Posts by StephenC

Eric do we know if signifacant Helium is present or generated?

i wish I could find a good link for proton, deuteron (proton+neutron pair) or alpha capture cross sections similar to the one i found for neutrons. Do you know of one?

That's a good point about nucleus stability Andrea. It's curious though that when we start with Ba137 we end up with Sm149, but when we start with Ba138 we end up with Sm150. It's curious we do not end up with the same Sm isotope if nucleus stability is the issue and nuetrons, protons or neutron+proton pairs are being added. Does this imply that we require alpha absorbtion?

note also that Sm149 is one of those isotopes with a very very high neutron cross section especially at low energies so if free neutrons were present I would expect this to go to Sm150. Sm150 is also a stable isotope. (Note even if neutron pairs are some how absorbed Sm151 has a long half life of 90 years or so)

I suppose that we end up with equal numbers of protons and neutrons (6 of each for the final Sm isotopes) added it implies either Proton+neutron pairs are added or alpha particles are some how added. Unless there is an absorption + beta decay path which somehow preserves this balance.

Thanks Eric, It looks like I have some reading to do.

If there is a difference with protium then it might be interesting to compare with Tritium too but I can see that would likely be more problematic due to its radioactive decay nature.

I can see your point about alphas it's very hard to account for steps of z=2 otherwise especially as we seem to get 2 neutrons for each step too if we end up with Sm150 and Sm149 from Ba138 and Ba137 respectively.

I had wondered if there is a path from Deuterium with beta decays that might account for steps of 2 Z
but if we include the fact we have equal numbers of neutrons added as well it's not as easy to find as I had hoped. It's very curious.

Incidentally whilst looking at the neutron capture cross sections for these elements I noticed that naturally occuring Sm had one of the highest neutron capture cross sections of all elements almost an order of magnitude higher than Boron! However I think this very high value is mostly for certain Natural isotopes and is much less but still significant for Sm150. But perhaps it is an indication that there are no free neutrons since we do not see a spread of heavier isotopes of Sm. (Note in the other hand I think Ba138 has a very low neutron capture cross section)

I think this maybe discounts neutrons playing a role in this case but absorbing charged particles has other problems as already noted. So it's very curious
I will do some reading incase they were observed.

In case it is relevant i did find this interesting link about neutron cross sections that might be interesting to someone.

http://www.iaea.org/inis/colle…ublic/28/060/28060364.pdf

Thank you Alan for this link.

And thanks to Jed for that website and the translation of these papers. In a real world with different views with some subjects it's good to be reminded how someone has contributed so much in the past.

Thanks Eric also for the clarification and explanation. I will try to take a look at both their works. It looks very interesting.

i do wonder if deuterium is involved in these experiments and not protium if we can get a similar Z evolution if some kind of induced beta decay is responsible or normal beta decay if heavy isotopes of the nucleus are generated. But I suppose it's a bit of a stretch to speculate that. Even deuterium would struggle to get over the coulomb barrier of these heavy nuclei.

Do we know if free neutrons were also observed?

To my shame I have not yet looked in detail at the Mizuno experiments. I wonder if someone could let me know a good link to get started. (I did look at Erics link above.)

I find Erics and Wyttenbachs comments interesting.

Are these experiments and the Russian ones using Protium as a Hydrogen source or Deuterium? I appreciate that deuterium still only has 1 proton though.

Do we see this same Z evolution when Protium is used?
Do we know if those nuclei are heavy isotopes of those elements or still natural isotopes?

Hello Andrea,

please forgive me but I am certainly not suggesting in my thoughts that we can remove the Coulomb Barrier!!! (It's half my sentence and out of context) Rather that the nucleus forces can have an effect beyond it In particular for neutral particles. For example nuetron capture cross-sections for certain less stable nuclei can be quit large and conversely quite small for stable nuclei.

I do think Williams approach is very important and hopefully will bring some good insights.

My Gut statement is in the context that I prefer to look at what can be explained conventionally first before looking at exotic particles and other exotic physics but agree it may be necessary to consider them when considering certain active environment requirements and collective behavior.

But I take your point that I was probably caught up in a swirl of over enthusiasm .

Stephen

Hi Andrea I do wonder if the neutron cross section can be important. This can be quite large for less stable nuclei especially those with odd numbers of neutrons.

Perhaps if we can remove the Coulomb barrier/ charge repulsion component from proton interactions due to interaction with electron wave functions the equivalent proton cross section for nuclei with odd numbers of protons quite large too but weeker than the Coulomb repulsion when the charge is important.

i agree it's hard to see how charged particles could cross the coulomb Barrier unless some what conventional fusion ivvolving particles at high KE are involved. Especially for heavier nuclei larger than Li say.

But perhaps if the particles can come close enough to the nucleus to be with in the neutron cross section for sufficient time this may result in them coming under the nucleus influence.

since we effectively input protons I see 2 conceptual possibilities:

1. protons would need to look like a neutral particle perhaps due to a certain probability their wave function interacts with an electron shell wave function so as to appear neutral for a short period of time. Perhaps then the combination can cross the barrier some how

2. The protons are under the influence of the nucleus for sufficient time that they interact as a nucleus proton and undergo electron capture with a shell electron and are subsequently absorbed or ejected as a neutron. Some of the excess energy above ground state will be absorbed in the neutron production. Perhaps the excess energy above ground state is taken in part in the neutrino ejected and in part with KE of the resulting nucleus without the necessity of ejecting a Gamma photon. Perhaps this might be shown with some kind of signature internal bermstrahlung similar to that observed by MFMP but this would need to be checked of course especially with respect to the Q values in this environment etc. I suspect if we have X-rays/UV from bremsstrahlung they can effectively strip inner electrons from other atoms making hollow atoms and perhaps continue exciting Hydrogen to Rydberg states. It may be that these excited states are more likely to interact wit a Hydrogen - anion say (and thus bring a proton close to the nucleus) than atoms in ground state. I Think the signature of 2 is possibly quite close to observed phenomena and would require very specific environments with H-anions and excited atoms in close proximity also similar to what had been observed.

Although these thoughts are conceptual and not accurately thought through or analysed at scientific level, I'm curious if this can work as a perhaps more conventional approach than those using DDL more exotic physics.

my gut feels, however, that there is probably some blend and combination of all the various ideas out there though including some exotic ideas and even maybe some local kinetic fusion of light elements that is needed to explain the whole picture. Especially if we need to explain the the necessary environment as well as the nuclear level processes and perhaps observed collective behavior.

I must admit I've lost track a bit of this interesting discussion in recent weeks. I wonder if there are any new developments?

The following questions are conceptual rather than accurate science may be but I wonder if they have been considered?

Have H- Hydrogen Anions interaction with Rydberg Hydrogen or Hollow Atoms (ones with inner electrons removed by X-rays or other particles) been considered in this context? Perhaps a way to the nucleus is available to the anion due to the planar or ring nature of highly excited orbitals?

Would the anions electrons be captured by the other atom into a low energy orbital ejecting the outer electrons? And would the trajectory of the anion proton take it close to the nucleus of the other atom perhaps within the neutron cross section radius say before it is slowed and ejected?

Is this theory also looking at interactions in terms of the election orbital wave functions and the wave functions of interacting protons? If so is there a certain probability that those interactions result in local charge cancelation? if so could we expect nucleus interactions that are not affected by the coulomb Barrier so the nucleon binding energy is more important for example if this occurs at a similar distance from the nucleus as the neutron cross section for odd neutron nuclei (or equivalent charge independant proton cross section for odd proton nuclei)?

I suppose if so slower anion and proton interactions would have a higher probability of interacting with the electron wave function in this way and perhaps interacting with the nucleus.

From discussions elsewhere It does seem to me that LENR may depend on having excited atoms such as Rydberg matter and hollow atoms in proximity of hydrogen anions in ground state this seems quite a rare environment requiring high density of these diverse states and particular materials, physical surfaces and active sites to achieve.

Could UDD an UDH be formed by similar interactions between H- anions and Rydberg Hydrogen matter prior to any nucleus interaction?

@axil I think these Balmer series spectra could be really interesting if they are visible and strong enough to be seen. In these light elements we might even see slight shifts in the spectral lines due to different isotopes such as D, T, He3, He5 etc perhaps even some Lithium isotope spectra too.

I think they could potentially give us a window on the process too. Would a spectra signal from UDH atomic pair production look a bit like we would expect from He2 if it could exist ( i.e. 2 protons surrounded by 2 electrons that pass through Some kind of S2 orbital state)? (If so would we see slight shifts between the spectra from UDD and He4 due to slight differences the electron reduced mass?)

Perhaps line broadening would indicate disturbances in the electron orbitals that could give a window on the processes too? Could such broadening be a signature of dynamic changes in the nucleus or magnetic disturbance for example.

If a captured proton or H- ion or UDH changes to a neutron through ec or beta emission by proximate influence of another nucleus could we see. Spectral shifts as a consequence? May be it would be possible to derive what kind of nuclei are more likely to produce this reaction if it occurs, maybe those with high neutron cross-sections for example or those with particular spin states or halo nuclei maybe?

I suppose if slow neutrons are produced by some method either as above or by spallation from other nuclei then they would tend to be absorbed by nuclei with high neutron cross-sections quicker than those with low neutron cross-sections. Perhaps shifts in spectra to those of particular isotopes over time, would also indicate this.

I wonder if any Lyman emissions are also seen?

I think i sort of understand Me356 dilemma although he is much further along the process to a real device than I ever got.

Maybe some here are more at my level though than well developed like me356. I hope my own experience can help other people understand me356 some how. I consider them my own lessons in humility.

35 or so years ago I thought I had a new idea. Not LENR but still potentially useful. I at the time was interested in plasmas applications following my studies into space plasma as an undergraduate.
I thought my idea would allow objects to travel in atmospheres at much higher velocities than was currently achievable for example. It would also protect from thermal heating allow a degree of EM shielding and with more advanced applications perhaps enable dynamic thrust and lift surfaces.

At the time I could find no literature on a similar idea so I wondered if it was new.

Although it could have had many useful applications in atmospheric probes for example or hypersonic transport. I was really worried about its possible military applications I didn't want to to be the person invent a technology that would allow missiles to travel at high speeds or that could not be intercepted.

I also didn't have any particular desire to own the tech but didn't want the technology or idea to become controlled by bad people.

Nevertheless I was curious if it was a practical idea. And if any one was to control it it should be good people. A friend of mine at the time was studying mathematical models in Hypersonics vehicles in London so I asked him to check out the idea with his department. I was curious if they could help me take it further if it panned out. They told him my idea was rubbish and he should avoid such nonsense and in the end due to that response and my embarrassment at raising the "crazy idea" along with my concerns about its usage I did not follow it through and initially forgot about it.

But it didn't leave me alone

Some 5 or 10 years later I found my exact same idea published in a popular science magazine even using almost identical words to that I used in my earlier communication. At the time it was too much for me to be a coincidence and I was very annoyed and sure it was stolen from my original concept.

Some weeks or months later I came to terms with it though as they were demonstrating a devise that showed the basic idea I had working. Wow I thought it's real it works. I could never have built that device with out help. And I realized I was so concerned about certain things at the time I would not follow it through anyway. I also realized my idea was not in itself patentable without a device and the end I was glad they did it and demonstrated the technology to a practical level. I felt vindicated in my idea though which was enough.

a while later I found out a Russian team was working on similar concepts in the 1970s as part of a secret program.

Many years later I found some even older papers of work done in the 1950s and surprisingly found that many of my original thoughts were thought of back then too.

So probably my idea was not original at all just hidden. And thought of by multiple people at different times later.

I have become wiser as I got older and realize that people think of similar ideas at similar times when the technology is right and even similar words come to them. and often when you think of them the basic concepts have been there 50 or years or more ago but communication, technology data and materials have advanced.

Some out of fear or laziness hesitate to do something with their idea and feel frustrated when someone else makes an idea you've had real. Some have courage and take it further and make it real. Some very exceptional people go that step further and turn the device to a product. The ones who make a device real deserve full credit for what they do. Especially those who make it into a viable product. But I still always hope they are good people. What ever happens though someone will make it some day and it's better to do that in the open with good people than leave it for bad people to find use it in a hidden way later.

I sometimes wonder if dynamic control of surface state in atmospheres using the technology to allow thrust and lift will become real but I think the Quark or similar tech could possibly enable it.

Nice picture Walker. Certainly looks like a lot of testing going on. And apparently a presentation too judging by he cameras and chair.

It looks to me like "Wendy" and "Cindy" were there too. I wonder if they are there to test and validate or there to monitor and control?

Incidently do we know what the 4 blue boxes on the roof of this older container are for?

@JedRothwell, thanks for your replies to the various comments. Regarding the blocking of the IH Engineer from the customer:

I thought I read it was the ERV who blocked him rather than AR himself. Is that correct?
Do we know who the IH engineer who requested access was?
Has IH commented to you on this aspect themselves?

Did IH get access at some later time?

Kind Regards
Stephen

@JedRothwell, about user ID's you are right to some extent. It's an interesting point how and what we choose to reveal about our selves that I guess we all think about when choosing our IDs. My one is still my name by the way but just rather truncated. I started just using Stephen because I wanted to be a generic background contributer who could be anyone. Later in some forums I felt guilty using the name for all the other Stephens out there so as not to get confused with them or them with me I used StephenC as here. Later I felt I should take responsibility for my views so in some other forums so I used my full name too. I guess there are all kinds of other reasons for choosing the ID's we do.

But I think whether or not we use our real names they do become our own ID to some extent and I for sure feel regret when I say something wrong or upset someone else by saying something stupid for example which ever ID I use.

When I mention living with the consequences I'm not really talking about legal consequences just personal ones and mostly personal regrets or loss of reputation.

For sure I respect people a lot like yourself who do use their full names though and who accept the risks that that exposure gives them to both good reputation and unfortunate and unfair insults or attacks in some cases. There is an element of bravery in that.

Everyone is in the mirror here. And we all learn something about ourselves and have to live with the cosequences of what we write. Keieueue for what it's worth I also felt uncomfortable reading that post what ever his intent. I don't know if he meant well or bad but for sure I didn't like it and did not see why he needed to write it. But if their intent is as you say then responding like you did is only playing into their hands.

I just respect Sifferkoll 100% more now what ever the story is.

Thanks Alan. It's very hard not to get drawn in by some of these exchanges and react in ways we can later regret. But that said there is no excuse for those latest exchanges. The respectful thing to do would be to back off with no comment. Sifferkoll had already done that significantly the last days. In this he showed the greater respect.

@joshua cude thanks for your reply. I understand, just a lot for me to take in at first sight but it's also good for me to take my time to consider.

@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax thanks for your thoughtful posts and for helping me think through some new things and other points of view.

@joshua cude I was initially overwhelmed by your comments I apologise for that as on reflection see they are deep in information which is just hard for me to fuIly digest I wish they weren't so long though so that I could understand them more, but I guess that's it's difficult with so much archive material at hand?

@Dewey Weaver, I understand that you are closer to the action and have more at stake than most of us simple observers and take that into account when reading your statements and strong point of view. We observers on the other hand can only make our points of view from what we hear. I do think that when people feel they are under attack they dig themselves in and fight back for their current point of view, this happens what ever side people are on in the argument. Only when they feel free from attack do they get out and explore other ideas and interpretations. When that happens though you have hundreds of points of view not just two. I cannot speak for the parties involved but I guess this situation could apply to the situation at hand in this dispute as well as the discussions on the forum.

On my side I'm sad to hear you could not talk with each other, whether it was about the payment availability, the correct functioning of the plant, or the any disputes about IP, territory or conflicts of interest with other projects. But perhaps distrust due to past experiences and entrenched points of view born from past conflicts has something to do with this.

It it saddens me when I see this because I have seen in my experience some of the best teams in the world for resolving difficult to solve problems formed from people who initially had conflicts but over came them. It's hard to see this being over come in this case though.

But LENR itself has the potential to be absolutely huge far bigger than the 1MW e-cat alone it doesn't take much imagination to see how it can go far beyond electrical and thermal power but even just in these fields its impact is absolutely huge. As a new technology perhaps touching on new sciences around chemical and nucleus coupling effects and how these interact with new scientific fields such as nano plasmonics nano structures and surfaces science, nano photonics as well as all kinds of well known micro and macro technologies there is a huge amount to be discovered and developed. It could potentially be a huge technology revolution. It will take huge teams years and decades of effort to work together compete and explore this field. My hope was and is that ecat can be a beacon to trail blaze that effort. Perhaps it needs to run free to do that in the end, I don't know.

@Dewey Weaver, for me I must admit it seems a bit the other way round mostly, but I admit it could be a matter of perspective on my side I don't think there is coordinated attacks though either way. I think it can look like that if there are teo groups of people with strong entrenched ideas on either side though.

For what it's worth I think the story is bigger than just about the availability of money. If it was about availability of the money I think they would have sat down and discussed options. Also if the 89 million dollars was not for the complete agreement including IP what was that most expensive part of the payment for?

If the device does not work as some suggest that's one thing. If it does work rather than being about money only morelikely to me it's about control of release, establishing domain dominance, controlling competition and conflicts of interest about territory especially with different territory commitments with other groups, conflicts of interest with other groups readiness for release and release date etc.