SAFIRE, SUNCELL, E-CAT SK: Three reactors, three theories, one common unifying mechanism - the EVO (Exotic Vacuum Object). [Brown's Gas Joins the Club!]

    Quote from axil

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum


    Which is real: stable states or quantum field that we define them with? If it is the states and those states are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then there can't arise more stable states. Everything continues as defined by states composed of the three quantum forces with relativity throw in to create mass and relative motion.

    For example the basic indication of superpostioning of a weak state over the hydrogen atom is the formation of magnecules. The electromagnetic state of hydrogen atom is the natural hydrogen atom as we are familiar with it. When the weak state in superpostioned, those states must be accessed by absorption of energy which is a weak interacting state. There are 240 accessible states between hydrogen ionization and neutron decay (13.5878925 ev to 0.7824260693 MeV specific to within 2.0E-5 ev). The weak force boson in this case is a w particle but it's range is very much shorter than the radius of the natural hydrogen atom. Hence, the decay and reformation of the superpostioned weak state creates a wave across the natural hydrogen atom. Since, the electron part of this decay is the natural atom's electron, the absorption of energy by the w-boson appears as an acceleration of the neutrino. The very small mass of the neutrino means that absorption of the energy necessary to form the superpostioned weak states cause acceleration to the neutrino to velocities that cause dilation of time and contraction of space of the natural hydrogen atom. Further, the w-wave passes into nucleus (or range of the strong force), that means three superpostioned states. The result is a separation of charge across the nuclear region: a giant nuclear resonance. The separation of charge in the nucleus along with the unpaired electron orbit creates a magnetic force so strong that these state of hydrogen atoms bond magnetically. Note that the magnetic field of a natural hydrogen atom is too weak for magnetic bonding. Hence, magnecules are indication of new states suggested above.


    Thermonuclear fusion, fusion forced by fields is well ingrain in our thinking but

    Quote from LeBob

    In reality these could be accomplish with pico scale structures, matter-energy-matter reactions and a bridge between the electrochemical and the nuclear.

    Quote from CWatters

    Conventional arcs have a negative differential resistance no?


    A true arc discharge has very low resistance but it is positive resistance. It is during the negative resistance regime during which the macro-EVO forms. During this time period, a true negative resistance takes place as the EVO absorbs heat from the environment and converts it to electrical current.

    quantum fields are fundamental.


    This Is Why Quantum Field Theory Is More Fundamental Than Quantum Mechanics


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/s…m-mechanics/#29b75a342083


    Quote

    If you wanted to answer the question of what's truly fundamental in this Universe, you'd need to investigate matter and energy on the smallest possible scales. If you attempted to split particles apart into smaller and smaller constituents, you'd start to notice some extremely funny things once you went smaller than distances of a few nanometers, where the classical rules of physics still apply.


    On even smaller scales, reality starts behaving in strange, counterintuitive ways. We can no longer describe reality as being made of individual particles with well-defined properties like position and momentum. Instead, we enter the realm of the quantum: where fundamental indeterminism rules, and we need an entirely new description of how nature works. But even quantum mechanics itself has its failures here. They doomed Einstein's greatest dream — of a complete, deterministic description of reality — right from the start. Here's why.

    Quote from axil

    This Is Why Quantum Field Theory Is More Fundamental Than Quantum Mechanics


    Why ? Did you ever think about what you talk?


    QFT for dense matter is nonsense. It only works as an engineering method for ultra thin plasma! No way to use it for any explanation of nuclear features.


    QM is not fundamental. Believing such nonsense is religious faith nothing else.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Why ? Did you ever think about what you talk?


    QFT for dense matter is nonsense. It only works as an engineering method for ultra thin plasma! No way to use it for any explanation of nuclear features.


    QM is not fundamental. Believing such nonsense is religious faith nothing else.

    I can relate to this sentiment from a completely different perspective. I have come across in plant science with research that attempts to extrapolate the behavior of entire plant populations from some cell membrane properties. This has led some researchers to make predictions that have failed completely to be verified in field research of crop science.


    I think this happens because when Researching at so small scale, which necessarily implies extracting and isolating a part from a whole, often forgets to consider the interactions of the part with the whole that are lost when you study the part in isolation.


    Same happens with the water research, as Pollack has brilliantly exposed in his “The 4th phase of water” book, we might know a great deal of the water molecule in isolation, but we know scant few, and can’t predict nor make sense of the behavior of water observed interacting with itself and with solid substances. The exclusion zone is a great puzzle and very few people is even aware of its existence and impressive properties.

    Quote from Curbina

    Same happens with the water research, as Pollack has brilliantly exposed in his “The 4th phase of water” book, we might know a great deal of the water molecule in isolation, but we know scant few, and can’t predict nor make sense of the behavior of water observed interacting with itself and with solid substances.


    There was a famous paper about neutron spectroscopy of water that did show a stoichiometric relation of H1.5O. Nobody could reproduce it. But in fact the reproductions did all use a different neutron energy what gave the classic structure.


    If papers are not written in a form that exactly describes what you do - standard for LENR papers... - nobody will be able to reproduce it.


    By the way: It is classic knowledge that the strength of the H-O intermediate (hydrogen bridge-) bond is 10% of the O-H chemical bond. Thus already classically the correct formula for liquid water is H1.8O...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    By the way: It is classic knowledge that the strength of the H-O intermediate (hydrogen bridge-) bond is 10% of the O-H chemical bond. Thus already classically the correct formula for liquid water is H1.8O...


    How does water remain neutral charged rather than negatively charged? Perhaps the correct formula is the commonly accepted one. As such the hydrogen bonding between water molecules is transient and does not affect the charge balance.

    I wonder how many groups behind the scenes are replicating systems utilizing the negative resistance regime of a plasma discharge to produce a complex space charge configuration with double layers to produce excess energy? My guess is that there are several. If there's anyone lurking on this forum that is doing research, please share information about your research on this thread.

    Quote from Director

    I wonder how many groups behind the scenes are replicating systems utilizing the negative resistance regime of a plasma discharge to produce a complex space charge configuration with double layers to produce excess energy? My guess is that there are several. If there's anyone lurking on this forum that is doing research, please share information about your research on this thread.

    Hi @Director,


    I think there are quite a few as well. The increase in PR and claims is proof of that in my opinion. Parties are rushing to be the first. The person that will win the public’s trust first will be the name remembered.


    Cheers,


    JB


    PS: Many thanks for your clear and thoughtful posts. I read them with great pleasure.

    We Cat Global,


    Thank you for the kind words.


    Everyone,


    Take a look at section B on page 7 of this document written by Harold Puthoff. He describes a theory in which Zero Point Energy could potentially be extracted. To keep from butchering the language, I'll leave it up to all of you to download and read the document. It should be noted he is talking about one micron sized cavities. However, it seems to me a macro-scale EVO or complex space charge configuration with double layers could be extracting energy from electron orbitals (due to them being shielded from the ZPE energy needed to sustain them), ejecting them out of the macro-scale EVO via ION ACOUSTIC OSCILLATIONS which would allow them to start absorbing ZPE yet again, and then absorbing them back into the macro-scale EVO to repeat the cycle. Thus, this is a mechanism where Rossi, BLP, or The SAFIRE PROJECT could be tapping the ZPE field without the need for nuclear reactions. However, I suspect this would absolutely require the system to be tuned into resonance to maximize the amplitude of the ion acoustic oscillations to recycle the atoms in and out of the macro-scale EVO. Again, this is a situation in which you don't build a complicated device like Hal Puthoff proposes but you create a macro-scale EVO utilizing the negative resistance regime of a plasma discharge and let NATURE do the work for you!!!!


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…y_from_the_Quantum_Vacuum


    The "zero" holds together many other things in physics. The basis of this energy is so-called virtual particles that spontaneously flash into existence at every point in space due to the energy of quantum fluctuations caused by the uncertainty principle.


    Problem is, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was disproved by experiment in 2016.


    0?e=1580342400&v=beta&t=lAkQs0C1mRDIF-QGz7BNxbCiwiXbHpxT8bnPl8On274

    The Casimir effect is real and due to vacuum fluctuations. The ZPE is indeed real regardless of the fact that it is an additional potential source of energy in the E-Cat SK, The SAFIRE Project Reactor, and the Suncell other than the hydrino reactions your hero Randell Mills proclaims to be the only route to such excess energy. In reality, I believe there's evidence that there are multiple sources of energy in all of these systems.

    @Director Most of the Puthoff document is over my head but I like the gist. Recent SAFIRE disclosures from Monty have served to confirm my thinking that the power supply is DC with adjustable voltage and current limiting features (standard laboratory equipment). Getting the plasma to operate in the negative resistance regime is primarily a matter of adjusting the current limit to prevent it from going beyond that region/regime. The voltage limit need only be set high enough to enable the plasma to ignite. After ignition, the voltage will float below the limit and at the operating point chosen by the current limit. At least until proven otherwise, I believe the anode should be hollow and spherical and pressurized with H2 to deliver elemental H into the plasma. I would start with an iron anode with as few impurities as practical.

    Quote from Director

    The Casimir effect is real and due to vacuum fluctuations. The ZPE is indeed real regardless of the fact that it is an additional potential source of energy in the E-Cat SK, The SAFIRE Project Reactor, and the Suncell other than the hydrino reactions your hero Randell Mills proclaims to be the only route to such excess energy. In reality, I believe there's evidence that there are multiple sources of energy in all of these systems.


    The effect may be real. But we're not talking about measurements, we are talking about the physical theories for the measurements. This is the basis of all the issues. You need to cleanup your thinking here and what I am saying will be more obvious. There might be multiple sources of energy, but if we have the wrong theory (as now shown disprove by experiment - seems that experiments don't count for much anymore, too bad).


    To be succint, I showed you the HUP is now disproven and said that disproves one theory (but I didnt advocate for another).

    You argue your theory is right nonetheless.

    That isn't science.

    Quote from JohnO

    @Director Most of the Puthoff document is over my head but I like the gist. Recent SAFIRE disclosures from Monty have served to confirm my thinking that the power supply is DC with adjustable voltage and current limiting features (standard laboratory equipment). Getting the plasma to operate in the negative resistance regime is primarily a matter of adjusting the current limit to prevent it from going beyond that region/regime. The voltage limit need only be set high enough to enable the plasma to ignite. After ignition, the voltage will float below the limit and at the operating point chosen by the current limit. At least until proven otherwise, I believe the anode should be hollow and spherical and pressurized with H2 to deliver elemental H into the plasma. I would start with an iron anode with as few impurities as practical.



    Hello John,


    What Monty has said makes sense. The key to maintaining the negative resistance regime is to prevent it from surging into a full fledged arc discharge with positive resistance (although the resistance will be extremely low). If you are in this range, you will produce by definition a complex space charge configuration on at least one of the two electrodes in a system with one anode and one cathode. The location of the complex space charge configuration will depend on the properties of the circuit and if you "bias" one of the electrodes. I truly don't like the idea of using a central sphere, hollow or not. Personally, I consider it superfluous. You can produce the same complex space charge configuration or macro-EVO using only one anode and one cathode. What's more important, is that using just two electrodes you can tune the system into resonance by changing the properties of the circuit so that the macro-EVO starts to detach from the anode or cathode and float freely - attached to nothing - between them. Achieving resonance is what's so important, because it allows the macro-EVO to further self organize and to amplify the ion acoustic oscillations which transfer electrons and ions in and out of the plasma ball (sort of like an organism consuming food and excreting it out). Although I'm convinced the evidence is overwhelming that the negative resistance regime does indeed produce transmutations and LENR reactions, these ion acoustic oscillations are likely even MORE important if the system taps Zero Point Energy.


    It's not overly challenging at all to produce these complex space charge configurations or "fireballs" or "firerods" as they are described in the literature. But I think what's important to optimizing the excess energy produced is achieving resonance AND utilizing an optimized fuel mixture. Obviously, there are many combinations to try. Starting off with only hydrogen of the ordinary isotopic ratio is a good, basic first test. But from the documents I've studied combinations of hydrogen with heavier gases (argon would be cheap to test) should allow the macro-EVO to form more easily and amplify the anomalies produced in the negative resistance regime. Lithium is something else that could be tested to try and reproduce the fusion effects discovered Unified Gravity Corporation. I suspect that the ion acoustic oscillations could slam hydrogen and lithium atoms together at the proper low energy window to induce LENR reactions.


    I'm not trying to be overly negative about conducting an experiment with two cathodes and a hollow spherical anode. However, I just like the idea and keeping everything as simple as possible. And in the long term, I do not suspect any configuration where the macro-EVO is in perpetual contact with an electrode will be capable of being made into a product. Eventually, the macro-EVO will destroy the anode. I think the best idea is to keep the macro-EVO free floating between a single cathode and a single anode. If you want the macro-EVO to interact with metals, then I'd suggest either choosing your electrode material carefully and/or making sure there's a port that allows you to insert the smallest metal particles you can buy or produce.

    • Official Post

    Please never loose sight of the verifiable fact that Hal Puthoff has been involved and was a collaborator of Kenneth Shoulders, was also in charge of assessing the claims of John Hutchinson, and is also involved as member of the advisory board of the SAFIRE project, among many other interesting and unusual involvements, including things of the kind we normally should discuss in the Playground Thread.


    This is no coincidence, nor trivial.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JohnO

    I believe the anode should be hollow and spherical and pressurized with H2 to deliver elemental H into the plasma. I would start with an iron anode with as few impurities as practical.


    I have heard tell they tried this with a tungsten anode, but it melted. One of the reasons I tip this crew along with Norront as current front-runners.

    I can't wait until we start getting replications like we did with the Ni-LiAlH4 powder based systems. I strongly suspect that these pure plasma based systems (except for metal nano-particles sputtered from the electrodes or intentionally added) will be far easier to get excess heat and other forms of energy from. Back in the day it was exciting to hear about Songsheng Jiang, Alexander Parkhomov, and various Russian teams that were having success replicating. Now that we understand the CORE MECHANISM of LENR and can isolate it by using the negative resistance regime of a plasma discharge, I suspect any replications that take place will be extremely interesting.


    If anyone has a way of contacting the SAFIRE Project please let me know via PM. I have a few important questions I'd like to ask Monty or another representative.

    Quote from Director

    The Casimir effect is real and due to vacuum fluctuations. The ZPE is indeed real regardless of the fact that it is an additional potential source of energy in the E-Cat SK, The SAFIRE Project Reactor, and the Suncell other than the hydrino reactions your hero Randell Mills proclaims to be the only route to such excess energy. In reality, I believe there's evidence that there are multiple sources of energy in all of these systems.


    Navid' s point that HUP is disproven should be taken seriously. If so, then wave principles we associate with HUP has some other origin. I believe in E=m*c*c and that energy and mass don't come into existence from nothing. Therefore, the most logical proposition is that there is a mass not described by the standard model which can be converted to energy by waves and which can convert the energy of wave back to mass and which tends to preserve conservation of energy and mass. That is essential "sea of energy" hypothesis which dates back over a hundred years updated to conform to modern expectations. That is a sea of unknown mass which can be extracted as a fuel source.


    Those of you who have looked at my profile and read my posts know that I have analytical evidence that a great amount of expected energy from a proven transmutation reaction that produces de novo nitrogen can't be accounted for by heat and therefore logical becomes mass. You also know I have analytical data to show that de novo formed nitrogen is present when some fuel which cannot be detected by chemical analysis is shown to be present based on thermodynamic analysis of Aquafuel. I have also shown that the fuel appears to reacts in a manner consistent with collision kinetics. Hence, a mass as described above is reasonable and it is likely sourced via transmutation via reactions similar to type reaction which produces de novo nitrogen.

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.