What is the current state of LENR?

  • what prove that the red yellow area represents the 2 nucleons ?

    No proof... they represent charge densities...measured in 2004..

    but you might expect no such symmetry if you had discrete neutron plus proton

    as shown in textbooks for the deuteron...

    I don't think CERN is interested..

    it seems a bit too detailed for the Standard Model...they prefer to smash stuff..

    Georges has asked for collaboration...

    but nuclear research costs money/time

    like LENR, as you know,

  • You should open your eyes first! Do you see any spherical distribution of mass? There are only two torus orbits that attract the mass in Deuterium. The right side of the picture is more clear. Further you can't see the inside torus flux. So basically its one half diameter plane cut in the middle.

    You must read the origibnal paper of SO(4).

    all image is from the wavefunction in the belwo hypo,

    which is that neutron is proton and electron pair.(Below sentences)

    This is proved by electron deep orbit theory.

    In other words, SO(4) is just rephraze electron deep orbit theory.

    So everyone must know correctly about SO(4) and electron deep theory.

    This is so important.



  • what prove that the red yellow area represents the 2 nucleons ?

    The darker the color, the higher the measured mass density! The question is what exactly is measured. For this extrapolation classic laws are used. This thus only shows the force a classic particle feels when deeply approaching Deuterium. In reality the mass stays close to the torus surface but rotates around the virtual charge.

    If you are not used in mapping 6D --> 3D then its difficult to understand why the mass is more concentrated in certain regions. You can also look at the artificial black hole pictures that show a similar effect.

    As a consequence of this and many other blunders we must conclude that the standard model simply is nonsense.


    Please never mix EM mass with electrons. This picture shows the nuclear charge!!

  • The darker the color, the higher the measured mass density! The question is what exactly is measured. For this extrapolation classic laws are used. This thus only shows the force a classic particle feels when deeply approaching Deuterium. In reality the mass stays close to the torus surface but rotates around the virtual charge.

    If you are not used in mapping 6D --> 3D then its difficult to understand why the mass is more concentrated in certain regions. You can also look at the artificial black hole pictures that show a similar effect.

    As a consequence of this and many other blunders we must conclude that the standard model simply is nonsense.


    Please never mix EM mass with electrons. This picture shows the nuclear charge!!

    This picture(Fig7) shows the nucleus charge meaning that neucleus has a tightly bound electron in the deep electron orbit and deutron is the proton and neutron in the nucleus and its deep electron orbit is around P and neutron.So this indicate that complete coulomb potential shileding is possible by its electron deep orbit. This is the theory of Cold Fusion of SO(4) everyone insists.

    However tin the paper,

    the spontaneous disintegration of free neutron corresponds to exclusive disintegration of its shell(fai-)

    it is not clear in this explanation that Core(fai+ ) and shell(fai-) of the neutron,

    But results in Fig7 showa that neutron has proton as a nucleus and electron in the deep electron orbit.

    So the result indicate that both ie electron wavefunction?????

    at least shell is the electron wavefunction.


    He insists that no charge in the nucleus but apart from this discussion, the charge around Proton is not the nucleus charge but electron charge in electron deep orbit because it is based on the property to explain the beta decay of neutron in the explanation above.

    So SO(4) wavefunction(disintegration of is baseless just to be compatible with neutron beta decay.

    Electron deep orbit theory shows tha charge in the deep orbit which bind electron to proton in a tight state.

    SO(4) has no evidence for this hypo(neutron beta decay jusi imply that core and shell orbit of electron(he insists that core has no electron (but actually core has a internal electron).

    Conclusion

    Thus SO(4) is the same result as Electron deep orbit because it has the hypo of electron proton pair is the neutron which is proved by electron orbit theory.

  • All nuclear bonds are charge bonds as teh only known basic force action of EM flux is mediated by charge.


    Of course you can always invent a deep electron = charge. But the reality runs the other way. The electron is free charge all other charge is internal charge. The charge equivalent mass for a one rotation bond 1183.107eV so may be here you see the difference to the electron that for 98% consist of EM flux not charge. Most nuclear charge is 2 or 5 rotation bound and thus totally different from the electron.

  • All nuclear bonds are charge bonds as teh only known basic force action of EM flux is mediated by charge.


    Of course you can always invent a deep electron = charge. But the reality runs the other way. The electron is free charge all other charge is internal charge. The charge equivalent mass for a one rotation bond 1183.107eV so may be here you see the difference to the electron that for 98% consist of EM flux not charge. Most nuclear charge is 2 or 5 rotation bound and thus totally different from the electron.

    I think that internal charge exists which is the old nuclear physics theory, but author denied now.

    My theory is that neutron is tightly bound proton-electron pair and the nucleus is constituted by proton and internal electron.

    Actually this is old theory before the introduction of neutron as a fundamental particle.

    Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons

    (PDF) Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
    PDF | Abstract:-Original nucleus model in the 1920s was internal electron theory that the atomic nucleus is constituted by protons and electrons, and... |…
    doi.org

    this means that all of the theoretical researchers noticed at that time the existanec of electron deep orbit and it is a kind of common understanding, however no experimental nor theoretical data to prove at the time of neutron introduction by Heisenberg.

    So all the theory is old but only the theory of electron deep orbit is the first theory(new theory) to prove the deep orbit existence theoretically by relativistic schreodinger equation and modified coulomp bptential.

    EXPERIMENTAL DATA IS BELOW


  • https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210016143/downloads/NASA-TM-20210016143final.pdf

    Frontiers of Space Power and Energy


    LEN

    However, there does not yet exist a cogent, verified theory and therefore LENR has been looked at with askance by the physics community. There are now extant recent weak force and other weak neutron-based theories (not “hot” fusion) involving surface plasmons, electroweak interactions explicable via QED on surfaces, collective effects, heavy electrons, ultraweak neutrons, and utilizing neutron generation to obviate coulomb barrier issues. There are now many patents and LENR is beginning to evolve into the marketplace. Given a validated theory to engineer, scale, and make safe, LENR would obviously be a major world energy revolution, especially with observed energy density levels surpassing those of chemical energy. In fact, LENR has been observed in the tens to hundreds and theoretical possibilities into the many thousands times chemical energy density levels. In the Widom-Larsen Theory [ref. 30], H2 is adsorbed or “loaded” onto a metal surface and the resulting surface plasmon initiates collective effects. Some energy is added and several types of energy appear to work. From the LENR experiments and a sizable body of applicable related research, nano cracks/asperities in the surface morphology concentrate energy over an area and produce high localized voltage gradients. Such voltage gradients excite collective electrons to combine with protons in the surface plasmon to form ultraweak neutrons. These neutrons readily interact, producing neutron rich isotopes which undergo beta decay and transmutations. The heavy electron cloud converts the beta decay to heat, sans worrisome radiation and coulomb barrier issues, in agreement with experiment(s). From experiments thus far, surface materials are required that adsorb large amounts of hydrogen (H2 or D2) such as Ni, Palladium, etc. Once operating, internal IR appears to be capable of replacing the input energy. The LENR process occurs at surfaces or at nano morphology sites. Generic LENR “products” from experiments include heat, transmutations, and possibly some radiation, especially during startup or shutdown where there may be incomplete coverage of heavy electrons to accomplish conversion to heat (an engineering issue). Also, transmutation products can include helium four and tritium. The three decades of experiments, lacking theoretical guidance, produced mostly low levels of heat. A few studies produced up to KWs. Several experienced runaway when they evidently got it more right, which may be a greater morphological population of nano scale sites. When such occurred, sometimes windows were melted, fires occurred, even an explosion or two. The experiments are now reproducible. From three decades of many hundreds of, in many cases very detailed and careful experiments with redundant measurement approaches, positive results occurred over a relatively wide range of conditions/materials and energy input approaches. LENR is apparently a non-obvious multistage process involving the weak force. Initial claims of “cold fusion” poisoned the well and became the energetics third rail. There was also lack of validated physics understanding and usually only low heat levels produced. There was also a dearth of experiments focused on validating theory (or not), mostly variations on previous experiments vice the basic physics and efforts to identify such. It was often considered simply too good to be true…incredulity. There were observations, beginning in the 1600s, and still ongoing, of transmutations including silicon, carbon, magnesium, potassium into calcium, and many others in biological systems. Experiments, many carefully done, were conducted before the late 1980s primarily in France, Germany, and Russia. These cited transmutations observed occurring in plants, seeds, bacteria, microorganisms, and mammals. An oft cited instantiation is the calcium shell on chicken eggs. If calcium is withheld in the diet, apparently mica and potassium are transmutated. If these are absent, there are no shells. This occurs with no observed heat or radiation. From refs 31 and 32, the LENR effect has been replicated hundreds of times while using different materials and five different methods of energy addition. Each method is found to produce energy well in excess of any plausible chemical source and that is correlated with identified nuclear products. LENR patent holders include: Airbus, Google, Leonardo, Brillouin, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Widom-Larsen, Boeing, MIT, and the U.S. Navy. LENR produces heat, which can be utilized directly or converted to electricity via such as Sterling Cycles, Thermoelectrics, Pyroelectrics, T-PV, Etc. Recent research in Japan via long and careful experimentation, has proven that a major “missing controlled parameter” in the decades now of previous LENR research is the requirement for nano sized discrete surface morphology. As already noted, that enables localized energy concentration by orders of magnitude. Major organizations (including Google) are now conducting research aimed at understanding and sorting out sensitivities and optimization. The major issues going forward include development of a viable, proven theory to allow engineering, scaling, and safety. Given that, which at this point appears to be a work in progress, much with regard to power and energy could change, for climate/transportation/HVAC, energy costs overall, and in-space for propulsion, habs, ISRU, on body transportation.


    This is very interesting to note that Cold fusion is very old if we include biological transmutation.

    Actually I have the same thought and thougt about biological transmutation based on bond compression theory.

    Biological transmutation is caused by the mechanism in the biological system to absorb the essential element for biological system. So such mechanism has compress the molecules of Si-C, K+H,Cs+H, as is shown in the below table.

    TO Journalist,cyoung

    THis is very interesting and direct theory of Cold Fusion or transmutation, and this reaction is used in Fukushima and Russia.

    lenr-forum.com/attachment/18030/


    lenr-forum.com/attachment/18029/



    >There was also lack of validated physics understanding and usually only low heat levels produced. There was also a dearth of experiments focused on validating theory (or not), mostly variations on previous experiments vice the basic physics and efforts to identify such.

    ==>Nuclear physics is responsible for the theory because Cold Fusion need to be based on nuclear physics theory.

    However current nuclear physics theory is incorrect.

    Nuetron is not a fundamental particle(single particle)but the tightly bound proton-electron pair.

    This correct theory lead to the conclusion that no neutrinos exist in a sence that neutrino hypo do not hold based on the correct nucleus model.

    So every researchers on the nuclear physics do not want to accept such huge mistake and they neglect my papers.

    So in such a case journalist is very important to inform of this correct theory to the layman and government officers.

    Thermoelectrics, Pyroelectrics, T-PV, Etc. Recent research in Japan via long and careful experimentation, has proven that a major “missing controlled parameter” in the decades now of previous LENR research is the requirement for nano sized discrete surface morphology.

    =>the missing parameter is the potential control and smaller nano-metal particle only no complicated consideration on the surface of the nano-metal particle.

    A-1 is all needed to explain, and comparison between C1&C1(smaller nano-particle is needed not to complicated morphology is not needed).




    Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply From Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control


    (PDF) Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply from Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control
    PDF | Abstract: - It is proposed that Cold fusion can occur in metal by D+ hopping to T sites with D– on the metal surface. In this mechanism, D+... | Find,…
    doi.org


    Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons


    (PDF) Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
    PDF | Abstract:-Original nucleus model in the 1920s was internal electron theory that the atomic nucleus is constituted by protons and electrons, and... |…
    doi.org



  • Last week Kevmo asked me at https://e-catworld.com/2021/12…only-with-the-ecat-sklep/

    "Do you think Rossi's technology is standard LENR/Cold Fusion? He seems to be trying to join the Randall Mills club by claiming it's not LENR but more EVO-based, whereas Mills claims his is not LENR but more Hydrino-based."


    My response to him is posted here as it relates to my understanding of...

    What is the current state of LENR?

    Quote Dennis Bushnell 2012

    "With effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a “Narrow Band” set of physical phenomena."

    From

    REAL POPULAR COLD FUSION

    Graphic: LENR beta-decay in the lattice.

    REAL POPULAR COLD FUSION – COLD FUSION NOW!


    Good question Kevmo. Personally

    I feel all those you have mentioned are better referred to as different types of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 'Energy-Engineering' and Technology.


    Here I will answer with my understanding of US government funded research.


    Clearly more resources have been "devoted to this research arena" by NASA, GEC, DoE, Google Inc. and the DoD since Dennis Bushnell advised this over 10 years ago. We also can surmise, with a fair amount of certainty, that all these groups are working together.


    Also top metamaterial and nano technology laboratories are engaged. These are vast resources.


    We know advanced nano 3d printing technologies are being devoted as well as the world's most advanced atomic/nuclear reaction modeling computers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.


    We also know more than a few theories are being applied, leading to an improved understanding gleaned from computer assisted comparative analysis. This analysis has been applied to the wealth of available experimental data and associated theories compiled since 1989 and earlier. Thanks again Kevmo - gbgoble


    Realism and the Outlook 2012

    by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

    REALISM

    hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input

    evidence indicates something real is occurring


    with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc


    This is far from a “Narrow Band” set of physical phenomena


    OUTLOOK

    given the truly massive-to-mind boggling benefits – solutions to climate, energy and the limitations that restrict the NASA Mission areas, all of them.

    The key to space exploration is energetics.

    The key to supersonic transports and neighbor-friendly personal fly/drive air vehicles is energetics, as simplex examples of the potential implications of this area of research


    it is worth far more resources than are currently being devoted to this research arena

  • 2012.


    + 10 years - still the same?

  • Rossi’s cold fusion use nano metal particles so the control of potential is very difficult abd it is very sensitive to agglomeration.

    Thus Rossi use AI techniques to control cold fusion.

    You can understand the issues of nano metal cold fusion. Rossi uses the real cold fusion with so much difficulty and so I think the composite nano metal is by far better if they want to use metal particles.


    Mechanism_of_Cold_Fusion_with_Nano_Metal-Particles_and_Conceptualized_Reactor_to_Control_the_Nano-_Metal_Particle_Potential

    (PDF) Mechanism of Cold Fusion with Nano Metal-Particles and Conceptualized Reactor to Control the Nano- Metal Particle Potential
    PDF | Although the nano-metal particles have the high capability to generate the very high excess heat due to the larger reaction site on the nano-metal... |…
    www.researchgate.net

  • Cold Fusion Mechanism of Bond Compression


    (PDF) Cold Fusion Mechanism of Bond Compression
    PDF | On Aug 19, 2021, Noriyuki Kodama published Cold Fusion Mechanism of Bond Compression | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
    www.researchgate.net


    I understand the mechanism of cold fusion especially with nano metal particles


    Mechanism_of_Cold_Fusion_with_Nano_Metal-Particles_and_Conceptualized_Reactor_to_Control_the_Nano-_Metal_Particle_Potential

    (PDF) Mechanism of Cold Fusion with Nano Metal-Particles and Conceptualized Reactor to Control the Nano- Metal Particle Potential
    PDF | Although the nano-metal particles have the high capability to generate the very high excess heat due to the larger reaction site on the nano-metal... |…
    www.researchgate.net


    Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons

    (PDF) Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
    PDF | Abstract:- Original nucleus model in the 1920s was internal electron theory that the atomic nucleus is constituted by protons and electrons, and... |…
    www.researchgate.net

  • December 2021 at https://lenrdiscovery.com/

    download the Lenraries: https://lenrdiscovery.com/lenraries/


    Anthropocene Inst. sponsored a survey a few years back, and this is a little expansion on that plus a survey of STEM students about their perceptions. The summary of participation in LENR which includes the community diagram by LENRIA, shows the LENR service fields all getting into position ready to service the technology we are all waiting for.


    Also, ICCF24 in Silicon Valley next summer 2022. There will be a sign-up link on this site to get info abut that.


    Good news for 2022.

  • Read the Executive Summary. Very nice job by Grant Draper putting it together. Thanks go to the Anthropocene Institute for funding this.

  • Carl Pages Anthropocene Institute, which recently launched the https://lenrdiscovery.com/ mentioned above, put together a very nice end of the year review:


    500: We've Run Into An Issue | Mailchimp


    Surprised, but thankful to see their emphasis on traditional nuclear. IMO, shunning nuclear was regrettable. Anthropocene are still big supporters and proponents of LENR of course, and make many mention of it in the newsletter, but it is always good to be pragmatic...just in case, and have a Plan B.

  • Sometimes Science Is Wrong

    Research is a self-correcting process, but that fact is often lost on the public


    ..

    The newest things are just a first step toward answering a deeper question—and sometimes it’s a misstep that won’t be identified until months or years later. Sometimes, as may have been the case with “cold fusion” back in the 1980s, it’s self-delusion on the part of the scientists.

    ..

    Sometimes Science Is Wrong
    Research is a self-correcting process, but that fact is often lost on the public
    www.scientificamerican.com

  • Research is a self-correcting process, but that fact is often lost on the public A decade ago, John Rennie, a former editor-in-chief of Scientific American, made a startling proposal. Writing in the Guardian, he suggested that science journalists agree to wait six months before they report on new research results. His point was that it takes time for cutting-edge science to be digested and evaluated by the scientific community, and that what looks like a game-changer at first can turn out, on reflection, to be less than meets the eye—or even just plain wrong.


    I beg to disagree, because contemporary science completely lacks feedback, which would force scientists to research things, which they don't like to research. It applies to various things from Ivermectin over overunity to let say cold fusion. For example I collected hundred of links documenting geothermal origin of global warming, yet no one of people on this planet considers it a thing worth of systematic research 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Such an idea is simply not on table both for people, who are pushing global warming, both for people who are denying it. And when no one is willing to spend time with inconvenient idea or finding, then the time for such a research subject simply stops, feedback or not. After all, the feedback which forces scientists not to research things which are apparently wrong is indeed here, but it's not sufficient anyway: even decade after falsifying string theory with collider experiments many guys are still continuing in its research as if nothing would ever happen.


    Lets face it: the idealist idea that science is self-correcting process is also not correct. Occasionally even Holy Church admits the things like Big Bang or Evolution - but not occupation driven mainstream science. See also: