I'm pretty sure for Hydrogen to remain liquid without boiling off, you have to lower the temperature significantly -252.85 deg C while still pressurized. Is not applicable to Rossi's device.icarus wrote:Here's an earlier patent from Arata with very, very similar sounding claims ... hydrogen condensate forming in ultra-fine nano particles ...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1551032.html
"The present invention provides a method of generating heat using a hydrogen condensate. The hydrogen condensate comprises a plurality of metal atoms contained in a metal nano-ultrafine particle and a plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms solid-dissolved among the plurality of metal atoms. At least two of the plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms are condensed so that the inter-atomic nuclear distance between two hydrogen isotope atoms is smaller than or equal to the internuclear spacing of a molecule consisting of two hydrogen isotope atoms. The heat generation method comprises applying energy to the hydrogen condensate and generating heat by causing the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms to react with each other due to the energy. "
Things I'm wondering:
So what are the known physical properties of hydrogen condensates? Is it at all possible that small H droplets could remain liquid to elevated temperatures if the right surface energy conditions were to be satisfied? A surface tension phenomena on extreme electropositive surfaces?
10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)
Re-read my post: Rossi put up everything required to make significant (multi-million euro) sales of his product. There is no reason for him to give up proprietary secrets for others to replicate--a technology without enforceable patents and/or trade secrets quickly becomes worthless.ScottL wrote: What did he put up?
Besides derision, Talk-Polywell hasn't "put up" anything to conclusively disprove or discredit Rossi. On the contrary, I'm starting to see a lot more qualifiers used when when attacking his technology.
Momentum is building... note, some pretty mainstream coverage.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/ ... ion-plant/
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... d-Out.html
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011 ... sustained/
http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fusion-111102.html
http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national ... redux.html
http://search.forbes.com/search/find?ta ... k&MT=e-cat
http://ecatbuilder.com/newsfeeds/
What does icarus' post have to do with liquid hydrogen?ScottL wrote:I'm pretty sure for Hydrogen to remain liquid without boiling off, you have to lower the temperature significantly -252.85 deg C while still pressurized. Is not applicable to Rossi's device.icarus wrote:Here's an earlier patent from Arata with very, very similar sounding claims ... hydrogen condensate forming in ultra-fine nano particles ...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1551032.html
"The present invention provides a method of generating heat using a hydrogen condensate. The hydrogen condensate comprises a plurality of metal atoms contained in a metal nano-ultrafine particle and a plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms solid-dissolved among the plurality of metal atoms. At least two of the plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms are condensed so that the inter-atomic nuclear distance between two hydrogen isotope atoms is smaller than or equal to the internuclear spacing of a molecule consisting of two hydrogen isotope atoms. The heat generation method comprises applying energy to the hydrogen condensate and generating heat by causing the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms to react with each other due to the energy. "
Things I'm wondering:
So what are the known physical properties of hydrogen condensates? Is it at all possible that small H droplets could remain liquid to elevated temperatures if the right surface energy conditions were to be satisfied? A surface tension phenomena on extreme electropositive surfaces?
He edited out that part of the post after I had responded, but basically he was asking about liquified hydrogen having the possibility of existing in Rossi's device.Crawdaddy wrote:What does icarus' post have to do with liquid hydrogen?ScottL wrote:I'm pretty sure for Hydrogen to remain liquid without boiling off, you have to lower the temperature significantly -252.85 deg C while still pressurized. Is not applicable to Rossi's device.icarus wrote:Here's an earlier patent from Arata with very, very similar sounding claims ... hydrogen condensate forming in ultra-fine nano particles ...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1551032.html
"The present invention provides a method of generating heat using a hydrogen condensate. The hydrogen condensate comprises a plurality of metal atoms contained in a metal nano-ultrafine particle and a plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms solid-dissolved among the plurality of metal atoms. At least two of the plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms are condensed so that the inter-atomic nuclear distance between two hydrogen isotope atoms is smaller than or equal to the internuclear spacing of a molecule consisting of two hydrogen isotope atoms. The heat generation method comprises applying energy to the hydrogen condensate and generating heat by causing the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms to react with each other due to the energy. "
Things I'm wondering:
So what are the known physical properties of hydrogen condensates? Is it at all possible that small H droplets could remain liquid to elevated temperatures if the right surface energy conditions were to be satisfied? A surface tension phenomena on extreme electropositive surfaces?
Not that it matters, but most of those articles state that we're currently going on hear-say at this point. Rossi has a lot to prove in the way of any demonstrable sales let alone function. What we do have against Rossi is the fact that his work is based on Focardi's which has been peer-reviewed and discredited. I truly hope the story progresses to an end result, but I just don't see it. I think we'll get a pattern of mysterious customers, a possible real customer who will turn on Rossi, and some more amazing plot twists.bhl wrote:Re-read my post: Rossi put up everything required to make significant (multi-million euro) sales of his product. There is no reason for him to give up proprietary secrets for others to replicate--a technology without enforceable patents and/or trade secrets quickly becomes worthless.ScottL wrote: What did he put up?
Besides derision, Talk-Polywell hasn't "put up" anything to conclusively disprove or discredit Rossi. On the contrary, I'm starting to see a lot more qualifiers used when when attacking his technology.
Momentum is building... note, some pretty mainstream coverage.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/ ... ion-plant/
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... d-Out.html
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011 ... sustained/
http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fusion-111102.html
http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national ... redux.html
http://search.forbes.com/search/find?ta ... k&MT=e-cat
http://ecatbuilder.com/newsfeeds/
ScottL: Apologies about that editing, was musing on-line real-time.
Now, who knows anything about nickel mono-layers? (or any transition metal mono-layers).
A portion of this nickel nano-particles powder maybe exists in the form of a mono-layer, i.e. "flakes" (no crackpot jokes here pls
).
After evacuating and baking the nickel powder for several cycles to remove oxide and then with application of high pressure H to infuse the mono-layer flake with hydrogen ions (it will disassociate at the "surface") and you have some interesting quantum possibilities. The layer of hydrogen that is within the mono-layer lattice and enveloping it (on the surface either side) will be quite mobile as if for an electron cloud in a conductor. Any kind of coherence in the hydrogen cloud enveloping the mono-layer that allows for close approach of the hydrogen atoms swarming the nickel then may increase the probability for quantum tunnelling fusion ....
.... just speculating here of course.
Now, who knows anything about nickel mono-layers? (or any transition metal mono-layers).
A portion of this nickel nano-particles powder maybe exists in the form of a mono-layer, i.e. "flakes" (no crackpot jokes here pls
). After evacuating and baking the nickel powder for several cycles to remove oxide and then with application of high pressure H to infuse the mono-layer flake with hydrogen ions (it will disassociate at the "surface") and you have some interesting quantum possibilities. The layer of hydrogen that is within the mono-layer lattice and enveloping it (on the surface either side) will be quite mobile as if for an electron cloud in a conductor. Any kind of coherence in the hydrogen cloud enveloping the mono-layer that allows for close approach of the hydrogen atoms swarming the nickel then may increase the probability for quantum tunnelling fusion ....
.... just speculating here of course.
Actually, I think the Ni 58 is reduced by maybe a factor 2 or 3. Why? Just the impression I get. But he is not seperating out the 62/64, he is reducing the 58.bk78 wrote:Why would be Nickel any special? U-235 is enriched by a factor 6 from 0.7% to 4%.KitemanSA wrote: Really? There have been THOUSANDS of scientists looking to enrich NICKEL? Really? Why?
Obviously enriching 235UF6 which is ~ 0.8% different in weight is not their intent. And that fact that it starts at <1% of the total rather than ~70% makes no difference. Really? Seems apples and aardvarks to me.
Ni-62/64 is enriched from 4.6% to, what do you propose, 99%? 99,9999%?
??? So what? Radiation putting out 100 times background? So what? Well, you may not think that important, but I suspect he does.bk78 wrote:KitemanSA wrote:bk78 wrote: Kiteman, EITHER you claim that Rossi only has to deenrich Ni58 to, let's say, a few percent. Then your claim that Rossi does this to reduce gamma emmissions makes no sense, because if it was not deenriched, it would still not be harmful. OR you say, it will emit harmful levels of gamma if it was natural nickel, then you will have to deenrich it to ppm level so that no more radiation is detected. Between "harmful" and "nothing above background detected" there is a difference of at least 4 orders of magnitude. If you had thought about my earlier question for numbers instead of evading it, you might have noticed that yourself.
Boy you just can't keep up, can you?
Your "either" phrase is nonsense. First I don't claim anything. REMEMBER THAT. Otherwise you will continue to be afflicted by your fuzzy thinking.
I am sorry that the possibility that limiting the content of 58Ni to a low but not zero content may reduce the resultant gamma emission is beyond your cognative skills.
Actually, this was what I was talking about.You COMPLETELY ignored my point. If deenrichment of Ni-58 to a few percent is enough to make it undetectable, why should he bother the first place. If he did not, the radiation would be 100 times that much... so what?
But still regarded as nuclear and subject to all sorts of regulation. I would like to avoid that were I he. I suspect he does too.bk78 wrote:Regarding the 4 orders of magnitude:KitemanSA wrote:Your OR statement is purely strawman. You state that it would have to get down to PPM. 4 orders of magnitude you proclaim. Based on what? What data supports your proclamation. None? Well, then you are just flapping your unknowing trap. Put up, or shut up? Or at least acknowledge that you are spouting "opinion", not fact.
The detector was maybe 20..30cm away. For a person at 1m distance, dose rate is reduced by a factor of about 10. By summing up scintillator counts over a minute, you can easily detect changes at a few percent of natural background. Millions of people live all their life in areas with high natural background, and receive doses about an order of magnitude higher than someone in Bolgna, without known negative effects on health. Thats 4 orders of magnitude. Considering the limited time someone spends near the reactor, much higher levels could be regarded as harmless.
Anyway, see his latest response to seedload just up thread. He does not eliminate the 58Ni, just reduces it.
Lets not and pretend we did.bk78 wrote:
Considering radiation issues in general:
Let's say, the reactor produces his power in form of 6MeV (was it?) beta radiation. .
AGAIN, you said "only NI62 and NI64 are reacting to produce copper 63 and 65". He said you are correct. I agree. All the other Ni isotopes wind up with other copper isotopes (temporarily) and with other Nickel isotopes eventually.seedload wrote:Regarding only NI62 and NI64 reacting. I asked Rossi about that on his blog. Note this is in reaction to a YouTube video where he did actually talk about a rare isotope of Copper.Rossi responded:You said that a rare isotope of copper is produced. Can you elaborate on this more? I thought only NI62 and NI64 are reacting to produce copper 63 and 65.Anyway, that question/answer was sans conditionals.No, I did not say that. There has been a misunderstanding. Is correct what you thought.
Ask if there is ANY nuclear reaction at all with any Ni isotopes other than Ni 62 & 64. Then see what he says.
You keep feeding him his straight line and he keeps saying yes. WELL DUHH!!!
PLEASE think about what you are asking and he is answering. And please note that he seem to only answer effectively meaningless questions. When you ask the REALLY MEATY questions he says... can't answer...
He seems bent on allowing folks to be mislead without actually lying.
I have no idea if Rossi has what he says he has, but unless there were shenanigans with the label on that door, that is video of a 450kw generator.
Well that is very promising. He says he got 470 Kw and the generator is only 450 KW. Proof positive that he is generating excess energy. Or that he is running the generator at about 5% "continuous" overload.
My faith in Rossi is now fully restored.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.