10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[KitemanSA]

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

Even 1 W of "normal" nuclear process is going to emit a LOT of gammas. That is under 2% of the 60W generated.

If a reaction produces ~6MeV of energy and the IC electron carries away ~95% of it, you are left with something in the Xray range, no? How much lead does it take to stop 300keV EM radiation? The POWER deposited just defines how much cooling is needed.

As an aside, I have recently been wondering if a polariton (mass ~50MeV/c², as best I can find) could effectively act in lieu of a muon (mass ~ 106MeV/c²) and produce "polariton catalyzed transmutation".
Suppose a polariton replaces the electron in H and makes, not "muonic hydrogen" but "polaritonic hydrogen". This should catalyze reactions in a manner similar to muons. Assume for the sake of argument that this is the "catalyst" that Rossi uses.
If so, the available "electron" for carrying away excitation energy would (virtually) be ~100X as massive as a normal electron. Would that not suggest that the % energy carried away with it might be 99% or maybe even 99.5%? How much energy would each gamma carry then? (60keV and 30keV, FYI) And how much lead is needed?

[KitemanSA]

Even 1 W of "normal" nuclear process is going to emit a LOT of gammas. That is under 2% of the 60W generated.

Good point.
The small E-Cat is supposed to generate 2,5 Kw thermal. Even assuming a 99,999 % gamma absorption efficiency will still leave out 2.5W of gamma.

I think there is a confusion about what is going on. As far as I understand it, the process isn't "absorbing" X% of the ~6MeV gamma photons and releasing the rest. It is (in your example) emitting 99.999% of the excitation energy as a relativistic electron, and leaving 60eV for the photon. Such photons are normally called EUV. You don't need ANY lead for that! Even MEGAwatts of that. You just need cooling.

Gamma does not NECESSARILY mean 30EHz+, the OLD definition of gamma.

[Giorgio]

I see your point. I really cannot comment on it until I will read some more about this "Internal Conversion" process.
Literature seems pretty scarce on this subject.

Edited.

[seedload]

Per
May 25th, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Any comments to the preliminary results of the element analysis and isotopic analysis at the Ångström Laboratory in Uppsala, which showed natural isotopic composition of the nickel and copper. The initial nickel-powder also had natural isotopic composition which some take as evidence that no nuclear reactions occured? What is your view?

“Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.”

kind regards,

Per

Andrea Rossi
May 25th, 2011 at 7:50 PM
Dear Mr PER:
To answer to this question I ‘d have to enter in confidential particulars regarding the charge and the operation.
Your observation is correct, in absence of more explication.
Warm regards,
A.R.

Henk
May 25th, 2011 at 9:41 PM
As Per mentioned the Uppsala analysis seems to indicatate that no nuclear reactions took place.
But the actual charge in the reactor is not be the pure nickel powder. It is probably enriched and treated with a catalyzer.
This is the real trick of the trade, and for good reasons Mr. Rossi is very carefull to not disclose this secret.
So, since we do not know the actual composition of the initial charge no conclusions can be drawn from the Uppsala analysis.

Per
May 26th, 2011 at 3:38 AM
Rossi, Henk

Thanks for your responses.

If enrichment is involved, is there any particular reason you change the isotopic content of the initial Nickel powder so it results in a used powder containing copper with natural isotopic distribution?

From what I understood from the article in NyTeknik, Uppsala also examined the initial powder showing natural isotopic distribution, is this misunderstood?

Thanks and good luck with your work,

Per

Andrea Rossi
May 26th, 2011 at 7:24 AM
Dear Mr Per:
I am very sorry, but you put very important questions which are very confidential. It is not a pleasure for me to answer “I can’t answer”, but it is for me mandatory.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

"Per" asks a great question, why enrich the ratio of nickel to a ratio that coincidentally produces the NATURAL ratio of copper. Personally, I can think of no reason. Especially since Rossi has said that enrichment is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then enriching nickel to some magical ratio so as to produce the correct natural isotopic ratio of copper is obviously not necessary. If anything, it is detrimental to his demonstration. Having copper pop out with an unnatural isotopic ratio would be way cooler.

Apparently, even this oddity is a secret of Rossi's.

Does the mystery of the natural isotopic ratio of the resultant copper distress any of you Rossi supporters? Or, is this demonstration result the only piece of information that we should not trust?

regards

[seedload]

Can someone help me out understanding this exchange:

HRG
March 25th, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Dr. Rossi
What do you think is unique about Ni62 and/or Ni64 which makes it (them) more highly reactive with protons than the other (major) natural isotopes?

Andrea Rossi
March 25th, 2011 at 5:27 PM
Dear Prof. Gillis HRG,
I think that it is caused from the major number of nuclear links on the surface of the 62 and 64 isotopes, which also could be the reason why 63 and 65 Cu isotopes are stable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

What the heck does "nuclear links on the surface" mean?

[Axil]

Can someone help me out understanding this exchange:

HRG
March 25th, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Dr. Rossi
What do you think is unique about Ni62 and/or Ni64 which makes it (them) more highly reactive with protons than the other (major) natural isotopes?

Andrea Rossi
March 25th, 2011 at 5:27 PM
Dear Prof. Gillis HRG,
I think that it is caused from the major number of nuclear links on the surface of the 62 and 64 isotopes, which also could be the reason why 63 and 65 Cu isotopes are stable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

What the heck does "nuclear links on the surface" mean?

Explaining Rossi.

Rossi also said: “We think that all the Ni participates to the reactions, even if some isotopes should be more efficient.” “Only Ni 62 and Ni64 react.”

Rossi enriches his nickel in Ni62 and Ni64. Why? Through experimentation, Rossi found these isotopes performed best.

Nickel-62 is an isotope of nickel having 28 protons and 34 neutrons. It is a stable isotope, with the highest binding energy per nucleon of any known nuclide (8.7945 MeV). The high binding energy of nickel isotopes in general makes nickel an "end product" of many nuclear reactions (including neutron capture reactions) throughout the universe and accounts for the high relative abundance of nickel and nickel-60 (the second-most, with the other stable isotopes (nickel-61, nickel-62, and nickel-64) being quite rare).

Nickel is the least likely element to participate in a fusion reaction.

If atomic holes are the place where the Rossi reaction occurs, Rossi wants a very strong and stable support structure that can provide a three dimensional quantum box that can produce the fusion reaction of multiple hydrogen coherent atoms.

Under the assumption that only hydrogen reacts in the quantum box and that many hydrogen atoms are fused in the Rossi reaction; the packing of all those hydrogen atoms into the lattice defects of nickel is a stressful process. If this nickel built Heisenberg box were to fail or fail apart during the packing of hydrogen, then the reaction will fail.

Nickel is the most stable element because its binding energy is maximized among the elements. The nickel isotopes that are the most stable are Ni62 and Ni64. Rossi enriches his nickel in these most stable and stout isotopes because they can best support the atomic defects he uses to produce atomic events without blowing the lattice defects apart during the stresses of the atomic reactions and were nickel garbage would poison the pure hydrogen reaction.

Elements on either side of nickel will perform best because of their very high binding energies.

[chrismb]

Andrea Rossi
March 25th, 2011 at 5:27 PM
Dear Prof. Gillis HRG,
I think that it is caused from the major number of nuclear links on the surface of the 62 and 64 isotopes, which also could be the reason why 63 and 65 Cu isotopes are stable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

What the heck does "nuclear links on the surface" mean?

Prob meaning 'neutrons' and is suggesting, maybe [and very hopefully!!] that lower Coulomb forces maybe at work from some angles if neutrons are on the outside and protons more in centre.

[Axil]

Andrea Rossi
March 25th, 2011 at 5:27 PM
Dear Prof. Gillis HRG,
I think that it is caused from the major number of nuclear links on the surface of the 62 and 64 isotopes, which also could be the reason why 63 and 65 Cu isotopes are stable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

What the heck does "nuclear links on the surface" mean?

Prob meaning 'neutrons' and is suggesting, maybe [and very hopefully!!] that lower Coulomb forces maybe at work from some angles if neutrons are on the outside and protons more in centre.

I don’t understand. Could you expand your explanation?

“neutrons are on the outside and protons more in centre.”

Outside and center of what?

Since neutrons have no positive or negative charge, they cannot affect Coulomb forces one way or the other.

[chrismb]

I don’t understand. Could you expand your explanation?

“neutrons are on the outside and protons more in centre.”

Outside and center of what?

..of the nucleus. They may screen the effects of the protons, seeing as 62-Ni is so heavily over-balanced with neutrons, if the protons are deeper in the nucleus. If not screen, at least further away (more r, less q1q2/4pieor^2)

(I am surprised that my meaning was not obvious to you, when you have a penchant for being able to read so much into so many obscure sources of information, or 'information'.)

[CherryPick]

"Per" asks a great question, why enrich the ratio of nickel to a ratio that coincidentally produces the NATURAL ratio of copper. Personally, I can think of no reason. Especially since Rossi has said that enrichment is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then enriching nickel to some magical ratio so as to produce the correct natural isotopic ratio of copper is obviously not necessary. If anything, it is detrimental to his demonstration. Having copper pop out with an unnatural isotopic ratio would be way cooler.

Apparently, even this oddity is a secret of Rossi's.

Does the mystery of the natural isotopic ratio of the resultant copper distress any of you Rossi supporters? Or, is this demonstration result the only piece of information that we should not trust?

regards

We could speculate that the copper (and iron) are coming from the impurities of the flowing tap water.. Their isotopic ratio is natural. Another sources are the pipes and the apparatus itself.

Where are natural isotopic ratios coming from? Do they result from a common origin or a favorable energy balance?

[Giorgio]

We could speculate that the copper (and iron) are coming from the impurities of the flowing tap water.. Their isotopic ratio is natural. Another sources are the pipes and the apparatus itself.

The water does not enter into contact with the tap water.
The water flows around the sealed chamber of the reactor containing the Nikel and Hydrogen.
Rossi said that there is no new physics involved in his reactor, but this whole story of the Nickel enrichment and the used powder isotopic composition of Ni+Cu+Fe shows the contrary.

Either he is attempting to confuse people or he is confused about basic reactions.

[cg66]

Moved to W-L theory thread....

[rjaypeters]

of the nucleus. They may screen the effects of the protons, seeing as 62-Ni is so heavily over-balanced with neutrons, if the protons are deeper in the nucleus. If not screen, at least further away (more r, less q1q2/4pieor^2)

This comment intrigued me to go look up what we know about the shape of atomic nuclei. I didn't get far except to find discussions of spherical, prolate and oblate spheroids.

But won't Coulomb forces push the protons as far away from each other as possible? I don't suppose all of the protons can be on the exterior, but with more neutrons, won't that make it easier for the protons to move outward?

I'd really appreciate a reference if you know of one.

[Giorgio]

Assuming there is some effect of H packed in the Ni that allows transmutation, is there a benefit to heading towards Cu that prevents positron production (and therefore subsequent gammas)?

I will give a look to the paper during the WE.
I really still do not see any potential mechanism that could prevent positron (and consequent gamma) emissions.
For this reason I was stating that there must be new science involved.

[chrismb]

But won't Coulomb forces push the protons as far away from each other as possible? I don't suppose all of the protons can be on the exterior, but with more neutrons, won't that make it easier for the protons to move outward?

I'd really appreciate a reference if you know of one.

Pass! I was just trying to translate Rossi, not offer a justification for what he might have meant.

That being said, in a discusson of nucleii, I would not presume a nucleus is 'soup-like' such that protons can work their way to the surface to get as far from each other. I think the world of the nucleus is more wierd than that. Like a puzzle of very similar parts but they only go together in a finite number of combinations, with some combinations holding more or less 'energy', accordingly. Thus, an excited nucleus is one of those finite combinations but that by changing into another ordered combination, energy can be released. That is my view of the nucleus.

IN fact, I would go further and say that the lowest states of a nucleus are where two-proton-two-neutron 'units' have formed, and the extra neutrons act like little spots of blu-tac and bind them together. So an excited nucleus is one where more 2p2n clustes could form up within the nucleus, but have not yet done so, and that higher atomic masses need bigger 'excesses' of neutrons (to stick all the 2p2n's together).

I'd be interested to see any info on nuclear shape, also.