Posts by Drgenek

I have presented hard evidence of nuclear fusion outside of the Lawson criteria. I have presented the basis for the mathematical analysis. There are no preconceived perceptions just a math problem. An electric arc in deuterium gas or in water produces nitrogen from the combination of many deuterium/hydrogen atoms to oxygen. In theory an intermediate Silcon-28 is produced which fissions to nitrogen-14. Since, the result of the analysis are so precise and predict so well the expected true values of the coefficients of a balance nuclear equation, there seems to be no reasonable argument against nuclear fusion outside the of Lawson criteria occurring in these two cases.

According to collision theory for reactions, multiple reactants combining as a catalyst is far more likely than simultaneous collisions of multiple reactants. The proposal is that the catalyst absorbs high energy particles and gammas from fusion, that the catalyst creates a distribution of particle energies which includes particles in MeV range. Hence, MeV range particles overcome the coulomb barrier which allows fusion. These miracle properties of the catalysis are possible if the catalyst possess an extreme gravitational field.

A model was then developed for a form of gravity between electrons which possess higher order interactions. Hence, electrons would convert to pseudo-electrons, then pseudo-electrons form a cluster due to an electron-gravity. An energy balance at the escape horizon of the cluster was used to define the gravitational constant for electron-gravity. Per the model an electron (pseudoelectron) at the escape horizon could have MeV energies if the cluster is large enough. Hence, the miracle properties of catalyst are possible based on electron-gravity.

I then used the images of T Matsumoto, proposed basis for those images, proposed basis for interpretation of images using electron-gravity, then showed that Matsumoto's blackholes are quantitative proof of electron-gravity. Otherwise, how would integer values of pseudoelectrons correlate to area of the image on film? Further the ring shape is predicted by the trajectory of massive particles escaping a source of gravity then reacting with the film. Since the radiation from Matsumoto blackholes appears to be massive, then I redeveloped a blackhole definition from the equation for the Schwartzchild radius. Universal gravity would be caused by dipole attraction between constituent particles more fundamental the those in the standard model. As the relative speed between particles increases these constituent dipoles are expressed. These dipoles cause a magnetic force at right angle to the relative velocity which acts to shear the constituent particles from the whole. (If the whole is a pseudoneutron). Hence, there is limit speed at which pseudoneutrons would be disintegrated to m_c, the universal constituent particle. A pseudoneutron cluster throws off an itonic net then becomes a Matsumoto blackhole. A celestial neutron star likely does the same when it goes supernova. So, Matsumoto blackholes and celestial blackholes are likely the same thing but get there with a different form of gravity. Blackhole are a source of dark energy. Dark energy would be m_c. It has exclusion because it is mass and therefore pressure as a function of concentration. The pressure of m_c could then account for the pressure that expands the universe, dark energy.

The presence of a pressure of universal constituents is testable as a radiation from cold fusion and as celestial radiation. I had intended to address this subject next but have decided instead to provide more analysis in support of pseudoelectrons and the quanta of their states.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I think you are not taking my point.

Whereas a precise prediction replicated, even if it cannot be correlated with conditions, is unlikely to be coincidence and points specifically to the predicting theory.

No, I am precisely on point. You are slightly off because a prediction is not necessary. One doesn't have to make a prediction of the answer to a math problem. I have provided hard science that fusion happen in a liquid and a gas. The only true proof of nuclear reaction is a data derived reaction equation based on mass balance and stoichiometry, everything else is interpretation based on preconceived perceptions.

Quote from JedRothwell

As far as I know, it is dependent on a solid like Pd. I have never heard of catalyzed fusion with a gas or liquid.

The reason I provided this link https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/ was because I wanted you to see that catalyzed fusion in a gas is an irrefutable fact unless you are willing to abandon Lavoisier. The link provides the source experiment and basis. What disappears and what appears for the nuclear reactions is accountable to the limit of measurement, 3 ppmV.

Quote from JedRothwell

This is similar to the fact that when oxygen and carbon combine, they always produce 393.5 kJ/mol. Whether they combine in a fire, or in your cells with metabolism, they always produce that much heat. That was first confirmed by Lavoisier in 1780.

In other words, when the starting and ending materials in a chemical or nuclear reaction are the same, the heat release or absorption will be the same, even when the reaction paths are different. This is thermodynamics.

The heat released does depend on the reaction path. The free energy does not. The free energy is the amount of energy that is released by the change in state. The overall change in state include the change in chemical composition (between reactants and products) and the change in element/isotopes composition. Gibb's free energy equation equates the free energy to the sum of enthalpy (heat) and the product of change in temperature multiplied by the entropy produced. It is believed that entropy increases as the number of new states increases. Hence, if the reaction path converts free energy to new states, the entropy term would get bigger.

Because I have a reaction equation for the nuclear fusion for the case in the link above, I can calculate the energy released if 100% of the mass loss (based on E = mc²) becomes heat. I provided that information in this thread here. RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Unfortunately, the heat yield is not orders of magnitude greater than chemical processes. I believe this is why Brillant Light Power invented hydrinos. The heat yield is reduced because "cold fusion" radiates an extremely light particle, m_c. I have derived the math for m_c, and other important facts as listed here. RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

IMO cold fusion comes as a synergy of multiple effects, the collisions of long lines of atoms attenuated by lattice Mossbauer effect in particular. In this very moment multiple atoms will get closely packed and their orbitals will overlap, so that what we can get is the dense tube of electron plasma. The energy of fusion gets released in one direction in EM wave, but it gets absorbed fast by multiple atoms residing in the same crystalographic line or plane. Which is why it isn't released into an outside in form of ionizing radiation.

So that the above Matsumoto theory has some merit, if we consider scalar waves as a sort of gravitons. It's worth to note that X-ray beams, EVO's and magnetic pulses are merely byproduct of cold fusion reaction - this theory doesn't need it for cold fusion to run.

Our forum has a thread for theories. Any of these may be as good as yours. So, any of these theories would by your logic would be enough that yours or mine isn't needed. Yes, I used some of Matsumoto theory in my model. I also used Pharis Williams, R. Santilli, Richard Feynman, Ed Storms and many others whose works fits logically with my model. A model unlike a theory is falsifiable.

Your theory/model is dependent of a regular solid to create waves which create fusion. If cold fusion were only possible that way, then it could not be done in a liquid or gas. I have provided hard science that fusion happen in a liquid and a gas. The only true proof of nuclear reaction is a data derived reaction equation based on mass balance and stoichiometry, everything else is interpretation based on preconceived perceptions.

If one starts with hard science, it is much easier to do research in a useful direction. Thank-you for your interest.

Quote from JedRothwell

Lack of helium with Pd-D would prove that cold fusion is not fusion. It would be something unknown to science.

Are you arguing that the only fusion that can be known to science is production of He from deuterium? Catalyzed fusion is not dependent on a solid like Pd.

There is no error in the mass balance and stoichiometry in https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/ The measurements and analysis are hard science. So, there is fusion, and the data provides no evidence of Helium.

Just because the hard science does not fit your perception does not mean that a better explanation than yours are not true. It is very inadequate to say that whatever I am investigating is not LENR, as Ed Storms did earlier in this thread. It is not the number of investigations or the amount of data, rather the strength of data that matters.

Quote from Cydonia

All the communauty give probably to much importance of the ionized hydrogen or also hydrogen monoatomic which don't have especially.

For example, by their first experiments in 2011 Focardi/Rossi found in ash a certain amount of zinc.

Focardi explaning that by direct H2 merging in nickel. By this way, we could conclude that hydrogen mono helps but isn't an absolute prerequisite. that could mean that spins or radical specie states aren't involved anymore.

True, ionized hydrogen is not an absolute prerequisite. See the model. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…cluster-with-gravity-pdf/

The catalyst is primarily composed of pseudo-electrons. However, a fusion reaction requires reactants. The math of coulomb barrier still applies. So, what are the options? The catalyst can make neutrons. The catalyst can fuse hydrogen/deuterium to hydrogen/deuterium. The catalyst can absorb energy from fusion of small atomic number atoms to create an energy distribution which includes energy high enough to fuse hydrogen/deuterium to a large atomic number atom. The catalyst can inject a high energy electron into an isotope capable of electron capture then decay occurs. Or the catalyst causes some similar excitations to accelerate radioactive decay. Some examples of these cases are in https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…-by-electron-gravity-pdf/

Of the various experiments which might be LENR, two provide data which can be used for a very strong argument for fusion outside of the Lawson criteria. A nuclear reaction occurs in ICFP and for the process to make AquaFuel. Mass balance and stoichiometry prove and verify a balanced nuclear reaction in these cases. The reaction equation indicates that a catalyst for nuclear fusion is formed.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/26612-properties-for-a-balanced-nuclear-reaction-equation-the-kidman-reaction-pdf/

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/26630-basis-for-the-kidman-reaction-ideas-and-data-pdf/

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/26641-a-data-derived-balanced-equation-for-icfp-pdf/

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/26687-application-of-the-kidman-reaction-to-aquafuel-pdf/

A model has theory and math that can be used to verify a mechanism for nuclear reactions. The first part of my model for nuclear reactions caused by electron gravity suggests that nuclear structure can be modified as an effect of electron gravity such that atomic sized blackholes are produced. This was verified by interpretation and correlation to blackhole images by T. Matsumoto. A blackhole is not an object so massive that not even light can’t escape. Rather, I have shown by redefining the event horizon of the Schwartzchild radius that after a cluster of modified neutrons (pseudoneutrons) go supernova by ejecting an itonic net, the core matter disintegrates to m_c. It is proposed the core matter emits m_c until it has emitted all the mass it has. The generalization: a blackhole is a consequence of modified nuclear structure. It has gravity so large that the relative velocity of some particles in blackhole might approach the speed of light. As the speed increase the dipoles of m_c are exposed by relative velocity. Particles, m_c are sheared from the mass of the blackhole core by magnetic force. Since all mass would contain m_c, the dipole of m_c can account for universal gravity. Further, m_c has such a low mass that the distribution of energy by gravity lead to emission of m_c.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/26737-fusion-and-fission-on-a-cluster-with-gravity-pdf/

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/26757-matsumoto-s-diy-blackholes-pdf/

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/26802-quantum-of-matsumoto-s-blackholes-pdf/

In this presentation I desire to continue to generalize my model to fusion likely can happen anytime one has a source of energy which is ionizing hydrogen. As noted above m_c is an output of any blackhole. Other outputs of catalyzed fusion and observation are presented nest. To that end, this presentation is:

Output Expectations for Nuclear Reactions Caused by Electron-Gravity.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

1. Only a nuclear reaction can produce megajoules of heat per mole without any chemical transformations.

2. A DD fusion reaction produces helium at a fixed rate compared to the heat (24 MeV per helium atom), and cold fusion helium is produced at this rate.

3. Only a nuclear reaction can produce tritium.

These theories are well established.

Any nuclear reaction converts binding energy (an amount of AMU) to energy or vice--a-versa. H to H fusion is not transmutation because the product and the reactant are both the same chemical. However, helium production would be chemical transformation. Hydrogen/deuterium fusion happens in the Kidman reaction as proven by mass balance and stoichiometry. But the heat yield is not in megajoules per mole because the reaction produces the m_c. The main product of so call LENR is m_c. (Reasonable deduction from theory and interpretation of observations of Rout et al in "Reproducible, anomalous emissions from palladium deuteride/hydride." Tritium is produced mostly by neutron absorption (neutron activation) not fusion. So, your list of three theories are poor predictors for most nuclear fusion reactions that occur outside the Lawson criteria.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

For me, there is no longer a need for laboratory experiments, because cold nuclear fusion occurs in Nature:

for example, it occurred during the explosion of supernova 1987A, 99% of whose mass was converted into neutrino radiation and the isotopic composition of the remains of which changed, which was recorded by mass spectrographs on Earth.

The quanta of radiation when a neutron star go supernova is not neutrinos. At least not if Masumoto's blackhole and celestial blackhole are produced on same basis. RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

Quote from Curbina

I know that THHuxleynew means well when putting things under this kind of scrutiny, which to most of us "heathens" looks non sensical.

I have stated many times before that what I think is that THHs sees anything that challenges "what is known" about nuclear reactions as impossible, therefore he starts from the assumption that a mistake was made. He doesn't know what mistake was made, but it must have been a mistake, so that's why it looks to us naive believers that he is being unreasonable.

We have a clash of dogmatic biases, one that assumes that LENR is imaginary, and the other that thinks is proven and being resisted because of what it implies. Hard to solve this kind of clash. Me being in the "LENR is real" camp, have little else to add to this discussion. Just wanted to state why I understand what THH does.

The claim of low energy nuclear reaction, LENR is unproven non-sense. There is fusion outside of the Lawson criterion, but it is because of a catalyst which creates an energy distribution which provides anionic hydrogen/deuterium the kinetic energy as required by the physical laws to overcome the coulomb barrier. Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. I have detailed proof that even THHuxleynew hasn't challenged. Catalyzed fusion opens nuclear reaction pathways different from hot fusion, so using helium, tritium, or other measures of hot fusion to claim LENR doesn't change the wrong perception.

So yes, to fusion without expensive tokomaks but no to LENR. It is perception not a fact.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

The mass (weight) of the EMDrive engine will decrease during operation. The isotopic composition of the EMDrive engine must also change at the beginning and end of the experiment. Does anyone have information about this?

If so, this would clearly indicate that the EMDrive is a cold fusion generator.

If the so call fuel-less propulsion engine (it's substance) is not the source of fuel, then cold fusion is not the source of fuel, and the isotopic composition would not change.

Rather, the universe time-space expands because of the production of dark energy. Dark energy is produced by blackholes but also by any process that produces entropy. The physical substance of entropy and dark energy are the same. The failure to recover with 100% efficiency heat is entropy. That failure is due to production of mass (dark energy particles) from kinetic energy. A fuel-less propulsion engine only appears to be fuel-less, instead it likely uses dark energy.

Dark energy is the smallest fuel (particles) in the universe. Particles have exclusion hence pressure hence expands the universe as they increase in number. These particles do much more than neutrinos. Mostly likely, dark energy is the composition of what we think of as neutrinos. These particles would be the limit at which mass converts to energy and via versa. Anything smaller energy/mass wise would-be part of a field or wave and not independent as a particle.

Since dark energy is a fuel at the smallest scale. there is the possibility of complete conversion of its mass to energy. Also, it is metastable. Dark energy is the major component of the universe; hence the universe is metastable. Dark energy is the resolution of a conflict between the first and second laws of thermodynamics by the claim of the reversibility of the mass/energy loss of second law.

These arguments are not without some math and data support. RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

Yes, at the first stage, it is possible to use hybrid engines to increase traction force: jet engine + LENR.

RocketStar tests fusion-enhanced in-space propulsion process | Aerospace Testing International

Quote from Drgenek

The greatest untapped energy source is dark energy. Dark energy is produced as a product of the interaction of velocity of masses. The higher the relative velocity the greater the magnetic force between of the tiny dipoles of mass near zero. At the limit of velocity, the shear disintegrates mass to dark energy. These tiny particles are the cause of gravity and are fundamental components of the so call fundamental particles of the standard model.

For the model and mathematical derivation of origin of dark matter see RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

Hopefully, before objecting to the above interpretation, one would click the link to see the evidence. The 1st law of thermodynamics says we can use the equal sign for equations involving mass and energy because we believe in conservation. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says to the frustration of the community of scientists, we can't create a system that doesn't lose energy. What we can say about this loss, we can express with the equal sign with a quantity called entropy.

The statement above about the origin of dark energy is consistent with what we know about entropy. When energy is produced by reaction it is call free energy (perhaps better called freed energy since it is mass to energy conversion). The kinetic interpretation of energy in gas is that the higher the temperature (energy) the greater the velocity of the atoms of the gas. The concept of relative mass is that energy which causes kinetic motion (kinetic energy) appear as mass of the particle in motion. If as the proof offered in the link above, then the relative mass can shear lose due to magnetic shear as a function of velocity. So, energy converts to mass, m_c as noted in the link. the mass of these particle is near zero, so like neutrinos they are low mass. Further the amount of m_c increases with temperature. Further, after some transition of nuclear structure a blackhole can form from a cluster of nucleons. Per the proposed math (see link) a blackhole radiates m_c until they can't radiate any more. Hence, the dark energy source from blackholes and entropy could both be m_c. Since there is some reversibility of entropy to energy in experiments in thermodynamics, one expects m_c can convert to kinetic energy (relative mass). If so, then entropy to kinetic energy would be propellant less propulsion.

Since m_c has a dipole. Since, dipole to dipole interactions are additive. Since, relative mass could be any number of condensed m_c, then one expects the condensing of m_c is a process to create thrust. So is it so surprising that the more layers of "two dimensional capacitors" the greater the thrust.

The most accepted natural philosophy of entropy is that entropy increases as the number of states increase. States refers to states of mass. Hence, if m_c is produced by a process, one could expect the concentration of m_c to be proportional to entropy. The concentration of m_c creates a pressure which could therefore explain the effect called dark energy.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

A motorless, reactionless propulsion system is a cold fusion generator.

The greatest untapped energy source is dark energy. Dark energy is produced as a product of the interaction of velocity of masses. The higher the relative velocity the greater the magnetic force between of the tiny dipoles of mass near zero. At the limit of velocity, the shear disintegrates mass to dark energy. These tiny particles are the cause of gravity and are fundamental components of the so call fundamental particles of the standard model.

At the smallest scale mass converts to energy and vice-a-versa. We call this action the uncertainty principle, but it is a direct consequence of the action in the above paragraph. Hence, due to conversion of dark energy to thrust, reactionless propulsion is possible.

A little over a year ago scientists proposed dark energy is produced by blackhole. Further, so call cold fusion produces Matsumoto blackholes. Because of the 1st paragraph above, Matsumoto blackhole produce dark energy. The most direct evidence of conversion of the product of "cold fusion" to energy is in the thread RE: Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop

For the model and mathematical derivation of origin of dark matter see RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

What does this have to do with Widom-Larsen theory not being very useful?

Widsom-Larsen theory is another magic approach. Rather than specific math and logic and vison of what happens, it imagines a system too complex to control, too small to engineer, with too many variables and a great cost to make meaningful measurements.

Quote from Alan Smith

Widom-Larsen theory, though hypothesis would be a better description, is not useful because I know of nobody has found it to be either predictive as a good theory should be, or descriptive in that it fits the observed behaviours.

I see quasi-particles in Widom-Larsen theory. That theory is based on oscillations of electrons and protons in a medium. The combination of wave energy and particles is quasi-particles. The environment focuses the necessary energy to cause "neutronization.' The theory suggests that neutronization is not the same as inverse beta decay or electron capture, because unlike the latters, the former occur in free space rather than only in the nucleus. Like many LENR theories its greatest flaw is the expectation that a material surface in a specific configuration is the magic sauce for LENR, nuclear reactive environment (NAE).

A quasi-particle is not expected to have a quantum state which decays to produce specific characteristic radiation. In contrast electron-gravity induced fusion has radiation which fits the phat equation. E=n²(~13.6 eV). Phat radiation is characteristic of pseudoelectrons. The many quantum levels (values of n) of pseudoelectrons causes electron-gravity, hence the self-assemble (not waves within a medium independence) of a catalyst for nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, I been preparing pdf is a series and have not yet got to the serial pdf or in-depth explanation of the phat equation in electron-gravity. But I promise it is coming and will appear in RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

Quote from magicsound

That is a quasi theory. They are mathematical abstractions not physical objects. So the only role they might play is as a tool to analyse and describe the properties of matter.

Post

RE: BLP update

[…]

There are series of states of "hydrogen" defined by the phat equation, E- n²(`13.6). These states are smaller than actual hydrogen. The higher the quantum number n, the smaller the volume of the state. At n=240 the volume of the state would match a neutron. Rather than a hydrino (lower energy state than actual hydrogen), these states decay to actual hydrogen. When they decay, they produce a radiation as described by the phat equation. Phat radiation from these states was identified by…

Drgenek

Apr 16th 2024

Quote from Drgenek

The energy freed by reaction become heat (enthalpy) or is an unknown lost (entropy) as a function of temperature. For example, one might know from mass balance and stoichiometry what reaction happen and how much. However, the entropy term could be very high, and the heat yield low. In which case the method of heat recovery doesn't help because the entropy isn't recovered as heat. In the case of Santilli's ICFP something around 5/10,000th of the freed energy from the nuclear reaction is enthalpy. I will post the calculation when I get to it on Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)

One would be well advised to focus on experiments designed to produce heat rather than being deceived by a false perception of high efficiency heat yield from reaction. It seem to me that it is foolish to scale method that can't power a small space heat and to expect that such method could power a city.

Here is an update to heat efficiency of Santilli's ICFP. My best estimate of the moles of gas at in his reactor at the start of his experiment is 1.9488 gm moles. The mass balance and stoichiometry yield the mole percents of the gas which disappear from before reaction, and which appear after reaction. Those values are accountable to the 3 ppmv which is the accuracy of the MS measurement; therefore, to four decimal places for the reaction. Hence based on the derived balance nuclear reaction equation, the missing mass via transmutation in gms is .001705. If all this mass was converted to energy the expectation is 1.53e11 joules. Santilli provide a low but real value of 2871 BTU= output-input (7404-4533). So, COP = 1.633. However, reported yield/ expected 100% theoretical yield is 1.975e-5 or 2 parts in 100,000. The high entropy yield will be explained in Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) as soon as I can get the pdf ready.

Quote from Wyttenbach

He just measures H*-H* he also calls Di-hydrino but not very loudly as in his children math dream still a single Hydrino lives....

Of course the Di-hydrino does not so well match his model except for tangential perturbation that you easily can cheat a bit.. by moving the center.

But who cares. For the isolation if H*-H* he should get a nobel as this of course invalidates the standard model.

There are series of states of "hydrogen" defined by the phat equation, E- n²(`13.6). These states are smaller than actual hydrogen. The higher the quantum number n, the smaller the volume of the state. At n=240 the volume of the state would match a neutron. Rather than a hydrino (lower energy state than actual hydrogen), these states decay to actual hydrogen. When they decay, they produce a radiation as described by the phat equation. Phat radiation from these states was identified by Pharis Williams in hydrogen spectra.

An alternative to the theory of BLP is RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Not if you read the "expert" reports!

for me, and I used to be fascinated by BLP, the killer is this.

As time has progressed their demos have changed to completely different systems - and each system has got more difficult to do precise measurements on than the previous.

1. Large cylinder full of chemicals - measure how hot it gets. Claims are that total energy out is larger than anything chemically possible.

2. Electrolysis/battery with alternated charge-discharge and claimed output << charge/discharge energy.

3. Explosion caused by large transient energy input - with energy output estimated from light detection.

Display More

To be fair, the concept of a transient producing more energy than the input to create it has shown up in numerous times in the energy literature, not just BLP.

To maximize energy production at least semi-continuously, one has to push the design to material limits where the container or equipment fail because that where it appears that the largest transients are. It's an optimization based on trends.

It like deciding to create conditions like hottest part of the sun because you want a result, but you don't reality know how it works.