Transformation of matter manipulating energy density with ultrasound (video of demo experiment)

  • I have been looking with great interest the publications and work of the group led by Proffesor Fabio Cardone in Italy.


    One of his collaborators, Prof. Domenico Bassani, has just sent me the link to a site that hosts a video of a table top demo of their transformation of mercury.


    It is very interesting to watch, here I post the link to the page I was sent, please note the video is in Italian but it has subtitled versions in English, French and Spanish. The aim of this particular experiment was to show that the effect can be achieved with “off the shelf” parts.


    https://www.newnuclearscience.…cts-it/815-roma-2018.html


    Direct link to the English Subtitled version:



    I also attach once more the open access version of the publication of the analytical results of what elements have been created from mercury by this method.

    Files

    • 92-Full.pdf

      (3.37 MB, downloaded 214 times, last: )

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I think its very important to read the mercury transmutation series of papers, I have posted some elsewhere but I will clip the relevant tables in this post.


    It is very important to understand that the listed elements of these tables are the ones that were absolutely absent, either as impurities of the mercury, or constituents of the sonotrode, reaction vessel or any other part of the experimental equipment in contact with the mercury sample, for which is concluded that they are created from the mercury itself due to the application of energy by means of the sonotrode, in a way that is optimized to achieve the proper energy density to create the conditions that, in opinion of the researchers, deforms space and time to allow these nuclear reactions to happen without emission of ionizing radiation.


    The following three tables list the elements found. The first one is the most restricted as only shows the elements that met the criteria of being absent originally, but also were detected by at least two techniques. The second table includes the same elements and others that were measured only by one technique. The third one includes elements that were not reported in the two prior papers because they were detected in only one sample and one analytical method, but nevertheless complete the picture of the diversity of new elements formed by this treatment method starting from mercury.





    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Such wonderful Italiano..Fabio Cardone..

    Graci, Curbina

    I am not so sure about the sentiments about " l'intelletto italiano"


    TM3.20

    Instead we first comprehended why..

    The we moved from the why to the how

    This is what distinguishes the Italian intellect from the intellect of the peoples of the world…



    For me the low energy transmutations to a swathe of isotopes are amazing…the DST why is debatable…

    More Italiano and piezo nuclear reactions here

  • This paragraph found at the site held by the research group led by Fabio Cardone might as well be considered a way to generate the elusive NAE by means of controlling the energy density. I have highlighted in bolds the part that I deem most relevant. Cavitation is considered the most direct way to create the conditions where the new nuclear phenomena can manifest. (https://www.newnuclearscience.eu/en/)



    New Nuclear Science

    a new way for new Physics

    In the 90s of the last century, two Italian physicists, Fabio Cardone and Roberto Mignani, began to develop a new phenomenological theory that takes into account the limits of validity of Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI). This symmetry (invariance under Lorentz transformation) has been at the basis of every physical theory since the first two decades of the last century when Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity and wrote its second postulate about the constancy of the speed of light as a general assumption always valid in any ambit of physics. There exist several theoretical attempts to predict its violation, which, however, start with the preconceived idea that the limits of this symmetry have to be searched at very high energies which, unfortunately, can not be reached in any laboratory experiment. On the contrary, the two physicists mentioned above, leaned on phenomenology in order to let Nature (Physics) suggest how to look for such a violation. They deformed the minkowskian metric tensor of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity by a parameter E with the dimensions of energy and analysed by this tensor several experiments (for the 4 fundamental interactions) whose results presented some type of anomaly with respect to the theoretical predictions in agreement with Lorentz invariance. From these experiments, they quantified the parameter E of the theory and found out the mathematical expressions of the metric tensor as a function of the energy E of the physical phenomenon under consideration. This allowed them to make predictions that could be checked by experiments. In particular, with regards to the fundamental hadronic interaction, more commonly known as the strong nuclear force, the theory states that if you can concentrate in a microscopic volume and in a very short time interval, an amount of energy greater than or equal to 367.5 GeV, new type of nuclear phenomena can be triggered. These predictions have led the research towards the design and the subsequent implementation of experiments capable to verify them. The phenomenon that potentially satisfies the three requirements in terms of space, time and energy is cavitation, that is, the nucleation and subsequent sudden and violent collapse of gas bubbles within a liquid subjected to ultrasounds.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.


  • For sure, I have heard the same many times already, but when you look at the progression of the collaborative work of Drs. Cardone and the late Dr. Mignani, you can see how they developed their idea since the 1990's and their first experimental work with application of ultrasound to water to observe possible transmutation in 2002, so, in a sense, their approach to the answer has been more broad, but they have also been succesful so, perhaps they are not entirely right, but right enough to have achieved a remarkable result of transmutation and radionuclide deactivation.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • This allowed them to make predictions that could be checked by experiments. In particular, with regards to the fundamental hadronic interaction, more commonly known as the strong nuclear force, the theory states that if you can concentrate in a microscopic volume and in a very short time interval, an amount of energy greater than or equal to 367.5 GeV, new type of nuclear phenomena can be triggered. These predictions have led the research towards the design and the subsequent implementation of experiments capable to verify them. The phenomenon that potentially satisfies the three requirements in terms of space, time and energy is cavitation, that is, the nucleation and subsequent sudden and violent collapse of gas bubbles within a liquid subjected to ultrasounds.


    Its always a surprise that people start a paper with assumptions that never could be verified what is = measured. Between hadrons (protons) the strong force is not working. Such a statement and underlaying claim for research is absolute nonsensical. The strong force interaction first occurs with 4-He. Any child doing the math with an isotope table can come to this conclusion. Looking at new phenomena at energies of 367.5GeV (once claimed the Higgs mass...) tells all you need to know about the seriousness of current particle physics.

    They still don't understand the 4-He electron spin pairing - its's just 11eV. They don't understand dense Hydrogen its 496eV. The proton quantization starts at 2keV - the resonance at 1keV. These outraging high energies will allow to define new physics.


    What SM physicists claim to be the hadronic interaction is what they measure as a result of a high energy collision. I suggest the following experiment. Accelerate your car to near light speed and drive it into 4 meter thick concrete wall. The from the metal layer thickness try to calculate the weight of your car. That's what CERN does.

  • Its always a surprise that people start a paper with assumptions that never could be verified what is = measured. Between hadrons (protons) the strong force is not working. Such a statement and underlaying claim for research is absolute nonsensical. The strong force interaction first occurs with 4-He. Any child doing the math with an isotope table can come to this conclusion. Looking at new phenomena at energies of 367.5GeV (once claimed the Higgs mass...) tells all you need to know about the seriousness of current particle physics.

    They still don't understand the 4-He electron spin pairing - its's just 11eV. They don't understand dense Hydrogen its 496eV. The proton quantization starts at 2keV - the resonance at 1keV. These outraging high energies will allow to define new physics.


    What SM physicists claim to be the hadronic interaction is what they measure as a result of a high energy collision. I suggest the following experiment. Accelerate your car to near light speed and drive it into 4 meter thick concrete wall. The from the metal layer thickness try to calculate the weight of your car. That's what CERN does.

    well, give them at least the credit of having performed experiments that at the very least are an interesting way to show that what is known about nuclear reactions has to be reviewed. Their theoretical approach attempted to improve an incomplete understanding, instead of starting from scratch, probably the basis is too limited to allow better understanding at this point under the SM perspective.


    The results are what I am trying to highlight, and their choice of cavitation as driving mechanism instead of hydrogen / deuterium loading.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Yes, This was discussed already in another thread, this is the latest work of their group, they have two papers one in Radiochimica and the other I forgot right now.


    Fun thing is Ryushin Ohmasa claims very similar things with his vibration cavitators.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Its always a surprise that people start a paper with assumptions that never could be verified what is = measured.

    Between hadrons (protons) the strong force is not working

    This allowed them to make predictions that could be checked by experiments. In particular, with regards to the fundamental hadronic interaction, more commonly known as the strong nuclear force,


    The DST predictions don't appear to be clearly stated in any place free

    ... perhaps any theory that uses the 4th and 5th dimensions can be manipulated

    t0 predict low energy piezonuclear reactions


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ty-in-five-dimensions.pdf

  • How many solids came from 200 grams of mercury?

  • How many solids came from 200 grams of mercury?

    In this particular video in 100 seconds the number is 0.3 grams. But they say in the video that with the industrial sonotrode and with a solid extraction system they can go on until is all converted.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • A new publication on this topic --

    "Reduction of the radiation in radioactive substances" (full paper behind a pay wall)

    Abstract

    The radioactivity reduction of a system containing Ni-63 radioactive nuclei after an appropriate ultrasound treatment in an apparatus designed on purpose is reported. The application of ultrasounds for 200 s resulted in the partial disappearance of about 13% of the radioactive Ni-63 nuclei and the appearance of nonradioactive elements. The formation of new elements, not belonging to the decay chain of Nickel-63, is a strong issue where strong nuclear reactions transform Nickel into different elements rather than the usual weak interaction, responsible for the decay, which is accelerated. This way, the time necessary to halve the intensity is shortened by about 20 years, without altering the Ni-63 decay constant, which is 146.00±2.16 years. Two cases producing similar effects in other radioactive systems after ultrasound treatment are described in the literature and support this finding, which is not forecast by the commonly accepted theories. A theory able to explain these and other results is also reported.

    https://www.worldscientific.co…10.1142/S0217979220500010


    This sounds easy to quickly confirm or rebut in a university lab.

  • they have two publications on the same topic in late 2019 (SN applied sciences and Radiochimica Acta) and this one is a general comment on both. I had just found this a couple of days ago but haven’t been able to take a look at it. The system is deceptively easy, there are a number of things they don’t disclose and that are important for it to work.

    However, I contend, and intend to show it experimentally, that any ultrasonic cavitation inducing system, albeit without the same rate, should be able to cause, at least, a partial transmutation effect, as just a random fraction of the nano bubbles would be in the sweet spot.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • The application of ultrasounds for 200 s resulted in the partial disappearance of about 13% of the radioactive Ni-63 nuclei and the appearance of nonradioactive elements. The formation of new elements, not belonging to the decay chain of Nickel-63, is a strong issue where strong nuclear reactions transform Nickel into different elements rather than the usual weak interaction, responsible for the decay, which is accelerated.


    We already discussed the open preprint of this article: https://link.springer.com/arti….1007%2Fs42452-019-1391-6


    The problem is that these guys are not able to correctly calculate the amount of 63Ni they use. The given derivation of transmutations is at least 2 magnitudes below the error bar and thus totally nonsense. Most likely they measure products from sono-fusion and electrodes. The tiny amount of 63Ni they use needs special precautions. Only a measurement after totally dissolving all reaction products would be the correct method. The beta radiation of 63Ni is faint and if 63Ni gets implanted by sono-fusion it will simply disappear.

  • This sounds easy to quickly confirm or rebut in a university lab.


    I think they already did that....


    Fabio Cardone

    Istituto per lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati (ISMN-CNR), Via dei Taurini, 00185 Roma, Italy

    GNFM, Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica “F. Severi”, Città Universitaria, P.le A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy


    Giovanni Cherubini

    ARPA Radiation and Chemical Laboratories, Via Montezebio, 01100 Viterbo, Italy

    Facoltà di Medicina, Università degli Studi La Sapienza, P.le A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy


    Ettore Guerriero

    CNR – Istituto di Inquinamento Atmosferico (IIA-CNR) Area Ricerca Roma 1 - CNR - Montelibretti (Roma), Italy


    Alberto Rosada

    Agenzia Nazionale per le nuove Tecnologie, l’Energia e lo Sviluppo Economico sostenibile (ENEA), Via Anguillarese, 301, 00123 Roma, Italy

  • .....Why do they sonicate the samples for only 200s? Surely several hours or days of ultrasound exposure would be more effective and give statistically significant results? Or like the last sentence is this all garbage?

    the paper says why, but as nobody reads carefully, I can tell you that the problem is the heating of the appatatus. The company that owns the patent has a continuous working version that requires a lot of cooling.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Here are two old papers that present divergent views on whether the observed reduction of tritium radioactive when absorbed on titanium is real. Perhaps related to the current topic --


    "No Decelerated ß-Decay of Tritium Solved in Titanium" - Ewald Wicke

    https://www.degruyter.com/down…94-1229/zna-1994-1229.pdf


    "Decelerated ß-Decay of Tritium Solved in Titanium" - Otto Reifenschweiler

    https://www.degruyter.com/down…95-1013/zna-1995-1013.pdf