What is the current state of LENR?

Quote from Alan Smith

Currently, it seems that theoreticians who are using more conventional approaches to explain LENR are well ahead of those who are employing alternative theories. Several papers by theoreticians using standard physics include reaction rates, which might be compared with measurements.

This is pretty much nonsense as nobody ever did show a paper and matching experiment. In Assisi David pushed a fellow mate to explain a silly nucleus model with quarks. Since then for me he is no longer a serious scientist.

There is a pretty good formula for the D-D fusion rate already shown in Terni. But without a stable reproducible experiment it is not worth to invest time in a refinement.

The new SO(4) model can help us to explain why certain reactions do not run and other will not. I did not yet publish much about the Alpha wave that is the basis for the strong force coupling propagation among multiple alphas inside a nucleus that join in a common structure.

Main reason to not publish is our research = future experiments, with so called cold fusion chips. As long as people do not start to help with SO(4) physics modelling they have no right to get useful information.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is pretty much nonsense as nobody ever did show a paper and matching experiment. In Assisi David pushed a fellow mate to explain a silly nucleus model with quarks. Since then for me he is no longer a serious scientist.

There is a pretty good formula for the D-D fusion rate already shown in Terni. But without a stable reproducible experiment it is not worth to invest time in a refinement.

The new SO(4) model can help us to explain why certain reactions do not run and other will not. I did not yet publish much about the Alpha wave that is the basis for the strong force coupling propagation among multiple alphas inside a nucleus that join in a common structure.

Main reason to not publish is our research = future experiments, with so called cold fusion chips. As long as people do not start to help with SO(4) physics modelling they have no right to get useful information.

And in vain, we need to be more open. In connection with the above, I invite everyone to participate in the discussion.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The spikes are lines that sometimes match and sometimes due to algorithm are slightly displaced. So as said either you have the data and can interpret it or you don't. Everybody that joins research will have access to data. But this needs some credibility, time and money and some valuable experience.

You are the one who posted these data. You now need to explain them in a way that others can understand. No one here understands what you have done.

Quote from Bruce__H

No one here understands what you have done.

Since when is Bruce everybody?

Quote from David Nagel

LENR will be understood using what is now conventional science

Thanks David

Hi Alan

I agree though I don't know enough physics. So I ask might we discover a bit about particle interactions that leads to discovery... some thing/concept that adds to and improves the standard model? What is an example of what might be missing? Is there a list?

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

What is an example of what might be missing? Is there a list?

No simple list

Here's a few examples..

>An explanation of what mass is?

>an explanation of what gravity is?

on a more detailed level

>an explanation of the gamma levels in the nucleus for all atoms/isotopes

which gives accurate fittings of most of the observed gamma levels

>an explanation of how energy is transferred from one gamma level to the other..

The CERN experimentation work is focussed on high energy?Gev? collisions

which are not related to the Kev ..Mev levels in the gamma levels/LENR..

Quote from THHuxleynew

James Webb Telescope, LHC, and all other other cosmology and high energy pure physics would say that physics progresses a lot without any application to the economy.

It is true that technology is driven by economic factors - the most eye-catching example of this is Moore's Law - still amazingly partially operative in spite of being well past quantum limits for normal silicon semiconductor technology.

If however we had definite physics for LENR I think the technology would follow.

THH

Display More

High energy particle physicists like to trot out the electron as proof that high energy particle physics has potential for massive economic impact.

In doing so, they take credit for the work of decades of engineers who actually built the things that had economic impact in a delusional belief that technology exists only because they have explained it - despite electromagnetic devices long predating their theories.

A model of reality you can express on paper still has to match what reality does - the limits of your model don't show you the limits of reality.

Standard models in physics and astronomy have become dangerously ad hoc, IMO. A standard model is basically ad hoc by definition. I also think there may be a little bit of a fear from physicists, even outside of fears that funding will evaporate, that some of the extraordinarily difficult to learn mathematics they use may have been built on foundations that make it useless. Dogma is human nature, and peer review is not a cure - truth is not a democratic process, nor can it be bought.

I am absolutely certain of only two things: I exist, and doubt must never concede to certainty - including certainty of one's own doubts.

Descartes and Socrates might have been on to something. I lament the death of philosophy of science at the hands of the self-interest and ego of academic institutions, but at least I know reality always bends understanding towards itself eventually, not to the consensus of living sunk cost fallacies.

Quote from InkTide

High energy particle physicists like to trot out the electron as proof

Proof? i am not so sure of that..

the electric motor was invented by Michael Faraday

with the profoundly simple idea of magnetic flux..

two hundred year ago in 1821

before the electron "particle" was ever named

or the electron magnetic moment /g factor etc

was ever fudged by 12672 Feynman constructs

Toichiro Kinoshita, Makiko Nio, and collaborators numerically evaluated the daunting 891 and 12 672 Feynman diagrams (panel b of the figure gives examples)

Of course this is part of the body of SM church liturgy...

the nucleus of the atom may take another century to be in corpore

IMHO Faraday 1821 is more relevant to LENR than SM 2022

Quote from RobertBryant

Proof? i am not so sure of that..

the electric motor was invented by Michael Faraday

with the profoundly simple idea of magnetic flux..

two hundred year ago in 1821

before the electron "particle" was ever named

Display More

I'm not saying they proved electrons, I'm saying they act as though their theories on electrons prove that electronic technology only exists because they theorized the electron. If you want to push the boundaries of understanding in ways that are economically useful, go to an engineer, not a theorist.

The stuff an engineer does has to actually work.

Quote from InkTide

I'm not saying they proved electrons,

understood.

there is no proof of potential massive economic impact from CERN..

Livermore etc via the g-factor fudge

Quote from InkTide

The stuff an engineer does has to actually work.

That's where the state of LENR stands . 1820.... something that works like a toy

and then waits another century for massive economic impact???

Mizuno is trying among others.... but he is not Faraday

perhaps he needs Maxwell?

Historical perspective LENR no details of actual mechanisms

Brazil ...maybe it has been posted?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…le/pii/S1572665721008973#!

Quote from RobertBryant

there is no proof of potential massive economic impact from CERN.

Well, I don't know about that - the impact may just be negative

Particle colliders are extremely expensive, after all.

Principle of cold fusion is already understood well, it was developed by Unified Gravity Co (now Gravity Propulsion Co.) and it's held in secrecy - despite most its patents are freely available. This principle leads to quite reproducible fusion with high yield. There are many other systems, which don't rely on main principle so much, so that they're irreproducible.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Principle of cold fusion is already understood well, it was developed by Unified Gravity Co (now Gravity Propulsion Co.) and it's held in secrecy - despite most its patents are freely available. This principle leads to quite reproducible fusion with high yield. There are many other systems, which don't rely on main principle so much, so that they're irreproducible.

STOP THE PRESSES! Reproducible high yield cold fusion is what we all have been waiting for! Please notify Elon Musk, Greta Thunberg, the Gates Foudation, and the Nobel Committee. Why haven't I heard that the problem is already solved? It's like a scam free version of the Leonardo Corporation.

Unified Gravity has not been current on Earth for some 8? years perhaps it has teleported off world using its gravity propulsion

As Greta Thunberg said until we have a working prototype tested under laboratory conditions cold fusion will remain more just Blah, Blah, and more Blah. But lets keep working on it, during the pandemic What Else Is There To Do???

Quote

As Greta Thunberg said until we have a working prototype tested under laboratory conditions cold fusion will remain more just Blah, Blah

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Because of the conspicuous silence of the scientific publications on the subject of nuclear fission by German, American, and British scientists, Russian physicist Georgy Flyorov suspected that the Allied powers had secretly been developing a "superweapon" since 1939. See also: The U.S. Government Has a Secret System for Stalling Patents

perhaps it has teleported off world using its gravity propulsion

I wrote clearly enough it renamed itself to Gravity Propulsion Co. Dunning-Kruger self-esteem of ignorance?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Because of the conspicuous silence of the scientific publications on the subject of nuclear fission by German, American, and British scientists, Russian physicist Georgy Flyorov suspected that the Allied powers had secretly been developing a "superweapon" since 1939. See also: The U.S. Government Has a Secret System for Stalling Patents

But it appears that this absence is often cause enough to spawn conspiracy theories that align with whatever political outcome the conspirator agrees with?

Quote

But it appears that this absence is often cause enough to spawn conspiracy theories that align with whatever political outcome the conspirator agrees with?

Negative. The tendency to hide the results potentially important to enemy goes across political spectrum. After all, if companies like gravitypropulsion.co or cannae.com wouldn't hide everything, then their web sites would look quite differently.