Fusion-physics

Hi,

I Think I have found the answer on Fusion. If it's Cold or Hot, doesn't seem to make any difference. It seems to me, that Fusion is always endothermic process.
This means that "cold fusion" is a real thing. But it, or hot fusion can't never produce energy.

I have a new Idea about the conditions where the fusion of matter in big scale could be reached. If there is some ongoing research, I would like to join.

My thoughts are based on observations; I think these "forest rings" are a sign of cold fusion on Earth;
http://www.bldgblog.com/2016/01/rings/
Here's more technical paper about them available;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_forest_rings_in_Ontario

There is "hotter" version of this fusion visible in Venus;
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancake_Dome

Here's m own papers;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…/QED-Theory-of-everything

They are quite difficult to approach, as the way which lead to me to this idea about Fusion was quite long.
If I have figured this our correctly, the research of LENR is not qoing to bring us solution to energy problems. It would just complete our understanding of physics. The only concrete new thing which I see possible to be revealed through further research is superconductivity. The most of other results will be just closing out the stuff like antimatter, Dark energy and black holes.

I think the best information about Fusion is provided in Thermosphere, or more precisely the 85-120 km height above Earth. Here's one teaser picture about my observations;

regs,

Jouni Jokela

Yep. My real name is Jokela. And though I laugh on a lot of things, I am not Joking here.

I wasn't seaking this answer; "Fusion->Endothermic, Fission->Exothermic", but it just came on sight while I went forward following the Idea.

It was actually pretty depressing to notice that the so called "Fusion-bombs", which are actually the only widely recognized experiments of "man made fusion" were nothing but Lithium-7 Fission bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_yield

So, pls study that case a bit more carefully. And notice that how the Unexpected +300% power was explained by Endothermic Lithium fission;
n + Li-7 → T-3 + He-4 + n – 2.467 MeV

And then this Tritium "just fusions" with a lot of energy, though this has never been been achieved in lab as an Exothermic process.

So, I think that the "cold-fusion heat" experienced by the Fleischmann & Pons might have been Palladium losing neutrons under electrolysis, and these neutrons then produce Tritium from the already existing Deuterium.

If this was really so, could be even verified, if Silver (Ag-109) is created. This would be even measurable within a reasonable time
Pd-110 - n → Pd-109 which goes β− decay to Ag-109m within 13.7 hours, and this isomer then releases 88 keV energy in just 39.6 seconds.

I hope the next comment has a bit more content than the one from THHuxley.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

all it does is to dream up a way that a reaction might occur, as if that were the problem. The problem is finding an "explanation" that not only allows a nuclear reaction to occur under the conditions of the FP experiment, but that also generates the known effects, would operates under the known conditions, and that does not predict effects that have been tested for and that do not occur, as well as being testable.

Thank you for the bone.
-I think I mainly wrote "Tritium-fusion" in contest of Castle Bravo nuclear bomb test.
-I also agree completely that the Tritium in FP experiment is not the source of any heat, If my idea is correct, the D+n=T fusion would even be endothermic.

But I can easily leave the FP experiment to those who know more. I am not trying to chanllenge it. The Idea's I have got from other sources just supports, that these observed LENR is possible.

I have verified my own ideas mainly by observations from nature. One of my first proposal how to detect if LEN-Reaction is happening in these forest rings was to detect helium. But because that's difficult in forest, my second proposal was to seek Si-32. But for few unfortunate issues, I couldn't participate to the planned exploration in August.

But the main source from my observation is still Thermosphere. The picture I allready posted shows relative amounts. But If you look the absolute amounts, more interesting stuff becomes visible. Ie. the Peak of H is at 84 km height. And This seems to be consuming the free Oxygen atoms, "O" (Burning is not possible in those temperatures) the amount of these peaks at about 98 km height. Free Nitrogen atoms "N" peaks at the height of 196 km. Now, the problem with this is, that where does these came from? The Space is ofcourse full Hydrogen and Helium, so that's not a problem. But why these atom amounts peaks at these heights?

Please note that in atmosphere they exist in N2 and O2 molecules, and if their source is lower atmosphere, these molecules should be split to get these atoms free. The temperatures are definetly not supporting this view. The coldest point of Earth (173 K) is between the Peak amounts of H and O, at 90 km height.

I skip the complex story behind my thoughts, and just point out that Noctilucent clouds are exactly on that hight too;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
And I make a short claim; O can't be produced by collision from "hot" O2-molecules, as the heat of thermosphere is above 200 km height.
So this must new matter produced by fusion. This fusion, can obviously happen even temperatures of just 173 K and it cool down this region of atmosphere,
Temperature drops from ~1100 K to ~173 K

Why this Oxygen must be new matter? As when it reacts with hydrogen, it forms water molecules, which further condesates to visible solid frozen ice which is seen as these clouds. And this particles must fall down to earth. There is no mechanism that this water could have been rise through stratosphere.

So these observations in Thermosphere have indeed given me an idea about the conditions which are needed for a fusion to happen. And this would be quite easy to test.

So does this forum has no meat-on-the-bones what it comes to LENR?

Quote from axil

The energy source for LENR is proton and neutron decay. That decay produces 1 GeV of energy. The fusion results from the catalytic effects of muons in muonium atoms. Muon catalyzed fusion is an exothermic reaction.

Now we are talking, Thanks! This is what I came seeking here.
You know, I just started to study the nature of radioactivity about a year ago. I was lead to this theme while following my idea about gravity. I started study QED 1.5 year ago, and as I noted that it has nothing which doesn't fit, I proceeded to Radioactivity. I was working on this, and I found supporting stuff from other planets. But then I googled if I could find this stuff also in Earth. (crater/circular formations) And I found these Forst rings from Canada. Though they were "wrongly" located at that point I had gone through so much supporting stuff, that I was too convinced that these are also signs of natural fission. But as I contacted Stew Hamilton, and received the papers, it wasn't supporting anymore. It seemed as such, but things were totally turned around. Then I remembered the hype with Cold fusion, (which I knew nothing about) and i started to study if this all is about fusion.

My first (worst) problem with Fusion was that my Idea predicts it's always endothermic. And though this is supported by the experiments made with "Tokamak", the hydrogen/fusion-bomb was a real thing. Pretty soon it came obvious, that the whole high-yield of these "Fusion" bombs can be explained with Lithium Fission. - a reaction which is currently expected to be endothermic.
Up to that point my new ideas had brought nothing new or revolutional, It had just removed the mystical stuff like Dark Matter. But realizing that We have build stuff like Tsar Bomb;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
Without properly understanding what is going on, is just pretty depressive. We are currently using nuclear power, though we dont even quite know what we are doing. And the current research stand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Current_research
is very unsatisfying. The unknown is not researched, but the known stuff is just defined up to the 20th digit.

So; "LENR = Proton&neutron decay" -I agree.
"Muon catalyzed fusion is an exothermic reaction." - Agree,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
... as this is again "just";

Quote

Each exothermic d-t nuclear fusion releases about 17.6 MeV of energy in the form of a "very fast" neutron having a kinetic energy of about 14.1 MeV and an alpha particle α (a helium-4 nucleus) with a kinetic energy of about 3.5 MeV.

I dont know if Deuterium is easily available on some of your labs. But I have a proposal for very simple experiment;

D + D -> He
In
Pressure; <50 Pa
Temperature ~ 300 K

The process should be Energetic neutral. The temperature will though fall, but this comes from Ideal gas law.

If some one has the lab possibilities here in Central Europe to do this, I would like to participate on costs and work.

Regs,

Jouni Jokela

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Why do you think the opposite?

Because this is what you can actually observe in nature. ie;
- Coronal heating problem. -> The energy is "gravitational", means it comes outside the sun, thus it's also hotter in the sun.
- Thermospheres of planets -the problem is universal.
- Noctilucent clouds. -> The water can't come from earth. It's just physically impossible that it raises from 15 km to ~ 80 km. As after Tropopause there is nothing which would force it to go up and Stratosphere just doesn't have any convections. And if you study the gas derivates at mesopause;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…1_Mesopause_gas_derivates
It's like obvious that Hydrogen ions are oxidized to water. But this means that the Oxygen must come from space, and again we are on the opposite.
- Hydrogen bomb Li-7 was creating the opposite result to that predicted.

etc.etc.
But it doesn't really matter what are my thoughts, first IF

D + D -> He
In Pressure; <50 Pa
Temperature ~ 300 K

happens as is predicted by my thoughts (against your expectations), then it just is so.
In any case it doesn't matter. The nature remains as it is, and as it has always been. It's just our understanding which has developed, but as this (understanding) is also only Personal issue, it doesn't matter too much either.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

1. The corona isn't hotter than the center of Sun.
2. The scalar waves preferentially interact with / heat the free plasma particles.
3. which are rich of dark matter

1. & 3. You don't have any observation about these. Instead you have an observation for sun, that the core of the Sun could be solid, atleast it rotate with fixed speed.
(Quelle; http://www.geo.de/magazine/geo…6-die-heilkraft-der-sonne )
2. Have you calculated the scale? It's not even in correct order! I have; (page 23, 4.2.2)
https://www.researchgate.net/p…vity_Theory_of_Everything

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The scale of what?

OK, how can you explain, that most of solar neutrinos are generated within small volume in its center?

The scale of "2.";

Quote

scalar waves preferentially interact with / heat the free plasma particles.

Just according to plain thermodynamics.

About Neutrinos. They are merely detected;
https://www.scientificamerican…trinos-detected-borexino/

Quote

That is how the Borexino experiment at Italy’s Gran Sasso National Laboratory found them. Its detection of so-called pp neutrinos—neutrinos created by the fusion of two protons in the sun—was a feat far from guaranteed. “Their existence was not in question, but whether some group was capable of building such an exquisitely pristine detector to see these low-energy neutrinos in real time, event by event, was,” says Wick Haxton, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the experiment. “Borexino accomplished this through a long campaign to reduce and understand background events.”

If you study this "detection" more closely, you notice that it's 99.99% about "understanding background events".
Well, I just doubt that they have understood it at all. Most propable explanation is just securing the future funding in Italian way.

I don't find obligated to explain ferrytales. If you have some solid observation which is verifed though three (3) independet parties, I most propably can explain it.

This post continues the ideas worked here in my own post;
RIP Dr. Michel Buxerolle - suppressed research

It just added two new piece to my ideas, and this might be about completing the puzzle.
My previous hypothesis for fusion has been;
1. Low pressure
2. Equal masses
3. Adequate particle velocity (=temperature, > 200 K)

And the post just added the turbulence, or rather Lack of it;
4. Laminar conditions.
There is a thread (I've had no time to read it , but already the title) which supports this idea; "bose condensation as a force multiplier"
AND
5. Ionizing (with electricity)

Now the 3. and 4. are actually total contradictions, and this might be the reason for the need of low pressure (1.)

I've already spoken out my experiment-idea (somewhere, here? don't remember), that the fusion might occure simply at low pressure when the particles has equal masses, but low pressure is bad for power density, and it's difficult to measure the results. But until now, I've have problem about electrons. As I think they prevent and shield the atoms about being fusioned/fissioned.

Adding all aspects in, brings me to the following experimental proposal;

Single isotope material (doesn't matter too much which) is cooled down to very low temperature. .....Sorry, my ADHD..... I come back later, just got an idea about the condesation etc. want to do some excel now.

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm probably being a bit stupid (again) - but could you clarify what you mean by 'equal masses'?

No! It's a perfect question. A honest one. I actually don't even mean "masses", I rather mean "Kinetic Force" but as "force" is "F=m*a", I actually doensn't even mean Force, but something like "Strength"; In turbomachinery this is denoted with "Y" Specific pressure head. And in the case of particles, this would be Y=a*l, and the unit is m²/s², which basic form must be c². This might be near the concept of "Field", but again, If I talk about Specific field of a particle, there wont be too much dialogue.

So the main problem in Physics, is actually that the whole science is messed up with a pseudo thing called mass. But total mass of universe is ZERO. You actually can sit down and found this answer from the Newton's 3^rd.
But Let's get back to Fusion.

What I mean with "Equal masses" is simply similar mass number. And your question actually just delivered me the explanation for Lithium and Boron abundance. I actually don't have time to explain this now Throughly, but It's already written here, page 4.
So, I just write clean that hand written paper; (Stupid answer; Ink don't disturb your thoughts whilst writing.)

Quote

Fusion through collision
Synthesizing isotopes is mostly done with some Target-projectile combinations, which has a 3...5/1 -ratioin atomic mass. Ie. ²⁹²Lv was made with ²³⁸U as a target, and ⁵⁴Cr as a projectile. This kind of Fusions most propably doesn't happen in nature, where both of these particles are moving in random directions, causing huge variations in impact energy. This variation would lead to fission and fusion simultaniously, and would thus be too random process, to be able to ever synthesize heavier isotopes.
The basic Newtonian physics offers here a simple solution. If two objects of same mass and velocity(1) collides in space, after the collision they both will have the same direction and velocity(2), regardless from the collision angle. -When the collision is not elastic. This means, that the collision energy is high enough to over come the strong nuclei Force. (Potential wall) But small enough to be unable to split the Nuclei. -Or the nuclei must be as strong as Possible, but it must have the smallest possible potential wall. All this leads to an optimal case with similar masses on "target" and "projectile"(3)

I note that few points might need some more explanations;
(1) velocity = temperature, This is same if the (gas/plasma) particles are in same temperature. -> Similar mass and same temperature is thus equally correct said.
(2) The important aspect not said,(propably said somewhere in my linked paper) is that the particles remains together, in the same location. And if they are not disturbed this metastable Isomer can go through "Isomeric Transition" and form a Stabile nuclei. This is the reason for need to have low pressure. Low pressure is nothing else than more time between collisions. (google "Mean free path")
(3) This talk about "Target" and "projectile" comes from the synthesized isotopes, which are also nothing else than "fusion". Searching some "silver bullet"-combination can get your(lab/uni/location) name to periodic table.

Hope this helped to follow my thoughts (which are not necessarily correct)... -This answer is far from being complete.

Quote from Jokela

So the main problem in Physics, is actually that the whole science is messed up with a pseudo thing called mass. But total mass of universe is ZERO. You actually can sit down and found this answer from the Newton's 3rd.

Reading this paper posted by Alan Smith, this very same issue is actually allready said in page 65;
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedt.pdf

Quote

The solution also confirms that a positive mass M in the conjugate metric is seen as a negative mass M from
its gravitational effect felt on our side.

And even on page 64;

Quote

no more black hole!

and further on Page 66... But why should we implement some new "Dark Gravity"? Of course we can do it, and it would provide better theory than the existing one, but it still keeps the stuff more complicated. It's all much more simple If the whole mass is left away.
Even for the Pioneer effect he has made the same conlutions.

Thanks Alan Smith for posting this!

This exactly the same what I mean. This just more complicated, and is only a theoretical approach.

Quote from Alan Smith

Without going into the devilish details they shone a laser beam onto some already condensed hydrogen making it condense even more and voila out came an abundance of muons.

Does anyone have anymore info about this? I tried to google, and read the article.In the article were btw. very interesingly written between the lines, that there are no killing-gamma-rays in these processes.

@Zephir_AWT Your video-picture in the same chain is nice, and the whole thing is explained here;

This Aspect is relevant to the question of Alan Smith about my claim of the need of equal masses. I mean atomic nuclei doesn't work that way. A single proton have no possiblity to know what is the atom number of the molecule it is a part of. It means the collision is always happening between the smaller nuclei and a similar size part of the bigger nuclei, which then transfers the collision energy to the rest of the nuclei, -if this is possible. In the case of Lithium (6,7), Beryllium (9) and Boron (10,11) this is not possible.
The first enough stabile construction able to hold under a collision of single high speed proton/neutron needs atleast 12 units. (Carbon)

YES! I just looked the abundances of Lithium and Beryllium, and though production of all known isotopes could be produced through this nucleosynthesis idea;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…187_Nucleosynthesis_chain
I allready see how the math of the natural abundances will also fit perfectly after calculating this through this newest idea from today!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…_elements_in_the_Universe
... I think I work this to an Excel now..