I think Kowalski is still around, though long retired. He always struck me as an eminently sane and sensible researcher. Frolov, not so much, I have had some interaction with him in the past, he is more of the 'can we make money from this' persuasion..
Alan Smith
Admin-Experimenter
- Member since Nov 10th 2015
- Last Activity:
- Thread The Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) as the cause of the vacuum reaction.
Posts by Alan Smith
-
-
ill have the same influence between unsaturated or saturated oil as paraffin for example ?
Yes it will.
It is important to remember that there is something else in the packaging and pretty much everywhere, Water. Ionizing radiation effects on water molecules goes like this, As you can see, there is not only potential for the release of (initially) monatomic hydrogen but also the release of OH radicals, which are very reactive.
H2O → e−+H2O+H2O → e−+H2O+
H2O∗ → ∙H+∙OHH2O∗ → •H+•OHH2O++H2O → H3O++∙OH
There are more potential steps - but these are the most interesting ones for this discussion.
-
Low-energy X-rays will also cross-link long-chain hydrocarbons with release of hydrogen at the cross-link sites. So maybe excluding UV is not enough.
-
-
That;s it, thank you.
-
Thank you for reminding me of JLN's work. The presence of hydrogen is probably the key difference between this and the vacuum triode work you posted before. And hydrogen is also the key similarity to Egely's device.
George is of the opinion that hydrogen fusion is the key to his device working as is claimed. No hydrogen no positive COP, but he has not yet been able to show this by for exmaple, gas analysis. Unfortunately my QMS would not show it either, since H2 and D are of similar mass and would require front-end cryogenics to separate them. That's a Los Alamos job.
-
For some videos to watch and several newer articles on plasmoids and scientific revolutions, please see scientificrevolutions.com
Ed Lewis
-
For details of the setup, see https://tinyurl.com/ybcfb4b
magicsound For some strange reason the URL above takes me to the announcements page of a Rumanian bank.
But thank you for the update.
-
Thanks to SindreZG for bringing this to my attention.
The perfect nuclear fusion is not that of ITER: this is the ingredient that can solve all our energy need
Muons are in the crosshairs of physicists. And they are for good reason: they are one of your best assets when it comes to finding cracks in physics theory more consistent than all they have produced so far. Finding cracks in the Standard Model is not easy, but some of the experiments carried out at CERN and Fermilab in recent years involving these particles invite scientists to face the future of physics with very healthy optimism.
The muons, which are the true protagonists of this article, are very special. These elementary particles are only produced when high-energy collisions take place, such as those involving cosmic rays, and also in human-caused collisions at particle accelerators. In addition, they are unstable, which causes them to decay rapidly when they originate, disintegrating to give rise to the production of other particles, such as electrons, which are stable, or neutrinos (only the electronic neutrino is stable).
However, its usefulness goes far beyond the realm of theoretical physics. And it is that muons have the ability to intervene in nuclear fusion. In that same nuclear fusion that has been at the center of public conversation for several years, and about which we will talk much more in the future. The one supported by two projects as promising as ITER or IFMIF-DONES. Interestingly, its role in this way of obtaining energy it is very little known outside the realm of research, and, as we are about to see, it is exciting Fiance.......
The perfect nuclear fusion is not that of ITER: this is the ingredient that can solve all our energy needsMuons are in the crosshairs of physicists. And they are for good reason: they are one of your best assets when it comes to finding cracks in physics theory…www.ruetir.com -
Technology changes the world but people make it magical.
Long time no see. You haven't received my future focused newsletter for a while, but here I am again. And there's a good reason!
Never before I think I have noticed so much worry in people about what's lying ahead of us.
The climate. Wars. Leadership challenges. Inflation. Pace of change. AI. Disinformation. Lies.
But there's also something growing. I see people slowly turning back to our most important questions about human values, wellbeing, and our relation to technology. That is good.
My impression is that after 20 years of being thrown into a giant digital experiment of social networks and internet based news and information distribution, we are together starting to realise its consequences and how we should deal with it.
-
BTW, one of the Dufour papers mentions a patent, I have been unable to trace it, but it would be of interest.
J. Dufour Patent WO 94/10688 "Energy source system and process", Filed 26 October 1992,
International publication date I I May 1994 -
Assuming the LEC is cold fusion and it actually works, it might be an example of a reaction without heat. But no one knows, because they have not put a LEC into a calorimeter yet, as far as I know. The reaction is very small. It can be detected because electricity is the easiest force that ordinary instruments can detect, and because electricity can build up in a capacitor.
Good news is that Frank Gordon tells me the latest iterations of the LEC are showing 'orders of magnitude' improvement. There will be more info on this soon, they are just submitting further patents.
-
I suggest a look at this paper, where needle-point electrodes were used.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DufourJcoldfusiona.pdf
Also another paper on page 482 (yes!) of this collection of excellent papers from the LENR-CANR library run by Jed Rothwell.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NEDOthesixthina.pdf
If anybody cares to browse through this book (above) btw there are some very interesting papers.
-
Gordon's LEC produces only microwatts, and that makes me nervous.
Stop fretting, it's getting better with each iteration.
-
Daniel_G Well (a picture of) your current 'flat' reactor set up as used for producing the results mentioned would be of great interest. If you already did that I must have missed it.
Still working on it
Great. looking forward to that.
-
Daniel_G Well, your current 'flat' reactor set up as used for producing the results mentioned would be of great interest. If you already did that I must have mossed it.
-
Frogfall kindly pointed out to me that the original link to the Raleigh paper had become broken. Here it is again
-
-
Modest claims...
"As evident from Figure 3, the calibration output power value at reactor input
power of 55W is 57.13W and the calibration output power value at reactor input
power of 105W is 101.16W. Whereas in case of active experimentation, the reactor
input power of 55W provides calorimeter output power of 69.34W and the reactor
input power of 105W provides calorimeter output power of 132.17W.
30
Experimentally, at 50 W input power, the power output in case of active
14
experiment is higher by 9.79 W with respect to calibration. Similarly, at 100 W
input power, the output power is greater by 31.01 watts with respect to calibration." -
Thanks for adding this. My own preference would be to use a larger diameter cylinder with gas inlet/outlets at the ends rather than a 'closed one end' tube.. This would allow for easier purging with hydrogen or other chosen gases. George's electrodes are tubular with sharp edges, other designs may be possible, but the concentration of current at the edges obviously reduces the voltages required to initiate sparking. This is certainly the case with needle-point electrodes.
