A lttle reminder of this past post:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/27022-catalystsforchange-pdf/
Hot Fusion, Cold Fusion or Chemical Energy?
-
-
The only certain example of hot fusion is a hydrogen bomb. Attempts to get fusion energy other than that have not reached a practical over unity number and hence remain uncertain. The same can be said of "cold fusion" So called cold fusion is catalyzed hot fusion. One may see catalyzed fusion as an effect of electrons attracting electrons. Hence, the energy distribution causing the reaction is like a gravitational field not thermal equilibrium and hence the reaction is not defined by the Lawson criterion. The crossover point for hot and "cold fusion" is using a Z-pinch for hot fusion. Zap Energy: Fusion power. No magnets required.
So, are these technologies really that different? Could catalyzed fusion be so widespread in nature as to occur in the vast oceans or atmospheric storms? Could an experimenter like Stan Meyer get chemical energy by causing a "cold fusion" reaction? How is mass lost during a nuclear transformation released? As energy or mass or some combination? If as mass, then it increases the entropy term of the Gibbs free energy equation. If as mass, then is that a chemical fuel?
I have prepared a presentation addressing these questions here. RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.
Does this help the conversation? I want to hear your point of view.
-
Does this help the conversation?
No.
-
No.
What's your problem? Would you care to elaborate?
-
Attempts to get fusion energy other than that have not reached a practical over unity number and hence remain uncertain.
I assume you mean experimental uncertainty in the technical sense, rather than "I doubt that."
That does not follow. A result can be certain even it is far below any practical source. Whether it is over unity, under unity, or infinite (with no input) has no bearing on certainty. Certainty is only determined by the signal to noise ratio.
The Curies first observation of heat from radium was at 9 mW. That is far below any practical use. It was infinitely over unity because there is no input. However, even when there is some input, and even if output is smaller than input, that does not necessarily increase uncertainty.
-
I assume you mean experimental uncertainty in the technical sense, rather than "I doubt that."
It means I don't want to doubt the technical interpretation, however, if there weren't something wrong with the technical interpretation then successful application should be certain within a short time. Hence, the failure to realize expectation implies the uncertainty that the proposed correlation to causation is correct. Usually, correlation is not causation due to missing information which when found corrects the technical interpretation.
To be specific, the crossover point for hot and "cold fusion" is using a Z-pinch for hot fusion. Zap Energy: Fusion power. No magnets required. The expectation for hot fusion (Zap Energy) is successful heat production with high efficiency from missing mass (like a hydrogen bomb). But the general form of the experiment by ZAP is like Santilli's ICFP. Here is an analysis of Santilli's ICFP. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…yzed-fusion-part-one-pdf/
Hence, my skeptic view that neither current versions of hot nor cold fusion devices can obtain the efficiency of mass to energy conversion of a hydrogen bomb.
The upside is that the efficiency of mass to energy conversion is low because entropy is high (large number of states produced) and entropy is directly due to the production of mc. Further, mc would be the radiation from cold fusion that creates a voltage/current for the LEC. So, the greater the conversion of mc back to energy the greater the overall mass to energy conversion efficiency. Further, mc is predicted to be produced on a cosmic scale and therefore could be the energy captured by Stan Meyer's equipment.
-
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
Alan -- can you remove the weird Youtube photo teaser on the right that shows some guy being bloodied and threatened by some other guy in a fire department uniform?
I watched the documentary -- other than it was likely shot back when we had NTSC low res video (3.5 MHz bandwidth) nothing wrong with it except the right side teaser image has nothing to do with the video, i.e. its just sensational nonsense that was photoshopped in by someone because they thought it sold page views. I think the fake image detracts from the discussion here -- his device kind of reminds me of the ENG8 device. I will think about it more.
-Anonymouse.
-
The water fuel cell purportedly split water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen gas was then burned to generate energy, a process that reconstituted the water molecules. According to Meyer, the device required less energy to perform electrolysis than the minimum energy requirement predicted or measured by conventional science.
We already discussed another two similar systems here 1, 2. We also know about overunity during atomic hydrogen production and burning. I proposed overunity mechanism based on negentropic character of forbidden electron transition within spherical monoatomar gases. Stanley Meyer decomposed water with brief nanosecond impulses, during this the atomic hydrogen gets produced first and it has no time to recombine. The tiny current pulses would also induce nanocavitation of its bubbles.
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.
CLICK HERE to contact us.
