Banner
    Nuclear Fusion - The Latest
    By News Staff | April 29th 2012 06:30 PM | 52 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    While cold fusion remains a pipe dream, fusion as an energy source for the future continues to be funded and improved. 

    In nuclear fission, current nuclear energy, the nucleus of an atom is split, but in fusion two lightweight atoms join together.  The biggest benefit is no explosion.

    The ITER project is seeking to turn nuclear fusion into reality and is making use of the Tokamak reactor for this purpose. Reactors of this type and the plasma used in them to carry out fusion have a number of control problems, and to solve them, electronics engineer Goretti Sevillano has come up with some tools in her thesis defended at the University of the Basque Country.

    Tokamak is in the pole position to obtain efficient energy from nuclear fusion, says Sevillano. “The materials used in fusion must have certain specific features, and these materials have to be turned into plasma. At the same time, the plasma has to be restricted to a limited space to enable the reaction to be generated and the energy to  be used.  To achieve this, magnetic confinement is applied in the case of the Tokamaks.” 

    ITER Tokamak
    ITER Tokamak. credit: ITER.org

    The magnetic field creates lines that act as a wall to keep the plasma in place, but the plasma and the device itself have several problems that have yet to be solved.

    “To develop Tokamaks, many of the plasma’s parameters must be controlled, as well as the whole device itself; the currents that are going to be used, the voltage, the intensity, etc. Until all these things are controlled, it will not be possible to use these machines to produce marketable energy,” the researcher points out.


    Toward this end, Sevillano has embedded the code named ASTRA, frequently used to simulate the behavior of Tokamak reactors, into Matlab software. Using the code in Matlab will facilitate the development of controllers suited to these devices.



    “Control of the parameters is necessary to obtain the maximum energy possible from the plasma, and the amount of this energy that can be extracted is calculated on the basis of the current: the greatest amount of current possible has to be maintained during the longest time possible. That is why these parameters have to be controlled by means of the control, in turn, of the numerous coils and voltages within the structure,” she adds.


    Goretti Sevillano, author of the thesis. Credit: Monika del Valle / Argazki Press

    This PhD thesis work is only a single branch of what needs to be a complete tree. “The aim of all these tasks is to design a machine capable of generating marketable energy within the ITER project,” she explains.


    No rush. Nuclear fusion has been in the works for 50 years and it is always 40 years away.
     
    Sevillano's thesis is entitled Herramientas para el control del plasma en reactores Tokamak de fusión nuclear: integración Astra-Matlab y control en tiempo real (Tools for plasma control in Tokamak nuclear fusion reactors: Astra-Matlab integration and control in real time). She has also had two papers published on this, in the journals Informatica and Energy.

    Comments

    Just want to update your understanding of the CURRENT status of the Fusion Field. The reference to Cold Fusion as a pipe dream indicates that you may be unaware of the fact that the mechanism by which the Coulomb Barrier can be (easily) overcome at low temperatures - among these methodologies is Surface Plasmon Polariton Resonances on the surface of metallic hydrides (such as in PdD combinations) - such questionable organizations as Los Alamos National Labs, the US Navy, SRI International, etc., have categorically confirmed the production of 1) Excess Energy 2) Nuclear ash (4He, occasional Tritium) and 3) UC Neutrons, among others, all without violating any conventional physics. The University of Missouri has an EXCELLENT series (from 2009) outlining the status of research at that time (shortly after the discovery of fusion and Inverse Beta Decay from SPP resonances) at research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/may09.htm - If you really want to see the future of energy production, your exploration of the Cold Fusion research may be an extraordinary opportunity for you. Best of luck!

    Tony Fleming
    Dave, Any juicy links??
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    You start your article, "Nuclear Fusion - the Latest" with the dubious, and probably incorrect statement, "While cold fusion remains a pipe dream..." - a statement I'm certain you cannot prove is accurate, and might actually get you sued by one or of several companies who are advancing what is being called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR). What, are you propagandists for the Tokamak, being financed by BIG GOVERNMENTs, instead of giving serious consideration to what may well be ground-breaking technology? Or are you just IGNORANT? Either way, you are doing a disservice to the public by ignoring what is going on at Defkalion, Leonardo Corporation, and even perhaps mainstream Mitsubishi - not exactly known for flights of fancy. Stop the disrespectful crap, or you may find yourselves not only embarrassed, but in legal trouble, too. Sure, Andrea Rossi's device remains unproven, but so does the Tokamak technology...

    Hank
     a statement I'm certain you cannot prove is accurate, and might actually get you sued by one or of several companies who are advancing what is being called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR). 
    That would be the funniest lawsuit ever.  Wouldn't they have to actually show it working?
    Gerhard Adam
    You're obviously not much more of a lawyer than you are a scientist. 

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/RealityOfLENRMythologyColdFusion.shtml

    Mundus vult decipi
    I am sure you would not be sued by any company working on cold fusion. They are mostly large companies such at Toyota, or government agencies such as DARPA and CERN. However, you are wrong; cold fusion is not a pipe dream. It has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major laboratories. See:

    U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report on cold fusion: Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf

    You will find over a thousand other papers at this web site.

    RE comments of Hank Campbell: according to some, "they" have shown LENR devices that work; both Leonardo Corporation and Defkalion claim to have working devices; as noted by Jed Rothwell, there may be others. Not all are convinced, just yet, of course, any more than I'm convinced that the enormously expensive Tokamak will ever proove out to be economically workable. Show me a Tokamak that has yet produced a net energy output at a price that completes with other energy producing technologies. LENRs, on the other hand, if the claims are proven, will be very cost competitive with oil and gas...try to keep an open mind.

    Tony Fleming
    Agreed Gene 

    I see our current knowledge (or lack thereof) as similar to the period following Maxwell's discovery of his equations, before radio, etc when science knew that it was in a transition period but could not YET see how. Then along came Hertz, and then Edison, Marconi, Tesla, etc, etc, etc.  And life was changed forever.  We are a femtowatt away from success. But we do need an injection of theory into the experimental mix. 

    In particular I would like to see an international effort to investigate the interaction between electromagnetics and acoustics (photons plus phonons) to see if gluons are detected. This then gives us another way, perhaps an energetically viable way to achieve fusion, incorporating acoustics into the field mix. This happens cosmologically (and has since the Big Bang) and there's no reason why it should not work terrestrially as well. 


    Tony


    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Electrostatic fusion machines are more promising than Tokamaks. Aneutronic fusion reactor continues even more improved and should soon be also funded; it is already around the corner. http://www.crossfirefusion.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html

    Regarding "Juicy Links" - the most enjoyable I've come across by far is the U of Missouri site at research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/may09.htm - enjoyable because of the fact that the entire conference is available as video downloads, and the videos are ENORMOUSLY informative (and entertaining). The 2009 date means that there are things we know now that we didn't know then, or were just beginning to know, but it still contains material that was new to me (live Pd deposition with PdCl solution which pre-loads the hydrogen as the Pd is being deposited, which reduced Pd loading time from days/weeks to minutes and is cheaper). LOTS of peer-reviewed and accepted experimental data re neutron production (triple-tracks), etc. PLUS - these are not unknown speakers - these are LANL, SPAWAR (Navy) and other VERY well respected research scientists, including several converts from the hot-fusion field. So I'd HIGHLY recommend the research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/may09.htm link - download all the vids then watch at your leisure. Great, great stuff. Also - every January Peter Hagelstein (MIT) runs a (non-credit I think) course in which a cell is built/demoed and the latest in the field is discussed in depth. I'll be there next year (since it's in my back yard practically). Also check your local universities - if they have a good physics dept there are often CMNS colloquia/seminars that touch on the current state of the research. This has been one of the most exciting times for me - this is the stuff this planet's been needing us to find for a long time. Thi e implications for not just energy, but geopolitics, domestic security, economic gain - immense beyond estimation.

    That was a good seminar. Here is some more recent news from U. Missouri: They now have a $5.5 million program underway. See:

    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=176

    Here is a nice lecture at the SRI's "Cafe Scientifique:"

    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=173

    Here is a recent paper I recommend from the ENEA (Italian DoE) conference:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

    This year's ICCF conference is being hosted by Korea's KAIST (National Science Foundation). It should be fun. See:

    http://iccf17.org/

    The author of this blog needs to do his homework before discussing cold fusion. There are ~1,400 peer reviewed journal papers about cold fusion, most of them positive, available at the libraries at Los Alamos, Georgia Tech, MIT or any other major academic library. See the LENR-CANR.org bibliography, which is compiled from the Los Alamos library catalog. You need to read this literature carefully before making assertions about the research, either positive or negative.

    Tony Fleming
    Jed: Here is a recent paper I recommend from the ENEA (Italian DoE) conference:http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
    5. Summary and conclusions.
    On the basis of the evidence and arguments presented here, and far more extensively and 
    compellingly elsewhere [5,10], it is apparent that the Fleischmann-Pons effect is a new effect in physics. It requires a new mechanistic description and explanation. This new effect is very likely to be associated with a significant number of other condensed matter nuclear processes that await exposition and development. 
    I predict that once explained, the underlying effect will not appear strange at all. It will 
    seem, in retrospect, that it was quite clear that we should have understood it all along. It is a heat producing reaction, consistent with nuclear but not chemical effects, both temporally and quantitatively accompanied by 4He.  This new effect, the Fleischmann Pons Effect,  can be accompanied by nuclear “ash”, 3H and 3He being important.  Strong evidence for other isotopes exists [5]; more may follow. 
    How do we make progress?  We make progress through theory: quantitative predictive 
    fundamental physics descriptions.  We will continue to make progress best by using the 
    scientific method. To do so we are going to have to engage the broader scientific community. We simply can’t sit here secure behind our walls and talk in a closed group, we need to invoke enthusiasm in the broader scientific community. The organizers of this conference [ICCF15] are to be commended for recognizing this need and furthering that process. 
    Another way of making progress is by engaging in the process of creating a product. Here 
    we might take advantage of the growing public and political interest in real alternative energy solutions.  
    Can I add to this conclusion you referred to that you now have a valid theory for the binding energy. This is what you have lacked. You have known how the 'nuclear chemistry' works (the big particles) but you have not known how the 'little bits' the fields work. I call this photon chemistry (boson chemistry if you like.) See CRCPress book on self-field theory; it is a solution not only for the hydrogen atom in terms of its electron but also its nucleus modeled as three quarks and gluons.  


    Can I also suggest a product to focus on. Invent a small fusion power pack suitable for a single remotely located house. If we can achieve this we can overcome all the overcrowded cities along with their centralized pollution.


    Tony





    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Check out Brillioun and possibly Wladimir Guglinski

    Beyond me...... ;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B63_I616khU
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

    Why is it a requirement to start your thesis with a pipe-dream disclaimer?
    Is this an incantation to drive off the demons of misfortune which might otherwise assail your order?

    There are many witnesses to something coming out of that pipe recently. Some of them anointed.

    While I applaud Ms. Sevillano's efforts, I'm fairly sure that she'll be beaten to the punch by small scale nuclear reactors using uranium and thorium.

    As approaches go, I would suggest abandoning static mathematical formulas. Modifying the confinement field with formulas derived from modified genetic algorithms that learn the individual characteristics of the chamber and plasma, complete with flaws, is more likely to give you a working set of dynamically changing equations that adapt to different plasma behaviors as temperatures change. You'll have to run a few million simulations to get the right formulas, but you will eventually get something workable, if possibly inelegant or counterintuitive.

    Jed:
    There are ~1,400 peer reviewed journal papers about cold fusion, most of them positive, available at the libraries

    Yes, there are lots of pro-CF papers. What counts is not the number of pro-Theory-X papers, but how well the theory stands up to scrutiny and attempts to disprove it. There is nothing wrong with attempting to disprove a theory; indeed, it is the very heart of science. Theories live or die by the sword of disproof. A theory needs to survive everything thrown at it, to be accepted as "probably valid".

    To date, no one has publicly duplicated P&F's results. How can a theory about how it works be validated if no one can even get the machine running in the first place? I find it rather odd that, if CF is for real, CF research is still on the fringe after almost a quarter century of trying. So color me "still extremely skeptical". And no, I am not going to accept conspiracy theories about a massive suppression of CF by oil/gas/coal/fission/wind/etc. industries. That's not believable.

    You wrote: "Yes, there are lots of pro-CF papers. What counts is not the number of pro-Theory-X papers, but how well the theory stands up to scrutiny and attempts to disprove it."

    Cold fusion is an experimental observation, not a theory. There is no theory to explain it. The observation has been replicated roughly 14,000 times in 180 major laboratories, according to a tally published by the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Many of these replications were at very high signal to noise ratios. For example, heat has been observed at 20 to 100 W with no input in some cases, and tritium has been measured at 10E8 times background. There is no chance these measurements are experimental errors. Therefore, the effect is real.

    "To date, no one has publicly duplicated P&F's results."

    That is incorrect, as you will see in the mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers on this subject.

    "So color me 'still extremely skeptical'."

    You are not skeptical. Your statements are factually wrong. You do not realize that cold fusion is an observation rather than a theory. You have not read the literature, and you are not aware of the replications. A person cannot be skeptical about a subject he knows nothing about.

    "And no, I am not going to accept conspiracy theories about a massive suppression of CF by oil/gas/coal/fission/wind/etc. industries. That's not believable."

    I am not aware of any such conspiracy theories.

    Phil - seriously? Have you NOT seen the VERIFIED and CONFIRMED duplications of these effects? By LANL, the US Navy, Lawrence Livermore, dozens of Universities, and little companies like, oh, say Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Toyota? In fact, to date, there have been hundreds of publically duplicated experiments - and in fact, the results have gone way beyond theirs, including transmutation of elements (like Cs into Pr and several others by Mitsubishi). How on Earth can you say no one has publically duplicated the results???????? Where have you been?

    I am looking forward with extremely keen anticipation for the news staff of Science 2.0 and other duffi (the plural of duffus) to eat some really nasty tasting crow. (Re: LENR) And I am pretty sure that this is going to happen real soon.

    Hey - let's not be TOO quick to dismiss the "Dufi" - often these folks make their living off of having a reputation of NEVER being associated with ANYTHING questionable - you can't fault people for trying to provide for their families and put food on their tables, even if thair fear makes them look out-of-touch later. But even more important - imagine if the P&F results had been immediately replicable and the technology rights had been bought up and locked away by the big industry players (oil companies, etc) - the very fact that there has been this incredible controversy is what has made this technology available ALL OVER the internet. People have published SO much because they were trying to either replicate or discredit - and the net result has been one of the richest data sources for an advanced technology we have, outside of electronics. ANd even better is that this tech is accessible to even well-funded small companies and - even hobbyists - with enough financial wherewithal to purchase a little Pd or PdCl and a few other items. Because of this, the fact is that now, for under $1000.00, you can build and test a LENR cell, and have a pretty good chance of getting a useful result. Without all the nay-sayers, this may not have been the case. Plus - the nay-sayers (the informed ones) - actually drive the researchers and experimenters to do better science. In a counterintuitive way, we actually owe them all a debt of gratitude. LENR technology is now, and forever, in the hands of humans as a species, just like electronics is now. It took all of human history for us to discover it, but now it only takes a kid a hobby kit and a few hours to get it and start building things. LENR will be a home-brew in the future. It will decentralize the power grid, eliminate geopolitical struggles for control of energy sources, and make enough power available to run desalinization plants all over the middle-east and asia, saving countless millions of lives and the geopolitical strife that was set to bring about. Without the detractors - these results may have all been entire under the control of oil companies and oil producing nations. Yup - this stuff is big.

    Tony Fleming
    I think we still have a while to go yet but we do now have a theory that gives us a representation of the binding energy as a trispinor (more accurate than quantum chromodynamics), 
    We need to use the scientific method where experiment and theory go side by side. As I said earlier we need to see how the photon and phonon interact at high field energies, this is not trivial.

    Hubris and hoopla is all very well but there's a lot of work to be done yet.
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Indeed - there is a LOT of work remaining to be done. WHile we've got the technology well-in-hand enough to replicate results and confirm observations, we still don't KNOW exactly what is going on at all levels. The Surface Plasmon Polariton Coherent Resonance phenomenon seems to me to be among the most plausible - there is no question that it has the energy concentration at the local scale to overcome the Coulomb Force with ease - but even there questions remain. None-the-less, nothing succeeds like success, and building a LENR cell and verifying with impeccable calorimitry that you are getting more energy out than you are putting in is a very rewarding experience. Commercialization will require that we KNOW with certainty how to initiate and control the reaction(s) - and we don't yet. But lack of understanding doesn't negate the reality of the phenomenon - lightening still existed long before anything was around to wonder about it! :-)

    Tony Fleming
    Dave 
    Seeing as you mention lightning, this is the way self-field theory sees storm clouds and how they 'break' into lightning, wind and thunder which correspond to the three fields of the strong nuclear region (according to self-field theory). In other words this may well be an example of cold fusion!! It seems there is a change of quantum state of the strong nuclear region inside the storm complex. The change in state is preceeded by a drop in temperature and pressure, followed by an increase in the magnetic field (the wind) which is lowering the energy density in the region, followed by a sudden release of lightning, thunder and  change of wind conditions.

    You will notice self-field theory is based on the Maxwell-Lorentz equations and is far different to the GUTs and TOEs suggested by many others. 



    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    OMG! They are all coming out of the woodwork now!
    What's next? Chemtrails?

    Tony Fleming
    Dear Olaf 
    So what is wrong with a change in nuclear state? We know quantum state changes happen at the atomic level what's wrong with a change at the nuclear level? Perhaps you are right to scoff but then again I may well be right. Let's try this by the scientific method. It would be good to have a working theory of how weather is initiated. Because at the moment there is no theory on how wind, thunder, and lightning form.

    AND we now know the magnetic field is a source of negative energy so a wind due to a drop in pressure and temperature will tend to lower the energy density further perhaps below the next nuclear quantum state. Hence a release of energy.   Try thinking before scoffing too hard.


    regards Tony  
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Gerhard Adam
    Because at the moment there is no theory on how wind, thunder, and lightning form.
    I think you're playing a bit "fast and loose" with that statement, so please explain why you think there's no theory regarding these weather events?
    Mundus vult decipi
    Tony Fleming
    Hi Gerhard
    According to my research there's absolutely nothing on how the three elements, wind, thunder, and lightning are formed within storms. There are some reasonably in depth ideas about wind, lightning and thunder as isolated or separate phenomena but not as a JOINT phenomenon where all three occur in the one reaction as in the formation of storm clouds followed by a drop in temperature, and pressure, strong winds, followed by a 'breaking' of the storm with rain, thunder, lightning, and changes in wind. 

    There's an analogy of all this in microbiology within the cell at metaphase when the chromosomes all align with the spindle poles inside the cytoplasm. They then shed their 'spine of hydration' and are pulled apart to form two daughter chromatids. This microbiological phenomenon may not be a nuclear reaction, although it may be. The sudden mechanism of metaphase where the two chromatids are pulled apart and then pulled up towards the north and down towards the south spindle poles is preceded by a 'stirring' within the cytoplasm just like the winds before the storm.

    We think there's a (biophotonic) strong nuclear reaction that forms the 'long term' memory inside the neurones as compared with the 'short term' memory which may be an atomic level reaction within the chromosomes of the neurones. How this actually occurs is unclear but sounds such as music we know are part of the long term memory of Alzheimer sufferers who love the music they recognize from their past.

    This field mechanism inside the cell is where we first started thinking about storm clouds as a separate but complementary phenomenon and how it might relate to memory and its storage mechanism within the chromosomes. 

    What we're saying is that a change in quantum state could be happening at the nuclear level just as we see at the atomic level, say a fire that slowly dies down dropping through various quantum states until the flame goes out.

    So is some sort of 'cold fusion' happening neurologically as well as terrestrially, as distinct from all the fission processes that have been well known for the past 120 odd years?

    It actually appears to be a very wide field of study across faculties (biology/medicine/physics) 

    Tony
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Gerhard Adam
    Sorry, but that sounds like gibberish.  In other words, you don't have an alternate theory to explain any of it.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I think you are absolutely right. The further discussions even scream gibberish louder.

    Tony Fleming
    Believe me it's not. In other words to YOUR mind you THINK its gibberish.
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Tony Fleming
    Just to expand on this connection of storm clouds with mitosis and memory there are now several biophotonics departments springing up across academia including cross-disciplinary units at Manchester University http://www.accelereyes.com/content/collateral/Manchester-BiologicalAnalysis.pdf
    Academic science is just now realizing that the photon level interaction within the body is a major area of research incorporating and integrating many old disciplines into a new focus, medical health.  
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    This is one of those "start your own religion" things, isn't it Tony?
    A presence on a respectable scientific website, even if it's just in the comments section, should help to dupe some rich guy into providing $5.5M (random amount) to set up a research institute bearing his name attached to some university otherwise better known for their Big 12 football team.
    It's a plan, I guess.

    Tony Fleming
    As I said to you Olaf, just answer the question: what's your problem with strong nuclear quantum states? You can be as cynical as you like, but quantum states match the facts of what we think is 'cold fusion' (maybe some other name might be more appropriate) so it qualifies as a hypothesis. You got a better one? Oh, and do you have a mathematics to match the hypothesis? One that goes further than quantum chromodynamics by including the binding energy in the quantum description? I think not Olaf, all you can do is throw rotten tomatoes from the gallery!! So answer the question, you got a better solution than as outlined at CRCPress Book?

    By the way Olaf, are you a mathematician? I ask because it's all about the maths, stupid.
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Tony Fleming
    I can see the following phenomenon in strong nuclear regions controlled by the proton (three quarks and three gluons):

    A change in state so the quarks change their energy as the ambient nuclear energy density changes either up or down; hence a (relatively) SMALL efflux of binding energy. The quarks go to a smaller orbital radius where the ambient nuclear energy goes down, or to a larger orbital radius where the ambient nuclear energy goes up.  All this is analogous with atomic (or electromagnetic) physics.

    All this is premised on self-field theory where the strong nuclear region is controlled by a trispinorial maths involving three fields, the electric, the magnetic and the acoustic fields in which there is a three-way interaction of fields between the three quarks inside the nucleons. 

    In brief this is hypothesis, and it needs to be tested via the scientific method nothing more nothing less.

    But the facts fit the maths.

    (Without wanting to confuse the matter, you can see how 'confinement' of the strong force and 'dark matter' work via the three-way or trispinorial interaction forming a 'structure' at both the nuclear and the galactic level - a strong nuclear form of gravitation-unlike the two-way or bispinorial interaction at the solar system level forming a flat disk-like form of gravitation. The 'depth' or vertical height of the galaxy is essentially different to the flat disk of the solar system.  In other words confinement and dark matter are similar and related  concepts)

    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    So now you are calling me "stupid", Tony?
    Congratulation, this forum has reached a new low. Well done, Tony!

    At least you got to plug your book.
    I've done some digging, and you're a pro, aren't you? What happened to Cymatherapy? Was that shelved in favor of more profitable opportunities?

    Tony Fleming
    Olag 

    In the West (the U.S, Australia, Britain, and other places) there's an expression relating to politics "It's all about the economy, stupid". I just adapted it to this situation "It's all about the maths, stupid". So, no I wasn't calling you stupid. It was a figure of speech. No name-calling intended; not on my side. 

    Seriously, can you understand what I'm saying? Have a go, it's not all that hard to grasp. Self-field theory is novel but it is much more straight forward that current methods.

    The secret lies in the exact solution to the Maxwell-Lorentz system of equations of first order PDE's rather than the wave equations which are second order partial differential equations and the probabilistic solutions of quantum theory with its uncertainty theory. 

    Self-field theory is very much linked to the theory of eigenvalue solutions to partial differential equations.

    See article A new mathematics for the hydrogen atom

    Tony
    PS Yes there's a connection to Cymatherapy and the use of acoustic and electromagnetic frequencies for medical therapy including perfusion, bone regrowth, and other treatments. I am an active and long standing member of the Biolectromagnetics Society (BEMS) As I mentioned a couple of comments ago, there's a strong connection to biology and medicine e.g. how short term and long term memories are stored in the brain. There's a rich and intriguing history of how electromagnetics is related to mitosis such as Gurwitsch and his onion roots  http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/nomination/nomination.php?string=Gurwitsch&action=simplesearch 




    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Apologies accepted, Tony. For the name-calling that is.

    I dug a bit deeper into the financials of the operation run by you and Ms.Colorio.
    It centers around the sale of the AMI 1000 (previously cyma 1000), which is an alternative medicine device (healing by sound): "purchase an AMI1000 ($4,995 - $1000.00 deposit) ". It is supported by training materials etcetera, encouraging people to start their own "cymatic" healing practice.
    It is a fairly typical multilevel marketing scheme, although a bit on the expensive side.
    Websites and terminology used change fairly regularly (about every two years).

    The scientific theories (for which websites and terminology also change about every two years) apparently provide some theoretical justification for the alternative medicine practices.

    Tony Fleming
    OK Olaf you're now telling falsehoods about me. And there was no apology given. Seems you want to make this a personal battle instead of any science. Have you checked out the maths in your search? Or doesn't that come into your agenda? You KNOW you're right without looking at the science eh??
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Tony Fleming
    A comment on mathematics and its physical bounty:

    Mathematics is a form of 'truth'; not a moral truth perhaps but a physical and logical truth, like a painting or a piece of music. Leonardo Da Vinci's 'Last Supper' or Beethoven's 'Midnight Sonata' come to mind. We may not know anything about Pythagoras but we know his theorem and understand it's physical meaning. Mathematics has no link to the mathematician who discovered it other than it was he or she who ferreted out that ounce of physical truth. Regardless of the lives of those involved in its pursuit, it has a life of its own.  It is somewhat different to experimental science in that this truth can by and large be seen by many once the truth is revealed. In other words there is no way to carry out some sort of mathematical 'fraud'; once understood by others it's truth is obvious. 

    Mathematical physics is perhaps the most honest of all scientific disciplines. I find the analogy to a painting the best analogy where the mathematics is a description of the physics. Another analogy is the search for a gold nugget; the nugget lies undiscovered and has great intrinsic worth. It needs to be remembered that this has been a very long human pursuit going back to at least the ancient Greek and Indian civilizations but probably much further back in prehistory. Mankind has struggled with this pursuit in order to understand the world around from our first days perhaps going back more than 100,000 years since we first gazed upwards at the sky or lit a fire.  

    The pursuit of this mathematical form of physical truth continues.

    Tony
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    There surely will be other approaches to obtain nuclear fusion. But so far none of them has generated more than miliwatts of power. Nuclear fusion reactors based on the conservative tokamak aproach are admitteldly a expensive and difficult route, but have already demostraded several megawats of output power. None of options above has demosntrated ignition, and sadly ITER will not demostrate ignition either. It may be possible to obtain a shortcut in the future, and I applaud to diversify the efforts in several alternative technologies. That is how nature found us, through diversity and competition. But that does not mean that the more conservative thermonuclear route to nuclear fusion, which is the only one that has so far produced some megawats of power, should be abandoned in favour of a thecnology that has not yet demostrated even a few watts of output power. The issue is not to produce fusion, but fusion power with a similar or lower cost than a conventional nuclear power plant.

    Hi Neutrino,

    It might be worth your looking into the CF/LLENR peer-reviewed reports in a bit more depth as there have been many replicated, verified experiments that produced in excess of 20 Watts of "excess energy" from teh process. WHile this is admittedly a small amount, it bears mention that these experiments are also on a very small scale - usually not much more than the equivalent of a 500ml beaker in a stablized water bath with calorimiters aplenty and a voltmeter or two. The low power yield is a function of the scale of teh experiment, since the effort currently is on understanding the observations, such that we can understand the mechanism, making future efforts at scaling the technology more likely to be successful and efficient. The technology is capable of enormous amounts of excess power. While my personal "Jury" is out on the reports of 60kw+ from proijects like the ECat, Defkalion and Brillouin (of course I like that last name since it suggests their technology is based on surface plasmon polariton coherent resonance - the "Widom-Larson" theory, which I find most convincing) - but even if we were to discount the high-end claims, it still points unequivocally to a tecchnology capable of generating an extraordinary amount of clean, distributable power, at a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of hot fusion, and in a much more "user-friendly" form. So - LENR has indeed produced more than a few "milliwatts" - and for those who are truly immersed in the research and up on current experiments, it is quite apparent that this technology WILL be powering our needs in teh next 10-20 years.. possibly less.

    Hello Dave Xanatos

    I don´t seem to find the peer review publications your refer to. Have you got an author, paper title, Journal name, year of publication, volume page, etc or something? Are these reactions neutronic. What was the neutron flux in the devices you refer to? 20 Wats of fusion in a neutronic device should be quite measurable.

    Hi Neutrino,

    There's actually a lot. The link I referenced above was a conference in 2009 at the University of Missouri, which was attended by LANL, The US NAVY's research arm, and several others who can speak with authority on the subject, and there are videos of the entire conference, along with a PDF for each talk. Several of those videos and PDFs reference peer-reviewed experiements in which nutrons (triple-tracks) were detected, and there followed a discussion of the rigorous verification that followed to prove they were not sourced from something else. Those reviewing were thorough in their attempts to find external sources, and did come to accept that the neutrons were produced at the Pd cathode. Anyway - the link o this resource is: http://research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/may09.htm and you can also find much info at lenr-canr.org

    I should note here that while there is MUCH peer-reviewed and rigorously vetted data on these obsevations, that I am still somewhat skeptical of the 60kw claims of some of the people who are always "on the verge of a demonstration". When I see peer-reviews of their demonstrations, then I may become more accepting, but for now, I'm happy with being able to get 10+ watts in excess power out of a cell :-)

    So in short, the U of Missouri seminar link will get you started with numerous, literally beyond-dispute findings. I appreciate your request for specifics here - this is exactly the mechanism that forced better and better science around these observations, which resulted in experimental data that passed muster. Being that I am not in academia (I am an electronic engineer) my focus has been strictly on producing working cells, trying for reliable repeatability, something which - despite doing the exact same thing seemingly the exact same way, still happens only when it feels like it. When it happens, however, there is no doubt that something far more energetic is happening than can be accounted for by electrical/chemical means alone. The energy production is dramatic. There is a phenomenon happening, and it is being observed closely by people far, far more skilled than I, so it will only be a matter of time before we figure out what is actually happening. In the interim, if the possibility of this stuff interests you (and since you posted here, I'm guessing it does, hopefully to some extent beyond simply trying to discredit it in your own mind) - then check out the link and watch the videos. They are truly excellent, and the speakers are people who actually know what they are talking about. These are the same people who have been responsible for current hot-reactor designs, weapons systems developments, etc., so to accept their competence at those fields, but suspect them to be incompetent only when they speak on LENR would be nonsequitir. Plus the videos themselves are enjoyable and the material presented is impeccably well organized and detailed. For anyone seriously interested, that's a great starting point. The conference was in 2009, and there have been many advances (much being in the field of surface plasmon polariton coherent resonance, a term that I have been referencing so often I'm starting to sound like a parrot), but in 2009 the basics were in place, and it had already gone from a question to an experimental, undenyable, observable fact. Now we are in the phase of trying to figure it all out, and while there are competing theories, the fact of the observations is no longer under question by anyone but those who have not kept up with the research (which is a lot, granted, but the volume of those who took the initial claims as bogus, and then used that initial judgement as a reason to ignore subsequent findings, in no way negates the experimental facts that are happening today. Once, people thought the world flat, and refused to look through telescopes, because their initially-formed beliefs told them it was a deception...) Your questions above indicate to me that you are an intelligent soul. There is information in the Widom-Larson theory (that SPPCR stuff again) that explains the production of neutrons, as well as the explanation for the extremely short path of the produced gammas and electron neutrinos (on the order of angstroms). Additionally (I almost forgot!!!) CERN, the guys who brought us the LHC and are just a few sigmas away from the Higgs Boson signature, had a colloquium back on March 22 - the address for their conference is http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1433865 and there again, is a wealth of info, under the auspices of CERN, and once again, these people are not incompetent nor are they proponents of bogus science.

    So to recap the links:

    http://research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/may09.htm

    http://research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/may09.htm

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/

    Enjoy!

    That second link was supposed to be: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1433865

    Sorry,

    Dave

    Tony, Olaf,

    Might I suggest that this is a comment forum for FUSION ENERGY discussion, and as such, it might not be the forum to prove/disprove anyone's theories about subjects OTHER than fusion. Just a thought...

    Tony Fleming
    Fair comment Dave.
    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Tony Fleming
    Dave, having looked at http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1433865 , my message is simple: somehow, putting acoustic modes (phonons) into the mix may well be the solution to producing more useful energy.
    Look at the strength of suns and their position within galaxies.


    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    Actually there are folks working along those lines now. There is a distinct research trend that is involving piezoelectric media to induce the effect. It is worthwhile to note that breaking a chunk of piezoelectric material produces a burst of neutrons... this effect has been known for decades. We are only now coming to understand why.

    Tony Fleming
    OK. thanks, interesting. (You might be referring to piezoelectric transducers and sonoluminescence?)

    Actually I think Roentgen's vacuum tube was an acoustic device in the sense that since inside the tube the pressure is very low relative to ordinary temperature and pressure. This in effect is equivalent to a reduced acoustic field which might be why the production of X-rays was facilitated. The simplistic reason may have been thought to be the reduced gas particles and hence less scattering, but it may also have been due to the reduced acoustic field (volume density of phonons) within the nucleus. So we may have known about the effect for 120 years. 

    I'm pretty sure this is the secret of production of efficient quantities of energy.

    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com
    It will probably turn out that most of these principles have been right under our collective noses for decades if not centuries. Weren't the ancient Egyptians electroplating stuff with batteries? :-)

    Tony Fleming

    Totally agree it's under our noses Dave Under the epidermis of our noses, that is. 

    It is pertinent that Roentgen published his first paper in a medical journal because of the ability of the X-rays to 'see' through various types of matter.


    Sorry to wander off the main topic again Dave: but it does seem our bodies might use forms of nuclear physics. There's evidence that sounds are part of the long-term memory. So could sleep be the means of converting short term into long-term?. In self-field theory terms does this mean going from a bispinor to a trispinor? Speculation maybe (blue sky stuff), but there's a reasonable biophysics (REM sleep, brain waves) AND a maths that can quantitatively describe the field mechanisms. Disorders such as synesthesia (the mixing up of the senses) reveal some interesting ways the cognitive pathways might be 'crossed'; this may be happening with schizophrenics who may have jumbled signals (memories) going into their neurological processing system.


    Hopefully, this not only means we are just about to learn how to obtain almost unlimited energy, but we might over the present century learn how to overcome some of our medical afflictions such as schizophrenia and perhaps addictions of various kinds. 

    As I said, lots of work to be done.

    Tony Fleming Biophotonics Research Institute tfleming@unifiedphysics.com