Dr. Stoyan Sarg to Address Nanotek & Expo 2014 on LENR

Canadian Physicist Dr. Stoyan Sarg has been invited to the 4th International Nanotek & Expo confererence to be held on Dececmber 1-3, 2014 in San Francisco, where he will be co-chair of the section Nanotechnology in Energy Systems. He will present a talk “Physical models of LENR processes using the BSM-SG atomic models”.

He will be also a keynote speaker on day 3 of the conference where he will present an address titled, “Graphical 3D modeling of molecules and nanostructures in sub-nanometer scale with the BSM-SG atomic models”. See here for an abstract.

Dr. Sarg tells E-Cat World:

“In the speech I will mention some important things from my last year’s talk that was recently published in the General Science Journal (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5748)

“At the beginning it discuses the major methodological error in scattering experiments that leads to a tremendously wrong vision about the Coulomb barrier. As a result the quantum mechanical models of atomic nuclei and atoms are only mathematical. The physical models are completely different.

“In my new talk I will discuss also the nuclear process using the Lugano report material. When I use my BSM-SG models the process it is so evident and logical that I could say a peace of cake, but it is impossible to be inferred from quantum mechanical models.

“This process however appear different from the earlier reports by Rossi and Focardi, when they observed a copper in the ashes. I think that Rossi has more than one processes and perhaps keeps one as a secret.”

  • GordonDocherty

    Exactly – but the idea was (is) still valid – and you noticed it at 5! 🙂

    Another example of how “the establishment” reacts to new ideas is how it reacted to the ideas of Benoît Mandelbrot. The following video on Youtube explains further, and, in a fractal-like way, shows how the same pattern of negative reaction and dismissal from “the establishment”, was seen in dealing with Mandelbrot’s ideas as much as those relating to LENR :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s65DSz78jW4#t=1690

    Further, I suspect the link between LENR and fractals goes a lot deeper than just the reaction generated by the establishment. As Mandelbrot so clearly exposed, while euclidean geometry could deal with simple man-made structures, it could not deal with nature. Fractals, on the other hand, captured very well “the mathematics of nature”: hence Mandelbrot entitled his book that explored the subject – and especially the Mandelbrot (as it came to be known) – “The Fractal Geometry of Nature”. So, it is highly likely that fractal-based mathematics will much better describe the reactions, reaction sites and geometries of LENR than simple euclidean geometry.

    Yet, the favoured mathematics in nuclear physics makes extensive use of Euler-Lagrange equations built on top of Hamilton’s principle – hiding the fact that all this mathematics is still basically euclidean in nature (generally of the differential/integral kind to approximate curved surfaces). While such mathematics has been useful for plotting trajectories of point entities in free space, they are incredibly (mind-numbingly) oversimplifying when it comes to considering physical systems at the nano-scale, where fields and geometries predominate, not smooth trajectories of point entities in free space.

    So, in response to those who say there are more theories now emerging for LENR than current LENR system designs, this is because what is now being dealt with in attempts to model LENR systems and dynamics has never been attempted before. So, as I have repeated multiple times, it is time to go back to first principles, consider the physical system, what may be going on, and what, in the mathematical arsenal, would best explain it, or, at least, parts of it – or, indeed, whether a new set of mathematical tools and constructs is required.

  • bkrharold

    For the past 3 years Dr Peter Hagelstein has conducted a course named Cold Fusion 101 at MIT. As part of the course they construct a working LENR device, which is put on display to the public.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I welcome debate on the current physics model we have, but Dr. Sarg is really using these conferences to push his physics model, and talking about LENR is ONLY a means to an end. The fact that some physics papers and the community has rejected (or even banned) some of Dr. Sarg’s material is FINE and NOT the reason for my caution here.

    In fact I find Dr. Sarg ideas refreshing, and much agree the standard physics model has many shortcomings. And the re-introduction of the concept of ether on his part is also very interesting.

    However:
    the main reason,
    the main motivation,
    the main thrust of Dr. Sarg’s talks is to promote his new physics model. And this is a physics model that been rejected by the physics community. Again, I don’t mind that rejection and that is NOT the reason for caution here.

    The simple issue is Dr. Sarg is speaking at this conferences not to promote LENR, not how to improve LENR, but to promote his physics model. In other words, these conferences are giving him that stage to promote his physics model. I suppose one could argue if these models are correct, then this could aid and help LENR.

    While I think current science peer review sucks, Dr. Sarg should at least gain support among more fellow physicists before using LENR conferences to by-pass that process. How the science process works REALLY is bad, but it all we have right now, and such processes should apply to Dr. Sarg

    I don’t mind someone speaking about how the physics models we have are a mess, but I have much concern that using LENR conferences to promote one’s personal view and physics model requires some caution here. This approach could hurt and set back LENR a long way.

    I would sleep much better if Dr. Sarg theories were CURRENTLY being used by one of the LENR payers (commercial or at research level). In fact even better would be if Dr. Sarg was involved in LENR experiments by a company looking to move LENR forward in the marketplace.

    And his fancy new physics model even if correct and right would take a good 15 or 25 years to be adopted by the existing physics community.

    I see a bad conflict of interest here. Using the LENR community as a vehicle to promote one’s physics model that no one else has adopted could damage the LENR movement.

    It is hard enough to get the physics community accepting the existing of LENR, let alone a whole new physics model.

    As LENR gains acceptance, then I would welcome if Dr. Sarg’s model is the answer, and I think his models and ideas are beautiful. I also think Dr. Sarg is a wonderful person with a great passion. He not doing anything wrong here!

    However LENR conferences are not for promoting a new physics model that NOT been adopted by anyone else. Dr. Sarg has to get fellow scientists in his community to jump on his model and test + adopt his ideas first.

    And I 100% agree we likely will have to revise our physics models! However I don’t think these conferences should be used by someone to promote THEIR model UNLESS that person’s main goal and thrust is LENR.

    I remain cautious that having someone speak about throwing out the current physics models at LENR conferences is a good thing.

    Because one is willing to speak about LENR does not mean we ignore the motivations and goals of such speakers.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • bitplayer

      Thanks for the post. While I can’t evaluate your warning, it’s worth noting that as LENR gains awareness, we can expect to see much more of this across a broad spectrum, including:
      > “LENR Mutual Fund – You Have Been Selected for an Exclusive Offer!”
      > “Build Your Own LENR Reactor at Home!”
      > “Amazing Health Benefits from LENR-Powder(tm)!”
      The key line is, “Just send money”, or in this case, time and attention.

    • bkrharold

      I don’t believe LENR will be damaged by Dr Stargs theory, even if his motives are not pure. After all everyone has their own agenda. There are already several different competing theories. When the comatose science community finally opens its sleepy eyes and decides to investigate LENR there will be several worthwhile ideas to explore. Meanwhile the world cannot wait for them to awaken from their slumber, we must move forward without them. The skeptopaths will problably use Dr Stargs theory to try and discredit LENR, who cares? Let them do their worst, it will not deter us, LENR is inevitable.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        All debate is good. As I respect Dr. Sarg, I would be MUCH more comfortable if his work was directly related to the LENR field. I feel he using the LENR tour as a promotional tool for his own agenda that is not from my view helpful to the LENR cause. Just because someone being given a platform to speak does not mean he by default is helping the LENR field or cause.

        Life and any issue we wish to learn about does not mean we turn a blind eye to things that hurt this most important issue that essentially holds the keys to a bright future for mankind.

        Regards
        Albert

    • GordonDocherty

      Remember Alfred Wegener? Nope. He was the meteorologist who, in 1912, described a process called continental drift. As wikipedia puts it “His hypothesis was controversial and not widely accepted until the 1950s” (actually the 1960s). Now, some say his ideas were taken seriously by geologists, some say he was laughed out the room. Probably both are true. The fact is, though, it took those same “serious geologists” 50 years to accept that continental drift was real, and the more “acceptable” theory – that the continents were originally connected, but that the land between them had foundered beneath the sea – was not backed by “facts from the field”. So, when I read “The fact that some physics papers and the community has rejected (or even banned) some of Dr. Sarg’s material”, this does not mean much – it is whether the theory fits the facts, not whether some community has rejected something – facts trump theory every time, despite the theoreticians best attempts to deny facts in order to protect cherished theories. Also, it must be borne in mind that whilst Dr. Sarg “pushes” his model (like some drug dealer, we are to suppose), others from “the community” will also be “pushing” theirs – and, to take the drug-dealing analogy one step further, “not taking kindly to a rival moving in on their patch”. Dr.Sarg’s theories will stand or fall on their own merit against the experimental evidence. That is all we need to consider – not whether one group or another has been slighted in some way – that is, their world-view “and place in society” challenged. Allowing such considerations as “rank” and “place in the social structure” to predominate is to act as the Pharisees and Sadducees of old, who denounced “the carpenter’s son” as a dangerous heretic, to become those who take offence at truth speaking to power. Such thinking leads to a select few believing that only they “know the truth” and that it is their solemn duty to act as “guardians of the truth”. From that position it is only a short drop to no-one else being allowed to express a view unless they have first approved and allowed it. So, once again, Dr.Sarg’s theories will stand or fall on their own merit against the experimental evidence. As to these theories and LENR, do not think that by “forbidding one” you will protect the other. Far from it. You will simply re-enforce the view that only the select few “speak the truth”. In fact, by considering one against the other, you may actually see something that otherwise would have been totally overlooked. Finally, it must be remembered that ALL mathematics is an approximation, so even if “equations work” in one instance or view of a problem, it does not mean to say they ARE reality. They are not, nor ever will be. At the end of the day, mathematics is simply a means by which to describe problems in ways that emphasize one characteristic while downplaying another in order to understand – and possibly predict – the behaviour of a system from a certain perspective.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    Brillouin Energy just told me that this theory does not fit with their model.

  • Axil Axil

    LENR proves the newly emergent theory that quantized Casimir electromagnetic forces effect the protons and neutrons in the nucleus as a manifestation of the weak force which is mediated by mesons. This theory answers quantitative questions about the Casimir force and points to the critical role of electron plasmas as central to LENR.
    More info will be provided to any who are interested.

  • GreenWin

    The “measurement problem” makes all quantum models suspect. If enough people resonate with Sarg’s theory, we will likely find supporting evidence for it. Imagine.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I wonder who got to decide the physical model of the Coulomb barrier?
    Was that some early barricade against LENR research?
    Could such things be done deliberately?
    That might make very interesting reading, it would be a great introductory story to “Rossi The Movie”.

    • Warthog

      Mother Nature, of course……you can’t fool HER.

      • Ophelia Rump

        No, I meant the incorrect physical model which does not match the mathematical model or the Mother Nature model which you referenced, the one physicists use.
        The one where LENR is impossible.

        P.S. This is an open call to all conspiracy theorists out there.
        Be the first to expose the dark conspiracy.

        • bkrharold

          I don’t believe there was a conspiracy to hide the truth behind an incorrect model. It is natural to use objects with which we are familiar to visualize a problem, manipulate them in our minds, and try to divine a solution. The problem with using this technique for subatomic particles and their interactions, is that nobody really knows what they might look like, or even if it really makes sense to use these simple analogies for problem solving at this scale.

    • Ivy Matt

      Charles-Augustin de Coulomb developed what became known as Coulomb’s Law in 1785. I hardly need tell you that he was a contemporary of Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Bavarian Illuminati.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    If true, this information could be incredibly valuable to LENR researchers and help them devise new ways to increase COP and maintain stability.

  • Gerard McEk

    For some reason I like Stoyan’s theories. The structure of the nucleus he invented, calculated and predicts with his theory, much better resembles the behaviour of matter than other theories. I am not a physicist and I wonder how those who have studied physics think about it.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      One might expect that Sarg’s theory would also be relevant for hot fusion reactions – provided that the local differences in the Coulomb barrier do not cancel each other out in this case. Imagine what that could mean for astrophysics. If we had suddenly to deal with different ignition temperatures and reaction rates, the history of the universe would almost certainly have to be rewritten. That’s why I guess that most physicists will remain cautious as long as not all possible consequences of such a model are discussed and documented.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks Andeas for your reply. How wellknown is he within the physics community? Is he also silenced and banned like those who work on LENR?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I have no idea. There are a number of publications by Sarg in peer-reviewed journals, but apparently nothing in Nature or Science. He had one paper in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, which is top-notch, but not related to nuclear physics:

          http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev/publications