Gennadiy Tarassenko don't consider this a compliment 
The LENR Induced Fission Thread
-
-
Why the community tends to bless this kind of self-proclaimed god, what did he offer more than Gennadiy Tarassenko for example?
The tables are useful to look how likely is a transmutation to have happened, no need for blessings.
-
Here this way a paper from a great Lenr researcher speculating also about probabilities.
The tables are useful to look how likely is a transmutation to have happened, no need for blessings.
-
Here this way a paper from a great Lenr researcher speculating also about probabilities.
Parkhomov bases the likelyhood in energy release, not probability. You also need to consider that many events happen at once so energy is being released/consumed at the same time by multiple reactions.
-
Yes, no, weakly, of course, and I have a film to warm Siberia-nonsense, all this, unfortunately.
-
Some people still doubt P&F, others also Rossi, so why believe Parkhomov who has shown the most artisanal work ?
Sorry Bob Gryneer is not a scientific reference to endorse Parkhomov's pseudo xsh.
Parkhomov bases the likelyhood in energy release, not probability. You also need to consider that many events happen at once so energy is being released/consumed at the same time by multiple reactions.
Code -
So, how do you explain the spontaneous fission of say a thorium atom? Does a Mev gamma ray or high energy particle just happen to hit it at right time and place? Or has nature set up a sensitivity to low energy effects that cause the atom to kick out an alpha particle? If there is a possibility of an isotope of an element becoming another isotope of that element by emitting a neutron I am not aware of any physics principle that says that would necessarily require a high input of energy.
I'm just wondering, are you like Axil on a ego trip by throwing extraneous stuff into a thread to mess it up or do you just hate new ideas that you didn't think of.
First, let me apologize, I didn't mean to mess up your thread, give you the impression that I hate any ideas, that I am trying to create general confusion for my own entertainment or that my ego won't allow a diverse discussion of ideas.
I don't know what causes the natural rate of radioactive decay. I don't reject the idea of Parkhomov that some relic neutrino could cause it, but I don't accept the idea as 100% probability true. The photo decay of deuterium to emit a neutron and leave a hydrogen requires about 2.3 Mev gamma ray. The physics principle that necessitates that energy is thermodynamic energy balance. The article above by Simakin et al is decay of thorium at above and below a natural rate caused by laser interaction with gold nanoparticles. Their interpretation is "According to observed nuclear transformations, exposure in D2O results in generation of thermal neutrons, while laser exposure in H2O provides more energetic neutrons capable of fission of Th nuclei." In H2O the rate of thorium decay is above normal and in D2O the rate of thorium decay is below normal.
I think they are saying that thermal neutrons are produced near gold nanoparticles in D2O and that the thermal neutrons subtract energy from thorium so that thorium decays more slowly. While fission capable neutrons are produced near gold nanoparticles in H2O so that thorium decays faster. But it does not make sense to me that neutrons are produced from H2O. Would a hydrogen be converted to a neutron, or a neutron expelled from oxygen? Further, there are neutron cross-sections, so if neutrons increase or decrease radioactive decay where do they all go?
Collision with a nanostar isn't more or less elastic than collision with any molecule (if the colliding molecule isn't attracted by electro-gravity). Collison between molecules can transfer energy or part of the molecule. The same interactions are expected for a nanostar. A nanostar can transfer a large amount of energy, or a neutron at its escape horizon but it can also absorb energy from nuclear reaction or from an atom when that atom collides with the stars escape horizon. My opinion is that the increase and decrease in natural decay rate of thorium in Simakin's experiment is due to nanostars not neutrons.
Hey, if you don't want me explaining how electro-gravity fits in this thread, tell me. I will respect you wishes and not contribute more to this thread.
-
Collision with a nanostar isn't more or less elastic than collision with any molecule (if the colliding molecule isn't attracted by electro-gravity). Collison between molecules can transfer energy or part of the molecule. The same interactions are expected for a nanostar. A nanostar can transfer a large amount of energy, or a neutron at its escape horizon but it can also absorb energy from nuclear reaction or from an atom when that atom collides with the stars escape horizon. My opinion is that the increase and decrease in natural decay rate of thorium in Simakin's experiment is due to nanostars not neutrons.
Hey, if you don't want me explaining how electro-gravity fits in this thread, tell me. I will respect you wishes and not contribute more to this thread.
We really need electrogravity here or indicate where you will go. Or go to my topic, but these concretions turned out due to electrogravity, how can I spin this concretion, we will get new energy.
-
I decided to move our discussion here, if there is going to be anymore discussion.
Would you rather see war on the moon over He3 or a method to produce it here on earth? It doesn't matter how the research is done, just that it gets done ( in my view). There are some pretty serious issues here. You don't seem to take these things seriously.
The moon H3 is so uneconomical to mine it would be cheaper to make new H3 on Earth the hard way.
-
When you write nano stars do you mean micro black holes? I got slapped down over that once. Seems the event horizon reaches the Planck limit long before the mass as the size decreases. Be careful.
The basic premise of this thread is that the fission of He4 to He3 occurs naturally, and it may be possible to do so artificially with a low input of energy, that being indicated by the history surrounding Papp's Noble Gas Engine. It's really a call to action (research). Let's find out if it's possible. I would suggest therefore you start a separate thread about electro gravity.
You mention the use of a Lazer and H2O to generate neutrons. That being somewhat confusing. A similar experiment could be done with He4 with less confusion. Another possibility would the use of a capacitor bank, as it would be easy to keep track of the energy usage. Detecting the neutrons could be more of a problem.
The problem with the event horizon, Planck limit and mass applies to universal gravity but not to electro-gravity because the coupling of electro-gravity is so much stronger. At nano-star doesn't have to be a blackhole.
You may enjoy Moray Kings view on Plapps engine
One Million Cavitating Water Electrolyzers | Moray B King #Zero-Point Energy #Tesla #Quantum Physics - YouTube Look at 34:17 starting with slide titled "Energetic clusters can form in inert gases"
I don't think fission of He4 to He3 occurs naturally because that reaction is highly endothermic. In contrast hydrogen could be converted to He3. See my patent application titled "Compositions and nuclear methods for Helium-3 and other isotope production."
A careful read of my post about lasers and D2O or H2O give my reasons for not believing neutrons are generated in any significant number.
Per you request I will only discuss electro-gravity in this post as needed to reply to any questions directed to me. Respectfully.
-
The moon H3 is so uneconomical to mine it would be cheaper to make new H3 on Earth the hard way.
If NASA succeeds in developing a space engine to reach Mars in 45 days, how long would it take to reach the moon? What is uneconomical today may not be tomorrow. Anyway the idea is to find an easy way to make He3.
-
Verified User
Так вы посмотрели мои данные, вы видели плазму, полученную из воды и нефти, точно не сделал эти опыты, конденсатор полетел. Что можно делать с этой плазмой, электричество поможет или нет, посмотри, хорошо
-
If NASA succeeds in developing a space engine to reach Mars in 45 days, how long would it take to reach the moon? What is uneconomical today may not be tomorrow. Anyway the idea is to find an easy way to make He3.
Notwithstanding the cost of going to the moon and back, the cost is still too high. The economics math has done been a few times, and it is horrendous. The idea is of mining off the top m of or two the moon for 1000’s km2 is silly on top of that. Maybe if it was the last chance for humanity it might make sense, where cost is no object, and it is do or die. Better off mining it out of a gas planet or looking for an asteroid made mostly of it for all the messing around the plan involves.
It is a fun idea until looked at closely. Like, for example, wouldn’t scooping up platinum dust off the moon surface give a better return? -
@Dgenek
The reaction of He4 to He3 occurs on the sun which is a part of nature, so I consider it to be occuring naturally.
.
The reaction on the sun is called a proton- proton chain reaction. The final step to produce He4 is fusion of two He3. Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia
Can you provide a link to He4 to He3 occurring naturally? It would violate thermodynamics. (reactants - products ) = ( 4.00260 - ( 1.08665 +3.01603)) = -0.10008 mass units. Hence, the reaction must absorb mass or energy rather than produce it. I liked it better when you proposed Radon fission that is exothermic.
-
( 4.00260 - ( 1.08665 +3.01603)) = -0.10008
You missed a basic physics class -0.1.. means exotermic....= produces energy...
