Posts by H.G.

That’s no problem as long as you wash your hands carefully. Just like your mum and dad have told you.

Ofcourse, they didn't vind dark matter! There is a theoretical problem about the relation between spacetime and the structure of quantumfields. Therefore they interpret dark matter as particles with mass. That is wrong. So you can't detect dark matter with the help of particle accelerators.

Please, Brandzell, keep it simple!

It is not a shame when you cannot understand certain scientific problems. We all have our limits and something that is easy for one, shows to be very difficult for another. So accept your limits!

Live don't stop when you cannot grasp LENR! You can get out with your wife and dog for a nice walk; or something like that. There are more than enough simple things in live that will satisfy you. Be glad that you have become an Intermediate, because not everyone will arrive at this high level!

I presume that you are considering to stop your study now. Of course it is sad to say farewell to all those that have become acquaintances or even friends. But that's live! So, I am very honoured that I have met you at the LENR-forum. And who knows? Maybe one of these days you suddenly can grasp all that theoretic that's beyond LENR. Anyway, we all will bid you welcome when you come back to the forum. You know, we all have our ups and downs...

Because of the posts above I searched for some information.

A description about the use of thermocouples and Arduino can be found at Adafruit (https://learn.adafruit.com/thermocouple).

A lot of MAX boards for thermocouples can be find at http://www.playingwithfusion.com/index.php

@ilia,

Where is the end? Do we ban individuals who post threads about impossible scientific clarifications too? Because nearly every scientist don't visit website's that have so much “speculative physics”. And what about “bad” chemistry and childish technical solutions?

I don't mind the posts of Mary Yugo, Thomas Clarke and Tyy. Mostly I don't read their posts and when I read one, I cannot help to smile (I like Tyy the most because he posts mostly not more than 1 or 2 sentences). The cause of your aversion against those posts are the individuals who don't stop to post replies to the posts of Mary Yugo, Thomas Clarke and Tyy. So it goes on and on… Do you want to ban them too?

I was really stressed that you had made a new intention for 2016: a prudish mathematical life... ;-))
But I am relieved: QM & GR is far more exciting. That's why I am so lucky as a bottom dweller: nearly everything is possible there above!!!!!
I only have to spend time...

Oh boy, those silly students…
There is nothing new about the connection between physics and mathematics: the ancient Greek philosophers had that idea too (have you read the book of Max Tegmark...?).

Anyway, there are 2 kinds of mathematics: descriptions about ultimate reality and descriptions about simplified reality. Nearly all of mathematics belongs to the last category. So don't think that every mathematical system is a concept that can describe ultimate reality. You have to understand the foundations of mathematics before you can explore all the stuff you can find on the internet. Moreover, mathematics have comparable foundational problems like physics. In other words: the world is longing for a genius student…

Come on, Branzell!
You know as a student that you're not allowed to confuse our believe in the eternal consistency of the Standard Model! Even forum-beginners have to know that.

When physicists have no hypothesis, they must design their experiments very carefully. Small steps aside a known successful experiment to eliminate unsuccessful adaptations. So when I read this paper about 2 month ago (before the start of the experiments) I wondered myself why these physicists expected to observe any exceptional heat by the process of cold fusion.

@padam73,

Quote

What do you mean by "extensive radiation" by the fusion of H-ions? what kind of radiation are you talking about?

Cold fusion is not equal to hot fusion. Hot fusion has dominant vectors (impulse moment). Cold fusion hasn't. There is no fusion of H-ions, caused by strong vectors like e.g. “heavily bumping” palladium atoms. Thus the radiation (wave pattern) of the cold fusion is not equal to the radiation of hot fusion, the spatial concentration of quanta is much lower. So it is more extensive.

@padam73,

The relation between Ni-atoms and adsorbed H-atoms is under normal conditions about 0,05%. Therefore it is not easy to get beta phase nickel hydride. Moreover, is it necessary?

The research of mrs. Mossier-Boss (page 442 of volume 13 JCMNS) elucidates the problem: cold fusion isn't a clean process. There is fission of the atoms of the metal lattice too because of the extensive radiation by the fusion of H-ions. Although palladium nuclei have a lot of electron shields, palladium atoms that are enclosed by a number of fusing H-ions “cannot stand the heat”. As a result, cold fusion is not a continuous process. After some time the fusion will stop because of local pollution of the metal lattice by the fission of the palladium atoms.

In other words, to get a clean fusion process it is probably not a good idea to load the metal lattice with as many H-atoms as possible. Unfortunately, it is difficult to distribute the H-atoms nicely all over the lattice. And even when we can fix it, the local radiation of the fusion process will destroy the distribution. That's because the uniform thermal radiation (and pressure) is responsible for the smooth adsorption of the H-atoms.

It is said that cold fusion will occur at the surface area of the metal lattice. In the way Fleissmann and Pons did their experiments, it is clear why the fusion occurred at the surface area of the palladium cathode. Just because of the local density of adsorbed palladium (beta phase) and the density of the wave pattern of the free electrons (electric direct current between anode and cathode). Anyway, the fusion always stopped “automatically” after some time.

So when we examine the try-outs of individuals and professional researchers to get a stable fusion reactor it is clear that all those attempts are obstructed by a lack of stability. Not because they have no idea about the right hypothesis of the cold fusion process (theoretical physics). Cold fusion just shows to be comparable with hot fusion: it is a very difficult job to get a constant fusion during a long, long time.

@Thomas Clarke,

Well, if you are really longing for it...
Here is a very short paper for you about the foundation of cold fusion.
Don't be afraid you cannot discuss the paper, because I wrote it myself.

a

@oystla,

Thank you very, very much for the link to JCMNS. I didn't knew their existence and their journal. Now I have read nearly all the publications in volume 13 (2014). For me, it is quite a relief to discover so much reliable scientific publications about LENR.

In volume 13 I have find nearly everything that confirmed what I know about the influence of background electrons to the BEC-like mechanism of enclosed H-nuclei. But there was another surprise too, the research of Pamela A. Mosier-Boss (page 422). In this forum there were some rapports about the “ash” from the reactor pipe during the Lugano experiments. Nuclear transmutations by fission. I thought this was because of the type of Rossi's reactor (too much heat on small spots). My assumption was wrong, the publication of Pamela Mosier-Boss shows.

But this has implications. Using palladium as a catalytic metal for cold fusion is impossible when the process of cold fusion slowly transmutes the palladium. There is not enough palladium on the planet for cold fusion all over the world during a long time. Thus there have to be a replacement for palladium. So now I start diving into the data of all the elements to calculate some promising alloys.

@jeff,

Your equipment is o.k. But that isn't the most important thing. Replicating cold fusion by imitating others – except Fleissmann and Pons – is a bit tricky when the others have no idea what's going on in the cold fusion process.

I have not so much trust in the attempts of Rossi. I cannot sea much reliable physics. Because the Coulomb force of a H-ion can only decrease by the transfer of a compact high energy electromagnetic wave pattern. Heating up the hydride cannot force this because it is spreading the low energy electromagnetic waves all over the material. The only source of compact high energy electromagnetic wave patterns is the presence of free electrons within the metal lattice. Without H-atoms there are about 2% free electrons in relation to the number of atoms within the metal lattice. Maybe you can get 4% and a bit more when you have a beta-phase hydride (every metal atom has a hydrogen counterpart) and a current that flows through the hydride. That's just what Fleissmann and Pons did.

Anyway, Fleissmann and Pons had no control over the cold fusion process. That's because the resulting velocity of all the free electrons by an electric current is about 1 mm/s. However, the velocity of one single free electron is about 100.000 m/s and more. In other words, the free electrons move without any restriction in all the directions but the total amount is drifting slowly through the metal lattice. By the way, a free electron is an electromagnetic wave pattern.

So it is simple to understand why Fleissmann and Pons couldn't control the process. The exceptional heat was the result of probability. A number of free electrons came together and formed “by accident” locally a compact electromagnetic wave pattern that envelopes some enclosed H-ions.

So when you want to control the cold fusion process, you have to create a beta-phase hydride first. Thereafter you must force the free electrons to a state of very high density. The metal lattice hydride is already a creation of high density free electrons, but you have to concentrate these free electrons further more. You can do this with the help of a direct current through the lattice and a constriction within the metal lattice (the palladium cathode of Fleismann and Pons was a bit a constriction because of all the free electrons around in the conductive liquid).

Nevertheless, there is may be a better method. Applying a high frequency alternating current to the metal lattice will force most of the free electrons to the surface area of the material (see Wikipedia: skin-effect).

Urban Eriksson,

The problem is not the method of measurement, it is the absence of the production of enough exceptional heat. Just because (most) attempts to replicate cold fusion cannot control the process. So when you are the lucky one who can switch on and off the fusion of hydrogen ions, there is no need for sophisticated measurement equipment. Just a thermometer for the temperature and a device to measure the electric power consumption is enough to prove cold fusion (with the help of some simple calculations). Therefore, discussions about the right scientific method to prove cold fusion are a bit a waste of time. Those who are not involved into the theoretical and/or experimental research of cold fusion simply have to wait till the others have “done the job”. Speculations are for people who do their time.

@Franck Delplace,

You can find me at http://vixra.org/abs

@Franck Delplace,

May be we have some misunderstanding. My research is like string theory (bottum up). The basis is not gained from physical phenomena, it is just “pure” mathematics (basic mathematics). Of course I am familiar with physics, but it doesn't play an important role for me (only field theory).

Anyway, there is a general phenomenon you will like to know because it is a constant. Suppose you want to describe alterations within the fluid part of reality. When you extrapolate your results to more exotic physical environments (like the inside of a black hole) you get into problems.

I will try to clarify how you can avoid these problems.

We can imagine a volume of 1 m³. We even can imagine ourselves that this volume is part of a black hole, or part of the inside of the moon or just within the biggest cold void somewhere in the universe.

When we compare these 3 situations, we are convinced that our 3 volumes of 1 m³ have not the same energy in these distinct environments. Of course, that's self evidently.

But there is another aspect. How many alterations (the transfer of single quanta) will occur within our volume of 1 m³ during the same amount of time? Be aware, we are talking about the amount of alterations within liquid space during a certain time everywhere in the universe.

The correct answer is that there are no differences between all these situations. Our volume of 1 m³ will transfer the same amount of quanta, unregarded the physical environment. It has to do with the seize of the mathematical structure of the scalar field and the vector field. It is granted that within quantum theory the underlying primary quantum fields cannot transfer quanta without any limit.

I can calculate the structure of the primary quantum fields and within our 1 m³ there is “room” for 8,8307 x 10⁴³ spatial field unities and every unity can transfer 5,99 x 10²³ quanta in 1 second (so we live in a hectic universe).

Back to the 3 distinct environments of our 1m³. The difference between the situations is the local accumulated energy (quanta). In other words: the constant of energy transfer is responsible for the concentration and de-concentration of quanta within spacetime. Because transferring 1 quantum from A to B is subtracting the energy in A with 1 quantum and adding 1 quantum in point B.

Transferring quanta within a volume – and the resulting different local energy densities – is like fluid-mechanics. That's the reason that your research is very, very important for a better understanding of reality in foundational physics.

All that I wrote above about that curious constant, seems a bit strange and doesn't “fit” within the frame of reference of credible physics. But when you think it over for a while you will discover that I have described – in an unusual way – the constant speed of light. Moreover, I have described one of the most remarkable properties of light too: the speed of the transfer of a single quantum is independent from the speed – and the direction – of a transferred concentration of quanta from which the quantum originate.

Is it important to understand the description of that constant (coupling the constant of the speed of light with the structure of quantum fields)? Yes, because it clarifies the mechanism of cold fusion in a truthful scientific way.

a

@Franck Delplace,

Well, may be I can help you a little bit with some ideas because “this bloody liquid” is part of my field of research (I am an independent researcher).

Your idea about the liquid properties of the fabric of spacetime is correct for nearly 25%. Just because the other 75% of the volume of space hasn't liquid properties: it is the scalar field (Higgs field). With other words: the volume we call space is a mixture of a vector field (electric field) and a scalar field. However, this is a mathematical description of the fabric of space. It is totally impossible to know the real stuff.

Moreover, there are no other (primary) fields at every point in the universe because it doesn't “fit”. Mathematically there is only “room” for a vector field and a scalar field. Both fields can interact with each other because they are the twofold expression of one field. Every unity (standard volume) in space has an invariant and a variant property and both properties are responsible for the creation of the 2 spatial fields. Without a standard volume there are no laws and constants in physics (an imaginary homogeneous liquid has no internal structure). In fact, spacetime is an all-inclusive mathematical set of elements (standard volumes).

Reality looks like a fractal. The basic properties of the all-inclusive set concentrate quanta (field deformation) to form atoms but it doesn't stop at that scale. The basic properties concentrate atoms to form matter. Matter forms celestial bodies, etc.,etc. Our problem is that stupid phenomenological reductionism, because it was the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides who argued nearly 2500 years ago that spacetime is like a fluid solid. (And Aristoteles pointed out that all the alterations in the universe have only one cause; he called it “the great mover”.)

That's why I admire your publication so much: you are moving in the direction of the mathematical properties that rule the “liquid portion” of spacetime. It is only a matter of time and you will incorporate the constant speed of light and the conservation of energy within an overall concept of liquid space (the mathematical synchronization of space and time).

The way you develops your concept is terrible complicated. Because it is a top down approach. I have not enough capabilities (and drive) to handle that, so I did it the other way: bottom up.