Posts by Drgenek

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

Any type with heat after death. Or the LEC.

There is after heat from the application of transient cavitation bubbles. See ENECOtheseventh.pdf (lenr-canr.org) page 361 "Predictable and Reproducible Heat". Particularly interesting is figure 2. Deuterium is embedded by ultrasound in a metal foil. The authors claim various metal foils work, then at the time indicated by the dotted line regular water replaces deuterated water. Further, they indicate that the afterheat is proportional to the watts input from a joule heater (figure 1). However, note the slopes of heat peaks (figure 2). They decline which suggests the reaction which produces the afterheat is not sustained by joule heating.

You could be right about the high COP. The Q(x) at 2880 minutes is truly small compared to the areas of afterheat to 5760 minutes.

If the charge clusters can be immobilized in metal and fed hydrogen via ultrasound in some way to keep them producing excess heat in response to joule heating, then that might provide workable demonstration of cold fusion. It is a complex model of creating energy through nuclear active sites and then washing it out with heat to produce afterheat. Perhaps a similar model could be used for LEC.

Overall, one could suggest an improvement over B J Huang's using cavitation in heat exchange, since ultrasound could be less damaging to equipment and therefore lead to longer equipment life.

Quote from JedRothwell

I assume there are hydrogen fusion reactions going on, and the neon transmutations are only a byproduct of them. In any case, other forms of cold fusion have COPs much higher than 10 or 20. Some are infinite, with no input energy. Assuming this is cold fusion, if this particular form of cold fusion is limited to 5 or 10, others forms will be used instead.

My guess is that the trigger for cold fusion by charge clusters is getting the charge cluster to a size such that the charge cluster can create some small proportion of pseudo-hydrogen at voltages about 2.2 MeV. At this threshold a pair of pseudo-hydrogen can convert to pseudo-deuterium, the pseudo-deuterium can photolysis and the resultant neutron/ pseudo-neutron can be absorbed to various elements. For example, that would give the appearance of hydrogen fusion to oxygen-16 to create oxygen-17. Pseudo-neutron produced from hydrogen are energetic enough to fission thorium while pseudo-neutrons produced from deuterium are not. see [0906.4268] Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua-ions (arxiv.org). Further, the decay of some pseudo-neutrons as Matsumoto blackholes then produces the entropy (strange radiation) that drives the transmutation (production of real neutrons).

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a list or initial classification of cold fusion reactions to expand my view, so that I might understand what form of cold fusion has reliably measured COPs much higher that 10 or 20?

Quote from JedRothwell

I believe that is correct. However, at 5.0 the machine would generate very little useful electricity. It would use all energy just to keep itself going. To make useful energy I believe ratio would have to be 10 or 20.

I do not know of any reason to think 10 or 20 cannot be achieved.

If the Ne-22 producing reaction runs to completion and gets to the lowest energy states, the cold fusion reaction to produce Ne-22 would be as follows: 4H₂O = CO₂ + 3H₂ + ²²Ne. There is a water shift reaction due to the carbon production and due to reacting oxygen-17. Chemical variations happen such as hydrogen leaking out, hydrogen reacting to water, and carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide being produced from de novo carbon. Further, much of the oxygen-17 might be lost to water and other oxides rather than remaining active enough to fuse then fission to final products above.

Assuming based on the above equation that 5 moles of gas are expected for every 4 moles of water and that water that is lost is not a gas, then one calculates the energy yield assuming no entropy as 3.14 kWh per ml of gas produced at STP. This energy yield does not include the fuel value of the hydrogen produced. But if half of the oxygen-17 doesn’t react to Neon then the energy production from that portion of oxygen-17 is lost. Half of net energy comes from this second nuclear reaction. Further, the coulomb barrier for the oxygen-17 to oxygen-17 fusion is a little over 13.06 MeV. However, if none of the energy from nuclear reaction is released from the charge cluster until final fission then the reaction is possible since the overall energy produced is 13.13 MeV. Hence, the reaction could be catalyzed by the enormous energy trapped by the electro-gravity of the charge cluster. The more oxygen-17 that does not go to completion to produce Neon-22 then the lower the rate of reaction to produce Neon-22.

The greater the amount of entropy produced then the greater percentage of reaction completion. However, the greater the amount of entropy produced then the lower the energy yield (enthalpy).

What we have seen is that the cold fusion reaction of deuterium and oxygen to produce nitrogen is very high entropy (Santilli's intermediate fusion). The heat yield relative to calculated yield based on no entropy is about 4/10,000. It is supposed that the production of strange radiation is the source of the high entropy, since strange radiation is the production of large numbers of new mass states. For example, the pixel by pixel development of an image of Matsumoto’s blackhole.

There is a potential for a high COP for the Neon-22 producing reaction but only because we have no idea what entropy yield is required to cause it to happen. As a note of encouragement, based on the nitrogen producing reaction, one would not expect the yield to be below 0.00125 kWh per ml of gas produced.

Quote from Curbina

That’s totally correct. People that advocate for membrane desalination are trying actively to downplay this problem, but it won’t go away. The concept of Zero Liquid Discharge has been around for a while, but with SWRO, it’s a huge challenge. Waste heat can also help reduce the brine problem, but much more research is needed, or a much cheaper energy source to make the energy cost of total evaporation a concern of the past.

You may find it surprising but there are natural undisturbed volumes of brine in the deep oceans. It would appear that brine pumped deep enough will not mix with the rest of the ocean.

Quote from JedRothwell

Everyone accounts for this. It is Carnot efficiency. At a given temperature it is the same with all heat engines. It makes no difference whether the heat comes from combustion, fission, or cold fusion.

To make a true complete cycle comparison, if the heat (electrical power) to drive LENR comes from electrical power, then the true heat input needs to consider the efficiency of production of electrical power from heat. Hence, there is need for a correction of at least the efficiency of heat to power of combined cycle power plant. So, if COP is 1.3 based on electrical heat to heat output, then the true efficiency would be 1.3 x .62 =0.81 which is not enough to be sustainable. In contrast when burning AquaFuel the heat/torque compared to heat predicted from chemical composition is 3.03 which is just barely sustainable with combined cycle power design. For AquaFuel, there is still the question of how much of the heat is produced to produce Aquafuel and how cost effective is the carbon fuel used to produce it. In the case of a cost to dispose of the organic material, then the cost of fuel is a not issue, so heat produced in AquaFuel production is the bonus that make a profit.

Of course, the issue goes away if LENR can be run as a sustained reaction at high temperature. Perhaps Brillant Light Power has succeeded. We will see. I would welcome a result that suggests a true complete cycle from anyone, including Egley or LEC.

Quote from JedRothwell

See:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJmoreaboutw.pdf

B J Huang's work is important because it addresses your assumptions which are debatable. Namely LENR can provide a power density for a heat engine with reasonable Carnot efficiency. A combined cycle plant is more efficient because is converts more heat to energy in multiple heat cycles not because it uses the same heat more. The process is still limited by entropy. Heat recovery and vapor recompression are essential to that process.

Another failing of LENR is heat from electricity without accounting for the efficiency of heat to electricity. Look at HHO gas, these processes are accused of not being over unity. Santilli build a multi-million-dollar profitable business on basis they are over unity, but when the business was taken over by people who ignored that the energy originated by nuclear reaction, they designed equipment ignoring a truth they could not understand, or measure and they drove the business to bankruptcy.

LENR in B J Huang's work does not have to have this second failing because the heat that drives the LENR does not have to originate with electricity. So, the COP from table one below might be used via vapor recompression to get a high Carnot efficient to achieve the expectation you set.

The average COP for experiment with nuclear reactions was 1.36. You say it doesn't need to be more than ~30%. Therefore, these results are very exciting. One expects to recovery the excess heat, use part of it for power production and recycle enough to keep the LENR going.

If vapor recompression can be used to prove via closed cycle the excess heat due to LENR, then that result should provide a reliable proof of concept. Of course, it needs to be reproducible, and the life of the equipment needs to be cost effective.

This thread is your soapbox but don't get too self-deceived. Data and analysis not your personal theories will move LENR forward. You do get somethings right, but it is my opinion that you are more wrong than right.

Why should anyone believe you when you have the lack of sense to call fusion/fission via LENR a myth?

Quote from bjhuang

this kind of so-called "radiation shield" has ever been considered by us when we feel something strange in energy balance during LENR and some strange results of SEM/EDX on the ruptured copper pipe. just wait and see with more test results.

Have you found any correlation between the velocity of fluid receiving the heat and the amount of Neon/CO2 produced?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I made a COP 7.2 Lugano type device using no fuel at all but still otherwise using AR nd Levi’s method. That include the power supply, everything from the wall outlet to the Cylinder.

The MFMP made a COP 5 with AR’s and Levi’s method, also with no fuel installed.

AR only made a COP of 3.6 with his and Levi’s method, and couldn’t even be bothered to attach thermocouples to confirm their work

Would you point me to a write-up of your work?

In a combine cycle power plant (gas turbines, heat recovery steam generator and high steam pressure and low steam pressure turbines) there are two methane gas turbines. Each is about two stories high. The gas turbines are designed to take advantage of the inflow air to keep the turbine blades well below the flame temperature.

In 2016, GE manufactured a combined cycle power plant with an efficiency of 62.22%. This went straight into the Guinness World Records as the most efficient at that time. What makes combined cycle power plants so efficient? (araner.com)

When considering the future of LENR one would be wise to consider this benchmark.

Quote from fabrice DAVID

response to Drgenek:

No, I think it is possible, under certain cavitation conditions in a strong magnetic field, to create small plasmoids in a liquid fuel. These plasmoids should survive combustion in a turboreactor or in a combustion chamber, and thus one should be able to give additional acceleration to the hot gases by MHD means, and enormously increase the specific impulse.

I think you are saying that that if a plasmoid survives combustion that the positive and negative charged particle in the plasmoid could be accelerated by MHD to increase specific impulse. By using fuel with higher specific impulse, a spacecraft wouldn't need as much mass to travel in space. Further, a nuclear reaction might provide the high energy dense fuel needs to power the MHD.

Quote from fabrice DAVID

I like the cavitation experiments. A very interesting field for space propulsion.

Are thinking about making gas from water without as much energy input as creating steam?

Bob Greenyer has commented on Sundaresananomalousr.pdf (lenr-canr.org). What is odd about the Sundaresan report is that no iron is formed if oxygen is exclude from the water by displacement with nitrogen. To repeat, no oxygen solubilized tin the water results in no iron production. If applicable to BJ Huang, then one would expect no neon if there was no soluble oxygen.

Bob proposes that the first product of transmutation in Sundaresan reaction is oxygen-17. This is same as in the latest BJ Huang presentation. He further proposed the second step would produce carbon-12 and iron-56 (as compared to carbon-12 and neon-22 per BJ Huang).

Bob proposes the catalyst for fusion is magneto toroidal structure. He proposes this catalyst consumes relic neutrinos to form. Further, he claims the structure has magnetic, or electrical or gravimetry properties that allow fusion.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Normal people read this as less obtained. I once read it the other way round...

Yes, less per gm than gasoline by 10%.

Quote from Curbina

The results were from a lab analysis, not theoretical. Santilli explains these results are in agreement with his theory of the magnecular bond, but the results are experimental, not theoretical.

The data I cited was in the analysis in my patent application and is based on AquaFuel not Santilli.

Article by Santilli on AquaFuel states the torque/energy produced by AquaFuel in an engine test was 90% of that obtained with gasoline. That would be 40.087 kj per gm. One skilled in chemical engineering can calculate the expected kj/gm of AquaFuel based on the chemical composition as provided by NASA. That would be 13.2375 kj/gm. Hence by division one obtains 3.028 times more energy/torque than explained by chemical composition.

Quote from Wyttenbach

We (standard model) know nothing real about black holes. Also nothing about dark energy.

Scientists find first evidence that black holes are the source of dark energy | Imperial News | Imperial College London