This is an interesting comment written by Jean-Francois Geneste, Vice-President Chief Scientist of Airbus Group Innovations on his LinkedIn page yesterday. 13. Aug. 2015 I made a major theoretical breakthrough in the field of “energy creation”. This will be presented at the 11th workshop on anomalies in hydrogen loaded metals which will be held next October in Airbus, Toulouse. http://www.iscmns.org/work11/. What it basically consists in is a global theorization of energy creation which includes all known means up today, that they be chemical, nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Against all expectations, it is proved that there is potential room for cold fusion or so in a breakthrough approach of building a “burner” and making a (new) fuel. As a consequence, even if the burden of proof remains to cold fusionists to experimentally prove, at least, they are right, on a theoretical point of view, I completely revert the burden of proof to orthodox physicists who now will have to prove the non-existence of cold fusion, if they can, since they have been claiming it for years if not decades. The only way my theory leaves them, is to find a counter example to our theory. I sincerely think this will be very hard, the physical foundations being quite obvious and demanding less than orthodox physics itself. I hope this theoretical work will allow a more objective approach concerning cold fusion in particular and will encourage young physicists to invest in the field. This should make the upcoming conference at Airbus in Toulouse, France, all the more interesting. We should note that this is a ‘theoretical breakthrough’, not an announcement about a product or experiment, but still, to have a scientist from a major industrial organization like Airbus Group publicly go on the record in favor of cold fusion is a very unusual occurrence, and it indicates that there could be considerable R&D already going on at the aerospace company. Something else to look forward to in the world of LENR!
Airbus Scientist Announces ‘Theoretical Breakthrough’ in Cold Fusion — To Be Revealed in October
-
-
"The only way my theory leaves them, is to find a counter example to our theory."
I dont think the theoretical foundations of LENR theory are that strong and irrefutable. The production of excess power is an indisputable fact but there is a profusion of theories explaining whats going on.
-
Perhaps some earlier postings and patent applications are relevant --
Airbus Files Patent for LENR ‘Power-Generating Device’
(includes URL to German-language patent)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…-power-generating-device/
(Google English translation)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2595…Patent-Google-TranslationThis patent also references the following patent application ---
Thermal-energy producing system and method
WO 2013076378 A3
Abstract
System and method for producing thermal energy is based on a very large number of nanoscale
particle accelerators in a volume accelerating electrons and hydrogen ions at very high local electric
fields. Nanoscale particle accelerators comprise a dielectric material possessing electric polarizability
and a metallic materialcapable of forming an interstitial and/or electrically conductive metal hydride
and capable of enhancing the local electric field by the geometry and/or by the sufficiently small
dimensions of the said metallic material. Low to medium strength local electric fields are utilized for
the generation of Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg matter in the presence of a material capable
of forming and storing Rydberg atoms. Destabilization of Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg matter
leads to solid state physical reactions that release energy
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013076378A3?cl=en -
Sounds like he just saying that the bulk of evidence to date requires proof that the evidence is wrong. We don't have to have a theory, but you can't discount the mountains of observations of excess heat production any more, and so he's saying the burden of DISproof now lies on the orthodox physicists. We'll eventually figure out a theory, but, like gravity, it has been something that exists observably and undeniably without any (up until just a comparatively short time ago) satisfying theory to explain it.
-
The true theory of LENR must explain many and varied unbelievable things which include the following: beyond the production of over unity thermal energy, the thermalization of gamma radiation, the rapid to instantaneous stabilization of radioactive isotopes, lack of neutron emissions, and the wide variation of seemingly random transmutation results which includes fusion of light elements into heavier elements and fission of heavy elements into lighter ones, remote reaction at a distance from the location of the LENR reaction, and instantaneous cluster fusion involving huge numbers of sub-reactions that occur instantly and collectively.
Now with the revelations of Holmlid's results, LENR theory must explain the spontaneous production of a wide range of subatomic particles that can only be produced in a particle accelerator in the 6 gigavolt range. Also why muon decay is delayed after they are produced from the vacuum.
These LENR results are what science cannot explain and why these results are beyond the power of science to understand. A scientist that has only one system to draw experimental experience from is at great disadvantage in seeing the big picture in LENR theory.
The true LENR theory will push science into a unified field theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics within the context of condensed matter physics, I will evaluate this new theory based on all the aforementioned criteria.
-
I need more information to understand precisely the meaning of this article.
For me it propose a framework, based on known physics, where LENR is "natural" like other energies.for me it is in opposition to the "LENR is impossible because it breaks conservation laws and...".
As it is formulated it does not look like a theory like Widom Larsen, Hydroton, Hagelstein, Kim-Zubarev, TSC...I've read critics of his book, "spirit of the laws" (l'esprit des lois) and he seems interested in the structure of physics laws themselves, self coherence or incoherences, and their properties (causal, deterministic...). To discuss of standard model, general relativities, he use argument from information theory, cryptography...
anyway we need more information, or attend the workshop.
-
I'm afraid this is likely meaningless. He is new to cold fusion theory. The problem has never been the impossibility of cold fusion, there were Nobel Prize winners who knew it was possible and who worked on theory. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with, but given that clear, direct experimental evidence (and I'm not talking about all the noise coming out of the Rossi claque, nor am I talking about the enormous mass of circumstantial evidence, I mean *direct evidence,* specifically multiply-confirmed correlation between anomalous energy and helium production) has been ignored for years, someone claiming a sort of "proof" by theory is unlikely to have any effect. Famous people have come out for cold fusion before. If you are a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and you came out for cold fusion, well, it's too bad that Professor So-and-So went south, past his prime, probably getting senile.
Scientists don't talk about "proof" about something like this unless they are ontologically naive, and probably politically naive as well, as to the politics of science. It is impossible to "prove" that something is "theoretically possible." It's an opinion, a judgment, an assessment; an indication, and as he knows, it might be "theoretically possible" and not actually happen, so, if it doesn't happen, "theoretically possible" obviously is based on an incomplete theory, because if it *is* possible, given the way the universe works, it will happen. The issue is rate, and this was always understood about cold fusion. It was not considered impossible by anyone with sense, rather, the opinion was that the rate would be utterly undetectable. Pons and Fleischmann knew all this, and expected just that, an undetectable rate. They thought that conditions in palladium deuteride would increase fusion rate, but thought it would likely still be undetectable.
They decided to look anyway, and they were surprised by the later-famous 1984 meltdown.
The story says that they were grinning like the cat that ate the canary. Apparently, they explained what had happened to nobody, until years later. I've always wondered what the campus fire department had to say about that meltdown. One would think there would have been a record. We do have other eyewitness testimony, Beaudette reports it.
-
As I understand it seems to refute the "it is impossible according to theory", and this can be proven.
For me it is the answer to the irrational appeal to theory that prevent LENR to be accepted.now as you say, experiments rules, and in a perfect world appeal to theory should not be definitive argument, but just call for caution.
-
This workshop is drove by a big industrial enterprise, highly impacted by the cost of energy for planes, which needs the best approach, best theoretical concepts, best efficient computations, efficient materials, efficient ways to select and to combine them.
An enterprise which understand that it is very important to be the first one to collect the best understanding of what happens and what to do.
Then this enterprise drive a big Work-shopping to collect best theories and theorists, and to invite them to cooperate with this enterprise rather and before others. An excellent strategy !
-
I don't know what is actually being "proved" in the paper, but I hope it gives some predictions and offers clues for successfully generating a CF reaction by simple means. Because in the end, a theory is useless if it cannot have any real life implications.
In any case, its good to make noise in favor of CF from time to time. The orthodox science (with small s) works democratically, which means, if a lot of people make noise about what is true, it becomes the truth. Mass media does a good job of ridiculing and insulting anyone who disagrees with the majority. The funding and peer review racket ensures that the status quo is maintained. This is how it works since ages. So if a lot of noise is made in favor of CF, some good can come out of it, irrespective of whether it works in real life.
The first thing the patho-skeptics are going to say (yes, very predictable), that the authors have no credibility and the paper is not related to Airbus in any way, they just happen to work for Airbus and do theory in their basement in their off times. This has already happened to Zwadony (wrong spelling) and others of NASA. Airbus/NASA are too big to ridicule, so they first dissociate the "science criminals" from reputed orgs and attack them individually.
Skeptics could not do that when Airbus applied for a CF patent, there was no way to dismiss that. I heard only crickets. There is no deterrent to commercialization and making profit, no amount of skepticism, ridicule and politics can stop entrepreneurs hell bent on making money. So if a commercial org does something, anything in favor of CF, its good. Such micro-evidences collect together and strengthen the field of CF.
-
There are enough experiments and hypothesis for 26 years in many countries to be sure that the field ColdFusion-LENR-CMNS-LANR... exists and is already industrial in several aspects. The research and the industry start to structure themselves, ICCF, LENR-CITIES, lenr-forum. Old science continues by inertia and will continue until all members dead. No matter. NewFire is alive and slowly grows itself and will restructure all other theories and industries. Airbus workshop is one of the first industrial steps, thanks Airbus, and others.
-
Some times reading more about who Geneste is and how he thinks helps to understand what he says. Googling his name does not reveals that much, but his linked in profile is interesting. In particular he has a list of publications, all of them very interesting and encompassing a wide range of topics that are somehow related. He is also an author of a Politic scienc fiction book called "The Chinese Slap", and the topic of the book is very interesting. So, Mr. Geneste is a box full of surprises himself.
His job description:
Vice-President Chief scientistAirbus Groupseptiembre de 2009 – actualidad (6 años)Toulouse- Advise Airbus Group in all its fields of operation.
- Global expert in mathematics and physics.
- Lead specific R&D.
- Look for technological rupture. -
Peter gluck report some answers of JF Geneste :
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.f…-theory-breakthrough.html
Quote
Answering to my question he said :
"my model does not specifically deal with vacuum energy. It is both more mathematical and easier than that. In fact, if vacuum is not really vacuum, which I believe, and this will be published by the beginning of September in my new book, then, maybe there could be (theoretical) room to extract energy from vacuum. But my purpose is more engineering oriented." -
Peter gluck report some answers of JF Geneste :
The question boils down to what is fundamental and what emerges from that basic causation. The strength of the weak force may be determined by the energy content of the vacuum. The weak force may not be fundamental. The weak force may emerge from the excitation or an imbalance in the energy content of the vacuum. The excitation or energy unbalance of the vacuum may be what is fundamental.
Radioactive decay is caused by the weak force. But the rate of this decay can vary in LENR. The energy state of the vacuum is what ultimately determines how fast radioactive decay precedes.
Furthermore, when the vacuum is highly energized, that is, when a large electric field is present within the vacuum, nature will try hard to reduce that field until it is totally neutralized. If the field is strong enough, the vacuum does that by producing particles from the vacuum. An intense electric filed will produce heavy particles that last a long time,
This is what Helmlid has seen in his experiments with Rydberg matter and the production of muons.
LENR is a continual process of energy conversion to charge, charge concentration and resultant charge neutralization.
-
Axil, I do not understand 'Vacuum Energy'. Can you explain where it comes from?
-
Okay, so Geneste has worked out a new LENR theory.
But is Airbus also working on practical experiments, maybe to support this theory? -
About the theoretical production of Mr Geneste, as it is formulated, and accounting from his past books, I feel it is much more general than proposing Weak Interaction, or BEC theory...
about vacuum energy I have watched discussion on that concept with emDrive.
My impression is that Vacuum is like the basic quietest state of a lake, not even a lake, but the perfectly still ocean.
you cannot get energy from the ocean quiet state, but from excited state like from waves, from thermal gradients.you can see there is huge mass of energy as stored in ocean quiet state, in ocean pressure, in gravity, it seems huge but you cannot do anything with it, as there is nothing lower.
On the opposite you can swim in it (that is what some propose for EmDrive), or catch energy from waves caused by excitation of that still system.
Some like Michael McCulloch (and Unruh) propose that presence of objects in the ocean change the quiet state and allow some action, especially because the lowest energy state of quantum ocean is not perfectly still.
an example is a strange effect observed in ports. when there is a basic wave presence in a port, there is a spontaneous effect that make boats get toward the pier.
it is a casimir pressure, because between the pier and the boat only few waves wavelength are allowed, and that on the opposite open sea side there is much more wavelength allowed....This is not a free-lunch energy, but it may be useful.
-
Radioactive decay is caused by the weak force. But the rate of this decay can vary in LENR.
Do you include neutrinos in the weak force ?
From this research "Fine structure of histograms of alpha-activity measurements depends on direction of alpha particles and the Earth rotation" the radioactive decay is corelated to the distance from earth to sun, to the rotation of the sun heart generating neutinos, to chromospheric eruptions generating neutinos and received on earth at the speed of the light, and to the sideral sources.
Also in biological transmutation, without any detectable radiation, Olivier Costa de Beauregard proposed in 1974 the explaination of neutrinos.
If fluctuations of the neutrinos flux coming on earth explain fluctuations of the radioactive decay, we can first estimate which part of the radioactive decay is explainable by neutrinos flux. Then the vacuum energy, as a diffuse source of radioactive decay, could be necessary for the unknown part of decay, perhaps small.
-
The the way you explain this, Alain, seems to me the same as potential energy. So vacuum has some energy in excess to its crowded and full of particles surrounding area. If mass is energy, than I would say that vacuum has a lot less energy than matter. It seems not right to me. But:
Assume a black hole. In the centre the mass density is infinite, when looking at it from our universe. Looking at it from the other side, there will be a totally empty space at the same vicinity point. Maybe the more empty vacuum is the nearer you are at the black hole and the more energy there is. How do you think about this view?Display MoreAbout the theoretical production of Mr Geneste, as it is formulated, and accounting from his past books, I feel it is much more general than proposing Weak Interaction, or BEC theory...
about vacuum energy I have watched discussion on that concept with emDrive.
My impression is that Vacuum is like the basic quietest state of a lake, not even a lake, but the perfectly still ocean.
you cannot get energy from the ocean quiet state, but from excited state like from waves, from thermal gradients.you can see there is huge mass of energy as stored in ocean quiet state, in ocean pressure, in gravity, it seems huge but you cannot do anything with it, as there is nothing lower.
On the opposite you can swim in it (that is what some propose for EmDrive), or catch energy from waves caused by excitation of that still system.
Some like Michael McCulloch (and Unruh) propose that presence of objects in the ocean change the quiet state and allow some action, especially because the lowest energy state of quantum ocean is not perfectly still.
an example is a strange effect observed in ports. when there is a basic wave presence in a port, there is a spontaneous effect that make boats get toward the pier.
it is a casimir pressure, because between the pier and the boat only few waves wavelength are allowed, and that on the opposite open sea side there is much more wavelength allowed....This is not a free-lunch energy, but it may be useful.
