Posts by Drgenek

    Then what is the cause of absence of hard gamma in LENR according to your opinion?

    The absence of hard gamma and further the absence of most of the energy one would expected based on the amount of transmutation is a good question. One must measure the amount of transmutation to see that. Most so called LENR experiments don't quantitate the transmutation. LENR detractors claim nuclear ash and high energy particles are a must for a nuclear reaction so they also don't measure the amount of transmutation on the basis no massive energy production then no reaction.

    An electric arc though water produces nitrogen as a transmutation product. (See mass balance and stoichiometry in the ref in my profile). I note that so one can verify the absence of hard gamma and further the absence of most of the energy one would expected based on the amount of transmutation. The stoichiometry deduces from the data a specific reaction. I have referred to a generalization of that type of reaction as a Kidman type reaction. A Kidman type reaction occurs because the target and projectile atom's nuclei are re-arrange so that nuclei's charges are no longer point charges. That causes atom to atom bonding as magnet to magnet. That also causes screening that reduces the coulomb barrier.

    In my opinion the absence of hard gamma and further the absence of most of the energy one would expected based on the amount of transmutation is because when these rearranged nuclei fuse, the expected energy emerges as an as yet undefined mass. In general mass production should follow the hierarchy of decay from a virtual Higgs particle to the zoo predicted by the standard model. But what happens here is likely more fundamental that the standard model. I speculate that if we had good candidates for what particles are produced by a Kidman type reaction we would also have a good candidates for dark energy and dark matter.

    I have proposed the nuclear reactions occur as a result of a self-assembled "nano-star", that could be a cluster in a metal (NAE, nuclear reactive site) or a particulate dispersed in gas. As a chemist, I suppose mass transfer into and out off these clusters. If a gas gains the ability to bond magnetically and then exits the cluster, that bonding will increase the average molecular weight of the bulk gas. The magnetic state that causes bonding has a very much higher magnetic field that ground state atoms. At least that is the explanation for why ground state atoms are not observed to bond magnetically.

    Magnegas suposedly burns with a temperature higher than acetylene, correct? I thought Mills hydrinos were at a lower energy state, basically non-reactive. These don't sound the same to me. This assertion that all these are the same sounds more like apophenia than a miracle to me.

    Given chemical equilibrium between the super magnetic state of atoms with what they bond to, then there are a multitude of new molecules. That was the basis of math I did above to prove fusion/fission by analysis. I propose the gases produced by a nuclear reaction in an arc are above the ground state and therefore release energy when they burn. This would be true of any of the named versions of fuel gas from water and true when no unbonded hydrogen can be detected and when therefore no oxygen is required to burn the fuel. Mills claims no nuclear energy source and therefore a gas like OHMASA is not predicted by Mills. The contention then is Mills is wrong, his process is nuclear and so call hydrinos are nuclear products that are definitely not in a ground state.

    The unusual properties of OHMASA gas include a low flame temperature but it be used to cut metal like acetylene does. OHMASA gas is purified by removing hydrogen. That make it stable under higher pressure that a brown's or Aquafuel type gas. As I have show by analysis AquaFuel is a gas with nuclear derived energy.

    The simple version of theory to tie it all together goes like this. EVO's cause fusion. EVO's result from the sudden change in resistance to electrical flow in a gas or water that happens due to ionization. EVO exist by binding gravitons (Simple but too far out). Bound gravitons cause all the weird stuff above.

    Perhaps is time to take a closer look in search for hints and clues on how to get the elusive, so far, repeatable and controlable experiment we so much want.

    If one puts an electric arc through hydrogen, the volume of the hydrogen decreases and the average molecular weight increases. If one mixes skrunken hydrogen with fresh hydrogen and put the arc to it, that mixture loses volume faster. If one places the skrunken gas in a balloon permissible to hydrogen, the skrunken gas escape faster than fresh hydrogen. The experiment is easy for any of you to do and is repeatable. The heat balance it hard to do but, it is apparent that a thousand fold heat gain is not present.

    What everyone wants is fusion that produces heat like thermonuclear fusion, this does not happen. There are several way to use energy to produce water in a gas form that has the unusual properties of like OHMASA gas. (see "water the key to new energy by Moray King)

    Rotational lines were observed in the 145-300 nm region from atmospheric pressure electron-beam excited argon-hydrogen plasmas.

    The unprecedented energy spacing of 42 times that of hydrogen established the internuclear distance as 1/4 that of H2 and identified H2(1/4) [67].

    As mentioned above I have provided an alternative mechanism to hydrino formation which attributes BLP results to fusion/fission . Hydrogen or deuterium shrinks and the reduction in size corresponds to the same quantum produced sizes as predicted for hydrinos. These states are not hydrinos but result from weak interactions which superposition on the usual quantum structure of the atom. This same weak force based interaction when it passes into the nuclear region is the most probable cause of the bonding which produced the unknowns also referred to in the previous post. This weak force interaction travels non-transversely and causes time dilation and space contraction which cause the shrinking of the atom.

    the ideal gas law doesn't work if there are attractions btw the particles

    then Van der Waals adjustmnent is needed for 'real' gases

    but this assumes Coulombic attraction.. not magnetic..

    I suspect the dihydrino gas/ aggregation is not anything like a 'real gas'

    I had this discussion with Santilli; there is no violation of the ideal gas law. It works very well to analyze his data. I am referring to U.S. application 2012/ 0033775 to Santilli Fig 7). That data proves cold fusion/fission. The proof is mass balance and stoichiometry provide a reaction equation. The data is in ppm/vol. A balance requires accounting for all the nucleons per unit volume before and after reaction. The reaction was a 2 min arc of 40 Kw in an atmosphere of deuterium contaminated with atmospheric gas. I would be happy to go through the calculation step by step but let's start a separate thread. Since the theory and data does not match Santilli or BLPi expectations.

    Basically, the steps: 1) multiply ppm/v by nucleons per atom. 2) adjust the nucleon count per 100% volume in the after-reaction sample to the same as the before reaction sample. 3) calculate a difference for each component. Assume the excess argon and all the unknowns are new compounds from magnetically based bonding (magnet to magnet so no bonding rules: hence unknowns are the gases in the start sample at the same distribution of atoms as the start sample.) 4) account for the chemistry then the remainder is atomic reaction. Remove oxygen and carbon to account for measured CO2 in the after sample. Remove hydrogen and oxygen to account for measured H2O in the after sample. Remove the excess Argon and unknowns as defined above: excess argon as oxygen and deuterium and unknowns as oxygen, deuterium, and nitrogen. Remove the benzene as hydrogen and carbon. I also made an adjustment to account for the excess carbon that comes due to oxidation of the carbon electrodes. 5) convert the nucleon count per 100% volume back to ppm/vol. My nuclear change results were Nitrogen 9061ppm, Oxygen -4805 ppm, Hydrogen 9792 ppm and Deuterium -29876 ppm. 6) divide all the ppm values by half the ppm value for nitrogen. The integer values are extremely near unit numbers and if one solves for a secondary reaction the accounting is within the error of spectroscopy, about 5 ppm. The main reaction is 20 +14D = 4N + 4H and the secondary reaction is 2O = 6H + 13 D. Both reactions are the sum of a sequence of primary step reactions. The point is the ideal gas law works great to solve the reaction sequences.

    To provide a basis for the bonding of unknowns above and a reaction mechanism for fusion/fission you can read my patent application.

    So many theories is just wow lol. How many of them either ignore or needlessly change the entire consept of causality, thermodynamics and conservation of energy in order to explain just one of those three problems? Mostly exotic chemistry with some heavy particle catalysis seems quite possible, collective multi-particle energetic effects.

    It seems we have zeroed in on the cause of a general perception of war on free speech. In general depending on one's world view and how desperate one is for change, one uses what leverage one can to promote one's world view in hope of repressing non-sense (otherwise call other's worldviews).

    Whether the worldview is extreme for this forum like Ascoli65 or a singularly focused alternative to LENR like LeBob's exotic chemistry, our forum has accepted their contributions. We don't have exclusive answers. I for one find that the forum continues to provide information that fits into larger puzzle which is my own worldview.

    When I began posting to this forum, I was told by our distinguished member Storms that fusion cause by an arc in a fluid is not LENR because it does not involve a hydrogen absorbing metal catalysis. Until today I didn't think about explaining the three miracles of cold fusion from my worldview. Because until one of you makes your objections known, how am I to know what I need to explain? Thank-you one and all.

    Let us hope the desperation passes without too great of loss of freedom.

    Why would grounding destroy it?

    And of course Newton wasn't a fool. He invented calculus and classical physics, gosh darnit. Except when he had mercury poisoning :)

    You caught me. Putting Newton for Newman. gosh darnit. Thanks for the link it was interesting

    Here is an interesting legal doc about it from the wiki links.

    Interesting but how could grounding it destroy the peformance? Sounds sketchy.…dt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

    Why wouldn't grounding destroy its performance? Who would know better than the man who demonstrated the device may times and wasn't give the chance to correct the NBS miss-behavior? Newton wasn't a fool. He clearly states that the energy comes from the atom per his understanding that all energy must come from mass to energy conversion and that mass that converts comes from the atoms that we can see. If however the mass/fuel for his machine must comes from the atmosphere then transport from the atmosphere to the machine via static means is reasonable.

    As I said before the nuclear connection I most suspect in a Kidman type reaction, an arc through water that converts water to nitrogen. I don't need to repeat the proof of all that; I have provided that many times and the link is always on my profile. That mass/fuel is logically created by thunderclouds.

    "Newman attempted to patent the device, but was rejected by the United States Patent Office as being a perpetual motion machine.[1] When the rejection was later appealed, the United States district court requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input.[2] Thus, the patent was again denied."

    I think what happen next was the USPTO was sued. The law required a Master examiner: one that both side could accept. The person was a former USPTO commissioner. The master's conclusion was it works; issue the patent. However, the judge under pressure from the USPTO decided he needed time to make his ruling. Now over 20 years later, still no ruling. A friend of mine who worked for one of the power companies that investigated Newman's process concluded that cost of the metal in the machine compared to the output likely make the device non-completive. This friend had a copy of Newman's book. It will take me awhile longer to complete my investigation. So, I have not make up mind about what to learn from Newman machine and how it might tie into to fusion/fission.

    Common features among hydrogen energy research and the mostly electromagnetic results show a more nuanced story is possible. The "vacuum" we should be worrying about for energy is the "empty" space inside the atoms. Of course like anything I maybe wrong but the pattern is quite constant. I would be exited if it were true, but I don't believe hydrogen+oxygen fusion is what is causing this.

    I can not quite figure out if you are just baiting me?

    I suppose you understand particle hierarchy. Higgs creates inertia, hence mass. Higgs decays to W particles of both types. W particles are weak bosons so the origins of transformation and therefore the energy production from a change of state. Summary to this point Higgs originates mass energy changes. So naturally the empty space inside the atom isn't empty of Higgs and is active for both types of W particles which may exist virtually. The limits of the uncertainty principle allow a particle to have a very short existence in time (hence virtual) when it is too massive to exist continuously in time. Hence, the line of stability of radioactive isotopes. Heavy particles always decay to lighter ones to be consistent with relativity but exothermic reactions can drive endothermic ones. Particle hierarchy continues: Higgs to W particles to electron, neutrino and their antiparticles and to light. Weak transmutations also produce electromagnetic radiation as part of mass to smaller mass plus energy balance. At the high energy end of weak transmutation, the electromagnetic force is electroweak. At the low energy end like for chemical changes of state, the electromagnetic force appears without obvious weak transformation. But?

    Is the existence of currents in space electromagnetic or electroweak? For a just electromagnetic view: What are the charge carriers in space? and how does one account for the charge imbalances an just electromagnetic view creates? A weak current can move by the reversible reactions of the products of W particles of both types. Hence, the interchange in types of neutrinos. What makes that happen? (Something new see next paragraph) Is this real?: where all is electromagnetic and the electroweak has does not exist anymore? The alternative is more consistent: where all energy production is E=m*c*c. (implied no possibility of using ZPE as an energy source)

    Your opinion of hydrogen + oxygen to nitrogen does not change that it is a mathematically derived fact. The measured amount of mass loss in a two minute reaction is the equivalent of 95.6 million BTU. Only a person completely unwilling to do or to accept the math would consider that fact to be an error. How big of role does conversion of water to nitrogen play our understanding of search for new energy? What is form is missing mass/energy? (Something new). We will see. I do believe hydrogen +oxygen to nitrogen (Kidman type reaction) is a solid fact in a sea of uncertain so called facts.

    Progress will come by following the math. Due diligence is the measure of progress. You can fill pages with words but the people that do things are not looking for your opinion. They form their own. All you accomplish with your bias opinion is slowing cooperation by shaming, being a bully of a sort. Fortunately, even that does not stop the doers. But it will make you look bad in historical perspective. So if you are trying to help, then provide facts, keep you opinions minimal and try not to show too much bias.

    One thing: I recognize that each individual should be judged only by their personal statements and behavior, so it dismays me whenever any group is supposedly tarnished by the actions of a single person, or only some members of the group. But, geez, watch that documentary, "Newman," that was posted above. IMO, anyone who believes that Newman had invented a perpetual motion device (or a device that extracted energy from magnetic fields, or whatever) is too credulous for me to take seriously.

    I get than you don't understand anyone's interest in Newman but that's because you don't understand their motivation or believe the numerous affidavits by skill scientists published with Newman's book.

    Newman is mostly wrong and very irritating to read, but like many before him ( for example Henry Moray) he believed he could extract energy from a source as ambient as the atmosphere we breath.

    Where would such energy come from? Thunderclouds.

    I have shown by mass balance on Aquafuel that hydrogen and oxygen disappear and nitrogen appears. Aquafuel is basically: take two carbon rods and run enough current between them to see an underwater arc. The product gas is Aquafuel. With established stoichiometry one can calculate the mass difference due to transformation ( nuclear reaction) for the amount of nitrogen produced by reaction, and then mass to energy. That is an enormous amount of energy in a very short time. But the process has an endothermic reaction which absorbs most of the nuclear reaction energy. Still when one does the comparison of the heat value of Aquafuel based on its detectable chemical composition to it's actual yield in an engine, compared to gasoline as a control, the yield is 300% of what the chemical composition should yield. So, the energy yield is well over unity but less than .002% of the predicted value based on mass to energy conversion.

    300% energy yield to low to make enough electricity from heat to produce Aquafuel. However, Santilli still when on to improve the process an a multimillion dollar business welding gas business exist from that effort.

    But where is the rest of the energy? That's where the real money is. What if Newman tapped that thundercloud produced fuel and directly converted it to electricity? That's the motivation. All company doing water to energy, including the LENR ones or BLP, could be pursuing some version what I have described above. Yes, we all know LeBob doesn't believe it. But a smart person wouldn't depend on Lebob's opinion but would do due diligence.

    Let's just say I hope one of the companies that has been working in this area is successful at, first, verifying their claims and, eventually, commercializing a lower cost and fossil fuel free form of heat and/or electricity. For the first past the gate, it won't matter what their personalities are like.

    Prime video has a documentary called Newman. It is story of a proven over unity device by Newman. It is sad to see his personality transform. Basic he had something. He showed it often, got more support than I would have imagined is possible yet no body could make sense of it. But he believed that it does matter that no one could understand it, that it would lead to something important. Caution: fighting for what you know works against the impossibility of acceptance can turn one's personality to the dark side. Understanding will come but it can't forced.

    BLPs current efforts turn water into energy. Isn't it amazing how many have claimed to turn water to energy. I seen this forum say some very unfavorable things about companies with water to energy technology and favorable things about other water to energy technology. I is really all the same. I know based on mass balance, stoichiometry, thermodynamics and kinetics that water serves as reactants to produce by a series of transformation reactions nitrogen, a nuclear process. This is what happens with Aquafuel and therefore likely with BLP and all the others. But even facts from numerous sources struggle to get well meaning but nevertheless very prejudice people to do due diligence.

    It will happen when it does we will all wonder how we could all be so blind.

    He who sups with the Devil needs a long spoon.

    If only the prince of beelzebub will consider the truth then maybe Christ isn't a devil after all. How many more inventors will get murdered? How many more will be falsely slandered? Water to fuel is falsely called crazy and until now there has been no way to provide due diligence. But now we have the lead and tools to do so. One lead based in hard science is better than all the other excitement over results that are in the noise level and without a clear path to exploitation.

    Even if energy production is only 0.002% of that predicted from the amount of transformation, its over unity and the process can be followed by lost of reactants and appearance of products and at the scale that the statistical interpretation can be run unquestionably real.

    Thank-you for you concern but who else do you suggest has the courage to do the right thing?

    I believe the Ionized Gas Reactor (IGR) has similar potential. Much remains to be learned. The path to revolutionary products is always full of surprises. We would like to minimize them and seek to learn how. Perhaps a few souls will surface who are adequately equipped and might like to assist in moving this breakthrough toward markets

    The IGR is a step in the right direction. Much has already been done here. There is a long history of related work in the production of a fuel gas from water. Based on mass balance for AquaFuel in…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf , then much hydrogen fuses; starting with fusion to oxygen to eventually produce the fission production nitrogen. This type reaction is demonstrated with high precision and accuracy and is as statistically proven as anything can be. The reaction chemistry is based on data produced by Santilli. The kinetics of the burning of the fuel per the above reference indicates the output of energy is depend on the fission product concentration (de novo nitrogen) and the concentration of hydrogen and temperature. That kinetic equation is supplied in the above reference. Based on applying the above information there are chemical engineering ways to improve the energy output. If Mark Goldes wants IGR to move ahead based on real science and engineering, he should discuss with me the above reference. I can be contacted via gmail or linkedin.

    How very perceptive you are on the right track Drgenek. I think it's a matter of reconsidering e=measured in a different way. This may seem incomprehensible to you but Wyttenbach has all the right theory if you can get to grips with multidimensional reality. The SO to the power n is the correct model, the standard model of nuclear physics only merely scratches the surface of the complexity.:)

    Gibbs free energy equation balances the expected energy from reaction to the measured heat and to work ( a volume, temperature and entropy function). This energy measured in a different way (work) is energy bound to atoms ( ie. the average temperature, kinetic energy). The accepted basis for energy transfer is by light, by kinetic energy or by fields. Adding dimensions makes dealing with fields mathematically doable but does not make the interpretation of the solution any more real that Mills below the ground state solutions. These solutions mean something but the models have faults that a broader look at solutions can help us find.

    Gravity, neutrinos and entropy seem involved in a broader solution. Weak interacting states provide connection. A quote from Kozyrev in a reference cited by Zephir "

    “There are pairs of stars we call double stars. At first the two stars are not the same, but gradually over a period of time the secondary star comes to resemble the

    primary star. It develops the same brightness, develops the same radius, becomes the same spectral type. At such enormous distances this mirroring couldn’t be

    happening through force fields. It would seem the principal star is affecting the satellite star through the energy of time. It’s almost as if the stars communed by

    telepathy,’ he said with a grin.” (Ostrander, 1970). I don't accept Kozyrev interpretation. Rather, given weak interacting states which I proposed cause local effects via special relativity that dilates time and contracts space using a coupling of neutrinos to electrons, then general relativity for a star would have parts. One part is classical gravity. Another part could then be the local effect of weak interacting states. The mass of a star is assumed by the effect of classical gravity, if the apparent gravity is in part due to energy in weak interacting states and that energy via entropy equalizes across the double stars, then it would appears as if the mirroring were happening though time. Rather the assumed mass based on classical gravity is wrong because part of the apparent gravity was caused by local gravity which is caused by weak interacting states, the same states that cause cold fusion. The stars may not start out the same but energy transfers between stars, energy coverts to mass and the stars become the same.

    Would you be open to discussing some of this stuff? I am particularly interested in the relation of reaction (including nuclear reactions in stars) to the torsion field. I see a relevant connection to fusion.

    Knowledge of a mechanism or a clear reason is never needed to establish causality. That is one the great mistakes of late 20th century science, and one of the reasons cold fusion has been mistakenly rejected. The notion that "correlation does not imply causation" is a somewhat useful rule of thumb, but taken too far it becomes pernicious nonsense. It definitely does imply causation. In the case of infectious disease and cold fusion, it is rock solid proof. There is no doubt whatever that palladium deuteride causes fusion. There is no generally agreed upon reason. On the contrary, the phenomenon appears to violate many laws of physics, practical experience, previous observations, and even common sense. Nevertheless, it is true.

    I find probabilities more significant than just a correlation. When I look at data I am more impressed by "what are the chances that the data is a result of probability?" Palladium deuteride does not cause a colder version of fusion rather there is a series of events that lead to a lower coulomb barrier which causes a colder version of fusion. I know palladium deuteride is not involved if it is not present. It is not present when a mixture of atmospheric gas and deuterium is exposed to an electric arc. But what are the chances of getting a mass balance to within four 9s, from which one can derive a equation showing transmutation of oxygen and several deuterium into nitrogen and hydrogen. The reality is so improbable that no one would even have imagined it. Yet it happened. The overall mechanism seemingly too simple. The coulomb barrier is the electric field repulsion of target and projectile. In a resonance situation, the energy in the electric field is reduced when the energy in the magnetic field is increased. Colder fusion happens by creating atoms whose magnetic field is so strong they can bond. The proof is circular. One must assume and assign unknowns based on them being magnetically bonded atoms. Then with those assumptions and a little math one get a conclusion: a colder fusion occurs because the probability that it happened by chance is ridiculously small. One then works out more a detailed mechanism which shows the greater complexity of the process, numerous details like fusion followed by fission and enough surprises to be irritating to almost everybody. The biggest surprise was that very little of expected energy is produced. One of great mistakes of late 20th century science is to reject a solid conclusion because its has irritating ramifications which if accepted would change everything.…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf

    The funny thing about economics or natural selection is that a number of possible solutions to improve energy production or new life forms must come forward. It seems like such a waste because the selection process eliminates what doesn't compete well. Even if some proposed solution were to become well accepted, it does prevent selection. Solutions keep getting recycled until the current solution is replaced by a better one. The basic problem with green technologies is that they can improve but that improvement will plateau. The basis problems with LENR and energy from undefined sources is that most of it is not based on facts and therefore competes so poorly that it never gets to market.

    Invention will explore facts by proposing hypotheses and doing experiments. Getting experimental results that actual work, would happen sooner, if more people that do the experiments could find a way to share the most relevant facts and if funding were less a result of a few self- chosen powerful and well placed people. Basically, people and power trying to control or survive the selection process to the next round of selection.

    I predict that since fusion at a lower density, confinement time and plasma temperature than the Lawson criterion is a proven fact that when that ignored proof is understood, an energy solution will emerge that is completive with coal. Until that happens so called green solutions will continue to gain market share. The intelligences that drive the selection process can neither be controlled or stopped.

    A combined cycle natural gas fueled power plant actual operates with efficiencies of conversion of chemical energy to electricity with a percentage in the 90s. In order to run a combined cycle plant two very large gas turbines are required. The gas turbines can operate at 60% efficiency. The exhaust heat from both gas turbine is then sent into a heat recovery steam generator HRSG and steam supplies both high pressure and low pressure sides of a steam turbine. The electric power come from three generators; one for each turbine. The size of the operation must be very larger to use the HRSG and thereby get the efficiency. That how it worked when I helped build these units in the late 90s. They still produce CO2.

    With colder fusion, thermodynamics suggest available energy in the order of millions of BTU with an input in the order of thousands of BTU from relative cheap deuterium/oxygen and also from hydrogen/oxygen in a more dense reaction. The thermodynamics are base on thermonuclear fusion. But, thermonuclear fusion uses very structured atoms (see SAM) rather than the electrical segmented atoms which cause colder fusion. That difference is likely the reason that colder fusion produces very little photonic energy. Once we understand what endothermic products are produced by colder fusion, then we should be able improve conversion of those endothermic products to photonic energy. The hope rest firmly on established principles of chemical engineering. The work to get to promise needs as much help as possible.