415) Another CF Conference is Approaching
July 1, 2013
* * *
1) The next International Cold Fusion conference, ICCF18 will begin in four weeks.
This probably explains why so many messages, both theoretical and experimental, have been posted on our private list for CMNS researchers. Responding to a post from X1, I wrote:
2) I am sorry to repeat trivia--not every heat-generating process, especially when thermal energy is generated at the rate of 1 W or less, is nuclear.
The NS part, in the name of our field, refers to unexplained nuclear processes, such as transmutation (for example, generation of helium or copper), emission of nucleons (such as energetic neutrons, protons and alpha particles), emission of gamma rays, changes in isotopic compositions, etc.
Demonstrations of nuclear signatures are extremely valuable, even when there is no evidence of excess heat. The same is true for demonstrations of unexplained excess heat, not correlated with a nuclear process. Such demonstrations are also important, both scientifically and technologically. But they do not belong to our CMNS field. Do you agree?
3) Responding to this, X2 asked: "Would you consider Deep Dirac Levels to be atomic or nuclear?" My reply was also short: "Deep Dirac Levels cannot be characterized as either only atomic or only nuclear. I was thinking about experimental signatures of CMNS."
The Deep Dirac Level is pure imagination that X2 is trying to relate to a behavior. Only the behavior of CF allows this DDL structure to be suggested because X2 can claim the normal rules of chemistry and/or nuclear physics do not apply to CF. Once the accepted rules are applied, the DDL must be rejected.
I suggest the Deep Dirac Level is neither only chemical nor only nuclear. It falls in the twilight zone occupied by the hydrino. It might apply to CF but if it does, it would also apply to many chemical processes where its action would be easy to detect. Unfortunately, X2 [in earlier messages] has not shown this connection so the relationship to chemistry is unknown and apparently unknowable.
The experimental signatures of CMNS are clearly nuclear, as Ludwik says. Therefore, we must find a way to explain how this happens in a chemical structure without violating the basic rules accepted by conventional science. Any other approach will fail, as has been the case so far.
5) Responding to my message, X4 wrote: "Ludwik, what an odd and unexpected statement.
If one-watt heat signals without a corresponding nuclear signal are outside the scope of CMNS, then so is the seminal work of Fleischmann and Pons. Their nuclear
claim rested on the observation that the energy produced in their cells exceeded known chemistry, so the “hitherto unknown process” must be nuclear. So, I strongly disagree with your statement.
6) Instead of asking about "odd an unexpected," I wrote: Let me say the same thing in a slightly different way. Presence of unexplained excess heat may or may not be due to a nuclear process; it can be due, for example, to a totally unknown process, as just stated by X4, or to a combination of two or three known processes (perhaps optical and magnetic). What is wrong with such observations?
7) Quoting my first post, X5 wrote: "I strongly disagree with Ludwik's statement. He has missed the point entirely. The energy output is undefined. To attribute it to cold fusion is self-limiting. Limiting LENR to fusion is the basic error of the field. ... [The last sentence, about being "trapped in a metaphor," is omitted; I do not understand it.]
8) Quoting X5, X3 wrote: "I think you have missed the point instead of Ludwik. We have proof that a nuclear process occurs in what appears to be ordinary material that produces energy and detected nuclear products. When this happens, it is called CMNS. Of course, other sources of novel energy might exist in Nature without a nuclear reaction being produced. However, these processes are not called cold fusion. We need to be clear about this. The energy source is defined. We only are uncertain about the process.
If you want to discuss a different source, you are free to do this, but do not confuse it with LENR."
9) Responding to X3, X2 wrote (in part): "It is legitimate for you to say you disagree with my view [an explanation based on Dirak levels] and then decline to say why or to decline to defend your position. But, your repeated statements and innuendos are simply an indication of your frustration at your models not being listened to in the way you insist. ... "
10) X6 wrote: Pons and Fleischmann turned out to be correct, the process was indeed nuclear. However, the energy density was circumstantial evidence of "nuclear," not direct evidence, and some other unknown but non-nuclear reaction could have been causing the apparent high-energy-density anomaly.
A fundamental error was made in asserting a paradigm shift without direct evidence.
I do understand why it happened, but we must understand this point, because we keep focusing on weak evidence, circumstantial evidence, before we have clearly conveyed the *direct evidence. *
Weak evidence of "nuclear":
1. Excess Heat. Suppose the source of the heat is hydrinos, or some other unknown non-nuclear phenomenon. If the reaction is "unknown," what is the basis for asserting that it is *nuclear.* It is a *reasonable surmise,* but against this reasonable surmise would be a huge weight of assumption about what is possible.
2. Transmutations other than to helium, including tritium, radiation, etc. These are all at levels *far* below those needed for association with the observed excess heat. These *are* nuclear evidence, but could indicate some reaction other than what is producing the XP. Perhaps nobody ever looked so carefully before. This evidence was plagued by irreproducibility and vulnerability to various artifacts, and this is exactly what was the case with the original PF claim of neutrons. Some experiments rise to the level of strong evidence that "something nuclear is taking place,* but *what*? *It may have nothing to do with the heat-producing effect.*
Direct evidence became available with heat/helium, and that remains practically the *only* direct nuclear evidence as to the main show in the FPHE.
11) Commenting on the last sentence above I wrote: " Instruments needed to replicate the heat/helium experiments certainly exist in several US national laboratories, and elsewhere. They are probably used, by highly qualified scientists, to conduct different kinds of investigations. The DOE knows this. The cost of organizing several independent heat/helium experiments, similar to those already performed, would be a small fraction (probably much less than one percent) of the approved DOE or NSF budgets. What can be done to force the DOE or NSF to organize several independent replications?
12) X6 responded, in part:
... While I do have personal ideas about what should be done, my real proposal is to develop community process, so that what we do is a community effort, with broad consensus behind it. ... If the DoE or other interested agency is *not* convinced of the reality of cold fusion, and regarding helium as the major ash of the FP Heat Effect, after a full review of the literature on heat/helium, then it would be urgent to confirm or falsify the claim of a heat/helium correlation. That is a *central issue,* for anyone not convinced. I advise rigorous refusal to speculate on the specific mechanism, I would use the word "mystery," over and over. "Mystery" does not attack existing physics, but, of course, it allows room for something new to be found. ...
13) Two other researchers also commented. I hope the topic will be discussed at the upcoming ICCF18 conference, and that either DOE or NSF will subsequently organize attempts to replicate helium/heat experiments.
14) On Jul 2, 2013, X3, replying to another post, wrote: