Posts by Simon Brink

    I wish you lots of luck with your shop venture. I hope you aren't expecting too much customer feedback though- I gave up with the Looking For Heat shop not because of low sales, they were fine, but because it was really designed to help create a crowd of experimenters with similar equipment to screen materials and other things. That part of it failed to work, so as I am more suited to experimentation than I am to shop-keeping I gave it up


    Thanks Alan. My principle motivation has always been around facilitating the development of replacement energy systems for carbon based fuels, but there are some really interesting side developments coming out of new developments that may offer a far quicker path to the industrialisation of beneficial LENR. The LENR shop showcases some of the progress being made, and will hopefully be a stepping stone towards larger production capacity and an increased capacity to develop low carbon energy systems.

    According to 4D rules a photon makes one rotation where as the electron makes two (at light speed). A photon captured by the electron must acquire a second dimension rotation with light speed, but then we had to divide its mass/energy by alpha.


    The "two rotations" concept is consistent with experimental pion data.


    Mass (pion+) = 139.6 MeV/c2.

    Compton wavelength = h/(mc^2) = 8.8fm

    Reduced Compton wavelength = Compton wavelength / (2 PI) = 1.4fm

    Half the Reduced Compton wavelength is = 0.7fm


    The experimental pion mean charge radius is around 0.68fm.

    Isn't what you describe a Neutron Star?


    According to the theory, probably quite similar, except that a black hole is spinning much faster, so is more like a solenoid, whereas a neutron star does not have the same angular momentum, so remains more spherical. Unclear whether the masses are neutrons, nucleons or atoms with highly contracted electrons. Potentially the neutron star is more neutral and the black hole is more charged, with greater separation of positive and negative components.

    If anyone is in communication with Simon Brink, please ask him to participate in this thread.


    I have a load of questions I'd like to ask.


    In response:


    1) Is platinum a catalyst according to his theory and where should it be on his chart? Yes, it does appear as an excellent catalyst (~0.14% match) for an n=1 to n=1/14 (sub-primary) transition. Note that the proposed size of n=1/14 would be around 6fm.


    2) What does he think is the lifetime of the different states of shrunken hydrogen before they go back to the ground state? If you go by the spacetime to mass conversion rate, it could take a very long time, but more likely shrunken H can absorb other locally available energy. As such return to ground state may be very dependent on local conditions (i.e. temperature, ppm, density, EM radiation, etc.).


    3) What does he think is required to make a "small hydrogen" atom undergo a nuclear reaction with another atom? For example, is there a special type of stimulation required that is different than what is required to produce the "small hydrogen" atom? Depends on which small hydrogen you have.


    4) Does he agree with Mills that an arc discharge accelerates the reaction rate due to the elimination of the space charge problem? Not sure what the Mills explanation is. My view is that it's more about creating flow conditions that produce a high pressure stationary electron zone which can cause electron shrinkage in the presence of a suitable catalyst.


    5) Does he think shrunken electrons could be repeatedly pumped to extract energy from the aether? The atomic reserve cycle. Why not!!! The problem is that you are going to end up with all these annoying LENR reactions!!!


    6) During any of his experiments, has he observed "strange radiation" track marks? Photographic reaction morphologies are highly variable and very interesting, particularly around secondary and tertiary reactions, and also halo effects around certain reactions. Secondary reactions are indicative of particles rather than strange radiation. Halos and shock waves may be more relevant to "strange radiation", but data is inadequate to come to any conclusions. There are quite a few photos on the website to explore.


    7) What is his plans to take his research to the next level? Research will mostly like continue on an as-time-permits basis, generally in the public domain, until such time as there is interest from a serious investor in IP ownership and a rapid progression towards commercial products and services.

    Personally I like the super nuclei explanation for black holes which avoids a hole lot of nonsense about a "singularity" which is really trying to say that you can cram an infinite mass into an infinitely small point. - Personally I don't buy it. - If you simply remove the electrons (or shrink the orbits) and stick a hell of a lot of neutrons together, you are going to get something that looks a lot like a black hole.


    As for Hawking Radiation, based on this new model, does this black hole really need to mysteriously shrink and loose mass? Black holes are known to have ejection jets on each side of the plane of rotation which "spew out" matter at very high velocity. X-ray emissions from the wavefronts of ejection jets are observable and have been documented. Refer to: subtleatomics.com/black-holes There may well be a reverse spacetime-> mass process occurring inside the core of blackholes, i.e. mass-> spacetime. Spacetime is then ejected axially as jets as part of the larger galactic scale mass/spacetime solenoidal flux flow.


    As such, so called "Hawking" black hole radiation has already been identified, but the mechanism and dynamics are quite different from existing models.

    Sorry you're having issues Alan.

    Website doesn't have the full security key (doesn't actually less secure, just that I haven't paid the extra $$$'s to get the key), so if your google browser is on the highest security settings, it may block the site.

    More likely sometimes after a website error you need to clear your browser data because your browser remembers the error page rather than looking for the current page.

    Alternatively to avoid this issue use: subtleatomics.com/index This seems to go around the problem. (Don't ask me why this works???)

    I have a hard time believing that people still believe Kervran. He saw transmutation as explaining almost anything not immediately obviously otherwise. Despite the anecdotes with chickens and sea shells, none of his simple experiments give transmutation results when replicated. Kevran himself turned away from transmutation ideas to new super-chemical sub-nuclear binding theories that, while ingenious, also don’t pan out when tested.


    Kervran may be right or wrong. The bigger leap is to look at expanding earth theory, particularly its implications for physics and LENR. New theory proposes that large massive objects essentially grow from background energy. Growth phenomena is well established for stars, but is not yet accepted for planets. Mills theory also has an energy to mass conversion, but this is seen to be a uniform process in contrast the Sublte Atomics model which proposes that conversion is concentrated within massive objects due to shielding type effects.


    Once you take the expanding earth leap, you start to see that almost all mass on earth is essentially a product of a low energy to mass growth processes, so LENR really starts to look a lot more like common sense rather than something exotic.


    For more info, refer to subtleatomics.com/expanding-earth-theory

    It probably contains a few typos and transcription mistakes, but here is a more complete version of the catalyst table, according to my understanding of the process behind it. I intentionally used the same formatting as Brink's, but this might turn out to be inopportune. I'll change/remove that if requested.


    Looks about right, without having checked the details. Just a theory, but nice that it matches the major LENR catalysts. Understanding how Ti fits in is more of a challenge.

    When the prevailing consensus within the niche of researchers who regards it as real is that cold fusion is a rare phenomenon which occurs within the lattice of deuterium-saturated metals like palladium, it's hard to imagine that it could be a natural (as in: spontaneously occurring in nature, as opposed to incandescent light bulbs or transistors to name a couple examples) or even common phenomenon.


    If you look a bit more broadly, there is a lot of evidence of transmutations in a wide range of scenarios from the early 1900's including biological systems, geology, electrical, lightning, etc. My favourite is probably research that demonstrated that shell fish can still grow calcium shells even when in water free which is free from calcium and with diets also free from calcium (Kervran, 1972).


    Transmutations are clearly ongoing in many materials, but are not typically observed because the reaction rates are extremely low.


    One interesting application of this is in the design of structural metals. The stability of alloys over single element metals may be in part due to their capacity to facilitate internal random transmutations in comparison to single element metals where more the structure is more organised, so more susceptible to crack failure due to a transmutation.


    Evidence of fast transmutation (milliseconds) has been observed in high current reactions system prototypes developed by Subtle Atomics.

    Guess I should enter into this conversation. Thanks everyone for your interest and comments!!!


    .... Take the inertial electrostatic confinement polywell fusion reactor designed by RW Bussard and now developed further by Prof J Parks....


    I'll start with a comment on the R Bussard polywell. My understanding is that a few of the reactor prototypes failed due to coil "meltdowns". This seems to be consistent with metal-deuterium LENR or LESNR (low energy sub nuclear reaction) type reaction/s occurring on the coil or coil surface, rather than in the desired D-D target reaction occurring at the centre of the polywell. A potentially very significant result, but probably not understood.

    How could the subatomics string together to form a magnetic 'shoulderezion?

    In your spreadsheet ,,, is the calculated mass based on your model ( as per Wyttenbach's meticulous maths)?


    What I'm thinking is that these super charge clusters are associated with super-massive nuclei. Pretty much the rule of the universe is that electrons are paired with protons, so if you've got a lot of electrons, you've also got a lot of protons, i.e. a super-massive nucleus, i.e. a black hole. In terms of structure for a super nucleus, I'm proposing that the structure is a FCC lattice of alpha particles, with extra neutrons added in somewhere. How can this be stable? Can't say exactly, but can say that the existing model of strong and week nuclear forces is likely incomplete at best, so I wouldn't waste time trying to workout why you can't have super-nuclei. We are pretty confident that we have an ultra-massive super-nucleus (black hole) at the centre of our galaxy which hasn't yet exploded, so these things are definitely possible regardless of whether we have equations to explain them.


    The model I'm looking at comes from the idea that particle radius should be the reduced Compton wavelength if they are bosonic (1 wavelength per rotation), but can be multiples or fractions of this if they are fermonic. This is the wave-particle equivalence principle. Based on this, if you know the radius and the number of wavelengths per rotation, you can calculate the mass (or via versa). The model has been recently updated based on a new insight, i.e. that the charge radius of the pion is 3/4 of the charge radius of the proton. The proton has now been nicely resolved as 4 shells rather than 3. Refer to subtleatomics.com/new-atomic-model

    A potential explanation for how this could be possible is to consider the work of Simon at http://www.subtleatomics.com


    Simon Brink claims that the interaction of hydrogen (or deuterium) with a variety of catalytic elements "shrinks" the hydrogen to a smaller size where it is more susceptible to undergoing nuclear reactions. For example, a hydrogen atom in the "ground state" can interact with many different elements to go to lower fractional states. But, however, once at one of these lower fractional states (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/8, 1/10, etc) the same element may not trigger an additional shrinkage. So a hydrogen atom may need to interact with element "A" to then shrink to 1/3rd fractional state. But then to reach 1/4th fractional state it may have to interact with element "B". Then to get even smaller it may have to bounce into an atom of element "C." Eventually, after reaching a very small state (beyond perhaps 1/8th or smaller) the shrunken hydrogen atoms can experience nuclear reactions with other hydrogen atoms or other catalytic elements (copper, palladium, nickel, titanium, etc). Instead of producing a few hundred eV, these nuclear reactions can produce millions of eV.


    Yes, that's mostly what I'm proposing. As energy matches need to be very close (+/- 0.2% or so), it's not so easy to use multiple catalysts to get to lower fractional states, as you often run into 'dead ends' where there are no suitable catalysts. For this reason it may often be easier to use 1 step catalysts that allow larger jumps. What is currently needed to progress the theory is experimental data to quantify transition energies to lower Hydrogen states to confirm whether the theoretical model matches actual data. I suspect that as electrons get closer to the size of the nucleus, there would be some distortion to the inverse Rydberg model due to increased interaction with the nucleus. Experimental spectrum quantification will allow catalysts to be engineered. - A great PhD project!!!

    Looks like a good business model where an inventor (Leif Holmlid) teams up with a well established existing company (Norront AS) with appropriate technical skills and access to resources. The new company (Norront Fusion Energy) seems well placed to progress the technology towards practical systems.


    Interestingly the mechanism behind the proposed ultra-dense H states and their fusion remains speculative.


    This is a link to Sindre's excellent presentation at ICCF-21:


    I'm only new to Ken's fantastic work on EVO's and charge clusters after a few chats at ICCF-21 - thanks Bob G.!!!


    One thing came up for me. Where do all these electrons that form EVO's come from? One idea presented was that they come from a nucleon to electron transition. A possibility, but just doesn't seem right (and violates QM). Generally in the part of the universe that we know about, positive and negative charges tend to exist in pretty balanced ratios. So where are all the "positive" bits that balance all the electrons in EVO's? A fair guess would be that they are inside (in the same way that protons are inside atoms). If you are still working on non-directional Rutherford electrostatics, the "positive bit" is obviously going to need to be held together by nuclear not electrostatic forces, so the required configuration would be a "super-nuclei" similar to the type of structure proposed by A. Gulko for blackholes. Refer to: subtleatomics.com/black-holes

    With directional nuclear electrostatics (refer to: subtleatomics.com/new-atomic-model), there may also be potential for a semi-stable moderately dense positive cluster type structures.


    Regardless of the model you are using, perhaps the most exciting thing about EVO's is that they are perhaps the first terrestrial evidence of the formation of both completely new "super-massive" nuclear structures. Shoulderonium??? The expected rapid collapse of these super nuclear structures would be consistent with some types of LENR experimental observations such as metal pitting, "spiky" excess heat and broad spectrum elemental transitions.

    Have you seen that transmutation is occurring in the silver electrode based Mills SunCell system as your post indicates? More details on this transmutation process are requested if you have any more of these types of details.


    Not sure what Mills is doing or seeing, but with that sort of current density, things get interesting.

    Simon,


    You have your hands full with that list. ....

    Thanks for the support Shane,


    Re: unifying Holmid/Mills/FP's - Done. I'm proposing that this can be done by a new modification to the Rydberg model. Presented an early version at ICCF21. Hopefully soon to be published.


    Re: ICCF21... if others you talked with, were receptive - Lots of interest, but plenty of other theories on the table as well.


    Re: ICCF21 other good stuff - dense hydrogen, new nuclear remediation technologies, chemical LENR, new models for where all that theoretical excess heat goes to, industrial scale LENR, sub-nuclear reactions...


    Re: Investment. - If you have a genuine product with a comprehensive low risk high gain financial business case, and you can sell yourself, you're going to get interest. The biggest current problems for LENR are patent issues and marginal products. Going to need a big player to commercialise without patents to be able to just simply stay ahead of the game, but unlikely to get this type of investment unless you have something that really works well, or you have a pretty good idea what's actually going on, which very few can claim ...


    Re: IH. They were at ICCF21. Had a very brief chat. Seem to have a few $ to fund smaller projects in exchange for IP rights.


    :) SB

    ...replacing silver with gallium, its not going too well...


    Everyone, including Mills, can probably learn a lot from a trial using gallium instead of silver.

    ... for a continuous closed loop system, you need a hydrogen absorbing metal that AVOIDS transmutation...

    When you are working with the types of plasmas being used, transmutation is almost unavoidable, but Gallium is a good candidate.