10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Crawdaddy]

MSimon: I'm not going to run any hypothetical shielding numbers until we know what we are shielding for, simple as that. (I seem to recall the lead was outside the water jacket so probably doesn't get hotter than 373 K).

If the shielding is external to the water jacket, then you should have a lot of radiated water and a new hazard is born.

Radiated water?!

Please do the most basic due-diligence before you post nonsense.

[ScottL]

Water is generally used as a cool layer to lead shielding as I understand it. The common thickness being 10cm of lead shielding give or take a cm. The water definitely can act as a backup shielding as well, but there are effects of ionization on water that should be taken into consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_damage

Effects on water section:

Effects on water

Water subjected to ionizing radiation forms free radicals of hydrogen and hydroxyl, which can recombine to form gaseous hydrogen, oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and peroxide radicals. In living organisms, which are composed mostly of water, majority of the damage is caused by the reactive oxygen species, free radicals produced from water. The free radicals attack the biomolecules forming structures within the cells, causing oxidative stress (a cumulative damage which may be significant enough to cause the cell death, or may cause DNA damage possibly leading to cancer).

Understanding this may be only applicable to fission plants, but still worth a read. I'm sure someone can correct me here.

[ScottL]

Radiated water?!

Please do the most basic due-diligence before you post nonsense.

Sorry, contaminated water which form many carcinogens.

[seedload]

So NI60 and NI61 are transmuting to copper and decaying with their conveniently short half lives. NI62 and NI64 are transmuting to stable copper. And NI58, with its inconvenient decay path to long half lived NI59, is not transmuting but is punting on fourth and long - kicking the proton back out again.

Alternately, Rossi slipped up on the question of isotopic ratios and then started talking about enrichment to try to cover his butt.

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.

Anyone?

What seems reasonable to me is that the more neutrons the isotope has relative to the protons, the more readily the isotope will react by transmutation with a proton. So 60Ni would be more likely than 58, 61 more likely... Indeed, there may be a MASSIVE step between 58 and 60 because 58Ni is actually (at least in theory) unstable.

As an alternative, can someone explain how to use the NRL site?

Man, I just don't get your mind at all.

Why wouldn't you read "we do not produce radioactive materials" to mean that he doesn't produce radioactive materials?

Instead you speculate on how much LESS radioactive materials he might produce if NI58 was less reactive. Instead you speculate on how much LESS radioactive materials he would get by depleting the NI58 a little bit.

ANY radioactive materials is more than he is claiming! ANY radioactive materials is more than he can sell easily!

[ScottL]

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.

[Crawdaddy]

Water is generally used as a cool layer to lead shielding as I understand it. The common thickness being 10cm of lead shielding give or take a cm. The water definitely can act as a backup shielding as well, but there are effects of ionization on water that should be taken into consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_damage

Effects on water section:

Effects on water

Water subjected to ionizing radiation forms free radicals of hydrogen and hydroxyl, which can recombine to form gaseous hydrogen, oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and peroxide radicals. In living organisms, which are composed mostly of water, majority of the damage is caused by the reactive oxygen species, free radicals produced from water. The free radicals attack the biomolecules forming structures within the cells, causing oxidative stress (a cumulative damage which may be significant enough to cause the cell death, or may cause DNA damage possibly leading to cancer).

Understanding this may be only applicable to fission plants, but still worth a read. I'm sure someone can correct me here.

Ionizing radiation includes UV light. This mechanism is in wide use in water sterilization applications. You may swim in a pool that uses one of these systems on a regular basis.

Instead of wasting everyone's time posting stuff like this. It would be more useful if you just spent your efforts understanding what you are talking about.

[xevioso]

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.

[ScottL]

Water is generally used as a cool layer to lead shielding as I understand it. The common thickness being 10cm of lead shielding give or take a cm. The water definitely can act as a backup shielding as well, but there are effects of ionization on water that should be taken into consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_damage

Effects on water section:

Effects on water

Water subjected to ionizing radiation forms free radicals of hydrogen and hydroxyl, which can recombine to form gaseous hydrogen, oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and peroxide radicals. In living organisms, which are composed mostly of water, majority of the damage is caused by the reactive oxygen species, free radicals produced from water. The free radicals attack the biomolecules forming structures within the cells, causing oxidative stress (a cumulative damage which may be significant enough to cause the cell death, or may cause DNA damage possibly leading to cancer).

Understanding this may be only applicable to fission plants, but still worth a read. I'm sure someone can correct me here.

Ionizing radiation includes UV light. This mechanism is in wide use in water sterilization applications. You may swim in a pool that uses one of these systems on a regular basis.

Instead of wasting everyone's time posting stuff like this. It would be more useful if you just spent your efforts understanding what you are talking about.

So what you're saying is that its fine to swim in reactor coolant? K, will keep that in mind. Your posting doesn't require you to be an ass and if you feel the need to respond to such a post, respond with a link explaining why its incorrect or don't respond at all. You're wasting your time responding so violently. I hope it makes you feel good to verbally attack a suggestion. You're a real smart guy, yes you are, keep it up champ.

[ladajo]

Contaminated water is water that is carrying fission products or daughters, as well as possible plant material that has been activated. Ingestion of contaminated water is dangerous because it introduces active sources inside the body. If these are alpha or beta sources the damage can be immense to the live soft tissues and cells it gets near.
The actual breakdown of water molecules under ionizing radiation exposure is another issue that can cause biological problems as well if the water is ingested by a live organism.

[D Tibbets]

Concerning ' radiated water'. Free radiacls can result from gamma rays along with other radiations (Beta, alpha, neutrons. UV) Most of these free radiacal are very reactive and as such they will chemically react with almost anything, including metal walls, concrete, etc. That is why UV sterilizers are good for swimming pools, the sterilizing free radiacls that are formed, react quickly with bacteria, etc. By the time the water leaves the steralizer, most has reacted and is gone. Of course attention to dosages is important, but I suspect there is a fair margin for error.

At one point Rossi did claim gamma rays. He also claimed gamma rays only during startup (which of course implies that there are two seperate nuclear processes occuring) and later he has ignored radiation, despite increasing the claimed power levels by ~ 10-100X (which would imply ~ 10-100 higher gamma ray flux). I don't know if Rossi has most recently said there was no radiation.

Also, lowering the Ni58 isotopes a little will not have much effect on the radiation if present. If you decreased the Ni58 to 1/2 of it's original concentration, I think it would decrease the Ni58 involved radiation (if real) by a factor of 4X. Reducing the Ni58 to 1/100th would decrease the radiation by ~ 1/10,000. Sounds like a lot, but one claime was that during startup the gamma radiation exceeded the dose that the Geiger counter could count (on the setting it was on) That would impluy significant radiation, and levels even 10,000 times less would be easiy detected.

Concerning the predictability of the nuclear reactions based on neutron content. Increasing the number of neutrons might effect the crossection by a tiny amount but it would be trivial compared to the effect of increased neutrons in deuterium and tritium. The proportional change in the neutron shielding (due to larger nucleus with critical distance from the center of the nucleus to the approaching proton at which the strong force overcomes Coulomb repulsion ) is smaller, and the difference in the strong vs electromagnetic forces is so close in this 'trans nickel region' that the ' shielding effect of the neutron is very closely matched by the size of the nucleus increasing so that the strong force attraction is less strong at the surface of the nucleus.
Also, the particle pairing and weak force interactions need to be considered. In short, considering the possible isotopes of these intermediate nuclei, I suspect that there is not much variation in the fusion crossection.

DEan Tibbets

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

KitemanSA, if you wish to dive into the cross sections of various reactions, this shows one example for Ni62 to Cu 63 I think. I'm uncertain of the nomenclature. It is listed as : Ni62 (P,G) Cu63 so it may be the reaction of interest. Select target as Ni62, the product as Cu63, submit- next page choose third reaction, check the quick plot and select, or was that submit(?).

http://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/exfor.htm


Several pages previously, this is the parent site. If you thought the Nuclear database was complex and filled with professional jargon, this far exceeds it.


http://www-nds.iaea.org/

Dan Tibbets

[KitemanSA]

Man, I just don't get your mind at all.

Why wouldn't you read "we do not produce radioactive materials" to mean that he doesn't produce radioactive materials?

Instead you speculate on how much LESS radioactive materials he might produce if NI58 was less reactive. Instead you speculate on how much LESS radioactive materials he would get by depleting the NI58 a little bit.

ANY radioactive materials is more than he is claiming! ANY radioactive materials is more than he can sell easily!

Rossi's statement was:

It is proven that we do not use radioactive materials, we do not produce radioactive wastes, we do not have radioactive emissions outside the reactors during the operation

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.

How does that call into question my curiousity about the cross section of the different isotopes?

[MSimon]

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.

[MSimon]

But I'm with you on three (or more) paths. Now if Rossi is using Ni - H why confuse the issue with Pd - D? And you will note that ic brought up Pd - D. So evidently he is confusing the issue and I'm the one confused? What would you expect? That LENR is sure strange stuff.

Actually, I have brought up the D-Pd myself in that the mechanism (BEC) may be the same for both. Still just a guess, not even a hypothesis.

Now about the shielding.......

Yes, now, about the shielding.
If there are hyper-relativistic (~6MeV) electrons whizzing around the Rossi machine, how much shielding would it need? You are much more up on that subject than I am. Is such a source within your knowledge base?

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. The usual cure is annealing. But that is expensive in terms of energy.

[Luzr]

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...