LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote from LeBob

Waste is energy that just needs to be alleviated productively in a different mechanism than the one that produces it. It's an opportunity not a liability.

My point is that it is presently an opportunity we are not capable of exploiting. Our technology is not advanced enough to exploit it. Breeder reactor technology has proven too difficult, expensive and dangerous. See the failed Monju project, for example. Perhaps in the future, as people learn more, they may be able to make effective breeder reactors.

My guess is that something much better than fission will emerge (such as cold fusion!). Breeder reactors will never be needed, so the spent fuel will be removed from earth.

I would not call this an opportunity so much as a latent potential. Or a dormant potential. For all of history, silicon had the potential to produce rapid computation, but we did not learn to tap that potential until 1954. It was dormant for all of human history. Anyone can see that breeder reactor technology is possible, but it may remain dormant forever. Countless technologies, large and small, have been imagined, explored to some extent, but never developed into practical machines. Many never will be.

Quote from JedRothwell

nyone can see that breeder reactor technology is possible, but it may remain dormant forever.

The problem with fission is the random split of the nuclei. If we could harvest the energy in alpha particle steps just by a 4-He spoliation reaction non harmful rest would stay at the end. Of course this would would be more a LENR process than fission.

We had one lab reaction that did show a mixed behavior.On one way it did show fusion and on the way back 4-He spallation and only did consume Deuterium.

Quote from LeBob

It's likely not genuine transmutation mostly, though something strange and ground breaking is accuring. Deep orbit proton adding or electromagnetic effects seem capable of stabilisation, resulting in a less likely to decay compound resembling a stable element, or interactions that accelerate the decay path?! So "instantaneous stablization" would be a chemically mediated sort of hybrid hydride/isotope lock, and genuine accelerated rates of decay would be medium/long distance interactions that speed up the process. Just brainstorming.

You raise an ugly but perhaps true thought. Some picochemistry that stops nuclear decay. (We eliminated the danger of radioactivity. Opps Sorry. picochemistry, we just preserved the energy in a new form for a future generation.)

Dufour reported that action of magnets and current pulses caused a 1.2% decrease in activity in 30 days (based on linear correlation compared to no decrease in the control). He then reacts the hydrogen out of both samples and compares the count of decay events from each sample over two days. Using linear correlation he show the counts rates are colinear and can calculate the loss in activity of the treated versus the untreated sample. The lost in activity was 1%. He points out that the difference in activity between sample was better than 3 sigma.

We are left with the impression that loss in activity is real. However, we need measurement of the daughter products to be sure of what reaction is happening.

Dufour's opinion seems to be that the picochemisty is unstable which is support with photovoltaic reading on another hydride. The states "It is not yet clear whether this emission is due to the upgrading of thermal energy of low temperature level into electricity or the generation of energy by the recombination of a proton and an electron..."

Quote from Drgenek

You raise an ugly but perhaps true thought. Some picochemistry that stops nuclear decay. (We eliminated the danger of radioactivity. Opps Sorry. picochemistry, we just preserved the energy in a new form for a future generation.)

Dufour reported that action of magnets and current pulses caused a 1.2% decrease in activity in 30 days (based on linear correlation compared to no decrease in the control). He then reacts the hydrogen out of both samples and compares the count of decay events from each sample over two days. Using linear correlation he show the counts rates are colinear and can calculate the loss in activity of the treated versus the untreated sample. The lost in activity was 1%. He points out that the difference in activity between sample was better than 3 sigma.

We are left with the impression that loss in activity is real. However, we need measurement of the daughter products to be sure of what reaction is happening.

Dufour's opinion seems to be that the picochemisty is unstable which is support with photovoltaic reading on another hydride. The states "It is not yet clear whether this emission is due to the upgrading of thermal energy of low temperature level into electricity or the generation of energy by the recombination of a proton and an electron..."

Display More

I see no reason to posit that possibility is an ugly one. It is beautiful to me, the ability to accelerate or pause radioactivity is more useful. I don't see fission waste as a problem, my mindset is one of maximum responsible/practical use of byproduct of a interaction. Fissionable material is finite, why not make maximum use of the products. Seems more like what would keep the Earth and other geologically active planet flowing. Would be a lot better if we could pico-chemically pause or accelerate nuclear decay than have the radiation magically disappear and be replaced with a stable element with less than expected energies. This would work more with relativity and equivalence of mass to energy in our reality.

Edit: Another point, the proposed properties of the "pico-chemically paused" form of a radioactive element would be different from the original one and the predicted stable decay products, likely useful. Radioisotope beta decay cells accelerated could have outputs as powerful as lithium batteries lasting for years. Speculation, but still "educated" speculation.

Quote from Drgenek

Dufour's opinion seems to be that the picochemisty is unstable which is support with photovoltaic reading on another hydride. The states "It is not yet clear whether this emission is due to the upgrading of thermal energy of low temperature level into electricity or the generation of energy by the recombination of a proton and an electron..."

He hasn't alluded that picochemistry is unstable, in fact he stated that it is more stable than regular chemistry in the papers I read. Sure it likely is easier to break up than a stable nucleus arrangement as the papers claim.

Quote from LeBob

He hasn't alluded that picochemistry is unstable, in fact he stated that it is more stable than regular chemistry in the papers I read. Sure it likely is easier to break up than a stable nucleus arrangement as the papers claim.

"Titanium power (100 mesh), has been partly loaded with hydrogen (20 bars, 200 C) under a strong magnetic field (permanent magnet, 1.2 T), in a stainless steel reactor completely tight to light. This gave rise to an emission of photons, detectable by a photovoltaic cell, connected to a 20,000 ohm resistor by means of insulated connections through the reactor). This emission lasted for two months after loading, when the sample of titanium was kept in the dark in the reactor, under magnetic field at room temperature. This was shown by the voltage on the 20,000 ohm resistor, staying a value of 100 mV during this period (the total energy produced was thus some 60 J). It has been shown that this effect exhibits a threshold on the value of the magnetic field, which must be higher that 0.5 T."

So a titanium hydride produced under a magnetic field was unstable and decayed producing an emission which emission required a threshold magnetic field of 0.5 T. So at least in this case, some of the product seems to follow normal thermodynamics, not hydrino theory. If one could argue a hydrino or pico chemical is capable of absorbing energy under a magnetic field and the hydrino portion had to ionized to get back to normal. Then the ionization and return to normal would produce an emission. But that is an admission that the ground state is the true ground state rather than the hydrino states (very confusing). But a fascinating thought. One could get energy producing hydrinos and get energy by stimulating their decay. But perhaps a problem with thermodynamic laws?

Why would a magnetic field allow a supposed endothermic process (hydrino decay)? It just feels better if the chemical that decays is an excited state which requires a magnetic field to see a significant rate of decay.

Quote from Drgenek

"Titanium power (100 mesh), has been partly loaded with hydrogen (20 bars, 200 C) under a strong magnetic field (permanent magnet, 1.2 T), in a stainless steel reactor completely tight to light. This gave rise to an emission of photons, detectable by a photovoltaic cell, connected to a 20,000 ohm resistor by means of insulated connections through the reactor). This emission lasted for two months after loading, when the sample of titanium was kept in the dark in the reactor, under magnetic field at room temperature. This was shown by the voltage on the 20,000 ohm resistor, staying a value of 100 mV during this period (the total energy produced was thus some 60 J). It has been shown that this effect exhibits a threshold on the value of the magnetic field, which must be higher that 0.5 T."

So a titanium hydride produced under a magnetic field was unstable and decayed producing an emission which emission required a threshold magnetic field of 0.5 T. So at least in this case, some of the product seems to follow normal thermodynamics, not hydrino theory. If one could argue a hydrino or pico chemical is capable of absorbing energy under a magnetic field and the hydrino portion had to ionized to get back to normal. Then the ionization and return to normal would produce an emission. But that is an admission that the ground state is the true ground state rather than the hydrino states (very confusing). But a fascinating thought. One could get energy producing hydrinos and get energy by stimulating their decay. But perhaps a problem with thermodynamic laws?

Why would a magnetic field allow a supposed endothermic process (hydrino decay)? It just feels better if the chemical that decays is an excited state which requires a magnetic field to see a significant rate of decay.

Emission isn't always a decay you know, sometimes it is formation, soft x-rays and hard ultraviolet light are formed by these reactions. These would be some intense chemical phinomina, remember the the threshold of formation energies and energy density.

These emissions can be down converted and thermalized possibly explaining light flashes within the medium. I was thinking the same process that enables H2* formation in Mills work would help with the special hydride formation, more than a magnetic field is needed. A lot of input is nessasary, I'm talking hundreds of degrees and a serious electrical discharge. This isn't just hydrogen and metal in a magnetic field, LENR conditions are more accurate. What was observed could have been trace FORMATION in less than ideal conditions. Single hydrinos may revert quick though? You are seeing them as a fuel or an energy storage product, but dihydrinos and other metallic pico-hydrides (if pretty much what has been predicted) would be the more stable product of an energetic reaction.

In an exothermic reaction once over an activation barrier the combination of elements proceed to bound state. Because the reaction product has a lower energy, a net energy is released. The more exothermic the reaction, the lower the probability of reversal. If a hydrino exists, I would never suppose that it could spontaneously reverse due to a magnetic field, because it releases to much energy.

An endothermically formed state caused by the electroweak field could be a fuel state (w-active verus radioactive). The endothermic states are formed at the expense of enthalpy (lost of heat) but should occur when heat is provided and reactants are present. So the conditions in the Dufour report we are discussing met that expectation. These states have excited magnetic fields and like a magnetic field in a coil of wire will yield energy when the field collapses. Collapse should be inducible (i.e like lasing). The w-active field should cause accelerated nuclear decay by activation of giant nuclear resonance per the theory previously cited.

Quote from Drgenek

In an exothermic reaction once over an activation barrier the combination of elements proceed to bound state. Because the reaction product has a lower energy, a net energy is released. The more exothermic the reaction, the lower the probability of reversal. If a hydrino exists, I would never suppose that it could spontaneously reverse due to a magnetic field, because it releases to much energy.

An endothermically formed state caused by the electroweak field could be a fuel state (w-active verus radioactive). The endothermic states are formed at the expense of enthalpy (lost of heat) but should occur when heat is provided and reactants are present. So the conditions in the Dufour report we are discussing met that expectation. These states have excited magnetic fields and like a magnetic field in a coil of wire will yield energy when the field collapses. Collapse should be inducible (i.e like lasing). The w-active field should cause accelerated nuclear decay by activation of giant nuclear resonance per the theory previously cited.

The point is it isn't endothermic, the experiments don't seem to support that, but the opposite!

Quote from LeBob

The point is it isn't endothermic, the experiments don't seem to support that, but the opposite!

Have you consider how wrong that statement is? Are you just responding in anger?

These magnetic states are supported by experiments, are endothermically formed and are fuel states. When you consider a barrier: that is endothermic. The small difference is that classically the barrier is a transition state and exists only for a very short time. The stability of these states are like new elements or new molecules. Further, they lead to nuclear reactions which then produces more of them. A colder fusion reaction doesn't produce bomb like heat because the energy of reaction is used to produce fuel. Some of these states can store energy in the Mev range because energy is stored in a giant nuclear dipole. Further, these states exchange energy and have a wide range of energies. So what we commonly see is on decay is hydrogen ionization energy, 13.6 ev.

If anger is all you can see then you have already rejected anything that I have said: data and all. But consider this one thought:

Magnegas is a result of these states and is sold commercially as a fuel.

......but there have been serious explosions with magnegas (maybe consistent with it being a simple mix of atomic H, molecular H2 and O2 in some sort of equilibrium) and why has Santilli folded the company? If it did store much higher energy than just mixing H2 and O2 surely NASA would have used it for rocket fuel?

Quote from Drgenek

Have you consider how wrong that statement is? Are you just responding in anger?

These magnetic states are supported by experiments, are endothermically formed and are fuel states. When you consider a barrier: that is endothermic. The small difference is that classically the barrier is a transition state and exists only for a very short time. The stability of these states are like new elements or new molecules. Further, they lead to nuclear reactions which then produces more of them. A colder fusion reaction doesn't produce bomb like heat because the energy of reaction is used to produce fuel. Some of these states can store energy in the Mev range because energy is stored in a giant nuclear dipole. Further, these states exchange energy and have a wide range of energies. So what we commonly see is on decay is hydrogen ionization energy, 13.6 ev.

If anger is all you can see then you have already rejected anything that I have said: data and all. But consider this one thought:

Magnegas is a result of these states and is sold commercially as a fuel.

Display More

Where are the papers and experimental data supposing that what is going on in Mills' experiments and those of others claiming chemical novel energy coming from catalyzed hydrogen are actually endothermic and storing fusion energy? I am not angry, neither am I frequently disposed to that emotional state. The key is in the fringes chemistry.

Quote from Dr Richard

......but there have been serious explosions with magnegas (maybe consistent with it being a simple mix of atomic H, molecular H2 and O2 in some sort of equilibrium) and why has Santilli folded the company? If it did store much higher energy than just mixing H2 and O2 surely NASA would have used it for rocket fuel?

Right! All the amazing stuff going on in the BLP experiments and other similar ones can't be explained by standered H2+O combustion or fusion, it should be some form of new close orbit chemistry. Which is exothermic after sufficient input energy and environment.

Take a look at this: Analitical Presentation (dihydrino)

Quote from Dr Richard

......but there have been serious explosions with magnegas (maybe consistent with it being a simple mix of atomic H, molecular H2 and O2 in some sort of equilibrium) and why has Santilli folded the company? If it did store much higher energy than just mixing H2 and O2 surely NASA would have used it for rocket fuel?

Magnegas is result of Santilli's investigation of AquaFuel. AquaFuel was analyzed and considered by NASA. Santilli filed an number of patents to improve on Aquafuel which then become Magnegas. The company has not folded but has a new name and more financing. https://www.globenewswire.com/…nis-Technologies-Inc.html "The Company is now known as Taronis Technologies, which is derived from “Taranis” the Celtic mythological god of thunder and lighting." Scott Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer. “Today is result of two years of hard work. First, we recapitalized the Company to execute a complete business transformation. With that capital, we have driven 600% revenue growth and expanded across the US in 13 months through 7 acquisitions. Finally, we completed a total executive team overhaul in November.”

You may not consider this significant to LENR. But it is because it is fusion based but like BLP they don't think so. This is really big.

Quote from LeBob

Right! All the amazing stuff going on in the BLP experiments and other similar ones can't be explained by standered H2+O combustion or fusion, it should be some form of new close orbit chemistry.

Only a very small portion of the energy of the fusion reaction is observed as heat. That's not an opinion. It is a mathmatical fact produced by mass and energy balances on Aquafuel. You can verify by that fact by examination of my pending patent and a few calculations.

BLP has reactions that combine hydrogen, water and generate enough heat by chemical reaction to cause the same reaction as happens for Aquafuel. That is an assumption but a valid one since the needed reactants and conditions are present. It follow that only a very small portion of the energy of the fusion reaction is observed as heat by BLP. But it isn't always that way.

"BLP is currently testing a device called the SunCell in which hydrogen (from splitting water) and an oxide catalyst are introduced into a spherical carbon reactor along with dual streams of molten silver. An electric current applied to the silver ignites a hydrino-forming plasma reaction. Energy from the reaction is then trapped by the carbon, which acts as a “blackbody radiator.” When the carbon heats up to thousands of degrees, it reemits the energy as visible light that is captured by photovoltaic cells, which convert the light to electricity."

Does the carbon trap energy or is it a blackbody? Isn't is possible there is more here that slowing heat transfer. If carbon didn't trap the energy as a fuel why does it release it when the carbon heats up to thousand of degrees. Doesn't anyone else see blackbody radiator explaination is a little off. The presence of after-heat, (heat produced by heating the chemicals of LENR system post reaction) indicates a fuel. After heat happens. That fuel is outside your explanation of new close orbit chemistry but exactly like Aquafuel.

What the experimenters won't look for they won't see.

Quote from Max Nozin

it is not clear if taronis holds ip for what santilli called intermediate fusion.

There was a chain of companies like Thunder energy etc. which eventually folded.

The shell was sold to a company marketing luxury goods in reverse takeover deal.

Santilli filed but did not receive a patent for intermediate fusion. Intermediate fusion is a wrong explanation of what happens with Aquafuel but Santilli had the correctly identified that magnecules are involved. The IP for intermediate fusion did go to a company marketing luxury goods. However, Magnegas was already separated with its IP from Santilli's intermediate fusion IP. Magnegas and its IP became Taronis. I develop the IP for colder fusion by recognizing the errors in analysis by Santilli' of intermediate fusion and his errors in analysis of Aquafuel. I pieced together the body of prior work to create math for colder fusion. I work as a company called IAM Fuel Research to better exploit the fuel from colder fusion. However, I had to abandon the IP outside the US because of lack of funding. Colder fusion: a fusion process where states of elements created by the electroweak force reduce the repulsive coulomb barrier to nuclear fusion.

I hope that helps.

What does the Santilli telescope image with two concave lenses? Total internal reflection of the observers mind state?

Quote from Drgenek

Only a very small portion of the energy of the fusion reaction is observed as heat. That's not an opinion. It is a mathmatical fact produced by mass and energy balances on Aquafuel. You can verify by that fact by examination of my pending patent and a few calculations.

BLP has reactions that combine hydrogen, water and generate enough heat by chemical reaction to cause the same reaction as happens for Aquafuel. That is an assumption but a valid one since the needed reactants and conditions are present. It follow that only a very small portion of the energy of the fusion reaction is observed as heat by BLP. But it isn't always that way.

"BLP is currently testing a device called the SunCell in which hydrogen (from splitting water) and an oxide catalyst are introduced into a spherical carbon reactor along with dual streams of molten silver. An electric current applied to the silver ignites a hydrino-forming plasma reaction. Energy from the reaction is then trapped by the carbon, which acts as a “blackbody radiator.” When the carbon heats up to thousands of degrees, it reemits the energy as visible light that is captured by photovoltaic cells, which convert the light to electricity."

Does the carbon trap energy or is it a blackbody? Isn't is possible there is more here that slowing heat transfer. If carbon didn't trap the energy as a fuel why does it release it when the carbon heats up to thousand of degrees. Doesn't anyone else see blackbody radiator explaination is a little off. The presence of after-heat, (heat produced by heating the chemicals of LENR system post reaction) indicates a fuel. After heat happens. That fuel is outside your explanation of new close orbit chemistry but exactly like Aquafuel.

What the experimenters won't look for they won't see.

Display More

Magnegas I don't think has anything to do with fusion. These are two theories explaining the same phenomina which IMO is chemical but quite more interesting than what people think when they hear chemical. Sir you understand black body radiation and the down conversion of high energy light to visible light through matter? This is a simple and basic physics concept and doesn't require a "fusion fuel".