 |
There are currently, 156 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
LENR- THE FORESHADOW OF A POSITIVE TREND
Posted on Sunday, November 22, 2015 @ 00:51:20 UTC by vlad
|
|
From Dr. Peter Gluck's Ego Out blog: ...Before my travel, Edmund Storms wrote:
Peter,
if progress is to be made, we need to apply what is known as a fact,
not use proposed theories as a starting point. If the facts are applied
effectively, most present explanations would have to be totally
rejected. We have too many of explanations only because the facts are
ignored. Instead, everyone picks the facts that fit their imagined
theory or use a phenomenon popular in physics as justification. I see
no acknowledgement of there being any basic facts of importance or of
the need to include basic chemical understanding in an explanation.
Consequently, I'm not optimistic for any progress any time soon. Right
now, what little money is being applied, is under the restraints
imposed by commercial interests. I see very little hope for progress
until public money is applied and universities get involved. Until this
happens, we can debate and complain all we want with out any effect on
the future use of LENR.
Peter Gluck: With all due respect, I am thinking very differently:
A. What is known about LENR s facts is not much and I doubt that what is true about a wet system at 70 C is also directly applicable or transferable for a dry system at 500 or 1200 C with a different metal and the other isotope of hydrogen.
I think NAE, active sites is a fact indeed but their nature as empty not structured cracks has to be demonstrated.
Essentially, I think firmly that what we do not know is still much more decisive for both explaining and developmental success. For solving the Problems. A commercial triumph is the way toward theoretical understanding not the opposite. I am aware this is a heretic idea.
Ed Storms (by email): Peter, your idea is not heretic. Like most people, you keep looking for ways you can disagree with me even if you have to create disagreement out of thin air. I'm frustrated by an almost uniform unwillingness in this field to reach a common understanding. Everyone seems intent on going their own way.
Your response did not address my comment, yet you say you have a different opinion. Based on your response, you believe the PdD system operates by different rules compared to the NiH system. Presumably, you believe chemistry and physics operate differently in the two materials. Even if the two mechanisms are different, why would you expect the mechanism operating in NiH to violate basic chemical rules; the same rules I insist PdD follows?
Would not an understanding of how PdD produces energy have a relationship to how NiH does the same thing? Would not use of what we know about PdD provide some insight into another mechanism having the same effect? Why does ignoring the facts about PdD, give any advantage? My comment above contained these issues, which you ignored.
We know a lot about about how PdD causes LENR but practically nothing about NiH. We are also unable to get good information from the people who can cause NiH to produce LENR. We do not have this problem with the people studying PdD. Can you join me in trying to solve this problem?
By the way, leaving a comment on your blog is not possible unless a person has some kind of account, at least that has been my experience. That is why I respond this way.
More: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/11/nov-21-2015-lenr-foreshadow-of-positive.html
_________________________________________
Here are two interesting comments by Axil:
The use of deuterium in LENR first came about because of the “Hot fusion
theory” that deuterium was required to produce neutrons, helium, and
heat. This theory overhang fiasco has lasted until this very day and has
become an unthinking idea that has clouded LENR reasoning for these
past 26 years.
I have just posted how I believe that Protium
and deuterium should be used properly as far as the polariton theory is
concerned. Deuterium should be used in the XUV range only. Don’t expect
heat to be generated by deuterium. The experiments of Holmlid have
verified this thinking. In his experiments, UV light from florescent
tubes in Holmlid’s lab produce subatomic emissions.
Holmlid’s
deuterium based reaction produces a shock wave where subatomic and
atomic nuclear residue explode outward at 1/3 the speed of light. Rather
that use this wonderful pressure wave to produce energy, Holmlid wants
to utilize heat like F&P had done so long ago.
LENR is like a radio; if you want to hear the music, you must tune to the right frequency.
Yesterday, Phonon Energy put out this request for help to find the right frequency in the infrared as follows:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BeC1aTWY1eFJfUzBNYnV3WVB6RVA4aHFtUk1J/view
Because
Phonon Energy is taking its queue from the LENR old school who still
wants to use deuterium to produce heat, Phonon Energy will be wasting
its time with infrared lasers looking for the right frequency of
infrared EMF to use. So Sad.
The right frequency to get the most
out of deuterium is in the XUV range and shockwaves are how LENR energy
is produced there. If we want to use deuterium, we must build a Papp
engine with pistons pushed by shockwaves and NO HEAT.
We can’t
tell Mother Nature what to do, She has her own way of doing things and
if we don’t tune in to what she wants, then will not here her sweet
songs.
..........
How to harvest energy from the deuterium based XUV LENR reaction.
The
Papp engine produced excess electrons and that system used XUV EMF to
stimulate the LENR reaction. The Papp engine used special electrodes
called hollow screw threaded closeable buckets which contained an alpha
emitter in a cavity like radioactive radium or thorium, where a electric
arc greatly stimulated the alpha emitter. The excess electrons produced
by the XUV based reaction were attracted to highly ionized positively
charged buckets. This technology was used in the 1930's for lightning
rods where Papp pick its up its use from.
http://www.pittas.gr/en/pages/services/radioactive-lightning-rod-removal/
Since
1975 and under license from the Greek Atomic Energy Commission,
installing radioactive lightning conductors was allowed. The lightning
rod’s head had radioactive isotopes Am-241 or Ra-226. The intensive
ionization of air around the rod’s head caused by the charged particles,
created an attractive pole for lightning. Depending on the amount of
radioactivity in the head – in μCi – the protection radius was
determined from R = 50 to 400 meters.
The Papp engine that was self powered by recycling overunity electrons produced by the XUV LENR reaction.
To
see how this all works, look at starting at 21:10 of the video below.
Watch the motor in the background driven by the feedback current
gathered by the electrons gathered by the thorium filled buckets. During
firing, the motor has a spinning white circular disk on it with four
holes placed around the edge that allows you to see the disk in motion.
Bob
Rohner still uses buchet electrodes to gather excess electrons but he
still uses noble gases to produce the reaction. IMHO, deuterium is far
better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zWJNyoFgJM
Holmlid
also uses XUV and deuterium that produces K-mesons which eventually
decay to electrons. It seems like XUV based high energy LENR reactions
produce excess electrons.
IMHO, Rossi is using the XUV high energy LENR reactions in the E-Cat X to also produced excess electrons.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
LENR Patents Open Doors to New Investment and New Conflict (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, November 22, 2015 @ 00:56:31 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Steven Krivit's latest article in his New Energy Times [news.newenergytimes.net]:
Certain low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) researchers are now
obtaining patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO). Recently issued patents in this field may stimulate
private-sector investment in LENR research. At the same time,
competition among scientists is intensifying.
Recent decisions by the USPTO indicate increased recognition of
patentability in the field. For the last 25 years, venture capitalists
have been reluctant to fund such research, in part because their chances
of obtaining U.S. patent protection were slim to none. Although
applicants who were issued recent LENR patents omitted the term LENR in
their applications, they use the same materials, general processes and
general concepts as other researchers in the LENR field have used.
New Energy Times has learned that, on Nov. 10, the USPTO
issued patent US 9,182,365 B2 for a LENR method that produces excess
heat to David Allan Kidwell, a chemist with the Naval Research
Laboratory (NRL). Kidwell’s second LENR patent, US 9,192,918, will issue
on Nov. 24. Although some patents for LENR excess-heat-related
inventions were issued in the 26-year history of this field, they have
been rare events.
Two U.S. government-sponsored reviews of LENRs, one in 1989 and
another in 2004, concluded that excess heat from LENRs and the entire
set of nuclear phenomena in LENRs were not genuine. Subsequent events,
and documents hidden since 1989, have shown that their conclusions were
wrong. U.S. patent examiners have relied on these reviews, among other
references, as grounds to reject all claims related to this new possible
source of clean nuclear energy... Full article: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2015/11/20/lenr-patents-open-doors-to-new-investment-and-new-conflict/#more-43134 [news.newenergytimes.net]
|
|
|
Patents are the bane of everything (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Sunday, November 22, 2015 @ 13:20:53 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | You want to know why the world does not have LENR or other alternatives at this point in time? Patents. You want to know why we, the common people of the world, will never see LENR and other alternatives heating our homes and providing our electrical needs? It's because of patents and big business. Do you want to know why there are no cancer cures or anti-aging technologies available? For the very same reason.
The Patent office is the new, modern version of the Library of Alexandria, except the really good stuff, the meat and potatoes if you will, is hidden behind the inventions secrecy act of 1951, and can only be accessed by the military industrial complex and certain corporations. The patent office serves as a lure to draw in intellectual resources that it normally would not have access to - the promise, of course, is infinite wealth and protection of their 'intellectual property'. This is exactly what happens on the surface, but it's not what's really happening. What is really happening is all this knowledge and inventions are being archived, just like a library, and only those who have permission to enter may view, copy, and replicate the knowledge therein. This is why we have endless, corporate lawsuits of patent infringement - it's not because several people came up with the same idea and created it. No, it's because several people copied the same idea from the patent office and had no idea that others had interest in it.
This is the reality of it, folks. The patent office is not a good thing, and never will be. The government is not your friend; it never was and never will be. The enemy we are facing are the zionist/jewish controlled banks, the governments, and virtually every corporation on the planet. Once we dispose of these parasites, we will have LENR and virtually any exotic technology you can think of.
We need to gather up all these worthless billionaires, like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Elon Musk etc, and send them to Hawaii, all expenses paid, and then drop them in the island's most active volcano. I'm not joking.
|
|
|
LENR NOT VIOLATING LAWS JUST CHOOSING OTHER LAWS (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, November 22, 2015 @ 21:22:20 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | More interesting dialog between Peter Gluck, Ed Storms and Dr. Mitchell Swartz (some from e-mails and/or from Peter's blog Ego Out) [egooutpeters.blogspot.ro]:
Peter: a) Why people in the field are almost unanimously against a common understanding?
Because the field is great, more diversified than thought, cannot be reduced or grounded to the original and still dominant form of LENR, people come with different backgrounds and scientific myths- it is a great (>>6) group of myopic men examining a huge elephant.
Ed: I agree, these are good reasons why agreement is hard to achieve. Nevertheless, nature plays by certain rules and science attempts to understand and apply these rules. I'm simply pointing out that the rules are not being followed when most explanations are suggested. In addition, as Axil has made an art form, most theories consist of many ad hoc assumptions having no ability to predict or show how the behavior might be modified.
Peter: But I guess you are more interested why the common understanding is not identical to your personal understanding achieved by hard work and deep thinking?
Ed: Yes, that is part of my goal. But, another issue is important. As with all aspects of science, progress is made only by standing on the shoulders of experts. No one in physics would accept or welcome contrubutions to explaining quantum mechanics, for example, from someone who never studied the subject and has very little understanding of what is already known. Yet, people feel free to discuss LENR based on ignorance of what is known about the phenomena and without any background in basic chemistry or physics. I have that background, which I would expect would give my ideas extra weight. Yes, my ideas might be wrong, but not as wrong as someone who has never mastered the subject.
Peter: So consistent and so naturally transferable to the entire field? I think exactly the same about my ideas, I have also analysed data information, knowledge- a lot taaken from your books and papers- just I came to very different conclusions- I think you cannot accept any of my Six Pillars of LENR, isn't it? On my turn, I see no direct proofs of nano-cracks as NAE and I cannot understand how hydrotons will work or even exist.
Other people think similarly, physicists think LENR is their problem and ignore the multidisciplinar character of LENR.
Ed: You say you come to a different conclusion. I have not been able to understand why. As best as I can tell, you agree with me in many ways and then add additional ideas that you call a conflict. If find that reaching a conclusion is best done by identifying where agreement exists and only then determining where the split occurs and why. You want to place more emphasis on NiH compared to PdD. I agree, NiH deserves emphases as a possible commercial source of energy. But why do you reject my emphasis on PdD as a possible source of knowledge about the mechanism? What do you gain by taking that approach? I see you have partially answered this question below.
Peter: b) Why I think PdD and NiH work differently? More reasons: I know well the properties of the two metals, then there is a huge difference (the greatest for all isotopes) at the atoms level between protium and deuterium, Ni does NOT work with deuterium,
Ed: How do you know that deuterium does not work with Ni? At the present time, the explanation of how Ni works has emphasized heat production from various transmutation reactions. It is easy to show that transmutation CAN NOT be the source of the energy. The apparent isotope changes must have a different explanation. In this context, we do have a basic difference of opinion.
Peter: I think the surface of metals works differently at 70, 450 and 1200 C. I think both systems work with NAE- and these are more sophisticated than cracks however the nature and the mechanisms of the reactions differ. Therefore, NiH cannot be managed on the basis of what we know about PdD
Ed: OK, I understand. You believe two different but very novel and rare mechanisms can operate in two different but chemically similar materials. The mechanism operating in PdD produces helium by fusion between deuterons and the mechanism operating in Ni causes transmutation when a proton enters the nucleus of a Ni isotope. Apparently, for some reason, a deuteron can not cause transmutation in Ni but it can in Pd (aka Iwamura). And, fusion can not take place in Ni. If you think fusion of deuterons can be justified to a normal scientist, I suggest you would have much more difficulty justifying transmutation.
Peter: c) The best question is for me: Why would you expect the mechanism operating in NiH to violate basic chemical rules; the same rules I insist PdD follows?
It exists an obsession with VIOLATING the Laws and this was used as a weapon against Cold Fusion LENR. It is not about VIOLATING it is just about respecting, using, obeying other Laws.
Ed: Redefining the words is not useful. LENR VIOLATES what we know and accept about nuclear interaction. Calling it something different does not change the fact. Yes, the word was used as a weapon because it is true. We have to respond with a different weapon. We need to show that the violated laws do not apply. Something new is operating. Yet, people keep applying the same old laws and expect a different result. We know what that approach is called.
Peter: Is nanoplasmonics violating some sacred laws of thermodynamics? Is the collective transformation of Urutskoev violating established laws? Is nanotechnology a sacrilege against thermodynamics?
Ed: The answer is no. My question is, So what? Simply calling LENR nanotechnoogy or using the term nanoplasonics is not an explanation. An explanation needs to show how these concepts are applied while being consistent with the rules of chemistry operating in PdD or NiH. The mechanism is complex and the operating parts must have a logical connection while being consistent with chemical behavior. I see very little effort made to acknowledge this requirement.
Peter: Because we both are chemists, can you tell me what laws of chemistry, specifically are you speaking about and how could they be VIOLATED?
Ed: For example, formation of the NAE is a chemical process that must be consistent with the chemical properties of the lattice structure. Assembly of the hydrogen nuclei before fusion must be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. These requirements severely limit the possible form of the NAE and the fusing structure.
Peter: Chemistry can be surprising- allow me a simple question:
- you have a tall glass column filled with concentrated HCl' you start to bubble
ammonia gas through the bottom. What reactions happen and how? Which laws
of chemistry are respected?
Ed: That is easy, The laws of thermodynamics are respected. Using these laws, the reaction products and their concentration can be calculated.
Peter: d) You are perfectly right, there is an urgent and strong necessity to get solid scientific and engineering data about NiH, uncertainties must be eradicated. This happens now.
---------------
To Peter's statement: "Ni does NOT work with deuterium, .... Therefore, NiH cannot be managed on the basis of what we know about PdD",
Dr. Mitchell Swartz responds: This, of course, is an inaccurate statement (1,2), and is thus followed by the wrong conclusion; heralding that the author might benefit by reading, and more accurately reporting on, the cold fusion (lattice assisted nuclear reaction; LANR) literature.
That said, once again "LENR+" is apparently grossly misnamed as it is actually "LENR-" because the cold fusion/LANR literature is simply ignored and there has been generally in its stead a significant long-term paucity of verified measurements, expected normal ohmic controls, and a noticeable complete absence of followup published peer-reviewed data and information.
1. Swartz, M., P. Hagelstein, G. Verner, "Impact of Electrical Avalanche Through a ZrO2-NiD Nanostructured CF/LANR Component on its Incremental Excess Power Gain", ICCF-19, Italy (2015) pending in CMNS Journal.
2. Swartz. M., "The Impact of Heavy Water (D2O) on Nickel-Light Water Cold Fusion Systems", Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), Beijing, China, Xing Z. Li, pages 335-342. May (2002).
|
|
|
|
|
