Ken Shoulders ; The Man Who Made Black Holes

  • Just a suggestion for Axil. Please size your images to not larger than 640 x 480 unless absolutely necessary for resolution and in any case, no larger than needed. Huge images require lots of annoying scrolling and can transiently mess up some displays.

  • axil I here you. Just trying to absorb all possible angles and work within E=mc^2. I would say, as Bob and others have, that alot of the transmutation reactions are also endothermic or weakly exothermic. They will use up fusion and fission energy producers around them instead of damaging it. Also life is what I like to call God's nanotechnology with the right arrangements you could have LENR reactions that only consume what is needed and nothing more... Though I'm surprised that if it is sapposedly present in life as many claim, how come no life formed to have it as a main energy source?

    Mass involved may also include subatomic particles and altered states of matter that are harder to measure. So things we aren't consistently detecting can be a part of the process both exothermically and endothermically. At least with realitively low budget experiments.

  • Just a suggestion for Axil. Please size your images to not larger than 640 x 480 unless absolutely necessary for resolution and in any case, no larger than needed. Huge images require lots of annoying scrolling and can transiently mess up some displays.

    For some, but for people with higher resolution displays that can clear it up the detail is appreciated!

  • Though I'm surprised that if it is sapposedly present in life as many claim, how come no life formed to have it as a main energy source?

    Transmutation does not produce energy in the reference frame of the lifeform. This energy production is done in a state of QM superposition. When the reaction is complete, all the energy and particles produced are long gone the reference frame of the lifeform.


    I can show you proof of this case from experiment if you are interested.

    • Official Post

    For some, but for people with higher resolution displays that can clear it up the detail is appreciated!


    You can insert pictures as 'thumbnails' which conserve scree space but enlarge when you click on them. Also quite a few of our members view the site using mobile phones these days. We have to (try to) think of everybody you know.

  • If you just stop to think about the transmutation process, it is a very amazing thing.

    The literature on quark confinement cites an estimate of the force required to separate quarks as being 15 tons. If transmutation splits protons and neutrons apart and reassembles them into a ball of new elements, there are hundreds of quarks involved. Where does all that power come from in the gut of a fungus? And none of that power, not a single electron volt, leaks out to give the fungus any gut distress.


    I think that this tremendous amount of disruptive and confining power comes from the vacuum. The gut of the fungus knows how to prevode the vacuum into ripping apart a pile of protons and neutrons and then confine that digested matter into the elements that the fungus wants.


    The force required, the force that only a supernova could supply, to do that function is truly awesome. I want to know how to control that power, how to use that power, don't you? If fungus can do it, why can't we?

  • I'm just as curious as the next guy and i want to experience this amazing potencial. but i'm just observant of the whole vacuum augmented energy thing that's all. I agree it would be awesome! if all the produced potencial is released by atomic and chemical guts better than current sources it's good enough for me!


  • The force is large only if the repulsive force in the unmodified coulomb equation is correct. The energy confined in the nucleus of an atom would burn-up a microbe (something of the order of 90% relative mass). Yet that energy is contained and transmutation that "only a supernova" can do, does occur.

    The gloves to handle such energy is a force balance, a state of matter defined by the 3 quantum based forces and by boson particle exchange per standard physics. I have proposed force balances for the states which lead to fusion are superpositoning of weak force states over the usual atomic state. Because the weak force based states bridge into the nuclear area, they can bring energy into the nucleus, cause a giant dipole resonance in nucleus and lower the coulomb barrier by charge shielding within the nucleus. With this change to the structure of the nucleus, the energy required for fusion is in the chemical energy range rather that 1000's of times higher.

    I know how much energy should be created by mass loss as a result of transmutation. I did the mass balance. I did the stoichiometry. I did the calculation. I am referring to an example in my pending patent, the amount of energy that should have appear (given that reaction had occurred by a high energy collision) is about 1/10 of the energy involved in the bomb that dropped on Hiroshima. About 4/10,000 of that was observed.

    Your proposed solution is my proposed solution: mass to energy and back to mass. I call it IAM, immobilized antimatter, a fuel. As a fuel the energy production is on demand at some time long after the nuclear reaction was complete. I have indeed found a fuel, that can't be detected by chemical composition, yet a nuclear reaction signature is in the fuel. In the example of Aquafuel, the nuclear produced fuel provides 2/3 of the heat-torque in an engine test. So the evidence for IAM is way above the error range.

    I want to know how to recover the energy from IAM. I want to know if all the lost mass become a fuel and if all of its mass can be converted back to energy. Join my quest. The nuclear reaction is a done deal, The fuel is real. You can figure out how to recover the energy from the nuclear reaction, or keep looking for a conventional nuclear reaction where it doesn't exist.

  • Dear Mr. Storms, I agree that these different ideas can’t be assumed to be the same but, as a person looking from a wider perspective, I (among many) see points of encounter between those concepts, that you say are not related, which tells us that they can be the expressions of a same underlying phenomena.


    Nuclear reactions of transmutation have been observed in solid samples of ferrite and stainless steel completely in absense of hydrogen loading, and also in liquid mercury without hydrogen loading (at least not voluntarily induced). This has been achieved by inducing cavitation on those samples, so one could deduce that the Action of the NAE does not require the formation of the hydroton. The team of Cardone et al, the performers of plenty of cavitation experiments with nuclear effects, have concluded that what creates the NAE in these cases is the transitory collapse of nanometer sized bubbles formed by the ultrasound. They have also learnt that there are controllable parameters that need to be pushed beyond a threshold to cause the nuclear effect. They derived an extension of Einstein’s relativity which they call Deformed Space Time to explain how the cavitation causes the nuclear effects that are completely outside of what conventional theories could expect or predict. All of this is just to say that the NAEs could be more than a lattice condition as you suggest and that the hydroton is not the only way to obtain LENR.


    I think this paper by Albertini and Rogante summarize the cavitation induced NAE very well. http://www.claudiopace.it/wp-c…tini-final-version_02.pdf

    While all these strange and new behaviors might be related, trying to understand the relationship without knowing how each works is folly. Why make a difficult problem more difficult? Why not focus on each alone until it is understood, then see if a relationship exists? Also, I find a tendency here to ignore observed behavior, redefine the words used to describe a behavior, and introduce pure imagination into the discussion. I see no serous effort to truly understand these behaviors. The goal seems to involve demonstrating just how much imagination a person can bring to bare. In my case, I like to start simple and use as little imagination as possible. If the behavior can be explained without imagination, so much the better. Only when this approach fails would imagination be justified. The word imagination in this context means ideas that are far outside of known and accepted understanding, which includes such ideas as space-time when applied to a chemical structure.


    I might add, SEM pictures in isolation of the treatment mean nothing. Also, the SEM does not give a true representation of reality. Figuring out what the picture means requires more than imagination. At best, such a picture is only a rough guide to understanding and cannot alone be used as proof for anything.

  • The word imagination in this context means ideas that are far outside of known and accepted understanding, which includes such ideas as space-time when applied to a chemical structure.


    Deformed space time doesn't have to be outside of known and accepted understanding. In relativity the contraction and dilation of time-space is represented by a Riemann constant. In special relativity some particle is accelerated close to the speed of light to cause that effect. In general relativity it is the combined density of energy and mass that causes that effect. Chemical structures are not immune to relativity.


    When there are states (particle or chemical structures or large field effects), they are determined by hypothesis followed by measurement. The hypothesis of superpostioning weak states on hydrogen predicts several things. 1) that hydrogen can exist in contracted and dilated time-space and due to the dipole from relativity that these states will cluster independence of any matrix. 2) that the weak state changes when it extents to the nucleus. It becomes part of a giant nuclear dipole. Part of this prediction is that a giant nuclear dipole creates a magnetic field because that is how the magnetic field is described by relativity. So magnecules form when this energy is transferred to the nucleus. 3) that energy transferred in the nucleus causes new energetic states in the nucleus. This means that radioactive material acquires an accelerated decay rate. 4) that if we could measure the shielding factor, we could add it to the coulomb equation and predict exactly how much less energy is required for fusion. 5) that the cluster (mentioned in one) is a catalyst for fusion. 6) that it is not surprising that reactions thought only to occur in supernova will happen or that micro-organism can use such a catalyst. 7) that the routes to fusion are many: via a waveguide at solid surface, via sonication, via an electric arc, via plasma discharge, via an oxidation-reduction reaction in the present of water, in certain combinations of gases in a florescent tube, via a laser's interaction with a metal particle in a solution of water via a microbe and likely others situations that I haven't though much about.


    Having one model to study all of these routes to fusion, fission and transmutation is not a disadvantage. Each investigator will choose his/her preferred route and if indeed it all fits together, so much the better.

    • Official Post

    Also, the SEM does not give a true representation of reality. Figuring out what the picture means requires more than imagination. At best, such a picture is only a rough guide to understanding and cannot alone be used as proof for anything.


    That is very true - both SEM images and TOF-SIMS can lead to mistaken conclusions. Contaminants of the strangest kind can be found everywhere- but particularly in science laboratories, and the analysis pf physical features os also something that takes a very long time to develop,

  • 1) that hydrogen can exist in contracted and dilated time-space and due to the dipole from relativity that these states will cluster independence of any matrix.


    This is an indigestible bowl filled with gobble-gock wordings we daily read in disparate QM/QED papers that try to find an answer out of nothing.


    Dense Hydrogen can be exactly calculated with the SO(4) model of dense matter physics and guess why? There is no classic relativity at work on the nuclear level but we know the exact internal structure of the proton and dense Hydrogen is formed due to a weak nuclear bond between two protons.

  • What about thermal neutrino induced nuclear decay as mentioned here?

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • This is an indigestible bowl filled with gobble-gock wordings we daily read in disparate QM/QED papers that try to find an answer out of nothing.


    Dense Hydrogen can be exactly calculated with the SO(4) model of dense matter physics and guess why? There is no classic relativity at work on the nuclear level but we know the exact internal structure of the proton and dense Hydrogen is formed due to a weak nuclear bond between two protons.


    Do you address anyone who has proof for a model different that your own this way? Are do you just refuse, to address the proofs and data because you are so certain ? There are a number of chemistry papers which discuss relativity in the electron orbitals and that is what happens here. You know there is a difference between the sum of the rest mass of quarks and mass of a neutron or proton, so you know that relativity explains the difference or you don't know relativity.

  • Do you address anyone who has proof for a model different that your own this way? Are do you just refuse, to address the proofs and data because you are so certain ? There are a number of chemistry papers which discuss relativity in the electron orbitals and that is what happens here. You know there is a difference between the sum of the rest mass of quarks and mass of a neutron or proton, so you know that relativity explains the difference or you don't know relativity


    More nonsense: There is no known mass of quarks! Quarks are not even particles they are EM resonances of dense mass.


    There are a number of chemistry papers which discuss relativity in the electron orbitals and that is what happens here


    Classic relativity shows no correlation with measured data if you start to look at high precision measurements - what (high precision) is not case in chemistry thus you can possibly see some weak correlation.

  • Deformed space time doesn't have to be outside of known and accepted understanding. In relativity the contraction and dilation of time-space is represented by a Riemann constant. In special relativity some particle is accelerated close to the speed of light to cause that effect. In general relativity it is the combined density of energy and mass that causes that effect. Chemical structures are not immune to relativity.


    When there are states (particle or chemical structures or large field effects), they are determined by hypothesis followed by measurement. The hypothesis of superpostioning weak states on hydrogen predicts several things. 1) that hydrogen can exist in contracted and dilated time-space and due to the dipole from relativity that these states will cluster independence of any matrix. 2) that the weak state changes when it extents to the nucleus. It becomes part of a giant nuclear dipole. Part of this prediction is that a giant nuclear dipole creates a magnetic field because that is how the magnetic field is described by relativity. So magnecules form when this energy is transferred to the nucleus. 3) that energy transferred in the nucleus causes new energetic states in the nucleus. This means that radioactive material acquires an accelerated decay rate. 4) that if we could measure the shielding factor, we could add it to the coulomb equation and predict exactly how much less energy is required for fusion. 5) that the cluster (mentioned in one) is a catalyst for fusion. 6) that it is not surprising that reactions thought only to occur in supernova will happen or that micro-organism can use such a catalyst. 7) that the routes to fusion are many: via a waveguide at solid surface, via sonication, via an electric arc, via plasma discharge, via an oxidation-reduction reaction in the present of water, in certain combinations of gases in a florescent tube, via a laser's interaction with a metal particle in a solution of water via a microbe and likely others situations that I haven't though much about.


    Having one model to study all of these routes to fusion, fission and transmutation is not a disadvantage. Each investigator will choose his/her preferred route and if indeed it all fits together, so much the better.

    Chemical states are explained very well without the need to apply relativity corrections or space-time distortions. These concepts are applied when high energy is involved because they are needed to explain the behavior. They are not needed to explain the behavior of a chemical system because the energies are not large enough to justify such correction factors.


    I suggest explanations of LENR start by using the simplest and the least ambiguous approach. When a chemical system is involved, as is the case with LENR, the known and accepted understanding of chemistry should be applied first. Only when this approach fails to explain the behavior would added complexity be justified. I suggest the NAE can be explained adequately using accepted chemical understanding. Justification for added complexity comes only when the nuclear process is addressed. However, explaining the nuclear process requires all the known behavior to be considered, not just that small part used to support a particular idea.

    You predict hydrogen atoms can cluster independent of any matrix. I know of no evidence for the formation of hydrogen clusters outside of normal chemical interaction. If they should form, the conditions in the chemical structure must be very different from those normally present in a chemical system. A very rare and unusual condition must form first in which normal chemical behavior no longer applies. Simply using the description "superpostioning weak states" adds nothing of value because it does not give any information about how the rare condition can be produced. An explanation is useful only when it allows understanding to move forward by allowing the idea to be tested. How would you plan to cause and then test this behavior in the lab?