Perpetual Motion Unveiled (Mike Rion)

The following post has been submitted by Mike Rion

I am not a scientist so my conclusions may be wrong or even naïve, but: free energy, overunity, cold fusion, LENR, LANR, Brown’s Gas, N-Machine; these and many others are all re-occurring themes in modern times which seem to elude to something that used to be referred to simply as “perpetual motion”.

In other words, the idea that through some magical process more energy is being produced by some random physical process than what is applied initially. It’s a general concept and one which, to me, seems not only patently misleading, but totally false in its premises.

To my understanding the entire Universe is made up of only two things, matter and energy. The later can be derived from the former, while the latter can also be turned back into the former. Of course there is a case to be made that they are both the same thing, but more importantly there is but a finite amount of both in that same Universe.

The way I see it, one type of energy or matter can be used to create another, but it requires an equal input of either energy or matter to create the other. Nothing is ever actually added or lost, simply altered from one state to the other. The only real question is under what circumstance or natural law one is turned into the other or vice versa and where the amount of input actually originates from.

Throughout human and pre-human history man has constantly discovered new kinds and sources of energy. I’m certain that whichever branch of our family tree first learned to control fire was amazed at how much more he received than what it took to maintain a glowing hearth. A simple spark from a piece of flint to light it and fuel was generally lying about everywhere, there just for the taking. In return he was able to stay warm on a cold night and cook his food, not to mention the myriad other benefits eventually derived, benefits, which served to advance man first from the stone-age into the bronze-age and then, finally, well into the Iron-age and beyond, advancement that would otherwise have been impossible.

When the first water wheel was put into operation it must have seemed like free energy, a real overunity device. Who would have thought that such a large amount of kinetic energy could be captured from a peaceful, burbling brook? But wait, we’re not through yet because next we learn to manufacture a new form of energy using a variation of that same water wheel, electricity, one type of energy derived from another, a remarkably useful new energy derived all but free of charge from the natural flow of water, a flow previously unexploited, miraculous overunity it would seem.

Then we move on to, first the steam engine and then, the combustion engine, both credited with saving huge amounts of labor on the part of man. That must have seemed like free energy too at the time created from plentiful coal and a previously worthless natural substance called oil, even more, seemingly inexhaustible energy, free for the taking.

Then enter stage left–nuclear energy. Who could have fathomed the amount of power hiding within the simple, but seemingly impossible act of artificially splitting an Atom? Imagine all of that power just sitting in there, free for the taking, a gift from nature waiting to be exploited, seeming overunity free for the taking.

I’m sure most of you have seen where I’m heading with this. Who is to say that we’ve exhausted all the new sources of natural occurring, seemingly free energy within our sphere of existence? To the contrary, I suspect we’ve only just scratched the surface and each new discovery will seem at first like overunity or free energy, even if in fact it is not. Tesla theorized that the aether all around us contained vast amounts of energy there waiting to be tapped. Similarly, current experiments in overunity posit that resonance vibrations, present in virtually inexhaustible supplies throughout the magnetosphere, solar system and even the entire Universe, can be converted to electrical and heat energy.

But even then it is not a question of more energy being produced than is being used. It’s only a matter of where that energy originates, how it is sourced and how difficult it is to capture.

Moreover this idea easily accounts for the existence of cold fusion, LENR or LANR. It’s simply the next in a long line of new energy sources to be discovered and exploited by man. And who knows what undesirable side effects its production may elicit, before the next, cleaner source of energy is discovered at some time in the future? I for one have never been too concerned about pollution or global warming. It is only a matter of a moment in time until cheaper, cleaner, easier to control forms of energy are discovered to replace what we have now. After all the Universe is full of energy, we only need to figure out how to better harness it for our own needs.

Mike Rion

  • William D. Fleming

    I don’t think LENR is being set forth as some sort of magical perpetual motion. That’s not what over-unity means. LENR is being studied and developed by highly capable physicists who fully understand it as a conversion of mass to energy, just as in fission.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Perpetual motion is yet another fraudulent term, used to make themselves feel justified in ignoring any chance of a new energy paradigm.

      • William D. Fleming

        Yes, used by many as a way to ridicule LENR.

        Mike Rion doesn’t seem like that kind of person though. He’s a positive, hopeful guy.

  • William D. Fleming

    I don’t think LENR is being set forth as some sort of magical perpetual motion. That’s not what over-unity means. LENR is being studied and developed by highly capable physicists who fully understand it as a conversion of mass to energy, just as in fission.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Perpetual motion is yet another fraudulent term, used to make themselves feel justified in ignoring any chance of a new energy paradigm.

      • William D. Fleming

        Yes, used by many as a way to ridicule LENR.

        Mike Rion doesn’t seem like that kind of person though. He’s a positive, hopeful guy.

        • Mike Rion

          Again, my point is that perpetual motion doesn’t exist, only the illusion of such

      • William D. Fleming

        Yes, used by many as a way to ridicule LENR.

        Mike Rion doesn’t seem like that kind of person though. He’s a positive, hopeful guy.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Perpetual motion is yet another fraudulent term, used to make themselves feel justified in ignoring any chance of a new energy paradigm.

  • Zephir

    The atom nuclei in vacuum fluctuations are like the mercury droplets at vibrating plate: when they’re smaller, they tend to merge – when they’re larger than some threshold, they fragment itself into smaller ones. Once the equilibrium is reached (the most stable iron/nickel nuclei of average size), then the nuclear reactions will stop. No perpetuum mobile is here.

  • Zephir

    The atom nuclei in vacuum fluctuations are like the mercury droplets at vibrating plate: when they’re smaller, they tend to merge – when they’re larger than some threshold, they fragment itself into smaller ones. Once the equilibrium is reached (the most stable iron/nickel nuclei of average size), then the nuclear reactions will stop. No perpetuum mobile is here.

  • Lachlan Taylor

    I’m not a scientist either but from what I understand, everything’s mass can be converted to abundant energy. We just don’t understand how to do it yet. We know how to do it with unstable materials such as plutonium, uranium etc due to their unstable states but unfortunately this is an uncontrolled near instantaneous creation of huge energy. To my simpleton point of view, LENR allows a slower controlled conversion of mass to energy.

    Like I said, I feel rather stupid compared to the many professional and hobbyist scientists on this website (and likely have made some silly statements) but even I recognise that LENR isn’t some kind of perpetual motion machine..

    • Michael W Wolf

      Just like everything else the skepticopaths say, they try to pass off opinion as fact. They have no credibility in my mind anymore. They call everyone liars and frauds, and yet most everything they say turns out to be just that. Fraudulent bull crap.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Just like everything else the skepticopaths say, they try to pass off opinion as fact. They have no credibility in my mind anymore. They call everyone liars and frauds, and yet most everything they say turns out to be just that. Fraudulent bull crap.

      • bachcole

        It is a mental illness of philosophical, emotional, and moral retardation.

    • Mike Rion

      An excellent comparison Mats.

  • Rich Wilson

    Perpetual motion, no. But take dark energy. We can’t see it but scientists believe it exists. What’s to say this energy isn’t in some way converted into something we can experience.

    Scientists have now experienced the EM drive and shown that it does exists.
    Where does its energy come from. They haven’t explained that yet as far as I know. So when you are talking about energy and mass, don’t presume because the energy is not produced from common means that it doesn’t exist or that it can’t be harvested.

    • Michael W Wolf

      actually Mills claims that hydrogen through a specific process, has it’s electron move to an orbit below the supposed ground state, transforming it into the dark matter of the universe. The energy released in this process is 100 times greater than that of just burning hydrogen. So the dark matter doesn’t give us energy, but hydrogen becoming dark matter does.

    • Michael W Wolf

      actually Mills claims that hydrogen through a specific process, has it’s electron move to an orbit below the supposed ground state, transforming it into the dark matter of the universe. The energy released in this process is 100 times greater than that of just burning hydrogen. So the dark matter doesn’t give us energy, but hydrogen becoming dark matter does.

      • bachcole

        It is a very creative idea, but his demos would still embarrass a middle school teacher of science whose major was early childhood education. (:->)

  • Rich Wilson

    Perpetual motion, no. But take dark energy. We can’t see it but scientists believe it exists. What’s to say this energy isn’t in some way converted into something we can experience.

    Scientists have now experienced the EM drive and shown that it does exists.
    Where does its energy come from. They haven’t explained that yet as far as I know. So when you are talking about energy and mass, don’t presume because the energy is not produced from common means that it doesn’t exist or that it can’t be harvested.

  • bachcole

    Mike, if cold fusion as it is alleged is nothing more than a perpetual motion machine, then please tell me why fission and hot fusion are not also perpetual motion machines. Indeed, hot fusion is a better candidate for a perpetual motion machine label than cold fusion since there has never been a single watt reported from hot fusion and cold fusion has had lots of reports of lots of excess watts.

    Truly your alleging that cold fusion is perpetual motion is way off base, unless you are suggesting the fission is also perpetual motion.

    • Pixelblot

      Pretty sure he is saying hold off on labelling cold fusion perpetual motion..which is odd because I don’t recall anyone labelling it as such! There might be some confusion on the posters part between the definitions of a theoretical perpetual motion machine and a practical over unity device.

    • Pixelblot

      Pretty sure he is saying hold off on labelling cold fusion perpetual motion..which is odd because I don’t recall anyone labelling it as such! There might be some confusion on the posters part between the definitions of a theoretical perpetual motion machine and a practical over unity device.

      • Mike Rion

        Again, not proponent of perpetual motion or labeling cold fusion as such. I think you misunderstood my point.

    • Alain Samoun

      Well, Sun= hot fusion reactor in motion – Not perpetual but we won’t be here when it stops. And we do use its energy: Fossil fuels,wind,photocells,food etc…

    • Alain Samoun

      Well, Sun= hot fusion reactor in motion – Not perpetual but we won’t be here when it stops. And we do use its energy: Fossil fuels,wind,photocells,food etc…

      • BillH

        The confusion is between a very long time, and forever.

    • Arthur Wendel

      I think there were a few watts produced here: https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIB9wQ9XLX8A.UwsnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBzZWQ1aGR0BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMTI-?p=castle+bravo&vid=7674db60bd8461090a6141658dd9a908&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOVP.V03593f164a80908727b95923d9f972c8%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D225%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDryGWs9u6jU&tit=NEW!!!+ORIGINAL+SOUND.U.S.Thermonuclear+explosion+castle+bravo+with+ORIGINAL+SOUND.wmv&c=11&h=225&w=300&l=109&sigr=11bh7okqh&sigt=12m65h6vj&sigi=131ogtamc&age=1266669679&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hsimp=yhs-002&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

      • Mike Rion

        Yep, we even learned to control it to some degree later on.

    • Mike Rion

      Bachcole, you missed my point completely, that there is no such thing as perpetual motion. My thinking is that the Universe is full of energy, there for the taking. It’s just a matter of dicovering and developing ways to do it. LENR could well be this breakthrough. I know it is long, but if you read my original post again I think you will see this.

      • bachcole

        Sorry. I have a lot of reading to do and don’t always get it right.

      • psi2u2

        I like the metaphor of the waterfall. Who is to say there is not water falling all around us all the time and if we could hook up a water wheel or a turbine to it, it would seemingly produce energy from the ether?

        That it has not been done is no argument. I realize the concept of ether is very controversial if not taboo in today’s physics. But if it does exist, it might explain a lot.

        • Mike Rion

          Yes, I think that will eventually be the answer to interstellar travel. I understand that inroads are also being made on the subject of faster than light travel.

        • Mike Rion

          If only J.P. Morgan hadn’t put the brakes on Tesla. We might be harvesting it even today

    • R V

      Both use up fuels and eventually cease to operate.

  • bachcole

    Mike, if cold fusion as it is alleged is nothing more than a perpetual motion machine, then please tell me why fission and hot fusion are not also perpetual motion machines. Indeed, hot fusion is a better candidate for a perpetual motion machine label than cold fusion since there has never been a single watt reported from hot fusion and cold fusion has had lots of reports of lots of excess watts.

    Truly your alleging that cold fusion is perpetual motion is way off base, unless you are suggesting the fission is also perpetual motion.

  • Michael W Wolf

    actually Mills claims that hydrogen through a specific process, has it’s electron move to an orbit below the supposed ground state, transforming it into the dark matter of the universe. The energy released in this process is 100 times greater than that of just burning hydrogen. So the dark matter doesn’t give us energy, but hydrogen becoming dark matter does.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Just like everything else the skepticopaths say, they try to pass off opinion as fact. They have no credibility in my mind anymore. They call everyone liars and frauds, and yet most everything they say turns out to be just that. Fraudulent bull crap.

  • Allan Shura

    As someone pointed out the universe is a perpetual motion machine. The transformation of energy to
    useable forms is in dualities such as temperature versus mechanical pressure. If there is no difference
    in the duality there is no energy gain or loss relative to temperature losses and gains around the system.
    This is seen in the duality of magnetic to electrical current and force. But is energy really lost or can it
    accumulate at a faster rate than a loss to the work and surrounding space? Can other opposing forces
    boomerang or reverse ripple back to the system in the process for gains? We see angular momentum for one.

  • Allan Shura

    As someone pointed out the universe is a perpetual motion machine. The transformation of energy to
    useable forms is in dualities such as temperature versus mechanical pressure. If there is no difference
    in the duality there is no energy gain or loss relative to temperature losses and gains around the system.
    This is seen in the duality of magnetic to electrical current and force. But is energy really lost or can it
    accumulate at a faster rate than a loss to the work and surrounding space? Can other opposing forces
    boomerang or reverse ripple back to the system in the process for gains? We see angular momentum for one.

  • Allan Shura

    As someone pointed out the universe is a perpetual motion machine. The transformation of energy to
    useable forms is in dualities such as temperature versus mechanical pressure. If there is no difference
    in the duality there is no energy gain or loss relative to temperature losses and gains around the system.
    This is seen in the duality of magnetic to electrical current and force. But is energy really lost or can it
    accumulate at a faster rate than a loss to the work and surrounding space? Can other opposing forces
    boomerang or reverse ripple back to the system in the process for gains? We see angular momentum for one.

    • Pixelblot

      We don’t know what the universe is so it’s a tad premature to classify it as a perpetual motion machine. For all we know it could be an isolated entropic system, a spec of time in the trillion sextillion year expansion phase of a cavitation bubble in a soupy fractal megaverse. 😉

    • BillH

      There’a a big difference between things that continue to move randomly about and the ability to extract useful energy from them. That’s why wind turbines don’t produce any energy when the wind is too light, and why they need energy to spin them up to speed when the wind arrives in strong enough force.

  • Felix

    Perpetual motion machine: The Solar Cell!

  • Felix

    Perpetual motion machine: The Solar Cell!

    • BillH

      So, Solar Cells don’t wear out, don’t fall apart, become useless or need replacing?

      • Felix

        The perpetual motion created by the solar cell does not cause its decay so the decay is an artifact of the environment and certainly does not add energy to the energy created.

        Solar cells may soon be created with graphene these solar cells will be super strong and could last indefinitely and the wires could also be created with graphene and would be very resilient.

        • R V

          What you are talking about is perpetually available and virtually free energy which will be great but still does not technically represent a true Perpetual Motion machine.

          • Felix

            I know that a solar cell is not technically a PPM. I like to use this example, to point out that PP is not a scientifically defined term. That a machine might one day be invented that does appear to be PP but then is later found to draw power in a way not previously understood, that would technically be PP until the source is found. So PPM could technically exist. At this point you might define PP motion to me and state it to be as, essentially, a device with a power budget equation that is negative, but you can’t define it this way anymore because the meaning of that has been taken by the term, over unit device. Thus, the meaning off PPM is now relegated any device that perpetual moves but the source of its power is something other than over unit.

            Under that definition a solar cell or better example, a solar nano-antenna tuned to low infra-red, produces power in the dark, is a PPM for anyone who does not know the science of what makes it work.

            If we require empirical proof for what makes it work then no one may live long enough to prove what makes the solar nano-antenna run because to observe it fail the sun must burn out for at least a few days.

            Man kind is surrounded by PPM, the Earth, the Sun, all the objects in space and are driven in a way that creates it by human standards and the quantum, and all those like particles that move constantly. We simply assume without proof the causes we are given that make these things run. There is no fuel given for the quantum, other than momentum, yet there is no grave yard on Earth for dead particles, in space it is dark matter, and science has observed a possible fuel but you don’t learn about it or even expect one unless you study the history of Einstein or astrophysics.

            So PPM as it is in nature is good enough for nature, why should it not be good enough for mankind?

  • Felix

    Perpetual motion machine: The Solar Cell!

  • Josh G

    Nice post, Mike. I agree with you.

    Tesla’s ‘ether’ is nothing other than a sea of tiny photons that have physical dimensions, mass and momentum. This is the same so-called dark energy or dark matter that physicists calculate makes up about 95% of all mass/energy in the universe. Miles Mathis calls this the charge field. We are awash in the charge field, and matter (electrons, nucleons) recycle charge photons by pumping them in and out through channels.

    All of the various ‘free energy’ devices, including LENR, are simply different ways of tapping the charge field and using it to perform work. (In a sense, solar cells are also a way of tapping into it, since the sun is taking in and then emitting these photons in energy states that we have figured out how to use to perform work using the photo-electric effect.)

    The energy is not being conjured out of nowhere (unlike theories involving so-called zero-point or vacuum energy), it is coming from this field of charge photons that are all around us and have material reality. Heat is primarily a function of photon/charge field density: the higher the density of these photons, the more heat there is. If atomic nuclei can be made to draw or ‘suck in’ these photons at a higher rate than they are emitted, the density of the system will increase. All the various LENR mechanisms are essentially ways of priming the pump — they are able to get matter to start sucking in and retaining photons either “on its own” or at an enhanced rate. This can be achieved either via a full-on self-sustain mode a la Rossi, or it can be a kind of multiplier of input energy, such that it stops when the energy supplied directly to the system is stopped. Since matter can be thought of as a physical system that recycles charge, LENR is literally a ‘supercharged’ system. (And BTW this enhancement is akin to the Rydberg state; in fact it might depend on Rydberg excitation–except the Rydberg state isn’t exactly what mainstream scientists think it is.) The e-cat can be likened to a low pressure, high intensity discharge lamp that keeps generating heat (and light) even after you turn off the electrical current flowing into it.

    For more on this, you can read the paper I wrote a few weeks ago and submitted here: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Mathisian-Physics-and-LENR-A-Preliminary-Guide-for-ECW-FINAL-1.pdf

    My thinking has evolved since I wrote that, and I don’t agree with everything there, but it has got the fundamentals mostly right and is still worth reading. I recently e-mailed Rossi about it, and he said he is aware of Mathis’s theories and finds them interesting.

    The irony of all this, by the way, is that to the extent that nuclear reactions (fusion, fission, beta decay, etc.) are involved or observed in LENR, they are not the primary cause of excess heat, but rather an effect or byproduct of how LENR intensifies charge channeling. Thus the scientists who originally denounced the idea that the excess heat observed in F&P’s experiment was due to fusion were basically correct on that score.

    Unfortunately, since they did not know about the charge field, they had no other way to explain the excess heat and so assumed F&P must be either wrong or frauds. That is the pattern of mainstream science: either deny clear evidence that their theories are wrong and discredit critics, or think up new loopholes using fancy math and leaps of logic to show how evidence that contradicts their predictions actually supports it. Sadly, I fear that when LENR goes mainstream, they will do the same thing and ignore the existence of the charge field and cover up their own ignorance with ever more absurd and fanciful post-hoc heuristics. In fact we can see it happening already.

    • Mike Rion

      Josh, I’ve been reading and although a lot of this beyond my comprehension level it is fascinating just the same. I appreciate the links and the explanation.

      • Zephir

        Josh is the same layman like you – your fascination is just the manifestation of the same factual ignorance.

        • Mike Rion

          Wow! That’s harsh. This seems to be an open forum, not limited to purely academic discussion. If that’s not the environment you’re looking for perhaps you should find a place where only you and your fellow eggheads can hang out. I’ve read some of your posts and its clear you consider yourself something of an expert, although I’m not sure I’m in agreement with that. But if I’m wrong and you do have all the answers then why aren’t you applying your talents in a lab somewhere trying to work this out at the scientific level. Seems there are already enough people here who are all talk, no action.

          • Zephir

            Just because it’s an open forum, I can say openly, Mathisian physics is bunch of naive ideas, which won’t move their reader forward – we already discussed it extensively here. BMW I don’t consider myself an expert from apparent reason: https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/3ph82u/using_experts_inexpertly_leads_to_policy_failure/?ref=search_posts

          • Mike Rion

            That may well be, but I’m new to the forum and I’m not a scientist or a physicist so I really wouldn’t know the difference. As a “Layman” I found the idea fascinating, but then I like fantasy and science fiction too. I’ve been around a long time now and the older I get the more impressed I become with how much that is initially categorized as such, turns out in the end to form a basis for hard science. While scientific discipline is important, it is equally important to keep and open mind. I recognize that becomes a kind of balancing act, but it seems those who master it turn out to become the best innovators.

          • Zephir

            This is just the problem, for layman every new idea is fascinating, but it still doesn’t mean, it’s physically realistic, true the less. If you’re unsure, just ask the question: What would it imply? What such an idea will give to me?

            https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png

            This is the never-failing criterion for distinguishing of contributory ideas and analogies from misleading and void homologies: the ability to provide testable predictions.

          • Mike Rion

            It’s hilarious when Dr. Sheldon Cooper does it on “Big Bang Theory” on television. Not so much here.

  • Josh G

    Nice post, Mike. I agree with you.

    Tesla’s ‘ether’ is nothing other than a sea of tiny photons that have physical dimensions, mass and momentum. This is the same so-called dark energy or dark matter that physicists calculate makes up about 95% of all mass/energy in the universe. Miles Mathis calls this the charge field. We are awash in the charge field, and matter (electrons, nucleons) recycle charge photons by pumping them in and out through channels.

    All of the various ‘free energy’ devices, including LENR, are simply different ways of tapping the charge field and using it to perform work. (In a sense, solar cells are also a way of tapping into it, since the sun is taking in and then emitting these photons in energy states that we have figured out how to use to perform work using the photo-electric effect.)

    The energy is not being conjured out of nowhere (unlike theories involving so-called zero-point or vacuum energy), it is coming from this field of charge photons that are all around us and have material reality. Heat is primarily a function of photon/charge field density: the higher the density of these photons, the more heat there is. If atomic nuclei can be made to draw or ‘suck in’ these photons at a higher rate than they are emitted, the density of the system will increase. All the various LENR mechanisms are essentially ways of priming the pump — they are able to get matter to start sucking in and retaining photons either “on its own” or at an enhanced rate. This can be achieved either via a full-on self-sustain mode a la Rossi, or it can be a kind of multiplier of input energy, such that it stops when the energy supplied directly to the system is stopped. Since matter can be thought of as a physical system that recycles charge, LENR is literally a ‘supercharged’ system. (And BTW this enhancement is akin to the Rydberg state; in fact it might depend on Rydberg excitation–except the Rydberg state isn’t exactly what mainstream scientists think it is.) The e-cat can be likened to a low pressure, high intensity discharge lamp that keeps generating heat (and light) even after you turn off the electrical current flowing into it.

    For more on this, you can read the paper I wrote a few weeks ago and submitted here: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Mathisian-Physics-and-LENR-A-Preliminary-Guide-for-ECW-FINAL-1.pdf

    My thinking has evolved since I wrote that, and I don’t agree with everything there, but it has got the fundamentals mostly right and is still worth reading. I recently e-mailed Rossi about it, and he said he is aware of Mathis’s theories and finds them interesting.

    The irony of all this, by the way, is that to the extent that nuclear reactions (fusion, fission, beta decay, etc.) are involved or observed in LENR, they are not the primary cause of excess heat, but rather an effect or byproduct of how LENR intensifies charge channeling. Thus the scientists who originally denounced the idea that the excess heat observed in F&P’s experiment was due to fusion were basically correct on that score.

    Unfortunately, since they did not know about the charge field, they had no other way to explain the excess heat and so assumed F&P must be either wrong or frauds. That is the pattern of mainstream science: either deny clear evidence that their theories are wrong and discredit critics, or think up new loopholes using fancy math and leaps of logic to show how evidence that contradicts their predictions actually supports it. Sadly, I fear that when LENR goes mainstream, they will do the same thing and ignore the existence of the charge field and cover up their own ignorance with ever more absurd and fanciful post-hoc heuristics. In fact we can see it happening already.

    EDIT: Just want to add that this also explains the mystery of how the e-cat can run for so long on such a small charge of ‘fuel’ — the fuel isn’t being “used up” in nuclear reactions. It is simply being used to pump in and contain more charge, of which there is a virtually unlimited amount (think 95% of all mass-energy in the universe). The transmutations result from supercharging the flow of charge through the nuclei.

    • Mike Rion

      An excellent and informative response Josh G.

      • Josh G

        Cheers, Mike.

    • Felix

      The easy easy way to understand all this is first to recognize what I have only found 1 physics teacher to teach with basic electrical theory, any ground is simply a low voltage, thus, all higher voltages potentially flow into the lower voltage.

      Now think of the Earth and Tesla’s free energy the areas of the Earth that rotate more slowly have a lower voltage and water enhances that, so he creates a tower that is connected and electrically isolated/insulated to a deep large ground water pool, which is why he built his tower in Colorado Springs.

      Viola, wireless and free energy.

      Next there is the possible element of fusion occurring in solid state physics in materials where crystalline vortexes can cause huge amounts of compression and pressure in the quantum …

    • Mike Rion

      Josh, I’ve been reading and although a lot of this beyond my comprehension level it is fascinating just the same. I appreciate the links and the explanation.

      • Zephir

        Josh is the same layman like you – your fascination is just the manifestation of the same factual ignorance.

        • Mike Rion

          Wow! That’s harsh. This seems to be an open forum, not limited to purely academic discussion. If that’s not the environment you’re looking for perhaps you should find a place where only you and your fellow eggheads can hang out. I’ve read some of your posts and its clear you consider yourself something of an expert, although I’m not sure I’m in agreement with that. But if I’m wrong and you do have all the answers then why aren’t you applying your talents in a lab somewhere trying to work this out at the scientific level. Seems there are already enough people here who are all talk, no action.

          • Zephir

            Just because it’s an open forum, I can say openly, the so-called “Mathisian physics” is bunch of incoherent naive ideas, which won’t move their reader forward – we already discussed it extensively here. Of course, this is my private opinion about it, which you may or may not want to share. BMW I don’t consider myself an expert from apparent reason: https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/3ph82u/using_experts_inexpertly_leads_to_policy_failure/?ref=search_posts

          • Mike Rion

            That may well be, but I’m new to the forum and I’m not a scientist or a physicist so I really wouldn’t know the difference. As a “Layman” I found the idea fascinating, but then I like fantasy and science fiction too. I’ve been around a long time now and the older I get the more impressed I become with how much that is initially categorized as such, turns out in the end to form a basis for hard science. While scientific discipline is important, it is equally important to keep and open mind. I recognize that becomes a kind of balancing act, but it seems those who master it turn out to become the best innovators.

          • Zephir

            This is just the problem, for layman every new idea is fascinating, but it still doesn’t mean, it’s physically realistic, true the less. If you’re unsure, just ask the question: What would it imply? What such an idea will give to me?

            https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png

            This is the never-failing criterion for distinguishing of contributory ideas and analogies from misleading and void homologies: the ability to provide testable predictions.

          • Mike Rion

            It’s hilarious when Dr. Sheldon Cooper does it on “Big Bang Theory” on television. Not so much here.

  • Suresh

    “Energy can be created only when the applied focre is the inherent property of the source”

  • GordonDocherty

    LENR is not perpetual motion – fuel is eventually used up and the reaction stops. So, you can rest easy on LENR. It is a process that “consumes” fuel to “produce” energy. It is the exact mechanism, however, that is, as of yet, not fully understood. For example, it needs an input of energy to start (LENR systems first need to be “energized”) and further energy delivered repeatedly in the form of “shock waves” to really get going, after which there is clear evidence of transmutation of elements (a nuclear process) and the production of a lot of heat (mostly from I/R radiation), but there may also be fusion and/or fission occuring – in fact, it could be said that LENR is a nucler simmering process – first bring the pan to a boil, then keep it simmering along, so to speak: add more energy, and the contents spoil, so stopping the reaction (this pan heats itself), add less energy and the reaction also stops. So, no, not a perpetual motion machine, more a (integral-control-regulated) simmering pan, where the heat is coming from reactions going on in the pan itself.

  • GordonDocherty

    LENR is not perpetual motion – fuel is eventually used up and the reaction stops. So, you can rest easy on LENR. It is a process that “consumes” fuel to “produce” energy. It is the exact mechanism, however, that is, as of yet, not fully understood. For example, it needs an input of energy to start (LENR systems first need to be “energized”) and further energy delivered repeatedly in the form of “shock waves” to really get going, after which there is clear evidence of transmutation of elements (a nuclear process) and the production of a lot of heat (mostly from I/R radiation), but there may also be fusion and/or fission occuring – in fact, it could be said that LENR is a nuclear simmering process – first bring the pan to a boil, then keep it simmering along, so to speak: add more energy, and the contents spoil (stopping the reaction in the process – this pan heats itself); add less energy and the reaction also stops. So, no, not a perpetual motion machine, more a (integral-control-regulated) simmering pan, where the heat is coming from reactions going on in the pan itself.

  • BillH

    Don’t get confused with any of the terms, free energy, infinite energy or perpetual motion. Einstein demonstrated the equivalence of mass and energy. You can produce energy by converting mass and visa versa, but the amount of energy and the amount of mass is finite. So called free energy comes at the cost of loss of mass, and the mass in question is finite in extent. Infinite energy confuses the very large with the infinitely large, you are never going to get the same amount of energy out of converting a sugar cube into pure energy as you would get from the sun converting hydrogen into energy. Perpetual motion is confusing if you see something moving with any apparent forces being applied, as in the mechanical devices of the 19th century, but that neglects to consider what happens when things fall apart, rust, wear out, turn to dust, it all to do with Entropy which suggest that given enough time everything falls apart and becomes chaotic.

    • Mike Rion

      Yes, but so much of it is outside the narrow time frame of human reference that it doesn’t bear discussion or even concern, at least for the present. Although, science fiction writer “Cory Doctorow” describes a post singularity future when most of mankind has become virtual and so much computing power is needed that most of the rocky planets of our solar system have been used up for circuitry to support it, since we no longer need them anyway. Now that’s looking ahead!

      • R V

        FYI, check out Brilliant Light Power.

  • EmTee

    I like your post, as mentioned before, just add PV as an other “energy miracle”. When I have seen a little information both, outside on a market place, may be 25 years ago, where a solar panel was connected “directly” to a hand drilling machine, it looked really amazing on this cloudy day. So there is really a lot of “free energy” around us, but you always need devices to turn it to useful energy, and this devices has to be build and so
    the question remains, especially for LENR, are the proposed devices reliable and cheap enough to be widely adopted? I hope that lately at the end of this year we will know better.

  • EmTee

    I like your post, as mentioned before, just add PV as an other “energy miracle”. When I have seen a little information both, outside on a market place, may be 25 years ago, where a solar panel was connected “directly” to a hand drilling machine, it looked really amazing on this cloudy day. So there is really a lot of “free energy” around us, but you always need devices to turn it to useful energy, and this devices has to be build and so
    the question remains, especially for LENR, are the proposed devices reliable and cheap enough to be widely adopted? I hope that lately at the end of this year we will know better.

  • Bob Matulis

    Entropy

  • Bob Matulis

    Entropy

  • catfish

    Solar is not free energy. It’s fusion power with a long hookup, and we didn’t build the reactor.

    • R V

      It’s not free either since it is expensive to harvest yet it is freely available.

  • SD

    As others have said, it’s obviously not perpetual motion when you have to refuel every month.

    It’s not even free or infinite energy, just cheap and there is a lot of it.

    Now imagine if the original reserves of petroleum were multiplied by 1 million. It would then be a bit near-sighted to say it is perpetual motion or free energy or infinite energy.

  • Navdrew

    Those electrons spinning around the nucleus seem to have motion which appears pretty perpetual as does the motion of planets spinning around the stars which also appears perpetual at least in mortal time frames. The energy that placed and keeps these in motion is more of a question for philosophers rather than physicists and engineers. Perhaps Rossi’s philosophy degree has provided him with insight to more than just the E-CAT.

    • R V

      Perpetual Motion is not simply about being in motion perpetually, like electrons, but being able to give up energy in some closed cycle which is impossible. No energy is needed to ‘keep’ these motions going.

      However, it appears electrons can give up some energy and end up in a lower state in the Hydrogen atom (the hydrino) based on the work of Mills. But this also is merely a conversion of one existing form of energy into another.

      • Navdrew

        Perpetual motion IS about being in motion perpetually BY DEFINITION. Staying in motion does not answer the question of what or who placed things in motion and the source of the energy required to initiate this motion.

        • R V

          No, that is not what is meant when most people use the term.

      • bachcole

        By “work of Mills”, do you mean his ideas or his demonstrations. His ideas are very elegant. His demonstrations are absurd.

        • R V

          No, they are not absurd. They show the reaction exists.

          • bachcole

            How do you know the reaction exists when there is no 3rd party testing, no input divided by output, basically no nothing other than really fun sparks?

          • R V

            Because the reaction has been subjected to numerous tests and the spectrum measured as well as calorimetry done on the energy to start the reaction and the energy released. BTW, there are third party tests, just not ones the critics seem to accept because perhaps they aren’t done by important enough scientists.

            Based on the literally thousands of experiments done over the years by Mills and his team, if it were any other effect the evidence would be considered overwhelming. However, since the established scientific community has insisted a-priori that such a reaction could not possibly exist, because it was not predicted by quantum mechanics (and by them…), we have a stalemate. Mills has spent tens of millions of dollars and twenty five years trying to prove the reaction but minds are closed. Hydrogen simply cannot do that they say.

          • bachcole

            I can’t accept your word that Mills’ machine has been tested. Did Mills tell you that the his machine (technology, really) had been tested. I apply the same standard to Mills as I do to Rossi. Is the test 3rd independent party? Did the 3rd independent party report the test, or did Mills report the 3rd independent test, which is not independent?

          • R V

            I separate the science of Mills’ hydrino discovery and the engineering of that science into a practical device. Mills is working hard on the latter but the former has been demonstrated and published in about 100 papers.

            Mills has done extensive scientific testing of the process. I’m not going to discount all Mills’ data and claim it means nothing until some ‘third party’ blesses it. They have BTW and that’s great but that’s incidental.

          • bachcole

            Which independent 3rd party has blessed Mills stuff? The fact that you don’t need 3rd party confirmation means that I do not trust you. Your word is agnostic, neutral for me.

          • R V

            There are several validation reports on Mills website but also, Mills published a peer reviewed article in a major journal in 2011. I never said I don’t want widespread academic recognition for Mills work, but that isn’t happening yet for the wrong reasons but will some someday. I am not simply going to go along and claim Mills must be some fraud because the scientific world is biased against him. I think his data speaks for itself unless you question either his competence or integrity. If you do, then prove his data is wrong.

          • bachcole

            Validation reports on Mills website is not going to cut it. The validation reports have to be on an independent site. I don’t understand why you don’t get that.

            I am not claiming that Mills is a fraud because academia does not accept him. I am claiming that he is boring because his demonstrations are a freaking joke and because he is abusive to you and me and everyone else that hangs out here at e-catworld.com.

            What data speaks for itself? Everything that he says is nothing more than “Randel says”. When he has a demonstration that is not pathetic, and when he has a third party that confirms his supposedly paradigm busting theories, then I will give him more credence.

            Mills has been at this for about 20 years. Why isn’t he powering his home and then selling energy back to the power utility and making money? He always seems to be on the verge of a break through, for 20 years now. He is really great at raising money; and he is really great at theories; but isn’t isn’t so great at delivering the goods.

          • R V

            I get that fine. But you want me to be skeptical and critical of Mills mainly BECAUSE he has insignificant academic or ‘mainstream’ backing. So, everyone is supposed to go along with the herd until someone someday, who must be sufficiently famous, says it’s okay to accept hydrino’s. Things said or published by Mills are not ‘wrong’ until someone else says they are ‘right’.

            If you understand physics and look at the spectrum and output of Mills experiments, they show what’s going on. Am I simply supposed to say, oh, whatever papers Mills write are to be discounted because Stephen Chu proclaimed ‘it’s unlikely’?

            Data is data no matter where it is. Frankly, I went through skeptical periods but I have seen enough data and I have enough of a scientific education that convinced me. I’m not going to play games and wait for some famous scientist to pronounce his ‘blessing’.

            Questions like ‘why he isn’t powering his home with hydrino’s’ show no appreciation for the work it takes to bring an idea to reality in the face of an almost entirely hostile environment. Are you aware that 25 years of development and 100 million dollars have been put into this project to date? Sure, if Mills had the backing of the entire establishment things may have proceeds faster.

            Have you actually read one of Mills published papers or are you just following what the critics spout off?

          • bachcole

            Epistemology 101

            “But you want me to be skeptical and critical of Mills mainly BECAUSE he has insignificant academic or ‘mainstream’ backing.” No. I am skeptical of him because his demonstrations suck and he has had 25 years and $100 million and his demonstration still suck and he still does not have anything even close to practical.

            I am skeptical of famous scientists who talk with authority about the Big Bang or anthropogenic global warming. Famous only has value epistemologically when it encourages us to give our attention to something. Belief should depend solely upon the evidence. And what Mills or anyone else says is not evidence. If someone were to confirm what he has to say, that would be evidence.

            Published papers are not evidence. 3rd party independent tests are evidence. Having a very elegant theory is not evidence. Einstein had very elegant theories, but they did not mean a whole lot until they were compared with the observations.

            How do I know that XYZ’s observations of his money making invention are true? Because ABC also observed them and ABC has a lot to lose and nothing to gain by stating that he/she made those observations. Lots and lots of xyz’s make lots and lots of claims. Do you believe them all? You did not believe me when I said that OBEs were real, yet you just take Mills word for everything.

            Never believe anyone who is trying to sell you something.

          • R V

            No, I said OBE’s are real experiences you have but you interpret them differently than I would. Show evidence they tell you anything about the afterlife. The term OBE is neutral and just means having the experience of being out of the body, not that one actually is out of the body. And I have read fairly widely on the subject including more science based books as well as metaphysical books

            Let me understand, if Mills spends a lot of time and money to do an experiment and publishes the results, it’s completely worthless unless someone else does it too? But what if no one else deems the experiment worthy to do because they already made up their minds it won’t show what Mills thinks? What if they ignore objective evidence in the form of test results, charts, spectrums and they merely dismiss all that with a wave of their hand. I contend that this is basically what’s happened and it means the usual system of science has broken down.

            In the process of science, someone has to look at the results and decide to take the risk. If no one does, the system is broken. There is however, no lack of armchair critics who make demands about what Mills must do to prove himself.

            When he does prove himself you will have to admit he has been a hero for sticking it out to prove it.

            You claim the validations on Mills site are not third party. So, if Mills links to them they are corrupt? Did you actually read them?
            If so, what scenario is the minimum you would accept, such as what university would qualify and what university would not? I presume you disqualify anyone at Rowan University because they like Mills work and have studied and reported in it but they are a ‘no name’ school and not Harvard, Princeton or Yale.

          • bachcole

            Suddenly RV is an evidence hound. “Show evidence they tell you anything about the afterlife.” The afterlife is not just one thing. It is not binary (unless you believe in your heart that it is.). But try this: I was impressed to the very core of my being that morality is important, perhaps one of the most important things in life. I found myself in a “universe” or realm made of moral atoms. I realized that this space interpenetrated our physical bodies and this is what we call conscience. I learned that where we focus our consciousness, whether due to fear, lust, love, anger, etc., is the direction that we go in. Probably most people will transcend this level that I was at fairly quickly, but evil people will not leave that level all that quickly, depending upon how bound they are to evil (malicious intent) and heavy mental impressions (lust, etc).

            But I am not sure why I am revealing this in an open forum. I have told very few of even my closes friends these things.

          • R V

            With questions of ultimate meaning you trust your own instincts. You are brave indeed.

            BTW, all this talk of OBE’s gave me an unsettling experience last night. I felt a rush of movement and then my body felt like it was vibrating at a few Hz. I doubt I was literally vibrating in a measurable way but it felt like it. At one point I attempted to ‘lift’ myself but only succeeded in sitting up in bed. It’s good I failed because I really do not want to have OBE’s since I take Bob Monroe’s warning to not take such things lightly.

  • Rob

    “Allude,” not “elude.”

    • Mike Rion

      Oops, thanks for the correction. It seems to happen every time I try to sound intelligent.

  • Mike Rion

    I don’t know if I failed to make myself clear or people are skim reading and missing the point, which is that there is no such thing as perpetual motion, just that some processes seem that way. I think there is energy all around us and that LENR may well be a new and exciting way to extract it from (to use tesla’s term) the aether.

    I also believe that if negativity hadn’t prevailed after 1989 we would now be using the process for energy on a daily basis. I has always amazed me how basically creative people can be so negative at times.

    • SD

      I did skim read and missed the point.

  • Mike Rion

    One of the things that influenced my post was all the recent posting on other sites regarding overunity involving induction electric motors connected to generators. There seems to be evidence that AC electrical current can be derived from (sound?) frequency vibrations present throughout the Universe, but especially from our own magnetisphere. Another fascinating concept not all that unrelated to LENR in concept.

    • psi2u2

      Mike, I have wondered for a long time if esoteric knowledge about sound that was once known has been lost because we don’t pay that much attention to it.

  • AstralProjectee

    I totally agree with this post. Even LENR is probably at the beginning of a very long list of energy sources to be discovered by humans.

    • R V

      Do you have OBE’s?

  • AstralProjectee

    I totally agree with this post. Even LENR is probably at the beginning of a very long list of energy sources to be discovered by humans.

    • R V

      Do you have OBE’s?

      • bachcole

        AstralProjectee, regularly, or did you do it once or a few times?

        • R V

          Sometimes I lucid dream but never OBE. I think the OBE is just a form of lucid dreaming.

          • bachcole

            Having done both, I can say with 100% certainty that lucid dreaming is NOT the same as OBE.

            I know it is fun to be right, but the good news is that you are not your body and you will exist for all eternity. The condition of your state will depend entirely upon the mental impressions that you choose to express.

          • R V

            We agree that you will live forever, but whatever the OBE is, I can say what it is not. It is not the soul or spirit, which a person does have, leaving the body. It may strongly seem to be the case but experiences can and do deceive. Nor can such an experience teach one anything real about the afterlife. I know many people have convinced themselves of that but they are deceiving themselves. The Bible teaches all one needs to know of the afterlife in my view.

  • Mike Rion

    Yes, but so much of it is outside the narrow time frame of human reference that it doesn’t bear discussion or even concern, at least for the present. Although, science fiction writer “Cory Doctorow” describes a post singularity future when most of mankind has become virtual and so much computing power is needed that most of the rocky planets of our solar system have been used up for circuitry to support it, since we no longer need them anyway. Now that’s looking ahead!

    • R V

      FYI, check out Brilliant Light Power.

  • Rob

    Lol.

  • R V

    Mike, you are right with a caveat. New work by Sheehan et. al. suggests that the Second Law may not be absolute thus allowing the possibility of perpetual motion machines of the Second Kind. Those are devices which can recycle existing energy such as ambient heat from a uniform heat bath into useful work. Such ‘heat recyclers’ could in principle cool your room while running your computer which in turn recycles the heat for further use.

    • Ted-X

      I agree. Newton himself was not certain if the conservation of energy, even in mechanical systems is a rule. The Bessler wheel from the 18th century, might be actually a working example of an overunity mechanical device. ———– Another case, derived from the Maxwell demon concept, a ratchet-type experiment (which breaks the symmetry by going only one direction), in my interpretation would support the idea of harvesting energy from the ambient environment. The concept of the conservation of energy, observed in random-systems, may not apply if the symmetry is broken. In the classical mechanics, it is known that fast rotating balls have some properties which are difficult to explain. Some unexplained experiments in that are are known. Gyroscopes might have something in them, too.
      I think that dismissing of the Perpetuum Machines was premature.

      • R V

        Feynman did an analysis of the ratchet system (thus the term Feynman Ratchets) but his often quoted results are likely not absolutely general. He made broad assumptions and did not account for non-symmetrical bonds in my view.

  • R V

    Mike, you are right with a caveat. New work by Sheehan et. al. suggests that the Second Law may not be absolute thus allowing the possibility of perpetual motion machines of the Second Kind. Those are devices which can recycle existing energy such as ambient heat from a uniform heat bath into useful work. Such ‘heat recyclers’ could in principle cool your room while running your computer which in turn recycles the heat for further use.

    • Ted-X

      I agree. Newton himself was not certain if the conservation of energy, even in mechanical systems is a rule. The Bessler wheel from the 18th century, might be actually a working example of an overunity mechanical device. ———– Another case, derived from the Maxwell demon concept, a ratchet-type experiment (which breaks the symmetry by going only one direction), in my interpretation would support the idea of harvesting energy from the ambient environment. The concept of the conservation of energy, observed in random-systems, may not apply if the symmetry is broken. In the classical mechanics, it is known that fast rotating balls have some properties which are difficult to explain. Some unexplained experiments in that are are known. Gyroscopes might have something in them, too.
      I think that dismissing of the Perpetuum Machines was premature.

      • R V

        Feynman did an analysis of the ratchet system (thus the term Feynman Ratchets) but his often quoted results are likely not absolutely general. He made broad assumptions and did not account for non-symmetrical bonds in my view.

  • Josh G

    Cheers, Mike.

  • psi2u2

    Mike, I have wondered for a long time if esoteric knowledge about sound that was once known has been lost because we don’t pay that much attention to it.

    • R V

      No, that is not what is meant when most people use the term.

  • psi2u2

    I like the metaphor of the waterfall. Who is to say there is not water falling all around us all the time and if we could hook up a water wheel or a turbine to it, it would seemingly produce energy from the ether.

    • Mike Rion

      Yes, I think that will eventually be the answer to interstellar travel. I understand that inroads are also being made on the subject of faster than light travel.

    • Mike Rion

      If only J.P. Morgan hadn’t put the brakes on Tesla. We might be harvesting it even today

  • Felix

    Maybe, E-cat does not need to be refueled. Maybe, Rossi is just requiring regular refueling that is not at all needed, so that he can charge his costumers a fee on a regular basis.

  • Zephir

    IMO Mr. Acland is doing mistake, when he devalues his rather objective and thorough journalism with presentation of subjective and naive layman ideas, which only have place in discussion. This makes a disservice to the work of real scientists doing honest research and the whole LENR community, because for various skeptopaths is much easier to dismiss the subject as a whole.

  • Zephir

    IMO Mr. Acland is doing mistake, when he devalues his rather objective and systematical journalism on this web with presentation of subjective and naive layman ideas, which only have place in discussion. This makes a disservice to the work of real scientists doing thorough research and the whole LENR community, because for various skeptopaths is much easier to dismiss the subject as a whole after then. If this web really needs the regular impressions and clickbaits so much, it could dedicate some particular section to the subjective opinions of his readers.

  • Zephir

    When you shake liquid mercury inside the testube, you’ll obtain a black “dust” composed of myriads tiny droplets of mercury. These droplets will have tendency to merge mutually, during which the portion of initial energy introduced into their shaking will get released back again.

    Analogously, what is presented as a perpetuum mobile or overunity here is just the latent energy of many tiny particles, which escaped their merging during formation of galaxies and supernovae. These particles just wait for their opportunity for merging.

    In this extent it’s worth to note, that the merging of mercury droplets can be catalyzed by adding of very small amount of acid or alcohol to the mercury “dust”. The release of energy during atom nuclei merging can be catalyzed by very similar principle: by local decrease of strong space-time curvature, which would otherwise keep the surfaces of particles separated each of other.

    The merging of mercury droplets gets initiated by temporal increase of density of environment between droplets and by formation of thin neck of negative curvature. Well and during cold fusion such a “necks” must be formed too between atom nuclei.

  • Zephir

    When we shake liquid mercury inside the testube, we can obtain a black “dust” composed of myriads tiny droplets of mercury. These droplets will have tendency to merge mutually, during which the portion of initial energy introduced into their shaking will get released back again.

    Analogously, what is presented as a perpetuum mobile or overunity here is just the latent energy of many tiny particles, which escaped their merging during formation of galaxies and supernovae. These particles just wait for their delayed opportunity for merging.

    In this extent it’s worth to note, that the merging of mercury droplets can be catalyzed by adding of very small amount of acid or alcohol to the mercury “dust”. The release of energy during atom nuclei merging can be catalyzed by very similar principle: by local decrease of strong space-time curvature, which would otherwise keep the surfaces of particles separated each of other.

    The merging of mercury droplets gets initiated by temporal increase of density of environment between droplets and by formation of thin neck of negative curvature. Well and during cold fusion such a “necks” must be formed too between atom nuclei.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/2ip31z/ecat_report_released_not_a_conventional_source_of/cl8nnf8

  • R V

    Sometimes I lucid dream but never OBE. I think the OBE is just a form of lucid dreaming.

    • bachcole

      Having done both, I can say with 100% certainty that lucid dreaming is NOT the same as OBE.

      I know it is fun to be right, but the good news is that you are not your body and you will exist for all eternity. The condition of your state will depend entirely upon the mental impressions that you choose to express.

      • R V

        We agree that you will live forever, but whatever the OBE is, I can say what it is not. It is not the soul or spirit, which a person does have, leaving the body. It may strongly seem to be the case but experiences can and do deceive. Nor can such an experience teach one anything real about the afterlife. I know many people have convinced themselves of that but they are deceiving themselves. The Bible teaches all one needs to know of the afterlife in my view.

  • I made a post in the comments section of another article on this website, a while back, and I thought that it would be relevant here, as well, so I am reposting it here:

    I’d like to get a bit philosophical. I see a lot of people claiming that
    it is unlikely that The Orbo is “generating energy from nothing”
    because “Science” has said that that is impossible. One problem that I
    have with this reasoning is that it gives, in my opinion, too much
    respect to “Science” – especially given the track record of how
    “Science” has been wrong a lot of times, in the past. (and probably is
    wrong about a lot, now, and, also, probably will be wrong about a lot,
    in the future) Another problem that I have, though, is that “energy”
    might not be real, at least in the sense that we typically think of it.
    Let’s consider the possibility that “energy” – as it is typically
    thought of – is not really a real thing, but is, instead, a complex
    metaphor that we humans have created. Perhaps, similar to Newtonian
    physics, this “energy” metaphor works in most cases, but maybe there are
    rare phenomena where the “energy” metaphor breaks down, similar to how
    Newtonian physics breaks down in some circumstances. I think that Frank,
    once, posted a video of a physicist dude who said that he could not
    believe what he was seeing when he saw a Steorn device in action. I
    think that he also said, during that same video, that he thought that
    the physics community might have taken a wrong turn at some point, in
    the past. Perhaps this “energy” metaphor was the wrong turn. Perhaps we
    started believing in this “energy” stuff as a real thing, or, at least,
    as real set of absolute rules that govern how the universe works, rather
    than as a metaphor that works most of the time, but breaks down in some
    rare instances. In these rare cases where the “energy” metaphor breaks
    down, it would not make sense to ask a question like: “Where is the
    energy coming from?” It’s not “coming from” anywhere because there is no
    “energy,” in reality. The metaphor does not work in these kinds of rare
    cases. Instead, these kinds of cases would probably be better talked
    about as just being processes causing other processes. One of the
    implications of the “energy” metaphor might be that no processes can
    continue forever without outside “energy” being injected into the
    process. However, in the rare cases where the “energy” metaphor breaks
    down, this implication would not, necessarily, hold true. Maybe there
    really are some processes that really can go on forever, as long as they
    are not stopped – and maybe, just maybe, the folks at Steorn have found
    one of these rare processes.

  • R V

    I separate the science of Mills’ hydrino discovery and the engineering of that science into a practical device. Mills is working hard on the latter but the former has been demonstrated and published in about 100 papers.

    Mills has done extensive scientific testing of the process. I’m not going to discount all Mills’ data and claim it means nothing until some ‘third party’ blesses it. They have BTW and that’s great but that’s incidental.

  • R V

    There are several validation reports on Mills website but also, Mills published a peer reviewed article in a major journal in 2011. I never said I don’t want widespread academic recognition for Mills work, but that isn’t happening yet for the wrong reasons but will some someday. I am not simply going to go along and claim Mills must be some fraud because the scientific world is biased against him. I think his data speaks for itself unless you question either his competence or integrity. If you do, then prove his data is wrong.

  • R V

    No, I said OBE’s are real experiences you have but you interpret them differently than I would. Show evidence they tell you anything about the afterlife. The term OBE is neutral and just means having the experience of being out of the body, not that one actually is out of the body. And I have read fairly widely on the subject including more science based books as well as metaphysical books

    Let me understand, if Mills spends a lot of time and money to do an experiment and publishes the results, it’s completely worthless unless someone else does it too? But what if no one else deems the experiment worthy to do because they already made up their minds it won’t show what Mills thinks? What if they ignore objective evidence in the form of test results, charts, spectrums and they merely dismiss all that with a wave of their hand. I contend that this is basically what’s happened and it means the usual system of science has broken down.

    In the process of science, someone has to look at the results and decide to take the risk. If no one does, the system is broken. There is however, no lack of armchair critics who make demands about what Mills must do to prove himself.

    When he does prove himself you will have to admit he has been a hero for sticking it out to prove it.

    You claim the validations on Mills site are not third party. So, if Mills links to them they are corrupt? Did you actually read them?
    If so, what scenario is the minimum you would accept, such as what university would qualify and what university would not? I presume you disqualify anyone at Rowan University because they like Mills work and have studied and reported in it but they are a ‘no name’ school and not Harvard, Princeton or Yale.

    • bachcole

      Suddenly RV is an evidence hound. “Show evidence they tell you anything about the afterlife.” The afterlife is not just one thing. It is not binary (unless you believe in your heart that it is.). But try this: I was impressed to the very core of my being that morality is important, perhaps one of the most important things in life. I found myself in a “universe” or realm made of moral atoms. I realized that this space interpenetrated our physical bodies and this is what we call conscience. I learned that where we focus our consciousness, whether due to fear, lust, love, anger, etc., is the direction that we go in. Probably most people will transcend this level that I was at fairly quickly, but evil people will not leave that level all that quickly, depending upon how bound they are to evil (malicious intent) and heavy mental impressions (lust, etc).

      But I am not sure why I am revealing this in an open forum. I have told very few of even my closes friends these things.

      • R V

        With questions of ultimate meaning you trust your own instincts. You are brave indeed.

        BTW, all this talk of OBE’s gave me an unsettling experience last night. I felt a rush of movement and then my body felt like it was vibrating at a few Hz. I doubt I was literally vibrating in a measurable way but it felt like it. At one point I attempted to ‘lift’ myself but only succeeded in siting up in bed. It’s good I failed because I really do not want to have OBE’s since I take Bob Monroe’s warning to not take such things lightly.

  • Otto1923

    Guess he never heard of exothermic reactions. And no it doesn’t count if you say ‘well you know what I meant’.