Posts by Drgenek

Quote from Director

Personally, I still believe that a small group of people with the correct skill sets - at least one being a first class electronics guru - could come together and build a small device …

There are many small groups of people trying to prototype energy devices. More likely than not, most will run out of funding. Truthfully, very little will happen without a prototype and only a very successful prototype will compete for the attention of any funding source that could make any change to current energy markets. So be optimistic. Do something if you can. Don't believe that its impossible rather look for what is real.

Fusion below the Lawson criteria is real, because one can't fake precise and accurate stoichiometry. I may run out of funding but I believe somebody will see what is real and keep trying.

Thanks for part 1 and part 2 of the SAFIRE videos above. Certain they raise some question about what is really happening in the sun.

I have some data that I think is significant which comes from analysis. Some of you are aware that Santilli had a pending patent on intermediate fusion. He put a DC arc through deuterium gas which was slightly contaminated with atmospheric gas. The main strange observation was many unknowns in the mass-spectroscopy of the after-arc gas. To explain the unknowns, he proposed that the electric arc had caused atoms to bond magnetically. Magnetic bonding is not part of modern chemistry because the magnetic fields of atoms are too weak. Without some physical machine to place a force on the atom, magnetic bonding should not exist. So, there must be some new state of the atoms to explain the appearance of magnetic bonding. There is no logic for expecting new states from the electromagnetic force.

I proposed 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). These states have quantum numbers related as follows E=n²hv. These new states could transfer energy via relativity and via the weak force to the nucleus. I proposed that among the properties of these new states is magnetic bonding.

The expectation of magnetic bonding suggested that unknowns in the post arc gas could be assigned statistically based on the idea that unknowns where just combinations of the atoms in the before arc gas. Further, one could use chemistry to verify or disprove Santilli claim to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear transmutation may be expected to change a proton to a neutron or vice-a versa, but the total number of nucleons must remain unchanged. So, I could do a mass balance and put the mass balance on that basis.

Briefly this is how that is done. Change the before and after data to a nucleon basis and adjust the percentages to the same total nucleon basis. Take the difference between before and after. That difference is the chemical change and any nuclear change. One uses the idea of magnecules and statistics to assign unknown masses and couple of other things you can see if you read my pending patent. Then mass balance out the chemistry and you are left with the nuclear change.

When it did that, I discovered there was nuclear fusion. WOW. But without the energy expected and no claim of high energy nuclear products or neutrons.

But that's not the best part. All atoms are discrete so if a reaction has occurred it has a balanced equation that can be determined by the usual methods of stoichiometry. Which it did. In my universe nobody can fake precise stoichiometry. So, there you have proof: 1) Data derived balanced nuclear equation. 2) a precise and accuracy proof of the formation of de-novo nitrogen. The reaction is reproducible and could be used to produce any amount of de-novo nitrogen.

If you read my pending patent further, you will see evidence for fusion of hydrogen to deuterium. The significance is a basis for fusion in the sun but not the expected thermonuclear fusion.

The mass balance is amazing, but the energy balance is a mystery. Some of this missing energy is in the form of fuel which can’t be detected by chemical analysis.

My summary: fusion occurs via weak interacting states of hydrogen. But what else is required that occurs in the sun or a bomb that doesn't happen simultaneously in an electric arc?

Quote from Dr Richard

Having a predictive scientific theory is essential to making any of these LENR reactor systems work, without it we'll carry on for another 30 yrs going absolutely no-where.

Unless the predictive theory predicts that LENR will not produce significant energy. In ICCF-7 RIFEX theory explained results of thin-film electrolysis, but the energy out put was relative low compared to a conventional nuclear fission plant. An expensive catalyst disappeared without producing a cost effective amount of heat.

Quote from Mark U

What a coincidence: 54.4 eV is an integer multiple of hydrogen's 13.6 eV for ionization, and thus qualifies as a catalyst for Mills's hydrino reaction. At the same time we learn that Mills is working with a liquid gallium, tin and indium mixture.

Mills production of energy by Hydrinos is not integer multiples of 13.6, neither are the phats of hydrogen ionizations. Both are E= n²(13.6) ev where n is the quantum number. For the weak force-based states interacting with electromagnetic quantum states, 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). That is the true co-incidence (between phat energies and energies that can lead to nuclear reactions).

No one can patent a natural state. What one patents is a procedure to convert hydrogen or substitutes for hydrogen into a catalyst for fusion and a process for fusion. Mills claims hydrogen shrinks. He claims an emitted energy at 54.4 ev. I claim that high energy must be absorbed by weak force-based states to create a catalyst which can use that energy to create a path to fusion. Energy gets into the nucleus then the energy lowers the coulomb barrier by shielding nuclear charges. I propose to add the shielding factor to the equation for the coulomb barrier to predict fusion energies. The energies Mills claims by shrinking hydrogen, in my interpretation come from nuclear reaction. The transmutation energies can come out in quantum pieces through the same weak force-based states. Check my other posts or pending patent for more details.

Quote from Peter

Well done Bill for fixing a most excellent and enjoyable conference.

For me, the highlight of ICCF 22 was the announcement of a serendipitous discovery made by Alan Goldwater and Robert Greenyer that Indium

subjected to ultrasonic excitation ( 43 kilohertz , 35 watts ) for a few minutes showed unambiguous evidence of nuclear transmutation.

Have they discovered cavitation induced fission of the Indium nucleus ?

I actual listed Indium as a substitute for hydrogen in my pending patent. The fourth ionization of Indium is 54.4 volts. That matches one of the frequencies to produce the weak force based states that could then lead to a dense hydrogen cluster (catalyst) and hence to transmutation. I have already linked cavitation to this process. What elements are produced?

Quote from Storms

You predict hydrogen atoms can cluster independent of any matrix. I know of no evidence for the formation of hydrogen clusters outside of normal chemical interaction. If they should form, the conditions in the chemical structure must be very different from those normally present in a chemical system. A very rare and unusual condition must form first in which normal chemical behavior no longer applies. Simply using the description "superpostioning weak states" adds nothing of value because it does not give any information about how the rare condition can be produced. An explanation is useful only when it allows understanding to move forward by allowing the idea to be tested. How would you plan to cause and then test this behavior in the lab?

I hope the detail in previous post helped with the " very rare and unusual condition" which results in new states and the co-incidence with reverse neutron decay such that a condition which produces hydrogen phats is a condition that produces a catalyst cluster. It was Santilli who created a plan and produced results to test this behavior in the lab. Although that wasn't his intension.

Nothing in the above description of interaction (superpostioning) of a electromagnetically based quantum state with weak force-based quantum states requires a solid state. Although, it is possible to calculate the specific distance between conductive surfaces to produce a waveguide. A waveguide for specific wavelengths which are required to form the states of hydrogen above. The prediction is a form of dense hydrogen at the surface or inside of a hydrogen absorbing conductive metal. I’ve done the calculations and you can too. They require introducing some imperfections in the lattice structure to get the distance between layers of metal right. I have mentioned other evidences with tie to LENR as you define it. But, working with metals for proof is your limitation not mine.

Rather the proof in my pending patent is analysis in the gas phase. I didn’t use Santilli’s explanation of magnecules or his theory because I did not believe it possible to deform hydrogen significantly from it quantum state. When I first saw all the mass spectra data showing all the new masses because of magnecules, I was astonished that such a result could be possible. In fact, based on electromagnetically based quantum states or chemistry as it is currently defined, it isn’t possible.

Santilli’s data and experiment provided an opportunity to define the origin of magnecules differently from Santill. (see the previous post) . His data is certified data from an independent lab and I am independent of Santilli. So, thats where I started. I was puzzled by Santilli’s claim of intermediate fusion. I could see the data showed production of nitrogen, but he didn’t do a mass balance. Why? A nuclear transmutation may be expected to change a proton to a neutron or vice-a versa, but the total number of nucleons must remain unchanged. So I could do a mass balance and put the mass balance on that basis.

Briefly this is how that is done. Change the before and after data to a nucleon basis and adjust the percentages to the same total nucleon basis. Take the difference between before and after. That difference is the chemical change and any nuclear change. One uses the idea of magnecules and statistics to assign unknown masses and couple of other things you can see if you read the pending patent. Then mass balance out the chemistry and you are left with the nuclear change. So there it was: nuclear fusion. WOW. But without the energy expected or high energy nuclear products or neutrons. Does that sound familiar to LENR?

But that's not the best part. All atoms are discrete so if a reaction has occurred it has a balanced equation that can be determined by the usual methods of stoichiometry. Which it did. In my universe nobody can fake precise stoichiometry. So there you have proof:: 1) Data derived balanced nuclear equation. 2) a precise and accuracy proof of the formation of de-novo nitrogen. The reaction is reproducible and could be used to produce any amount of de-novo nitrogen.

Quote from Storms

Chemical states are explained very well without the need to apply relativity corrections or space-time distortions. These concepts are applied when high energy is involved because they are needed to explain the behavior. They are not needed to explain the behavior of a chemical system because the energies are not large enough to justify such correction factors.

The energies in electromagnetically based quantum states are indeed to small to justify relativity and to small to cause nuclear reactions.

For years, fusion research has been trying to provide the promise of nuclear fusion using inertial confinement. Always there has been a need for better confinement. Now by using weak interacting quantum states, a new form of confinement allows fusion below the Lawson criteria. Rather than the forcing atoms into smaller space, weak interacting quantum states, (WQS) place atoms in in time-space that is dilated and contracted.

WQS are accessed by absorption of high energy photons. 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). These states have quantum numbers related as follows E=n²hv. The high energy photons required for WQS, phat photons, are supplied from hydrogen ionization. This relationship of hydrogen Phats have be known for almost 40 years. What is new is that they create a catalyst for fusion. The interaction of a phat with hydrogen is new chemistry. Chemistry is described by states, so the description of new states is required.

These weak states are not electromagnetically based quantum mechanics. The weak force must use W particles or other weak force-based bosons. With WQS there is production of a W particles then its conversion to an antineutrino and an electron and back to W particles in a pattern that produces a non-transverse wave superpositioned on the hydrogen atom. Non-transverse because it uses quarks in the nucleus and the electron in its electromagnetically based quantum orbit and because instant relativity is one dimensional. The various weak based quantum states are specific to energy levels listed above. Only state n= 240 has the expectation to produce a neutron. One calculates expectations using shrinkage of hydrogen to a neutron and neutron decay time as a basis, one calculates L/L₀ = m₀/m =Δt₀/Δt =Lorentz factor. Look at my pending patent to see details. Further, one can predict a rest mass for the anti-neutrino, assign a shrinkage value and a positive charge shielding value to each quantum state. One can insert the relative positive charge shielding directly into the equation for the coulomb barrier to predict how much less energy is required to bridge that barrier when either the projectile or the target has a WQS at a known quantum level. Relativity based on antineutrinos is the source of containment for each atom. Also, WQS create a giant dipole in the nucleus because instant relativity is one dimensional and the wave is non-transverse. The dipole results in a magnetic field so extreme that WQS affected atoms can bond magnetically. This extreme magnetic field is the predicted and the observed result of relativity; the relative motion of the electron and a nuclear dipole.

There is a fuel in the atmosphere because a thundercloud causes an electric arc though a medium that contains hydrogen. Perhaps all the researchers you mentioned have consider this energy source in the environment but didn't know what it was. Really I don't I know what it is either but I know where it come from. You can verify my calculations, the mass balances and the stoichiometry and use pressure and volume information to calculate the expected energy produced. But only a very small amount of the energy from the nuclear reactions becomes heat. If the energy that doesn't show as heat can be recovered, it would be like having a nearly limitless source of energy. If the energy is all converted to fuel, the amount of fuel produced by catalyzed fusion in short time is enormous.

I suspect EVOs must be able to be able to put this energy back into atoms to create a catalyst which then can cause fusion and fission at the witness plate. I respect that you have another model.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is an indigestible bowl filled with gobble-gock wordings we daily read in disparate QM/QED papers that try to find an answer out of nothing.

Dense Hydrogen can be exactly calculated with the SO(4) model of dense matter physics and guess why? There is no classic relativity at work on the nuclear level but we know the exact internal structure of the proton and dense Hydrogen is formed due to a weak nuclear bond between two protons.

Do you address anyone who has proof for a model different that your own this way? Are do you just refuse, to address the proofs and data because you are so certain ? There are a number of chemistry papers which discuss relativity in the electron orbitals and that is what happens here. You know there is a difference between the sum of the rest mass of quarks and mass of a neutron or proton, so you know that relativity explains the difference or you don't know relativity.

Quote from Storms

The word imagination in this context means ideas that are far outside of known and accepted understanding, which includes such ideas as space-time when applied to a chemical structure.

Deformed space time doesn't have to be outside of known and accepted understanding. In relativity the contraction and dilation of time-space is represented by a Riemann constant. In special relativity some particle is accelerated close to the speed of light to cause that effect. In general relativity it is the combined density of energy and mass that causes that effect. Chemical structures are not immune to relativity.

When there are states (particle or chemical structures or large field effects), they are determined by hypothesis followed by measurement. The hypothesis of superpostioning weak states on hydrogen predicts several things. 1) that hydrogen can exist in contracted and dilated time-space and due to the dipole from relativity that these states will cluster independence of any matrix. 2) that the weak state changes when it extents to the nucleus. It becomes part of a giant nuclear dipole. Part of this prediction is that a giant nuclear dipole creates a magnetic field because that is how the magnetic field is described by relativity. So magnecules form when this energy is transferred to the nucleus. 3) that energy transferred in the nucleus causes new energetic states in the nucleus. This means that radioactive material acquires an accelerated decay rate. 4) that if we could measure the shielding factor, we could add it to the coulomb equation and predict exactly how much less energy is required for fusion. 5) that the cluster (mentioned in one) is a catalyst for fusion. 6) that it is not surprising that reactions thought only to occur in supernova will happen or that micro-organism can use such a catalyst. 7) that the routes to fusion are many: via a waveguide at solid surface, via sonication, via an electric arc, via plasma discharge, via an oxidation-reduction reaction in the present of water, in certain combinations of gases in a florescent tube, via a laser's interaction with a metal particle in a solution of water via a microbe and likely others situations that I haven't though much about.

Having one model to study all of these routes to fusion, fission and transmutation is not a disadvantage. Each investigator will choose his/her preferred route and if indeed it all fits together, so much the better.

Quote from axil

If you just stop to think about the transmutation process, it is a very amazing thing.

The literature on quark confinement cites an estimate of the force required to separate quarks as being 15 tons. If transmutation splits protons and neutrons apart and reassembles them into a ball of new elements, there are hundreds of quarks involved. Where does all that power come from in the gut of a fungus? And none of that power, not a single electron volt, leaks out to give the fungus any gut distress.

...

The force required, the force that only a supernova could supply, to do that function is truly awesome. I want to know how to control that power, how to use that power, don't you? If fungus can do it, why can't we?

Display More

The force is large only if the repulsive force in the unmodified coulomb equation is correct. The energy confined in the nucleus of an atom would burn-up a microbe (something of the order of 90% relative mass). Yet that energy is contained and transmutation that "only a supernova" can do, does occur.

The gloves to handle such energy is a force balance, a state of matter defined by the 3 quantum based forces and by boson particle exchange per standard physics. I have proposed force balances for the states which lead to fusion are superpositoning of weak force states over the usual atomic state. Because the weak force based states bridge into the nuclear area, they can bring energy into the nucleus, cause a giant dipole resonance in nucleus and lower the coulomb barrier by charge shielding within the nucleus. With this change to the structure of the nucleus, the energy required for fusion is in the chemical energy range rather that 1000's of times higher.

I know how much energy should be created by mass loss as a result of transmutation. I did the mass balance. I did the stoichiometry. I did the calculation. I am referring to an example in my pending patent, the amount of energy that should have appear (given that reaction had occurred by a high energy collision) is about 1/10 of the energy involved in the bomb that dropped on Hiroshima. About 4/10,000 of that was observed.

Your proposed solution is my proposed solution: mass to energy and back to mass. I call it IAM, immobilized antimatter, a fuel. As a fuel the energy production is on demand at some time long after the nuclear reaction was complete. I have indeed found a fuel, that can't be detected by chemical composition, yet a nuclear reaction signature is in the fuel. In the example of Aquafuel, the nuclear produced fuel provides 2/3 of the heat-torque in an engine test. So the evidence for IAM is way above the error range.

I want to know how to recover the energy from IAM. I want to know if all the lost mass become a fuel and if all of its mass can be converted back to energy. Join my quest. The nuclear reaction is a done deal, The fuel is real. You can figure out how to recover the energy from the nuclear reaction, or keep looking for a conventional nuclear reaction where it doesn't exist.

Quote from axil

The track shows an EVO hopping along and where it touches the surface it disintegrates matter.

When you refer to mobile NAE, is that, in your opinion the same thing as a EVO hopping along? I suspect they are usually different. An EVO doesn't need any hydrogen to form, just some way to roll the air into a ball of capacitance where as NAE have been characterized as a dense cluster of hydrogen.

The common characteristic of an EVO and NAE is transmutation, the transmutation mechanism may be the same for both but, I am not ready to offer an explanation of transmutation by an EVO because of its uncertain composition.

NAE produces a fuel and is a catalyst per my posts. The energy of the fuel is in the form of a w-waves which are a superpostioning of a weak state on the atoms that will receive that energy and as a giant nuclear dipole resonance. The fuel preserves the energy of fusion/fission. The rest of the transmutation story, is in a previous post and is as follows:

The w-waves then tend to deposit in nucleon rich elements exposed to the catalyst, Hence, w-wave concentrate mostly to the metals in the electrode surface. That lowers the coulomb barrier (by dipole shielding) of those w-activated elements which leads to fusion. However, the fusion products are mostly non-stable isotopes due their high atomic weight, so they fission. Fission leaves a pattern of isotopes which is characteristic of the parent unstable isotope. In ICCF-7 Miley provides data which can confirm what I just wrote. See "Product Characteristics and Energetic in Thin-Film Electrolysis Experiments." He states: "the proton-metallic lattice form a complex intermediate nucleus that subsequently fissions producing the observed product array."

Quote from Dr Richard

• Restricting LENR to condensed matter or requiring neutron/ and or other high energy nuclear products is a private definition. I do not agree. It seems like protecting you interests over finding the science.

• I'm surprised at you saying this to Ed Storms since the patent you have applied for relies heavily on neutron production.

It relies on weak states that superposition over the hydrogen atom which create a way to transfer energy rather that particles to cause nuclear reactions. So my pending patent is not within Ed Storms definition because it doesn't create "conventional types of nuclear products." I guess that Ed Storms objects to IAM, immobilized anti-matter. There is plenty of nuclear reaction as shown by mass balance and stoichiometry but I can't account for an energy (that would have be 1/10 of the amount of the bomb that dropped on Hiroshima). I have shown some of that energy is preserved as a fuel which I call IAM. So, I have created a new mystery, hence more confusion.

Quote from Storms

No Drgenek, this is not a private definition. This is how the effect is described by people who have actually studied the effect. This describes what is observed. In order to find the science, as you say, what is observed needs to be acknowledged. It does no good to simply imagine what is happening. The imagination is useful only when it is applied to what is known. Otherwise, you would be building on sand without any relationship to reality.

You are doing a good job of an implied personal attack. I get that you have a large political following. I am not building on imagination but reproducible observations well out of the error range. The thing is, that results are more powerful in the long run than an exclusive opinion. Your theory is basic correct. I just disagree that that solid state is best approach and thus that the results are not reproducible is the gaseous state.

Yes, it is the wave equivalent of reverse neutron decay in quantum steps. The steps (n states) are all related by math, the process doesn't have to increase stepwise and energy transfer into target nuclei happens without formation of a neutron. Further, once the w-wave energy reaches a target it is preserved as a giant nuclear resonance which cause a charge separation which acts as a shielding. The larger the shielding of positive charge in the target nucleus, the lower the coulomb barrier to fusion and the lower the kinetic energy required for fusion. Hence, in the case where the metal is exposed to hydrolysis and has deformities (read as Storm's cracks) in the otherwise crystal matrix, that deformation can separate the metal to a distance that allows a waveguide for the one of those n states. So, the waveguide is a receiver of light that causes hydrogen to contract under the effect of acceleration of the neutrino, which leads to a dense cluster of hydrogen (catalyst or NAE), which catalyst is a sink for w-waves. The w-waves then tend to deposit in nucleon rich elements exposed to the catalyst, Hence, w-wave concentrate mostly to the metals in the electrode surface. That lowers the coulomb barrier of those w-activated elements which leads to fusion. However, the fusion products are mostly non-stable isotopes due their high atomic weight, so they fission. Of course fission leaves a pattern of isotopes which is characteristic of the parent unstable isotope. In ICCF-7 Miley provides data which can confirm what I just wrote. See "Product Characteristics and Energetic in Thin-Film Electrolysis Experiments." He states "the proton-metallic lattice form a complex intermediate nucleus that subsequently fissions producing the observed product array." Also in ICCF-7, Hora provides additional support to the concept of fusion of heavy elements.

Quote from Dr Richard

Dear Drgenek - can you explain this part of your patent - the patent seems to be a very complicated way of saying 'electron capture via W-bosons (w-waves) to form neutrons' ie neutron decay in reverse? Sure its one way of making fusion reactions happen - can you convince us that any of the cold transmutation reactions you propose can or do actually occur in reality? As Axil mentions, usually you need supernova temperatures to fuse such large nuclei.

W-wave don't need to form neutrons from protons to cause cold transmutation. Those neutrons come from photodisintegration of deuterium. After providing overall equations, I then suggest two series of two body reactions which lead to the overall reactions. It is in those series you will find your answers about fusion of heavier elements, see the reaction series with aluminum fusing to aluminum. The first reaction series generates w-waves which one expects flows with the heat flow to produce magnetic bonded atoms, as IAM. The second series is endothermic, it seems it gets energy to dissolve cobalt to deuterium from the first series. An endothermic flow of energy is due to entropy and therefore depends on the whole system.

Quote from Storms

LENR is by definition the initiation of various nuclear reactions without the need to apply significant energy. The reactions take place on;y in special conditions present in condensed matter and result in heat energy along with nuclear products without significant radiation being detected. In other words, this is an unusual nuclear process that result in conventional types of nuclear products while generating mostly heat energy.

Restricting LENR to condensed matter or requiring neutron/ and or other high energy nuclear products is a private definition. I do not agree. It seems like protecting you interests over finding the science.

Quote from Curbina

I have been interested in the so called magnegas for over a decade, but I can’t agree that it is proof of a LENR process, it is indeed an interesting synthetic gas but the scientific claims behind it have never been independently confirmed.

You are right about magnegas, there is no certain proof between magnegas and magnetic based bonding. I used an assumption that magnetic bonding was a result of w-waves, then assigned the unknown (assumed magnetic bonded species) based on probable distribution, then I used that distribution and mass balance to derive an equation for the nuclear reaction by stoichiometry. Stoichiometry is a remarkable proof. So, the assumption that magnetic bonding is a result of nuclear reaction is reasonable. All of this is in my pending patent which you all have access to.

Quote from Storms

Your comment is right on and very important. NO METHOD CAN PRODUCE LENR WITH RELIABILITY. That fact needs to be accepted. We can say only that some methods work more often than others.

That statement is only true, if one rejects the production of what was call magnegas as not resulting from the same mechanism behind LENR. But the truth maybe that a commercial company has been making millions of dollars per year by the application of LENR. I haven't seen a better explanation than that the extreme magnetic fields that cause magnetic bond in magnegas are a result of nuclear excitation.

I am sure there are many paths to fusion. For example, I imagine IAM can be combined with electrons and atmospheric gas to produce EV's. It has been reported that EV's can create transmutations on the witness plate. I use the mechanism to explain what transmutations to expect. I don't know enough about Homlid or Mill proposals to guess how they would predict what transmutation to expect or if they expect any. I have learned by experience not to get to caught up on whether I have a correct opinion because when I get more facts, I am going to change my opinion.