- Member since Jul 1st 2019
- Last Activity:
I will take anything that is better for sure!
It's just using accelerators is not low-energy. But through this materials research they will hopefully find a hydrogen-loaded material that will activate as needed.
The concept is to use accelerator for screening of many fuel candidates. The most promising candidates will be tested then in LENR reactors.
A new EU-funded LENR research project will start on August 1 (i.e. tomorrow). The project title is "Clean Energy from Hydrogen-Metal Systems" (CleanHME)
The project will run for 4 years, and many pioneering European LENR researchers participate in it.
This support for LENR research is great news. Combining and steering the efforts of several groups helps the technology to progress forward. Also, this recognition by research funding agencies may help to alleviate academic opposition.
The project will work on several LENR technology types, as well as physics theory development.
For now, the project summary may be found here:
The consortium has a collaboration with researchers at MIT.
More updates will follow when the project website is ready.
That is an interesting question to explore whether there are any synergies between Hydrogen producing photo-electrodes and LENR.
By the way: after slandering Martin Fleischman on camera in '89, Nathan Lewis went on to collect funding for exactly this type of photoelectrochemical H2 production research.
Robert: yes, the papers which are on pages 76 - 128 of JCMNS vol 25 are important foundation of the book. Looking at these papers already gives you an idea about two chapters in the book.
The mathematical complexity varies across chapters. It is of course more important to get feedback on our description of complex parts than feedback on simple parts. I attach two excerpts of the more complex parts.
In the first attachment the introduction is a straightforward motivation for why general relativity is relevant in the context of QM. Then you can get the feeling for the competence which is needed to handle this math. The resulting generalized Dirac equation gives a much deeper understanding than traditional Dirac equation, so it is important to review that we describe this part in a comprehensible way.
The second attachment gives an example of new electromagnetics insight when working with Clifford algebra. No pre-existing knowledge of Clifford algebra is needed, as the first chapter goes through the needed math in detail. The calculation of e.g. equation 2.7.3 might look a bit scary, but it's actually quite straightforward once someone gets the hang of Clifford algebra. Let's see if the reviewer will agree. Understanding this attachment is the essence of understanding neutrinos. With this background, one can make sense of Parkhomov's neutrino experiments.
Hope this gives an idea what the review is about.
Holmlid dense hydrogen technology has similar problem like Randell Mills hydrino based technology: if they should generate an energy, then the resulting form of hydrogen should be thermodynamically very stable and widespread into account of this normal one. Which keeps me in belief, they're both bogus and if some energy generation is involved, then it's overunity effect. This doesn't imply, that dense hydrogen or even hydrino couldn't exist after all - but only as a metastable volatile form of matter.
It is a very good point that ultra-dense hydrogen can't have lower energy state than ground state hydrogen, otherwise it would become the new ground state.
However: if a metastable state catalyzes nuclear reactions (e.g. fusion), then the energy comes from the nucleus and not from the electron arrangement.
I am looking for max 3 reviewers for the second edition of our book: "Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor: Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions".
The theory part of the book answers those questions which you always wanted to know as a physics student, but were too afraid to ask. Questions such as: what are electrons made of?, how to reconcile QM with general relativity?, can we have QM without any postulates? what is the origin of the Pauli exclusion principle, what are neutrinos made of?, ...etc.
As a reviewer, you get the book for free, you can be among the first one to read these new ideas in physics, and give your feedback. I think these ideas are VERY relevant to LENR.
Needed qualifications: high expertise in QM and general relativity. Knowledge of algebraic geometry is a plus. Length of text to review: bout 180 pages.
If interested, please send me a message.
Robert: I think that Schaeffer has an important insight there, and we cite this observation in the book.
If Rutherford's contemporaries would have noticed this electromagnetic "coincidence", they might have reconsidered thinking that it is a new force.
My blog post on the subject of correcting mathematical mistakes in physics:
In principle, everyone would welcome that mistakes are identified and corrected. Or not everyone? How many of these points will be taken up into textbooks? How many are relevant to LENR?
The unusually high neutron capture cross section of certain (few) isotopes is somewhat of a mystery. 135-Xenon can be explained by magic
numbers, the others cannot. Xing Zhong Li (Professor Emeritus Tsinghua University) believes that the GENERAL stability of such isotopes is also
anomalous. He and I discussed this at some length at ICCF21 in Fort Collins last year.
My hypothesis is that isotopes with high neutron capture cross section are halo nuclei. They have a regular pattern of nuclear Z numbers (Z=n*16). More details are in the "Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor: Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions" book.
The "magic numbers" theory might as well be called "unicorn" theory. Lynn Bowen had a poster about that at ICCF22.
The relationship between EM and QM equations is a good question, and very non-trivial. Certainly, a person truly
interested in understanding Nature cannot accept the "shut up and calculate" mentality.
Several people tried to establish the link between Maxwell and Dirac equations. You can search the literature for
"optical Dirac equation" for instance. It's not easy to show how Maxwell equation leads to the Dirac equation,
otherwise it would be in textbooks already. But it's one of the most important basic questions, in my view.
In chapter 2, we show that the Dirac equation is the same as the Klein-Gordon equation. In chapter 4, we show that
the Klein-Gordon equation is the same as the Proca equation. These are three faces of the same equation, yet most
physicists consider them to apply to different kinds of particles. The problem is not with the equations, but with
understanding their meaning and correct application to elementary particles.
For instance, "i" is just treated as imaginary complex number in QM, without ever explaining what the imaginary values
physically mean. We show that "i" of QM is the Clifford pseudo-scalar which we get by multiplying unit vectors:
e_t*e_x*e_y*e_z. Understanding the correct geometry is the first step towards understanding what the equations mean.
We make the first steps to derive the Dirac equation from Maxwell equation, but some points remain open. In the 2nd
edition of the book, we plan to present the complete derivation of QM equations from EM equations.
Regarding Wyttenbach's and Zephir's comments: obviously neither of you looked into the book.
A wise person would not make dogmatic statements without first reading and understanding the authors' work.
Especially not in a thread which is catering to those who are interested to understand this topic.
Even more so when you have never yet written down a physical equation which is predictive, and not just numerology.
The reason I am mentioning this is not for being mean to you, but to point out that your activity reduces my
motivation to participate in this forum.
Good question about the spectral evidence. There was an ICCF22 presentation by Stankovic, where he analyzed the
spectrum of a special oxy-hydrogen plasma flame, which produces transmutations. The properties of such plasma
flame were well reported by Bob Greenyer in his "Ohmasa gas" series.
The new spectral lines showing up in the spectrum presented by Stankovic seem to match the nuclear Zeeman split
emissions upon the establishment of ZBW electron state at 0.383 pm radius. I will report more on that in the near