Posts by Wyttenbach

    A recent poll of Trump supporters had the result that 62% of them said they would not change their opinion of him "no matter what he said or did." While that was one of the most astonishing things I have ever heard, I believe that a poll of Rossi supporters would yield an even higher number.


    @IO: Did you ever ask a Rhino to become a tiger?? .. And Trump will also deny your conclusion. He is always best...For sure better that AR.


    Moved from the Rossi/Gullstrom thread - we have zero politics and zero dicussion of politicians in this forum. It leads to fruitless and OT arguments. Alan.

    I always use de-gassed water for this kind of thing, simply bringing it to the boil is usially enough for routine investigation purposes.


    Alan Smith : Do you also have a foto from the desk, where you brew the Whiskey?


    BDW: I think experiments without measurements of (sometimes dangerous..) radiation (& COP) are just a waste of time. Even Rossi is on the direct path to win the Darwin award...

    The total cost for the null result so far of the Higgs boson

    is btw 1 and 16 billion $ . Perhaps it will be found today??


    bocijn : To mention it again: Most particles are simply resonances of p,e,neutrino,photon. But for people living and dreaming in SU(3,1) everything is a new particle because they do not understand the relation between the different bindings of magnetic energies...It also looks like quarks are simply an aspect of p,n (p+e+..) and their movement in 4D space.


    May be the end of this dream will happen sooner than some people expect!

    The fundamental particles:


    axil : The big error of standard physics is SU(3,1) and the rules of symmetry based on this math.


    According to 4D pure Maxwell based physics, there is no longer any symmetry and the muon & tau shows up as a resonance of the electron and thus is no longer fundamental.


    This can be calculated with close to 7 digits precision far better than any theories based on weird S(3,1)...

    If you look at the Mizuno paper, then you will notice that he gets a nice blue plasma too. (Bdw. most plasmas are blue because of near uv radiation .. ) Mizuno needs less than 500V to generate a plasma. Its as usual just a matter of pressure...


    But may be I'm already off topic.. because Eric handles this thread as a kind of new place to bash/ash Rossi & friends & .. .


    Moved from the E-Cat QX thread. Eric

    The polariton is an example of how a hard to understand and detect particle was first detected


    The polariton is a quasi particle. For our discussion we should clearly distinguish real physical particles and quasiparticles, which are an aspect of matter rather than matter itself.

    Before Mills got so involved in all that writing, he should have come up with a way to detect and characterize these hydrinos through experiment in such a way that these experiments are convincing and self evident.


    Mills writing about hydrinos is premature. He himself does not include the stored magnetic energy as all other users of the relativistic Dirac Equation do too. He also gives no force-equation of the trapped photon, which should act as a magnetic force provide to increase the central force.

    Nevertheless, there are other models and explanations, which can deliver similar results. May be he knows this too, but is not allowed to publish it...


    The idea that it's a gas lighter than air that escapes any container and eventually goes into space after it forms seems to dodge this issue, but in the excerpt below from a 1998 interview from Infinite Energy with Randell Mills there's a clear suggestion that it's not intangible matter.


    This is nonsense. The difference in weight between a "hydrino" and plain vanilla Hydrogen is a few eV, thus it's slightly lighter than Hydrogen. But as the radius shrinks, the stored magnetic energy and the density of the field increases with n2. A Hydrino is a strong dipole, which will glue to any magnetic matter.

    Jacques Dufour presented in Asti a paper of Iron plus pico-H = magnetic "to iron bound hydrogen".

    I would say that a free hydrino is more dangerous than anything else. This follows from the discussion/presentation with Jacques Dufour. Thus there is an urgent need to keep them back!

    The hydrino does not react to EMF but it has mass because it is purported to produce gravitational effects.


    axil : Physics is slightly more complex that mind-shredering papers. Of course do Hydrinos react with EMF. But the zone of interaction is very narrow. The spin-flip transition is always allowed as other non orbital changes too.

    One of the papers mentions "deformed space-time.."


    Again classical educated physicists conduct interesting experiments, but fail because of their (miss-) education. Classical ART can't be used in dense matter/space.


    Space time is not deformed - these guys just don't know how to use it.

    Lack of expected reaction products

    Conventional deuteron fusion is a two-step process,[text 6] in which an unstable high energy intermediary is formed:

    D + D → 4He* + 24 MeV

    Experiments have observed only three decay pathways for this excited-state nucleus, with the branching ratio showing the probability that any given intermediate follows a particular pathway.[text 6] The products formed via these decay pathways are:

    4He* → n + 3He + 3.3 MeV (ratio=50%)4He* → p + 3H + 4.0 MeV (ratio=50%)4He* → 4He + γ + 24 MeV (ratio=10−6)


    @LINR: This is the result of century long misconception of experiments. In CMS LENR there is almost no collision momentum other than in all classical experiments, where there is always collision momentum.

    Takahashi used the classical code to simulate the momentum free (symmetric) collision of DD and at the end there is a long lasting oscillation! No emission of particles...


    There are other issues, that could be discussed in a technical thread...

    Your thinking involving hydrinos as dark matter does not make sense. Dark matter is suppose to be a fundamental particle.


    axil : This is classical main-stream thinking. If we can't explain it, let's assume a new particle.


    The hydrino/UDH form of hydrogen is stable and not a quasi particle. The corresponding build-up frequencies can be measured in the solar corona and lower band emission frequencies coming from doppler coupling or spin flip have also been measured from so called "dark matter". "Dark matter" initially got this name because we (humans with our eyes) can't see it - it's radiating in different bands.

    There is so far no prove/evidence for any dark matter costing of strange new particles. May be for you UDH is "strange".

    If the hydrino particle existed, the LHC would have detected it by now.


    axil : May be you can teach CERN how to produce hydrinos first, before they can detect them...

    But their energies will certainly not match Mills calculations... - what not proves that "they" don't exist.


    The other proposal is to ask CERN to analyze Holmlids UDH which has virtually the same energy levels...


    The only guys that look at Holmlid are the Livermore top shots with clear military intensions.

    J.G. Williamson, Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 22 (2),133 (1997)Electron as a toroidal [email protected]


    JulianBianchi   can : This approach is pointing into the right direction as many others too. Keep in mind that a toroidal orbit has an interesting projection to 4D space! Just forget SU(3,1)...


    Don't blame Axil. He is just collecting interesting papers - not more. He has not yet posted even the simplest "new" (self derived) formula to discuss about.

    Below are depicted three separate "building blocks" of ultra-dense hydrogen in various different spin states (s=1, 2, 3) that I tried to reproduce in a 3d program with correct relative orbit sizes and motion. Other features are drawn exaggerated for the sake of clarity. Note that in reality UDH atoms aren't supposed to be stable on their own.


    can : I'm working on it. But it's new ground. 4D matter looks quite different and the energies do certainly not correspond to a guessed 3D Bohr or QM like approximation.


    Thus what Holmlid measures and the conclusions thereof are two different things. As Julian mentioned: The explanation includes the reason for the Zitterbewegung, which is by far not obvious. I hope I can soon tell much more.

    But I can't find (free) lead and muon fission datas to study.


    eros : Extract from : https://researchbank.rmit.edu.…/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf (MUON INTERACTION WITH LEAD SHIELDING PRODUCING ACTIVATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR GAMMA-RAY SPECTROMETRY. )


    You can also try at : https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:161164


    Muons do have at least 105 MeV of energy, but what counts is what is on top of that 105 MeV and whether they are polarized. You will noticed that lead is very bad for stopping, as mostly neutrons are produced, what you really don't like. Any material with a low Z is preferred!!

    If you have a giger counter, then just use a copper plate between the reactor and the Giger. If counts increase, then you see muons if not, then they are not dominant.


    Extract:

    Muons are slowed then captured in the atomic K shell orbit of a nucleus. Various electromagnetic processes occur in this orbit such as Bremsstrahlung allowing the muon to drop down to the inner orbital 1s, then the muon either decays or undergoes nuclear capture. At low atomic number (Z < 11) the muon capture process dominates, whereas around (Z = 11), the probabilities of capture and decay are approximately equal, however, for high Z nuclei (e.g. Lead) the muon capture processes again dominate [48]. After capture the nucleus de-excites by the emission of a neutron and neutrino from the nucleus [18]. The resulting atom is known as a muonic atom.

    This process is the dominant source of tertiary neutron production at shallow to moderate rock depth. With a high Z material such as lead, the probability of muon capture is proportional to Z4 [13].

    The second process is direct muon induced spallation where a heavy nucleus ejects large numbers of nucleons (neutrons in this case) resulting from collisions by protons from cosmic rays. In addition there is photon induced spallation of muons whereby photons produced in muon showers cause the spallation of the neutron [49, 50].

    Incidentally, Holmlid calls the "building blocks" composing the long H(0) chain clusters "quasi-neutrons" (with protium) and "quasi-dineutrons" (with deuterium). In the processes (also spontaneous) that apparently eventually cause the production of mesons and muons, small picometer-scale fragments of the ultra-dense hydrogen/deuterium material can get ejected from it with MeV velocities, remaining neutral.


    Short excerpt from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169895.g019 (open access) where they are cited:



    I just want to remind everybody that the famous Bohr coulomb formula for the potential is just OK for calculating the electric energy. All other Energies( kinetic & magnetic) of the electron are neglected. This is also the main reason why also the relativistic Dirac equation is wrong at the nuclear level.

    Further on the model for relativity used in mainstream physics breaks down in strongly curved (dense matter) space.

    The "strange" idea that a proton (deuteron) is orbiting a spinning electron can only be understood, when a new model for nuclear matter is used.


    I will not expand on this here, because people are mentally stressed, when I try to explain that there is no "free time variable" at small distances an the math looks quite different. But if you dig deep into Mills approach, then you will be able to understand, that there are different states (forms of) matter, which I call 2/3D matter 3/4D matter and 4D matter. At least the 4D matter behaves like a liquid! 3/4D is in between.


    Conclusion: There yet is no sound explanation for Holmlid's findings.

    Why not muons can't explain long range fission/transmutations? I have seen radiation increase from thick iron from ~5m reactor.


    eros : Muons do in fact explain the increase in radiation after a shield. But you see a decrease. Muons are stop by light nuclei. Polystyrene > Aluminum> iron > lead. But tables often listen values in densities where lead seems to work better...

    Muons pass any metallic foil, beta not. Neutrons pass too if they are not slowed down. Slow H* will be captured by a foil or any material.


    Thus please tell us whether you are interested in the bulk of the radiation (you are able to shield) or the remaining part that you cannot shield.

    Foil wrapped SBM20 taped to glass plate 58c/min. (plate have got some fission products. Normal clean readings should be ~20c/min BG).


    And on reactor with wet towel 10min average 127c/min.


    After test plate give ~60c/min.

    Glass plate have low uranium content maybe 0.5-1%.


    eros : Muons can be excluded, at least for the main effect. Uranium is a very good gamma shield and the decay of U238 gives a well defined spectrum. In a first step I would measure the energy of the U238 decay reaction, what should give a hint of the induced process.

    Because the foil shields most of the radiation, it must be Beta or much less likely alpha. Neutrons will not be significantly shielded with a thin layer of water.

    If you produce "strange matter" like H* this would also be shielded by a foil and could be an explanation for activating U238.

    They mistakenly believed they had ‘the recipe’ for Pd/D anomalous heat effects on demand. Turned out they didn’t. And to make things worse, when everybody in the world tried to replicate their claims, failed, and came back at F&P for ‘all the info’, F&P clammed up (or were forced to) to protect that supposed IP. That really killed their rep in the science community.


    kirkshanahan : Luckily it was not everybody! The lucky ones with the right Pd-Alloy were successful as P&F later were again with a better batch of Pd!


    But, you being a member of military research, we can apologize your comments, as acting along the orders...

    The energy of grand unification is not associated with a single particle but is marshaled as a shared resource of an aggregation of coherent identical particles.


    axil : The grand unification energy is the Plank mass - see and read Mills.


    Standard pyhsicists should first learn to handle homogenous curved 4D space, before they invent new crummy theories. The first thing they will learn is that is such a 4D space there is no symmetry as we/they understand it.


    The only thing I'm interested in is the coupling constant of the external field to the condensed 4D/3D field in the nucleus. As soon as we know which quanta can be stored (reasonably long) in a specific "nuclear" orbit, we have the key to LENR!

    1) What purpose would serve to tell (or hint) someone that an experiment he's doing could be dangerous if he is not also made aware of what exactly can make it dangerous? It would not be a credible claim unless it can be substantiated, nor would deter most who can from trying anyway.


    can : W,Ti,V and others are extremely dangerous for amateurs because they mostly consist of a mixture of isotopes which behave completely different.


    There is ample literature about W/Ti and dangerous radiation/ byproducts not only in LENR... We here only warn the amateurs. As you might know, there are no bad chemists/experimental physicists by the law of Darwin.

    This matters less than 2 dead flies.


    What matters is did the Ecat produce

    Energy Out > Energy In?

    And after 7 years, no one except Rossi KNOWS this for sure, no one, nobody.


    Most of the involved people know it. It was very hot inside Doral except the last day, where the nice Mr. Murray visited after the system (restart) run only for 1/2 hour - in Winter!!


    IH's friends decided to walk on the down play road, trying to delay others as much as possible. The only thing we don't know is the exact COP of AR's machine.


    To downplay/question the existence LENR is even worth less than two dead flies...

    Jarek : In homogenous 4D the ratio 6:10= 0.6 is a magic figure representing the number of rotations needed to reach the "opposite" position. Or more clearly: Our view of symmetry does no longer exist in 4D, as different (in length) paths lead to the same position.

    In fact 50kW is several times larger than the total FPL power draw ignoring the e-cats.


    THHuxleynew : This is a fall-back to FUD level. Just one example the Ochsner heatpump vent is rated about 200 watt for 30kW. Thus you need about 1kW for the dissipation of 150kW.


    What we all agree: If AR produced between 2-400kW, it is still a lot of power needed to vent the critical surplus of 1-200kW...

    FLOW : 36.0871 l/hr at 0,15 bar


    NOTE : for 24 pumps this is 0.65 of Penon's reported 32,000 Kg (aka Liters) / day


    Alan Fletcher : Thanks for the hard work!


    Here a refresh for the less knowledgeables - from Ex 235-10:


    Each BF unit has six identical small pumps to feed water into the reactor / boiler section of each unit. A closeup of the six pumps for a single reactor is shown below. Also shown is the nameplate for one of the pumps.


    The BF's (Big frankies) were run 98% of the time according to AR. 65% of reported flow rate is a much better match with the doable Doral heat dissipation of max 4-500k Watt.

    There is still a possiblilty that the two spare units just run a "cold" water flow...