If you don’t feel like reading our many threads to get an idea, you can stay up to date comfortably by visiting http://www.lenr-news.com and subscribing to our newsletter.
Display MoreAs I say, I was a watcher maybe 10 years ago when we were going to be able to by our household units at Lowes.
I gave up on the LENR idea many years ago.
But still have the question is there any real viable unit?
Also, any reason given for why Rossi's 1MW unit that was purchased on viability, was given back?
I never saw a reason. I would guess it didn't work.
Thanks for catching me up, Mikek
The “1 MW” plant was a fiasco such that many people are smarter and poorer, and some were shown to be incurable idiots.
If you don’t feel like reading our many threads to get an idea, you can stay up to date comfortably by visiting http://www.lenr-news.com and subscribing to our newsletter.
So, you can't point to any functioning commercial unit after 10 years? Large or small.
But, lots of research.
So, you can't point to any functioning commercial unit after 10 years? Large or small.
But, lots of research.
You cannot point to a functioning hot fusion reactor after 70 years - large or small.
But lots of research (and billions in funding).
I gave up on the LENR idea many years ago.
So, you think the laws of thermodynamics are inoperative? Do you think thermometers and thermistors don't work?
So, you can't point to any functioning commercial unit after 10 years? Large or small.
But, lots of research.
Not that much research, because there is no funding. But there has been notable progress, especially in reproducibility by Storms and possibly Takahashi et al. (I cannot judge the latter, but it seems more reproducible.) Also, improved control, reproducibility, and the revival of techniques that were discovered long ago and ignored. By Gordon with the LEC, and Huang with sonofusion.
The fact that there are no results on cold nuclear fusion (or hot fusion either) suggests that it is in principle impossible to understand it within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm (Standard Model). Thousands of experiments can be performed, but “without a scientific theory there is no experiment”!
In China, bamboo rockets were launched a thousand years ago, and jet propulsion was known when the scientific theory of jet propulsion appeared.
From a certain point of view, you are right, common scientific theories seem weak to explain all the things the field seen for decades now.
Some ways, for example, involve the need of an electron carpet between species.. However this way seems also weak because noone really proposed a satisfying model to well explain the long range interactions between surrounding electron layers and nuclei.
The fact that there are no results on cold nuclear fusion (or hot fusion either) suggests that it is in principle impossible to understand it within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm (Standard Model). Thousands of experiments can be performed, but “without a scientific theory there is no experiment”!
In China, bamboo rockets were launched a thousand years ago, and jet propulsion was known when the scientific theory of jet propulsion appeared.
The fact that there are no results on cold nuclear fusion
Not a fact,,, please read this forum
for results... excess heat ..transmutation
“without a scientific theory there is no experiment”!
a more recent example than the bamboo rocket is
Faraday's electric motor 1821
203 years ago
after some experimentation
Of course Faraday was operating on a conceptual model
But the written mathematical theory came in 1873
after a lot of experiment by a few
and consideration by Maxwell
so that took 50 years..
impossible to understand it within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm (Standard Model)
the nuclear structure of atoms is poorly( crudely) explained by
the quarks and gluons etc of the socalled Standard Model
There are a variety of efforts.. Shell ...Fermi etc which invoke the SM
but they fail to explain the detailed gamma spectra etc
which are produced by a complex nuclear structures in Ni65 Ni64 Pd 105 Pd106...U238
some valiant efforts exist but they are inaccurate by a huge margin.. 1Mev,,, 10 Mevs
There are always attempts to adjust the SM...
but its been a long time now.. since 1990..
with " no result"
This is what the experiment will show.
moving neutrino field!!!
This is what the experiment will show.
How big is the detector?
The detector will be the process of cold nuclear fusion (transmutation), when, for example, nickel 63Ni28 turns into copper 63Cu29.
Consequently, the process of nuclear fusion (transmutation of nuclei) can be influenced by a moving neutrino field!!!
Neutrinos are the excuse of the standard model physicists that are not able to properly explain the mass loss during decay. This has led to the believe that neutrinos have mass. According the most recent experiments this mass is below 0.2eV. This means the mass differences for neutrinos should emerge from different speed that is varying between 99.9999999999% c and 99.999999999999999% c....
Or is something wrong here???
Of course something is wrong as the standard model has absolute no clue of the neutrino structure as it has also no clue of the photon and nucleus structure.
Our experiments tell that CF is a matter of knowing how to exchange the fusion energy. Our most recent experiment did show that the reaction 60Ni + D* runs as --> 62-Zn --> 62-Cu --> 62Ni if you know how to remove the energy...Certainly not by neutrinos...
nickel 63Ni28 turns into copper
I think Dufour et al had some crude evidence... his theory at that time was picogravity..2007
1) Neutrinos, roughly speaking, can be considered as a "displacement current" between the material and energy fields.
2) Cold nuclear fusion CF is not a question of energy exchange, but of transmutation-synthesis of nuclei, in which additional energy will always be obtained (in fusion before iron, after iron in fission of nuclei).
3) It is necessary to carry out a chain reaction of cold nuclear fusion CF (LENR),
Transmutation of chemical elements at a fundamental level occurs with any movement of matter (this is an absolute property of the movement of matter) along the channel:
ῡe + n→p+e-+ῡe
Real nuclear chain reactions LENR of β-decay (n→p+e-+ῡe) along the main channel, when controlled by various methods, is feasible in the laboratory: passing hydrogen 1H1 (tritium 3H1, deuterium 2H1, water H2O) through 63Ni28, (like the Chinese with a new power source - an electric battery), (or 56Ni) (artificial radioactive isotope of nickel, harmless to humans, serving as a source antineutrino (neutrino) and substance absorbing neutrons), at t ~36.5 - 1200°C:
→ ῡ + 63Ni28+1H→63Cu29+e-+ῡ+1H+Q → ῡ+p++e- → ῡ+p+ → e++n → n→p++e-+ῡ → +1H →
where 63Cu29 is a stable non-radioactive copper isotope.
Dear Wyttenbach please take time to tell me what kind of critters are used to watch what's happening across Egyptian Pyramides?
Display MoreNeutrinos are the excuse of the standard model physicists that are not able to properly explain the mass loss during decay. This has led to the believe that neutrinos have mass. According the most recent experiments this mass is below 0.2eV. This means the mass differences for neutrinos should emerge from different speed that is varying between 99.9999999999% c and 99.999999999999999% c....
Or is something wrong here???
Of course something is wrong as the standard model has absolute no clue of the neutrino structure as it has also no clue of the photon and nucleus structure.
Our experiments tell that CF is a matter of knowing how to exchange the fusion energy. Our most recent experiment did show that the reaction 60Ni + D* runs as --> 62-Zn --> 62-Cu --> 62Ni if you know how to remove the energy...Certainly not by neutrinos...
watch what's happening across Egyptian Pyramides?
Muons!!
1) Neutrinos, roughly speaking, can be considered as a "displacement current" between the material and energy fields.
All mass is EM mass but the topology is different. We have 1,2,3,5 rotation EM flux and never currents. Currents are just a projection to SM fantasy and can be excluded!
aah sorry i confused 
Muons!!
You Probably Don't Know Why You Really Have Mass (youtube.com)
Sabine said mass is caused by the condensate of the Higgs Field for standard model masses which masses have different coupling factors therefore difference masses. However, for atomic nuclei it is the pions condensate within the nucleus that give mass to nucleons.
A boson condensate causes electrogravity and electrogravity create a non-thermal distribution of energy which provides the energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for what is called cold fusion.
