Rayleigh- Energy From gases (1946) and some others.

If you have a friend able to translate, you should understand better my last post.

Sorry it's a raw pdf.

Quote from Frogfall

Unfortunately, a lot of Kervran's suggested transmutations would have ended up more complicated than he originally supposed.

e.g. The (suggested iron catalysed, if I remember correctly) N₂ --> CO by single proton "shuffle" would decay, since you would end up with ¹³C (stable) and ¹⁵O (unstable). The oxygen atom would decay by positron emission (H/L 2 mins) to ¹⁵N (stable). So the end result would be CN (cyanide) rather than CO.

Of course, if a deuteron shuffled across....

Quote from Cydonia

If you have a friend able to translate, you should understand better my last post.

Thanks. I already have a number of Kervran's publications - but was working from memory.

And my apologies Cydonia - Kervran was already proposing a deuteron shuffle for this situation (not just a proton)

kervran-N2-CO.pdf

Quote from Frogfall

And my apologies Cydonia - Kervran was already proposing a deuteron shuffle for this situation (not just a proton)

The Structured Atom Model (SAM) is based on the notion that neutrons do not exist as fundamental particles but are instead constituted by a proton and an (nuclear) electron, or more precise one (nuclear) electron that is 'captured' in between 2 protons. This represents a deuteron and is the basic building block recognized in SAM. From that all the logic for the whole Periodic Table of the Elements is derived, meaning number of outer electrons (determining the element), the valence or oxidation state, nobility, etc.

The notion that a deuteron would "hop over' to the second atom is in fact a lot more likely since it would be like transferring a Lego building block and not just a proton, which would cause all kinds of reactions. The deuteron building block we think can indeed be transferred under the right circumstances and would not have nuclear reactions such as Beta decay steps, just the emitting of the excess energy that represents the acquired new (ground) state. What the right circumstances are is what we are collectively after I would argue...

The Atom viewer shows all elements and how they are constructed and one can easily see how this would work.
https://structuredatom.org/atomizer/atom-viewer

Here a video about SAM and 'simple' nuclear reactions.

Quote from Edo

This represents a deuteron and is the basic building block recognized in SAM.

Thanks Edo. I do happen to have a copy of your book, but I find it evokes a kind of Bohr-Box hybrid feeling:

Quote

Your theory is crazy, the question is whether it's crazy enough to be true useful.

As all models are wrong, we shouldn't fall into the habit of believing any of them to be correct. Models are maps, and maps are always imperfect when compared to reality.

However an imperfect map might still help you navigate the world, as long as you also keep your eyes on the road and look out for hazards. The real measure of a map's usefulness is whether it helps you make decisions at the crossroads you inevitably meet in the real world. If the map can't do that, then it is little more than a piece of art.

If SAM proves to be useful, then it should help us to predict the outcome of changes to our real-world experiments better than other models do. And, as a map, it should also help us to explore new routes - revealing paths that were previously hidden by undergrowth, and absent from other maps.

But if we are still having to stumble around, randomly, with our experimental Machetes, then maybe the map may not be much use after all.

Quote from Frogfall

And, as a map, it should also help us to explore new routes - revealing paths that were previously hidden by undergrowth, and absent from other maps.

This is probably the most useful aspect of the SAM, it helps show that there are multiple paths previously unseen.

We still have to explore those paths with the experimental machetes.

Quote from Curbina

This is probably the most useful aspect of the SAM, it helps show that there are multiple paths previously unseen.

Can you actually name one?

I have a couple of concerns regarding SAM:

(a) It encourages particle denialism. e.g. What about the poor old Pi Meson, and all its Mesonic siblings? What about the Muon? Even the positron is claimed not to exist. The notion of a nucleus consisting of protons and electrons was quite popular a century ago. But as Samuel Goldwyn is reputed to have said - "we have passed a lot of water since then".

(b) It encourages billiard ball thinking. We don't really know what a "particle" is, for sure, let alone specific particles such as the Proton. So why should collections of nucleons behave like a bunch of incompressible spherical balls? I know that we are used to modelling molecules as 3D collections of (slightly squashy) balls - and that technique has proved to be very useful over the years. However, the diameter of a nucleus is about 5 orders of magnitude smaller than that of an atom - so quantum effects alone are going to mess around with any fixed notions of shape. I'll grant that the resulting pictures are pretty, though.

So, yes, if SAM can help us on our way, then good. Otherwise it may be as much use as the Bellman's map, when on the hunt for a Snark.

Quote from Frogfall

Can you actually name one?

Just opening the door that electromagnetism can be a trigger of nuclear reactions instead of high temperatures for me is more than enough.

Quote from Curbina

Just opening the door that electromagnetism can be a trigger of nuclear reactions instead of high temperatures for me is more than enough.

I would argue that the door had already been blown wide open through experiment, and the careful observation of real events. It also follows that any models which are unable to predict those real-world observations have massive holes (even if they are actually useful under other circumstances).

Note that if you possess two maps (drawn by different cartographers) and, whilst on your travels, you discover that the first map has an error, so doesn't match the terrain - that discovery has no effect on whether the second map is any more, or any less, accurate than the first map. All maps need to be checked against the terrain in order to gauge their usefulness.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

(compare Moler generator and its replication with Naudin, who achieved COP ~ 10)

Thanks for the reminder about the 2005 JLN Labs MAHG replication.

I recall reading this at the time, and actually tracking down the source of the "reactor" - which was based on an "off the shelf" high power, water cooled, thermionic vacuum triode - manufactured by Svetlana. I think they were normally sold for use in radio transmitters.

As far as I could see at the time, the triode had only been modifed by adding hydrogen. As you can see from the various project pages at the old JNL Labs website, Moller claimed that the device worked by repeatedly dissociating and recombining the H₂ molecules, and hence never needed refilling.

I must admit, I was rather sceptical of some of the claims back then - particularly over how long it would run before destroying itself.

Quote from Alan Smith

The presence of hydrogen is probably the key difference between this and the vacuum triode work you posted before.

I'm afraid I have to say yes - but quite possibly no. I've been digging through my memories, and now recall why I had spent time searching for the original valve.

At the time, I had a nagging suspicion that the internal configuration of the valve might not have been quite as described to Naudin. I don't even know if Naudin ever dismantled the valve, or whether he just tested it as delivered by Alexander Frolov.

To me, the drawings supplied by Moller looked as if they could have been based on drawings 'lifted' from the Svetlana plant in St Petersburg, rather than coming from a genuine "reverse engineering" exercise. Of course the Svetlana valve itself could have been a copy of an older western design (possibly RCA - from which they had licensed some products during the Soviet era. Edit - the valve seems to have been made by Eimac in the US, although that could have been a copy too, I guess.)

However, when looking through online catalogues, back in the mid-naughties, I could only find triodes of that format. Even today, although I can no longer find any Russian versions, 20kw power triodes of this type are still available from China.

Note that the part sectional view of the valve seems to have simply omitted the Grid - which would have been welded to the flange circled in red (see below). So either this was a specially manufactured version, minus the grid, or maybe a stock triode had been dismantled and rebuilt after removing the grid - or maybe the grid was still there and it just wasn't shown on the drawing.

This got me wondering whether any other information about this device might not be entirely as described. Was this actually a stock vacuum triode, which had not been altered in any way? i.e. Maybe it didn't contain any hydrogen gas at all, and this was just a bit of 'commercial misinformation' designed to conceal what was really happening inside the valve.

Or maybe I was just being overly suspicious and cynical...

The grid is in place, it is the cylinder with a diameter of 38 units. The electrode marked in red is a "guard ring" for preventing internal arcing. (High voltage triodes)

Quote from fabrice DAVID

The grid is in place, it is the cylinder with a diameter of 38 units.

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

This illustration is from the old (1963) datasheet for the Eimac 3CW20,000A7 power triode, of which the Svetlana 3CW20,000A7 was a plug-compatible copy. The two contacts marked "Filament" go to the Thoriated Tungsten Wire heater/cathode (38mm diameter cage, of 0.25mm wire). The contact marked "Control Grid" goes to the flange that I have marked in red.

I am beginning to suspect that the "reactor" really was a "special" that might have been assembled in the Svetlana factory, from stock parts normally used to manufacture their 3CW20,000A7 triode. Maybe Alexander Frolov paid for the special, which omitted the grid (hence becoming a diode), and was factory-filled with 0.3 litres of H₂ at 0.1 bar.

EIMAC_3CW20000A7.pdf   Svetlana_3CW20000A7.pdf

There is an interesting 2006 piece written by the late Ludwik Kowalski, still available on his web archive at Montclair.

hydrogen, cold fusion, CMNS, energy, zero point, naudin, frolov, moller

It contains some background information regarding the origin of the device, which seems to have been paid for by both Frolov and Moller - although the device appears to be entirely of Alexander Frolov's design (utilising parts from the previously mentioned triode, which was manufactured locally to his lab).

Kowalski admits that he finds the information on Naudin's site confusing, so doesn't really have a handle on how the device is supposed to work, or whether the tests make any sense.

Alexander Frolov is on ResearchGate, where he has posted details of some of his lab's many projects, including this one:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343817797_Project_on_atomic_hydrogen/figures

The photos (above) are from 2003 - but there is an accompanying set of presentation slides from 2013. One slide says the following:

I don't know who tested the devices in London or Sydney, but I assume it was one of these rigs that eventually reached Naudin's lab in France. I understand Alexander Frolov also has an account on LENR Forum - so maybe we might have an update at some point.

Quote from Alan Smith

I think Kowalski is still around, though long retired. He always struck me as an eminently sane and sensible researcher.

I'm afraid I found out about Ludwik's death from searching the forum.

Thread

Ludwik Kowalski Death

Ludwik Kowalski passed away on October 20, 2021. He became a cold fusion supporter in 2002 and posted his work on his website at
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

His contributions to the field are described at https://infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/KowalskiObit.pdf

Thomas Grimshaw

Dec 23rd 2021

The 2013 presentation slides from Frolov, mentioned above, are notable for the fact that they do not mention any of the work undertaken by Naudin on the cell.

Digging through, and piecing together, the slightly haphazard information on Naudin's site, it appears that the device - as delivered - did not perform particularly well. There are some tests (e.g. "cell in corona discharge mode") for which there are no results shown, even though they appear to have been carried out. Nevertheless, practically every set of results shown seem to display some over-unity, albeit only around 2:1 for the early tests. The exception seems to be the one test conducted with a constant DC running through the filament.

As delivered, the rig seems to have been provided with an electrical supply that sent a high current half-wave rectified 12v sine wave through the filament, which was simply transformed down from the 230v 50Hz mains. Initial calculations by Naudin seemed to follow the Moller idea that the fillament was getting hot enough, during the peaks of the half-wave, to produce a small portion of dissociated hydrogen - which then "recombined" on the inner surface of the water-cooled cathode. He noted that the ceramic base of the cell was also getting rather hot during these runs, indicating that some heat was not being captured by the coolant. (But although he stated that it was his intention to provide thermal insulation for the base on subsequent tests, the extra insulation never seems to have appeared.) The DC test, with no apparent over-unity, was presented as support for the Moller dissociation/recombining theory - as calculations appeared to show that the filament was not able to get hot enough during that run to dissociate any hydrogen.

What isn't clear is whether the 50Hz half wave was capapable of creating Rayleigh-style "active hydrogen". And, of course, the visual state of the internal gas was an unknown. There also seems to have been no runs with progressively reduced half-wave current - which would have enabled trend plots of heat out vs power in, aimed at revealing a theoretical drop-off in performance, as dissociation dwindled. I regard this as a very poor and disappointing omission from the test sequence. (Edit: No - there have been tests of this type - see below)

Naudin then went on to make substantial changes to the way the cell was electrically driven, using his own equipment. And this is where the 20:1 over-unity results started to appear.

nb. As mentioned in the edit, above. Some tests were indeed done with different power levels, using the half wave input. The proportion of excess power, however, seems to increase/decrease fairly linearly with input power - going right down to zero. This would seem to contradict the idea that dissociated hydrogen was involved - as there would surely have been a non-linear drop-off of performance at input powers (or calculated filament temperatures) below which dissociation could occur.

I hope they did not confuse the "small calories" and the "big calories".