Posts by Andrea Calaon

@H-G Branzell,
When I say "at the same time" I mean that, if the plethora of experimental results is real, there must be a single mechanism that solves both problems. The probability of two "uncommon"/miraculous mechanisms at play is ZERO.
If you read the first slides of my presentation I explain my single "uncommon" ingredient. From that I get many if not all features of LENR, and the two miracles become only rare but not impossible "combinations".

First miracle: chemical energy -> nuclear barrier.
It is the nuclear force itself that gets "extended" by the electron. There is a mediator neutral particle, and it is not the neutron. This is only a slogan, but you can find some more details in my document.
The list of the best NAEs (only from the energy point of view), that I get from a single number, covers Ca(IV) (Iwamura), K(IV) (Holmlid), Zr(IV) (Swartz), Li(I) (electrochemistry and Rossi), ... Mg(II) should not too bad, but apparently it doesn't work. May be the reason is not energetic.

Second miracle: fractionation.
There are no emitted gammas in the MeV range. Only many EUV photons around 14.6 [nm]. They thermalize in very thin layers. Randell Mills measured them directly. Swartz measured non-thermalized near IR.

Third miracle: preference for stable isotopes
The reason for this miracle is only qualitative in the mechanism that I propose. There are no excited isotopes that will decay. Only in rare cases (like the presence of B10), the excess energy of newly formed alphas gets liberated as gammas instead as kinetic energy (see Iwamura's gammas).

The whole mechanism entails a new neutral relatively penetrating particle (see the "strange" radiation) and mainly EUV emissions, with sporadic gamma. So LENR are not completely radiation free. However they are incomparably better than conventional fission and fusion.

@H-G Branzell
Dear H-G Branzell,
something in The Force is telling me that you are spending too much time on a subject you deem senseless. "The Doubt Side is strong with You ...".
Apart form my galactic stupidities, I liked your text; very focused. Given your assumptions your conclusions are inevitably correct. Normally there is no way to access chemically the nuclear activation energies, and for the nuclear MeV to transform into meV.
The point is the existence/non-existence of a mechanism that overcomes the so called Coulomb barrier in a non-kinetic way and that, at the same time, fractionates the huge nuclear quanta into many Extreme Ultra Violet or smaller EM quanta.
If you want you can have a look at my proposal for such a mechanism (for sure it is not the only one on the market ...):
http://lenr-calaon-explanation…ted_nuclear_reactions.pdf

I would not be totally sure that all LENR experimenters do not receive radiation from their experiments. Anyway the absence of harmful radiation is the very essence of the attractiveness of LENR, so, using it as a proof against its own existence is somehow twisted.

@axil
I don't know what you mean by "particle based clusters". Hyd are made of an electron and a hydrogen nucleus bound together. No clusters.

@axil
I have never considered in detail a particular plasma because I would not be able.
I can only say that with Li(I) and hydrogen/deuterium ions at energies around 10 [eV] the Hyd should form.
If the hydrogen ions are too fast the production rate of Hyd will decrease.
Someone expert in plasmas could comment on how the reaction rate of Hyd should change with temperature.
Prolonged high temperatures should be the consequence of an accumulation of Hyd.
Would a plasma increase its temperature rapidly with intense Extreme Ultraviolet stimulation?

@AlainCo
My post on Edmund's page must have been "moderated", i.e. censored somehow because I have tried now to send the same comment without my webpage and I was prompted with a message saying that I had already sent an identical comment, that, however, as you can see, is NOT on the page.
So my only conclusion is that my comment was censored. Anyway, thanks again Alain for your support.

@AlainCo
Thank you Alain. I tried from two completely different IPs. And I tried using two different e.mails (libero and gmail).
I could try using a different name ... hahaha

@AlainCo
@axil
I tried to post on Edmund's blog on the page suggested by Longview:
http://lenrexplained.com/2015/…that-theory-must-explain/
, but I could not get my post through. You posted successfully. How should I do?
Thanks in advance for any suggestion.

@axil
Thank you for the directory with all works of Holmlid and Olafsson!!

You say

Quote

If your theory cannot explain the Holmlid results, then it needs at least some more work or it might even be a bad theory.

My theory could well have no roots in reality.
In the case of Holmlid and Olafsson I haven't read all their production on the ultra-dense deuterium, but my sensation is now that their interpretation tends to be quite mixed with the experimental results, and that this interpretation is somehow self-referencial. This only for ultra-dense D.

The neutral particles suggested by my theory are actually flying around.
The energy coincidence between the K orbital and the laser used is striking. It could well be the simplest way to generate Hyd so far: K-doped Fe₂O₃, deuterium/hydrogen in gas form, 532 [nm] laser!

Their latest results seem to suggest that the neutral particles can generate along the path between the detectors other particles (decay or reaction?) that have higher speeds and are even more numerous. I will have to think about this to see if the Hyd could plausibly react along the path with some nuclei and generate faster particles as described. Plus radio emissions and other evidences ...
Let me think about it.
Ciao

@Jarek
I see I have troubles explaining the attraction mechanism.
The original description is probably better than my babbling:
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/x…ngNucleons.pdf?sequence=1

It has nothing to do with the effect of a static magnetic field on a magnetic dipole. It is due to the "very nature" of the nucleons: their internal structure as made of moving charges. The movement of these charges generates a magnetic dipole moment that should manifest as well as a VERY RAPIDLY oscillating magnetic field around the particle, clearly without the radiative therm, otherwise the energy would immediately disperse.
There is no speculation about what causes the structure of the particles in the first place.

@Jarek
Thank you for the reference to the Aharonov-Casher effect, the dual to the Aharonov–Bohm effect. I didn’t know about it. My interpretation is that in both cases, particles, together with their wave function, (or their pilot wave for Hidden Variable people like me …) tell us that their behaviour depends on the entire past history. The potentials in fact carry information about the complete time history, while field are only information about the present. Adding to this what the delayed choice of Wheeler shows, I conclude that the pilot-wave/wave function does not experience time, and we probably are just visitors in a block-universe. Non-locality and EPR is just a consequence of the timeless nature of the pilot-waves/wave function.

@axil
You say: “How do you explain the 10 billion K-mesons coming from the Holmlid experiment using a laser shot?”

I would need to carefully study the experimental evidence of Sveinn Ólafsson and Leif Holmlid. I will only make a few general comments on previous finds described in “Neutral multi-MeV/u particles from laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium D(0): accurate two-collector timing and magnetic analysis”
The flux they measured consists mainly of neutral particles, which the authors interpret as fragments of ultra - dense hydrogen HN(0). “Neutrons are excluded as the particles detected, as can be concluded from the weak penetration properties of the signal - generating particles.” They say also: “The behavior observed in the experiments indicates neutral particles containing both positive and negative fundamental particles, thus neutral clusters of H(0)”.
My guess (using my theory) is instead that they are producing Hyd, which, by the way, contain both positive and negative fundamental particles.
The authors say that the neutron flux is “small”, attributing this to the high density of D(0) …

Energies:
The Nd:YAG laser wavelength of 532 [nm] corresponds to an energy of 2.33 [eV]. The catalyst of Ólafsson and Holmlid contains potassium. The 5th ionization energy of K is 82.66 [eV], so, K has a core orbital at precisely 2.325 [eV] from the coupling. You can read the data on page 25 of my presentation. On the presentation I simplified the coupling energy to 85 [eV], whereas the precise value is 84.985 [eV], so that the precise distance is 2.325 and not 2.34 [eV]. So the combination of Nd:YAG and K seems to be not bad at all! I hadn't noticed the coincidence. It may well be that the easiest way to produce Hyd is actually this!!

The K-meson thing is not clear to me. I need to read the article.

@Longview and ogfusionist
Blue-coloured palladium:
In his book “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” Edmund Storms writes about blue-coloured palladium: “... palladium can be heated in air above 900 [C] for time sufficient to make the surface rich in oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. This results in the formation of a very active blue-coloured palladium oxide.”

Dear Mike,
you asked:

Quote

Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

My answer is yes, for what regards the interpretation of QM.
As I said a few times in this Forum, Hidden Variable Theories (HVT) were dismissed (after Bell) because they were:

• Non-local,
• Contextual.

My opinion:

- Non lo cality is due to the time-less nature of the electromagnetic interaction. It is a fact that should not stop HV. The Aharonov–Bohm effect and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment show that particles know somehow both the (full) past and what we could interpret as "their future".
- Contextuality was actually the main reason for the dismissal of HVT. But contextuality is due solely to the interpretation of the spin, which makes the Kochen Specker Theorem applicable to demonstrate contextuality of any HVT. However, as unbelievable as it may seem, the common interpretation of the spin is wrong (see the works of David Hestenes) and HV are not contextual.

Hidden Variable Theories do make the same predictions of "standard" QM. They can not offer an advantage for understanding Cold Fusion. Another ingredient is necessary. After 26 years of unsuccessful theoretical attempts it is not possible that CF can be explained within the framework of the Standard Model. Something in it must be incorrect, possibly a non-proven part. Unfortunately the HV interpretation of QM does not lead to contradictions with experimental facts.

Dear Arnaud,
I see you've read through my presentation. I hope I haven't wasted too much of your time.

About your first post:
The E in ECO should stand for External.
I use the ionization energies as an indication of the energies that the most external orbital has, when the atom is neutral, simply or multiply ionized. The energy required to extract one electron should be the energy possessed by the most external orbital in a given ionized state.
In other words I assume that if a certain photon frequency can free an electron from an orbital, being the process a resonance process, that frequency should in a way or another be an orbital motion frequency (in QM terms it has no strict sense …).
In the case of Zr, once the atom has lost 4 electrons in an ionic bond, it remains with its fifth orbital “naked”. The External orbital of the Zr core in the oxide has an energy near to the fifth ionization energy of an isolated Zr(IV) ion because the electron orbitals in ionic bonds overlap only minimally with the core orbitals. For non ionic bond this would not hold true.
The electron that is sucked in (extracted form the atom) towards the crossing hydrogen nucleus is the electron in the external core orbital (ECO). Following this there will be some soft gammas and a few Auger electrons due to the rearranging orbitals. Without nuclides like B10 these gammas should be responsible for the very low gamma emissions just above background.

You say:
“For an e- to move out of the nucleus you need energy, you don't receive energy! So imagine that the coupling exists, the H move close to the nucleus at the right speed (see energy), the e- of the transition ionisation energy is captured. But where comes the energy of the ionization? Asap a second electron will come to fill the gap made by the capture. That releases energy in form of Xray.”

I understood that I should improve the explanation of the NAE.
H moves near to the External Core Orbital, not near to the nucleus. The hydrogen nuclei canNOT approach the nucleus.
The energy for the necessary ionization comes from the huge binding energy of the Hyd, so energetically there in no problem at all.
The emissions you mention are correct. I should add them more clearly in the presentation.

About you last post:

YES Arnaud! It should be not too difficult to check my theory.
I suggested Iwamura to bombard ZrO2 with protons or deuterons changing the energy in the range of a few [eV].
Actually what Swartz has done is already not bad for ZrO2. Possibly a multi layer would increase the NAE density. But the limit is in the fact that the NAE is only a few oxide layer thick.

Detection:

• As Urutskoev did with ArX (emulsions); possibly combined with strong magnetic fields,
• By stimulating the active material with radio frequencies while scanning (like in CW-NMR). At some frequencies there should be the "response" of the trapped Hyd. Which is the strange RF radiation measured by ENEA, Kidwell, …
• Surrounding the sample with B10 and looking for gamma at 1.445 and 1.745 [keV].

The last method is for me the least sure, in the sense that I am not 100% sure B10 is responsible for those energies.
For sure there are even better methods that expert physicists could easily suggest.

Best regards, and thanks again for your attention.

Andrea

Dear axil,
thank you for the link to the presentation. I will watch to it as soon as possible (I think I did but some time ago an only in bits).
You say

Quote

This shows that the mystery particle is a tachyon.

A tachyon would only violate CAUSALITY, and this is not ... a detail. My opinion is that the whole of Physics would not be possible without causality, even in a block-universe.
The last time I remember tachyons surfaced was about the speed of neutrinos. And it ended in experimental error.
I will have to investigate the production of muons. My ignorant guess is that Hydronions could have caused signals that can be erroneously mistaken for muons. In fact Hydronions would emerge from a material that has been active for days, like Urutskoev showed.
What would produce muons for days? Where does that huge and extremely concentrated energy come from? The future? If this is the conclusion let me be impolite: LUDICROUS.
The traces in the experiments of Leonid Urutskoev (reproduced in France) are NOT muons.
I will come back to you after studying a bit more.
Regards
Andrea

The traces come from neutral particles (no delta electrons) with a large magnetic moment (they curve). This particle is the Hydronion (Hyd):
http://lenr-calaon-explanation…ted_nuclear_reactions.pdf

The helical traces are a consequence of the precession of the emitted Hydronions. At 2[G] the ep (Hydronion made with protium) processes at 5.6 [MHz] (do you remember the measurements of Kidwell and friends?). So, with a helical pitch of 10 microns the Hyd would be flying around at 56 [m/s].

The Hydronions are emitted thanks to the phonons that cause magnetic waves (phonon-magnetic coupling if you prefer) which push the Hydronions around in the solid. Some end up ejected from the powder. Many are ejected at the explosion and are the cause of the transmutations. When the Hydronions are generated without an explosion (low phonon level) they undergo magnetic scattering in condensed matter (fortunately).

The Hyd are as large as the electron (huge in nuclear therms, 260 times the proton) and have the magnetic moment of the electron, which is again 960 times larger than the magnetic moment of the neutron.

Dear backyardfusion,
Thank you for your appreciation of my theory.

Dear Longview,
thank you for your comments and for evaluating my theory as a "compelling case".

I hope you and others will also criticize me, in any form, and suggest changes/improvements.

Best regards
Andrea

Dear Eric Walker,
thank you for considering my theory and for the detailed and interesting comment.
About your question:
Please consider that all reactions producing neutrons, but one, are endothermic and require large amounts of energy. So normally they will not be running. There is only one reaction that is exothermic and can produce neutrons: it is the number 6.1. In this reaction the neutron comes form the decay of He5. The production of He5 does not require the weak interaction.
The reactions inside the electron are highly perturbed due to the continuous crossing of the electron charge, and probably (this it is only a qualitative assertion) unstable isotopes do not survive and are not produced. So even reaction 6.1 should not run either.
You are right when you say that many of the listed reactions are only theoretical, but do not actually take place at any significant rate. I will need to clarify on this point.
About the slowness of the weak interaction I agree with you. All reactions involving the weak interaction are way less likely than those which do not.
However in the cases where there are no possible stable outcomes from the combinations of the nuclei trapped "inside" the electron, apart from the reaction/s where the electron participates, no reaction will take place until the unlikely participation of the electron will lead to new nuclei.
Best regrads
Andrea Calaon

Quote from AlainCo

imagining good engineering, mass production, do you think that supercritical CO2 brayton turbines could be installed in cars, planes...
for cars 10-50kWmech is required.
for plane it is 10-50MWmech ?
it seems a 10MW CO2 Brayton can fit in a square cube from one of the article?
this mean it could fit in a plane?

I think that now the downscaling is limited by the bearings of the turbine, which, if too small would heat too much. But I may be wrong.
For the adoption on means of transport much depends on the heat source. Remember that, if the heat source is hydrocarbons you will be producing CO2 that you have to store in some way.
If you instead have a nuclear source things change. You can heat up CO2 by radiation (you need some volume here).
If you have a nuclear source, these systems seem ideal for generating mechanical power and electricity.
With LENR they will be put on ships, then trains and large airplanes, and may be later on smaller means of transport as well.
For airplanes you need a volume where to pass the heat from the nuclear source (solid state) to the fluid CO2 through radiation (no pressure loss). I don't know how large it will be. Then you will need to pass the energy to a propeller. Slower then jet, but VERY long lasting flights.

Once the competition will start because the technology will be common knowledge, these systems seem to have all features that will lead to their spreading anywhere you need large amounts of power.

The closed Brayton cycle with supercritical CO2 can be used with ANY heat source. Sandia NL is working for having all components american-made:

Industrial data (Toshiba / NET Power / 8 Rivers Capital have a technology that will soon be tested at industrial scale):
http://gasturbineworld.com/gearing-up.html
Read on page 3: The limit to the inlet temperature of the turbine is due to the heat-exchanger, which has been designed with CONVENTIONAL materials. So the max inlet T for the turbine is 1,150 [C].

News:
http://breakingenergy.com/2014…arting-to-hit-the-market/

Thorium for nuclear waste:
Thorium to light up the world | Srikumar Banerjee | TEDxCERN - YouTube:

Alain, I would guess the evaluation of Thomas is correct. When I will have time I will try to go through it.
Thomas explained that ridges can cause an apparent higher emissivity, it is true. With ridges the surface not only emits, but it also reflects part of the emission coming form the opposite side of the ridges. The view for the whole surface is F. Moreover the radiation coming from the face in front is in part coming from the reflection of the emission of the first surface itself, and so on ... this is the reason for the series. You see from the formula of the effective emissivity that if the ridge angle goes to 0, the view factor F grows towards 1, and the effective emissivity epsilon' grows towards 1, no matter what epsilon was. In fact with low ridges angles the spaces in side the ridges becomes more and more similar to a cavity, i.e. a black body. This is the reason why beach sand gets so hot in summer: it is full of cavities that trap all incident radiation. For moderate angles the effect is stronger for intermediate emissivities. Near 1 there is no significant change anyway.
In the camera range alumina is never transparent so 780 [C] is not too wrong. At 780 [C] alumina is NOT transparent so the transparency argument is not valid. It it WERE at 1,400 you would benefit from high emissivity of the underlying surfaces.

Dear Thomas,
Andrea Rossi so far did not publish my comment, nor answered to a direct e-mail with the text attached. Consider that so far he had answered to all my previous e-mails and published all my comments.
But I guess it is worse than that ...
Andrea Rossi, after receiving my e-mail, commented yesterday to Franco Occhipinti:
"I think Umberto Eco is right. I have seen persons that, as you write, have no education at all in any matter polemize with Professors and teach to them how a measurement has to be done, not to mention the clownesque theories that deal with elementary particles as if they were balls of a pin-ball. I have seen persons without elementary mathematical bases polemize with a Nobel Prize laureate, lecturing him in a matter for which he got the Nobel Prize; internet has been a very important revolution, with enormous positive consequences, but this is a negative “counterindication”: the fact that an imbecile, without studying, let alone working, can write stupidities on a matter that most of the readers do not know and consequently make for himself a qualification of expert of that matter, polemizing with Professors even if he knows absolutely nothing of that matter. LENR, with their appearent simplicity, attract many of these clowns. The best thing to do is just ignore them, also because they count nothing, tactically and strategically."

Well I can say that I agree about the presence of many people who criticize about anything ... without knowing what they do ... yes, I experienced that too, even recently ...

But I suspect that among Bob Higgins, you and me there could be someone who is trying to teach Professors (capital letter!) how a measurement has to be done! However let me steal the show for a brief moment because the one with "clownesque theories" about particles could only be me! Hehehe. May be together with Norman Cook and Valerio Dallacasa.

I don't know about you, but in my case I had many IR camera measurements done for me, that I carefully evaluated for the validation and the calibration of industrial numerical models of objects that reach temperature above 1,200 [C] and the thermal history of which depends critically on radiation. In my work I examined many issues like vapour interposition, emissivity, reflections, and so on. And I was at INRIM in Tourin for IR measurement issues on oxides. Similar subject, possible inhomogeneous spectral emissivities. In my work I deal all the time with real and numerically simulated objects that heat up well above 1000 [C], in some cases with speeds of thousands degrees per second. I know quite well how a hot surface looks like.

So if Rossi says: “ ...an imbecile, without studying, let alone working, can write stupidities on a matter that most of the readers do not know and consequently make for himself a qualification of expert of that matter, polemizing with Professors even if he knows absolutely nothing of that matter” and is thinking about me, … well, he is quite wrong. But may be I am too egocentric … hahaha.

In this specific case I would not be surprised to have more experience than some of the Professors of the Lugano test.

And let me comment about the authority of someone with capital letter: Professor. If you argument that you need a Professor to be sure of the correctness of a procedure it means you do not master the subject yourself. I won’t add details of what I know for sure … Pordenone … radiation ...I will just smile alone …

Let us see what happens.

Andrea Calaon