10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:Again, I think that there has been also on this subject a lot of misunderstanding between you and Chris. I wanted to try to help to clarify it, but I see that Chris made a new thread about this issue in the Theory section, so I will drop the issue.
There is not a "subject a lot of misunderstanding".
Now in his new thread he attempts to disavow the told earlier nonsense with a big and tiresome text. Mentioning Rutherford, Cocroft and Walton.
Why not Pythagoras, Decart and Newton? :)

Many words – lack of sense.

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

The first step of misunderstanding is refusing to understand that the other person can have a different point of view.

Anyhow, as I said, I'll drop the issue.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:The first step of misunderstanding is refusing to understand that the other person can have a different point of view.

Anyhow, as I said, I'll drop the issue.
You will drop issue because you would like to defend person but do not know how to do it.
And me too - very much like the freedom of speech, respect of another's opinion even if that dramatically differs from yours, democracy, etc.
But Oppenheimer-Fillips process is impossible even here:
viewtopic.php?t=3179
http://www.mediafire.com/?0vswxiyvoxic7bc
where center-of-mass energy 400keV is declared.

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:You will drop issue because you would like to defend person but do not know how to do it.
No, I will drop because I see no interest in you to question what you have understood, so I have no interest in putting more effort in trying to let you see his point of view.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:... to let you see his point of view.
Oppenheimer-Phillips with birth of three neutrons hydrogen nucleus is possible or not? :)
Goodbye, Georgio.

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:Goodbye, Georgio.
Let's make it farewell, I prefer :roll:

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:Goodbye, Georgio.
Let's make it farewell, I prefer :roll:
Cao, cao

PS: I have also seen how productive your discussion in the thread on Polywell:
When you said "knowledge" I did not imagine that knowledge you are seeking is how strong is the pain in patent examinator's ass. :)

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:Cao, cao

PS: I have also seen how productive your discussion in the thread on Polywell:
When you said "knowledge" I did not imagine that knowledge you are seeking is how strong is the pain in patent examinator's ass. :)
One of the most meaningless phrases I had the opportunity to read since a long time. Quite amusing.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:Cao, cao

PS: I have also seen how productive your discussion in the thread on Polywell:
When you said "knowledge" I did not imagine that knowledge you are seeking is how strong is the pain in patent examinator's ass. :)
One of the most meaningless phrases I had the opportunity to read since a long time. Quite amusing.
Giorgio wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:I'll download the papers and give it a look too...
For what? :)
Knowledge.
Giorgio wrote:
rjaypeters wrote:chrismb, Thanks!

Is it just me, or is the patent examiner really stubborn?
More than stubborn I'll say a real pain in the ass....
Does knowledge growth up?

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Does knowledge growth up?
These are english words, but together, they do not make a coherent sentence. Joseph, as many have posted, there's a language barrier and since the preferred language of the boards is english, the onus is on you to properly learn said language to communicate more clearly. Further, you do not need to attack someone in each posting. There's nothing to gain in doing so, but a lot to gain in restraining yourself until you understand properly what is being said.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Giorgio wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Betruger wrote:You can't have a "forum" if communications therein are scrambled beyond comprehension.

Make an effort. The rest of us non-native english speakers have.
I will try.
But there is a universal language as for example MSimon said.
That is numbers, theory, formulas, etc..
Less interesting for most people here as I have seen.
There is no math engine to write formulas on this forum, so the use of formulas is limited.
Maybe in the future someone will implement it, than it will become more easy. Until than we have to stick to words to express our concepts.
SDpeaking of confusion, there is no contentionthat the mass deficite- total binding energy always goes up withnucleus groth. This has been steted by me and many sources repeatedly. What is the bone of contention is that this leads to the release of energy heat in all cases. The binding energy per nucleon determines this, not the total binding energy. Please try to comprehend that energy does not nessisarily = heat in a system. Kinetic energy implies heat increase, potential energy implies the opposite. There are two primary forces involved in the binding energy. It is the balance between these two forces that determines whether heat is released. If the nucleus potential energy goes up it has to be endothermicThe only possibility is to convert between potential and kinetic energy. The two forces are the strong force and electromagnatism (or coulomb force) Electromagnetic repulsion between protons leads to them trying to seperate. while the strong force effect is greater, the nucleus will stay bound, but they will be packed less tight. This packing fraction is a measure of the potential energy of the system.

Do you deny that the strong force tries to draw nucleons together, once they are in range?
...that the strong force is range limited to only a few nucleon diameters?
....that nucleons have a finite diameter and thus cannot be compressed to point like dimensions, without invoking physical processes that are not important for nuclear fusion or fission (eg - black holes)?
...that the electromagnetic force tries to push protons apart?
...that the electromagnetic force has a longer range than the strong force?
...that both both strong force and electromagnetic force mediated energy is energy and that E=MC^2 applies to both and thus both are a part of the mass deficit in a bound nucleus?
...That the effects are in opposition to each other, so that the final effect is the difference between them?
...that different nuclei have different numbers and proportions of protons and neutrons, which changes the binding energy per nucleon?
...that we are not talking about creating isotopes by adding or removing, or converting one, or a few nucleons at a time?
...that magically creating instantaneously a nucleus of X amount of nucleons from a totally unbound collection of nucleons? single exception is fusion of hydrogen.

.........

Dan Tibbets

...that is is an iterative process and the binding energy per nucleon applies as it is added or subtracted?
that this is stated in many different sources that have been presented?
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ScottL wrote:
Does knowledge growth up?
These are english words, but together, they do not make a coherent sentence. Joseph, as many have posted, there's a language barrier and since the preferred language of the boards is english, the onus is on you to properly learn said language to communicate more clearly. Further, you do not need to attack someone in each posting. There's nothing to gain in doing so, but a lot to gain in restraining yourself until you understand properly what is being said.
One more Englishman.
Is Oppenheimer-Phillips possible for deuterium and tritium fuel, Mr. Well Speaking English?

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

D Tibbets wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: I will try.
But there is a universal language as for example MSimon said.
That is numbers, theory, formulas, etc..
Less interesting for most people here as I have seen.
There is no math engine to write formulas on this forum, so the use of formulas is limited.
Maybe in the future someone will implement it, than it will become more easy. Until than we have to stick to words to express our concepts.
SDpeaking of confusion, there is no contentionthat the mass deficite- total binding energy always goes up withnucleus groth. This has been steted by me and many sources repeatedly. What is the bone of contention is that this leads to the release of energy heat in all cases. The binding energy per nucleon determines this, not the total binding energy. Please try to comprehend that energy does not nessisarily = heat in a system. Kinetic energy implies heat increase, potential energy implies the opposite. There are two primary forces involved in the binding energy. It is the balance between these two forces that determines whether heat is released. If the nucleus potential energy goes up it has to be endothermicThe only possibility is to convert between potential and kinetic energy. The two forces are the strong force and electromagnatism (or coulomb force) Electromagnetic repulsion between protons leads to them trying to seperate. while the strong force effect is greater, the nucleus will stay bound, but they will be packed less tight. This packing fraction is a measure of the potential energy of the system.

Do you deny that the strong force tries to draw nucleons together, once they are in range?
...that the strong force is range limited to only a few nucleon diameters?
....that nucleons have a finite diameter and thus cannot be compressed to point like dimensions, without invoking physical processes that are not important for nuclear fusion or fission (eg - black holes)?
...that the electromagnetic force tries to push protons apart?
...that the electromagnetic force has a longer range than the strong force?
...that both both strong force and electromagnetic force mediated energy is energy and that E=MC^2 applies to both and thus both are a part of the mass deficit in a bound nucleus?
...That the effects are in opposition to each other, so that the final effect is the difference between them?
...that different nuclei have different numbers and proportions of protons and neutrons, which changes the binding energy per nucleon?
...that we are not talking about creating isotopes by adding or removing, or converting one, or a few nucleons at a time?
...that magically creating instantaneously a nucleus of X amount of nucleons from a totally unbound collection of nucleons? single exception is fusion of hydrogen.

.........

Dan Tibbets

...that is is an iterative process and the binding energy per nucleon applies as it is added or subtracted?
that this is stated in many different sources that have been presented?
Dan, you are wrong.
Energy balance with the help of mass balance in such a manner can be calculated not only for nuclear reactions but for chemical as well.
Total mass of reactants should be compared with total mass of reaction products regardless what type of interaction occurs and kind of forces involved.
Best regards,

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Joseph Chikva wrote: One more Englishman.
Is Oppenheimer-Phillips possible for deuterium and tritium fuel, Mr. Well Speaking English?
Joseph,

What does Oppenheimer-Phillips have to do with your comprehension of english? I'm talking about your english comprehension level and you're mentioning a nuclear reaction process?! My post topic is solely that you do not understand english very well and I think this proves my point.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ScottL wrote:Joseph,

What does Oppenheimer-Phillips have to do with your comprehension of english? I'm talking about your english comprehension level and you're mentioning a nuclear reaction process?! My post topic is solely that you do not understand english very well and I think this proves my point.
What point you have?
I already know that my English is bad, thanks.

Post Reply