Posts by Zephir_AWT

Superconductivity and low-energy nuclear reactions, Possibility of cold fusion in palladium deuterides: Screening effects and connection to superconducting properties

The connection of cold fusion and superconductivity may look improbable or even bizarre for mainstream physicists, because superconductivity is fragile effect which requires extreme cooling whereas fusion research struggles to achieve as high temperatures as possible. But in dense aether model both phenomena have common basis in low-dimensional arrangement of particle involved. In particular, the superconductivity emerges when the motion of electrons gets constrained to a narrow charge stripes, whereas cold fusion runs when atoms collide along long chains. This brings the rational basis to observation of heat and neutron evolution inside cooled palladium deuterides of Ed Storms and others.

We can actually see, than in many times the cold fusion remains limited to low temperatures too, the extreme example is Lipinski fusion which runs in few Kelvin range. The thermal motion makes linear arrangement of atoms and electrons less probable, in other cases the character of cold fusion changes into hot one with increasing of temperature and the evolution of neutrons can be observed after then.

Another common aspect of cold fusion and overunity is the reversal of thermodynamical arrow of time, which proceeds once we constrain the propagation of matter or energy in spatial dimensions, as explained above. The mainstream thermodynamics is actually only about reversible phenomena, which run spontaneously and smoothly. But the nature all around us is full of metastable systems and irreversible processes (overheating, undercooling, oversaturation, etc.) The fusion is also irreversible process requiring the overcoming activation energy of Coulomb barrier.

My point is, once the reversibility gets broken by activation energy, then we are also crossing thermodynamic time arrow back and forward again, because we are forced to overcome energetic gradient, forming temporal dimension. This routinely occurs during catalysis of metastable chemical reactions, which require activation energy (heating) for its running. If we constrain molecules in one dimension, for example by their absorption to a surface of palladium catalyst, these molecules will start to vibrate across temporal dimension and they will bypass activation energy barrier during it. As the result the chemical reaction will run way the more smoothly and reversibly, the more the catalysts constrain particles in three dimensional motion.

The conclusion therefore is, cold fusion and overunity phenomena are example of catalysis of strongly irreversible phenomena, which thus require extremely low-dimensional arrangement of catalytic system: surfaces, dislocations, nanocracks and dense chains of atom nuclei and the energy exchange running along one dimension only. The thermodynamic time arrow of 4D space-time gets strongly reversed during it.

The general motivation follows from dense aether model. In this model the 4D spacetime is formed like the mesh of foamy density fluctuations inside luminiferous aether (actually false vacuum concept of mainstream physics). This model is analogical behavior of supercritical fluid, which forms density fluctuations during its condensation.

That means that Universe is actually hyperdimensional, but the energy inside it is preferably spreading along surfaces of its density fluctuations in a way, which is much slower, which creates an impression of immensely huge Universe for us. The spreading of light and quantum waves can be thus modeled by spreading of ripples along water surface while ignoring the rest of underwater. Also elementary particles and massive objects are floating along surfaces of foam forming vacuum for us. The directions parallel with water surface play a role of spatial dimensions in this 2D analogy, whereas the remaining direction perpendicular to them is the temporal dimension of general relativity. Water surface can thus serve as an easy to imagine 3D (2S+1T) analogy of 4D (3S+1T) space-time.

The point is, if we constrain the motion of particles in spatial dimension(s), then the energy of vacuum fluctuations doesn't disappear, it will manifest itself along remaining temporal dimension. Which can be illustrated by this animation. The constraining motion of particles in space will thus lead into their attempts to travel across temporal dimension and to break thermodynamical limits - both overunity, both activation energy of cold fusion. In my theory the utilization of overunity is the very same effect like utilization of cold fusion. Observable matter is metastable in contact with vacuum, because it has been formed by fast undercooling of product of supernova explosion. The elements should spontaneous fuse to most stable iron, but they were cooled before they managed to do it. Therefore if we succeed with its fusion with vacuum fluctuations and/or another massive objects at various distance and energy scales, we get the remaining trapped energy which is waiting for its release out.

The general memo therefore is, we shouldn't separate cold fusion research from overunity research, because at certain distance/energy density scales these two sources of energy may become indistinguishable each other.

Quote

Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor.

That's perfectly correct - but it's not the whole story. My point was, that evidence for or against cold fusion must be even better than for or against polywater, because the polywater still has no apparent practical usage, whereas the cold fusion already has. The opponents of cold fusion should try much harder than the opponents of polywater, because they have much greater responsibility.

Quote

the quality of being “extraordinary” is subjective. What seems extraordinary to one person seems ordinary to another.

I'm well aware that You - as a proponent of science and blue-sky research - have lower resolving power for it. For proponents of science everything looks equally important - actually the more, the more mainstream they're are. But not for these ones, who are paying all this fun - i.e. tax payers - and these people represent a majority of human civilization. Their interest is actually what matters here - not the interest of scientists. The scientists are here for us, tax payers - not vice versa.

Thus the research of findings and ideas, which already have practical usage should always get a priority over these ones, which need more research for their practical applications in a given moment.

Quote

there is a fear of losing reputation even losing a professorship ... by associating with cold fusion

Well - but there is intriguing thing, that nobody fears the loss or reputation by associating himself with string theory and/or another failed theory.

The mainstream science community behaves like nest of ants, which is composed of various wrongdoing individuals - but as a whole it behaves like smart superorganism, which is occupation driven and which never makes decisions against its very own interests. It can very precisely recognize, whether support of some idea or paradigm brings more grants and jobs for scientists in a given moment - or it merely threats it.

Quote

The fallacy here is obvious. It puts the burden of proof on the wrong side. What matters is not whether there is a compelling reason to think that there are icebergs, but whether there is compelling reason to be confident that there are not. That’s what’s distinctive about these safety cases, and it stems from the high cost of getting things wrong – hitting the icebergs, or missing the islands.

Whereas the reputation trap is just a strawman fallacy, this insight is very important. I'm often forced to face the famous, but equally dumb Carl Sagan's quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The using this quote like mantra indistinguishably denominates every pathoskeptic denier.

But what is more extraordinarily here: the claim of cold fusion by itself - or the historical opportunity which is in stake, if we would ignore it? The burden of proof is not on the supplier of claims only - but on everyone who could profit from it. The correct sentence should sound:

"Extraordinary claims extraordinarily require the evidence."

Quote

This is exactly what I postulated several years ago with my V1DLLBEC theory. Vibrating 1Dimensional Lutinger Liquid Bose Einstein Condensate Theory.

Well, it isn't - but your theory goes actually deeper. Please note that mechanism which I proposed above has actually no quantum mechanics involved - it's solely mechanical. But I agree it's not the whole story - I'm myself proponent of many quantum and scalar physics anomalies occurring along long chains of compact matter. I think, that cold fusion is synergy of multiple phenomena - just some mechanisms are more dominant and some less, some are primarily and some others are derived from them. I actually believe, most of cold fusion theories are actually relevant at the same moment.

Quote

We should start a thread for this 1 dimensional theoretical approach.

There is already thread about this theory and another ones about additional aspects of it. The problem of this forum is, it doesn't support coherent discussion both technically (it's linear and even Google search works better than the one on this forum), both from its liberal moderation perspective (despite Alan does his very best, too many people clutter threads with their divergent or even openly hostile posts here). The streamlined low-dimensional approach is the key of success not only for cold fusion - but also for discussion about it.

Quote

At a press conference on March 23, 1989, Fleischmann and Pons claimed that they had detect excess heat that it must be caused by a nuclear process – ‘cold fusion’, as they termed it. The field has also been attracting new investors recently (including Bill Gates himself). A recent peer-reviewed Japanese paper lists seventeen scientific authors from several major universities and the research division of Nissan Motors which report ‘excess heat energy’ which ‘is impossible to attribute … to any chemical reaction’ with good reproducibility between different laboratories. But their work is only the tip of a very substantial iceberg - yet it's still ignored by mainstream physics. I wrote about these issues in Aeon three years ago, I argued that the problem is that cold fusion is stuck in a reputation trap. The reputation trap is nicely illustrated by the tone of a New Scientist editorial from 2016. It accompanied a fairly even-handed article describing recent increases in interest in LENR, from investors as well as some scientists.

Reputation trap? Oh come on - cold fusion research was designed to get bad reputation from its very beginning - in organized and streamlined way. Its "bad reputation" is only evasion and consequence of the fact, that cold fusion threats carrier of many researchers engaged in energetic research - from "renewables" over batteries, solar and fuel cells, hydrogen storage, nuclear and hot fusion research. All these people have very good reason to ignore cold fusion - so that they're ignoring it.

This - and nothing else - is the primary cause of cold fusion ignorance by mainstream physics - not "bad reputation". See also:

• The outcry by the scientific establishment, "LENR is not possible," shifts to "I always supported the idea."
• Japan physicists replicated cold fusion with 100% reproducibility
• Mats Lewan Previews the Jan 31st E-Cat Presentation
• Reform of Scientific Practice: Researchers must be accountable to the public that provide their funding.
  
• Is BigOil a Potential Customer of Rossi E-Cat QX Technology?

It may be well possible, that most recent Andrea Rossi E-Cat SK / Quark X reactor work on the same principle, just in more primitive arrangement. In essence, Lipinski's are shooting protons into a thin surface layer of molten lithium covering the anode and such a reaction can run within Rossi discharge reactors as well: Andrea Rossi just replaced low pressure by inert gas (argon) and he utilizes high-frequency component of discharge. Which also gives sense (the same ions can collide multiple-time with lithium surface, not to say about various resonance effects which may apply there). Note also that protons would oxidize lithium, so that they must be replaced by electrons during every half-period for to leave the surface of lithium anode pure and clean (which is principle of TIG welding of aluminum, for example).

The big picture of cold fusion from dense aether model perspective is actually very similar to the conundrum of overunity, scalar physics, antigravity and room temperature superconductivity: it's negative time arrow of low dimensional geometry. It works like this: our Universe is actually highly dimensional emergent system. But the three dimensional slice of it is largely dominant for human observer and its higher dimensions are thus difficult to access. The key for exploiting and utilizing high-dimensional phenomena which would break the 3D thermodynamics is in utilizing lower-than-three dimensional geometry and arrangement. This aspect is pervading like Ariadne's red silk of destiny all breakthrough findings of the last decades.

At the case of cold fusion the basic exploit of low-dimensional geometry is rather simple and it follows from attenuation of energy during piston collisions. Actually one of mainstream approaches to hot fusion is already based on the concept of colliding pistons, but it's still contaminated with classical 3D approach: the pistons are used for concentration of energy into a single point and for formation of dense plasma, the particles of which will still collide in 3D. The problem of 3D plasma approach is, it not only increases the temperature by adiabatic compression, but it also greatly dilutes and scatters energy during mutual collisions of its particles.

Piston fusion schematic

But what if we would exclude the 3D concept from 1D fusion completely and leave atom nuclei colliding along long rigid chains like sorta miniature pistons? And this is IMO just what the cold fusion is actually all about: the miniaturized one-dimensional piston fusion, arranged with single rows of atoms! I collected multiple indicia for this mechanism already, but IMO the most prominent one is the Unified Gravity approach to cold fusion, which consists of shooting protons into surface of molten lithium (BTW note how thorough and specific this particular patent application actually is!). During this the fusion readily runs in high yield under formation of alpha particles according two main reactions:

p+6Li → 3He (2.3 MeV) + 4He (1.7 MeV) and p+7Li → 4 He (8.6 MeV) + 4He (8.6 MeV)

This type of fusion resembles many unsuccessful attempts for hot fusion in colliders, but the spectacular point here is, only very low energy of protons is actually required here for to have fusion running - just about one thousand of Volts or even less - so that we can really talk about "cold" fusion here, despite it's still classical "accelerator" based approach like the fusor.

But the most spectacular aspect of this arrangement is in point, it runs only when the surface of lithium remains tightly bellow its melting point - not less, not more. Here we have nuclear reaction running at MeV scale which not only requires input energy just at one keV scale, but this reaction can be even modulated by energy changes at the milielectronvolt scale - which is simply unbelievable according to laws of thermodynamics and all activation energy theorems, which follow from it. Which also enforces me in conviction, that this way of fusion is not fake, because you couldn't invent such an insight ad-hoc: one must really observe something like it for being able to bring it up.

My explanation of this fascinating subtlety is, the surface of molten lithium bellow its melting point remains semicrystalline due to surface tension forces with planes of atoms perfectly arranged in sort of crystal lattice. So that once proton hits some lithium atom at the surface, this energy is mediated and transferred along long line of adjacent lithium atoms - but not to neighboring atoms, which would dilute and scatter the energy of impact into an outside. The classical thermodynamics developed for large atom ensembles colliding in 3D thus cannot be applied here.

Quote from Alan Smith

Oyama patent.. Thanks to G. Verhoefen for the link.

...

In the above structure, the metal heating element may be formed by dissolving lithium in an atomic ratio of 0.0005% to 1% in a portion or the whole portion to which the ion beam is supplied.

[0023]
Further, in the above-described configuration, in the metal heating element, a part in which the lithium is solid-solved faces the deuterium gas, and even if a substance that radiates the ion beam is mixed in the deuterium gas Good. As the gas that emits the ion beam, for example, a gas having low reactivity emitting α-rays can be mentioned, and more specifically, radon gas can be exemplified.

This is pretty close to Lipinski/Unified Gravity technology and maybe even Quark-X reactor of Andrea Rossi. Otherwise, I dunno what I should think of radone gas. Probably typo of translator.

Possibly better link https://patentimages.storage.g…4001dc04e/EP0393464A2.pdf

It would be nice to see the number of posts with some link over these empty ones as a function of time.

Quote

I think it's pretty amazing that in these systems the plasmoid is basically a thermal to electric conversion device that organizes out of chaos.

Yes, thermoelectric devices are amazing - but I'm focused to overunity applications, not Peltier cells. This is where the "trillion dollars" are hidden... You should also want to check Chernetsky generator, Papp plasma engine and similar stuffs.

Quote

It happens EVERY TIME that an electrical discharge transitions from a glow to a pure arc discharge.

Neon lamp works like negative resistance device even during very beginning of corona discharge - on the contrary, its transition from corona to arc discharge is rather seamless.

I'm not fond of Randall Mills hydrino hypothesis too much, but I spotted this point: Mills model adheres on spherical model of electron orbitals from simple reason: this model has forbidden spontaneous energy transition due to non-radiative Gauss condition. That means, such an electrons behave like negative resistance circuit too, once they're subjected to energy transition: their orbital wants to expand or collapse - but they cannot and they have to wait for vacuum fluctuation, which would make them less symmetric. Again, the energy of vacuum will be supplied to support the negentropic effect. On this idea the articles here and there were based. It's worth to note, that forbidden transitions are domain of simple atoms, like hydrogen, because more complex atoms have spherical symmetry broken in less or more degree. This would explain, why Mills or Langmuir noted overunity during hydrogen discharges - but not elsewhere. It my interpretation is correct, then BLP gets its energy from vacuum fluctuations instead of hypothetical stable hydrino atoms.

I think you're on the right track. The negative resistance means, the resistor is consuming less voltage with more current, i.e. seeming overunity. The differential resistance would just make this overunity local and temporal - but still exploitable under proper arrangement. I presume, it belongs into negentropic effects, which are closely related to overunity.

The simplest negative resistance device is the relaxation oscillator formed by neon lamp or negatively biased transistor. What actually happens there is the voltage on reversely polarized PN junction increases, until some vacuum fluctuations transfers a bit of energy to it, which leads into its nondestructive breakdown. In this very moment we drained a bit of energy from vacuum against entropic time arrow. Everything what we are supposed to do by now is just to repeat this process fast and to minimize the energetic (ohmic) loses during it.

In future the cold fusion and hot fusion processes undoubtedly converge (for example Lipinski fusion of Unified Gravity has many things in common with hot fusion).
But the production of neutrons will make hot fusion always prohibitive, not to say about energy waste.

Quote

Just having vacancies in palladium deuteride does not guarantee LENR. Something else is required.

Actually nanocracks are sufficient neither. Nanocracks can have many contributory aspects for cold fusion too, we just should realize that some cold fusion processes run without apparent metal template. The prevailing mindset of mainstream physicists is, that if some mechanism isn't sufficient by itself for phenomena to work, it just means, it's wrong theory and we should look somewhere else. But in fact many these mechanisms may run in parallel because of their mutual synergy.

Quote

But, a lot of little cracks are required, not a few big cracks.

Well, exactly - which is also why I posted about nanowhiskers. The whiskers contain only the smallest and tightest possible dislocations - they represent one of secrets of Piantelli's technology.

Quote

Hydroton chain of protons in resonance and fusing

It already looks like the collisions of long chains of atom nuclei attenuated by Astroblaster effect - or not? Except that in my theory what is colliding are primarily long chains of heavy i.e. palladium atoms which act like anvils or pistons - the protons pairs between them are forced to collide under their impacts from both sides.

Quote

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments?

Does some evidence for EVOs exist in cold fusion experiments, in ECat reactors of Andrea Rossi in particular?