Not only projectile and target but also conditions. Let anyone describe condition with secret souse and without? Who has said before Rossi that the certain chemical compound has influence on nuclear reaction cross-section?quixote wrote: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).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.
10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
So sorry…please excuse me but it is time for me to contribute once again to some pure speculation in an attempt to rationalize some of the contradictions that are being discussed on this thread.
It has recently occurred to me that there are many different reactions involved in the class of phenomena commonly called "cold fusion" and some of them do not involve fusion at all.
In the Rossi reaction, there is a very good chance that both the non-inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(1) and the inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(-1) are both coherent assemblages of around 100 atoms more or less and that the entanglement an coherence of these assemblages are determinative in the way both the H(1) and the H(-1) species behaves in the Rossi process.
H(-1) is the excited state of H(1) where protons and electrons change places when sufficient kinetic energy is added to the H(1) species to form H(-1).
The structure of these assemblages is like a stack of pancakes of 20 or so of hexagonal flattened atomic structures where the quantum mechanical states of all electrons in H(1) and protons in H(-1) are identical, synchronized and entangled.
In effect, the Rydberg matter of all 100 or so atoms behave as if the entire assemblage was a single large atom defined by a single QM wave form.
In a separate class of reactions studied by Miley and Arata where a deuterium isotope of hydrogen is used, it may be that IRM designated as D(-1) will produce nuclear fusion reactions as seen in the experiments with "pynco" deuterium by Yoshiaki ARATA & Yue C. ZHANG.
In these experiments, the grains of pynco-deuterium powder show complete melting in micrographs by the extreme heat of a nuclear reaction even though the powder is made of a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide each with a very high melting point.
This reaction uses palladium as a spill over catalyst to get deuterium into the lattice defects of the zirconium oxide powder or foil.
On the other hand, the nickel powder that supports Rossi’s reaction has a very low melting point which is lowered further by a covering on each grain of nano-dimensional fibers of polycrystalline nickel.
On the Rossi micro powder, the rough coating of polycrystalline nickel is used as a catalyst to get atomic hydrogen into the lattice defects in and around the tubular fibers of this nano-coating.
This covering is very fragile and highly prone to damage from nuclear reactions or ionizing radiation.
This powder is purported to survive for months of continual use even though the nickel undergoes transmutation to copper in high percentages. This speaks against the source of heat being nuclear fission or fusion as we commonly understand these processes.
I find this very hard to believe but if the Rossi reaction works then these coverings must remain undamaged.
The fermionic condensate formed by fermionic particles: namely protons in the Rossi H(-1) must transfer heat from a quantum mechanical mechanism other than fission or fusion because of the low temperature and gentle nature of that powder source.
The heat of the Rossi reaction must be from an as yet unknown quantum process(es) in the lattice defects where the H(-1) picks up energy and continually transfers it to the surrounding lattice when the proper lattice excitation temperature is reached.
Some have speculated that it is Casmir forced based energy or zero point energy or in general Rossi may be tapping into the inherent quantum energy that permeates the vacuum of space.
Copper transmutation in the micro-powder may be caused by proton tunneling expelled from the H(-1) as hydrogen is continually recycled and replenished into the defect structures in and around the nano-fibers.
The quantum blockade of the fermionic condensate in the defects has both a very long lifetime and a range that covers the entire micro particle. This process must reduce the gamma emissions of the copper formation process into the x-ray radiation range. It must also speed up or eliminate nuclear product decay processes formed by proton absorption in a Relativistic Time Dilation process in the quantum blockade phenomena that speeds the stabilization of excited nuclear products.
This effect has been also seen in cavitation based nuclear waste treatments.
Since the Rossi reaction happens only in the surface tubular coating of the micro particles, the special effects of Ni62 and Ni64 could be localized there,
In a closing conjecture, the enrichment of Ni62 and Ni64 could be done only in the tubular coating of the nickel micro particles. The material involved may only be about 2000 times less than the total mass of the nickel micro particles.
The inner bulk of these particles may be composed of base nickel where Ni58 is found at normal levels. When a magnetic field is used during nickel vapor disposition, not much energy is needed to enrich Ni62 and Ni64 during the tubule coating formation process.
It has recently occurred to me that there are many different reactions involved in the class of phenomena commonly called "cold fusion" and some of them do not involve fusion at all.
In the Rossi reaction, there is a very good chance that both the non-inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(1) and the inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(-1) are both coherent assemblages of around 100 atoms more or less and that the entanglement an coherence of these assemblages are determinative in the way both the H(1) and the H(-1) species behaves in the Rossi process.
H(-1) is the excited state of H(1) where protons and electrons change places when sufficient kinetic energy is added to the H(1) species to form H(-1).
The structure of these assemblages is like a stack of pancakes of 20 or so of hexagonal flattened atomic structures where the quantum mechanical states of all electrons in H(1) and protons in H(-1) are identical, synchronized and entangled.
In effect, the Rydberg matter of all 100 or so atoms behave as if the entire assemblage was a single large atom defined by a single QM wave form.
In a separate class of reactions studied by Miley and Arata where a deuterium isotope of hydrogen is used, it may be that IRM designated as D(-1) will produce nuclear fusion reactions as seen in the experiments with "pynco" deuterium by Yoshiaki ARATA & Yue C. ZHANG.
In these experiments, the grains of pynco-deuterium powder show complete melting in micrographs by the extreme heat of a nuclear reaction even though the powder is made of a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide each with a very high melting point.
This reaction uses palladium as a spill over catalyst to get deuterium into the lattice defects of the zirconium oxide powder or foil.
On the other hand, the nickel powder that supports Rossi’s reaction has a very low melting point which is lowered further by a covering on each grain of nano-dimensional fibers of polycrystalline nickel.
On the Rossi micro powder, the rough coating of polycrystalline nickel is used as a catalyst to get atomic hydrogen into the lattice defects in and around the tubular fibers of this nano-coating.
This covering is very fragile and highly prone to damage from nuclear reactions or ionizing radiation.
This powder is purported to survive for months of continual use even though the nickel undergoes transmutation to copper in high percentages. This speaks against the source of heat being nuclear fission or fusion as we commonly understand these processes.
I find this very hard to believe but if the Rossi reaction works then these coverings must remain undamaged.
The fermionic condensate formed by fermionic particles: namely protons in the Rossi H(-1) must transfer heat from a quantum mechanical mechanism other than fission or fusion because of the low temperature and gentle nature of that powder source.
The heat of the Rossi reaction must be from an as yet unknown quantum process(es) in the lattice defects where the H(-1) picks up energy and continually transfers it to the surrounding lattice when the proper lattice excitation temperature is reached.
Some have speculated that it is Casmir forced based energy or zero point energy or in general Rossi may be tapping into the inherent quantum energy that permeates the vacuum of space.
Copper transmutation in the micro-powder may be caused by proton tunneling expelled from the H(-1) as hydrogen is continually recycled and replenished into the defect structures in and around the nano-fibers.
The quantum blockade of the fermionic condensate in the defects has both a very long lifetime and a range that covers the entire micro particle. This process must reduce the gamma emissions of the copper formation process into the x-ray radiation range. It must also speed up or eliminate nuclear product decay processes formed by proton absorption in a Relativistic Time Dilation process in the quantum blockade phenomena that speeds the stabilization of excited nuclear products.
This effect has been also seen in cavitation based nuclear waste treatments.
Since the Rossi reaction happens only in the surface tubular coating of the micro particles, the special effects of Ni62 and Ni64 could be localized there,
In a closing conjecture, the enrichment of Ni62 and Ni64 could be done only in the tubular coating of the nickel micro particles. The material involved may only be about 2000 times less than the total mass of the nickel micro particles.
The inner bulk of these particles may be composed of base nickel where Ni58 is found at normal levels. When a magnetic field is used during nickel vapor disposition, not much energy is needed to enrich Ni62 and Ni64 during the tubule coating formation process.
Speculation clears up contradictions? You have a novel sense of humor.So sorry…please excuse me but it is time for me to contribute once again to some pure speculation in an attempt to rationalize some of the contradictions that are being discussed on this thread.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Ultrahigh-density deuterium of Rydberg matter clusters
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISIT ... PBsing.pdf
"Rydberg matter was predicted and measured in gases where a static clustering of protons or deuterons to comparably high densities is generated with number densities up to 1023 cm-3 (Badiei et al. 2006). In contrast to gases, the appearance of ultra-high density clusters in crystal defects in solids were observed in several experiments where such configurations of very high density hydrogen states could be detected from SQUID measurements of magnetic response and conductivity (Lipson et al. 2005) indicating as special state with superconducting properties. These high density clusters have a long life time and with deuterons and – in contrast to protons – as being bosons which should be in a state of Bose-Einstein-Condensation (BEC) at room temperature (Miley et al. 2009,2009a)."
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISIT ... PBsing.pdf
"Rydberg matter was predicted and measured in gases where a static clustering of protons or deuterons to comparably high densities is generated with number densities up to 1023 cm-3 (Badiei et al. 2006). In contrast to gases, the appearance of ultra-high density clusters in crystal defects in solids were observed in several experiments where such configurations of very high density hydrogen states could be detected from SQUID measurements of magnetic response and conductivity (Lipson et al. 2005) indicating as special state with superconducting properties. These high density clusters have a long life time and with deuterons and – in contrast to protons – as being bosons which should be in a state of Bose-Einstein-Condensation (BEC) at room temperature (Miley et al. 2009,2009a)."
Leif Holmlid's 140 kg/cm^3 deuterium ... that's pretty heavy stuff fella.
http://www2.chem.gu.se/staff/leif_holmlid.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-dens ... _deuterium
The existence of ultra-dense deuterium is suggested by experiment. This material, at a density of 140 kg/cm3, would be a million times more dense than regular deuterium, denser than the core of the Sun.
Only minute amounts of ultra-dense deuterium have been produced thus far.[27][28] At the moment, it is not known how the material is produced or if it remains stable without applied pressure, however, there is conjecture that it is possible to produce a new stable state of matter by compressing ultra-cold deuterium in a Rydberg state.
http://www2.chem.gu.se/staff/leif_holmlid.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-dens ... _deuterium
The existence of ultra-dense deuterium is suggested by experiment. This material, at a density of 140 kg/cm3, would be a million times more dense than regular deuterium, denser than the core of the Sun.
Only minute amounts of ultra-dense deuterium have been produced thus far.[27][28] At the moment, it is not known how the material is produced or if it remains stable without applied pressure, however, there is conjecture that it is possible to produce a new stable state of matter by compressing ultra-cold deuterium in a Rydberg state.
Stable = stable or "observationally stable" i.e. half life >. the life of the universe. Specifically, 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni, and 64Ni. Projectile = proton. Both xsections, reaction and coulohm scattering.quixote wrote: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).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.
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?
I wonder if they have a "proton projectile, proton EJECTILE xsection listed. Hmm.
FYI. Postponed indefinitely apparently.seedload wrote:Previously he said after the 1MW plant. Personally, I would not expect it soon.Ivy Matt wrote:Has he set a date for that?seedload wrote:
Andrea Rossi
November 1st, 2011 at 3:32 AM
Dear Justin Nurgle:
You are right. We will release the basics of the theory on the Journal of Nuclear Physics. I did not yet decide when, there are many factors conditioning this choice.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Justin Nurgle
November 1st, 2011 at 1:42 AM
Mr. Rossi,
You stated that you would release the basics of the theory behind the effect of your process after the 1MW Plant start-up in October, 2011. (Re-posted below.) Today is 01 November and I am curious as to how and where you will be releasing this information? Many of the people who have been following your work for years are very anxious to see this information.
Very respectfully,
Justin
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 1:07 AM
Dear J. Catania:
After the start up of our 1 MW plant in October I will release the basics of the theory behind the effect of my process. Your insight is interesting, but has nothing to do with what happens here.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!
And for fun, Krivit has posted some new stuff, still hammering the Rossi nail.
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/author/sbkrivit/
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/author/sbkrivit/
-
stefanbanev
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am
Yes, it's a perpetuum mobile with energy conservation generalized for local Everett-3 multiverse assembly, it's a quite classic BS....Axil wrote: .....
Some have speculated that it is Casmir forced based energy or zero point energy or in general Rossi may be tapping into the inherent quantum energy that permeates the vacuum of space.
.....
Even some observer's branches may manage to see this perpetuum engine running it would rapidly extinct for 99.(9) of all others; even it's speculations as well yet, too many people are involved to dismiss Rossi's effect as a levitation freaky event.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
ladajo wrote:And for fun, Krivit has posted some new stuff, still hammering the Rossi nail.
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/author/sbkrivit/
My experience in telling them that Rossi is not it has been like telling children that Santa Claus is not real
Just speculating here... I believe the Rossi reaction is designed to bounce a graviton particle beam to create an inverse tachyon pulse, resulting in a resonance burst that simulates an antimatter explosion beyond the subspace barrier, producing a type-four quantum singularity, such that the gravimetric flux density exceeds two thousand percent, where each nano-dimensional polycrystalline nickel fiber will reduce the electromagnetic resistance between adjacent nuclei and thus draw the nuclei sufficiently close that the nuclear strong force binds the nuclei together resulting in fusion that spontaneously releases a catalytic muon, thereby facilitating subsequent fusion events.Axil wrote:In the Rossi reaction, there is a very good chance that both the non-inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(1) and the inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(-1) are both coherent assemblages of around 100 atoms more or less and that the entanglement an coherence of these assemblages are determinative in the way both the H(1) and the H(-1) species behaves in the Rossi process.
Or maybe his machine is powered by fairies.
ROTFLMAO. LULZ!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!Enginerd wrote:Just speculating here... I believe the Rossi reaction is designed to bounce a graviton particle beam to create an inverse tachyon pulse, resulting in a resonance burst that simulates an antimatter explosion beyond the subspace barrier, producing a type-four quantum singularity, such that the gravimetric flux density exceeds two thousand percent, where each nano-dimensional polycrystalline nickel fiber will reduce the electromagnetic resistance between adjacent nuclei and thus draw the nuclei sufficiently close that the nuclear strong force binds the nuclei together resulting in fusion that spontaneously releases a catalytic muon, thereby facilitating subsequent fusion events.Axil wrote:In the Rossi reaction, there is a very good chance that both the non-inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(1) and the inverted Rydberg matter abbreviated as H(-1) are both coherent assemblages of around 100 atoms more or less and that the entanglement an coherence of these assemblages are determinative in the way both the H(1) and the H(-1) species behaves in the Rossi process.
Or maybe his machine is powered by fairies.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It was pure coincidence that the display changed from 15 to 12. Look at my video, the display fluctuates between 0.06 and 0.22 uSv/h without any change in actual dose rate. Or look at the Rossi video a bit later when the number is lower again while it was near the reactor. And these are not COUNTS. A display of 0.12uSv/h is equivalent to a count every 2 seconds or so.KitemanSA wrote: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?
And even your imaginary 3 uSv/h would reduce to 0.3 uSv/h a meter away or 0.03uSv/h at 3m distance.
And you still don't seem to understand that the detection limit ("no obvious increase") is a function of the sensitivity of the devices used, measurement time, energy discrimination, detector type etc.
A change from 1200 counts to 1500 counts is significant, a change from 4 counts to 5 is not.
I can repeat the game for 10x... what does it change?KitemanSA wrote:No, it was a guess about one possible reason. It remains a guess. Then again, it may be 10x not 3.
I am saying that you can't explain the lack of radiation. Then you were making a lot of "guesses" and I explained why they are nonsense, using EXISTING theories. Now you behave like a sulky little kid.KitemanSA wrote: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.
Would you say that someone who is making theories has to proove them? So where is the proof from the cold fusion gang? If there is none, I suggest you troll someone else.
A prerequisite for BEC is that the particles are in ground state. If they come so close to the nucleus that they can fuse, they can not be in ground state. They can not even be in ground state when they are in a nickel lattice at room temperature. It is simply absurd.KitemanSA wrote:The Tc for dueterons is ~7K, IIRC. It would be much higher for for cooper pairs. About 148 times higher I think.
KitemanSA wrote:"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:apply them to a high temperature, and imply the will function as a means to thermalize high energetic nuclear power of several kWs
A BEC is an extremely orderly structure and will certainly not "escort" a thermal moving proton, otherwise it had to be moving thermal, too. (Btw, in the link you provided, cooper electrons are not even mentioned.)
But this is off the point. I was not talking about the claimed cold fusion process, but the fact that we do not measure the radiation we expect to.
For cold fusion, a small but finite propability per collision is sufficient, whereas for shielding, we need a propability close to 1. And this is not happening unless the electron[s] are almost within the nucleus. Where they cannot be unless they have a lot of energy above ground state and thus are neither BEC nor cooper pairs.
KitemanSA wrote:Interesting assumption. Why?bk78 wrote:(meaning that the BEC is even HOTTER than the nickel lattice).
You say, the radiation is somehow collected by the BEC, so that we don't detect it. When thermal power is flowing from the BEC to nickel, the former has to be hotter.
KitemanSA wrote: 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.
What is the average energy of bremsstrahlung from 6MeV electrons? How much lead do you need to shield that (Hint: I already wrote that) ?
KitemanSA wrote: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?bk78 wrote: WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING. There was a GM tube next to the reactor. Why didn't it pick up anything?
So you agree the radiation from the instable Copper isotopes is less than the one from the 40nW CS-137 source in the video? How can it be that little?
Note: Even the magic cooper pairs that escort the protons won't help you, because the decay will happen minutes or hours later.