Posts by Drgenek

Agreed:

1) A local drop in the Coulomb barrier would could result in colder fusion and the closer the containment is the Lawson criteria the greater the fusion and resultant nuclear reactions.

2) Given stable pico-chemistry, then when a sample is introduced into a mass spectrometer, the different mass sectors could have unknowns.

If hydrinos could create stable pico-chemistry, there would appear unknown elements in mass sectors in mass spectrometry. For example if the unknown were a mass like copper but could not produce an excitation or absorption spectra like copper. If the pico-chemical states are unstable outside of the matrix, then the spectra would change with time due to decay. If the reactions produce enough pico-chemistry, it is likely there true identity can be discovered. We would just need to learn the rules that determine pico-chemical bonding. Which becomes very easy if dense hydrogen states are not stable or are magnecules. A magnecule bonds like a magnet to a magnet, hence has no rules for bonding.

So given enough information it is possible to distinguish "pico-chemistry" from transmutation.

Dufour says the hydrex concept is based the hypothesis that at "a short distance from the proton, the electron/proton interaction must take into account the action of the electron on the quarks of the proton (polarizability of the proton)." He then proposes an energy minimum for a state above the ground state (5 to 10 fm in size) with a life time in days that reverts to normal hydrogen with emission of a photon. He supposes that the hydride lattice contributes to yield this different proton/electron recombination than the one yielding the normal hydrogen atom observed in free space. Fusion/fission then happens due to a local decrease in the Coulomb barrier and in a local overlapping of the nuclear wave function of the target and projectile. So basically pico-chemistry of hydrogen forced by high concentrations of hydrogen in a metal hydride that converts to fusion followed by fission.

Does anyone have a more up to date understanding of Dufour's concept that is different than above? Does it seem reasonable that hydrinos which are below the ground state could have similar reactions? What would be the basis for hydrinos causing a local decrease in the Coulomb barrier to fusion?

Quote from LeBob

But you are right if you were talking about completely annialating these H* condensates being the best energetic use. All cause you supposedly get high energy electrons and neutrinos mostly as a byproduct. Fusion/fission as we know them traditionally in isolation, though useful, aren't the endgame. Hydrogen metal pico-chemistry (catalyzed dense matter) would do all well with waste/chamber walls that isn't ionizing after years or at all, after that the next step is turning matter directly into electricity/light. Correct me if I'm wrong please 😅🙏🏽, assuming this is all real.

Help me with definitions. Is H* a dense state of matter that has released energy (hydrino) or a dense state of matter due to added energy and therefore and energy source relative to the ground state? Is the pico-chemistry due to magnetic bonding or what force? Are you suggesting that if a hydrino state, then as a below the ground state is should be better for high energy waste containment? If H* is energized above the ground state but produces little high energy radiation after transmutation, then what comes out to balance mass and energy? Strange radiation? Neutrinos without high energy electrons? Some matter- antimatter picochemistry without baryons? Some new positive and negative masses that bind by picochemistry to the transmutation product? If the output of these nuclear processes is equal amounts of matter and antimatter, then annihilation to directly produce electricity/light should be possible, right?

A nanostar would be a dense hydrogen cluster but each hydrogen state has a half-life. In theory one uses the decay time of a non-nuclear region neutron and the % neutron-like character to calculate the decay time. The assumption is that decay time and time dilation are the same effect. Since, special relativity causes both decay time and "density" (contraction of space), each atom's decay time and density is correlated. The cluster is held together by the polarization of the atom due to relativity and the magnitude of that attraction increases with amount of energy of above the ground state in each atom. So the cluster has a density function across its radius and is not composed of uniform density atoms. I suppose the most non star like characteristic is that nanostar is mostly a condensed state. The most plasma like atoms are lower energy and mostly on the outside of the cluster. Hence, to get the most transmutation from the cluster, free it from its LENR cage or make them without a using a matrix and accelerate the cluster or the target, so that when they collide, on collision the energetic high density atoms ( those with the lowest barrier to fusion) become exposed to the target and react. Since reaction is a function of kinetic energy (energy needed to overcome the coulomb barrier), the most interesting experimental space becomes experiments that mix a plasma with these non-plasma nanostars.

What do you think is that a spaceship engine?

Quote from Shane D.

Dennis Bushnell of NASA is still speaking positive about LENR. Some other good information in the article, so read it all:

https://medium.com/@timventura…-spaceflight-315210742679

Dennis Bushnell also says when talking about LENR :"It seems that you can get around Coulomb barrier by forming ultra weak neutrons using heavy electrons."

I does anyone have a reference to using heavy electrons to form ultra weak neutrons? What is the theory that makes heavy electrons? If we had heavy electrons, isn't that muon fusion?

This technology seems similar to mine. Colder fusion reduces the positive charge of fusion reactants, hence reduces the Coulomb barrier. One can calculated the % of neutron-like character based on ratio of the energy required for the weak-interacting quantum state relative to energy required to transform an electron, a neutrino and a proton to a neutron. The shielding factor can then be used in the equation for the coulomb barrier to calculate how much less energy is required for fusion. Unfortunately, colder fusion is a multi-body problem.

Because there are 240 quantum states between hydrogen ionization and neutron formation (13.5878925 eV to 0.7824260693 Mev), and all these states are formed at the same time and they all have dipoles, a cluster of neutron-like atoms at various step towards formation of a neutron form a cluster which is like a nano-size star. This nano-star is likely the true character of an NAE in LENR.

From https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/10637-pharis-pdf/

Weak Nuclear Force – Non-singular forces for different particles do not satisfy Newton’s Third Law. Within the DT, relativistic quantum mechanics for unlike particles produces the Yang-Mills equations. This means that weak nuclear forces are actually non-singular forces between unlike particles at nuclear distances.

In one of Pharis's books he proposes that the standard model can be replace with one where protons and neutrons are replaced by combinations of electrons and anti-electrons. So one step further than suggested by John Duffield above.

Quote from Dr Richard

maybe you could illustrate your power production mechanism with a diagram?

It's not a device. It's changes of state (like chemistry that extends to nuclear change). The diagrams are a list of steps in a process and balanced equations. If you want a diagram for the device Santilli used to produce samples, then look at his patent application. If you want to see how Richardson produced Aquafuel, I think there is a U-tube video. You have focused on devices for a long time. A good engineer can use many different device as means to accomplish a process step.

Quote from Alan Smith

Do you mean that you have statistical proof of your claims that are confirmed by an experiment you have performed based on actual analysis and measurement of transmutations, or do you mean that you have statistical support that a hypothesis you have formulated is (possibly or definitely) correct? I must confess to being unclear.

The proofs are based on measurement of chemical composition (chemical analysis). The disclosure uses reputable records from the prior art. In one embodiment certified data from an independent lab was the basis for an enabling analysis, and in another embodiment the data originates with NASA. I used tools common to any chemical engineer for analysis. For the 1st proof I used reasonable assumptions, mass balances, and solved for stoichiometry, verified assumption with data out comes and then found the individual collision steps which sum to the overall data derived balanced nuclear equation from stoichiometry. In the second verification I used the NASA data, an assumption based on the balance nuclear equation based of the 1st proof, and mass balance. Both of these proof show large amounts of transmutation. Since you can repeat the math and verify the data sources, then you can judge for yourself if the hypothesis is possibly or definitely correct.

Quote from Dr Richard

Can you suggest a simple device built around the basic concepts of your patent application (similar maybe to the Mizuno reactor or Takahashi's dry powder Cu/Ni/ZrO2 reactor) which could work as a simple heater with very low power consumption? Something eminently simple and practical that any idiot like myself could put together in the middle of nowhere (akin to an energy-saving light-bulb) ?

A device producing heat is not the correct way to use concepts in the invention, rather producing a fuel and using that fuel is. However, a device and heat guy like yourself could follow the description in paragraph 0113 re with Stringham et al. I don't know how long the foil will produce heat by just heating it. So you would want to make more active foil to keep producing excess "after heat". Perhaps you could design a way to switch from producing the active foil and getting heat from it. I would think it would be more productive to capture the fuel which likely vaporizes from water (which contains an active foil when it being heated). You could then find out if the classical fuel ( the vapor) can be used instead of gasoline in an engine. In a gas tight system it should be easy to show the gas phase increases in nitrogen due to its formation by nuclear transformation.

Quote from LeBob

The "fuel" you are talking about is dense hydrogen right?? Cause that is what atomic annihilation, resonant chemical energy, and catalysed low energy nuclear events possibly progress or emerge from.

No.

Colder fusion is using magnecules as the nuclear fuel. The electric and/or magnet fields of an atom have an energy content. The energy of the force field can be electric, magnetic or shift between an electric or magnetic field. If the magnetic field of an atoms is increased at the expense of energy transfer from its electric field, the electric field charge is reduced or shielded. Shielding of proton charge cause colder fusion.

Colder fusion is fusion without a boom. Fusion that depends on states of the atoms. It doesn't require a complicated device. Man has been doing it since the first-time welding was done under water in late 1800s. The good news is that a least some of missing energy (compared to expectation for the same thermonuclear transformation) is present in gas produced by an under-water arc as a classical fuel. A fuel value is present in excess of the chemical fuel value established by thermodynamics. A kinetic analysis also supports the present of fuel associated with the production de novo of elements.

Quote from RobertBryant

The good thing about Holmlid is that he has spent years accumulating experimental data..to support his dense hydrogen

not just theory or proposition like this

This is not just a theory or proposition. You may favor Holmid but your statement is not justified. Show me where my analysis or proofsare wrong. I have statistical valid proof of massive amounts of transmutation. There is not waiting for the next experiment to final prove a colder form of fusion.

Quote from LeBob

I just want these energy solutions to stay available in the commercial/civilian space. Worst case scenario It is real and gets quarantined to military, expensive scientific, and elite special interest applications of the top handful of countries. These need to be everywhere from Stockholm, to the Caribbean, to desert communities in Africa. IDK if state or commercial verification of any power source would have an impact on that or not. I have no problem with it being sold or people making money justly, but put it on the market like oil/gas/coal is now. An inexpensive fundamental energy source for the vast majority of people from rural to cities in non hostile communities. Probably will be commercial verification for the time being and I don't have a problem as long as it is transparent.

The industrial military complex would need a new energy source to be complicated and would need to keep it secret to deprive and to dominate poorer communities or to create scarcity of energy for profit.

This new energy source (which includes LENR) is only complicated because you won’t abandon the thermonuclear mindset. The first of which is insistence that a device causes fusion rather than fusion is colder because the coulomb barrier has been lowered by a change of state of the reactant atoms. The second, is an insistence that the only acceptable energy solution is to produce heat from a device. This new energy source is nuclear fusion without the boom. A complicated device is not required. Further, the output of this new energy source is a fuel. The lack of a boom is not an undesirable. Rather, a fuel output is a benefit because its scarcity can’t be controlled by a few.

The secret is out, and the genie can’t be put back in the bottle. The amount of transmutation is very large well out of the error range. It is impossible to fake the mass and energy balances, so you can verify the truth of it all. There is wealth of information: basic theory calculations, a data deprived balance overall nuclear equation, detailed balance equations for each collision step, and to support the contention that fuel is produced, there is thermodynamic and kinetic analysis. The fuel is produced by a nuclear reaction from ingredients in water which is hardly possible to make scare. The unintended mass production of the fuel is already happening (any process that produces magnecules). There are off patent processes to produce this fuel. So what to stop us make energy abundant?

https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf

At this point energy scarcity is magic. The sleight of hand to focus your attention somewhere other than on the fuel output of this new energy source. Don’ be part of the misdirection, apathy, and invested interests in coal, oil, thermonuclear etc. Divided and distracted we will fail to make energy abundant.

I need you to verify the proofs for yourself and ask relevant questions until it is as clear to you as it is to me. You will then know the truth. What you do with it is then your choice. Let me help.

A laser doesn’t need to assist with tunneling to improve fusion, it just needs to change the state of the target and/or projectile such that some of their electric fields are converted to magnetic fields. With less repulsive force the coulomb barrier is smaller, and fusion occurs at a lower temperature.

The ability to create magnecules is the ability to create reactants with a lower coulomb barrier to fusion and hence colder fusion.

Quote from Director

The Casimir effect is real and due to vacuum fluctuations. The ZPE is indeed real regardless of the fact that it is an additional potential source of energy in the E-Cat SK, The SAFIRE Project Reactor, and the Suncell other than the hydrino reactions your hero Randell Mills proclaims to be the only route to such excess energy. In reality, I believe there's evidence that there are multiple sources of energy in all of these systems.

Navid' s point that HUP is disproven should be taken seriously. If so, then wave principles we associate with HUP has some other origin. I believe in E=m*c*c and that energy and mass don't come into existence from nothing. Therefore, the most logical proposition is that there is a mass not described by the standard model which can be converted to energy by waves and which can convert the energy of wave back to mass and which tends to preserve conservation of energy and mass. That is essential "sea of energy" hypothesis which dates back over a hundred years updated to conform to modern expectations. That is a sea of unknown mass which can be extracted as a fuel source.

Those of you who have looked at my profile and read my posts know that I have analytical evidence that a great amount of expected energy from a proven transmutation reaction that produces de novo nitrogen can't be accounted for by heat and therefore logical becomes mass. You also know I have analytical data to show that de novo formed nitrogen is present when some fuel which cannot be detected by chemical analysis is shown to be present based on thermodynamic analysis of Aquafuel. I have also shown that the fuel appears to reacts in a manner consistent with collision kinetics. Hence, a mass as described above is reasonable and it is likely sourced via transmutation via reactions similar to type reaction which produces de novo nitrogen.

Quote from Wyttenbach

By the way: It is classic knowledge that the strength of the H-O intermediate (hydrogen bridge-) bond is 10% of the O-H chemical bond. Thus already classically the correct formula for liquid water is H_1.8O...

How does water remain neutral charged rather than negatively charged? Perhaps the correct formula is the commonly accepted one. As such the hydrogen bonding between water molecules is transient and does not affect the charge balance.

I prefer to believe in conservation of mass and energy. My view is the earth engine is "burning" a fuel source.

Quote from axil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

Which is real: stable states or quantum field that we define them with? If it is the states and those states are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then there can't arise more stable states. Everything continues as defined by states composed of the three quantum forces with relativity throw in to create mass and relative motion.

For example the basic indication of superpostioning of a weak state over the hydrogen atom is the formation of magnecules. The electromagnetic state of hydrogen atom is the natural hydrogen atom as we are familiar with it. When the weak state in superpostioned, those states must be accessed by absorption of energy which is a weak interacting state. There are 240 accessible states between hydrogen ionization and neutron decay (13.5878925 ev to 0.7824260693 MeV specific to within 2.0E-5 ev). The weak force boson in this case is a w particle but it's range is very much shorter than the radius of the natural hydrogen atom. Hence, the decay and reformation of the superpostioned weak state creates a wave across the natural hydrogen atom. Since, the electron part of this decay is the natural atom's electron, the absorption of energy by the w-boson appears as an acceleration of the neutrino. The very small mass of the neutrino means that absorption of the energy necessary to form the superpostioned weak states cause acceleration to the neutrino to velocities that cause dilation of time and contraction of space of the natural hydrogen atom. Further, the w-wave passes into nucleus (or range of the strong force), that means three superpostioned states. The result is a separation of charge across the nuclear region: a giant nuclear resonance. The separation of charge in the nucleus along with the unpaired electron orbit creates a magnetic force so strong that these state of hydrogen atoms bond magnetically. Note that the magnetic field of a natural hydrogen atom is too weak for magnetic bonding. Hence, magnecules are indication of new states suggested above.

Thermonuclear fusion, fusion forced by fields is well ingrain in our thinking but

Quote from LeBob

In reality these could be accomplish with pico scale structures, matter-energy-matter reactions and a bridge between the electrochemical and the nuclear.

Quote from JedRothwell

I agree that if the AquaFuel device is real, it is probably using some sort of fuel. That is, the Aqua has more energy in it than people think. However, if magnetic motors are real, I do not see what source of fuel they might be tapping. I think they would violate the conservation of energy. Perhaps by tapping zero point energy? Or something? I don't know. I doubt they even exist. But anyway, I have seen the term "over unity" used to describe such devices. I guess it means "violates the conservation of energy." Cold fusion definitely does not fall into this category. (It may violate the Coulomb barrier, but that is a different story.)

You may be aware of http://www.free-energy-info.com/PJKBook.html Among these curious persons or investigators of unusual claims are very few who believe in a violation of the conversation of energy. Rather, like the LENR community, they want confirmation. For LENR, we seek confirmation of fusion. For the Free Energy community, they seek confirmation of "the sea of energy in which we reside". I would very much like to link the loss of mass that doesn't produce kinetic energy to the poorly described and not yet linked mass that yields so called "Free energy". That assumes that any form of potential energy per relativity adds to mass of the system (relative to system mass once the energy is produced). I haven't any publishable data for that linkage. However, I think there is a linkage. If so then once a linkage to a source of the energy is established, these "Free energy" devices are as likely as LENR to replace fossil fuels or even renewable energy technologies.

Quote from JedRothwell

All known sources of energy (mechanical, chemical, nuclear) always convert matter into energy, according to special relativity. Some people think that only nuclear sources do, but that is incorrect. I suppose an over unity device would not do that. I do not think such devices exist, or can exist, but I suppose if they did they would circumvent relativity.

Rather than an over unity device, such a device is likely using a undetected form of fuel. Take for example AquaFuel. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9805031 I presented this analysis. See https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf

The analysis of the chemical composition by NASA combined with a knowledge of thermodynamics can give a precise prediction of the fuel value of AquaFuel. The electrical arc via carbon electrodes in water causes a catalyzed nuclear reaction. The stoichiometry of that reaction can be projected basis on the stoichiometry of the nuclear reaction caused by an electrical arc in deuterium contaminated with atmospheric air. Therefore, a mass balance can be use to predict the origins of the gas composition as reported by NASA. That mass balance indicates that 2.13% of the nitrogen originated from the catalyzed nuclear reaction.

Based on the chemical analysis, the kj/gm yield of AquaFuel is 13.24. However, when the torque and power yield is compared to gasoline, AquaFuel provide 90% kj/gm yield of gasoline (44.54). So an overunity yield of (44.5- 13.23)= 31.27 kj/gm.

There is nothing circumventing relativity because 2.13% of the nitrogen originated from the catalyzed nuclear reaction. So although we can't chemically identify the fuel, there is a signature of a nuclear reaction (de novo nitrogen). So, it is reasonable to suppose that some the mass product of the nuclear reaction (fuel) is converted to energy.

One very likely overunity device is a Papp engine. But does is use an ambient source of the fuel from a catalyzed nuclear reaction or does it produce its own fuel by a catalyzed nuclear reaction. As you see, I prefer to believe that there is a back ground fuel that creates the appearance of zero point energy rather than believe in ZPE.

So if not ZPE then what? I would refer you to the thread "Dark matter’s shadowy effect on Earth: possible link of dark matter, LENR and global warming?"

Quote from Dr Richard

Furthermore:

The paper was published in March 1986, and on March 12, 1986 many of the concepts in the paper were described by Dr. Jones at a Colloquium of the BYU Physics Department. BYU Physics Professor Paul Palmer was present and associated these ideas with geological data on heat and helium-3 which are correlated in volcanoes and other thermal regions of the earth. Both heat and helium-3 are released in fusion reactions (proton-deuteron and deuteron-deuteron reactions). Dr. Palmer suggested that rock, lava, or crystals in the earth might help to catalyze the fusion reaction. This creative leap is recorded in Dr. Palmer's logbook, dated March 13, 1986 in some detail (copies available on request to BYU Physics Department).

Rock, lava or crystals containing KFeO2 maybe?

In WO 2018/204533 which is PCT US2018/030723 the the cold fusion mechanism which yields nitrogen from deuterium also likely produces tritium. That is the catalyst causes photodisintegration of deuterium with obligate coupling of the neutron to absorption to another deuterium. Since this is chemistry not plasma physics, the reactants are deuterium molecules. A leaving group is involved, so the proton produced obligately couples to one of the deuteriums in the other molecule to produce H-D. The tritium that is produced is not detected because of accelerated radioactive decay caused by w-waves. So the expected product is Helium-3.

We all know that for a red giant the fusion cascade stop at Helium-3. But in magma (which co-incidentally has temperature like that of the surface of the sun), the rock also presents oxygen. I remind you that the equivalent of hydrogen to hydrogen fusion occurs readily in electric arc in water, so as with that case, the presence of a hydrogen containing reactant and oxygen with hot magma is expected to lead to chain of reactions which yield Nitrogen and Helium-3 with traces of Tritium. But the reaction does stop there because unlike in a red giant, the oxygen reactant greatly boost the w-wave density in the catalyst which then can lead to shielding sufficient for the fusion sequence to proceed beyond the red giant stage. So one can expect production of helium 4 and nitrogen. I haven't been able to get funds to prove this supposition. But, I offer the following from Wikipedia article "Helium production in the United States", "The Four Corners area of the southwest US has a number of gas fields containing 5 to 10 percent helium and large percentages of nitrogen, with little or no hydrocarbons. The fields are associated with igneous intrusions." My supposition then is that an igneous intrusion into a natural gas field can by "cold" fusion produces gas deposit like the Helium rich deposits in the southwest US.

Doesn't that make more sense that current theory that helium deposits results from alpha decay or radioactive isotopes?

The questions of what is dark matter and where does it come are very interesting. That extinction events could be correlated to dark matter is also interesting. How does the earth's core stay heated interesting. Let me suppose how is all this related to LENR .

Suppose that the sun is not really thermonuclear or any star for that matter. Suppose a "cold" nuclear reaction is what really happens. But does it really produce heat as an atomic bomb or does it do something else. Could what really happens be the production of some matter not well defined by the standard model. Then some version of dark matter may come from what really happens in the stars. It has been hinted above that dark matter might be a fuel. If any what I mention seems interesting to you or you would like more support for my suppositions, then you might find the following interesting.

As a fuel, dark matter doesn't cause one extinction but two. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805142 The first is due to the asteroid impact and the second when fuel is ignited by the heat of the earth core.

For data showing a cold nuclear reaction where the energy doesn't come out as heat but at least part the energy from fusion is converted to a fuel, see the reference in my profile.

Warnings to investors can be very self serving. Warren Buffet warned investors away from nuclear power. But he owns a lot of power companies and he will profit by energy becoming more scarce. Can't anyone see through this kind of manipulation of the economy?