10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Out of interest I was running through some of the reaction channels for transition metal elements fusing with a proton (the current hypothesis), using the naturally occurring isotope ratios. (Piantelli has stated previously that the reaction is possible for the transition metals). On a hunch, I chose to only consider transition metals that have spin 0+ nuclei stable elements, so these are the even numbers.

Of these, the ones that have reaction channels that produce long half-life radioactive products are at least Titanium, Chromium, Zirconium, Molybdenum, Ruthenium ... maybe others. (These maybe cleaned up by refining to remove initial isotopes that lead to long-lived radioactive products).

Also interesting are Platinum and Mercury but these are rare elements so widespread use is probably not feasible. However, with appropriate refining it looks like Platinum could produce Mercury, Iridium and Gold as products so other economic reasons maybe worth looking at. Also naturally occurring isotopes of Mercury have short-half life products including a tiny percentage of Gold.

The most likely candidates that have short half life products are Iron, Nickel and Zinc. Which is quite a coincidence as these are commonly occurring metals used for centuries by man.

Points of note:

Zinc - proton fusion has an interesting product in Gallium (rare metal used in semiconductor industry). Worse case reaction path seems to be a beta decay with 243 day 1/2 life of Zn-65 to Cu-65 (originating from a Zn-65 to Ga-65 to Zn-65)

Nickel - proton fusion paths is already well covered with Rossi and other analyses. Although seems like for the largest percentage naturally occurring isotope [Ni-58] there is possibility of a product with beta-decay with radioactive half life of 10^4 years (Ni-58 to Cu-59 to Ni-59 to Co-59) which could be a legacy ...

The most appealing to me, using this simple analyses is Iron.

Iron - proton fusion:

Fe-56 (91 % naturally occurring isotope) + proton goes to Cobalt-57 and produces 5.516 MeV energy. Co-57 decays by electron capture (emitting X-rays) to stable Fe-57 in 272 days and is an isotope already used and desired by medical industry.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ma ... +Cobalt-57

Fe-54 (5.8%) + proton goes to Co-55 decaying to Fe-55 in 17 hours by way of beta decay. Fe-55 decays by way of electron capture with 1/2 life 2.7 years to stable Manganese-55. This final step is already an X-ray source used widely in scientific applications with 60% 5.19keV X-rays and 20% 5.9 keV rays. Primary fusion reaction produces 4.6 MeV.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ma ... +Cobalt-55

Fe-58 (0.3%) + proton goes to stable Co-59. This reaction outputs 6.85 MeV.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ma ... +Cobalt-59

Other questions regarding economics of the materials preparation of Iron nano-particle powders to get the right surface structure obviously need to be considered. But on this analysis, assuming only proton to naturally occurring isotope fusion requires no enrichment and produces no long-lived radioactive isotopes except those that already desired by industry for low energy properties. Iron powders are also less toxic, safer and easier to work with than Nickel powders.

Just something to think about. I was always told you couldn't get energy out of fusing Iron .... ??
Last edited by icarus on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:00 pm, edited 5 times in total.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Rossi has a history of getting energy from doing the improbable. I believe he is continuing in that vein.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

MSimon wrote:Rossi has a history of getting energy from doing the improbable. I believe he is continuing in that vein.
Speaking of the improbable, would you happen to know why it is that the proton + B-11 reaction product Carbon-12 is unstable and decays rapidly into 3 alphas. (As supposed in the Polywell -pB11 burn mode).

Everything I can find is that Carbon-12 is stable, wuwt?

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

icarus wrote:
MSimon wrote:Rossi has a history of getting energy from doing the improbable. I believe he is continuing in that vein.
Speaking of the improbable, would you happen to know why it is that the proton + B-11 reaction product Carbon-12 is unstable and decays rapidly into 3 alphas. (As supposed in the Polywell -pB11 burn mode).

Everything I can find is that Carbon-12 is stable, wuwt?
Mr. Icarus, let's wait when happy Rossi and already not poor will sell to much happy customers his genius device. As I understand he has now money - not less 2 millions. So, 10 customer would make him a rather rich man. And let's wait more qualified explanations what processes go there. Carbon, bor, iron, nickel, wl conjecture, rydberg, etc. It does not seem seriously when the man quoting something with which he has nothing to do. As I understand you have not enough skill in physics and all you know is taken from science-popular sources. It's not bad but not enough.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
icarus wrote:
MSimon wrote:Rossi has a history of getting energy from doing the improbable. I believe he is continuing in that vein.
Speaking of the improbable, would you happen to know why it is that the proton + B-11 reaction product Carbon-12 is unstable and decays rapidly into 3 alphas. (As supposed in the Polywell -pB11 burn mode).

Everything I can find is that Carbon-12 is stable, wuwt?
Mr. Icarus, let's wait when happy Rossi and already not poor will sell to much happy customers his genius device. As I understand he has now money - not less 2 millions. So, 10 customer would make him a rather rich man. And let's wait more qualified explanations what processes go there. Carbon, bor, iron, nickel, wl conjecture, rydberg, etc. It does not seem seriously when the man quoting something with which he has nothing to do. As I understand you have not enough skill in physics and all you know is taken from science-popular sources. It's not bad but not enough.
What a rude prat. Speak for yourself!! Where did you get your skill-set? Kindergarten?

Can you explain to me why fizzics colleges teaches that fusing iron (and heavier elements) takes more energy in than out yet it is clear that proton-Iron fusion has a binding energy excess? How could they get this sooooooo wrong for sooooooo long?

It is a crime against Einstein.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

icarus wrote:What a rude prat. Speak for yourself!! Where did you get your skill-set? Kindergarten?

Can you explain to me why fizzics colleges teaches that fusing iron (and heavier elements) takes more energy in than out yet it is clear that proton-Iron fusion has a binding energy excess? How could they get this sooooooo wrong for sooooooo long?

It is a crime against Einstein.
No, I would not like to explain you anything more than I said you already. I can only to advise you to learn more basic before discussing. And nytechnik, wiki and youtube or other similar very respectful sources are not the best sources of education. People like Einstein born once in thousand years. People like Rossi - several in every generation.
Do you not see a difference between the Einstein and Rossi?

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
icarus wrote:What a rude prat. Speak for yourself!! Where did you get your skill-set? Kindergarten?

Can you explain to me why fizzics colleges teaches that fusing iron (and heavier elements) takes more energy in than out yet it is clear that proton-Iron fusion has a binding energy excess? How could they get this sooooooo wrong for sooooooo long?

It is a crime against Einstein.
No, I would not like to explain you anything more than I said you already. I can only to advise you to learn more basic before discussing. And nytechnik, wiki and youtube or other similar very respectful sources are not the best sources of education. People like Einstein born once in thousand years. People like Rossi - several in every generation.
Do you not see a difference between the Einstein and Rossi?
You do not put numbers or explain anything. You just full of talk like most around here. Wait for the experts? We'll all be dead before they explain anything.

It is not just Rossi talking about proton-metal fusions ... there has been evidence staring everyone the face for more than a decade.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHonthereact.pdf

I agree, you should just wait for the experts or else your mind might explode if you think for yourself too much.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

icarus wrote:
MSimon wrote:Rossi has a history of getting energy from doing the improbable. I believe he is continuing in that vein.
Speaking of the improbable, would you happen to know why it is that the proton + B-11 reaction product Carbon-12 is unstable and decays rapidly into 3 alphas. (As supposed in the Polywell -pB11 burn mode).

Everything I can find is that Carbon-12 is stable, wuwt?
Carbon at roughly 9 MEV internal (nucleus) energy is definitely not stable. Perhaps you would care to try again. It is well researched and not a matter of controversy.

Your (backing, faith, belief) in Rossi is more understandable though.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

icarus wrote:I agree, you should just wait for the experts or else your mind might explode if you think for yourself too much.
I do not speak about experts. Now I am speaking about lack of doubtless results and your attempts of explanaition of non-existent phenomena with lack of knowledge.
As from Rossi we have only assertions of existence of phenomenon without providing of any doubtless evidence.

quixote
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:44 pm

Post by quixote »

Icarus, might be some relevant info and links for you.
viewtopic.php?t=1647&sid=394077751727d7 ... 40eccfd6b2

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

icarus wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
icarus wrote:What a rude prat. Speak for yourself!! Where did you get your skill-set? Kindergarten?

Can you explain to me why fizzics colleges teaches that fusing iron (and heavier elements) takes more energy in than out yet it is clear that proton-Iron fusion has a binding energy excess? How could they get this sooooooo wrong for sooooooo long?

It is a crime against Einstein.
No, I would not like to explain you anything more than I said you already. I can only to advise you to learn more basic before discussing. And nytechnik, wiki and youtube or other similar very respectful sources are not the best sources of education. People like Einstein born once in thousand years. People like Rossi - several in every generation.
Do you not see a difference between the Einstein and Rossi?
You do not put numbers or explain anything. You just full of talk like most around here. Wait for the experts? We'll all be dead before they explain anything.

It is not just Rossi talking about proton-metal fusions ... there has been evidence staring everyone the face for more than a decade.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHonthereact.pdf

I agree, you should just wait for the experts or else your mind might explode if you think for yourself too much.
From your link. Bolding mine:
Other evidence of the nuclear basis for these results included the observation of low energy X-ray and/or beta emission from electrodes after a run and statistically significant shifts in isotope ratios for key elements.
Rossi says no emissions. Of course if he has only betas to deal with they are easy to shield. So that must be it. He has found a way to do the nuclear reactions so that they only emit betas. The man is a genius.

BTW it is a wonder that LENR is not "on the map" given that Miley did the experiments 10 years ago.

Perhaps this is the reason:
More studies of this type are clearly needed to fully confirm the validity of this correlation.
A lack of confirming studies after 10 years is definitely a problem.

OTOH the reason may be that the "yield" is very low and thus not commercial. If you think Miley eliminated all sources of experimental error.

To think that fraudster Rossi succeeded where a trained physicist failed strains credulity.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Giorgio
Posts: 2779
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

icarus wrote:You do not put numbers or explain anything. You just full of talk like most around here. Wait for the experts? We'll all be dead before they explain anything.
Ok, I feel obliged to reply to you, just to let you understand why is needed to get some understanding of these processes before attempting to make up theories.

If you check the sum of the mass of the proton and of Boron11 you will notice as it is much higher than the mass of the stable C12.
This extra mass transforms in energy and breaks this intermediate C12 into three Alpha. Imagine it as a balloon that is inflated too much and breaks apart.


Edit:
seems like by the time it took me to write the post everyone else decided to give you the explanation.
Anyhow, I hope you got the message about asking in a certain way the question if you want to get the replies you are looking for.

Giorgio
Posts: 2779
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

icarus wrote:It is not just Rossi talking about proton-metal fusions ... there has been evidence staring everyone the face for more than a decade.
G. Miley is claiming such stuff since 10 years, you are correct. The problem is that he did not put forward any repeatable experiment so far, nor enough data or technical/experimental descriptions to justify the acceptance of his theories.
As you see he normally references only to himself in his paper.
This can be understandable in the start of a research, is not a good sign after ten years that you started the research.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Condensed Matter Fusion:

Several other groups have confirmed the production of helium-4 correlated with excess heat. But the most spectacular results came from the experiments of Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang at Osaka University, Japan [10].

Instead of a solid palladium cathode, Arata and Zhang used powdered palladium, or palladium black, which greatly increased the absorption surface area for deuterium. The palladium black was placed inside a container kept under a vacuum at constant temperature for 2-3 days before deuterium or hydrogen gas was injected at a constant low flow rate until the powdered palladium was fully saturated with the deuterium/hydrogen.

Using palladium black with extremely small particle size (15 to 40 nm), a high fusion rate was obtained, amounting to >1015 4He2 atoms in the closed inner space of the cathode. In contrast, no 4He2 (or excess heat) was ever generated when hydrogen was used instead of deuterium, or when bulk palladium was used.

Arata and Zhang also developed other materials that better absorbed H2/D2. In one experiment, Pd particles of 5 nm were embedded inside a matrix of ZrO2. ZrO2 on its own does not absorb H2 or D2, but ZrO2-Pd easily absorbed about 3 D atoms per host Pd atom. Arata and Zhang proposed that the D atoms absorbed are effectively solidified as an ultrahigh density deuterium lump inside each octahedral space within the unit cell of the Pd host lattice. These “pycnodeuterium” (heavy deuterium) are dispersed to form a metallic deuterium lattice with body-centred cuboctahedron structure (see Fig. 2) [11].

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/coldFusionCondensedMatter.php

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

More transmutation:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/alchemistsDream.php

Yasuhiro Iwamura and colleagues at Mitsubishi’s Advanced Technology Research Center and colleagues have taken another approach to nuclear transmutation by concentrating on the direct transmutation of one element into another [10, 11].

They used D2 gas permeation through a sandwich of thin alternating layers of palladium (Pd) and CaO sitting on a bottom layer of bulk Pd. Permeation of deuterium is forced through the layers by exposing the top of the sandwich with a thin Pd film to D2 gas while the bottom is maintained under vacuum. On the D2 gas side, dissociative absorption causes the D2 molecules to separate into D atoms, which diffuse though the sandwich towards the vacuum side, where they emerge from the Pd metal, combine and are released as D2 gas (see Fig. 1). The element to be transmuted is deposited on the top Pd film of the Pd/CaO sandwich by electrolytic loading from a salt solution. Cesium (Cs), barium (Ba) and strontium (Sr) have been transmuted in this way. The analysis of elements was done in situ, without removing or disturbing the sandwich, using X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) directed at the topside of the sandwich

Post Reply