Posts by Jokela

Quote from Alan Smith

In spite of this success, our work was quickly stopped by the head of the French Atomic Energy Commission, and no further experiments were possible.

This brings me to think the big picture. I am not interested about any conspiracy, but it's a known fact that the Nuclear power development was driven by the need to build nuclear bombs. ie; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
I have approached this whole Fusion issue through quite another angle, my path went from Gravitation via Fission to Fusion. It must be known, that QED can explain everything in physics, except gravity and radioactive decay.

So after I noted that the first, and up to now only Gravitation theory was principally correct, and the problem was merely the wrongly interpreted critics.
This is the theory;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#Predictions_and_criticism
And here's the way I sort it out.

So on the way I noticed tha Radioactive decay must have quite simple reasons. And Then I ended up working with planck constant and nucleus and so on. Then I suddenly realized that if this all is correct, then Fusion must be endothermic, and it actually even explains a lot of things better then the present theories; (ie. Entropy turning point, Sun corona) So I ended up wondering "But how the Hell the Hydrogen-bomb has worked then?"

And Immediately I noticed the very disapointing answer;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_yield

WE (humans) HAVE BUILD THIS SHIT, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT WE ARE REALLY DOING!

-sorry about yellling- but it's quite important. And here we come to the "problem" with "LENR" research. At 1989 the world was in historical turning point. All those in power, had fears.
And ie. the developer of Tsar Bomb, must have known that they were not really knowing what they were doing.
He was the one who porposed tokamak. And "funnily enough" died 14.12.1989 just not to be able to have an "important speech" in congress. This was the timing.

It might be interesting to know the content of this speech. Anyhow, the truth can and will be found in the lab.

This paper in thread states clearly;
- the lack of a valid hypothis (page
- The production of neutrons (figure 1. Page
- No radioactivity (page 9, must mean Alpha, beta and gamma?)
- the lack of 5.48 MeV gamma (page 11)

My hypothesis is plain and simple. The electricity provided an oscillation on the particles
(page 10) and it started to simply fission the Deuterium in to parts. D -> H + n
and though this reaction is thought to releace a "binding energy" of 2.22 MeV, I think this is not true. I need to think a bit more about this particular case to continue....

Added with edit;
I wondered what might have really been triggered the proposed reaction, but after reading the Appendix A again, I noted that the phenomenon occured as following (page 10) ;

Quote

After some trials of electrolysis current (variation 40–10 mA/cm2) the amperage was set to 10 mA/cm2 for a night. During this time, about 16 h, the counts of Bonner sphere were the stable background. Then, the counts showed (Fig. 1) a surprising and roughly linear increasing during about 5 h, up to a level four times greater than background. Unfortunately, the experiment stopped because of a shutdown of the electric power in the laboratory, due to a thunder storm. About 30 min later, with the return of electric power, the counts were about at the same level, but they decreased rapidly to return to the background level in less than 2 h.

I mean my thought problem was, that simply because the atomic scale compered the experimental scale is in order of 10⁸ "wrong" the development of these oscillations must take a lot of time. -and this was exactly what happened.
(This is actually also a further prove for my turbulence theory) As, what also happened, was that after this oscillation was disturbed, the process stopped, and was impossible to restore. (btw, The current must have been DC!?)

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The scale of what?

OK, how can you explain, that most of solar neutrinos are generated within small volume in its center?

The scale of "2.";

Quote

scalar waves preferentially interact with / heat the free plasma particles.

Just according to plain thermodynamics.

About Neutrinos. They are merely detected;
https://www.scientificamerican…trinos-detected-borexino/

Quote

That is how the Borexino experiment at Italy’s Gran Sasso National Laboratory found them. Its detection of so-called pp neutrinos—neutrinos created by the fusion of two protons in the sun—was a feat far from guaranteed. “Their existence was not in question, but whether some group was capable of building such an exquisitely pristine detector to see these low-energy neutrinos in real time, event by event, was,” says Wick Haxton, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the experiment. “Borexino accomplished this through a long campaign to reduce and understand background events.”

If you study this "detection" more closely, you notice that it's 99.99% about "understanding background events".
Well, I just doubt that they have understood it at all. Most propable explanation is just securing the future funding in Italian way.

I don't find obligated to explain ferrytales. If you have some solid observation which is verifed though three (3) independet parties, I most propably can explain it.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

1. The corona isn't hotter than the center of Sun.
2. The scalar waves preferentially interact with / heat the free plasma particles.
3. which are rich of dark matter

1. & 3. You don't have any observation about these. Instead you have an observation for sun, that the core of the Sun could be solid, atleast it rotate with fixed speed.
(Quelle; http://www.geo.de/magazine/geo…6-die-heilkraft-der-sonne )
2. Have you calculated the scale? It's not even in correct order! I have; (page 23, 4.2.2)
https://www.researchgate.net/p…vity_Theory_of_Everything

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Why do you think the opposite?

Because this is what you can actually observe in nature. ie;
- Coronal heating problem. -> The energy is "gravitational", means it comes outside the sun, thus it's also hotter in the sun.
- Thermospheres of planets -the problem is universal.
- Noctilucent clouds. -> The water can't come from earth. It's just physically impossible that it raises from 15 km to ~ 80 km. As after Tropopause there is nothing which would force it to go up and Stratosphere just doesn't have any convections. And if you study the gas derivates at mesopause;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…1_Mesopause_gas_derivates
It's like obvious that Hydrogen ions are oxidized to water. But this means that the Oxygen must come from space, and again we are on the opposite.
- Hydrogen bomb Li-7 was creating the opposite result to that predicted.

etc.etc.
But it doesn't really matter what are my thoughts, first IF

D + D -> He
In Pressure; <50 Pa
Temperature ~ 300 K

happens as is predicted by my thoughts (against your expectations), then it just is so.
In any case it doesn't matter. The nature remains as it is, and as it has always been. It's just our understanding which has developed, but as this (understanding) is also only Personal issue, it doesn't matter too much either.

I dont know if Deuterium is easily available on some of your labs. But I have a proposal for very simple experiment;

D + D -> He
In
Pressure; <50 Pa
Temperature ~ 300 K

The process should be Energetic neutral. The temperature will though fall, but this comes from Ideal gas law.

If some one has the lab possibilities here in Central Europe to do this, I would like to participate on costs and work.

Regs,

Jouni Jokela

Quote from Frank Grimer

Since pore water in clays can reach pressures below ambient of up to pF 7 it seems possible that using <b>D₂O</b> in clay could be a candidate for cold fusion.

Has any research been done on this?

I looked the chain through quickly, and want to point out these Forest rings. They are really interesting observations;

http://www.bldgblog.com/2016/01/rings/

Quote

Hamilton was testing an analytical technique over a Matheson gold deposit to determine if there was any kind of geochemical surface signal. To his surprise, there were signals coming through 30 to 40 metres of glacial clay.“We’re thinking there’s no way metals can move through clay 10,000 years after glaciation.”After ruling out transport by ground water, diffusion and gas, he theorized it had to have been lifted to surface on electrical fields.He applied the same theory to forest rings and discovered that they were also giant negatively charged cells.Any source of negative charge will create a forest ring.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_forest_rings_in_Ontario

https://www.researchgate.net/p…sence_of_mineral_deposits

etc.

Quote from Wyttenbach

A very good study object is the sono-fusion case, which is not LENR from the impact energy level seen, but LENR from the reaction result.

You mean Sonoluminesence? These;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…e#Mechanism_of_phenomenon

And as it's even on this list;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…#Condensed_matter_physics

And I think it's not that complicated at all. As I've provided the short solution allready in here;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_Physics_3032016_version
Page 15. "8.4."

But I haven't thought this "sono-fusion" before. But now as you brought it on my desk, it seems pretty straight forward; If the forced photon emission happens to an atom which allready is in it's lowest energy level, a Beta+ decay / electron capture must occure, and thus some also new elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ecay_and_electron_capture

Replicating this kind of events is quite a lottery, as the heat is also a "energy level", so the emitted visible photon, might be replaced through heat provided by surrounding atoms, and thus this decay/electron capture doesn't occure.

Ps. with W-L theory you mean this?
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml
... newer heard, but if it's bullshit, why we don't just leave it aside.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Dont believe Wiki everything: Li₇ + n goes to Be₈ --> 2 He4

Wiki: It was assumed that the lithium-7 would absorb one neutron, producing lithium-8 which decays (via beryllium-8) to a pair of alpha particles on a timescale of seconds! <-- wrong in Wiki!

The truth is: Timescale is femtoseconds..... and the energy is huge. ->> no new theory needed for that one!

Well, the official whole story is, (and this was also the expectation in Castle Bravo, but NOT the reality)
Li₈ + n --> Li₈ --> Be₈ --> 2 He₄
And the decay times are 0.84 seconds for Li₈ and 6.7(17)×10⁻¹⁷ s for Be₈ (<-this is a copy paste from wiki, and (17) is "inaccuracy" -help I don't remember the corrct word in english) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_beryllium

So it was this, (in lab proved) 0.84 seconds, which produced the expectation that Li₇ is not going to add in to explode velocity, but instead it is delaying the process and rather controlling it trough neutron absorbtion. As it must be noted, that this doesn't make any chain reaction. -It's a dead-end, as there is no free neutrons. And thus even though a single decay might have high energy, it's just that; a single decay, and not a bomb.

Edit: added the Answer for Alan Smith

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from Jokela: “But that's sort of stuck too,,”Dont believe Wiki everything: Li₇ + n goes to Be₈ -->; 2 He₄

Wiki: It was assumed that the lithium-7 would absorb one neutron, producing lithium-8 which decays (via beryllium-8) to a pair of alpha particles on a timescale of seconds! <-- wrong in Wiki!

The truth is: Timescale is femtoseconds..... and the energy is huge. ->> no new theory needed for that one!

I want to open a new discussion about this; Decay in femtoseconds.
I have allready opened these thema here;
http://physics.stackexchange.c…ortest-possible-half-life

So I just write a methapher, instead of copypasting that math.
Baseball, Catch;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_(baseball)

Quote

In baseball, a catch occurs when a fielder gains secure possession of a batted ball in flight, and maintains possession until he voluntarily or intentionally releases the ball.

So if this possession time is less than the flight time of the one-diameter of the ball, can we really speak from "Catch", or was the ball rather just bouncing?

I think this is important issue to talk, as it removes unpossible-isotopes from the table, (most important; diproton) and thus clears the way to new thoughts.
My new thoughts are here;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ory_of_everything_-Chemie

Quote from Jokela

Ofcourse I am totally wrong if E=mc² -binding energy argument is valid. But it isn't.

We are not talking about the same issue. I understand what you mean. But I think IT ISN'T SO.

Quote from Wyttenbach

(-) means exothermic as everywhere in science...

Pls. check the signs. Ie. here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…usion#Important_reactions
I copied it from there, it's the (12) "sort of" -I hope you find it. And I also hope that you note, that this "whole story" stinks, ("Fusion" of Castle Bravo & Lithium-7)

I think I don't need amu spread sheets. I allready went through some ~3000 isotopes to produce this paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…187_Nucleosynthesis_chain
to found out possible problems with nucleosynthesis-theory. Which I did, and I also found the explanation;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ory_of_everything_-Chemie
Yes, it's all written by hand with ink. -It sort of forces you to think throughly what you write.

I've tried to make some -big data- analysis about the atomic masses of certain isotopes, and it actually showed me things from nucleus-structures, I have ie. solved the Muon stuff, but my papers are still bit in a mess. It might be allready written on the latest version of this,,,
https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_Physics_3032016_version
But that's sort of stuck too,,

Quote from Wyttenbach

@Jokola: All you need is either an energy balance = 0 (close to 0) raction or an explanation how the atomic bomb goes off silently.

Ofcourse. And here comes the point why we are arguing. Ofcourse I am totally wrong if E=mc² -binding energy argument is valid. But it isn't.
The exothermic energy of Fission is actually quite low, as long as the protons/neutrons are not destroyed to muons -> light.
The same must thus be valid also to Fusion. It endothermic absorbtion is also relatively low. And even lower if some of the protons/neutrons is distroyed to muons. This can even turn the whole process to exothermic, but the source of the heat is still fission, NOT fusion.

But then is the question of atom bombs. They really dont go off silently. Yes. -Agree.
But then, this kind of suprises have occured; see ie. Ruth & Ray from Serie Upshot-Knothole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…n_Upshot%E2%80%93Knothole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…test_tower_1953-03-31.jpg
The reason is "suprisingly" logical;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hydride_bomb
Just use Deuterium, & slow nuclear fission and your bomb does go off very silently. Pls. note that this 200 t is so not far from the Implosion made by triggering (chemical) high explosives.

But as DF already noted about the reasons of this Thread, with title "Hydrogen couldn't be essential?" let's go back to issue;

What is the exlantion for nuclear bomb going off like Castle Bravo;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_yield
or like Upshot-Knothole Ruth&Ray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)

Not to forget that this (pretty depressive) test was also very real;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

Well, Hydogen is ESSENTIAL. Or basically low atomic number. Ofcourse Uran is good, because it causes proton/neutron to be directly destructed.
But for explosions; it's basically all just ideal gas law; PV=nRT
If you split the molecule, you double the n, and thus you double the pressure. But this is not so critical if the molecule is heavy.
If the molecule is light, like Hydrogen The kinetic energy of the particle is much higher than with heavy mass with SAME temperature;
Here's the math; http://calistry.org/calculate/…cTheoryVelocityCalculator
Put 0.001 kg/mol (H) and say 3000 K, you have 8650 m/s
Put 0.004 (He-4) and have 4325 m/s
Li-7; 3270 m/s
Be-9; 2883 m/s
N-14; 2311 m/s
Si-28; 1634 m/s
Fe-56; 1156 m/s etc.
As you see, it's the single Neutron/Proton which is dangerous and causes explosion-velocities.

So what happened in Castle Bravo? (Besides that there were people killed because of explosion was 250% more than expected.)
The Lithium-7 went through this;
n + Li-7→ T + He-4 + n – 2.467 MeV
But the -2.467 MeV is more or less nonsense, as This doesn't seem so endothermic to me;

So the Ideal gas law gives the following difference in -say- 1 000 000 K
Li-7; (60 000 m/s) -> T (91 000 m/s) + He-4 (80 000 m/s) + n (223 000 m/s)
But we should not forget the Pressure rise, cause n -> 3 n, so we end up having 3 000 000 K if the Pressure remains constant, and thus;
Li-7; (60 000 m/s) -> T (158 000 m/s) + He-4 (137 000 m/s) + n (274 000 m/s)

Ok. -Instead of flooding too much, I let you absorb this first. For those who are able to absorb high amounts once; pls search here;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…/QED-Theory-of-everything
Edit; -oops- I forgot the Neutron, so it's even more worse. (added)

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Osawa steel is probably bogus,

This was also my first interpretation. But as I read from the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia (my prev. google book link), it was verified quite scientifically.
Read the "43.12. Carbon ARC Experiments";
Ultra pure distilled water and pure carbon rods were used. I would appreciate if you would have time to point more precisely where the mistake lies.

To Alan Smith; The Sun. Yes, -I agree.
My problem is that according to my approach the Fusion must be always endothermic. And Though I agree that Fusion is the main Process which happens in the Sun, claiming openly that Sun is consuming energy, is too much for the most. Though it actually makes the whole physic to work without any contradictions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

x ( N+N), y(C+O) --> Si and 2Si <-- z(Fe56) . This matches the reality much closer as the reduction of Fe is highly endothermic. The reality will be much more complex, as we have several additional isotopes to look at! As a first exercise You could calculate x,y,z! based on the material delivered/produced.

This 2Si <-- z(Fe56) is not possible according to the case under discussion.

Quote

Therefore total excess production of Silicon & Iron per day works out to 4.27 tons. Of this excess silicon was roughly 3 tons and balance of ~ 1.3 tons excess iron. Note that this constitutes roughly 20 % excess metal both for Si and Fe.

It must be other way around; 2Si --> z(Fe56)

I also agree with your proposal to calculate; So let do it;
Total Input 51.237 tons
-- Silicon 15.379 tons
-- Oxygen from Quartz 32.955-15.379 = 17.576 tons
-- Iron 5.1 tons
-- Carbon ~13.182 tons.

Total weight of Si and Fe in Input; 20.479 tons.
Total weight of Si-Fe Alloy produced; 24.75 tons.
Difference; 4.271 tons.

Total weight of O and C in input; 30.758 tons
Difference 4.271 tons/ 30.758 => 13.8 % of the input materi should have been changed!
I don't know if this is plausible.

If the source is Nitrogen it comes from air, which has 78% of it. Density ~1.3 kg/m3 so around 1 kg of N₂ needes 1 m³ air. 5 tons need 5000 m³.
If this consumed over 24 hours it's 5000/(24*3600)=0.05 m³/s or 50 l/s.
Is this plausible? a normal aircondtion of a 5x5x2.5 room consumes 135 m3/hour, 17 l/s of air.
But the effciency can't ofcourse be 100%.

I can't make any new conclutions form calculating x,y & z

Quote

worthy of serious forensic study rather than a true LENR event.

That was also my first approach. -But you just can't produce 328 tons extra worth 328 000 USD from thin air. The hole in your material stock would be way too big. The denisty of the material is ~3 kg/m³ so just it's solid volume would be 100 m³ If it would have been a mistake, it would have been noticed in the inventary. The main problem in this forensic study is that there was no crime. You can't follow the money and find the quilty person, like was the case with your pellets. The whole stoling process just goes wrong way.

About LENR event. If something happens in nature, it happens in big scale. if LENR is true. You just need to observe nature and find where it happens.
- I propose forest rings.

Quote from Alan Smith

For this reason alone, I am somewhat sceptical about the accuracy of anything that ultimately depends on weighbridge records, I have known them be tweaked far too often.

I agree with what you say. And Whilst doing reality-check I considered this too. I closed this possibilty out because of following reasons;

- The Value of the product is too high; ~1000 USD / ton. (~3 x your example)
- The daily production vs. mistake is too low; 4.3 ton / 25 ton (Your example 6 ton/ 140ton (?))
- The plant was running on Full load 24h-7days a week; 12 MVA Furnace averged 8.5-8.75 MVA. (No difference between shifts?)
- The profit of the "stolen" sales went on the company, but the Company managment was worried about this and started to investigate it. (Writer is Former Managing Director) but couldn't trace any reason. This froad is openly discussed, but still no client claimed to have deliverd short. to get some scale 4300 USD / day is the pay of Indian Prime-minister for ~2 month at that time.

I even checked that this guy really exists, and I found him on Indian businees catalogs with this position, and also the plant can be found with fotos.
http://www.indsil.com/palakkad-smelter/

So to me this is plausible. But I am felxible if some new evidence occures.

Btw. I thought that the source of this mass is Atmospheric Nitrogen, but after reading this I am not so sure anymore;
https://books.google.ch/books?id=ayNYEqxsi_YC&pg=PT782&lpg=PT782&dq=George+Ohsawa+Steel&source=bl&ots=Y2b61wJYYX&sig=46FEAWYXujmPLjChXCypSLQjp0A&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj69rbmge3QAhWBPBQKHbETBxQQ6AEIXTAJ#v=onepage&q=George Ohsawa Steel&f=false

Quote

Interestingly, the authors found that when arcing was carried out with nitrogen gas dissolved in the water in place of oxygen, no addtional Fe was detected in debris. This experiment thus not only ruled out the diffusion-concentration theory but also supported that oxygen is indeed necessary for the genertion of iron as suggested by the ....

So, I am also bit confused right now. I cant undestand how this reaction could work with Oxygen and Coal. As it was "suggested". But as this link;

http://amasci.com/freenrg/carbiron.html

Method 3;

Quote

The applied electricity is the same as in the above methods.

During the process of transmutation, Ni (nickel) is temporarily produced. But it disappears very soon, for it is an isotope with a radioactive nature. The life of an Ni isotope is considered approximately 1/lOOOth of a second.

In these experiments, the degree of transmutation from C and O to Fe is approximately 5 percent to 20 percent immediately, with a larger percentage of transmutation occurring gradually in the air, which has the effect of cooling the metallic powder to below room temperature.

I am now thinking that as you cant dissolve too much Oxygen (or any gas) in water;
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…lubility-water-d_841.html
The difference between water and air, is that the free oxygen of Water increses the Ion (H⁺ and OH^-) in water, and the whole process goes through these single protons. But in air it goes through the Nitrogen. And this make the difference of the used gas in water.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@David: This is a reverse (MY)² paper! If they, daily, would have produced tons of Fe₅₆, Si₂₈ out of a LENR reaction then everybody could see a huge (some miles diameter) crater at the place of the furnace...

Here you have huge (many miles diameter) rings around some redox centers. Google maps satellite view;
https://www.google.com/maps/@4…10289,2000m/data=!3m1!1e3
These are real life observation, which everybody could see.

But there are even frozen ice in a place where it shouldn't be. (Figure 28.3)
https://www.researchgate.net/p…0258_Brauneder-OGSOFR2008

Doesn't sound "highly exothermic"

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from Jokela: “...This should be calculated more accurately with atom masses....”

@Jokola: Yeas indeed... that is what you should do before posting nonsense!

The whole mass difference is about 0.048 amus (atomic mass units) and the reaction thus highly exotermic - some Giga Joule per mole....

Display More

Thanks for reply. Pls read the title of my message.
I didn't ment calculating some energies. They were allready calculated with the Appendix A from the linked paper. So obviously these calculations are nonsense;

Quote

Transmutation of 1 ton of Si will generate 0.72 * 106 = 720 GWd.
Or roughly the thermal energy generated by 240 nos. of 1000 MWe Nuclear power plants in one day!
Transmutation of 3 tons of Si would yield 770 nos of 1 Gwe nuclear stations

and thus we have to find some other explanation for truckloads of new matter produced. And it's truly cant be a measuring problem, that some process produces systematically 4.27 tons / day material for 11 week period. It totals 328 tons, and means 1.5 truck loads per week.

I mean if some one is enough intelligent to control such a process profitably over decades, they must by also enough intelligent to be able to count TRUCKLOADS. These loads are (propably?) even paid by customers, und thus also weighted there.

So you just forced me to do the calculations I was talking about;

Process Uses Normally 7935 kWh to produce 1 ton of Ferro Silicon alloy of 73.8% Si content. (Weight %)
But it uses 6788 kWh to produce 1 ton, which includes +19% of Silicon and + 26% Iron compared to the input weights.
Now Silicon has a atomic weight of 28 and Iron 56 so the ratio of new silicon atoms is 38/26; which is intersingly pretty precisely 1.46

And the atom amount growth is something like 73.8X2+26.2=173.8 in the expectation and
(73.8x2)*1.38+26.2*1.26=236.7 and thust the growth is 236.7/173.8=1.362 -> +36.2 %

Which means that there was now direct correlation with the energy consumption; (to put the prosents in line; 7934/6788=1.1688 ->) +16.2 % material with SAME energy.
and the actual material particle-production +36.2 %

The total mass difference 24.75/20.479=1.209 -> +20.9 % is more closer to the 16.2% energy consumption, but it can be concluded that I wasn't able to found any reasonable mathematical connection through atom masses. But this also verifies that there really is some thing strange in the process. As Energy measurement is completely separated from weighting the process material and it shows a difference, but closes out the possiblity for plain measurement error, as this difference is not 1:1

But I think you declared my post as "nonsense" for other reasons.

Quote from David Fojt

i join a paper from last ICCF in Sendai.

Thanks for posting this Paper;

I read it with interest, and found immediately an explanation through Material synthesis according to my theory which is "just" a completed version of the Apher-Bethe-Gamow theorie;
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpher-Bethe-Gamow-Theorie

Most propable source for Silicon is; N-14 +N-14 = Si-28
and further for Iron; Si-28 + Si-28 = Ni-56
(decays in 6 days to) Co-56 (Decays in 77 days to) Fe-56.

This seems to be even quite "known" process; "George Oshawa Steel"
http://amasci.com/freenrg/carbiron.html

The fusion even seems to be Endothermic;

Quote

In these experiments, the degree of transmutation from C and O to Fe is approximately 5 percent to 20 percent immediately, with a larger percentage of transmutation occurring gradually in the air, which has the effect of cooling the metallic powder to below room temperature.

But this must be mainly because of the new matter has more or less absolute zero temperature.

At the original paper the electricity consumption went from 7934 kWh/ton to 6788 kWh/ton which means -14.4%,
which can compared to the produced silicon tons; 18.315 Tons instead of 15.379 tons; +19%.

...This should be calculated more accurately with atom masses....

Quote

But if they can improve Gammov theory by adding something like an incident frequency term, then its certainly of some use!

Oh. wow. Thanks! I didn't even knew about this before;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…shortcoming_of_the_theory

But it's exactly my thought, and I added just only one new -and simple- aspect, and I got over the main shortcoming; that there isn't any "five" or "eight"!

I even wen't further, and made all too-short-lived "forbidden", like Di-proton or what ever having less than 1^-15 sec half life.

And I got the whole nuclesynthesis-chain to work. Up to Plutonium.
Well, there was few interesting things, like I even found an simple Idea to explain the isomer Tantalum-180-m1,
.. and other problematic isotopes like Na-22, Al-26, Mn-53, V-50.

Here's my working paper of the whole nucleosynthesis-chain;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…187_Nucleosynthesis_chain

And here's the text draft;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ory_of_everything_-Chemie

So. the new aspect, is a simple rule of Newtonian collision;
If two objects of a same mass and velocity collide, the collision angle can be anything, and these two objects always continues to move in same direction with same velocity.
-> They remain "attached".

This means only nucleis with same Mass number can have fusion without excessive free neutron/proton produktion.

The Last aspect needed, is that the "Pressure" must be low. This simply means that the two particles requires a certain time to go through "transition" to really produce a stabile structure of the bundle of protons and neutrons which have found their way togehter. So in some time after the first collision, there can't be second collision, or the process is disturbed. -> low pressure is needed.

And this explains the wierd isotopes; if they decay through neutron capture during this transition time, the product is "wierd" I mean there is no way you can produce V-50 through a simple Gammov-theory. Cause it's surrounded by stabile isotopes.

Very interesting.
The figure 4 verifies me one apect I have figure out my self by observing thermosphere.

The number of ions is important. You can express this number also as a pressure.
As everything is finally only kinetic movement, the pressure in constant temperature means lower number of particles.

This low number is needed, that have time for the particles which are fusioning to rearrange to a stabile form.
My work is not yet so ordered, cause I don't have too much time to put in to it; but if interest, here is it;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…/QED-Theory-of-everything

Quote from axil

The energy source for LENR is proton and neutron decay. That decay produces 1 GeV of energy. The fusion results from the catalytic effects of muons in muonium atoms. Muon catalyzed fusion is an exothermic reaction.

Now we are talking, Thanks! This is what I came seeking here.
You know, I just started to study the nature of radioactivity about a year ago. I was lead to this theme while following my idea about gravity. I started study QED 1.5 year ago, and as I noted that it has nothing which doesn't fit, I proceeded to Radioactivity. I was working on this, and I found supporting stuff from other planets. But then I googled if I could find this stuff also in Earth. (crater/circular formations) And I found these Forst rings from Canada. Though they were "wrongly" located at that point I had gone through so much supporting stuff, that I was too convinced that these are also signs of natural fission. But as I contacted Stew Hamilton, and received the papers, it wasn't supporting anymore. It seemed as such, but things were totally turned around. Then I remembered the hype with Cold fusion, (which I knew nothing about) and i started to study if this all is about fusion.

My first (worst) problem with Fusion was that my Idea predicts it's always endothermic. And though this is supported by the experiments made with "Tokamak", the hydrogen/fusion-bomb was a real thing. Pretty soon it came obvious, that the whole high-yield of these "Fusion" bombs can be explained with Lithium Fission. - a reaction which is currently expected to be endothermic.
Up to that point my new ideas had brought nothing new or revolutional, It had just removed the mystical stuff like Dark Matter. But realizing that We have build stuff like Tsar Bomb;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
Without properly understanding what is going on, is just pretty depressive. We are currently using nuclear power, though we dont even quite know what we are doing. And the current research stand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Current_research
is very unsatisfying. The unknown is not researched, but the known stuff is just defined up to the 20th digit.

So; "LENR = Proton&neutron decay" -I agree.
"Muon catalyzed fusion is an exothermic reaction." - Agree,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
... as this is again "just";

Quote

Each exothermic d-t nuclear fusion releases about 17.6 MeV of energy in the form of a "very fast" neutron having a kinetic energy of about 14.1 MeV and an alpha particle α (a helium-4 nucleus) with a kinetic energy of about 3.5 MeV.