me356: Reactor parameters [part 2]

    Quote

    If LENR turns out to be driven by vortex based processes, then quantum mechanics will not be applicable. We will need to go to other types of quantum math systems.


    Before using a new theoretical idea in such a complicated process as nuclear fusion, one must study this idea separately in a simplified situation. Demonstrate experimentally that such vortexes exist, study their properties, etc. Since this has not been done (I doubt it will be done), forget about vortex processes. To my knowledge, the string theory so far has not been able to suggest any single experimenrt where its sofisticated mathematical tricks could lead to something observable. For me, string theory is like chess game: it is nice, sometimes even beautiful, but still just a game.

    Quote from Tarun

    See this:
    e-catworld.com/2016/05/05/upda…sting/#comment-2661447971
    A meeting is planned but not confirmed.


    Sorry. I was not following the thread there. If me356 and Bob are meeting to share findings that's great news.


    Quote from me356

    Mark H: If you wish, I can stop with posting. It is not giving me anything.


    I would say that my instruments are not bad at all. You can't get anything much better.


    That's exactly what NOBODY wishes. I obviously can't speak for everybody but I, for one, get incredibly disappointed when a LENR researcher posts that he has an amazing discovery and then backs off it citing safety concerns or need for further experimentation. All the would-be replicators want is ONE verifiable, repeatable experiment that shows excess heat.

    me356 vrote:
    "If you wish, I can stop with posting. It is not giving me anything.I would say that my instruments are not bad at all. You can't get anything much better."
    At this stage, you really have to consider what we may make publicly since nuclear plants are not toys.

    Please, me356, carry on just as you wish.


    I'm sure you understand the feelings of all the LENR supporters here - mostly of frustration that they cannot get to know more about the nuts and bolts of successful methods; that real doubt can be cast on all demonstrations so far; and that acceptance of LENR as a real phenomenon is stalled yet again, this time by the antics of Industrial Heat and/or Rossi.


    I personally would rather you worked until you were sure that you and your equipment are safe, and that your results can be reliably replicated.


    You probably already have this covered, but may I urge you to be sure that your experimental records are well-kept, with duplicates in a safe place?

    I think I see a plasma tube in the center that has H2 in it that has been ionized.


    I think I see a rossi tube furnace surrounding one half of the tube.


    What is in each component. Please draw something and upload as a png or jpg. You can even draw it on your printer paper and take a photo with your cellphone. I can't find one place that describes your experiment in detail.

    Quote from Timar

    Not sure about the merit of this particular theory, but your statement seems rather ridiculous to me. It applies to any mainstream science theory prior to the point where it became mainstream. You could have asked the same about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity prior to ~1920, about Wegener's Theory of Plate Tectonics prior to ~1960, about Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection prior to ~1910 and even Heliocentrism prior to the 18th century. All those groundbreaking scientific advancements where not hindered by a conspiracy (at least not in the strict sense) of most of the world's leading scientific authorities of the time, but by groupthink and narrow-minded conservativism (fear of the unknown and fear for the loss of authority). ...


    Am I not allowed to ask the question? I did not say that was my only criterion or accepting theory, but most of us need help from other physicists. I do have some trust in the research community. Another aspect is that the knowledge of physics, both experimentally and theoretically, is so advanced that it is difficult to make a ground breaking theory fit in.


    Your examples are not convincing. General relativity was accepted generally within 4 years. Many scientists accepted it immediately - it was too beautiful to be wrong. The problem with Wegener was that he didn't have a theory. It was only a description of observations. And geology was an underdeveloped science. The last two examples were in conflict with religious dogma - Darwin is not 100% accepted today!

    LENR validation is the opposite of Schrodinger's Cat:
    A COP>1 experiment exists in a state of being either valid or not ... a probability function of both.
    If an observer measures that state, then the OBSERVER now exists in a state of being either valid or not ... a probability function of both. (Levi, Lewans, Penon, Fabiani, Celani, Piantelli, Pons, Fleischmann, ...)
    The way out of this conundrum is for the experiment to save the planet. Until our doubting Thomas has driven 10,000 km in a new Model ME356, we won't really know.

    Before trying an exotic theoretical explanation of a phenomenon one must be sure that the phenomenon really exists.
    That guy me356 said that he saw neutron flux. I wonder what type of neutron detector he used. Neutron does not have charge. It is much more difficult to detect neutrons, than, say, protons. It is really a challenge.

    A question regarding your plasma experiments. From what I read you claim to have seen neutrons. I have no idea as to how you performed your experiment or the nature of the apparatus used but I would like to point out the "desktop fusion" experiments with the Farnsworth Fusor. The Fusor has been around for ages and fusor experimentalists can readily obtain neutrons from it. Similar plasma principles are used in industrial neutron generators. Obtaining fusion with electric fields has been done fairly readily. The ever present problem is that fusors (as of to date) generate no net excess power. My question is, how do your plasma experiments differ from that of a fusor? Did you get excess heat or did you base your findings just on the fact that the system produced neutrons?

    Quote from GlowFish

    A question regarding your plasma experiments. From what I read you claim to have seen neutrons. I have no idea as to how you performed your experiment or the nature of the apparatus used but I would like to point out the "desktop fusion" experiments with the Farnsworth Fusor. The Fusor has been around for ages and fusor experimentalists can readily obtain neutrons from it. Similar plasma principles are used in industrial neutron generators. Obtaining fusion with electric fields has been done fairly readily. The ever present problem is that fusors (as of to date) generate no net excess power. My question is, how do your plasma experiments differ from that of a fusor? Did you get excess heat or did you base your findings just on the fact that the system produced neutrons?


    I do not know much about plasma experiments, but I can say something about neutrons. To get a measurable excess energy you need many reactions (MeV is a small unit macroscopically) and you will get lots of neutrons. Plasma experiments is presumably similar to accelerators (not Axillerators :-)): you can make fusion but it costs a lot of energy to accelerate since the efficiency (fusions/accelerated particles) is low. Same thing with muon fusion: it works but costs energy. Apart from cold fusion there are tree methods that work:
    1 Gravity (in the sun's centre)
    2 Magnetic fields (tokamak)
    3 Inertia (laser fusion)

    If everyone could stop with the nagging it would probably be best.



    me356: I hope you continue posting regular updates about your results. I will look forward to your report once you are ready to publish.



    I predicted a few months ago that me356 would be the first replicator to figure things out. Looks like I had it right. Combine skills, resources, dedication, and the willingness to try different things everyday, and eventually you get there.

    Many of the questions people are asking have been answered, do we really want him to spoon feed us? Nothing is hidden, need to dig in.


    Did you see his post asking if anybody wants to buy bubble detectors because he wants to buy them in quantity to save money? BD-PND neutron detectors There's discussion of models and data sheets.


    Many of @me356's posts are in part 1 of this thread or his Celani wires thread or on quantumheat.org (the MFMP official site) or on MFMP's Facebook page (example: https://www.facebook.com/Marti…ct/posts/1132279306802767).


    I know it is difficult because it took me more than a day to , but reading all of @me356's posts from February 2015 to today is extremely enlightening. We need to read his notes and not pester him with busywork, innuendo, and baseless accusations.

    Interestingly, half year ago, I have performed experiment that was repeatedly giving excess heat (COP 1.2-1.4).
    Everything was documented and data were available from the beginning.
    Nobody even tried to replicate it.


    There is already everything you need for replication on the internet. Many different devices from a different groups that are simple and are working.
    You only have to search.


    Interestingly eastern mentality is completely different - much more open. They are many years ahead in the research, because they are not spending time chatting and blaming other scientists. They trust each other.
    Until you will be unable to search and to be patient, you can't achieve any results.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.