Russia and Eastern European LENR Developments

Race behind heat (steam) for the turbine is the most important mistake of physicists-researchers! It is necessary to use rotation of a spherical lightning plasma with a high density for receiving the generator of electricity. This our future!

Гонка за теплом (паром) для турбины есть самая главная ошибка физиков-исследователей! Надо использовать вращение шаровой молнии-плазмы с высокой плотностью для получения генератора электричества. Это наше будущее!

Race behind heat (steam) for the turbine is the most important mistake of physicists-researchers! It is necessary to use rotation of a spherical lightning plasma with a high density for receiving the generator of electricity. This our future!

Гонка за теплом (паром) для турбины есть самая главная ошибка физиков-исследователей! Надо использовать вращение шаровой молнии-плазмы с высокой плотностью для получения генератора электричества. Это наше будущее!

Quote from Director

Interestingly, a spherical lightning plasma (ball lightning) is most likely a macro example of micro sized EVOs or strange radiation. If we consider EVOs as being spheromaks (torodial vortexes of electrons and positive ions) then the smallest ones will have the highest energy density. I think this is why the tiny EVOs or strange radiation particles produced when fracto-emission takes place in a transition metal. I think these tiny EVOs are extremely energy dense and can have very significant nuclear effects via multiple mechanisms.

What are your thoughts on ball lightning, EVOs, and these spherical lightning plasmas? I believe they are the key to virtually all forms of LENR and many exotic energy technologies such T. Henry Moray's devices and the Papp Engine.

I don't know. I want to learn from physicists, for this purpose I came to you! But I know geology and geophysics, help me to make model of the planet and I will save the world!

Quote from THHuxleynew

The field is so wide when you go for exotic - unconstrained by normal assumptions - new particles (rather than exotic but vaguely constrained particles) that you need very clear experimental evidence to point the way.

I await with interest this evidence pointing the way.

May I recomnend to start with this article published in Plos One:

https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0169895

that provides "very clear experimental evidence" of the generation of relativistic particles from a tabletop experiment.

Quote from Shane D.

Great post. You have some very good ideas. This part though, I do not see happening. Sounds like the Manhattan Project concept. That has been talked about in LENR for a long time. *IF* the mainstream ever comes to accept it, then yes, that type project will no doubt follow. Listening though to our resident mainstream critic THH, I do not see that happening anytime soon. Apparently, it will take more than a cheap bus ticket, and short ride to the truth, to get them onboard.

Shane, as resident skeptic I will attempt to fulfil my duty here.

The tenor of your remarks is inaccurate, or at least leaves out one crucial perspective.

Understanding anomalies in physics is not about "good ideas". I realise that many here will disagree, or think that statement hidebound etc, but let me explain why.

Science is about finding predictive explanations for things. Note the work predictive. Other disciplines, Anthropology for example, are about finding useful conceptualisations of things that inspire new thought.

But wait - I hear so many here say. With physics now fossilised unable to find new vision or explain the phenomena discussed here, surely we need to inspire new thought?

Well, suppose that is true , that physics for whatever reason is hidebound and not generating enough new non-standard theories. You will realise as someone who enjoys reading many of the the way out and nearly all wrong physics theories that get mainstream published I might not agree. For purposes of this post say I do agree.

There is all this evidence, of varying quality, discussed here. It provokes theoretical speculation from many people, again of varying quality. What many would like is some new theory that explains a set of phenomena previously not understood. My point is that unless this is predictive, it is not physics and of no use in showing where the behaviour of future systems will depart from conventional physics.

Those trying to explain anomalies with new exotic particles/forces/etc, and getting published, have two requirements:

(1) show how the new particle / force/ etc generates a better fit to prior observations than existing physics

(2) show (hypothetically) an experiment which could disprove the existence of their new particle/force/etc. That seems weird, but it is just a way of saying "show some tangible prediction the new theory makes".

There are BTW great scientists who manage (2) without ever needing (1). The theory breaks new unexpected ground not highlighted or anticipated by experimental anomalies, which are only found afterwards. But that is rare.

LENR "theories" for the most part, don't bother with (2). That does not mean there is no evidence for LENR, or that LENR can't be proven true (in the sense of clear over-chemical energy production from some systems, say). It means that speculation about LENR theories has no physical content, because they make no prediction. Specifically, such speculation cannot increase the confidence one might have of any LENR hypothesis, nor guide future experiments.

There are a few LENR theories - for example that LENR is a phenomena associated with the surfaces of metal lattices, that are testable, and disprovable. If, for example, all of the debugged LENR phenomena were associated with the surfaces of metal lattices, and different surface conditioning changed these phenomena is systematic ways, that would be decent evidence for this theory. The "surface of lattice" theory is predictive, a bit. If LENR is discovered in a system without metal surfaces it is disproven.

People here will probably disagree as to whether the surface of lattice theory is correct.

But, here is the thing. If you note that LENR phenomena also exist in systems without surface lattices, you can still try to explain some LENR in terms of surface lattice stuff, but now that explanation has no predictive power. It is no longer physics. It is ironic, but true, that by loosening the filter for what you reckon is real LENR phenomena you are likley to destroy what might be (in this example) a real disprovable LENR theory.

Those looking for magnetic monopoles posit a whole load of different ways in which MMs could exist and be compatible with other experimental observations. Being physicists they get traction by codifying other experimental observations as QM + standard model description of forces and then changing parts of this structure while keeping other parts. They argue that the changes do not obviously break known experiments. And they can find observations that would confirm or deny the existence of the changes. These get turned into experiments, and done. In the process many of these theories get rejected - or at least are required to make big modifications, becoming in the process much less attractive.

Nothing to stop you from being radical, throwing out QM + standard model, and starting from scratch. The problem then is that you have so many existing observations which your new theory has to predict accurately before it can begin to compete with existing theories. A new fundamental physics theory which on its own explains a few observations but wrongly predicts 99.99% of the world does not help anyone.

Coming back to magnetic monopoles and strange radiation. Nothing wrong with positing either to explain experiments. But to be useful, the hypotheses need to have some predictive power. I'm not sure strange radiation is even a hypothesis since I don't know what it means, but I certainly cannot see what would disprove it. Similarly, I can't see what observations would disprove the existence of the type of MMs advanced here, because I do not understand enough about their properties.

Is speculating about explanations that are non-predictive useful? I'd say no. It colours discourse pushing the imagination in specific arbitrary directions that have no particular merit and are highly unlikely to be real, making it more difficult to find a more predictive hypothesis.

Regards, THH

PS - this is OT but relevant to possible comments on the above post.

What about a theory like Darwinian evolution, that cannot be disproven? I don't want to get involved in this discussion on another thread which would be about a more sophisticated notion of scientific hypothesis: in general terms Popper does not properly include induction in his ideas about disproof, when you do it is still possible to say that Darwinian survival of the fittest is a decent theory, though it needs more effort.

But, luckily, we now have mechanisms for neo-Darwinian theories of evolution. Thus we understand genetics, how genes propagate both via in-cell DNA and mitochondria. The details of this are all testable (and disprovable). A consequence of this and what we know in detail about genotype -> phenotype mapping gives us a neo-Darwinian theory that can be tested and disproven via DNA sequencing, as has now quite a bit been done.