And Parallel,
The experimenters do admit that roughly half the heat output (in most of the experiments) is chemical and they provide the reaction paths. To say there is no chemical energy involved means that
1. You haven't read the paper
2. You didn't understand it
3. Your faith has overcome your reason.
Pick one or more.
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
Since I am impecunious (I live well below the USA poverty line - how that came about is a long story and one I'd rather not relate) the best I can offer is to trumpet your superior understanding in all the places I regularly blog.parallel wrote:MSimon,
You're on.
How much?
All I'd care to gain is the satisfaction of being correct.
In my 4 years of blogging here I have only had to do that once (the infamous tube collecting electrons thought experiment).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
From my understanding the energy evolved from "burning" 1/2 mole of Hydrogen is about 140 kJ. So that accounts for some part of the energy. Of course we have to take the "experimenter's" word that it was only .4 gparallel wrote:MSimon,
You're more open minded than I am if you think 0.4 grams of H2 can produce 1 GJ by chemical or non nuclear transformations.
How much are you prepared to bet?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ctrol.html
I'm supposing you are referring to the 18KW 4 hour experiment. So let me see:
18 KJ/ sec for 3600 *4 second = 259,200,000 J
That would be 260 MJ not 1 GJ. Close enough for blog work.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I understand that your lack of interest may restrict your knowledge of this subject. Be advised, the Swedes were given a before and after ash two month old sample and reported on the transmutation they found including isotopic structure. Transmutation of copper was found.MSimon wrote:Sure. Unfortunately no adequate proof of transmutation (particle evolution - protons, neutrons, electrons, others, or energy evolution in radio waves - gammas, X-rays) has been provided.Axil wrote:Transmutation is PROOF that a nuclear process is occuring.
When all this shakes out I'm betting we will find it is a combination of chemical reactions and physical transformations.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Yes well, do you honestly believe an MIT and Oxford alumnus such as Dr. Peter Jansson, would jeopardize his professional career and public standing, for a scam? Seems obvious to me he'd stand to lose much more than he'd stand to gain, by propagating a farce.Giorgio wrote:What I do not like is just that the PhD making the experiments has been president of a public utility company that has invested into BLP while he was in charge. As is the case of Dr. Jansson.parallel wrote:Thanks GIThruster for putting it plainly. I do wonder if some of the naysayers believe labs are run by PhDs in gleaming white coats (halos faintly visible against a dark background) working just for the love of science.
Just saying, you look at guys like Jansson, and if you think they'd sacrifice their entire careers for a few quick bucks. . .makes no sense to me. Rather, it makes sense just what he says about himself, that he's totally invested in finding new energy solutions and has been so applying himself for decades.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
MSimon,
re transmutation. Hard to see how you can get Cu inside the stainless steel reactor. Fe yes, possibly.
There are numerous other examples of transmutation besides Rossi's. The problem with Rossi' Cu appears to be the isotope ratio does not line up with various theories unless by chance, following enrichment. ie. the ash is the same ratio as the natural product.
re transmutation. Hard to see how you can get Cu inside the stainless steel reactor. Fe yes, possibly.
There are numerous other examples of transmutation besides Rossi's. The problem with Rossi' Cu appears to be the isotope ratio does not line up with various theories unless by chance, following enrichment. ie. the ash is the same ratio as the natural product.
280 * .4 = 112parallel wrote:MSimon,I'm supposing you are referring to the 18KW 4 hour experiment. So let me see:
I rounded it up a bit, but not as much as you suppose (from what I've read)
Yes, it all assumes Dr.Levi is telling the truth. It might be difficult to get even your lower figure from 0.4 gm H2. :wink:
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Hockey stick ring a bell? An admitted fraud - "we took the tree data and spliced the temperature record on it to hide the decline". Academic fraud is not unknown.GIThruster wrote:Yes well, do you honestly believe an MIT and Oxford alumnus such as Dr. Peter Jansson, would jeopardize his professional career and public standing, for a scam? Seems obvious to me he'd stand to lose much more than he'd stand to gain, by propagating a farce.
Just saying, you look at guys like Jansson, and if you think they'd sacrifice their entire careers for a few quick bucks. . .makes no sense to me. Rather, it makes sense just what he says about himself, that he's totally invested in finding new energy solutions and has been so applying himself for decades.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.