Posts by Drgenek

Quote from Wyttenbach

4He emits a neutron if you add > 21 MeV energy. (with adding 20MeV you first get a proton!) To produce a neutron from 2 protons in Deuterium you only need about 2.3MeV from one proton its not possible to produce a neutron due to lacking symmetry but 1.292 MeV is the neutron/proton excess energy including one electron.

I had observed that nuclear chain of reaction in Santilli's intermediate fusion starts by photolysis of deuterium (2.23 MeV). I observed that Ed Storms Glow discharge reactions produce radiation following a phat equation and that it seems nothing happens unless one of reaction peaks is at 2.23 MeV. I hadn't considered that symmetry limits the onset of nuclear reaction by a collective. I was aware that it is necessary to form something neutron-like and the mostly like first nuclear reaction was the formation of oxygen-17 from oxygen-16 in an oxygen/hydrogen rich medium. See reaction sequences for Santilli's intermediate fusion and for the B. J. Huang reaction.

Quote from Steven-B-Krivit

Dear LENR Forum readers, this is a copy of a message I just posted on the CMNS email list.

==================

Dear Members of the CMNS List:

When I attended my first ICCF (#10) I asked every theorist in the field whether they thought their theory was correct. Without exception, they said yes. Then I asked them whether they thought anyone else's theory was correct. Without exception, they said no. This showed me the contrast between experimentalists, who aim to verify the work of their peers, and theorists, who generally seek to disconfirm the work of their peers.

Display More

Thank-you for your presentation.

There would be a simple summary that does not include WLT. First, some collective mechanism condenses low energy inputs to produce MeV level energies that can produce a nuclear effect. Second, that the primary expected output of LENR is due to neutron capture by nearby nuclei and any Beta or alpha decay of the product of neutron absorption (at least in the case of electrolysis with metal hydrides).

You provide an expected but false claim if one accepts WLT. That is that LENR is a surface not a bulk effect. One would have to claim there is no bulk effect that produces what anyone could reasonably call cold fusion, aka LENR for this to be true.

Santilli's intermediate fusion patent data indicates this is not the case. Santilli's patent application shows a means to make an electrical arc between carbon electrodes in an atmosphere mostly of deuterium. I have used simple assumptions to do a mass balance between before and after application of the electrical arc. Further, the mass balance shows how the chemical and nuclear reactions can be balanced separately. Then focusing only on the nuclear transformations, one can do stoichiometry to provide a balanced reaction equation for the nuclear reactions with a nucleon accountability of 99.9%.

For a recent summary of the analysis and modeling of theory see The Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) as the cause of the vacuum reaction. - Page 59 - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) post 1162

One can see that the first summary point that many low energy inputs lead to a high energy output sufficient for a nuclear effect is correct. Also, it appears that "neutronization" occurs. Like in WLT, the neutrons are consumed locally and the collective which causes the reactions absorbs or converts the gammas. There are two reactions sequences: One where hydrogens or deuterium fuse to oxygen and one where hydrogen or deuterium fuse to make oxygen as a product. The substitution of hydrogen for deuterium is from the mass balance and linked stoichiometry's on NASA chemical analysis of AquaFuel. Aquafuel gas is produced by an electric arc in water where at least one electrode is carbon. The balanced equations show hydrogen and oxygen or deuterium and oxygen disappear and that nitrogen with some hydrogen appears or just nitrogen appears. Clearly not just "neutronization" with absorption to the metal lattice followed by expected products of neutron absorption. However, these collective "clusters" do form with electrolysis in metal hydrides and cause the metal of the lattice to fuse per Miley and Hora and therefore the transmutation pattern that they report.

As I stated in the referenced post: I think there exists very little wiggle room for a better explanation what we call LENR reactions in this forum than charge cluster catalyzed fusion.

Quote from Frogfall

There has been a fair amount of discussion around thermionic emission in this thread already.

It seems that the cells don't appear to work with a vacuum between the electrodes, nor do they get hot.

Cells do not work in a vacuum or in an atmosphere of nitrogen, helium or argon. It's like an electrochemical series where nitrogen, helium or argon have too low of potential to ionize for the electrochemical reaction, but hydrogen will, and oxygen will and surprisingly air which is 80% nitrogen, and 20% oxygen is almost twice as good as oxygen. The comparison is from a table in Rout et al.

It is likely that the net movement of an electron in the gaseous electrolyte is due to the electronegativity of oxygen. (Electrical balance of cell requires that electrons moved from the active electrode to other electrode by a wire are replaced via the electrolyte electron flow.) This electrochemical process in the electrolyte is faster with an electric field applied in either direction. One might therefore suppose that nitrogen with oxygen acts as a catalyst to speed the transfer of electrons via oxygen. The comparisons are in Rout et al.

An active electrode emits radiations which have mass. Because the radiations have mass, they pass filter media but not a solid media. The comparison is in Rout et al. These radiations interact electrochemically with the gas causing an electric field and therefore the transport of electrons in the electrolyte. There is no known chemical or nuclear radiation that can be matched to this effect, that why it is call strange radiation.

Quote from Alan Smith

Axil is suggesting that all LENR reactions are caused by EVOs. There is no evidence for that, but it doesn't mean that some LENR isn't caused by EVOs.but by other mechanisms, including electromigration and electron screening. To dismiss the possibility that there is no other mechanism than the EVO is not scientific or sensible.

Worst an EVO is a mythical object. Axil then goes on to surround the myth with more misinterpreted references to scientific reports. He claims authority by reference to thing he claims that only he understands. He points to the right phenomenon, then does everything possible to perverts its understanding.

The phenomenon root is attraction of like charges also known as a charge cluster. Math and factual evidence support charge clusters causing a gravitational force which is about 42 orders of magnitude stronger than universal gravity. That force causes a distribution of energy which in non- thermal. That means "Lawson criterion" does not apply for fusion caused by charge clusters: it is not thermal plasma based. Rather as with any gravity based planetoid, the escape velocity governs the highest energies of objects which leave and hence interact with objects exterior to the planetoid.

The velocities of particles from charge cluster's which cause fusion are in the MeV energies as shown by data fit to the phat equation which data was produced by Ed Storms. This is Ed's amazing result: fusion range energies from low energy inputs. The correlation to a phat equation is highly significant. There is no magic or low energy nuclear reaction. Fusion occurs because the kinetic energy is sufficient to overcome the Columbic barrier between atomic nuclei and gravity keeps most of the kinetic energy of the nuclear process confined to the planetoid.

The strange part is what causes this second form of gravity what Matsumoto called electronuclear gravity. Axil corrects connects electronuclear gravity with boson condensates but quickly leads that concept to wilds distractions from real math. The math indicates a fit to the Phat equation of Pharsis Williams. Phat equations relate the frequencies of light that condense and the frequencies to which they condense. The MeV energies which overcome the coulomb barrier are related to ionization frequency of hydrogen, E = n² (~13.6 eV). The quantum number n in a condensate is the unit number of the condensate. As the quantum number gets larger so the size of the planetoid gets exponentially larger. Since voltage is force per unit charge as the number of electrons repelling each other gets larger the voltage of a kinetic particle at the escape horizon gets larger. Hence, a large enough charge cluster expels negatively charged particles with voltage sufficient to cause nuclear fusion. Some of these electrons expelled from EVOs were used by Ken Shoulder to create pictures of EVOs. However, the particles that Ed detected lose the negative charge and were high voltage cations. Further, what is the origin of this new type of gravitational force?

The equation for electro-gravity is derived by a balance on an electron at the escape horizon. The attractive force of electro-gravity holds the electron in orbit but the repulsive force of a negatively charged cluster (planetoid) of electrons repels the electron at the escape horizon. For the purpose of the derivation, the particles which comprise the planetoid have the same mass and charge as electrons but are a composite particle which is a boson rather than a fermion. Axil has agreed with this elsewhere but goes on with distraction about types such particles, Higgs particles and strange field effects.

The only field effect one needs to understand is that the particle that attaches itself to the electron which causes the electron to become a boson, that particle is attached like a string to the electron. As energy is added to this string system the nearly massless particle is accelerated relative to the electron. Think of it as extending a warp field over a spaceship. The relative velocity of the free end (the new particle end) of the string is related by the Lorentz factor to speed of light. Hence, the local effects on time dilation, length contraction and relative mass affect the mass of the particle attached to the electron, the length of the string and rate of time that passes for the string. These quantities are defined by the scalar value of the Lorentz factor. This is the origin of the gravitational field, and the effect is quantum, one particle at a time. Hence, the field is quantum; it grows as each pseudoparticle (string attached to an electron) is added to the planetoid.

One uses the above balance rearranges the equation and solves for the value of the "electro-gravitational" constant. If you took the time to do the derivation or to look it up elsewhere in this forum you found its value is G_re = kq_e²/m_e². Where k is Coulomb's constant, q_e is the charge of an electron and m_e is the mass of an electron. G_re is a gravitational constant to due special relativity of some unknown particle locked in orbit of an electron which effect extends a gravitational field particularly to pseudoparticle's encompassed by the same unknown particle. Since, we have the value above, we compare that to universal gravity and find that electro-gravity is about 42 orders of magnitude stronger than universal gravity. Such a strong gravitational force, if applied to the neutron (assumes the neutron to be a pseudoparticle composed of an electron, proton etc.) would lead to clusters of pseudoneutrons that would be neutron stars which neutron stars could become blackholes.

Scientists apply predictions and look for data. Fools reject out right ideas which to them seem ridiculous without further considerations. We have scientists in this forum who consider a structured model of the atomic nucleus whose ideas have been rejected outright. T. Matsumoto considered a fusion model where the atomic nucleus could be modified to a "fermented" form. The nucleus would convert to an itonic form where the core was pseudo-neutrons (he said neutrons, I add pseudo) and the core is surrounded by a net-like structure of positrons and electrons. (This nuclear structure is consistent with both that of "W" and of "E" from this forum). Matsumoto observed and measured with photographs radiation which has only been observed with cold fusion. He called some images produced by radiation blackholes. Such an observation would be consistent with the mathematical mechanism proposed for non-thermal nuclear fusion above.

The usual form of the Schwartzchild equation is R_s =2GM/c². G is the universal gravity constant, M the mass of blackhole and c is the speed of light. For the pseudo-neutron cluster under the effects of electro-gravity a proton is added to the boson string of an electron and the unknown particle. Hence, the Schwartzchild radius is approximately 2G_re(n((2(electron masses) + (proton mass)) where n is the number of pseudo-neutrons. Or more simply stated the measured diameters of images which Matsumoto called blackholes should be as integers since pseudoneutrons occur in whole numbers in atomic nuclei. One can make the measurements on Matsumoto's images or look up the results of my analysis in this forum. The sizes of the images correlated 99.9% with integer values. Isn't that an amazing prediction!

What is suggested is that "Matsumoto" blackholes are radiated from electro-gravity based planetoids. Axil would distract you from the reality of fusion at the event horizon of an electro-gravity based planetoid by following blackholes and whiteholes. Bob Greenyer and others would lead one to follow mystic number theory. I have shown by mass balance and stoichiometry that transmutation equations can be derived which have an accountability for nucleons in a balance reaction equation of 99.9%. For a material scientist's this is an amazing result.

As scientists I think you should find the correlation between "Matsumoto" blackholes and what we suppose we know of the blackholes observed through telescopes to be worth considering. The Schwartzchild equation expresses the limit of speed at which shear between any two particles of matter of the standard model shred each other into an unknown fundamental mass. Falsely it is assumed that a blackhole radiates out of existence via Hawking radiation. It does radiate out of existence. But, if one uses the above view of shear to a fundamental, then one can find a fundamental unknown mass which is the rest mass which attaches itself to make a boson string of an electron. One can then rearrange the equation to create a definition of the Universal gravity constant which is in form like the arrangement of fundamental constant that is the electro-gravitational constant. Hence, gravity is a result of mass and charges of a yet unknown but very definable majorana particle(s) which is the fundamental(s) of every other particle which could occur in the standard model. A quantum form of universal gravity is like the quantum form of electro-gravity and can be defined on this basis.

Matsumoto blackholes are radiated from a reaction, become trapped by a charge difference at a film interface and the shear between fundamentals causes the blackholes to radiate these fundamentals which fundamentals interact with pixels of the film to develop an image from the blackhole which is acting as if it were a light source. The electric field of film interface polarizes the blackhole. Mass escaping at an escape horizon of the blackhole come off tangentially. The path is an expectation of gravity on path of a mass escaping a planet. Hence, a blackhole hopping along the interface creates an image of a ring in motion. If the blackhole remain immobilized at the interface a succession of smaller and smaller rings within rings develops in the image until the image of blackspot develops. If the film is all the same thickness and composition, each blackhole is immobilized at a fixed distance relative to image in the film. Hence, the quantum relationship between image sizes and blackhole masses. These are amazing verifiable facts in Matsumoto's presentations. I challenge any of you to provide a better theory to explain these shapes and images but do provide the math.

I think there exists very little wiggle room for a better explanation what we call LENR reactions in this forum.

How do I summarize the expectation for charge cluster catalyzed fusion? One needs energies sufficient to ionize hydrogen. Most reactions can be traced to E = n² (~hv) where ~hv is 13.6 eV. A boson condensate which is a string between an electron and an unknown particle creates electrogravity which leads to energies at the escape horizon of an electrical negative planetoid which are sufficient to overcome the coulombic barrier to fusion between atoms. The most common initial fusion product in a watery environment is oxygen-17. Fusion will produce free energy. But the Gibbs free energy equation has a heat term and an entropy term. For charge cluster catalyzed fusion, the production of large amounts of some fundamental mass(es) reduce(s)s

heat production relative to entropy production. Look to the characterization by Rout et al for description of this fundamental stuff. Matter to antimatter balance requires that it be possible to destabilize the fundamental(s) produced by charge cluster catalyzed fusion to produce kinetic energy. I don't know how to do that but some poorly defined interaction with electric and magnetic field appears to be the solution. In the LEC the fundamental(s) is/are converted to electric field energy as if they are electrochemical. There are blackholes produced by charge cluster catalyzed fusion but expect them to be short lived. Another key is that the fundamental that comes out of charge cluster catalyzed fusion can be converted to a light source. The fundamental is like entropy that comes from any other entropy producing reaction or like the dark energy produced by celestial blackholes.

Focusing on converting the fundamentals radiating from charge cluster catalyzed fusion as an energy source is the most likely way to create a new energy source. For example, the LEC is a promising approach. For example, creating a dense light or heat source light Brillant light energy is a promising approach.

Focusing on minimizing the size of charge clusters is good approach since there would be fewer blackholes compared to useful electrochemical fuel produced by fusion. Maximizing the production of fuel is a good approach.

A cold form of nuclear fusion and electrical generation from the "sea of energy in which we reside" could be connected.

I did a mass and energy balance on data in Santilli's intermediate fusion and on AquaFuel. In both cases the mass balance with applied stoichiometry produced nuclear reaction equations. These were not borderline to uncertainty measurements of transmutation, rather the mass balances for the reaction equation for Santilli's intermediate fusion accounts for 99.9 percent of elements in the equation. I repeat: the certainty is with 3 orders of magnitude. I would help anyone who wants to check my math and assumptions. It can confidently be stated that a form of cold fusion occurs that has been repeated numerous times with high certainty. So, what is the problem?

One can use the stoichiometry in connection with Einstein's equation for energy to predict the energy production from atomic mass loss in course of the reaction equation of Santilli's intermediate fusions and one can compare that to the actual observed heat production. Only about 4/10,000 ths of the predicted free energy was observed as heat. So, the problem is this cold form of fusion is producing something other than kinetic energy and whatever is produced is the majority of mass/energy product formed from the nuclear mass loss. At least some of that product exists as a fuel as evidenced by energy balance on AquaFuel.

It has been over 4 years since I first disclosed the above information in this forum. It is my opinion that the majority of the mass/energy product formed from the nuclear mass loss in this cold form of nuclear fusion is a fuel. In other word there exists a sea of fuel about us. The same cold form of fusion also produces dark energy via blackholes, and the same dark energy is produced in any process that produces entropy. (A best guess opinion of mine).

Hence my opinion is that it may be possible to harvest the dark energy which exist as a sea of potential energy (fuel) about us. I have looked at many devices to find a dark energy to electrical energy converter as yet unsuccessfully. But then that's why we have this forum isn't it.

Here is a best guess about why 532 nm causes more reaction than first harmonic or third harmonic of the laser. Ionization of hydrogen at n=1 is 13.6 eV. Ionization of hydrogen at n= 2 is 3.4 eV. The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that correspond to emissions of photons by electrons in excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by the principal quantum number n equals 2. The photoelectron effect could reverse this transition. Per photoelectron effect 532 nm would be effective for 656 nm but has too little quanta of energy for the other transitions. The laser can pump this transition. If we apply the phat equation E=n²(hv) then 13.6 ev = 2 x 2 x (3.4 ev). So, while 532 nm can’t ionize hydrogen via n=1, it can pump n=2 then a boson condensate formed via the phat equation can produce energy sufficient to ionize hydrogen.

“Three harmonics of this laser, first at 1064 nm, second at 532 nm, and third at 355 nm were used for target exposure.” 1064 nm has too little quanta for any visible light line spectra. 355 nm has sufficient quanta compared with 532 nm but a collision of 355 nm with hydrogen probable has too little spread in energy due to motion of the fluids to get a match to any of the visible light lines. Whereas 532 nm might create an energy rich tail of the velocity distribution that matches 486 nm or an energy poor tail that matches 656 nm. An absorption in a liquid is a peak (energy distribution) rather than a line due to the combination of molecular velocity and light energy.

Quote from axil

https://iopscience.iop.org/art…42-6596/688/1/012106/meta

This experiment reveals how deceptive that the LENR reaction can be. Here, there are two separate reaction activities ongoing symaltainiously. One that is coherent and one that is not.

The incoherent process is the fusion based process that is associated with the cold fusion meme, the other is a coherent process that remediates unstable isotopes and produces no energy.

In conclusion of the paper the authors write as follows:

Relating to fusion

Relating to the coherent process that stabilizes radioactive isotopes

The laser-induced decay of Tritium is a competing process that determines the stationary level of Tritium during laser exposure. Note that significant decrease of Tritium content occurs during 1 hour laser exposure, which is many orders of magnitude shorter than life time of this nuclide.

Thus, laser-assisted synthesis of Tritium from D2O has been realized. The synthesis proceeds under exposure of various solid targets with laser pulses. There is definite threshold of the intensity and duration of laser pulses, the synthesis takes place only with short (10 ps) laser pulses and peak intensities exceeding 10^11 W/cm2. Tritium is synthesized without any cathodic bias on the target though the application of this bias largely increases its rate. Laser exposure of nanoparticles in absence of the solid target does not alter Tritium content.

This competition is based on the characterization of the population of surface plasmon polaritons that either have formed a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) or remain in areas that are irradiated by the laser but remain uncoherent.

Display More

Synthesis and decay of Tritium are by definition competing reactions. Net synthesis is only detected at a low tritium concentration and net decay is only detected at a high tritium concentration. The experimental design expects the relative rate of decay or synthesis of Tritium is concentration depend. Concentration dependence is normal for any collision-based chemistry/nuclear reaction. Rates of synthesis were much lower with suspended nanoparticles that with solid targets, but this could be due to lower energy absorption by targets. The claim that cathodic bias largely increases the rate of tritium synthesis is not supported by their data. Rather about 3 orders of magnitude increase in rate occurs only with the laser beam at 532 nm and all observations at that wavelength are cathodic bias. Whereas increase in rate with any metal or wavelength (except Ti @ 355) was about 20 times with or without cathodic bias). Ti @ 355 with cathodic bias only increased 1.1 times. Even with 532 nm wavelength, at high concentration, the net direction of reaction was decay (except with Pd). Pd had the highest rate of synthesis of an experiment not using 532 nm. Unfortunately, the data leaves a good observer questioning if the combination of Pd and 532 nm would have resulted in net increase in tritium even at high concentrations of tritium.

Coherent or not coherent does seems to apply to the data.

Quote from axil

The “Thunderstorm” reactor is a good example of the production of energy free transmutation and mass loss. The reaction removes CO2 without the accumulation of carbon

I find the "plasmoid reactor" of "Thunderstorm fascinating. I just reviewed

Groundbreaking New Evidence of Plasmoid Phenomena in the Thunderstorm Generator from MFMP - YouTube. I admit you are likely right about some CO2 removal but wrong about the accumulation of carbon. The inside of the outside sphere is covered in soot. I think that many lightening like arcs occur. The lightening carries electrons from the inner sphere to the outer sphere. The high concentration of electrons on the inside of the outer sphere would then cause reduction of CO2 to soot (elemental carbon) and to oxygen. However, the photograph of the inside of the outer sphere suggest that the amount of soot production is very small. It seems to me that it is unlikely to significantly affect the CO2 levels in the exhaust gas.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Do you see how the roll of tape X-ray generator works now?

Normally one would expect a charge difference between the inner and outer spheres to conduct in the metal since the spheres are welded together. In order for the electrons to arc rather than conduct, the voltage at the point of origin of the arc would need to rise rapidly as if that point was touched to a high voltage source. After the arc contacts the inside of the outer sphere, the electrons would be expected to flow back to wherever they came from.

There does appear to be evidence of a thunderstorm, but I am still puzzled about how it happens.

Quote from sam12

Bob analysis and description.

Balls on outside of inside look like captured steel with Chromium,iron,

Nickel,Molybdenum present and are angular and dendritic rather than smooth.This suggests that this may be the place where electro-nuclear collapse occurs and this would be consistent with the clusters being of negative charge type.

There is a lot of fragments of steel from the cutting process and also possibly from the dremmel cutting disk,seen as glass fibers,however,there were clearly fibers on the sample before the cutting had taken place.

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Display More

Have I got this right the outside of the inside sphere is in contact with the exhaust gas not the inlet gas to the engine?

Quote from axil

The “Thunderstorm” reactor is a good example of the production of energy free transmutation and mass loss. The reaction removes CO2 without the accumulation of carbon and the production of excess oxygen without energy generation from carbon to oxygen fusion as measured by appropriate gages. The amount of transmutation going on is huge if the 400,000 kilowatt gas generator is considered. Please explain how so much transmutation and mass loss is accomplished without the production of megawatts of heat production (aka E=MC^2). Deal with facts not clowner

You said, "The reaction removes CO2." It is more reasonable that a fuel source is generated from nuclear reaction and hence less gasoline is used than that the CO2 is removed, and oxygen is produced.

Santilli proposed carbon fuses to deuterium to produce oxygen in his intermediate fusion. This was wrong; the mass balance had an accountability of 99.9%. for the equation 7 deuterium + 1 oxygen = 2 nitrogen + 2 hydrogens and its side reaction where 6 deuterium fuses to 1 oxygen. For AquaFuel the equation was 12H₂O = 2N₂ + 5O₂. AquaFuel also has a side reaction where 16 hydrogens fuse to 1 oxygen. The AquaFuel equations are consistent with GEET production of oxygen excess in the exhaust. The other possible reaction for "Thunderstorm" is that proposed by B.J. Huang which is observed in gas produced from water during heat exchange. B. J Huang's reaction is also justified by stoichiometry as measured by a mass spectrum analysis.

You said " Please explain how so much transmutation and mass loss is accomplished without the production of megawats of heat production" That is an observed fact for Santilli's intermediate fusion. I offered an explanation in post #154. I said, "the kind of nuclear reaction above produces a massive sea of potential energy in the form of particles much smaller than those of the standard model (with a possible exception of the electron neutrino)." It has been shown for AquaFuel that the nuclear derived fuel can't be discovered by chemical analysis. In a combustion engine a gm of AquaFuel yields an energy result based on comparison to gasoline of 40.1 kj. However, based on thermodynamic prediction based on chemical composition the expectation of a gm of AquaFuel is 13.2 kj.

I am just guessing at a response to you because I can't make any logic of your statement. Further, I can't make sense of most of your posts. The term EVO is non-sense. Could you use the term charge cluster instead? As far as extending charge cluster to include other terms and theoretical connections you have used for it, I am not convinced, and it does seem silly to me. Don't get mad, that is just my opinion.

GEET, the thunderstorm apparatus, Santilli's magnegas and Richardson's AquaFuel are examples of water to energy conversion that seem impossible. How can thermodynamics produce such results, unless there is some mass to energy conversion?

Of all of above examples, only AquaFuel has been shown by mass balance and stoichiometry to be a result of a nuclear transformation equation. That nuclear transformation equation was a variation of one derived by mass balance and stoichiometry from data produced by Santilli's intermediate fusion. The data balance for the equation for intermediate fusion was balanced to 99.9% accountability. The sadness of this result is that the mass loss predicted by the transmutation equation did not show up all as energy. Rather, only about 4/10,000 of it did. Per Gibbs free energy equation, one concludes that the rest of mass lost is entropy. Entropy is an increase in the number of mass states. However, if a mass were to approach the smallest possible limit, then per the uncertainty principle, that mass could be potential energy.

If one has been able to follow the logic above, one supposes that the kind of nuclear reaction above produces a massive sea of potential energy in the form of particles much smaller than those of the standard model (with a possible exception of the electron neutrino). Note that same conclusion follows from work of Rout et al concerning radiation from cold fusion reactions. Further, note that cosmology reports that blackholes create dark energy which is only called energy because it is converted to the whatever is expanding the universe. Dark energy would be everywhere and is most of mass/energy of the universe.

It is very true that there is no consensus about what dark energy is. However, that doesn't change the possibility that whatever it is can be harvested as an energy source. Further, many scientists accept a similar concept, vacuum energy. Vacuum energy theory resulted in the worst prediction in all of science because it assumed vacuum energy to be equally distributed in space.

In contrast if vacuum energy (a result of the uncertainty principle) is mass which forms from energy, entropy (as governed by Gibbs free energy equation) or can be converted to energy (as governed by the uncertainty principle), then vacuum energy would have properties of mass. It would be a radiation with momentum and could be slowed by other masses to near zero momentum, unlike light. Its small size makes it impossible to exclude from a container of helium one is freezing to absolute zero. Hence, observed zero-point energy could be this un-excludable mass/dark energy. Its mass make it present in any gravitational field in proportion to gravitational field strength. Hence dark energy could be the reason for the vacuum catastrophe. This mass at the smallest possible quantum limit has a dark energy property which could be fermion exclusion. Hence, as Gibb's free energy equation produces by reaction more entropy, that entropy being a sea of fermions causes the expansion of the universe.

The point is that there is ample evidence for nuclear transformation to release energy from water. Further, there are good reasons for experiments with an aim to harvest so called zero-point energy or an aim to harvest so called dark energy or an aim to convert entropy back to useful energy or an aim to improve the energy/entropy yield of known so called cold fusion equations.

If your personal preference rejects as unscientific one of these types of experiments, then I ask you to consider that all of these experiments are likely trying to explain the same thing. These are exciting times. There are a number of proposals that need a "I will wait and see, or I am not yet convinced view." I suggest we all stay in the conversation and feel free to express our opinions.

Quote from Frogfall

Some "airstones" seem to be a type of wood. But wikipedia says:

Note that the old explanation for how Lord Kelvin's thunderstorm works "doesn't hold water" - so there is yet another mystery there too.

https://iopscience.iop.org/art…0.1088/0143-0807/10/2/008

Kelvin Water Dropper and How it Works/Lord Kelvin's Thunderstorm - YouTube

Quote from Trifon

Axel,

In this topic I am not trying to explain why it is possible to group electrons (condensed state). It is accepted as an experimental fact that such a state takes place. Only a model based on this assumption is proposed for consideration.

Perhaps the condensed state is not electrons but rather some composite particle (boson) whose composite mass and charge are almost identical to an electron. As a boson there would be no fermion exclusion. Perhaps the stability of this collection of bosons depends on the sphere of cations which surrounds it. That would produce the layers as your explanation of the anatomy of a charge cluster suggests. Perhaps the apparent conversion of fermions to bosons is due the intense electrical field and exchange of virtual photons which is the energy of that field.

There is still the problem that electrons repel each other. However, if the Columb force between the pseudoelectrons (composite particles as above) is not singular, then they would attract at very close distances. Pharis Williams has proposed such a non-singular relationship between charged particles. A non-singular relationship could then be decomposed to the usual Columb force and an attractive force at very short distance. I have provided the math elsewhere in this forum under the assumption that the attractive force can be modeled as a form of gravity. One does a balance of the repulsion on the pseudoelectron at the escape horizon to its attraction to the cluster of electrons. That lets one solve for this second form of gravity's coupling constant. Electro-gravity coupling constant is G_re. Its value is kq_e²/m_e² based on the above balance. The values in the constant are: k, coulomb's constant, and the electron charge and electron mass. The electron mass and charge follow from the assumption that the pseudoelectron has insignificant mass and charge difference from an electron.

Electro-gravity would explain other things that just ball-lightening and charge clusters. For example, one could use it in modified gravity to explain "dark matter". Or rather as Electric universe does, show that there is no need for dark matter just modified gravity.

Electro-gravity makes fusion simple because if a cluster is large enough then the escape energy of a pseudoelectron or other such pseudo-particle attracted by electro-gravity would be in the MeV range. Hence, electro-gravity makes a non-thermal (gravitational) energy distribution that allow fusion near the escape horizon of a charge cluster. Hence, LENR would be charge cluster catalyzed fusion. Hence, as in Ed Storms Amazing Results deuterons are emitted from glow discharge experiments in the MeV range. Fusion in charge cluster catalyzed fusion occurs because of velocities high enough to overcome the coulomb barrier between the target and projectile nuclei. Unfortunately, electro-gravity creates unconventional outcomes of fusion and fission.

If one compares the electro-gravity coupling constant to Univeral gravity couple constant, one finds that electro-gravity is something like 42 orders of magnitude stronger than Universal gravity. Hence, a very small amount of mass attracted by electro-gravity would cause acceleration near the speed of light for like attracted particles while not significantly accelerating particles not attracted by electro-gravity.

For example, T Matsumoto proposes that "cold fusion neutrons" form blackholes. This blackhole radiation is found only from cold fusion. These blackholes are a light or particle sources which gets trapped at the interface of a film emulsion exposed to cold fusion. Rather than a track in the film as expected for a high energy particle, the trapped light or particle source develops large spots and ring-shaped images. These images have quantum sizes. For example, if one correlates the blackhole image size to integers one finds that spots correlate 99.9% with integers rather than numbers in-between. If neutrons are converted to "pseudo-neutrons" by electro-gravity then there can't be fractional numbers of neutrons which become a neutron star and then collapses to a blackhole. Further, the multitude of pixels developed in the image are from individual photons or masses emitted from the Matsumoto blackholes. Emissions are something like gravity waves or Hawking radiation. After all, blackhole in theory radiate out of existence.

Quote from Diadon Acs

Just to be clear, you are referring to the cavitation of a liquid and gas of H2O/Oxygen in a experimental system when you write about bjhuang lǎo shī 's experiments, correct?

That would be the correct thread.

Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang et al.. see #76

To keep the "Thunderstorm" powered engine running there must be a source of energy. Common though is that if petrol is the source of energy then carbon will be in the exhaust in proportion to the energy needed. As Frogfall points out if less petrol is drawn into the engine, then less carbon is in the exhaust. Frogfall's suggestion is that an unknown reaction is the source of this energy. He suggests it may be like GEET or a Joe Cell.

I have suggested a recycle of entropy. Common though is that heat from the exhaust leads to electrolysis. Paradigmnoia has indicated that any electrolyzed water is burn back to water so that the oxygen content is slightly leaned out by water vapor. This stiochiometry is what is reported but does not account for the energy.

I have suggested that the B J Huang reaction may be the source of the energy. The reactions would then be 1) the hydrolysis of water, 2) charge cluster catalyzed fusion of hydrogen to oxygen-16 to produce oxygen 17 and charge cluster catalyzed fusion of oxygen-17 to oxygen-17 to produce sulfur-34 then charge cluster catalyzed fission of sulfur-34 to carbon-12 and neon-22. B J Huang's evidence suggests that it is extremely improbable the reaction he proposed does not occur during heat transfer to produce water vapor from water. That reaction could be applied in the case of "Thunderstorm" power.

The overall reaction consumes hydrogen and oxygen as fusion fuels and produces carbon and neon-22 as fission products. The carbon reacts with water to produce carbon dioxide and the hydrogen produced by carbon reaction with water is combusted with excess oxygen in the engine intake to produce water. The overall reaction would be 3O₂ + 2H₂O = 2CO₂ + 2Ne. If this reaction occurs in "Thunderstorm" then one should be able to shut off the petrol and engine would continue to operate and to exhaust carbon dioxide. If the reaction occurs, then the engine is burning hydrogen, but its origin is not hydrolysis but rather the water shift reaction. The engine is expected to top out at full open throttle by a limited rate of one of the following: a limited rate of heat transfer to water in the intake, the limited concentration of water rather than vapor in the inlet, a limited rate of charge cluster catalyzed fusion/fission, excessive temperature in the fusion/fission zone of the reactor destroying the charge clusters or due to the limited rate of shift gas reaction.

If the B J Huang reaction drives "Thunderstorm", then detection of neon-22 as B J Huang did provides very certain evidence of what is happening.

Quote from Frogfall

Of course there is less carbon in the exhaust. That's just because the engine is burning less petrol in relation to the volume of exhaust. That's exactly what will happen if you squirt air and electrolysed water (hydrogen and oxygen) into the inlet manifold - which will also affect the carburettor, by messing up the manifold depression.

How much power is taken by the electrolyser?

If as you say, then what little carbon is in the exhaust comes from the petrol. That is very little.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The oxygen readings with the device on are essentially atmospheric, which suggests dilution of the measured exhaust gasses with atmospheric air. Has someone done any stoichiometric math to test for simple air dilution?

If the atmospheric gas was just passed through, then the exhaust gas should have 20.95% oxygen as for atmospheric gas. It has a little less.

It maybe that there is a nuclear reaction like in BJ Huang results. If so then Neon-22 would be produced.

Quote from Curbina

These are other results released some weeks ago. This level of CO2 and CO emission reduction is not independently verified, but this is for showing the claims that is being made and that has been at least partially verified by third parties.

If I understand the chart correctly, then the combination of the bubbler and the plasmoid generator radically reduces the carbon in the exhaust and radically increase the oxygen in the exhaust. Also note that if the oxygen is calibrated correctly that it should indicate the atmospheric gas has 20.95% oxygen. Even with the bubbler and plasmoid generator, the chart indicates the exhaust gas has less than atmospheric levels of oxygen. The products of combustion are oxides (water and oxides of carbon), which products consume roughly equal amounts of oxygen. The base level indicates that combustion should produce about 14% carbon dioxide. With the bubbler and the plasmoid generator the oxygen in the exhaust is about 19%. That would be all of the oxygen from the carbon dioxide and some of oxygen from water produced by combustion.

Did anyone check to see if the exhaust gas had enough hydrogen to burn?

This design, like GEET, could increase the recycle of entropy and therefore increase thermal output. When a reaction occurs, the energy is distributed between heat and entropy. Recycling entropy could therefore increase heat output. To recycle entropy the input side of heat exchanger needs liquid water not vapor to be most effective. Also see "cavitation-sonofusion-reactor-from-b-j-huang-et-al" in this forum which could also exploit entropy recycle via a heat exchanger.

I would need to be a patent application database since the good stuff has been systematically rejected by the US patent office. Otherwise, there is a bias to people who spend lots of money or edit out useful information.

One might prove a connection between LEC and heat after death. If plating of metal for LEC or applying transient cavitation bubbles to a piece of metal, then using them in LEC both produced currents. A sonic treatment rather than plating could be a savings of time and perhaps energy. It might even prove over unity quicker, since one could account of the energy needed to treat the metal in comparison to the current output of the LEC.

One might prove a connection between LEC and after heat by looking for after heat in the metal from an experiment run like B. J. Huang"s.