and Fleishman were very thoroughly busted after their failed attempt to prove electrochemical catalysis of nuclear reactions. But it's a very seductive idea, and a cheap one to pursue, and so it has attracted this little community just like the little communities that have formed around orgone accumulators and spirit recording. Believing in it now requires at least three new things; in addition to the aforementioned electrochemical catalysis of nuclear reactions, explaining the results requires at least one and more likely two major departures from standard nuclear theory. I can believe an impossible thing if I think I've seen it, but believing three of them is a stretch. And as with Ouija boards and Tarot readings, the results are not replicable and do not scale, impressive as they might be in occasional single instances. Instead of ever larger scaling we see ever finer excuses for why it not only doesn't scale, it doesn't replicate for people outside the circle.
Pons and Fleishman were very thoroughly busted after their failed attempt to prove electrochemical catalysis of nuclear reactions.
I'm not sure they were totally busted in the long term, as reports I've read say their densities were above any of the other test attempts, and once others match that parameter, voila.
Of course, this returns to the bigger question, which is, what does it cost to operate ?
If you can get a lab-bench excess of Y joules, but need a material sample that had to be pre-packed and fine tuned materially, at a cost of Z Joules, then if Z >>Y, your lab result is merely interesting, and not yet commercially useful.
Hi all,
Seriously, if I'm putting 5.00vdc at 200mA into 200ml of D2O & 0.1 molar LiSO4 with Platinum and Palladium electrodes, and the D2O boils (not fizzing electrodes, I mean boiling D2O) I will be fairly certain, even without calorimitry, that *something* is happening that exceeds the chemical/electrical potentials involved. At that point, if I can replicate the event reliably, I'll be trucking myself and my experiment to (probably) MIT and Peter Hagelstein to start verifying the results rigorously.
Erm, that many neutrons could doom you to a slow death, boiling that much water is something like 10^18 fusions or so, like tickling the dragon's tail and slipping just as the hemispheres reach criticality... You will be doing this away from residential areas I trust
... it doesn't replicate for people outside the circle.
Yes, I did neglect to specify that the "outside experts" to which I would be taking my experiment, should I get any anomolous results, would be independent observers ultimately. Granted, since I am very close geographically to MIT and Peter Hagelstein, that would probably be a start, but ultimately I would want my experiment examined by someone who is not considered part of "the circle".
But then again - MIT was regarded as one of the highest institutions of technology on the planet, and since someone there had the audacity to say that CF is, in fact, not junk science, then I guess all the accomplishments, discoveries and advances ever produced by that organization were, in fact, illusory and unreliable, because, after all, they became part of the circle.
So, now that LANL, CERN, NASA, MIT and others are all part of the circle, I guess my real challenge would be to find someone considered not part of the circle who could do the testing and experimental validation - but then, well, they'd be part of the circle, and their opinion would be automatically invalidated by that fact.
Could it be that the circle will eventually get so enormous, so unwieldy, so all encompassing, that the entire planet will find itself awash in CF-based technology, and people will actually be foolish enough to believe, year after year, that these things like cf-based heating systems and cf/fuel-cell hybrids, are actually working? So totally brainwashed will we be that we will actually BE warm in the winter from these things, purely by the power of our misguided belief? The placebo effect has been experimentally documented to have enormous power, perhaps CF will be the ultimate proof of it.
Fortunately, there will be folks who will have the good sense to recognize that there can't possibly be any new way of balancing energy products within a metallic hydride lattice that don't produce high energy particles that travel external to the lattice. And they will be the real winners, because all the oil will now be available for them alone, since the deluded CF people won't be using it any more, and gas and oil will be cheap or free.
Sorry - just having a little fun, nothing personal.
Seriously, though, I ask you - who WOULD be considered a valid go-to lab/researcher/person? Who could someone like myself, should my experiment actually produce a rediculous amount of heat, go to that could verify the anomoly TO YOUR SATISFACTION? Is there anyone? Or would ANYONE who verified that the energy was in excess of anything that could possibly be electrical or chemical, and could possibly be nuclear, then, automatically, be incompetent? Part of the "circle"?
I understand that the particle packing density energy differences must be accounted for, but I - and some very damn smart people out there - are open to the possibility that something is going on that we don't understand. Just because we don't have an existing model for it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Electricity existed long before we had any clue what it was, we observed that, we just had no explanation.
I think in some areas of science, it's *possible* that the cart has gotten ahead of the horse. Science USED to make observations, then come up with theory to explain what we OBSERVED. Then, science got VERY good at coming up with theory to predict what should happen. If the math told us something was there, if we did X and Y to Z, we would get Q^2 or something. ANd if we did those things, by golly we actually got it.
Now it sometimes seems like we're saying that if we don't have a theory to explain the observation, or any math that predicts it, then the observation is wrong. Or the observers are wrong. Or both.
I've seen some amazing explanations for both the ability to initiate fusion, ie., overcome the Coulomb Barrier, as well as explanations for how the energy balance IS maintained. LANL is currently doing a project on UC Neutron production. I'm sure you're familiar with Electron Capture, or Inverse Beta Decay, and traditionally that has always required an atom with more than a single proton in order for the event to take place. That reaction, which basically requires something like 0.78MeV to get an electron to slam into a proton, produces an Ultra Cold neutron (slow, sluggish little thing) and an electron neutrino. Now we get perforated by something like 1x10^40 neutrinos per hour or some ridiculous number, mostly from solar radiation. And in many CF experiments, UC Neutrons and e-nutrinos have been observed. There is evidence of 4He and trace levels of Tritium. We DON'T *KNOW* what's going on, but the hundreds of really interesting observations like this can't ALL be incompetent, or worse, fraudulent, scientists. These are not college students still coming down from a weekend of smoking weed and listening to Bob Marley - these are guys like Edmund Storms, whose career at LANL was impeccable. Why would he suddenly lose his mind over this stuff if there wasn't something worth examining?
Anyway - my money is on the guys who say that something's happening, and we just don't understand how it can work yet. But they're working really hard at figuring it out. ANd I bet they will.
And when they do, everybody wins, because this stuff is a big deal.
In any case, I am now actively building a cell, just ordered the Palladium. For under $500.00 this is now a hobby-level project (just don't drink the Deuterium!). I know there's been discussion of this issue on these boards before, but a lot of new info has come to light in the past 2 or 3 years. Just wondered who else was actually interested in trying this stuff vs speculating.
All the theory and talking about it is fine. Time to get on and do some experiments then write them up in such a way someone else can replicate them. If it can be done for under $500 and the writeup is simple to follow then someone here will be able to replicate it. If that happens, then fame and fortune await and there is a clear written record here on the forum that you were the first person to discover it.
Well Xanatos, all I can say is that I wish you luck. You'll need it. You're right that it would be a big deal and if you can pull it off I'll be at the front of the line to shake your hand and eat crow.
But I'm the guy who grew up in a phsyics lab and paid off my house by advantage play gambling, and my money is on the other thing.
Localroger: If no one bets on the other side, what good is the bet? :-) By the way, I hope you don't take my pushing my personal views on this with my full weight (which is admittedly not much) personally. I enjoy the debate on here - it makes me think, and brings up points for me to look into further that I may otherwise have missed or glossed over. I appreciate your stubborn insistence that the goal we are all chasing is a pipe dream. Even though I'm actually right! :-) (PS., Just looked up "advantage Play Gambling" - always fascinated by card counting, etc!)
Dr_Acula: Yes, the Palladium is here. I posted a picture of it a few pages back. Much cheaper than I would have thought. 99.9% pure, 10mm x 20mm x 0.5mm, 1 Troy Gram, under $40.00! Source: http://shop.americancertifiedbullion.com/1-GRAM-999-Pure-Palladium-Bullion-Bar-000102.htm The Platinum wire, as it turns out, is at my jeweler-friend's business where he has the laser welder (used for fine jewelry repair). The 99.9% pure Platinum wire is used as a filler and to build up thin parts of jewelry. And I just finished the design drawings for the assembly that holds the Pd cathode and the Pt anode coil, and that's going to the machine shop on Monday, hopefully. Believe me, I'm on it! And - I would not be the first to discover it - it may actually have been observed as far back as 1926. And there are a ton of people who have replicated it now... of course, they're all in "The Circle"... :-)
Dave
PS., Photos of the assemblies will follow. Since the Pd turned out to be well within budget (I had initially estimated a few hundred bucks for it), I will be making several electrode assemblies to try different stuff.
I would bet the long shot, that even if it's not the fusion the skeptics deny, there's something else interesting that the experimenters are seeing. If the results are reproducible, other folks might be will to pay for materials plus machining; I would! Your jewelry friend could be getting some business, just for nerdy medallions.
...
Could it be that the circle will eventually get so enormous...that the entire planet will find itself awash in CF-based technology....
Not likely.
Instead, the technology will be declared as unsafe, a hazard to public health and safety, and sales of materials associated with its development will be prohibited under some sort of anti-terrorist law. The technology will be allowed only in highly controlled facilities owned by Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Fukushima, etc. who will be granted exclusive rights to handle the materials, due to their global expertise in such matters.
Not likely.
Instead, the technology will be declared as unsafe, a hazard to public health and safety, and sales of materials associated with its development will be prohibited under some sort of anti-terrorist law. The technology will be allowed only in highly controlled facilities owned by Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Fukushima, etc. who will be granted exclusive rights to handle the materials, due to their global expertise in such matters.
This would be funny if it weren't so possible... I know chemists who fume (pun, well, intended I guess... :-) ) about the growing list of naturally occuring chemicals, such as Iodine, that can no longer be purchased because some idiots can use it to make a drug. Hell- water is also an ingredient in these drug labs, maybe that should be controlled and regulated as well... ::face-palm::
This would be funny if it weren't so possible... I know chemists who fume (pun, well, intended I guess... :-) ) about the growing list of naturally occuring chemicals, such as Iodine, that can no longer be purchased because some idiots can use it to make a drug. Hell- water is also an ingredient in these drug labs, maybe that should be controlled and regulated as well... ::face-palm::
For those who think this could never happen...
In Texas it is illegal to own a beaker or pretty much any glass labware for this exact reason.
For those who think this could never happen...
In Texas it is illegal to own a beaker or pretty much any glass labware for this exact reason.
Stuff like that scares the hell out of me. What idiot legislator would actually believe that a law like that would have any impact on criminal activity? Other than, of course, now criminalizing any chemistry hobbyist who might actually be trying to learn something useful and interesting in their spare time. Yeah- let's throw them in jail.
Good grief what is going on?
As a kid in the late 1960's in the big toy store in my small home town in England there was a whole selection of chemistry sets for 10 year olds. Not only that but a vast selection of real beakers, test tubes, glass tubes etc for those who wanted to get serious about it. Not to mention the electronic engineer kits etc etc.
Yeah, I had that sort of stuff when I was growing up. It doesn't exist anymore. Existing chemistry kits are carefully constructed with plastic parts (non-breakable and cheaper too) and substances chosen for their lack of toxicity ... therefore lack of significant liability. Electronics kits for 10 year olds are made to not require soldering and work at low voltages unlike when I got started when vacuum tubes were still used. This is all safer, but there are important things that you can't learn.
When I was about 12 I used to buy chemicals, test tubes, etc. from a pharmacy near where we lived. I didn't have any problems buying small amounts of concentrated acids and various other dangerous substances. Many years later my mother told me that she once asked them if they should be selling me that stuff, and they said that I knew what I was doing. I once wanted to make some hydrogen cyanide, so I bought some potassium ferro-cyanide (it was used in photography and was quite safe) and worked out how to make HCN from it. I poured the test tube contents down the sink as soon as I got the smell of almonds.
For those who think this could never happen...
In Texas it is illegal to own a beaker or pretty much any glass labware for this exact reason.
Bean, I hadn't heard about a restriction like that, so I called a local science supply store for clarification. The sales clerk said that test tubes, beakers and most other graduated glass vessels are not regulated. However, they are not allowed to sell triangular shaped flasks to the general public because they are used in making drugs.
EDIT: I forgot to ask the sales clerk if there was any restriction on cold fusion research. Maybe I'll call him back to see if they sell any cold fusion kits.
So it's conical flasks that are illegal? They're just made so you can put a stopper in them, basically, or a stopper with some tubes. I guess that conveys some magical drug-making property to them... I wonder if this holds true in Massachusetts as well, I'll have to check on this! How sad that legitimate experimenters and hobbyists, not officially "sanctioned" by the government through a school or university, have to bear the penalty for morons who choose to use their chemistry knowledge to make stupid stuff... This reminds me of a story I read a couple of years ago in which people with advanced electronics and programming knowledge had to register with the government and their movements were tracked because their knowledge was deemed a threat to global infrastructure, and books on programming and computer network architecture could get you up to 20 years in prison if you weren't licensed by the state and employed at an authorized facility. The book was scary because it was well written and plausible as to how this could come about.
This reminds me of a story I read a couple of years ago in which people with advanced...
This is not fiction. Perhaps not electronics but until recently there were export restrictions on crypto software/hardware from the USA. "Normal" people were not allowed to play that game and exchange their ideas. I'm sure if you were in that business they kept tabs on you.
On an on-topic note: I visited my jeweler-friend/client today and spec'd everything out for the welding of the Pt wire to the Pd cathode. The wire he has is only 92% Pt, with Ruthenium and/or Cobalt alloyed in. I'm going to order the 99.9% Pt wire instead. As it is I'm somewhat concerned about the 0.1%... but at least it's less than 8%! :-)
QUESTION FOR THE PHYSICISTS HERE: NEUTRON DETECTION:
I am going to set up a series of small side-experiments since the Pd is cheap enough, each with different parameters for the Pd preparation and excitation methods. The purpose of these will be solely to detect neutron flux.
I am looking at CR-39 films and etching in 6M NaOH to detect triple-tracks, which I believe are acceptable evidence of neutrons - but before I do this, I want to check to see what would be considered unquestionable evidence of neutrons?
I would think on my own that if I shield the experiments from any outside neutron sources (not that there's a lot around here...), and run a control experiment in with the batch of others (two Pt electrodes in light water, while the remaining units all are Pd/Pt in D2O), and if I see no triple-tracks on the control CR-39, but DO see triple-tracks on some of the other CR-39 films after etching - then I would construe that as at least evidence worthy of further investigation.
Would this experiment pass muster with anyone but me? :-)
xanotos, are you trying to get the physicists on this forum to do your homework for you? You should know that we don't allow that on this forum.
I suggest you invest in some dosimeter badges so you know when you've reached your lifetime allocation of radiation exposure. You should also purchase a geiger counter if you don't already have one. I worked in a particle accelerator lab when I was going to school, and we had to wear our dosimeter badges whenever we were in the lab.
xanotos, are you trying to get the physicists on this forum to do your homework for you? You should know that we don't allow that on this forum.
I suggest you invest in some dosimeter badges so you know when you've reached your lifetime allocation of radiation exposure. You should also purchase a geiger counter if you don't already have one. I worked in a particle accelerator lab when I was going to school, and we had to wear our dosimeter badges whenever we were in the lab.
LOL! Actually, I did my homework - hence my choice of CR-39. However, my question is not "what is available to use" but what would pass judgement. That's not an objective question, but a subjective one. Folks on here who have differing opinions on these matters, such as LocalRoger, are my best resource, because they would have the highest threshold of proof requirements. If I can provide experimental procedures and results that would make LocalRoger stop to consider the results - then I might actually have something! :-)
Again - I'm having FUN doing this. But if I actually do get something, I don't want to just "preach to the choir" - I want to be able to provide something useful beyond my own lab doors. Granted, if I can heat my house with this and no one else believes me, I'll still be happy. Heck, if I get fizzing Palladium that turns white and loads with deuterons I'll be happy... but I really believe there's a possibility I may be able to go beyond that, and if so, I want it to be useful.
So - I need to know the hoops through which I and my experiments must jump in order to cause the open-minded nay-sayers to reconsider, even if it's just a bit.
PS., I have three geiger-counters, and I am modifying all three to have counts countable by my BS2px-based datalogger. It is going to record temp data and any radiation counts in 15 second intervals, with alerts to let me know if anytnhing significant happened while I was not watching. I am also hoping to borrow a FLIR to record the experiment on a 6-hour looping recorder - it'll be interesting to see if any of teh logged data corresponds to any increase in IR output.
Comments
...for some reason, that looks strangely familiar!
Dave Hein: my estimate for my first attempt regarding actually getting excess energy is about 70% confidence. Proving it is a different matter - no matter how well I personally can demonstrate that the energy is coming from the reaction, and not some external source, or chemical reaction of unknown origin (energy levels for these devices are usually on the order of thousands of times greater than any known chemistry can account for) - ultimately, my proof will be in 1) being able to replicate the effect for more qualified researchers at accepted, recognized labs, and 2) having them be able to replicate the effect to their satisfaction and perform the much more rigorous calorimitry and other tests that I do not have the facilities or equipment to perform to "true" highest-quality scientific standards (my own included).
That PUBLIC proof aside, I will know myself if what I see is valid or not. I'm sure everyone on here who has experience with electrochemistry can look at a reaction and watch the thermometers, and know if there is any way that the heat being produced can be accounted for by the possible chemical and electrical energies involved. Seriously, if I'm putting 5.00vdc at 200mA into 200ml of D2O & 0.1 molar LiSO4 with Platinum and Palladium electrodes, and the D2O boils (not fizzing electrodes, I mean boiling D2O) I will be fairly certain, even without calorimitry, that *something* is happening that exceeds the chemical/electrical potentials involved. At that point, if I can replicate the event reliably, I'll be trucking myself and my experiment to (probably) MIT and Peter Hagelstein to start verifying the results rigorously.
Others who have commented here or in PM about the trailer: Glad you enjoyed it. I just made it with plain old Windows Movie Maker. The orbital clip was from Pond5.com (I get all my video/audio stock stuff there - some's cheap... some not). I've got a lot more material for the movie, mostly background covering the history and the actual process as we understand it to this point in time. It's going to be designed to present CF in a manner that non-technical folks can understand it - something I've been doing an apparently very good job of with a lot of the people I know who are interested in this - so hopefully I can do that same thing in video format as well.
Project status - Have Platinum wire available now, going to get the Pt/Pd laser welds done hopefully by Wednesday - photos will be forthcoming. I should have the scaffolding for the anode coil form and cathode holder done soon as well. Then I get my D2O!
Dave
To reiterate a section of my post in direct reply to this:
"...ultimately, my proof will be in 1) being able to replicate the effect for more qualified researchers at accepted, recognized labs, and 2) having them be able to replicate the effect to their satisfaction and perform the much more rigorous calorimitry and other tests..."
To translate - I will let others who are more qualified prove it. If I suspect I have achieved some sort of inexplicable excess-energy output, I will first verify that I can do it again (self-reproducible), and then if I can do that, I will bring it to researchers who are more qualified than I in determining exactly what I am getting for output energy vs. input energy. If I achieve fusion, it will be provable to others. I'm not understanding how you have formulated that question given the above information presented. Basically, no one would believe any "proof" that I, a run-of-the-mill electronics engineer, could provide, hence my recognition that I must, should my experiment produce seemingly anomolous results, turn to individuals with more recognized authority to review my procedures and experimental observations first-hand, such that they could perform any type of test necessary to eliminate the possibility of experimental error, misinterpretation of observational data, or outright fraud. Does this answer better explain my process for experimental proof/validation?
Dave
Oh there will be confidence to go around. I have seen some absolutely breathtaking videos and stories about the amazing world we will live in when the potential of radionics, orgone energy, astrology, crystals, and such things are finally realized. Making trailers and writing books is easier than actually making the technology work when the technology doesn't work.
Pons and Fleishman were very thoroughly busted after their failed attempt to prove electrochemical catalysis of nuclear reactions. But it's a very seductive idea, and a cheap one to pursue, and so it has attracted this little community just like the little communities that have formed around orgone accumulators and spirit recording. Believing in it now requires at least three new things; in addition to the aforementioned electrochemical catalysis of nuclear reactions, explaining the results requires at least one and more likely two major departures from standard nuclear theory. I can believe an impossible thing if I think I've seen it, but believing three of them is a stretch. And as with Ouija boards and Tarot readings, the results are not replicable and do not scale, impressive as they might be in occasional single instances. Instead of ever larger scaling we see ever finer excuses for why it not only doesn't scale, it doesn't replicate for people outside the circle.
I'm not sure they were totally busted in the long term, as reports I've read say their densities were above any of the other test attempts, and once others match that parameter, voila.
Of course, this returns to the bigger question, which is, what does it cost to operate ?
If you can get a lab-bench excess of Y joules, but need a material sample that had to be pre-packed and fine tuned materially, at a cost of Z Joules, then if Z >>Y, your lab result is merely interesting, and not yet commercially useful.
Erm, that many neutrons could doom you to a slow death, boiling that much water is something like 10^18 fusions or so, like tickling the dragon's tail and slipping just as the hemispheres reach criticality... You will be doing this away from residential areas I trust
Yes, I did neglect to specify that the "outside experts" to which I would be taking my experiment, should I get any anomolous results, would be independent observers ultimately. Granted, since I am very close geographically to MIT and Peter Hagelstein, that would probably be a start, but ultimately I would want my experiment examined by someone who is not considered part of "the circle".
But then again - MIT was regarded as one of the highest institutions of technology on the planet, and since someone there had the audacity to say that CF is, in fact, not junk science, then I guess all the accomplishments, discoveries and advances ever produced by that organization were, in fact, illusory and unreliable, because, after all, they became part of the circle.
So, now that LANL, CERN, NASA, MIT and others are all part of the circle, I guess my real challenge would be to find someone considered not part of the circle who could do the testing and experimental validation - but then, well, they'd be part of the circle, and their opinion would be automatically invalidated by that fact.
Could it be that the circle will eventually get so enormous, so unwieldy, so all encompassing, that the entire planet will find itself awash in CF-based technology, and people will actually be foolish enough to believe, year after year, that these things like cf-based heating systems and cf/fuel-cell hybrids, are actually working? So totally brainwashed will we be that we will actually BE warm in the winter from these things, purely by the power of our misguided belief? The placebo effect has been experimentally documented to have enormous power, perhaps CF will be the ultimate proof of it.
Fortunately, there will be folks who will have the good sense to recognize that there can't possibly be any new way of balancing energy products within a metallic hydride lattice that don't produce high energy particles that travel external to the lattice. And they will be the real winners, because all the oil will now be available for them alone, since the deluded CF people won't be using it any more, and gas and oil will be cheap or free.
Sorry - just having a little fun, nothing personal.
Seriously, though, I ask you - who WOULD be considered a valid go-to lab/researcher/person? Who could someone like myself, should my experiment actually produce a rediculous amount of heat, go to that could verify the anomoly TO YOUR SATISFACTION? Is there anyone? Or would ANYONE who verified that the energy was in excess of anything that could possibly be electrical or chemical, and could possibly be nuclear, then, automatically, be incompetent? Part of the "circle"?
I understand that the particle packing density energy differences must be accounted for, but I - and some very damn smart people out there - are open to the possibility that something is going on that we don't understand. Just because we don't have an existing model for it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Electricity existed long before we had any clue what it was, we observed that, we just had no explanation.
I think in some areas of science, it's *possible* that the cart has gotten ahead of the horse. Science USED to make observations, then come up with theory to explain what we OBSERVED. Then, science got VERY good at coming up with theory to predict what should happen. If the math told us something was there, if we did X and Y to Z, we would get Q^2 or something. ANd if we did those things, by golly we actually got it.
Now it sometimes seems like we're saying that if we don't have a theory to explain the observation, or any math that predicts it, then the observation is wrong. Or the observers are wrong. Or both.
I've seen some amazing explanations for both the ability to initiate fusion, ie., overcome the Coulomb Barrier, as well as explanations for how the energy balance IS maintained. LANL is currently doing a project on UC Neutron production. I'm sure you're familiar with Electron Capture, or Inverse Beta Decay, and traditionally that has always required an atom with more than a single proton in order for the event to take place. That reaction, which basically requires something like 0.78MeV to get an electron to slam into a proton, produces an Ultra Cold neutron (slow, sluggish little thing) and an electron neutrino. Now we get perforated by something like 1x10^40 neutrinos per hour or some ridiculous number, mostly from solar radiation. And in many CF experiments, UC Neutrons and e-nutrinos have been observed. There is evidence of 4He and trace levels of Tritium. We DON'T *KNOW* what's going on, but the hundreds of really interesting observations like this can't ALL be incompetent, or worse, fraudulent, scientists. These are not college students still coming down from a weekend of smoking weed and listening to Bob Marley - these are guys like Edmund Storms, whose career at LANL was impeccable. Why would he suddenly lose his mind over this stuff if there wasn't something worth examining?
Anyway - my money is on the guys who say that something's happening, and we just don't understand how it can work yet. But they're working really hard at figuring it out. ANd I bet they will.
And when they do, everybody wins, because this stuff is a big deal.
All the theory and talking about it is fine. Time to get on and do some experiments then write them up in such a way someone else can replicate them. If it can be done for under $500 and the writeup is simple to follow then someone here will be able to replicate it. If that happens, then fame and fortune await and there is a clear written record here on the forum that you were the first person to discover it.
Has your equipment arrived yet?
But I'm the guy who grew up in a phsyics lab and paid off my house by advantage play gambling, and my money is on the other thing.
Dr_Acula: Yes, the Palladium is here. I posted a picture of it a few pages back. Much cheaper than I would have thought. 99.9% pure, 10mm x 20mm x 0.5mm, 1 Troy Gram, under $40.00! Source: http://shop.americancertifiedbullion.com/1-GRAM-999-Pure-Palladium-Bullion-Bar-000102.htm The Platinum wire, as it turns out, is at my jeweler-friend's business where he has the laser welder (used for fine jewelry repair). The 99.9% pure Platinum wire is used as a filler and to build up thin parts of jewelry. And I just finished the design drawings for the assembly that holds the Pd cathode and the Pt anode coil, and that's going to the machine shop on Monday, hopefully. Believe me, I'm on it! And - I would not be the first to discover it - it may actually have been observed as far back as 1926. And there are a ton of people who have replicated it now... of course, they're all in "The Circle"... :-)
Dave
PS., Photos of the assemblies will follow. Since the Pd turned out to be well within budget (I had initially estimated a few hundred bucks for it), I will be making several electrode assemblies to try different stuff.
Watching with interest....
Not likely.
Instead, the technology will be declared as unsafe, a hazard to public health and safety, and sales of materials associated with its development will be prohibited under some sort of anti-terrorist law. The technology will be allowed only in highly controlled facilities owned by Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Fukushima, etc. who will be granted exclusive rights to handle the materials, due to their global expertise in such matters.
This would be funny if it weren't so possible... I know chemists who fume (pun, well, intended I guess... :-) ) about the growing list of naturally occuring chemicals, such as Iodine, that can no longer be purchased because some idiots can use it to make a drug. Hell- water is also an ingredient in these drug labs, maybe that should be controlled and regulated as well... ::face-palm::
For those who think this could never happen...
In Texas it is illegal to own a beaker or pretty much any glass labware for this exact reason.
Bean
Stuff like that scares the hell out of me. What idiot legislator would actually believe that a law like that would have any impact on criminal activity? Other than, of course, now criminalizing any chemistry hobbyist who might actually be trying to learn something useful and interesting in their spare time. Yeah- let's throw them in jail.
"uhm, what're you in for?
I murdered my ex. You?
I bought a beaker at a yard sale"
Yup... Seems fair and sensible to me...
::silently screaming::
As a kid in the late 1960's in the big toy store in my small home town in England there was a whole selection of chemistry sets for 10 year olds. Not only that but a vast selection of real beakers, test tubes, glass tubes etc for those who wanted to get serious about it. Not to mention the electronic engineer kits etc etc.
EDIT: I forgot to ask the sales clerk if there was any restriction on cold fusion research. Maybe I'll call him back to see if they sell any cold fusion kits.
It's the triangle shape that does it. Things start to happen under the power of those pyramids...
This is not fiction. Perhaps not electronics but until recently there were export restrictions on crypto software/hardware from the USA. "Normal" people were not allowed to play that game and exchange their ideas. I'm sure if you were in that business they kept tabs on you.
On an on-topic note: I visited my jeweler-friend/client today and spec'd everything out for the welding of the Pt wire to the Pd cathode. The wire he has is only 92% Pt, with Ruthenium and/or Cobalt alloyed in. I'm going to order the 99.9% Pt wire instead. As it is I'm somewhat concerned about the 0.1%... but at least it's less than 8%! :-)
I am going to set up a series of small side-experiments since the Pd is cheap enough, each with different parameters for the Pd preparation and excitation methods. The purpose of these will be solely to detect neutron flux.
I am looking at CR-39 films and etching in 6M NaOH to detect triple-tracks, which I believe are acceptable evidence of neutrons - but before I do this, I want to check to see what would be considered unquestionable evidence of neutrons?
I would think on my own that if I shield the experiments from any outside neutron sources (not that there's a lot around here...), and run a control experiment in with the batch of others (two Pt electrodes in light water, while the remaining units all are Pd/Pt in D2O), and if I see no triple-tracks on the control CR-39, but DO see triple-tracks on some of the other CR-39 films after etching - then I would construe that as at least evidence worthy of further investigation.
Would this experiment pass muster with anyone but me? :-)
Thanks for the info.
I suggest you invest in some dosimeter badges so you know when you've reached your lifetime allocation of radiation exposure. You should also purchase a geiger counter if you don't already have one. I worked in a particle accelerator lab when I was going to school, and we had to wear our dosimeter badges whenever we were in the lab.
LOL! Actually, I did my homework - hence my choice of CR-39. However, my question is not "what is available to use" but what would pass judgement. That's not an objective question, but a subjective one. Folks on here who have differing opinions on these matters, such as LocalRoger, are my best resource, because they would have the highest threshold of proof requirements. If I can provide experimental procedures and results that would make LocalRoger stop to consider the results - then I might actually have something! :-)
Again - I'm having FUN doing this. But if I actually do get something, I don't want to just "preach to the choir" - I want to be able to provide something useful beyond my own lab doors. Granted, if I can heat my house with this and no one else believes me, I'll still be happy. Heck, if I get fizzing Palladium that turns white and loads with deuterons I'll be happy... but I really believe there's a possibility I may be able to go beyond that, and if so, I want it to be useful.
So - I need to know the hoops through which I and my experiments must jump in order to cause the open-minded nay-sayers to reconsider, even if it's just a bit.
PS., I have three geiger-counters, and I am modifying all three to have counts countable by my BS2px-based datalogger. It is going to record temp data and any radiation counts in 15 second intervals, with alerts to let me know if anytnhing significant happened while I was not watching. I am also hoping to borrow a FLIR to record the experiment on a 6-hour looping recorder - it'll be interesting to see if any of teh logged data corresponds to any increase in IR output.