COLD FUSION THE EASY WAY IN THREE SIMPLE STEPS

    • These are mutually contradicting claims, don't you think? Of course that true arc discharges have negative differential resistance, which is why ballast reactance is needed for their stabilization.


    Let me make this as clear as possible.


    There is no such thing as a true arc discharge until point J on the above graph.


    Once a "discharge" (notice not arc discharge) arrives at point I and starts moving towards point J, it has negative resistance UNTIL it fully arrives at point J.


    So a "discharge" has a negative resistance on the way to point J at which time it becomes a "true arc discharge" with POSITIVE resistance.


    So an electrical discharge on the way to becoming a true arc discharge will go through a period of negative resistance, but does not become a "true arc discharge" until the resistance goes completely positive.


    Ballasts are needed because if you arrive at point I, due to negative resistance, a "discharge" with negative resistance can slide quickly towards a "true arc discharge" with positive but VERY LOW resistance. It's the sharp curve of the negative resistance segment that makes a discharge go from point I to J very quickly. The ballast will prevent the circuit from having enough current to start sliding down the curve towards point J and establishing a true arc discharge with positive resistance.

  • The simple fact is that once you get a true arc discharge going at point J. on the graph, there is no negative resistance.


    It's far easier to pulse a "discharge" and allow it to go temporarily through the negative resistance region and then beyond point J. to a true discharge than to try and control the discharge so that it stays between point I and point J. However, I believe the key to producing high powered LENR systems is to build a pure plasma system that keeps the discharge between I and J. This will produce a complex space charge configuration that you can then tune into resonance so that it will move off the electrode.

  • Well, we all know that fusion reactions occur in lightning during thunderstorms because gammas and neutrons have been measured etc. I just worry that Mills', Safire and the QX plasma experiments are only achieving a 'partial' lightning effect - some fusion occurring with transmutations resulting from gamma absorption by nuclei achieving excited states - and then the whole hydrino theory concocted to try and account for the excess energy? My other worry is that Mills has claimed as much as MW outputs from his reactors for kW inputs - is this a gross exaggeration? I'll probably get a lot of flak for suggesting this but its usually the simplest explanations which turn out to be true at the end of the day - which accounts for the absence of a working Suncell, mini Safire or working E-cat QX to date? I think the last remaining hope for LENR / cold fusion resides with whether new highly effective catalysts for ultra dense hydrogen can be discovered, coupled with Mizuno-type reactors. :)

  • The most important lesson here is that the range from I to J is NOT a true arc discharge. It has negative resistance.


    "negative resistance" is just the situation where you measure a back current - nothing else. This situation is usually misinterpreted if the ions do more complex rotations. May be you should ask AR how to do wrong measurements or wrong interpretations. Negative resistance in electronics is nothing unusual and usually is introduced by devices with a complex resistance like coils/condensers. And guess for what glow discharges have been used in the thirties...

  • Director, you have this pet theory that you think is so important, while others are ambivalent here. As I suggested before, contact the real researchers who might be able to use your suggestions or tell you why they do not think your "regime" is so critical. I have had email contact with both Rossi and Mills, so you can too. And suggesting as you do that your ideas make lenr "simple" is kind of insulting to everone working on it for years and for me who wants to see progress. When you propose no theory about where the energy might come from and have no data from experiments yourself, you areXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


    post edited - unnecessarily insulting. Alan

  • Director

    I still trying to understand why you are so convinced your 'simple steps' are key to follow up to obtain 'cold fusion'.

    A few questions to understand your insights better, if I may:

    1. What gas mixture do you have in mind? Only Deuterium or Hydrogen?
    2. Do you think Ultra Dense form of Deuterium or Hydrogen is required?
    3. Are there, in your view, catalysts involved and if so what catalysts do you have in mind?
    4. How is (excess) energy extracted and in what form mainly?
    5. What is, in your view, the main mechanism that creates excess energy using your advised steps?
  • Director

    I still trying to understand why you are so convinced your 'simple steps' are key to follow up to obtain 'cold fusion'.

    A few questions to understand your insights better, if I may:

    1. What gas mixture do you have in mind? Only Deuterium or Hydrogen?
    2. Do you think Ultra Dense form of Deuterium or Hydrogen is required?
    3. Are there, in your view, catalysts involved and if so what catalysts do you have in mind?
    4. How is (excess) energy extracted and in what form mainly?
    5. What is, in your view, the main mechanism that creates excess energy using your advised steps?


    I use cold fusion as a generic term to describe the primary process that is likely responsible for anomalies observed including excess energy (heat, light, electricity), transmutations, isotopic shifts, strange radiation emissions, and others coming from several different types of systems going back a hundred years or more. In my opinion, the primary (there may be a few secondary) process that was at work in exploding wires, water arc explosions, Thomas Henry Moray's systems, Joseph Papp's Noble Gas Engine, Paul Brown's Nuclear Battery, the classic palladium/deuterium electrolytic systems from 1989, the various gas loading systems, Mizuno's plasma electrolysis setups, Rossi's various pure plasma based systems (QX, SK, SKL), Kenneth Shoulder's EVO generator (the scuttlebutt is that Eric Davis reproduced it successfully only to have his entire project classified), Brilliant Light Power's Suncell, and the SAFIRE Project's reactor is the same. Although all of these systems are different and may have various sub-processes, they all utilize the EVO phenomenon either at the extremely small scale or the macro-scale.


    What's an EVO? My definition is a self organizing collection of electrons and usually (not always) protons or other positive ions that form into vortex like structures. I think they can form inside the metal lattice of a hydrogen or deuterium embrittled piece of metal when fracto-emission takes place (when the crystalline structure is damaged and charge separation takes place), they can form during glow discharges (at a self-limiting rate), they can form during the very brief negative resistance regime of electrical sparks, when the negative resistance regime is maintained they can grow larger into a state that we'd call a plasma ball or spheromak, and they can even wrap themselves around a metal sphere.


    I've read of several possible mechanisms that an EVO could utilize to induce "cold fusion" reactions. Some of them have to do with the extremely high electron density in an EVO. Others have to do with an EVO being an ideal generator of "ultra low momentum neutrinos." Then, if you look at the work of Unified Gravity Corporation and how they (other independent parties have discovered the same thing) learned through experimentation that lithium and hydrogen can undergo nuclear reactions within a very low energy window of around 200eV, the ion acoustic oscillations and sudden fast ion surges produced by EVOs induce such reactions within some systems that utilize lithium as a fuel. I could continue but I won't. You see, I'm not going to speculate about this because I don't have to. Over and over again, EVOs in a broad range of systems produce the results we want - the top one I'm interested in being excess energy. Since that has been observed so many times, the theory doesn't matter at this point! All we need are for more teams around the world to start producing devices that utilize the basic concept that seems to be working again and again. Then, after we have practical systems, scientists around the world can debate the physics of what's happening at the atomic level while humanity reaps the benefits.


    I have a number of different gas mixtures in mind. The combinations usually abide by the following three concepts.


    1) Always utilize hydrogen or deuterium or some combination of the two. I'm not saying that it's totally impossible to get excess energy without hydrogen or deuterium, but it seems to be a primary driver.


    2) Utilize elements of different atomic mass. If you go through the literature, you'll find evidence this can stabilize these plasma structures by increasing their self organization. Typically, I like the idea of using hydrogen or deuterium in combination with one or more noble gases such as argon (which is by far the most economical), krypton, xenon, neon, etc. However, other elements I'm interested in are lithium, carbon, and mercury.


    3) Select your electrode material carefully, because nano-particles will be sputtered off into the plasma. I'd go with materials like certain high manganese alloys of nickel that are made to be used for electrodes, platinum (If available although not required), Tungsten, and others. Since the goal is to keep the plasma ball off the surface of the electrode, these materials should hold up over the long term if the device is not pulsed too often.


    4) Utilization of isotopes of elements with the same 1/2 integer spin and direction of magnetic moment. I do NOT think this is crucial. This should only be considered after doing experiments without consideration to nuclear spin. I believe hydrogen and Mercury isotope 199 might be interesting.


    To answer your question, I think that the main source of energy is from nuclear reactions but in some configurations ZPE tapping is possible.

  • The following isn't going to teach us anything new. It was obvious that the plasma ball Rossi formed in the QX and SK was a form of man made ball lightning. What is ball lighting? A self organized plasma ball. The negative resistance regime is the ideal way to produce one.



      1. Prof January 18, 2020 at 11:46 PM

        Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,

        Can the plasma seen in

        http://www.ecatskdemo.com

        and described in

        http://www.researchgate.net/pu…nge_particle_interactions

        be someway comparable to the so called “ball lightnings”?

        Thank you if you can answer,

        Prof

      1. Andrea Rossi January 19, 2020 at 3:33 AM

        Prof:

        I’d say possibly yes. Ball lightning is a model I looked to when I had the initial idea.

        Warm Regards,

        A.R.

  • Although I am still not convinced that Andrea Rossi has exactly what he is claiming, let's assume he has.


    In that case, combining the description of Mircea Sanduloviciu 's publications on plasma balls and the latest plasma based concept of Andrea Rossi is quite interesting.

    The pulsating plasma ball (as described by Mircea Sanduloviciu ) allows quite easy harvesting the pulsating plasma in the form of electricity by means of a well placed coil.

    Possibly, counter EMF will cause some extra control challenges.


    Since Mircea Sanduloviciu claims that this phenomenon has a highly efficient thermal conversion to (pulsating) electrical field energy this may well be the method Rossi is practicing when claming he has approximately 80% electricity and 20% thermal energy production in his latest reactor models.


  • The set up that produced that graph must have some source resistance because the voltage isn't constant. The problem is if you try and maintain say 900V after point I using a more ideal voltage source the current would be much higher. I believe the graph is dotted between I and j because the curve depends as much on the characteristics of the power supply as the characteristics of the arc.