Room-temperature superconductivity vs LENR

  • Good reflection of the sociology of the search for better superconductors.


    Will Better Superconductors Transform the World? | Quanta Magazine
    Scientists are pursuing materials that can conduct electricity with perfect efficiency under ambient conditions. In this episode, the physicist Siddharth…
    www.quantamagazine.org


    So first of all, these high-pressure experiments are extremely difficult. I am a high-pressure scientist myself. So I know the difficulty and the challenge that comes with it. At the same time, it is the most productive in this area. And combined with the difficulty of experimental endeavor, and the promise it has for applicability, we feel that people have been rushing to give big answers. And the whole sociology of academic endeavor falling in sync with this very difficult to achieve but very promising area, has produced very interesting, and in many ways destructive, tendencies. I would say that the vast majority of superconductivity researchers are very careful.

    There is a very fun word. We call them USOs. So, periodically, just like what happens with UFOs, all of a sudden, somebody declares there’s big news for a flash, and then it’s gone. Many journals have gone into the commercial publishing world rather than academic publishing. So it’s a nexus of several things which have led to these powerful claims.

    But as a scientist, it just whets my appetite, rather than discourage. What I am worried about is that the public interest, and thus political interest, in this wonderful phenomenon — extremely unusual, extremely promising — could get damaged if we rely on those USOs.



    Sociology of the search for room-temperature superconductors:

    (1) very high value / transformative applications expected on success

    (2) search is very difficult

    (3) USOs (Unidentified Scientific Objects) catch public imagination (and are maybe bad for the science)

    (4) no-one knows will this search succeed, but many people think it might.

    (5) theory is unclear (in terms of details) but well-founded. We know some ways that it can happen (Cooper pairs) and innovative but at some level similar effects in materials are possible, though so complex that they may be found first through experiment not theory.


    So:

    • What are the similarities, what the differences, between this search and the search for useful LENR?
    • What is needed for the scientific basis of LENR be established enough to give that search (as can be done by scientists) parity with the search for better HTS?
  • What are the similarities, what the differences, between this search and the search for useful LENR?

    Technically, they are very similar. Both are mainly materials science. They may be related at some level; there is evidence that highly loaded deuterides are superconducting.


    They are different because:


    There is no funding for cold fusion.


    Scientists who try to do cold fusion are harassed or fired. Even talking about it can be career suicide. This is academic politics, and it is not unusual. In the 1990s AI researchers who advocated artificial neural networks were harassed and fired.

  • Scientists who try to do cold fusion are harassed or fired. Even talking about it can be career suicide. This is academic politics, and it is not unusual. In the 1990s AI researchers who advocated artificial neural networks were harassed and fired.

    Academic freedom is pretty well embedded in the UK. No-one gets fired for doing weird things, as long as they do enough bread and butter work to bring in grants and be ok in excellence benchmarking.


    However advocating weird things (in a manner not justified by reputable published output) could be an issue because advocacy is politics not science.


    Anyway - here is another difference:


    HTS has a theoretical mechanism which is quite well understood (Cooper pairs) and it is replicable. It works. Finding a material where this works at an even higher temperature is a plausible extension of this.


    LENR does not yet have a definite theoretical mechanism. And it does not work. In the sense that there is no one specific experiment that people looking to prove LENR (like team google an dthe pots-team-google funded scientists) can use to do this.


    I suggest that if that existed the funding situation, and any possible reputation issues, would be solved.


    Note that there are post-google scientists doing LENR, funded, and not fired.


    THH


    PS - room-temp superconductors exist. i should say - room temperature reasonable pressure superconductots.

  • Academic freedom is pretty well embedded in the UK. No-one gets fired for doing weird things

    Nonsense. UK cold fusion researchers were harassed and fired as much as any other Europeans. As far as I know, the only country where people were not harassed was Japan, and Japanese researchers were never given funding or promoted. They did the research with their own personal funds. However, no one smashed their equipment, dumped horse manure on it, stole their notebooks, had them fired, accused them of crimes, or tried to deport them. Which is what happened to researchers everywhere else, including the UK.

  • In my opinion, there is a direct connection between superconductivity and the LENR reaction. LENR might be properly considered a sub reaction of superconductivity.


    The formation of the nuclear active environment (NAE) is initiated by the development of superconductivity in and around the NAE. There are many ways to establish a superconductor NAE environment through the formation of an exotic vacuum object (EVO).


    The EVO is formed around a superconductive seed that is provided by a field of electrons around a core of Holes called excitons. There are a number of methods to create superconductive seed particles that support LENR particle cluster formation such as cavitation bubble explosion, uncertainty principle compression of various elements inside a lattice, the creation of a Bose einstein condensate on the surface of a transition metals and the SAFIRE system. The creation of ultra dense matter using a Rydberg catalyst as done by Holmlid and R. Mills. But for discussion purposes, let's take this establishment of EVO superconductive seeding generated by sparks as an example.


    The first step in the creation of an EVO formed through spark initiation is the production of nanoparticles through spark ablation of electrode elements.


    Spark ablation utilizes two electrodes of the metal(s) of choice and applies a fast rising powerful high-powered spark applied onto the two electrodes in a hydrogen atmosphere. In some systems, a liquids metal coating is used to optimized nanoparticle production. Ken Shoulders used this liquid metal surfacing method to support production of his EVOs. This spark produces an aerosol of pure nanoparticles from the ablated metal hydride derived from the spark erosion of the electrode material. These nanoparticles are the superconductive seeds around which EVOs will form.


    This spark formation produces a superconductive supercurrent formation on the surface of the nanoparticle.


    A superconductor is defined as a substance that offers no resistance to the electric current when it becomes colder than a critical temperature. Some of the popular examples of material that can carry superconductors are aluminium, magnesium diboride, niobium, copper oxide, yttrium barium, various transition metal hydrides, hydrogen, water crystals, and iron pnictides. Spark formation of metal hydride nanoparticles can produce enough compression and heat to form superconductive nanoparticles through probabilistic based processes where some fraction of the spark generated nanoparticle population become superconductors. The same nanoparticle formation process can occur in cavitation bubble collapse.


    Superconductive nanoparticles can also be produced by rydberg based catalytic processes as seen in Holmlids experiments and in R. Mills BrLP systems.


    The last step in the formation of the EVO is the generation of a Bose Einstein condensate around the electron outer shell that forms on the exterior of the superconductive nanoparticle.


    The last step in EVO formation is the application of light to the surface of the superconductive nanoparticle. The nanoparticle acts as a optical cavity which traps light inside the electron zone of the superconductor for long enough so that over time the energy of the photons and the electrons are made to equalize. This process produces a Exciton-polariton condensate where the Excitons are active in the core of the superconductive particle and the electrons forming a shell around the nanoparticle becomes entangled and coherent.


    In my opinion, Sveinn Ólafsson, a Holmlid replicator, is now producing EVOs around Ultra Dense Hydrogen nanoparticles (UDH) that he is producings in his experiments. Sveinn is seeing these EVOs produced in his cloud chamber after laser excitation of these UDH particles. Holmlid has misidentified these EVOs as mesons. In other LENR experiments, these EVOs have been misidentified as neutrons.


    See this post for some history involving the misrepresentation of EVOs as neutrons



    Many years ago and now mostly forgotten, Brian Ahern discovered that nanoparticles can produce the LENR reaction as follows:

    LENR “Cold Fusion” phenomenon details to be revealed December 7th

    November 19, 2011 by Brian Wang

    LENR "Cold Fusion" phenomenon details to be revealed December 7th | NextBigFuture.com
    Brian Ahern received his PhD in material science from MIT, holds 26 patents and was a senior scientist for 17 years in research and development at USAF Rome
    www.nextbigfuture.com


    Getting into more detail, nanoparticle production depends on instant power production of a spark.


    P=E/T


    Where E is the energy of the current and T is the time that the spark takes to form.



    The faster that the rise time of the spark, the more power that the spark will produce. A nanosecond rise time of a spark is far more productive in EVO production than is a microsecond rise time spark.


    Pulsed_power

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

    Quote
    Steady accumulation of energy followed by its rapid release can result in the delivery of a larger amount of instantaneous power over a shorter period of time (although the total energy is the same). Energy is typically stored within electrostatic fields (capacitors) [and others]… By releasing the stored energy over a very short interval (a process that is called energy compression), a huge amount of peak power can be delivered. For example, if one joule of energy is stored within a capacitor and then evenly released over one second, the peak power delivered would only be 1 watt. However, if all of the stored energy were released within one microsecond, the peak power would be one megawatt, a million times greater.

    A nanosecond rise time spark would produce a peak power a billion times greater using the same energy store than will a spark that forms in a second.

    .

    Over time, Ken Shoulders invented a custom built spark generator that produced nanosecond rise times sparks.

    See

    https://remoteview.substack...


    This mechanism for superconductive particle production highlights the alternative theory of superconductive theory formation called Hole superconductivity that has been developed by

    J. E. Hirsch

    AFFILIATIONS

    Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0319, USA

    Note: This paper is part of the Special Topic on Phenomena of Hydrides


    Hole superconductivity xOr hot hydride superconductivity


    https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0071158/19883689/181102_1_5.0071158.pdf


    Quote

    The alternative theory of hole superconductivity (see https://jorge.physics.

    ucsd.edu/hole.html for a list of references) predicts instead that no superconductivity can exist in these materials. In this Tutorial, I will first argue

    that, unclouded by the prejudice of BCS’s validity, the existing experimental evidence for superconductivity in pressurized hydrides does not withstand scrutiny. Once it is established that superconductivity in pressurized hydrides is a myth and not a reality, the claim to validity of BCSelectron–phonon theory as a descriptor of superconductivity of real materials will be forever shattered, and an alternative theory will become imperative. I will explain the fundamentals of the theory of hole superconductivity, developed over the past 32 years [see https://jorge.physics. ucsd.edu/hole.html and J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Lett. A 134, 451 (1989)], and why it is compelling. Crucially, it explains the Meissner effect, that I argue the conventional theory does not. It applies to all superconducting materials and provides guidelines in the search for high temperature superconductors that are very different from those provided by BCS-electron–phonon theory. Light elements are predicted to be irrelevant to\ warm superconductivity because according to this theory the electron–phonon interaction plays no role in superconductivity.




    Also see this post which shows experimental evidence that supports this Hole superconductor theory in terms of the LENR reaction..


    The LENR reaction is a adjunck to superconductivity. This relationship has a long history.


    The LENR reaction is made possible in a condensed matter system by superconductivity. Superconductivity and resultant coherence is present in all LENR reactions. A superconductor is able to produce a Higgs like field (SHF) that is nearly identical to the cosmic Higgs field (CHF) in its nature but it's antithesis that applies mass to fundamental particles.


    This energy potential is known and the Mexican Hat Potential.






    This field generation is accomplished in both a superconductor and the Higgs field through the agency of the Higgs mechanism. In a condensed matter system where superconductivity is present, a property of that superconductivity called the “Higgs mode” that enables that condensed matter system to produce a vacuum field potential identical in nature to the CHF except for its magnitude and opposite in curvature. The Higgs field that is produced in a superconductor is opposite to that of the cosmological Higgs field (CHF). In the CHF, the photon has no mass but in the SHF, the photon has mass and light travels at subluminal speeds. This opposite field modality of the SHF serves to exclude the CHF from inside the EVO.


    Here is some historical background that explains and underpins this superconductive LENR theory with the CHF as follows:

    With reference to some history as early as the early 1960s, Philip Anderson who was an outstandingly creative pioneer of solid state physics was complementing theoretical particle physics. Also interested in particle physics, in 1962, Anderson published a paper demonstrating how photons (or light quanta) obtain mass in a superconductor. Light (photons) travel slowly inside a superconductor as if photons have mass. Peter Higgs recognized that this mechanism was identical to the way mass was applied to fundamental particles in particle physics. This led to the development of the theory of the Higgs field in 1964 and led to both Higgs and François Englert being awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2013.


    In explanation, a superconductor does not allow penetration by external magnetic fields (the Meissner effect). This observation implies that in a superconductor the electromagnetic field becomes short ranged since the photon acts like it has mass. Successful theories arose to explain this during the 1950s, first for fermions (Ginzburg–Landau theory, 1950), and then for bosons (BCS theory, 1957).


    This relationship between superconductivity and CHF also reveal a connection of the LENR reaction to early universe processes that involves the formation of CHF.


    When the Electroweak field existed in the first few microseconds of the universe’s existence after the Big Bag, that field was a long ranged field that used the photon and the W1, W2, and W3 electroweak gage particles as its gage force carrier of the electroweak force. But when the universe cooled below the superconductive temperature limit of the Higgs field, that reduction is the temperature of the universe spite EMF field/ weak force emerged to replace the combined electroweak field. And the massless weak force gage particles (W1, W2, W3) reformed into the massive W and Z bosons became the force carriers that exists today. The newly emergent Higgs field that actions the weak force replaced the massless gage particles that existed in the early universe with the massive W and Z bosons that exist today.


    The SHF behaves as a long range unified electroweak field massless gage particles of old using the massless electroweak gage bosons as its force carrier. This behavior is what enables the SHF force carrier in the LENR reaction to remediate and stabilize radioactive isotopes at a distance.


    The Ginzburg–Landau equation predicts two new characteristic lengths in a superconductor. The first characteristic length is termed coherence length: The second one is the penetration depth of a magnetic field produced by the Meissner effect.


    There seems to be a tight correlation between superconductivity and the CHF. The cosmic Higgs mechanism is a type of weak force superconductivity which occurs in the vacuum of spacetime of today. It occurs when all of space is filled with a sea of virtual particles which are charged, or, in field language, when a charged field has a nonzero vacuum expectation value. These virtual particles cause spacetime to be energetic enough to close the universe with a positive curvature. This begs the explanation that when the universe was formed, it was a superconductor that was above the superconducting transition temperature. Over time, the universe cooled below the formation temperature of the Higgs mechanism to express itself as a superconductor.


    There is a difference between the SHF and the CHF. The SHF is the antithesis of the CHF. If the CHF generates a constant positive cosmological scalar curvature, then the SHF generates a constant negative scalar curvature because there is no Higgs field that exists inside the EVO to produce the sea of virtual particles and support the weak force reactions. Therefore, if the CHF is de Sutter space, then the SHF is anti de Sutter space. One important property of the interactions between different types of vacuum states is that when anti de Sutter space forms, it is segregated off from de Sutter space of CHF by a domain wall that forms immediately after the LENR reaction is established so that the SHF is protected from any external disruptive condition both temperature and any other environmental intrusions and remains superconductive, coherent, but metastable.


    Bob greenyer has discovered this magnetic domain wall in a witness mark produced by an EVO in the surface of a VEGA LENR reactor as follows:


    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.


    The domain wall is magnetic and is composed of a large number of nanometer sized vortex flux tubes.


    The proof that the EVO is a adjunck of superconductivity can be seen as described in this post.


    Edited once, last by axil ().

  • In my opinion, there is a direct connection between superconductivity and the LENR reaction. LENR might be properly considered a sub reaction of superconductivity.

    In the course of my theoretical research, I was forced to conclude that cold nuclear fusion LENR occurs during any movement of matter, including the phenomenon of superconductivity. Therefore, on the contrary, it is necessary to consider superconductivity as a manifestation of cold nuclear fusion LENR.

  • In the course of my theoretical research, I was forced to conclude that cold nuclear fusion LENR occurs during any movement of matter, including the phenomenon of superconductivity. Therefore, on the contrary, it is necessary to consider superconductivity as a manifestation of cold nuclear fusion LENR.

    Please excuse my contrary opinion as to the possible formation of matter in the LENR reaction.


    The latest SEM studies that have been conducted by Robert Greenyer show that formation of a complete set of elements within the EVO. This includes the elemental analysis of the SEM study that I referenced above titled

    mqdefault.jpg

    "VEGA - 15mm BL cut - torus impact"


    In the light of this data, which includes the production of iron, this forces me to respectfully conclude that the beuclearsynisys that is occurring is some form of Baryogenesis.


    In physical cosmology, baryogenesis (also known as baryosynthesis) is the physical process that is hypothesized to have taken place during the early universe to produce baryonic asymmetry, i.e. the imbalance of matter (baryons) and antimatter (antibaryons) in the observed universe.


    Baryons are made up of three quarks held together by the strong nuclear force, also known as the strong force. The strong force is mediated by particles called gluons, which act like "glue" to bind the quarks together. Different combinations of quarks can lead to different baryons, such as protons and neutrons. For example, a proton is made up of quarks in the combination uud, while a neutron is made up of quarks in the combination udd.


    The binding energy makes the fusion to iron unlikely and for elements heaver than iron impossible. For elements heaver than iron. energy is released when atomic nuclei are converted to nuclei heavier than iron.


    Together with the observation that no antimatter is being created in EVO transmutation, this is why I beleive that the transmutation that occurring inside the EVO is baryogenesis, a process that had first occurred in the early universe.

  • Please excuse my contrary opinion as to the possible formation of matter in the LENR reaction.

    In physical cosmology, baryogenesis (also known as baryosynthesis) is the physical process that is hypothesized to have taken place during the early universe to produce baryonic asymmetry, i.e. the imbalance of matter (baryons) and antimatter (antibaryons) in the observed universe.

    This is the fundamental mistake of modern physics-cosmology, that matter (baryogenesis-baryosynthesis) was formed as a result of the Big Bang.

    It is necessary to move to a new physical paradigm, which postulates the primacy and absoluteness of movement and there is no need for the Big Bang hypothesis. Our eternal, infinite, absolute World has always been like this and only internal non-mechanical changes and movements occur in it in the form of cold nuclear fusion. Cold nuclear fusion always occurs with any movement of matter. Cold nuclear fusion is a form of existence of our World. This new scientific paradigm allows us to solve all the pressing modern problems of physics, namely:

  • Please excuse my contrary opinion as to the possible formation of matter in the LENR reaction.

    Here's an idea. As the two most brilliant theorists on LF, can you guys first come to a concensus amongst yourselves first before spamming every thread here? Can the moderators create an Axilian-Nikitinian Physics thread where these advanced theories can be debated amongst themselves, and keep the other threads unspoiled?

  • Here's an idea. As the two most brilliant theorists on LF, can you guys first come to a concensus amongst yourselves first before spamming every thread here? Can the moderators create an Axilian-Nikitinian Physics thread where these advanced theories can be debated amongst themselves, and keep the other threads unspoiled?

    The forum has a feature where you can block someone and you will not see his posts anymore. We don’t encourage using this feature, but you are free to use it as you see fit.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Agree but if you watch the site unconnected anyway you will see again the guy you wanted to avoid.

    The forum has a feature where you can block someone and you will not see his posts anymore. We don’t encourage using this feature, but you are free to use it as you see fit.

  • This is the fundamental mistake of modern physics-cosmology, that matter (baryogenesis-baryosynthesis) was formed as a result of the Big Bang.

    It is necessary to move to a new physical paradigm, which postulates the primacy and absoluteness of movement and there is no need for the Big Bang hypothesis. Our eternal, infinite, absolute World has always been like this and only internal non-mechanical changes and movements occur in it in the form of cold nuclear fusion. Cold nuclear fusion always occurs with any movement of matter. Cold nuclear fusion is a form of existence of our World. This new scientific paradigm allows us to solve all the pressing modern problems of physics, namely:

    New Energy Times - Hagelstein Theory Portal


    Hagelstein Theories Portal


    The Peter Hagelstein Theories of Cold Fusion



    Axil would probably be harassed and fired.


    Please don't harass and fire me, since many others at the top of the LENR theory chain hold the same views that I hold. If you don't respect others who put in the effort to try to understand the LENR process, you join the LENR detractors who only serve to defeat the LENR enterprize.

  • In my opinion, there is a direct connection between superconductivity and the LENR reaction.

    Etc.... For this masterpiece of compositional excess, Axil is hereby granted the MFMP Copious Redundancy Award. He used 2440 words and several megabytes of images to elaborate on his first sentence, which IMO would have been an adequate sufficiency of hypothesization by itself.

  • Etc.... For this masterpiece of compositional excess, Axil is hereby granted the MFMP Copious Redundancy Award. He used 2440 words and several megabytes of images to elaborate on his first sentence, which IMO would have been an adequate sufficiency of hypothesization by itself.

    Here is another fellow (Frederick J. Mayer) who has accepted the premise that there is a connection between superconductivity and the LENR reaction even though he assumes superconductivity enables the unfortunate meme of cold fusion.. His lists of proofs may be correct but not their consequences.


    Superconductivity and low-energy nuclear reactions
    It is proposed that the excess-energy released in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka cold fusion) is initiated in a phase-transition yielding a fractio…
    www.sciencedirect.com


    Superconductivity and low-energy nuclear reactions


    Abstract

    It is proposed that the excess-energy released in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka cold fusion) is initiated in a phase-transition yielding a fraction of superconducting electrons, which then start a deuteron-driven chain of nuclear reactions recently detailed in the geophysics arena.

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.