Solid state fusion?

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Solid state fusion?

Post by Richard Hull »

The discussion regarding Kervran's book and his assertion of some form of modified physics in living matter with symbiotically organized physico-chemistry was developing with Greg Rodgers. So, rather than tie up the Books and Refs forum with theoretical discussions, I have moved it here.

You can follow the discussion starting there.

I had noted that Kervrans work and some CF work currently point to fusion in the solid state indicated by transmutations.

I had noted that there is about a nine order of magnitude difference and particle density in the soild state versus tenuous fusion plasmas.

Greg countered with the need for high temps, none of which are found the biota or CF cells.

All of this, of course, relates to the famed Lawson's Criteria of HOT fusion to which the classic fusioneers always follow.

There is one more major term in the Lawson criteria and that is confinement time. In fusion plasmas, even magnetically confined, it is a microscopic period of time. In the solid state it is, of course, intrinsically infinite. So if we argue along hot fusion lines....the only line that the hot fusioneers argue on, the hot fusioneers fail dismally in confinement time and particle density. Temperature they got! Now whether the heat to 100 millions of degrees in whispy gases that blow away in millionths of a second is worth the trade off to infinite confinment times and 9 orders of magnitude increase in particle density in electrically active and complex biologics is a fair trade in the fusion arena is an open issue. The data seems to point to complex bio systems doing some sort of proton exchanges as life processes that have organized over millenia do there thing to reverse entropy on their little closed system scale.

Now CF cells are another matter, the elemental metals such as Paladium, Nickel and Titanium are not biologics they are electrically neutral dead matter, just like the hot fusioneer's filmy gas plasmas.

Water seems to hold the key in biologics as the bearer of the protons in the form of the hydrogen ion that chemically insinuates itself into all living matter. Not so for CF cells. However, the hydrogen/deuterium molecule can be loaded easily into these element's metal lattices with just a few electron volts of electrolytic energy seeded into the cells. The loading actually permeates the entire metal! However, it has long been observed that any transmutation or high energy output activity in these cell metals occurs only at the very first few atomic layers of the electrode surfaces and the water/electrolyte interface. So in CF cells we see activity, if we are lucky, in only the water/metal/hydrogen lattice interfacial area where electrical activity is possible with potential differentials developed. In the bulk of the conductive metal, even with the lattices loaded, we see little or no transmuation or other activity.

In biologics, every cubic micron is a mass of water, electrolytes and unceasing DIRECTED electrical energy. The key word is DIRECTED!! Biologics are organized entities designed totally to focus on a positive-entropic path which demands constant reproduction, healing, growth and survival. A dichotomy over that seen in the blistering, self disorganizing, mindless, plasmas in a manmade fusion device.

We have given the hot fusioneers 50 years and countless billions of the money. It might be time to just pause and look at how nature does things.....To study the balance sheets of elements in the biologics. Kervran follows this with a demon's persistence.

We see nature doing HOT fusion only one way. GRAVITY. We can't do that so we try to use, at best, its mime, inertia. So far no luck.

At worst we try to use magnetic fields. I hate to think of the public treasure lost in powering up the tonnage of magnets in hundreds of long dead and failed fusion plasma confinement systems. I laugh at hot fusion's long and growing list of failed magnetic confinement schemes. Their mindless efforts at this task reminds me of the propellar heads who just KNOW that if they had enough powerful magnets and could put them in just the right setup, they would have a perpetual motion machine.

Certainly it costs little by comparison to hot fusion to investigate fusion in the solid state or biologics.

The gentility of the proposed biologic fusion process due to its possible residence in living organisms militates against real power systems. Alas, I fear there is no, turbine spinning, long term energy solutions here, but just maybe some amazing, overlooked physico-chemistry involving the ultimate eco-friendly fusion processes of proton exchange.

The high outputs per unit input seed energies rarely, but still reported in the CF community, coupled with interesting and well documented transmutation of metallic surface layers, might offer a solution to small amounts of usable energy. I am betting there is, and has always been, more than one way to skin the cat.

I chortle at the mental hyperbole I often allow myself as simple amusement when I see in my minds eye the 2096 Nobel prize in bio-physics being awarded for the discovery of the "fusion enzyme". That enzyme which in biological systems seeks out ions in soluition, couples them chemically, then once coupled, signals resonance inducing electrical pulses to allow proton exchange in a transmutation that results in two new elemental ions and a gain of only 1.6 ev of energy in the process.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by grrr6 »

the problem with arguing along the lawsons criteria is that even though you might have infinite time, if you dont have decent temp and density, the power output is still going to be really really small even though it meets the lawsons criteria for "ignition"
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Richard Hull »

Agreed.
Low energy.
The lowest of the low. Totally as it should be, especially in biota. Only low energy generation allowed. We don't need large sources of ionizing radiation in bio-systems.

Bio-ooze is programed through long evolution or the hand of God, (take your pick), for self preservation, not self destruction.

Bio-Fusion might not be a proper term. Even Kervran notes the term fusion is a red flag stirring up images of high energy confrontations, high energy releases and radioactive ash and debris. The fusion we know and study is, indeed, high energy as originally discovered and studied.

"Proton resonance exchange" sounds nice, but still evokes high energy processes complete with nuclear potential barriers that must be overcome etc.

Quantum tunneling smacks of a "one in a quadrillion" shot.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by grrr6 »

the problem with any fusion reaction in a biological system is that the jump in binding energies tends to be large in the low Z elements, so and fusion reaction tends to be strongly exothermic. Youd be very hard pressed to find a true fusion reaction under 10 kev exothermic.
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by DaveC »

I think there is some serious confusion going on when we equate "chemical" reactions to "nuclear" reactions. Chemical reactions involve the outermost electron cloud (shell), and often only some of the electrons in that shell. The energies involved in any chemical or biological system, are on the order of a few ev.

Those that propound nuclear reactions as originating from a chemical source have the burden of explaining the source of the 10 or more KeV necessary for the nucleii to get sufficiently close that something can happen.

It is my understanding the Lawson criteria is really only valid in evaluating condition of ions (or neutrals) that are in nuclear proximity. In a solid, despite the vast difference in density as compared to a plasma -- Richard has noted about 9 orders of magnitude -- atoms are still located on lattice sites, mostly or on interstitial sites still on the scale of the lattice constants - on the order of tenths of nm. By contrast, nuclear proximity is on the order of fermis (1E-15m) or micro-nm. This is a density 15 orders of magnitude greater than a solid, or about a million times more dense than the solid to plasma ratio. Thus, whether solid or plasma ... you are still talking wide open spaces compared to the intra nuclear spaces.

That's why I am skeptical about anything "fusion-like" going on with the CF experiements, despite some highly unusual results from time to time.

But I also remind myself, we know so little, yet.

Dave Cooper
Kelson
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:49 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Kelson »

I love the fusor.net forums. I find something new to ponder on just about everyday of the week. Then, sometimes, I see other things outside the forums that have a sort of resonance for me. Anyone take a look at this article:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19841/page1/

?

It concerns a discovery of a surprisingly large electric fields within living cells.

The method of the discovery is fascinating in and of itself.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Interesting article..

One can't categorically exclude the possibility that some molecule could act as a fusion catalyst. I think of a catalyst as a tool, like spanner, when you can't undo a tight nut with your bare hands, you can easily do it with a spanner, providing the spanner is just the right size.

Just look at how plants can separate the tightly bound oxygen and carbon atoms in CO2, using a bit of energy from light, they have the tool to do, what light on it's own can't do.

Piezo crystals can generate powerful electric fields, and have been used to induce fusion reactions too.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Richard Hull »

Shades of Kervran revisited as more stuff is made manifest. For the newbs, Kervran's book is discussed at the top of this thread where I introduced it. Recheck the original posting above.

For those wanting my book review go to

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8074&hilit=kervran#p57490

For those wanting to read a bit, but not his book, check out


http://www.life-enthusiast.com/ormus/or ... ansmut.htm


His work is old, but what folks see or think they see that is poo-poo'd may have basis is future fact. One never knows until the fat lady sings.

Kervran had an instant following of new agers and the usual hangers-on, but was universally laughed at by any and all scientifcos save for a few biologists and biophysicists who quietly talked among themselves over implications. Overall, Kervran has been pretty much forgotten in any main stream sense.

I'll have to google him and see what's up on the web. I fear that which might be there will be the usual clap trap.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Kelson
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:49 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Kelson »

This is fascinating material, some of which should be readily repeatable, such as:

"In 1831, Choubard germinated watercress seeds in clean glass vessels and showed that the sprouts contained minerals which did not previously exist in the seeds. "

It would be a delicate setup, to be sure, but not outside the bounds of the amatuer.

I imagine, when googling, it would help if folks that want this sort of work to be taken seriously not use the word 'alchemy'...but perhaps that provides a quick filter, though, no?

Ultimately, the sense I'm getting from this is that the fusor is itself an extrapolation of a principle that is going on all the time within biological systems, though with some fuel besides deuterium?

Perhaps if no "tea kettle" power supply ever comes from this research, a new means of cleaning up contaminants may emerge instead.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Richard Hull »

I would say just the opposite, in the sense that the fusor is working off well understood and established scientific principles. Nothing special about the fusor.

The bio-transformation or bio-nuclear action posited is really not part of any accepted science at this time as it has been experimented with somewhat, but with no over arching theory or pressing data so astounding as to bring highly qualified people into the fray.

Just because you put someone in a tomb and the next day they are gone does not mean they rose from the dead. Instead, it just means that this is one of any number of possible answers as to where the body went. So it is with bio transformation. Scientists will certainly try for any other possible explanation for what is observed in a supposed bio transformation. Nuclear events in biologics is nearly equivalent to rising from the dead. Of course, so is CANR LENR claims in solid lattices.

Science will figure it all out once some tipping point is reached and like Bohr hearing of fission from Frisch as he boarded a train to go to America, we will all smack our foreheads and say" It is all so obvious why could we not see it...What fools we were"!

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Dustinit
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:02 pm
Real name:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Dustinit »

Anyone consider that this may be an alternate cause
of background radiation??
Sounds a bit far fetched.
Dustin
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Another thought....

Could bacteria make gold ?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/4wd/Over44.htm

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
SteveZ
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:26 pm
Real name:

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by SteveZ »

One thing to consider with the notion that the germinating seeds creating a mineral that did not previously exist in the seed is did it come from the glass vessel or from contamination left during the cleaning process? Several decades ago (I'm going to show my age here) there was this big flap about "poly water" that was created in glass capilary tubes. This poly water has several strange properties and was believed at the time to be a complex molecule consisting of numerous water molecules linked together. What was eventually found out was that poly water was a solution of silicon oxides. The distilled water in the tubes had dissolved a few molecules of the glass tubes.

What this shows is that the entire environment needs to be taken into account when running such an experiment. The seed(s), the water used to hydrate the experiment and the glass tube must all be taken into account when looking for a source of the "new" elements or minerals.

Was the water only H2O or were there dissolved minerals in the water Water is the closest thing we have to a universal solvent, it is amazing what water can make into a solution, even tiny amounts of surface deposits, or the vessel use to distille or carry the water.

Was the glassware used completely free of contamination (See the discussion on water above) Did the mass of the glassware change any during the experiment, ie was some of the inner surface leached away?

One of the critical axioms of the scientific method is given multiple possible solutions to a question the simplest solution is most likely correct. The more exotic the less likely, and when ever extraordinary claims are made extraordinary proof must be provided and the more extraordinary care must be taken during the experiment and during the analysis of the data.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Solid state fusion?

Post by Richard Hull »

Agreed. The cases for polywater and N rays were a big deal at one time, but they were put aside with no researchers really working in them ever again to any real degree. Not so for CANR-LENER and, in some corners, Bio-transmutations.

There just might be something here. We are just in an area that is strong enough to attract decent work, but we are just not able to lock into anything. We are just puttering around a strong scent.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”