In 2005, Steve Krivit and I have
published a Survey based on 4 essential questions about cold fusion. You can
compare the answers of Ed Storms and my answers to be
able to judge if the Stormsian concept of NAE adds (or subtracts?) something to/from
my original 1992 description of active sites and if I have the moral obligation
to cite Ed whenever I write about NAE; or “Environment” is just a sophisticated
renaming of “site” Please consider that I disagree with Ed’s ideas regarding both the
structure and the function of HISNAE-now..See please:http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/2005GluckKrivitSurvey.shtml
IS COLD FUSION (LENR, CANR, CMNS)?
fusion, or LENR, is the initiation of various nuclear reactions within special
solid structures without the need to apply an amount of energy normally
required to overcome the Coulomb barrier. - E.
CF is a
quasi catalytic, surface, local, dynamic (SURFDYN) class of phenomena.
Hypersensitive and complex. Nanoscience at its best and worst. The active sites
are very difficult to be visualized, measured… and generated.- P.
DOES IT WORK?
unknown process can occur in a unique structure of a suitable small size that
can neutralize the Coulomb barrier between atoms. This process involves a
collective interaction between electrons and/or between hydrogen isotopes when
either are present in sufficient amounts.The
process involves a resonance interaction that is controlled by the size of the
solid structure. For fusion between deuterons to occur or if a hydrogen isotope
is added to another element, the structure must dissolve a critical quantity of
the required hydrogen isotope. When the amount of energy applied to the
structure is small, the condition of the structure is very important to
achieving anomalous results. However, as applied energy is increased, the
nature of the structure becomes less important, until at a sufficiently high
energy, behavior becomes completely conventional.- E.
actually a three part question: where, what, how-i.e. topology, nature
mechanism and the answers will lead us to why it works? The first question is
determinant i.e. "topology is the key".It is a
deep mystery for me why my paper was ignored and why Ed Storm's concept and
solid ideas re "nuclear active environment" was not seriously
considered. Both are based on facts and are logical- in the frame of the
are many theories and part of them have elements of a very fragmented truth,
but no one is complete. In my personal opinion, Akito Takahashi's theory is the
closest to reality.My late
friend, Chris Tinsley, had a bright intuition when he told : “Cold Fusion is
for Hot Fusion what biochemistry is for chemistry” This means that: “Cold
Fusion needs a complex, multi-level, multi-step, multi-center, theory as has,
for example photosynthesis”HOWEVER-
in this case "what does NOT work is as important as what does work"
and the problem of reproducibility is vital, seemingly endemic for CF. The
curse of it. If we understand why, we understand how CF works. Therefore any
theory that is not explaining this R-problem is not good and if it used too dominantly,
a bad theory can be an impediment to progress. It generates bad answers and
what's more dangerous, bad questions.Speaking
about reproducibility the good question is- what to reproduce?My
taxonomy of the experimental results is based on technological reproducibility.
During the 16+ years of CF history we had three category of experiments, or
generators or cathodes:HEALTHY-
they gave over 1000% excess and heat after death.There
were less than 10 such events- F&P, Mizuno (the most powerful,see his book,
introduction), Piantelli, Patterson, Szpak and now, Energetics Technologies
(cathode 64). Very rare events.THESE
HAVE TO BE REPRODUCED! Only these have technological significance.ILL-
usually weak, 10-30% heat excess- good to keep hope in better results alive.
Some 10exp3 results during the whole history of CF.
no measurable heat excess some 10exp4 experiments.The
situation of technological reproducibility is dreadful and I think perhaps we
are doing systematically something extremely wrong, an unknown fatal error and
we kill sistematically the cathodes- after a laborious empirical process of
building nuclearly active sites. I think about a serious possibility that any
contact with the air is killing irreversibly the active sites, ergo we need perhaps
anaerobic cathodes. Perhaps otherwise protected cathodes.The
possible culprit is pollution, those traces of impurities from air that -
everybody believes it- can change the climate of Earth, but cannot do harm to
seems the nuclearly active sites (they give a special electronic environment
that catalyses the birth of neutral entities) is very difficult to obtain but
extremely easy to destroy. Up to now we have worked probably in the manner of
Ulysses (correct Sisyphus!!!) and the clue is to protect the cathodes,
in a smart way. In any case, there is a deep dark secret of the R-problem and
till this is not revealed, CF will be in trouble, as it is now.- P. Gluck
WHAT CHANCES DOES IT HAVE TO BE SCALED UP TO A TECHNOLOGY?
far, no reason has been found that would prevent the process from being scaled
to any level required. The only challenge is to identify the unique structure
and make it in a large amount. In addition, the energy producing process
appears to be very safe, free of significant radiation, and self limiting.- E.
reproducibility problem/conundrum can be solved- the way to many technologies
generating energy and transmuting elements is wide open. My guess is that these
will be based on gas-phase and not on electrolysis or other wet processes.- P.
MUST WE DO IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THIS?
issues must be investigated. We need to know the characteristics of the unique
structure and we need to know the mechanism that operates within that
structure. So far, most workers have assumed the structure is PdD and have
applied various mechanisms to this simple structure. In fact, many observations
show that the real structure is much more complex. As a result, the proposed
mechanisms may not have any relationship to the real world. E.
of all we have to convert the huge volume of negativeinformation
from the field in positive knowledge. That means understanding CF by the
are in the same boat and we have to cooperate if we want the field to survive
and even prosper. In principle, that's simple: let's be serious, organized,
intelligent, and lucky! Coopetition is essential – the problem is too difficult
for small teams"Serious"-
was defined by the Romanian thinker Mihail Ralea- "to be focused on
essential,important things and not on the halo of less significant events and
ideas around them"Let's
focus on reproducibility!Let's
focus on enhancement and not on measurement! (Till we will need good, sensitive
calorimetry to show the effect, CF is not good for engineers and entrepreneurs
and we have to wait for good money as for Godot)Let's
focus on high(er) temperature processes!(these
are good for thermodynamics)Let's
include the R-problem in the future theories! We need first class, i.e. preduictive
means real exchange of ideas, using well the opportunities given by meetings,
symposia, congresses for real dialogue and not parallel monologs.ICCF’s
and other gatherings were fine but the system they work is not good for real
exchange of ideas re. the essentials.“Intelligent”-
let’s use Mihail Ralea’s negative definition: “to be intelligent means to NOT
mistake the points of view”. I think that – for example, it is not intelligent
to ignore Storm’s ideas because they contradict our pet theory. It is also not
reject completely Randy Mills hydrino concept, because that is heterodoxia.
There are great chances that deuterium collapse is a phase of the CF process.
And even Paolo Correa had some promising ideas – and at least he is aware of
the complexity of the phenomena, this has nothing to do with other aspects of
his behavior. And to discard the valuable negative results as xperimental
errors that’s … very bad.To be
intelligent means to be very open to alternative ideas and approaches."Lucky"
- we clearly need luck- in different form: a solid breakthrough now, good
ideas, a billionaire CF lover, a David Sarnoff or Jack Welch, an open minded
young theorist, many creative experimenters, new ideas and brains. Let’s hope,
CF deserves great luck.- P.