I wanted to inform the forum about so called IDE transformer replication and testing. This may not have anything to do with LENR, but otherwise an interesting overunity case.
The device principle has been explained utilising ECE-theory in Paper 382 and the test results in Paper 383. Links for both of them here:
...
The plasma electrolysis at electrode is commonly used in cold fusion research, but its energy yields aren't as high in general.
In the example given the value E_out/E_in =~ 1.3.
In a later test equipment,
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfr30.htm,
this value is already quite much better, Run#1: 2.05 and in Run#3: 2.29
To me these values sound such that there is really an energy producing phenomena in these tests. If you compare these values to the values we have seen in the case of Ni-H, 1.0 - 1.1, it seems that this kind of test-system would be clearly a better direction to go. In the open test-cases related to Ni-H-systems we end up always in the discussion if there is excess energy or any at all.
Of course one thing would be necessary in further development, some kind of theory about what's happening here. Mizuno's original explanation might not be enough ?
watt = Joule second NOT joule/second
I suppose you mean the opposite ?
1W = 1Nm/s = 1J/s = [Work]/[Time] = [Power]
Display More
- Paul March 23, 2017 at 4:23 PM
Andrea,
In your recently described experiment, is the one ohm resistance the ballast resistance, the steady-state plasma resistance, or a combination of both?
V/R,
Paul
- Translate Andrea Rossi March 23, 2017 at 5:24 PM
Paul:
A combination of both.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
If we take that to account it is totally useless to guess the input power. A simple circuit schematic could clarify the situation. So no idea about real COP.
Here's some discussion about YAMM ( yet another magnetic motor) utilising ECE-theory:
There's no systematic evidence at this point as far as I can tell that removing impurities from the surface of a substrate does anything beneficial. It seems to simply be an assumption that this is the case. It might be the opposite: that preparing a substrate by cleaning it will be partly or wholly detrimental.
Related to that i copied this from Peter's EGO-OUT blogs Comments section at 2017-02-20:
"Alan DeAngelis Andreas Moraitis
a day ago
I was thinking about tetrahedral and octahedral nickel hydride complexes a few years ago on E-cat site. https://ecatsite.wordpress.com...
“ Ni(0) (metal) + 6 H2 (gas) > [NiH6]6- + 6 H+ (protons)
If I have this right, a set of six empty sp3d2 hybrid orbitals can be formed
on the nickel by mixing 4s, 4p and 4d orbitals and then the lone pairs of
electrons of the hydrides could fill them to form the octahedral complex
[NiH6]6-.”
And
“Ni(0) (metal) + 4 H2 (gas) > [NiH4]4- + 4 H+ (protons)
Could also have a set of four empty sp3 hybrid orbitals form on the nickel and then the lone pairs of electrons of the hydrides could fill them to form the tetrahedral complex [NiH4]4-.”
Another thread here also suggested that NiO instead of very pure Ni would be useful material for LENR. (I suppose no-one of the members of this forum did try this ever but ...):
"LENR as entertainment
ogfusionist
Jul 10th 2015
The experiment was to check the stability of nickelous oxide paint in hydrogen at 1000 C. I was asked by management to verify that the material would maintain color as a ceramic paint. My Variac/transformer would just meet this requirement. At 830 C. thermal run away occurred and the tube housing the alumina FiberFrax/NiO melted. I now realize that what had occurred was simply hydrogen fusion. Gas chromatography indicated a small increase in helium after flow through the operating reactor.
After 50 years this fusion it's still inconclusive because of the focus on nickel with various impurity levels leading to trial and error results. Instead nickelous oxide suspension on alumina fiberfrax will give very good repeat ability. The NiO particles must be submicron in size.
All my posts are on this forum."
Here Ed Storm is just saying that "Temperature determines how fast D can get to the NAE by diffusion from its site in the surrounding lattice". But from perspective of my theory the temperature dependence cannot be so monotonous at all. The hotter the lattice is, the more wildly the atom nuclei wiggle against each other and the more frequently they occasionally collide. But the probability, that multiple atoms will collide along a single line in the same direction will decrease with increasing temperature too.
...
You mention in your theory:
Another factor contributing to high yield of heat during LENR are the quantum effects, similar to quantum entanglement and boson condensate formation. As most of you probably know, the fast motion of particles induces a de-Broglie pilot wave of undulated vacuum around them, which makes the vacuum more dense and the propagation of light slower in such a way, its speed is not affected with speed of particle itself.
But during fast collinear collisions of long chains of atom nuclei this effect becomes very significant and it will create a cylindrical area of dense vacuum around collision line of these nuclei. This dense tube will both merge and entangle the atom nuclei into a collective motion and undulations, both will make their merging easier, because it will decrease the tension at the surface of atom nuclei just at the place of their mutual contact. The collective motion of atom nuclei will mediate and share their energy with longitudinal waves like the superconductor or liquid helium, which also mediates the heat waves well - so that the energy produced by fusion at some point will be redistributed along whole line of colliding atoms fast and as such thermalized.
...
As you may guess, with increasing temperature of reaction the atom nuclei will move wildly and their ability to form stable entangled condensate lines will decrease, so that some neutrons may be still released during thermal runaways of LENR reactors.
Now one interesting question is how this chain-formation of atoms fits in the plasma electrolysis type of LENR ?
And which are the effective elements then , K, C, O or W ? E.g in here:
About dark matter - it looks like ECE doesn't need it ! OK, i don't have any opinion about this but at slide 35 in this general presentation,
http://www.aias.us/documents/m…aneous/ECE-popular-en.pdf
they mention:
"Dark Matter
- Standard physics assumes that more than 90% of matter are of unknown type
- no radiation interaction, „dark matter“
- What the hell do we know then from the universe???
- ECE theory has explained the laws of the universe without such assumptions"
Quite strong a statement, isn't it ?
Rjzk
Edit: I just adjusted some CSS parameters. Can you try again?
Thanx ! Now it seems to be working OK. (As well as comibinations Linux/Firefox, Android/Firefox or Opera)
Like I said, the existence of space-time torsion would violate equivalence principle
I don't know if this is any kind of an answer, but here
http://www.aias.us/Books/PECE.pdf
chapter 6.4 starting at p. 192 handles equivalence principle.
With my laptop the main display looks OK , but when i switch to the second (external) display it looks like this (in both cases maximized window).
The sample is from "portal".
In this case the system is Windows 7 with Chrome browser.
Zephir_AWT thanks for clarifying the situation among the mainstream physicists.
I am still wondering what is the value of the mathematical proof that ties curvature and torsion together ? If it is valid, can it be just ignored like that ?
Wouldn't that mean that if you ignore torsion you also throw curvature away at the same time ?
As little as i understand these things to me it looks that this connection is essential for the whole theory and its consequences.
I think signal injection into a coax stub is ok to create a signal -but of course, no use for running a heater - and PWM's are fixed frequency - we need another trick.
BUT...you got me thinking about the problem of using a simple PWM to give a…
So what is the target (resonance) frequency roughly ? And related to which physical phenomena ?
There was earlier mentioned around 100ns-level minimum pulse-width but this corresponds only to 10 MHz. Even the highest order harmonics could reach then a few 100 MHz at best.
If i understand correctly everything interesting known today would require THz-frequencies and all the techniques mentioned here and earlier stay far away from those.
Happy New year 2017!
First i'm sorry that i keep asking these questions about ECE again this year. I probably started in a wrong way 2016 ?
My key point was to get some kind of opinion of the real basis of the ECE theory. And as far as i understand the basis of ECE is this:
1) Einstein = space-time + curvature, however not enough to describe reality =>
2) + Cartan, Evans = + torsion
So does the addition of torsion make sense ?
Just as an irritating comment from the latest UFT-paper:
"..., which uses the commutator method to show that if torsion is zero then curvature is zero. So neglect of torsion means that the Einstein theory is fundamentally erroneous. The Einsteinian curvature
is zero, so its gravitational field is zero, ..."
Unfortunately that is based on mathematics and as such worthless if we agree Wyttenbach (2016-07-15) "With mathematics you can prove "anything"."
How about this:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0307038v1.pdf
Does the quaternion form of Maxwell-equations make any difference in the theories that are based on the standard representation ?
What if DFG fields was huge muon radiation? It generate lot of noise in copper lines, looks like RF noise, show nothing in geiger etc.
About month ago I got hint to ground reactor RF shield. I put maybe 5m wire from reactor that was unconnected to reactor then I start to connect next part. When touched that 5m wire copper end it give nasty electric shock. When grounding line was ready and RF shield grounded it affect nothing to RF. It is not RF that make noise like RF.
Best explanation theory currently are muons.
Me365 report RF radiation that go through 1cm Al.
What if it's a question of scalar-waves ? Sounds probably quite silly and controversial as LENR itself. Anyway some links to device instructions:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/sclxmtr.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/index.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/spg_shield.htm
Then what could be the source of these waves in LENR ? No idea but the 'symptoms' lead to this direction.
Another question is how to build a scalar-wave sensitive detector that could receive scalar-waves only. Maybe the similar coil-structure
as in those articles could be used as a receiver antenna also.
In spite of the tiny interest in the ECE-theory i will write one more message in this thread. Here is a list of some papers by Evans & Co related to LENR. Just for curiosity.
http://aias.us/documents/uft/UFT287.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a246thpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a231stpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a230thpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a229thpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a228thpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a227thpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a226thpaper.pdf
[quote='Rjzk','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3532-INTERVIEW-WITH-AN-LENR-FORUM-MEMBER-ON-THE-EGO-OUT-BLOG/?postID=30107#post30107']...
Also, LENR reactions induced by experiments with electrical discharge most likely produced the Chernobyl reactor nuclear accident.
Concerning Chernobyl the most important factor was human stupidity. If you know that this type (graphite-moderated) of reactor is inherently unstable and then you take the safety system off, can there be more stupid thing to be done in the whole world ?
Refreshing to read something else than the newer-ending nagging in all of the IH/Rossi threads. David raises also thme dark side of LENR on the table. Normal explorers are interested in keeping the reactor as stable as possible. However we have heard about some radiation bursts and even explosions during tests. What would be more interesting to weapon-makers than those cases ? Easy to imagine the new-born mr. Q to develop a pencil-size LENR-powered missile for James Bond.
As far as i understand photon mass is not an assumption but a consequence. Sorry about my limited
competence in physics. That's why my arguments are more like guesses or even worse. Anyway here are links to some documents related to photon mass:
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a82ndpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/Paper157.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/Paper158.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a304thpaper.pdf
