10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Postby cg66 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:49 pm

KitemanSA wrote:Yup, but I just can't get my head around the whole "it needs a simultaneous neutrino" issue. So far, my limited knowledge of EC with a single proton models it as a reverse neutron decay which invlolves the emission of a neutrino. Wouldn't EC on a proton require absorption of a neutrino... one that isn't necessarily there?
Anyway, there are three postulated processes that should accomplish the same result (get the H+ into the Ni nucleus) without ACTUALLY making a neutron. I lean toward those to explain this as yet unproven reaction.


Fair enough. I believe EC produces a neutron and a neutrino: proton + electron --> neutron + electron neutrino.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Postby seedload » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:35 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: You and I have a very different understanding of nuclear scales.
This may be true. Please explain with appropriate data how this affects things. What "scale" do you assume I have, how is yours different, how does this effect things. Please.


Sorry, I don't have any data on K-capture happening with a foreign electron, since it doesn't happen.

Again, the decay is temporally distant from the supposed electron escort of the proton. There remains no reason for there to be a foreign electron near the nucleus, oscillation or no oscillation.

I was merely pointing out that nuclei are kinda tiny compared to all the free space in an atom and that the probability that an electron, even an electron going "THRU the Cu", is anywhere near the nucleus is ridiculously small. There is no reason that any extra electrons would be anywhere near the nucleus when the decay happens, thus the probability of EC decay is not changed by neighboring electrons. They call it K-capture decay for a reason.

The nucleus is something like eight orders of magnitude smaller than the overall size of the atom in terms of area. This is the nuclear scales to which I was referring.

Regarding EC probability in general, I will quote Rossi and Focardi for you:

The two decay processes (positron emission and EC) are alternative: their relative frequencies for the various copper isotopes are generally unknown with the only exception of Cu64 for which EC decay (7) is about twice as frequent as positron decay


So, I think you should just start claiming that EC is 100% and not depend on extra electrons to get you there.

FYI, that is the same paper in which they claim that NI58 reactions are 100X more energetic than NI62 and 300X more energetic than NI64.

They are depleting the NI58? Go figure.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Postby cg66 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:37 pm

seedload wrote:[I was merely pointing out that nuclei are kinda tiny compared to all the free space in an atom and that the probability that an electron, even an electron going "THRU the Cu", is anywhere near the nucleus is ridiculously small. There is no reason that any extra electrons would be anywhere near the nucleus when the decay happens, thus the probability of EC decay is not changed by neighboring electrons. They call it K-capture decay for a reason.

The nucleus is something like eight orders of magnitude smaller than the overall size of the atom in terms of area. This is the nuclear scales to which I was referring.


But the envronment the decay occurs in does seem to have some influence. Half-life of Be-7 increases by almost 1% in a metallic environment.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/6159nj734576136u/

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Postby seedload » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:57 pm

cg66 wrote:
seedload wrote:[I was merely pointing out that nuclei are kinda tiny compared to all the free space in an atom and that the probability that an electron, even an electron going "THRU the Cu", is anywhere near the nucleus is ridiculously small. There is no reason that any extra electrons would be anywhere near the nucleus when the decay happens, thus the probability of EC decay is not changed by neighboring electrons. They call it K-capture decay for a reason.

The nucleus is something like eight orders of magnitude smaller than the overall size of the atom in terms of area. This is the nuclear scales to which I was referring.


But the envronment the decay occurs in does seem to have some influence. Half-life of Be-7 increases by almost 1% in a metallic environment.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/6159nj734576136u/


Chemical bonds having a tiny influence in light elements where the valence electrons are close to the nucleus is not really the same thing. But, it is surely enough for Kite to maintain his tight grip on another highly unlikely 'maybe'.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:15 am

Kahuna wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real
Sellings to very happy customers are in progress but you still if grandmother is virgin? How decision making goes? :)


You really need to stop the attempts at humor until/unless your English improves.
You can consider that as no humor. As it is very strange to hear claims from product's developer about commercialization and real sales and from his fans the phrase "if that works"
Choose one of two: commercialized and works or does not work and Rossi is scammer.
As really interested person in LENR can you please provide the data where we can buy nickel powder if we already bought the reactor and at what price?
We know the price of reactor (2 millions USD) and do not know the price of fuel. Please clarify.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:22 am

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: You and I have a very different understanding of nuclear scales.
This may be true. Please explain with appropriate data how this affects things. What "scale" do you assume I have, how is yours different, how does this effect things. Please.
Sorry, I don't have any data on K-capture happening with a foreign electron, since it doesn't happen.
In previously studied conditions that we know of.
seedload wrote: Again, the decay is temporally distant from the supposed electron escort of the proton. There remains no reason for there to be a foreign electron near the nucleus, oscillation or no oscillation.
Given that said electron is hypothesized to carry away a goodly amount of the original reaction energy, the escort electron would be SPACIALLY distant too.

However, If there are as many (or potentially more) electrons per unit volume in the conglomerate as there are nuclei in the lattice, and said conglomerate is bosonic, wouldn't the conglomerate tend to align with the nuclei of the lattice? And if it does, wouldn't that alignment potentially cause electrons to REGULARLY approach, even penetrate the nuclei?
seedload wrote: I was merely pointing out that nuclei are kinda tiny compared to all the free space in an atom and that the probability that an electron, even an electron going "THRU the Cu", is anywhere near the nucleus is ridiculously small.
Not if the VERY powerful positive electric field of the nuclei attracted the electron array in such a way as to align them. If this thing works, I can't see it working with electrons that wander around aimlessly.
seedload wrote:There is no reason that any extra electrons would be anywhere near the nucleus when the decay happens, thus the probability of EC decay is not changed by neighboring electrons. They call it K-capture decay for a reason.
Actually, the supposition is that electrons will get very near, even penetrate the nucleus REPEATEDLY before the nucleus would naturally decay by positron emission. Given the repeated electron presence, EC could very easily become the VASTLY preferred decay mode.
seedload wrote: The nucleus is something like eight orders of magnitude smaller than the overall size of the atom in terms of area. This is the nuclear scales to which I was referring.
But if the electron array is being drawn toward the nuclei of the lattice, wouldn't that suggest that electrons approach the nuclei REGULARLY? Seems reasonable to me.
seedload wrote: Regarding EC probability in general, I will quote Rossi and Focardi for you:

The two decay processes (positron emission and EC) are alternative: their relative frequencies for the various copper isotopes are generally unknown with the only exception of Cu64 for which EC decay (7) is about twice as frequent as positron decay


So, I think you should just start claiming that EC is 100% and not depend on extra electrons to get you there.
"Just claiming" without cause would be "magical". Not interested. Besides, available electrons seem an almost certainty if this thing works as claimed.
seedload wrote: FYI, that is the same paper in which they claim that NI58 reactions are 100X more energetic than NI62 and 300X more energetic than NI64.

They are depleting the NI58? Go figure.
Link? It would be interesting to read what they ACTULLY wrote first hand.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:26 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:You can consider that as no humor. As it is very strange to hear claims from product's developer about commercialization and real sales and from his fans the phrase "if that works"
Your confusion seems to be due to the fact that you are too stupid to understand that I am not a fan. But I don't jump to needless conclusions either. The fact that I decline to make needless uneducated technical judgements does not make me a fan. And the fact that I argue against those who DO seem to be making needless, uneducated judgements just means that I expect better of folks who CLAIM to be technically oriented.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:31 am

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: FYI, that is the same paper in which they claim that NI58 reactions are 100X more energetic than NI62 and 300X more energetic than NI64.

They are depleting the NI58? Go figure.
Link? It would be interesting to read what they ACTULLY wrote first hand.
Yes, ni62 300X more energetic than NI64. And they enriched it on kitchen of the Rossi's sold house.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:36 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: FYI, that is the same paper in which they claim that NI58 reactions are 100X more energetic than NI62 and 300X more energetic than NI64.

They are depleting the NI58? Go figure.
Link? It would be interesting to read what they ACTULLY wrote first hand.
Yes, ni62 300X more energetic than NI64. And they enriched it on kitchen of the Rossi's sold house.
See, you can't even read what seedload wrote, why should anyone believe you can read anything else?

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:39 am

KitemanSA wrote:The fact that I decline to make needless uneducated technical judgements does not make me a fan. And the fact that I argue against those who DO seem to be making needless, uneducated judgements just means that I expect better of folks who CLAIM to be technically oriented.
Ok. What claim is "educated"? to enrich nickel in the kitchen with enrichment facilities' cost of several thousands dollars?
Or TOKAMAK explosion strength 14 kT. Please say what strength had a bomb dropped on Hiroshima? Or Nagasaki?
So, the countries not having the weapon of mass destruction should build TOKAMAKs and then drop those on their enemies’ heads. Weapon: flying TOKAMAK :)
Mr. too educated decision maker.

Giorgio
Posts: 2640
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:18 am

KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real and IF it depends on assemblages of electrons escorting protons close to a nucleus while the electrons move near, past, or THRU the nuclei, THEN having electrons "near, past, or thru" the nuclei is a precondition. Seems logical to me.

TOo many IF don't make it logical to me.
I guess we once more agree that we do not agree on this issue :)

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:57 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Kahuna wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real
Sellings to very happy customers are in progress but you still if grandmother is virgin? How decision making goes? :)


You really need to stop the attempts at humor until/unless your English improves.
You can consider that as no humor. As it is very strange to hear claims from product's developer about commercialization and real sales and from his fans the phrase "if that works"
Choose one of two: commercialized and works or does not work and Rossi is scammer.
As really interested person in LENR can you please provide the data where we can buy nickel powder if we already bought the reactor and at what price?
We know the price of reactor (2 millions USD) and do not know the price of fuel. Please clarify.


I was referring to your incoherent rant about grandmothers and virgins. I'm not sure how in the world that leads to me clarifying the cost of E-Cat fuel. Your logic is tough to follow my friend.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:58 am

Kahuna wrote:I was referring to your incoherent rant about grandmothers and virgins. I'm not sure how in the world that leads to me clarifying the cost of E-Cat fuel. Your logic is tough to follow my friend.
The associative thinking is an intelligence sign, its absence – guess yourself. Till now we hear the same “if the e-cat/LENR works”
I am answering: “If the grandmother is virgin, the father is Jesus”

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:15 am

“If the grandmother is virgin, the father is Jesus”


Very nice. I'm going to blog it and give you credit.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/11/iffy.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Postby Kahuna » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:11 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Kahuna wrote:I was referring to your incoherent rant about grandmothers and virgins. I'm not sure how in the world that leads to me clarifying the cost of E-Cat fuel. Your logic is tough to follow my friend.
The associative thinking is an intelligence sign, its absence – guess yourself. Till now we hear the same “if the e-cat/LENR works”
I am answering: “If the grandmother is virgin, the father is Jesus”


You needn't call me unintelligent mate, the first time around you didn't even complete the thought. You wrote: "Sellings to very happy customers are in progress but you still if grandmother is virgin?" not the “If the grandmother is virgin, the father is Jesus" you claim now. So to get it I would not only have to be intellegent, but clairvoyant. Just say'n to you in those immortal words of Dirty Harry: "A man has got to know his limitations".


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests