BLP update

Quote from Max Nozin

'Rather fusion depend on states that create a dilation of time space.'

Apart from that it makes all calculations elegant and though experimentd is there any proof of dilation? Same for space curvature. Can physics based on nonsense produce anything sensible?

Why do you regard relativity as non-sense? Gravity does not have to be restricted to the scale of astrometry. That is just a bias. Yes, the theory is elegant. It provides a way to get energy to nuclear reactions via W particles. That has far reaching implications that extend outside the range of this forum to a galactic scale to the majority of energy and mass in the universe. But for this forum, it suggests that since relativity acts in one dimension, it must also cause alignment of nuclei (magnetic or electric depending on relative view point). It creates an expectation of an electroweak attraction to account for magnecules and for a cluster of magnecules. It proposes that when that cluster has sufficient mass and energy (which it collects via relativity), the cluster becomes a nano sized star. It proposes a shielding effect that allow a type of fusion that astrometry teaches only happens in very large stars. But, that is just a explanation.

The fact is based on commonly accepted tools, I was able to derive a state equation for fusion using mass balance, stoichiometry and the assumption of magnecules. Two cascades of fusion reaction steps were derived to support overall state equations. Those cascades provide a greater insight into "colder fusion". Miley has shown direct measurement of these dense (hydrogen- quasi-neutron) clusters in LENR. But my explanation goes further. The state equations show the nuclear activation of oxygen and fusion of hydrogen to oxygen. These cascades are a more energetic form of colder fusion than proton fusion to helium. Not withstanding that further interpretation of that same data suggests proton fusion to helium can happen.

The disappointing fact is that state equations don't explain what happens to the expected energy. Given that disappointment, I understand if you are more interested the various LENR efforts which currently do not have that disappointing expectation. I don't see the lack of heat production as a reason to end research. Rather, I have shown that there is a fuel produced by colder fusion. I expect one day to see the recovery of most of the energy from the fuel produced by colder fusion.

People are talking about everything besides atleast new chemical phenomina. Instead of making up a fuel form of matter that is somehow synthesised by hard to justify nuclear reactions we could accept that something between nuclear and external electron orbit energies is at play. Deep/lower electron orbits and picometric exothermic reactions seem to be able to account for most of the intreging anomalies in experiments.

......yes but we want to tap into the energy of matter of the atom not some reversible chemical reaction which might just account for some of the low excess heat measurements to date. Picochemistry, Magneculles and hydrinos are just interesting digressions / speculations away from the central focus of LENR or are one of several different pathways necessary for the initiation of cold fusion. Or look at them as quasi-neutron generating mechanisms similar to Holmlid's ultra dense hydrogen

No - because it's the difference between generating energy from an original source rather than releasing energy from a storage device or battery which is all a pico - chemical hydrino or magnecule - based system would constitute. Mill's theory of releasing energy from electrons decaying down to hydrino orbits cannot account for the energy released (claimed 40 MW in earlier Ag suncells) and now he's only reporting COP of around ,2 with Ga because he is avoiding any association with LENR or cold fusion? Like it's all pico-chemistry now??? I mean once formed by injecting electrical discharges with HOH catalyst present energy is released but must be gradually re-absorbed as H* reverts back to H then to H2 molecules endothermically - so it's acting just like a pico-chemical battery. But H*-H* fusion to He or further still to O removes H* from the reaction irreversibly and generates MeV of energy. As Wyttenbach has commented, Mill's had something special with a very high COP but has let go of it more recently (investor pressure??). At least R.Godes is sticking to his guns at Brillouin Energy with his electron capture cold neutron theory (with Carl Page's backing)

The liquid metal approach seems fraught with problems Maybe he would be better off switching to a pure plasma SAFIRE type approach as director has suggested ......or suspend Ag particles and HOH with hydrogen in a dusty plasma he has the facilities. Not a system for general use though. The Booker and Nansteel reports seem very disappointing after flying so high previously.

Quote from Dr Richard

The liquid metal approach seems fraught with problems Maybe he would be better off switching to a pure plasma SAFIRE type approach as director has suggested ......or suspend Ag particles and HOH with hydrogen in a dusty plasma he has the facilities. Not a system for general use though. The Booker and Nansteel reports seem very disappointing after flying so high previously.Teg

There is also a third validation report by the newcomer and relatively young Dr. Stephen Tse from Rutgers University in New Jersey. The results are about the same and do seem disappointing, but I'm going to investigate further tonight, since his results show the amount of H2 used. The COP may have been low simply because there was not much hydrogen to convert to hydrino. They were running at only about 5 Torr (one atmosphere is about 760 Torr).

Conversely, when they were reporting high COP it was in condensed matter - hydrated silver pellets - where the H concentration would have been high after the water in the pellet was dissociated.

I wish they would conduct a similar pellet experiment but with gallium instead. Adjusting for the lower conductivity, would the COP have been comparable with the silver pellet? I figure that Wittenbach would answer an emphatic 'no!'. I tend to agree but remain undecided.

Quote from Alan Smith

Gallium is easy enough compared with silver- it melts in your hand.

Very un M&M - like. Also, unfortunately, gallium 'melts' many other metals.

Quote from Max Nozin

Drgenek I did call entire relativity a nonsense. Just curved space and time dilation. This is already century old argument should the physics be materialistic or not as long as it is a good approximation.

It was 'commonly accepted' fact that the Earth was flat but it didn't completely stop the progress of science. So now we are experiencing similar stagnation I believe.

Curved space, multiverse, unformatin, strings etc.

I thought that particles with short lifetimes, when accelerated to high speeds, experience longer life times. This would be consistent with special relativity's time dilation. As of now I don't have a problem with it : experience more space at that expense of experiencing less time and visa versa.

Curved space is another matter. About a year ago I heard from an Unzicker video, where he said that it had been proven long ago that a variable speed of light in a gravity - altered 3D Euclidean aether, resulting in diffraction effects - are mathematically equivalent to a supposedly curved space.

Speaking of Unzicker, I saw a very recent video of his, advertising his new book The Mathematical Reality: Why Space and Time Are an Illusion

Seeing that space and time seem so strangely entwined - and perhaps interchangeable? - maybe we will indeed have to rethink what they mean to make progress.

Quote from Dr Richard

No - because it's the difference between generating energy from an original source rather than releasing energy from a storage device or battery which is all a pico - chemical hydrino or magnecule - based system would constitute. Mill's theory of releasing energy from electrons decaying down to hydrino orbits cannot account for the energy released (claimed 40 MW in earlier Ag suncells) and now he's only reporting COP of around ,2 with Ga because he is avoiding any association with LENR or cold fusion? Like it's all pico-chemistry now??? I mean once formed by injecting electrical discharges with HOH catalyst present energy is released but must be gradually re-absorbed as H* reverts back to H then to H2 molecules endothermically - so it's acting just like a pico-chemical battery. But H*-H* fusion to He or further still to O removes H* from the reaction irreversibly and generates MeV of energy. As Wyttenbach has commented, Mill's had something special with a very high COP but has let go of it more recently (investor pressure??). At least R.Godes is sticking to his guns at Brillouin Energy with his electron capture cold neutron theory (with Carl Page's backing)

I am sure there are methods of extracting the energy as an irriversable useful form (for example electric current) fast enough that it doesn't revert back. Chemical combustion is reversible, but it is still good enough to have powered all of civilization and lifes metabolism from the stone age till now. Anything from 10s up to 1,000s of times more dense than chemical combustion, without the worst features of hydrocarbons and old fission, is the most amazing energy source known if you know how to plan with efficiency in mind and understand engineering to release it. I think pico-chemistry may have more than enough for us if done right. Assuming it is capable of all claimed to some degree.

You are forgetting that pico-chemistry is more than just ultra dense hydrogen or hydrinos. There are claimed possible compounds with transition metals that would be more stable than standard bonds while appearing like transmutation interestingly. Pico-hydrides intimate to the core of the atom.

Quote from Dr Richard

The liquid metal approach seems fraught with problems Maybe he would be better off switching to a pure plasma SAFIRE type approach as director has suggested ......or suspend Ag particles and HOH with hydrogen in a dusty plasma he has the facilities. Not a system for general use though. The Booker and Nansteel reports seem very disappointing after flying so high previously.

A dusty plasma would work well for the MHD approach, extracting current directly from a continuous flowing "hydrino" plasma.

Sorry, I think the pico-chemical release of energy proposed on hydrino formation is rather a red herring. H* whether hydrino or ultra dense is just the first necessary step required for subsequent fusion reactions. This is what is occurring in Takahashi's, Mizuno's, Holmlid's, Brillouin Energy's, SAFIRE's experiments yielding nuclear levels of excess heat and transmutation of elements. We are on the verge of being able to exploit this amazing new energy source so I think once this happens (probably first in Japan) R. Mill's and Santilli etc will eventually come round to accept this, that after all cold fusion or LENR works!

Quote from Mark U

thought that particles with short lifetimes, when accelerated to high speeds, experience longer life times. This would be consistent with special relativity's time dilation.

As long as you only use two dimensions GER is OK. Photons are 1x1 and thus follow a aspects of general relativity. A muon can travel through halve the universe at ultra relativistic speed without decaying. This looks at least like a GER effect.

Of course there is an other explanation, that is based on the structure of the muon with added energy. But usually models should converge at the limit. Currently muons can be stored in a ring and can be accelerated. This will certainly end in a paper that will prove GER or more likely show some deviations.

Quote from LeBob

People are talking about everything besides atleast new chemical phenomina. Instead of making up a fuel form of matter that is somehow synthesised by hard to justify nuclear reactions we could accept that something between nuclear and external electron orbit energies is at play. Deep/lower electron orbits and picometric exothermic reactions seem to be able to account for most of the intreging anomalies in experiments.

We have a free expression of many theories on this forum which are hard to justify. I am as confused by them as anyone.

However, for over 200 years reactions have been justified by stoichiometry. I have presented a justifiable reaction. Don't think for a moment that anyone will skill enough to do the mass balance and stoichiometry will ever come to some other conclusion other than there is fusion of deuterium to oxygen accompanied by the production of hydrogen and nitrogen by an arc to the right gas mixture. The data I used provides that kind of accuracy and precision. The analysis will hold up in a court of law because other than the assumption of magnecules, the analysis and tools I used have are commonly accepted by any practicing chemical engineer. In my world (chemical production engineering) stoichiometry is an undeniable truth.

The analysis I provided for you of a pico-chemical reaction of hydrogen and iron, confirms a fuel. Magnecules are a fuel. That reaction was : a magnetically excited form of hydrogen penetrates into lower orbital of irons transfers energy to magnetically excite iron and the two form a magnecule. That reaction is thermodynamically justified. Hydrinos or energy from like reactions can't be justified by thermodynamics. Rather, a prior nuclear reaction provides the thermodynamic justification by producing a fuel. Undeniable the above Fe to hydrogen reaction occurs only with one isotope of Fe which is a clear indication that the reaction involves the weak nuclear force ( is a form of a nuclear reaction).

Quote from Drgenek

We have a free expression of many theories on this forum which are hard to justify. I am as confused by them as anyone.

However, for over 200 years reactions have been justified by stoichiometry. I have presented a justifiable reaction. Don't think for a moment that anyone will skill enough to do the mass balance and stoichiometry will ever come to some other conclusion other than there is fusion of deuterium to oxygen accompanied by the production of hydrogen and nitrogen by an arc to the right gas mixture. The data I used provides that kind of accuracy and precision. The analysis will hold up in a court of law because other than the assumption of magnecules, the analysis and tools I used have are commonly accepted by any practicing chemical engineer. In my world (chemical production engineering) stoichiometry is an undeniable truth.

The analysis I provided for you of a pico-chemical reaction of hydrogen and iron, confirms a fuel. Magnecules are a fuel. That reaction was : a magnetically excited form of hydrogen penetrates into lower orbital of irons transfers energy to magnetically excite iron and the two form a magnecule. That reaction is thermodynamically justified. Hydrinos or energy from like reactions can't be justified by thermodynamics. Rather, a prior nuclear reaction provides the thermodynamic justification by producing a fuel. Undeniable the above Fe to hydrogen reaction occurs only with one isotope of Fe which is a clear indication that the reaction involves the weak nuclear force ( is a form of a nuclear reaction).

Magnocule fuels as described by you, claimed synonimous with the various pico-scale deep electron bonds, wouldn't be fuel because there formation should be an exothermic reaction whether fusion aided it or not. Hydrinos/H2* are one of many possible pico-structured atom constructs not the end all.

LENR could clasify as nuclear in the same way that a fusor is a fusion apparatus. Elevated, detectable, above background, fast particle emissions from trace but significant fusion/fusion/annialation events. But with the actual practical excess energy coming from pico-chemical alternate interactions, thus possibly eliminating thick shields and liberating it for use anywhere hydrocarbon combustion or fuel/battery cells would apply.

Dark matter very likely is a product of the non-thermonuclear but still nuclear reaction of stars. It is not likely hydrinos because it is not likely that ground level energies have been incorrectly predicted by thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. In the scenario that dark matter and dark energy are the fuel product of colder fusion, the universe consumes mass/energy in generating an ever larger EBH field. In the end or in the before the beginning of a new big bang, all that a some future time will become mass and energy is in this field of virtual Higgs and virtual particle can could be made from the Higgs if only any particle could get enough mass/ energy to become real. Of course gravity eventual brings it all back around with a bang.

Just offering a more reasonable opinion than hydrino dark matter