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 »

MSimon wrote:Interesting. We can speculate about everything else but given that the shielding numbers are at least somewhat non-supportive of the device being real we can't speculate about that.

We have Ni. We have protons. It should be possible to come up with at least a minimum level of radiation given the reactants. But speculation is not profitable. OKi Doak.

BTW to the person amused about the viciousness of engineers. I take it you have never been involved in a design review. What goes on here is mild by comparison. The attitude is not too dissimilar though.
You are free to speculate about whatever you like (as am I), I just won't be speculating about imaginary shielding for an unknown radiation source ... better things to do thanks. But seeing as you're asking curiously .... if you wouldn't mind calculating a lead shielding that could contain 6 MeV gamma?

(Toss in a reasonable guess thickness of water jacket and assume some small above background allowable close to reactor.) Ta.

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

Post by Giorgio »

icarus wrote:You are free to speculate about whatever you like (as am I), I just won't be speculating about imaginary shielding for an unknown radiation source ... better things to do thanks. But seeing as you're asking curiously .... if you wouldn't mind calculating a lead shielding that could contain 6 MeV gamma?

(Toss in a reasonable guess thickness of water jacket and assume some small above background allowable close to reactor.) Ta.
So, not only you consider this to be your personal tuition board, but now we are becoming also your personal calculator. Interesting......

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

Post by Giorgio »

icarus wrote:We already know your strongly-held opinion it is "a gigantic fraud"
Never said.
icarus wrote:"can never be done"
Never said
icarus wrote:"Rossi has idiotic, incompetent set-ups, etc, etc".
Oh yes, this one I said and it proved to be true.
He did change the set up and reduced the flow in each line to the exact limit that I placed for them, didn't he?
icarus wrote:Repetition is just not helpful.
Neither is ignoring reality of facts.

vivoaca
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:37 am

Re: Just noticing

Post by vivoaca »

xevioso wrote:Been lurking for a while, reading comments from people who are supposedly knowledgeable on this issue, as we could be on the verge of something incredible.

The level of vitriol here is equally astounding and amusing. It's basically When Engineers Attack. You guys should have a reality show or something. It's pretty funny. I am trying to glean tidbits of good information that will enlighten me on what actually is going on with Rossi's device, or at least some intelligent speculation on it, but if he could make use of the egos and vitriolic comments here as a fuel source, he wouldn't need this catalyst that no one seems to be able to identify.

Just sayin.

By all means, please continue.
Hey, dare you to publish your phone number :twisted: .

But it's interesting. I think the emotion is about compounded ('nested' if you like) frustration. This is talk-polywell, not straight-out talk-ecat. There's not enough of anything to really latch onto, polywell or e-cat, to be able to make a solid prediction.

I think it's OK to say that because, for every sceptical interpretation here (and thus prediction) there's a pretty plausible hopeful one (am I dodging the darts?) and vice versa.

Ah, to know the future...! I know my present and that's scary enough.

:idea: Here's a compendium of terms: Ni-H, Pd-D, P & F, quantum entanglement, BEC, nano material, Focardi, Piantelli, George Miley, Widom Larsen, Blacklight, journal-of-nuclear-physics, fraud, fraudster, political victim, delusion, dogma, revolution, pride, punishment, Italy, Greece, vindication.

If I had a T.V. I could watch the Big Bang Theory or Star Trek reruns but, hey, Talk Polywell is reality tech. It's as good as church :shock: .

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

Post by MSimon »

Luzr wrote:
MSimon wrote: Odds are such electrons unless they are at the very edge wouldn't get out of the lattice. Charged particles in a solid lose energy very rapidly. Even electrons. They would produces massive lattice defects though. Which might impair energy production. If the structure of the lattice is important for operation.
Interesting point... because some claim that it is lattice defects where LENR occurs...
That might explain the "uncontrolled reaction" that Rossi claims. But things are still so ill defined with all LENR experiments that it is difficult to be sure of much of anything except the reactants.

That idea (lattice defects) may explain some of the experiments where hot spots were found. But without some serious X-ray crystallography or other method nothing along those lines is certain.

After 20+ years almost everything in the field is still a question.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by MSimon »

Giorgio wrote:
icarus wrote:You are free to speculate about whatever you like (as am I), I just won't be speculating about imaginary shielding for an unknown radiation source ... better things to do thanks. But seeing as you're asking curiously .... if you wouldn't mind calculating a lead shielding that could contain 6 MeV gamma?

(Toss in a reasonable guess thickness of water jacket and assume some small above background allowable close to reactor.) Ta.
So, not only you consider this to be your personal tuition board, but now we are becoming also your personal calculator. Interesting......
One 6 MEV gamma can be contained by no shielding at all. It is insignificant.

How was that G? ;-)
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 »

Neat, but I am afraid he will now start again to call you with names because you refused to actually produce "a number" ;-)

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

ScottL wrote:
ANY radioactive materials is more than he is claiming! ANY radioactive materials is more than he can sell easily!
Rossi originally said his reactor gave off gamma radiation, but was well shielded.
I don't think you understood the point or that you know the decay chain that is prompting the conversation.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:The only thing this tells me is that he doesn't produce Ni59. I Got it. This suggests that the 58Ni derichment is NOT for radioactivity purposes.
Finally. An agreement. No NI59 produced.
KitemanSA wrote:How does that call into question my curiousity about the cross section of the different isotopes?
It doesn't. It does say that previous statements about non-linear reductions in radioactivity/byproducts by reduction in isotopic ratios of NI58 are not a driving factor behind the supposed depletion.

Now, I do know that you are making an alternative supposition that NI58 is reduced because it is impeding the desired reactions of NI62 and NI64 by some mechanism.
If it grabbed another proton, it would be MORE proton rich. The most probable outcome (IMHO) would be to kick that proton out again. My reading leads me to believe that this happens much more often than most people realize. Such absorbtion/emission is lumped with the "coulomb scattering" IIRC. Maybe the reason to reduce the Ni58 is that the re-emitted proton plays hob with the conglomerate particle system that drives the process. Maybe reducing the 58Ni to whatever value he reduces it without making the results untenably expensive, is to allow the process to proceed without interruption by excess coulohm scattering, i.e. tearing apart the conglomerate system.

"grabbed a proton"? "kick that proton out again"? "conglomerate particle system"? "re-emitted proton"? "excess coulohm scattering"? "tearing apart"? "Conglomerate system"?

It's a quark soup of huh's.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: If it grabbed another proton, it would be MORE proton rich. The most probable outcome (IMHO) would be to kick that proton out again. My reading leads me to believe that this happens much more often than most people realize. Such absorbtion/emission is lumped with the "coulomb scattering" IIRC. Maybe the reason to reduce the Ni58 is that the re-emitted proton plays hob with the conglomerate particle system that drives the process. Maybe reducing the 58Ni to whatever value he reduces it without making the results untenably expensive, is to allow the process to proceed without interruption by excess coulohm scattering, i.e. tearing apart the conglomerate system.
"grabbed a proton"? "kick that proton out again"? "conglomerate particle system"? "re-emitted proton"? "excess coulohm scattering"? "tearing apart"? "Conglomerate system"?

It's a quark soup of huh's.
Do you really not understand this or are you just being obtuse?

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: If it grabbed another proton, it would be MORE proton rich. The most probable outcome (IMHO) would be to kick that proton out again. My reading leads me to believe that this happens much more often than most people realize. Such absorbtion/emission is lumped with the "coulomb scattering" IIRC. Maybe the reason to reduce the Ni58 is that the re-emitted proton plays hob with the conglomerate particle system that drives the process. Maybe reducing the 58Ni to whatever value he reduces it without making the results untenably expensive, is to allow the process to proceed without interruption by excess coulohm scattering, i.e. tearing apart the conglomerate system.
"grabbed a proton"? "kick that proton out again"? "conglomerate particle system"? "re-emitted proton"? "excess coulohm scattering"? "tearing apart"? "Conglomerate system"?

It's a quark soup of huh's.
Do you really not understand this or are you just being obtuse?
I really don't, no. I guess I really don't understand enough about high temperature bose-einstein condensate or hydrinos or mini-atoms or virtual neutrons to speculate that NI58 spitting out unwanted protons would affect them in any way. Silly me.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: "grabbed a proton"? "kick that proton out again"? "conglomerate particle system"? "re-emitted proton"? "excess coulohm scattering"? "tearing apart"? "Conglomerate system"?

It's a quark soup of huh's.
Do you really not understand this or are you just being obtuse?
I really don't, no. I guess I really don't understand enough about high temperature bose-einstein condensate or hydrinos or mini-atoms or virtual neutrons to speculate that NI58 spitting out unwanted protons would affect them in any way. Silly me.
I don't either, I merely speculated that this might be a reason why AR wants to limit the 58Ni. But that is not what it seemed you were asking about. It had sounded like you didn't understand the phrases used to describe the speculation. Based on this post, you understood the gist of my communication. So nuff said. Ok?

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

Post by MSimon »

It's a quark soup of huh's.
I believe that means you are speculating Mr. K.

But that is conjecture on my part.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

MSimon wrote:
It's a quark soup of huh's.
I believe that means you are speculating Mr. K.

But that is conjecture on my part.
Well, as long as you don't try to konjecture, that is ok.

Still, it makes sense, ya know?

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

Post by quixote »

KitemanSA wrote:Does anyone know what the various cross sections are for the stable isotopes of Ni? I keep trying to use that NRL site but it confuses the heck out of me.
The cross section with regard to what projectile? My understanding of these cross section charts is that it's dependent on two things: the projectile (proton, neutron, isotope, etc); and the target (Ni-* in this case).

Also, what do you consider stable? For example, Ni-59 has a half-life of 76 thousand years. Do you consider that stable? What about 100 years?

Post Reply