Widom Larsen (WL-) Theory, LENR, CF (Rossi, etc)

[MSimon]

Kite, you've gone a bit potty on this gamma business.

I know you've gone potty, because I do exactly the same thing when I don't get the answer I am expecting and keep asking, and then I later realise it was a bit potty [...either no-one knew, or I didn't actually understand the question I was asking, or how it was being interpreted by the answerer, whatever, you're not gonna get the answer to satisfy you because no-one can give you it].

You can quit now. As far as we all know, the reaction should release gammas. This is based not on some explicit mind-meld with God and/or the universe, it is based on the fact that gammas have always appeared as a branch of all observed nuclear reactions.

Maybe this is the first without such reactions!

But it's not right to predict an experimental outcome based on physics which hasn't yet been observed! That's the issue I have with this forum at the moment.

** You can predict an experimental outcome based on physics known, or
** You can suggest some change in physics known as a result of a well-demonstrated, repeatable scientific experimental outcome....

BUT YOU CANNOT DO BOTH PARTS AT THE SAME TIME without drifiting into pseudo-science crazyland.

I was potty for a week on my "collecting electrons in a metal tube" experiment. So much so that I almost convinced the folks discussing it with me.

[MSimon]

You can quit now. As far as we all know, the reaction should release gammas. This is based not on some explicit mind-meld with God and/or the universe, it is based on the fact that gammas have always appeared as a branch of all observed nuclear reactions.

Some have reported a very SMALL amount of gamma from Ni:H reactions, some say none. If the gamma emitted was say... less than 5%, would you be more accepting? Is it ALL or NOTHING with you? (If you read back, I have mentioned the option of mostly not gamma with a small amount of gamma before). My question is "why does it hve to be A gamma? One (or two) gamma and nothing else?"

Who said "One (or two) gamma and nothing else?"

I don't recall that.

BTW we don't know how many gammas if any. No number of gamma activity vs power output. Let alone a spectrum.

If LENR IS nuclear everyone should be reporting gammas.

[ladajo]

Maybe that was why Rossi got all jumpy when Cenali whipped out his radiac at the public demo.

He is trying to control understanding, to protect his product.

Personally, I am still on the fence, but have to admit, lately I am leaning more towards thinking that they have something. And that is polywell scary from the global strategic perspective.

[MSimon]

Maybe that was why Rossi got all jumpy when Cenali whipped out his radiac at the public demo.

He is trying to control understanding, to protect his product.

Personally, I am still on the fence, but have to admit, lately I am leaning more towards thinking that they have something. And that is polywell scary from the global strategic perspective.

I have gone in the opposite direction lately. BTW maybe he was trying to protect the "no gamma's" information - to keep the scam running.

[Giorgio]

And yet a lot of you, you included at times, act as if you DO know everything... It is upsetting. I thought you better than that.

I admit to being a little bit picky time by time.
But I never stated that in absolute this is a scam or impossible. I stated that until some correct experiment will be done their results could come from anything, be it new physics, a scam or simply an error.

Please, I have been HOPING that you are not the ANTI- equivalent of Axil. I am hoping that you can shake your pre-conceived notions and help figure how this thing MIGHT be working, if it is working, so that such possibilities can be tested.
I have already made a recommendation for an experiment that might reveal applicable data. Please help rather than hinder.
As you pointed out... NO DATA. Lets us figure out how BEST to get it!

I am open to new theory and physics, I wont be here on the Polywell forum if it was not like that. The only way to have data here is from Rossi or from someone that has an E-cat.

For me I did my best to get some data.
I have asked to be present to the demo, but Rossi told me it was only for few guests.
I asked clarifications to Rossi about many issues and got no real replies.
I sent mails also to the Swedish guys and the swedish sceptic society at no avail.

If you have any plan I am ready to hear.

[Giorgio]

Maybe that was why Rossi got all jumpy when Cenali whipped out his radiac at the public demo.

He is trying to control understanding, to protect his product.

Personally, I am still on the fence, but have to admit, lately I am leaning more towards thinking that they have something. And that is polywell scary from the global strategic perspective.

Dunno, I have been hearing a lot of radio interview lately of Focardi, and he keeps saying that if someone analyzes gamma he can understand the working of the E-cat.
What I find strange is that he is repeating this on every interview.

Leaves me puzzled.

[ladajo]

That is odd. either as Msimon thinks it may be, they are hiding that there are none. Or, they are hiding the quantity. Which in itself is odd, as I would think the gamma energy distro would be more important than the reading a generic radiac would give.

This is why I am still on the fence. Some things say they are on to something, while others seem to indicate cover-ups.

In Rossi's defence, the fact he has units out and running, and is building larger setups, including one to power a plant to make more, says he is either a genious con artist, or he has got something economically viable.

I do not hink it would be that hard to replicate some of the stuff that is out in public. Like the bit about 500C Ni powder in a vaccum, and then just add H2.

I think you should stay on him Giorgio, keep pressing to get to a demo or direct access to anyone that has played with it in person.

[tomclarke]

That is odd. either as Msimon thinks it may be, they are hiding that there are none. Or, they are hiding the quantity. Which in itself is odd, as I would think the gamma energy distro would be more important than the reading a generic radiac would give.

This is why I am still on the fence. Some things say they are on to something, while others seem to indicate cover-ups.

In Rossi's defence, the fact he has units out and running, and is building larger setups, including one to power a plant to make more, says he is either a genious con artist, or he has got something economically viable.

I do not hink it would be that hard to replicate some of the stuff that is out in public. Like the bit about 500C Ni powder in a vaccum, and then just add H2.

I think you should stay on him Giorgio, keep pressing to get to a demo or direct access to anyone that has played with it in person.

People don't judge probabilities well.

One mistake is to try to assign meaning to other people's actions and if they seem incomprehensible concluse "Ah, well, they must have some new physics, or it would not be so murky and confused".

Given all the surrounding facts you don't need direct evidence of it not working to properly conclude that.

But this is theory thread. The clearest direct evidence of all not working is the isotopic analysis. Products with natural abundance of copper. Rossi claiming that he enriches the Ni.

Unwanted AW = 58.2 (Ni58 + Ni60)
wanted Ni62 => E.F. scales as sqrt(3.8)
Ni64 => scales as sqrt(5.8)
(from reading wiki page on isotopic separation, and assuming properly that Rossi has not invented new separation method).

We start with Ni62 = 3.6%, Ni64 = 0.9%
centrifuge enrichment will boost Ni62 and Ni64, at great cost.
For x increase in Ni62 we should get x^sqrt(5.8/3.8) increase in Ni64
[from reading wiki on isotopic separation - pls correct me if wrong. BTW the cost sqrt(3.8/58) compares with the cost of srt(3/238) for U235, about 2 X cheaper than corresponding enrichment of U238. We are increasing Ni62 concentration by 30%. Same as increasing U235 concentration by 15%. (Not to 15%!). Anyone know the cost?]

solving forNi62/Ni64 = 70/30 (natural ratio of Cu65/Cu63)

[just for fun assuming equal amounts of Ni62, Ni64 converted]

4/2.33 = 1.71 = x^(5.8/3.8-1) = x^0.53 => x ~ 1.31

So we get enrichment of Ni62 to 1.31*3.6 ~ 5%, and of Ni64 ~2%

AW Ni62 + H1 - AW Cu^63 = 61.9283 + 1.0078- 62.9296 = 0.0065
AW Ni64 + H1 - AW Cu^65 = 63.9280 + 1.0078 - 64.9278 = 0.0080

So fraction of mass converted is:
(0.05*0.0065 + 0.02*0.008)/59 = 8E-6

So energy released / kg is (3E8)^2*8E-6 = 7E11 J

100g provides 7E10/2.5E6 = 30kW for one month or 10kW for 3 months

What was the powder weight & total claimed energy output of this stuff?

This ball park calculation does not actually disprove anything.

Rossi must have been taking to Focardi, who can do the same calcs :)

[tomclarke]

However, further to this, the amount of Cu from this should be <7%.

How much Cu was available in the provided ash?

[ladajo]

But again, if he is doing conventional enrichment, what does he or his unindentified supplier do with the waste? That should be visible somehow.

[KitemanSA]

If LENR IS nuclear everyone should be reporting gammas.

When p+¹¹B > 3α, is gamma emitted? I know that ON OCCASION, the excited ¹²C will emit a gamma and stay¹²C , but USUALLY it will go the alpha route. When U fissions, the vast preponderance of the energy comes out as fission product kinetic energy, not gamma. It seems that gamma is the LAST resort for shedding energy, not the first. It is just that with Ni in standard conditions, there is no other option. True?

[KitemanSA]

As you pointed out... NO DATA. Lets us figure out how BEST to get it!

I am open to new theory and physics, I wont be here on the Polywell forum if it was not like that. The only way to have data here is from Rossi or from someone that has an E-cat.

I would like an EXERIMENT, not a business demo. ... No, that is not quite true. I would also LOVE to see a more unassailable demo, but that isn't my route to more data. Rossi hasn't been doing science on this. I think it may be about time to start.

I have suggested an experiment wherein rather than shootng neutrons at standard Ni (which I am told by honorable folk has been DONE!!!), the experimentor uses as many methods to Hydrogen load the Ni as he can find lit for, and test that H:Ni. Measure for all sorts of results including anomelous heat generation, and all the stuff one would normally measure when testing Ni under standard conditions. Mostly, what is the gamma spectrum. Does it change? If there is anomelous gamma, this would suggest that H:Ni may have a different mechanism for shedding nuclear energy other that the "one gamma" so strongly touted.

Anyone know if this has been done? If not, anyone know someone who can DO it?

[Giorgio]

I think you should stay on him Giorgio, keep pressing to get to a demo or direct access to anyone that has played with it in person.

I will, at least until I can get some accurate data do define what's going on.

[KitemanSA]

Who said "One (or two) gamma and nothing else?"

I believe TomClarke stated it most explicitly (with a slight modification that perhaps more at more gamma at greatly reduced probability. Most of the rest of you spoke only about "the gamma" which by implication (those things not included are excluded) means only a gamma. Indeed, I asked REPEATEDLY, "why must it be a gamma" and got a number of relies that implied that the reason should be obvious. But now that folks have had to admit to other possible paths, you are back-pedaling and asking "who ever said". Truly, it is distressing.

AFAIR, CMB came the closest to recognizing other ways but still is rigidly attached to certain limited solutions.

[Giorgio]

However, further to this, the amount of Cu from this should be <7%.

How much Cu was available in the provided ash?

It was reported to be 10% if I remember correctlyvand there was an additonal 11% Fe.