AmishPhysicist Member
  • Member since Nov 22nd 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by AmishPhysicist

    I should develop a technique to use this in food production. Maybe use explosives to put spices inside some steaks? That might lead to some pretty bizarre slaughterhouses though.... lol Or maybe we can micronize this and blast chemo drugs directly into tumors. Maybe freeze some gas and blast it into some metal and make metal foam? The possibilities are diverse!

    I think perhaps there could be some merit in studying how a bodkin arrow can strike a multi-layered set of chain mail and tear apart under layers without tearing apart the outer layers. If the bodkin has a fine enough point it may not tear any of the layers. On a small enough scale, there's really no such thing as a smooth surface. I believe you might even be able to say that covalent bonds are much like the interlacing of the links of mail. The more links binding each connection point, the stiffer the material appears to be. It might be a crude way to look at it, but it might explain the effect.

    Technically, when a kinetic projectile penetrates something, it is breaking atomic bonds and could be described as melting that which is in it's path. Sometimes quite literally. Spalling is a good evidence of this effect. Its also worth note that a smaller bullet sometimes penetrates armor much better than a larger one based on it's ballistic cross-section. For example, the 5.56x45 NATO tends to penetrate armor better than the 7.62x39 Soviet even though it has less kinetic energy. This isn't an absolute rule because there are so many different types of armor, but perhaps at an atomic level the lattice of atoms that makes up a material could be thought of in similar terms to soft body armor's weave in the sense that there are gaps between the strong points. I'm not sure how far that goes toward explaining this, but it penetration of a material certainly is not solely a function of kinetic energy but also gaps in the material(however minuscule) and where it hits specifically.

    Probably the second or third largest program was $10 million to fund the National Cold Fusion Institute at U. Utah. That result was definitive. It was a superb set of experiments proving beyond any doubt that cold fusion produces massive amounts of tritium -- many times background, far above any possible error. See:

    That result should have convinced every scientist on earth that cold fusion is a real nuclear effect. It did not convince them because of academic politics and stupidity.

    This is a fascinating read. I admit I don't understand some of the details, but it does seem to show what you suggest it does. I'm having trouble figuring out their electrical conditions though. It doesn't seem to specify anywhere what voltages were used or what the exact distance was between anode and cathode. Am I just missing that or is it not included? I would really like to better understand the specifics of this experiment. It would seem they were just putting current through D2O and H2O correct? No electrolyte? No salt bridge?

    I get what you mean H.G.. There are lots of self-styled scientists and retired researchers and others who just put out a wild variety of work and theory. It has to be hard to balance the possible creative new direction that mavericks can bring with the deluge of conceptual work that doesn't ultimately lead to anything. It would require we already know everything to avoid researching the wrong directions of course, but it would be nice if flat-earther's and other really far-out pseudo-science proponents would stop muddying the waters. The fringes sometimes have some interesting things, but sometimes they are so far out it's hard to even believe anyone could think that way. Of course I say this as an amateur myself, but I try not to speak in absolutes too much when it comes to odd ideas.

    The world would be worse off it if weren't for a mix of mavericks and conformist scientists. Mavericks like Tesla really push the boundaries of science so much further, but he also believed that his pigeons spoke to him through light beams from their eyes. Laser pigeon talk is something that would get you fired from a conventional job. Those conventional jobs though often are were the more wild theories go to get run through the gauntlet of proper verification. Without the guys doing the boring grunt work in the labs, the dreamers would not have a lasting impact on the world. Tesla pioneered the production of microwaves, but it took others to turn that into ovens and radar systems, and wifi routers. No man is an island, but some are peninsulas.

    Turning significant numbers of protons into neutrons should make things either very hot or very cold, depending on the process. Either way, with a temperature differential, all sorts of devices to harvest power from that temperature difference are possible.

    I suspect it would produce temperature changes, but I have yet to test it on anything other than a very tiny scale. As my development originally had nothing to do with producing electrical power, I made no attempt to measure the conditions with respect to that.

    I do not know for sure where the neutrons come from. His quark decay explanation might be valid but I honestly don't know. I would be glad to share my ideas with a proper physicist, but I'd want a non-disclosure agreement and an agreement that I retain rights to the IP. I may not want a lot of money out of it, but I also don't want shut out of my own idea and I don't want anyone giving exclusive access to only one country. My idea may have limitations, but I think it at the very least represents some significant new ideas toward the goal of practical fusion.

    I really get skeptical when I start hearing the word "overunity". My system produces potential between the separated electrons and protons, and then takes advantage of the EMF to induce fusion of the protons, which produces a greater return potential for the electrons. The talk about a "meltdown" was just hypothetical regarding the idea of using the process to keep producing increasingly heavy elements. Each step would produce more back EMF and eventually there would be a point where my device would not be able to keep the electrons from either leaking back or arcing through the whole thing and melting it. There's no way this system could continue perpetually. No laws of physics are being broken! It takes external power to start the process, and then it can complete under it's own power. The primary product of the hydrogen to helium reaction doesn't seem to produce much heat and seems to happen even at very low temperatures. It may be a couple of years before I'm in a position to get serious about this research again because of my current life situation.

    LENR can produce excess energy in a variety of differing formats, one of those being electron production from hydrogen. Rossi has found a way to produce excess output energy formatted as light, heat, and some electrons. There have been systems that produce relativistic shock waves involving neutral particles and electrons in useable amounts. The engineering to master how the output energy from LENR is formated has not been defined.

    The path that your discovery might be taking could go through the creation of muons that decay into electrons. Invest in a cloud chamber to see what particles are produced by your device. If the hydrogen is disappearing, that means that the protons are being converted to other subatomic particles namely mesons. Mesons will eventually decay into electrons. If the hydrogen does not disappear, then your reaction is probably chemical.

    me356 said that he has seen a large amount of hydrogen disappear from his reactor a matter of seconds.

    I've checked out Rossi's work. Its certainly interesting conceptually, but I'm not sure why he'd turn down a million dollars to demonstrate it working. Maybe I am missing something? It certainly glows.

    Nothing disappears. I just take the electrons and protons and send them to separate places and make it very hard for them to rejoin each other.

    It sounds a bit like a fuel cell. Would it have any advantages over that kind of tech? . I ask because I have developed a very robust hydrogen production system, ideal market being fuel cells.

    The main advantage is that it takes just hydrogen and converts it to H+ and as the reaction builds it eventually produces helium. Once the helium is produced you have He++. Hypothetically it could then be tuned a bit differently and turn helium into lithium, and that in turn to beryllium, and so forth. It would require electrons be reintroduced each stage though and that is basically where the potential comes from. There's probably a point where the leakage current becomes so extreme that there's no way to keep the electrons separated and the entire thing would have a meltdown. I lack the formal education necessary to calculate all that. Like I said, I stumbled into this discovery purely by accident while pursuing another line of thinking.

    Great replies. Thank you for your responses. I promise that while I am very political, I will leave this firmly in the realm of philosophy. I most certainly have no intention of promoting and political platform unless you consider wanting the best for all of mankind as a partisan view.

    As for climate change, I don't think its necessary to bring that into it so no worries there. Pollution is a very real thing though and I think we can agree that LENR technologies offer a path to power production that doesn't introduce any poisons into the environment, regardless of whatever the climate overall is doing.

    I truly worry though about the implications of AI as well. Especially if you combine advanced AI with advanced power technologies. Skynet-style drones wandering around with unlimited flight time is certainly not an impossibility. I have an idea for how to make a transistor that outputs more than just 0-1, but what that might lead to certainly worries me as well. I look back in history at naive men like Hiram Maxim, who seemed to believe his machine gun would make war too awful to contemplate, and it makes me cautious with ideas.

    I'm not part of academia or the scientific community, so I don't have a good feel for how international collaborations truly work without major political interference(if they even do?). A couple years ago I didn't even have much interest in cold fusion. Then I was trying to come up with a way to simplify redox chemistry to bypass the need for reagents and just by chance happened to come across an idea that lead me to the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. I accomplished my chemistry goal, but I believe I also discovered a way to convert hydrogen into electrical energy(by removing nearly 100% of electrons) without significant heat or any neutron production. Its not exactly a generator or a battery in any traditional sense, but rather something of a hybrid. In fact, I believe the process works best at well below room temperature. More importantly I believe the device can be made quite small(car battery size, perhaps even smaller), and does not require any toxic substances. I've estimated it can be developed for under 2000 dollars, but I simply haven't had the money for the materials yet. Once I have the funds I will get a prototype produced as quickly as I can. It went from being an accidental discovery to a bit of an obsession.

    Hello, I am new to the forums but I've became very interested in this topic after what was initially an unrelated line of work lead me to this field. Now I'm stuck wondering what should one do if one were to discover the secret to really making cold fusion small and practical. With the current global political climate, it's not hard to imagine that a small super-powerful reactor would quickly be turned into a means of escalating war to all new levels. Conversely though, it would end wars over energy sources and basically stop power-related pollution overnight. How would one release such a technology into the world without brutish fools going nuts with it the way they did when brilliant men like Oppenheimer gifted them with fission power? Leadership is not based on smart, wise, or compassionate; so I wonder what the best approach would be to introduce a revolution in energy production? Do you think it would just further entrench the establishment or would it be a new era of liberty to all of mankind?