Does LENR produce plasmoids + harmful radiations?

    Quote from JulianBianchi

    Cherepanov2020 what do you think of the work done by the Russian group led by Manykin since the 1980s on what is called today Rydberg Matter? This question because when you are talking about the role of bound electrons and plasmoids, this reminds me of Rydberg Matter.

    I am citing Wikipedia for you - "When atoms are excited from the ground state to the Rydberg state, an interesting phenomenon occurs, called" dipole blockade ".


    In a rarefied atomic vapor, the distance between the atoms in the ground state is large, and there is practically no interaction between the atoms. However, when atoms are excited to the Rydberg state, their orbital radius increases by n^2 and reaches a value of the order of 1 μm. As a result, the atoms "come closer", the interaction between them significantly increases, which causes a shift in the energy of the states of the atoms. What does this lead to? Let us assume that only one atom from the ground to the Rydberg state was excited by a weak light pulse. An attempt to populate the same level with another atom due to the "dipole blockade" becomes obviously impossible, since the Rydberg state of the second atom, due to the interaction with the first atom, will change the energy and, therefore, will be "out" of resonance with the photon frequency [2]. "

    So ... If you carefully study my articles, you will find that I do not accept, in principle, the orbital motion of electrons! This was proved by Kanarev back in 1993 ... But ... But we are ruled by those for whom it is not the truth in physics that is important, but their own vanity ... There has never been an electric charge on a proton or an electron ... Do conclusions ... What did I come to, for 4 years analyzing everything that happened in physics, starting with Charles Coulomb,? In nature there are only magnetic interactions, gravity is magnetic interaction ... We are surrounded only by rotating protons and rotating electrons, as well as neutrons, which play the role of a "buffer" in the nuclei of atoms ... Energy is carried in space only by photons ... Bottom line. .. There are no Rydberg atoms in nature!


    Physicist Charles Coulomb and Cavendish, 15 September 2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4MUd/Ao4WCYyFq


    Physicist Charles Coulomb and Cavendish, 15 September 2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/…65DWsrpu/view?usp=sharing


    Open letter to A.I. Cherepanov physical community, 22 March 2020. - https://drive.google.com/file/…m3rSLy0R/view?usp=sharing

    Open letter to A.I. Cherepanov physical community, 22 March 2020. - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4TW7/2QjEi4B6M

    I will continue ... What is the fooling and fooling of physicists from generation to generation ??? Understand the atom is just a STRUCTURE !!! STRUCTURE never radiates anything! Only some object in the STRUCTURE can emit! What objects are there in the structure of the atom? The answer is that protons and electrons are the main contenders to become "Emitters"! Protons emit gamma photons and photons that are part of the X-ray range. The rest of the photons - infrared, light, ultraviolet and X-ray photons, emit electrons ... A free electron can relatively speaking absorb a lot of photon mass and it becomes heavier, but at the same time it increases its angular velocity, which ultimately increases its magnetic potential and its magnetic field becomes more powerful ... Now you feel the DIFFERENCE ???

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I was always taught that photons have momentum, but zero mass. Which sounds like a contradiction.

    It does sound like a contradiction until one sees that mass is likely electromagnetic in origin and light is the simplest EM construct. Energy isn't constructed into fields that emerge collectively as the effect we call mass, probably. IDK maybe Wyttenbach or Dr. Mills has something to say on that. Seems like that is a minority view in open science. Light and gravity waves are another divine mystery.

    You don't answer to my question but thank you nevertheless for the effort.

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    In a rarefied atomic vapor, the distance between the atoms in the ground state is large, and there is practically no interaction between the atoms. However, when atoms are excited to the Rydberg state, their orbital radius increases by n^2 and reaches a value of the order of 1 μm.

    Standard model (SM) knows nothing about dense matter physics. Rydberg states are a consequence of electron spin pairing what frees about 11eV/electron pair. This energy allows other - Rydberg cluster bound - electrons to move into higher states where as the spin-spin (classically said) bond leads to a 4-He like electron orbit. The next step is the H*/D* state!

    • Official Post

    One has always to take a step back and remember that models are tools. Their pragmatic value is their capacity to make predictions. While I was a student at the university I recall reading a statement in a book that has never left me since, referring to an ecological population model, it said “its epistemological simplicity contrasts with its lack of heuristic power”. This simply means that no matter how beautiful a model is, if it’s not good to make predictions, It lacks value.


    I maintain that the NPP 2.0 model of Wyttenbach has the capacity of predicting experimentally verifiable values to within an outstanding accuracy, far higher than the currently accepted models and even better than the most accurate alternative, but not accepted, model.


    The model that Cherepanov2020 has been actively promoting, looks visually appealing, but I have yet to see evidence of any predictive power, its at best an appealing descriptive model, but not much else.


    Now, going back to the topic of the thread, I think that the recent paper of biological effects of the “Strange Radiation” did a great job of showing that there is a distinct emission that can produce an effect on living organisms and that also can be clearly identified as not being any previously identified part of the emissions. This, IMHO, provides a clear answer to the question that makes the title of this thread:


    There’s clear evidence that LENR experiments can produce a kind of radiation that has a deleterious effect in living organisms.


    It is also clear, from previous works about the same issue, that this effect, once known, can be dealt with and virtually eliminated by implementing a set of measures and designing the experiments accordingly to avoid the negative effects.


    As to what is exactly what is being emitted by the experiments, the question mark remains, the important fact is that there’s a problem and also a set of solutions for that problem.

    Quote from Curbina

    Now, going back to the topic of the thread, I think that the recent paper of biological effects of the “Strange Radiation” did a great job of showing that there is a distinct emission that can produce an effect on living organisms and that also can be clearly identified as not being any previously identified part of the emissions.

    There are certain types of radiation that can directly affect organic tissue and worst the replication path. The most famous known is the PCM modulated signal of mobile antennas/phones that can directly influence mitosis in vitro! In certain setups it is even used for that purpose.


    But EM radiation does not deeply penetrate our skin and thus the energy at action usually is low. Except when you phone for hours with a mobile close to your ears - what is not recommended. This is also the main reason not to give mobile phones to children as their skin is more active.


    In general we can only note that we know almost nothing about more subtle effects that cause epigenetic changes. Such changes usually have an immediate effect and will not guide a cell into apoptosis. It is well known that even stress can induce such "soft mutations".


    So what is needed is a more deep study of ball-lightening induced radiation to get a physical understanding first!

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Quote from LeBob

    It does sound like a contradiction until one sees that mass is likely electromagnetic in origin and light is the simplest EM construct. Energy isn't constructed into fields that emerge collectively as the effect we call mass, probably. IDK maybe Wyttenbach as something to say on that. Seems like that is a minority view in open science. Light and gravity waves are another divine mystery.

    A hoax ... you write - "Light and gravity waves are another divine mystery." Gravitational waves are a hoax ... As for light waves ... Physchemistry of the microworld does not recognize the existence of a mystical "electromagnetic wave" ... Electrons emit photons ... But free electrons emit photons in groups or "waves", i.e. we affirm that there are "photon waves" in nature - they form a radio signal, a television signal, a "signal" - a "photon wave" that "flies" in an optical fiber ...

    I strongly disagree with you ... Fundamental principles are laid in my model, which is a development of FM Kanarev's model ... What are the principles?

    The first principle is based on the proof that Niels Bohr made a mistake when analyzing the spectra of hydrogen atoms ... I already wrote about this on this forum ... If you missed, then I repeat for you -


    In 1993 the Russian physicist F.M. Kanarev presented the errors of Niels Bohr in his analysis of the spectra of the hydrogen atom - "The binding energy E1 of an electron of a hydrogen atom with a proton at the moment it is at the first energy level is equal to the ionization energy Ei, that is, E1 = Ei = 13.60 eV. When an electron absorbs a photon with energy 10.20 eV and passes to the second energy level, its binding energy with the nucleus decreases and becomes equal to 3.40 eV. This means that when the energies of 13.60 eV and 10.20 eV are added, the result should be obtained

    13.60 + 10.20 = 3.40

    but, it is absurd. How did Niels Bohr get out of this situation? He did it very simply. Arbitrarily rewrote the specified formula as follows

    -13.60 + 10.20 = -3.40 (1)

    and explained his actions by the fact that the minuses that appeared are the result of the negative charge of the electron. Clever, isn't it?

    And what is the real reason for the appearance of minuses in formula (1)? The real reason is that all the energies presented in formula (1) are only parts of the total energy of the electron, which had to be subtracted from its total energy Ee and formula (1) becomes

    Ee - 13.60 + 10.20 = Ee - 3.40 (2)

    Now it is clearly seen that the energy of an electron in an atom is a positive value, and equation (156) reflects the change only in the binding energies of an electron during its energy transitions, and the minuses before the values of 13.60 and 3.40 mean not the negative energy, but the process of energy subtraction, spent on the bond of an electron with a proton. Comprehend THIS ...

    Let us write down similar relations for the transition of an electron from the first to the third and fourth energy levels.


    Ee - 13.60 + 12.09 = Ee - 1.51 (3)


    Ee - 13.60 + 12.75 = Ee - 0.85 (4)


    From relations (2), (3) and (4) follows the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom -


    Ee - Ei + Ef = Ee - E1 /n^2 → Ef = Ei - E1 /n^2, (5)

    where: Ef = hvf is the energy of the absorbed or emitted photon; Ei is the ionization energy equal to the energy of such a photon, after the absorption of which the electron loses its bond with the nucleus and becomes free; E1 - the binding energy of the electron with the atomic nucleus, corresponding to the first energy level is also equal to the photon energy.

    For a hydrogen atom, E1 = Ei = hv1 = hvf. Taking this into account, the mathematical model (5) can be written as follows


    hvf = hvi - hv1 / n^2 → vf = vi - v1 / n^2 (6)


    We have obtained a mathematical model of the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, which includes only the frequencies of absorbed or emitted photons, that is, the frequency of rotation of photons relative to their axes. And where is the frequency of rotation of an electron around the nucleus of an atom? There is no it. There is no rotational motion of the electron around the nucleus of the atom! "

    Thus, in atoms there are no "clouds and layers of electrons" - each bound electron interacts linearly with its proton of the nucleus - a proton and an electron are trivial magnets and they have magnetic interactions and they do not have "electrostatic interaction" ... Why is an electron does not fall on a proton? But because it is repelled by the secondary magnetic field of both the proton and the electron itself.


    The second fundamental principle is based on my analysis of how physicists defamed with the concept of charge - I studied the treatises of Charles Coulomb, Poisson and Thomson ... All three of them understood "charge" as "mass of electricity" or "mass of electric fluid" ... They were followers of Newton and understood mass as the amount of matter ... Their doctrine was perverted by Maxwell, who, being a mathematician, did not care about the physical meaning of the "charge" ... What are the reasons for this? Perhaps he simply misinterpreted the translation from French into English ... This reveals a paradoxical situation - while reading Maxwell's treatises, you understand that, nevertheless, in other matters he whispered to the dimension and to the physical meaning of natural phenomena ... A strange situation ... But you can't throw out the words from the song - namely, Maxwell introduced into physics a strange concept of "charge", which for some reason he did not connect with mass ... In the modern understanding, it has now become clear that "electric liquid" in experiments Charles Coulomb is nothing more than "free electrons" - this is a mass of free electrons ... The German physicist K. Schreber, who wrote his famous article in 1899, especially helped me to understand these "intricacies"

    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, K. Schreber, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZuE/6EhstsLjG


    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, K. Schreber, 1899 - https://drive.google.com/file/…GK-6KBIZ/view?usp=sharing

    He wrote - "Since the units used to measure μ and i are initially arbitrary, the factors γ and δ should not be forgotten.

    Four power laws (1), (2), (4). (5) do not depend on each other. If you want to make the similarities between electrodynamic and electromagnetic effects of a closed loop the same, the last two force laws (4) and (5) are independent of each other, and you will get a very specific relationship between γ and δ ... one). But there is this arbitrary replacement of similarity with equality, as I will show below, it will not change anything in the following discussion, so I do not use it.

    Let's make a problem, units of measurement of electrical and magnetic quantities per unit of mass. Due to duration and time, general and no arbitrary decision, we must take into account the four laws of force and the definition of current. However, we only have these 5 equations available. "

    "Thus, we have only two equations for determining α, β, γ, γ, and since a system of two equations with four unknowns cannot be solved, the question is whether the units of measurement of electrical and magnetic quantities are units - Mass, length and time can be submitted to answer "No".


    If one more law of the fifth force, independent of the four above, is found again, this will not change this result, since system (7) will have a third equation, but at the same time another unknown factor, the fifth proportionality coefficient , will be obtained. The same can happen if one or the other of the above laws turns out to be independent; it would indeed be a factor of proportionality, since one unknown is less available; at the same time, system (7) would have one more equation. In system (7) we always keep two unknowns more than equations; it always remains unsolvable.


    The conclusion from this undecidability of the system of equations (7), the answer "No" to the question that is our topic, seems to be refuted by the fact that electrical quantities were represented by mass, length and time: volts, amperes and

    etc. in units that should be based only on the units of these three basic terms. How is this consistent with this negative answer?"


    "This is the system that v. Helmholtz founded most of his work.


    Or we put randomly


    (11) β = 1, δ = 1,


    then we find Maxwell's electrostatic system



    commonly referred to as electrostatic in the wrong way, although he has no preference over Klasius in any respect; rather, it can be seen as a disadvantage of the same thing that α and δ are different, so that an extremely important equation for technicians does not have a simple form.


    The additional equations so far have been chosen so that the proportionality coefficients either become dimensionless or their sizes are exclusively functions of the critical velocity. But you don't have to. So, h. B. Joubin1) and Lodge2) set δ = 1, and the resulting equation α • β = v2 is split into α = g-1 • cm3 and β = g • cm-1 sec-2 and thus the dimensions for electrical quantities that do not have broken mass potentials. We now want to select additional equations to make the relationship between electrical and magnetic units of fundamental terms and mechanical terms particularly simple. For this we use:

    (12а) γ = г • см -1, δ = см • сек-1,


    (12 b) α = δ, δ = г • см • сек-1,


    (12с) γ = г-1 • см, δ = см-2 •сек-1,"

    With these three pairs of complementary equations, we get the following three systems of proportionality coefficients:


    α = g-1 • cm3 • sec-2, β = g • cm • sec-2,


    γ = g • cm-1, δ = cm • sec-1,


    α = g • cm • sec-2, β = g • cm3 • sec-4,


    γ = g • cm • sec-2, δ = g • cm • sec-2,


    α = g • cm3 • sec-4, β = g-1 • cm3 • sec-2,


    γ = g-1 • cm, δ = cm2 • sec-2,


    If we now express the units of the amount of magnetism μ and the amount of electricity e in these three systems, we get in turn:

    μ = r, e = cm,


    μ = cm, e = sec,


    μ = sec, e = g.

    This example shows that we can not only get units of mass, length or time for units of magnetism and electricity, but also we can get units of any mechanical size in units of any electrical units. Size can be made. A result that is clearly absurd. Now, when the last three systems are obtained according to the same principle as the first four discussed in science, there must be an error in the whole principle of inference, and this is precisely because it gives one solution to a system of two equations with four unknowns, and mathematics teaches, that such a system is undecidable.


    Therefore, based on this mathematical theorem, we find that the units of electrical and magnetic quantities cannot be represented by units of mass, length and time.


    The practical use of units of Volt, Ohm, etc., of course, does not stop at all.


    (Recorded May 6, 1899)


    Thus, I came to the unambiguous conclusion "charge" is the mass of free electrons and, thus, there is no other charge in nature, which in the form of "+" and "-" was planted on the proton and electron, respectively ... This instantly destroys and the pardigma of Rutherford and Niels Bohr and Schrödinger ... There is no electric field in nature! And what is there? And there is only a magnetic field and the magnetic charge of a free electron is its "magnetic mass". Everything fell into place - both the proton and the electron have their own magnetic fields, their own magnetic poles and their own magnetic moments! Further analysis, therefore, was carried out on the basis that in the hydrogen atom the proton and the electron behave like trivial magnetic ... And further analysis showed that the formation of nuclei and molecules occurs according to the laws of magnetic interactions! There are no weak interactions or strong interactions in nature, and there are no "electrostatic interactions". On the basis of these two fundamental principles, the structures of atomic nuclei are built ... Nature has its own - "iron logic" ... and this logic obeys magnetic interactions ... Whether you like it or not, this is your will .. I am ready to listen to reasoned criticism ... At the same time, I ask the LITERATORS not to worry - I take into account not unfounded statements, but arguments. My article will help you -

    Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/1mSx/2ti91GWkP


    Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/…5ADwlehP/view?usp=sharing



    • Official Post
    Quote from Ahlfors

    ABOUT OPERATION OF NICKEL - HYDROGEN CONTAINER AND PHYSICAL MODEL - HYPOTHESIS APPEARANCE OF “STRANGE” RADIATION

    Interesting paper, thanks for finding it Ahlfors , (and thanks to the he person that moved it from clearance to this much more appropriate thread). Too bad that the AI google translation works awfully with PDFs, but I will try to sharpen a bit some key paragraphs. Thus far I am impressed that, if I understood correctly, the SR seems to have been recorded as emitted in clusters even for a year after the NIH reactor had been kept at room temperature.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Curbina

    Interesting paper, thanks for finding it Ahlfors , (and thanks to the he person that moved it from clearance to this much more appropriate thread). Too bad that the AI google translation works awfully with PDFs, but I will try to sharpen a bit some key paragraphs. Thus far I am impressed that, if I understood correctly, the SR seems to have been recorded as emitted in clusters even for a year after the NIH reactor had been kept at room temperature.

    The second download looks to be the rough English translation of the first. As you said, it could use some improvement.


    Good find. Ahlfors comes through for us again.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Shane D.

    The second download looks to be the rough English translation of the first. As you said, it could use some improvement.


    Good find. Ahlfors comes through for us again.

    Yes, I realized that Shane D. That’s what you get with Google Translate using the “document” option. Oddly enough the result is much better when one uses the more crude method of copy-paste each paragraph directly into the online Google translate tool.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JulianBianchi

    On the contrary I found it pretty interesting. What I like is that the experiments, the results and the discussion present strong similarities with other well known LENR studies that may look different at first sight. A better translation would help though.

    I hope to find some spare time today for giving it a try, a couple of weeks ago I did it with other paper that was posted by Max Nozin, but it was a three page one so it took me less than an hour. This other one is bigger but I really want to read it thoroughly and translating it paragraph by paragraph certainly helps to get a very good understanding.

    Quote from Ahlfors

    ABOUT OPERATION OF NICKEL - HYDROGEN CONTAINER AND PHYSICAL MODEL - HYPOTHESIS APPEARANCE OF “STRANGE” RADIATION

    I know Vladimir Chizhov personally! And she repeatedly pointed out to him his stupidity in interpreting his own experiments. He absolutely does not understand the area of physics that he decided to get into! He doesn't know nuclear physics! He does not understand the physical phenomena that he initiates! All his stupidity and all his delusions, I analyzed in the article -

    In the footsteps of Professor Chizhov's speech at a seminar at RUDN University on February 27, 2020 - https://drive.google.com/file/…xzWqPi6P/view?usp=sharing

    In the wake of Professor Chizhov's speech at a seminar at RUDN University on February 27, 2020 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/3gAn/5hxaf6tQ7


    Following in the footsteps of the report - Experimental verification of ongoing processes in the nickel-hydrogen system using two catalysts 1. Ni-NaBH4 2. Ni-LiAlH4

    https://drive.google.com/file/…2KI2OXaa/view?usp=sharing

    Following in the footsteps of the report - Experimental verification of ongoing processes in the nickel-hydrogen system using two catalysts 1. Ni-NaBH4 2. Ni-LiAlH4 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2oQK/2W1huSfmM

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.