Despite their protestations, I suspect that many of the Ni-H reaction naysayers participating in this thread really aren’t scientifically objective, each suffering with their own ulterior motives whether unconscious, subconscious, selfish, religious, or just from being plain ornery as Chewbacca with a toothache.
If these critics were scientifically objective, they would look at these well done and peer reviewed experiments and spent all the time necessary to critique them carefully and in detail.
They stay away from any reference to S. Focardi, and F. Piantelli; the fathers of the NI-H reaction because these men are eminent in the extreme both in their approach to their science and their scientific and personal integrity. But more than that, these men are soon to be beatified scientific saints if you please as well as being universally recognized as long standing altruistic humanitarians.
At the end of the day, Rossi is right and more than justified to ignore his critics because of the rude and unfair treatment afforded to his associates and mentors in the Ni-H field. They deserve little else.
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
Haven't seen a peer reviewed experiment from Rossi, Focardi or Piantelli till now.Axil wrote:If these critics were scientifically objective, they would look at these well done and peer reviewed experiments and spent all the time necessary to critique them carefully and in detail.
Care to link me to one?
Not that I classify myself as a 'naysayer', but ..err.... what scientifically objective material would you care to point to? Not seen any yet. I thought we'd had that part of the debate and concluded we were still waiting for 'an experiment' to be done and something 'scientific' to discuss?Axil wrote:Despite their protestations, I suspect that many of the Ni-H reaction naysayers participating in this thread really aren’t scientifically objective, each suffering with their own ulterior motives whether unconscious, subconscious, selfish, religious, or just from being plain ornery as Chewbacca with a toothache.
If these critics were scientifically objective, they would look at these well done and peer reviewed experiments and spent all the time necessary to critique them carefully and in detail.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Do not worry please.Axil wrote:Despite their protestations, I suspect that many of the Ni-H reaction naysayers participating in this thread really aren’t scientifically objective, each suffering with their own ulterior motives whether unconscious, subconscious, selfish, religious, or just from being plain ornery as Chewbacca with a toothache.
If these critics were scientifically objective, they would look at these well done and peer reviewed experiments and spent all the time necessary to critique them carefully and in detail.
They stay away from any reference to S. Focardi, and F. Piantelli; the fathers of the NI-H reaction because these men are eminent in the extreme both in their approach to their science and their scientific and personal integrity. But more than that, these men are soon to be beatified scientific saints if you please as well as being universally recognized as long standing altruistic humanitarians.
At the end of the day, Rossi is right and more than justified to ignore his critics because of the rude and unfair treatment afforded to his associates and mentors in the Ni-H field. They deserve little else.
I would believe when that will become clear what type of reaction there occur.
Now as I understand all people including "fathers of the NI-H reaction" and/or "mentors in the Ni-H field" know only about some photons from unknown reaction.
Reaction that I know and that will inevitably occur between nickel powder and hydrogen is chemical and should not produce protons.
Without any scientific approach I do not believe your fathers or mentors because that is against all of that I learned before.
Good luck.
This has been addressed by me in another thread, but this mild correction and relevance is perhaps more relavent to this thread, so...
Again, my harping about the Ni62 to Cu63 being an endothermic reaction holds, though my assesment was otherwise slightly flawed.
If this is indeed the claimed reaction that produces heat in the Rossi device it needs new physics, and ignoring of current physics. My understanding is that this claimed reaction is completely different from mainstream LENR reactions as they depend on exotic fusion of light elements, generally deuterium. While the pathways remain unclear, if real, they make energy balance sense. The Rossi Ni 62 + proton or neutron to end up with Cu63 does not make any positive energy balance sense.
Some clearifying links:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... n2.html#c1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy
Dan Tibbets
Again, my harping about the Ni62 to Cu63 being an endothermic reaction holds, though my assesment was otherwise slightly flawed.
If this is indeed the claimed reaction that produces heat in the Rossi device it needs new physics, and ignoring of current physics. My understanding is that this claimed reaction is completely different from mainstream LENR reactions as they depend on exotic fusion of light elements, generally deuterium. While the pathways remain unclear, if real, they make energy balance sense. The Rossi Ni 62 + proton or neutron to end up with Cu63 does not make any positive energy balance sense.
Some clearifying links:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... n2.html#c1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Dan,
Please read the first chapter of:
The Physics of Inertial Fusion
Beam Plasma Interaction, Hydrodynamics, Hot Dense Matter Stefano Atzeni and Jürgen Meyer-ter-Vehn
...
Table of Contents
Foreword
Preface
1. Nuclear Fusion Reactions
...
By the way, if you Google the title of the chapter (Nuclear Fusion Reactions) you will find a pdf of said chapter.
Add a proton to a 62Ni and you get a 63Cu and a bit less mass. That mass is converted to energy (excitation energy) and RELEASED, or reconverted back to mass to re-emit a proton.
Do the math. It is simple. Even I could do it. p+Ni>Cu+energy.
Indeed, since a proton has ZERO binding energy and EVERY nucleus has non-zero binding energy PER NUCLEON, combining a proton with ANYTHING will release energy. There isn't a nucleus into which you can place a proton and fail to release energy (or re-emit the proton). That is the property of protons (an neutrons too, by the way, but even more so).
(Ok, maybe one of the REALLY REALLY big atoms, but I haven't found it yet. Even 238U to 239Np converts ~0.0056742u of mass into energy.)
Please read the first chapter of:
The Physics of Inertial Fusion
Beam Plasma Interaction, Hydrodynamics, Hot Dense Matter Stefano Atzeni and Jürgen Meyer-ter-Vehn
...
Table of Contents
Foreword
Preface
1. Nuclear Fusion Reactions
...
Binding energy is the energy RELEASED when a nucleon binds with others in a nucleus. It is the energy you need to add back to disassociate the nucleons again.The opening paragraph of subchapter 1.1 wrote:According to Einstein’s mass–energy relationship, a nuclear reaction in which the total mass of the final products is smaller than that of the reacting nuclei is exothermic, that is, releases an energy
Q = (Σmi − Σmf)c²
proportional to such a mass difference.
By the way, if you Google the title of the chapter (Nuclear Fusion Reactions) you will find a pdf of said chapter.
Add a proton to a 62Ni and you get a 63Cu and a bit less mass. That mass is converted to energy (excitation energy) and RELEASED, or reconverted back to mass to re-emit a proton.
Do the math. It is simple. Even I could do it. p+Ni>Cu+energy.
Indeed, since a proton has ZERO binding energy and EVERY nucleus has non-zero binding energy PER NUCLEON, combining a proton with ANYTHING will release energy. There isn't a nucleus into which you can place a proton and fail to release energy (or re-emit the proton). That is the property of protons (an neutrons too, by the way, but even more so).
(Ok, maybe one of the REALLY REALLY big atoms, but I haven't found it yet. Even 238U to 239Np converts ~0.0056742u of mass into energy.)
I'll try to read your reference though it sounds much like what was said in my first link. Nuclear binding energy is different from nuclear packing density, thus my confusion between Fe56 and Ni 62.
Keep in mind that the binding energy is the difference in mass between separate nuclear components and the mass of the assembled nucleus.
I admit I was briefly stumped when considering the binding energy of a proton. But once you consider the masses of the quarks that make up a proton the point that the nuclear binding energy is at a maximuminimum is reasonable, but to consider that the mass of the proton is only from the rest mass of it's constituants this quark binding energy is very much greater than the rest mass of the quarks.
As an exercise consider the mass difference of a heavier isotope before and after absorption of an alpha or proton. Are you claiming that all of these heavier isotopes produce fusion exothermic reactions?
If my understanding is correct the addition of a proton to Iron 61 will have a lower missing mass (which is actually the energy tied up with the nuclear binding energy) than Ni62 to Cu63. This should happen for any nuclosynthesis up to Ni62 and be the opposite for any nucleosynthesis beyond Ni62.
It is not a process where the nuclear binding energy goes to zero or infinity, but where it reaches a peak then reverses.
If you notice any confusion between using minimum and maximum nuclear binding energy contributions, it is because I'm struglling with keeping the exothermic vs endothermic processes straight.
Dan Tibbets
Dan Tibbets
Keep in mind that the binding energy is the difference in mass between separate nuclear components and the mass of the assembled nucleus.
I admit I was briefly stumped when considering the binding energy of a proton. But once you consider the masses of the quarks that make up a proton the point that the nuclear binding energy is at a maximuminimum is reasonable, but to consider that the mass of the proton is only from the rest mass of it's constituants this quark binding energy is very much greater than the rest mass of the quarks.
As an exercise consider the mass difference of a heavier isotope before and after absorption of an alpha or proton. Are you claiming that all of these heavier isotopes produce fusion exothermic reactions?
If my understanding is correct the addition of a proton to Iron 61 will have a lower missing mass (which is actually the energy tied up with the nuclear binding energy) than Ni62 to Cu63. This should happen for any nuclosynthesis up to Ni62 and be the opposite for any nucleosynthesis beyond Ni62.
It is not a process where the nuclear binding energy goes to zero or infinity, but where it reaches a peak then reverses.
If you notice any confusion between using minimum and maximum nuclear binding energy contributions, it is because I'm struglling with keeping the exothermic vs endothermic processes straight.
Dan Tibbets
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Not quite sure what you are saying. Here are the numbers.D Tibbets wrote: If my understanding is correct the addition of a proton to Iron 61 will have a lower missing mass (which is actually the energy tied up with the nuclear binding energy) than Ni62 to Cu63. This should happen for any nuclosynthesis up to Ni62 and be the opposite for any nucleosynthesis beyond Ni62.
Code: Select all
1H 1.007825
62Ni 61.928345
62.936170
63Cu 62.929598
0.006573
1H 1.007825
61Fe 60.936745 5.98(6) min
61.944570
62Co 61.934051 1.50(4) min
0.010519I don't think I understand. Look at what? The factory? How would we do that? I have seen it on google maps. There are some big buildings there with cars in the parking lot. Other than that, what are you suggesting we do?parallel wrote: Earlier, someone doubted that an E-Cat has been used to power a factory. The address is given in Rossi's patent.
Curious that noone has taken the trouble to go and look at it. Must be easier to stay seated and write how it is all a fairy tale.A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16, 2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno (Province of Ferrara).
EON Str are supposed to be makers of GENSETs that run on animal fat and vegetable oils. Leonardo Corp is the American distributer of this technology. If you search google for EON GENSET you find NO references other than stories about Rossi's ECAT and aforementioned bad web sites for the two "companies".
Any kind of reasonable business producing industrial equipment such as these GENSETs would have some mentions on the web for their products. I have found none. Can you?
Fresh from Rossi blog:
Interpret it at your pleasure.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
It didn't happen if it wasn't peer reviewed? Feel free to review any of these papers:Giorgio wrote:Haven't seen a peer reviewed experiment from Rossi, Focardi or Piantelli till now.
Care to link me to one?
www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CampariEGsurfaceana.pdf
www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CampariEGphotonandp.pdf
www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf
www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf
Or find one experiment (peer reviewed or not) where heat+Ni powder+pressure did not create transmutations and/or excess heat energy.
Better yet, help find a few people willing to attempt some of these transmutation experiments. So many here have lots of energy to denigrate some good speculations, but nobody has access to a bottle of H2 and a few grams of Ni powder? With a basic lab, you could reproduce FocardiSlargeexces using Ni powder in few days. You can even buy oxygen-free Nickel powder at 10u so you can avoid some of the annealing steps.
Who said that?bhl wrote:It didn't happen if it wasn't peer reviewed? Feel free to review any of these papers:Giorgio wrote:Haven't seen a peer reviewed experiment from Rossi, Focardi or Piantelli till now.
Care to link me to one?
If it happen or not, if it possible or not, if it is real or not, has nothing to do with Axil claims that there are peer reviewed papers about those experiments, while in fact there is none.
If you have even a small idea of what a peer review paper is you should understand the difference easily.
If you do have spare time feel free to do all the test you deem feasible and necessary, than do post here the results in a detailed way. I will be happy to check them.bhl wrote: So many here have lots of energy to denigrate some good speculations, but nobody has access to a bottle of H2 and a few grams of Ni powder? With a basic lab, you could reproduce FocardiSlargeexces using Ni powder in few days. You can even buy oxygen-free Nickel powder at 10u so you can avoid some of the annealing steps.
I am wondering too about Upsala guys.Skipjack wrote:So no more public tests, eh?
I thought there was meant to be a longer test in Upsala?
That just put him quite a few steps up higher on the BS scale for me!
Now I am actually more convinced than ever that this is a scam.
From their last comments I was under the impression that they would have received an e-Cat to test in short time.
This last info from Rossi seems to close the door to any external experiment until October.
Let's wait and see...
Edited to fix spelling
[quote="Skipjack"]I thought there was meant to be a longer test in Upsala?[/quote]
Not "public demo", however, this appears to be better. Here is what he said yesterday :
Andrea Rossi
May 29th, 2011 at 7:02 PM
Dear Ms Rosie Andreasson:
Prof. Sergio Focardi is Prof. Emeritus of the Bologna University and Prof. Levi, Prof. Villa and Dr Bianchini of the University of Bologna made the tesp of the Jan 14th reported on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Presently, we are making a contract with the University of Bologna to develope R&D for the technology related to my patent. We will ask to the University of Uppsala to participate: I will be in Uppsala for this reason in July.
About the patent: It has been granted in Italy (20 years validity) and is still pending for theInternational Application.
The Countries which respect the patents in the world are 90.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Not "public demo", however, this appears to be better. Here is what he said yesterday :
Andrea Rossi
May 29th, 2011 at 7:02 PM
Dear Ms Rosie Andreasson:
Prof. Sergio Focardi is Prof. Emeritus of the Bologna University and Prof. Levi, Prof. Villa and Dr Bianchini of the University of Bologna made the tesp of the Jan 14th reported on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Presently, we are making a contract with the University of Bologna to develope R&D for the technology related to my patent. We will ask to the University of Uppsala to participate: I will be in Uppsala for this reason in July.
About the patent: It has been granted in Italy (20 years validity) and is still pending for theInternational Application.
The Countries which respect the patents in the world are 90.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Last edited by breakaway on Mon May 30, 2011 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.