LENR Is Real

[Axil]

Tom Clarke states:

They claim that SPP's (surface resonances) can amplify e-m fields and therefore this effect. That is likely true, though speculation. They claim very high amplification factors (corresponding to very high Qs). That is rampant speculation with no evidence. The reason it is not likely is that although very high Q's are possible in SPPs at low intensity, at high intensities nonlinearities are likely to reduce Q and so the ability to get very high Q is much reduced. I would not say eliminated - I don't know enough to say that - but any extrapolation of low intensity SPP Q to high intensities is counter to physics as we know it.

The heartbeat and lifeblood of LENR is nonlinearities. The key structure in the NiH reactor is the soliton at the tip of its nanowires. This soliton grows strong through nonlinearities and is only weakened through dispersion (feeding the soliton EMF waves of random wavelengths).

But these SPPs also provide global photon entanglement and superfluidity of Bose Einstein Condensation (BEC). This all but eliminates dispersion so the limit on soliton growth is removed. The KEY to LENR is the nonlinearity of unencumbered and almost infinite EMF concentration.

The soliton supported by nanowire is an optimization in the NiH/LENR concept which we call LENR+. LENR in a metal lattice uses a relative of the soliton called Intrinsic Localized Modes (ILMs) (Campbell, 2004)(Flach, 2008): ILMs, or discrete breathers. These are extremely spatially-localized, time-periodic, stable or very long-lived excitations in spatially extended, discrete, periodic (or quasiperiodic) systems.

ILMs, which are localized in real space, arise in a large variety of nonlinear lattice models and are typically independent of the number of spatial dimensions of the lattice, the size of the lattice (which is, however, assumed to be large), and (for the most part) the precise choice of nonlinear forces acting on the lattice. The mechanism that permits the existence of ILMs has been understood theoretically for more than a decade, and such waves have now been observed in a wide variety of physical systems.

[tomclarke]

The previous post does not address the matter of limited Q at ultra-high power density. The field concentration you can get is therefore also limited.

A simple way to look at it is that while hyper-high intensity em radiation could do many things - the proposed mechanism does not reach that high.

Also ultra-high intensity em radiation can alter fission characteristics - known mechanism - it cannot in the same way catalyse fusion.

One way to see this is to look at the required energy density.

D-D fusion requires on the order of 10keV to make reaction rate observable. (And at this energy the relationship is reaction rate ~ energy to the power . That corresponds to a separation (over which tunnelling occurs) of:
r~3.2E-19/(4*pi*e0*V)~ 3E-19/(1E-10 *V) ~ 3E-9/V

For deuterons at 10keV we have V=5,000V => r ~ 0.5E-12.

The volume over which fusion occurs (being generous and looking at the deuteron tunneling distance) is therefore E-37m^3 or so. The energy density, to be comparable with the Coulomb barrier, is therefore

1E38 eV/m^3

or, for incident radiation, the power density is the energy density*volume*c

PD = 1E38*2E8 = 3E46W/M^2 = (familiar units) 3E42W/cm^2

Suppose we had the claimed 1E15W/cm^2?

That could overcome Coulomb if the effective fusion volume was increased by a factor of (3E27)^1/3 ~1E9.

That would mean nuclear phenomena occurring on a distance scale of 0.5mm!

Absurd. So out of the ball park its not even on the same planet.

[Axil]

The previous post does not address the matter of limited Q at ultra-high power density. The field concentration you can get is therefore also limited.

A simple way to look at it is that while hyper-high intensity em radiation could do many things - the proposed mechanism does not reach that high.

Also ultra-high intensity em radiation can alter fission characteristics - known mechanism - it cannot in the same way catalyse fusion.

One way to see this is to look at the required energy density.

D-D fusion requires on the order of 10keV to make reaction rate observable. (And at this energy the relationship is reaction rate ~ energy to the power . That corresponds to a separation (over which tunnelling occurs) of:
r~3.2E-19/(4*pi*e0*V)~ 3E-19/(1E-10 *V) ~ 3E-9/V

For deuterons at 10keV we have V=5,000V => r ~ 0.5E-12.

The volume over which fusion occurs (being generous and looking at the deuteron tunneling distance) is therefore E-37m^3 or so. The energy density, to be comparable with the Coulomb barrier, is therefore

1E38 eV/m^3

or, for incident radiation, the power density is the energy density*volume*c

PD = 1E38*2E8 = 3E46W/M^2 = (familiar units) 3E42W/cm^2

Suppose we had the claimed 1E15W/cm^2?

That could overcome Coulomb if the effective fusion volume was increased by a factor of (3E27)^1/3 ~1E9.

That would mean nuclear phenomena occurring on a distance scale of 0.5mm!

Absurd. So out of the ball park its not even on the same planet.

I understand; its absurd.

It has got to be impossible; such concentration of power cannot be done. What is more impossible is that some magnet dust and carbon powder and nanotubes enclosed in a brass sphere filled with hydrogen can concentrate power far more effectively than the ITER and the LHC combined.

And the cost for doing so is less than the cost of one custom bolt on these monstrous machines.

But the Cravens’ spheres are real and they work.

See post

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5429&start=60#p113119

If such a thing can be made to exist today, its revelation is 1000 years ahead of its time.

In this new universe of intense EMF reactivity, nuclear reactions are catalyzed by a disintegrating Vacuum as the very fabric of space-time is ripped apart.

How can such power be hidden inside a chunk of brass and released so slowly and so gently for months on end?

It is understandable why so few believe that the creation and application of such awesome power is even possible.

For most, the desire to know how the universe can provide such wonderful things will only come when this awesome power is employed in their basements to heat the water for their morning ablutions.

It will take such an unfolding of this everyday reality to push your desire to know into action.

Acquiring this proof in the process is why I wish Rossi and the others well. I want that everyday proof in hand to convince you, Tom so that you and others like you might turn your brilliant minds to the task of understanding this impossible thing.

For me, the Cravens’ sphere is wonderful and amazing enough to get my attention.

[tomclarke]

Axil,

You are jumping from one thing to another. You were claiming high em fields from plasmoids provided a mechanism for LENR. I wa saying they did not, as far as I could see, because they are not high enough.

Now you are saying that because of reports of Craven's demo LENR must exist, and implying that that means plasmoids must work.

But if there were LENR then there might be other unguessed explanations. It would not be evidence for an explanation that does not hold water unless you had ruled out all others.

Where I differ from you (one of the many ways) is I'm not so certain about Craven's demo. It seems from reports impossible without some mystery heat source. But life has taught me that many things which seem impossible have perfectly normal explanations. Also, if it did work as claimed you can bet Craven would give it to NASA etc for third party testing and become very famous.

There is a good reason scientists don't believe weird results till they have been replicated by independent groups using different equipment. It is because we are just not cleever enough to work out all the things that can create anomalous results even without fraud, and fraud does also exist (remember the Japanese miracle stem cells?).

[Eric Walker]

Hi -- this is my first post to this forum. I found Tom Clarke's comments informed and interesting. You seem to know what you're talking about, and I'd like to get some additional details. By way of introduction, I have no background in nuclear physics, and anything in the field I refer to has been picked up on the side, and probably very inadequately.

The other side of this is that nuclear reactions, once they happen, have multiple paths all of which result in high energy released, and therefore high energy products. The energies here are MeV typically.

One question I have here has to do with the probabilities of the different pathways. My understanding is that these probabilities are partly a function of the time that is required for a given process to occur. Gamma emission takes a long time, so it is a rare branch in a d(d,*) reaction. Neutron, tritium and 3He emission take less time and so are much favored, relatively speaking. Is this understanding correct?

What are the possibilities for electrostatic coupling between a (hypothetical) short-lived [dd]* resonance and sources of charge in the immediate vicinity (loosely bound electrons, free protons, nucleons), such that the energy of the nuclear transition about to occur is kicked to these sources of charge instead of the usual branching to gamma emission or prompt particles? I understand that transfer of energy by way of electrostatic coupling is nearly instantaneous when it occurs. This suggests to me that if the process is at all possible, it would predominate, due to its rapidity.

As an engineer look at the improbabilities here:
(1) find some way round the Coulomb barrier. Seems impossible but many such things turn out to be possible, so let us suppose this can be done.

I assume that occasionally there will be an electric arc that will occur between electrically insulated grains in a metal that has a lot of impurities in it. I would guess that the power densities in such arcs are astronomical. Is this understanding mistaken?

[tomclarke]

There are others here with better knowledge of nuclear physics than me, since I've done theoretical physics but not specifically nuclear physics.

For D+D:
n+3He
or
1H + 3H

are both common reaction pathways and very fast indeed.
gamma + 4H is much less likely. But you cannot simply rule out some alteration in reaction pathway probability in different circumstances, though those circumstances can only be local electric and magnetic fields, and (major influence) D-D collision energy. (Maybe someone can think of something else).

It seems plausible that gamma emission from the unstable 4He + added energy nucleus would be much slower than the two above splits - but I don't know anything about this I'm afraid.

One issue with LENR, and one that makes me suspicious, is that there really is no good agreement about what reaction is ocurring. While D+D with some mechanism that strongly favoured gamma+4He over other pathways is what some proponents suggest, the large number who claim p+e-> n, then neutron capture by anything in sight, or p+Ni-> something have incompatible hypotheses of LENR. So you cannot group together all the evidence. I've not seen any hypothesis that accounts properly for all of the claimed anomalies, or even most of them.

And I also suspect that 4He + gamma is a favoured reaction product because it is at low levels relatively difficult to distinguish from background contamination, if you suppose some magic gamma capture.

But - to argue devil's advocate. If the reaction is hypothesised vanilla PF d+d->4He+gamma with other pathways suppressed and the gamma absorbed all is good for reaction products.

As far as interactions with adjacent charges go I can't see how that could work because strong and weak forces are very short-range so the only coupling available is electromagnetic - now we get to an area I do have more background in. The only interactions can be with local electric and magnetic field and therefore indirectly with far charges. That does not allow gammas (or gamma level energy) to be absorbed in any way I can see.

Electrostatic coupling is subject to speed of light and so the two main pathways will be much faster than electrostatic (or magnetostatic) coupling to any adjacent nucleus. So it is difficult to see that any such mechanism could suppress these.

It would be interesting to see proper people taking these hypotheses and joining the dots to find one that fits all the constraints. However if LENR does not exist, as seems most likely, that will never be possible because there is no workable hypothesis. the attempts I've seen ignore most of the constraints and propose something that would get round just one constraint.

Hi -- this is my first post to this forum. I found Tom Clarke's comments informed and interesting. You seem to know what you're talking about, and I'd like to get some additional details. By way of introduction, I have no background in nuclear physics, and anything in the field I refer to has been picked up on the side, and probably very inadequately.

The other side of this is that nuclear reactions, once they happen, have multiple paths all of which result in high energy released, and therefore high energy products. The energies here are MeV typically.

One question I have here has to do with the probabilities of the different pathways. My understanding is that these probabilities are partly a function of the time that is required for a given process to occur. Gamma emission takes a long time, so it is a rare branch in a d(d,*) reaction. Neutron, tritium and 3He emission take less time and so are much favored, relatively speaking. Is this understanding correct?

What are the possibilities for electrostatic coupling between a (hypothetical) short-lived [dd]* resonance and sources of charge in the immediate vicinity (loosely bound electrons, free protons, nucleons), such that the energy of the nuclear transition about to occur is kicked to these sources of charge instead of the usual branching to gamma emission or prompt particles? I understand that transfer of energy by way of electrostatic coupling is nearly instantaneous when it occurs. This suggests to me that if the process is at all possible, it would predominate, due to its rapidity.

As an engineer look at the improbabilities here:
(1) find some way round the Coulomb barrier. Seems impossible but many such things turn out to be possible, so let us suppose this can be done.

I assume that occasionally there will be an electric arc that will occur between electrically insulated grains in a metal that has a lot of impurities in it. I would guess that the power densities in such arcs are astronomical. Is this understanding mistaken?

[ladajo]

[quote]It would be interesting to see proper people taking these hypotheses and joining the dots to find one that fits all the constraints.[/quote

I could not agree more.

Too many times, the proponents blindly argue one point, while conveniently ignoring the others.

The closest that any have come to a realistic thought has been Widom-Larsen, and even that has gaps and seams. It is not air-tight.

I, for one, am just really tired of clowns being paraded around as heroes, when all they have been is scammers.

It is comparible to the ISIS movement in Iraq. Sunnis are angry with Shiite lead Bagdhad. In many cases they are not even sure what they are agnry about, but it sounds good. Then along comes the Hero, ISIS. Hey, let's cheer them on! They are doing what I want! <Hand-waving, Cheerleading, Rapture>
And then, once ISIS (Scammer) gets the hooks in and gains some measure of power, then the blind cheerleaders start to get some vision back and see the real face. But, at that point it is too late for many.

When people don't really know about something, they tend to grant magical power to those who seem too. It is sad that the average Joe has in essence negative ability to be critical. They want to believe. Thus the phenomena of cults, cult TV, fads, and P.T. Barnum success stories. Meh.

Since I am ranting, I must add my standard closure;

Rossi is full of shit.

[Eric Walker]

Thank you for the informative response.

One issue with LENR, and one that makes me suspicious, is that there really is no good agreement about what reaction is ocurring. ... the large number who claim p+e-> n, then neutron capture by anything in sight, or p+Ni-> something have incompatible hypotheses of LENR.

Reasonable enough. As you say, there is evidence claimed for not just one reaction, but for almost any reaction one can imagine. In some contexts one set of reactions are mentioned (e.g., d(d,*)), and in another context another set of reactions are focused on. Some of the proposed reactions strike me as aspirational and entirely disconnected from any proposed evidence. I would put neutron capture reactions in this category. They seem like an a priori attempt to come up with something that will get around the problem of Coulomb repulsion divorced from the measurements that people are making (whatever one thinks of those). Where's the activation that one would expect, for example?

As far as interactions with adjacent charges go I can't see how that could work because strong and weak forces are very short-range so the only coupling available is electromagnetic - now we get to an area I do have more background in. The only interactions can be with local electric and magnetic field and therefore indirectly with far charges. That does not allow gammas (or gamma level energy) to be absorbed in any way I can see.

Can you elaborate on this for someone with very little background? I'm vaguely familiar with the concepts of nearfield and farfield, but I don't grasp how they factor in beyond the question of diminishing reach. When I think of electrostatic coupling (as I probably erroneously referred to it), I'm thinking of something like what goes on in internal conversion, where an inner shell electron is ejected as a result of a nuclear transition. In contrast to beta and positron emission, which proceed via the weak interaction, internal conversion is mediated by the electromagnetic force. Unlike the strong and weak interactions, the electromagnetic force has long reach. Perhaps we're agreeing and I'm just overlooking a key detail of the point you're making.

Electrostatic coupling is subject to speed of light and so the two main pathways will be much faster than electrostatic (or magnetostatic) coupling to any adjacent nucleus. So it is difficult to see that any such mechanism could suppress these.

Can you elaborate on the "subject to speed of light" part? I understand that gamma emission is subject to such a limitation, and this (according to the explanation I have heard) is the reason it is slow. I suspect you're not referring to that kind of limitation, but instead to the time it takes for the electromagnetic force to propagate out from the short-lived [dd]* state? I take it the time required for this field to propagate greatly exceeds the time needed for the processes of prompt particle emission in the case of the predominant d(d,*) branches? I'm curious what the relative orders of magnitude are between the rates in the two cases.

Thank you again for the helpful comments.

[Axil]

From the products of transmutation that we see in many LENR experiments, it sure looks to me like the protons and neutrons in the input material are being chopped up, blended together, and reformed into a wide range of both light and heavy output elements.

For example, in the Mizuno reaction, it looks like the neutrons of deuterium in the hydrogen envelope are being reformatted into an equal number of protons in a reaction that takes energy to perform (endothermic).

What is LENR doing to those deuterium atoms? It also looks like the metal lattice substrate is being changed.

See

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bits ... sequence=2

The extreme energy needed to breakup protons and neutrons is contraindicated in such gentle systems such as Dr Cravens sphere.

In following the dots, the assumption that most observers make is that subatomic particles are inviolate in LENR. But are they?

[ladajo]

Axil,
You would get more traction if you avoided words like "many" and "most".

LENR work to date does not include any component of either.

And also, please address Tom's points about how your cited sims and other theoretical hyperbole tend to take stabs at single mechanisms and mechanics (trees) whilst ignoring the forest.

Cheers,

[Asterix]

From the products of transmutation that we see in many LENR experiments, it sure looks to me like the protons and neutrons in the input material are being chopped up, blended together, and reformed into a wide range of both light and heavy output elements.

Boy, that would be a real job for Blendtec

[JoeP]

From the products of transmutation that we see in many LENR experiments, it sure looks to me like the protons and neutrons in the input material are being chopped up, blended together, and reformed into a wide range of both light and heavy output elements.

Boy, that would be a real job for Blendtec

So, the real question is...could the famous Blendtec machine blend the Rossi E-Cat device? I'd pay a dollar to see that!

[ladajo]

I'd pay 1000 quatloos...

[Stubby]

[Axil]

Andrea Rossi

June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Giuliano Bettini:
I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average.
The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.





•Andrea Rossi

June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM

Angel Blume:
We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.