Quote from Curbina

You know where the "old geese" posts her scathing pieces in Italian. Won't link to that place here.

Alright, I’ll read through it when I get a moment.

She was right about the 3 blind mice

Quote from Paradigmnoia

She was right about the 3 blind mice

That she was right about the whole "il dottore" affair does not make her right about everything else she bickers about LENR in general.

Sadly, I must report that her comments were character-related and have very little to do with the report itself.

Oh well

In the process of finding more reactions to the paper on the web, I found an interesting one from a Researcher Named Reginald Little, from Florida, who was really happy to see his research, published in 2006, being, in his opinion vindicated by bjhuang and team.

LinkedIn comment by Reginald Little:

Reginald Little on LinkedIn: Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases -… | 11 comments

As I, Reginald B. Little (RBL) opened this website and noticed this paper published in Nature led by Ben Juine Huang, Robert Greenyer and coworkers, I am… | 11…

www.linkedin.com

2006 Article:

https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-full-text-pdf/4C2970811602

This is a really long and detailed article, and albeit it has not anything to do with cavitation, the research took place by analyzing both the deionized cooling water and the metals of high powered CuAg alloy coiled electromagnets (45 Tesla), and found isotopic changes both in the metals and in the water. I am really baffled that it took so long to me to become aware of this research, as I have been actively looking for research like this for many years now.

Quote from Curbina

This is a really long and detailed article

The ratio measurements do look a bit like random noise, and the paper needs some considerable editing to make it more readable.

Dr Little's output seems quite prolific...

https://rxiv.org/author/reginald_b_little

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Reginald-Little/research

...and google shows he has been posting on e-cat world for some years.

Quote from Curbina

In the process of finding more reactions to the paper on the web, I found an interesting one from a Researcher Named Reginald Little, from Florida, who was really happy to see his research, published in 2006, being, in his opinion vindicated by bjhuang and team.

LinkedIn comment by Reginald Little:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts…-7148188345322414080-V6Ju

2006 Article:

https://academicjournals.org/j…ull-text-pdf/4C2970811602

This is a really long and detailed article, and albeit it has not anything to do with cavitation, the research took place by analyzing both the deionized cooling water and the metals of high powered CuAg alloy coiled electromagnets (45 Tesla), and found isotopic changes both in the metals and in the water. I am really baffled that it took so long to me to become aware of this research, as I have been actively looking for research like this for many years now.

Display More

I remember RBL. He wrote a few posts on ECW during my Ecat News days:

Search Results – (e-catworld.com)

Via ECW:

Cavitation and Energy Production (Reynaldo)
https://e-catworld.com/2024/01…ergy-production-reynaldo/

links to

Welcome to MIE

and to

MIE and Desalination Technologies

https://molecularimpactenergy.com/Desalination-Tech.pdf

Molecular Impact Energy uses conventional automotive fuel injectors to accelerate

water saturated with cavitation nano-bubbles into the unique geometry of a sealed
metallic vortex impact chamber. During the collision enormous hydraulic pressures
collapse the bubbles within the injection volume. Cavitation bubbles have the
remarkable ability to focus intense energy and forces during their collapse. The
resulting heat energy contributes to the continuous creation of superheat steam inside
the impact and expansion chambers. We are fully satisfied that our measurements
demonstrate that the resulting heat and steam released on impact, are an energetically
more efficient way of producing steam, compared to conventional Rankine isobaric
cycle heating.

Maybe the link between cavitation and xsh could be quite more simple because this way producing hydrogen monoatomic.

The US father in this way, Irving Langmuir postulated to have found more energy during recombination than needed for dissociation.

In this way, i ask myself if these xsh could be produced by H+H recombination OR H and the surrounding vessel matter ?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Via ECW:

Cavitation and Energy Production (Reynaldo)
https://e-catworld.com/2024/01…ergy-production-reynaldo/

links to

https://molecularimpactenergy.com

and to

MIE and Desalination Technologies

https://molecularimpactenergy.com/Desalination-Tech.pdf

Molecular Impact Energy uses conventional automotive fuel injectors to accelerate

water saturated with cavitation nano-bubbles into the unique geometry of a sealed
metallic vortex impact chamber. During the collision enormous hydraulic pressures
collapse the bubbles within the injection volume. Cavitation bubbles have the
remarkable ability to focus intense energy and forces during their collapse. The
resulting heat energy contributes to the continuous creation of superheat steam inside
the impact and expansion chambers. We are fully satisfied that our measurements
demonstrate that the resulting heat and steam released on impact, are an energetically
more efficient way of producing steam, compared to conventional Rankine isobaric
cycle heating.

Display More

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Via ECW:

Cavitation and Energy Production (Reynaldo)
https://e-catworld.com/2024/01…ergy-production-reynaldo/

links to

https://molecularimpactenergy.com

and to

MIE and Desalination Technologies

https://molecularimpactenergy.com/Desalination-Tech.pdf

Molecular Impact Energy uses conventional automotive fuel injectors to accelerate

water saturated with cavitation nano-bubbles into the unique geometry of a sealed
metallic vortex impact chamber. During the collision enormous hydraulic pressures
collapse the bubbles within the injection volume. Cavitation bubbles have the
remarkable ability to focus intense energy and forces during their collapse. The
resulting heat energy contributes to the continuous creation of superheat steam inside
the impact and expansion chambers. We are fully satisfied that our measurements
demonstrate that the resulting heat and steam released on impact, are an energetically
more efficient way of producing steam, compared to conventional Rankine isobaric
cycle heating.

Display More

We had already discussed this guys here:

Thread

The "problem" of excess energy in cavitation heating commercial products

Last night I had the quiet time needed for properly watching one of the ICCF 22 presentations I had been wanting to in my big screen TV. It was the presentation of Bin Juine Huang, Mechanical Engineer professor at Taiwan's National University.

The video, shared by the MFMP youtube channel, is found here:

youtube.com/watch?v=RiKHM3weUjw

This had been one of the presentations I had detected as of much personal interest to see, since when the book of abstracts had been released, prior to the start of…

Curbina

Oct 6th 2019

At one point I managed to get in contact to invite them to come to the forum, they told me they were going full ahead to commercialization but then nothing happened, this was around 2020.

This video posted at the MFMP channel

is interesting and helpful to put a visual background on the rate of production of gas by the reactor. This sort of things helps me a lot to gain better understanding on how the experiment is being performed.

ahahahah very similar to their former one during the new year's day ..

Quote from Curbina

This video posted at the MFMP channel

is interesting and helpful to put a visual background on the rate of production of gas by the reactor. This sort of things helps me a lot to gain better understanding on how the experiment is being performed.

External Content m.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Albeit this is a patent from the Russian Kladov, its directly related to bjhuang work. Bob Greenyer went to great lenghts of effort and meticulously crossed sources for providing us a clean cut and understandable version of this patent, an outstanding result that contains some impressive gems. IMHO this is the first time we have a set of equations defining an operating space based on controllable variables to increase the likelyhood of obtaining excess heat from a cavitation device.

Method for Obtaining Energy - Anatoly Fedorovich Kladov

Granted patent RU2054604C1 - 2nd July 1993

remoteview.substack.com

The patent translation goes hand in hand with this previous blog article:

ULTR - Method for Obtaining Energy

Anatoly Fedorovich Kladov

remoteview.substack.com

and I also recommend watching the accompanying lecture video. It is long, but it was time well invested.

Quote from nkodama

https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/technology/

Note that QHe mechanism is incorrect because Cold Fusion will not be patented due to no common understanding of Cold Fusion mechanism.

Because patent examiners should not be involved in determining the principle of cold fusion, patent application of Cold Fusion will not be patented.

Thus all of the reasearchers must discuss the mechanism of Cold Fyusion in the Society of Physics, including nuclear physics.

Cold Fusion is caused by femto-D2 which electron orbit is at a few femto meters from the nucleus.

Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply from Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control.pdf

but transmutation experiment by Iwamura is inconsistent with nuclear physics because the experiments showed that d is constituted by two protons not by proton and beutron.

Correct Nucleus Model Proved by Transmutation Experiment by Cold Fusion.pdf

Thus common understanding in Physics Society must have the discussion that current nucleus model is incorrect.

No other way to make Cold Fusion real science.

femto-H2 decomposed by bibration of H-H at high heat, so it will be two neutrons( proton with electron in deep orbit)

Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38167629/

The reason (8) above is possible is because neutrin is a pair of proton and electron in deep orbit.

P is a proton with electron in deep orbit.

In other words, femtohydrogen molecules decompose into femtohydrogen atoms at high temperatures.

Because neutrons are formed.

This means that the idea that neutrons are composite particles of protons and electrons in deep electron orbits is correct.

The author has been contacted.

Therefore I think that "As a result of the reaction, copper is synthesized from nickel and a large amount of thermal energy is released!!!" is correct.

This can be a new version of Cold Fusion and I hope this trigger the discussion that current nucleus model is incorrect.

Display More

This is a great example of what I DO NOT LIKE about the field of LENR.

Quote from Edo

I agree that this would be a great thing to master, but the problem arises with the fact that even though this is a proper reaction (real and factual) we simply generally do not even believe it is possible.

The experimental results are trace qtys of 17O and 22Ne. We'd need a person very experienced in mass spectometry (not sure if any are here) to determine what are the possible false positives reading spectra and therefore how reliable are these results. There is no serious exploration of this possibility in the paper. Nor of reaction-induced outgassing of material that could lead to these results. Thus it can be a combination of these two potential mechanisms which opens up a lot of things to consider and rule out.

Many people here present the straw man that such reactions are not believed because of the Coulomb barrier and the perceived difficulty of making nuclear reactions happen.

I disagree, Personally, I have no problem envisaging weird QM processes that allow normally forbidden nuclear transitions. Many such processes have been suggested here.

The problem with the "low-level nuclear reactions of many different sorts happen quite easily" is what happens to the excess energy. It goes like this:

• Nuclear energy scales are much higher than chemical
• The chances of nuclear reactions exactly balancing (energetically) are low - and indeed the reaction proposed here as +3MeV or so.
• The expected high energy particles are never observed
• Coupling MeV energy scales 100% (or even 50%) to eV energy scales - allowing the excess energy to turn into heat - seems pretty well impossible.

Hagelstein noted this a long time ago and I know tried for quite a while to find solutions. That work or equivalent, if it had experimental evidence and the theory panned out, is what this "lots of nuclear reactions happen" view needs for people to start entertaining it as a sane hypothesis.

Recent Progress on Phonon-Nuclear Theoretical Models | Published in Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

By Peter L. Hagelstein. Theoretical Article

jcmns.scholasticahq.com

And remember - we need not just a "could possibly happen" coupling method. We need a reason why ONLY those nuclear reactions that couple near 100% in this way are allowed: otehrwise we would be getting clearly unambuguous high energy product signatures.

The disconnect for me here is that when you look holistically at the whole problem - people do not join these dots and instead suspend disbelief in this area (where are the high energy results?). Because if you had to characterise what was special about LENR you would say:

LENR reactions do not produce high energy result particles, nor unstable reaction products.

And the skeptics like me would note that this needs an explanation, and there is one obvious candidate:

"The apparent LENR reactions are in fact not nuclear reactions."

which ticks all the boxes in explaining this characteristic.

So: to make this type of "everywhere in many ways" LENR believable I need a better answer to the question: "where are the high energy products / unstable products"?". And I think most physicists who look at the LENR collection of evidence seriously would have the same question.

I copied the above post in this thread as THHuxleynew adressed the results of bjhuang paper.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The experimental results are trace qtys of 17O and 22Ne. We'd need a person very experienced in mass spectometry (not sure if any are here) to determine what are the possible false positives reading spectra and therefore how reliable are these results. There is no serious exploration of this possibility in the paper. Nor of reaction-induced outgassing of material that could lead to these results. Thus it can be a combination of these two potential mechanisms which opens up a lot of things to consider and rule out.

I really don’t know if you took the time to read the paper and the ensuing polemic about some of the authors being from the company that manufactures the mass spectrometers (Mastek). The whole point of their involvement is because the main author wanted to be absolutely sure that the results were not being missinterpreted. Now, you claim that the amount of Ne22 and O17 are “traces”, which is not really the case. The raw data is available if you want it. Edit to add raw data download link. https://drive.google.com/file/…1qxXB6TqhTKltInBu2SF/view

It’s quite a massive file, one of the excel sheets has 177 MB of data.

And also, you are forgetting of the excess heat, measured at the KW scale, well above the 5% error bound, and by classical methods employed for boiler / heat exchanger energy systems that are foolproof for this kind of assesment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

This is a great example of what I DO NOT LIKE about the field of LENR.

So: to make this type of "everywhere in many ways" LENR believable I need a better answer to the question: "where are the high energy products / unstable products"?". And I think most physicists who look at the LENR collection of evidence seriously would have the same question.

First, all nuclear reactions occur because the reactants obtain energies necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier; there are catalysts but no low energy nuclear reactions. Hence, a better explanation is that the catalyst absorbs the energy that otherwise would be observed in high energy products. Further, since the catalyst has non-thermalized energy sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier, it also has sufficient energy to catalyst decay of what would otherwise be unstable products.

The present of such a catalyst is not a guess, it is a conclusion derived by simple spreadsheet math and reasonable engineering assumes. One to uses data from Santilli's intermediate fusion patent applications and from NASA's chemical composition of AquaFuel to do mass balances. By accounting for the chemical reactions, what is left then can be balanced by accounting for nucleons, since in transmutation a nucleon may move from one element to another, but the total number of nucleons remains unchanged. Hence, in the case of Santilli's data, by the well excepted often used method of stoichiometry one finds that 7 Deuterium + one oxygen = 2 nitrogen and 2 hydrogen. (7*2+16 = 2*14 + 2). The accountability for mass (including nucleon masses) in this equation is 99.9% and the source was ppmv via mass spectroscopy by a certified lab. Most engineers accept the assumptions based on the quality of the results.

Acceptance of the involvement of a catalyst explains why a multiple step reaction shows up as a single overall reaction. The balanced equation reveals the mechanism. The extreme gravity of a star allows fusion of light to heavy elements and in this case the reaction sequence also parallel the alpha sequence of main line stars. The conversion of gamma ray to mass (pair production) occurs when the gammas pass close enough to a heavy element (this case a star rather than an element). The expectation of high energy products and unstable elements assumes thermal equilibrium between the energy in the star and the immediate environment. Thermal exchange occurs within but not outside of the escape horizon of the star. Earth own star surface is 5000 ^oK, but the corona rises to millions of degrees.

A new form of gravity is needed to explain the catalyst for so called LENR, electro-gravity. Those who care to know will find within this forum: 1) derivation of the electro-gravitational constant based on a potential energy balance at the escape horizon of an electron charge cluster. 2) correlation of size of images of Matsumoto's blackholes to low integer numbers of clusters of pseudo-neutrons. These neutron stars emitted as a unique radiation to "Cold fusion"' which is not found elsewhere. 3) Pixel by Pixel development of Matsumoto's images suggests "Cold fusion" produces an extremely large number of masses; therefore, such reactions are high entropy and low enthalpy. Less that 4/10000 of perfect mass loss to energy production that might otherwise be predicted from Santilli's data. 4) Derivation of various quantum states within an electro-gravity star based on Pharis William's phat equation. And 5) Correlation of the phat equation to the spectra of energic deuterons emitted in Ed Storm's amazing results.

Hence, an answer exists to your concerns which is rich in math and experimental observations if you are serious enough to spend the time and effort.

Quote from Drgenek

First, all nuclear reactions occur because the reactants obtain energies necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier; there are catalysts but no low energy nuclear reactions. Hence, a better explanation is that the catalyst absorbs the energy that otherwise would be observed in high energy products. Further, since the catalyst has non-thermalized energy sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier, it also has sufficient energy to catalyst decay of what would otherwise be unstable products.

Well, how much is possible? What is the Coulomb barrier? What do you think it consists of? There are no barriers in nature. It's only in our heads. There is no Coulomb barrier for neutrinos, so “bombard” the nucleus of an atom with neutrinos and everything will work out!

ῡ _е + p → п + е ^-+ ῡ _е + 13,6 эВ.