Posts by Drgenek

Quote from LeBob

Tbh I don't think this is more reasonable but we all have more to learn so I can't say it's impossible. Seems confusing contrived and slightly less intuitive to me though.

Is it? We all know matter can be converted to energy and vice-a versa. Many scientist would even go far enough to say that all we divide to matter and energy is really the effects of the fields involved. If we accept the EBH field then we accept virtual particles that interact to cause mass. So, even if the EBH field is just virtual particles, it has energy or it could not interact with itself or any mass. If it has energy it responds to gravity. So, then the EBH field is a good candidate for both dark energy and dark matter.

Further, to intuit that fields we understand cause dark energy and dark matter it not a big step. Energy is more likely shared between fields that not. What I express as an opinion does push the thought envelope a bit far but I think the pieces of the puzzle likely fit.

You seem to see no alternative to hydrinos or pico chemicals. I think we could easily find the truth. If we had time, money and could measure all the output chemical composition of BLP type experiments (especially gas products), we could see if there is transmutation or not. Until these measurement are make, I think there are answers to energy from BLP type experiments that are more reasonable, less confusing and certainly more in line with known science than hydrinos.

Dark matter very likely is a product of the non-thermonuclear but still nuclear reaction of stars. It is not likely hydrinos because it is not likely that ground level energies have been incorrectly predicted by thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. In the scenario that dark matter and dark energy are the fuel product of colder fusion, the universe consumes mass/energy in generating an ever larger EBH field. In the end or in the before the beginning of a new big bang, all that a some future time will become mass and energy is in this field of virtual Higgs and virtual particle can could be made from the Higgs if only any particle could get enough mass/ energy to become real. Of course gravity eventual brings it all back around with a bang.

Just offering a more reasonable opinion than hydrino dark matter

United States Patent 10,566,094 February 18, 2020 is laser directed at metal hydride with smaller elements doing the real fusion. Hora's recent statement on their approach is two lasers with the net effect of driving hydrogen at boron ( a small element). In my pending patent I indicated that the fusion of small element should be possible by confinement of small elements which have been excited into weak interacting quantum states. The weak interacting quantum states of the target and projectile significantly lower the coulomb barrier.

Quote from LeBob

People are talking about everything besides atleast new chemical phenomina. Instead of making up a fuel form of matter that is somehow synthesised by hard to justify nuclear reactions we could accept that something between nuclear and external electron orbit energies is at play. Deep/lower electron orbits and picometric exothermic reactions seem to be able to account for most of the intreging anomalies in experiments.

We have a free expression of many theories on this forum which are hard to justify. I am as confused by them as anyone.

However, for over 200 years reactions have been justified by stoichiometry. I have presented a justifiable reaction. Don't think for a moment that anyone will skill enough to do the mass balance and stoichiometry will ever come to some other conclusion other than there is fusion of deuterium to oxygen accompanied by the production of hydrogen and nitrogen by an arc to the right gas mixture. The data I used provides that kind of accuracy and precision. The analysis will hold up in a court of law because other than the assumption of magnecules, the analysis and tools I used have are commonly accepted by any practicing chemical engineer. In my world (chemical production engineering) stoichiometry is an undeniable truth.

The analysis I provided for you of a pico-chemical reaction of hydrogen and iron, confirms a fuel. Magnecules are a fuel. That reaction was : a magnetically excited form of hydrogen penetrates into lower orbital of irons transfers energy to magnetically excite iron and the two form a magnecule. That reaction is thermodynamically justified. Hydrinos or energy from like reactions can't be justified by thermodynamics. Rather, a prior nuclear reaction provides the thermodynamic justification by producing a fuel. Undeniable the above Fe to hydrogen reaction occurs only with one isotope of Fe which is a clear indication that the reaction involves the weak nuclear force ( is a form of a nuclear reaction).

Quote from Max Nozin

'Rather fusion depend on states that create a dilation of time space.'

Apart from that it makes all calculations elegant and though experimentd is there any proof of dilation? Same for space curvature. Can physics based on nonsense produce anything sensible?

Why do you regard relativity as non-sense? Gravity does not have to be restricted to the scale of astrometry. That is just a bias. Yes, the theory is elegant. It provides a way to get energy to nuclear reactions via W particles. That has far reaching implications that extend outside the range of this forum to a galactic scale to the majority of energy and mass in the universe. But for this forum, it suggests that since relativity acts in one dimension, it must also cause alignment of nuclei (magnetic or electric depending on relative view point). It creates an expectation of an electroweak attraction to account for magnecules and for a cluster of magnecules. It proposes that when that cluster has sufficient mass and energy (which it collects via relativity), the cluster becomes a nano sized star. It proposes a shielding effect that allow a type of fusion that astrometry teaches only happens in very large stars. But, that is just a explanation.

The fact is based on commonly accepted tools, I was able to derive a state equation for fusion using mass balance, stoichiometry and the assumption of magnecules. Two cascades of fusion reaction steps were derived to support overall state equations. Those cascades provide a greater insight into "colder fusion". Miley has shown direct measurement of these dense (hydrogen- quasi-neutron) clusters in LENR. But my explanation goes further. The state equations show the nuclear activation of oxygen and fusion of hydrogen to oxygen. These cascades are a more energetic form of colder fusion than proton fusion to helium. Not withstanding that further interpretation of that same data suggests proton fusion to helium can happen.

The disappointing fact is that state equations don't explain what happens to the expected energy. Given that disappointment, I understand if you are more interested the various LENR efforts which currently do not have that disappointing expectation. I don't see the lack of heat production as a reason to end research. Rather, I have shown that there is a fuel produced by colder fusion. I expect one day to see the recovery of most of the energy from the fuel produced by colder fusion.

Quote from Max Nozin

Formation of net type ofolecular magnetic bond. I.e Magnecule

There are magnecules. Is Santilli's explanation of them good? I think not. It doesn't explain how hydrogen gets to a dense state.

Rather fusion depend on states that create a dilation of time space. Santilli rejects this conclusion even though it is based on data that he generated. I congratulated him on achieving intermediate fusion. I shared the analysis that proved it but he would have nothing to do with it unless I came to work for him for free, so we could work it out together. Sorry but for me science is facts. Theories are fun but they are a dime for a dozen and most become just an opinion without an actionable basis. Magnecule have a better explanation that Santilli's.

From the book “The Nature of Nature: The Discovery of SuperWaves and How It Changes Everything”

"…We can entice open systems to become both more compressed and hotter by creating highly peaking nested wave patterns. …

This is how to do it: Pulse waves in the form of so-called electricity, in large arcing waves. Then pulse waves into the peaks of those waves. Then pulse smaller waves yet into the inner peaks of those waves. Unlike Thomas Edison’s direct current, with is a straight line or Nikola Tesla’s alternating current, which alternates around an axis of a straight line, this is a “current” pulsed in the pattern of the SuperWaves IC fractal.

With this carrier-wave pulse, the inner clusters of SuperWaves (the hydrogen atoms) will themselves pulse and pulse in ever-increasing frequency-amplitudes, until they compress – until they sprout a new level of complexity and become what we recognize as a helium atom."

That new level of complexity is weak interacting quantum states. I have report that sonic cavitation does fusion in my pending patent. As you know, I propose the fusion is hydrogen to oxygen with the production of some unknown fuel product. The fuel product reacts with hydrogen. The kinetics of that reaction is in my pending patent. It would then follow that reaction recovers some portion of the fuel product energy.

@ DrRichard Awesome discovery. Does anyone know if any better yield from a colder form of fusion has ever been reported?

There seem to be several reports over many years of a magnet improving electrolysis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/…abs/pii/S0360319911023500

https://www.chemistryworld.com…n-economy/3010618.article https://cen.acs.org/physical-c…ield-water/97/web/2019/06

Quote from Dr Richard

You would need positrons to generate X17 particles, so where would these positrons come from in BLP's reactor? Possibly from positive Kaon-Pion-Muon decay to positrons as described in Holmlid's setup? A wide range of possible particles result from intense electrical discharges, including neutrons etc, as observed from thunderstorms/ball lightning effects - so which reactions underly BLP's electrical discharge mediated claims of excess energy remain open I think?

There are indeed a wide range of possible particles. Further, the energy could remain in the fusion product (transmutation product mostly nitrogen) for a relative long time. I believe the quickest way to know what reactions are available to claim the fusion reaction energy is to study the decay of magnecules and work backward to what combination of atoms and possible particles creates stable magnecules. I believe that the majority product of colder fusion must be very stable or must travel a considerable distance from the reactor before it decays. It could be as stable as dark matter or perhaps it is the dominant form of dark matter or perhaps the reactions in the chromosphere of sun harvest it. That is to say I assumes that fusion of hydrogen and fusion of hydrogen to oxygen generate a group of related particles and decay pathways.

Quote from Dr Richard

then it would prove that such an energy source would be impossible to harness as BLP have found to their cost over the last 30 yrs or so - without reaching some equilibrium in energy release on high current stimulation the reactors just explode, as they have clearly demonstrated. Any suggestions for a way out of this? Trying to be positive!

In the BLP case the innermost reaction chamber should cause fusion and a new second layer of liquid metal/current should be used to harvest the radiation of the inner chamber. In this way the rate of production of fuel is disconnected from the means of conversion of fuel to energy. Only the inner chamber should be fed any oxygen (water). The outer chamber should be engineered to as high of equilibrium temperature as possible for the heat/light recovery system. One desires fusion and radiant (particle) transfer from the inner chamber and heat production without fusion in outer chamber. Ignition of the flow in the inner chamber would only be needed until the reaction in the outer chamber can supply that energy by heat flow. The fluid of the second chamber would be selected based on trial to find what will capture and reacts with the majority product of colder fusion. So there you have a rough idea of what is needed with some big holes.

Quote from Alan Smith

For those who would like to know more about x-17...

Also consider

Quote from Dr Richard

Makes it look like the 'hydrino' effect only lasts for a few seconds then fizzles out -

It is a short effect. I see it in the experiments I have conducted. I believe the essential particles and fields are the same as for BLP. One doesn't combine the same particles and same fields to get different results. Physics has never worked that way. The BLP process is a form of colder fusion driven by relativity where the effects of relativity are created by weak interacting quantum states. The quick loss of heat is because the energy is converted to a fuel. Most likely a particle like X-17.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Is "splitting of" what does not happen in Holmlids case. Activation yes - always, no way around!

Holmlid is looking at proton to proton fusion or as you claim a fusion chain that produces helium. The data in my patent is for fusion to oxygen. The fusion to oxygen follows an alpha ladder (without helium rather uses hydrogen or deuterium or neutrons produced from hydrogen). In fusion from water the source of the deuterium or helium is unknown. The end transmutation product (nitrogen-14 by fission of Si) is the same as with deuterium. However, in a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen there is no evidence of any intermediate formation of helium. So if holmlid gets helium, then what happens for him is not using the same mechanism as when oxygen is present. Also please note that the reactions I have studied are not expected to depend on metal catalyst so that could be a factor in the fusion pathway.

Quote from Wyttenbach

As Holmlid did show cold fusion also works with Hydrogen thus your model has some holes.

The data analysis in my pending patent shows the cold fusion in the case of AquaFuel must work with hydrogen. Holmid's work does confirm clusters as predicted in my model also. I am not familiar with any fusion evidence by Homid that didn't use a laser. If a surface is involved then there could still be activation. Activation: the input of energy to overcome a barrier.

Quote from Jarek

But we are not talking abut weak/strong force here - which are negligible above a few fm distance.

We are talking about getting to this a few fm distance, which needs investing hundreds of keVs.

The formation of weak bosons are restricted to a few fm distance. Only the weak force cause transformation (excluding color). So "colder fusion" would involve the weak force at some point.

We don't need to abandon the coulomb barrier to explain "colder fusion". As you indicate we only need to explain how to bridge the coulomb barrier. The charge is not screened by orbiting electrons. The alternative is confinement by gravity. Not gravity per Newton but per relativity. You can read my pending patent for a crude model of how that might happen.

Why waste your time on theory. "Colder fusion" occurs. You can verify that result yourself from publicly available certified lab data. You can repeat the calculations I did. There are a few reasonable assumption needed to identify unknowns in the mass spectroscopic data but using relativity to explain magnecules provides a basis for identification of unknowns. So if you have skills in mass balance and stoichiometry, you will get a data derived equation of state for a transmutation reaction. A little further reasoning and you get the whole sequence of transmutations.

Conclusion colder fusion requires an energy input which energy first causes photodisintegration of deuterium and then absorption of neutrons, followed by an orientation specific lowering of coulomb barrier as a result of screening due to giant nuclear resonance. Not quite what you propose but essential the same concept.

Quote from Alan Smith

It's not in the sun that is interesting, it is what happens in the chromosphere and the corona - which are several orders of magnitude hotter than the surface.

Yes, I have mentioned this before. Kinetic modeling of the conversion of fuel (unknown fuel product from weak-interacting state based fusion) to heat indicated the heat output increases with temperature. The nano sized clusters predicted by this kind of fusion could be a match for nano flares in the sun. Hence, in this model it is conversion of fuel from fusion that causes the temperature distribution of the chromosphere.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Lets wait for the new results from the solar mission. Then we might know how the sun produces its energy (LENR in corona??) . The classic model seems to be to simplistic and thus nonsensical... The key question is how deuterium is produced.

Curiously, there was evidence of deuterium production from hydrogen in the reaction of deuterium contaminated by atmospheric gas caused by a electric arc from carbon electrodes. On that basis I substituted in the state equation 2 hydrogens for deuterium and then used that state equation to solve the mass balance of the reaction of a carbon arc in water. The result showed de novo production of nitrogen, hence, the assumption of hydrogen to hydrogen fusion supported. Perhaps hydrogen to hydrogen fusion occurs or perhaps a chain of activated (magnetronite hydrogen) is involved. The laser on catalyst experiments seem to support production of a chain of hydrogen.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Lenr isn't complicated, blah blah, negative resistance regime, blah blah, evos. Blah blah blah. Rossi's technology works, blah blah....

LENR is complicated if you try to make a reproducible experiment with power out greater than power in. Saying it is simple makes one a fool.

LENR is difficult for the reasons Zephir_AWT states. However, simple processes like a laser interacting with metal particles in water, a laser interacting with metal particles in a hydrogen atmosphere, an arc via carbon electrodes in water, an arc through deuterium contaminated with atmospheric gas, an oxidation reduction chemical reaction at high energy yield and with < 1% water (BLP), and cavitation in water all likely do nuclear fusion. Why? Because basics tools of chemistry have been used to prove an equation of state where hydrogen fuses to oxygen in an electric arc.

Fellow fusion enthusiasts, fusion like in the sun may seem to be a reasonable reaction for LENR. Yet, the data is saying that non-thermonuclear fusion occurs differently. Look beyond the sun. Look beyond the proton-proton chain, the CNO cycle or the triple alpha process. The data suggest that the reactions are a version of the alpha ladder that starts with oxygen.

I have heard the big objection before "that kind of fusion only occurs in very dense stars". Opinion is one thing, science is another. I for one would rather discussion data than opinions. If I am fool for laying it out so simple then show me what is wrong.

Here is table summary the three runs reported.

The reactant input (~1% water vapor in atomic hydrogen that was flowed into the cell) would contribute to heat gain. The amount of flow per 40 cm³ Ga is not given. If both flows into the cell are part of the steady state prior to ignition, then both these heat flow into the cell are accounted at the initial temperature. Most of recombination energy should have been evolved over the Pt. A failure to run the inputs at steady state would be a big error.

Quote from Dr Richard

.........because the rate of UDH synthesis is very slow and is in equilibrium with the reverse reaction perhaps? Need to discover better catalysts to increase the concentration of UDH to increase the probability of subsequent fusion reactions. Which is why Norront Fusion are screening for other catalysts.

I would like to understand UDH. Can you suggest where to start? I need experimental reports and data. I want to compare various explanation of BLP or Norront fusion results.