LENR Is Real

[hanelyp]

A patent for X powered Y, where X is a power source and Y is a device needing power... Unless it's a decidedly non-obviously way of using the power produced by X it deserves to be laughed out. Application of a heat source in aircraft propulsion is pretty well covered by the established state of the art.

[GIThruster]

Courtesy of Alain Cortmeurs website:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/in ... R-powerin/

The Boeing patent application for a LENR powered airplane was published May 2014.

No. The patent is for an electric ducted fan drive. They merely mention it could be powered by some mysterious LENR of the future, as the current state of technology does not enable full-sized commercial electric aircraft.

Though one should note that Elon Musk did some sort of trade study or analysis and came to the conclusion that given sufficient altitude, a supersonic electric fan aircraft can be built since electric motors don't suffer the negative impacts that burning fossil fuels at altitude do.

This is just Boeing covering the bases in case something, anything, including like LENR comes along.

BTW, NASA has owned patents for superconducting electric ducted fan drives for many years, including some very interesting innovations. So Boeing didn't scoop anyone.

[ladajo]

He doesn't care. It is proof of LENR as far as he is concerned.

The idea that Beoing and others have considered electric aircraft is to be considered direct proof of LENR.

What a crock.

[tomclarke]

I've quoted Axil's reply at length because it is such superb technobabble (TB) and deserves to be thoroughly demolished.

I made a number of criticisms of LENR, none of which the TB addresses. I guess a casual reader might thing that it is proposing some theory for LENR but you will see that it does not actually propose a theory at all.

Two mechanisms are given -
(1) something mystical about virtual photons which is just wrong and a misunderstanding of how e-m fields work.
(2) suggestion that muon-catalysed fusion could be energetically advantageous. But muons have been extensively studied and it is just wrong to suppose there is some mystical new muon source because we'd know about it. Of course cheap muons would be a big deal.

Neither hypothesis has any predictive power or corroborating evidence, when if either were real you would be able to make definite statements about what worked, how to vary reaction rates, what side effects to expect.

If all we need is a plausible sounding set of words for a new fusion mechanism, with no evidence, can I suggest more than 1000 science fiction books that perform this task?

And, of course, neither mechanism addresses the "energetic by-products not observed" problem.

The gap between nuclear and lattice energy scales is what makes LENR so implausible.

One side of this is the Coulomb barrier: stuff in lattices has energy of 10s of eV (else it would not be in the lattice!) whereas nuclear needs 10s of keV, assuming all sorts of reaction enhancements.

The Coulomb barrier is worse than it seems: the timescale of nuclear reactions means that the required energy must be available within a small volume (a single nucleus) there is no way for collective behaviour of multiple nuclei to participate in this because they are too far away.

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. Some paths also result in neutrons released which whether high or low energy are easily detected - solitary neutrons are a no-no and neutrons can only stop being solitary by transmuting elements.

The biggest problem for LENR is the lack of nuclear products. It is also the easiest way to detect LENR - if it were real the nuclear products produced, even at very low levels, could be detected and would be unambiguously nuclear in origin.

Now look at the ways round this:
You can look at electromagnetic resonances, or vibrational resonances, to push local energy up from characteristic 1eV.
You can look (as above) at ways that high energy reaction products can be caught in lattices. (Actually frequency division of photons is a really bad example of this: it is not easy to make happen and anyway does not reduce energy enough).

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.
(2) a mechanism to get rid of ALL reaction results.

This, from an engineering POV, is the problem. How could any such "product processing" method be so 100% reliable that results are never seen? Worse - all nuclear reactions have multiple reaction pathways, with different results: gammas, alphas, betas, neutrons. We need a whole set of "product processing" mechanisms all of which work 100% if the time.

And no such product processing method has been shown to exist, let alone one that works 100% of the time. We need at least 3 different product processing methods for neutrons, gammas and betas/alphas. All of which are tuned to work perfectly in every single LENR experiments.

Now, again as an engineer, look at the evidence. Work over 30 years has failed to find any reaction products. The simple solution for this is that there are no reaction products because there is no fusion. Theoretical work over the same period has failed to find any plausible mechanism for "product processing", except the W-L gamma shield. That does not wash because it would vanish as soon as the W-L slow neutron generation mechanism stopped, whereas nasty gammas from neutron capture intermediate product decay would continue for the half-life of whatever intermediate products you have.

As an engineer you reckon theories can have exceptions and a cast-iron proof something is impossible may not be real. But equally as an engineer you look at the lack of products and reckon LENR is not real.

The exception would be a magic mechanism that simultaneously allows nuclear reactions and prevents all reaction products from appearing (not just one product from one decay path). Such has never been hypothesised.

Changing hats, as a scientist you look at LENR and say it is no good because it does not predict anything definite (except reaction products - which we do not see!). Excess heat is a non-specific prediction. The main characteristic of LENR is that it is flakey and not reliable - rather like experimental error! A hypothesis which does not predict anything can never be disproved but is equally not much good. Ask what evidence could come from experiment that would disprove LENR and you will see what I mean! It can never be disproved, which explains why people who are both bad engineers and bad scientists go on chasing it.

Introduction

One of the many miracles that we see in LENR is the stabilization of its nuclear waste products. This miracle is real as witnessed by a number of patents having been awarded that have this LENR base isotope stabilization effect as the centerpiece of its operating mechanism. [1,2]

Furthermore, a newly recognized phenomenon involving a violation in the common rule held by science that nuclear decay rates are fixed and constant has been shown to be violated by something emanating from the sun. The results of many experiments showing this phenomenon has rocked the physics community. This fixed rate of radioactive decay has been shown to vary widely under some strange force that arises out of the core of the sun. [3,4]

There is something that is causing LENR and at the same time stabilizing its reaction waste products. One pleasing and elegant idea is that both phenomena are caused by the same thing. This article is an exploration of the possibility that just a single factor is the fundamental mechanism of LENR causation. We also attempt to show how this one critical factor can produce both LENR characteristics with one characteristic emerging from the other.

Finally, this article will tie in the explanation of how magnetism is produced as an end product of the Ni/H nanoplasmonic process and how magnetism is the cause of accelerated nuclear decay rates. This article will explain how magnetism does this in as simple a way as possible.

The acceleration of nuclear decay rates in LENR.

A well recognize feature of LENR is the rapid or sometimes almost instantaneous stabilization of radioactive elements. This is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing radiation and/or subatomic particles. To start a simple explanation of what the stabilization of radioactive elements is all about, the nucleus of a radioactive element is excited in a state of energy retention that is not as low as it could possibly be.

Radioactive decay is a random process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay. However, the chance that a given atom will decay is amazingly constant over time.[5,6]

Einstein hated the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. He famously dismissed this uncertain universe when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Unfortunately for Einstein, however, he was proved wrong, when 50 years later experimental evidence finally caught up with theoretical physics, and quantum theory was shown to be correct.


The binding energy that keeps all the parts of the nucleus together and contained inside the nucleus is an uncertain thing. It varies constantly at the whim of chance. The cosmic croupier spins his wheel of chance and the ball falls into one of many quantum numbered pockets. Then, inside the nucleus, a random quantum of energy pops into existence from the fabric of space for a short time, this is called virtual energy. [7] In this way, the energy that keeps the nucleus together goes up and down at the whim of quantum mechanics. This nuclear binding energy is comprised of two parts: a real energy that never changes and a virtual energy that always changes. It is this virtual energy that can vary widely and is not constrained by the laws of energy and momentum.

When constrained inside the nucleus and when this nuclear energy is composed of the sum of these two parts get strong enough, it spills over the top of the coulomb barrier and forms a real particle outside the nucleus. This is called quantum mechanical tunneling. [8] The virtual part of this spillover energy only lasts for the briefest of instants and immediately goes back to the vacuum from whence it came and only the real part remains to congeal into the newly formed particle that has tunneled through the barrier. This process is called radioactive decay (AKA tunneling through the coulomb barrier) and these congealed quanta of energy are called real particles and/or ionizing radiation.

After this nuclear relaxation process has completed, if the energy level inside the nucleus has been lowered enough so that it can never again surmount the coulomb barrier no matter how much virtual energy may appear, the element is said to be stable.

In regards to LENR, we can draw an amazing and informative conclusion from this behavior of accelerated nuclear decay.

The fact that no radioactive isotopes are found in the ash of the cold fusion reaction is unequivocal proof that LENR is caused by the fantastically accelerated rate at which the cosmic croupier of chance spins his wheel in the LENR casino.

I have described in the previous article here upstream on this thread that an anapole beam of magnetic force is projected into the atoms within the nuclear active environment (NAE). So it must be this beam of magnetism that accelerates virtual energy formation.


How magnetism increases radioactive decay is not yet determined, but I have a few ideas on this subject.

Simply stated, magnetism is just another form of charge as a reflecttion of the need to adjust the effects of charge in moving frames of reference. A magnetic field is a relativistic manifestation of charge as seen moving in the relativistic reference frame. [9, 10,11] A large ensemble of moving charge carriers will produce a strong magnetic field that in turn will produce a large flux of virtual photons in the frame of reference in which the charges are moving. A magnetic field will be produced by the movement of electrons in the relativistic frame of reference where the electrons are moving in a circle or more rightly a vortex. This magnetic field which is really a stream of charge carrying virtual photons will reach into a stationary frame of reference and impart into that stationary frame (our frame) a large flux of virtual photons generated in the frame of the relativistic moving charges.

To keep everything in balance the rate of virtual photon production will be the same in both the relativistic frame and the stationary frame to carry the effects of charge transmission and reception between the two frames of reference. LENR is a process where action at a distance is manifest, and that mode of causality is the result of the nature of magnetism where virtual photons project into a distant frame of reference.

To give you a sneak preview of what is to come as an example, the Surface Plasmon polariton (SPP) soliton is the frame in which a large number of charges are moving at relativistic speed. The quark zone inside the proton is where the three quarks orbit. This zone is the stationary frame of reference that is affected by the magnetic field produced by the soliton. The magnetic field will generate a large flux of virtual photons in the stationary frame of the quark zone inside the proton. It is the large infusion of virtual photons that catalyze the production of a virtual quark which is the beginning of the formation of a meson.

A SPP soliton is a magnetic mechanism that concentrates and focuses charge to a huge degree. One of the energy amplification mechanisms found in LENR is energy beaming. Like a gamma ray burst [12] where an intense pulse of energy can be seen from one far corner of the universe clear across to the other side of the cosmos, a soliton can focus charge into a tight atomic sized beam that is not subject to the inverse square law that usually dilutes charge interaction with distance as usually happens in the spherical distribution described by the inverse square law.

All of the virtual photons that carry charge is focused in a tight beam which is very tight indeed; in fact so tight and concentrated that charge is constrained to interact within a very small angstrom sized volume of space/time.[14]



The magnetic field that projects into the nucleus not only accelerates virtual particle creation; it also adds some real energy to those virtual particles.[17]

To a large degree, in LENR the projection of charge through magnetism is so intense, that it literally removes chance from the virtual particle game and makes it a near certainty that a virtual particle with a huge amount of energy will be created inside the nucleus. When the energy level is so high in the nucleus during this LENR moment, the virtual particle will carry away the extra energy that was exciting the radioactive nucleus and then the energy in the nucleus is stabilized at its lowest nuclear energy level. By removing excitation energy, the coulomb barrier is now high enough to always hold this reduced binding energy. Now when the virtual particle gives its energy back to the vacuum from which it came the binding energy contained in the newly relaxed nucleus is completely contained by the confinement power of the coulomb barrier.

Here is an analog from the real world to help explain this principle.

If we take a glass of water filled to the brim on a leisurely car trip over a bumpy road, when you eventually hit some large bumps in the road the water will splash over the brim until water reaches a maximum level where the water does not splash out of the glass anymore. The time that it takes to remove this excess water is random but related to the pattern of the bumps encountered when the car passes over the bumpy road.

Now suppose we press the gas pedal to the floor and the speed of the car increases to breakneck levels hitting those large bumps more often and harder, reaching the no spill level of the glass in short order as the water flies out of the glass at a great rate. When we resume our leisurely pace, no water will ever spill out of the glass again no matter how bumpy the road gets. We hit all the worse bumps in our race and we hit those bumps very hard. The water level in the glass is now forever stable.

This LENR mechanism of accelerated tunneling is central to the way LENR can produce energy through extreme ranges of power output from megawatts to milliwatts.

One of the toughest LENR riddles to answer is as follows: ‘how can the meltdown of a Ni/H reactor be caused by the same process that can produce one watt of output in the Dennis Cravens' golden ball.’[16]

The mechanism that provides this vast range of power generation intensity is tunneling.[14]

It is clear that the application of a magnetic field can increase the rate of radioactive decay in isotopes by many orders of magnitude. A radioactive isotope that might normally take a few hundred years to cut its radioactive rate in half might take a microsecond during a LENR moment.

Meson Production

This same quantum mechanical tunneling mechanism can work inside of protons and neutrons to increase the production of virtual mesons.

To set the stage for this next phase of our description, the three quarks inside a proton live inside a very small volume. This quantum confinement box is the volume that the quarks rattle around in inside the proton. This minuscule volume defines the constraints imposed on the uncertainty of this trio of quarks by limiting the range in their position to a high degree. Through the uncertainty principle, this means that the variable maximum virtual energy that this fixed position produces is very large.

The virtual quark inside the proton is jumping around inside its tunneling confinement box with great vigor.

But the energy level to produce a meson is also very high at 140 MeV. So without some help from the vacuum, a meson is not produced by virtual particle production.

But when a magnetic field is applied to the proton, it adds some kinetic energy to the quark dance and a whole lot of virtual photons. This pushes up the floor of the tunneling confinement box. The degree in which this floor is raised is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field applied to the proton. The magnetic field also increases the rate of virtual particle production proportional to the strength of the magnetic field.

In a very strong magnetic field, a new quark is formed out of the added magnetic and virtual energy and that quark jumps out of the proton. An anti-quark is formed to mate up with the expelled quark since no quark can exist on its own. This pair of new quarks now forms a virtual meson that has tunneled out of the proton. These virtual mesons will jump out of the proton confinement box very often because LENR has raised the floor of the box very high and the associated rate of virtual meson production is then very high. Their energy levels are a lot greater because the virtual energy has been supplemented by magnetic energy. In this way, very many mesons are produced that will eventually decay to muons; [15, 20] and muons catalyzed hydrogen fusion. [18]

The protons derived from ionized hydrogen that floats into the magnetically irradiated NAE will produce muons via tunneling and that muon attracts another proton through coulomb attraction. This proton pair that is formed from muon attraction will fuse together after they are brought very close together by the muon. This is called proton proton (PP) fusion. These pairs of protons are seen in Piantelli’s experiments.

The theory of muon catalyzed fusion (MCF) is similar in concept to the negative ion mechanism that Piantelli proposes. But MCF will result in PP fusion. [19] The end reaction products of PP fusion are primarily light elements like boron and beryllium. These light elements have been seen in the ash assay results from DGT.

PP fusion will also explain why Piantelli sees proton pairs in his reaction cycle combining with nickel to produce copper.

Another pleasing idea is that there is a great energy gain mechanism at play associated with muon catalyzed fusion. An investment of just a few MeV of magnetic energy can produce an average fusion yield of 150 reactions per emitted muon.

From one LENR system to another, these muons are composed of a varied mixture of virtual energy and real energy based on the strength of the magnetic beam that produced them. A muon that contains mostly virtual energy doesn’t last long (4.88x10^^−24 s). In this brief lifetime that muon will only cause a small number of fusions. A muon which contains mostly real magnetic energy lasts a very long time (2.6×10^^−8 s). In this very long lifetime that muon will produce large numbers of fusions.

Particles are all the same. Some last a very long time and some endure but for an instant. Lifespan is relative in the world of particles.

At this juncture, it is not clear how much magnetic energy is required to keep a gainful fusion reaction going. The number of muon catalyzed fusion reactions that occur is proportional to the decay time of the muon. A muon that has a long delay time because of the amount of its high kinetic energy content may catalyze many hundreds of fusion reactions on the average before it decays.


In the case of the Dennis Cravens' golden ball together with the other milliwatt level systems when the magnetic field is very weak, very few mesons tunnel out of the proton confinement box and the muon catalyzed fusion level is very small. But fusion still goes on because that small amount of extra magnetic energy is just enough to produce some small amounts of fusion.

Finally, one of the big challenges of any LENR nuclear reaction theory is conformance with a boatload of particle physics conservation laws. The Meson theory has been under development for just under a century now and particle physics has developed an associated experimentally verified system that conforms strictly to all of these many conservation laws.

This meson theory can be verified by the detection of a large increase in the numbers of muon neutrinos exiting an active Ni/H reactor.

1 - http://coldfusionnow.org/navy-lenr-pate ... ive-waste/
2 – Ken Shoulders' basic process is been shown as a solution the remediation of nuclear waste. By bombarding radioactive nuclei with charge clusters, the induced nuclear reactions (primarily fissioning of the heavier elements) result in a reduction of harmful radiation. Laboratory experiments show a dramatic transmutation of radioactive thorium into smaller-mass elements with the marked reduction of the naturally radioactive thorium.
3 - http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/XperDecRat.html
4 - http://www.projectworldawareness.com/20 ... ng-matter/
5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
6 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decay
7 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
8 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_me ... _tunneling
9 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_ ... relativity
10 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativis ... omagnetism
11 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
12 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
13 - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf
14 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_me ... _tunneling
15 - The P and A mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge theory.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf
16 - http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/p ... ravens.pdf
17 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
18 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
19 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-pro ... n_reaction
20 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

[Axil]

tomclarke said:

Two mechanisms are given -
(1) something mystical about virtual; photons which is just wrong and a misunderstanding of how e-m fields work.

How is the US Navy's patent regarding the stabilization of nuclear waste justified. The patent office requires a working system be demonstrated before such patent is issued.

Please explain how your science handles that technology. Or do you say that rapid or near instant stabilization of nuclear waste is impossible

Also please explain this working system

Nuclide transmutation device and nuclide transmutation method

Inventors Yasuhiro Iwamura, Takehiko Itoh, Mitsuru Sakano
Applicant Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd


Abstract

The present invention produces nuclide transmutation using a relatively small-scale device. The device (10) that produces nuclide transmutation comprises a structure body (11) that is substantially plate shaped and made of palladium (Pd) or palladium alloy, or another metal that absorbs hydrogen (for example, Ti) or an alloy thereof, and a material (14) that undergoes nuclide transmutation laminated on one surface (11A) among the two surfaces of this structure body (11). The one surface (11A) side of the structure body (11), for example, is a region in which the pressure of the deuterium is high due to pressure or electrolysis and the like, and the other surface (11B) side, for example, is a region in which the pressure of the deuterium is low due to vacuum exhausting and the like, and thereby, a flow of deuterium in the structure body (11) is produced, and nuclide transmutation is carried out by a reaction between the deuterium and the material (14) that undergoes nuclide transmutation.

http://www.google.com/patents/EP1202290 ... CDUQ6AEwAA

[Ivy Matt]

How is the US Navy's patent regarding the stabilization of nuclear waste justified.

Simple: the patent examiner decided to grant the patent. Patent examiners have also granted numerous patents that were obvious to those skilled in the art, that were covered by prior art, or more to the point, that probably wouldn't work. See patents US6960975 and US8112992 for examples.

The patent office requires a working system be demonstrated before such patent is issued.

No, it doesn't. The USPTO hasn't required a working model since 1880. It's up to the patent examiners to determine if an invention is inoperable, and it's actually quite rare for them to reject a patent application on those grounds. Of course, this means that there are a number of inventions which have been granted patents, which are completely useless except to impress gullible investors.

[Axil]

How is the US Navy's patent regarding the stabilization of nuclear waste justified.

Simple: the patent examiner decided to grant the patent. Patent examiners have also granted numerous patents that were obvious to those skilled in the art, that were covered by prior art, or more to the point, that probably wouldn't work. See patents US6960975 and US8112992 for examples.

The patent office requires a working system be demonstrated before such patent is issued.

No, it doesn't. The USPTO hasn't required a working model since 1880. It's up to the patent examiners to determine if an invention is inoperable, and it's actually quite rare for them to reject a patent application on those grounds. Of course, this means that there are a number of inventions which have been granted patents, which are completely useless except to impress gullible investors.

The U.S. Navy and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are not scammers.

[MSimon]

How is the US Navy's patent regarding the stabilization of nuclear waste justified.

Simple: the patent examiner decided to grant the patent. Patent examiners have also granted numerous patents that were obvious to those skilled in the art, that were covered by prior art, or more to the point, that probably wouldn't work. See patents US6960975 and US8112992 for examples.

The patent office requires a working system be demonstrated before such patent is issued.

No, it doesn't. The USPTO hasn't required a working model since 1880. It's up to the patent examiners to determine if an invention is inoperable, and it's actually quite rare for them to reject a patent application on those grounds. Of course, this means that there are a number of inventions which have been granted patents, which are completely useless except to impress gullible investors.

The U.S. Navy and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are not scammers.

Don't have to be. They can file "just in case". But I'd like to see a working model. Maybe Rossi has one.

[tomclarke]

A lot of people get into trouble by thinking that patents imply existence of proof of concept device.

They don't. And if you trawl the literature you will find zany patents promising almost anything. They just have to promise it in sufficiently complex ways that they are not immediately rejected by a patent examiner as rubbish. That has become an increasingly low bar. The patent application process could never provide scientific sanity checking - it would cost too much.

tomclarke said:

Two mechanisms are given -
(1) something mystical about virtual; photons which is just wrong and a misunderstanding of how e-m fields work.

How is the US Navy's patent regarding the stabilization of nuclear waste justified. The patent office requires a working system be demonstrated before such patent is issued.

Please explain how your science handles that technology. Or do you say that rapid or near instant stabilization of nuclear waste is impossible

Also please explain this working system

Nuclide transmutation device and nuclide transmutation method

Inventors Yasuhiro Iwamura, Takehiko Itoh, Mitsuru Sakano
Applicant Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd


Abstract

The present invention produces nuclide transmutation using a relatively small-scale device. The device (10) that produces nuclide transmutation comprises a structure body (11) that is substantially plate shaped and made of palladium (Pd) or palladium alloy, or another metal that absorbs hydrogen (for example, Ti) or an alloy thereof, and a material (14) that undergoes nuclide transmutation laminated on one surface (11A) among the two surfaces of this structure body (11). The one surface (11A) side of the structure body (11), for example, is a region in which the pressure of the deuterium is high due to pressure or electrolysis and the like, and the other surface (11B) side, for example, is a region in which the pressure of the deuterium is low due to vacuum exhausting and the like, and thereby, a flow of deuterium in the structure body (11) is produced, and nuclide transmutation is carried out by a reaction between the deuterium and the material (14) that undergoes nuclide transmutation.

http://www.google.com/patents/EP1202290 ... CDUQ6AEwAA

[Axil]

However. when it comes to a physical process such as rapidly stabilizing nuclear waste that science thinks is impossible, the patent office will go to extraordinary efforts to verify that the process is valid no matter what scientists believe.

[ScottL]

However. when it comes to a physical process such as rapidly stabilizing nuclear waste that science thinks is impossible, the patent office will go to extraordinary efforts to verify that the process is valid no matter what scientists believe.

And what extraordinary efforts will they make? Are they going to obtain PhDs in various fields or maybe just take the inventors word? I think you give them way too much credit to judge fields they can't possibly understand without years of experience in those fields.

[ladajo]

TB GOLD STAR!

Great Work Axil!

[Axil]

However. when it comes to a physical process such as rapidly stabilizing nuclear waste that science thinks is impossible, the patent office will go to extraordinary efforts to verify that the process is valid no matter what scientists believe.

And what extraordinary efforts will they make? Are they going to obtain PhDs in various fields or maybe just take the inventors word? I think you give them way too much credit to judge fields they can't possibly understand without years of experience in those fields.

Science is able to verify that the Sun causes a reduction in the half-life of many radioactive isotopes without really knowing why. Testing a black box for functionality and effectiveness does not require knowing how the black box works in detail.

[MSimon]

However. when it comes to a physical process such as rapidly stabilizing nuclear waste that science thinks is impossible, the patent office will go to extraordinary efforts to verify that the process is valid no matter what scientists believe.

And what extraordinary efforts will they make? Are they going to obtain PhDs in various fields or maybe just take the inventors word? I think you give them way too much credit to judge fields they can't possibly understand without years of experience in those fields.

Science is able to verify that the Sun causes a reduction in the half-life of many radioactive isotopes without really knowing why. Testing a black box for functionality and effectiveness does not require knowing how the black box works in detail.

Jenkins and Fischbach suggest that the changes in the decay rates are due to interactions with solar neutrinos, nearly weightless particles created by nuclear reactions within the sun's core that travel almost at the speed of light.

It is estimated that about 60 billion solar neutrinos pass through a person's fingernail every second, but they are so weakly reactive that they pass right through the body without disturbing or changing anything, Jenkins said.

"We haven't known the solar neutrino to interact significantly with anything, but it fits with the evidence we've gathered as the likely source of these fluctuations," he said. "So, what we're suggesting is that something that can't interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

http://phys.org/news202456660.html#jCp

So where is the evidence that LENR produces copious neutrinos? Say enough to alter decay rates more than a fraction of a percent.

[Axil]

So where is the evidence that LENR produces copious neutrinos? Say enough to alter decay rates more than a fraction of a percent.

It's not neutrinos, it's magnetism.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09 ... -Constancy

"Scientists at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology and Purdue University have ruled out neutrino flux as a cause of previously observed fluctuations in nuclear decay rates. From the article: 'Researchers ... tested this by comparing radioactive gold-198 in two shapes, spheres and thin foils, with the same mass and activity. Gold-198 releases neutrinos as it decays. The team reasoned that if neutrinos are affecting the decay rate, the atoms in the spheres should decay more slowly than the atoms in the foil because the neutrinos emitted by the atoms in the spheres would have a greater chance of interacting with their neighboring atoms. The maximum neutrino flux in the sample in their experiments was several times greater than the flux of neutrinos from the sun. The researchers followed the gamma-ray emission rate of each source for several weeks and found no difference between the decay rate of the spheres and the corresponding foils.' The paper can be found here on arXiv. Slashdot has previously covered the original announcement and followed up with the skepticism of other scientists."

The paper can be found here on arXiv

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.5071v1.pdf