icarus wrote:Thanks quixote, the signal to noise ratio around here is unbearable sometimes but I managed to find your post
So, when people do not reply to you immediately they are arrogant and ignorant, but when people actually give you reply you don't care and do not read them because they are "background noise"?
Now you know my method. Run your own numbers. Show your work.
Where did you start? You haven't got any number for the radiation you are stopping so you just said 10cm lead should do it? ... How does that work?
I went with the amount of radiation at the link and then reduced it by a factor of ? to get 1,000. Obviously if I went with the full amount posited my shield is inadequate.
Care to tell us what you think the number is and why?
Or don't you do numbers?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
icarus wrote: Can you explain to me why fizzics colleges teaches that fusing iron (and heavier elements) takes more energy in than out yet it is clear that proton-Iron fusion has a binding energy excess? How could they get this sooooooo wrong for sooooooo long?
Actually yes I can, after all I've had to explain it to Dan T many times.
Fusing "iron", i.e., Fe + Fe takes energy, and quite a bit of it. No doubt.
Fusing HYDROGEN on the other hand releases energy, no matter what you fuse it with (except He4). Doesn't mean it will always STAY fused...
Simple explanation, some seem to REFUSE to get it.
KitemanSA wrote:Simple explanation, some seem to REFUSE to get it.
In this special case I think the issue is of "background noise". I theorize hat he should plug to himself a good filter (he can choose the place) and maybe all will become suddenly more clear for him!
Mysteries of science.......
icarus wrote:Everything I can find is that Carbon-12 is stable, wuwt?
Carbon 12 IS stable, but what you will often see is the notation 12C* where the asterix denotes an EXCITED 12C. And the excited 12C has two main energy shedding paths. First is an alpha decay and second is a gamma decay. The alpha is appearantly MUCH more common. It also gives 8Be which immediately fissions into 2 more alphas (actually, helium nuclei IIUTC).
If it goes thru gamma shedding, then it becomes STABLE 12C.
Ok?
Last edited by KitemanSA on Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
icarus wrote: Now would you happen to know what would happen if a proton fused with Fe-56?
It seems like resulting Cobalt-57 would have an excess of 5.516 MeV energy by my calcs, sound about right? Emission of energetic gamma?
That is about right. My isotope table is at home so I am not positive but it whould be on that close order of magnitude.
As to the high energy Gamma, that is not necessarily so.
Indeed, it may be that the MOST probable mechanism is just spitting out the proton again. But there is still another type of energy shedding mechanism which is called Internal Conversion. With IC an electron from the atom's shell, having a set probability of being inside the nucleus at any specific time, can be used to dump the energy into. This is NOT beta decay becasue there is no change of charge in the nucleus which is what happens with beta decay.
If the proton/nickel reaction exists and is facilitated by some sort of electron escort function (like muon catalysed fusion) then there would almost always (ALways?) be an electron to carry off the binding energy via the same mechanism as IC.
MSimon wrote: You still haven't explained how Rossi has transmuted Ni into Pd an H into D. Or are the substances used immaterial? Any metal, any H isotope and voila - energy. I suppose it could be like combustion. Lots of different materials can do it. Wonder why it has so rarely and with great difficulty been observed up to now.
Oh PLEASE Michael Lee,
I mean, how strawman do you want to get???
There seem to be at LEAST 3 different LENR being studied. D-D = 4He fusion catalysed by some function of a Pd matrix is ONE of them. Ni+p=Cu is a totally different reaction. And truly, even you should be aware of that!
Normally you just sound cantankerous. Statements like this make you sound stupid. They are beneath you.
MSimon wrote: You still haven't explained how Rossi has transmuted Ni into Pd an H into D. Or are the substances used immaterial? Any metal, any H isotope and voila - energy. I suppose it could be like combustion. Lots of different materials can do it. Wonder why it has so rarely and with great difficulty been observed up to now.
Oh PLEASE Michael Lee,
I mean, how strawman do you want to get???
There seem to be at LEAST 3 different LENR being studied. D-D = 4He fusion catalysed by some function of a Pd matrix is ONE of them. Ni+p=Cu is a totally different reaction. And truly, even you should be aware of that!
Normally you just sound cantankerous. Statements like this make you sound stupid. They are beneath you.
I don't mind sounding stupid. It is part of my charm.
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.
And you Flyeronastring are not helping by claiming I'm the one confusing the issue. As some one likes to say around here "are you paying attention?"
Now about the shielding.......
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote: 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.
MSimon wrote: 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?
seedload wrote: Also, it would suggest that 58 needs to be nearly eliminated to avoid the production of 59. He can't sell this is he is producing 59.
Since 59 has a ~1E5 year half-life, perhaps he would think that low enough radiotoxicity.
Rossi says "we do not produce radioactive materials" (read below). So, in regards to NI59, can we agree that he cannot be producing NI59.
Andrea Rossi
November 3rd, 2011 at 3:27 PM
Dear Tony Naebauer:
1- yes, just see all the rests reports about this issue. We run thousands of hours controlling radiations. We have always a radiation control instrumente applied to every E-Cat under testing.
2- We did not publish the analysis of spent fuel because they contain confidential data.
3- 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.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Toni Naebauer
November 3rd, 2011 at 3:10 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
congratulation and appreciation for your extraordinary work and your sucessful demonstration of the ECAT. Many people are waiting eagerly for a clean and cheap energy source. But for many people everything assosiated with nuclear reactions is a missunderstood and dangerous thing.
Any who wants to promote yout invention wants be sure, that he promotes a superior and clean energy generation system. And here I ask:
1. Is it proven, that in your process there are no other radio active elements generated which need to have a costly disposal procedure afterwards.
2. Is anywere published a analysis of the nuclides of the analysis of the consumed fuel.
If not Do you plan to publish these data in the near future?
3. Is it proven that there are no fission products in the end product after the reaction?
KitemanSA wrote:Alternatively, his reasons (ITRMIR) may have nothing to do with radiotoxicity but other reasons.
For example, speculatively speaking; 58Ni is SLIGHTLY unstable due (IIUTC) to being a bit proton rich. 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.
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.
seedload wrote: 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?
If so, I just put in Target: "Ni62" and Projectile: "p" and left the other fields blank (defaults to zero beam energy and no ejectile and it spat something out ... how physical is that I wonder?
As an aside, I am mightily impressed that you are pursuing this with an open mind given the amount of flak that seems to be needed to just ask curious questions.
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).
Giorgio: More noise from you I see. When are you going to contribute something positive to this thread? We already know your strongly-held opinion it is "a gigantic fraud", "can never be done", "Rossi has idiotic, incompetent set-ups, etc, etc". Repetition is just not helpful.
icarus wrote: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.
icarus wrote: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.
If the radiation is gamma, how dangerous is the radiated water? I'm not a physicist, but I thought the effect of gamma radiation on water would be some ionization. You would not be able to produce radioactive materials. Am I wrong?
Also, the water would provide additional shielding I think.
