Young modulus ?
YAs mentioned. The EM radiation from a B-B merger is about 10E40 more powerful than the fantasy GR radiation could be. What LIGO measures are toroidal EM waves as these are the only one that can influence the steel tube/mirror system.
The LIGO formula used for mirror bending by GR forces is nonsense as these folks have forgotten to add the steel compression constant. Such things happen when clueless mathematicians do physics.
Yes, this is what i expected , we are talking of very very low frequencies meaning very very long wavelength.
In this way we can understand the measurement difficulties.
Display More@Cydonia,
I plotted the GW data from the first several observations though I am not sure if they consist, but here,
https://www.ryoji.info/gwa.pdf
Background GWs are,
Well, we should be worried the day when he won't have nothing to declare 
With regard to why it may be more efficient under load, Bob Greenyer has the following to say:
I think is a good way to see it. There are a miriad of aspects to fine tune, but in the bottom line, this is interesting for the quest of Net Zero.
Hello, what kind of frequency/wavelength you have seen ?
Recent observations of gravitational waves (GWs) have reported two types of frequencies.
Wyttenbach Gravitational waves have never been measured
Well, if their wavelength is so long that any human means could measure them.....
i don't believe in gravity particles but rather in gravity large fluctuations depending from where you are in the universe, why not ?
When you see how behave superclusters in the entire universe , we could postulate that.
Well, i think that a metal fully flat without any kind of cracks and gases without any kind of hydrogen could work.
Either i'm stupid and pretentious either the field is late but surely i'm probably stupid 
Arata did a lot of work on the optimum size for LENR in nanooparticles and came up wiith (from memory) 11-13nM. But you have to remeber that we are not only talking about particles themselves, byt the spaces between them and according to de Boer writing about the adsorption of of hydrogen on metallic and crystalline surfaces in the 1930's 'cracks, gaps, corners, edges.'. So a highly disordered material may be active even if the particles are larger than the optimum.
Yes, the idea of making the holes was to have a controlled range of gap sizes, the methods you mention are more random, but in the end a fraction of the material gets active.
Rather than staying sticked with your idea maybe you should try rather to tune the wavelength of things you plan to put inside these gaps, an advice.
You need to study geology and plate tectonics, there are electromagnetic properties everywhere, study spherical nodules, they are on the surface
My way to work at this scale is the simple electrolysis, by an appropriate set up you will be able to manage to manufacturing of some kind of dendrites both with the space between them.
Another better way is the sputtering if you have access to this mean.
I did a search and asked in laboratories that offered this kind of service, of course worldwide. When I said what the desired range of holes was, and the material, all said it was not possible.
Well, i have explorated your website and your work attached. Now i won't speculate about potential links between gravitons in which you believes and Lenr.
So many, as wyttenbach, edo and some others could exchange with you on these topics.
Regarding to remain more close to the ground you should have a look also on all Halgelstein's work and W Dubinsko too.
Display More@Cydonia,
Thank you for sharing an article about the W-L theory. I was able to learn more about it, and the fact that the lack of gamma ray emission is key to explaining the LENR theory. After reading your article, I realized that my previous post may have been contradictory to Professor Li's model, which requires the concurrent capture of electrons and neutrons to avoid gamma radiation. It seems that my model is quite close to the W-L theory. Both of these reactions (12-C + n -> 13-C and 14-N + n -> 15-N) involve some form of mass deficit being emitted, typically in the form of gamma rays.
Unexpectedly, I arrive at a conclusion by recalling my gravitational paper, in which I wrote about the missing energy as below, (the paper available at http://ryoji.info/r424e.pdf on page 4)
"The existence of a repulsive field may account for missing energy observed in collision experiments. If the emission of a repulsive gravitational field can be observed directly in such experiments, it would also be detectable with laser interferometry, as the spacetime fabric consists of background noise with energy proportional to 1/f. What would be detected is the energy that has not been converted to kinetic energy of the massive particles generated by the collisions. If this field can account for all missing energy, then this would provide strong evidence that we no longer expect to uncover new fundamental physical properties of spacetime."
In high-energy fields such as those found in hot fusion or nuclear fission, missing energy is often recorded as gamma radiation. This is likely due to the chaotic nature of spacetime, which can produce high-energy electromagnetic waves. However, in low-energy fields such as LENR, missing energy is thought to be released as gravitons rather than gamma radiation. Therefore, it is possible that LENR does not emit high levels of gamma radiation, but instead releases energy as unobserved gravitons.
It took me over 20 years to complete my paper on gravitational research, and I have been away for a decade. However, today I was able to return to that work by considering LENR.
Bon ou mauvais, il semble que vous décriviez :
New Energy Times - Issue #35 Special Report: Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified
Display MoreDans mes messages précédents, il ya peut-être eu un terme qui aurait pu être interprété d'une manière qui n'était pas prévue. Je m'excuse d'avoir utilisé le terme incorrect « capture de protons ».
Pour clarifier, je voudrais utiliser un langage plus simple pour définir LENR et fournir une explication du cycle CN dans LENR, qui contourne certains processus ayant lieu dans le cycle CNO de fusion chaude.
Dans LENR, c'est en réalité la capture de neutrons qui se produit. Pour définir LENR, on peut dire qu'il implique deux réactions simultanées suite à la capture électronique. Un nouvel aspect important de ce processus est l'apparition d'une interaction faible lors de la capture de neutrons, qui entraîne la libération d'énergie du déficit de masse par l'émission d'électrons et d'antineutrinos (e&a). Il s'agit d'une extension du processus de fusion neutron-neutron décrit dans mon article.
Pour illustrer le processus LENR, permettez-moi de dessiner un cycle CN révisé. Au lieu de la voie normale impliquant le cycle CNO, LENR se déroule selon la séquence suivante :
12-C + n -> 13-C
13-C + n -> 14-N + e&a
14-N + n -> 15-N
15-N + n -> 12-C + 4-He + e&a
Well the WL model is banned here ( not by me) only the LEC one seems to appear on head
Now regarding your plasmons you have to define means to reinforce the plasmons strength which at maximum can only reach 15Ev...
Please allow me to explain my imagination about the behavior of non-ionized hydrogens on a plasmonic surface.
I believe that the protons share potential energy with the surrounding free electrons, resulting in a state similar to that of an alpha particle affected by stopping power. In simpler terms, the protons transfer their kinetic energy to the free electrons, causing them to be emitted as Auger-like electrons. If the protons remain within the plasmons, they will eventually lose all their kinetic energy and only retain potential energy. However, if some protons become stuck on the plasmonic surface, they may capture more electrons with greater probability, leading to the formation of neutrons.
This state is a balance between ionized and non-ionized, which can occur at lower energies on the plasmonic surface. Neutrons in this context are relatively calm, similar to the predictions of the W-L theory.
To me carbon is only a tool not a reagent.
Now agree about beta reactions involvement most of the time but not full time.
Well, with friends we have made some deep investigations and we have a clear idea about how it works, however all things need time to go forward. (not yet retired )
Display More@Cydonia,
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you for your comments. Before joining this community, I had heard about Iwamura's project through web news in the summer. Although LENR is still inconceivable and unacceptable as a future reality for me and many others, when LENR becomes the primary energy source one day, everyone will want to know about the people who have dedicated themselves to it. While I am still considering my present and future plans, I hope to find the time to reflect on its history.
So my thoughts are going in the same Lugano engineering?? I will check how Lugano did...
First of all, sorry to Ryoji Furui San to have polluted his thread.
I can't blame Tarasenko and doing the same in the same time..
Next i have nothing wrong against your country and you, it's fully clear. I spent 2 times in Shane D. place, also Hawai rather nice
About Rossi, my thoughts:
He proposed 2 ideas to Focardi for improving the Piantelli way: the first the powder the second the famous secret catalyst, i know.
And it's was a good way.
Next Focardi became off, passed away, and AR continued with Fabiani.
They evolved the initial Focardi release by self managing the hydrogen , it was the famous Doral release.
I don't know what exactly became wrong with IH but as i studied it deeply i can say and share that some technical things involved in that were only discovered recently by Iwamura team and presented at last ICCF.
The field is 10 years LATE. The fashion magic last Biberian's powder presented at ICCF made me laugh for example.
Next it was the hotcat generation, very interesting release, and the technical gap was very big regarding the Doral one.
Always the same Iwamura expectation that Rossi's as a joke called Cat/Mouse.
Now behind this funny naming believe me there is great physical things..
I understood 95 % of its release, this is why i currently replicate it.
Unfortunatelly, this year i was very busy ( involved in french cells gigafactory project) and i only will restard soon experimentations.
These hotcat are interesting because i have some ideas to highly improve them, ( bigger COP).
Would like to do a drone by this way to kill all... ahahaha
I have respect about people involved in LEC project, but there is at least one light year what separate these 2 technologies.
Next there was the Lugano release, which is completly different.
I speculate that Rossi fucked 2 swedish scientists by recovering their work for himself.
Anyway, this is a neutron generator, by which these species are removed from lithium to transmute the surrounding metal.
At Lugano it was nickel now it you use rather simple thorium you will reach ( by adding neutrons) interesting US toy levels.
You can understand we are not talking of disneyland entertainments here.
Next there was the QX generation by which the Cat/Mouse was managed by direct electricity.
From this stage, Fabiani have had serious health problems, Rossi threw he away then only continued with low cost engineers from EU east side.
The rest of the story is only blalbla bla from Rossi, he became old, over... You can see that, everyday on ECW ....
To summarize:
The Focardi release is working well.
The Doral one managed by itself the hydrogen but it was the same way as previously, only an improvement.
The Hotcat very different in engineering but on the same way considering the basic principles.
Lugano way to avoid to me because neutrons able to do U235.
QX interesting improvement by which cat/mouse were managed by direct electricity.
Next ... Rossi was only the beginning because it exists other ways in the same spirit very interesting too, dusty plasma and full plasma.
That 's all.... This is my postulates.
I won't continue about AR here , i can however add to finish that Ryoji Furui thoughts are going in the same Lugano engineering hehehe....
Display MoreThat is my argument indeed. Blah blah blah is all we hear because there is no transparency from that group of people.
I'm not here to argue about Leonardo Corp. only learn from others and work towards understanding LENR further.
If we removed Rossi from the collected body of knowledge in this field, would it impact any discoveries we have made?
My answer is no, he has no real contribution to the science, only to his personal marketing and sales.
There are and where (RIP) so many incredible Italian experimental physicists that for some strange reason were outshined by Rossi's media machine.
I would even go so far to say that Rossi was relaying on the work of Focardi and Piantelli in order to make some $$
The LENR field seems like a fickle mistress as money is involved.. I think there is a reason for that I have elaborated on a few times.
It's quite possible he had good intentions, it's just challenging to commercialize something with large upfront cost and a long time frame for any EROI
He is certainly seems like a capable engineer but he has made it clear where his value align don't you think?
I respect your input @cydoniaand that is why I took the time to write this.
It is in my humble opinion a distraction and I really am not trying to be crass about it, just voicing my concerns with placing attention on it.He seems like he was a necessary figure in the space to see how not to commercialize LENR.
So I think it would be more proactive to avoid discussing Rossi's claims, flow of money, and whether or not he is legitimate as it doesn't really add to the discourse of LENR.
There may be more progress to increasing the electrodynamic entropy for humanities socioeconomic benefit if we focus on the natural systems of physics, instead of the short term money games?
You don't know any things really with what you argued, only current blablabla we can heard everywhere.
Didn't you know that your country (DOE/DOD) paid him for some of his technology so that he would shut up and USA could continue to make money from its oil ?
I don't want to be rude but seeing Leonardo Corp. mentioned in your paper is a little off-putting considering there track record.
I think it is great that members of the forum are proposing possible tests. i leave you meditate
You should stay in your aquarium.
I was at ICCF 25 and read his abstract, I didn't find anything new there, I used to shoot everything on video myself, this time I didn't feel like doing it all. There were few reports on geology, physicists are being rebuilt and this is good, we need to think differently, otherwise everything is the same. Do as I do, watch movies and think...
