Jump to content
barfbag

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions / Cold Fusion (thread split)

Recommended Posts

Cu-65 that absorbed neutron would decay through electron emission to Zn-66.

 

Cu-63 + n0 -> Cu-64 + 7.916 MeV (quite plausible)

Cu-64 -> Ni-64 + e+ + Ve (unstable isotope) 61%

Cu-64 -> Zn-64 + e- + Ve (unstable isotope) 39%

 

Cu-63 abundance is 69%

Cu-65 abundance is 31%

 

We don't need Rossi device to verify this. Just Nickel and Copper and beam of neutrons.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Everyone - just a word to the wise

 

Discussion of the philosophy of science can be held in the Philosophy forum. This discussion is not about Thomas Kuhn - please stop. The claimed existence of a dogmatic inertia that defeats objectivity provides no positive evidence towards accepting a new theory.

 

many thanks

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Swansont,

 

The point is that gammas should be detected if they are produced.

 

 

Wrong. This has been mentioned repeatedly to the point where I assume you are not reading the posts as much as picking words.

 

Remember I told you Mitsubishi is marketting LENR devices that can be packed around nuclear waste to absorb stray Gamma rays.

 

Remember discussing this paragraph over and over on this thread,

Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there,

from

Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and convert them to infra red, and LENR is often associated with low Gamma Ray emissions. Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical.

 

The Heavy Electrons absorb Gamma Rays which later Beta Decay.

 

Now......

 

IF THE GAMMA RAY IS ABSORBED AND NO LONGER EXISTS THEN IT CAN NO LONGER BE MEASURED BECAUSE IT WOULD NO LONGER EXIST.

 

@ Swansont still,

 

Now you also suggest Metals should fuse together. Cold Fusion is a Misnomer. The term Low Energy Nuclear Reactions was adopted for that reason.

 

Instead of two atoms fusing, this is mostly several atoms shedding parts of themselves and forming a new unstable form that subsequently Beta Decays.

 

However som transmutation has been noted by Mitsubishi and Third Party verified by Toyota using their own lab and supplies. (honestly this was all in my first post of this thread).

see...

2012MHI-LENR-XMTs.jpg

 

MHI LENR transmutations: Na to Al, Ca to Ti, Sr to Mo, Cs to Pr, Ba to Sm and W to Os or Pt.

 

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/

 

or Slides from the LENR convention at CERN,

http://indico.cern.ch/event/177379/material/slides/5

 

So transmutations do occur in LENR, but the main heat comes from the unstable elements.

Edited by barfbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,

I just note that the key problem is first that instead of discussing of evidence, and trying to match the theory with the observation, on one side many people deny the evidences, and other discuss on the theory.

  1. I propose that first we state the evidences as evident, or at least as a base for work...
  2. afterward I think the the result is that we will realize we have not enough data to build a complete theory and that more research is required.
  3. We can then at best consider what are the key characteristics of the theory, assuming things are simple. and then state what is missing.

My point with kuhn is just the prediction that we will not agree on 1, and that it is irreducible.

 

if one want absolutely to move to theoretical question, instead of discussing of neutrinos or heavy electrons in WL theory details, let us more generally question.

If the reaction have to be aneutronic or not?

If it is involving collective behaviors able to concentrate and spread energy quanta up to few MeV...

 

Since neutrons are observed below 10^-6 the quantity expected, I imagine that even very slow neutrons will be thermalized and detected. Since very few ate detected, One can conclude there is no neutron produced on the main branch

 

For dozen of MeV energy, and observing a spectrum below 500KeV (have to check the literature, like Narita2003 ) it seems that a quantum system with hundreds of states able to absorb dozens of MeV and reemit hundreds of X-rays/soft gamma...

 

This is not my reasoning, but the one of Edmund storms in his embryo of theory, as far as I understand.

 

Now, I thing that if we can judge that the system involve collective behavors, aneutronic reaction, theory is premature.

 

Storms judge that presence of tritium is very important to test his theory. i suspect that he say that because he knows that tritium is observed, and BARC even observed that tritium was produced, then consumed (which is even more impossible). I share his feeling that it is a key to LENR understanding.

ICCF18 in University of missouri featured a panel discussion on tritium and another on neutrons and radiation detection (the conference is partially on YouTube, like this part of the tritium panel).

Interested people should consult recent presentations at ICCF18, then the video matching the slides.

 

For tritium Srinivasan, a pioneer of tritium detection in BARC made a presentation, but there are much more articles (should follow citations). Tritium is very interesting since it is easily detected (for experts), and that contamination (for experts) is seldom possible at the dose observed. Even Huizenga admitted that and conclude there was an international conspiracy, so powerful that there was no evidence of it, despite repeated inquiries.

 

From what I have quickly read it seems that gamma spectrum during the reaction is not well established. depending on the paper it can go up to 1MeV, but sometime is below 250keV, and part of the spectum is more about radioisotopes than the reaction...

 

Interested people should ask not only experts, but also competent scientists having a comprehensive vision of the domain.

 

Biberian, Storms, McKubre for different reason (JCMNS, NaturWissenschaften, SRI) seems to have such a comprehensive vision. Jed Rothwell (of lenr-canr.org) is less expert, but have probably an even more comprehensive vision because he have read nearly all papers, published or not, copyrighted or not, and discussed with nearly everybody even in japan. He cannot check all in detail, but sure he can find a wide range of article on required subjects.

 

I'm conscious that it is too early to talk of theory, but I share like nearly all people here the feeling that it is fascinating.

We should at least start the theory from the various phenomena observed or not observed, with bottom-up and inductive method, from required characteristics of the solution to proposed hypothesis.

 

Provided we agree on point1. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion:

 

"However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary."

 

Norman Ramsey was the only Nobel Laureate to sit on the DoE's review committee. He was its co-chair. He had to threaten to resign from the committee in order to get the above statement included in the preamble of the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past, many particles that were once thought to be elementary such as protons, neutrons, pions, and kaons have turned out to be composite particles.

Photons, perhaps they are made of neutrinos?

Science is more than what we presently know, certainly more than what was taught. Usually science becomes established in what was once theorized. If my memory serves me right... ah, found it... from 1936

Prologue 1936

On a Relativistically Invariant Formulation of the Neutrino Theory of Light

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031891436803401

The neutrino theory of light, as developed by Jordan and Kronig, is given a relativistically invariant formulation by describing the neutrino field in terms of wave functions obeying Dirac's equation, the electromagnetic field on the other hand in terms of the six-vector E, H, and by expressing the Fourier coefficients of E and H as functions of the amplitudes of the neutrino field. Upon subjecting the latter to the commutation relations characteristic of particles satisfying Pauli's exclusion principle, there result for E and H the well-known commutation relations of the electromagnetic field vectors. The new view-point has as a consequence that in the formalism, previously developed by Jordan and Kronig, the two components of the wave function associated with the neutrinos must be considered as referring to states with positive and negative energy rather than to states differing by the orientation of the neutrino spin; a conclusion also arrived at recently by Born and Nagendra Nath.


Problems with the neutrino theory of light. Although composite photons satisfy many properties of real photons, there are major problems with this theory. This gentleman proposes moving it forward along certain lines of thought.

Speculations on the Neutrino Theory of Light

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2179665_Speculations_on_the_Neutrino_Theory_of_Light



Electron Splits into Quasiparticles
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-splits-into-quasiparticles/

The achievement could help to resolve a long-standing mystery about the origin of high-temperature superconductivity, and aid in the construction of quantum computers.
Not-quite-so Elementary, my Dear Electron
http://www.nature.com/news/not-quite-so-elementary-my-dear-electron-1.10471#/ref-link-4

Fundamental particle ‘splits’ into quasiparticles, including the new ‘orbiton’.

Focus: Two Photons Diverged
http://physics.aps.org/story/v10/st3

Researchers have detected rare instances of photons splitting in two.

Experimental Investigation of High-Energy Photon Splitting in Atomic Fields
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.061802

Seeing double. Researchers have caught glimpses of a rare event in which a single photon splits in two. This calorimeter, which contains 400 kg of liquid krypton, detected the photon pairs.

If a fat man walked into an empty room and then two skinny guys walked out, you might be perplexed. Now physicists have spotted the equivalent result in photons flying near an atom. A group publishing in the 5 August print issue of PRL has identified rare instances in which a single photon splits in two, dividing the original photon’s energy between them.

Fundamental particles constantly and randomly morph into “virtual” particles. A photon, for example, can temporarily become an electron and positron which quickly annihilate one another to reform the original photon. In a vacuum the process has little effect, but the electric field of an atom can interact with electron-positron pairs to create theoretically measurable results, some of which have already been fingered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF THE GAMMA RAY IS ABSORBED AND NO LONGER EXISTS THEN IT CAN NO LONGER BE MEASURED BECAUSE IT WOULD NO LONGER EXIST.

 

From what Swansont said it was clear that he meant that no 100% gamma photons can be absorbed, and some will have to escape device, and being detected around it. No shield, no filter has perfect accuracy.

 

Anyway, during performing official Rossi device tests, according to article on his website, there was no used device capable to detect any radiation..

They mention just IR camera, and power analyzer.

 

i suspect that he say that because he knows that tritium is observed,

 

Lack of neutrons and detected existence of tritium (that was not there in water before) are quite contradictions..

 

p+ + n0 -> D+ + 2.22 MeV

D+ + n0 -> T+ + 6.26 MeV

T+ -> He-3 + e- + Ve + 18.6 keV

 

Researchers have detected rare instances of photons splitting in two.

 

Experimental Investigation of High-Energy Photon Splitting in Atomic Fields

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.061802

 

Seeing double. Researchers have caught glimpses of a rare event in which a single photon splits in two. This calorimeter, which contains 400 kg of liquid krypton, detected the photon pairs.

 

If a fat man walked into an empty room and then two skinny guys walked out, you might be perplexed. Now physicists have spotted the equivalent result in photons flying near an atom. A group publishing in the 5 August print issue of PRL has identified rare instances in which a single photon splits in two, dividing the original photon’s energy between them.

 

Fundamental particles constantly and randomly morph into “virtual” particles. A photon, for example, can temporarily become an electron and positron which quickly annihilate one another to reform the original photon. In a vacuum the process has little effect, but the electric field of an atom can interact with electron-positron pairs to create theoretically measurable results, some of which have already been fingered

 

 

That sounds like normal pair production, that is known since early years of XX century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Swansont,

 

 

Wrong. This has been mentioned repeatedly to the point where I assume you are not reading the posts as much as picking words.

 

Remember I told you Mitsubishi is marketting LENR devices that can be packed around nuclear waste to absorb stray Gamma rays.

 

Remember discussing this paragraph over and over on this thread,

Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there,

from

Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and convert them to infra red, and LENR is often associated with low Gamma Ray emissions. Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical.

 

The Heavy Electrons absorb Gamma Rays which later Beta Decay.

 

Now......

 

IF THE GAMMA RAY IS ABSORBED AND NO LONGER EXISTS THEN IT CAN NO LONGER BE MEASURED BECAUSE IT WOULD NO LONGER EXIST.

That's something to demonstrate independently, isn't it? I mean, this is science. The problem with these LENR explanations is they contain several unsupported assertions, none of which has any kind of independent confirmation, and must all be true for the explanation to be correct. So where is any experimental confirmation that you can completely shield gammas from some source? For everyone else attenuation follows Beer's law.

 

 

This is not an issue of not reading the material (though there is a limit to the crap I will wade through). It's an issue of not believing the bald assertions. I know you are saying all gammas are absorbed. As that runs contrary to other physics, I'm asking you for independent evidence. Has anyone ever used this to shield a gamma source?

 

 

@ Swansont still,

 

Now you also suggest Metals should fuse together. Cold Fusion is a Misnomer. The term Low Energy Nuclear Reactions was adopted for that reason.

I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm suggesting that well-known physics/chemistry still works: that of you change the number of protons in a nucleus, you change the element.

 

 

So transmutations do occur in LENR, but the main heat comes from the unstable elements.

Unstable elements decaying into daughters that are different from the parent, which should be something you can check, starting with a pure substance or something with a well-known composition. So again I ask: has that test been done, e.g. with the Copper/Nickel reactions that seem to be popular?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I repeat the WL that barfbag theory proposed is no validated, and just is a base for more research.

 

however I notice the very classic reaction which can be translated as "I am so sure you are wrong that I will not even look into the telescope". By looking yu will find many resulst about transmutation.

 

The mains transmutation observed, measured in detail is He4 production in PdD cells, measured many times by Bush in double blind with Miles, and confirmed late by ENEA Deninno Report 41. This repor by the way was a great moment of Kuhnian epistemology, because the paper was dumped by nature because there was no room... without reading of course. and rejected by >40 journals for pathetic reasons like that nothing could be warmer than 100C inside water (making underwater soldering thus impossible).

 

If you have read the documents about tritium, you would also have seen the autoradiography of cold fusion electrodes.

The Iwamura (Mitsubishi), replicated by Toyota (published both in peer-reviewed JJAP) shows also transmutation...

 

I absolutely understand that WL theory look strange, especially if you did not read the theory papers (Srivastava have made a synthesis presented at CERN in march 2012 ). Having read the theory, and the various critics, I'm no more convinced...

 

anyway it is not a reason to challenge the reality of the peer-reviewed papers, while to oppose them you have books of Huizenga, Taubes, Parks, Morrison full of pathetic incompetence, huge prejudices against opponents and gigantic fallacies...

 

Reading the vof.se forum, I see it is a very common argument, based on myth.

for example mainstream myth says that the failed test at caltech/MIT/Harwell were more famous and competent than F&P or others replicators. It is the exact opposite. Fleischman was a very famous and recognised electrochemist, like Bockris. The replicators like Lewis were not only unexceptional, but clearly insufficiently competent in calorimetry. Moreover by incompetence or prejudices MIT experiment triggered the feeling of fraud and misconduct in the mind of the internal MIT editor who have processed the MIT papers. The most horrific was that instead of correcting errors, the peer review process was used to prevent the correction of those at least errors.

 

Now to oppose those public facts you have only rumors, feeling, which are simply propagated from the pathetic books of Huizenga, Taubes, Parks, and Morrison who at best are neither exceptionally competent nor influential.

The only written critics are refuted, showing not only the quality of the work of F&P, but the unacceptable incompetence and bias of their authors. At least most (not Morrison) were not enough dishonest to support their claims. but the Urban Myth was settled.

 

As I say, please find a paper that detail the errors, so it can be peer-reviewed and challenged. At least Shanahan did that with his CCH, was refuted, but it was a fair game.

 

It is absolutely fascinating to see that scientist can sincerely (I don't doubt they are sincere and very standard) refuse to accept peer-reviewed papers, while they don't have the least unreviewed paper to oppose, but just wikipedia, hearsay, and some rumors based on bad books.

 

Beaudette have studied this situation and propose a list of characteristics for the pretended skeptic of cold fusion :

 

In general, skeptics display the following habits.

  1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.
  2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic).
  3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.
  4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.
  5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.
  6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law.
  7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable

 

I don't want to aggress anybod as I know it is a consequence of a collective delusion, but i hope that at leas some people will independently realize that there is something irrational is that denial.

 

I could accept that someone say "it is not sure, let us investigate and check" (that is the cautious approach of the Swedish researchers for E-cat test, which unlike cold fusion is not enough validated).

 

But being sure of something, without the least evidence, not the least physical law broken (none is broken, not COE, 2ndLoTD, not even momentum, charge) is...fascinating.

More fascinating is to see people believing without evidence accuse people having data to be deluded, and admitting they refuse to read the presented data.

 

It is not a specific case as I observed the same behavior on vof.se, futura-science.fr, fusionnefredda.it... It is a rule, replicated (not peer reviewed :eyebrow: ).

 

This is why I say that in a way Cold Fusion is first of all a cognitive problem.

 

As long as people will pretend to be sure cold fusion is an artifact, without the least evidence, will refuse to read the least paper honestly, will refuse to introduce the least 1% doubt in their conviction, there will be no science in the room.

 

As I explained before it is shocking, but well explained. maybe we should move part of the discussion inside the cognitive science section, because debate on the theory or the applications, is not possible without a minimum of agreement of what is an evidence...

 

For me it is enough replication by competent people, checked/reviewed by competent people with no credible critic that remain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Sensei,

 

MHO you should always specify which reaction you have in mind.

But this would require to have some real knowledge..

 

 

When speaking of LENR we normally mean the most powerful mixtures which at this point looks like Nickel and Hydrogen which is the Piantelli method adopted by Rossi.

 

I enjoy reading your posts. interesting questions you bring up.

 

@ Swansont,

 

It appears you don't grasp some of what has been repeated. If you have scientific curiosity though you can find plenty of reading materials.

Start with,

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/04/24/nikkei-reports-mitsubishi-to-use-lenrs-to-clean-nuclear-waste/

 

@ Greg Goble,

Thanks for joining just to comment here.

Interesting links. I am still reading about the photon splits.

 

@ Jame Bowery,

Thanks for joining just to comment here.

 

@ Alainco,

 

Thanks for joining just to comment here.

 

This thread has brought a few new faces. Fun to see.

Edited by barfbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ Swansont,

 

It appears you don't grasp some of what has been repeated. If you have scientific curiosity though you can find plenty of reading materials.

Start with,

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/04/24/nikkei-reports-mitsubishi-to-use-lenrs-to-clean-nuclear-waste/

 

 

Indeed. The fact that LENR generators are not in everyday use is solely due to my lack of comprehension of the dynamics. [/sarcasm]

 

I'm not seeing where they claim Widom-Larsen theory explains this. That's in a link calling it a "related mechanism"

 

Swansont, exactly reverse...

 

According to Rossi:

Ni-62 + p+ -> Cu-63 + 6.12 MeV

 

 

I found the sticking point here:

Widom-Larsen claims electron capture, reducing the proton count by 1, rather than proton absorption.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35913widomlarsen.shtml

 

The point about there being an unambiguous test still stands, as I think does my inquiry about a pointer to a paper showing that someone has done this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@swantont

 

for a paper on WL theory I would advise the latest of Srivastava . Like you I am not impressed.

 

I join Edmund Storm on the point that the nuclear active environment cannot be the surface as it is too much under the influence of complex chemistry. The NAE have to be protected from external influence so multi-body system grow enough to concentrate and spilt energy between MeV and KeV scale.

 

The idea of electron capture is interesting, and basing the solution in collective effect that allow 780keV to be concentrated locally is a key idea. But the detail don't seems to support that idea.

 

You also seems to look for experimental papers. I have cited few, and more than that cited review and summaries that contain many citation.

 

  • Status of Cold Fusion by Edmund Storms is a reference paper
  • Tally of cold fusion papers is just interesting to have a comprehensive list of peer reviewed papers on excess heat and others phenomenon
  • the tritium panel of ICCF18 is sure a good start for understanding tritium results. those slides are presenting results.
  • For transmutation the JJAP papers of Iwamura and Toyota contains evidence of transmutations. they have measured some regularities in the transmutation showing that nucleons are swallowed in pairs.
  • There is few paper on Helium detection, based mostly on Miles and Bush cooperation, and then on ENEA Dennino report 41.
  • one can safely confirm from the whole spectrum of results that few neutron and energetic gamma are produced, bellow a million less than the heat. This is according to Ed Storms the nail in the coffin of W/L, and for all neutron based theories (Kozima). The ultra-low momentum neutron don't convince me as impossible to detect by thermal neutron detectors.

Widom Larsen in a way were good in popularizing in a family of LENR theories :

  • based on classic quantum physics
  • they abandoned the p-p fusion as impossible that way.
  • they used electron capture process
  • thus requiring some collective effect inside a lattice
  • as experiments show they involved surface of the hydride

There are competing theories like :

  • Kim-Zubarev based on BEC
  • Edmund Storms, based on metallic hydrogen quantum 1D clusters, the hydroton

None is finished and confirmed, by lack of budget, of instruments and shortage of new talents.

 

If real scientists were sensible to the many critics claiming it is not sure, they would simply work hard to close the debate with either good experiments proving artifacts, or with experimental papers...

 

In a way it have happened (Celani started like Navy NRL labs to work as skeptics) and there is many experimental papers, no serious refutation, but not much budget to find a theory.

Moreover many people in that domain have finally decided that the best direction was industrial application, and they are right. You can find for example Miley, Piantelli, McKubre, Iwamura, Takahashi, Hagelstein/Swartz... they do real research, but try to launch business of it, more or less naively.

 

So I agree there is much work to do to gather current experimental and theory papers, filters the best one (especially the theories - some are even more funny than Morrison critics) , and start to build an opinion on the theory (BTW: never read a theory to have an opinion on the reality of LENR).

Ed Storms like McKubre have done that. I think Edmund storm is preparing a new book with his results. His previous book might be valuable. Of course beginners should appreciate his student book.

 

LENR science is in deep need of new talents in physics.

Today as a wet or dry chemistry experiment is is more and more mastered, and ENEA seems not far to have closed the cause of the hard reproducibility of early experiments. Isotopic analysis is done also.

 

However there is not enough creative talents working on the theoretical question to raise new experimental challenge.

 

Your question to be able to see a Widom-Larsen ULN, the proton patch, the heavy electrons, are the one that are required to validate a theory, far ahead trying to produce kW reliably.

 

it is funny that a zombie critic against lenr is that there is still no tea kettle (if melting a reactor is not better than making tea, you can just consider the LENR tea balls of DJ Craven at NIWeek2013 warming tea for the guest), while in fact most research is in that direction today. We rather need basic physics research, unapplicable, like the one done in hunting Higgs boson, supersymmetry, or dark matter.

Edited by AlainCo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Sensei,

 

 

When speaking of LENR we normally mean the most powerful mixtures which at this point looks like Nickel and Hydrogen which is the Piantelli method adopted by Rossi.

 

I enjoy reading your posts. interesting questions you bring up.

How do you know that Nickel and Hydrogen are the most powerful?

 

Searching for all possibilities by hand would take a lot of time.

There is 118 elements to check. Some have dozen of isotopes.

That's plenty of work.

Have you done so?

 

Anyway I have already did theoretical calculations with Nickel and Hydrogen and posted in #24

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-split/page-2#entry810423

Where I showed that reaction that Rossi is using, can have also more mainstream physics explanation.

If Ni-62 is hit by neutron, it's changing to Ni-63 (and releasing energy). Ni-63 is unstable and is decaying to Cu-63 (and releasing energy).

And we don't have Coulomb's Barrier in this reaction to worry about.

And that's why perhaps Rossi device requires a lot of input energy.

Output is higher because of decay energy is higher than energy needed to create neutron.

 

Also what is important is that Ni-62 has just 3.63% abundance in nature!

If you will buy 1 kg Nickel in the shop for $13, just 36.3 grams of it will be good for this reaction.

 

Does Rossi clean up raw Nickel to clean isotope or not?

 

That's important question that I asked already and was ignored by all of you..

 

This thread has brought a few new faces. Fun to see.

 

Sockpuppets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Sensei,

 

Sockpuppets?

 

 

 

Funny. Not likely though. I know Alainco from a website that follows LENR but I will not mention here because I'm not advertising.

 

Report the posts if you think that is true. I am sure the Moderators have tools to detect Sockpuppets here.

 

The truth is this topic is fun. Anybody curious enough to follow the developments in it are mostly convinced it is valid. When over 20 unrelated labs report success in the same breakthrough tech, it is hard to say they are all frauds, yet this is where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Everyone,

 

Even though the tone is friendly let's keep questioning motivation of other posters and their existential status out of this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Sensai,

 

RE: Checking Isotopes.

 

Here is NASA video on how they are handling that question.. plz watch this link.

 

Andrea Rossi uses Nickel Powder. Celani uses Nickel Wire. The Patterson Cell required Nickel balls. Nickel has been used in LENR in a variety of ways.

 

How do you know that Nickel and Hydrogen are the most powerful?

 

 

I am not sure how the focus turned to Nickel/Hydrogen. But much of the current research is fueled by successes of Piantelli/Focardi with Nickel based LENR.

(video here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfQJwWLo0I

 

The Rossi ecat is alledged to have Nickel/Hydrogen/Carbon, and a yet undisclosed catalyst of which many educated guesses are being tested and published by other labs.

 

My concern with grinding Nickel was stored surface energy from grinding. Nobody has any idea how Rossi or Piantelli prepare Nickel, however some experimenters like Celani are more than happy to discuss this.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2qWgh7Gx4g

 

I am sure you open a dialogue via email with him if you wanted. Many of these names are very aproachable and Celani is openly demonstrating his LENR device and has taken it on tour in many countries.

 

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/08/08/francesco-celani-demos-his-lenr-device-publicly/

 

Also what is important is that Ni-62 has just 3.63% abundance in nature!

If you will buy 1 kg Nickel in the shop for $13, just 36.3 grams of it will be good for this reaction.

 

 

 

Nickel is the fifth most common element we know of. Supply is not an issue.

 

The composition of natural Nickel is Ni-58 (68.1%), Ni-60 (26.2%), Ni-61 (1.1%), Ni-62 (3.6%), Ni-64 (0.9%). So in fusion of Nickel with proton the reactions are the following:

58Ni + 1H → 59Cu* → 59Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
60Ni + 1H → 61Cu* → 61Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
61Ni + 1H → 62Cu* → 62Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
62Ni + 1H → 63Cu* → 63Cu + γ,
64Ni + 1H → 65Cu* → 65Cu + γ

 

Ni62 + H → Cu63 + 6.12 MeV,
Ni62 + H → Cu63 + 6.12 MeV,

If it is nickel and neutrons...

If nickel isotopes are the key
* start with highly enriched nickel 62
* get a cheap source of neutrons at 10^14 neutrons per second
* get a lot of nickel 63 and then have an environment that accelerates decay to copper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nickel is the fifth most common element we know of. Supply is not an issue.

 

Nickel or Iron that are in Earth's Core are not available for us.

 

In crust it's 24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust

 

Production of Nickel is 2.1 mln tonnes per year.

That's 2% of Iron production per year.

Here is NASA video on how they are handling that question.. plz watch this link.

 

That guy is talking about the same as I said in post #24. "The key is a way of production of neutrons". He needs neutrons to bombard Nickel to start reaction..

If nickel isotopes are the key

* start with highly enriched nickel 62

* get a cheap source of neutrons at 10^14 neutrons per second

* get a lot of nickel 63 and then have an environment that accelerates decay to copper

 

Bombarding some isotope by neutrons is normal mainstream physics.

It works at room temperature.

Decay of Ni-63 produces very little energy, just 67 kev.

Ni-63 → Cu-63 + e- + Ve + 67 keV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bombarding some isotope by neutrons is normal mainstream physics

 

 

This entire topic should by now be recognized as mainstream, but I suppose the Mod(s) who moved this thread to speculations won't be happy until this is taught in grade 9 textbooks. I understand that cutting edge science is most often ignored by most.

 

Many people will tell you the pyramids were built by slaves for the same reasons. They choose not to follow the news on the topic. The pyramids were not built by slaves and this was recently discovered by writings from the era.

Edited by barfbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

barfbag

 

I will not ask you to stop questioning moderator actions within the thread again. From here-on in I will just excise the post and dump it in the trash-can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensei your post about the energy levels of the neutron proton and electron raises some interesting ideas about LENR. You are correct that a free neutron is not just a proton and an electron. When free neutron decays it decays into a proton and an electron and a anti neutrino and it releases energy. The energy balance you point out reveals an important aspect of LENR. The creation of a neutron from an electron and a proton is an endothermic reaction meaning it needs an external source of energy for the reactiion to go forward. For example Rossi has to heat his experiments to start the reactions ie create the neutrons which will latter combine with some element which produces the energy gain. All of the above assumes neutron creation creation and capture is the basis for LENR which may or may not be true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting how many people (not sock puppets either) have joined this Forum because of this Thread so far. Thanks for going out of your way to support a topic dear to you folks.

 

Cheers... :blink:

 

 

In LENR news. This paper was just published. It seems to follow the Flying LENR project NASA is pursuing headed by Doug Wells since February.

 

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-0538

“The impact of low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology on the design of aircraft is examined. Energy conversion possibilities considered and a Brayton cycle engine with an LENR heat exchanger is selected. Potential aerospace applications of LENR devices are discussed and a high altitude long endurance (HALE) unmanned aerial vehicle with multi-year endurance is conceptualized with primary focus on energy management.”

 

Noteworthy just from Abstract is the (ASRG) Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator .

 

One of the LENR issues has been conversion from its less than powerful steam outputs. NASA developed the ASRG to run off PU-238. Maybe NASA is closer to Electrical generation from LENR than we knew.

Edited by barfbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of article is strange, showing there is a cognitive dual equilibrium as Benabou explain.

 

This article propose really something fringy (Doug Wells propose similar fringy designs for NASA/NARI) , because using nano particle as a moving fuel is far from ready... Anyway it is their job to think at N+4 (as NASA said in Boeing/NASA report on SUGAR plane, where LENR is just considered as an option)...

 

I rather see the first prototypes based on a Toyota Prius style of Hybrid group, like what LENR Cars (ILENRS12 presentation, ICCF18 presentation) is preparing (just project inception currently... waiting for E-cat test I imagine).

 

I feel that the Airbus E-fan can be a good platform.

Airbus E-trust (a gas turbine hybrid electric) can also be the second step.

You will have to add high performance microturbines, able to work at the current reactor temperature... probably 600-800C.

Steam ranking or ORC rankin are natural option on the ground, but maybe some open Brayton design will allow better power density.

 

I would like to have the opinion of experienced micro- turbine engineers, about the best design, the expected power density, the expected price ratio... both for weight-challenged vehicle (planes, cars, drone) and for less challenging system like CHP, more sensible about price...

 

For rankine turbine I have gathered some price and weight.It make kW rankine turbine above 2000$/kW, while ate 100MW it is down 500$/kW... innovative microturbine propose density above 1kW/kg...

NASA Boeing SUGAR report established a technology requirement for LENR-Hybrid airliner at 660Wmech/kg for the turbine (and 1600Wheat/kg for the LENr reactor, with 225Wh/kg for the batteries)... It seems accessible with effort from today's R&D in process.

 

another group in NASA propose an electric aircraft without superconductors... another platform...

 

It is fascinating, but very premature (except for aircraft manufacturer who have to prepare).

Today the main question about the soon to came Third-party independent test in Sweden, is whether the reactor is usable for industrial heat production.

 

Second phase will be MW CHP and power plant... then why not home boilers and CHP... then more demanding applications like cars, trains, boats... and finally plane, rocket, drones... at best mainstream in 20 years, and probably 30, except in some niche market like drone or skydiving.

Edited by AlainCo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. But most NASA research must be under the Guise of Aerospace research. They may be 20 years away, but their patents now are going to affect our immediate future. They are at least researching LENR and not ignoring it as some Universities are still doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LENR patent , as David French frequently said, have the bad habits to talk of theory, and NASA followed that awful habit.

The worst is that it can ruin their patent if the W/L theory is rejected, even if their process works.

 

To patent a bicycle you don't give detail on the theory... and hopefully because it seems that bicycle theory was wrong for a long period...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new paper discussing a New Theory as to why this is occurring here,,,

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3941

 

At least this theory also has no requirement for new physics like The Quantum Ring Theory, but I found it a hard read (PDF is free on above link).

 

I shall endeavor to wrap my head around it and explain it in simpler terms, unless someone else wants to try explaining it better..

 

I hope they are correct.

 

7
Summary
A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, in which DBs play the role of a catalyzer via extreme dynamic closing of adjacent H/D atoms required for the tunneli ng through the Coulomb barrier. DBs have been shown to arise either via thermal activation at elevated temperatures or via knocking atoms out of equilibrium positions under non-equilibrium gas loading conditions,employed under radiolysis or
plasma deposition methods.The present mechanism explains all the salie
nt LENR requirements: (i, ii) long initiation time and high loading of D within the Pd lattice as preconditioning needed to prepare small PdD crystals, in which DBs can be excited, and (iii, iv) the triggering by D flux or electric current, which
facilitates the DB creation by the input energy transformed into the lattice vibrations.
Simple analytical expressions for the cold fusion energy production rate are derived as thefunctions of temperature, ion (electric) current and material parameters. For the first time to our knowledge, the derived expressions describe quantitatively the observed exponential dependence on temperature, linear dependence on the ion current as well as the role of small dimensions of nuclear active particles.
The present results are based on the known physical principles and on independent atomistic simulations of DBs in metals and ion crystalsusing realistic many-body
interatomic potentials. Further research in this direction is needed and planned in or
der to verify the proposed mechanism by atomistic simulations of DBs in Metal-D and Metal-H systems. An outstanding goal of this research is to suggest new ways of
designing the nuclear active environment by doping relevant crystal structures with additional elements so that to facilitate in them creation of discrete breathers as the most constitutive catalyzer of LENR.
Edited by barfbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.