One of the formats that energy production in the LENR reaction can assume is shock wave generation. The Papp engine produced a huge amount of energy inside the combustion chambers of its paired cylinders but no heat. The first Papp engine was based on the production of a fuel cycle based on water. Only later in the mid 80's did Papp come up with a new reaction based on the explosion of noble gases. By the way, this method of LENR energy generation does not require hydrogen to operate.
The same heatless expansion through shock wave generation might be true for the combustion of all LENR reaction based gases: Ohmasa, brown's gas, etc. in the cylinder of a car engine. If you would be kind enough to ask your contacts familiar with LENR gas fueled cars if any appreciable heat output is produced, I would be interested to know. How the details of the LENR shock wave energy production format occurs is still unknown. On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:27 AM Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding: > > - I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all > systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that > fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite > different. > > > Living things can transmute elements. This ability is very hard to > understand in terms of theory. How can a bacterium produce enough power to > circumvent the normal functioning of the strong force. How can a bacterium > live through the transmutation process without being effected by the > byproducts of fusion and fission. The LENR reaction must have some tricks > up its sleeves to surpass the processes that occur inside an exploding > supernova, the most violent explosion to occur in space. Shock-wave > nucleosynthesis and hydrostatic-burning processes create most of the > isotopes of the elements carbon (Z = 6), oxygen (Z = 8), and elements with > Z = 10–28 How do those bugs do what they do??? > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:46 PM JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> *From: *Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> - I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all >> systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that >> fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts >> quite >> different. >> >> >> >> This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an >> assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful. >> >> >> >> Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to >> look beyond the limitations of the P&F effect – aka “cold fusion”. In fact >> in the earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited in an >> older thread here - where Mizuno uses both protium and deuterium in >> different comparative runs at higher pressure - he gets actually better >> results (more excess heat) from protium than with deuterium. You cannot >> deny this result. >> >> >> >> To me this is solid evidence direct from Mizuno that there is more than >> “one fundamental cause” to excess heat – one being fusion and the other >> being very different; and thus all future devices must recognize that >> nuclear fusion is not required for excess heat. This is actually highly >> desirable as "fusion” alone opens the regulatory doors for all kinds of >> unnecessary government intrusion. >> >> >> >> Bottom line is that at least two fundamental causes of excess heat >> exist. Possibly more. One is nuclear fusion seen in electrolysis where >> typically lithium and high loading play a role. Another cause is a >> non-fusion reaction with nickel as the reactant, low loading is desirable, >> and no lithium is needed. >> >> >> >> A third possible reaction also acknowledged by Mizuno (and by Ed Storms) >> is sequential cluster formation with its signature radiation of 630 eV. >> That third one alone could be used for excess heat without the other two. >> >> >> >> The nickel reaction works with either hydrogen or deuterium and to >> confuse things it is probably based on a “nuclear coupling” of some kind - >> (mass converted into energy) but it is not “nuclear fusion.” >> >> >> >> It is pretty clear that both or all three fundamental causes for gain are >> valid over a thirty year history, and very different from each other - and >> no one knows this more clearly than Mizuno as it stands out prominently >> from his earlier papers. >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
