The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

Dear Edmund Storms!

It is known that neutrinos are different. I propose to influence the proton with neutrinos of the appropriate energy and frequency, and not with those that are flooded in the environment.

The environment is flooded not only with different neutrinos, but, for example, with various electromagnetic waves, but our cell phone only responds to certain electromagnetic waves.

Why do you think neutrinos would have any effect at all? Do you know of any observed behavior that supports such an idea? As Alan notes, why suggest an idea that has no possibility of being implemented? I'm getting the idea that this discussion involves the wrong people.

Quote from Storms

Why do you think neutrinos would have any effect at all? Do you know of any observed behavior that supports such an idea? As Alan notes, why suggest an idea that has no possibility of being implemented? I'm getting the idea that this discussion involves the wrong people.

My vision of the cold fusion problem LENR:

Quote from Alan Smith

But first you have to make them 'on demand'. I can propose running day-trips to Mars, but first I need the right spaceship,

Yes, in fact, I propose to repeat Faraday’s experiment, but with a more fundamental physical understanding of our World, namely:

To influence baryonic matter with a neutrino field, by analogy with Faraday’s experiment, which influenced an electric conductor with a moving magnetic field.

As a result, we must observe a material current.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

My vision of the cold fusion problem LENR:

Thanks for the information. I do not know how to respond because I can not understand what you describe. Your view of Nature is entirely different than mine. I have no idea how you can do what you intend or why the described behavior would result from your efforts. In short, you are not describing the reality I know.

Quote from Storms

Let's see if we can agree on some basic facts. Perhaps this exercise can identify where the conflict is most intense.

1. Society needs a source of heat energy that is inexpensive, nonpolluting, and comes from a sustainable source.

2. The cold fusion effect supplies energy having these characteristics because the source is water and the nuclear products are not harmful.

3. In order to increase and control a source of energy, its operating mechanism needs to be understood and controlled.

4. The energy produced by the cold fusion effect results from fusion between hydrogen nuclei, either H or D.

5. Fusion between nuclei requires their separation to be reduced so that their nuclear energy states can interact.

6. The separation can be reduced only by the reduction of the Coulomb barrier.

7. The Coulomb barrier can be reduced by the presence of electrons.

Problems to be solved:

1. Identify how the NAE can be produced in large concentrations.

2, Identify how the D or H can be rapidly assembled in the NAE.

3. Identify how the electrons can be rapidly assembled in the NAE.

4. Identify how the energy resulting from fusion can be dissipated while momentum is conserved.

5. Identify how the mechanism can be controlled in a practical energy generator.

I can solve all of these problems using my model. Can you?

Display More

This discussion would be great on LENR Theories Discussion. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) Is your theory summarized well in post#2?

Quote from Drgenek

This discussion would be great on LENR Theories Discussion. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) Is your theory summarized well in post#2?

Either one, or the other, but please keep the discussion going. Been fascinating to watch from my perspective. Dr. Storms opinion and theory, like no other, may be controversial, but it stirs up such interesting dialogue.

Quote from Storms

I can solve all of these problems using my model. Can you?

Yes, I can for catalysis. But comparison of my model and your is like comparing apples and oranges.

The first difference is that your model is in or on a solid and mine works in a gas and likely will explain what happens in dislocation loops a solid. The second is your reaction is between hydrogen or deuterium. From the data derived balance nuclear equation, you should see that deuterium-to-deuterium fusion happens in case of catalysis. If you read my latest post in the other thread where I explain in the detail (which needed for a good analysis), you should see that there can be hydrogen to hydrogen fusion. However, the stoichiometry indicates fusion of hydrogen or deuterium produces oxygen. Further the main nuclear reaction sequence includes the reactions in the alpha cycle but terminates by fission to nitrogen. If oxygen is present, then oxygen is the main target of hydrogen fusion. In catalysis the coulomb barrier is not lowered rather the distribution of energy available from the catalysis supplies the MeV energies necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier.

I will not compare these things further in this thread because the facts and details of the analysis matter. You can just say the stoichiometry can't possibly be true and your believers will just go along. Likewise, you can be dismissive in other reasonable conclusions which you can call just imagination. Discussion here will prevent people from reading what they would need to understand my model. They would believe the lie that stoichiometry is fake. So, the discussion would be promotion rather than discussion of analysis and facts. I don't believe in consensus science: it is too political. As I said these things will be made clear in due time in the other thread.

ColdFusion is caused by the creation of femto-D2 at T site without bond to the ahjacent site which vertex atom moves by the expansion by occupation of Das D negative ions, which attract another D+ adjacent to Tsute having D negative ion, and two D combined D2 at ether expanded T site to be femto-D2.

it is clear by the transmutation experiment by the increase of atomic monument is 4, which is not consistent with nucleu model.

Thus the issue in Not on Cold Fusion side but on nuclear physics side. so all researchers need to understand this issue of nuclear physics.

google this paper and carefully read.

Correct Nucleus Model Proved by Transmutation Experiment by Cold Fusion (Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons and no Neutrinos Exist)

Mechanism of Hydrogen Embrittlement by Volumetric Expansion and Transmutation by Cold Fusion (Request for the Transmutation Experiment with H 2 Gas to Prove the Mechsnism of Cold Fusion and of Hydrogen Embrittlement.)

Quote from Storms

Thanks for the information. I do not know how to respond because I can not understand what you describe. Your view of Nature is entirely different than mine. I have no idea how you can do what you intend or why the described behavior would result from your efforts. In short, you are not describing the reality I know.

Sorry, we all have the same objective reality (Nature, our World, everything that exists), but I describe it in a new theoretical paradigm, in which cold nuclear fusion is very easily described physically and mathematically.

In my paradigm, the movement of matter, including cold nuclear fusion LENR, occurs as a non-mechanical process of material-neutrino-energy induction.

The movement of matter in our World occurs without our participation and not according to our will.

We can only direct this flow into our ditch.

Cold nuclear fusion is the reverse beta decay of a proton.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

Sorry, we all have the same objective reality (Nature, our World, everything that exists), but I describe it in a new theoretical paradigm, in which cold nuclear fusion is very easily described physically and mathematically.

In my paradigm, the movement of matter, including cold nuclear fusion LENR, occurs as a non-mechanical process of material-neutrino-energy induction.

The movement of matter in our World occurs without our participation and not according to our will.

We can only direct this flow into our ditch.

Cold nuclear fusion is the reverse beta decay of a proton.

You know Aleksander, with all respect I really don't understand the sense of what you are saying. There is no problem with the grammer, I xould probably write a definition of all the words you use. But they still don't make sense.

Quote from Alan Smith

You know Aleksander, with all respect I really don't understand the sense of what you are saying. There is no problem with the grammer, I xould probably write a definition of all the words you use. But they still don't make sense.

I have the same problem. I can’t really connect what Aleksandr Nikitin states with observable/measurable phenomena. The closest reference I have is what Alexander Parkhomov claims, about “slow” or “cold” neutrinos being emitted by matter above 1000 degrees Celsius, and that he claims he can detect and measure, but few seem to agree and less have tried to replicate independently.

Quote from Drgenek

Yes, I can for catalysis. But comparison of my model and your is like comparing apples and oranges.

The first difference is that your model is in or on a solid and mine works in a gas and likely will explain what happens in dislocation loops a solid. The second is your reaction is between hydrogen or deuterium. From the data derived balance nuclear equation, you should see that deuterium-to-deuterium fusion happens in case of catalysis. If you read my latest post in the other thread where I explain in the detail (which needed for a good analysis), you should see that there can be hydrogen to hydrogen fusion. However, the stoichiometry indicates fusion of hydrogen or deuterium produces oxygen. Further the main nuclear reaction sequence includes the reactions in the alpha cycle but terminates by fission to nitrogen. If oxygen is present, then oxygen is the main target of hydrogen fusion. In catalysis the coulomb barrier is not lowered rather the distribution of energy available from the catalysis supplies the MeV energies necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier.

I will not compare these things further in this thread because the facts and details of the analysis matter. You can just say the stoichiometry can't possibly be true and your believers will just go along. Likewise, you can be dismissive in other reasonable conclusions which you can call just imagination. Discussion here will prevent people from reading what they would need to understand my model. They would believe the lie that stoichiometry is fake. So, the discussion would be promotion rather than discussion of analysis and facts. I don't believe in consensus science: it is too political. As I said these things will be made clear in due time in the other thread.

Drgenek, you are not describing cold fusion. You are describing an entirely different phenomenon for which no experimental observation exists. I suggest you are in the wrong discussion group. As for my being submissive, if you can not tell the difference between imagination and reality, you have problems far beyond cold fusion. I see nothing wrong with using imagination but its use needs to be clearly identified.

Quote from Alan Smith

You know Aleksander, with all respect I really don't understand the sense of what you are saying. There is no problem with the grammer, I xould probably write a definition of all the words you use. But they still don't make sense.

Sorry that I don't explain it clearly. In the appendix I write in more detail about my paradigm, which helps solve all problems.

Please write more specifically what you do not understand.

Quote from Curbina

I have the same problem. I can’t really connect what Aleksandr Nikitin states with observable/measurable phenomena. The closest reference I have is what Alexander Parkhomov claims, about “slow” or “cold” neutrinos being emitted by matter above 1000 degrees Celsius, and that he claims he can detect and measure, but few seem to agree and less have tried to replicate independently.

Sorry that I don't explain it clearly. In the appendix I write in more detail about my paradigm, which helps solve all problems.

Please write more specifically what you do not understand.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

Please write more specifically what you do not understand.

I try to be a scientist (a chemist and process engineer mostly) but I don't really get any of it, which makes it hard to point to particular things. Let me ask you another question. Do toy have any experimental proof for the hypothesis you are presenting as a 'done deal'?

Quote from Alan Smith

I try to be a scientist (a chemist and process engineer mostly) but I don't really get any of it, which makes it hard to point to particular things. Let me ask you another question. Do toy have any experimental proof for the hypothesis you are presenting as a 'done deal'?

In the course of my theoretical research, I came to the conclusion that, within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm, it is in principle impossible to explain cold nuclear fusion.

I propose a specific critical falsification experiment in laboratory conditions, but no one wants to do it yet.

But Nature itself carries out such experiments, for example,

1) During the explosion of supernova 1987A, cold nuclear fusion occurred, as evidenced by spectroscopic observations,

2) planet Earth is a generator of cold nuclear fusion, as evidenced by geoneutrinos, an iron-nickel core and heat emitted from the Earth’s core,

3) neutrinos were recorded by the “Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment” from an atomic reactor during the cold nuclear fusion reaction of beta decay.

4) All stars are generators of nuclear fusion.

5) Consequently, all material bodies are generators of nuclear fusion!

can you please reference the relevqnt papers?

Quote from bobfickle

can you please reference the relevqnt papers?

I can, but first, look at my profile with messages, articles and comments.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

In the course of my theoretical research, I came to the conclusion that, within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm, it is in principle impossible to explain cold nuclear fusion.

I propose a specific critical falsification experiment in laboratory conditions, but no one wants to do it yet.

Yet, I have explained cold fusion and it's impossible to falsify an observed behavior. In other words, what you say makes no sense.

Quote from Storms

Yet, I have explained cold fusion and it's impossible to falsify an observed behavior. In other words, what you say makes no sense.

Cold nuclear fusion is a chain reaction of reverse beta decay according to the scheme:

ῡ_e + n → p + e^- + ῡ_e + 13,6 eV →

For example:

→ ῡ + ⁶³Ni₂₈ +¹H→ ⁶³Cu₂₉ +e ^- + ῡ +¹H + Q=E (energy)