Model Development and Programming Forum

    Model Development and Programming Forum


    This post is inspired by a 2015 thread titled New Developer and Programming Forum, that never really got any traction.


    I am a theorist. By way of introduction, you should know that I adhere to the principles of classical physics. Those that I find to be particularly important in cold fusion theory include the First, Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics, Plank’s equilibrium Theory of Heat, Maxwell’s equations, Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures, and the principles that Schrödinger attributes to the organization of matter’s living state. My favorite physics book is Max Plank’s Eight Lectures in Theoretical Physics, 1909, translated by A.P. Willis, Columbia U Press, 1915.


    A theory is a collection of ideas and equations that explain a physical system. A model takes the theory and represents it in a form that can be used to predict outcome. Models include numeric values for all of the unknowns in the theoretical framework, and flesh out precisely how the theory’s elements become part of a calculation procedure that predicts outcome. The testing of a model is known as calibration. If done properly, it can provide numeric scores for how well the model fits experimental measurements.


    I am the author of the Least Action Nuclear Process (LANP) theory of cold fusion, and also its computerized model having the same name, LANP. This is the only cold fusion model that has ever been proposed. It is written in FORTRAN using the Silverfrost FTN95 compiler, its Plato Integrated Development Environment and the DOS operating system. The program is entirely interactive, but because it is written in FORTRAN, I have not been able to bring up an interactive version on the Internet. An internet version of the program would either have to operate in batch mode, (which this program is also set up for), or the program would have to be re-compiled in Linux FORTRAN where an interactive version is possible. I am open to collaborating with professionals or independent scholars who share similar interests. I would like to see this program in the public domain. In the interim, I will assist serious researchers in bringing it up on their computer as described below.


    LANP theory is described in:


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wHRy6_0sgwShxTC9-IZKXwkXo7bLtxQN/view?usp=sharing


    Chapter 7 presents the LANP model calibration using George Miley’s published nuclear transmutation data(1). The calibration actually begins in Chapter 6. This is a draft of the book.


    Miley reports electrolysis experiments using thin film(650A) nickel bead electrodes having 17 initial isotope impurities, and 82 stable isotope impurities after 13 days of electrolysis. He concluded (and his data clearly show) that both fusion and fission nuclear transmutations were occurring and that the isotope abundance ratios in the final electrode departed significantly from those natually-occuring on planet earth. LANP model simulations begin with the five stable nickel isotopes plus the 18 isotope impurities(V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ag) in Miley’s initial electrode, and LANP then computes new and existing isotopes according to the LANP model’s theoretical foundations… all classical physics and well known nuclear chemistry. I have added an amend command to the Code that adds new isotopes back into the electrode, and recomputes any new isotopes from the amended electrode. This amend portion of the code is not yet complete.


    The model yields better than 95% agreement with Miley’s published transmutation measurements. It also is a good predictor of excess heat in Miley's experiments. That this could have occurred by chance is very, very unlikely. LANP model output for this calibration is provided in the above referenced book’s Appendices.


    Is there an independent scholar or LENR professional out there who shares my interests? Is there someone who is interested in bringing this model up on their computer. It needs an independent review of both its theory and the model calculations. I am looking for correspondence (in this forum or elsewhere) that is thoughtful, scientifically informed, and framed in classical physics where/if the discussion branches to physics. I’ll only correspond with persons who meet these criteria and have read at least parts of the above reference. Expertise in FORTRAN is not required. Another member of this forum already has the program working on their computer.


    (1) G. Miley, J Patterson, “Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis”, J. New Energy, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 5-38, 1996.

    As a non-scientist i can't help you in your theory evaluation. Anyway i could give my opinions about the software part.

    I went through the reference without not trying to understand the text but trying to find out which kind of mathematics

    would be needed. If i understood correctly, all the formulas needed would be straightforward calculations or functions.

    There was some double-integration mentioned, but also the final result in a formula-form was given.

    From this point of view If correctly understood, the programming language doesn't matter much in this case.


    As a first step I would suggest to use f2c (man-page here man-page from ubuntu )in linux to transform the fortran-code

    to C/C++. After that the maintenance of the code would be much easier especially because fortran-experts start be rare nowadays.

    One special problem could be those COMMON or EQUIVALENCE-statements in the code so probably some manual work

    for those would be needed.


    About my background, i'm a 75% retired automation engineer. The first course for me in the technical university in the middle of 70's was

    programming in Fortran IV (66) using punch-cards. Later i had to do quite many exercises in the university with the "modern" F77,

    but at that time the we had already terminals, line-editors and all that new staff.


    At real work i didn't use fortran ever but in the beginning of 90's we had to embed a certain optimisation algorithm as function

    block in an automation system. In this case the source code was f2c-compiled from fortran to C. No problems in that piece of code.

    All the rest of the code had been done utilising C.


    Later that i've used these languages; Matlab(+Simulink) (Octave, Scilab), java and some python.

    Thank you RJ for your reply. I'm a 75 year old, mostly retired civil engineer with a 44 year hobby in classical physics and a specialty in Heat Theory, Free energy, and Reversible thermodynamics.


    The Theory of Heat that my model employs is its only mathematically complicated element...and as it turns out, it is merely used to describe how thermonuclear energies can be accumulated and stored in a room temperature device (see sections F and G, pp 59-63) . My approach begins with an understanding that the cathode's internal energy increases as hydrogen nuclei are loaded into the cathode, and this occurs throughout any experiment. The theory describes a process wherein a deuteron's kinetic energy is harvested (See pp 44-45 for the energy harvesting mechanism) at the moment that it is first absorbed onto the surface of the metal hydride lattice. Its kinetic energy goes to zero. The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that its kinetic energy is not lost, but instead, is absorbed into the metal lattice structure where it is stored as lattice bond energy. On pp 70-71, I illustrate how the ignition energy for a nuclear fusion reaction can be harvested and stored as lattice bond energy in between one and one hundred layers of the Fleischmann-Pons experimental electrode.


    The model's nuclear transmutation calculations utilize the well known decay pathways for unstable nuclei. For example, on page 72, the beta decay of gallium-64, Ga-64 to zinc-64, Zn-64 results in a mass loss of 0.048506 atomic mass units(amu)... that can be converted to energy using Einstein's equation: E=mc2. [ for reference remember that hydrogen has a mass of about 1.0 atomic mass unit]. A second example on that same figure illustrates the decay of Te-114 (Tellurium-114) to Fe-57 (Iron-57).


    The only new twist in these well established rules is found in the way that the Principle of Least Action determines which decay path is operative, where there are more than one decay pathway to a stable isotope product. This is illustrated in the more complicated decay shown on page 78 where Osmium-166 decays to the fission products: Zinc-70 and Gallium-71 with a mass change of 0.933277 amu. Do you see how the Least Action selection process makes the decay absolutely deterministic. Each unstable isotope can undergo Least Action decay to only one final stable isotope. This makes the cold fusion process absolutely deterministic...the way that physics is supposed to be.


    That is about as complicated as the calculations get. I give an example of an excess heat calculation on page 96. To understand how a deterministic process can result in seemingly random responses, see Appendix D.


    But there is a more important conclusion. If cold fusion is absolutely deterministic, quantum mechanics...the study of uncertainty in physical systems...has no place in cold fusion theory.

    Quote from Dan Szumski

    But there is a more important conclusion. If cold fusion is absolutely deterministic, quantum mechanics...the study of uncertainty in physical systems...has no place in cold fusion theory.

    I am not so sure about that. While the outcomes - transmutation pathways, mass to energy conversion etc- may be deterministic, the set of circumstances that creates the desired outcomes may be subject to uncertainty.

    If we look to a game of chance like roulette (for example) then betting on red or black will lead to some wins, and some losses, eventually the number of wins and losses will be equal - if there is no rule that means the house wins when the ball falls on zero. So far, so normal.

    But the outcomes of those entirely random wins and losses may not be equal if the player's stake always remain on the table and is not taken away by the croupier, perhaps because he is blind. In that game the consequences of a loss are negligible, and the consequences of a win mount up.

    It is not inconceivable - to me at least -that the 'rules' of cold fusion play put in the same way. We create systems where the chances of cold fusion events occurring are known to be high, in fact we create a roulette game with atoms and particles, and stake a little energy on a game, if we lose the spin we do it again, but our first stake, the energy we put into the losing spin, is still on the table because the croupier left it there, the system is still hot, or electrified or whatever. We spin again and win, and then the payout we get dwarfs the stake, in fact every payout is larger than the stake so in a cold fusion system we can literally 'break the bank' .

    In contrast, stable systems, by which I mean those where the chances of spontaneous nuclear events are vanishingly small, there is no roulette game, so nobody wins or loses and our planet is not consumed by its own atoms.

    So- random events can create determined outcomes, but first you have to build a casino.

    Alan Smith

    In the deuterium -deuterium fusion reaction to helium 3 an intermediate state is helium 4, which normally is stable. In Joseph Papp's Noble Gas Engine, however, it appears that by exciting the helium 4 to a plasma by using a magnetic field and radio frequency energy it can be made to fission by an applied spark. This fits your "casino" argument. An essentially impossible reaction at room temperature happens. Even more interesting is that very little waste heat is produced even with 100 horse power mechanical output.


    Dan Szumski


    How does that fit your theory of heat?

    GRMattson


    My 'Casino' argument is mostly a philosophical one of course, but it occurs to me that the much observed and documented existence of what Ed Storms christened the NAE (Nuclear Active Environment) does provide some experimental support in that Ed suggests that such hot-spots are formed 'in the bulk' during his experiments.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I am not so sure about that. While the outcomes - transmutation pathways, mass to energy conversion etc- may be deterministic, the set of circumstances that creates the desired outcomes may be subject to uncertainty.


    Thank you Alan for your comments.


    I think that we can agree that the normal decay pathways for unstable isotopes are deterministic. My example in the initial post, Ga-64 beta decays to Zn-64 + a beta-plus particle. There is no uncertain about that outcome. In the irreversible process context, a very large number of Ga-64 nuclei decay in a statistical manner to Zn-64 nuclei. The number of nuclei in the Ga-64 form decreases, while the number of nuclei in the Zn-64 form increases. But the number of each form are only estimated in a statistical way. In this case, where the system includes uncertainty, quantum mechanics is the appropriate tool for estimating outcome.


    What I am saying in my initial post is this. COLD FUSION THEORISTS ARE NOT USING THE CORRECT THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM TO CONSTRUCT THEIR MODELS.

    My contention (you should read my reference as I suggested) is that cold fusion’s energy-accumulation and the energy-storage mechanism has its foundations in reversible thermodynamic physics. This branch of physical theory describes systems that operate at the very limit of the Second Law where uncertainty goes to zero. Reversible process theory happens to be the single most misunderstood area of physics.


    In the reversible process context, the transmutation process is strictly sequential. One transmutation occurs only after the previous transmutation is completed. Do you see how within this framework, that one transmutation involves a single Ga-64 nuclei that decays to a specific Zn-64 nuclei plus a beta(+) particle. And in the next step [remember steps are sequential] another specific Ga-64 nuclei decays to another very specific Zn-64 nuclei. Everything is exact. This precision occurs because the nuclei are locked in the lattice structure. The nuclei position is known exactly, and the momentum of the nuclei (locked in the lattice structure) is exactly zero. There is no Heizenberg uncertainty (see “uncertainty principle” in Wikipedia). Therefore quantum mechanics is an inappropriate analysis tool.


    I discuss the rules of the reversible thermodynamic process in Chapter 1 of the reference:

    https://drive.google.com/file/…o7bLtxQN/view?usp=sharing

    Quote from Dan Szumski

    Josef Papp (Wikipedia) does not appear to be a reputable or reliable reference.

    I think Papp was certainly a fabulist, and attracted a few 'wrong uns' as colleagues but at times he did some remarkable things. I agree he was -as you state- neither 'reputable or reliable', but as for his technology, maybe there was a smidgin of something real there.

    Dan Szumski

    Quote from Dan Szumski

    Josef Papp (Wikipedia) does not appear to be a reputable or reliable reference.

    Joseph Papp's qualifications to provide a new source of power are not at issue here. Think of him as the messenger with the engine as the message. What matters is the testimony of those who came into contact with the engine. A consistent picture of a power source emitting little waste heat emerges, something that makes no sense as a chemically based power source. As a nuclear based source, however, maybe, an unaccounted for energy aspect could occur (a neutron flux?).

    Well, that's where your model comes in. If it has legs it should say something about heat generation in the proposed fission reaction behind the operation of the engine.


    It's unfortunate that no proper evaluation of the engine was done. That apparently was ended by the meddling of one Nobel Laureate by the name of Richard Feynman, that caused the engine to explode. No evidence apparently was found that the engine was anything other than what Papp said it was in his patent.

    Mixing fantasy and fact is why almost no progress has been made in 40 years, IMO.

    Fantasy makes for good inspiration but it is impossible to build on.

    “It only works when the inventor is there” is one good criterion to distinguish the two.

    A little aside about Joe Papp, and the source of his ideas…


    I always find it interesting to look at how, or where, any particular researcher or inventor could have gathered the information that led to their ideas. Nowadays lots of information is available via a few keystrokes, but in the pre-internet days you really had to have some direct sources of information – either through an area of work, higher education, general publications, personal experimentation, or via friends/relatives.


    Joe Papp left the Hungarian airforce around 1955/56 – where, in the latter stages of his national service, he was carrying out tests on parachutes. On leaving the airforce it is said that he was living as a cartoonist, and that he was arrested during the 1956 civil uprising and Soviet invasion. He then left Hungary, along with thousands of other refugees, and ended up in a Canadian refugee camp, working as an agricultural labourer.


    In later years he would tell people that he had spent time working at an atomic research establishment before leaving Hungary – but that doesn’t sound feasible, considering his airforce service, and subsequent rapid departure from the country.


    However it seems that the atomic research being carried out in Hungary, in the 1950s, does bear some relationship to the odd devices that Joseph Papp later built.


    An institute called “Atomki” was established in 1954, in Debrecen, and – despite a lack of funding – managed to carry out some impressive research.


    Atomki didn’t get its first (small) research reactor until 1959, and didn’t get its first accelerator until 1961. Hence, for most of the 1950s, they were using other means to create various radioactive substances for their experiments. Some of this would have involved exposing materials (e.g. gases) directly to naturally radioactive isotopes. Another technique was to create secondary radiation (neutrons, positrons, gamma), from various radioactive mixtures, and exposing substances to that.


    Essentially, these are all just ways to transmute elements into more useful ones for experimental work. Some of these things were being done in the very early days of nuclear research - but it looks like the researchers at Atomki might have refined the techniques still further, out of economic necessity.


    See this video, which possibly includes shots of researchers creating Helium-6 for the experiments that led to their claim of the first photo of a neutrino reaction.


    Interestingly, looking at Papp’s patents, he appears to be doing something very similar - by also exposing his “noble gases” to various radioactive substances. Unfortunately, though, some of the patent text seems to be garbled - for instance mixing up atomic number with isotope number. (The patent examiners have let the descriptions stand, as they probably didn’t fully understand, or even care about, the process being outlined.) So was this deliberate obfuscation, on Joseph Papp’s part, or did he actually file text that he didn’t really understand himself? And if it was the latter, where did the information come from?


    Maybe Joseph Papp’s tales of having previously worked in a Hungarian nuclear facility was just to hide that he was really getting his information from an employee at Atomki. That could have been a former airforce friend, or maybe even his own brother, Erno. Whatever happened to Erno? (Centre in photo, Joseph behind.)


    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Thanks 3

    Frogfall


    An interesting take. It does appear that Papp was a competent technician, but a read of his patent puts doubts about his understanding of Physics. It's possible that he could of had a part time job at Atomki, and may have been requested to destroy the engine, but instead chose to take it and head to Canada. In any case the complexity of the engine makes it likely that it was not built by a single person but was a collaborative effort of several competent and knowledgeable persons. And don't forget the two explosions of record. They were particularly strong, indicating an unusual process at work. That the same process applied in both cases was indicated by the same low rumbling sound in the build up to each one.

    Quote from GRMattson

    Frogfall


    An interesting take. It does appear that Papp was a competent technician, but a read of his patent puts doubts about his understanding of Physics. It's possible that he could of had a part time job at Atomki, and may have been requested to destroy the engine, but instead chose to take it and head to Canada. In any case the complexity of the engine makes it likely that it was not built by a single person but was a collaborative effort of several competent and knowledgeable persons. And don't forget the two explosions of record. They were particularly strong, indicating an unusual process at work. That the same process applied in both cases was indicated by the same low rumbling sound in the build up to each one.

    Somehow I doubt that he brought the engine idea with him in 1957 - although he did seem to be convinced that there was some strange explosive power source available, that was not publicly known about.


    His bonkers "submarine" was clearly meant to have some secret propulsion system which never materialised. The whole device looked more like one of his cartoon spaceships than a feasible vessel (he would have probably done well as a Hollywood sci-fi movie set designer).


    Papp did seem to be good at persuading investors to give him cash.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Alan Smith


    You may be sorry, but I am not. He brought it off topic himself when he introduced Papp's character. People need to learn to stick with the science on this site themselves. Anyway, I effectively warned him when I advised him to check the 'Lenr Induced Fission' thread when he first showed up. Had he read it he would have known what to expect relative to his model. He apparently came in cold expecting his ideas to be fully embraced. Doesn't happen.

    Quote from Dan Szumski

    I am the author of the Least Action Nuclear Process (LANP) theory of cold fusion,


    LANP model Calibration- ICCF-25 poster

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    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.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.