Posts by H.G.

Alan Smith,

“Ken always spoke so highly of you”

Sorry, impossible! Ken Shoulders and I didn’t know each other, so you have someone else in mind (or you are joking). Besides that, I didn’t meant that Ken Shoulders was not impressive as an experimentalist and as a technical designer/inventor, it is your description in the first post that’s besides reality (so it didn’t impressed me). EVO has no proven relation with LENR and Ken Shoulders wasn’t a genius. Every century there are only a handful of geniuses. The difficulty is not about Ken Shoulders, the problem has to do with readers who dive into his ideas because they trust your opinion.

I have sought some more information about Ken Shoulders and what I have read wasn’t impressive. That was not because of what others told about him but that is about his speculative ideas about energy.

He showed to have a serious lack of understanding the foundations of physics (that is not equal to the Standard Model of physics). And mavericks without a deep insight in the foundations of physics are never a genius. At the most they had once or more times in their live “a lucky shot”.

AmishPhysicist,

That is not exactly what I meant. I tried to say there are more than enough independent researchers to have a lot of mavericks around. Thus the problem is not the absence of mavericks. There are too much unimportant publications so you are drowning in all the hypotheses. Who will read the important paper when it is not published by Nature, Springer, etc.? Because publications about LENR will not be published in their magazines. Besides that, physicists in the field of string theory read only papers about string theory, researchers in the field of quantum gravity read only… etc., etc. Who will read papers about LENR?

By the way, that website https://aeon.co is a nice online magazine (see the first post)..

There are a lot of independent researchers nowadays. Far more than most people will expect. Because there are no unlimited jobs available in science. Thus when you don’t get the job you will take a “normal” job and you will try to do research in off time.

Besides that when a researcher is retired, he or she don't want to stop their research. Most of them become independent researchers after a couple of years (no affiliation with a research institute or university any more).

One should expect that – because of the large number of independent researchers – there is a huge amount of new ideas in physics and related branches of science. Indeed, there is. We call it “speculative physics” and the creators of all these hypotheses are not only the independent researchers, the biggest part comes from the scientific professional group itself (universities, scientific institutes, etc.). Just because they have the best chances to get their papers published.

Nowadays every researcher is forced to publish a couple of papers a year. Most is non essential because you cannot publish so much important papers. Most scientist are yearning for one impressive paper in their whole career but there are only a few who will succeed.

How to distinguish between a really important new concept and “rubbish”? You have the title and the abstract of the contents of the papers to make the decision to “read or not to read”. I have scanned (reading quickly) about 120 papers during the last months and none of these papers showed to be important for me (physics). So I have spoiled my time…

Does science need mavericks? I really don’t know. I suppose that science needs reliable researchers who try to understand all those confusing observations and outcomes of experiments. But nobody within the scientific community will deny that there are a lot of scientists who only go for the job.

By the way… What about the research of the members of LENR-forum? You can talk about others who do the research (a really bleak pastime) or you can do it yourself. There is theoretical research and experimental research so where are all the contributions?

If it is a projectile (artillery) we don't see any strange nuclear effect because of the mass and the enormous kinetic energy of the projectile. If it is only the kinetic energy of the micro particle we know that it can "melt" no more than a number of atomic layers of the iron target. So it is nuclear because the micro particle isn't transformed by the explosion in a bunch of ripped elementary particles (like high energetic particles from outer space).

Besides that, a projectile has a special shape to penetrate deep into massive steel (e.g. nealy 0,8 meter for a Pantzer projectile). The shape of the micro particles are more like rocks. If the impact rapes nearly all the electron shells of the molecules of the micro particle it is the mass and the kinetic energy of the nucleus that must create the long trajectory inside the iron target. Really difficult when most of the kinetic energy is adsorbed by the target.

Alan Smith,

I have tried to read the pdf about the Usherenko-effect but it is a bit "physics to explain the hypotheses of Vladimir Leonov". However, the observations are reliable. As far I can understand Leonov's explanations his conclusions about the transformation of the Coulomb force are correct. In fact, it is the opposite mechanism of Pd-based LENR. In Pd-based LENR the electromagnetic wave-pattern of the electrons force the enclosed H-atoms to accelerate but the H-atoms are firmly enclosed by the mass of the Pd-lattice so the H-atoms must change their new energy content in a different way: lowering the Coulomb force of the nucleus. The underlying mechanism is the conservation of quanta transfer (law of conservation of energy).

The Usherenko-effect accelerate micro particles that are obstructed by the iron mass. The energy of the acceleration is stopped abruptly so it influences the Coulomb force too. However, the chemical constituents of the micro particles will determine the reactions (fission and/or fusion).

Usherenko uses an explosion to accelerate the micro particles and it is clear that the process isn't easy to integrate into a design of a power-supply. Moreover, cooling the target is obtaining the nuclear energy but after some time the iron is like a chees with holes. So every destructive solution (even Pd-based fusion) has no future.

AlainCo,

Try to imagine the example I wrote (post #31) about the laser beam that hit the solitary atom.

The atom rocketed away so there was a force and there was impulse. However, the beam of the laser is a dense stream of quanta. It shows that reality in physics has many faces.

Introducing the strong force has consequences because nearly all the data about the relations between forces and particles are obtained with the help of particle accelerators. They smash particles together and the data are related to hot fusion (that’s why most of the physicists don’t believed that cold fusion is true).

At the beginning of particle physics there were no high energy accelerators. In that time the diameter of the proton had another value (larger). So the physical circumstances are responsible for the outcome and not the opposite. You cannot translate hot fusion to cold fusion, both are different processes.

Maybe you have visited the site of Peter Gluck from time to time and read his discussion with Ed Storms about the strange absence of the possibility to increase the heat production (palladium based fusion). Manipulating the current don’t change the amount of radiated heat.

Now look to my post #31 once again. The decrease of the Coulomb force is caused by the electromagnetic wave packet but the origin is the difference between the mass of the hydrogen atom and the mass of the palladium atom. We cannot change this relation. So when we change the electric flow rate or the voltage, the heat production will be the same. Just like Ed Storms experiments have showed.

I know it is a bit strange that such a simple mechanism is responsible for the phenomenon “cold fusion”. However, it is time to design and test a simple and cheap LENR reactor that is successful.

Zephir_AWT,

I tried to be polite so I answered your post (#24). Hoping that you should understand that the proposed idea is too complicated.

However, the first lines of your post (#35) showed me that you want to start a discussion that will take too long and is also off-topic (in my opinion). I don’t say that I don’t want to read your posts. I will read them one of these days, but not now.

Look, I am a bit like Peter Gluck. It is my opinion that LENR is really important for everyone on this planet and I hope it is possible to describe the LENR mechanism in the right way and create consensus about it. The next step is to build an easy and cheap LENR reactor with the help of the theoretical model.

I don’t mind who describes the LENR mechanism so it would be nice when someone else had done this before. Unfortunately nobody have done it. So I am not interested in all kinds of discussions about hypothesises that have no empiric evidence in relation to LENR. Sorry.

Zephir_AWT, (your post #24)

I don’t know much about the absorption coefficient of neutrons and gamma rays but I think that I understand entanglement.

The most characteristic property of spacetime (or quantum fields) is the absence of anti-spacetime (or anti quantum fields). So there is no existence of anti-energy (anti-quanta).

So there is symmetry in the universe and we can describe it as flat spacetime or flat quantum fields. It means that the energy distribution in every point of the universe is the same and it gives raise to the main law in physics: the conservation of energy.

Of course this is not what we see around, but we can imagine this hypothetical situation. The total amount of energy in every point of flat spacetime (quantum fields) is unknown but we know that energy (quanta) from around can move to a local area (volume). This alteration creates local differences and our observable universe is the result.

Besides spacetime (quantum fields) there is no other volume in the universe. So the properties of spacetime (quantum fields) are everywhere to be found within the volume of our universe. The consequence is the mutual influence of all the imaginary points in the universe. Changing the position of 1 (imaginary) point is altering all the other points in the universe.

Now let’s imagine that every point has symmetry. So when I disrupt the symmetry in one point somewhere else the opposite must occur. Otherwise there is no conservation of energy.

But what about a local disruption of the symmetry (A) and at the same time the opposite (B)? When I alter the properties of A, the conservation of energy alters “automatically” the properties of B in an opposite way. That’s entanglement.

AlainCo,

Sorry that I continue without answering (evenso Zephir_AWT) but otherwise everything becomes a bit confusing.

We need an answer to our question about “electromagnetic stimulation that forces locked hydrogen atoms to increase their boundary so the Coulomb force will decrease”.

I personally prefer an elucidation with the help of quantum field theory but because most people like the phenomenological way of thinking I take the latter.

Suppose I take a dinner plate and I put solitary atoms on it. Now I take a microscope and a laser. I focus on one of the solitary atoms and adjust my laser in such a way that the “beam” is small enough to hit only 1 atom. I push the button of the laser and the laser beam hits the atom. The result is the “firing” of the atom like a bullet out of a gun.

So when we supply an electromagnetic wave to a single atom, the result is described by Newton mechanics.

F = m a [F = force; m = mass; a = acceleration]

In other words: hydrogen atoms locked inside a palladium lattice must behave themselves very strange when we apply an electromagnetic wave to the hydrogen atoms. They have to rocket away but they cannot.

The palladium atoms around differ from the hydrogen atoms because of their mass and the electrostatic attraction (metallic bonding). The result of a metallic bonding is like adding mass. When we want to accelerate 1 palladium atom, the electrostatic force is like a glue so all the other palladium atoms will accelerate too. Of course this is impossible.

So when we want to accelerate 1 palladium atom Newtons formula is:

F = (106 mh + me) a

(mh = mass hydrogen atom; me = energy electrostatic force expressed in mass).

The mass of a palladium atom is 106 x the mass of a hydrogen atom and every palladium atom has adjacent palladium atoms (lattice configuration).

Conclusion: electromagnetic stimulation will alter the velocity of a hydrogen atom much more than the velocity of a palladium atom (maybe the typical relation is 120 : 1).

In palladium based fusion there is electromagnetic stimulation with the help of free electrons (electromagnetic wave packets). So there is not a hit of 1 solitary atom, a bunch of atoms are involved (palladium and hydrogen atoms).

A. For the palladium atom the equation is: F = mp a

B. For the hydrogen atom it is: F = mh a

The force F (electromagnetic wave packet) is equal in both equations and mp = 120 x mh

The hydrogen atoms cannot accelerate in a free way because they are “mechanically” bound to the palladium atoms. However, the mathematically relations between Force, mass and acceleration in Newtons equation cannot be changed.

When I substitute the acceleration of a solitary hydrogen atom with the acceleration of the paladium atoms, I have to write:

F = mh (a : 120)

Unfortunately, this is wrong because I have to decrease the force F too. But it cannot because the force is equal for the involved hydrogen atoms and the involved palladium atoms. So the only property that has to change is the mass of the hydrogen atom.

F = (mh : 120) ap [Ap = acceleration palladium atoms]

Conclusion: the mass of the hydrogen atom has to decrease to met the acceleration of the palladium atoms.

Decreasing the mass of a nucleus is ruled by E = m c² , so the energy of the nucleus drops down. However, c² is a constant that represents surface area. That’s why we have to conclude that the boundary of the nucleus is expanded because the mass is partly vanished.

In other words: the Coulomb force of the hydrogen is temporarily vanished and the hydrogen atom can fuse with an adjacent hydrogen atom.

So cold fusion is a very simple mechanism.

AlainCo,

In “free space” there is no high concentration of quanta so there isn’t a Coulomb force too. When you want to create the Coulomb force, you have to create a particle, like the proton. In other words: changing the properties of a proton is changing the Coulomb force (and other characteristics).

Nuclear fusion is the spatial addition of 2 nuclei and the result is not equal to 2 x the mass of 1 nucleus. The boundary of the new nucleus holds less mass (quanta) so the surplus is radiated to the environment. However, the speed of light is a constant so it is not the new nucleus that radiates this stream of quanta, it are the properties of space itself who do the job (quantum fields). Single quanta can only move with the speed of light and when the mechanism/force that forms the new boundary put quanta one by one aside, you have an electromagnetic wave. (Of course this is a popular description of a model but it isn’t too bad for getting an impression. And it is the answer to your last post. )

The cracks in the palladium lattice are the result of the adsorption of too much hydrogen atoms. The thermal vibrations of the palladium are too few/low to hold all these hydrogen atoms without damages to the lattice. Increasing the temperature of the lattice, is increasing the vibrations of the palladium atoms (mutual distances become larger) so the inside pressure on the palladium atoms by the hydrogen atoms is decreased.

When experimentalists say that the cause of cold fusion is linked to the existence of nano cracks, you can draw the conclusion that the narrow enclosure of the hydrogen atoms is essential to force cold fusion (with the help of electromagnetic stimulation).

And that’s it! There are no other particles involved or phenomena like vibrational excitations. Because there are “millions” of nearly the same circumstances/configurations and why there are no more observations of cold fusion?

All those hypothetical phenomena are suggested because the researchers don’t know how cold fusion is created. When I put a cube of 99,96% nickel on the dinner table none of those researchers will suggest that all these hypothetical phenomena are also present in the nickel cube. So they simply try to force a clarification with every known phenomena they can “remember”.

So everything can be compressed within one question: “How can electromagnetic stimulation “force” locked hydrogen atoms to increase their boundary so the Coulomb force will decrease.”

AlainCo,

Your assumption is that the low energy fusion dispatches all the surplus energy with the help of one stream of quanta. Unfortunately, we don’t know. The fusion process is inside the palladium lattice and we cannot exclude that a part of the fusion radiation is adsorbed by the electron shells of the adjacent palladium atoms and released again. The electron configuration of palladium is 2, 8, 18, 18 and every sub-shell consist of only 2 electrons. So there is quite a lot of different electromagnetic frequencies that can be radiated by a single palladium atom (inclusive infra red radiation by the fusion stimulated vibrations of the palladium atoms inside the lattice).

The longer the wavelength, the more chance that adjacent palladium atoms adsorb radiation. So when the fusion is equal to hot fusion radiation, the palladium lattice is more transparent and measurements had detected all that hot fusion radiation (and there was a lot of nuclear fission too).

So we cannot simply deduce the real fusion volume but it is logical that the fusion process must happen within a much larger volume than hot fusion. Moreover, without a larger fusion volume there cannot be cold fusion because of the Coulomb force. There is no known mechanism that can explain the required hot fusion energy. So the conclusion must be: the Coulomb force is decreased.

AlainCo,

You can find all the evidence at Wikipedia (electromagnetic wavelengths in relation to the volumes of electron shells, etc.). That’s why I gave the example of the HCl molecule. However, every electrical engineer knows the relation between wavelength and the dimension of the antennae.

The radiation of the low energy fusion starts when the quanta of both nuclei are forced together. So the actual distance between both nuclei at the beginning is not involved into the wavelength of the radiation. Both fusible boundaries must be together (adjacent) before the rearranging of all the involved quanta starts.

That’s why the wavelength of low energy fusion not only indicates the origin of the volume of the fusion process, it also shows that the Coulomb force is surmounted (decreased).

First the boundary expands, second the Coulomb force decreases, third the fusion process starts, fourth the fusion radiates quanta, fifth the new boundary of the fused nuclei is formed.

AlainCo,

Your starting point is correct: the most significant property of low energy nuclear fusion is the absence of hot fusion radiation. No theoretical physicist had done it better.

However, it has no sense to go any further when you don’t understand the origin of this “low energy” radiation. So forget all the other sentences you wrote and try to understand the consequences of this novel phenomenon.

First, the origin of electromagnetic radiation is always the release of energy from a local source and every alteration has a volume. So when we want to understand the relation between frequency and different local sources, we only have to imagine a composed molecule of different types of atoms. For example HCl (hydrogen chloride).

The molecule is like a dumb-belt and it can rotate along its centre of mass. To get rotation of both atoms we must apply 0,0026 eV. However, both atoms can also vibrate mutually, an alteration that occurs within an evident smaller volume than the rotation of the whole molecule. Now we have to apply 0,358 eV. And when we want to alter an electron in the outer shell of one of the atoms we have to supply far more energy. So the general rule of thumb is: the smaller the volume of the local source of the alteration, the higher the frequency of the released energy. So we cannot force a proton to release energy with the frequency of 0,0026 eV or 0,358 eV. The proton is far to small to radiate the size of half the wavelength of the 0,0026 eV electromagnetic wave (E = f h [f = frequency; h = Planck’s constant]). By the way, this is no new physics, students had to understand this at the end of the first half of the last century (1935 - 1950).

In other words: the volume of the cold fusion process by the nuclei of the hydrogen/deuterium atoms must be much larger than the volume of the same nuclei by the hot fusion process.

That isn’t awkward, because the size of a simple nucleus (proton) isn’t always the same. In general it depends a lot on the energy of the collisions physicists use to measure the dimensions. On the other hand: hot fusion is only possible when the involved nuclei have a very high velocity to overcome the Coulomb force. So the volume of the interaction (fusion) between the 2 nucleus is really small.

Now you understand this “phenomenon” about the unusually fusion radiation, do you think you have to make changes to the rest of your post?

Zephir_AWT,

The questions of Ed Storms are a request by AlainCo for a reliable hypothesis. That’s the subject of this topic. Sorry, I cannot help it.

However, I blame no one for the way it goes. I only tried to figure out the nearly dead-end situation.

Well, the subject are the questions of Ed Storms: palladium based cold fusion. So I don’t want to dive into all kinds of examples that propose a LENR mechanism. I only conclude that after many decades there isn’t a reliable theory. And when – after so long – there is no theory I personally expect that there must be a “restart” of the theoretical base instead of introducing more and more “hocus pocus” physics.

I don’t say that quantum theory is a failure, I only say that physicists are searching for the underlying mechanism and after nearly a century of theoretical research, there is no reliable result. Just to underline that we humans have difficulties to examine our previous assumptions over and over again.

There are people at the LENR-forum who are “longing” for results. Undoubtedly because a new save source of thermal energy is highly needed for a crowded planet. However, reality shows that there is no result. So my question is: how do we face our own position when we continue our talks about LENR? Just being amused about our curiosity or is there another aim? Because nobody has to be uncertain about the information supply of successful cold fusion applications. The media will inform us all.

The problem with most of the LENR hypothesises is the implausible mechanism. For example: collisions. There are all kinds of circumstances in industrial processes where heat generated collisions between atoms occur, inclusive hydrated metals in static electrical fields. Nevertheless, there are no reports of frequently occurrences of exceptional heat production.

Unfortunately, nearly every supposed mechanism is absurd. Because palladium hydride isn’t a reactive chemical or nuclear active mixture of elements. It doesn’t bond to atmospheric chemicals in a spontaneous way and it doesn’t radiate or adsorb elementary particles and quasi-particles. So when we propose a “hidden” mechanism with the help of these extravagant phenomena, we face the challenge to elucidate why other simple mixtures don’t show these extraordinary properties.

May be one of the problems in LENR is the origin of the researchers. Some are electrochemists like Fleishmann and Pons, and others are chemists or experimental physicists. Theoretical physicists are overrunning these researchers with all kinds of exotic particles and quasi-particles (and their related composed fields) so most researchers are “shopping” within this abundantly supply to find a nice hypothesis.

I don’t want to say that theoretical physicists have a perfect model of the micro reality (99% are adepts of phenomenology). However, non-theoretical physicists are mostly fixated on the distinct phenomena. So they don’t think about the causation behind the general properties of these particles and forces because they take them for granted.

When people investigate unknown phenomena one should expect that after decades of fruitless attempts, there must come a time that researchers start to doubt about their theoretical approach of the problems. It is strange, but it seldom happens. In theoretical physics they are searching for the cause behind quantum field theory for nearly a century. Fruitless.

LENR-forums are the source of a never ending story of proposals. It doesn’t stop. Visitors post their opinion and after some time of fruitless discussions they start other activities. New visitors take their place and the same proposals start again. The question is: must we take it as a problem or can we smile about it?

@Abd,

I cannot understand the incertitude about the cause behind the reactions at the surface of the palladium lattice. The stimulation comes from the outside – the free electrons in the heavy water inside the electrolytic cell – so there cannot be fusion far from the surface area of the palladium lattice. Because the electromagnetic wave form of the concentrated free electrons dispatches energy (quanta) to the palladium atoms too. Without enough quanta density there is no cold fusion reaction. So the reactions are restricted to the “sensitive” spots just below the surface area of the palladium lattice.

axil,

When we start the DC current to an electrochemical cell with a palladium cathode, the water molecules are split into H-atoms and O-atoms at both electrodes. The palladium cathode adsorbs hydrogen atoms and – according to your hypothesis about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle – these atoms will change their energy state and will enter – after some time – their mutual lowest energy state, Rydberg matter.

The cluster of hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state is obstructed by the electrons of the palladium lattice and the free electrons of the DC current. There isn’t even space for a hexagram of hydrogen atoms within a captivity of the palladium lattice. So it is very difficult to imagine there is a Rydberg cluster of excited hydrogen atoms inside.

Moreover, superconductivity is known by its absence of electrical resistance. So it is hard to imagine how these super conductive electrons can force fusion. I am afraid you have to switch to some experiments to prove everyone that your hypothesis is correct. My imagination is not flexible enough to understand all the causal relations that you showed me.

axil,

I don’t know much about Holmlid’s experiments with Rydberg matter. I have read a paper he wrote about it a year ago and the only thing I remember well was the similarity between the described experiment and Pd-based LENR. However, LENR is thought to be an efficient way to convert nuclear energy into thermal energy. Using Rydberg matter to do the same is not easy and efficient. In my opinion it is a waste of time to try to establish cold fusion with the help of Rydberg matter.

A cluster of hydrogen atoms in Rydberg state is a bit comparable with a chemical covalent bond. You have to supply a lot of energy at once to disintegrate the chemical configuration to get every constituent of the molecule on its own. In a palladium lattice it is the mass of the palladium atoms (106 x hydrogen atom) and their metallic bonding that is responsible for the stability to withstand the electrical stimulation.

In other words, to prevent a hydrogen atom from tearing off – to influence the boundary of the nucleus – is possible in more than 1 way. However, replacing palladium by a chemical bond is very difficult because the electron of the hydrogen atom will interact with one or more atoms of the molecule. That’s why is is sensible to replace the hydrogen atoms by a molecule that consist of 2 hydrogen atoms and an intermediate atom, like the H₂O molecule.

There is a lot known (site by Martin Chaplin) about the behaviour of water molecules and Pd based LENR is not possible without some of these properties. Maybe you have asked yourself how a small DC current (~1,5 volt) can stimulate cold fusion by electrolysis.

Water molecules can have some kind of behaviour that is a bit analogue to Rydberg states (excited states). The clusters of water molecules accumulate electromagnetic radiation by the electrons of the electric current but suddenly break up. The result is a bit comparable with nuclear fission (a configuration splits and energy is released). So there is a local increase of conductivity by a sudden supply of a dense electromagnetic wave pulse in the direction of the cathode.

Maybe you might conclude that these dense electromagnetic pulses can elucidate Ed Stoms hypothesis about “Hydrotons” (by the way, the name “Hydroton” is coined for the small clay balls in hydroculture).

The proposed hypothesis assumes that single hydrogen atoms form some kind of a chain that fuse at (the brim?) of nano cracks. If we propose that these hydrogen atoms are launched by the dense electromagnetic wave the result have to be some kind of hot fusion. Because the intermediating mechanism is not the increase of the boundary of the hydrogen nuclei, but it is the suddenly increase of the velocity of the hydrogen atoms/nuclei. However, there is no observation of the whole amount of hot fusion radiation. So the Hydroton hypothesis is not according to the experiments. It is a “best try”.