10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[ltgbrown]

The fission of 235U results in a large amount of missing mass so is exothermic.

Yes, but fusion of two lighter elements to make U235 in endothermic and fission of light elements (like Boron) is endothermic. While U235 may have greater total binding energy, the binding energy between individual nucleons in a very large atom is less than the binding energy between individual nucleons in a small atom. So, the total amount of energy available from fission of a very large atom is much greater (large total binding energy) and easier (small binding energy between nucleons), while the total amount of energy available from fission of a small atom is much smaller (small total of binding energy) and difficult (large binding energy between nucleons).

I think this is what Dan is trying to say.

[Giorgio]

Here you go, no public test till after start of the plant:

DEFKALION Green Technologies S.A.
May 31st, 2011 at 4:36 AM

As a response to info released in media during the last days, Defkalion GT S.A. states that there are not any plans or schedules for e-cat lab prototypes tests or public demos till October, when the 1MW plant will be operational in our first factory in Greece. On the contrary there are schedules for several non public Defkalion’s product tests within the next months.

Defkalion Green Technologies S.A.


#
Andrea Rossi
May 31st, 2011 at 7:05 AM

DEFKALION:
I confirm what stated in the Defkalion comment, and underline that the tests we will make in Greece starting presumably around July will be confidential tests of the first clusters of modules of the 1 MW plant which will go in operation in October.
Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation

[KitemanSA]

The fission of 235U results in a large amount of missing mass so is exothermic.

Yes, but fusion of two lighter elements to make U235 in endothermic and fission of light elements (like Boron) is endothermic.

Right, exactly the opposite of the reaction I showed. The equation I provided in the earlier quote would still pertain since the total mass in the nucleii/free nucleons AFTER the reaction would weigh more than the sum of the starting parts.

While U235 may have greater total binding energy, the binding energy between individual nucleons in a very large atom is less than the binding energy between individual nucleons in a small atom. So, the total amount of energy available from fission of a very large atom is much greater (large total binding energy) and easier (small binding energy between nucleons), while the total amount of energy available from fission of a small atom is much smaller (small total of binding energy) and difficult (large binding energy between nucleons).

I think this is what Dan is trying to say.

If so, he is doing a confusing job of it. But his main contention was that Ni+p would be endothermic which is just plain wrong.

If you fuse two (or more) atoms that are LARGER than Fe together to make U, you will need to add energy. But if you could add free nucleons, one by one, from Ni to U, you would release energy with each and every nucleon added. True, the more you added, the less the next one would release, but it would still release energy, still be exothermal. The key to this is that free nucleons have ZERO (even negative(?)) binding energy so adding one to a nucleus with ~8MeV PER NUCLEON, will release about 8MeV. The math is simple. There should be no confusion.

[seedload]

Here you go, no public test till after start of the plant:

Andrea Rossi
May 31st, 2011 at 7:05 AM

DEFKALION:
I confirm what stated in the Defkalion comment, and underline that the tests we will make in Greece starting presumably around July will be confidential tests of the first clusters of modules of the 1 MW plant which will go in operation in October.
Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation

One wonders why they are testing clusters of modules when there was previous discussion of needing to get a shipping container ready - presumably for the assembled 1MW plant.

[cg66]

I’ve been looking at the different isotopes for Ni, Cu, Fe and if the mechanism is somehow this capture low momentum neutron (W-L theory) – the neutron heavy isotopes of Ni, Cu, Fe (most elements as far as I can tell) B- decay (Ni65 -> Cu65 + e- + neutrino). I’m not sure how to calculate the energy of this electron and what impact to the surrounding atoms – anyone have a thought? If the primary decay mechanism is B- would you expect any positron annihilation signature (511keV gamma)? Thoughts?

[Crawdaddy]

About item (3) above. If I had been paying attention, I would have figured out that NI59 is not a realistic isotope. Sorry, my bad. But the translation is saying something about 59 at that point. Anyone know what is really said there? Thanks.

Exact words are: "the reactor was loaded with nickel five nine, and at the end we found spikes where there was more copper than Nickel."

The five nine in this statement refers to 99.999% pure. In materials research this is how we talk about the purity of our reagents. Alternatively for gases one might say 5.0 to refer to a gas that is 99.999% pure.

Also when dealing with precious metals one might hear someone say the silver bar is five nines purity.

[KitemanSA]

I’ve been looking at the different isotopes for Ni, Cu, Fe and if the mechanism is somehow this capture low momentum neutron (W-L theory) – the neutron heavy isotopes of Ni, Cu, Fe (most elements as far as I can tell) B- decay (Ni65 -> Cu65 + e- + neutrino). I’m not sure how to calculate the energy of this electron and what impact to the surrounding atoms – anyone have a thought? If the primary decay mechanism is B- would you expect any positron annihilation signature (511keV gamma)? Thoughts?

My thought is that W&L have it slightly wrong. I don't think the process actually develops a neutron. That requires neutrino involvement. I think that there is an bosonic interaction between the polariton (a bosonic quasiparticle) and the PROTON; the pair of which acts somewhat LIKE a neutron. This is conceptually similar to the "internal conversion" form of "decay" that LOOKS like beta decay wherein an electron accepts excitation energy but there is no neutrino involved and no change in Z.

I suspect that a polariton (electron) interacts as a quasiparticle boson and nudges a proton near enough to a (Z,A)Ni nucleus for the strong force to grab the real proton. This creates an excited (Z+1,A+1)Cu nucleus. At that point, the polariton electron, being close enough to the nucleus, accepts the released binding energy by internal conversion and sheds enough of the energy for the residual gamma to be in the Xray range. Thus, 2cm of lead would be sufficient to stop it.

That is my thought.

PS: Isotopes on the excess neutrons side of the stability line decay by beta- decay which includes NO positrons, just electrons and some form of neutrino, IIUTC. Beta decay changes the Z number. Internal conversion does not. The Ni isotopes under discussion (assuming neutron absorption) have a fairly long half-life (100years for 63Ni) prior to beta decay. Internal conversion is almost instantaneous. Given a LACK of indicated residual radioactivity, I suspect that beta decay is not the primary process. ICBW.

[parallel]

Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief

A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion is taking place, saying it is probably beta decay per the Widom Larson Theory. Repackaging the terminology to avoid embarrassment will not erase over twenty years of suppression and the reality of cold fusion!
snip
During the interview, Bushnell specifically mentioned Andrea Rossi's E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) technology, and seemed very supportive of it. He reviewed the tests that have been performed and the large amount of excess heat produced. At one point he made a remark scientists across the world should notice...

"I think we are almost over the "we do not understand it" problem. I think we are almost over the "this does not produce anything useful" problem. I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. If it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate issues."

ref http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold ... ASA_Chief/

Looking forward to Giorgio & co commenting how stupid he is to be sucked in by this fraud.

[seedload]

Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief

A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion is taking place, saying it is probably beta decay per the Widom Larson Theory. Repackaging the terminology to avoid embarrassment will not erase over twenty years of suppression and the reality of cold fusion!
snip
During the interview, Bushnell specifically mentioned Andrea Rossi's E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) technology, and seemed very supportive of it. He reviewed the tests that have been performed and the large amount of excess heat produced. At one point he made a remark scientists across the world should notice...

"I think we are almost over the "we do not understand it" problem. I think we are almost over the "this does not produce anything useful" problem. I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. If it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate issues."

ref http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold ... ASA_Chief/

Looking forward to Giorgio & co commenting how stupid he is to be sucked in by this fraud.

Rossi continues to say that this IS NOT Widom Larson Theory. So, who is wrong, Rossi or the NASA chief. If Bushnell doesn't have any special insight into Rossi's reactor (ie, he claims the wrong theory) then what importance is there in his support? Seems like he knows less than everyone else about Rossi's claims.

regards

[seedload]

The five nine in this statement refers to 99.999% pure. In materials research this is how we talk about the purity of our reagents. Alternatively for gases one might say 5.0 to refer to a gas that is 99.999% pure.

Also when dealing with precious metals one might hear someone say the silver bar is five nines purity.

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense.

[Betruger]

Looking forward to Giorgio & co commenting how stupid he is to be sucked in by this fraud.

Bluster. It's precisely the sort of thing Giorgio & co are saying. Less talk more walk. Instead of taking Rossi's word for it, since Rossi refuses to give anything more, Bushnell actually got some data produced. Talk is cheap.

[Ivy Matt]

Fresh from Rossi blog:

there are two metropolitan legends which are walking around:
1- We do not know the theory behind the operation of our apparatus: false, I know the theory , and will release it after the international patent will be granted. We could not arrive to produce our E-Cats, with their constant operation, without knowing the theory. One year ago I was not sure, now I’m pretty confident.

2- There will be a new public test somewhere (Greece, or Italy, or USA, or Sweden, etc): again, no more public tests will be made, the sole tests we make are the tests of the modules of the 1 MW plant which will go in operation in October in Greece, and obviuosly such tests are made with closed doors.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

Interpret it at your pleasure.

1) Nice to know, but I wonder: what's the point of soliciting hypotheses and posting them on his website if he already understands how his device works? Does he get a kick out of watching people throw darts at an invisible dartboard? Also, is his final theory substantially different from the mini-atom hypothesis he and Focardi published in a paper on his website, dated March 22, 2010? (These are rhetorical questions, of course, unless your name is "Andrea Rossi".)

2) I suspected Rossi wasn't going to let the University of Uppsala get their hands on one of his devices before October. The only question I have is how Peter Ekström had received the impression that they wouldn't receive a device before the end of June.

[Ivy Matt]

Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief

A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion is taking place, saying it is probably beta decay per the Widom Larson Theory. Repackaging the terminology to avoid embarrassment will not erase over twenty years of suppression and the reality of cold fusion!
snip
During the interview, Bushnell specifically mentioned Andrea Rossi's E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) technology, and seemed very supportive of it. He reviewed the tests that have been performed and the large amount of excess heat produced. At one point he made a remark scientists across the world should notice...

"I think we are almost over the "we do not understand it" problem. I think we are almost over the "this does not produce anything useful" problem. I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. If it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate issues."

ref http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold ... ASA_Chief/

Looking forward to Giorgio & co commenting how stupid he is to be sucked in by this fraud.

As far as "hot fusion" is concerned, I think we are almost over the "we do not understand the plasma dynamics" problem. I think we are almost over the "this does not produce net energy" problem. I think it will go forward fairly rapidly now.

Here is what I consider the relevant quote from the podcast (with some speech disfluencies omitted):

At that point, in '06, '07, we became interested and started setting up a set of experiments that we're just about ready to start, finally, where we're trying to experimentally validate this Widom-Larsen theory to find out—or not—whether or not it explains what's going on, and in the process we've used quantum theory to optimize the particular surface morphologies necessary to do this.

Is it too much to ask of the NASA Langley chief scientist to do the experiments before drawing his conclusions?

[KitemanSA]

Rossi continues to say that this IS NOT Widom Larson Theory. So, who is wrong, Rossi or the NASA chief. If Bushnell doesn't have any special insight into Rossi's reactor (ie, he claims the wrong theory) then what importance is there in his support? Seems like he knows less than everyone else about Rossi's claims.

Suppose the process were something like the variation of WL that I speculated about several posts back. Might Bushnell consider the variation "WL" while Rossi considers it "NOT WL" and BOTH be right?

Personally, and with no real reason to point to other than personal probability prejudice, I do not think WL is quite right, in the DETAILS. That still allows that many of the general conditions me WL in general.

Until the language is settled, "WL" and "Not WL" may be the exact same thing!

[Giorgio]

One wonders why they are testing clusters of modules when there was previous discussion of needing to get a shipping container ready - presumably for the assembled 1MW plant.

That could be due to the final containerized plant being composed by a cluster of modules.
Is a pretty normal practice in industry.

Anyhow, it does not make much sense from a commercial point of view to keep a real public demo in standby until the start of the plant.
I guess, we will understand why in October, in a way or the other.