10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

mdeminico
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:26 pm

Post by mdeminico »

seedload wrote:Rossi is captured intentionally pouring the water out of the hose.
Rossi shows a trickle of vapor coming out of the hose and claims total conversion to steam.
Take just about any temperature steam and run it through a long length of hose. It's going to condense, period. Regardless of the volume, unless the temperatures are absurdly absurdly absurdly high, like melting the hose high, it's going to condense somewhat.

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

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote: Gamma emission from ground state unstable Cu:
IF and Ni isotope other than 58, 62, or 64 is involved in the process, the copper produced will be an unstable isotope with a decay time on the low order of seconds. It would under normal circumstanced emit a positron (and a neutrino) by β+ decay. This positron would effectively immediately combine with an electron and emit a 1.4(?)MeV gamma. This would also be very difficult to shield. For a while, I thought this was the game stopper. HOWEVER, it seems the prefered mechanism for thise isotope to decay is by electron capture, relying on positron emission only becasue the statistics work out htat way. In THIS postulated case, there are electrons available with regularity so perhaps the electron capture path dominates... "while the reactor is on".
There are electrons available with regularity? What the heck does this mean?

At least when you were Konceiving your transmutation speculation of Konglomerates of electrons escorting protons into the nucleus, the electrons are supposedly in the neighborhood of the nucleus, thereby allowing your additional Kontrivance of IC dominating.

But, the decays happen later, and the Konglomerate particle system which you Konjectured has moved on. Where the heck are you Kontending that these secondary deep dive electrons are Koming from?
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

mdeminico wrote:
seedload wrote:Rossi is captured intentionally pouring the water out of the hose.
Rossi shows a trickle of vapor coming out of the hose and claims total conversion to steam.
Take just about any temperature steam and run it through a long length of hose. It's going to condense, period. Regardless of the volume, unless the temperatures are absurdly absurdly absurdly high, like melting the hose high, it's going to condense somewhat.
Less so if it is dry steam as Rossi was claiming.
You can get some distance with volume and superheat without condensation. If this were not true, then any steam turbine setup would be water hammered apart. And water hammer is not something to mess with in a steam plant.

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

Post by icarus »

Image

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Based on your personality, I feel you are being false and a scam. I choose not to send you any money.
Hehe, he feels. Declared scam is not scam but only the sample which is very similar to real scam of Mr. Rossi, my acute friend. Take a look on common fraud schemes: http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud
Take a look at the FUNDAMENT difference between what YOU did and what Rossi has done. YOU asked me for MY MONEY, he has not. If he ever does, I guess I will have to decide on available data. Till then, I have the luxury of looking for more relavant data!
You have the luxury to be deceived. And who asked you money Mr. Forest Gump? How old are you? 5-10?

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

Post by D Tibbets »

Steam condense? Of course it does, but you have to use common sense if not detailed steam dynamics knowledge. A hose would be a moderate insularor. The only way it can shed heat is mostly by convection and radiation. If the steam flow is more than a trickle, then once the hose is warmed up, the condensation would not be great. Consider how far steam can go in a steam heated building. And have you seen the steam output from a similar hose with the input heating similar to Rossi's older device, done by CB?

I might as well insert here the Oct 7 demo with NYtech(?). The output here was supposed to be more, though not much steam was visible in this demo (and yes there would be condensing visible steam once the claimed dry steam exited the tube and started mixing with cooler air. Frequent mention was made of multiple liters of water input and the significance of this is mostly irrelevant. There was supposed to be a side port for non steam exit water to drain out, and by implication what then came out the end of the tube was condensed steam. It was a remarkably poor quality video, but it looked like there was perhaps ~ 1 cc of liquid water draining from the end of the tube per second.
First the side port. A simple consideration would be that most of the liquid water in the proximal tube (assumed to be mostly liquid water entrained in the steam flow?) was extracted, but I suspect this assumption. Whether it is an attempt to deceive or poor design, consider a verturi effect vacuum pump. A lot of people have used this in HS of College chemistry labs. This type of pump is also used in auto shops. A flow of 'fluid'- water, steam, compressed air, will pull a vacuum through a tube at right angles to the flow. This would inhibit or mostly prevent any liquid back streaming against this air flow. And it would actually increase the gas flow through the hose (the steam flow would slow/ cool as a consequence). It would totally invalidate any measurements of steam volume, quality, or entrained liquid water.
Concerning the input water, I wasn't sure what they were implying about the water input values, but this measurement is meaningless as there is obviously a large tank that needs to be filled before any input / output assessments could be made. If this tank is also the boiler as seems to be implied, then with the quoted temperature of ~ 129 degrees C in this presumably pressurized tank, it would not behave like they showed when the drain valve was opened. First of all - that liquid water gushed out, implies that an unknown volume of water was not accounted for from a steam generation perspective. If they were serious about measuring entrained liquid water they would have used a closed system. On the exit side the hose enters a sealed jar, then exits through another port, both of which are above the water level in the jar. Any / most of the liquid water would fall to the bottom, while the steam continued on its' merry way. No venturi effect with this setup or water traveling down the side of the tube away from the open drain. On the input side the drained water volume would also need to be measured.

And, it seams very strange that they were getting liquid water gushing out when they opened the drain. If this water was at 129 degrees C, then once through the valve and exposed to atmospheric pressure, this now superheated water would immediately flash into steam. There would have dense dense clouds of steam, and anybody near the drain would probably have been severely scalded. That this didn't happen makes me think that there is some hidden plumbing inside the container. This would be consistent with the lack of tank deforming under pressure analysis done by someone earlier in this thread.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:I think you have made that assertion before. I would like you to explain, specifically, why you say that. Please.

Seems I keep asking and you keep sniping. PLEASE, data. PRETTY PLEASE.
bk78 wrote: Let's say, the reactor produces his power in form of 6MeV (was it?) beta radiation. If you have kWs of this beta radiation, you get hundreds of watts of bremsstrahlung with a few MeV.
{Emphasis added}
Again, a contention. Based on WHAT? Please, specifically, based on what? What causes you to believe this is true. DATA please!
From other sources I get the impression that such hyperrelativistic electrons will be stopped quickly with a lot of LOoM keV X-ray which are fairly easy to stop. Why do you think differently?

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

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote: There are electrons available with regularity? What the heck does this mean?

At least when you were Konceiving your transmutation speculation of Konglomerates of electrons escorting protons into the nucleus, the electrons are supposedly in the neighborhood of the nucleus, thereby allowing your additional Kontrivance of IC dominating.

But, the decays happen later, and the Konglomerate particle system which you Konjectured has moved on. Where the heck are you Kontending that these secondary deep dive electrons are Koming from?
:D Kwite the kakophony of konsonant konversion! :P

As far as I can tell, except for perhaps the mini-atom hypothesis, all the other processes involve a quasi particle or condensate of oscillating electrons or plasmon electrons or exciton electrons. My mental picture is a lattice of electrons locked into simultaneous oscillatory motion. If the number of electrons is nearly, or potentially in EXCESS of the number of nuclei, there would be one or more electrons oscillating near (or even THRU) each nucleus. And, it seem plausible that if a reaction removed an electron from the lattice, the lattice may adjust back into the original pattern. Given this, there would quickly be another electron oscillating in the lattice near or THRU the unstable Cu.

Or, it may be a pile of dung.

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

Post by KitemanSA »

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: I think the only thing that REALLY seperates us is the appearant scientific certainty implied by the term "probability". I think it "likely" to be either a scam or a VERY interesting delusion.
Ok, on this I can agree. I tend for the "interesting delusion" at this moment.
Interesting. From a purely psycological viewpoint, is it more likely that a passionately deluded fellow might be more convincing than an experienced bunko artist?
Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote: Lastly, if we have to enter this pure speculative field, why do we have to believe what Rossi has to say more than (say) a MIB conspiracy believer or a "circles in the grain" UFO nut?
I would hope that you don't. I certainly don't. But neither can I say he is wrong.
Neither we can say that about MIB or "Crop Circle" believers...... but you have to draw a logic line somewhere.
True, but WHEN is the real question. And I feel no need to draw said line at this point. You might tell I am not one to choose on the basis of pleasing the masses! :D
Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote: Your points are interesting if taken one by one, but none of them has ever been seen before by anyone. What are the chances that, out of nowhere, Rossi was able to ace all of them in a raw? Well...... I hope you got my point.
Well, I beg to differ. Internal Conversion and Electron Capture are well known factors that modify the output of a nuclear reaction/decay.
I was not clear in expressing my thought.
None of them has ever been seen before by anyone in a chamber with Nickel powder and Hydrogen under pressure when applying heat.
Something done in hundreds experimental labs in the last years.
Were they ever looked for? In almost all the experiments to date, the signal is SO small that it is not clear there IS a signal, let alone distinguishing what the signal truly is.
IF this field isn't hounded out of existance and finally proves real, it will be fasinating to find out what the processes are finally determined to be.
Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: The ONLY issue is whether an electron would be present. And the posited processes ALL assume an electron is present for the initial reaction. It would not be TOO much of a stretch to posit that an electron will be available again before the ground state unstable Cu has time to decay. Thus, no measureable gamma.
When you start to stretch logic it stops in being logic.
Neat but largely meaningless phrase. Logic unstretched is pedantry. :wink:
Giorgio wrote: Anyhow, even assuming that all what you postulated will happen, you will still need to assume that this process will prevent the global 100% of the unstable Cu decay events.
No, only those during the reactor operation (at least to be consistent with Rossi's statements). And to clarify, it would not PREVENT the decay, it would make it happen by electron capture instead. The unstable Cu would still convert into stable Ni, just by an appearantly prefered path. And if an electron IS available 99.999999% of the time, why not expect that EC would in fact happen 99.999999% of the time.
Giorgio wrote: Is this logic?
How is it not?

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Post by cg66 »

bk78 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Luckily, if the first condition (quasi-particle of electrons) is true, there should ALWAYS be an electron available at the time of the reaction to accomplish IC.
And for the last time: This process would result in lethal amounts of Bremsstrahlung.


Is it true I can't have an ignore list for this forum?
bk78 - looking at this link

http://ie.lbl.gov/decay/parent.pdf

Ni-63 decays through B- with a Q of about 66keV (Ni-65 is 2.13MeV) - what would be the energy of the corresponding Bremsstrahlung radiation?

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

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote: You have the luxury to be deceived. And who asked you money Mr. Forest Gump? How old are you? 5-10?
You did "Bozo the clown".
Joseph Chikva wrote:Make a decision? Please, make a decision on my claim that I can levitate over the ground. No large launch vehicle like Saturn, Soyuz or Arian are required with consumption of many tons of cryogenic fuel per second. Please send me 100 thousands USD.
{emphasis added}
What is your IQ? 5-10?

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: You have the luxury to be deceived. And who asked you money Mr. Forest Gump? How old are you? 5-10?
You did "Bozo the clown".
Joseph Chikva wrote:Make a decision? Please, make a decision on my claim that I can levitate over the ground. No large launch vehicle like Saturn, Soyuz or Arian are required with consumption of many tons of cryogenic fuel per second. Please send me 100 thousands USD.
{emphasis added}
What is your IQ? 5-10?
>"5-10"

At least you BOTH have something common ;o)

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

Post by KitemanSA »

cg66 wrote: Ni-63 decays through B- with a Q of about 66keV (Ni-65 is 2.13MeV) - what would be the energy of the corresponding Bremsstrahlung radiation?
Loath as I am to say this, I don't believe bk78 is talking about isotope decay but about sheading the binding energy that excites the newly formed nucleus after a p+X reaction. That value is on the CLOSE order of 6MeV. Our bone of contention is that IF said energy is shead by "internal conversion" (which technically is NOT beta decay since the charge of the nucleus doesn't change) that electron could have a goodly portion (all or most of) that 6MeV. That is one F'ing fast electron. He contends that said electron will shead lethal amounts of brem. I don't believe that is necessarily true. I would like to see his reasoning.

By the way, I don't know of any situation where a Ni63 would be created. As far as I know, only Cu 61 and 62 are in question, both of which, under NORMAL circumstances decay by β+ emission. If this happens, I believe that the signal would be difficult to miss without MUCH more shielding than plausible. Thus, either the p+60Ni and P+61Ni reactions don't happen, or the β+ emission is replaced by electron capture.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

KitemanSA wrote:
Ivy Matt wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Before you decide, think. Before you think, get relevant data. So far, no one has presented relevant data. Oh well.
We have claims and speculation. Those are kinds of data.
Fine, but I don't consider them "relevant". They are "opinion" data, not science data. I prefer my DECISIONS to be scientifically based.
Oh, well in that case you're probably in the wrong thread.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: You have the luxury to be deceived. And who asked you money Mr. Forest Gump? How old are you? 5-10?
You did "Bozo the clown".
Joseph Chikva wrote:Make a decision? Please, make a decision on my claim that I can levitate over the ground. No large launch vehicle like Saturn, Soyuz or Arian are required with consumption of many tons of cryogenic fuel per second. Please send me 100 thousands USD.
{emphasis added}
What is your IQ? 5-10?
It is self-evident who has low IQ if you really think that I asked you money, Mr. decision maker. I have only shoed you that every mad claim doesn't deserve consideration.

Post Reply