Posts by CoherentMembrane

My current thinking in regards to producing coherent matter or Bose Einstein Condensates in LENR systems is that you need to provide the environment, the ingredients, and the input energy. In the worst analogy ever in the history of mankind, this could be akin to baking a cake.

The environment in a CF/LENR system would be structures that induce resonance conditions and/or electron bunching effects: microcavities of perhaps particular sizes for different types of EM stimulation, surface protrusions, cracks, pits, spikes, etc. Baking a cake, this would be the oven.

The ingredients being the hydrogen isotopes. To facilitate getting them into the environment, a wide range of processes can be performed on the nickel or palladium or other alloy of metal. Baking a cake, this would be the sugar, flour, etc.

The energy would be either heat and/or other forms of stimulation.

The final result is the EVO or BEC that extracts energy from the vacuum or allows for transmutations.

Since Mizuno and Daniel may be considering the production of steam as a next step, what do all of you think can be done to completely prevent any accusations about the power output being over estimated due to steam quality issues (the steam being wet vs. completely dry)?

I have a feeling that even if Mizuno's financial backers were willing to buy the most accurate and precise steam quality test device available (even if was professionally calibrated and it was used step by step exactly as recommended by the manufacturer) that there would be arguments.

Instead of measuring the temperature of the steam directly and therefore having to debate skeptics about the dryness of your steam (if your steam is bone dry or wet as can be you'll still end up having to argue the issue over and over again because people will create problems that don't exist), I would suggest producing the steam and transferring the thermal power produced by a heat exchanger to a secondary flow of liquid which will increase in temperature.

I beg, urge, and plead with you NOT to perform a validation experiment that will get you and the entire community bogged down in debate over steam quality. Please bypass this issue somehow. This technology is too important for it to get NEEDLESSLY slowed down.

Daniel,

Here is a thought about a test that could be performed.

If you can induce one of your new reactors into a highly excited state in which it's self sustaining without external input, transfer it into a water proof (so H20 doesn't go into the reactor and damage anything) thermally conductive container, place the container into a specific volume of well stirred water starting at a constant room temperature (with thermocouples inside), and measure the temperature rise of the water over time. If you calculate and subtract the relatively small amount of trapped heat in the metal of the reactor at the start of experiment, you would be able to clearly show indisputable thermal power production with ZERO input.

Quote from axil

A comment on the Nicola Galvanetto, PhD presentation, and in general on the assumptions that support the fusion meme that has been accepted by ALL of the presenters at ICCF24.

When the elements that are produced by the transmutation reaction are analyzed, you don't see any neutrons or gamma rays, or energy. For production of elements heavier than iron, you need neutron capture: the r-process, and the s-process. What that means is that he reaction products would need the action of a supernova to form and that formation would take some considerable time inside the heat, pressure, and shock of a supernova to property cook the elements in a torrent of neutrons.

But we have seen in experiments that these reaction products are produced INSTANTLY as a strange radiation particle flies over a surface. All is done with very little if any power.

It actually looks like a change of state is going on; a change of state much like when water freezes to ice and then back to water again where matter enters some other form and then bounces back again and returns to its usual state but always into some other types of elements but all the change of state happens instantly.

If you can accept the evidence of transmutation as reality, how can you still beleive in the assumptions about fusion in LENR?

Display More

I believe coherent matter structures (EVOs) can induce different types of reactions. One class are the transmutations you describe that make it seem like matter is being phase changed or scrambled up and put back together. However, we also know that in some cases they can emit high speed, high energy particles. I think that inside of an EVO that's constantly absorbing and emitting ions and electrons, there's also enough "electron screening" to allow for fusion. That's what's so interesting about EVOs. At different scales and levels of excitement a bunch of different processes can take place.

Axil,

Here is another thought about his presentation. He mentions how the NAE needs to be a place where hydrogen can go but cannot revert back into a molecular form. I have read that one very interesting property of self organized plasmas, at least on the macro-level - is that the hydrogen within the double layers tends to remain in the atomic state. I would guess there are some NAE larger than two nano-meters in which hundreds or thousands of bare protons or atomic hydrogen atoms are within self organized EVOs. Once incorporated into the condensate, the hydrogen may remain in the atomic state even if there would be room to fit many molecular hydrogen molecules.

I just finished watching Edmund Storms ICCF 24 presentation which is now available. There are many things to note from his presentation. I especially like his description of how NAE's (the cracks) of a critical size range are formed, are filled with hydrogen or some isotope of hydrogen, then a NAS (nuclear active structure) forms, and finally there are nuclear reactions.

So.. NAE > Add Hydrogen Isotope > NAS > Nuclear Reaction > Products and Energy

He does not state this explicitly but I think an extremely likely candidate for the NAS is a self organized coherent matter structure. However, his slides state that many hydrogen nuclei and electrons come together at the NAE to form the NAS which induces nuclear reactions via a cooperative resonance process. This sure sounds like the conditions which could form a self organized Bose Einstein Condensate structure.

If EVO like BECs are being produced, then I suspect they could be quantized in regards to size. A certain size gap between 2 and 10 nanometers may be ideal for certain sized NAS or EVOs while others may prefer larger gaps, holes, etc. My guess is the 2 to 10 nanometer size gaps may be the ones that are easily stimulated by heat. Large gaps may require other frequencies.

Quote from axil

The proper way to increase COP is to reduce input power to the bare minimum. What Rossi has done is to first produce the EVOs using a spark, then switch to a radio frequency to grow the EVOs in the plasma. The power that these EVOs produce has increased.

Rossi says he has a COP of 100 whereas Egely says his COP is a maximum of 10.

The big advantage that a plasma system has over a solid state system is that both transmutation and power production can be controlled through the structure of the input power. It took Rossi over a decade to find this out and it will take these other solid state developers to discover through much pain and suffering this same lessen.

A few thoughts.

- Although EVOs can be nested within each other, I think Rossi is generating a more powerful singular electrical discharge with a probably "larger" EVO than Egely (who is producing dozens of smaller ones). I can't say precisely which is better, but I think it will be more difficult for Egely to precisely tune his electrical discharges to maximize the self organizational process than someone who is producing a single larger EVO at a time.

- Egely has stated that his relaxation oscillator is not very efficient (which means wasted energy) and most certainly his high voltage transformer is wasting energy too. Both of these parts of the circuit will probably be optimized. My guess is even without enhancing the reactor itself a second generation device would double in COP.

- I totally agree about reducing input power. Since input power is a function of voltage and current, I like the idea of reducing the voltage needed to produce the discharges. Somehow pre-ionizing the environment allowing the input voltage required to generate a discharge should lower the input. Also, we know that self organized plasmas (at least those produced by SAFIRE) are partially controlled by temperature. If he thermally insulated the reactor and allowed whatever minimal heat is produced to accumulate, I suspect this would further reduce the input voltage. To what degree this would actually lower the total input power, I can't say.

- Making each pulse as sharp with the fastest rise time possible is of course a good route, just as you say. Looking at this from a slightly different perspective, we know from patent material online and other papers that from a certain perspective, an electric field is simply a magnetic vector potential with a gradient. This magnetic vector potential, according to papers written by Lockheed scientists, can make electrons and other particles go into a coherent state. I believe the faster the rise time the greater this effect will be.

I think his device has tons of room for optimization, and I'd love to see the LONG version of his presentation!

Could anyone ask him to post it?

Quote from JedRothwell

That sounds like a good path, as long as you have filed for a patent. You don't have to be awarded the patent; you just have to file for it. I know little about patents, but I have heard it is an advantage not to get a patent too soon, because it might expire before your gadget starts selling like hotcakes.

I think that drawback of filing for a patent too soon would have been much more of a potential issue ten or twenty years ago than today. With all the different teams yielding good results that are likely to rapidly improve, there are going to be gadgets selling before too long. My guess is that it would make more sense to hurry and file a patent application and try to be among the first wave of companies selling products than to wait because at that point there will be more competitors to deal with. And since there's probably only a very limited number of core effects producing CF/LENR reactions, their methods will be similar to yours anyway and could result in legal battles. I really like the idea of the tangible products on the market being a measure of a company's worth rather than methods, patents, and intellectual property.

Quote from Bruce__H

It's been this way for 30 years. Another reason for not releasing enough data to satisfy either of us is that it doesn't really exist.

But this is where I think Daniel_G's suggested project might be interesting. From what he says it sounds as though the original Mizuno and Rothwell recipe for making LENR-active mesh is expected to work reliably if exposed to even heating. The Mizuno and Rothwell technology is no longer secret IP and neither are the conditions needed to make it work so if Mizuno and Daniel_G were to ship a number of working versions of these reactors to people for validation then I don't see how commercialization would interfere. Just the opposite. Clear validation by open labs would surely not hurt.

Hello Bruce,

I have a few thoughts to share. I'll list them one at a time.

One, although there are countless examples of parties not sharing enough information for an exact replication, I think that the overall mosaic of results that have been reproduced over the past thirty years indicates that what Mizuno and Daniel's technology fits with what has already been accomplished. There's not a single claim that Mizuno or Daniel has made that stands out as incoherent with the information we already have from other systems -- except perhaps the degree of repeatability and large power output. Yet there have been other examples of significant watts of thermal output per gram of fuel, even when less was established about the structures (NAE) that seem to create the conditions (Bose Einstein Condensates in my opinion) that allow LENR to take place. Also, the repeatability of at least the high power claim of the palladium rubbed on nickel mesh isn't established. Yet we know that palladium has been used as a spillover catalyst and a lattice material or even a fuel to undergo transmutation. So it's not a big leap to think that a standardized method of applying a layer of material - equivalent but better than palladium -- in a consistent manner could yield the current results he's claiming.

Second, I would agree that since the Mizuno/Rothwell version of the technology is already out there, it would seem that it wouldn't hurt commercialization. But I want to tell you something I'm fairly confident you already know. Once investors in general (I'm not saying this about Mizuno's investors) start recognizing the significance and money making potential of a high powered CF/LENR reactor, they start becoming fearful of alerting the world to it's reality. This is because I truly believe that these systems aren't overly complicated, especially for a medium sized business that could apply a few dozen full time scientists and engineers to the task of developing one. So they hold back from providing the most convincing evidence to try and prevent others from "stealing" their ideas and building their own copy cat versions. But in my opinion withholding their best evidence and the full know how is a mistake because it limits the number of bright minds and high skilled people that they could bring in to assist them. I whole heartedly believe that if Daniel and Mizuno have a system that can consistently produce the results that Mizuno originally claimed with palladium that they would experience a rush of help and assistance (including financial) once they made sure anyone who desired to do so could successfully replicate and achieve matching results. Perhaps this would make it a little more likely that someone may try to build a similar version using their ideas but that's going to happen anyway. Also, the field has advanced to a state of understanding that there's many paths emerging towards the same goal.

Hello Bruce,

I will be honest with you. Although I hope I'm wrong, I doubt that enough information and data will be openly released on the internet to satisfy either of us. I think Daniel and Mizuno would like to share everything, but when projects go commercial with investors information sharing typically slows dramatically. I can't say I agree with this mentality, but I understand why it is implemented. What I hope everyone involved will realize is that multiple routes towards significant enhancement of CF systems are being publically discussed and the differences between the "secret sauce" of various parties is becoming small. The best path forward for any company at this point - in my non-expert, non-business person mind - is to show their absolute most convincing data while sharing enough for third parties to openly replicate. At the same time, while convincing everyone with irrefutable data and replications by third parties, get the funding to launch basic products as rapidly as possible.

Quote from Daniel_G

I don’t mind the skepticism. In fact I encourage it. But when someone calls measuring temperature in calorimeter an “indirect measurement of power” that is not up to the level of professional skepticism.

In the calibration run, without a reactor, the relationship between input power and equilibrium temperature is made. Multiple runs and multiple TCs at different points in the calorimeter will give an idea of the uncertainties involved. These were all within a few degrees C.

When adding in a rock or brick or piece of metal, there’s no change in the final equilibrium temperature. Only the time constant changes.

When adding in an active reactor the same input energy gave 30-50C higher equilibrium temperatures than the calibration runs. This particular case resulted in about 50W of excess heat. That’s at least 10-20x the total uncertainty of this system.

Am I satisfied with this? Absolutely not. Do we think we can get better data. Of course and that is what we are doing now. Every iteration is an improvement on the previous. Now our new calorimeter design will have much better insulation and much less thermal mass so we can take a lot more data points to give clear statistical power to our results.

We plan to publish this data in a mainstream journal.

Display More

That result does indeed indicate excess heat production. All the critically minded people who matter would see that. I would like to ask if you have had any extended periods (at least hours) of self sustaining excess heat production after the input power is cut off - with the new catalytic method. If you have, please share the data when possible. Although such performance is not needed to prove excess heat, it would make it more challenging for the pseudo-skeptics to make up issues that don't exist.

Bob Greenyer has mentioned Krypton 85 as an isotope that undergoes beta decay to release energetic electrons. Although I do not think such isotopes are required for practical plasma based Cold Fusion systems. But in the future large companies and institutions may find that mixtures containing sources of ionization (to fill the environment of a system with electron "food") may dramatically aid performance.

In the mean time, I can't help but wonder if someone like George Egely could use Ed Storms method of implanting stable, inert calcium oxide particles to create an ionized environment in his reactor to enhance the condensed plasmoids he produces. At a minimum, it could lower the input voltage required and possibly boost output dramatically.

Daniel G,

You are going to face online skeptics that will try to pick apart any calorimetry system that you design or utilize. There's no reason to waste an exhaustive amount of time answering their question. Not matter how well you address any issue they bring up, they will move to another made up "issue." The best way to convince those who really matter is to have a run in which for the longest period of time possible there is a constant production of heat with no input power. This should be possible if you can generate a very excited state in your fuel.

I think that would be a mistake due to the fact that his plasma based systems are probably closely related to the device George Egely demonstrated. Likewise, Andrea Rossi's device is similar in basic concept to others that harvested the emissions of electrical impacts to produce electricity. Take Edwin V. Gray's system, for example. He produced an electrical discharge across a gap which created a radial spray of electrically charged particles that surrounding pick up coils/grids collected. George Egely's and Andrea Rossi's devices are probably doing something very similar.

I think George Egely's presentation was fascinating and his device is a unique conglomeration of existing systems. However, I don't really like how he is depending on dozens of electrical emission sites from the end of the cathode. I think it would be better if he focused on optimizing a single larger emission site. Then he could produce one larger well optimized EVO to impact the anode rather than dozens of smaller ones. Of course, I think it would be even better if he had produced a free floating EVO that didn't make contact with any part of the device. He could still extract electrical energy out in several different ways.

Hello Shane,

Here is my thinking about Eric Ziehm's presentation. In one side, it shows a Bose Einstein Condensate forming in the zone with the hydrogen/deuterium atoms in the defect. My guess is that according to their theory that regardless how you create these defects (either using the original plating method of Patterson's beads, other electrolytic methods, gas loading, or ion bombardment in a glow plasma) that these defects, due to the BEC formed within, are key. If the BEC is important, it could possibly be so due to the high level of electron screening and potentially electron/ion recombinations and dissociations allowing for high energy levels. So, in my thinking, if the BEC is so critical, why not make a lot more BEC. How could we make more? Potentially, by creating a macro-scale self organized plasma with double layers consisting of a population of electrons in a coherent state. In simplest terms, if the BEC is so important why create little nano-specs of it when you can create larger blobs that you could inject particles (or even entire electrodes) into? I would also guess that another advantage of creating a macro-scale BEC in the form of a self organized plasma is that you could monitor the structure with far more precision (using an oscilloscope to monitor the ion acoustic waves) than tiny BECs inside of nano-particles or under the surface in cracks.

I finished watching a presentation from ICCF-24 that is without a doubt making Aureon Energy Ltd. smile with satisfaction. In the following video, the presenter explain how in a low temperature plasma (which is within the range SAFIRE works) the dissociation and recombination of hydrogen or deuterium atoms allows for coherent states with huge effective energies capable of inducing nuclear reactions. Now, to say something he didn't state specifically: what exact plasma formation offers the conditions he mentions (electrons and ions dissociating and recombining and/or a magnetic field turning on and off with sharp gradients)?

A self organized plasma! In the onion-like double layered self organized plasma, ions and electrons are in a constant state of recombination and dissociation, exactly what he says is required. Moreover, the ion acoustic oscillations with sharp gradients, which would be inducing magnetic fields, can be seen on an oscilloscope. Also, if you combine this with the high density of electrons in the membrane like onion layers of the plasma, you would have a high electron screen factor.

This presentation by itself makes ICCF-24 worth paying attention to!

Quote from axil

In SAFIRE, there is a structure of the plasma called a double layer where positive and negative changes separate. Why this happens is not yet understood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma_physics)

A double layer is a structure in a plasma consisting of two parallel layers of opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge, which are not necessarily planar, produce localised excursions of electric potential, resulting in a relatively strong electric field between the layers and weaker but more extensive compensating fields outside, which restore the global potential. Ions and electrons within the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or deflected by the electric field, depending on their direction of motion.

Due to the work of Aueron Energy Ltd. (SAFIRE) we have learned a lot about the nature of these double layers. Their reactor which is connected to a slew of sensors and imaging equipment has enhanced our understanding of these structures. However, I think one remaining question in the minds of many is the nature of the matter that composes the double layers: is it ordinary or in some exotic form, perhaps "hyperconducting" as Kiril Chukanov calls it or even "coherent." My personal guess is that the same electromagnetic pressure that sequesters the plasma and holds together the structure reduces the degrees of freedom of the electrons (while affecting them in other ways) to make their waveforms overlap to become more like a macro-electron. I would like to say, though, that certainly not ALL the electrons in the double layer are in a quantum mechanical state, only a population of them.

Quote from axil

Sometimes 20th century science is discussed here. But for those who prefer to be confined to dictums of old time classical science the precept of Arthur C. Clarke applies: Arthur C. Clarke formulated his famous Three Laws, of which the third law is the best-known and most widely cited: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”

I want to make a statement here, but I want to preface it first. Cold Fusion and LENR are not magic. They are physically real phenomena that have been proven via examination of a mosaic of evidence. However, I think many of the anomalous, mysterious observations in nature and the laboratory bench

over the past hundred years are due to "out of equilibrium" conditions producing self organized structures that manipulate matter, energy, and the vacuum medium. The same mechanism that allows for what researchers see in CF/LENR experiments is also responsible for what people have called "magic" in the past.