• mjtrac : We have been through that already. There will never be a stampede. When the breakthrough is achieved and a LENR product is near than there will be all kinds of mumbled excuses by established scientists. No stampede - no public admittance of being wrong 90 years.

    Prof. Conrads was curious and wanted to replicate Mills. He was an old prof. by then and had 40+ years of experience in plasma science and a huge reputation. He was not allowed to conduct research at his university because of the potential "image problems" when conducting experiments of "pseudo science". The university I graduated at allowed him to conduct experiments for one year. They were succesful and ended in a paper describing the success. No stampede. That was 2003.

    Yes, I understand that many people feel "the establishment" is protecting itself from being forced to acknowledge the truth. I am even prepared, to a certain extent, to believe that of some members of the establishment, though not all. But I am quite confident about the stampede of the "capitalist pigs." I've followed LENR off and on since F&P, and there are only so many times that results can appear and then disappear, before I begin to question LENR researchers the same way they question the rest of the world. It seems only fair.


    One thing: I recognize that each individual should be judged only by their personal statements and behavior, so it dismays me whenever any group is supposedly tarnished by the actions of a single person, or only some members of the group. But, geez, watch that documentary, "Newman," that was posted above. IMO, anyone who believes that Newman had invented a perpetual motion device (or a device that extracted energy from magnetic fields, or whatever) is too credulous for me to take seriously.

  • I think any demonstration of 1.01:1, repeatable, documented sufficiently thoroughly that an undergraduate team at any university, aided by a professor as necessary, can replicate the process and see the result, would cause a stampede, similar to the stampede after the first F&P result. Large companies would want to be the first to exploit a promising technology.


    Look at Thermacore's results with Mill's experiments :

    starting at the 23:10 mark.

    Thermacore went on to modify the electrolytic cells to optimize heat output and prevent explosions. (Around that time if I recall a cold fusion researcher at another lab was killed by a hydrogen explosion.) They ditched electrodes in favour of using very, very long and thin nickel tubing shaped into a coil, wrapped around a resistance heater. This was all submerged in potassium carbonate solution, and the tubing pressurized with hydrogen gas. Voila excess heat. Thermacore has a patent on this or something like this. Probably long since expired. Why hasn't anything come of this? From the practical, commercial side of things its power density was too low among other things. From the scientific side of things, it's too much of a departure from academic establishment thinking to be taken seriously. Otherwise, one risks reputation, funding, and employment. So much for truth seeking.

  • Look at Thermacore's results with Mill's experiments :

    starting at the 23:10 mark.

    Thermacore went on to modify the electrolytic cells to optimize heat output and prevent explosions. (Around that time if I recall a cold fusion researcher at another lab was killed by a hydrogen explosion.) They ditched electrodes in favour of using very, very long and thin nickel tubing shaped into a coil, wrapped around a resistance heater. This was all submerged in potassium carbonate solution, and the tubing pressurized with hydrogen gas. Voila excess heat. Thermacore has a patent on this or something like this. Probably long since expired. Why hasn't anything come of this? From the practical, commercial side of things its power density was too low among other things. From the scientific side of things, it's too much of a departure from academic establishment thinking to be taken seriously. Otherwise, one risks reputation, funding, and employment. So much for truth seeking.

    So, Mark, you are saying that Thermacore was unable to write a paper describing their results and get it through a single peer-reviewed journal? Why? Are they all so restricted to academic establishment thinking that they won't publish results that would, if confirmed, be historic? Or did Thermacore not bother to submit anything anywhere? Or did they submit and receive requests for clarification? Science isn't usually conducted by youtube, afaik.

  • One thing: I recognize that each individual should be judged only by their personal statements and behavior, so it dismays me whenever any group is supposedly tarnished by the actions of a single person, or only some members of the group. But, geez, watch that documentary, "Newman," that was posted above. IMO, anyone who believes that Newman had invented a perpetual motion device (or a device that extracted energy from magnetic fields, or whatever) is too credulous for me to take seriously.


    I get than you don't understand anyone's interest in Newman but that's because you don't understand their motivation or believe the numerous affidavits by skill scientists published with Newman's book.


    Newman is mostly wrong and very irritating to read, but like many before him ( for example Henry Moray) he believed he could extract energy from a source as ambient as the atmosphere we breath.


    Where would such energy come from? Thunderclouds.


    I have shown by mass balance on Aquafuel that hydrogen and oxygen disappear and nitrogen appears. Aquafuel is basically: take two carbon rods and run enough current between them to see an underwater arc. The product gas is Aquafuel. With established stoichiometry one can calculate the mass difference due to transformation ( nuclear reaction) for the amount of nitrogen produced by reaction, and then mass to energy. That is an enormous amount of energy in a very short time. But the process has an endothermic reaction which absorbs most of the nuclear reaction energy. Still when one does the comparison of the heat value of Aquafuel based on its detectable chemical composition to it's actual yield in an engine, compared to gasoline as a control, the yield is 300% of what the chemical composition should yield. So, the energy yield is well over unity but less than .002% of the predicted value based on mass to energy conversion.


    300% energy yield to low to make enough electricity from heat to produce Aquafuel. However, Santilli still when on to improve the process an a multimillion dollar business welding gas business exist from that effort.


    But where is the rest of the energy? That's where the real money is. What if Newman tapped that thundercloud produced fuel and directly converted it to electricity? That's the motivation. All company doing water to energy, including the LENR ones or BLP, could be pursuing some version what I have described above. Yes, we all know LeBob doesn't believe it. But a smart person wouldn't depend on Lebob's opinion but would do due diligence.

  • I'll stop wasting everyone's time, including my own, but first I'll state my opinion. If, after a dozen or two years, you have not successfully brought along the mainstream scientific community, instead accumulating a group of perpetual motion enthusiasts unable to convince patent examiners, then there are a few possibilities.


    First, the scientific community might be hopelessly corrupt, with nobody at all available to listen to you.


    Second, you might be hopelessly unable to communicate, whether due to arrogance or other unfortunate incapability.


    Third, you might be wrong.


    Good luck and best wishes to everyone, and bye.

  • I agree with you! This is why coulomb barrier poking with insufficient energy and physics bending energy coming from the higgs/vacuum fields aren't the answers to super dense energy. We need a processes that makes sense classically, abiding among unique combinations of fundamental thermodynamic and electro/chemical concepts. There is a potencial process given in both this thread and others too.

  • Progress will come by following the math. Due diligence is the measure of progress. You can fill pages with words but the people that do things are not looking for your opinion. They form their own. All you accomplish with your bias opinion is slowing cooperation by shaming, being a bully of a sort. Fortunately, even that does not stop the doers. But it will make you look bad in historical perspective. So if you are trying to help, then provide facts, keep you opinions minimal and try not to show too much bias.

  • Progress will come by following the math. Due diligence is the measure of progress. You can fill pages with words but the people that do things are not looking for your opinion. They form their own. All you accomplish with your bias opinion is slowing cooperation by shaming, being a bully of a sort. Fortunately, even that does not stop the doers. But it will make you look bad in historical perspective. So if you are trying to help, then provide facts, keep you opinions minimal and try not to show too much bias

    Appolagies if I come of biased. I am actually trying to show patterns of common ground between researchers, weighting heavier those with more extensive math, clear comunication, patents/diagrams and experiments. I don't stick to quoting one researcher, one country, one copyrighted batch of words. Common features among hydrogen energy research and the mostly electromagnetic results show a more nuanced story is possible. The "vacuum" we should be worrying about for energy is the "empty" space inside the atoms. Of course like anything I maybe wrong but the pattern is quite constant. I would be exited if it were true, but I don't believe hydrogen+oxygen fusion is what is causing this.

  • Common features among hydrogen energy research and the mostly electromagnetic results show a more nuanced story is possible. The "vacuum" we should be worrying about for energy is the "empty" space inside the atoms. Of course like anything I maybe wrong but the pattern is quite constant. I would be exited if it were true, but I don't believe hydrogen+oxygen fusion is what is causing this.


    I can not quite figure out if you are just baiting me?


    I suppose you understand particle hierarchy. Higgs creates inertia, hence mass. Higgs decays to W particles of both types. W particles are weak bosons so the origins of transformation and therefore the energy production from a change of state. Summary to this point Higgs originates mass energy changes. So naturally the empty space inside the atom isn't empty of Higgs and is active for both types of W particles which may exist virtually. The limits of the uncertainty principle allow a particle to have a very short existence in time (hence virtual) when it is too massive to exist continuously in time. Hence, the line of stability of radioactive isotopes. Heavy particles always decay to lighter ones to be consistent with relativity but exothermic reactions can drive endothermic ones. Particle hierarchy continues: Higgs to W particles to electron, neutrino and their antiparticles and to light. Weak transmutations also produce electromagnetic radiation as part of mass to smaller mass plus energy balance. At the high energy end of weak transmutation, the electromagnetic force is electroweak. At the low energy end like for chemical changes of state, the electromagnetic force appears without obvious weak transformation. But?


    Is the existence of currents in space electromagnetic or electroweak? For a just electromagnetic view: What are the charge carriers in space? and how does one account for the charge imbalances an just electromagnetic view creates? A weak current can move by the reversible reactions of the products of W particles of both types. Hence, the interchange in types of neutrinos. What makes that happen? (Something new see next paragraph) Is this real?: where all is electromagnetic and the electroweak has does not exist anymore? The alternative is more consistent: where all energy production is E=m*c*c. (implied no possibility of using ZPE as an energy source)


    Your opinion of hydrogen + oxygen to nitrogen does not change that it is a mathematically derived fact. The measured amount of mass loss in a two minute reaction is the equivalent of 95.6 million BTU. Only a person completely unwilling to do or to accept the math would consider that fact to be an error. How big of role does conversion of water to nitrogen play our understanding of search for new energy? What is form is missing mass/energy? (Something new). We will see. I do believe hydrogen +oxygen to nitrogen (Kidman type reaction) is a solid fact in a sea of uncertain so called facts.

  • Dr, what I am proposing only requires electrons, protons, neutrons, electric/weak nuclear fields, and the most fundamental simplistic chemical/thermodynamic principles. An electromagnetic reaction involving multiple atomic and sup-atomic bodies. Condensation and compounds inside what we call the atom's outer shell.

  • Short story: Newman had energy. Engineers confirmed it. Developed latent angry trying to prove it against naysayers. Died paranoid and angry at anyone who would try to help.


    I know we should not believe everything on Wikipedia but..


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman%27s_energy_machine


    "Newman attempted to patent the device, but was rejected by the United States Patent Office as being a perpetual motion machine.[1] When the rejection was later appealed, the United States district court requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input.[2] Thus, the patent was again denied."

  • "Newman attempted to patent the device, but was rejected by the United States Patent Office as being a perpetual motion machine.[1] When the rejection was later appealed, the United States district court requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input.[2] Thus, the patent was again denied."


    I think what happen next was the USPTO was sued. The law required a Master examiner: one that both side could accept. The person was a former USPTO commissioner. The master's conclusion was it works; issue the patent. However, the judge under pressure from the USPTO decided he needed time to make his ruling. Now over 20 years later, still no ruling. A friend of mine who worked for one of the power companies that investigated Newman's process concluded that cost of the metal in the machine compared to the output likely make the device non-completive. This friend had a copy of Newman's book. It will take me awhile longer to complete my investigation. So, I have not make up mind about what to learn from Newman machine and how it might tie into to fusion/fission.