LENR Is Real

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

krenshala
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby krenshala » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:42 pm

Ah, the sweet wisdom of (dancing) fools. :D Well stated, DF. I think that sums up the general feeling on that paper here quite nicely.

ladajo
Posts: 6174
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:21 pm

Yup.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby parallel » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:13 pm

DancingFool,
Your answer is a good example of why I don't take you seriously.
Anyone who has been following LENR should know by now that it is not classical fusion, so what you wrote was largely irrelevant.
AA.

ltgbrown
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ltgbrown » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:15 pm

Good lord. You can't argue stupid.

Dancing Fool, loved reading your post. Well done!
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

DancingFool
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:01 pm
Location: Way up north

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby DancingFool » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:00 pm

parallel wrote:DancingFool,
Your answer is a good example of why I don't take you seriously.
Anyone who has been following LENR should know by now that it is not classical fusion, so what you wrote was largely irrelevant.
AA.


Parallel. You are half-right, but your half-wrong is monumental.

You're right that the proposed fusion is not classical. What you have consistently failed to admit to yourself is that, for the sake of argument, I'm perfectly willing to assume that it occurs. Having done so, though, I'm not willing to ignore (as you seem to do) the consequences of that assumption. My argument has always been that, if you assume a Ni + H fusion occurs the consequences are well-defined and do not correspond to reality, so the assumption is not tenable. It is the reductio ad absurdem technique, and I'm surprised that you do not realize that.

But. Let's take this in steps. I'll number them so you can address them clearly.

1) Once fusion has occurred*, (for instance) 58Ni must become 59Cu. The nucleus has acquired a single proton.

* Note that I have explicitly accepted the idea of a non-classical LENR. How it happens doesn't matter.

2) LENR-produced 59cu is not magical. It behaves just like any other 59Cu.

3) 59Cu has a half-life of 81 seconds. It decays to 59Ni, emitting a positron in the process, with a small proportion of decays occurring through electron capture and emitting a neutrino.

4) In a non-vacuum, the positron will almost instantly annihilate an electron and produce two 511 keV photons (gamma radiation).

5) 59Cu was not found by the isotopic analyses performed in the presentation.

6) Parkhomov et al do not, as far as I know, show any signs of exposure to the gamma radiation which would be produced in step 4.

And that's it. If you don't take it seriously, what is your alternative? Rossi's claim of a catalyst element (unnamed and in some cases not claimed to be necessary - see his last patent application) is supposed to permit overcoming the Coulomb barrier. Are you going to claim that an adjacent catalyst atom will also wildly affect the decay characteristics of the resulting 59Cu nucleus? Are you going to claim that the fused nuclide is, indeed, magic, or at least exempt from the results a century of observation of radioactive decay?

By the numbers, please. Where does the argument break down? Please take me seriously enough to identify (and justify that identification) where I've gone wrong.
Last edited by DancingFool on Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he strafed the lifeboats.

DancingFool
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:01 pm
Location: Way up north

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby DancingFool » Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:52 pm

deleted - dup

Sorry
Last edited by DancingFool on Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he strafed the lifeboats.

ladajo
Posts: 6174
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:00 pm

Ah, the heart of the issue. While obvious to some, it seems to consistently escape others.

I eagerly await the PFM version of atomic physics. Apparently, there are decay chains which heretofore have existed next to the invisible purple unicorn in may garage.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

DancingFool
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:01 pm
Location: Way up north

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby DancingFool » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:57 pm

And, while I"m waiting for parallel's scathing reply, some thoughts on radiation.

Using the linked paper, consider the results of the AP-2 reactor. The salient data is the elemental abundance of nickel in the fuel. In rough numbers, nickel abundance dropped by 50%. Although there is no corresponding increase of that magnitude in any other element (except, perhaps oxygen, and that seems much more likely to be the result of oxidation at high temperature), let's assume that this represents consumption of fuel by the proposed LENR.

Since the fuel load was 640 mg, this suggests about 300 mg of nickel was transmuted by the reactor. With an atomic weight of about 60 for nickel, this produces a consumed quantity of just about 0.005 moles of nickel, or a total of about 3 x 10^21 atoms. Since the 62Ni and 64Ni will have transmuted to stable copper isotopes, this leaves about 94% of the nickel in isotopes which will undergo subsequent decay, and the previous number of atoms can remain unchanged.

The experiment was carried out over a six-day period, or about 500,000 seconds. Then the average decay rate will be become approximately 3 x 10^21 / 5 x 10^5, or 6 x 10^15 Bq. And how much radiation IS this?

Well, let's go to http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx 59Cu is not listed as an isotope, but it can be replaced by Fluorine 18, or 18F, another positron emitter. The calculator is not really geared for the numbers involved, but by judicious choice of units (use MBq set at 6000, and the dose units at uS/hr, then change to S/hr to compensate for the missing factor of 1000000) and you get a radiation dose rate at 1 meter of 800 S/hr.

Since 5 Sieverts is generally considered a lethal dose, it will only require about 25 seconds exposure at 1 meter to kill. At 10 meters, of course, it will take all of 40 minutes. Oddly, there was no mention in the presentation of the extreme precautions the researchers must have taken (lead shielding, waldos,etc) in order to survive 6 days operation. The only good thing about this figure is that there are no neutrons involved, so no secondary radiation to be dealt with.
Last edited by DancingFool on Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he strafed the lifeboats.

ladajo
Posts: 6174
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:36 pm

Thanks for walking the dog on these points. I couldn't bring myself to do it again after I tried with fluid flow and thermo points and got crickets in response from him. You put up a valid argument, with proofs, and he ignores it and/or calls you a troll. Then behaves in the future like it never happened that his reality was refuted.

Anyone want to wager to see if Parallel rises to the occasion this time and actually tries to debate the science with something more than drive-bys, handwaving invoked logical fallacies, or just insults?

I predict he won't, mostly because he can't.

On another note, The Burial of the Rossiclown commences next week. I hope you are all tuned in. The entire ceremony may last some weeks, and should be entertaining!

Rossi is full of shit.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

DancingFool
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:01 pm
Location: Way up north

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby DancingFool » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:41 pm

Naw, he didn't call me a troll (this time).

Just irrelevant.
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he strafed the lifeboats.

krenshala
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby krenshala » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:08 pm

DancingFool wrote:Naw, he didn't call me a troll (this time).

Just irrelevant.

I guess thats a step in the right direction ... though a small one.

ladajo
Posts: 6174
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:51 pm

DancingFool wrote:Naw, he didn't call me a troll (this time).

Just irrelevant.


Give it time. Give it time. You pretty much shredded the slide deck, and with little effort.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Crawdaddy
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Crawdaddy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:44 pm

Dancin fool's analysis assumes that only one proton will add to the Nickel at a time.

Iwamura's extensive work at Mitsubishi (leading reference http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf) shows that this is not the case for deuterium.

The complexity of the solid state makes simple assumption difficult, as evidenced by this short interview with Louis DeChiaro, a navy scientist that conducts cold fusion research. (http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/lo ... eischmann/)

ladajo
Posts: 6174
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:26 pm

Fair enough, fusion can occur with heavier isotopes. However, conditions are obviously more challenging to achieve.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

DancingFool
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:01 pm
Location: Way up north

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby DancingFool » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:15 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:Dancin fool's analysis assumes that only one proton will add to the Nickel at a time.


Oh, Crawdaddy. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was SO hoping someone would not do their homework and ask JUST that question.

So, adding protons and suppressing beta decay gives the following chain from 58Ni (the most common isotope).

59Cu (to 59Ni + gamma, 81 sec halflife)

60Zn (to 60 Cu + gamma, 2.38 min halflife, to 62Ni + gamma, 23.7 min halflife)

61Ga (to 61Zn + gamma, 168 ms halflife, to 61Cu + gamma, 89 sec halflife, to 61Ni + gamma, 3.35 hr halflife)

62Ge (to 62Ga + gamma, 129 ms halflife, to 62Zn + gamma, 116 ms halflife, to 62Cu + gamma, 9 hr halflife, to 62Ni + gamma, 9.7 min halflife)

The sequence proceeds to 63As, 64Se, 65Br, etc, but these isotopes are so far outside the Valley of Stability that their haflives are unknown.

So, assuming that the emission of gamma radiation consequent to the annihilation of the emitted positrons is somehow suppressed, the dominant (68%) isotope of nickel is converted to either 59Ni, 61Ni, or 62Ni. Ignoring the subsequent transmutation of 62Ni to 63Cu, the linked presentation establishes that no such isotope shift occurs, and as a bonus no transmutation of 62Ni to 63Cu is discovered. As I have repeatedly stated, the data may be viewed as support for LENR, but if so, it is clear evidence that Rossi's process does not occur.

Do you have any more constructive suggestions? I really appreciated that one.
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he strafed the lifeboats.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests