The “Thunderstorm” reactor as another potentially easy to replicate, and very useful, possibly LENR device

Quote from Curbina

These are very similar iron spheres across 4 different experimental setups.

Thanks. How many different machines were they scanned on? Was the second one scanned on a different machine to the other three?

I'd be inclined to suspect surface contamination - possibly from sample preparation.

Some control SEM samples need to be prepared, from plain materials, following the same methods that have been used to cut up and mount the "reactor" samples.

Figure 8. Typical morphologies of the Iron-Oxygen group.   (From this paper)

Quote from Frogfall

Where are the studies on control samples? (i.e. similar materials that have been through other thermal or plasma processes?) Only looking at samples from purported "reactors" is a form of pathological science.

Bob and magicsound both have samples from some experiments I ran using Electrolytic MHD Plasma. They both have control and samples from Electrolytic Plasma experiments (Project Proteus)
A lot of experiments can be watched here: (https://www.youtube.com/@consciousenergies/streams) if your interested.
From my preliminary examination from x50 Microscopy, there are indeed spheres of many sizes, but not sure if there is any Iron, as Nickel and Platinum were the electrode materials used with KOH with Nano-particles of Carbon.
The shape doesn't concern me as much as testing it's energy extraction from heat and light in a reactor design.
It would be fascinating if there was anything other than Ni, K, C, H, O, in my system as I took great care to eliminate any possibility of anything else.

And the public face of LENR spirals further into the chasm...

I'll ignore this thread from now on

If you plan to leave this one, the Tarasenko's one and the Axil's one where will you go ?

Quote from Frogfall

And the public face of LENR spirals further into into the chasm...

I'll ignore this thread from now on

Quote from Curbina

Frogfall , this will be eventually either confirmed or disproven, that simple.

I think we all agree the marketplace will prove/disprove the Thunderstorm Generator. So, I am curious if BG is there solely to satisfy his own curiosity, at the invite of the company, or both? And if he concludes it works before the market has had it's say in the matter, then what? Is there a quid pro quo?

Frogfall said earlier the free energy forums already take his participation as an endorsement. I certainly don't think that is Bob's intent, and not his fault if true, but the thought has crossed my mind that his involvement is giving more legitimacy to the tech at this early stage than it deserves. Especially in light of some of the background dug up on this thread, and with the company actively seeking money.

Bob pulled out the Parkhomov heat generator like that, it was the end of the world, he likes to joke like that, so believe him, believe me, it was research, and the rest is in the box... https://drive.google.com/file/…QQWy87SIMXjPa913CWS3/view

i recovered a funny picture from him

GEET, the thunderstorm apparatus, Santilli's magnegas and Richardson's AquaFuel are examples of water to energy conversion that seem impossible. How can thermodynamics produce such results, unless there is some mass to energy conversion?

Of all of above examples, only AquaFuel has been shown by mass balance and stoichiometry to be a result of a nuclear transformation equation. That nuclear transformation equation was a variation of one derived by mass balance and stoichiometry from data produced by Santilli's intermediate fusion. The data balance for the equation for intermediate fusion was balanced to 99.9% accountability. The sadness of this result is that the mass loss predicted by the transmutation equation did not show up all as energy. Rather, only about 4/10,000 of it did. Per Gibbs free energy equation, one concludes that the rest of mass lost is entropy. Entropy is an increase in the number of mass states. However, if a mass were to approach the smallest possible limit, then per the uncertainty principle, that mass could be potential energy.

If one has been able to follow the logic above, one supposes that the kind of nuclear reaction above produces a massive sea of potential energy in the form of particles much smaller than those of the standard model (with a possible exception of the electron neutrino). Note that same conclusion follows from work of Rout et al concerning radiation from cold fusion reactions. Further, note that cosmology reports that blackholes create dark energy which is only called energy because it is converted to the whatever is expanding the universe. Dark energy would be everywhere and is most of mass/energy of the universe.

It is very true that there is no consensus about what dark energy is. However, that doesn't change the possibility that whatever it is can be harvested as an energy source. Further, many scientists accept a similar concept, vacuum energy. Vacuum energy theory resulted in the worst prediction in all of science because it assumed vacuum energy to be equally distributed in space.

In contrast if vacuum energy (a result of the uncertainty principle) is mass which forms from energy, entropy (as governed by Gibbs free energy equation) or can be converted to energy (as governed by the uncertainty principle), then vacuum energy would have properties of mass. It would be a radiation with momentum and could be slowed by other masses to near zero momentum, unlike light. Its small size makes it impossible to exclude from a container of helium one is freezing to absolute zero. Hence, observed zero-point energy could be this un-excludable mass/dark energy. Its mass make it present in any gravitational field in proportion to gravitational field strength. Hence dark energy could be the reason for the vacuum catastrophe. This mass at the smallest possible quantum limit has a dark energy property which could be fermion exclusion. Hence, as Gibb's free energy equation produces by reaction more entropy, that entropy being a sea of fermions causes the expansion of the universe.

The point is that there is ample evidence for nuclear transformation to release energy from water. Further, there are good reasons for experiments with an aim to harvest so called zero-point energy or an aim to harvest so called dark energy or an aim to convert entropy back to useful energy or an aim to improve the energy/entropy yield of known so called cold fusion equations.

If your personal preference rejects as unscientific one of these types of experiments, then I ask you to consider that all of these experiments are likely trying to explain the same thing. These are exciting times. There are a number of proposals that need a "I will wait and see, or I am not yet convinced view." I suggest we all stay in the conversation and feel free to express our opinions.

Quote from Drgenek

Rather, only about 4/10,000 of it did. Per Gibbs free energy equation, one concludes that the rest of mass lost is entropy.

The almost complete loss of mass/energy is consistently found in almost all LENR systems. This loss mechanism is actioned by the Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) which will form when the power density of the LENR system exceeds a particular threshold about a few watts of power. This mechanistic transformation from a fusion based system occurs when the polariton aggregation becomes large enough to become coherent and a condensate forms.

The EVO is actually what is known as a Fermi ball. This system was thought to have produced dark matter during electroweak force separation transition to the weak force and EMF when the Higgs field first appeared in the universe.

https://www.livescience.com/da…dominate%20the%20universe.

The EVO may also be a form of Q-ball.

Q-ball - Wikipedia

Quote

We can think of this type of Q-ball a spherical ball of nonzero vacuum expectation value.

The hollow crenelated spheres seen in many LENR systems could be the transmutation residue from the formation of a micro black hole where material is captured in the black holes event horizon. The concentration of matter into that black hole is actioned by a domain wall that encapsulates the fermi ball and reflects matter and energy into a central point to a level where that concentration reaches black hole densities.

Domain wall - Wikipedia

Most of the matter and energy that enters the EVO/fermi ball except that for the crenelated sphere is sequestered inside this black hole which becomes a new addition to the undetectable dark matter of the universe in the forms of a nanosomic sized black hole.

With this insight in mind, transmutation might very well be recognized as a major disadvantage to the gainful production of fusion energy in a LENR system. Any increase in a LENR system's power density is blocked by the onset of energy/matter loss though black hole formation.

Energy production seen in large scale LENR reactions can be derived from the transition of the polariton condensate based bosons called a Bosenova into the condensates light and matter fermionic components. This energy type might be properly called quantum energy.

Now that we have come up with an experimental method of producing Q-Balls, the Big Bang origin of the universe can be researched in the lab. This experimental method might also open up experimentation into the creation into bubble universes,

Quote from axil

The almost complete loss of mass/energy is consistently found in almost all LENR systems.

according to the Axilian certainty principle..ACP?

Quote from RobertBryant

according to the Axilian certainty principle..ACP?

The “Thunderstorm” reactor is a good example of the production of energy free transmutation and mass loss. The reaction removes CO2 without the accumulation of carbon and the production of excess oxygen without energy generation from carbon to oxygen fusion as measured by appropriate gages. The amount of transmutation going on is huge if the 400,000 kilowatt gas generator is considered. Please explain how so much transmutation and mass loss is accomplished without the production of megawatts of heat production (aka E=MC^2). Deal with facts not clownery.

Quote from axil

Deal with facts not clownery.

Quote from axil

The almost complete loss of mass/energy is consistently found in almost all LENR systems

Can Axil provide any detail on the "almost complete loss of mass/energy in all LENR systems"

Does this mean that the Fleischmann Pons results showed >90% loss of mass/energy?

I suggest Axil looks a bit closer at the details of language and of factrather than making

global generalisations

Quote from axil

The amount of transmutation going on is huge

AFAIK no evidence of transmutation based on any isotope analysis

but there is related prior art .. Pantone system reduces CO2 emission

by water injection into a Diesel engine

of course there may be transmutation and celestial mathematics in a thunderstorm

N14>>>C14

Lightning makes new isotopes - Nature

Physicists show that thunderstorms trigger nuclear reactions in the atmosphere.

www.nature.com