Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

[blazespinnaker]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcma...rescent-bulbs/

Interesting stuff.


Apparently NASA is involved in it as well (check at 8 minutes or so)

http://www.americanantigravity.com/n...ploration.html

I wonder what sort of things they might want to transmute

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Interesting, but then again Larsen is talking about his own theory.

To be honest - I am more than a little confused as to the difference between Widom-Larsen LENR and just plain old quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, it is theoretically possible to pass through solid substances by an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance. In this light, why would neutrons migrating from one energized atomic nucleus to another be so unusual?

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Interesting, but then again Larsen is talking about his own theory.

To be honest - I am more than a little confused as to the difference between Widom-Larsen LENR and just plain old quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, it is theoretically possible to pass through solid substances by an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance. In this light, why would neutrons migrating from one energized atomic nucleus to another be so unusual?

Hey c1ue, what do you think of this:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013...ans-voice.html

Q5: Recently some non-conformist newcomers, as for example Defkalion Green Technologies Global (DGTG) came with the idea that actually what we call LENR is something much more complex than we have thought and the solution is to radically re-design the components – hydrogen, metal, reaction vessel and environment to make it productive and controllable. What do you think about this New Wave idea? New paradigm?

Recently, I had an opportunity to observe experimental runs of DGTG’s R-5 reactor carried out by their group of scientists in Vancouver. The results were positive. More importantly the results are reproducible, since there had been many positive runs with other observers so far in addition to my observation. This is very significant historically since we have now a device which yields reproducible results for the first time. It is a break-through which we have been waiting for.
The break-through is accomplished by new comers, new breed of scientists and engineers lead by a mathematician who became an excellent scientist. This is a new wave and new paradigm change.

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Hey c1ue, what do you think of this:

Anything involving Defkalion is a little suspect in my book. If you remember, Defkalion was one of the first so-called licensees of the Rossi reactor. There was a public falling out in 2011 between Rossi and Defkalion.

The bigger problem is that there has yet to be shown any verifiable net energy gain output devices anywhere by anyone not the inventor.

A new paradigm is great, but ongoing failure to get either usable results or repeatable validation of any new theory doesn't give me great confidence.

For example - maybe Widom-Larsen is real, but all it really means is that X% of some quantum event happening just boosts up to X+Y%, but the X+Y% is still very low. This would be a potentially groundbreaking result - as the distance to Sun affecting nuclear decay would be - but so far LENR has not shown any similar experimental validation to my knowledge.

For that matter, maybe what's happening is also a function of the opposite of the nuclear decay: said unknown, Sun-distance correlated effect, also affects the likelihood of atomic nucleus fusion.

Whatever, proof is in the pudding, and I ain't seen no pudding cup yet.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Anything involving Defkalion is a little suspect in my book. If you remember, Defkalion was one of the first so-called licensees of the Rossi reactor. There was a public falling out in 2011 between Rossi and Defkalion.

The bigger problem is that there has yet to be shown any verifiable net energy gain output devices anywhere by anyone not the inventor.

A new paradigm is great, but ongoing failure to get either usable results or repeatable validation of any new theory doesn't give me great confidence.

For example - maybe Widom-Larsen is real, but all it really means is that X% of some quantum event happening just boosts up to X+Y%, but the X+Y% is still very low. This would be a potentially groundbreaking result - as the distance to Sun affecting nuclear decay would be - but so far LENR has not shown any similar experimental validation to my knowledge.

For that matter, maybe what's happening is also a function of the opposite of the nuclear decay: said unknown, Sun-distance correlated effect, also affects the likelihood of atomic nucleus fusion.

Whatever, proof is in the pudding, and I ain't seen no pudding cup yet.

What I find curious is all of these older, very reputable professors/scientists who are saying LENR+ is real: Focardi, Yeong Kim, Bushnell, Roland Pettersson, Essen, Levi, etc. The list is starting to get pretty long. It's like some bizarre conspiracy / mass hallucination (always possible, witness the dotcom/credit swap nonsense) or something is happening here.

Not sure which is less probable!

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

What I find curious is all of these older, very reputable professors/scientists who are saying LENR+ is real: Focardi, Yeong Kim, Bushnell, Roland Pettersson, Essen, Levi, etc. The list is starting to get pretty long. It's like some bizarre conspiracy / mass hallucination (always possible, witness the dotcom/credit swap nonsense) or something is happening here.

Not sure which is less probable!

My view is that a LENR reaction is certainly possible, but possible for physicists doesn't mean the same as usable. LENR as a reality doesn't automatically equate to LENR as a power source.

Hot fusion is a prime example: we all know it exists. There is incontrovertible proof in the sky every day.

But we can't actually make use of it yet.

[ASH]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Interesting, but then again Larsen is talking about his own theory.

To be honest - I am more than a little confused as to the difference between Widom-Larsen LENR and just plain old quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, it is theoretically possible to pass through solid substances by an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance. In this light, why would neutrons migrating from one energized atomic nucleus to another be so unusual?

I read a description of Widom-Larsen at New Energy Times. Their mechanism is more involved than neutrons tunneling between neighboring nuclei -- it postulates that a particular phenomenon of condensed matter physics makes a well-known process of nuclear physics go faster (and, apparently, become energetically favored for otherwise "stable" nuclei). Their basic theory is that electrons in a particular sort of surface state on a metal hydride can be captured by protons in the nuclei of surface atoms through the process of electron capture or "inverse beta decay":

p + e^- → n + ν_e.

Forward beta decay is one of the common modes of radioactive decay, in which a neutron in the nucleus of an unstable atom decays into a proton, spitting out an electron and an electron anti-neutrino in the process. Free neutrons also decay by this process, with a half life of about 10 minutes. Inverse beta decay isn't energetically favored in most cases, which is why atoms are stable -- if it was normally possible for nuclear protons to grab electrons out of their orbitals and turn into neutrons, then matter would tend to gradually convert to neutronium (the stuff neutron stars are made of). This happens in a collapsing stellar core because enough gravitational energy is released by the collapse to give the degenerate electrons enough extra energy to drive the inverse beta decay reaction forward. Otherwise, this mostly only happens as an exotic radioactive decay route for certain proton-rich atomic nuclei, for which switching out a proton for a neutron actually helps stabilize the nucleus.

According to the sole paper in a "real" journal cited by New Energy Times, Widom and Larsen postulate a breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation for hydrogen and its isotopes when adsorbed onto the surface of a metal hydride that allows electromagnetic coupling between the adsorbed hydrogen and surface plasmon polaritons. The regular wave motion of the surface plasmon polariton is postulated to coordinate the vibrational motion of the adsorbed hydrogen atoms -- specifically their nuclei -- which in turn sets up a very strong electric field at the surface of the metal hydride as the protons collectively displace relative to electrons. This strong electric field adds to the effective mass of the electrons in the polariton, which makes inverse beta decay energetically possible. The jargon doesn't add much to the description. The Born-Oppenheimer approximation is a simplification used in molecular physics that says you don't have to worry about electron motion separately from nuclear motion in problems involving molecular dynamics, mainly because of the difference in mass. For example, when you make calculations for the vibrational states of carbon monoxide, you typically worry about the relative displacement between the carbon and oxygen nuclei, but not where the electrons around the nuclei are, since the electrons respond to the movement of the nuclei on a time scale that is much much shorter than the vibrational period of the nuclei. In particular, you don't have to worry about the nuclei "leaving their electron clouds behind". Widom and Larsen say the Born-Oppenheimer approximation usually doesn't hold well for the case of surface states; I'm not in a position to disagree or agree, but it does seem that a displacement would have to open up between the vibrating protons and the electron distribution in their vicinity in order to get the charge separation required for the really intense electric fields Widom and Larsen postulate. But anyway, a surface plasmon polariton is essentially a wave in charge at the surface of a metal or semi-metal (a pattern in the displacement of negatively-charged electrons from the positively-charged ion cores that varies cyclically over space and undulates over time) that interacts with a light wave (with its own space- and time-modulated pattern of electric field intensity which pulls or pushes on the charges). The light wave normally comes from shining an intense laser on the surface, so this isn't something that's necessarily present in the majority of cold fusion experiments. Regardless, if Born-Oppenheimer breaks down for patches of adsorbed hydrogen on the surface of metal hydrides, then the hydrogen nuclei (protons) can vibrate in response to the surface plasmon polariton, and if the electron distribution lags, the resulting charge separation will create "nuclear strength" electric fields. The very intense electric fields effectively add to the electron mass in a relativistic phenomenon called "dressing", which makes inverse beta decay energetically possible.

As far as I can tell, this isn't pseudoscience, but neither does it sound particularly likely. For one thing, if this works at all, it sounds like this should only work if you're shining a laser on the surface; if high-intensity coherent illumination is required, then I don't see how that's happening in a CFL. For another thing, there's only one paper in a reputable journal that I saw linked. That suggests to me that more knowledgeable reviewers have spotted some technical problems that are barriers to publication. Finally, their mechanism was imagined for the case of a clean, solid metal-hydride surface that had been specifically prepared with a monolayer of hydrogen. As far as I know, there is no equivalent metal surface in a CFL -- isn't the mercury all vapor? If that's the case, how can this possibly be related?

[astonas]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clearing this up ASH!

CFLs do have a phosphor coating, which could conceivably getter mercury, and might be postulated to contain gaps within which a surface plasmon polariton could stabilize via resonance, but the requirement for coherent stimulation seems fundamentally problematic. A Hg I line is not exactly the same as a laser.

[ASH]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clearing this up ASH!

CFLs do have a phosphor coating, which could conceivably getter mercury, and might be postulated to contain gaps within which a surface plasmon polariton could stabilize via resonance, but the requirement for coherent stimulation seems fundamentally problematic. A Hg I line is not exactly the same as a laser.

I find it a lot easier to believe that assumptions about the initial distribution of Hg isotopes in CFLs -- or measurements of the isotopic distribution run by the environmental scientists -- are at fault here. As I understood the blurb, the environmental scientists were looking to fingerprint the source of Hg contamination and looked at the isotopic distribution in used CFLs. I didn't see how many were measured (probably a handful?) or with what precision. It's not like a clean experiment was set up to look for evidence of transmutation by sampling the isotopic fraction of some mercury, putting it into a CFL, and then looking at the isotope ratios after operation. Rather, this is Larsen interpreting the work of some other scientists who weren't even trying to study the phenomenon that Larsen is hunting. It sounds to me like Larsen may (naturally) be looking for evidence that corroborates his theory, but a heretofore unobserved LENR isn't the first thing I think of when I hear that somebody got an odd result with a mass spectroscope. As much as I deal with the vagaries of mass spectroscopy at work, it's super easy for me to believe those environmental researchers at Arizona State could be looking at some form of noise or pre-existing bias on the population they measured. I suppose there could be (transport?) processes that occur in a CFL which affect isotopic ratio -- perhaps diffusion rate/range into/through the glass bulb or something. Or the source-specific fingerprints the Arizona researchers found could be real, but related to an earlier step in the process by which the mercury used in the CFLs was mined, refined and packaged -- perhaps an evaporation step. One of the classic intellectual mistakes of the earnest researcher is to interpret every piece of unexplained evidence as somehow tied to your pet theory. It sounds like Larsen is trying to run more controlled experiments to specifically look at his effect, rather than interpret other collateral data, so hopefully he'll clear this up down the road.

[astonas]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

I find it a lot easier to believe that assumptions about the initial distribution of Hg isotopes in CFLs -- or measurements of the isotopic distribution run by the environmental scientists -- are at fault here. As I understood the blurb, the environmental scientists were looking to fingerprint the source of Hg contamination and looked at the isotopic distribution in used CFLs. I didn't see how many were measured (probably a handful?) or with what precision. It's not like a clean experiment was set up to look for evidence of transmutation by sampling the isotopic fraction of some mercury, putting it into a CFL, and then looking at the isotope ratios after operation. Rather, this is Larsen interpreting the work of some other scientists who weren't even trying to study the phenomenon that Larsen is hunting. It sounds to me like Larsen may (naturally) be looking for evidence that corroborates his theory, but a heretofore unobserved LENR isn't the first thing I think of when I hear that somebody got an odd result with a mass spectroscope. As much as I deal with the vagaries of mass spectroscopy at work, it's super easy for me to believe those environmental researchers at Arizona State could be looking at some form of noise or pre-existing bias on the population they measured. I suppose there could be (transport?) processes that occur in a CFL which affect isotopic ratio -- perhaps diffusion rate/range into/through the glass bulb or something. Or the source-specific fingerprints the Arizona researchers found could be real, but related to an earlier step in the process by which the mercury used in the CFLs was mined, refined and packaged -- perhaps an evaporation step. One of the classic intellectual mistakes of the earnest researcher is to interpret every piece of unexplained evidence as somehow tied to your pet theory. It sounds like Larsen is trying to run more controlled experiments to specifically look at his effect, rather than interpret other collateral data, so hopefully he'll clear this up down the road.

Once again, you've nailed it. I've highlighted my own pet interpretation, above, but any of the options you mentioned could well be valid instead.

The main reason I like the boldfaced text is that it gives space for the Arizona researchers to have done some amount of due diligence before publishing their curious findings. While there are certainly sloppy groups out there, it is still generally the exception, not the rule, to publish something like that without even trying to find another explanation. Thus insufficiently exhaustive examination of causes is more likely than a blatantly erroneous measurement.

But if the group was new to the tool and its weaknesses, all bets are off.

[Polish_Silver]

isotope creation very unusual!

Interesting, but then again Larsen is talking about his own theory.

To be honest - I am more than a little confused as to the difference between Widom-Larsen LENR and just plain old quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, it is theoretically possible to pass through solid substances by an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance. In this light, why would neutrons migrating from one energized atomic nucleus to another be so unusual?

This effect is very novel, if it is true. Nuclei can change by spontaneous decay (radioactivity/fission), or by bombardment with radiation .

The idea that two non-radioactive nuclei could exchange a neutron is quite novel I think. There are substantial energy barriers, which would make the process very slow. The lamp kinetics energize the electrons, not the nuclei.
Since the plasma in the lamp is "hot", the atoms would get a bit closer to each other, possibly lowering the energy barrier for neutron transfer. But something like this really needs some more definitive experimental evidence.

[Polish_Silver]

Heavy water and LENR in car batteries

Once again, you've nailed it. I've highlighted my own pet interpretation, above, but any of the options you mentioned could well be valid instead.
.

Heavy water is a H20 in which one of the hydrogen nuclei has an extra neutron (deuterium). If I recall, during WW II, auto batteries were harvested as as a source of heavy water. (For a-bomb development, of course!)
The battery did not put a neutron into the water molecule. Rather, the ordinary water, because it was lighter, tended to escape the electrolyte faster than the heavy water. Over time, as the battery was refilled with ordinary water, the concentration of heavy water increased.

This might have been mistaken for "LENR" had the scientists of the time been so inclined.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Anything involving Defkalion is a little suspect in my book. If you remember, Defkalion was one of the first so-called licensees of the Rossi reactor. There was a public falling out in 2011 between Rossi and Defkalion.

The bigger problem is that there has yet to be shown any verifiable net energy gain output devices anywhere by anyone not the inventor.

A new paradigm is great, but ongoing failure to get either usable results or repeatable validation of any new theory doesn't give me great confidence.

For example - maybe Widom-Larsen is real, but all it really means is that X% of some quantum event happening just boosts up to X+Y%, but the X+Y% is still very low. This would be a potentially groundbreaking result - as the distance to Sun affecting nuclear decay would be - but so far LENR has not shown any similar experimental validation to my knowledge.

For that matter, maybe what's happening is also a function of the opposite of the nuclear decay: said unknown, Sun-distance correlated effect, also affects the likelihood of atomic nucleus fusion.

Whatever, proof is in the pudding, and I ain't seen no pudding cup yet.

Interesting patent: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013076378A2?cl=en

If the examples he's outlined starting at 0261 actually play out (COP of 10), this could make for an interesting investing opportunity in terms of buy put options on certain energy equities.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

0330 - 0331 gives an energy equivalent beyond any previous demonstration so this is a very interesting development. My personal view is that it fits with my own description of the structure of an atom; but I have no scientific credibility whatever; just my personal viewpoint.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Defkalion did a global, world wide streaming demonstration of their LENR technology.

At one point it was all steam, which would be about 20+ COP - if it was real.

http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/07...demo-in-milan/