# Thread: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (cold fusion)

1. Originally Posted by Billy T
{post 713}... This electron (which I have made red) is no different in mass nor velocity of travel nor direction of travel from (my prior post estimate) about 10 million others that are present in each cubic centimeter. Recall there are about 10^22/cc total. And 10 million is only 10^7, so there are ~10^15 or so TIMES other electrons in that cc with different directions of travel and/or speed thanthe "red electron" which is "magically" special...
Without the just added "TIMES" this 10^15 is totally wrong. There are essentially still 10^22 electrons other electrons than the 10 million with characteristic identical to the "magical" one I made red in his post. I failed to put the word "TIMES" in the original where it is now above.

I thank Walter for pointing that out in post 716 (and in PM as I did not notice his 716)

As my penance I will calculate the electrical potential of an electron, considered to be a point charge at the surface of proton:
Note that In the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, the electron orbits the proton at a distance of r = 5.29*10-11 m (from: http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys13.../Potential.htm) And I happen to know the ionization of it requires 13.6 eV. Also know that the potential goes a the linear inverse of the separation.

“The most recent estimates, made by Sick using previous data, put theradius of the proton at around 0.8768 femtometers (1 femtometer = 10^-15)” From: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...hrinks-in-size (PUBLISHED IN JULY 2010)

Thus a point electron “falling” to the surface of a proton gains:

13.6 ( 8.768 / 5.29) 10 ^3 ev = 22.54KeV which is more than the 18.6Kev max it could have had when it was formed during the decay of tritium but still far short of the 780KeV needed to drive the e + P to become N conversion, even claiming the 511Kev energy in the electron's mass is used.

Thus as the circus barker says to contestant throwing balls at kopi dolls: “Nice try, but no cigar”

Once again some "ugly facts" have destroyed my "beautiful theory."

2. This electron (which I have made red) is no different in mass nor velocity of travel nor direction of travel from (my prior post estimate) about 10 million others that are present in each cubic centimeter. Recall there are about 10^22/cc total. And 10 million is only 10^7, so there are ~10^15 or so TIMES other electrons in that cc with different directions of travel and/or speed thanthe "red electron" which is "magically" special...

New Calculation.

This electron (which I have made red) is no different in mass nor velocity of travel nor direction of travel from (my prior post estimate) about 10 million others that are present in each cubic centimeter. Recall there are about 10^22/cc total. And 10 million is only 10^7, so there are ~10^15 or so other electrons in that cc with different directions of travel and/or speed thanthe "red electron" which is "magically" special.

Old Calculation.

Sorry, my mathematics is not up to disputing with you, but wasn't WW's point that you cannot simply subtract one power from another?
Are you sure that you haven't just made a simple error?

3. Originally Posted by Billy T
Note that In the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, the electron orbits the proton at a distance of r = 5.29*10-11 m (from: http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys13.../Potential.htm) And I happen to know the ionization of it requires 13.6 eV.
Two hydrogen atoms are talking in a bar. One says, 'Woe is me, I've lost my electron.' The other says 'Are you sure?' The first replies, 'Yes, I'm positive.'

4. Originally Posted by billvon
Two hydrogen atoms are talking in a bar. One says, 'Woe is me, I've lost my electron.' The other says 'Are you sure?' The first replies, 'Yes, I'm positive.'
Two hydrogen atoms are talking in a bar. One says: I heard about a friend who lost his electron.

Really? says the other. That's terrible. I heard there is strength in numbers. Lets join together.

How & why molecule H2 was born with more energy required to ionize it (15.4eV vs 13.6eV for the atom).

Admittedly not funny like yours - Just a bar room explanation of how and why molecules form.

5. Here's one I made up just now.
Two iron atoms were talking in an iron bar.
One said to the other I do like this place, it's never Boron.

Two lignin molecules met in a club........

But enough of this hilarity.
Regarding the link to the slides from two presentations presented by NASA Langley Research Center employees in September this year.
Obtained by Stephen Krivit under the freedom of information act.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf

For anyone who believes the whole thing is bunkum, and not just the weird activities of Mr Rossi,
I draw their attention to one of the slides, which mentioned the work of Tadahiko Mizuno, from Japan.
It is hard to ignore his experiments, which produced N14 and C13 from C12.
Unless there is a nuclear reaction, that is impossible, regardless of whether it produced excess energy or not.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemag...ew_mizuno.html

6. I want to believe. I want to, but I'm not being burned.

7. Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen
But enough of this hilarity.
Regarding the link to the slides from two presentations presented by NASA Langley Research Center employees in September this year.
Obtained by Stephen Krivit under the freedom of information act.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf
One of the difficulties of accepting Rossi et al. is that their proposed mechanisms allude to fusion and utilization of the strong-nuclear reaction. But their reactant products and reactions which they propose simply don't jive with our knowledge of nuclear physics.

The NASA slide show alludes to "LENR" as being a weak-nuclear reaction, not strong-nuclear; hence avoiding the difficulties of acceptance by the nuclear community. Yet it too has no viable 'mechanism' for release of energy, which it shrouds instead in 'mystery'. Either someone has to come up with a system that is reliable and produces excess electricity (i.e. you can feed it into the grid and make some money!) but without an actual knowledge or understanding; or else a strong model of 'how it works' must be developed; before this will be taken seriously.

8. @ Walter L. Wagner,
I have a problem with the phrase "weak nuclear reaction" as it seems to imply that there is not enough energy to warrant the experiments. The Widom-Larsen Theory is reliant upon "weak nuclear reaction" to function, yet produces a dynamic amount of thermal energy.

This is the viable mechanism for releasing excess thermal energy, and its mystery seems to have faded over the past several years. There is very little mystery left however optimization technology has room for improvement. We are sure we will eventually be able to maximize the thermal output.

If we forget about Andrea Rossi, LENR experiments have been reproduced all over the world, and NASA is only one of many to be replicating excess heat with ease.

We are at the point where you can even find plans on the internet to build such a LENR device.
Don't forget.

Sergio Focardi - has reproduced the experiment successfully
Dr. George Miley – University of Illinois - has reproduced experiment successfully
Patterson (Pre- Pons & Fleischmann, was displayed in news, and was independantly tested.) (Probably originated experiment with grandson)
Francesco Piantelli - recreated the experiment successfully
Brillouin Energy Corporation - recreated the experiment successfully
Thermacore, under contract with USAF - has recreated the experiment succesfully
SRI International - has recreated the experiment successfully
N.A.S.A. - has recreated the experiment successfully
Andrea Rossi - has recreated this experiment successfully
Chan (www.buildecat.com) - has recreated the experiment successfully
Defkalion - has reproduced this experiment successfully
Brian Ahern - has successfully replicated the experiment successfully

A Low Energy Nuclear Reaction is still a nuclear reaction, and "weak" is misleading. Gamma rays have been minimized and turned into heat with the addition of electrons that help absorb the protons before they leave the unit as a danger and a waste of heat. The Widom Laresen Theory seems to be the most dominant understanding, however there are other theories and angles being explored for optimization.
Billy T seems to be against the Widom-Larsen theory (correct if wrong), but that does not lessen the fact that excess heat is being produced by unrelated parties worldwide. A proper explanation would be worth its weight in gold.

9. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
@ Walter L. Wagner,
I have a problem with the phrase "weak nuclear reaction" as it seems to imply that there is not enough energy to warrant the experiments.
"Strong" and "weak" refer to fundamental forces, not energy produced.

10. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
If we forget about Andrea Rossi, LENR experiments have been reproduced all over the world, and NASA is only one of many to be replicating excess heat with ease.
Please show where NASA makes such a claim with a specific quote from a specific presentation and page number.

where Dennis bushnell (not NASA, the Chief Research Scientist of NASA Langley, giving a presentation at the NASA Glenn Research Center in a slideshow covered with ASA logos) I have to differentiate because some will say . OH it is only the Chief Research Scientist and a few other NASA scientists saying it, what does that have to do with NASA.)

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
If we forget about Andrea Rossi, LENR experiments have been reproduced all over the world, and NASA is only one of many to be replicating excess heat with ease.

Please show where NASA makes such a claim with a specific quote from a specific presentation and page number.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf

this quote can be found on the 2nd Dennis Bushnell slide...\
"Two decades and over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real

A slide where Dennis Bushnell and several other NASA scientists gave a public presentation from NASA on NASA slide.

This might indicate that they admit it has been replicated worldwide. It is common knowledge that NASA has been doing their own experiments on LENR, but this quote should satisfy what you are requesting.

If you want a list of who is doing LENR then just look at my previous post.

@ Billy T,
I have not had time to look at it yet but here is another zawodny slideshow on the subject of the WLT, however it is a much older sideshow (from 2009). It seems to have a bit more information and a few pretty pictures of their understanding at that time.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/m...NR-8-12-09.pdf

NOTE: EVERYONE: READ THE VERY FIRST SLIDE CAREFULLY, AND THEN LOOK AT THE DATE.
NASA has "known" LENR was going to affect energy and climate change this emphatically in august 2009. Thanks for sharing guys!

List of United states locations experimenting with LENR
1. Naval Research Laboratory
2. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARS)
3. U.S. Navy China Lake Naval Weapons Laboratory
4. Los Alamos National Lab
5. Massach Massach setts Instit te of Technolog Cambridge MA usetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
6. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
7. University of California, San Diego, CA
8. University of California, Berkeley, CA
9. George George Washington University Washington University
10. Purdue University
11. Rice University
12. Montclair State University, New Jersey
13. University University of La Verne of La Verne
14. Texas A&M
15. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
16. Lattice Energy, LLC
17. Black Light Power
18. JWK Technologies Corporation
19. JET Thermal Products
20. Kiva Laboratory, LLC
21. Coolescence, LLC
22. Infinite Energy Magazine and Research Systems, Inc

@ Billvon,
You might lie when Zawodny says "We (NASA) understand the Widom-Larsen Theory...", as if this same NASA scientist refers to themselves as NASA without a press release. How odd?
The gall eh billvon?

12. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
... @ Billy T,
I have not had time to look at it yet but here is another zawodny slideshow on the subject of the WLT, however it is a much older sideshow (from 2009). It seems to have a bit more information and a few pretty pictures of their understanding at that time.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/m...NR-8-12-09.pdf
Nothing different there, except the claim that NASA, (not him alone), understands how LENR is achieved, which if / when NASA's leadership learned of it could have gotten him fired. As this link is from 2009 and now he no longer makes that claim, perhaps NASA made it clear to him that he would be fired if he made that claim again, so he stopped.

He still appears to think that heavy electrons exist and have 53% or more mass than ANY electron does so that non-existent extra mass (with the 511Kev of its actual mass) can supply the 780KeV needed to make the conversion of a P to a N by absorption of the "heavy electron" not be a violation of conservation of energy.

Also I don't really know much about QED other than it is not part of the "classical physics" I do know about, so I have not commented on his trying to use QED, mainly as a "buzz word" to throw out with zero discussion, as what part of his process that QED helps make work. I strongly suspect:

(1) he knows knows no more about a QED calculation than I do - i.e. zero. (I once knew a good deal about QM in both the matrix and the Hamiltonian versions, but only remember the high lights now. -I.e. I can no longer mathematically derive the uncertainty principle as I once could.)
AND,
(2) this is also nonsense. That the interaction of an electron with a metallic lattice to become a miss-named "heavy electron" is simple classical physics, discussed in solid state physics books 40 years ago.

Perhaps Walter can and will say a few words about QED - if it could play any role in electron's interactions with metal atoms (ions actually as they gave up an electron) in basically a room temperture solid in essentially LTE conditions (the applied electric field only makes a very tiny "drift velocity" compared to their random velocity and none at all for those that happen to be trapped / traveling with the positive peak of a compression wave - a thermal phonon - in the metallic ion lattice.)

13. @ Billy T,
Just to clarify where you stand on this issue now.
There are many labs claiming excess heat worth harnessing including NASA scientists. Do you think they are all frauds? Do you have an expanation for how heat can be made?

Is this the same Eugene Mallove who was murdered in 2004?

Added later.Kwhill, have you just removed a post?

15. Yes. Link too old Imo to be considered here. Trying to present where we are as opposed to the history.

16. You'll have to wait for ICCF17.
Next August.
they should have a lot to talk about.
http://iccf17.org/

17. Maybe we can get James R. to change the name of this thread to "countdown to march..."

18. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
this quote can be found on the 2nd Dennis Bushnell slide...\
"Two decades and over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real.
You realize that doesn't necessarily mean the same as what you are claiming, correct?

The amount of excess heat might be similar to a Chemical reaction.
Nothing indicates it can be "done with ease", as in the note that no one can turn it on/off and elsewhere that the devices often self destruct and that generation is a matter of luck.

19. @ Billy T,
Here is the best description of QED. It explains it in terms I can understand so I'm sure you will get more out of it.
http://www.nanoqed.org/resources/2011/Bologna.pdf

20. I can see why you might have thought it to be recent at first glance.
What he was saying then could still apply now.
He was saying that no matter what the results of experiments, that the idea of LENR was mocked and dismissed.

To my mind, the question of whether LENR is a real phenomenon, and the question of whether LENR research will lead to cheap energy, are two different things.

If even one of the many experiments which have been devised, can produce even a minimal amount of elements or isotopes which were not originally present; if that experiment can be reproduced, even if only sporadically; if it can be shown that there is no possibility of contamination: then LENR is an indisputable truth regardless of whether it produces excess energy. The discussion of excess power is a different matter.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•