LENR Theories Discussion.

We are safe maths are back

Quote from Alan Smith

Here to kick things off is a new paper by Jean-Francois Geneste published on Researchgate,

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ty_of_getting_excess_heat

1 Introduction
Many among the LENR community have reported the experimental observation of excess heat.
Nevertheless, saying this does not allow us to have a clear meaning of what we could expect. Indeed,
we basically know 3 sources of energy:
1- Chemistry
2- Fission
3- Fusion
Of course, we forgot potential energy but it is out of our scope, being caused either by gravitation or
electromagnetic fields; the latter generally needing other energy sources to be created. Mass is also
energy, but we include it in the fusion process here.
One of the forms of energy is heat and it generally comes from a transformation whose origin comes
from one of the 3 sources cited above.
Let us also set here the first principle of thermodynamics which asserts that the energy of a system is a
total differential form. This implies the conservation of energy in an isolated system [1].
This brings us to our own view of what should “excess heat” mean. Under the light of what we just said,
excess heat for us is energy in addition to what is expected within the framework of the first principle
as it is applied at the time of the experiment. Since this is a bit subtle, let us get more accurate about
what we want to say.
At the time of the experiment, we have a given knowledge of physics and a set of potential phenomena.
We are expecting that the first principle would be verified. But this is expected to occur within the known
framework. Measuring excess heat therefore should bring to the conclusion that:
1- Either the first principle is false and the case being cannot be respected
2- Or the first principle is respected, but there are unexpected new phenomena, with, say, “hidden
energy” which appears. In that case, we should in some way rebuild our notion of initial energy
in the system and verify that in the end, the first principle still works. This second point of view
brings to the potential discovery of new sources of energy.
The main problem we face in option 2, which will be the one we shall deal with in this paper, is that our
knowledge of the structure of matter, atoms in particular, does not provide any obvious evidence that
any alternative source of energy might exist. In fact, this is even exactly the contrary: orthodox physicists
do believe that this is not possible and they generally are more than skeptical about those reporting
excess heat measurements.
On the other hand, the LENRists, generally are unable to make reproducible experiments on demand. It
seems they get their results on some occasions from time to time without being able to find any
explanation and any reliable theoretical model.
In this paper, we are going to propose a theoretical approach filling this gap and which gives clues about
where a part of this hidden energy might be. It will also give clues about what to do to make it appear.
In no case shall we assert that we are right. We only propose a new approach which might be interesting

For those that like their meat pre-chewed, it is also here.

Justifyingthepossibilityofgettingexcessheat.pdf

Display More

Here's my WIP mirror of Larsen's SlideShare documents. I intend to eventually compress, OCR and organise these into something a bit more wieldy.

In the meantime:

Larsen – Google Drive

OUFF very thank you, please leave your link enough time available to be able to explore your "work" quietly

Quikly i'm currently agree that is a kind of neutron masquerade ( P+e trojan horse) which is involved for example in the case of Focardi NIH fusion even if at next stage beta reactions have to occur.

Quote from orsova

Here's my WIP mirror of Larsen's SlideShare documents. I intend to eventually compress, OCR and organise these into something a bit more wieldy.

In the meantime:

https://drive.google.com/drive…2Aa9u4E5Dm?usp=drive_link

Quote from Cydonia

OUFF very thank you, please leave your link enough time available to be able to explore your "work" quietly

The link won't go anywhere.

Quote from Alan Smith

I wrote this version myself, having condensed it from a 28 page paper. Please don't complain too much about my choices!

I asked the Adobe Acrobat AI Assistant to summarize this in 350 to 400 words. This is what she came up with, at 415 words:

The document titled "A New Understanding of Cold Fusion" by Edmund Storms provides an overview of the phenomenon of cold fusion and proposes a new explanation for how it works. The document begins by discussing the history of cold fusion, including the initial skepticism and rejection it faced. It then addresses three key questions: whether cold fusion is real, what the behaviors imply about the reaction process, and whether a logically consistent mechanism can be found to explain the observed behavior.

The document explains that cold fusion involves a series of chemical and nuclear processes. In the chemical stage, two nuclei must come together in a unique local condition that is different from the regular lattice structure of the material. This condition allows for the fusion process to occur. The document suggests that vacancies in the lattice structure are not the site of the fusion process, and that the fusion process requires the nuclei to be more chemically stable in the new arrangement compared to their normal locations in the lattice.

In the nuclear stage, the fusion process requires a reduction in the Coulomb barrier that normally prevents nuclei from getting close enough to interact. This reduction can be achieved through electron screening and tunneling. The document suggests that electron screening is the main mechanism at work in cold fusion, but the exact details of how it operates are still unknown.

The document also discusses the production of energy, helium, tritium, and radiation in cold fusion. It explains that cold fusion produces excess energy that cannot be accounted for by any plausible chemical reaction. The amount of power produced can be increased by increasing the temperature, applying laser radiation, or passing an electron current through the material. Helium is identified as the main nuclear product, and its production is consistent with the amount of energy released by the fusion process. Tritium is occasionally produced, but its presence is not always consistent. Radiation is emitted during the fusion process, but it is often low-energy and difficult to detect outside of the apparatus.

Overall, the document presents a new understanding of cold fusion that combines chemical and nuclear processes. It suggests that the fusion process occurs in a unique local condition within the material, and that electron screening plays a crucial role in reducing the Coulomb barrier. The document also highlights the need for further research to fully understand the mechanisms at work in cold fusion and to harness its potential as a source of clean energy.

This from Metzler et al. is very useful.

We investigate known mechanisms for enhancing nuclear fusion rates at ambient temperatures and pressures in solid-state environments. In deuterium fusion, on which the paper is focused, an enhancement of >40 orders of magnitude would be needed to achieve observable fusion. We find that mechanisms for fusion rate enhancement up to 30 orders of magnitude each are known across the domains of atomic physics, nuclear physics, and quantum dynamics. Cascading such mechanisms could lead to an overall enhancement of 40 orders of magnitude and more. We present a roadmap with examples of how hypothesis-driven research could be conducted in -- and across -- each domain to probe the plausibility of technologically-relevant fusion in the solid state.

There's also Ron Maimon's theory, which I've never seen mentioned anywhere before. Probably because it's mostly buried in discussions at physics.stackexchange.com.

By all accounts, Maimon was an extremely prickly wunderkind. An all but doctorate who was prone to getting into arguments and believed some.. uh.. controversial things. He apparently vanished from the internet a while ago.

Nonetheless, it's interesting stuff, and it seemed to convince some otherwise skeptical people back when it was doing the rounds.

Why is cold fusion considered bogus?

Cold fusion is being mentioned a lot lately because of some new setup that apparently works. This is an unverified claim. See for example:…

physics.stackexchange.com

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33419/is-there-a-sound-theoretical-argument-against-inner-shell-induced-nuclear-chain

What are the challenges to achieving cold fusion?

I am an absolute neophyte regarding physics. What are the challenges to achieving cold fusion? I'm not sure this is a duplicate of Why is cold fusion…

physics.stackexchange.com

Wall for Ron Maimon | PhysicsOverflow

Quote from Alan Smith

No argument it is useful, but it in many ways a 'metatheory' so not sure if it qualifies for inclusion. I'll read it over the weekend.

Please do delete if you think appropriate.

To me they well evolved ( WL) from their initial postulate with Axil's plasmons to the electroweak neutron production more in line my trojan horse expectations.

Quote from orsova

The link won't go anywhere.

Here is my critique of the Geneste paper. This is what I do for all papers submitted to JCMNS, which is why many JCMNS authors find me annoying and heartily dislike me.

. . . I have some suggestions for this paper. Some minor, nitpicking suggestions. As I just said, programmers and copy editors find problems that are almost invisible to most people.

p. 1.

"Of course, we forgot potential energy but it is out of our scope, being caused either by gravitation or electromagnetic fields; the latter generally needing other energy sources to be created. Mass is also energy, but we include it in the fusion process here."

Mass is always energy, and vice versa. All energy, of all types and sources comes from mass-energy conversion. When an object is lifted in a gravitational field adding potential energy to it, mass increases. (The weight declines but the mass increases.) When a clock spring is wound, its mass increases. All energy release annihilates mass. There are no exceptions to special relativity.

"One of the forms of energy is heat and it generally comes from a transformation whose origin comes from one of the 3 sources cited above."

It can also come from mechanical energy (such as friction, or an object striking another).

"This brings us to our own view of what should “excess heat” mean. Under the light of what we just said, excess heat for us is energy in addition to what is expected within the framework of the first principle [of thermodynamics] as it is applied at the time of the experiment."

I disagree. In the context of cold fusion, "excess heat" means more heat than the chemical species in the cell can produce. The thermodynamics are not unexpected or violated. "Excess heat" means heat that exceeds the limits of chemistry because there is not enough chemical fuel. In this case, we know the heat comes from fusion because the reaction produces helium in the same proportion to the heat as with one branch of D-D plasma fusion.

"1- Either the first principle is false and the case being cannot be respected"

If thermodynamics were false, we would have no reason to think there is excess heat. Cold fusion is predicated on calorimetry, which in turn is predicated on thermodynamics.

"2- Or the first principle is respected, but there are unexpected new phenomena, with, say, “hidden energy” which appears."

It is not hidden. It is in plain sight. The helium proves it must be D-D fusion (with a D-Pd system).

p. 3.

"Antique Greece Physics"

I think this should be "Ancient Greek Physics."

A follow up message from another group --

I wrote:

"When a clock spring is wound, its mass increases. All energy release annihilates mass. There are no exceptions to special relativity."

I realize that some people dispute this. Pray do not ask me to justify this, or explain it. I have only a vague notion of how a clock spring mass increases. Everything I know about physics comes out of textbooks, such as "Physics Made Simple." That is what they say. If you wish to dispute this, read the textbooks and find out why they are wrong.

"Physics Made Simple" explains lots of great stuff such as potential and capacitance, n and p material, Ohm's law, and so on. It is light on theory, to say the least. Here is one of my favorite quotes from this textbook, or any textbook:

"The gravitational force of the earth for the objects on it -- what we call gravity -- is responsible for their weight. Notice that Newton's law allows us to calculate the force of gravity but does not tell us what gravitation is or why it exists. These are questions of philosophy, not physics."

Take that, Prof. Einstein! You and your gravitational-wave observatories!

This was published in 1965. The first author of this textbook was born in 1905. Not sure about the second one. There is a collection of physics textbooks in the Cornell library. Read them, and you will see that even in the 1930s many professors thought that both special and general relativity were unproven, or at least controversial. It takes longer for mainstream science to accept things than we realize. Planck's other constant applies.

annoying you ??? Well we aren't all the time on the same way but noo you aren't annoying Never

About Geneste some members here have meet him during his workshop at Airbus... he is s good guy however only a pure exclusive and deep mathematician.

It reminds me someone, no ?

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is my critique of the Geneste paper. This is what I do for all papers submitted to JCMNS, which is why many JCMNS authors find me annoying and heartily dislike me.

. . . I have some suggestions for this paper. Some minor, nitpicking suggestions. As I just said, programmers and copy editors find problems that are almost invisible to most people.

p. 1.

"Of course, we forgot potential energy but it is out of our scope, being caused either by gravitation or electromagnetic fields; the latter generally needing other energy sources to be created. Mass is also energy, but we include it in the fusion process here."

Mass is always energy, and vice versa. All energy, of all types and sources comes from mass-energy conversion. When an object is lifted in a gravitational field adding potential energy to it, mass increases. (The weight declines but the mass increases.) When a clock spring is wound, its mass increases. All energy release annihilates mass. There are no exceptions to special relativity.

"One of the forms of energy is heat and it generally comes from a transformation whose origin comes from one of the 3 sources cited above."

It can also come from mechanical energy (such as friction, or an object striking another).

"This brings us to our own view of what should “excess heat” mean. Under the light of what we just said, excess heat for us is energy in addition to what is expected within the framework of the first principle [of thermodynamics] as it is applied at the time of the experiment."

I disagree. In the context of cold fusion, "excess heat" means more heat than the chemical species in the cell can produce. The thermodynamics are not unexpected or violated. "Excess heat" means heat that exceeds the limits of chemistry because there is not enough chemical fuel. In this case, we know the heat comes from fusion because the reaction produces helium in the same proportion to the heat as with one branch of D-D plasma fusion.

"1- Either the first principle is false and the case being cannot be respected"

If thermodynamics were false, we would have no reason to think there is excess heat. Cold fusion is predicated on calorimetry, which in turn is predicated on thermodynamics.

"2- Or the first principle is respected, but there are unexpected new phenomena, with, say, “hidden energy” which appears."

It is not hidden. It is in plain sight. The helium proves it must be D-D fusion (with a D-Pd system).

p. 3.

"Antique Greece Physics"

I think this should be "Ancient Greek Physics."

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

Mass is always energy, and vice versa. All energy, of all types and sources comes from mass-energy conversion.

No, mass does not turn into energy. Energy is a measure of the movement of matter. (measure is a number)

Materiality lies in movement.

We can influence the movement of matter only by the movement of matter.

Here you still have to climb the last step upstairs..

To stick back with my daily last exchanges on this topic.. Quickly, before the universe.. nothing only voids fluctuations.. From the original event ( big bang ?) "something" gave an impulsion , a potential to this "entire" void giving an anysotripy ( a logic , a shape in few words) . So all the things you related spend their time to exchange together and between them some parts fromthis original impulse.. Nothing is created everything is everywhere..A short picture could be summarize that as some waves on a carpet.

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is my critique of the Geneste paper. This is what I do for all papers submitted to JCMNS, which is why many JCMNS authors find me annoying and heartily dislike me.

. . . I have some suggestions for this paper. Some minor, nitpicking suggestions. As I just said, programmers and copy editors find problems that are almost invisible to most people.

p. 1.

"Of course, we forgot potential energy but it is out of our scope, being caused either by gravitation or electromagnetic fields; the latter generally needing other energy sources to be created. Mass is also energy, but we include it in the fusion process here."

Mass is always energy, and vice versa. All energy, of all types and sources comes from mass-energy conversion. When an object is lifted in a gravitational field adding potential energy to it, mass increases. (The weight declines but the mass increases.) When a clock spring is wound, its mass increases. All energy release annihilates mass. There are no exceptions to special relativity.

"One of the forms of energy is heat and it generally comes from a transformation whose origin comes from one of the 3 sources cited above."

It can also come from mechanical energy (such as friction, or an object striking another).

"This brings us to our own view of what should “excess heat” mean. Under the light of what we just said, excess heat for us is energy in addition to what is expected within the framework of the first principle [of thermodynamics] as it is applied at the time of the experiment."

I disagree. In the context of cold fusion, "excess heat" means more heat than the chemical species in the cell can produce. The thermodynamics are not unexpected or violated. "Excess heat" means heat that exceeds the limits of chemistry because there is not enough chemical fuel. In this case, we know the heat comes from fusion because the reaction produces helium in the same proportion to the heat as with one branch of D-D plasma fusion.

"1- Either the first principle is false and the case being cannot be respected"

If thermodynamics were false, we would have no reason to think there is excess heat. Cold fusion is predicated on calorimetry, which in turn is predicated on thermodynamics.

"2- Or the first principle is respected, but there are unexpected new phenomena, with, say, “hidden energy” which appears."

It is not hidden. It is in plain sight. The helium proves it must be D-D fusion (with a D-Pd system).

p. 3.

"Antique Greece Physics"

I think this should be "Ancient Greek Physics."

Display More

mass is energy in 3D when energy plays with lower dimensions (vs mass). Universe anisotropy again.. and again..

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

No, mass does not turn into energy. Energy is a measure of the movement of matter. (measure is a number)

Materiality lies in movement.

We can influence the movement of matter only by the movement of matter.

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is my critique of the Geneste paper. This is what I do for all papers submitted to JCMNS, which is why many JCMNS authors find me annoying and heartily dislike me.

Let me explain that I usually find errors in spelling or grammar, or I point out sentences that are difficult to understand. I may suggest a rewrite. I do not often disagree about technical issues, as I did with the Geneste paper. Although if a paper said we should consider the possibility that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, I would point out that would mean the heat does not exist. It would mean calorimeters do not work.

Some authors get upset when you point out they spelled "nuclear" wrong. They say they meant to spell it that way, they will not change it, and you should butt out. This is childish.

In contrast, world class geniuses such as Fleischmann, Bockris, Schwinger and Clarke were always grateful to people who pointed out spelling errors and sentences that needed rewriting.

Arata was the only first-rate scientist I have known who was petulant and refused to accept any suggestions, even an obvious misspelling. He also has a terrible temper. He thought the whole world was out to get him. He once called press conference (in Japan, in Japanese), which I attended. It was held in his honor, for yet another medal or something like that. I sat next to a reporter from a major newspaper. Arata began by ranting, raving and screeching about how he was right, his enemies are wrong, they have been out get him since 1949, but "I'll show them! I'll show them!!!" The reporter turned to me and asked "is this guy crazy, or what?" I said yes, sort of crazy, but they did name an International Academic Prize and a building on a National University Campus after him. The way Arata acted, he was not far wrong when he said people were out to get him. It was a self-fulfilling prediction.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

No, mass does not turn into energy. Energy is a measure of the movement of matter. (measure is a number)

Materiality lies in movement.

Well, the textbooks say it does. I wouldn't know. Go read a textbook and tell us why it is wrong.

Actually, just I asked our invisible friend how this works. Her answer is over my head, and possibly nonsensical. Here it is:

ME (partway through the conversation): . . . I realize the change in mass in the spring is miniscule. It is less than one electron, I believe. So, what particles in the spring are affected by the loss of mass? How does mass decrease if the total mass loss is less than any one subatomic particle?

ChatGPT Ver. 4:

Your observation is astute and touches on an important aspect of how energy and mass are intertwined at the quantum level. The mass change implied by the energy released or absorbed in mechanical systems like a clock spring, as calculated, is indeed minuscule—much smaller than the mass of a single electron (approximately 9.109×10−319.109×10−31 kg). This raises a fascinating question: If the change in mass is less than that of the smallest subatomic particles we know, how can we conceptualize this loss or gain of mass?

In classical mechanics and everyday scales, we don't observe mass being lost or gained in pieces smaller than subatomic particles because the energy changes involved do not directly result in the loss or gain of particles themselves. Instead, the situation is best understood through the framework of quantum field theory and relativity, where energy and mass are seen as two sides of the same coin.

Quantum Field Theory Perspective

In quantum field theory, particles are excitations of underlying fields. The energy you add to or remove from a system can change the energy content of these fields, but it doesn't necessarily mean adding or removing particles from the system in a direct one-to-one correspondence. The mass change associated with the energy change in macroscopic objects (like a clock spring) is distributed across the entire system, affecting its overall energy state rather than manifesting as the discrete appearance or disappearance of particles.

Relativity and Binding Energy

The concept of mass-energy equivalence also applies to binding energy in systems. For example, in nuclear physics, the mass of a nucleus is less than the sum of the masses of its constituent protons and neutrons due to the binding energy that holds the nucleus together. This difference is known as the mass defect. When energy is added to or removed from a system, such as winding or unwinding a spring, the "mass" represented by this energy change is distributed across the system's energy state, affecting its total mass-energy content without necessarily adding or subtracting individual particles.

Energy Distribution

The decrease in mass due to the energy released when a spring unwinds is spread across the entire system, affecting the vibrational, rotational, and perhaps even the electronic energy states of the atoms and molecules making up the spring. This does not result in a loss of particles but in a slight change in the energy state of the system. The energy released may be converted into other forms, such as kinetic energy of motion or heat, which involves changes in the movement and interactions of particles within and possibly outside the system.

Conclusion

In practical terms, we don't identify specific particles "lost" from the system when mechanical energy is converted into other forms because the changes are distributed across the system's entire quantum field. The concept of losing mass in chunks that are smaller than subatomic particles doesn't apply in the way we might initially imagine. Instead, the mass-energy equivalence principle allows for a more nuanced understanding of how energy changes affect the overall mass of a system without necessitating the discrete removal of particles.