Randy Davis Patents/Marathon, and New Energy Power Systems

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

this technical area of investigation

basically your posts have been a hotchpotch of assertions by NEPS anonymous supported poorly from literatures both hot fusion and cold fusion.

to call this a "technical area of investigaton" is foolish

two technical examples

1 The assertion that Ichimaru's 7-12 Gigapascal theory has any relevance to what is referred to in current LENR reactors such as Mizuno's which actually run under kilopascal and less D2 pressures.. is foolish

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf

2.""Due to symmetry of the circular magnetic field lines, a point charge (e.g., a second deuterium ion) lying on the line of the velocity should not be deflected.""

This statement is not supported from the literature.it is entirely NEPS genius

When NEPS was challenged about it it evaded an answer

NEPS*NewEnergy why worry about detractors when you say you have all the evidence to back up your theory? As Alan Smith suggests, please post your experimental evidence here so we can understand what you are saying!

In one of the above posts concerned with gamma radiation escaping from the cathode, Dr. Richards has asked for “direct evidence for conversion of gamma radiation into infra-red to liberate heat,” as this would be needed for calorimeter calibration. An example that comes to mind is the use by others of cobalt-60 heat sources. The possibility of using cobalt-60 heat sources for remote power was investigated during the 1960s and 70s by DOE’s Savannah River Laboratory. For example, see “Design Definition and Safety Evaluation Study of a Compact 60Co Heat Source in Space, AGN-8441, Aerojet-General Corporation, September 1969. Cobalt-60 is also important in medical and industrial applications due to its relatively long half-life compared to other gamma ray sources. It is used in radiotherapy cancer treatment, food sterilization, and in non-destructive detection of structural flaws in metal parts. Gamma radiation is attenuated by the photoelectric effect (most important for gamma energy below several hundred keV), by Compton scattering (most important for gamma energy between several hundred keV and a few MeV), and by pair production (considered for gamma energies above 1.022 MeV). Each process involves scattering of electrons in construction materials; and, heat is produced as the electrons lose their energy by Coulomb interactions with atoms in the material. In the process of producing heat, gamma radiation can be expected to ionize thousands of atoms and molecules in surrounding construction materials, as only 10 to 1000 eV are needed for each ionization.

In a recent post, Robert Bryant continued to express a view that two deuterons would not collide when they have opposite charges and are accelerated towards each other. A comparison with operation of industrial neutron generators may help to describe the paths directly towards each other that the deuterons would take, so that they would have good probability for colliding. In some neutron generators, an electric potential of about 100 kV is used to accelerate positive deuterium ions through a long, 0.5 meter, evacuated tube. While each of the positive charges can be expected to affect other charges as they travel down the tube, a diagram of self-generated magnetic fields from the many charges can show that the magnetic fields are in the same direction and do not interfere with each other. Currents of 0.06 to 10 milliamperes can produce 10⁸ to 10⁹ neutrons per second. Thus, a great many deuterons with positive charge can be accelerated with good success toward an oppositely charged (cathode) target area. Similar consideration of self-generated magnetic fields from negative charges traveling in the opposite direction can, likewise, show that they are in the same direction and do not interfere with each other.

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

. While each of the positive charges can be expected to affect other charges as they travel down the tube, a diagram of self-generated magnetic fields from the many charges can show that the magnetic fields are in the same direction and do not interfere with each other.

where is the diagram? that can show?

In a recent post, Robert Bryant pointed out that Ichimaru's October 2010 paper was more about hot fusion (i.e., "7-12 Gigapascal theory") than cold fusion, and that the paper doesn't relate very much to LENR (i.e., "such as Mizuno's which actually run under kilopascal and less D2 pressures"). NEPS first mentioned the paper in an earlier post as follows: "In an October 2001 paper, "Radiative Proton-Capture Nuclear Processes in Metallic Hydrogen,” (Physics of Plasmas, Vol 8 (#10), 4284-4291), Setsuo Ichimaru has indicated that "For a possible laboratory detection of, and for the ultimate goal of power production by pycnonuclear reactions, the p-d reactions may (thus) be looked upon as the most promising process. The fusion yields of stable helium-3 and gamma rays (at 5.494 MeV) would not produce dangerous radioactive byproducts." The reason was simply to point out that someone in the scientific community is interested in p-d reactions. Perhaps p-d reactions should also be considered in cold fusion. Another consideration is that p-d reactions should occur more easily than d-d reactions since protons have less mass than deuterons.

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

pycnonuclear reactions

Son and Fisch predicting heavy 'angels' 2004 in the ' laboratory'

1000000 g/cc ???

compare with D2 gas at 1 Kpa=~0.0000,,,,2g/cc?

https://w3.pppl.gov/~fisch/fischpapers/Son_Chain_react.pdf

" Conclusion
We show that, in an ultra dense D–T plasma with ρ = 10(6) (g cm−3),

the pycnonuclear reaction might be observable in the laboratory

although it is not yet clear whether such a dense and cold condition can be achieved.

We also show that the local field correction and relativistic correction

increase the rate by 40%."

In the above post, Robert Bryant indicates the difficulty in producing pycnonuclear reaction in the laboratory, although such reactions are not planned by the cold fusion community. This appears, therefore, as another "detractor" that will delay programs in cold fusion systems development.

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

"detractor"

"NEPS" appears to be a 'distractor'.;postulating pycnonuclear densities of deuterium

which are one million billion times those realised in current LENR reactors,

10(6) versus ~10(-6) g/cc

"NEPS" ignores the essential role of catalytic metals such as Pd, Ni, and of low pressures as

detailed in EXISTING LENR reactors in for example

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf

NEPS appears to have no grasp of experimental reality

advocating the compression of zillions of deuterium angels onto a nonexistent pinhead

based on twenty year old speculations about twinkling stars

"

Abstract
We have developed an improved method of producing excess heat with nickel mesh coated
with palladium. The new method produces higher power, a larger output to input ratio, and it
can be controlled effectively. With 50 W of input, it produces ~250 W of excess heat, and
with 300 W it produces ~2 to 3 kW. This paper is a comprehensive description of the
apparatus, the reactant, and the method. We hope this paper will allow others to replicate the
experiment.
Keywords: Air flow calorimetry, Deuterium gas, Excess heat, Nickel reactant, Pd coating,
Simple method"

The above post by Robert Bryant appears to have a purpose of throwing cold water on NEPS technical contributions by claiming, incorrectly, that NEPS is unaware of Professor Mizuno's important work, such as described in Mizuno's paper, "Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel". Conversely, post #7 in this thread that was posted on January 6, 2020, indicates that NEPS associated scientists have been aware of Professor Mizuno's work at least since August 1998, when they presented an analysis of his findings in "Critical Factors in Transitioning from Fuel Cell to Cold Fusion Technology". That paper says: "Relative quantities of elements in the electrodes can begin to be estimated from results obtained by T. Mizuno at Hokkaido University for palladium and G. Miley at Urbana for nickel." The NEPS scientists applied a relatively standard radiochemistry method to analyze Mizuno's and Miley's data. The results from the NEPS scientists were graphed in Figure 2 shown in that paper.

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

purpose of throwing cold water

No..just pointing out some foolish assumptions..such as Ichimaru's zillion fold compression relevance to LENR

Here is another foolish assumption from post #7 by "NEPS associated scientists"

where they supposedly acknowledge Mizuno's work but instead analyze mangle Mizuno's results..

and correlate them with the Uranium FISSION yield curve

"

The largest value (Cu-63) was assumed to be comparable to the value for the peak of

the uranium fIssion yield curve band the value for Mn-54 was assumed to represent aminimum at the midpoint of data, as this isotope has amass that is half of the mass of Pd-tOS. Parts ofbMiley's data (c) are plotted by assuming that they surround a midpoint at A:::29-30. half of the mass of Ni-58, 59.

Post

RE: Randy Davis Patents/Marathon, and New Energy Power Systems

Twenty years ago
"CRITICAL FACTORS IN TRANSITIONING FROM FUEL CELL TO COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY"
Thomas F. McGraw, Randolph R. Davis

Ahlfors

Jan 6th 2020

Questions?

1.Is Uranium fission mediated by Neutrons or Deuterium???? Is palladium necessary?

2.Is Mizuno's 2019 heat production with Palladium/Nickel mediated by Neutrons? or by Deuterium?

3.Is Mizuno et al's 1996 transmutation with Palladium mediated by Neutrons or Deuterium?

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf

http://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/10995-pages-from-14815935-opt-pdf/

The above post by Robert Bryant again appears to have a purpose of throwing cold water on NEPS technical contributions by claiming, incorrectly, that NEPS associated scientists "mangled Mizuno's results" by "correlating them with the Uranium FISSION yield curve". The analysis performed by NEPS scientist, however, did not change Mizuno's data. And, the analysis only compared (not correlated) Mizuno's data with the uranium fission yield curve. The paper, "Critical Factors in Transitioning from Fuel Cell to Cold Fusion Technology", also says: "Insufficient data and resolution in the measurements prevent definitive conclusions to be drawn concerning reaction processes. It is interesting to note that hypothetical palladium and nickel "fission yield curves" appear to have the same width-to-midpoint ratio as the uranium fission yield curve."

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

compared (not correlated) Mizuno's data

No they cherry picked Mizuno's data... they have no data of their own and a hotchpotch theory...

nothing substantial in 20 years..

An earlier email thanked NEPS for its technical inputs (which are many, e.g., in the above posts), and asked if the work is purely theoretical or purely experimental. NEPS has noted that readers of the posts have not provided any supporting technical comments, and this condition could be expected for any experimental details. Thus, the expertise does not appear to exist here for judging the information. Instead, we look to the likes of Storms, Miley, Haglestein, McKubre and other like-minded PhDs for this type of knowledge and expertise.

Quote from Alan Smith

do you also create your own experimental data

Probably not on LENR but there may be some experimental data related to aeronautics?

Quote from RobertBryant

such as Ichimaru's zillion fold compression relevance to LENR

Not a zillion fold yet 3GPa is observed in old palladium tritide easily.

NEPS*NewEnergy

On the study of pressure in CMNS

I've been wandering off the beaten trail as I do...

Recently I'm wondering about helium produced in the lattice and what role it may play in the many energy sequencies taking place. No one reason to do so... just curious. Where does the Helium go?

What does it do?

Of interest, I've found the Lawrence Forsley group working with palladium tritide...

In regards to palladium tritide and Helium I have found this recent article in regards to pressure. Perhaps high enough to create metallic Helium, I guess the Helium does not leak out? Why wouldn't a bubble of Helium not leak out under those pressures? Head scratching here.

Anyways...

Certainly not a PhD I just like studying and wondering about things. Here is the paper.

"Investigation by STEM-EELS of Helium Density in Nanobubbles Formed in Aged Palladium Tritides"

Investigation by STEM-EELS of helium density in nanobubbles formed in aged palladium tritides

3He nanobubbles created by radioactive decay of tritium in palladium tritide are investigated after several years of aging. Scanning Transmission Elec…

www.sciencedirect.com

Authors B. Evin, E. Leroy, M. Segard, V. Paul-Boncour, S. Challet, A. Fabre, M. Latroche

3He nanobubbles created by radioactive decay of tritium in palladium tritide are investigated after several years of aging. Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy (STEM-EELS) has been used to measure helium density from the helium K-edge around 23 eV. Helium densities were found between 20 and 140 (+/-30) He/nm3 and the corresponding nanobubble pressures range between

0.1 and 3 (+/-0.2) GPa.

gbgoblenote

Within metallic Helium range?

.1GPa (986 atmospheres)

3 GPa (30,000 atmospheres)

Measuring helium density and mapping He atoms by STEM-EELS enables to differentiate bubbles from empty cavities in the palladium tritide matrix.