Collective low energy nuclear reaction may cause overunity in Graneau’s water explosion

1st Official Post

    Bocijn: more professional research. Funding is indeed difficult, but outside Russia the Energoniva technology isn't researched at all.


    Water arc explosions were first described in 1907 by John Trowbridge of Harvard University, though the phenomenon was not studied in detail until it caught the interest of Peter and Neal Graneau in the mid-1980s (Graneau's, 1985). By discharging a high-voltage capacitor through around 100 mL of water, the Graneau team was able to expel the water from a dielectric cup. At the time, the Graneaus conjectured that the arc discharge generated high- pressure steam within the water which expanded rapidly and resulted in the observed explosions. Measurements in Graneau and Graneau (1985) and Hathaway and Graneau (1996) indicated that water arc explosions were unusually strong. The history includes work by Trowbridge in 1907 as noted below; also Frungel in 1948 and 1965 papers; and Gilchrist and Crossland in 1967. About the same time as Graneau's publications, we also find a publication by Azevedo of MIT - 1986. YT Videos Water Drop Trigger Apparatus, Max Spark Rate Demo

    For further reading: The Mysteries of Fog (Graneau, P., & Graneau, N. (1985). Electrodynamic explosions in liquids. Applied Physics Letters, 46(5), 468, Graneau, P., Graneau, N., Hathaway, G., & Hull, R. (2000). Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy. Journal of Plasma Physics, 63, 115-128), see Graneau e.a. - Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy - 2000.pdf (364.3 kB), Powerful-water-plasma-explosions.pdf (313.59 kB), GraneauEditorial94.pdf (178.4 kB), P4.pdf (320.36 kB)

    Wyttenbach wrote: "The main LENR reaction is guided by a strong H-field."


    I always think in terms of B rather than H.


    Would Faraday's Law be relevant?


    E(volts)= d B.A/ dt. (Maxwell is too complicated for me.)


    If there was a fast changing magnetic field, B or H , it could it impart KeV's to electrons?. or protons?

    These excited electron's could then participate in transmutation reactions


    Wyttenbach "Alfven"


    "If a conducting liquid is placed in a constant magnetic field, every motion of the liquid gives rise to an E.M.F. which produces electric currents. Owing to the magnetic field, these currents give mechanical forces which change the state of motion of the liquid. Thus a kind of combined electromagnetic-hydrodynamic wave is produced." Alven waves explains the corona temperature.


    What happens if the magnetic field is varying?

    Quote

    What happens if the magnetic field is varying?


    It will induce a precession of both nuclear magnetic momentum, both electron orbitals and it will give them a dipole momentum. This momentum will align both atom nuclei, both atom orbitals and even plasma atom itself along long chains, along which the linear momentum of atoms can amplify itself with Astroblaster effect and propagate. The aligning of particles in oscillating magnetic field can be even observed and studied macroscopically, for example by formation of long "magnetic snakes" of nickel particles, floating at the water surface. You can find additional videos and physical model here.

    № 90 - Котёл-парогенератор-трансмутатор «Аурум-01” Среднее потребление - 0,7 кВт. Выходная тепловая мощность - 12 кВт. Расходный материал - вода, 150 г / сутки. Ядерное излучение в пределах нормы. Выход драгметалла: Серебро - 100 г / сутки, (в виде Ag2O ), Золото - 25 г / сутки, ( в виде Au2O3 x H2O ) . Оптимальные способы восстановления и утилизации драгметаллов, находятся в разработке. Предоставляется только для исследовательских целей! Первые эксперименты: Видео


    No. 90 - Boiler-steam generator-transmutator "Aurum-01" Average consumption - 0,7 kW. The output heat output is 12 kW. Consumable material - water, 150 g / day. Nuclear radiation is within normal limits. The output of the precious metal: Silver - 100 g / day, (in the form of Ag2O), Gold - 25 g / day, (in the form of Au2O3 x H2O).
    Optimum ways of recovery and recycling of precious metals are under development. It is provided only for research purposes! The first experiments: Video

    IMHO, LENR causation is centered on the unique nature of the magnetic field line configuration that can destabilizes the proton. This non typical magnetic field line configuration creates instantons inside the proton that destabilizes it. The Alfven wave may be one of the generators of this anisotropic magnetic field type generator. There are LENR reactions occur at room temperature without the generation of plasma. The golden sphere demo by D. Cravens is an example of a rare earth magnet as the source of the anisotropic field that destabilizes the proton.


    The Dennis Cravens Golden Ball reaction


    The spin wave on the surface of the metallized ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticle could be another place where Alfven waves form.


    There may be any number of ways to produce anisotropic magnetic field lines that have the ability to destabilize the proton. Alfven wave fields produced in the Sun's corona may be were all that solar energy comes from.


    A water based electrical explosion in the power turbines produced the chernobyl reactor disaster through muon fission of uranium..


    THE WAR ON COLD FUSION

    Quote

    to produce anisotropic magnetic field lines that have the ability to destabilize the proton


    Protons are very stable particles with compare to neutrons, for example. Decay of neutron releases 0.782343 MeV and it runs nearly spontaneously at room temperature. There is absolutely no reason, why the LENR energy should originate from stable proton decay instead of unstable neutron decay. Try to think more physically and don't parrot the concepts, which have meaning in different context only (like the theoretical experiments looking for decay of proton).

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Protons are very stable particles with compare to neutrons, for example. Decay of neutron releases 0.782343 MeV and it runs nearly spontaneously at room temperature. There is absolutely no reason, why the LENR energy should originate from stable proton decay instead of unstable neutron decay. Try to think more physically and don't parrot the concepts, which have meaning in different context only (like the theoretical experiments looking for decay of proton).

    \https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay


    This thinking comes from the experiments of Holmlid, Georges Lochak, and Leonid Urutskoev where pions and muons are detected.


    http://journals.plos.org/ploso…69895#pone.0169895.ref007


    Quote

    The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly laser-induced nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the laser-induced transfer of the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material H(0) from excitation state s = 2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to s = 1 (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2]. The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and observed [16,17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.


    Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

    Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf


    This experiment shows the fission of U238 at a distance in an isolated chamber that was separated by glass from the exploding foil. An electric explosion generates muons which result in the fission of U238 and not U235. Muons have been shown to produce fission of both thorium 232 and U238. FIssion of U238 is an indicator that muons are the reaction cause.


    Quote

    The idea of the experiment was as follows. The plasma channel has a small volume with respect to the volume of the whole chamber. Thus, if some salt of a metal having several isotopes is added to bidistilled water, the number of admixture atoms from the solution that get to the plasma channel would be small compared to the number of Ti atoms. It is clear that recording of the isotope shift of admixture atoms would indicate that transformation takes place throughout the whole bulk of the chamber. As this metal, we used U. Uranium has two isotopes, 235U and 238U, whose ratio can be easily measured even at a low specific concentration by means of γ, β and α-spectrometry. Figure 5 shows the 235U/238U ratios measured by various procedures and compared to the ratio measured in the starting solution. Thus, if no changes were detected after the experiment, this ratio would be equal to unity. It can be seen from the figure that the real ratio is far from unity. The isotope shift effect extends far beyond the possible errors. The shift occurs toward enrichment of the mixture in the 235U isotope. This does not mean that 238U is converted into 235U. This interpretation is wrong. We added some 137Cs isotope as the marker. Then we measured the specific activity (that is, activity divided by the volume) of each U isotope with respect to the Cs activity before and after the experiment. It was found that the activity of both U isotopes decreased with respect to that of Cs. However, the activity of the 238U isotope decreases to a greater extent. Thus, the ratio of 235U to 238U becomes bigger than unity. Prior to these experiments, we made sure that the specific activity of 137Cs does not change noticeably. The real situation is more complicated [3] but this is a topic of a separate report. For us, it is important that the transformation can also take place outside the plasma channel.


    Nuclear Physics A350 (1980) 278 - 300;


    FISSION OF 232Th AND 238U

    IN THE INTERACTION WITH NEGATIVE MUONS



    The random links to muon of yours indicate, you're completely confused regarding physics. You can maybe impress some dull laymen with it but not me. What the hell 232Th and 238U fission has to do with Holmlid experiments? And what it all has to do with water discharge experiments? No muons were ever observed during it.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    What the hell 232Th and 238U fission has to do with Holmlid experiments? And what it all has to do with water discharge experiments? No muons were ever observed during it.

    It has be shown that U238 can be made to fusion without the production or detection of neutrons in a water discharge experiment. How can this happen?

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.