And then you have the very high oxidation energy of the Ti shell to consider. Inside and outside.
And also the position of the thermocouples, the possible improper temperature equalization due to assymetric air flow. Etc. “Nuclear is impossible” has a lot of real and or perceived pitfalls. But THH will find or imagine many more.
But that protons contain internal point-like constituents (partons) is strong predicted from the scattering data - not suggested.
But that those parts are what is called quarks, is a proposed model, not a prediction.
You may be interested in taking part in a zoom meeting that will be held today.
which shows that protons have internal quark-like structure.
Again, this needs to be properly written as “which is interpreted as supporting evidence of a model that poses that protons have an internal quark-like structure”.
and the invariance of the DIS form factors under scaling [2] revealed that nucleons contain partons [3].
A proper way to say this would be:
“The apparent invariance of the DIS form factors under scaling was interpreted as supportive of the idea that nucleon contain partons”.
Display MoreI've said it before.
The predictions made by LENR are not quantitatively precise*. And there is no supporting evidence for LENR except a set of (not precise) anomalies, nor predicting theory that is supported by other evidence. That corresponds to a low likelihood hypothesis.
If you could parametrise the set of all possible hypotheses you could quantify that. It is not practical to do that - but the fact remains.
Low probability hypotheses can be true, of course, but they require relatively more sure evidence for a consistent person to rate them as likely true. The sort of not-picking detail that I ask for, which nevertheless, if LENR is real, should with care and effort be obtainable.
People here raise the point that mainstream scientists seem to require a higher standard of proof for LENR than other things. It depends what the other things are - (UFOs in the same way are low probability - with no precise predictions). But when compared with most physical theories, which make predictions precise enough to be disprovable, it is fair.
The extreme case of this phenomenon is the hypothesis that God (or - if you like - extra-universal aliens running a universe simulation) make miracles happen.
Suppose we have documented anomalies - one-off events well attested that appear impossible. The God/interfering alien hypothesis explains them all. However when viewed as a scientific hypotheses (this is not a religious argument about the existence of God) it is lower probability than hypotheses that predict specific characteristics of the miracles and would be disproved if those characteristics are not met in a miracle.
* If the "He4 left in the electrode makes results smaller" get-out was eliminated, by measuring that as well as exhaust He4 - then excess heat / He4 would be a tight quantitative prediction derived from a sub-class of LENR hypotheses.
However - suppose that was disproved. I suspect that the LENR hypothesis would happily stretch to suppose that He4 was created in some different proportion relative to excess heat - perhaps because of additional reactions. But this prediction, if found true in a "tight" form, would boost the probability of that narrow form of the LENR hypothesis.
I like you better as a probabilistician than as a theologician.
THH, in a small 1L reactor weighing 1.8kg, containing only hydrogen, how much output energy would convince you that the reaction is not chemical?
Note if it was full of only H2 and it was oxidized fully to water it would produce on the order of 18kJ.
My guess is that he will tell you that even if you get 18 MJ, you need to rule out leaks, that is impossible to rule them out, that if you effectively rule them out, you inadvertedly introduced another fuel in the reactor that you did not realize, and so on.
THHuxleynew , you may want to read what motivates this proton structure model instead of guessing.
Alan Smith , the paper you linked is a method to produce Titanate nanotubes, the Small Hydrogen paper can be downloaded from Researchgate:
As a shareholder, the news I have been getting from the last 12 months have been the best since my initial investment. Unfortunately, I can't share much with you yet.
Fair enough. Hoping the best for you.
if you want to convince the wider scientific community of something inherently unlikely
Unlikely according to who or what?
Very interesting. But I'd be scared to see them go down the rabbit hole of rewriting a huge chunk of modern science, rather than concentrating on "anomalous" effects, even if they can't be explained.
The problem is that not going down the rabbit hole has caused stagnation towards understanding how LENR can happen.
Now that uncertainH , gerold.s and Andras have shared personal experiences, and specially addressing uncertainH and gerold.s that thank this thread for allowing them to see an alternative side countering the official narrative, and also due to the soon closure of the thread, I would like
to point out my personal perspective on the topic.
I became aware of the new SARS like cases in China as early as october 2019 as I tend to monitor non traditional informational sources that have a high noise tpp signal ratio but often prove to be of value. I wasn’t at all surprised then when by december 2019 the local Wuhan news began to increasingly be refered and the declaration of pandemic was expected by me by January 2020. I had already heard of the proposed artificial origin by then. I was genuinely afraid of catching the disease because my knowledge of biotechnology was enough to be certain that an artificial virus could be made to be very harmful even if not lethal. So I went along with the mobility restrictions, and endured it hoping for the best.
By the end of 2020 when everyone was hoping for a vaccine I was simply sure that whatever was being prepared on that front I would better keep away, as there was no way for it to be either effective nor safe, and the mRNA vaccines was a pipe dream already tried and failed.
So I was really incredulous, both that the product would be ant good, and that so many were willing to have it, when the jabs began to be mass delivered. I simply decided I would stay away for as long as needed and endure the consequences as far as I could go. There was no doubt in my mind about it being the better strategy.
By April 2021 I began to see some reports of a nature that I thought had to be a joke, from vaxxed people. They kept popping out and I kept dismissing them. In my mind it did not matter much as I was sure to never get it, so I was just bemused. By the end of may 2021 a semi famous in the TV Chilean Dr. was in the heart of a scandal that caused him to be subject of the more meticulous character assasination I have ever witnessed. His crime: a video was “leaked” of him doing some tests about the so called “magnet challenge” in one patient that was worried by it.
This finally got me curious because for me the response was too harsh. My parents had got the Chinese Sinovac, against my advice, and I asked them if they had experienced anything unusual on their jab spots.
Much to their surprise and chagrin,
they both found their jab spots were rather strongly magnetic. I later confirmed it on their arms, and experimented with it as much as possible (because the experiments caused a mild discomfort in the entire arm). From then on I simply could infer there was much more to the mass vaccination than would ever be recognized, and this simply helped me stand firm and endure the outcasting by the society with the mobility pass, that was in force in my country for nearly a year. I was fortunate to be my own boss, tho which prevented being coerced into getting the vax.
My experience with vacuum is in fish oil processing but I recall we had all metal tubing, as we worked at temps where plastic were not possible. Whenever we needed some slight flexibility, copper tubing was used.
Just to answer your question, plastic tubing in general is less than optimal for high vacuum applications, and within these, nylon is said to be particularly problematic for being hydrophilic.
This comes from a vacuum tubing vendor.
If you have a proton model, you could post a link to the document describing it. The document should contain physics equations, not just words, otherwise it's not physics. I will then check how well it matches experimental data, and what predictions follow from the equations.
Wyttenbach has already published a series of documents pertaining to his proposed SO4 based model. The proton and electron are here:
I have been trying for years to figure out what that non-chemical fuel is.
Thanks. It is indeed a mistery. Some propose the creation of charge clusters but that’s not easy to prove.
https:// m.youtube.com/watch?v=VzApRZYKGyY
I get thrown off by discussion of probability as proof of anything.
It is such an abstract thing to do, and doesn’t help at all to know what is true or not.
Just to use an absurd example: No one denies winning the lottery is possible, there are hundreds of thousands of lottery winners, yet still there are probably what amounts to quadrillions of lottery looseers. Convincing lottery loosers that is possible to win the lottery is a hard task based on probability, yet winning the lottery is a real event.
One of the things that Richardson states in his book is that he sent samples of the same batch of gas to 4 different laboratories and got back 4 different results. This is interesting because it tells that the gas produced is not conventional at all and the composition results can be confusing, to put it mildly.
What has surprised me more about how Richardson approached this technology is how simple his proof of concept tests were. He literally created the gas “by hand”, holding the electrodes and controlling the arc gap with his own hands in a bucket of water and collecting the gas with an inverted funnel and lighting it to show people how it worked.
Later he used more equipment but it was still off the shelf compressors, he first used air compressors to take it to 150 PSI and the a second high pressure one as He stored the gas at 1800 PSI on scuba diving bottles. The most sophisticated part of his industrial production system was the carbon rod continuous feeding system, that also mantained the arc gap within a narrow band to make the process continuous.
He stated to be able to run a 2.2 KW generator at full load for 40 minutes out of one scuba bottle.
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
A recent video from Berlinguette's lab.
Electrochemically hydrogen loaded target, from where that crazy idea could come from? 😉
Drgenek , I appreciate your input, I have known about the idea of magnegas for 18 years now and I am just now coming to understand it better. I finished my first pass of the Richardson book and he seems to think that the CNTs created play a role, this was interesting to read.
