Posts by Wyttenbach

    I believe the hardest pill to swallow for the physisists in 1989 was the fact that some non-physisists announced that there was possibly a new nuclear phenomen that the physics community had not yet noticed.

    The problem is that physics has been vastly taken over by mathematicians, that miss the intuition of a classical physicist like Faraday, Herz, Heisenberg, Teller just to name a few...

    There are thousand of fat ducks eating the ITER, CERN, Fermilab etc. money without ever producing something that really helps to overcome the problem of todays world.

    But this is just a mirror image of the real society. People that work, invent, construct are cheated by the less skilled bankers, managers, politicians, lawyers.

    Even more strange. Most countries are now run (and possibly soon ruined) by these fat ducks...

    The same happened to Fleischmann& Pons, when finally a fat duck took over their old sponsor company...


    That is the COP SRI saw in their independent replication...which they say is very conservative, but Godes claims they get 4 in their own lab.

    Of course you never bring your best process into a lab! The Japanese do the same. They just publish the enough good ones...

    Swarz told a years ago that the best nanors are above COP 8. But that's usually true at the beginning. For selling a product it must hold for months.

    The 4th Quarter Business and Analytical Updates:

    Mills did some interesting measurements with his "hydrino foam" he got from the reactions.

    He certainly measures dense hydrogen, but the matches cannot rule out that he sees the same as Santilli did see decades ago. We know from Holmlids experiments too that in the region Mills claims to see H(1/4)he also measure deep Hydrogen species. Nevertheless Mills makes much better measurements than Holmlid does and it would be great if Holmlid could do the same as Mills did.

    I'm pretty sure that sooner or later a better model will occur that is able to explain both phenomena.

    Just to remind you:Mills model requires an increase of the central force that he finally attributes to charge, what is not possible with the classic equation. He misses to show that a photon captured in the classic orbit can be the source of that force increase. He also neglects any relativistic treatment of the orbit motion which should be significant if we assume classic (non magnetic) orbits. In general photons only couple with magnetic flux. Thus the solution is to find an equivalence relation between magnetic flux and dynamically generated charge.

    Recent modeling points in the direction, that the treatment of the electron in e.g. the proton orbit must be done on a magnetic flux base.

    Since a large current is being passed (at least several amperes, although it could transiently be much higher if I add a few large capacitors), a relatively large inductor is (or can be) present in the circuit, wouldn't the collapsing magnetic field from the repeatedly formed and suddenly destroyed conduction paths at the electrode interface locally produce potentially large voltages?

    LENR needs a special setup to match the ignition condition(s). But that we should discuss else where.

    It appears to have partially worked in that I was able to sustain a current at 12V longer. I

    I would recommend to use +-1000V alternating ac if possible - very low current indeed! Just reverse a the clamps of a cheap fitting transformer...

    Around 1000eV was the best proton resonance found by Lipinskis.

    The German car industry just found out... that green = electric cars will cut their business by factors. An electric car needs much less maintenance as you can use the motor as a generator for breaking and thus avoid using a classic break system (only there as a backup). Electro motors rarely need oil... They live way to long... and even worse they need a fraction of the manpower for construction.

    Why does anybody believe that the automobile sector will act on its own and build small electric cars?? If cheap transportable Hydrogen fuel will be available - I guess even Alan's process could be optimized for cars - then there will be a very disruptive period for the whole sector.

    There is already a small market for refurbishing classic car with batteries & electro motors, electronic. Suddenly this could become an interesting business too.

    I have come to the conclusion that either Ascoli never read & understood the linked FP paper or he is unable to imagine the difference between the video shown and the real difference of an experiment run in a dewar, that cannot be filmed.

    The Cathode is about 1cm above the bottom of the container. The experimenters report a dry cell & a molten KEL-F Supp that can only happen at 300C.

    Why did the Pt D2O control Cell never show a destroyed KEL-F. Even more demanding why did it never run dry or boil off ??

    Live Cells: Which process delivers the energy to boil off the remaining liquid below the cathode? (As no more current flows...)

    The video Ascoli likes to comment is made from free cells sitting out of the dewar and is just used for illustrating the boil-off, thus the timing will be different because of intense heat loss through radiation...

    It's useful to follow the discussions at international skeptics. One thing that now is touted by the critics (who is ridiculing Mills) is that if you take

    a uniform charged shell, the electrical potential inside it is constant or in other words, there is no force acting on the nuclei in this model. Now they are hammering

    on this to show that Mills is way out of science.

    I just read a few comments. This is bachelor level talk. They simply ignore that Mills model just delivers 2-3 digits more than the insane QED model...They do not even understand that QM cannot explain any force. QM has to postulate it! As I did show: QM (QED) cannot be used to model nuclear energies, the same holds for Mills charge flow model. These people should start to improve theory not endlessly talk about the color of the prophets bird.

    On the other side Mills includes many small cheats into his calculation mostly after the fifth digit to artificially increase the precision. Nevertheless, his treatment of magnetism is outstanding and it's the best you can do in a (3D,t) space.

    No particulars.

    By the end of 2019 we will be in commercial negotiations, we will cost millions if not billions. We are so serious that we built 5000 sqft lab in just 4 month. We see all many things with our mass spectrographer and on two XFS we have. That is it.

    You have forgotten the discount coins. Pay less get less for sure...

    Probably, many of them know that hot and cold fusion are on the same side of the barricade and that the main risk for them is that the public realize the big bluff which is behind both.

    I agree that for the hot fusion side the bluff works out since 40 years.

    For LENR we make no bluffs. We work hard to find a working reaction without promising a concrete goal.

    We now have a precise model that explains how the nuclear energy (mass) forms, somethings the adepts of the standard model fusionists just dream of.

    No foam will stop us...(Except in the pub next right corner!)

    If a few cubic centimeters of foam (a few milligram of low quality heavy water) have been able in 30 years to rally thousands of scientists (including a few Nobel laureates) from dozens of the most famous scientific institutions and labs in the world, who spent many thousands of man-years to produce thousands of published papers, which have cost hundreds of millions of public and private funds, I wonder what else an ebullient mind as Huw's will be able to produce in the far future with an entire bottle of Essex beer.

    A bunch of ruthless physicists/politicians were able to convince dozens of states to spend over 20 billions to build a so called hot fusion reactor. The outraging nonsense published in their papers like hot fusion being sun-like energy is just one small piece in the misdirection of the world.

    Since more than 40 years it is known and physically proven that such a reactor (like ITER) can only be productive if a so called neutron blanket shields the environment. Such a blanket is made out of the famous element "unobtainium" that is inert to neutron radiation and does not activate.

    If they ever start ITER for more than a few seconds, then they have to evacuate the building for days... At the end of the experiment(s) 20 Billion partly activated waste must be treated and the next party will start.

    People like Ascoli telling "foamy nonsense" certainly like projects like ITER, what allows 1000's of physicists to sit in an armchair and to do what they like while waiting for the next experiment...

    Why isn't Ascoli fighting the true waste of money????

    3. The emission of 89 KeV gammas

    Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 452 (1998)
    X-ray, heat excess and 4 He in the D/Pd system
    D. Gozzi , F. Cellucci P.L. Cignini G. Gigli M. Tomellini E. Cisbani S. Frullani G.M. Urciuoli
    Dipartimeno di Chimica, Universita` di Roma La Sapienza, P. le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma, Italy L
    Received 29 January 1997; received in revised form 2 May 1997

    They did just deduce the radiation, but could not measure it. The problem is that they assume alphas get added to Pt what is very unlikely. Two times Pt +D is looking somewhat different!

    Citation of the above paper: Unfortunately, in these experiments, the measured intensity of the radiation and number of particles is so low that the confidence in the detection statistics is always questioned.

    I think BLP are simply pulsing current on-off into the arc regime to avoid quickly self-destructing the apparatus.

    Reading their papers would be more helpful...

    They use capacitor banks to generate up to 16k Amps. The can fire about 10x/sec. And the initial voltage is below 15V...

    Today with super caps, may be they can do it much more frequently and with higher currents.

    his seem to invalidate Russ's statement that all that claimed success in LENR should measure an excess radiation.

    Radiation is the faint smoke of the fire. You need to know where to look and you should do careful backgrounds.

    Nobody knows the exact rules. So you should not draw any conclusions.

    We relay on radiation because it is the most compelling proof.

    Of course, this also means that the claim of an inexistent 20% excess heat is an extraordinary mistake if made by world class scientists.

    This falls back on you... You are the one that claims that the best experts in the world did not have your limited understanding...

    Do the inverse conclusion about your "scientific power" yourself...

    I am still very puzzled when Russ George will realize it is good time to share at least some particulars of the experiments that could allow replication.

    It look like he wish to win a Nobel prize. Or he want to develop his reactor or sell them?

    We posted already quite many things about the mechanism we think that is at work. The theory is open and has been linked many times.

    Do not expect that this forum is the appropriate , first place to present a working device.

    We all are curious and invested some hard time to be in a situation where progress seems possible! May be you should wait until we are sure to be right and not just believe it...

    alloy bed-based chemical operations and lab research that we run here. Plain and simple, it is a safety issue. We are very concerned about safety here and in the DOE in general.

    I guess you should once ask Boing what they think about possible LENR runaways of Li-ion batteries during a flight.

    7Li has a very low work-function to induce LENR. Additionally batteries can have high currents/strong fields what is also a promotor of LENR.

    Pd only will show problematic behavior if it is significantly loaded with deuterium, what is quite unusual if you talk of alloys. But I very well know what concerns you!

    That is covered by a 2% increase in kr'.

    May be you have forgotton that there was always a drift before the refill. After refill there was always decrease... Please read what Hansen says about the overall accuracy of the calorimeter! You also never refuted the claims by other reviewers that did exclude any energy relevant recombination.

    As I have already told you (1), Hansen's analysis was not independent at all.

    May be you could tell us about your independence...

    Utah state University at least believed that Hansen was independent. May be they (Fleischmann, Hansen) had once a common ancestor in the Neandertaler ages...

    Extraordinary claims based on a completely wrong assessment of their experiment, that, let me say, for nearly 30 years have been driving the inconclusive research of an impossible goal.

    More than a dozen of Labs did repeat the above extraordinary claims. They all found them being true including some military labs... All confirmed large excess energy of much higher than chemical level in amounts of Pd atoms present. Ascoli too knows the independent confirming report of Hansen and others.

    Ascoli65 : It is may be grand time that you explain what you think would be an impossible goal.

    We that stay in Labs and measure, we know that LENR is the normal version of nuclear fusion and that LENR can even start without adding any energy. We know this because we measure radiation not heat. Thus there is no discussion about LENR anymore. The only discussion is:

    Who is first with a process that delivers a market ready heater/ heat source!

    Are you familiar with the work of Hestenes (inspired by Parson and Barut), then followed by others, on the representation of particles as electromagnetic fluxes of various topologies (e.g. toroidal) with mass naturally explained as rotational energy?

    Here a sample where you end up with classic 4(6)D math treatment: The Geometry of Spacetime vix 1612.0415v1.pdf

    The 4D explanation of Zitterbewegung is integral for the 4D model itself as in 4D quantization is only possible due to eccentricity. In the ideal case eccentricity (=Zitterbewegung) is based on the golden ratio. This fact is used to define the universal "mass compression factor" that seems to perfectly work for the explanation of symmetric nuclei. Thus in the SO(4) based model Zitterbewegung is already given by the nucleus.

    Of course there are many physical reasons that can be used to explain additional Zitterbewegung and I guess this is the least important we have to find out how exactly it works...

    s for your specific question, it can find a partial answer in the report that Hansen submitted to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council and then presented to ICCF2 in 1991 (1). As already said (2), Figure 1 shows the temperature and voltage trends of a blank experiment performed by F&P, which behaves in the same way of the 4 cell experiment presented at ICCF3, i.e. the temperature approaches the boiling point and the voltage skyrockets toward the maximum allowable limit.

    So, in this case, the right question would have been: why this blank experiment was publicly reported by Hansen, but was not revealed by F&P?

    Thanks for the independent confirmation report of Hansen.

    He already confirms solid excess heat for the steady state phase...

    During days 3 and 4, Qf cannot be less than 0.1 watts or so—say 0.11 watts. Just for the two days this corresponds to 45 eV per Pd atom. This is already an order of magnitude larger than the energy to vaporize the entire Pd electrode. We have thought of no other self consistent explanation than that the excess heat is real and very significant.

    A corollary of Beichler is that Randell Mill's GUTCP is not so grand . "4D " is heresy in the Millsian Universe

    I never read that (4D heresy) in Randall Mills writing. But it took extensive modeling and time to understand that the first step for the process of "massification" in fact is a conversion of potential energy into rotational energy = magnetic flux.

    The key to the new model was the understanding that space & time are the same for dense matter and are uniform. Only meta-stable systems need a kind of time that can be replaced by a frequency (wave number) to get an average energy of a state.

    This also makes it clear that the standard model did choose the worst possible approach to model dense space, - potentials.

    Whether dense space is restricted to 4D or not is a question of economy. Most things can be done in 4D but SO(4) has 6 dimensions and some modeling constants are based on 6 dimensions (5 rotations). E.g. to get the exact (10 digits) ionization energy of Hydrogen/Deuterium 4D is enough.

    But alpha (fine-structure constant) is based on an infinite number of dimensions (de Vries formula) but for reasonable calculations 6 are enough.