Posts by axil

  • Does LENR produce harmful radiations?

    Dr Richard wrote:

    Thanks Alan I've read some of Ken Shoulder's work before - but I don't think he specifically made any connection between his bizarre electron observations and cold fusion. The clustering of electrons to form EVO's or plasmoids he observed is very hard to either understand in physical terms or explain other than saying 'we know nothing' about the forces or energies behind it. I mean how do you confine 6.23 . 10power 23 electrons in a single cluster when each electron is fighting to find free space from its buddies via Coulombic repulsion? The same unknown force that also allows proton fusion in LENR? Means we all have a long way to go before we fully understand any of this - only scratching the surface so far.


    The cluster of electrons are converted to bosons via entanglement. The electron becomes a polariton. For more info see as follows:


  • COLD FUSION NOW!

    Quote

    Glenn Seaborg: "One morning in 1989, I had just ordered my eggs in a coffee shop when the waitress said I had a phone call from the White House. The news had just broken about cold fusion, the astounding technology being touted as an inexhaustible source of pollution-free energy. Could I fly to Washington that day to brief President Bush? At the meeting I expressed my doubt that the phenomenon was real--scientists are as skeptical as economists of getting something for nothing--and no confirmation of cold fusion has surfaced to change that opinion."

    Seaborg_Bush.jpg

  • Does LENR produce harmful radiations?

    https://translate.google.com/t…6SHOWALL_1%3D1&edit-text=


    Features of the periodic discharge in the fluid flow and the specifics of its impact on the electrode material


    This strange radiation has been micro photographed and studied.


    Ris_5.jpg

  • UCF Researchers Develop Way to Control Speed of Light, Send It Backward

    https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath591/kmath591.htm


    Hawking Radiation as Delayed Choice


    According to classical general relativity, mass-energy cannot depart from the interior of a black hole, because nothing can cross an event horizon “in reverse”. The event horizon is the surface at which the forward light cones are tilted inward to the extent that they are entirely contained inside the surface. Therefore, the passage of any mass-energy from inside to outside the event horizon would require (according to classical general relativity) superluminal propagation, and hence it is ruled out, and as a consequence the mass-energy content of a black hole can never decrease. However, applying quantum mechanical concepts, Hawking described a process by which a quiescent black hole would radiate, so the mass-energy content would decrease over time. The predicted rate of this radiation for stellar-sized black holes is extremely small, but the prediction of any outward radiation at all from an event horizon – no matter how weak – is remarkable, since it appears to conflict with one of the foundational principles of general relativity, namely, the principle of no super-luminal propagation of mass-energy.


    Several different explanations of Hawking radiation can be found in popular descriptions. A few of these explanations are summarized below.


    (1) Quantum fluctuations lead to the production of pairs of particles and anti-particles just outside the horizon; one of these falls into the black hole and the other escapes as radiation with positive mass-energy. The in-falling particle has negative mass-energy, so its absorption results in a reduction in the mass-energy of the black hole.


    (2) The same as (1), except that both particles have positive mass-energy (recognizing that anti-particles don’t have negative mass-energy). The reduction in the mass-energy of the black hole is attributed to the expenditure of work by tidal forces to separate the two particles. This work exceeds the mass-energy of the absorbed particle by an amount equal to the mass-energy of the radiated particle.


    (3) Fluctuations occurring just inside the horizon of a black hole produce pairs of particles, and one particle of such a pair may “tunnel” out through the event horizon (exploiting the phenomenon of quantum tunneling), becoming external radiation, leaving the other inside with negative energy, diminishing the mass-energy of the black hole.


    (4) Quantum vacuum fluctuations can be analyzed into positive and negative frequencies. If the propagating fluctuations in the far future (far from the black hole) are extrapolated back into the far past (prior to the formation of the black hole), it is found that the future positive-frequency fluctuations are consistent with the emission of radiation from the black hole and the absorption of negative frequency components by the black hole, diminishing its mass-energy.


    The fourth explanation seems to be the closest to the actual derivation, and it’s worth noting that it explicitly relies on an analysis beginning prior to the formation of the black hole. Thus it would not apply (at least not in any obvious way) to a black hole that has always existed. It might be argued that such an object is not possible, since the universe itself seems to have a definite beginning in the finite past, but even in this context we might imagine primordial black holes, i.e., gravitationally collapsed regions which have existed from the very beginning of the universe. It’s unclear (to me) how the Hawking analysis (4) could be applied to such an object, because there would be no time prior to the formation of the black hole.


    It’s interesting to compare this with the question of whether a uniformly accelerating charged particle radiates. According to the Lorentz-Dirac equations of classical electrodynamics, the answer seems to be no, but this applies only to a particle that has always been uniformly accelerating (and that will always continue to accelerate uniformly), which is presumably not a realistic condition. For any realistic particle, there must have been a time prior to when the particle began its uniform acceleration, and this change in acceleration results in radiation, in a sense because the Fourier transform of the particle’s motion acquires impurities from the change in acceleration. This is analogous to the fact that a purely monotonic signal must be eternal, because any beginning or ending introduces other frequency components to the function for the entire signal.


    In the context of general relativity it isn’t too difficult to arrive at an interpretation of Hawking radiation that is consistent with these ideas. As discussed in another note, the worldline of every particle that falls into a black hole continues to have a lightlike (null) connection to all external distances at all future times. This is illustrated in the qualitative spacetime diagram below.


    image001.gif


    The red curve signifies the worldline of an in-falling particle, and the gold curve represents a lightlike (null) locus from the in-falling particle to the exterior region in the future. The important point is that the in-falling worldline passes through every one of the external Schwarzschild times (to future infinity) prior to actually crossing the event horizon. As it passes through each of these times, there still null paths from the particle to the future exterior, so the in-falling particle has (in a sense) infinite opportunities to radiate to the exterior region, out to arbitrarily late times, even though we would normally consider the particle to have passed inside the event horizon by approximately the Schwarzschild time denoted by t1 on the figure. According to the causal structure of spacetime in classical general relativity, we can never (at any external time) conclude for certain that the particle has emitted its last photon prior to crossing the event horizon.


    In fact, carrying this further, we might ask if there is ever a time when we (in the external region) can conclude for certain that the particle itself is going to cross the event horizon. From the classical standpoint we might be able to compute a “point of no return”, but given the existence of quantum fluctuations it may not be straightforward to determine this point with absolute certainty. Also, the superposition of outcomes might be resolved only at later times, as in “delayed choice” EPR experiments involving quantum entanglement. As evaluated at some external time, the state of an in-falling particle in the past may be uncertain, or rather in a superposition of states, one falling through the event horizon without emitting any more radiation, and the other emitting some additional radiation or (perhaps) being ejected itself, and never falling through the horizon. The irreversible outcome may be determined only at some time in the distant future. In the mean time, the particle’s condition is analogous to that of Schrödinger’s cat, neither alive nor dead, but in a superposition of alive and dead. Every particle that has (presumptively) crossed an event horizon and contributes to the mass-energy of a black hole is arguably in this condition. If so, then a black hole itself is essentially a quantum mechanical apparition (or fluctuation), whose eventual “evaporation” is therefore less surprising. We could regard Hawking radiation as the very gradual completion of a series of delayed-choice experiments, eventually yielding the final irreversible result that nothing ever actually fell through the event horizon.


    The most obvious objection to this interpretation is that any radiation emitted from a particle very close to the event horizon will be extremely red-shifted to an external observer, and the intensity will drop exponentially with time for that observer. But this assumes the classical continuous model of radiation, propagating strictly along null intervals. In the context of quantum field theory a photon has a non-zero amplitude to be exchanged even along spacelike intervals. Such photons would be virtual with respect to the local free-falling coordinates at the point of emission, but may be real with respect to the stationary external coordinates. This is closely related to the usual description of Hawking radiation, except that it makes use of delayed-choice interactions with the in-falling particles comprising the black hole, rather than regarding the radiation as arising from vacuum field fluctuations.


    Whether or not this approach leads to a consistent account of Hawking radiation, it would not be surprising if there exists some description of Hawking radiation in terms of direct actions between particles. Any phenomena that can be described in terms of mediating fields can also be described in terms of direct actions between particles, dispensing with the fields entirely. For example, although electrodynamics is most commonly described in terms of Maxwell’s field theory, it can also be developed along the lines of Ampere and Weber as a distant-action theory with no fields at all. Of course, the opposite is also true, i.e., quantum field theory can be expressed entirely in terms of fields, without reference to particles.



    If a polariton Bose condensate based black hole is the root of the black EVO, the light that it produces via Hawking radiation may be based on a delayed mechanism for virtual photon release. Hawking's radiation theory is based on cause #4 above, the photon black hole captures the virtual particle at the moment of its creation and releases it to the far field when the black hole is dissolved. A static long lived black hole produces little if any hawking radiation.


    A polariton has a lifetime of 1 to 10 picoseconds. A polariton lives and dies a trillion times in one second, Each time that it comes into existence, the polariton captures virtual photons and when it dies, it releases those photons to the far field. In a polariton condensate, a single member polariton can generate 2 trillion virtual photons because of its short lived nature. This is how a polariton condensate can extract so much photonic power from the vacuum.

  • UCF Researchers Develop Way to Control Speed of Light, Send It Backward

    The ability to twist light in a way so that its waveform can be separated from its energy so that its wave front can travel at superluminal speed is indispensable to the LENR reaction.


    I have been doing some research into tachyons and have been trying to understand faster than light wave propagation, specifically x-waves. Here is something interesting about how special relativity and superluminal wave propagation relate:


    http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Superluminal.html



    Portions of this entry contributed by Waldyr A. Rodrigues, Jr.


    A superluminal phenomenon is a frame of reference traveling with a speed greater than the speed of light c. There is a putative class of particles dubbed tachyons which are able to travel faster than light. Faster-than-light phenomena violate the usual understanding of the "flow" of time, a state of affairs which is known as the causality problem (and also called the "Shalimar Treaty").


    It should be noted that while Einstein's theory of special relativity prevents (real) mass, energy, or information from traveling faster than the speed of light c (Lorentz et al. 1952, Brillouin and Sommerfeld 1960, Born and Wolf 1999, Landau and Lifschitz 1997), there is nothing preventing "apparent" motion faster than c (or, in fact, with negative speeds, implying arrival at a destination before leaving the origin). For example, the phase velocity and group velocity of a wave may exceed the speed of light, but in such cases, no energy or information actually travels faster than c. Experiments showing group velocities greater than c include that of Wang et al. (2000), who produced a laser pulse in atomic cesium gas with a group velocity of -310c. In each case, the observed superluminal propagation is not at odds with causality, and is instead a consequence of classical interference between its constituent frequency components in a region of anomalous dispersion (Wang et al. 2000).


    Keith Fredericks has an opinion that strange radiation is a tachyon. This SR quasiparticle might be tacjyonic is that it is most likely based on the polariton. The polariton does generate superluminal light in the form of x-waves.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/lsa2017119


    Superluminal X-waves in a polariton quantum fluid


    This article shows that a polariton can naturally produce superluminal light (X-waves) when excited with a pulsed laser.


    This unexpected behavior of light may explain how Strange radiation (SR) can be considered a tachyon, a superluminal particle.


    If the SR is composed of excited entangled polaritons that are producing superluminal light, the SR could be generating a tachyonic field.


    A tachyonic field is a field that has its maximum energy potential at the instant of its creation and and upon perturbation releases that energy instantaneously.


    tachyonic field


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



    Also. this ability for the polariton to generate superluminal light (X-waves) could also be at the root of the polariton's dark mode mechanism. This dark mode behavior of SR that has been discovered by Ken shoulders in what he termed as a black EVO could be based on the polariton's ability to generate superluminal light via X-waves. Only a superluminal light vortex can produce a light based black hole that can trap and hold onto a photon.

  • BLP update

    Epimetheus wrote:

    Everyone can say anything. I say: there is lack of evidence that a cat can be dead and alive at the same time! Have a nice day!


    Based on the latest QM theories anf experiments, the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time. A wave is an extended object. Two observers can look at different parts of the wave function and see a different situation. Like two people looking at a long train. One can see a coal car and another can see a box car.


    https://www.independent.co.uk/…earch-study-a8833341.html

  • Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

    RobertBryant wrote:

    There may be holes in your argument

    This behavior of the active agent has been seen in about a half dozen reactor designs that have been analyzed by MFMP and is the basis of the O day presentation that Bob Greenyer will give ...sooner or later...


    Also see the holes rendered in this Russian paper on the first page


    https://translate.google.com/t…231%2F004a%2F02311041.htm


    Investigation of the characteristics of MagnetoToroElectric Emanations with the help of photographic film detectors

  • Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

    LCC wrote:

    axil : is that your own opinion or has it been expressed as such by Brillouin? I can't seem to remember reading about this specific problem.

    This issue is common to most LENR reactor designs. It becomes apparent when the reactor is pushed to high energy production levels.


    For example, in an interview that Dennis Cravens had with Host Ruby Carat, he describes these pin holes seen in his reactor at 2:00 and states that his reactor fails when the power level produced get high. Cravens just ignores these holes and what causes them. He also ignored me when I tried to tell him why his reactor was failing at high power.


    Hear at between 2:00 and 3:30 into this interview. Click on the red box to activate the link.


  • url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coldfusionnow.com%2Fpodcast%2FRuby-Carat-Dennis-Cravens-Cold-Fusion-Now-015


    • We have seen these pin holes develop in the meltdown of the LION reactor. This damage is a product of the inherent nature of the LENR active agent. If you are interested in learning more, I will be glad to help.

  • Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

    Dr Richard wrote:

    NASA's new lightweight fission reactors use a minimum of 25 Kg U235 for reliable power production - why do cold fusion researchers believe they can generate reliable fusion with only 100 - 1000th of this critical mass? Brillouin Energy just need to scale up their operation to achieve a COP of 10. If you don't believe me then wait until I have all the data.

    Your assumption is that like nuclear energy, the LENR reaction consumes matter to produce energy. This assumption may not always be the case. There may be a channel for energy generation in LENR that may be confined to extraction of energy from the vacuum through hawking radiation. A LENR reactor may run for centuries and keep its energy output consistent over that timeframe. That is not to say that there is a channel for energy generation that is based on matter reconfiguration, but this channel can be suppressed by the proper design of the reactor.

  • Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

    The singular issue that Brillouin Energy has not solved is the distruction of their reactor's structure by the LENR reaction when the COP is high. This issue was Rossi's downfall in the Dural test. Rossi has solved this issue by confining the LENR reaction to the plasma which keeps the LENR reaction away from the structure of the reactor.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    1. Alain March 21, 2019 at 7:08 AM

      Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

      The http://www.ecatskdemo.com video is the most spectacular thing I ever have seen in the LENR world.

      I am not surprised it has been among the most successful.

      I think this is happening because it brings evidence of the probable value of your paper

      https://www.researchgate.net/p…nge_particle_interactions

      that is the most read nuclear physics publication of the world among the publications of the last 4 months

      Did you expect it?

      Alain

    2. Translate Andrea Rossi March 21, 2019 at 8:13 AM

      Alain:

      No.

      Thank you for the attention to the work of our Team,

      Warm Regards

      A.R.


    The prospect of making money may have some impact on reading habits.

  • Huw Price: Icebergs In The Room? Cold Fusion At Thirty

    Wyttenbach wrote:

    Here what LENR experiments tell.


    Why does heating a small amount of LENR powder produce different delta background spectra at different temperatures with different total counts/s? With up to 5x background at selected regions?



    LENR is generated by a topological condition that has a resonance relationship with the wavelength of the applied energetic stimulation.

  • The Trillion Dollar Concept: Negative Differential Resistance


    LENR Fuel is an absolute requirement.

  • Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

    Paradigmnoia wrote:

    And since replicating anything in the real world that one has seen in a video on YouTube is crap shoot anyways, maybe we should just move along, help strangers, rescue animals, clean up garbage and generally really save the world and our souls instead.

    A good start but what other good things can we do?

  • Observing hydrogen's effects in metal

    The compression of hydrogen in metals is how ultra dense hydrogen is formed. Lattice confinement can compress hydrogen to high levels, high enough to form the ultra dense state, this is the primary step in the LENR process.