Monday, November 30, 2015

NOV 30, 2015 A GREAT DAY FOR LENR BECAUSE BECFICE WAS BORN

MOTTO

 Jump, and you will find out how to unfold your wings as you fall. (Ray Bradbury)

One of the big questions in the climate change debate: Are humans any smarter than frogs in a pot? If you put a frog in a pot and slowly turn up the heat, it won't jump out. Instead, it will enjoy the nice warm bath until it is cooked to death. We humans seem to be doing pretty much the same thing. (Jeff Goodell)

DAILY NOTES

 a) WHERE IS THE WORLDWIDE LENR LOBBY NOW?

  Money is the second potential saviour of LENR, immediately after new ideas so today it could be a great day for LENR. The crucial  summit from Paris- if not hit by destructive probletence- will decide that the World needs healthy and cheap energy; we know that LENR is the best candidate; hopefully the participants at the Summit who will take the decisions know it too. Or, in the worst case, will learn it very soon.

 Even more promising is the organization of billionaires, including Bill Gates but also some very resonant names- amazing- 
Breakthrough Energy Coalition to Fund Innovations in Clean Energy- may I use the acronym BECFICE for it?

 Will BECFICE include LENR in its plans? I have examined the list of founders- no personal friends there. Bill Gates will be a leader- how positively was he impressed by PdD LENR ENEA style? He could get there the certainty that LENR EXISTS however what could he learn about the way and its length to a practical LENR based energy source?
It is not predictable if Andrea Rossi and IH will collaborate with BECFICE. If yes, this could change the rules of the game.

 If inclusion of LENR in the plans of the this hugely powerful Fund is a problem, the solution is simple and natural: make LENR to be and to look as a potential breakthrough.
LENR- weak, slow, crawling, in evolution, static, increasing incrementally- has no chances.
LENR+ - intense, fast, advancing with great leaps, revolutionary, dynamic, full of surprises, creative, complex, rich, will be the favorite child/brainchild of BECTICE, I predict.

 We must activate the LENR lobby now!

b) Discussions with Ed Storms

 1- Ed Storms answers to AXIL re co-deposition
It is simply not true that co-deposition produces heat 100% of the time. I and other people have attempted to cause LENR using this method without success. If the claim were true, we would have the lab rat Melich has been requesting and research would have moved rapidly forward .   

How do you know nanocracks are absent?  Have you looked for them? If so, where are the result available? You make statements  with such authority, I have to ask, What is your role in this field? What experiments have you published? What reviews have you written? What is your source of information?

2- Ed Storms postpones answer to my question regarding PdD results matching Cathode 64

Ed: The histogram is designed to answer only one question, which is does well. I would  answer your other question when I get time.  Meanwhile, Table 2, page 53 in my first book lists the values used to construct the histogram. 

I have indeed given the Storms' first book to the Energy Commission of EU and I could not buy an other copy, sorry for this. Ed says he is busy and cannot help:

Sorry Peter, I thought you said you read the book, in which case I would expect you to have a copy.  Table 2 to lists the results by date, not by amount of power. I would have to take time to look at each entry and make a list. I do not have time to do this right now. I wrote the book so that I would not have to keep answering such questions.  I will answer your question when I have time. I hope this is ok.

So I am in trouble and it hurts me that I have somehow ignored or worse- forgotten an exceptional LENR experiment due to superficiality or senility.
THEREFORE- I dare t ask my readers who own Ed's book to tell me/us what is saying that Table 2 page 53 about high intensity heat release events in PdD. Thank you in advance

3- Ed Storms, asked  about real progress comparing 1989-2007 with 2007-2015? In intensity, reproducibility, gives a rater discouraging answer: 

Ed: As best as I can tell, not much improvement has been reported in the ability to make energy from PdD. Most of the focus is now on NiH.  Nevertheless, I believe once the true understanding of how LENR works has been achieved, the energy will be made at high level using many kinds of materials. 

Actually till 2011 only Piantelli's team was seriously active in LENR based on NiH and even the coming of Rossi has not reduced much the number of PdD fans till recently so I dare to say the lack of progress is inherent to the system. Which was the peak year of PdD Cold fusion? My fast answer would be 1993

4- Ed Storms says things that make me both envious and sad:

The more I study the subject, the clearer my understanding becomes and the easier it is to ignore the many false leads being suggested. However, in this world, such insights are only accepted if they can be used to create the predicted success.  I do not have the tools to do this.  What is more important, at my age, I do not have much incentive to keep hitting my head against the wall with no result. That is a young man's sport. I'm in the progress of writing a paper describing in detail my understanding. This is done more for the benefit of future historians than for the present. Nevertheless, you will have a detailed description of my understanding soon.  Getting it publish where it will be generally read will be the next problem. 

Your papers are read and studied and disseminated, it is obvious they have great fragments of Truth in them- the question is only the domain of applicability of these Truths. I think you are over-optimistic about how much we know about the great LENR field - PdD is only a small part of it and not the most representative. We are not so advanced as you claim.
A leading PdD scientist has allowed me to cite him here:

"More innovative and fundamental experiments are required to formulate a model." (Graham Hubler, Director, Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance,) 
DAILY NEWS
Gates, Other Billionaires Form Breakthrough Energy Coalition to Fund Innovations in Clean Energy:

Bill Gates announces Green Tech Fund to Make Renewables Viable
    by Eric Worrall 
Today starts the meeting and many decision-makers will participate. The rumor is that Bill Gates together with several successful corporate leaders will announce a giant investment fund to support research on clean energy.
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2340-%E2%80%8BThe-climate-conference-in-Paris-cop21/?postID=9932#post993

Paris Deal Would Herald an Important First Step on Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/us/politics/paris-climate-talks.html?emc=edit_th_20151130&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=15377108&_r=0

 Stop Emissions!
A climate scientist argues that it should no longer be acceptable to dump carbon dioxide in the sky.
Re this. Mats Lewan says:
This story on the urgency to resolve the climate crisis
could use some comments from people with knowledge on LENR.

Riscaldare casa con 20 euro l'anno? Brevetto approvato negli U.S.A ma non in Italia !
http://ilnuovomondodanielereale.blogspot.ro/

 Lattice Energy LLC Scalability of LENR Power Generation Systems
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-scalability-of-lenr-power-generation-systems-nov-29-2015

OPEN POWER ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER #17: ROY VIRGILIO HONORED; COLLABORATION WITH FRANCESCO CELANI MOVING FORWARD:



Nanortech announces peer-reviewed data and information regarding its NANOR
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2344-Nanortech-announce-peer-reviewed-data-and-information-regarding-its-NANOR/?postID=9952#post9952

AXIL DIXIT

There seems to be two broad schools of thought in LENR: those who believe that LENR is catalytic and those who don’t. Peter has educated me in the catalytic paradigm and I now join him in his thinking on nuclear catalysis. Ed Storms is not in the catalytic school of thought. It seems to me that the school of catalysis considers the production of the catalytic effect must originate from the catalytic action of an Exotic Neutral Particle. There are a dozen ideas as to what that particle is but it can be tested for. To illustrate for example, the experiments doing the Cathode 64 test could have placed the cathode on a photographic emulsion immediately after LENR activity has stopped to check for particle tracts. If an experiment does not show ENP tracts, than the concept of ENP is falsified. 

Ed Storms says: “It is well known in research that we see only what we are expecting to see. This is a universal experience and says nothing about the competence of the researcher. For example, if radiation were expected, a detector would be set up. If radiation were not expected and a detector was not used, any radiation would not be seen. The radiation would remain invisible and be ignored. It would not be discovered no matter how competent the researcher.”

Researchers that expect to see ENP particle tracts have seen them. If the ENP camp wants to kill off the catalytic ENP school of thought, falsify the ENP theory by testing for the ENP when excess heat is observed in an experiment.

Posted by at 4 comments:

Sunday, November 29, 2015

NOV 29, 2015- LENR DISPUTE & INFO WITH HELP FROM FRIENDS

MOTTO

 The new always happens against the overwhelming odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all practical, everyday purposes amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle. 
(Hannah Arendt) 

DAILY NOTES

 Continuing discussion with Ed Storms, today more about research and statistics

A message from AXIL to Ed Storms

 I can not understand Ed Storms' devotion to the crack causation of LENR theory. Co-deposition of palladium hydride has been shown to produces results 100% of the time and excess heat is seen in just minutes. Ed should be coming up to speed on Co-deposition. There are no cracks on the electrodes used in co-deposition. 

 Dear Ed, dear readers,

 I have once stated that: 
"Opposite opinions, views attract smart people and repel only those who are not so"

Not a bad idea, statistically confirmed in a bit more than 0.1% of the cases but painfully infirmed by the irreversible loss of many good and smart friends. And I have restricted opinions to those neutral from ethical points of view.
Based on what I know, I hope on my present experience in discussing with leading LENR expert  Ed Storms I hope - this will add to the 0.1% of cases of the disputes.
It is not easy
Despite our fundamental agreement around NAE: "In LENR, WHERE determines, WHAT, HOW and WHY (including WHY NOT) " (my formulation, what's your, dear Ed?) we think almost antagonistically about the relationship of Science with Mother Nature, about the Laws of Nature, simple/complex, the relative value of the known and the unknown in Science. linear/non-linear thinking. Does this make one of us a saint, and the other a sinner? I don't think so, simply we are human beings with some limits, not omniscient and not infallible- having different personal histories, assumptions and even myths (many myths end as being converted to verified truths)

 Now Ed has responded to my reaction to his assertion that people usually find in research only what they are looking for

Ed: 
Peter, I'm sometimes completely baffled by how you interpret what I say. It is well known in research that we see only what we are expecting to see. This is a universal experience and says nothing about the competence of the researcher. For example, if radiation were expected, a detector would be set up. If radiation were not expected and a detector was not used, any radiation would not be seen. The radiation would remain invisible and be ignored. It would not be discovered no matter how competent the researcher.   If I expect an important feature on a surface to have a size of 1 micron, I can use a common SEM. However, I would be blind to any effect occurring at the nanolevel. I would have to expect to see something at the nanolevel to justify the expense of using a much better  SEM.  The nano-crack exists only at the nano level. All the SEM pictures I have seen would not resolve this feature.  Therefore, what I claim to be important has remained invisible and overlooked.  I'm only asking it be looked for. It this too much to ask?

Peter
I have a different research experience and mentality- coming from industrial research. There is indeed a routine research focused on improvements, incremental. bit a bit step by step. But Research is transformative, creates quality leaps and I have seen a few ones and "lived" them, contributed to some.  
A few examples first for chemists:
- changing strong acid esterification catalysts with mild organometallic ones in the 
manufacture of phtallate plasticizers
- chlor-alkali electrolysis - from mercury cells to membrane cells;
- oxo process- replacing cobalt based catalysts with rhodium based ones;
- advancing from slow polymerisation initiators to fast peroxydicarbonates (for this work my team has received the Nicolae Teclu (to not be confounded with Nikola Tesla) Prize of the Romania Academy;
- music recording from vinyl plates to DVDs to YouTube;
- what we have see in computers hard and soft, in phones, in al the gadgets;
- the development of websearch, the great leap from AltaVista to Google Search actually from search to find etc., etc...great, fast progress due to research
Researchers must look for everything but especially for the radically new, unknown, unexpected , surprising. Why should a researcher in Cold fusion/LENR deliberately ignore radiations? It is risky. Why should a morphologist like Violante ignore nano-cracks? I guess he has some very modern  microscopes.
All I can do is to ask Graham Hubler for cooperation and understanding and for re-thinking nano-cracks.
Ed, please advise how it would be the best to look for nano-cracks and to quantify them.
It is my Credo, Research has the meaning and duty to do great things

 I have asked quite specifically about papers authors, journals, issue, pages in which results matching those of cathode 64 were obtained but I have received this answer:

Ed: 
If you had read my first book, you would know the answer. I have attached a histogram showing the power produced by various studies made before 2007.
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8Ba0lGbmkwRzh6dVpOYUVaeHg0cnBXa2NTMmVR/view?usp=sharing

 I have received your first  book from my regretted friend Mike Carrell and have read it , studied it more times. This does not mean that I have learned it by heart- there are too many data in it. Then, because it was the best book in the field I have asked our Europarlamentarian friend, Gabriela Cretu to give it to the EU Energy authority and she has done this. Possibly the book has had some impact there, I considered it is my duty to try.

 The histogram is statistics, it shows representative things but hides the essential like a bikini (Arthur Koestler)  In this case it gives Watts produced but are these Watts coming from a needle, wire or a greater Pd plate? Cathode 64 happened in 2004 so it is included in your 2007 book.
So please help me to know who, when has obtained such exceptional research as Energetics with Cathode 64 and 64a?

Ed: 

 Everyone using the superwave claims it simulates the LENR effect and results in greater reproducibility.  Of course, the effect occurs in the cathode and is caused by the NAE in the cathode. This fact does not have any relationship to what I said. 

 Peter
Yessir! 
However it is only an improvement not a radical change making possible what was impossible till then (as WiFi for example) Unfortunately PdD needs much more. And, I repeat it- tens of other cathodes were treated, used in the same way but only 64 made a miracle- so this is not an effect of the superwaves, for sure.

Ed: 
No, I can not do as well as SKINR did in the past. I have no idea how well they are doing now. In any case, this has no relationship with trying to explain their results. 

 Peter
Sorry for this; however what you can do is to show us a histogram similar with the former one (which was discussed three times this year on our Forums so it is well known by many of us) for 2007 to present. I think you have it, do not remember if it is in your new book- OK, was it real progress comparing 1989-2007 with 2007-2015? In intensity, reproducibility?

DAILY NEWS

 1) Invitation to the next  (2016) Russian LENR Conference:
Dear colleagues,
On behalf of the Russian Coordinating Council on Problem of CNT and RCCNT&BL-23 Organizing Committee I invite all of you on the our next annual RCCNT&BL-23, promising us big fulfillments this year.
We wait for all of you in Russia (Dagomys-Sochi).
Yury Bazhutov.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BdXV0cUthR3o5ME8zTHNOaV9JRTFhMmkyR2I4/view?usp=sharing

 2) Norman Cook on E-Cat Fuel Elements (Tungsten and Iron mentioned):
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/29/norman-cook-on-e-cat-fuel-elements-tungsten-and-iron-mentioned/

 3) We do not know much about the European Branch of te W-L theory/theorists, except their affiliation to LENR Cities. Now our Patent specialist, David French says about:
A US patent application published March 5, 2015 names Srivastava,Yogendra Narain,  (Lugano, CH); and Widom, Allan, (Lugano, CH) as inventors.  This is available as publication number 20150063520. The Applicant to whom the inventors have assigned their rights isClean Nuclear Power LLC of Via Greina 2 CH-6900 Lugano, Switzerland (CH).

The Title and Abstract are as follows:
Nuclear Reactor Consuming Nuclear Fuel that Contains Atoms of Elements Having a Low Atomic Number and a Low Mass Number
Abstract
The invention relates to a reactor for consuming a nuclear fuel that contains atoms of elements having a low atomic number (Z) and a low mass number (A), wherein the nuclear reactor (1) comprises a vessel (2) containing a reaction chamber (3). This reaction chamber (3) is topped and sealed by a sealed container (4), and contains the nuclear fuel, which comprises a colloidal mixture capable of producing Ultra Low Momentum Neutrons (ULMNs) by using electromagnetic radiations (5).
This application was based on a PCT filing made in Geneva, PCT/IB2013/050218 published as  WO/2013/108159.  The PCT filing date was 10 January 2013 and priority was claimed from an Italian application filed 16 January 2012. The Attorney for the PCT filing was Filippo Ferroni, Via Palestro 5/2 I-16122 Genova (IT)

Claim 1 reads as follows:

  1. A nuclear reactor (1), comprising a vessel (2) and a reaction chamber (3) located in the vessel (2) for containing a nuclear fuel, wherein said nuclear reactor (1) comprises a radiation source suitable for providing electromagnetic radiations (5) to the nuclear fuel contained in the reaction chamber (3).

This claim is essentially silly.  It was rejected by the  PCT Searcher in the Preliminary Examination Opinion as describing exactly what was disclosed in prior art located by the Searcher. Claims 4, 8, and 10 were rejected on this basis as well.  All claims were rejected as lacking a sufficient “inventive step”.  In US terms all claims were “obvious”. That means these claims all described obvious variants on the Prior Art.  
 I have listed the Attorney who filed the PCT application because he has to accept responsibility for this situation.  There remains the possibility that some portion of the disclosure might be salvaged as being novel and inventive.  The real nature of the invention seems to revolve around the concluding three claims:
 8. A nuclear fuel reaction process wherein the nuclear fuel comprises elements having a low atomic number (Z) and a low mass number (A), comprising the steps of:
a. preparing a colloidal mixture of metallic powder comprising one or more of the following elements: Lithium, Nickel, Copper, Palladium, Titanium, or isotopes thereof;
b. irradiating the colloidal mixture by using an electromagnetic radiations (5). 
9. The nuclear fuel reaction process according to claim 8, wherein said reaction process is controlled by varying the intensity of the electromagnetic radiations (5).

10. The nuclear fuel reaction process according to claim 9, wherein the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiations (5) is substantially similar to a radius of grains of the metallic powder in the colloidal mixture.
Allan Widom is listed in this filing as resident in Switzerland.  He is still listed as being on faculty at Northeastern University.  A 411 search of the Boston area shows an Allan Widom resident in Brighton, Massachusetts.  Why is this important?  A section of the US patent law, 35USC 184, 185 invalidates US patents for inventions “made in this country” if an inventor assists in filing an application abroad without getting a Foreign Filing Licence from the USPTO. These provisions are relevant depending on where this invention was made.

A great thank you to David French!

This is an Italian  video about Yogendra Srivastava:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGCUqFtbdlc (short)

4) NOTE OF ERROR
Yesterday I have erroneously told about the fourth paper from AIRBUS-ISCMNS Workshop. Errare blogarum est- I apologize to the authors and to the readers.
Actually It was NOT for the Workshop, but on viXra in June 2015 and will be published on JCMNS.In fact it's a more developed version of ths paper to be published in the ICCF19 Proceedings,
in particular it includes  "pedagogic" appendices about Dirac equation.
Here it is the  paper for ICCF19 proceedings: Basis for Electron Deep Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BOVFWVmJFcWlLdlQyVGVzQWpiSUZSWl9IS3RN/view?usp=sharing

5) An idea of our Canadian friend and high-quality blogger, Jim D. Sweeney inspired by a paper about catalysts- already discussed here- but Jim sees more:

Hello, Peter

https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2015-11-23-atom-sized-craters-make-catalyst-much-more-active.aspx

One sentence in this item that caught my eye could relate to lenr NAE:

"And we can tune this activity so the bonds that form on the catalyst
are just right – strong enough to hold the reacting atoms in place,
but weak enough so they’ll let go of the finished product once the
atoms have joined together.”

Perhaps this is what Rossi has stumbled upon!

Thanks!
Posted by at 5 comments:

Saturday, November 28, 2015

28 NOV. 2015, LENR DISCUSSIONS, NEWS, EXPECTATIONS



MOTTO

 Sometimes, the hardest thing is for one generation to look beyond itself, see a future that is wildly different — and accept the fact that the new paradigm may, indeed, be better than the old.
from the Problem Solving paper: "Learning New Ways to Learn"
http://lompocrecord.com/learning-new-ways-to-learn/article_756757cd-33b9-5980-bf4c-764a18f15ebc.html received this morning
DAILY NOTES

 a) Bill Gates will probably create a multi-billion fund for Clean Energy

 If this happens it is a good thing. As a means, money is a constructive problem solver- coupled with new, creative ideas it can possibly solve even the hyper-difficut problem of LENR. Solution is here a more-than-competitive LENR based energy source for the future generations (including some of the younger present generations)
I have asked Bil Gates to support LENR in the frame of supporting general technological progress 
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/02/open-letter-to-bill-gates.html

 In meantime, something very positive has happened, Bill Gates had a direct encounter with the basic form of LENR in ENEA's Lab led by Vittorio Violante. What has happened at that meeting, has Gates become a LENR enthusiast or not yet, who knows? 
We could understand  bit more- when we will learn if LENR was or not explicitly
included in the basic starting document of the Fund. If yes, at which place, what priority? If not, exists there some implicit possibility to include it later, possibly afer some achievements in the field of LENR?
If ENEA-Violante had persuaded Bill Gates- then the support for LENR will materialize possibly with such a scenario: 10,000 researchers, 1000,000 PdD  cells, hundreds of the most modern scientific instruments, everything that is necessary for success, save an unprecedented miracle.
However, if Gates just donates the money and wants a Research Plan- this would be a task for the Global Network of LENR MetaManagement.

 b) Friendly discussion with Ed Storms
Ed Storms writes:

Ed:
Only the large cracks can be seen. I have made surfaces in which the detectable cracks are about 50 micron apart. I do not have the tools to see the small cracks, which might be even closer.  The purpose of research is to determine this concentration. My purpose is to suggest where to look for the NAE. 

Peter
So we have to imagine the surface of Pd (or Pd with a lot of D absorbed in it) as having nano-cracks; than we have to imagine the same material as having 10, 10, 100 times more nano-cracks on the surface and NOT dezagregating? Based on you personal experience, you can do it. For me it is not easy, I have imagined other active loci and a dynamic mechanism of generating, using, losing and re-generating them.
But, let's the most realist idea win!
Ed:
The cracks are not just on the surface. The active gap extends into the material. The area of the region where the critical gap exists is the important variable. Unfortunately, the depth of the crack is not visible.

 Peter
That is absolutely correct, the surface is not only the (exterior) surface.

c) Not-so-friendly discussion with Ed Storms (one issue)
Ed has given a somewhat surprising answer to my question why PdD leader teams
of ENEA and SKINR are not convinced by the nano-crack & hydroton explanation-
and this is many times more significant than my doubts- I am not active in research for now and not influential.
Ed:
A crack exist on a scale that would be seen as a point-like region of activity. In addition, people see only what they are looking for. A nano-crack is not visible unless it is looked for with a tool having the required resolution.  I'm trying to get people to take a look.

Peter
The underlined words mean: "unable to make a discovery"- not good for a researcher. Violante for example is a morphologist- he must look a lot and knows wel how to look..

However I dislike this part of the answer:
Ed:
The high power produced by cathode 64 is not unique although rare. Other people have reported similar amounts of power. According to my explanation, application of the superwave stressed the surface and created a high concentration of nano-cracks. 

Peter
I dare to think that in a field fighting for survival, recognition, development the extraordinary positive events have to be considered with maximum seriousness.
First- how many documented, published, citable heat release events of high intensity we know? There are events as the Pd  cube of Fleischmann and Pons the 100 gr unquenchable Pd cathode of Mizuno and one runaway event at Piantelli - WHT ELSE?
Your explanation has the flaw that cathode 64 was one in a long series of tests made with the same waving waves technique- the result was determined by the cathode per se, not by the stimuli. It is fair to say- it cannot be explained on a causal basis- I think you have read the very proffessional  SKINR reports about this case.
I will apologize for this if you can organize/perform an experiment with such a good result as cathode 64.

DAILY NEWS
1) E-Cat X Makes Gas-Powered E-Cat ‘Obsolete’:

2) Bill Gates Expected to Create Billion-Dollar Fund for Clean Energy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/bill-gates-expected-to-create-billion-dollar-fund-for-clean-energy.html?_r=0
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/27/bill-gates-clean-tech-initiative/ 

 3)The Green Energy Technology to Save the World

Mats Lewan - Positive Anecdotes and Negative Replications

Reviewed texts of three papers presented at the AIRBUS- ISCMNS Workshop:

5) Can Craters and Hot Spots be Explained by Erzions or Exotic Particles ? 

Jacques Ruer  Email: jsr.ruer@orange.fr 

Abstract 

Hot spots are small features, which are supposed to be created by a sudden local release of thermal energy. For example, the estimation of the energy involved in the formation of a 2 µm crater is 3.10-8 J or 2.105 MeV. Some theories attempting to explain these phenomena, and excess heat in general, involve the role of Exotic Neutral Particles (ENP), like Polyneutrons or Erzions. According to such theories, these ENPs are relatively rare. The problem investigated in this paper is whether a single particle may trigger a series of many reactions within a short time in solids, like palladium deuteride. The energy released by a single reaction differs with the type of nucleus that reacts. If we consider, for simplification purpose, that the average value is 4MeV, the energy to create a crater mentioned in the above corresponds to 2.105 MeV, meaning a series of 50000 cumulated reactions. A Monte-Carlo simulation has been written to study the potential behavior of ENPs. It is shown that the ENPs follow a Brownian type movement. The number of reactions occurring at a given depth below the surface is calculated, as well as the probability for a series to exceed a given value. From a pure mathematical viewpoint, a parallel can be made between the diffusion laws and the Brownian movement. It is then possible to define a diffusion coefficient of ENPs in the solid. Most of the series are limited to a small number of reactions. However, a few ones reach the life number limit, whatever its value. The average length of the series increases if the first reaction occurs at some depth below the surface. These general trends are in agreement with the experimental observations. Most of the energy is dissipated within a shallow depth below the surface of the solid. Only a small fraction of the excess heat is developed in hot spots or craters. The results of the simulation are discussed in the light of known experimental data. This makes it possible to propose a mean free path range the ENP must satisfy if the theory wants to explain the features observed on samples, like craters or hot spots.

6) Calorimetric investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems 

K.P. Budko1 and A.I. Korshunov2 
1Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia, email: kpb@lcard.ru 2 Institute for Problems in Mechanics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, 
email:  fallex@inbox.ru 

It has been stated that Ni-H systems could produce excess heat during rather long periods of time. We have performed experimental calorimetric investigation of this phenomenon. The experimental setup consisted of ceramic reactor with nickel powder inside it, heater, hydrogen loading system and calorimeter. Nickel powders with different grain size were used because of their large surface area. Hydrogen pressure varied from 0.5 to 2.5 atm. Temperature varied from 25 to 800 oC. Different methods of input power supply were used in order to investigate possible effects of high amplitude magnetic pulses. The experimental runs lasted from 4 to 50 hours. Experiments didn’t show any evidence of excess heat within the accuracy of measurement. 

7) Quantum Electronic Atomic Rearrangement by H2 Recombination Energy Release and Solid State Material Low Energy Nuclear Reaction 

 by Stephane NEUVILLE TCE consultant, F-77165 Cuisy +33 (0)6 4147 1922 
Email: stephane.neuville709@orange.fr 

 During exothermic physical and chemical recombination, it has to be considered that electronic activation occurs before heat will be released. Quantum electronic activation is achieved when electrons are excited up to higher electronic energy bands. Those can then often induce specific atomic rearrangement in competition to usual thermodynamic thermal atomic rearrangement ruled by Arrhenius law. This has been evidenced with carbon material showing higher diamond-like properties when exposed to different type of activation. Quantum electronic activation criteria involving steric conditions and optoelectronic band gap of the final state have been worked out. An effect which could be demonstrated in more details after revision of some fundamentals of hard carbon Raman characterizing we review. Among important effects, the H2 and N2 chemical recombination energy release (CRER) when not counterbalanced by heat degradation phenomena transforming the material towards its graphite thermodynamic ground state. Several unexpected demonstrative examples we also review are confirming the effect and which is also concerning some other types of material. Considering that atomic rearrangement can modify the electronic environment of interstitial H2, some influence on some corresponding solid state LENR will be expected. Revisiting some nuclear quantum physics fundamentals, the Lawson fusion criterion could be reformulated in terms of wave-packet superposition and impact energy. Considering further on the Mossbauer Effect, we suggest that the modified geometric distribution of electronic orbitals will consequently also modify the distribution of the nucleus wall potential in favor of some easier tunneling and higher LENR efficiency. This effect is expected to be combined and cumulated with other type of fusion by inertial confinement involving impact of energetic H+ ions on dense carbon material, leading to some convenient new design of carbon/ hydrogen LENR fusion plasma reactor, which is expected to have high COP

 8) The fourth paper from this Workshop was sent by Jean-Luc Pailet: one the authors:

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BU1BpRUlYd3RFSW9zV1hHS2dDSFl5QVZwY3RB/view?usp=sharing

Arguments for the Anomalous Solutions of the Dirac Equations 

 Jean-Luc Paillet1 , Andrew Meulenberg2 
1 Aix-Marseille University, France, jean-luc.paillet@club-internet.fr 
2 Science for Humanity Trust, Inc., USA, mules333@gmail.com 

 In this paper, we look into the difficult question of electron deep levels in the hydrogen atom. An introduction shows some general considerations on these orbits as “anomalous” (and usually rejected) solutions of relativistic quantum equations. The first part of our study is devoted to a discussion of the arguments against the deep orbits and for them, as exemplified in published solutions. We examine each of the principal negative arguments found in the literature and show how it is possible to resolve the questions raised. In fact, most of the problems are related to the singularity of the Coulomb potential when considering the nucleus as a point charge, and so they can be easily resolved when considering a more realistic potential with finite value inside the nucleus. In a second part, we consider specific works on deep orbits as solutions of the relativistic Schrödinger and of the Dirac equations, named Dirac Deep Levels (DDLs). The latter presents the most complete solution and development for spin ½ particles, and includes an infinite family of DDL solutions. We examine particularities of these DDL solutions and more generally of the anomalous solutions. Next we analyze the methods for, and the properties of, the solutions that include a corrected potential inside the nucleus, and we examine the questions raised by this new element. Finally we indicate, in the conclusion, open questions such as the physical meaning of the relation between quantum numbers determining the deep levels and the fact that the angular momentum seems two orders-of-magnitude lower than the values associated with the Planck constant. As a prerequisite to a deep comprehension of the resolution methods, we recall in the appendices some essential elements of the Dirac theory




Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 27, 2015

NOV 27, 2015 LENR DISCUSSION AND INFO


MOTTO

a metaphoric story by Mooji: 
"We are at the door/gateway to realization, to awakening, but just outside there is a large, noisy market with hundreds of people trying to sell us things, enticing us with delicious smells and wonderful promises, so we hold back, keep looking at these offerings here, on the known side, the comfortable side, the unconscious side. We decide we are not quite ready to go through, to see what is on the other side."

I told yesterday about the necessity of a Great LENR Satori and today the charming website of the Canadian ecologist Dave Pollard gives this;

It is too much noise in LENR too, now.

DAILY NOTES

What I have told yesterday about catalysis- was in philosophical sense too, and is more general than chemical catalysis can be understood from the essay:
THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION ABOUT LENR!
I have asked Ed and the readers to look at it. 
Catalysis is a form of synergy ubiquitous in Nature synergy that drives development of matter from the Big Bang and Evolution. Different levels of organization of Matter "conspiring" and working together in order to create something interesting. LENR is Matter at chemical (of electrons cloud) level catalyzing Matter of atomic level to new reactions at the nuclear level. Not only fusion, not only two particles reactions as in hot fusion- but collective, cooperative nuclear transformations. nuclear interactions.
I think things are much more complex than D + D and H + H

In order to avoid the great evil D's of discussions (Dilutitis, Detailitis, Disfocusitis,
Disputitis, Defrostitis) that are ruining their effectiveness and efficiency,
I am commenting first the most original part of Ed's response of yesterday: 

Ed (writing in red) defends his basic idea about nano-cracks

 Peter:As far I know/understand, the nano-cracks are not a specific, quantifiable  feature of the metal (Pd, Ni) surface- with concrete it would be different. 

Ed: Peter, I'm amazed you would say this. The nano-crack is the initial formation of a gap that, if allowed to grow larger, would be and is easily seen.  This is a well known and easily observed process.  I'm not suggesting a new condition. I'm only suggesting a new consequence of a well-known condition. 

Peter:OK, how many nano-cracks are per sq.c of the cathode you are working now? As order of magnitude? And, taking in account what we know about Pd metallurgy, 
what is your evaluation of a very good, active surface- what nanocrack density per surface?
The most advanced- close to you (do you agree?) PdD wet research teams- ENEA and SKINR 
speak more about point-iike impurities, about some EMF emissions not a word about good nanocracks- see also the ISOLDE event of Oct.3. They seem to be first class experimentalists, have not seen them making risky theoretical speculations
can nobody convince them to discuss and try the nanocracks idea.
They (SKINR) have analysed thoroughly the star cathode 64 of the former Energetics,
how do you interpret the exceptionally high heat release generated, causally?

Ed also wrote:

Ed: You and other people do not understand what I mean when I use the term NAE. It is not simply a site where LENR happens to take place, as you define it. It is a special local condition that is created by a chemical process BEFORE LENR can take place. Its eventual use as a site for a nuclear reaction is not anticipated by Nature when the NAE is formed. The nuclear reaction is an unusual and unexpected consequence.  For reasons having nothing to do with the eventual nuclear process, this condition forms and allows something extraordinary to happen. This way of looking at the problem forces an entirely different set of rules on how the process works.  You are free to reject my idea, but please understand what I propose before you reject it.  You and I are describing an entirely different condition when we use the term NAE.  I do not believe your definition applies because I do not believe a process that can cause fusion can take place in or on a normal material.  A very unique and rare change must take place. We need to identify this change in an exact way while remaining consistent with known behavior.

This goes a bit beyond the simple nanocracks- is this in some contradiction or is it complementary to what you said first (above)? What can be a special local condition created by a chemical process? This is more vague and less defined than the effect of a nano-structure. The nano-effect can be that atoms lose their individuality and act together as one atom..                                                                        

DAILY NEWS

1) 'LENR is a catalytic process' by AXIL  THANKS!

2) Andrea Rossi
November 26th, 2015 at 7:22 PM

Albert N.:
The Mossbauer Effect is well described on Wikipedia (Google Wikipedia Mossbauer Effect).
Prof Cook and I are working on a theory that could link the reverse Mossbauer Effect with the Rossi Effect.
It is a very complex work that demands complex mathematical models and we are not ready for a publication.
What Prof Cook will present is a hint of our intuition.
We are curious to see the reactions and to see if there is something to learn.
I must say that we learnt much from the discussions I had with Prof. Suffritti of the University of Sassari (Italy) upon an unpublished paper of him on the same issue.
Our publication is going slow because we agreed upon the fact that this publication is worth to be made only if our theory can be sustained by a consistent mathematical structure.
Warm Regards
A.R.

NOTE I remember the very first meeting with the Mossbauer Effect in a LENR environment- it was Prof Erno Kuzmann from the Eotvos University Budapest who spoke at ICCF-2 Como about
 "Mossbauer Spectroscopic Characterization of Samples for Cold Fusion Experiment",  A very nice man, unfortunately I have lost the contact with Erno

3) Socioeconomical Consequences of the LENR Technology - Group Analysis and Discussion


5) Public concept drawings of domestic ECAT

6) The Official Website of FULVIO FRISONE, Italian Cold Fusionist

OTHER
To spur innovation, we need to change our mindset:

"We need to be aware and receptive to technological advances as well as the skill sets that future generations might need, including many that may not even exist today. This needs to be fuelled by a change in the mindset of teachers, students and society. I believe that a focus on the learning process rather than defined final goals is a necessary shift. We need to place the majority of the emphasis on developing skills rather than test scores. Problem-solving skills (independent thinking, research skills and analysis) as well as social skills (empathy, diplomacy, team-building) need to be prioritised".

l
Posted by at 2 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)