Drgenek Verified User
  • Member since Jul 29th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Drgenek

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Define "large result. And quote the study please.

    My definition of large result is > 10 X average precipitation background for the year in which the experiment was conducted. (Background tritium has varied by factor of 1000X between 1970s and now).

    I agree the size of the result does make a difference. A mole hill may be a significant result in the surrounding plain. However, if the practical result needed is a mountain, then claiming to be able to make a mountain from a mole hill is silly.


    Likewise, when the interpretation of results of studies claiming fusion outside of Lawson criterion are not tied to fusion reaction by stoichiometry, then what is there to say that any significant energy based on measurement isn't measuring a process completely different than the claimed fusion? The energy could be coming the conversion of dark energy or who knows what else.


    For this reason, I believe that only mass balance and stoichiometry, (as I have provided) is reasonable evidence of cause and effect of fusion outside of Lawson criterion. Even with cause and effect established by mass balance and stoichiometry, other expected measures such as gamma rays or magnitude of heat produced was not seen. That doesn't invalidate cause and effect it only indicates that the mechanism is different and a need for further study.


    The assumed cause of an effect is more believable when the size of result can be applied to engineer an application to a need. Even then as in case of Santilli's Magnegas, a lack of proof of cause and effect can lead to financial failure.

  • LENR Theories Discussion.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    I already explained it once or twice. First real ball lightening has been produce by a Brazil researcher just by luck. An electric arc travelled over silicon dust along a window and bang! as sphere flew away. So the center of this sphere have been strongly positive silicon atoms. All Evos have atomic centers! I never did hear that one could produce them under vacuum....

    Here is a letter which could change your mind.Richard Feynman letter to Ken Shoulder.pdf

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from Cydonia

    Does this mean in your mind a chemistry involvement ?

    Reactions happen that are chemical and nuclear. In either case mathematical theory requires a balanced equation. In the case of Santilli's ICFP and AquaFuel a combination of mass balance and stoichiometry indicate not a single elementary balanced equation, but a sequence of balanced equations occurs. One good way to explain this is that the reaction occurs on a surface, hence the idea of a cluster-based reaction in a gaseous medium. Further, high energy is required to overcome the coulomb barrier (except if cold fusion exists) and high energy products would be produced if not in some way converted to something else. One good way to explain this is that the cluster uses the energy available and redistributes it. Which distribution includes an energy high enough to overcome the coulomb barrier. Further, part of that energy redistribution is responsible for absorbing energy from nuclear reactions. Hence, an accelerator/ energy absorber model. There are others in this forum with versions of such a model.


    The next questions are: What is the mechanism of this accelerator/ energy absorber? What data and analysis might increase or decrease the probability of the model? I will address that next in the thread for the purpose.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from Storms

    Drgenek, you are not describing cold fusion. You are describing an entirely different phenomenon for which no experimental observation exists. I suggest you are in the wrong discussion group. As for my being submissive, if you can not tell the difference between imagination and reality, you have problems far beyond cold fusion. I see nothing wrong with using imagination but its use needs to be clearly identified.

    The word was dismissive, not submissive. Your respond indicates you are doing exact what I suggested you would. You say it not cold fusion. Correct it is catalyzed fusion. The rest of your response shows just how dismissive. How you want me to go to some other discussion group. You even got personal. If you rather not discuss catalyzed fusion, that's fine. As I say this discussion is better on another thread.


    As for no experimental observations exist, my derived balance nuclear reaction equation is based on measurements. Measurements are observations. I presented the basis with all its assumptions in a thread for that purpose. Things are very clearly defined. The mass balance and stoichiometry are standard tools in my profession. I have degrees, long experience and I am good at it. All will be explained in that thread due time. Thanks for your interest. Hope to see you on a different thread.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from Storms

    I can solve all of these problems using my model. Can you?

    Yes, I can for catalysis. But comparison of my model and your is like comparing apples and oranges.


    The first difference is that your model is in or on a solid and mine works in a gas and likely will explain what happens in dislocation loops a solid. The second is your reaction is between hydrogen or deuterium. From the data derived balance nuclear equation, you should see that deuterium-to-deuterium fusion happens in case of catalysis. If you read my latest post in the other thread where I explain in the detail (which needed for a good analysis), you should see that there can be hydrogen to hydrogen fusion. However, the stoichiometry indicates fusion of hydrogen or deuterium produces oxygen. Further the main nuclear reaction sequence includes the reactions in the alpha cycle but terminates by fission to nitrogen. If oxygen is present, then oxygen is the main target of hydrogen fusion. In catalysis the coulomb barrier is not lowered rather the distribution of energy available from the catalysis supplies the MeV energies necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier.


    I will not compare these things further in this thread because the facts and details of the analysis matter. You can just say the stoichiometry can't possibly be true and your believers will just go along. Likewise, you can be dismissive in other reasonable conclusions which you can call just imagination. Discussion here will prevent people from reading what they would need to understand my model. They would believe the lie that stoichiometry is fake. So, the discussion would be promotion rather than discussion of analysis and facts. I don't believe in consensus science: it is too political. As I said these things will be made clear in due time in the other thread.

  • Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

    If no nuclear reaction occurs in Santilli's ICFP, then it should not be possible to use the data from his patent application to derive a balanced nuclear reaction equation. There is no conspiracy in this analysis. The data was produced and certified by an independent lab. I was not involved in Santilli's experiment. Santilli was not involved in my analysis. I have listed the logic step by step so that anyone with sufficient skill and a spreadsheet should be able to replicate the analysis. Here is the slide for the stoichiometry.


    The derived equation shows an accuracy of 4 decimal places. The expected accuracy of gas spectroscopy is 3 ppmv. Therefore, the accuracy is to the limit of measurement. Since the stoichiometry is not fake, one concludes the reactions happen.


    What does the equation tell us? 7 deuterium atoms combine with one oxygen atom and in that process produce two hydrogen atoms and two nitrogen atoms. A sequence of elementary nuclear reactions has been identified which could combine to explain the overall reaction equation.


    This sequence is only slightly different than the alpha cycle proposed for the reaction sequence in heavy stars. The containment found in heavy stars allows fusion of hydrogen to oxygen. Hence a catalyst which functions as a heavy star would explain the derived equation. The catalyst provides a distribution of energy which includes the energy necessary to overcome the coulomb barrier. Particles accelerated by extreme gravity could obtain that energy. The high kinetic energy could be contained by gravity. I believe that such a catalysis is a good model.


    One way to test the equation is to apply it to account for gas composition produced by an electric arc in water. Here is a pdf that does that Application of the Kidman Reaction to AquaFuel.pdf

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    This discussion would be great on LENR Theories Discussion. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) Is your theory summarized well in post#2?

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from Storms

    Rather than discuss nonsense based on imagination, why not discuss actual measurements and actual behavior? As for being convincing, I'm at a loss to understand how much more evidence a person needs. Dozens of experts working at major laboratories have produced the effect hundreds of times. We only need the will and money to apply the understanding.

    Yes, we will gain more from analysis of actual measurements. In principle heat production is a matter of increasing the number of nuclear active catalysts or in your theory NAE. Agreed that the "weight" of the data supports that fusion outside Lawson criterion is real. As for the money, economic principles drive that.


    Unfortunately, the nonsense based on imagination is not all nonsense (really who can truthy judge, consensus science is true until it isn't). Further, the real problem is that no amount of promotion will change a best guess into an engineerable design.


    As for me, I don't mine the imaginative suggestions, but I follow the facts regardless of opinions. I haven't been right about everything I have shared on this forum. However, see above, I found a derived balanced equation that is accurate to four decimal places (which also is the limit of the measurement method). So, I let the data suggest where to go next. I trust the data more than consensus science.


    You do good work. I know because I have found analysis of it to provide fundamental insights.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    If Edmund Storms solved the problem of cold nuclear fusion and performed reproducible experiments, then I propose to seriously discuss his solution at the Forum LENR.

    Ed is very popular on this forum. His work is promoted because it has been valued. His work is promoted in more threads than anyone else. Some of them are very long. So, his work has been seriously discussed. It just isn't convincing for the reasons indicated by Huxley. The measurements are valid, but heat yields are too small to justify a commercial approach.


    In contrast R Santilli had a busy doing millions of dollars of sales. However, his science was rejected even by people close to him, he was excluded from the business, the business was sold, the buyers tried to use their better conventional understanding to improve the business and therefore they run it to bankruptcy.


    An explanation of nuclear fusion in AquaFuel and for Santilli's business can be derived by chemical engineering science. Stoichiometry can't be faked. This data should meet Huxley standard if he would look at it.



    We can use this science to benefit mankind today: it been done. It seems to me serious attention should be applied to more useful approaches than Ed Storms'.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

    You're a good plagiarist, but you write more about electrogravity, it's very good for me, write. Yes, did I give this data to 25 ICCF? Where did you get the electric gravity, we'll see, but I have everything

    In T. Matsumoto’s introduction in “Steps to the Discovery of Electro-Nuclear Collapse” (January 5, 2000) he says:


    “Far in the universe, a large amount of stars repeat their generation and depletion. Neutron stars and black holes could be produced by gravitational collapse of those massive stars. However, similar reactions should be easily induced by the electromagnetic force, since it is about 40 orders stronger than the gravitational force. Recently, during the study of so-called Cold Fusion (CF) phenomena, the author discovered a nuclear collapse which was directly induced by the electromagnetic force (August 25, 1990). The phenomenon was called Electro-Nuclear Collapse (ENC), which was one of the most remarkable ENRs. (ENR, Electro-Nuclear Reaction).


    I have referred to force in Matsumoto work as electrogravity rather than electro-nuclear collapse but that is not plagiarism. I used the term electrogravity to define via a mathematical model the exact value of the gravitation constant which couples “pseudo-electrons”. A partial description of the analysis, math and logic to show Matsumoto likely did indeed photograph blackholes is not appropriate to this thread but I intent to provide a pdf with a full description in the other thread.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    When I joined LENR forum I wanted to discuss nuclear reactions that occur without meeting the Lawson Criterion. Is LENR even real? Perhaps LENR isn't real; it depends on how one defines it. What is real is fusion without meeting the Lawson Criterion. I hope by my participation in this forum that people would become curious about a proof I have. I believe that anyone logical enough and with at least the skill to follow the logic and put numbers into a spreadsheet can verify A Data Derived Balanced Equation for ICFP.pdf


    Over my years on this forum, I have produced other analyses to provide a more complete understanding of how this kind of fusion happens. I link here to string for that discussion.

    Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)

  • LENR Theories Discussion.

    A charge cluster is electrons held together as a cluster. The obvious objection is why would electrons be held together since they are negatively charge and should repel each other. Yet, they exist and have been photographed. After years of study Ken Shoulder express amazement of these objects which he called EVs.


    “This is a very complex process; it is a wonder that anyone has figured out anything about it, even if it has taken over 80 years... And then a miracle happens. Somehow, out of this mess an EV emerges. If there was ever an example of how order is created out of chaos, this is it. I have not been privy to the finest details of this birth because it is a deep dark secret, veiled by a high density of particles moving like mad hornets around a despoiled nest. What I have seen, by observing from the outside with an electron camera, is an EV emerging from the plasma cloud.”


    Electrical potential is simple to calculate. As the number of electrons in a cluster increases, the potential on negative test charge increase. If the cluster is big enough the potential would be large enough to convert to kinetic energy large enough to overcome the coulomb barrier.

    Hence, if one can explain the transfer of kinetic energy to the fusion process and how a charge cluster forms, one may have a mathematically simple theory for LENR. That is what I intend to do in the thread Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)

  • Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

    Quote from Drgenek

    The object of this thread is to discuss cold fusion data and analysis of that data particularly as the experiments relate to ball lightening, charge clusters and gravitational effects. A further object is to suggest that an explanation which summarizes these observations could be called electrogravity. However, perhaps a better term would be electron-gravity. I intend to show that unique states of electrons cause a form of gravity which gravity creates an energy distribution which energy distribution catalyzes nuclear reactions.


    The involvement of gravity in cold fusion is like seeing a purple cow. It is a hard thing to see as real. So, there will be many pieces to fit together until what is logical from the start becomes real.

    There is a link for a pdf of a powerpoint with notes in post #1. A second link to continue the presentation is in post #14.


    A data derived balanced nuclear equation provides a high degree of certainty that the nuclear reaction occurs.


    It matters to some. If one believes in some LENR theory, then whatever the one writes their believers believe. If one is a hard skeptic, one believes nothing and would not dignify what one rejects out right by examining it. But for those who just want good science, there is a price to pay. One must put in the effort to understand.


    The presentation in this post provides the logic and analysis to show a data derived balanced nuclear reaction equation, the Kidman Reaction. I challenge you to check it out in your own spreadsheet. Ask about it. Is it significant?

    A Data Derived Balanced Equation for ICFP.pdf

  • The Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) as the cause of the vacuum reaction.

    The ideal that "matter does not eventually aggregate inside a central blackhole" is the conjecture of the analysis of the Swartzschild equation in the slide in post # 1374.


    If there is a quantum limit to smallest mass, charge or combination of mass and charge, then that quanta limits mass density and there can be no singularity. Hence, one rewrites the Swartzchild equation to balance kinetic energy to gravitation potential energy. So, the limit speed which Swartzschild proposed to be the speed of light is the extreme point of balance of these energies. Anyone familiar with the electromagnetic force understands that the magnetic torque increases as the relative speed between charged particles increases. So, the limit speed expresses the point at which the shear tears particles apart. But to what? To some fundamental particle from which everything else is composed. Hence, assumption to prediction: assume such particle, multiply both sides of Swartzschild equation to create the balance point and one find just what one expects.


    So, limit kinetic energy at which disintegration happens is a ratio of the number of fundamental particles to the radius of planetoid. Small mass blackholes have a small radius. Large mass blackholes have a large radius. The fundamental radiation from a blackhole fills space. It expands spaces. It is a particle which accomplishes the task of "dark energy".


    The proton 10 lab experiments indicate that any element can be built up by combining the fundamental particles. The only attempt that I am aware of to show the fundamental composes all particle in the standard model is "Particles, Primes, and "Cold Fusion" by Hrushovetz at ICCF-7. Are you curious enough to look at it?

  • The Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) as the cause of the vacuum reaction.

    Blackholes produced by cold fusion are the conclusion of analysis of the photographs of these objects by T. Matsumoto. Matsumoto's blackholes don't swallow the surrounding mass and get larger. Rather, a general rule for blackholes is that the smaller a blackhole is the faster it disintegrates. It appears therefore that getting additional mass into these blackholes limits how destructive they can be. There are observations by Russians at proton 10 labs where they had a "black spot" that they force- fed. If I remember right, it spit out the force-fed matter but transmutated it. Therefore, small blackholes which are also small mass likely don't possess a singularity. Take a look at this analysis of the Swartzschild equation.

    Hence, there is a quantum-gravity solution where some kind charged particle is the fundamental from which everything else is composed.

  • The Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) as the cause of the vacuum reaction.

    All particles exist in states that may be characterized by a certain energy, momentum and mass. In most of the Standard Model of particle physics, particles of the same type cannot exist in another state with all these properties scaled up or down by a common factor – electrons, for example, always have the same mass regardless of their energy or momentum. But this is not always the case: massless particles, such as photons, can exist with their properties scaled equally. This immunity to scaling is called "scale invariance"


    Suppose a W- particle is produced by beta decay. It has a mass but not an invariant mass. Since, when it decays it produces a beta particle and an antineutrino and the sum of the masses and energy are distributed between the neutrino and the beta particle. There is range of energy for the beta particle and we can't measure the range for the antineutrino. If the antineutrino is massless, one can claim scale invariance but not so if the neutrino has mass.


    So, consider Pharis Williams' phat equation. Let an electron-neutrino combination (W-) exist with scale variance but in defined states such that the energy/mass combined is E=n2(~13.6 eV). On one end of this range of states the decay produces a proton, an electron, an antineutrino and .07824260693 Mev and on the other end the combination is a neutron. One doesn't need all that energy as part of first state rather only something near ~13.6 eV. One can do a fitting to define the states using special relativity. Then the various states of "unparticles" is presumptively true if a precise fitting exists. One finds there are 240 states. The value (~ 13.6 eV) becomes more precisely 13.58378414 eV and the value of the anti-neutrino mass is 0.108670274 eV. The n=1 state is a hydrogen atom which is not quite ionized. Further, higher order states require that the electron possess the state. So, these states exist without the need for a proton. So, the phat equation then becomes the means of defining the unparticle states of the electron. These higher order states define interaction between the electrons which possess. Hence, one can define the state of any cluster of electrons. A cluster of electrons has been called an EVO.


    Of course, this all seems like just strange math suggestions that you would never justify by verifying it yourself. So, have you fun but at the expense of not knowing what truth you could have understood.


    A cluster of electrons create an electrical potential on an electron. So, electrons are forced out of cluster of electrons with an energy that is proportional to the number of electrons in the cluster. Further, since these higher order electrons posse the states, the electron cluster can be infested with protons or deuterons without significantly affecting these higher order states. Ed Storms has measured energies of ejected deuterons in the MeV range. The point being that deuterons in this energy range should be able to cause nuclear reactions. So, if these higher order state of the electrons do exist as quantum states, then the energies of ejected deuterons should correlate to energy of this higher order states of electrons.



    What is the chance that the analysis fits so well if the there is no truth to whole "unparticle" thing? Could it be there is actual math to back-up the whole cold fusion thing?

  • Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    What ever word you add to gravity its just nonsense! Fusion is a complex process that involves different layers of action as the nuclear structure is formed in steps. The classic idea of a nuclear force was refuted (falsified) quite a long time ago. If two Deuterium touch at rest nothing will happen. If they touch spin aligned then D*-D* may come into live where in the case of D*-D* this can be several steps to more stronger electro weak D***-D*** bonds. Where the exact starting point of the D-D meta stable state occurs is an other discussion.


    So as Göthe ones said in Faust: If you don't understand it invent a new word...

    Electronuclear gravity is Matsumoto's term, not mine. For him nuclei can ferment. When that happens a cloud of positrons and electrons would surround something. Next fermented thing goes supernova. It sheds a net like structure and what is left produces a number of particles that exceed 3 quarks per nucleon by at least 100-fold. He called the thing after the supernova a black hole. The net structure and the production of an enormous number of particles was recorded on film. The theory seems really wild. But it is too soon to discuss this as the evidence will follow in a later pdf.

  • Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

    Quote from GRMattson

    What about the combining of two neutron stars producing heavy elements? It's easy to see the overlapping gravitational fields causing a release of material, but what confines that material, or does it get confined?

    ?

    I think that when combining two neutron stars their masses would be drawn to a center of gravity.


    If you throw a ball in the air, kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy. Because of that conversion the ball will fall to the ground. That is a form of containment.


    To escape earth's gravity, one has to think about obtaining an escape velocity.


    Containment by universal gravity on the scale of atoms isn't going to happen because universal gravity is too weak. So, Matsumoto proposed that some rearrangement of atomic nuclei created electronuclear gravity.


    After providing the necessary details to provide convincing evidence for a balance nuclear reaction. I will proceed to analysis the presumptive answer that some form of gravity stronger than universal gravity provides containment for cold fusion.

  • Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

    From the pdf in post #1, it is suggested that based on derived balanced nuclear reaction that conventional wisdom indicates that fusion to produce high atomic weight atoms only occurs in supernova. Further, a reaction that involves 8 inputs suggests the reaction would need to keep all the elementary nuclear reactions confined so that the reactions occur as a sequence. The evidence is like looking at a purple cow. One feels like rejecting the evidence out right but there it is.


    So, in this post the pdf provides context for the data used to derive the balanced nuclear equation, the Kidman reaction.

    Basis for the Kidman Reaction, ideas and data.pdf