Quote from axil

Yet when the flame of the torch was placed on the Teflon, it did not burn and it did not melt, it remained unmarked and straight. And no one was gased.

Just food for thought....

A metal reacts readily with an acid (which is chemically speaking H3O+) or an excess of protons or Hydrogen if you will. The funny thing is, it does not reacts with plastic beakers or glass (mostly). Case in point, the radicals created in HHO gas are just like the Acidic or Alkaline components in water (there is always a little bit even in pure water). so it is in my mind not surprising at all there is a huge difference in reaction to exposure of HHO gas between plastic like stuff and a metal...
So this can easily be explained with a chemical mindset, nothing fancy about it. It is a very interesting thing though and worth researching IMHO.

Quote from Andras

It would be good to precisely understand the deuteron internal structure and binding, as next step.

This I agree with 100%, Understanding the Deuteron system, meaning the bond between two protons, the role and state of the nuclear electron and all that comes from this is crucial in fact and will reveal many more enigma's regarding the nuclear realm once solved. Conversely, the structure of the nucleus (SAM) reveals clues about that fundamental system. One could call it reverse engineering.

Andras his efforts are highly appreciated because it makes the effort to connect the properties of the proton / electron with the interaction between them and hence the structure of the elements (SAM). That is IMHO what current fundamental physics should be all about. This needs resolving and current QM etc. is not adequate at all, in fact I would argue that it keeps us from making progress very much... We need, as I always state, "a clean slate" approach to resolve this. Luckily some of us have been doing just that for a while now, so there is a beginning of this new understanding or at least the recognition that we need this different approach. This is I believe the most interesting quest we can be on, by admitting we do not know, and true to real scientific methods, we can make the effort to increase out understanding. isn't that what makes the heart of a scientist beat a bit faster?!

Quote from Wyttenbach

It is your freedom to believe what you think is true.

Your argument just is not science. The current C0₂ level will hit the 16 million years ago mark soon. This was a very hot period. The mechanism of how C0₂ heats the planet is well investigated and bullet proof.

The ocean water level will raise 2-4 meters until 2100. Everybody with no clue of science will notice this as soon the first tipping point has been crossed (about 12-15 years from now) when the yearly increase will become some centimeters/year. Many large cities (Tokyo, Manhattan, Amsterdam. Kopenhagen, Hamburg, ... will be totally inundated some like London partially...This will add some 800 million additional people looking for anew place to live.

Be aware that there is no simple way back once a tipping point has been crossed.

We do CF in the hope we could change the way we produce energy. But money today is spent for sports contracts, fantasy projects/science, etc.. Nobody want's to save the ocean live or humanity...

Display More

I am not allowed to debate this on the forum. I cannot point out how wrong you are with your data and we that we are at an historic low CO2 level wise or how beneficial CO2 really is and the base for life. I cannot tell you climate data is fixed etc etc. and how you were made to believe a completely false narrative. So I wont.

Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

“We don’t have a choice about whether geoengineering happens,” he said. “We only get to choose whether people with good intentions do it.”

The road to hell is paved with good intentions... just saying.

nb. Ban me, censor me, ignore me, attack me, but I am firmly against the notion of anthropogenic climate change. CO2 is the best substance there is for life and global warming is a huge lie and hoax to drive global factors.

We need to stop the scaremongering and focus on actual problems such as energy security for the future without destroying the environment (forest for example) or pollute everything with low tech industry. That is something very different and real but mostly ignored because 'CO2 something scary'. A recycle economy, A hydrogen energy system, nuclear base preferably is all good, even throw in some EV's and such, no problem, but stop the climate scare! there are plenty real environmental issues to focus on, plenty of global challenges to overcome.
Stop destroying natural processes and sell them as a problem! (nitrogen. methane and CO2 issue).

Quote from Wyttenbach

One thing is obvious. A neutron that passes through e.g. 155Gd can and will never stimulate fusion as its normal behavior is a "thermal" cool down by resonant gammas that are neutron specific and "only" are related to the interacting nucleus SOP quantum structure. This relation is extremely complex and may be one reason the classic models are heuristic only with huge error bars for specific resonant energies. For 75-As the SOP relations could help to find more answers.

What I can say about these nuclei is that, from a structural perspective, Gd155 has a lot of potential for neutron absorption without a nuclear reaction taking place (Beta decay). Depending on where the neutron takes place it could have a internal transition with the energy release that is driven by the densest packing principle. It can simply readily accept another neutron, should have relatively high cross section therefore?
The As75 is structurally very complete, in fact any addition WILL result in a decay step, depending on the specific spot where the neutron interacts, it decay's upwards or downwards, (mostly upwards to Se).
As is therefore not readily accepting neutrons, cross section should be low?

Quote from Curbina

Edo can you share with us the SAM interpretation for these Be isotopes, if you have them on hand, so we can appreciate the similarities? Sorry to bother you!

This is not easy (being short) and ascribe to your request. We have described all we know in the book and its appendix has (all) the isotopes/elements with their data that is commonly accepted plus what we have learned such as the radius of the nucleus, or even the roughly calculated nuclear energy that can be potentially released above the iron mark. Be can be seen in our builder here -https://structuredatom.org/atomizer/atom-viewer
and the data can be accessed here - https://structuredatom.org/book/appendix_h.pdf
SAM is in principle a "Deuteron building block" model. So we see Be10 to have 4 d-pairs (the old n-p combo) and 2 extra PeP's or proton-electron-pairs, which is the old 'neutron'. The availability of two of those PePs means is can Beta decay into B10 (edit / typo) by evicting one of the two nuclear electrons into an orbital structure.
Be is somewhat special because traditionally is is close to or used to do nuclear physics whereby we see 2 alpha particles coming off. This is the results of the Binding Energy story. mind you the alpha particle is still a combo of two D.

What does the structure in general teach us for example? Well for one thing that the number of points where protons actually connect to neighboring protons by default is THREE. however in the geometric build-up phases a substructure of the nucleus is the icosahedron (Carbon) and this leads to extra ! connections totaling 4 or 5 connections. This utterly straightforwardly correlates with the number of 'quarks'..... Sooooooooooooooooo, Quarks are the connections between the protons, they ARE the connection if you will. They are in number the connection or touching points of the protons in the nucleus. They are not what makes the protons!

So
- neutrons are not fundamental (yes free n exists, duh)
- quarks are the actual connection between protons in the nucleus.

- the nucleus is made up of deuterons as building block.

And that is just the start I think. Hope to have accommodated your request.

The Structured Atom Model has been around for some years now and we made all kinds of explanations of how the structure actually correlates to physics (phenomenon). People often ask, where is the evidence?! Well first of all the evidence is in the fact of how well SAM deals with nuclear known decay steps, explains fission and where the energy is coming from! Then we show that the structure of the nucleus is directly related to the outer electron realm (orbitals and oxidation state). But all this is part of the known body of data out there.

Just a few days ago though this came out:
https://english.imp.cas.cn/new…311/t20231124_644997.html

So, I consider this clear cut evidence or support for the structure of the nucleus as SAM proposes, but coming from the mainstream efforts.
They just need to learn that there is more than the very old alpha particle model which has very little details and cannot solve nuclear structure issue either. SAM can, did and does.

Perhaps time to start thinking about a structured nucleus? And then of course what that means!

Quote from axil

It's ironic that science does not accept LENR and LENR backers don't accept science.

This..... is where you go wrong in my mind.

Gross generalization and untrue!

Science is on the quest of understanding nuclear reactions and how to trigger them and make them useful. Current so called accepted MS science models! like QM with the Copenhagen Int. and GR for example are at odds with this. Your models I think...
"LERN backers", very politized statement. Try to think more in scientific terms, meaning open minded, accept we do not know it all etc etc.
Now LERN backers sounds like do you support the current main thing in the news or not. Science is a quest to know things, not an oracle or gospel that tells us what is true. That is so utterly unscientific its mindboggling.

But even if we go along with your comments, broken as they are, WHY do you think the LENR backers do not accept the current MS models? DO you think they are aliens, natural born rebels, outsiders, or perhaps,,,, people that have like anyone else first been schooled in those standard models and concluded they are NOT the answer... Could that be? you know the current models are simply to limiting, wrong on a foundational level and stuck together to form something of "one Mainstream accepted model"
I know the answer, the ones that reject current models have been there and discard them for their inadequateness. We need better! That is my own drive for the quest of the Structured Atom Model, which is far from over and some day potentially lay the foundation for some real nuclear physics! I would challenge you to make a big jump in your own thinking and stop wasting your time making the next word salad based on the current models and stop promoting it here, no-one cares tbh, since we are are you stated, "Not accepting science "

So let me go woke as the last touch, Do you have any idea how offensive this actually is? Having to read those bold simplistic statement about us and we don't believe this or that, and are such and such. This is not even remotely worthy of being called science or scientific debate. All the people I met in this community are mostly hard working individuals that have a drive and passion and all feel pretty scientific to me and think they know what they are talking about, at least in their own field. We should simply listen to each other and when there are useful lessons to be learned, pick up on those and do your advantage with it. OR keep making those dumb statements and see how many flies you catch.

Can't resist....

So last year AR started the production of the 700.000 orders he already received... Does this mean that he can throw out all those already build models so far?

Should you not show your working machine before you start building? I mean 'safety issues' so severe you have to stop a live demonstration sounds very serious... right?

Or perhaps he just needed the next excuse to do the same thing again the coming year with more promises and promises..

So funny that people actually still believe this man. (shows how far gone we collectively are) although it should be stopped, because this man is doing singlehandedly more damage to this field of LENR than all other bad stuff combined!

Quote from Curbina

Edo , the issue for discouraging discussion of this topic here is not censorship, but keeping the focus of the forum.

I do respect that, but had to respond there... (won't stoke the fire more than this, promise)

Quote from Curbina

Well Folks, there’s a reason why we don’t allow discussion of global warming, now global climate change, in the forum, and is precisely because of this: it is a divisive issue, and there are entrenched positions that can’t be reconciled. Let’s focus on LENR, which eventually will help making the problem moot.

Well, that sounds like just like all the other platforms out there, lets not debate the thing that is important, there is only one truth and for the sake of peace we will ignore it entirely and censor it. How is this a good thing?

also, artillery takes care of entrenched positions, so why stop now? The 'coov' was allowed to be debated endlessly and then some.
By NOT debating it, the lies will win out, meaning the ones that push this global idiotic agenda that they know nothing about and blame any normal person for a non existing issue. Most of you cannot even distinguish between weather, seasons, trends over years and actual climate change which can only ! be measure with some statistical significance over a period of at least 30 years. So any anomaly within a year or even a whole year, or even 10 years is not relevant at all. But I am sure some will try to ignore that nasty little fact and pretend they know all about it. Then the fact we only measured for a the shortest blip in time and the obvious mistakes and miscalculation and proven wrong models makes it only worse, but let's not talk about it indeed, it too controversial....

What progress will be made this way?! answer -> none whatsoever, just like in physics or LENR.

If one talks about particles and how they organize (gaps or particles themselves) you have to take into account how they are organized. Please show me how the particles are organized (structure) for n = 1 to n = 12 please. Putting them together will cause gaps, which is unavoidable, so how do you do that please?

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I wish theorists here would start updating Wikipedia with all the profound theories proposed here. I looked up Pine's Demon entry on Wikipedia only to find it never once mentions massless electrons or the fundamental tie to the existence of the universe as we know it.

Sorry, Our theories are simply censored on Wikipedia, because "Fill in Reason".

Another great video from Gareth (See The Pattern) on Youtube. This time we zoom in on the electron, aether and Lorentz.

The nucleus is structured and this leads to the uneven splitting of the U atom. The same principle applies to these results. The larger nuclei, Pd and Pt would fuse with D and trans-mutate upwards, causing the slightly heavier elements above Pd and Pt. These fusion reactions however we think, can also cause fission or spallation reactions to take place, due to reasons I hope to address at the upcoming ICCF conference. This mechanism of breaking off branches and where the breaking would occur is poorly understood at this time of writing, but simple taking off a few branches would yield atomic number in the order of 27-33, 51-57, 65-70 range. Those ranges would be the peaks in all likelihood.
I agree this is indeed an important topic and by no means have I given a thorough explanation here, I mean to point out how well the concept of a structured nucleus seems to fit the data by means of fission...

Presentation (PDF) about fission explain via SAM
https://structuredatom.org/sit…2019%20Final%20public.pdf

Nice material there!

Just to add my two cents, The geodes found all over the earth, I believe, are created by electric forces and perhaps even transmutations...
Also, the thunderbolts Youtube channel has some very nice video's about the electric earth and geology which in my mind is quite compelling. Latest from Andrew shows how many rock features are the result of huge EM disturbances on the planets surface.

Quote from Storms

I have learned an important lesson about why no progress is made in understanding LENR. When an opportunity is provided here to discuss the subject, the discussion is overwhelmed by certain individuals who have their own very strongly held beliefs so that a shared understanding can not develop. No one is present who can say, "Shut up and listen" or "Stick to the subject". So we are treated to a series of random thoughts having no relationship to each other. At least in a bar when this happens, the people who try to dominate the discussion can be told to leave by the largest person in the group.

As you all might have forgotten, the subject is supposed to be

Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

I have provided the evidence for and the resulting conclusions about LENR in two papers. I have asked for comments. Instead, we have been treated to speculations based on imagination that have very little contact with reality. The discussion is dominated by people who have an unwillingness to change their opinions or to entertain other ideas. Frankly, I have better use for my time.

The reason I bring up the SAM model (yes I promote it as creator of it) is because I believe and think (dare I say 'I know') that this is an important topic in order to start an attempt of understanding LENR, nuclear reactions and the elements in general. I have to agree with you though, too many loose thoughts and I may have been guilty of that myself. Anyhow, understanding the structure of the elements just may provide clues as to what is happening in the LENR phenomenon.

So wat is the structure of the elements? Can you show, or is that too much "LEGO" for you?
How do you deal with the organization of the nucleons regardless of how strong they are 'attracted'?
"The SO(4) model clearly shows that in 4-He the flux of all proton joins and hence a new single body comes into existence."
So four become one, and then?

Quote from Storms

In other words, all of the present understanding of nuclear structure is wrong.

Please allow me to offer a Structured Atom Model that you may not have considered yet. this was developed in the last decade or so, precisely due to disappointment in the current models ability to give us some proper understanding of the nucleus, which is largely ignored!

Here is a link to the website, https://structuredatom.org/atomizer/atom-viewer
We have a book about it with all the details and more. There are also video linked to Youtube with further visualizations and an "atom viewer" that allows anyone to see these structures of all the elements and the most occurring isotopes, all to be found on this website.

We hope to present some relevant findings at the next ICCF conference in Poland.

At a 3 body system we first are confronted with a choice, are the three bodies lined up or put in a triangular shape?! This options of different organization is important and right now ignored by all. How can you deal with these complex issues, including attempts to calculate the binding energy, or why or how a neutron is absorbed by the nucleus? What happens during a transmutation step? In the case of 3 bodies it is quite clear that the two possible constructs (linear or triangle) actually represent the two occurring isotopes with that number, namely He3 (triangular)and H3 (linear).

nb. The late Norman Cook has shown in his work that the nucleus cannot ! be a randomly, chaotic moving system, there simply is no room for that!

Sodium 23 (Colors are not representing something 'real', they are used in the model to show repeating substructures, all spheres are protons as there are no neutrons)

Quote from Alan Smith

Calorimetry brings its own problems. If the results are too small then nobody believes them to be real and therfore probably mistaken. If the results are too good then nobody believes them to be real (and possibly fraudulent). They will not get published. The trick would be to get the XSH figure 'just right' but even then the 3 bears won't be happy.

With respect Daniel, doing the same thing others have done before and expecting to get a different reult is far from wise..

Just out of curiosity, would both a significant COP and proof of transmutations be enough, or are you implying something else? I am curious now as to what would be enough to show the world LENR is a real thing? do we need a theoretical explanation as well?, because that as you know would be a neat trick on its own to get it accepted by others. Perhaps we need all three?

Or would showing an apparatus that actually works beyond a shadow of a doubt be what it takes? You know, something that can make a car run, or a computer work, or boil my water for coffee? (Not in a Rossi kind of way, but clear cut working, no dubious claims)