Does LENR produce harmful radiations?

  • - one of the observations is that there were no track on DVDs wrapped in the aluminum foil.


    They should have checked the aluminum foil of course!..


    Or may be our explanation of positroniums being a part of the story would also explain this behavior.

  • I would worry more about 'thermal waves', if real, as reported by Kornilova as they seem to be highly penetrating

    Thanks for that Max - actually I think the 'thermal waves' are actually magnetic - inductive coupling at a distance. Maybe?


    About this effect being magnetic - I have my doubts. The propagation characteristics and effects of magnetic fields (particularly when the distance from the source is much larger than the size of the source) are pretty well known.


    Now, different people have tried to explain some (possibly assumed) properties with models of entirely different types:

    1. Corpuscular (with models sometimes requiring either very large objects or extreme energy levels in order to explain the effects)

    2. Unconventional electromagnetic (often with problematic models that violate conservation of charge or other well known basics)

    3. Thermal wave / VHF ultrasound with shockwave-like propagation characteristics (as postulated by Dr. Kornilova)


    Since the exact nature of these waves is not well understood, it would make sense to double-check some properties experimentally.


    Here are some ideas on how at least some of these large classes can be differentiated from each other:


    To distinguish 3. (specifically) from 1. or 2.: Ultrasound and thermal waves require a material, therefore cannot propagate in vacuum. A dewar connected to a vacuum pump and a gas inlet (to selectively evacuate the space between source and detector without changing the construction and geometry of the overall experiment) would make the propagation vs. non-propagation of an unknown radiation type in vacuum relatively easy to test. Note however that shockwave like phenomena can refract and reflect off surfaces (and even material density gradients), to there may still be some propagation paths elsewhere around an evacuated dewar.


    To distinguish 1. from anything else: Use shields of a dense material (like lead). Large corpuscular objects do not pass through dense material, so a comparison of penetration through a light vs. a dense material should provide an indication of whether there are large corpuscular particles involved. If the unknown radiation passes through lead and through low density plastic with a similar penetration ability, it is unlikely to consist of large matter particles. The difference in mass ratio between an unknown large particle and a lead atom vs. the same particle and a carbon atom would make for distinguishable propagation characteristics.


    To distinguish charged vs. neutral particles: A cloud chamber with a magnet (or a pair of electrodes) will do just fine. A classic test, well known since a century.


    To distinguish an electromagnetic vs. a shockwave-like interaction of an unknown emission with materials in the environment: use many-layered shields with different types of layer structures.

    - An electromagnetic type interaction will be strongest with a multi-layer structure when the layers have different electrical (conductor vs. isolator) or magnetic (ferromagnetic vs. diamagnetic) properties even when the layers all share similar densities and similar sound and shockwave propagation characteristics.

    - A shockwave type interaction will be strongest with a multi-layer structure when the layers have different densities and therefore reflect shockwaves on internal surfaces, even when the layers all share similar electrical characteristics.

    - In addition, electromagnetic and shock waves can each be absorbed by dissipative materials and it's possible to make materials that are to one type much more dissipative than to the other. Loose layers of paper or thin films can be strongly dissipative to acoustic and shockwave type effects while not doing much at all against electromagnetism, while a dense structure of strongly bonded alternating layers of different conductivities or different characteristic impedances will have effects on anything charged or electromagnetic, while it may pass sound and shock waves as well as any similar homogenous solid material would pass them.




  • Hi Alan, during the last few month I have been working together with other individuals. We have also been investigating theories on how to deal with SR. One idea was a technique of active cancelation of SR instead of passive shielding. At the moment it is a theory, but it would be interesting to get a second opinion. After confirming with my partner I could provide a concept paper.

  • You will create antistrange Radiation to annihilate it? That is the strangest idea of all.

    Yes, a sort of.... Please refer to following link:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/c45r…ange%20Radiation.pdf?dl=0


    We have already derived a concrete concept on how to apply above idea on a Ni-Li lattice reactor type and are open for cooperation. Anybody interested may send me an Email or private message on LENR forum.

  • 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


    This strange radiation has been micro photographed and studied.


    Ris_5.jpg

  • Just a random thought on the subject. I find curious or "strange" that the existence of "strange" particles (i.e. radiation) is already acknowledged in mainstream science. Incidentally, in one theory related with LENR observations (which I won't mention here but you can easily guess what it is) the reaction does initially emit "strange" neutral particles. Given that certain neutral particles are known to oscillate in space and time with their antiparticles, I'm wondering if this could be in part responsible for the segmented tracks on witness solid materials as reported by some researchers (apparently mainly Russian).


    Was the choice of the term "strange" coincidental and originally just to refer to some unexplained phenomenon?

  • Have low energy neutrons been excluded as a source of this strange radiation? If they lack the atom-smashing, deep penetrating, tissue damaging radiological effects of their high energy counterparts might such a simple explanation have been overlooked?

  • Thanks Alan I've read some of Ken Shoulder's work before - but I don't think he specifically made any connection between his bizarre electron observations and cold fusion. The clustering of electrons to form EVO's or plasmoids he observed is very hard to either understand in physical terms or explain other than saying 'we know nothing' about the forces or energies behind it. I mean how do you confine 6.23 . 10power 23 electrons in a single cluster when each electron is fighting to find free space from its buddies via Coulombic repulsion? The same unknown force that also allows proton fusion in LENR? Means we all have a long way to go before we fully understand any of this - only scratching the surface so far.

  • Thanks Alan I've read some of Ken Shoulder's work before - but I don't think he specifically made any connection between his bizarre electron observations and cold fusion. The clustering of electrons to form EVO's or plasmoids he observed is very hard to either understand in physical terms or explain other than saying 'we know nothing' about the forces or energies behind it. I mean how do you confine 6.23 . 10power 23 electrons in a single cluster when each electron is fighting to find free space from its buddies via Coulombic repulsion? The same unknown force that also allows proton fusion in LENR? Means we all have a long way to go before we fully understand any of this - only scratching the surface so far.


    The cluster of electrons are converted to bosons via entanglement. The electron becomes a polariton. For more info see as follows:


  • I think EVOs are critical to understanding many forms of LENR in addition to understanding other anomalous phenomena such as the exotic aircraft that various committees in the US Senate and Congress have been briefed on recently.

  • The W and Z bosons are carrier particles that mediate the weak nuclear force, much as the photon is the carrier particle for the electromagnetic force. So how do electrons transform into bosons and then don't they have a very brief half-life and revert back to leptons (electrons)?

  • The cluster of electrons are converted to bosons via entanglement. The electron becomes a polariton. For more info see as follows:



    Axil - electrons bound to holes in a lattice together with photons (think of it loosely as electrons orbiting holes) can become polaritons. You don't get holes without a sea of bound valence electrons and hence a lattice. The density of polaritons is thus limited - in fact to less than the number of valence electrons because adjacent polaritons interfere with each other.


    However that mechanism pretty obviously does not allow an ultra-high density of electrons because that would require a lattice with a correspondingly high number of valence electrons.


    The same thing (finite density of holes) applies in quantum wells.


    TANSTAAFL


    PS - however I'ne reason to think EVOs have ultra-high electron density? As all plasmas the electron charge is balanced by ions and it works like a gas but where thermal energies are higher than valence binding energies.

  • In the context of the reviewing process I mentioned earlier, I collected some information on the electrolytic cell associated with the "Neal-Gleeson process" that was sometimes mentioned by Hal Fox relatively to Charge clusters / EVOs. Posting here too (from my notes) as this could be interesting or informative for others as well.


    * * *


    Between the mid 1990s and the early 2000s, Stan Gleeson (occasionally spelled Gleason) worked with the currently disbanded Cincinnati Group (a "religiously-inspired group of researchers" according to a source) on a high-pressure electrolytic cell for nuclear waste remediation, using light water and Zr or Ti electrodes. From the abandoned 2003 patent application the design seems simple enough to be adapted for atmospheric (open) operation with less hazardous elements.


    Operating characteristics were such that spark discharges occurred, as well as extensive electrode erosion. AC was typically used by the group, but DC could be as well. To be clear, this cell has been cited by Hal Fox and others in the context of Charge Clusters / EVOs as the "Neal-Gleeson process", with Neal being a co-author from the original Cincinnati group.


    "Old guard" cold fusion researchers do not seem to think that the cell worked as claimed: according to Jed Rothwell, who thinks that the initial measurements were crude, Michael McKubre suspected that cell seals were not good enough and thus that the inventors were breathing radioactive particles and that radioactivity was lost that way. Peter Gluck has written that in testing at ITIM (in Cluj, Romania) on a cell that was donated to him by Stan Gleeson it was shown that the radioactivity was transferred to the precipitate formed during operation and therefore that no global reduction in radioactivity was occurring.


    Inventor deaths

    Stan Gleeson died at age 48 in year 2000, together with the other inventor from the Cincinnati group Donald Holloman (also known as Don) in 2004 due to radiation-induced complications. Peter Gluck mentioned that they died of leukemia and that in their later period of activity they worked on experiments with Americium.


    Patent application

    US20030201167A1 - Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing means


    Patent application number: 10/128,292, 60/052,077 (provisional, not available)


    Abstract

    Quote

    A pressurized electrochemical bulk-process method & apparatus, adapted to real-time tracking and adjustment of electro-hydraulic parameters, comprising a high-pressure reaction chamber of the type of a horizontal cylindrical electrolytic cell, whose zirconium walls constitute one electrode in contact with an electrolytic solvent containing the target material to be processed. The other electrode is a thin vertical zirconium disk partially submerged in the electrolyte, which fills less than half of the chamber. Because the electrolyte's resistance is not constant, the current cannot be controlled merely by adjusting the voltage in the 60-cycle AC current; instead, the current amperage must be monitored in real time and the voltage either lowered in response to sharp amperage increases in order to keep the cell's temperature (and hence its pressure) below the safety limits at which the disk-shaped Teflon end-gaskets sealing the cylinder's ends will rupture, or else increased, during normal operation, to compensate for decreases in current caused by various reactions occurring in the electrolyte.


    Summary

    • Zirconium electrodes
      • Titanium also suggested in the patent description
      • Cylinder walls as one electrode
      • Counterelectrode as a vertical disk (washer) partially immersed in the electrolyte
    • 60 Hz AC current used (typically)
      • 40-200V, 0-10A
    • Operating temperature 15-150 °C
    • Electrolyte resistance not constant
    • Sharp current increases possible (i.e. spark discharges)
    • Control through current (amperage), not voltage


    Apparatus diagrams

    From presumably the provisional patent application (not accessible), as pictured on Infinite-Energy on issue #13-#14. The diagram on the actual (abandoned) patent application is better crafted and clearer.



    From OPERATING THE LENT-1 TRANSMUTATION REACTOR: A PRELIMINARY REPORT by Hal Fox and Shang-Xian Jin:



    Comments

    • Both electrodes are defined oxidizing.
      • My interpretation of this is that the authors mean that they can form stable oxides, and zirconium is one such metal.
    • When DC is used, I believe that the outer electrode, being larger, would more likely be the anode as it would get proportionally damaged less over time.
    • The "inert" electrolytes used may include include sodium silicate, sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3), or in alternative: lithium sulfate (Li2SO4), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and acetic acid (C2H4O2).
    • To me it seems that coupled with temperature they would made for a harsh corrosive environment that would promote the formation of suspended particles that would promote the occurrence of spark discharges when a current is passed through the electrodes.
      • This appears to be supported by anecdotal evidence and personal experience on somewhat similar experiments, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the patent application.


    Various links where the Cincinnati Group cell is mentioned

  • To be clear, I did not post the above message here myself, it was copied by a moderator from another thread.

    I suppose it was in reference to Stan Gleeson and Don Holloman's fate with their experimentation with nuclear waste remediation, but duplicating posts like this makes maintaining them difficult (e.g what if I wanted to update, correct or add something?).