ENG8 - new plasma energy system

  • Arguing over minutia of a proposed theory seems like debating the color of the sun. People interpret things differently so if there is a particular problem you have with the theory, could you let it be stated so we can have a rational dialogue?

    From the experiment sited in this post as folllows:



    The experimenters were able to tell what was causing the reaction that they were seeing by observing as data the nature of the light that was being emitted by the experiment.


    Quote

    In other words, the electronic properties of the material itself replaced the need for cooling, allowing the quasiparticles to gather and condense into a BEC. The experimenters confirmed this effect by detecting the telltale light emission.

    In these quantum mechanical based experiments it is difficult to extract cause and effect relationships. This uncertainty tends to let the imagination run wild that eventually result in counterproductive thinking which undercuts analysis and discovery.


    Polariton condensates are coherent and as a coherent generator of light, that light will always be polarized. Polarized light generation by an experiment is a true indicator of the nature of the underlying mechanism that is driving the process under observation.


    I have always believed if a experiment does not see expected indicators that point to the major underlying processes central to mechanisms of the experiment, there is an excellent chance that the experiment does not support those theoretical assumptions. For example, if no gamma and/or neutron radiation of the predicted nuclear reactions is observed coming from an experiment, there is a excellent chance that the experiment is not nuclear energy centric. The experimenter cannot just assume the possibility that the lack of these expected indicators is a "miracle".


    I know of one over unity high temperature plasma based system where polarized light is produced by the reaction and that system must be driven by a polariton condensate. This data say much about the mechanisms that underlie this system that the inventor does not want to reveal about his IP as follows:


  • I'm l sure you agree with this statement as not defying the laws of physics, but rather increasing the systems total energy capacity and opening up the system to other means of transformations and interactions.

    No I don't agree. Sorry.


    I've had to deal with vibration, and mechanical resonance, for a long time. Unfortunately, resonance in general is counter-intuitive, and can lead people into a great deal of confusion.


    The whole point is that it does not increase the total energy of a system, but can increase amplitudes (towards infinity) through preventing the dissipation of the available energy. Sometimes you want that to happen (e.g. musical instruments, a child's swing), but often it can lead to destruction (e.g. mechanical power transmissions), and must be "designed out of the system", using Modal Analysis and various well-established countermeasures.

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

  • No I don't agree. Sorry.


    I've had to deal with vibration, and mechanical resonance, for a long time. Unfortunately, resonance in general is counter-intuitive, and can lead people into a great deal of confusion.


    The whole point is that it does not increase the total energy of a system, but can increase amplitudes (towards infinity) through preventing the dissipation of the available energy. Sometimes you want that to happen (e.g. musical instruments, a child's swing), but often it can lead to destruction (e.g. mechanical power transmissions), and must be "designed out of the system", using Modal Analysis and various well-established countermeasures.

    Right, that was my point is that it depends on how it is designed. If you design a damn to cut off the entire river rather than build a tributary stream that syphons off small amounts of water, that is the increase or decrease of total energy in the system based on the design of the systems and how isolated it is. Not that being in resonance increases the energy of the system, but rather that it makes the transformation of energy more or less efficient.
    It is refreshing that you didn't agree though respectfully, makes me reflect on what my point was and do a better job at explaining it.

  • Sorry either we talk about physics or metaphysics. WL is not a theory its an idea for a fringe mechanism that nobody so far could see. In CF neutrons are are guests.

    I am not sure I understand what you are talking about stating it as not a theory. Many have provided varying degrees of evidence which seems to confirm charge carrying in hydrogen atoms or the hydrogen facilitating by clusters of atoms haven't we? We have observed it in microscopy/spectroscopy from many experimentalists in the field. I don't really have a lot of time to argue over points of view on a theory or not. If a person(s) present a theory and states it as such, perhaps having good faith to consider how it can be tested with hypothesis, we may understand the physics better? My point is I understand WL Theory more than what theory or hypothesis you are purposing at the moment. What do mean by "In CF neutrons are are guests." and do you really believe nobody has observed condensed hydrogen charged clustering?

  • and do you really believe nobody has observed condensed hydrogen charged clustering?

    The only clusters we know and are proven by experiments are clustes of H* (Holmlid).


    What we already could show years ago H* can add to nuclei like a neutron D* like 2 protons or as Deuterium. Normally H*-H* is added more rarely a single/tripple H*.

  • I think the best critique of Widom-Larsen theory (I have seen) is this one. https://newenergytimes.com/v2/…13Tenfors-On-the-idea.pdf


    I object to any theory which require 'renormalisation' (fudge factors) to fix the math, but more importantly these are Tenfors principal objections:-


    3 Low-energy nuclear reactions

    The title of Widom and Larsens article reads “Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions”. Such

    reactions have been known for 80 years. They are utilized in fission reactors where the neutrons really acts as catalysts,

    since each reaction produces new neutrons enabling a chain reaction.

    The authors speculate about spontaneous collective motion in a room temperature metallic lattice of surface metallic hydride protons producing oscillating electric fields that renormalize the electron self-energy, adding significantly

    to the effective mass and enabling production of low-energy neutrons.

    A number of objections can be raised against their treatment of the subject:

    1) While proton oscillations and surface plasmon polaritons can exist in metal lattices, they need energy to grow!

    To reach the necessary electron mass enhancement, each oscillating electron needs 0.78MeV, which is not readily

    available in a room temperature metal lattice.

    2) The fluctuating electric field evaluated from the neutron scattering data on proton oscillation frequency and

    displacement is far from adequate for reaching the threshold for neutron production. In the neutron scattering

    experiment, the proton energy appears to be higher than room temperature thermal. The energy in this case most

    likely is provided by the diagnostic neutron beam.

    3) The authors point out the importance of avoiding the Coulomb barrier, but they provide no discussion of the

    energy needed. The electrons will lose energy by competing interactions in the metal lattice. Only a small fraction

    of the electrons may produce neutrons and we must take all competing mechanisms into account. Reaching the

    threshold probably requires a substantial energy input by particle beams or infrared lasers.

    4) Widom and Larsens exercise with the stationary electric field could have led to the correct electric field strength

    using the measured frequency and displacement in eq. (6), but they failed to realize that. They referred to violation

    of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation to explain the lack of Coulomb screening needed to get the high charge

    densities assumed. However, the positive charges in the lattice nuclei and the protons cannot be neglected to

    the extent the wish, as demonstrated by the neutron scattering data. The stationary field approach also caused

    confusion since they omitted the time dependence in their eq. (16), which obscured the relation between the electric

    field and the electron oscillation energy.

    5) They referred to violation of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation to explain the lack of Coulomb screening needed

    to get the high charge densities assumed. However, the positive charges in the lattice nuclei and the protons cannot

    be neglected to the extent they wish, as demonstrated by the neutron scattering data.

    6) They do not disclose the measured frequency explicitly, in these comments it is evaluated from eqs. (1) and (3).

    In a later publication [2] the authors note that “for metallic hydride surfaces upon which plasma oscillations exist,

    typical values for the surface plasmon polariton frequencies are in the range (¯hΩ/e) ≈ (5 − 6) × 10−2 V”. This

    yields Ω ≈ (8 − 10) × 1013 s−1.

    7) Their habit of mixing SI and Gaussian units in the equations in the equations obscures the evaluation process.

    8) In addition to the energy threshold for neutron production, we must look at the cross-section for the reaction. This

    is not discussed in [1], but in [2]; the authors provide an estimate of vσ in the limit of vanishing initial relative

    velocity. However, with relativistic electrons the reaction rate would be severely reduced. A relativistic electron

    must come very close to a proton to be captured. At larger distances the electron will transfer energy to the proton.

    The behaviour of beta decay of a neutron and the reverse process ˜e + p → n + νe, due to the weak interaction, in the

    presence of an electric field has been considered in detail in the literature [3,4]. A compact expression for the total

    probability for a process perturbed by a laser field was investigated as a function of the field intensity and frequency.

    The main conclusion is that even in strong laser fields the effects are negligible.

  • WL proposed a model with things understood, took in account at their time. Today we know experiments not especially involving hydrogen gas ( other too).

    In this way the only common point to explain that is an electron capture.

    What's happen next i leave you decide.

  • Another.


    External Content youtu.be
    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.

  • Einar Tennfors said in his report :


    In addition to the energy threshold for neutron production, we must look at the cross-section for the reaction. This

    is not discussed in [1], but in [2]; the authors provide an estimate of vσ in the limit of vanishing initial relative

    velocity. However, with relativistic electrons the reaction rate would be severely reduced. A relativistic electron

    must come very close to a proton to be captured. At larger distances the electron will transfer energy to the proton.


    I ve no doubt on his knowledge, analysis... now about conclusions he said " At larger distances the electron will transfer energy to the proton."

    However he forgot to say the energy level for this electron, for example if this energy amount could be able to induce a proton shift...( Kervran/Focardi)






  • The following is a post I authored back in 2016 for EGOOUT about the details of the WL theory. In order to get gainful energy out of the WL reaction, this weak force process needs to happen about 10^25 times a second minimum. This level of neutron production is hard to beleive.


    The big challenge in science is to find out what is fundamental and what is emergent. It's the chicken and the egg problem. The theories of LENR are filled with this chicken and the egg problem.

    As an example, let's look at the "Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR"

    The Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR is a theory that requires exceptional behavior on the part of the weak force. Normally, heavy electrons, that is, electrons that have a kinetic energy over the threshold that makes amalgamation of the electron and proton together to form a neutron in a beta decay requires the formation of a weak force mediation particle, the W or Z boson.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier

    W bosons, and Z bosons, excitations of the electroweak gauge fields are required to produce the Widom-Larsen effect.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons

    Weak Force boson Mass

    W: 80.385±0.015 GeV/c2
    Z: 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2

    the weak force bosons are very short-lived, with a half-life of about 3×10e−25 sec.

    That weak force mediation effect requires a huge amount of energy to be formed, close to a giga electron volts of the proton mass out of the vacuum.

    IF the Widom-Larsen effect is occurring, it is because the is an exceptional condition in place where the weak force is greatly amplified. The Widom-Larsen effect can be considered a emergent weak force process that is being produced by a special environment in which the weak force is operating. To the best of my understanding, the description of the special environment that the weak force is operating under is not described by the WL effect. The WL effect is describing what may be happening by not why it is happening.


    Another post on EGO out in 2015 as follows:


    The overarching theme of this essay is to explain how neutrons are only transmuted from protons as a result of beta decay mediated under the control of the weak force. Nuclear decay requires the weak force and neutron production requires nuclear decay. Nuclear decay resulting in the production of neutrons from protons must occur INSIDE the nucleus.



    To start off, quantum mechanics (QM) is a sometimes thing. Sometimes it does this and sometimes it does that. What QM does is based on probability. Nuclear decay is subject to the vagaries of probability. The production of a neutron from a proton is a sometimes thing. Because of the transient nature of beta decay, we cannot depend on nuclear decay to drive the LENR process. LENR must be produced by an absolutely certain cause...a cause that is guarantied to occur. Descriptions of what quantum mechanics does is absolutely adverse to absolute statements. And at the same time, it is nearly impossible to predict how subatomic particles and energy interact to get to the results that are later observed in LENR.



    Next, the weak force is one of the four fundamental forces that govern all matter in the universe While the other forces hold things together, the weak force plays a greater role in things falling apart, or decaying. In nuclear physics, beta decay (β-decay) is a type of nucleon re-balancing function in which a proton is transformed into a neutron, or vice versa, INSIDE an atomic nucleus. This process allows the atom to move closer to the optimal ratio of protons and neutrons. Atoms want to have a one for one balance of protons and neutrons INSIDE the nucleus.



    The weak force, or weak interaction that is responsible for turning a proton into a neutron is only effective at incredibly short distances. It acts on the subatomic level and plays a crucial role in keeping the number of protons and neutrons balanced in the nucleus or for converting stray neutrons that somehow get outside the nucleus and away from their proton partners into protons.



    So it is seen that INSIDE the nucleus, the quark changes its flavor when interacting via the W- or W+. This interaction cannot be observed outside the nucleus because quarks do not exist outside the nucleus. Because of quark confinement, isolated quarks are not observed and the weak force only works in decay processes inside the nucleus. I am ignoring the decay of subatomic particles associated with nuclear processes.



    There are many neutrons inside of atoms and they are universally stable when protons and neutrons are paired together INSIDE the nucleus. But if there is a very large mismatch in the number of protons or neutrons INSIDE the nucleus, a neutron can decay into a proton or a proton can become a neutron. When a neutron is outside of the nucleus, it will decay into a proton, positron and a neutrino. But in order for a stray neutron to decay into a proton, positron and neutrino, a very heavy W boson is needed to be born out of the energy of the vacuum to mediate the decay of the neutron through the weak force.



    The weak force only manifests itself INSIDE the nucleus or INSIDE the neutron, not in or around the proton or the electron. The weak force is absolutely required to turn a proton into a neutron. In order for the weak force to manifest outside the nucleus, a massive W boson must be born out of the vacuum. Under the rules of virtual particle production, the probability that this huge amount of virtual energy could be borrowed from the vacuum is proportional to the mass of the W boson. Since the W boson is one of the heaviest boson that there can be... it is huge, the probability that the W boson will come into existence unbidden from the vacuum is vanishingly small. And if the W boson were generated from the vacuum, it would only be around for a very short time since its lifetime is inversely proportional to its mass. And if it did spring into existence from the vacuum, it would need to be produced and located within .1 percent of the diameter of the proton* to properly project the weak force during it almost near instantaneously short lifetime.



    * ( the weak interaction involves the exchange of the intermediate vector bosons, the W and the Z. Since the mass of these particles is on the order of 80 GeV, the uncertainty principle dictates a range of about 10-18 meters which is about .1% of the diameter of a proton.)

    The bottom line, the probability that the weak force affects subatomic particles OUTSIDE the nucleus is almost ZERO.



    In beta plus decay, for a proton to become a neutron requires the proton to decay into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino OUTSIDE of the nucleus. This virtual neutrino must be produced out of the energy of the vacuum just in the vanishingly short time that the W boson is in existence. This probability of two such extremely unlikely event occurring simultaneously is so small that this nearly impossible combination of events can occur together is close to zero.



    Now in a 1 megawatt LENR reactor, there needs to be 10^25 LENR reactions more or less happening during each and every second. This implies that the LENR reaction must be a sure thing and absolutely prolific. Because of timing, the range of the weak force, and the large energies involved, the probability of the creation of neutrons outside the nucleus is almost zero. This beta decay OUTSIDE the nucleus therefore cannot be the cause of LENR.



    Yes, neutrons are produced by LENR but that creation must be a result of beta decay INSIDE the nucleus after the proton has become a part of the nucleus and the weak force must subsequently re -balance the number of protons and neutrons to keep the nucleus in the zone of stability.



    For all who propose the creation of neutrons OUTSIDE the nucleus as the root cause of LENR, they must address how the rules of the standard model, the production of virtual particles from the vacuum and the nature of beta decay and color change through the weak force are changed to allow this neutron production process to move forward with such great intensity and rapidity. Its not just meeting the requirements of energy balance, it’s meeting all the other conservation laws involved with beta decay and obeying all the rules of road for the standard model.



  • On the topic of Theory:
    Couldn't it just be as simple as hydrogen, the closest thing we have to the subatomic layer, is coalescing in an QM/EM field and the radical phase shift (or oscillations of phase shifting) creates what is already theoretically established for hydrogen fusion in stars? Only in the place of gravity in the "Accepted Model", it is EM fields at a much smaller scale which can make 3 or ( 4 w/spin) dimensional wave structures in matter? In this way we don't have to re-invent the wheel or make it overly exotic. It's just a way to convert highly energy dense atomic and sub-atomic fields on the microscale, into a larger coalescing system in/on the macroscale? By designing the proper materials to the environment, hypothetically we should be able to transform the energy of denser mediums into something novel in our local environments?

    The only real damage in this theory is that gravity may be an emergent phenomenon of EM, which many theoretical physicists resist adamantly as it breaks the current orthodoxy of the macroscale in physics.


    It seems to me to be very specific in having materials which can produce point discharges and high current densities in small atomic package. So as Storms and others have discussed, encasing a conductive zone, with semi-conductive zones and insulators/dielectrics is important for the proper conditions that are useful for us. To get the balance on that correct has been the "holy grail" of this field perhaps? Even the mighty LED is something to behold for human ingenuity and efficiency, wouldn't you agree?
    If not, than why?


    We have had enough W-L theory now- this is after a thread all about ENG8

    I like ENG8's reactor design because I am familiar with it, so it makes me a little bias.
    However, I do think that these styles of reactors have already had patent attempts before, and where are they now?
    I probably sound like a damn broken record with these questions, but don't you think it's worthy of consideration?

  • If you design a damn to cut off the entire river rather than build a tributary stream that syphons off small amounts of water, that is the increase or decrease of total energy in the system based on the design of the systems and how isolated it is.

    I'm afraid I cannot decypher what you are trying to describe, here.


    Not that being in resonance increases the energy of the system, but rather that it makes the transformation of energy more or less efficient.

    I'm afraid I'm still going to disagree. Resonance has nothing to do with "transforming energy". Yes, it allows the accumulation of energy (as alternating kinetic and potential energy), just as long as the periodic forcing power is greater than the available damping - but if you start extracting that accumulated energy (as power) you will just kill the resonance.


    Every few years somebody tries to invent a "resonant wind generator", usually after having seen the infamous Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse footage.



    But they never work, becuase the inventor has totally misunderstood what is really happening.

  • Oh, that's fine. I was referring to resonant coupling to a denser energy states like Hydrogen. Just for reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
    Pretty hard to explain efficient transformation of energy any better than that wiki? The "extraction" as you put it is in the application and design of a thing to do useful work. Anything in between could be considered an inefficiency?
    There are a lot of people who forget that energy is defined by the capacity to do work over time. This = power. P = \frac{W}{\Delta t}

    The change in energy is the work being done, the less "extraction" in between a things purpose and design, usually the more efficient, i.e. less losses in heat, sound, vibration, etc.
    I'm not planning on building a bridge that is an-harmonically destroyed by the wind any time soon, but I would like to build a molecular transducer that efficiently turns hydrogen into electromagnetic force for useful work. :)

  • These theories are just fantasies...and have never been proven or better have been disproved many times...

    Are you referring to the Arthur Edington 1920 theory of "Stellar Nucleosynthesis"?
    All theories are fantasies until someone imaginative enough can create a testable hypothesis to test a theory right?
    All these theories burn me out a bit without some way of testing them to be honest.
    Can we just stick to asking nature questions with experiments and leave the fantasies to the religious fanatics?

  • These theories are just fantasies...and have never been proven or better have been disproved many times...

    Is there any other „fantasy“ that explains the myriads of Neutrinos (guess those are somehow „real“?) originating from the stars and the reactions in their inner core out there? What could explain a Supernova, other than the current understanding of what might be happening inside stellar objects? I mean, can „low“ energy reactions indeed produce the measurable energies or phenomena like Novas, neutron stars, magnetars etc? I am not an astrophysicist, but calling all current astrophysical understanding (which might not be correct) bullshit makes sense only if there is a different theory that explains all current findings better than the „mainstream fantasies“.

  • What could explain a Supernova, other than the current understanding of what might be happening inside stellar objects?

    All we can know is from what we can see and measure. Unluckily the experiment Supernova usually happens > 1 mio light years away and is not under our control...


    Far more close are "planets" like Pluto that still show some thermal activity that only can be explained by LENR or CF.


    Same with neutrinos we only can somehow measure them - not like electron/protons - with very low reliability. Anything derived from neutrino still lives in the hypothesis cloud.


    Why? Physics - the standard model (SM) has no clue about any particle structure. SM also does not know the photon equation (just uses an envelope version). Even worse cosmology just now faces its deepest crisis, where all methods claimed to work show deep cracks and the age of the universe is no longer clear.


    So we should be modest and confess that we simply do not know enough about the underlying physics of our world.


    One hint for a super novae could be the repulsive nature of some strong force configurations, we e.g. can see in 8-B where the decay is explosive as we know from the 6-Li +2-H reaction also called the (German) Lithium heavy water bomb.


    The new SO(4) model exactly shows how the strong force in atomic bonds evolves - becomes stronger - but massive stars are giant nuclei like structures that certainly follow more deep rules we only can guess.

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

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.