10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

Increasing something that is just under "background" by business headache standards by 100X takes it well over "background" by business headache standards, and therefore a potential business headache, or must I explain it for a fourth time?

Do you know what background radiation is?

OMG!
Please oh omniscient one, regale us with your wisdom and technical knowledge.

This is in a crystal lattice. It is often theorized that it is being driven by large conglomerations of particles. What sticking unwanted particles into that conglomeration might do to said conglomeration is unknown to me. but I do not presume to "know" that it is linear. Indeed, VERY FEW things in nature are linear. So having non-linear effect is the norm, to me.

That's a lot handweaving and not and direct answer to my question. So i guess you can't explain it and you simply assume it based on no evidence so that it fits your view.

What was your question? Not that it really matters, since YOU are the one making the statements about the way things ARE. You need to provide the data to support YOUR statements, not me.

Jabbermounths keep saying this is impossible. When I ask them to back it up, I keep getting crap for answers. Can you give me HARD DATA? Please? Can you give me "not crap"? Please do, or accept that you are spouting crap.

nuclear internal conversion means, the energy is emitted as beta radiation instead of a gamma quant, with the electron carrying ALL the energy. No energy is split. We would see a sharp 6MeV beta spectrum.

For clarity, and to be technical, it is NOT beta radiation. It is an shell electron that has a probablistic chance of being inside the nucleus when the reaction occurs and can be accelerated to a set value of energy. The same concept, that of having an electron available to carry off the excitation energy, may change if the electron is not coming from the atom's electron shells, but from some conglomerate particle (BEC of cooper pairs, excort electron, what have you). I don't presume to know what isn't known about this subject.

For someone who talks so lowly of Axil, it comes a bit as a surprise if he repeats the same nonsense. A BEC of cooper pairs, at room temperature, heated by several kWs, my ass! And you say you don't need new physics!

What, BECs are new physics? Cooper pairs are new physics? What part is new? Do the math, which Dr. Kim has done, and you get those values. I did it and I got those values, so I figure he did it about right.

OH, you mean it is new TO YOU. Well la-dee-da!

Do you understand why the electron for internal conversion usually comes from the K-shell? Do you understand any cooper pair would immediately break apart at such a distance, let alone when beeing heated with MeVs?

Yes. Do you? Did you notice that you said USUALLY?

What MeV? Can you say "strawman"?

You have absolutely ZERO explaination why we don't see radiation.

Actually, I have suggested a simple reason. It seems you don't have the ability to wrap you mind around it. To bad.

To stress it once more: You are not looking for a process that works sometimes, but for one that shields the beta and/or gamma with a propability of at least 99,9999999%.

And if the posited reaction is in fact happening, there should always be an electron available to carry away a large portion of the excitation energy. How many "nines" equal "always", I wouldn't guess, but near certainty.

I don't care "if there is always an[singular!!!] electron availabe[!!!]".
The energy must be distributed within the very short half life of the metastable nucleus to HUNDREDS of particles. In at least 99,9999999% of the cases.

Well this seems to indicate that you (or I) have a fundamental miss understanding of internal conversion.
IIUTC, IC invloves ONE shell electron and accelerates it to relativistic or even hyper-relativistic velocities, dumping MOST (if not all) of the excitation energy. If you have a different understanding, link? Reference?

Nitpicking. From my comment, is clear that this is what I meant.

No, I don't think we are meeting minds.

What else can you do to demonstrate your ignorance.

What else can you do to demonstrate your arrogance. Again with the omniscience.

You seem to think that Rossi is looking for no, zero, nyet, nada, zip, cyffr, none, whatever word you wish to use, radiation.

Lie.

Mistake perhaps, but you aren't worth lying to. I related correctly how you SEEM to think. If that is NOT how you think, then perhaps you need to hone your communication skills.

[KitemanSA]

If you identify them with a gamma spectrometer, certainly not.

Has anyone tried? Would he think to. Would he care? Might he specifically be avoiding it? If the overall output of gamma is low enough (not zero, but not much different that background), whould he WANT you to know what is generating the gamma?

You missed the point. The question is: Why we don't see radiation from this decay. You asked whether the isotopes could be analyzed. They can.

Fine, if you want to be anal about it, "gone before it HAS been isotopically investigated. Why don't we see it? WE HAVEN'T LOOKED. Simple enough for you?

I am speaking of the scintillator counter I have seen somewhere. (and any visitor could have brought one with him).
Rossis "Gamma scout" is a hotdog geiger-muller tube. It's target is evacuated gas. In a scintillar detector, it is i.e. a NaI crystal. Since these are more dense, they are typically about 100 times more sensitive at the same size. Gamma scintillator only detect gamma, while Rossis GM-tube is also confused by beta and alpha (Radon). If he integrated long enough (hours), he could get sensitive readings too (some people use this device to detect changes of natural radioactivity because of the weather), but the low numbers do not tell us whether there is an small increase in gammas. On the other hand, we can exclude there is a SUBSTANTIAL increase by a factor 10,100... or so, because that would immidiately be picked up.

From this I suspect you mean that you have seen data, real data, on gamma rates. True? What is it?

This video gives you an impression of the behaviour of the gamma scout:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKAwSvN ... re=related
My "data" comes from the fact that in one of the early interviews it was said that they had an gamma scintillator and did not measure anything.
They also had one in the recent demonstrations with the results beeing "secret".

Thank you for that boring demonstration of a gamma scout.

So what you seem to be saying is that you don't have ANY data except hearsay. I thought that was your problem with this whole subject, only hearsay data.

Do you have REAL data about the radio-output of the ecat beyond the view of the meter in the Krivit video?

[MSimon]

Kiteman,

I dunno. As far as I can tell nuclear science has not been your field of study in any respect. Thus your - one wild theory after another. What I see is one phlogiston theory after another from you in an attempt to explain Rossi.

I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud. Or to be charitable experimental error.

The fact that Rossi is a KNOWN fraudster biases me towards fraud.

[KitemanSA]

I suspect there are non-linearities involved.

Yeah. Me too! But I'm probably thinking of different ones than you are.

BTW have these non-linearities you posit been observed any where else? My nuke training is rather old ('66) but I have endeavored to keep up and I have heard of no such observation.

Activation in reactors is (neutron flux * #of particles/volume * cross section). I have never heard of the #of particles changing the cross section. Perhaps you could provide a link.

Not that I know of. I posit them. I don't know them. But then I am not the one claiming knowledge of this previously un-tested system. Just saying.

Personally, ITRMIR, I would lean more toward an "anti-disruption" reason, than a radio-toxicity reason, but who knows. Certainly not me.

[Am]

Kiteman,

I dunno. As far as I can tell nuclear science has not been your field of study in any respect. Thus your - one wild theory after another. What I see is one phlogiston theory after another from you in an attempt to explain Rossi.

I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud. Or to be charitable experimental error.

The fact that Rossi is a KNOWN fraudster biases me towards fraud.

Yes, you dunno. So now you make inflammatory statements seemingly to hide your own ignorance. You're making yourself look like a fool...

[KitemanSA]

I dunno. As far as I can tell nuclear science has not been your field of study in any respect. Thus your - one wild theory after another.

It is true that I have no had a "course of study" in nuclear physics but I am widely enough read in the matter to be beyond the layman level. I was offered a job teaching at the Idaho facility about 30 years ago and was hired by Naval Reactors in Puget. Before my clearance can thru, I chose a different direction.

What I see is one phlogiston theory after another from you in an attempt to explain Rossi.

That is too bad. All I am trying to do is point out where others "high energy physics" "knowledge may not be directly applicable in this case.

I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud. Or to be charitable experimental error.

The fact that Rossi is a KNOWN fraudster biases me towards fraud.

Not sure where Einstein fits in this statement, but yup, I let myself be drawn into these discussions when the real question is, do those who make categorical statements of impossibility have any REAL data to demonstrate that.

For instance, you just opined that it is fraud. I have no objection with your opinion. I have been leaning more and more heavily toward that, or delusion, myself. I would like to be able to actually make a decision on this. But, before I decide, I need to think, and before I can think, I need data. Do you have any?

I keep seeing folks stating this is "not possible", or requires "new physics" or some other supposedly factual statement. When I ask for the data, I get cr@p. No one has data, it seems, but many are willing to make categorical statements. It is distressing, a bit.

[Giorgio]

So in the end, nothing but more hot air from Giorgio. I'll just remind you of your claim because you have omitted it:

ROTFL like if I have any obligation whatsoever to coach you!
You look so good at using google when you make up your nonsense theories but you are unable to type two words to actually check that research in this field is like 20 years old?

Time to back up your BS and emotional outbursts Giorgio ... and if there is little you do not know you won't mind if I ask a few pertinent questions in the field?

Before trying to ask "pertinent questions" why don't you try to get some knowledge in those subjects?

[Giorgio]

It loosks like we've been researching this stuff for a long time and have done experiments that are similar to Focardi's previous experiments.

When I was in Universtiy this field was pumped quite a lot. Many young researched were pushed into it by their teachers under the promise of imminent discoveries and huge technological payback.

Unfortunately it was a big dead end technologically wise, but it produced some interesting research and opened the way to many experimental procedures and sample preparations for the coming wave of nanotech research.

[Giorgio]

I agree there seems to be prior research on loading H into nickel, including mono-layers, but the specific sequence of loading, evacuating, heating, etc for 10-12 cycles sound crucial. Like a combination lock to get the right H loading into the metal ... removing as much O as possible I suspect.

According WHO? Based on WHAT data? Or is this yet another one of those web rumors?

[Giorgio]

Not my job. If you want to know, go read the pubs, take the courses, and get yourself certified as a contracting officer.
Or you can continue to live in the world you are where "blacks ops" can do as they wish. As I said, fine by me. Doesn't affect my life at all.

So you don't really know or you do? It is not made clear by just throwing it back at me.

It is your job to tell me I don't know but not your job to tell me exactly how it works ... smells like BS to me.

What do you think this board is? A tuition center at your disposal?
It didn't occur to me when I signed up that this was supposed to be one of our duties.

Let me go and read the fine prints......

[Giorgio]

We are quickly getting to the point where we cannot prove that there is no invisible dragon in your garage....

Hey, what about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If the dragon can enter the picture I think the FSM has the same right.
Additionally the FSM presence in the e-Cat room could logically explain the source of the secret sauce used by Rossi! (now prove me that this is impossible, HA!)

[Carl White]

Kiteman,
I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud.

Wouldn't that be the simplest explanation for anything new (i.e. the inventor is a fraud)?

[MSimon]

Kiteman,

I dunno. As far as I can tell nuclear science has not been your field of study in any respect. Thus your - one wild theory after another. What I see is one phlogiston theory after another from you in an attempt to explain Rossi.

I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud. Or to be charitable experimental error.

The fact that Rossi is a KNOWN fraudster biases me towards fraud.

Yes, you dunno. So now you make inflammatory statements seemingly to hide your own ignorance. You're making yourself look like a fool...

Never having met a unicorn I can make inflammatory statements about them.

Since it appears you have met a unicorn could you introduce me to good evidence of the same?

Neutrons were discovered in the 30s and by the 40s we had nuclear reactors.

Field effect transistors were patented in the late 20s and by the early 50s they were being manufactured. By several different manufacturers. So far we only have the word of a known fraudster that the E-Cat effect is real.

[Giorgio]

A BEC of cooper pairs, at room temperature, heated by several kWs, my ass!

Everyone wanting to describe Rossi reactor in terms of a stable BEC should take a good note of the above phrase, print it, stick it on a visible place of their study room and consider al the implications that derive from the existence of a BEC in an high temperature medium.

[stefanbanev]

Kiteman,
I'm going with Occam and Einstein. The simpler the explanation the better. And the simplest explanation of Rossi is fraud.

Wouldn't that be the simplest explanation for anything new (i.e. the inventor is a fraud)?

Well, simple minds are prone to simple explanations...