Contemplation of CANR-LENR investigations

[Richard Hull]

As recently posted by Oliver Greenaway, I might join him and make some variously applied efforts at CANR-LENR. More of a dabble at first.

I am fortunate or unfortunate, depending on your take, in having followed much of the literature and actually have met some few "principals" in the effort. By the foregoing, I mean that I might be biased by past worker reports on how to, or not to, proceed, being soiled or pre-conditioned. Or, I might be well informed and fore-armed in a manner that will allow me to possibly profit from other's failures and spared blind alleys.

Still, should I make any attempt, I would not embroil myself in calorimetry which is a field I know only from my time in physics lab in college. (babe in the woods)

Instead, I would concern myself totally with radiation analysis, something I am a bit more familiar with. Such measurements might only be of interest in a runaway cell which is about as rare as the personal sighting of a 200 foot on a side triangular UFO.

I shall endeavor to keep an openminded attitude should I make any attempt.

Others might arm themselves as they see fit, but should be ready for some disappointment. Most researchers who entered this field are no longer in it as they were looking for the quick fix or a serious result at first dabble. Apparently for those who stuck like glue, one can't cash out at first dabble. This is not like making a fusor.

Richard Hull

[DaveC]

Richard -

Your systematic, open-eyed approach would be most useful, certainly in the amateur sector. Getting repeatable, and predictable results would be a major first step on the path to cedibility...which then leads to discussions of the physics and not personalities.

The nice thing about the LENR/CENR experiments is the small amount of really specialized hardware required... at least, at the lowest levels of experimental effort.

Having a section here to accomodate this topic, formally, might suggest a subtle change to our Forum's name.. from Fusor, to Fusion.... and then the appropriate words up at the web page..too.

Years ago, I used to do work in electrolysis. If I ever retire, I might return to dabbling in this area again.

Dave Cooper

[David Rosignoli]

"The nice thing about the LENR/CENR experiments is the small amount of really specialized hardware required... at least, at the lowest levels of experimental effort."

Well....I agree at the lowest end of experimentation, the basic equipment needs are small and inexpensive. However, to really measure anything conclusively, and to ensure tight controls, one needs to dish out a little $.

There seems to be several signatures that one can measure here:
1. Transmutation byproducts
2. Radiation - small quantity neutrons (a tiniest fraction of what you would measure in a fusor), or perhaps other forms such as gamma rays
3. Excess heat
4. Helium measurements (same as 1.)

For those interested, Edmund Storms gives a nice summary of what might be involved:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm

Richard, I think you are right to go with measuring radiation. Calorimetry can be very misleading if not done correctly. Althouh I would be surprised if you didn't find the desire (for curiousity sake if nothing else) to conduct some heat measurements.

Transmutation byproducts including helium gas would be very useful information. But here the equipment can get expensive. As you would need some means to either
1) image microscopically the surface materials to see degradation and after-effects, and/or
2) some form of materials/gas analysis device to register the elemental distribution
(actually, I think 2) is needed, and 1) is optional)

Of course, any experiment of this type is best done with some form of automated computer data logging, as the effect may take a long time in coming (hours), and may appear as bursts of energy, unexpectedly. You don't want to stay up all day and night to miss an event because you walked away to pee.

An interesting and long research project, whose goal would be to map out the effects.
Cool stuff.

Dave

[Wilfried Heil]

I think successful experiments would require a formidable amount of hardware, like a cage of He-3 detectors around the putative neutron source, preferably in an underground cavern.

As you know this has been done, with debatable results.

Maybe you can find a way that will make the phenomenon more pronounced, if it exists.

[Richard Hull]

I always have felt that if CF exists it is doing so at some interim level between chemistry (ev) and familiar fusion results (mev). The heat seemingly exceeds any chemistry explanation when found at the highest reported level, yet far below any significant fusion level and with little or no radiation that is so much expected in classical fusion.

There may be a kinder gentler fusion discovered yet, but will it be of any real use? It would most certainly put science on its ear. Amusingly, the physicists and the chemists would be as much babes in the woods as would be the discoverer.

Remember in the discovery of radiation the chemists led the way with physicists ultimately taking over, but not for a good many years. The physicist, Rutherford, had the misfortune of winning his Nobel prize in CHEMISTRY, not even his field.

Richard Hull

[Wilfried Heil]

There may be possibilities to accelerate deuterons electrostatically within cracking metal or inside the bulk of a piezoelectric crystal, probably also with microcracks. Given high enough concentrations and sufficient energy, e.g. hundreds of eV, this might create a neutron now and then. But it is still the same high energy fusion as we know it, just in a different package and without the need for a vacuum chamber.

On the other hand, a mechanism could be found which, under certain conditions, enhances the probability for fusion at low energy by many orders of magnitude. That would be a very significant discovery, even if the total fusion rate might still be very low and not practical.

>Rutherford, had the misfortune of winning his Nobel prize in CHEMISTRY, not even his field.
Hope that didn't nag him all that much. He really opened a new field in physics. Later, with the transmutation of elements, he fullfilled a dream of alchemists. Although that was just N>O, both of which we have plenty.

[Richard Hull]

To Rutherford, a prize was a prize, but his fellow phyicist buddies ragged on him mercilessly as chemists were looked down upon as lost, isolated physicists working in that smelly, stained branch of physics that dealt with mixtures of things.

Much of this comes out in the rarely sought out Eve's biography of Rutherford. Rutherford was a very plain man who had a genius at designing experiment and gathered about him the best and brightest young peers of the period. Many greats were created while working under Rutherford.

Richard Hull

[UG!]

I too was hopping to avoid the calorimetry as doing it well seems to be somewhat non-trivial. the problem is, its such a usefull initial is it?/isn't it? test when one doesn't know weather ones palladium is active or not.

one possibility might be some sort of self-sustaining device. a metal pressure container containing the D2O and electrodes with a peltier stuck on the side. the reaction would generate heat and therefore a dT across the peltier which would generate a current to drive a fan on the other side of the peltier, maintaining dT and power the electrodes. some sort of fan end electrode power control system would likely be needed.

weather there would be enough heat generated to keep this going i have no idea would probably depend on luck from what i have seen. i'm realy sill in the research stage with this.

Oliver

[DaveC]

I have a recommendation for those contemplating this area of investigation. Take the time to read some basic texts on electrochemistry.

Doing experiments involving calorimetry in electrolysis work is fiendishly complex. It is NOT simple. Of course, I refer to doing an experiment that actually tells something definitive. And this IS the definition of a good experiment. Not whether it proved one's theory, but whether the result was conclusive... whichever way.

Done too casually, calorimetry can tell almost any tale you want to hear. More energy out than went it, is what everyone would like to find. But the truth is, only on rare occasions has something that could pass for this actually happened, but what really occurred was a POWER surge, not an energy surplus

Things got real hot, made steam blew the apparatus apart, made radiation, exposed film, and so on.

Most, but not all of these types of events are POWER, the time rate of producing energy. Whether this is evidence of a net ENERGY surplus, depends on how accurately all the input power was summed over the unpredictable onset period until the suprise event occurred.

If you are looking for evidence an excess of energy, as demonstrated by something blowing up... and scattering hot water, and pieces everywhere, it will be an impossible task. And so on....

So if you have in mind to do this sort of calorimetry thing, plan to be able to measure temperatures to 0.01 C. Plan to know heat capacities of all components to ppm levels at all temperatures that will be incurred in the experiment. Contructing a nice look-up table for your computerized calcs will be a great help... Just doing this last set of preparations, will probably take a lifetime.. and your data would be a candidate for inclusiong in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics... and your experimental technique might just get you a Nobel Prize!!

With these simple preparations you are ready to tackle the electrical challenges... These are somewhat easier, as most of the instrumentation to measure to ppm levels of amperage, voltage, and time coherence ("phase") already exist. That last item is needed to sort out energy storage issues from energy input and energy output. (The real and imaginary parts of the volt amp products, for the electrical engineers). Properly assembled the electrical input data CAN tell an accurate story to probably at least 1000 ppm resolution. Could be enough.. to recognize a big event.

A pretty full plate, wouldn't you say?.....

I would not want in any way to discourage people from pursuing this form of experimentation, since almost anything done will be both enducational and enjoyable. But as in the case of the fusor, the physical processes are actually quite complex.

For your contemplation and experimental design enjoyment.

Dave Cooper

[Richard Hull]

Good calorimetery is 100% out for me. Scott Little has convinced me that it is not the way to go for the rank amateur. I will stick with radiation or the lack of it. One doesn't get radiation out of chemistry.

For those who would see just what is involved visit www. earthtech.org and look at some of Scott's experiments with supposed CF winners submitted to him for test that proved to be losers, calorimetrically.

Richard Hull

[DaveC]

Richard -

I can easily agree with you, on the calorimetry. Not something most amateurs can do well enough to prove anything.


Dave Cooper