Randy Davis Patents/Marathon, and New Energy Power Systems

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

serious cold fusion system

by a hot fusion system.. which has nothing to counteract the random magnetic effects

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

The concerns expressed above by Robert Bryant and Wyttenback are examples that demonstrate the technical complexity that will be involved in a serious cold fusion system industrialization program.

The main concern is that most folks just do experiments without any theory backing. Welcome back to stone age...

Gregory Byron Goble, thank you for years of encouragement. You are truly a wonderful person: Tremendously Intelligent of Highest Order. I really say this with sincerity, honesty and respect for you. I have in my 2005 patent that you site determined the transmutations (Unconventional Nuclear Reactions) in such reports may be associated with the few elements having stable isotopes having negative nuclear magnetic moments (NMMs) [in 2005 I used Ag with Cu as Ag {silver} has stable isotopes of all negative NMMs. " The theory in 2005 [2,3] specifically pointed to Ag nuclei differing relative to Cu nuclei in causing and altering e- e- by fractional reversible fissing and fusing for easier oxidation and consequent easier fractional fusing e- to p+ as Cu fractional fisses p+ and the fractional fiss e- and p+ get collapsed in Ag and Cu d and s orbitals for inducing UNR. " from page of 10 of "The Needles in the HayStack" {10.26434/chemrxiv.6987719.v} ] or easily induced by neutron rich nuclei to have negative NMMs. Such determination by my work correlates such in Pd, Ni and Ti as Pd has 105Pd with -0.642 NMM at 22.33% relative abundance RA); furthermore 106Pd, 108Pd and 110Pd have zero (0) NMM by are neutron rich and have large RA at 27.3%, 26.46% and 11.7% RA, respectively. Titantium has 47Ti with -0.78 NMM at 7.44%RA and 49Ti with -1.104 % RA. Nickel has 61Ni with -0.75 NMM at 1.13% RA . Ni has low relative abundance of its negative NMM but it is ferromagnetic which may help enrich zone of negative NMMs. Many prior experiments have reported anomalies in metal hydrides and mainly Ni, Ti, and Pd hydrides. I think these having negative NMMs are what makes these metal unique for these anomalies of their hydrides. I think in general the difficulty reproducing Unconventional Nuclear Reactions and the long activation process and role of magnetism has to do with locally annealing and magnetizing the materials under thermal treatment and electromagnetic waves so as to internally enrich zones with these isotopes in the materials which then may be the sites of the Unconventional Nuclear Reactions. I think the enrichment of these nano-zones are the physical nature of the 'nuclear active environments' as proposed by Edmund Storm. I agree with Ed Storm that there are these 'nuclear active environments', and I build on his idea by discovering the essence of these 'nuclear active environments' as being enriched nano-zones of isotopes of these materials having positive and negative NMMs (in particular negative NMMs as so few elements have isotopes with negative NMMs). I think really that developing processes that intrinsically enrich Ni and Pd with 105Pd and 61Ni will cause more reproducible and perhaps even explosive unconventional nuclear reactions! Thank you Sir, GOD Bless you Greg Goble. Sincerely Reginald B. Little

Greg Goble, I further point out that this aspect of the negative NMMs is further proven by recent scientists at NASA Glenn as they accelerate Unconventional Nuclear Reactions in Erbium Deuterides { https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/spac…ttice-confinement-fusion/ } . The Erbium is as Nickel, Titanium and Palladium as Erbium is unlike most of the 103 known stable elements in periodic table as Erbium has an isotope of large relative abundance and negative nuclear Magnetic moment (NMM): 167Er with -0.566 NMM at 22.93% relative abundance (RA). I am certain that these anomalies and unconventional nuclear reactions are due to negative NMMs of Er, Pd, Ti and Ni and they may be more reproduced by intentional enrichments of these stable isotopes. I think co-deposition with D and H may cause enhanced enrichment of these isotopes of negative NMMs by the hydrogen codeposition for the prior success of Pam Boss and co-workers. I had this after thought; so I thought I would further note this. But for over 10 years you Greg Goble has been a great friend . Thanks, Reginald

RBLittle BIG Big big Thanks

Your thoughts and insight are appreciated. My respect for the scientific and personal integrity exemplified by your iife is enormous. Keeping our hopes up always, in the ways that we can.

Your friend,

Gregory

There's a few more..than Er167..that have negative NMMs

The situation is probably far more complex than just negative NMMs

since different gamma states of the same isotope

have different NMMs, + or-. eg Fe57

http://web.missouri.edu/~glaserr/8160f09/STONE_Tables.pdf

This table includes other isotopes identified as being active in LENR reactions

Post

RE: The church of SM physics

[…]

is a convenient label..... maybe "lanthaniDic ecomix " is an alternative..
but neodymium, terbium,holmium,luthenium, are not there.maybe yttrium was inactive

The table below is in terms of the periodic table..probably not relevant at all to LENR function
but interesting
Rh103 was the subject of a previous SPAWAR dalliance... but it has a longhalf life...cycle time
a slow moving cog..maybe too slow
Sm151 is a socalled extinct isotope,,born again/resurrected
.in magnetic fire..…

RobertBryant

Dec 18th 2021

Quote from RBLittle

167Er with -0.566 NMM at 22.93% relative abundance (RA). I am certain that these anomalies and unconventional nuclear reactions are due to negative NMMs of Er, Pd, Ti and Ni

Quote from RobertBryant

different ganma states of the same isotope

Metastable isomers of a particular isotope...

Negative nuclear magnetic moments NNMM's - surely these are negative muons???? As demonstrated by Leif Holmlid's work on Rydberg Matter?

Quote from RBLittle

I think in general the difficulty reproducing Unconventional Nuclear Reactions and the long activation process and role of magnetism has to do with locally annealing and magnetizing the materials under thermal treatment and electromagnetic waves so as to internally enrich zones with these isotopes in the materials which then may be the sites of the Unconventional Nuclear Reactions.

Recent SO(4) modelling of Nickel did show that there is good reason to believe that you can stimulate Nickel LENR with high electric field densities as Brillouin, Mills does it. The main Problem with nickel is that you add

> 8MeV per nucleon what is above the internal capacity Nickel can handle. So you basically produced an over excited nucleus that joins a neighbor nucleus to reduce its load. This is what most experimenters did report so far.

Pd is still at the higher end but can accept the energy. Unluckily you transmute Pd-->Ag-->Cd-->Sn what is not what you really want...

A more clever approach is needed!

A recent post mentions the work of "scientists at NASA Glenn as they accelerate Unconventional Nuclear Reactions in Erbium Deuterides". Please note that photodisintegration of deuterons by gamma radiation was discussed as early as 1935 by J. Chadwick and M. Goldhaber in "A Nuclear Photo-Effect: Disintegration of the Diplong by Gamma-Rays," Nature, vol. 134, pages 237-238, and in more detail in "The Nuclear Photoelectric Effect," Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. A151, pages 479-493. A theoretical discussion is given in "Quantum Theory of the Diplong," by H. Bethe and R. Peierls, Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. A148, no. 863, pages 146-156, 1935. Gamma radiation with an energy greater than 2.22 MeV can cause deuterons to disintegrate. The protons and neutrons produced will each have about 240 keV of kinetic energy. Thus, a total of about 0.5 MeV output can be produced as particle kinetic energy from 2.22 MeV input as gamma rays. NASA Glen has also experimented with other hydrogen-absorbing materials in addition to erbium, such as titanium, reported in "Investigation of Deuterium Loaded Materials Subject to x-Ray Exposure," NASA/TM-2015-21849, April 2017.

A recent post seems to advocate hot fusion somewhat with the words "by a hot fusion system, which has nothing to counteract the random magnetic effects". This is only a reminder that work has been supported by the federal government on hot plasma fusion (i.e., hot fusion) in government laboratories, academia, and private industry since the mid-1950s. Hot fusion, however, has the following drawbacks mentioned in "Fusion Energy Sciences Roundtable on Quantum Information Science, May 1-2, 2018: the machines are expensive to build and operate; their plasmas are unstable and turbulent; the plasma is heated with waves propagating through inhomogeneous media; performance is strongly affected by plasma interactions with internal material surfaces; the shape of the magnetic field is critical to operation but determined by competing factors; the plasma erodes the internal wall, and plasma becomes contaminated; the internal wall suffers radiation damage; and thermonuclear energy has to be confined for seconds to maintain nuclear burn. In addition, tritium used in the reactors is radioactive, presenting a serious health hazard. Hot fusion, therefore, is not expected to become practical for many more decades. Cold fusion may have a better chance of being industrialized.

Is anyone aware of anyone doing mass balance and stoichiometry on a reaction that is claimed to be fusion at conditions lower than the Lawson criterion? (Myself excluded) What happened was 29878 ppm of deuterium and 4805 ppm of oxygen disappeared to produce 9061 ppm of nitrogen and 9792 ppm of hydrogen. Those measurements are accurate to about 3 ppm. The reaction with water is 12H₂O = 2N₂ + 5O₂. There is not a significant amount of high energy products. As most of you know, water is used by most serious companies doing LENR. The problem is that 1/5000 or less of mass loss during transformation using these intermediate temperature fusion reactions come out as heat. In my opinion that is why BLP think their water-based fusion/fission is based on hydrinos. I would rather believe in water reaction as listed above.

There are probably thousands of reports of LENR where the yield of radiation or heat is so low that their means of the LENR is not practical. But transmutation of water or deuterium is well established and excess heat from water-based reactions is well established since the study by Gary L Johnson.

Since the first law of thermodynamics is faith that mass and energy are neither created nor destroyed, then would not determining the nature of strange radiation from cold fusion be the most important thing to do in order to determine how the other 4999/5000 of the scalar product can be converted to energy?

Quote from Drgenek

(Myself excluded) What happened was 29878 ppm of deuterium and 4805 ppm of oxygen disappeared to produce 9061 ppm of nitrogen and 9792 ppm of hydrogen. Those measurements are accurate to about 3 ppm. The reaction with water is 12H2O = 2N2 + 5O2.

Water (H2O) or Deuterium ?? = heavy water...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Water (H2O) or Deuterium ?? = heavy water...

D₂O is heavy water. H₂O is normal or light water.

It's not what you write...

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

he discussion in Sections 31-1 and 31-2 of Sears, Zemansky and Young i

I have the 14th Edition..2016..

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

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 deflecte

Chapter 43 Nuclear Physics /Fusion doesn't write this at all

It writes

Quote from NEPS*NewEnergy

A recent post seems to advocate hot fusion somewhat with the words "by a hot fusion system, which has nothing to counteract the random magnetic effects". This is only a reminder that work has been supported by the federal government on hot plasma fusion (i.e., hot fusion) in government laboratories, academia, and private industry since the mid-1950s. Hot fusion, however, has the following drawbacks mentioned in "Fusion Energy Sciences Roundtable on Quantum Information Science, May 1-2, 2018: the machines are expensive to build and operate; their plasmas are unstable and turbulent; the plasma is heated with waves propagating through inhomogeneous media; performance is strongly affected by plasma interactions with internal material surfaces; the shape of the magnetic field is critical to operation but determined by competing factors; the plasma erodes the internal wall, and plasma becomes contaminated; the internal wall suffers radiation damage; and thermonuclear energy has to be confined for seconds to maintain nuclear burn. In addition, tritium used in the reactors is radioactive, presenting a serious health hazard. Hot fusion, therefore, is not expected to become practical for many more decades. Cold fusion may have a better chance of being industrialized.

This reminded me that a pre print of Holmlid that has been under review for more than a year now, and refers to the downsides of hit fusion, was asked to be subject to a minor revision before being published, you can see it here:

Muon-catalyzed Fusion and Annihilation Energy Generation will Supersede Non-sustainable T+D Nuclear Fusion

Research Square is a preprint platform that makes research communication faster, fairer, and more useful.

www.researchsquare.com

It looks like the review is proceeding with some success...

"Muon-catalyzed Fusion and Annihilation Energy Generation will Supersede Non-sustainable T+D Nuclear Fusion"

PEER REVIEW TIMELINE

CURRENT STATUS: UNDER REVIEW

Editorial decision: Minor Revision

On 04 Jan, 2022

Review #1 received

Received 29 Jul, 2021

Reviewer #2 agreed

On 04 Jul, 2021

Reviews received

Received 03 Jul, 2021

Reviewer #1 agreed

On 28 Jan, 2021

Reviewers invited

Invitations sent on 23 Jan, 2021

Editor assigned

On 14 Jan, 2021

Submission checks complete

On 14 Jan, 2021

Editor invited

On 14 Jan, 2021

First submitted

On 09 Jan, 2021

Quote from Wyttenbach

It's not what you write...

The reaction with an electric arc in mostly deuterium contaminated with atmospheric gas is 7D₂ +O₂ = 2N₂ +2H₂. The nucleon balance is 28 +32 = 56 +4. The reaction with an electric arc under water is 12H₂O = 2N₂ +2H₂. The nucleon balance is 216 = 56+ 160. That is what you should see if you do not confuse deuterium and hydrogen.

Experiments with NAE in a lattice or using EVOs projected to metal targets are more complex because of fusion/fission with the metals of lattice or target respectively.

Quote from Drgenek

since the study by Gary L Johnson.

reference please..