How to understand LENR

Quote from invisibleforce

to understand how LENR and/or CF works

Introduction

From Jed Rothwell et al

In diiferent languages

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618

The video above send you to LENR.org where you can spend a lifetime reading. However if you know how to use a spreadsheet and have access to a basic chemical engineering textbook, you can prove cold fusion yourself from public data sources and analysis.

The necessary assumption is that some process can make atoms super-magnetic. Ionic bonding is common in chemistry but not magnet to magnet bonding. Super-magnetic atoms would bond magnet to magnet. If you want to get the proof quicker look at about me in my profile and follow the link.

The disappointing fact of this chemical engineering proof of cold fusion is that the heat output doesn't match the calculated free energy production. Instead based on the Gibbs equation we conclude that instead of heat, entropy is produced. However, the entropy term hides the conversion of energy back to mass. If you follow deeper into the subject you find the entropic produced mass is a fuel.

Hence, if a device can cause cold fusion and also convert the entropic mass back to energy, that device could solve the world's energy problem. Also if one can collect the entropic mass and convert it to energy that would solve the world's energy problem.

invisibleforce here are some topics that I wish I knew more about in trying to understand LENR studies:

• Electronics
• Experimental design and method
• Statistics
• Nuclear physics
• Chemistry and electrochemistry
• Radiochemistry and detection of radionuclides

Quote from Eric Walker

here are some topics that I wish I knew more about in trying to understand LENR

Some more important knowledge/skills when trying to understand LENR studies:

1. Scientific Method.

2. Thermodynamics.

2. Human Psychology (particularly subjects like Mania and Sociopathy)

3. Institutional Bureaucracy

4. Crackpot identification skills.

5. Trolls

6. Trolls again

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Some more important knowledge/skills when trying to understand LENR studies:

1. Scientific Method.

2. Thermodynamics.

2. Human Psychology (particularly subjects like Mania and Sociopathy)

3. Institutional Bureaucracy

4. Crackpot identification skills.

Display More

I wonder about the value of imagination in these pursuits.

What thought experiments have yet to be seen in the mind's eye?

It sometimes happens, that imagination wins over skill, and even wins over experience.

And a partially correct intuition can lead to discovery by means of tool combinations and material choices which violate consensus common sense.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

2. Human Psychology

This is certainly helpful as well for trying to make sense of the skeptical response to some of the more solid LENR research, for sure. Thomas Kuhn is helpful as well, and Paul Feyerabend can help on the methodological side.

But your point is well taken. One must approach each LENR study on its merits, with a discriminating eye and a healthy dose of skepticism, in the same way that scientists apply skepticism to claims put forward in their own fields.

Quote from Drgenek

The video above send you to LENR.org where you can spend a lifetime reading. However if you know how to use a spreadsheet and have access to a basic chemical engineering textbook, you can prove cold fusion yourself from public data sources and analysis.

The necessary assumption is that some process can make atoms super-magnetic. Ionic bonding is common in chemistry but not magnet to magnet bonding. Super-magnetic atoms would bond magnet to magnet. If you want to get the proof quicker look at about me in my profile and follow the link.

The disappointing fact of this chemical engineering proof of cold fusion is that the heat output doesn't match the calculated free energy production. Instead based on the Gibbs equation we conclude that instead of heat, entropy is produced. However, the entropy term hides the conversion of energy back to mass. If you follow deeper into the subject you find the entropic produced mass is a fuel.

Hence, if a device can cause cold fusion and also convert the entropic mass back to energy, that device could solve the world's energy problem. Also if one can collect the entropic mass and convert it to energy that would solve the world's energy problem.

Display More

You wrote a beautiful phrase - "The necessary assumption is that some process can make atoms super-magnetic. Ionic bonding is common in chemistry but not magnet to magnet bonding. Super-magnetic atoms would bond magnet to magnet." This thought of yours is the foundation of LENR. Nuclear reactions are inherently magnetic. And when the physical community finally understands this, then a real technical revolution will take place. Thank you for understanding !

My article to help you - NASA discovered thermonuclear fusion of gratings - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2tr9/5etECot3M

NASA discovered fusion of gratings - https://drive.google.com/file/…av-gFdsE/view?usp=sharing

Quote from nickec

I wonder about the value of imagination in these pursuits.

What thought experiments have yet to be seen in the mind's eye?

It sometimes happens, that imagination wins over skill, and even wins over experience.

And a partially correct intuition can lead to discovery by means of tool combinations and material choices which violate consensus common sense.

Display More

Here is a simple though experiment which involves the question what happens when a force field get so weak that it's ability to cause motion is lost to the uncertainty principle. Imagine you could drop a liter of gas at standard temperature and pressure into the empty space between galaxies.

The gas expand in volume. The ideal gas law applies. The temperature drops. But relationship between atoms is not just the application of newtons laws of motion. There are fields between the particle and these fields cause a lost of kinetic energy to entropy. From Gibbs equation we eliminate the enthalpy term and focus on the entropy term. Eventual all the energy of gas is in the fields and there is no kinetic energy of the atoms, so they come to a stop. How reasonable is it that end result of this experiment is the conversion of kinetic energy to dark matter? Is this a reasonable view based on a similar thought experiment which applies relativity?

The distribution of dark matter is at the edge of a galaxy: which is as predicted above. Without relative motion wave functions become determinate. The overall conservation of matter and energy suggest a trend to mass production from kinetic energy. From gravitation lensing we know that dark matter is real. Dark matter can be displaced by the collision of galaxies and recently a galaxy was discover without dark matter. It was propose that a passing galaxy's gravity syphoned it off.

Do LENR reactions produce high amounts of entropy rather than enthalpy? But what is this unknown matter product from cold fusion?

Quote from Drgenek

Here is a simple though experiment

So simple a child could do it!

The thread is called how to understand LENR, but the more I read this thread, the less I understand about LENR. For example entropy is the dispersion of energy. Entropy is not energy. How can it create matter? This seems nonsensical. Can you post a link to a scientific paper on this topic? When has it been experimentally verified that entropy has created matter?

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

So simple a child could do it!

The thread is called how to understand LENR, but the more I read this thread, the less I understand about LENR. For example entropy is the dispersion of energy. Entropy is not energy. How can it create matter? This seems nonsensical. Can you post a link to a scientific paper on this topic? When has it been experimentally verified that entropy has created matter?

E equals m*c*c. Does that seem nonsensical? If things are related by an equals sign, then there is some equality. Have you never used Gibbs Free energy equation? I think not. It is easier to not think or accept a dumb answer. I have provided via my profile the information you seek but you have not consider it. Are you now going so low as to call me non-scientific rather than consider my analysis? How can you be in this forum looking for truth about LENR and at the same time demanding proof for a proposal?

To be specific: This reaction happens, basis atoms, 2 oxygen and 14 deuterium react to produce 4 nitrogen and 4 Hydrogen. Basis thermodynamics the Free energy was 95.6 million BTU. The measured enthalpy was 2871 BTU. No high energy radiation or amazing large light production was observed. So what does the math say? Why do you object to the production of mass from expected Free energy? Can you offer more than just an object to my proposal?

Quote from Drgenek

E equals m*c*c. Does that seem nonsensical? If things are related by an equals sign, then there is some equality. Have you never used Gibbs Free energy equation? I think not. It is easier to not think or accept a dumb answer. I have provided via my profile the information you seek but you have not consider it. Are you now going so low as to call me non-scientific rather than consider my analysis? How can you be in this forum looking for truth about LENR and at the same time demanding proof for a proposal?

To be specific: This reaction happens, basis atoms, 2 oxygen and 14 deuterium react to produce 4 nitrogen and 4 Hydrogen. Basis thermodynamics the Free energy was 95.6 million BTU. The measured enthalpy was 2871 BTU. No high energy radiation or amazing large light production was observed. So what does the math say? Why do you object to the production of mass from expected Free energy? Can you offer more than just an object to my proposal?

Forgive me for not knowing where to find it but I see no information in your profile. Your statement was entropy creates mass, not energy. E=mc2 is energy, not entropy. I understand that Gibbs free energy relates energy, enthalpy, and entropy, but no I do not use it as I am not a chemical engineer. I cannot find your information that supports the hypothesis that entropy creates mass. As a simple thought experiment, since entropy is increasing in the universe, and since it creates mass, should not the mass of the universe be increasing? I have seen no studies that support that. Please send a link to someone other than you, and tell me how I can find this info in your profile.

Quote from Curbina

PhysicsForDummies , There was a link in Drgenek ’s profile but the “about me” section was recently disabled for all users as it was being used by spammers registering as new members for their main goal, which is increase of visibility in search engines. So Drgenek , can you post the link here for letting us read your website?

(BTW, kudos to barty for the move of disabling the “about me” section, it seems to have deterred the stream of “new members” that were using us exclusively for their spam goals).

Thank-you. I was not aware the link was removed. I don't have a website.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Forgive me for not knowing where to find it but I see no information in your profile. Your statement was entropy creates mass, not energy. E=mc2 is energy, not entropy. I understand that Gibbs free energy relates energy, enthalpy, and entropy, but no I do not use it as I am not a chemical engineer. I cannot find your information that supports the hypothesis that entropy creates mass. As a simple thought experiment, since entropy is increasing in the universe, and since it creates mass, should not the mass of the universe be increasing? I have seen no studies that support that. Please send a link to someone other than you, and tell me how I can find this info in your profile.

My apologies, I was unaware the link was removed. I summarized my chemical engineering based proof of cold fusion here US020180322974A120181108 (storage.googleapis.com). A large production of Free energy is predicted based on the E=mc2, 95.6 million BTU. The increase in temperature was only 127 C. The Free energy was not converted to high energy radiation products because none were detected. Energy doesn't just disappear, so I believe mass was produced from energy. Some fuel can be recovered that can't be accounted by chemical composition. Energy recover of the fuel was about 300% of fuel value as predicted by thermodynamics. I contend that all potential energy is mass in some frame of reference. I know the alternative is potential energy is in the field. But I prefer to believe that the energy of a field is relativistic. The entropy term masks the conversion of energy to mass. I accept that you could be of the other opinion that the energy is in the field. So to you entropy is the dispersion of energy in some form of field.

I am sorry you hate me so much that you can't believe I could have an original ideal and therefore request I send you a link to support that contention. I don't have such a link. I believe in mass energy conservation so I don't believe a net increase of mass-energy. However, F=ma and so force creates kinetic energy, the increase in energy thermalizes and then gravity and momentum brings balance of forces therefore an approach to zero kinetic energy. Hence, dark energy eventual becomes relativistic mass, or to me just mass. Dark energy increase in an expanding universe.

Thanks for the reply. I looked at your patent app for a minute but don't have the time (or knowledge) to dig in more, but I plan to. I have around 6 patents myself. Any status on approval?

I do appreciate you are trying to use physics equations. I have another question of the Entropy to Mass conversion. For e=mc^2 the units work out perfectly, kg (m/s)^2. Not so much with entropy, which has a 1/K term added. How do you reconcile the units?

Actually I don't really get your dark energy discussion. I'm not even totally sure it exists and is not just showing current theories are inexact at these large scales.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Thanks for the reply. I looked at your patent app for a minute but don't have the time (or knowledge) to dig in more, but I plan to. I have around 6 patents myself. Any status on approval?

Info on US20180322974A:

https://patents.google.com/pat…74A1/en?oq=US20180322974A

More info on communications:

https://register.epo.org/ipfwr…=US.201715584358.A&lng=en