[/quote]
bk78 wrote: KitemanSA wrote:bk78 wrote: Do you know what background radiation is?
OMG!
Please oh omniscient one, regale us with your wisdom and technical knowledge.
Look it up on wikipedia, then read my comments again and explain why you don't agree that 100 times detection limit does not mean 100 times background radiation for anyone near the reactor.
100x "no obvious increase" in background can be a VERY obvious increase in background. As a simple observation, AR was saying that there was no radiation output but when he moved the detector away the counter moved from ~15 to ~12. Thus, perhaps, 3 units. X100 = 300 units. SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. At least enough that it might be unsellable. Simple enough for you?
bk78 wrote: KitemanSA wrote: What was your question? Not that it really matters, since YOU are the one making the statements about the way things ARE. You need to provide the data to support YOUR statements, not me.
It was YOUR estimation that Rossi deenriched Ni-58 by a factor 2-3. It was one of YOUR theorys that he did this for radiation issues.
No, it was a guess about one possible reason. It remains a guess. Then again, it may be 10x not 3.
bk78 wrote:It was YOUR theory that the radiation is not proportional to Ni-58 content, but nonlinear (in a sense that makes a notable difference in our discussion). Thus YOU need to provide the data. Note that you can't even explain that there is no radiation from Ni62/64. Explaining the difference between Ni62/64 and Ni58 comes after that.
Again, I have not theories. I have made some unsubtantialed guesses. YOU are among the ones stating that "new physics" is required. I just asked "what new physics"? YOU are making the theories, not me. Support them or acknoledge that you are spouting cr@p.
bk78 wrote: KitemanSA wrote:What, BECs are new physics? Cooper pairs are new physics? What part is new? Do the math, which Dr. Kim has done, and you get those values. I did it and I got those values, so I figure he did it about right.
What part is new? That you combine two phenomena, cooper pairs and BEC, which will only appear at very low temperatures for particles with mass,
BECs are groupings of bosons. Cooper pairs are bosons. They are subject to condensation like any other boson. Nothing new. The Tc for dueterons is ~7K, IIRC. It would be much higher for for cooper pairs. About 148 times higher I think.
bk78 wrote:apply them to a high temperature, and imply the will function as a means to thermalize high energetic nuclear power of several kWs
"Thermalize"? Sorry, not sure what you mean here. The assumption, IIRC, is that the pairs somehow escort protons to sufficiently close to Nickel nuclei to allow the strong force to bring them in.
bk78 wrote:(meaning that the BEC is even HOTTER than the nickel lattice).
Interesting assumption. Why?
bk78 wrote:Even if such a stuff existed, you can't explain how it reduces radiation by several orders of magnitude. If you can, give NASA a call, they need it for their space vessels.
Actually, I have provided a very plausible reason for that. IC.
bk78 wrote: And please give me a link for the maths "Kim has done".
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501
In the same general area he did the math for D-D fusion in a metal matrix.
bk78 wrote: KitemanSA wrote:bk78 wrote: Do you understand why the electron for internal conversion usually comes from the K-shell? Do you understand any cooper pair would immediately break apart at such a distance, let alone when beeing heated with MeVs?
Yes. Do you? Did you notice that you said USUALLY?
Hmmm, seems I answered too hastily last time. I do NOT know that a cooper pair would immediately break apart "AT SUCH A DISTANCE". What distance are YOU talking about?
bk78 wrote: Then explain it for me.
The expression "usually" implies that this is not a perfect process. Sometimes, it is a different electron. Sometimes it does not happen at all. But to explain the lack of radiation, we are looking for a process that works in at least 99.9999999% of all cases. In your opinion, for "cooper electrons", which can't exist that close to the nucleus.
IF the Kim hypothesis is correct, then the cooper pairs escort a proton to the Ni nucleus. Given that the electron pair is there, it might serve as the electron (or even a PAIR of electrons to allow "IC" without a shell electron at all. Usually means under those conditions that were usual when the phenomenon was identified. New conditions, new results, same physics.
bk78 wrote: KitemanSA wrote:What MeV? Can you say "strawman"?
The 6 MeVs from the Nickel + Hydrogen ->Copper reaction.
Sorry, it didn't seem to be used correctly for that purpose. I will have to re-read.
bk78 wrote: KitemanSA wrote:Well this seems to indicate that you (or I) have a fundamental miss understanding of internal conversion.
IIUTC, IC invloves ONE shell electron and accelerates it to relativistic or even hyper-relativistic velocities, dumping MOST (if not all) of the excitation energy. If you have a different understanding, link? Reference?
I have exactly the same understanding, and I already posted that before.
When you, for no reason, scolded me that I also posted the interpretation for chemical IC, remember?
Your "fundamental miss" is not IC itself, but that it produces high energetic beta radiation (you seem to prefer a different expression, maybe "fast electrons"?), that will produce high energetic bremsstrahlung. The calculation I did a few pages before was based on this. You should read it again.
But Brem is X-ray and X-ray can be shielded by a bit of lead. Rossi has repeatedly said that the e-cats are shielded with lead.
bk78 wrote: KitemanSA wrote: (Decay of instable copper)
"Fine, if you want to be anal about it, "gone before it HAS been isotopically investigated. Why don't we see it? WE HAVEN'T LOOKED. Simple enough for you? "
WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING. There was a GM tube next to the reactor. Why didn't it pick up anything?
I saw it change from ~15 to ~12 when the probe was moved away, or are you talking about something of which I am not aware? If so, LINK PLEASE! I keep asking for REAL data upon which to think and decide. No one helps.
bk78 wrote: KitemanSA wrote: So what you seem to be saying is that you don't have ANY data except hearsay. I thought that was your problem with this whole subject, only hearsay data.
Do you have REAL data about the radio-output of the ecat beyond the view of the meter in the Krivit video?
I am really too lazy to look this up now, the point is: Even the Krivit video is more than enough. If IC was occuring in the ecat, there would be so much radiation that the gamma scout couldn't even display the number anymore. Btw, the 10uCi source of Cs-137 in the gamma scout video produces only about 40 nW of gamma radiation.
Since we have just identified that the main radiation could be X-ray, and that IMHO said X-ray can be shielded by lead, why would you pick it up, beyond some small leakage?
bk78 wrote: If you want to use only Rossis gamma scout, take off 2 or 3 of the 9's I posted earlier - it does not make a difference.
Sorry, you still seem to be making assumptions that are as yet unproven.