Does ultrasonic transmutation prove LENR?

The problem with transmutation evidence, especially when detected through SEM and where products are natural, is that it is difficult to show that the results are not due to some contamination, or (in the case of isotopic variation) due to some isotopic separation effect.

There could, I agree, be clear transmutation evidence. For example excess tritium is good because contamination is unlikely (except from labs that have worked with tritium or rivers downstream of power stations etc). Having said that - in electrolysis over a long period with liquid added or electrolyte volume decreasing we maybe get natural concentration of T in the electrolyte due to the fact it is 3X heavier than H an therefore less likely to leave the liquid?

95% of the evidence I have seen however is not clear in this way. For example Cravens laser. (Could discuss it elsewhere).

Because contamination or isotopic concentration (remember CF (LOL) bulbs) is usually difficult to rule out transmutation evidence goes into the "uncertain" end of the spectrum most of the time.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

There is an intriguing experiment with ultrasonification of mercury. Some Casimir effects could take place here, as mercurcy is heavy conductive metal capable of cavitation and sonofusion. I'm of course aware that mercury is metastable on air and it oxidizes to dusty mercurous oxide under evolution of heat, so that its interpretation must be handled with caution. Edit: video and discussion about it.

We have gone over the objections on Mercury oxidation already, even if it happens, it doesn’t explain the series of transmutations observed and confirmed by different methods across three papers. There are also isotopic analysis in the last of those papers (published in the IJCMNS).

Quote from THHuxleynew

The problem with transmutation evidence, especially when detected through SEM and where products are natural, is that it is difficult to show that the results are not due to some contamination, or (in the case of isotopic variation) due to some isotopic separation effect.

There could, I agree, be clear transmutation evidence. For example excess tritium is good because contamination is unlikely (except from labs that have worked with tritium or rivers downstream of power stations etc). Having said that - in electrolysis over a long period with liquid added or electrolyte volume decreasing we maybe get natural concentration of T in the electrolyte due to the fact it is 3X heavier than H an therefore less likely to leave the liquid?

95% of the evidence I have seen however is not clear in this way. For example Cravens laser. (Could discuss it elsewhere).

Because contamination or isotopic concentration (remember CF (LOL) bulbs) is usually difficult to rule out transmutation evidence goes into the "uncertain" end of the spectrum most of the time.

Display More

The publications of Cardone et al about ultrasonication of Mercury are very meticulous respect to contamination, they excluded any element that was present in the Mercury itself, the reaction vessel, the sonotrode, and the sonicator. There are three papers on this, I have all three and have studied them with great care.

Quote from Daniel_G

Transmutations mean nuclear reactions. Whatever you label them, and whatever the method if good experimental technique shows transmutations, that’s a nuke by definition.

I personally believe the line between chemical and nuclear reaction is a lot more fuzzy than what we were taught as students.

There is another type of reaction that can produce transmutation. Call it sub-nuclear reaction where the up and down quarks inside the protons and neutrons are affected. When you can change the properties of the Higgs field, then you can change the nature of the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus. The type of reaction makes possible slight shifts in the isotopic proportions that make up the mix in an element. This isotopic shifting is seen all the time without any nuclear ramifications.

Then there is LeClair fusion induced by laser shots at the reflective surface under water and release of neutrons. I think what is driving factor of fusion here isn't the collapse of vapor bubble by itself, but the linear jet of atoms and possible travelling wave of electrons accelerated by EM field of laser formed during it. Such an arrangement allows screening of repulsive charge of nuclei by electrons between others. The fact that bubble doesn't collapse in free volume but at the proximity of surface enforces this effect and it may explain why Taleyarkhan's experiments only accidentally succeded. I also consider Ohmasa experiments in this regard, but it seems for me that the energy density involved is too low for any kind of fusion interpretation.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Then there is LeClair fusion induced by laser shots at the reflective surface under water and release of neutrons. I think what is driving factor of fusion here isn't the collapse of vapor bubble by itself, but the linear jet of atoms and possible travelling wave of electrons accelerated by EM field of laser formed during it. Such an arrangement allows screening of repulsive charge of nuclei by electrons between others. The fact that bubble doesn't collapse in free volume but at the proximity of surface enforces this effect and it may explain why Taleyarkhan's experiments only accidentally succeded. I also consider Ohmasa experiments in this regard, but it seems for me that the energy density involved is too low for any kind of fusion interpretation.

The idea of this being classic fusion is something that I also consider erroneous. Bear in mind that Omasa has seen enhanced transmutation results in solutions of Cesium, Magnesium and Copper, when his reactor fins are plated with Pd, and also by adding an amount of either Deuterium or Tritium.

Quote

they excluded any element that was present in the Mercury itself, the reaction vessel, the sonotrode, and the sonicator

There were also observations of transmutation of mercury from long used fluorescent lamps, after all the seminal Nagayoka experiments were also about similar mercury arc system. BTW tiny droplets of mercury formed after sonification are rigid due to surface tension pressure which would explain the appearance of mercury after sonification. People should experiment and replicate more and less speculate.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Then there is LeClair fusion induced by laser shots at the reflective surface under water and release of neutrons. I think what is driving factor of fusion here isn't the collapse of vapor bubble by itself, but the linear jet of atoms and possible travelling wave of electrons accelerated by EM field of laser formed during it. Such an arrangement allows screening of repulsive charge of nuclei by electrons between others. The fact that bubble doesn't collapse in free volume but at the proximity of surface enforces this effect and it may explain why Taleyarkhan's experiments only accidentally succeded. I also consider Ohmasa experiments in this regard, but it seems for me that the energy density involved is too low for any kind of fusion interpretation.

Dogone replicated LeClair's experiment using a washing machine motor and pump and some plastic pipes. Dogone got the same brew of radioactive waste products in the water. That waste included transuranic elements. These types of transuranic elements are not possible to be formed using fusion. There is another transmutation producing process out there that is different from fusion or fission.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

There is an intriguing experiment with ultrasonification of mercury

Mercury is highly LENR active due to multiple magnetic states. Its not a good candidate unless you can fix it in a matrix e.g with Br.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Its not a good candidate unless you can fix it in a matrix e.g with Br.

It's interesting you say that as one of the elements Cardone et al found in their sonicated mercury sample was Br and also it is the one that could be said to be the more abundant in the resulting mixture of elements.

Source: J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 27 (2018) 1–8

Quote from Curbina

The publications of Cardone et al about ultrasonication of Mercury are very meticulous respect to contamination, they excluded any element that was present in the Mercury itself, the reaction vessel, the sonotrode, and the sonicator. There are three papers on this, I have all three and have studied them with great care.

It would be nice if these papers could be linked here?

I tried googling and they did not immediately appear - also there is a risk one find the wrong paper and wastes a lot of time. So I think all your readers - not just me would benefit from a link (if it is above in this thread you could say that).

Will post two of the papers that Cardone has made available, the third one is not publicly available and I was given it but can't share publicly. You will have to wait until next wednesday as I am currently up to my neck due to a deadline for project submission I have to meet on my irrigation contracting bussines.

THHuxleynew , fortunately I had them at hand.

Quote from Rob

Does anybody know where exactly in the history of science, the orthodoxy of physics first established this idea that fusion can only happen by way of high energy plasma? Or am I not understanding this correctly? If so, how would you describe this issue?

It seems that not even the condensed matter physics (CMP) people were receptive to this idea that fusion or fusion-like reactions could POSSIBLY occur somehow in other states of matter. With the state of things being that CMP concerns itself with the study of emergent phenomena, one might think this would create some open-mindedness to the idea, "hey, maybe there's a way to trigger a fusion reaction because of some unknown emergent effect we simply haven't noticed before". Yet, Robert Laughlin, a CMP scientist at Stanford, is pretty staunchly critical of CF. Why?

If you're interested, Laughlin gave a really enjoyable talk that's on YouTube, and he happens to mention his early experiences of CF, you can see it here (I added the timestamp for you):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qCSpWjsAiE&t=1h12m49s

He also makes a lot of other very interesting comments that are extremely critical of fundamental physics, and he argues that physicists approach science in a certain way because of religious orthodoxy. I'm not sure I actually buy that conclusion, but he does make a lot of interesting points. I would be interested to hear who here agrees with him on those things, or disagrees, and why.

Getting back to my question, where does this aversion to the idea of fusion POSSIBLY being able to occur outside of plasma, come from? I'm talking about the history, where in the past was this idea first established and where did all this conviction first originate? IOW, what evidence supports this idea? Some scientists believe in this quite strongly, so there must be a reason for it. What is that reason?

I was having a nice chat earlier today with Gregory Byron Goble and his friend, and they suggested I might find the answer in Mizuno's book, which I haven't read yet, but will soon.

Display More

There is an experiment called ULTR that uses a $30 cavitation cleaner that disappears a sheet of aluminum foil. This works 100% of the time. If you take a magnet and pass it over the detritus produced by the cleaner, you will find a a micron sized crenelated hollow ball made of mostly iron. One of our number has done this experiment: "magicsound" and he has produced a SEM of this ball.

The issue is how can such a ball be formed underwater without plasma. Did magicsound perpetuate a fraud? How in the world could he have formed a crenelated micron sized ball anyway? You can replicate this experiment if you use a microscope to spot the ball. It is my guess that none here will do that.

By the way, iron cannot be formed using fusion. Iron formation needs a supernova and lots of time in a heavy neutron thick environment.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

Quote from axil

There is an experiment called ULTR that uses a $30 cavitation cleaner that disappears a sheet of aluminum foil. This works 100% of the time. If you take a magnet and pass it over the detritus produced by the cleaner, you will find a a micron sized crenelated hollow ball made of mostly iron. One of our number has done this experiment: "magicsound" and he has produced a SEM of this ball.

The issue is how can such a ball be formed underwater without plasma. Did magicsound perpetuate a fraud? How in the world could he have formed a crenelated micron sized ball anyway? You can replicate this experiment if you use a microscope to spot the ball. It is my guess that none here will do that.

By the way, iron cannot be formed using fusion. Iron formation needs a supernova and lots of time in a heavy neutron thick environment.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

Display More

First, water is very plasma like, a miraculous substance! Tends to have ions in it, both positive and negative and there is a bunch of Hydrogen in it I hear... That is the stuff we suspect of being able to (somehow) fuse with other elements.

second, iron can be formed by fusion, how else would it be created? Also, Iron is thought to be the base for heavier elements by neutron capture, which is btw impossible since there is such a thing as "neutron drip line", meaning there can be only so many neutrons attached to a nucleus. Then the beta decay steps have to be an enormous number of times in succession which also does not work for all element steps to the next. So even in the old (and erroneous) thinking that somehow supernova made all the heavier element, you are incorrect.

And then there are experiments that show fusion taking place in a simple watery environments with a gentle current over two electrodes. And then we have biological transmutations that are strongly suspected of going on, again in a watery environment. To dismiss this is to not look at the whole picture.

Should you be interested in more specifics I am glad to point you to our book "The Nature of the Atom, An Introduction to the Structured Atom Model" where we deal with such topics.

The point Rob is that the transmutation that appears in LENR cannot be produced by fusion.

Quote from axil

By the way, iron cannot be formed using fusion. Iron formation needs a supernova and lots of time in a heavy neutron thick environment.

This is standard model nonsense. All elements can be formed by CF!

Quote from axil

By the way, iron cannot be formed using fusion. Iron formation needs a supernova and lots of time in a heavy neutron thick environment.

So how come it can be found in an ultrasound bath containing Al and water ?BTW, a couple of points, you need an electron microscope to see those balls, not any old microscope. Also, you got the comma in your Hamlet quite in the wrong place, Shakespearean scholars agree that it should come after 'Horatio'.

The paper Nuclar Metamorphosis in Mercury from Cardone et al 2015 can be found here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/F-Cardone/publication/285754907_Nuclear_metamorphosis_in_mercury/links/5777af9208ae1b18a7e438eb/Nuclear-metamorphosis-in-mercury.pdf

Quote from THHuxleynew

The problem with transmutation evidence... is that it is difficult to show that the results are not due to some contamination.

There is clear transmutation evidence for Santilli's intermediate fusion. There is excess energy production. I provided the energy balance in this post Post ICCF24 thread. - Page 25 - Players - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com). I have cut and pasted it next for you.

Fusion can be detected by mass balance and stoichiometry, but heat production is low. For example, heat balance from [0074-0078] US2012/0033775 is as follows. Approximate output: the heat from the rise in temperature of the steel of the reactor: 7404 BTU = (449 J/kg x 127 C)/1055 J/BTU. Input: the heat from the electric arc: 4533 BTU = ((40 kWhr x 2)/60) x 3400 BTU/kWhr). Hence, the net heat production via nuclear reaction: Output-Input: 2874 BTU = 7404 BTU - 4533 BTU).

The mass balance and stoichiometry require assumptions about creating molecules of gas that attach to each other as magnet do to other magnets. Santilli called them magnicules and build a business that currently has profits in the millions of dollars based on them.

I did the mass balance and stoichiometry as shown in the 3 tables below. It is my intention to make a video to explain the math in detail, but if you have the skills, the tables are just math based on the data in figure 7 of US2012/0033775.