10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Kahuna · Post by **Kahuna** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:45 pm

ScottL wrote:If I told you the Earth's core was full of chocolate, you'd probably dismiss my claim. If I went into a cave and walked out with a handful of chocolate, you'd probably still dismiss my claim or at least I'd hope so. This is exactly what Rossi has done. He has made a claim (earth chocolate), ran a black box that's warmer (cave chocolate), and now you believe him.

I am still pretty skeptical, but this is just silly.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:47 pm

...and you stil give it 15%!!

Hey man....I like chocolate. Gotta grade on effort even if the effort is to prolong a potentially large scam or misguided idea.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:49 pm

ScottL wrote:Hey man....I like chocolate.

Fair play! Best point made in the first 1,000 pages here!

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:57 pm

chrismb,

Again with this 'crazy' way of looking at something. The chances are either 0 or 100%.

So, you think the chances of a coin toss coming up heads is either 0% or 100%?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:20 pm

parallel wrote:chrismb,
Again with this 'crazy' way of looking at something. The chances are either 0 or 100%.
So, you think the chances of a coin toss coming up heads is either 0% or 100%?

Yes. It most surely is! As each outcome, 0% or 100%, are equal so the average outcome for both, for multiple events, is 50%.

For an infinite number of LENR experiments, as the outcome 'proven not real' is so heavily weighted (that is, everyone's opinion on whether a given set out outcomes does or does not disprove it) then the average outcome is 'undeterminable'.

For one coin toss, the outcome is, indeed, 0% or 100% for heads, as it is for the Rossitron. It is a Poisson event. 1 or 0. It is, or it is not. To be or not to be, though at the moment I seem to be suffering more your slings and arrows of outrage[ous fortune].

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:18 pm

chrismb,
I don't think many will go along with your new mathematics of chance.
No surprise you don't want your opinion on record. It might come back to haunt you.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:24 pm

I don't think many will go along with your new mathematics of chance.

Actually college mathematics would agree with Chris here or at least my Discrete Mathematics 566 did. What Chris stated was that certainly there is a 50/50 chance of either heads or tails in a coin flip, but you aren't going to get 33.6% of heads on a single flip, either it will be 0% heads or 100% heads...well not unless the coin is severly deformed I suppose *shrug*

It's been a while since I've been in the course so hopefully my explanation is close enough to understand.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:22 am

Which is why I didn't ask for probability but value judgement. "Likelyhood" not probability.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:46 am

Well since probability is the average of trends as you approach infinity and since we don't have infinite attempts, I'd say its ...very probably unlikely

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:40 am

KitemanSA wrote:
D Tibbets wrote: How many times do you need to read that Ni62 is the most highly bound nucleus? How many times do you need to have it pointed out that the binding energy trends reverse at Ni62, as is clear from the graph.
How many times must it be pointed out to you that your statement (bolded above) IS NOT TRUE!!! It is the most tightly bound
***PER NUCLEON***!!!
MORE NUCLEONS + MORE BINDING ENERGY!!! Uranium has a hell of a lot more binding energy than Ni.
My god, man. Get with it!

I have given plenty of references that include clear indications of predictions. That these are ignored, and that the logic of the shape of the binding energy curve is clear, especially when anointed as in the Hyper Physics link was not challenged- thus I assume you ignore them.
The binding energy refers to the nucleus in question. How it was made or how it' binding energy was derived is immaterial, though I have tried to explaine it and provided links that does a better job.
If you choose to share the binding energy in a nucleus, among all of the nucleons, that is fine but misleading. If you add a proton to lithium the binding energy goes up a fair amount. If you add a nucleon to iron 57 the binding energy also goes up, but much less (this is clear from the slope of the graph in those regions). The binding energy is not increased equally by each additional nucleon. You are using the average energy per nucleon. This may be part of the problem.

Please consider the following points taken from the Binding energy curve., please explain any different interpretations.
1) Where is the highest binding energy nucleus- Ni62? Y/N
2) What is the slope of the graph on either side of this point? positive on the low side and negative on the high side? Y/N
3)If you read off the Y- axis (the binding energy) the value for a lighter element or a heavier element (or isotope), is the value less than that for Ni62? Y/N
4) Do you accept that the Binding energy is the measure of the energy within the nucleus that determines energy exchange as the nucleon number is changed? Y/N
4) Do you believe the chart is representative? Y/N. If no, why did you present it?

If you answer each question - Yes, then you agree with me. If you answer no to one or more of the questions, our graph reading skills do not match, our understanding does not match, and if I have not educated you with my arguments, whether couched in my own words, or quotes from authorities, then we must agree to disagree.
I am disappointed that you have not debated the points I have raised, but stuck to your original premise and dismissed or ignored the points raised.

PS: Why are you so determined to believe the Rossi claims? The demonstrations are black box setups, the inputs and outputs are not well quantified, the challenges to fraud are not answered in detail, and the explanations and discussed infrastructure (factories, test durations, isotope separations, etc) is questionable at best.
There are truly interesting things that goes on inside metal crystals and hydrogen (deuterium) can certainly be packed to high densities inside them. This at least gives a basis for arguments for atypical energy light element fusion. But nickel fusion- is much harder to accomplish, compared to deuterium fusion. Even if you ignore my insistence that Ni to CU reactions are endothermic , the barriers to the Rossi approach is much more intimidating that the easier and energetically more favorable light element fusion.

Dan Tibbets

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:06 am

Slopes on graphs tell odd stories. A good example would be my introduction to engineering course where we did an experiment where we monitored the temperature of water as it went from its liquid to solid state (YaY ice cream makers). The resulting graph showed the temperature lower to 32 degrees F. then dipping slightly and only momentarily before returning to 32 degrees F. This dip was the act of freezing, however; had I not experienced the experiment and was only presented with a graph I'd guess the state of the water was liquid then solid then liquid again. Graphs are funny things though

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:25 am

ScottL wrote:Well since probability is the average of trends as you approach infinity and since we don't have infinite attempts, I'd say its ...very probably unlikely

So post it dude!

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:29 am

D Tibbets wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
D Tibbets wrote: How many times ...
How many times must ...!

Dan, I apologize. I had hoped to leave an edit to my post before you saw it. All I can do is beg forgiveness for my rudeness and blame my frustration at my inability to make what is obvious to me the same to you.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:04 am

D Tibbets wrote: Please consider the following points taken from the Binding energy curve., please explain any different interpretations.
1) Where is the highest binding energy nucleus- Ni62? Y/N

No! Absolutely not. It may be the highest binding energy per nucleon, but since Uranium has a lot more nucleons it has a lot more binding energy, even at a lower BE/A.

D Tibbets wrote: 2) What is the slope of the graph on either side of this point? positive on the low side and negative on the high side? Y/N

Yes, it is an inflection point on the ~ monotonically positive BE/nucleus curve. Perhaps that is what you need to do. Take the BE/A curve and convert it to a BE/nucleus curve. It may be instructive!

D Tibbets wrote: 3)If you read off the Y- axis (the binding energy) the value for a lighter element or a heavier element (or isotope), is the value less than that for Ni62? Y/N

The Y axis is NOT binding energy. It is binding energy PER NUCLEON.

D Tibbets wrote:4) Do you accept that the Binding energy is the measure of the energy within the nucleus that determines energy exchange as the nucleon number is changed? Y/N

Yes, but not binding energy per nucleon!

D Tibbets wrote: 4) Do you believe the chart is representative? Y/N. If no, why did you present it?

Of what? It is the chart for binding energy PER NUCLEON. I have never claimed it as anything else. You however seem to insist it refers to binding energy per nucleus. This is wrong!

D Tibbets wrote: If you answer each question - Yes, then you agree with me. If you answer no to one or more of the questions, our graph reading skills do not match, our understanding does not match, and if I have not educated you with my arguments, whether couched in my own words, or quotes from authorities, then we must agree to disagree.

I guess we must agree to disagree that nucleons and nuclei are the same thing. They are not. Until you get that, you will continue to be confused about what is real.

D Tibbets wrote:I am disappointed that you have not debated the points I have raised, but stuck to your original premise and dismissed or ignored the points raised.

Dan, you tend to run on at the fingertips. I read thru your massive tomes and try to pick out the salient points. I respond to these. In this case, I tried to respond to each and every point. It was EXHAUSTING!

D Tibbets wrote:PS: Why are you so determined to believe the Rossi claims?

I am not. I am determined not to dismiss them for non-real reasons. Every argument of physics brought forward as a reason it "cannot be real" has turned out to be a mis-understanding of physics by the person bring the arguement. If you are saying that it can't be real because such a nuclear reaction would be endothermic, you are incorrect. Quite simply, that arguement is FALSE! The Rossi machine MAY turn out to be a load of cr@p, but not for that reason. So far, no one has provided a physics based reason to say it won't work.

D Tibbets wrote:The demonstrations are black box setups, the inputs and outputs are not well quantified, the challenges to fraud are not answered in detail, and the explanations and discussed infrastructure (factories, test durations, isotope separations, etc) is questionable at best.

Concur 100%, none of which proves it false. Of course it raises caution flags all over the place.

D Tibbets wrote: There are truly interesting things that goes on inside metal crystals and hydrogen (deuterium) can certainly be packed to high densities inside them. This at least gives a basis for arguments for atypical energy light element fusion. But nickel fusion- is much harder to accomplish, compared to deuterium fusion.

First, the statement "Nickel fusion" normally brings to mind fusing Ni with Ni. Not postulated here. It s the transmutation of Ni with H that is postulated. And PERHAPS any difficulty with Ni:H transmutation is true only in high energy physics situations. PERHAPS there is some mechanism that modifies that in a solid state Ni lattice. (See the "Kiteman Konjecture" as soon as I post it... RSN!) Please note that many biological processes would be darn near impossible in inorganic chemistry conditions. The organic chemicals called enzymes make them work with little difficulty. PERHAPS there is a solid state physics equivalent to enzymes (a catalyst?) that makes Rossi's process work. (A PHYSICS catalyst, not a chemical one.)

D Tibbets wrote:Even if you ignore my insistence that Ni to CU reactions are endothermic,

which they are not,

D Tibbets wrote: the barriers to the Rossi approach is much more intimidating that the easier and energetically more favorable light element fusion.

This may be that this is true IF you insist on applying lessons learned ONLY from high energy physics. Said lessons MAY apply. But I am not convinced they MUST.

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:30 am

D Tibbets

This discussion can be easily resolved.

1. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

2 E=MC^2

In any reaction, be it chemical or nuclear:

E1 + M1C^2 = E2 + M2C^2

Therefore if M1 is greater than M2 the energy E1 must be less than the energy E2.

If you add the atomic mass of hydrogen and Ni62 (collectively they amount to M1) and compare it to the mass of Cu63 (accounting for M2) you will find that M1>M2 therefore, by the law of conservation of energy: E1 must be less than E2 and the nuclear reaction is exothermic.

If the fusion of Ni62 and H did not release energy it would be 1000x more interesting than cold fusion.