Finally: This is possibly how the E-Cat works - Mats Lewan

  • Today we have a new article by Mats Lewan






    Read the whole article - Link to Mats blog
    https://animpossibleinvention.…ibly-how-the-e-cat-works/

  • Dear mr Lewan,
    your explanation "with fingers" is one of possible, and even can be right. Thre can be a lot of such ones, right explanations.


    It is even absolutely normal - that there exist a lot of different coming to to such a compleet problem.


    But, it would be not bad for you to take a look in the work of Yu.L. Ratis


    Журнал Формирующихся Направлений Науки
    номер 2(1), стр. 27-42, 2013


    c Авторы, 2013
    статья получена: 11.09.13
    статья принята к публикации: 24.09.13
    http://www.unconv-science.org/n2/ratis/


    c Association of Unconventional Science, 2013


    The 2 miracles of CNS (so as LENR) are explained by Yu. L. Ratis on a good sci level in this article.

  • If only nuclear physics were as easy as lego. Then we could all be nuclear theorists.


    You can't simply replace an electron with a composite particle consisting of 3 particles (one itself a composite), and expect the QM solution to be the same except for the average radius of the "motion" of the composite.


    This works for a muon in an extremely simple 2-particle system, because the muon differs from an electron *only* by its mass, which is to say both are elementary particles. An H- ion is a completely different and composite entity. The stationary states involving multiple atoms like this must satisfy the laws of QM for the entire system, and these (while not exactly tractable for larger systems) have been found to follow well known rules of *chemical* binding.


    As such, step 4 is not consistent with known physics, contrary to the premise.


    If this theory were consistent with known physics, its exposition would be in Science and Nature, and not in patents and obscure blogs. And it would be recognized by a Nobel prize.


    And it's not just the weakness of the theory; the so-called evidence supporting it remains as equivocal and irreproducible as ever.


    -----


    Of course, from the moment Lewan cites the muddled, confused, and naive -- if nevertheless enthusiastic -- videos of Greenyer, it was clear this was yet another trivial foray against the laws of physics that keep cold fusion from the masses.

  • I dont believe the following passage in Lewins article is credible-


    "If the distance is larger than 10-14 m, the proton is
    expelled from the metal atom through the repelling Coulomb force, with
    high kinetic energy (6.7 MeV) determined by Piantelli through
    calculation, and confirmed through cloud chamber experiments."

    There is no source of energy to to accelerate chemically bound protons to 6.7 MeV

  • Quote

    2. Next step is to obtain H- ions, i.e. hydrogen atoms with one extra electron.


    H- ions are highly reactive (strong bases), and because H is not very electrophilic in most lattices (including Ni) the two outer shell electrons will be shared with other nuclei. When H- is absorbed into a metal lattice the electrons are irrelevant and the proton moves to an interstitial position.


    Quote

    Note: Some suggest that the H- concept might refer to a different form of hydrogen, akin to Randell Mills (CEO, founder of BLP) concept of hydrino,


    This is not physics, it has been well debunked, and few LENR people viw it as credible.

    Quote

    or Swedish researcher Leif Holmlid’s concept of ultra dense deuterium.


    That is deuterium. In fact Holmlid's original idea (which has some slight theoretical plausibility) specifically required a deuteron - it will not work with protons. No-one else agrees with Holmlid, but in any case his model does not propose ultra-dense H.


    Quote

    4. This triggering leads to one of the electrons in the nickel atom being replaced by the H- ion (as described in the patent, this is in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle and with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).


    replacing an electron by an H- is possible, because you can make any change you like to a lattice, but it does not reserve structure. As pointed out above, in a lattice the H- electrons bond with outer lattice electrons. The proton is quantum mechanically completely different from the electrons - it is much heavier and therefore thousands of times more localised than its electrons which form a cloud (and which merge with the lattice electron cloud.


    The existence of the local (static) proton alters the electrostatic field all around and therefore changes the electron eigenfunctions. So while the quote above is technically correct it is highly misleading - inserting an H- into a lattice is the same as inserting a proton (the electrons will move as needed)


    Quote

    5. Since the H- ion has a mass that is almost 2,000 times larger than an electron mass, it tends towards orbits much closer to the nickel nucleus, while sending out Auger electrons and X-rays. In some way (to be explained in further detail), this is probably how the X-ray signal is produced that MFMP observed recently in a replication attempt of the E-Cat.


    This shows a very bad understanding of what an H- is. It consists of a very small positive change (the proton) shielded by two electrons in a spherical 1s orbital. The electron charge distribution cannot be too high close to the proton because it must obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If they made a much smaller compound object (as is claimed) they would have a much higher momentum uncertainty and therefore no longer be bound. The two electrons don't help the proton get close to another proton because the charge density must be spread out.


    Although electrons can orbit nuclei, two nuclei do not orbit each other - they repel and in a low temperature lattice they cannot move quickly.


    Quote

    7. When the H- ion is in an orbit close to the nickel nucleus, it loses its electrons thus becoming a free proton, and two things can then happen:


    Indeed H- ions lose free electrons in a lattice, this is normal, not LENR. After they have done it they become protons. H- nuclei, as above, can't get very close to Ni nuclei.


    Quote

    a. If the distance to the nucleus is minor than 10-14 m, the H nucleus—i.e. a proton—can be captured by the nickel nucleus, resulting in one of several possible nuclear reactions (see the patent) with mass loss and great energy release, according to Piantelli resulting in heat. This process has certain similarities with muon-catalysed fusion, and would be an explanation to the first miracle—overcoming the Coulomb Barrier at modest temperatures by getting enough close to the nickel nucleus, disguised as a very heavy electron.


    As has been explained by various people above this is a most basic misunderstanding of QM. The simplest principle (Heisenberg) means that electrons, being much lighter, have much larger orbitals and hence much longer effective shield distances than muons.


    Quote

    b. (Maybe higher probability): If the distance is larger than 10-14 m, the proton is expelled from the metal atom through the repelling Coulomb force, with high kinetic energy (6.7 MeV) determined by Piantelli through calculation, and confirmed through cloud chamber experiments.

    As has been noted above MeV energies do not exist in the lattice. You can get that energy out of Coulomb repulsion only if nuclei have been squashed together (with similar MeV of energy). Of course you also get it out of fission or fusion...


    Quote

    Such fusion between protons with much lower kinetic energy (225 eV) and lithium is described by Unified Gravity Corporation in patent application WO2014189799A9.


    This is another separate LENR mechnism. If true you can do LENR by setting up low voltage proton guns, forget about the preceding steps. It is highly unlikely to be true, because people have used protons in many many different ways and would have observed it and the high energy products. It also has a problem, the protons do not fuse at low energy because of the Coulomb barrier.


    If the existence of a patent were enough to make new physics we would have many strange things.


    Quote

    As far as I understand, MFMP and Bob Greenyer have a series of experimental indications that strongly support the theory described above.


    I await these with interest - I have not seen them. Unfortunately the holes in the theory above make it difficult to see what it would predict experimentally, since the proposed steps cannot happen


    Quote

    In a recent E-Cat replication attempt, MFMP observed a short high-count burst of low energy X-ray photons. According to an hypothesis by Bob Greenyer, there might be a way to pre-prepare the fuel in order to avoid this X-ray burst.


    The burst was not short (or it would have showed up on the GM - a good fraction of the count was above 100keV)) and therefore cannot be high count. Over 4 hours it was about 10X a very low background, so no stronger than many background counts. It has not been validated as being radiation rather than an artifact - several of which are possible.

  • That is deuterium. In fact Holmlid's original idea (which has some slight theoretical plausibility) specifically required a deuteron - it will not work with protons. No-one else agrees with Holmlid, but in any case his model does not propose ultra-dense H.


    It would probably be way too off-topic to develop this discussion here, but he's actually also observed/studied ultra-dense protium:


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0168583X12000596
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S1387380613001322
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S1387380613002947
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10876-014-0804-3

  • The pseudo neutron theories are the bane of LENR because of the need to keep LENR theory consistent with nuclear theory where the neutron is always involved. So we must invent a neutron substitute to keep the meme of nuclear physics in play.


    But the S- theory does not work for the broad class of high energy LENR reactions such as Rossi’s E-Cat X where operating temperatures are at or above the melting point of nickel (1500C). At that temperature the H- ion cannot keep itself together. At that high temperature, H would be ionized.


    The high temperature environment of the Proton 21 experiment also puts hydrogen into an ionized state.


    Any electric Arc based system such as the Defkalion system cannot support the H- construction because of the high temperature of the arc.


    Another case is all the very hot EVs produced by Ken Shoulders in his decades of research.


    The SunCell works at temperatures above 5000C where hydrogen is ionized.


    The high temperatures produced by exploding titanium foils also speak against the H- theory.


    There are other high temperature systems that have recently come out of Russia that also use an electric Arc to produce the LENR reaction at ionizing temperatures.


    The H- theory is myopic concept designed to cover only the limited conditions that were produced by low temperature LENR reactions such as Piantilli’s reactor. The H- theory cannot be applied broadly across all LENR causation scenarios to be a candidate for a unified LENR theory.


    Now there is the detection of mesons, pions, and muons that come out of most LENR reactions as Holmlid suspects. How does the H- theory explain these sub atomic particles?


    How does H- theory explain all those electrons coming of the E Cat X when those electrons should still be connected to the H- ion?


    The H- theory is an old theory that has had it day in the Sun and has been disproven by the march of progress in LENR by a broad spectrum of LENR experimentation. H- Theory might give a warm emotionally based feeling about an imagined certainty in LENR, but it cannot be true.

  • Quote

    It would probably be way too off-topic to develop this discussion here, but he's actually also observed/studied ultra-dense protium:


    He observed originally a phenomena which he explained as UDD, showing theoretically that it was a special case that could only happen with D. He has now observed similar stuff with H. Although he interprets this us UDH, everyone else believes that his results do not show that. His stuff has certainly got less neat since he abandoned the special properties of D and claimed H could do this too.


    His stuff was always crazy. Now it is crazy and unattractive.

  • You can't get another electron to stick. It is repelled electrostatically and a single electron in a 2d orbital is not stable under that circumstance. (At least I'd be very surprised if it were, a chemist could be clearer). Ions work by providing stable shell structures, you don't have much option with a single proton, and the charge disparity matters more with electrons in inner shells.

  • The hydrogen anion is a negative ion of hydrogen, H−. The hydrogen anion is an important constituent of the atmosphere of stars, such as the Sun. In chemistry, this ion is called hydride. The ion has two electrons bound by the electromagnetic force to a nucleus containing one proton.


    The hydrogen anion is the dominant absorber of photons in the interstellar medium. It absorbs energies in the range 0.75–4.0 eV, which ranges from the infrared into the visible spectrum (Rau 1999, Srinivasan 1999). It also occurs in the Earth's ionosphere (Rau 1999).


    It is simple enough to prove that H- exist in Piantelli's system by looking for the H- telltale energy absorption line spectroscopically.


    In point of fact, such a spectrum is available in the SunCell data. There should be an absorption line presented there.


    When I see that line, I will believe it.

  • The hydrogen anion is a negative ion of hydrogen, H−. The hydrogen anion is an important constituent of the atmosphere of stars, such as the Sun. In chemistry, this ion is called hydride. The ion has two electrons bound by the electromagnetic force to a nucleus containing one proton.


    The hydrogen anion is the dominant absorber of photons in the interstellar medium. It absorbs energies in the range 0.75–4.0 eV, which ranges from the infrared into the visible spectrum (Rau 1999, Srinivasan 1999). It also occurs in the Earth's ionosphere (Rau 1999).


    It is simple enough to prove that H- exist in Piantelli's system by looking for the H- telltale energy absorption line spectroscopically.


    In point of fact, such a spectrum is available in the SunCell data. There should be an absorption line presented there.


    When I see those lines, I will believe it. MFMP, now that you know how to prove the H- LENR theory, setup an experiment to prove it.


    This article can help


    http://www-old.ias.ac.in/jarch...


    The Negative Ion of HydrogenA. R. P. RauDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University,Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-4001, USA.


    Abstract. The negative ion of hydrogen continues to be important in atomic physics and astrophysics. Correlations between the two electrons are strong already in the ground state, the only bound state in this three-body system. This state attracted early interest, especially for the description of stellar atmospheres by Chandrasekhar and others.More recently, the rich spectrum of doubly-excited states, and the nature of the double escape above the break-up energy of 14.35 eV, have been central to our understanding of highly-correlated, non-separable problems in quantum physics. This article is a survey of the story of H– as it has developed over the last seventy years.

  • One test of any model (theory) is: "Does this model suggest a range of changes to the protocol that will improve the outcome in a predictable way?"


    Go back a few millenia. Some early human watched a burning tree and said "Gee I'd like to have that without waiting for lightning to strike, anywhere, any time." With practice, that person figured out how to light fire. Perhaps it was pure trial-and-error. Or perhaps along the way, model theories (fuel, air, ignition source, low humidity, ...) were created, tested, and discarded until a simple and reliable protocol was achieved.


    And others who followed came up with alternatives and improvements. But they began from a model that they already knew worked. "Water is bad for fire" or "Tinder needs to be packed tightly" or "concentrated sunshine could replace flint sparks" ... each suggested improvement comes from a possibly imperfect current understanding of fire. Testing those improvements leads to an improved model.


    Today, my internal combustion car lights a fire many times a second using hydrocarbon liquids fuel, filtered air, high precision injectors, and a high voltage discharge under continuous monitoring by a computer. Computational fluid dynamics was used to refine and shape the flame. The model is quite robust.


    I believe the challenge to the LENR community is NOT "how do we make this theory conform to existing understanding of subatomic physics." That will come later.


    Rather the challenge is "how do we apply this model to make LENR reactions occur repeatably at the time and place of our choosing." The model certainly suggests many, many directions for exploration. As those prove correct or are falsified, improve the model.


    There was a time when observation preceded theory in physics. That period seems to have died in the last century. Today it seems theory must precede experimental observation or you are considered a kook out on the fringe. That seems sad.