10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:44 pm

Do you think EMC2 could've carried on with Polywell if e.g. the 2007 (2008?) review board had not seen proper science? Or was that review board no different from a "public blog", in your opinion? Or maybe you're saying that Bussard's inarguably straightforward explanation of the fundamentals of the polywell as in the Should Google Go Nuclear video, that that's not nearly common sense, or maybe that Bussard didn't understand what he argued, or maybe that it's Nebel, Park & co that comparatively don't understand?

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:14 pm

Gosh, it just occurred to me that if you take NI58 and mysteriously add a proton to it, it would indeed be transmuted into copper - CU59. But CU59 is radioactive and it decays in seconds back into Nickel - NI59. NI59 is radioactive with a half life of 75000 years.

Weird, huh? Adding a proton to the most abundant isotope of nickel doesn't make stable copper, it makes radioactive nickel!

Parallel, isn't that weird?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:51 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:And science I understand as putting questions and as answering on them.

Okay, so lets be clear. You're not a nuclear physicist. You don't have any calculations to show you're correct. You're just shooting your mouth off pretending you know what you're talking about but you don't really. Whereas Nebel is that the top of his field, working at one of the two most prestigious nuclear physics labs in the world, you're not a physicist at all. You don't respond in journals because you don't even read the journals and you certainly don't know what's going on in nuclear physics. Isn't that so?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:02 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:I would also argue strongly that Wiffleball is proven.
Has Wiffleball Been Created Ever?
viewtopic.php?t=3724

I say yes. And I have offered credible evidence a number of times.
If you do not read offered evidence that is not my problem. Especially given that you have a demonstrated history of not regarding evidence that disagrees with your position.

polyill · Post by **polyill** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:53 am

Joseph, there is really no need to stage an offensive provocation to get a link.
All you need to do is ask politely. Social skills, dude.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:14 am

Folks,
Please don't feed the troll.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:53 am

GIThruster wrote: Okay, so lets be clear. You're not a nuclear physicist.

At least American Physical Society Plasma Section meant that my Posters were worthy for reviewing. http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP11/Event/153438

GIThruster wrote:You don't have any calculations to show you're correct.

For assuming that two-stream instability will occur when you would inject particle beams (electron beams) into background plasma calculations are not needed.
That is obvious for any plasma physicists that this should be checked theoretically and then experimentally fixing the so called “stability area”. I have seen one paper of Dr. Nebel investigation electron-electron 2-stream but never found electron-ion and I have a big doubt that this was not investigated ever. For your reference, due to its lower mass, electron beams are the most vulnerable against this type of instabilities in comparison ion beams.

Statement that by increasing of number density from e.g. 10^16 to up to 10^22 (million times) plasma changes its properties becoming “collisional” is truth.

Statement that convex fields (commonly, minimum B principle) could not avoid macroinstabilities in any plasma device is truth too and proved with about 60 years history of researches in this field.

Statement that when instabilities occur, running reactor at beta=1 is impossible, it is very simple logic.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:34 am

polyill wrote:Joseph, there is really no need to stage an offensive provocation to get a link.
All you need to do is ask politely. Social skills, dude.

Ok, I am kindly asking the link ensuring me and others that "wiffleball effect" was observed ever.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:12 pm

In Rossiworld, it is sometimes fun to review history:

110 Rossi Quotes

Saw this reposted over at Ecatworld, and thought it was a fun review regarding some of the more funny Rossisaids.

Two of my favorites are the 'no-radiations detected in explosive testing', as well as the 'Ecat has a safety radiation monitor that will auto-shutdown the unit if any type of radiation is detected' quotes. But of course, we must remember he also told the Florida BRC investigator that there is no radiation of any kind produced and that there are no nuclear reactions of any kind.

I can't wait to find out about his new up and running secret USA Factory, as well as his new global multinational Hot-Cat partner and first purchaser.

I really hope the Secret Factory is in Florida.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:13 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
polyill wrote:Joseph, there is really no need to stage an offensive provocation to get a link.
All you need to do is ask politely. Social skills, dude.
Ok, I am kindly asking the link ensuring me and others that "wiffleball effect" was observed ever.

Joseph,
I kindly request for you to go back and find them where they have been previously provided to you.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:59 pm

ladajo wrote:Joseph,
I kindly request for you to go back and find them where they have been previously provided to you.

I remember only very indistinct phrase that current experiments show full compliance with theory. And assume in case of real success information would be detailed.
Again analogy with Rossi arises for me when his admirers give out wished for the valid.
And except you nobody claims about real observation of wiffleball effect.

At least you aren't lazy to provide other links many times. I kindly request you to provide corresponding link again as may be I missed something.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:05 pm

And except you nobody claims about real observation of wiffleball effect.

Really?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:07 pm

ladajo wrote:
And except you nobody claims about real observation of wiffleball effect.
Really?

Yes: viewtopic.php?t=3724

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:37 pm

Wrong. Once again you choose to ignore what folks post in repsonse to
you.

In any event, here is what I told EMC3 and also you on other occasions:

I think you should read the historical documents about previous work. And then rethink your questions and comments.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:38 pm

Betruger wrote:You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them.

Nice. And a nice take off on "bayonets" by Napoleon.

"You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them" – Napoleon