Posts by axil

    Peter - the "Rossi Effect" is going to be studied for years to come but will have nothing to do with LENR. You are exhibit c and are making important contributions

    in that regard. That is all I want to say for now. By the way, did you solve the riddle?

    IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO involving the Rossi reaction to the open source community to allow that community to run tests to see if Rossi's technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in their claims about Rossi.


    Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

    https://phys.org/news/2017-02-…dial-common-galaxies.html


    Research team finds radial acceleration relation in all common types of galaxies



    "Within the standard dark-matter paradigm, this law implies that the visible matter and the

    dark matter

    must be tightly coupled in galaxies at a local level and independently on global properties. They must know about each other," Lelli said. "Within alternative models like modified gravity, this law represents a key empirical constraint and may guide theoretical physicists to build some appropriate mathematical extension of Einstein's General Relativity."




    This finding supports Erik Verlinde's theory, undercuts dark matter as a particle and supports the strong and the weak force as an Adiababic force or at least modified by it.


    Thank you. I'm looking at MFMP's presentation. But I found a problem, the use of MFMP nano nickel powder and micron Ni powder, I know nano nickel powder melting point of nickel powder is much lower than normal melting point probably only a few hundred degrees, so it will advance the melt, won't destroy the metal lattice?

    The melting temperature of nanopowder reaches that of bulk material when the particle size is above 50 nm.


    See


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression


    Melting-point_depression

    As an interested observer, I have a question for most of the folks here. As far as I can tell, every single demonstration of e-cat technology has been discredited by whatever efforts at real analysis have taken place. Even long-time supporters now discount pretty much anything Rossi has ever claimed. Despite that fact, it appears that most people here - regardless of their opinion of Rossi - believe that at least some version of the e-cat actually does produce excess energy. Can anyone explain why they think so?

    Why Rossi's reaction does something as LENR: transmutation, replication, third party verified radiation generation, $10 million paid by IH for a successful test run.


    This does not mean that the E-Cat is ready for a commercial release. IH could be within there rights to reject Rossi's claims, The court will decide.

    If LENR is a result of magnetic interaction with the nucleus, then the LENR reaction should behave very much like the way that the nuclear magnetic resonance reaction (NMR) behaves.



    First, the atoms with zero net nuclear spin should be the atoms that are most likely to allow magnetic energy inside the nucleus. This transmutation of even isotopes, in fact, is what is observed in LENR where even isotopes with zero nuclear spin are the most likely to admit the full force of the magnetic field to enter the nucleus.



    Second, the atoms with non zero nuclear spin will dissipate the impinging magnetic field and convert the energy of that field to RF radiation. RF radiation is seen in LENR. Odd isotopes are the least likely to enter into the LENR reaction.



    For background see:


    The origin of the NMR signal



    https://chem.libretexts.org/Te…_origin_of_the_NMR_signal

    Google "introduction to scalar physics" and you will find a PDF file. The file has a well thought out explanation of the aether, magnetism, the electric field, etc.


    I'm not exactly sure if aether is made out of particles or something else we cannot quite comprehend. I think the issue is that we don't have the tools to really understand the exact composition of the aether. For example, I don't know if there is any microscope that could ever get an image of an aether particle. My mental image is that the aether is "something" (maybe a sea of tiny particles) that form all of matter and energy and maybe space itself.

    Space/time is composed of EMF instabilities called virtual particles. This instabilities produce something called a quantum spin liquid which is the origin of the long range entanglement of space time.


    For a complete explanation please read as follows:


    http://www.nature.com/news/the…rce-of-space-time-1.18797


    Entanglement is at the fundamental heart of LENR.

    Unfortunately the available literature sources about absence of pink unicorns at Mars is still very sparse - you cannot cite it as the evidence of this absence. But why to adhere on surface waves, once the water is elastic and it mediates longitudinal waves as well? And why to adhere on bubbles, once the water contains the clusters? Why to invent the stuffs, which we actually don't have to?

    Why do you invent stuff when it is obviously apparent. Prove this modus operandi invalid with references.

    This mechanism must be able to amplify the energy at the energy scales both 5.10E-8 eV (radiowaves) both 1 eV (heat waves). Surface plasmons cannot apply to Kanzius process, because there are 1) no surfaces 2) no freely movable electrons (surface plasmons apply to metals) 3) energy of microwaves is too low (surface plasmon absorbtion applies to the ultraviolet spectrum, only few metals (gold, copper) absorb with plasmons in visible range).

    Please provide references that contradict the reference that I provided.

    Axil, I am interested in testing multiple samples. I am just concerned how to make a modular reactor that could easily swap samples without break down. As Alan mentioned it is the calibration that is the issue. I want to break it down (of course I could be off base completely) and see which sample can be stimulated and by what method. I do not think I can handle it safely since my thoughts are in a different direction than what has been done in the past. The input power is not a concern at this point. I plan on using plasma to drive it. I am aware that you do not think it is fusion any longer. After all I read your references. This is not designed to produce power, just test samples to narrow down what lattice will produce either radiation or heat. My thoughts are any samples that show either one will then be examined and retested, and tested. Then the candidates will go in a more rigorous reactor with better calorimetry. The smaller the sphere the more samples can be tested in a drop down (gravity) reactor. So it is clear it is a plasma reactor. Do you see issues?

    I don't think that multiple simultaneous fuel tests will be valid. The muon radiation from the samples that work well will influence the other samples. This is how I think that the Cat/Mouse setup works for Rossi.

    Axil, you are always kind to my questions. I am posting 2 links. Be-forsale-on-ebay It is selling 99% Be from broken x-ray windows. The second link Oxyacetylene-reaches-5000f is just what heat a torch could produce no need to look at the second link, as it is just for reference, But the torch would easily melt Be at roughly 2300f. The first ebay link shows a hand full of bb size balls. Do you see why it would be unfeasible to create different bb size samples and pot them in the melted Be? The samples would be transparent to X-rays and pretty much all EM. Then lasers or an electron gun could be used to create plasma for both temp and coherence. Once potted the samples would be ready for the reactor. Please provide any critique. Thanks as always.


    /shame I unloaded that pottery furnace last summer.



    In the light of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, and the insights that we can glean from it, the best LENR reactor design, IMHO, is a LENR molten salt LENR fission reactor.


    In professional nuclear engineering, it is well understood that fission produces 100 times more energy per reaction mare or less than fusion, but fission produces relatively few neutrons to keep the reaction going. On the other hand, fusion is weak at producing energy but generates neutrons by the boatload.


    If an abundant source of muons is available, the lack of neutron production that drives the fission reaction is not a concern anymore. A single muon will produce 200 MeV per muon fission reaction vs. 3 MeV for fusion.


    So a muon fission reactor is very rich and efficient in energy production and a muon fusion reactor is energy poor. So a muon fission reactor is the way to go because it is about 100 times more energetic than of fusion reactor at producing energy per muon.


    For example, if the QuarkX produces as many muons as I think that it does, It will require only a few QaurkX reactors inside the core of a molten fluoride salt based thorium reactor to produce a ton of high quality heat energy.


    Rossi said that 20 watts of electric power is produced by his old 100 watt QUARK reactors


    Assuming a low voltage of 1 volt, 20 watts means 20 coulombs of electrons are produced a second. If one muon decays to one electron not counting muon escape from the QuarkX, then (20) (6.25 x 10^18 electrons) or about 10^20 of muons per second is produced by 100 watts of QuarkX power production. This assumes that most of the atoms in the molten salt blanket are thorium atoms.


    That much neutron flux would support a 100 megawatt nuclear reactor on a single reaction per muon basis. But Muons might generate 150 fission and/or fusion reactions per muon. Just a few QuarkX reactors can push out a lot of power and also confine muons inside the reactor thereby utilizing muon production at high efficiency.

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf


    Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole


    Georges Lochak, Leonid Urutskoev


    When Leonid Urutskoev, a top nuclear scientist in Russia was asked to analyze the Chernobyl reactor disaster, he came to the conclusion that the official reason put forth for its cause was wrong. He suspected that the disaster was produced by a number of electrical explosions in a nearby generator.


    To prove his theory, he came up with a new type of experiment using electrically exploding arcs in titanium foil. He found that the residue from the pure titanium foil explosion contained new elements, elements produced by transmutation. But he also found that dissolved uranium salts in the water that surrounded the titanium foil explosion channel was found to fission because of the detection of the fission element byproducts produced by the explosion.


    This implied that the explosion of the titanium foil had an effect at two separate locations, first, inside the titanium foil itself and second outside of the explosion channel at a considerable distance from the explosion.


    Urutskoev asked around the Russian nuclear community and found that other than neutrons, the only thing that could produce fission in uranium was muons. But U235 did not fission as expected, U238 fissioned as the even isotope reaction rule in LENR dictate.



    The LENR reaction sent out something that produced the reaction at a distance from the primary zone of causation (Nuclear active environment - NAE) that caused even isotopes of uranium to fission.


    Next, Urutskoev placed the titanium ash on a photographic emulsion (film) and spotted charged particles coming out of that ash that behaved like magnetic monopoles.


    What this all means is that the LENR reaction is a complex multi-faceted reaction consisting of many stages and causations.


    In detail, the NAE produces nuclear reactions but it also produces particles that can exist independently once created and can produce nuclear reaction remote n space and time from the NAE.


    From the reference above:

    To add some knowledge that we has aquired from other research:


    The Surface Plasmon Polariton produces a monopole magnetic field. The SPP is naturally found on the surface of metal including metallic nanoparticles. The SPP a boson is coherent and will readily form Bose condensates.


    The Ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticle is coherent and formed under high pressure conditions or via catalysts.


    The UDH as a superconductor will allow SPP formation on its surface spin wave.


    Once created, the UDH can persist indefinitely on its own and travel in swarms of coherent particles that will share in the nuclear energy(fusion and fission) that the swarm will generate via entangled muon generated outreach.


    A UDH swarm



    http://restframe.com/mm/images/actual_setup.jpg




    tracks from Fig. 1 are correlated as a group but cannot all be overlaid on top of each other. These tracks appear to be correlated, yet twisted or acted upon by some central force. The tracks were digitized in a vector graphics editor and shown in Fig. 2.




    http://restframe.com/mm/images/vector_swarm_d.jpg




    Measurements taken at successive common points of corresponding tracks indicate a swarm of identical particles each going through coordinated abrupt transitions at each vertex or kink. The field influence on corresponding track segments are geometric centers.




    http://restframe.com/mm/images/15.jpg

    Which excludes all proposals based on special particles (muons, pions, hydrino etc) or phases (superconcuctivity, rydberg matter or metallic hydrogen) - because these mechanisms cannot apply for water, yet the similar amplification of energy occurs there. Therefore if you could explain the 108 amplification of energy density during splitting of water molecules, you should be also able to explain the 108 amplification of energy density during cold fusion activation - this indeed makes the search for underlying mechanism a way more trivial.

    This paper explains how the cavitation bubble produces Surface plasmon polaritons. SPP can amplify EMF by a factor of 10^9.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/AminiFthestudyof.pdf


    The Study of Cavitation Bubble- Surface Plasmon Resonance
    Interaction For LENR and Biochemical processes

    Quote

    there must be a “restart” of the theoretical base instead of introducing more and more “hocus pocus” physics.

    One idea about LENR that must go is that LENR is based on fusion.

    I have an opinion here. All commercially available (COTS) nickel powder comes in batches in a very limited size range. For example, we can buy 10 nanometer powder up to 10 micron powder. I have not seen a COTS powder come in a wide mixture of sizes. In LENR, using the widest range of sized in nickel powder is important.



    In his patent, Rossi says that he preprocesses the COTS powder so that the COTS powder is transformed into a wide mix of sizes from 1 to 100 microns. It is my estimation that many smaller sizes are produced by this sintering based preprocessing but Rossi has never felt the inclination of documenting the very smallest particle fragments..



    This randomization of nickel powder sizes is important because of the way nanoplasmonics works.



    All open Rossi replications use COTS powder characterized by a very limited size range and I believe that this is way most replication that we know of have limited success.



    There is a rule in nanoplasmonics that the most power is produced by a wide size distribution in the size of the nickel particles. In other words, a mixture of a very small particle and a very large particle will produce the most EMF power.



    If a replicator wants to see good results, they are well advised to use the widest sized nickel particle mix.



    For background on how particles work in nanoplasmonics, see



    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf



    Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale



    On page 15, the details about particle size range is discussed:



    12.5. Molding the river of light in vortex nanogear transmissions

    Holmlid's systems and experimental conditions are rather special, I wouldn't extrapolate nearly anything to practically important cold fusion systems, which involve hydrogenated nickel or palladium. Holmlid never claimed, he does cold fusion research - whereas Steorn is specialized to LENRs for whole his productive life. But I wouldn't also extrapolate the observation of superconductivity in palladium hydrides at low temperatures to normal fusion reactors. These are merely just a physical curiosities in similar way, like the observation of muons, pions, magnetic monopoles and so on. And hydrogen clustering cannot explain other low energy transmutations, which don't involve hydrogen at all. If these transmutations run at low temperatures, it just means, that underlying mechanism of LENR will be different. The presence of dense hydrogen still requires the explanation, how this phase gets formed and how it participates on cold fusion if at all. In this sense, whole the dense hydrogen stuff brings more questions than answers into cold fusion research.


    It's important to realize, that the overcoming the Coulomb barrier at room temperatures will be the result of synergy of multiple factors: low dimensionality of collisions, electron shielding, resonance of various excited states (longitudinal and transverse waves of orbitals and nucleons) and so on. I believe, there is no single mechanism for cold fusion or LENR or whatever else transmutation. The low-dimensionality of nuclear collisions may be underlying and most general - but not the only possible factor there. In addition, the lattice nanocracks and dislocations and their superconductivity are just one of many possible ways, how the low dimensionality of lattice collisions can be enhanced / manifest itself. The Holmlid's collimated laser beams or LeClair's shock waves are another one. Only when two or more these factors work together, then the fusion or transmutation can take place. And these co-factors may differ from one LENR system to another one,

    holmlid-olafsson-slideshow-on-ultra-dense-hydrogen-and-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-atomecology-com


    Holmlid’s presentation



    http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf


    Quote

    Ultra dense hydrogen can be the source of all or part of Cold fusion
    LENR related phenomena.


    These high-n Rydberg states are incredibly fragile, their formation and maintenance requires combination of deep cooling and exact frequency and timing of microwave pulses - i.e. quite different conditions, than these ones, which Holmlid is using in his rather primitive experiments. It's true, that these Rydberg states can get macroscopic, but they're also very weakly bound to surfaces and each other.

    Here again, where are the references?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_matter


    Rydberg matter is highly stable against disintegration by emission of radiation; the characteristic lifetime of a cluster at n = 12 is 25 seconds.[25][27] Reasons given include the lack of overlap between excited and ground states, the forbidding of transitions between them and exchange-correlation effects hindering emission through necessitating tunnelling[22] that causes a long delay in excitation decay.[24]Excitation plays a role in determining lifetimes, with a higher excitation giving a longer lifetime;[25] n = 80 gives a lifetime comparable to the age of the Universe.[28]

    This test should also be done AFTER the reactor run by placing the ash on a paper covering the film. The ash should be left on the film for at least 24 hours.



    Leonid Urutskoev has performed this test on the ash from his exploding foil experiments and got "strange radiation".



    http://condensed-plasmoids.com/images/urutskoev_track.jpg



    The energy of the particles can be found by measuring the length of the path.



    I beleive that these strange particles are excited Ultra Dense Hydrogen in the 2 GeV energy range.



    These particle have been identified by Keith Fredericks as "monopole tachyons".



    See Keith Fredericks blog site:



    restframe.com



    These particles also show coherent behavior (swarming).




    IMHO, these particles are UDH based quasiparticles generating "monopole tachyons" reactions.



    For background and more particle tracks from other experiments, see



    http://condensed-plasmoids.com/history.html

    GS 5.4 Loading Fuel


    There is a rule in nanoplasmonics that the most power is produced by a wide size distribution in the size of the nickel particles. In other words, a mixture of a very small particle and a very large particle will produce the most EMF power.



    If MFMP sees good results from this 10nm and 10 micron nickel particle mix, it might not be due to Ni62 usage alone, but solely to the very wide particle size distribution in the fuel mix.



    For background, see



    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf



    Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale



    page 15

    The Gerbils might not escape, but they can take a road trip. I read a paper by Holmlid that wanted to find out how clustered hydrides like potassium behaved on the surface of a catalyst. The cluster of alkali metal atoms would jump from the surface of the catalyst but return back to its point of attachment like the cluster was connected to the surface by a spring.


    The height of the jump was proportional to the number of atoms in the cluster. A single atom would only get a nanometer of two above the surface, but a large cluster with many atoms in the cluster could achieved a separation of 1/2 millimeter away from the surface before it returned.


    Holmlid has produced a ton of research.

    I found the reference about this subject in


    Desorption and emission of potassium Rydberg atoms and clusters
    from iron oxide catalyst surfaces



    But is that an NAE in the Storm's sense?

    The difference in the Storms model from the Holmlid model of hydrogen cluster formation is that with Storms, the hydrogen cluster stays confined inside the crack. In the Holmlid model, the hydrogen cluster eventually is released from the cavity or the bump and falls free and floats around. It eventually falls under the influence of gravity and lands onto a collection foil.


    Holmlid has produced 171 research papers over 42 years on this subject vs. none for Storms. Who would you judge has it right?


    http://www2.chem.gu.se/~holmlid/lpub.pdf


    It's not that surprising that Holmlid is the only guy that can produce these hydrogen clusters. He has spent his long life doing it, or at least since 1975


    If Storms had some humility, one would assume that Storms would look into what Holmlid has found out in his research with regards to hydrogen clustering.

    In reference to my previous comment, in the end MFMP agreed upon my request (I used a different nickname on E-CatWorld) to add a silver metal plate (a 2.3mm thick, 38.6mm diameter commemorative 15 euro coin) on the front of the Geiger tube window of one of their detectors. This should increase the chances to see beta decay reactions from muon capture significantly; Russ George also apparently used silver foil with success some time back.

    Your dialog with MFMP was spot on and very knowledgeable. IMHO, MFMP should build a drift tube that can detect charges particles such as the muon.


    Here is one design that looks good and might be built by an Amateur Scientist . Unlike the MFMP approach, It looks very sensitive. A digital counter might might be added to the design to count the high voltage discharges. A MFMP volunteer who is handy with their hands might build this for MFMP so that all types of charged particles can be detected in MFMP experiments.


    Amateur Scientist


    I would say....the NAE is the inside of the lattice. No lattice, no NAE's - they are not exactly pet Gerbils capable of escaping.:)

    The Gerbils might not escape, but they can take a road trip. I read a paper by Holmlid that wanted to find out how clustered hydrides like potassium behaved on the surface of a catalyst. The cluster of alkali metal atoms would jump from the surface of the catalyst but return back to its point of attachment like the cluster was connected to the surface by a spring.


    The height of the jump was proportional to the number of atoms in the cluster. A single atom would only get a nanometer of two above the surface, but a large cluster with many atoms in the cluster could achieved a separation of 1/2 millimeter away from the surface before it returned.


    Holmlid has produced a ton of research.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…-second-film-tom-conover/



    IMHO, Wizkid gets good results(reactor meltdown) because he uses enriched/pure lithium 7, see highlighted item

    The time you wrote this sentence you were hit by roughly a hundred muons crossing your body. Are you radioactive?


    Things are not that simple. In the troposphere, proton collisions with a molecule create an important flux of muons that interact with matter by ionizing it with an energy loss of about 2 MeV per g/cm2. In practice this important flux of high energy particles hitting the Earth is only a small fraction of the ambient radiation. For example it is only one fourth of the ionizing radiation of radon.


    In the case of Holmlid's experiments the main source of radiation would not come from the muons themselves but from some secondary induced fission reactions in heavy materials surrounding the reactor. I guess Holmlid didn't put a significant amount of actinide in the vicinity of his reactor otherwise he would already be in Valhalla...

    Its ironic, but LENR produced the biggest disaster in the history of nuclear energy: chernobyl. A short in one of the generators at that reactor produced two huge electrical discharges that in turn produced a huge muons flux that when added to the neutron flux in the #4 reactor, put that reactor into a supercritical state. As you said, muons and transuranic elements don't mix.


    Rossi shielded his early reactors with lead but it must have been confusing to him that the more lead that he used, the more radiation that he saw. He does not use any shielding now and with his latest unshielded reactor, all the radiation when away.


    Nobody has asked Rossi why he does not use radiation shielding anymore.


    See for background:


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-ex/papers/0304/0304024.pdf

    Axil,

    I read most of the paper (I noticed the Christoffell-symbol around sec 3.3 and I would not have been able to recognize it without your previous links why I follow you is to learn) so for now I stopped reading. I did it to ask you some questions. The paper was about using manipulating quantum information qubits using Ryberg states. Can you provide a link to this mechanism being used by Holmlid? I do not see the relation. But after reading so far, I get an idea on what the D-wave folks are up against. Maybe Holmlid will be what we follow in 2017. So a Holmlid link and why you think it relates please. I also have a feeling that this is going to lead to a discussion on muon detectors. Are you satisfied that he has valid detectors? And finally do you know of anyone reproducing his work, as it seems to be self referencing. -Thanks

    https://booksc.unblocked.world/g/L.%20Holmlid


    This is a list of all of Holmlid's papers


    Look at


    Formation of long-lived Rydberg states of H2

    at K impregnated surfaces



    5. Conclusions

    The following conclusions can be drawn from

    the present study:


    1. Rydberg states of hydrogen molecules (H2)_ are

    formed by the interaction of hydrogen gas molecules

    with the catalyst sample.


    2. Rydberg clusters .H2._N are formed, with peak

    positions corresponding accurately to the magic

    numbers of planar RM clusters.


    3. The hydrogen Rydberg states .H2._

    and hydrogen molecular ions H.

    are formed with an excess

    kinetic energy of 0:2±0:8 eV, depending

    on the conditions of the experiment, especially

    the fluence of the fragmenting laser.


    Items 1 and 2 draw a relationship between the clustering of the Rydberg clusters in the catalyst(potasium) and the clustering in rydberg clustering in hydrogen.


    You will also see that holmlid has worked for decades in researching hydrogen clustering via catalysts. It is no wonder that producing sucessful H clustering requires years of experience.