Free Energy is all about freedom:
Power to the people -- literally and figuratively



 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe

 

Directory
Energy Topics

Alt Fuels
Anti-Gravity
Batteries
Betavoltaic
Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
Body Electric
Brown's Gas
Cold Fusion
Conservation
Electrolysis
Electromagnetic OU
Fuel Cells
Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
Fusion
Geothermal
Gravity Motors
Human Powered
Hydro
Hydrogen
Joe Cells
Lighting
Magnet Motors
Nanotechnology
Nuclear
Nucl. Remediation
Oil
Piezoelectric
Plasma
River
Salt Water Mix
Solar
Solid State Gen.
Tesla Turbines
Thermal Electric
Tidal
Vortex
Waste to Energy
Water
 - Water as Fuel
Wave
Wind
Wireless Electricity
Zero Point Energy
MORE . . .

Open Source
Freddy's Cell
Bedini SG
Safe Haven Villages
MORE . . .

Resources
Awards
Conservation
Conspiracy
Directories
Investment
Kudos
Legal
Organizations
Plastic and Energy
Recycling
Suppression
Tools
Trends
MORE . . .

Mingling
OverUnity Forum
Employment
Events
Humor
Magazines
Movies
Newsletters
Discuss. Groups

Shopping
Store
Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact

 

 

 


/2009/05/24/9501544_Cold_Fusion_explanation_using_the_Y-Bias_model_of_scalar_synamics/
You are here:
PureEnergySystems.com > News > May 24, 2009

Cold Fusion explanation using the Y-Bias model of scalar dynamics

An ‘out-of-the-box’ explanation of the quantum electrodynamics attendant to the phenomenon referred to as Cold Fusion, by one a revered theorist and leaders in the field of exotic, breakthrough energy research.

by David G. Yurth
for Pure Energy Systems News


Jim Murray and Paul Babcock's 4790% SERPS Presentation

Ignition Secrets DVD by Aaron Murakami 

A&P Electronic Media


Magnetic Energy Secrets, Paul Babcock, Parts 1 & 2

Battery Secrets by Peter Lindemann

 


Background

After reading the Technical Report 1852, February 2002, entitled “Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of Pd/D2O System” Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories” by S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, editors, including Scott Chubb’s contribution cited as Chapter 5, entitled “An Overview of Cold Fusion Theory” (page 91); and after reviewing the article published in Infinite Energy Magazine entitled “Cold Fusion Debate Re-ignited During March Meeting Madness” published in the May/June 2007 issue of Infinite Energy Magazine, Issue 73, it seems to me some important parts of the Cold Fusion puzzle have been ignored and/or misinterpreted.

As a result of the work we have been pursuing in the field of scalar interactions, we have learned some things about the nature of scalar, quantum phenomena that are not accommodated by the standard physical model. I was extremely pleased in the Summer of 2008 to discover that T.S. McGrath had been awarded a patent for his work on developing a new teaching method relative to his dynamic quantum model of the atom [US Patent No. 7,284,987, issued October 23, 2007 – Physical Quantum Model for the Atom]. The calculations supplied by McGrath in his contribution to the Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics – Semi-classical Dynamics and Relaxation by D.S.F. Crothers , under chapter 4, Ion-Atom Collisions, are telling in this case.

I was pleased to see it and more pleased to see his work referred to in Crothers ’ book because it fundamentally validates a primary premise of the Y-Bias & Angularity model. Here is why I believe this is both relevant to your work and important for ours.

Standard Model – Beta Production Dynamics

In nuclear physics, according to the standard physical model, beta decay is described as a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (an electron or a positron) is emitted. In the case of electron emission, it is referred to as beta minus), while in the case of a positron emission it is described as beta plus+). The kinetic energy of beta particles is exhibited across a continuous spectrum ranging from 0 to maximal available energy (Q), the quotient of which depends on parent and daughter nuclear states participating in the decay. Typical Q is normally on the order of 1 MeV, but it can range from a few KeV to a few tens of MeV. The most energetic beta particles are described as ultra-relativistic, with speeds very close to the speed of light.

 In β decay, the weak interaction is said to convert a neutron (n0) into a proton (p+) while emitting an electron (e) and an antineutrino (νe):

n0

p+

+

e

+

νe

At the fundamental level (as depicted in the typical Feynman diagram), this is due to the conversion of a down quark to an up quark by emission of a W boson; the W boson subsequently decays into an electron and an antineutrino. So, unlike β, β+ decay cannot occur in isolation because it requires energy as a product of the mass of the neutron being greater than the mass of the proton. β+ decay can only happen inside nuclei when the value of the binding energy of the mother nucleus is greater than that of the daughter nucleus. The difference between these energies goes into the reaction of converting a proton into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino and into the kinetic energy exhibited by these particles.

Further, the standard model holds that in all cases where β+ decay is allowed energetically and the proton is a part of a nucleus with electron shells, it is accompanied by the electron capture process when an atomic electron is captured by a nucleus with the emission of a neutrino:

energy

+

p+

+

e

n0

+

νe

But if the energy difference between initial and final states is low (less than 2mec2), then β+ decay is not energetically possible and electron capture is the sole decay mode.

This model has repeatedly been shown by widely reported experimental evidence to be fundamentally flawed. George C. Miley ’s widely published work [along with Shoulders and Puthoff], for example, has demonstrated that electron generation does not necessarily result in the reduction in mass of the source material. In order to accommodate this phenomenon, we have to think about the way electrons are absorbed and emitted in the context of a different dynamical model. Here is the experiment we have repeatedly conducted which demonstrates how fundamental this notion may be:

Quantum Electro-dynamic Pump

In an admixture of a specially formulated oxide of zinc we intercalate ultra-pure nano-particulated Thorium232. The materials are mixed with conventional VoC’s and deposited in a spin-coating apparatus onto the surface of an electrically inert substrate. While the material is being spin-coated and baked, the field is bathed in a strong positive magnetic polarity so that the resulting crystalline lattice is permanently and positively charged. Precisely how the zinc oxide lattice is caused to retain this positive charge is a proprietary process not yet disclosed since it is currently being reviewed by the patent office.

According to the four-corner Hall Sensor tests we have conducted on the resultant residual crystalline structure, the entire field operates as a single, integrated, homogeneous crystal at less than R ≤ 2 ohms per square with zero capacitance at room temperatures. A 3” field covered by the resultant thin film, shown to be less than 50 nano-meters in thickness, containing these materials has been consistently shown to generate 2.24 volts at .34 milli-amperes continuously in the presence of a weak permanent magnetic field. We have repeated this process many times under controlled conditions and are now able to produce bench-top products that can be connected in both parallel and series configurations to produce continuous power at consistent output levels for more than 3,600 hours.

We have shown, in addition, that notwithstanding the amount of electrical ion flow that is induced in this material, there is absolutely no variance whatsoever in the mass while electrons are being emitted, collected and rectified. We are demonstrating that in this configuration, Thorium atoms are able to act as quantum dynamic electron pumps in the presence of a weak magnetic field, operating in a positively charged environment, with virtually no resistance and zero capacitance. Stacks of similarly prepared substrate layers have been shown to emit no neutrons, no alpha, no gamma, and a significant, consistent flow of electrons to a rectifier circuit. A single 3” wafer coated with this material produces sufficient output on a continuous basis to ignite and sustain photon emission from a bank of LED’s.

Clearly, something unusual is going on here that demonstrates a phenomenon which is similar in some important aspects to the CF dynamics which observed but not yet explained. In the Y-Bias & Angularity model, we posit that the Thorium atom held in suspension in the crystalline lattice of zinc oxide acts not as a B- emitter in the conventional sense but, rather, as a quantum electro-dynamic generator. This model is amply documented in traditional literature where a conductive metal is spun in the presence of an electromagnetic field to produce ion flow. Our model [as illustrated by McGrath et al] demonstrates that the Thorium atom’s natural tendency to emit electrons does not require neutrons to be converted to protons with the release of an electron. Instead, what it suggests is that in the same way a Meissner Field serves to facilitate super-conductivity by acting as a conduit for free electrons flowing through a non-resistive field, the oblate architecture of the Thorium atom spins around its x-y axis at its quantum frequency while subjected to a magnetic field flux. As it does so, it becomes, in effect, a mono-atomic generator – a conductive element exhibiting magnetic potential while spinning around inside a magnetic field.

The spinning action generates an inductive field effect that captures free electrons from the field and drives them into the positively charged crystalline matrix. As with all generators, this spinning action captures free electrons adjacent to the field at the narrowest radius of the spinning electron orbital field potentials [where the Vanderwaals force is greatest] during the first ½ rotational cycle. The captured electron then spins off at the apex limit [where the Vanderwaals force is weakest] from the outer electron orbital shell and into the surrounding positively charged matrix in the following ½ of the rotational cycle.

In the normal model, where ultra-pure Thorium232 is evaluated as an electron-emitting material, we discover [as the literature clearly shows] that by itself, without being bombarded by slow velocity neutrons, naturally occurring Thorium232 does not emit sufficient electron flow to sustain any but the weakest load requirements. However, when the field is examined under rigorous mathematical models, we find that the crystalline matrix containing the Thorium material serves as a very efficient electron recycling system in its ultra-pure state. Ordinarily, electrons emitted by one atom are almost immediately re-absorbed by their neighbors – it is because of this attribute [among others] that Thorium is not susceptible to self-sustaining criticality when operating in its involuntarily induced nuclear decay state. But when separated into extremely small nano-particles [i.e., single digit nano-meters], and when electron emission is captured in a positively charged low resistance non-capacitive field, the magnitude of electron flow becomes both sustainable and prodigious because of the increase in surface area. In single digit nano-particle form Thorium atom clusters provide up to 1015 more surface area than micrometer-sized particles.

As the flux field induced by the permanent magnets surrounding the matrix is increased, our laboratory results clearly show that the magnitude of electron flow [measured in amperes] proportionately increases. This phenomenon has been shown to operate with complete consistency across the spectrum of magnetic flux field strengths. By stacking substrate layers in parallel and series configurations we have been able to generate 24 volts at a constant output of 10 am peres using this deposition and intercalation method. As long as we keep the crystalline layer completely dry it continues to produce electron flow without interruption.

The Ukrainian Energy Cell

In 1991 I was hired to serve as the Director of Strategic Planning for a small technology R&D company based in Las Vegas . By a series of totally happenstance events, this company found itself under contract to act as the patenting, marketing and applications development partner for a Soviet-supported laboratory sited in Kiev , after the wall came down. One of the technologies that had been developed there was a solid state ‘energy accumulator’ device which was presented to us by IPMS scientists in more than two dozen form factors. When we tested these devices, some as small as hearing aid batteries [in a button shaped container] and others as large as anti-personnel mines, we made some unexplainable discoveries.

The first discovery was that as the form factors became larger and more massive the energy density of the encapsulated materials proportionally increased. In the final embodiment, which was cased in a conventional Diehard battery box, the energy density measured by INEEL exceeded 640 watt-hours per kilogram, which is just about equivalent to fully converted high octane gasoline which yields 660 watt-hours per kilogram.

The second discovery was even more important. When we measured the mass of the fully charged devices, we were confused by the discovery that our scales consistently showed substantially more mass in fully charged containers than in fully discharged ones. For example, a fully charged device such as the ones contained in the Diehard battery boxes weighed in at 22.1 kilograms. But when the same container had been fully discharged its mass was shown to have been reduced to 20.23 kilograms. According to the most fundamental precepts of the standard physical model this is absolutely prohibited. You do not observe this effect in conventional chemical batteries – the electrons are absorbed in their waveform state to become an intrinsic part of the innate chemistry, but in this case, because the Ukrainian devices are truly solid state energy accumulators, we found that the addition of electrons could be measured in terms of increased mass.

What this demonstrates is that not only does E ≠ MC2, but in this case, with this particular integration of materials, E = Mv0, where energy in the form of electrons was clearly shown to be equivalent to mass when the mass was traveling at an absolute velocity of zero. For reasons I will attempt to make clear, I believe this factor plays an important role in the CF phenomenological dynamic that has not been accommodated before.

High Density Electron Charge Clusters

The work of Ken Shoulders, Hal Puthoff, G. Mesyats and others who have applied for and obtained patents related to various aspects of the HDCC – EVO [extraordinary voltage object] research conducted over the past 30 years seems dispositive in at least two fundamental ways in the context of the CF work conducted over the past 20 years. Without going into a lengthy dissertation on the subject, let me simply say that we have demonstrated conclusively that high density charge clusters can be successfully and effectively employed to remediate alpha, beta and gamma emissions generated by highly radioactive long-lived nuclear waste materials. We have been doing this work in our own lab for more than 17 years. Our work was independently tested and validated in 2005 by DOE and their counterparts at Los Alamos . Notwithstanding that fact, DOE’s Director of the Nuclear Remediation Division specifically and categorically prohibited us from using this technique to treat nuclear waste materials as an alternative to encapsulating and burying such waste materials under Yucca Mountain , Nevada , in November of 2005.

What we know about the phenomenon as it applies to CF research is that (a) high density charge clusters generated deliberately under controlled conditions, with appropriately engineered apparatus, have been shown to create significant pitting in the surface of the nuclear fuel rods. Shoulders has provided extraordinary images created by his scanning-tunneling electron microscope to demonstrate not only what this pitting looks like but how and why it occurs.

According to the mathematical model developed by Jin et al, which has been experimentally validated in our own laboratory, when the high density charge cluster torus is propelled through a proton-rich environment, it picks up protons in the highly charged negative field contained in its center, at the rate of one proton per 100,000,000 electrons. Since the field in a HDCC torus measuring one micron in diameter contains Avogadro’s number of electrons, the number of protons contained in each ‘burst’ generated at the tip of the cathode is significant. What we have discovered is that while the torus is being propagated through the proton field at about .10C [2,500 KeV], the protons which have been captured are induced to accelerate at the same velocity without the introduction of additional energy. This quantum field effect has been mathematically articulated by Shoulders-Sarfatti in a collaborative effort which is displayed on Shoulders’ web site.

This often repeated and independently validated phenomenon also violates the provisions of the standard model, as the ONR report clearly suggests. Nevertheless, the fact that this occurs as part of the process is not arguable now – we have hard, repeatable, publicly reported data which shows that it happens. How and why it happens is another matter entirely. The answer to this question should inform our notions about equivalent behaviors identified in the CF process which still remain unexplained. Here is the way Jin explains it.

Simultaneous Acceleration in HDCC Interactions

An important feature of HDCC’s is their strong ability to ionize nearby materials and the ability to attract and transport positive ions.  The ionization is produced by the high energy electrons in the potential well of the HDCC.  Those newly produced positive ions (e.g., protons) can be trapped in the highly‑negative potential well of the charge cluster and travel with and be accelerated together with the charge cluster.  Experiments show that the number of trapped positive ions is about 10 ‑4 to 10 ‑3 percent of the electron number. Therefore, the local positive ion density could be as high as about 1017 to 1018 ions per square centimeter.  It is important to note that this combined charge cluster can be accelerated to high energies similar to the acceleration of an individual electron. 

First, we estimate the maximum electric field and holding power in a HDCC ring.  As an approximation of the HDCC ring, consider an electron ring with major radius R, minor radius a, and uniform electron density ne, in a background of ions (charge +Ze) of uniform density ni. If we assume a/R << 1, then the self-electric field Er of the slender ring could be expressed approximately in cylindrical coordinates (r, q , z) by (in MKSA units)

                                                Em = - ener/2e0 (1 - fe)                                          (1)

where fe  = Z ne/ni is a charge neutralization factor.  The maximum electric field in the ring could be estimated by the electric field at the edge of the ring (r = a): Em = - enea/2e0 (1 - fe), or using the total number of electrons in the ring, Ne = 2p2a2R ne, it can be written as

                                                Em = - Ne/4p2e0aR (1 - fe)                                   (2)

Numerically, it gives

                                                Em = - 4.58 ´10-10Ne/aR (1 - fe)     (V/m)      (3)

In order for the ions to be accelerated along with the electron ring, the ions must be held within the ring during the acceleration.  The “holding power” is defined as the maximum electric field holding the ions in the accelerated ring, Eh .  The Eh is related to the maximum electric field Em and can be expressed as

                                                            Eh = h Em                                                                       (4)

Because of the neutralization effect of the ions the Eh is always smaller than Em, i.e.h < 1.  The size of h depends on the ion number and distribution in the electron ring.

As an example, consider the 20 mm diameter HDCC ring.  With the data given by Ken Shoulders [8-11], we have a ~ 0.5 mm , R ~ 10 mm, Ne ~ 1013  and  fe ~10-5<< 1, and therefore, we get Em ~ 1014 V/m, and 

                                                            Eh < 1014 V/m                                              (5)

This field strength shows that the collective electric field in the HDCC ring is millions of times stronger than the electric field in normal intense relativistic electron beam (~ 100 MV/m), or about eight orders of magnitude increase compared with the average electric field limit in conventional accelerators (1 - 5 MV/m).  This holding power is strong enough to hold ions in the moving potential well of the ring during the acceleration.

There is a possibility that using a specially designed multi-tip cathode array and a magnetic field, a large high density electron ring with dimensions much larger than the 20 microns could be generated. For example, consider a situation in which a large amount of HDCC produced by a cathode, such as metal-dielectric cathode, could be injected into a cusped magnetic field.  The magnetic field would be designed to transform the initially longitudinally oriented electron velocity into an azimuthally oriented velocity.  With this strategy, the HDCC beam could be accumulated into a large high-density electron ring. The holding power of the electron ring would be strong enough to hold large amount of ions (e.g., protons) and the ions could be collectively accelerated to a high energies.

Consider the ion loaded electron ring with sufficiently high holding power in an external axial (z) electric field E.  The rate of energy gain of the ion energy Wi in the axial direction is then 

            dWi (HDCC)/dz = eEMi/gcme [(1 – fe )/(1 +  fe Mi/Zgcme)]                    (6)

where Mi and me are the ion and electron rest mass, fe = Zni/ne is a charge neutralization factor, ni and ne are the ion and electron number, Z is the charge state of the ion, vc = (1 - (ve/c)2 )-1/2  is the relativistic factor, ve is speed of the  electron cluster, and c is speed of light.  In the case of small ion loading comparing with electron number, i.e. fe = Zni /ne << Zgc me/Mi ,  Eq. (6) reduces to

                                                dWi (HDCC)/dz = eEMi/gcme                                                (7)

or after integration we have

                                    Wi (HDCC) = eVMI/gcme = (Mi /vcme)We                                       (8)

where V is the applied potential difference, We is electron kinetic energy.  In the same potential difference V, the energy gain of a pure ion is

                                                      Wi = ZeV                                                            (9)

 Comparing the Eqs. (8) and (9) we have

                                    Wi (HDCC)/Wi = (Mi /Zgcme)We  = 1836A/Zvc                  (10)

where A is the atomic weight of the ion.  This means that the ion acceleration by electron cluster is about 1836 A/Z times more effective than pure ion acceleration.  Table 1 shows some applied potential differences and the kinetic energy of a proton (deuteron) collectively accelerated by the electron cluster.

As an example, consider a neutron producing reaction:

                                                      p    +    3Li7    6   4Be7   +   n,

In this reaction the proton energy must be not less than the reaction threshold of 1.88 MeV. To achieve this proton energy in a conventional accelerator, the applied total electric potential differences must be not less than 1.88 MV.  In the high density charge cluster accelerator, however, the required potential differences for the same proton energy is only 1.88 MV/1836 = 1.02 KV.

Table 1 The proton (deuteron) energy accelerated by HDCC

 

    Applied

voltage (KV)

 

The kinetic energy of

Proton (deuteron) (MeV)

 

      1

      2.5

    10

    50

 

      1.836 (   3.672)

      4.590 (   9.180)

    18.360 (  36.720)

    91.800 (183.600)

With the electron current density of 0.1 to10A/cm2 per pulse, the ion current density could have about 1 to 100mA/cm2 per pulse, which correspond to1013 to 1015/cm2 protons per pulse.

Anomalous Pitting

Chubb et al report their discovery of pitting in the surface of anode materials adjacent to the Pd rod structures in the CF energy cell. The key consideration here, it seems to me, is that the pitting observed in the anode material contained in the CF cell does not comport with the kind of pitting observed in neutron embrittlement. Rather, when carefully examined, we observe that the topology of the pitting found in the CF device  is identical to the pitting photographed by Shoulders, as the product of HDCC impacts on the surface of similarly constructed anodic materials. What this suggests about the nature of the intrinsic CF interactions is significant because it suggests something quite profound about the underlying dynamic which seems to drive heat generation, sporadic voltage production, and anomalous spark generation in the CF apparatus. It is also important to note that the pitting in the CF cell is not uniform in its distribution.

The Self-Recharging Capacitor

In 1939, Japanese physicist Dr. Eguchi , discovered how to construct and charge an infinitely self-recharging condenser device. He took two disks of metal and separated them with a thin layer of carnauba wax, heated them to 300 F for an hour, connected the two plates to the output circuit of a high voltage DC power supply [15,000 – 20,000 VDC] and kept the voltage leads connected for 24 hours while the assembly cooled and solidified. He discovered, to his amazement, that he could repeatedly discharge the device an infinite number of cycles without seeing a reduction in either the voltage or the amperage it produced with each subsequent discharge. This technology has been used in a number of different applications over the past 60 years, but is not found anywhere in common use today.

 

What is important about this device is the phenomenon it demonstrates. The crystalline lattice structure in the metallic plates of the capacitor becomes re-aligned when softened and charged by directed DC voltage during the cooling and re-solidification phase. That it captures ambient electrons and stores them for future discharge is not arguable. How this happens and what it means for the CF device is, I believe, dispositive.

Summary and Suggested Conclusions

When we take all this information into account, several important elements of the dynamics operating in the CF apparatus lend themselves to a new explanation.

We begin by making a key observation. The pitting in evidence on the anodic material appears to be virtually identical to the pitting shown by Shoulders’ digital images of  HDCC impact craters on the surface of various materials used as anodes. What those images do NOT comport with are similarly digitized images showing the craters created by neutron impacts with the surface of materials such as stainless steel [the material used to encapsulate highly radioactive liquid nuclear waste materials at Hanford, Savannah River and other waste storage sites] or zirconium [the encapsulating material used to contain nuclear fuel materials for use in fission reactors].

The pattern of cratering evidenced in the CF apparatus is irregular and inconsistent. This is significant because it means that the pitting is caused by a series of self-organizing events which are not linear. In the same way and for the same reason earthquakes are neither linear nor regularized, electron-cluster discharge events occur anywhere on the surface of the emitting material. The frequency, magnitude, location and timing of such events are, by definition, not linear and not predictable. The CF apparatus appears to comply with the fundamental rules of self-organizing criticality and events that are related to it.

One of the reasons Pd is used in the CF design is because of its unique physical properties, not the least of which are (a) its affinity for hydrogen and (b) its innate tendency to high capacitance. What seems clear to me, in the context of this conversation, is that the Pd in the CF apparatus acts as an effective self-recharging capacitive device by attracting hydrogen, stripping the electrons, storing the excess charge driven by the charge imbalance intrinsic to the deuterium solution, and periodically discharging the electron clusters [and a high number of protons] in high voltage bursts. When the electron bursts enter the deuterium in an organized form such as a torus [as described by Jin , Shoulders & Sarfatti], they become high density electron charge clusters which behave according to Jin ’s mathematical expressions. When the HDCC structures impact the surface of the anodic material they create the cratering effect shown in Shoulders’ digital image files. 

Since the impact craters give evidence of high mass-low velocity impacts on the surface of the target materials, and since the surrounding medium intrinsic to the CF cell is a proton-rich fluid, it is reasonable to assume that the HDCC protocol is being acted out. As a result of the way the Pd rods are arrayed in the apparatus the discharge gap function which operates between the rods and surrounding anode material is not optimized. The fact that the electron bursts occur on the surface of the Pd rods at various times, locations, and magnitudes, should give us another important clue. The nature of such emissions will, when measured and mapped digitally, provide evidence of a logarithmic relationship resulting in a map consisting of a straight line with a slope.

The fact that ONR’s measurements show periodic, inconsistent, non-localized neutron emissions is fundamentally consistent with this model. When impact events at the surface of the anode [and perhaps other adjacent materials] occur above a certain energetic threshold, the aggregate kinetic energy represented by the accumulation of protons in the center of the HDCC torus is sufficient, I believe, to disaggregate the nuclear material contained in one or more atoms in the target material. Because the event requires a minimal energetic threshold, and because the impact events occur in fractal geometries rather in a linear accumulating series, no self-sustaining events are precipitated. The intermittent detection of neutrons exhibited by CF cells has been incorrectly interpreted to be nuclear emission products. This is the clue that has consistently been misinterpreted by CF researchers, including Pons, Fleischmann and Jones. It is not the emission of neutrons as a result of nuclear decay at low temperatures that is causing the neutrons to be emitted. Rather, the neutrons are being liberated as a product of the HDCC impact events with the surface of the adjoining anodic materials.

This explains why, for example, the CF apparatus evinces high periodic levels of continuous exothermic radiation instead of ion flow through the cathode and anode. Shoulders’ work shows, as does our own, that a principle product of HDCC impact events is the liberation of Avagadro’s number of electrons at the site of each impact, at the moment of each impact. The release of these electrons is observed and measured in the form of heat rather than ion flow. The thermal conductivity represented by the mass of the Pd rods serves to sustain heat measurements over extended ΔT, while electron emission is measured instantaneously as a function of voltage and amperage fluctuation.

Summary and Conclusions

If this analysis is correct, it should enable us to architect a design that optimizes these dynamics in a way that could be counted on to generate continuous, consistent levels of heat output over long periods of time. With a substitution of other materials, I believe we can design an equally efficient device designed to deliver electric power instead of heat products. This could be an interesting project with important long term significance.

# # #

David G. Yurth

David Yurth is an advisor for the New Energy Congress and is a founder of the Nova Institute of Technology.

Nova Institute of Technology
Providing New Answers to the Oldest of Questions
2300 East Arbor Lane
Holladay, Utah 84117
Tel: (801)828-5175
Cell:(801)998-8535
http://www.novainstituteoftechnology.com  
email: davidyurth {at} novainstituteoftechnology.com

Related Works

 

See also

Page posted by Sterling D. Allan May 24, 2009
Last updated December 24, 2014
 
 

Ads

 

 

"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right." -- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

SubmitPrivacyAboutContact

PESWiki Departments:
LatestNewsXMLFeedDirectoryCongressTop 5Open Sourcing

PESN.com
Copyright © 2002-2015, PES Network Inc.