Real Fusion making Great advances

  • Production of heat has never been a good indicator of NR.

    Above some density, it is for sure.

    I cannot assume your total incompetence in that domain, so I blame a motivated reasoning.

  • AlainCo,

    One of the deepest insights into the physics machinery that is governing our universe is that it is not made from playdough but from Lego bricks.

    The workings of those building blocks are described with high accuracy by Quantum Mechanics. This theory was forced upon us because the old theory predicted that every atom would collapse.

    LENR searchers are looking for a nuclear reaction that will release a lot of energy in very small parcels, essentially in a continuous way. Since we are living in a Lego universe this is never going to happen.

    This endeavor is akin to walking in an orchard hoping to observe an apple that is falling upwards.

  • H-G Branzell

    • Just consider calorimetry,
    • consider QM allows many things you don't master in case of collective phenomenon.

    The Hubris of physicist is to consider their theory is definitive, and that everything their don't understand is just not there. If you had learned physics in a 1930's book, you will realize that better.

    If you cannot explains HTSC this mean QM is not well understood (I don't say we need new physics, it seems LENR and HTSC are just complex phenomenon in existing QM).

    and anyway it is happening.

  • Alain,

    I am afraid that you more or less missed my point. Let us leave it at that.

    But I must object strongly to your statement "The Hubris of physicist is to consider their theory is definitive".

    There are many good physicists. A good physicist wants to make a difference. If he or she finds that the predictions from prevailing theory differ from the results of an experiment this physicist will not rest until finding out if it is the theory or the experiment that needs to be amended. I invite you to find a single physicist who contends that even one theory is definite. If nothing else there is always room for some doubt in the last decimal.

    The curiosity of a good physicist can be teased by two things. If a theory can predict a hitherto unknown phenomenon he or she will save no trouble trying to demonstrate it in real life.

    Next physicist teaser is the reverse of the first: a new phenomenon is observed but there is no theoretical explanation for it. Most probably this phenomenon can be described within the framework of modern physics. To investigate this the experiment that shows the new phenomenon has to be performed many times in order to allow dissection of various aspects of it, i.e. the experiment must be reproducible. Yes.

    In rare cases a reproducible experiment forces modifications of existing theory.

    Only when we have found the Theory Of Everything can we confidently declare "This theory is definitive!".

    Or perhaps not, there may be a minor problem with Everything ...

    BTW, this is a very nice lecture that digs right down to the roots of modern physics. Have a field day, or at least an hour:

  • This presentation indicates big problems at GF. They have abandoned the original idea to use shockwaves and piston-hammers, and instead are working on a very different machine that uses pistons pushing molten metal and a much larger spherical plasma.

    This indicates the original fusion concept is unworkable.

  • LENR is reproduced but difficult to reproduce.

    It have produced more heat than what any chemistry could do.

    It follows some rules, like He4/Heat ratio, sensibility to isotopes, coevolution of isotopes in Iwamura&al experiments, sensibility to temperature like F&P boiling& replicators experiments.

    Unlike the critics who are just like conspiracy excuses, LENR have a behavior of a realphenomenon, without a theory.

    you don't accept that, it is your right, I respect beliefs as long as you don't state it as a fact.

  • Positive news



    Somebody have to keep using older less expensive toys.