Russia LENR Developments

  • Agree axil sort of .... how about magnetic flux?

    The amount of matter converted to energy in the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 700 milligrams, less than one-third themass of a U.S. dime.

    e=mc2... how big were those holes....?


    https://translate.google.com/t…6SHOWALL_1%3D1&edit-text=


    Features of the periodic discharge in the fluid flow and the specifics of its impact on the electrode material



    Their sizes range from 10 mm to 10 microns. There size is proportional to their energy content.


  • Like a plasmon or a phonon, a surface polariton is a 2 D object. It only exists on the surface of a substrait. Like topological insulators, the science and the math is different between these types of materials. For example, a wire is a 1 D material, or a 2 D material based in its size unless you look at the insides of the wire. Then it is 3 D.


    4 D analysis is taking time into consideration.

  • Why this school of thoughts has not prevailed is because of the experimental evidence of a point-like electron

    One reason that I think Wyttenbach's model(much credit to Mills) is valid is its predictive power

    1. Matching with physical constants

    2, Matching with gamma emission behaviour from LENR reactor( still being elaborated)


    From my reading of Wyttenbach this is because dense matter interactions require 4D math.

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…r-and-particle-physics-20.

    In contrast QCD modelling gets very confused in dense matter.

    Even now supercomputers in places like Wuppertal and Tsukuba are doing gigaflops or teraflops to calculate physical constants.

    For example for the mass of the proton

    the QCD is only 1.6% accurate

    Wyttenbach is 0.00000263% accurate.

    The Durr et al authors don't even bother to work out the QCD neutron and proton mass separately. Reason? the difference is 0.13%

    Durr et al (2008).. the 1.6% accuracy probably cost several $100,000 of computer/labour time


    https://www.google.com/url?sa=…Vaw0WqM-689nWuwE5dqJ8NAmE

  • Are you familiar with the work of Hestenes (inspired by Parson and Barut), then followed by others, on the representation of particles as electromagnetic fluxes of various topologies (e.g. toroidal) with mass naturally explained as rotational energy?


    Here a sample where you end up with classic 4(6)D math treatment: The Geometry of Spacetime vix 1612.0415v1.pdf


    The 4D explanation of Zitterbewegung is integral for the 4D model itself as in 4D quantization is only possible due to eccentricity. In the ideal case eccentricity (=Zitterbewegung) is based on the golden ratio. This fact is used to define the universal "mass compression factor" that seems to perfectly work for the explanation of symmetric nuclei. Thus in the SO(4) based model Zitterbewegung is already given by the nucleus.


    Of course there are many physical reasons that can be used to explain additional Zitterbewegung and I guess this is the least important we have to find out how exactly it works...

  • Deneum patent can't be granted because it is completely identical with what was described 60 years ago. Actually you can find the paper with exactly same plot. Also some videos are on YouTube from demonstration by other groups.

    So Deneum invented clearly nothing and their Patent is invalid.


    So if nobody else will do this I will report them in EU patent office.

  • Described "excess heat" is nothing else than Chemisorption. Even scientistics 60 years ago found out and calculated exact energy.

    Deuterium has just higher Dissociation energy but there is nothing else in it.


    How they found that this is Nuclear energy? :D This is very normal behavior of a Metal Hydrides. It will last only until a metal is saturated with hydrogen. Then you will loose the same energy when heating the metal and wasting even more energy to pump hydrogen out....

  • Deneum patent can't be granted because it is completely identical with what was described 60 years ago. Actually you can find the paper with exactly same plot. Also some videos are on YouTube from demonstration by other groups.

    So Deneum invented clearly nothing and their Patent is invalid.


    So if nobody else will do this I will report them in EU patent office.


    JF,


    You could be wrong. Before you go running to the patent office, you may want to link us to the 60 year old reference, so others can check it out. It would be a nice courtesy, since Deneum does have some credible names behind them.

  • Check the paper and plots. Both are describing very same chemical phenomenon.

    And devices that are basically working in the same way were demonstrated years ago too. You can swap Titanium for other metal hydride and you will get similar results.


    What is interesting that the paper is written by Russian scientists originally.

  • JF,


    Obviously you have done some extensive research on that area of LENR research, to have determined the new upstart Deneum is copying a 60 year old previous patent. I would assume from your lack of transparency on other matters, I would be wasting my time asking you what this is all about? You are quite the mystery, and this just adds to it.


    Thank you for the link BTW.

  • What is interesting that the paper is written by Russian scientists originally.


    Yes, very interesting link. I see on p. 4, figure 1, there is a substantial and rapid temperature rise at about minute 30. That anomaly might suggest some special exothermic process (LENR?) occurring and then apparently disappearing. Or is that simply a quick absorption due to cracking as a particular stress is reached?

  • This is not anything unusual. Titanium can just absorb a lot of Hydrogen. And the process starts rather very rapidly. But it lasts only that long until it can load a hydrogen. At the beginning loading ratio is very fast but later it is slower and slower. Thus exothermic reaction is smaller. Just chemical process.

    So saturated Titanium will basically do nothing.

    Very same thing can be seen with Lithium and other metal hydrides. There is just difference in temperature and rate.

    Or do you think it is really nuclear? According the paper produced energy fits their calculation perfectly. So nothing unusual reported regarding LENR.


    In other words you will produce Excess heat only once. But when you will want to get the Hydrogen out you have to reheat it and during releasing Hydrogen will recombine back to molecular form. At this phase you will loose gained energy, am I right?

  • am I right?


    J5...You are right about the correspondence btw the 1965 results and the patent.

    Generalised conclusions are not possible..there is no calorimetry done

    The neutron emission data is not comparative.


    However a search of lenrcanrfor "titanium.. neutron" gives quite a few papers

    eg

    lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PrelasMAneutronemi.pdf

    lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KenneyFneutronemi.pdf

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



    however HINT HINT HINT without metastable isotopes titanium will not work so well as LENR

    and titanium only has 5 stable isotopes.. you need to add an element with metastable isotopes.