Quote from AmishPhysicist

I'm not using magnetic fields though.

You must be producing magnetic field lines if you are separating charge. You must be using EMF to separate charge.

@AmishPhysicist:

I am certain that fusion of protium cannot happen on earth. Your reaction might be the same one that occurs in the sun's corona where huge magnetic fields generate heat up to millions of degrees C. This reaction is why the 11 year solar cycle causes the sun's energy output to vary based on that cycle.

As I have stated above, heat is not produced in many types of reactions, but transmutation always occurs. Magnetic field lines cause protons and neutrons to become unstable and a quark soup results. This process can be thought of as quark fusion. It is my bet that you are producing helium 3 just like Safire is doing.

@AmishPhysicist:

The Safire project has produced helium from hydrogen using just a negative electrode and the walls of a cylinder providing a positive electrode with a DC current passing between the two electrodes. . Because of its simplicity, this reaction is different than any other one that I know about. It is so uncomplicated and uses just EMF to produce transmutation. The plasmatron produced overunity current flow in the same way. Your reaction seems to be very simple and uncomplicated and uses an ionizing method to remove electrons from the hydrogen.

Over the past 100 years there have been many people who have come upon a strange reaction much as you have and have failed to bring their tech to prominence. In order to raise your profile, contact MFMP for a third party test so that they can popularize it in order for you to get more backing and technical expertise.

What is the format of the overunity energy that you generate: heat, light, electrical current, something else? It sounds like the energy output is heat since you speak about meltdown.

Information on safire:

Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

information on the plasmatron:

Surprising Energy From gases after an electrical discharge....1946

Quote from Ahlfors

OH MY GOD! - MUONS ...

Don't be afraid: "Millions of these particles strike your body each second"

Quote from Ahlfors

https://scholar.google.com/sch…P%2C%20Minsk%20%281998%29.

Reference:

https://link.springer.com/arti…00045161.32924.c8?LI=true

Abstract

Experimental data showing that on collision of a flux of high-velocity microparticles (which is close to the fluxes of space particles in parameters) with a thick-walled metal obstacle we have failure of integrated circuits placed behind this obstacle have been given.

A LENR reaction will produce muons that will disrupt the integrated circuits of a chip.

me356 has complaid that his test equipment fails within 3 meters of his reactor,

Also see

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-…e-wreaking-low-grade.html

Particles from outer space are wreaking low-grade havoc on personal electronics

Quote

When cosmic rays traveling at fractions of the speed of light strike the Earth's atmosphere they create cascades of secondary particles including energetic neutrons, muons, pions and alpha particles. Millions of these particles strike your body each second. Despite their numbers, this subatomic torrent is imperceptible and has no known harmful effects on living organisms. However, a fraction of these particles carry enough energy to interfere with the operation of microelectronic circuitry. When they interact with integrated circuits, they may alter individual bits of data stored in memory. This is called a single-event upset or SEU.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-…eaking-low-grade.html#jCp

Quote from Alan Smith

There is further material on the closely related topic of 'condensed plasmoids' also known as 'charge clusters' , 'EVOs' etc on this website.

http://condensed-plasmoids.com/

Yes, this looks very close to the spark based EVOs produced by Ken Shoulders. The EVOs are a dusty plasma based aggregation of nanoparticles produced by a large energy release producing a plasma plume. The nanoparticles are hosts for Surface Plasmon Polaritons that are at the bottoms of all these LENR based reactions. The same nanoparticle reaction principle supports the SunCell reaction and the Quark QX reaction discovered by Rossi. A dusty plasma generates nanoparticles that host SPPs that convert energy to monopole magnetism which disrupts the protons and neutrons in nuclei.

SPPs are hosted by many nanostructures including metal hydrides and energetic nanoparticles that condense from a cold plasma. Dusty plasma could be produced by a spark or a particle impact of sufficient energy.

SPPs might also produce transmutation that has be seen in microwave generated cold plasmas in reactors designed by G. Egely.

This effect might be based on cavitation. The active agent in a cavitation reaction is a metalize hydride. Does the initial impact of the particle produce a hydride?

Quote from AmishPhysicist

Great replies. Thank you for your responses. I promise that while I am very political, I will leave this firmly in the real of philosophy. I most certainly have no intention of promoting and political platform unless you consider wanting the best for all of mankind as a partisan view.

As for climate change, I don't think its necessary to bring that into it so no worries there. Pollution is a very real thing though and I think we can agree that LENR technologies offer a path to power production that doesn't introduce any poisons into the environment, regardless of whatever the climate overall is doing.

I truly worry though about the implications of AI as well. Especially if you combine advanced AI with advanced power technologies. Skynet-style drones wandering around with unlimited flight time is certainly not an impossibility. I have an idea for how to make a transistor that outputs more than just 0-1, but what that might lead to certainly worries me as well. I look back in history at naive men like Hiram Maxim, who seemed to believe his machine gun would make war too awful to contemplate, and it makes me cautious with ideas.

I'm not part of academia or the scientific community, so I don't have a good feel for how international collaborations truly work without major political interference(if they even do?). A couple years ago I didn't even have much interest in cold fusion. Then I was trying to come up with a way to simplify redox chemistry to bypass the need for reagents and just by chance happened to come across an idea that lead me to the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. I accomplished my chemistry goal, but I believe I also discovered a way to convert hydrogen into electrical energy(by removing nearly 100% of electrons) without significant heat or any neutron production. Its not exactly a generator or a battery in any traditional sense, but rather something of a hybrid. In fact, I believe the process works best at well below room temperature. More importantly I believe the device can be made quite small(car battery size, perhaps even smaller), and does not require any toxic substances. I've estimated it can be developed for under 2000 dollars, but I simply haven't had the money for the materials yet. Once I have the funds I will get a prototype produced as quickly as I can. It went from being an accidental discovery to a bit of an obsession.

Display More

LENR can produce excess energy in a variety of differing formats, one of those being electron production from hydrogen. Rossi has found a way to produce excess output energy formatted as light, heat, and some electrons. There have been systems that produce relativistic shock waves involving neutral particles and electrons in useable amounts. The engineering to master how the output energy from LENR is formated has not been defined.

The path that your discovery might be taking could go through the creation of muons that decay into electrons. Invest in a cloud chamber to see what particles are produced by your device. If the hydrogen is disappearing, that means that the protons are being converted to other subatomic particles namely mesons. Mesons will eventually decay into electrons. If the hydrogen does not disappear, then your reaction is probably chemical.

me356 said that he has seen a large amount of hydrogen disappear from his reactor a matter of seconds.

Quote from maryyugo

This concern is at best, highly premature. Let's worry about preventing a thermonuclear war or a biological agent war started by the likes of North Korea or whatever it will be that replaces Isis. That will be more likely to cause serious trouble way sooner.

LENR might provide the ability to produce defensive weapons that might neutralize the bombs and missiles of any aggressive country. As a matter of conscience, Ii I were you, I would be concerned that this LENR tech supporting world saving defensive weapons would be suppressed by your incessant negative lobbying.

Quote from JedRothwell

Except that has never been observed. These are special muons, willed into existence by Axil, the way God created the heavens and the earth.

Holmlid has observed them. Nobody else has looked.

One more thing...

In the SEM micrographs that ME356 has supplied that shows transmutation activity of his fuel. The carbon base that the fuel is placed on shows a lightening in shade. This is do to an increase of the atomic weight of the carbon, The area the carbon that supports the fuel shows this lightening. The cause of this isotopic shift is not yet determined by it could be produced by muon emissions since no neutrons or gamma were detected.

See the SEM micrograph at this post

me356: Photos of AURA control unit

Also see carbon isotope lightening in these other SEMs from me356

me356: Photos of AURA control unit

Jed, can you honestly expect that this level of transmutation can occur without the production of subatomic byproduct emissions.

First, LENR can produce muons as one of its energy output formats. Muons have their uses but I can only think of creating defensive weapons from them

See

Directed muon beam weapons

Next, LENR can produce transmutation of elements. This might be used to produce transuranic elements and/or U235 enrichment to form nuclear weapons. But this is nothing that an uranium mine or a laser cannot do today. Of course the muons can counter this using a defensive anti nuclear shield.

LENR would require that nuclear energy be removed as a power production option because a muon beam could destabilize a nuclear reactor as happened at chernobyl. you might use it to destroy nuclear powered naval vessels of nuclear bombs carried by planes in the air or nuclear tipped missiles coming from space..

Every meme has some truth in it and also some untruth. So in general, a meme is a mixture of propositions that are both truth and untruth. Taking this reality to heart is what an open mind is about. The willingness to extract the truth from any given meme is not generally found at this current time. Evaluating many memes for a correlation of commonality of truth is an intellectual skill that many do not have in this current age.

For example, there are experimental observations that fusion is occurring in LENR. Nuclear physics completely reject fusion because ionizing radiation and neutron production is not seen in LENR based fusion. Recognizing that this is an issue in the acceptance of LENR, Hagelstein has spent decades unsuccessfully trying to explain how fusion can occur without ionizing radiation and neutron production. But he has not come up with how such a thing can happen.

Nuclear physics should have accepted that transmutation was happening in LENR and looked more broadly for a cause outside of the standard ionizing radiation/neutron production meme. But nuclear scientists reject the entire LENR meme without accepting transmutation as a true experimental observation.

In another example, the naysayers cannot accept LENR unless excess heat is generated in the LENR reaction even when transmutation is observed. The naysayers cannot extract any truth from the LENR meme because that meme does not completely meet their expectations about what LENR should be.

Looking for truth is not an ability that most can perform since truth fails to meet the expectations of the observers that are looking for truth. This search for truth might need to wait for another open mind like Einstein reappears on the scene or for artificial intelligence to reach a higher level of development where human nature is not an issue.

http://www.cosmicwatch.lns.mit.edu/detector

Physicists design $100 handheld muon detector

Now physicists at MIT have designed a pocket-sized cosmic ray muon detector to track these ghostly particles. The detector can be made with common electrical parts, and when turned on, it lights up and counts each time a muon passes through. The relatively simple device costs just $100 to build, making it the most affordable muon detector available today.

The researchers, led by Spencer Axani, a graduate student in MIT's Department of Physics, have designed the detector with students in mind. They have started an outreach program called CosmicWatch, with a website that lists parts to purchase and detailed instructions on how to assemble, calibrate, and run the detector. The team estimates that an average high school student should spend about four hours building a detector for the first time, and just one hour building it a second time.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-…ld-muon-detector.html#jCp

Quote from bocijn

Hagelstein said the barrier to LENR is not the science it's a sociological barrier

Dangerous memes

LENR is a dangerous meme that is destructive to the existing sociological structure. In order for that sociological structure to continue to exist, society must destroy the LENR meme.

Quote from zorud

Maybe you can cite or provide a link to some peer-reviewed papers or experiments that confirm your assumptions? What exactly is LENR reaction? Do you have a theory? I am waiting for one that will become hopefully "mainstream-physics-proof" and open a new era in nuclear physics (awarded with a Nobel prize of course) so someone who understands the effect can replicate the reaction when wanted. It is hard to see that no one on earth other than Rossi seems to have a clue (and a "product"...).

Proving this assersion was the reason for the this experiment

Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**

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

Quote

The idea of the experiment was as follows. The plasma channel has a small volume with respect to the volume of the whole chamber. Thus, if some salt of a metal having several isotopes is added to bidistilled water, the number of admixture atoms from the solution that get to the plasma channel would be small compared to the number of Ti atoms. It is clear that recording of the isotope shift of admixture atoms would indicate that transformation takes place throughout the whole bulk of the chamber. As this metal, we used U. Uranium has two isotopes, 235U and 238U, whose ratio can be easily measured even at a low specific concentration by means of γ, β and α-spectrometry. Figure 5 shows the 235U/238U ratios measured by various procedures and compared to the ratio measured in the starting solution. Thus, if no changes were detected after the experiment, this ratio would be equal to unity. It can be seen from the figure that the real ratio is far from unity. The isotope shift effect extends far beyond the possible errors. The shift occurs toward enrichment of the mixture in the 235U isotope. This does not mean that 238U is converted into 235U. This interpretation is wrong. We added some 137Cs isotope as the marker. Then we measured the specific activity (that is, activity divided by the volume) of each U isotope with respect to the Cs activity before and after the experiment. It was found that the activity of both U isotopes decreased with respect to that of Cs. However, the activity of the 238U isotope decreases to a greater extent. Thus, the ratio of 235U to 238U becomes bigger than unity. Prior to these experiments, we made sure that the specific activity of 137Cs does not change noticeably. The real situation is more complicated [3] but this is a topic of a separate report. For us, it is important that the transformation can also take place outside the plasma channel.

Also see

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…20.2867&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Experimental observation of the distortion of the

uranium isotopic relationship and violation of the

thorium- 234 secular equilibrium upon electric explosion

Quote

The experiments carried out here are rather tentative. However, despite

this fact, the experimental results provide a number of rather reliable and

unambiguous conclusions.

1. The electric explosion of the titanium foil induces distortion of the

initial isotopic relationship of uranium in a solution of uranyl sulfate.

The most pronounced distortion of the isotopic relationship is found

in the vapor gas blowout VGB, which contributes to the 235U enrichment.

RMS.VGB = 1.18 ± 0.07 for VGB and RM.S.P = 0.942 ±

0.012 for the precipitate.

2. A substantial violation of the 234Th secular equilibrium occurs.

Immediately after the electric explosion, a deficiency of 234Th up to

30 % is observed. Analysis of the curve shown in Fig. 4 shows that

the amount of 235U decreases by approximately 10 %, while the

amount of 235U decreases by approximately 10 %, while the amount

of 234Th decreases to even a greater extent, the content of 234Th being

restored over a period of 24 days.

3. The neutron flow did not exceed I < 103 neutron/electric explosion.

Therefore, the change in the uranium isotopic composition cannot be

attributed to the induced fission.

4. To elucidate the mechanism of the observed effects, further research

is needed. It is noteworthy that the effects are observed only upon

electric explosion in a liquid (a solution of uranyl sulfate) in which

high pressures are generated. Thus, the phenomenon observed might

be of the same nature as that described in publication [5] for the collapse

of artificially generated cavitons in a liquid.

Display More

https://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-ex/0304024

On the possible physical mechanism of Chernobyl catastrophe and the

unsoundness of official conclusion

A.A. Rukhadze,* L.I. Urutskojev,** D.V. Filippov**

Quote

In the authors’ opinion, a number of experimental facts that stimulated musing on the root of the

Chernobyl accident have not been explained convincingly. These include:

• The mechanism of the reactor acceleration: how did it come that the reactor with a high rate of

fuel consumption (up to 20 MW day/kg) and spoiled with xenon was accelerated, in 10 seconds,

from 200 MW power level (i.e. 6% of nominal power) to the level exceeding the nominal by a

factor of several tens;

• The integrity of structures in the reactor cavity;

• The impossibility of locating the position of a considerable amount of fuel;

• Two detonations 1-2 sec. apart;

• An unnatural bright glow above the reactor cavity after the explosion;

• An isotope shift in the fuel samples studied, including the shift towards 235U [10, 11];

• The attraction of electrical cables to steam pipes.

Display More

The supercritical explosion at Chernobyl was not based on the fission of U235. The increase of U235 percentage shows that the Uranium isotope that produced the supercritical explosion was U 238.

It is well known in LENR, that the even isotopes with 0 nuclear spin are responsive to the LENR reaction than are the old isotopes with nonzero nuclear spin.

1. Steven N. Karels November 18, 2017 at 5:16 AM

   Dear Andrea Rossi,

   To clarify your response to Dr. Joseph Fine — N number of eCat reactors will be all running at 30% of their maximum output value? So if N = 1, the overall thermal output would be 6W, while if N = 100, the overall thermal output would be 600W, assuming the rated maximum output power of a single reactor is 20W. Is my understanding correct?

2. Andrea Rossi November 18, 2017 at 8:02 AM

   Steven N.Karels:

   
   All I said is that the E-Cat QX will run at 30% of its power. Like when you drive your car, supposedly with a rating of 100 HP, at 30 HP.

   
   Warm Regards,

   
   A.R.

Leonid Urutskoev supported his theory of the accident by showing that the fission of U238 is produced by electric sparks in water at a distance from the location of the spark. The exploding titanium foil does not produce neutrons so the cause of the fission of U238 is produce by something Leonid Urutskoev calls strange radiation and not neutrons.

From the experiment, the following results are shown related to the strange radiation:

Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data.

1. The particle which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons.

2. The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.

3. The particle does not have high energy, as no delta-electrons are observed.

4. The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV.

5. The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields.

Recently MFMP has confirmed the particle tracks seen in the work of both Leonid Urutskoev and Keith Fredericks that shows the strange radiation particle described above.

When multiple experimenters show the same thing in a dozen different experiments, then attention to those results must be paid.

Quote from interested observer

in my mind, one of the three statements I listed must be true.

This is a condition that results from a very narrow mind.

Quote from interested observer

Axil's posts today are filled with definitive declarative statements (as opposed to expressions of opinion) about Rossi's technology, his activities, and those of so-called competitors. I am not making any judgements here, but there are only three possible explanations for these posts:

1) Axil has direct connections to Rossi and others in the LENR world that nobody else here has and that provide him with information nobody else has.

2) Axil is telepathic or clairvoyant and can simply know these things without being told them

3) Axil makes all this stuff up

Logically speaking, one of these three statements is correct. It is up to each of us to decide for himself which it is.

Display More

These statements are only true in your mind because you want them to be true. Its called wishful thinking.

You know little about Rossi and what he is doing because you don't what to know. Because you are convinced that Rossi has developed nothing or even more likely, it is in your economic interests to convince everyone who will listen that he has nothing, you will never put in the work to understand what he is doing.

I understand this condition because I will never put in the work to understand R. Mills theory of everything.