Why did they let that tank spew water all over the place? Can't they put a pid on it?

Quote from Stevenson

Sorry guys, but I have to remind you that the topic of this thread is collecting information and methods to generate SR (as per OP request). It is not to debate of philosophy of science or on the existance of the phenomenon itself. If you are upset by peoeple discussing on potentially non-existing phenomena, please open a separate thread and complain there instead of making background noise here. For the same reason, I will not reply to OT posts in any way (and I invite all genuinely interested people to do the same).

I would think evidence for strange radiation existence or not would be desired here. The argument that you must be a believer to post here is eerily reminiscent of philosophy of E-cat world. Honest debate is what separates LENR Forum from ECW (and The Flat Earth Society, etc). ECW may be a better home for the type of discussion you desire, with a moderator on the delete button for even the most well supported arguments. I am under the impression that many of the LENR friendly researchers are not so enthused about this whole strange radiation theory. That plus a minor point, who put you in charge?

Quote from Stevenson

What we know up to now is that:

Is there agreement that "we" know these things? Who knows all this?

This is a lot to know about a subject "strange radiation" which many people believe is completely unproven to exist.

I'll give you one in your list that for sure most people would be in total agreement. number 7.

"Laser radiation, even at mW power, seem to be useful to trigger something in certain conditions;"

At the very least lasers can trigger fluorescence with many materials, and that is useful in my line of business.

Quote from Vortex-Theory

Hi, so I am trying to dig up enough info on the different setups that created these exotic conditions.

If you want "strange radiation" info you could contact Bob Greenyer on E-Cat World. He thinks he knows a lot about it. I can't vouch for the accuracy of his information though.

Quote from Cydonia

If you are able to compress external electrons skin radially, they should i expect slow down and increase both their mass. In fact a radially electron resonance should behave as an energy storage.

In few words phonons resonance could be able to do direct electricity, for example.

Electrons do not have "skin", at least as far as I can find via google. Where can I read about electron skin compression experiments? Doesn't it become lacerated?

Thanks for the reply. I looked at your patent app for a minute but don't have the time (or knowledge) to dig in more, but I plan to. I have around 6 patents myself. Any status on approval?

I do appreciate you are trying to use physics equations. I have another question of the Entropy to Mass conversion. For e=mc^2 the units work out perfectly, kg (m/s)^2. Not so much with entropy, which has a 1/K term added. How do you reconcile the units?

Actually I don't really get your dark energy discussion. I'm not even totally sure it exists and is not just showing current theories are inexact at these large scales.

Quote from Drgenek

E equals m*c*c. Does that seem nonsensical? If things are related by an equals sign, then there is some equality. Have you never used Gibbs Free energy equation? I think not. It is easier to not think or accept a dumb answer. I have provided via my profile the information you seek but you have not consider it. Are you now going so low as to call me non-scientific rather than consider my analysis? How can you be in this forum looking for truth about LENR and at the same time demanding proof for a proposal?

To be specific: This reaction happens, basis atoms, 2 oxygen and 14 deuterium react to produce 4 nitrogen and 4 Hydrogen. Basis thermodynamics the Free energy was 95.6 million BTU. The measured enthalpy was 2871 BTU. No high energy radiation or amazing large light production was observed. So what does the math say? Why do you object to the production of mass from expected Free energy? Can you offer more than just an object to my proposal?

Forgive me for not knowing where to find it but I see no information in your profile. Your statement was entropy creates mass, not energy. E=mc2 is energy, not entropy. I understand that Gibbs free energy relates energy, enthalpy, and entropy, but no I do not use it as I am not a chemical engineer. I cannot find your information that supports the hypothesis that entropy creates mass. As a simple thought experiment, since entropy is increasing in the universe, and since it creates mass, should not the mass of the universe be increasing? I have seen no studies that support that. Please send a link to someone other than you, and tell me how I can find this info in your profile.

Quote from Cydonia

a normal brain would have sticked a small hydraulic cylinder to this cathode.

Perhaps you could set up a "Normal Brain" club over at ECW, because LENR Forum members and legitimate LENR researchers apparently haven't lived up to these normal standards.

Quote from Drgenek

Here is a simple though experiment

So simple a child could do it!

The thread is called how to understand LENR, but the more I read this thread, the less I understand about LENR. For example entropy is the dispersion of energy. Entropy is not energy. How can it create matter? This seems nonsensical. Can you post a link to a scientific paper on this topic? When has it been experimentally verified that entropy has created matter?

Quote from Mark U

On a positive note, the implication might be that Rossi

The track record of people interpreting what Rossi's cryptic messages might mean is quite compelling.

For example, guessing what his paper means,, which global companies are his partners, in which country Rossi might be, etc.

I have been thinking about Rossi's posts and papers and I am going to go out on a limb and say I KNOW who Rossi's partner/big customer is.

Remember it is now very clear the Rossi Effect harvests zero point energy from the vacuum.

Armed with this knowledge, it is obvious his manufacturing partner and customer is Dyson.

Not only will they be running their vacuum cleaners using an onboard e-cat SKL, but they have built Rossi's manufacturing hub.

With this strategy, The e-cat powered Dyson vacuum cleaners not only clean, but they are used to generate THEIR OWN VACUUM (fuel) in the penultimate feedback loop.

So put that in your crack-pipe and smoke it.

Quote from Eric Walker

here are some topics that I wish I knew more about in trying to understand LENR

Some more important knowledge/skills when trying to understand LENR studies:

1. Scientific Method.

2. Thermodynamics.

2. Human Psychology (particularly subjects like Mania and Sociopathy)

3. Institutional Bureaucracy

4. Crackpot identification skills.

Quote from Roseland67

his toupee falls off, he bends over,

Please, I'm eating. These are disgusting visuals. His brains would probably fall out of that hole in the top of his head created by "strange radiation".

Quote from Wyttenbach

Willhelm Tell....

intellectual

[ in-tl-ek-choo-uhl ] noun:

An individual who can listen to the William Tell Overture and not think of the Lone Ranger.

So only members can see posts now? Isn't part of the mission of LENR forum to spawn interest in new and younger people, so that when old farts like myself pass on there will be new blood to continue persuing the cause?

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

You wrote - "Still one more comparison. How about a positron v.s. a proton? They both have the same charge, + e, but totally different mass.

The mass-difference between an electron / positron and a proton has been one of the unsolved questions a long time. If the mass is a magnetic property in the end, maybe you have a good explanation to this also. "Maxwell turned out to be a big mischief and a rascal - he powdered all physicists' brains for 150 years and no one has yet been able to" uncover his deception. " .. But I did THIS! Maxwell turned out to be a sharpie - a kind of "math player" and I uncovered his forgery in mathematical exercises ... Read it - you will like it ... Article in Russian -

Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Part 1 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Ddaj/4vkKrS79f

Maxwell's Revealing - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism Part 1 - https://drive.google.com/file/…id46fj1t/view?usp=sharing

Display More

Did I miss your explanation of how your magnetic mass theory explains the mass differences between a positron and proton? Or how your theory mathematically predicts anything new that can be tested?

This post was not moved to clearance. I just chose to post here since I don't know where else.

Can Barty or the mods put back the original trollbox please? What is this telegram thing? I went to create a login but it was asking for too much information. I only see one "post" so unless I misunderstand, this current telegram box is a complete waste of space. The trollbox was fun.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from Cherepanov2020

What is the conclusion from all this? The mass of a free electron is the real "charge" - the greater the "magnetic mass of the electron", the higher its "magnetic potential" or "magnetic charge" .

In the synchrotron where I worked summers at Cornell (materials handling, not theoretical physics), electrons and positrons were accelerated to relativistic speed. Their relativistic mass should have been way larger and they should have been deflected more than expected since you say electron charge = mass. Why did they not notice this? (Oh I forgot Einstein is a moron like Coulomb.)

Quote from Cydonia

See work from Garai, Letts, Kervran, Rossi.

I am not so familiar with these other three guys, but are they aware you are in effect associating them with Rossi?

I don't think they would be pleased to be defamed like this.

Quote from Mark U

I think he accidentally flipped questions 1) and 2) in his mind.

...

I described a naive picture of what I imaged was happening in the Ecat. He said sorry, it has little in common with his thinking. What a let down!

If we have to switch around his yes/no answers to the questions we *believe* they correspond to, we can support any conclusion. Correct?

Your explanation which Rossi shot down was only necessary because his paper explains no source of energy. It is no surprise you are wrong because it is a trick question. There is no right explanation, or Rossi would have given it.