An expansion of the total binding energy graph and the binding energy per nucleon graphs.
As I said in the previous post, the total binding energy is the force that holds the nucleons within a nucleus. It is the product of competing electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces. It is defined as the energy you would need to expend to tear the nucleus apart to it's free constituent nucleons. You can pick an isotope and read from the graph what this energy is. But this is the absolute situation between the isotope and all free nucleons. It says nothing about the energy difference between neighboring isotopes. (except hydrogen). It may seem that you could compare the numbers taken from the chart position and compare them. But this is where you are in error. For this to work the binding energy of each and every nucleon within the nucleus has to be the same. As discussed this is not the case. Based on the size of the nucleus and the limited range of the strong force, all nucleon binding energies are not the same. some are very tightly bound (in the center), some on the surface are weakly bound.
You have to further develop the graph to reflect this range of binding energies per nucleon, and this is what is reflected in the nuclear binding energy per nucleon chart. So unless you are talking about total (without intermediates) assembly or dissembly in one step you cannot use the total binding energy graph to predict what happens from an energy balance perspective. And, the chances of such many body reactions occurring is statistically negligible (essentially zero).
If you start with free nucleons and assemble them into a lead isotope, you will get energy out,also with any other comparable isotope represented by the total binding energy graph. But you cannot get there from here you have to go through intermediate steps , and the energy balance of each step effects the next. Building to nickel reaches the maximum output achievable. So long as you are using hydrogen (proton) as your base line you could continue to add nucleons and the energy balance would remain positive, but the value will now be decreasing from the peak. You are working harder for less positive return.
And if your starting point is Ni62, whether you add of subtract protons, or neutrons singly or in groups, the energy yield is negative.
If Rossi claimed that his hydrogen was the only fuel (or even if he was claiming helium, carbon, of aluminum was the starting point)and it fused all the way to copper 63 he would indeed gain exothermic energy, but a little less than if he stopped at Ni62. But as he claims that the nickel is not acting purely as a catalyst (facilitator of the reaction) but is the starting fuel, then he is losing energy from the starting point. ANY REACTION TOWARDS Ni62 RELEASES ENERGY, ANY REACTION AWAY FROM Ni62 ABSORBS ENERGY.
Dan Tibbets
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
And H+Ni=Cu is MUCH more TOWARD Ni62 than away.D Tibbets wrote: ANY REACTION TOWARDS Ni62 RELEASES ENERGY, ANY REACTION AWAY FROM Ni62 ABSORBS ENERGY.
Do the numbers, "think Hydrogen".
Your long pontifications don't hold any value.
Do the numbers, "think Hydrogen".
Do the numbers, "think Hydrogen".
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
I am so grateful, my little friend.KitemanSA wrote:Surprising to say that despite his normally juvenile writings, yes, he is correct in his explanation and YOU are correct in you calculation. It is exothermic. E=mc².
Yes, that would be exothermic in case if that will occur.
(grandmother will become grandfather in case she would acquire something)
But in fact the occurrence of reaction as such causes a big question. As on base of today’s level of knowledge that type of reaction is impossible, Rossi seems as amateur, all explanations of process are very weak. Etc., etc., etc.
And that is the main problem with LENR and not a dispute exothermic or endothermic.
As the last can be solved with the help of elementary arithmetic.
As well as the "problem" with heat measurement. School level. And Rossi’s wh/h was very funny.
Dan, it is not you and Kite. It is that you have created your own separate universe. I guess nobody else here, sceptic or not, would thinkg that the reaction being endotermic.D Tibbets wrote:So long as KitemanSA, etel continue to use the total binding energy graph/ tables as the indicator of the energy balance while ignoring the many links I have provided that clearly explain the proper way of using the binding energy per nucleon graph/ tables, he and I exist in separate universes- literally,, as stars would evolve in ways that would not allow us to exist in his universe.
Nor anybody claims something like that in the whole blogosphere.
Everybody understands that such reaction, if possible, is exo. The only problem is that such reaction is unlikely given current physics....
Exactly, except for the "unlikely given current physics" part. I will accept "unlikely in the physical conditions within stars".Luzr wrote:Dan, it is not you and Kite. It is that you have created your own separate universe. I guess nobody else here, sceptic or not, would thinkg that the reaction being endotermic.D Tibbets wrote:So long as KitemanSA, etel continue to use the total binding energy graph/ tables as the indicator of the energy balance while ignoring the many links I have provided that clearly explain the proper way of using the binding energy per nucleon graph/ tables, he and I exist in separate universes- literally,, as stars would evolve in ways that would not allow us to exist in his universe.
Nor anybody claims something like that in the whole blogosphere.
Everybody understands that such reaction, if possible, is exo. The only problem is that such reaction is unlikely given current physics....
But even Dan points out that during a supernova the conditions are sufficient to synthesize higher elements by p+ reactions. Just hoiw much of a supernova output is bolstered by those reactions is not known to me.
Oh, and thank you by the way!
Quote from Rossi's Website By prof. Christos Stremmenos
Kiteman:
But which Ni?
In a way you are both rightI believe that the phasmatometric tracing of copper is the most definitive sign of nuclear fusion: From the relative bibliography (HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 66TH edition), it follows that the stable non radioactive isotopes of nickel are the following five:
58, 60, 61, 62 and 64. These, when fused with a hydrogen nucleus, are being transmuted relatively to Cu-59, Cu-61, Cu-62, Cu-63 and Cu-65. From these isotopes of copper only the last two (Cu-63 and Cu-65) are not radioactive, i.e. they are stable. The other three Cu-59, Cu-61, Cu-62, are being transmuted again to Nickel, with an average life expectancy of some hours and the most unstable Cu-59 in 18 seconds.
Kiteman:
ANY REACTION TOWARDS Ni62 RELEASES ENERGY, ANY REACTION AWAY FROM Ni62 ABSORBS ENERGY.
And H+Ni=Cu is MUCH more TOWARD Ni62 than away.
But which Ni?
I am amazed that people are given difinative references- the hyperphysics reference again is a typical source. They state unequivicably that the Ni62 isotope is the critical isotope, about which the energy flows reverse. Why are these many resources ignored ?
I have repeatedly asked how fission of heavy elements could release energy if fusion is always exothermic. Using the Total binding energy graph as the final description, fusion always adds decreasing, but always positive energy to the nucleus. There is no way fission could proceed exothermically in this case. No one has tried to defined exothermic fission in this 'universe'. This glaring inconsistency is simply ignored, as is the physics in geneal. I provided a link from a nuclear fusion text book explaining this clearly, yet again it is either ignored, or only the parts that supports the preconceived viewpoint is accepted.
Kiteman's insistance in using hydrogen as the starting point is wrong. anything added to hydrogen will result in a higher total binding energy. So what? This means nothing without comparing it to some end point. That end point is Ni62. Without this experimewntally determined end point( most tightly packed nucleus, then iy is an open system. The binding energy always goes up, the growth of the nucleus is unending. Nuclei with 10 trillion nucleons are perfectly reasonable. This shurly sounds some alarm bells? This clearly is not reality. Therfor you must reconsider. Again the tightness of the packing of the nucleons is the key, and this is so because of the limited range of the strong force.
You can consider every nucleon in the nucleus has the same binding energy. This average energy is what is represented by the total binding energy graph.
This is obviously not the case, as has been demonstrated experimentally, and led to the Binding energy per nucleon graph. As each subsequent nucleon is added (use a hydrogen - proton if you wish) strong force energy is added (it would be better to say it is converted) to the nucleus, but in progressively smaller increments. This is also obvious in the Total binding energy graph. But what the total binding energy graph does not reflect, is the exponential drop off in attractive binding energy as the outer nucleons are added to the nucleus. Also, the total binding energy is just that- the total, there is no distinction between the energy that is attractive (strong force) and the energy that is repulsive (electromagnetic repulsion of the protons) In considering the packing or density of the nucleus, these competing forces have to be balanced against each other.
As stated in multiple references. The balance point is at Ni62. Ireregardless of the size of the nuclei that are assembled, or dissasembled, if the produc (s) are closer to Ni62 energy is released. I thought the U- Tube video would make this obvous, but it apparently is not to you.
Again an example, using energy from the Binding energy per nucleon graph.
Ni62 (~8.9 MeV) + proton (0 MeV) --> Cu63 (~8.8 MeV) = -0.1MeV. Energy is lost from the enviornment as it is absorbed into the nucleus. Note that the binding energy of the product nucleus has increased, This is obvious and matches what you would derive by looking at the total binding energy graph. But for the system, the temperature has droped for everywhere except the closed nucleus which has gained heat/ enregy.
It is the system we are concerned with ( unless you live inside the nucleus). The potential energy of the nucleus has increased, but the kinetic energy that was present present in the Ni62 and hydrogen has resulted in a coresponding decreased kinetic energy of the Cu63 nucleus.
Work this example in reverse. The values are reverse. The potential energy has decreased, and the kinetic energy (heat) has increased.
Both light elements and heavy elements have more potential energy than Ni 62. It is this potential energy that is tapped to generate kinetic energy if you move towards Ni62 in small or large steps.
The amount of energy delivered or removed from the system, is not directly related to the total energy of the nucleus, but is the difference between the potential energy and the kinetic energy of the reactants and the products.
The kinetic energy derives from the strong force mediated packing of the nucleons. This packing is greatest at Ni62 and this is why this is the minimal potential energy state.
This can be compared to the ground state of electrons in an atom. You can harvest kinetic energy by moving a free electron into the positive charged atom and as it recombines and drops into progressively lower orbitals, energy is released. The atom gains potential energy by converting to it from the original kinetic energy of the electron. It gains mass. Reverse the process and the energy flow also reverses. The difference between this and the nuclear binding energy is that this electron behavior is effected only by one force- the electromagnetic. There is a baseline that starts at the origin of the graph.
The nuclear binding energy is more complex because it is derived from two opposing forces with different ranges. This results in a starting point (lowest potential energy) located away from the origin, and is located where the graphs of these two opposing forces cross. This has been found to be at Ni62. As you approach the tipping point (N162) from the low side the strong force dominates, near Ni62 the forces are nearly balanced (that is why the binding energy per nucleon graph is nearly level at this point, beyond this point the electromagnetic force begins to dominate. The nucleus compacts towards Ni62 and expands on either side, but due to different forces. The Ni62 is the most condensed, or if you prefer the ground state of a nucleus. Nuclei on either side have more potential energy ( sum of strong force and electromagnetic force. Note that this potential energy is not equivalent to the energy/ mass content of the nucleus. If you were talking about total annihilation of the nucleus, then the total mass/ energy content of the nucleus would apply as the effective maximum potential energy, but this is an entirely different story from nuclear fusion/ fission, radiactive decay.
I believe that nuclear fusion (nucleosynthesis) up to Ni62 yields energy to the system by releasing kinetic energy from strong force interactions and that this overwhelms the eleectromagnetic mediated endothermic interactions. Beyond NI62, the electromagnetic mediated endothermic forces dominate( increasing stored potential energy) and resulting in energy loss in the system as it progresses. Fission, and perhaps radioactive dacy is the reverse. The stored electromagnetic energy is released and this overwhelms the strong force energy balance, untill again Ni62 is reached. This is why both fusion and fission can release energy to the system/ environment, provided you are on the right side of Ni62.
Dan Tibbets
I have repeatedly asked how fission of heavy elements could release energy if fusion is always exothermic. Using the Total binding energy graph as the final description, fusion always adds decreasing, but always positive energy to the nucleus. There is no way fission could proceed exothermically in this case. No one has tried to defined exothermic fission in this 'universe'. This glaring inconsistency is simply ignored, as is the physics in geneal. I provided a link from a nuclear fusion text book explaining this clearly, yet again it is either ignored, or only the parts that supports the preconceived viewpoint is accepted.
Kiteman's insistance in using hydrogen as the starting point is wrong. anything added to hydrogen will result in a higher total binding energy. So what? This means nothing without comparing it to some end point. That end point is Ni62. Without this experimewntally determined end point( most tightly packed nucleus, then iy is an open system. The binding energy always goes up, the growth of the nucleus is unending. Nuclei with 10 trillion nucleons are perfectly reasonable. This shurly sounds some alarm bells? This clearly is not reality. Therfor you must reconsider. Again the tightness of the packing of the nucleons is the key, and this is so because of the limited range of the strong force.
You can consider every nucleon in the nucleus has the same binding energy. This average energy is what is represented by the total binding energy graph.
This is obviously not the case, as has been demonstrated experimentally, and led to the Binding energy per nucleon graph. As each subsequent nucleon is added (use a hydrogen - proton if you wish) strong force energy is added (it would be better to say it is converted) to the nucleus, but in progressively smaller increments. This is also obvious in the Total binding energy graph. But what the total binding energy graph does not reflect, is the exponential drop off in attractive binding energy as the outer nucleons are added to the nucleus. Also, the total binding energy is just that- the total, there is no distinction between the energy that is attractive (strong force) and the energy that is repulsive (electromagnetic repulsion of the protons) In considering the packing or density of the nucleus, these competing forces have to be balanced against each other.
As stated in multiple references. The balance point is at Ni62. Ireregardless of the size of the nuclei that are assembled, or dissasembled, if the produc (s) are closer to Ni62 energy is released. I thought the U- Tube video would make this obvous, but it apparently is not to you.
Again an example, using energy from the Binding energy per nucleon graph.
Ni62 (~8.9 MeV) + proton (0 MeV) --> Cu63 (~8.8 MeV) = -0.1MeV. Energy is lost from the enviornment as it is absorbed into the nucleus. Note that the binding energy of the product nucleus has increased, This is obvious and matches what you would derive by looking at the total binding energy graph. But for the system, the temperature has droped for everywhere except the closed nucleus which has gained heat/ enregy.
It is the system we are concerned with ( unless you live inside the nucleus). The potential energy of the nucleus has increased, but the kinetic energy that was present present in the Ni62 and hydrogen has resulted in a coresponding decreased kinetic energy of the Cu63 nucleus.
Work this example in reverse. The values are reverse. The potential energy has decreased, and the kinetic energy (heat) has increased.
Both light elements and heavy elements have more potential energy than Ni 62. It is this potential energy that is tapped to generate kinetic energy if you move towards Ni62 in small or large steps.
The amount of energy delivered or removed from the system, is not directly related to the total energy of the nucleus, but is the difference between the potential energy and the kinetic energy of the reactants and the products.
The kinetic energy derives from the strong force mediated packing of the nucleons. This packing is greatest at Ni62 and this is why this is the minimal potential energy state.
This can be compared to the ground state of electrons in an atom. You can harvest kinetic energy by moving a free electron into the positive charged atom and as it recombines and drops into progressively lower orbitals, energy is released. The atom gains potential energy by converting to it from the original kinetic energy of the electron. It gains mass. Reverse the process and the energy flow also reverses. The difference between this and the nuclear binding energy is that this electron behavior is effected only by one force- the electromagnetic. There is a baseline that starts at the origin of the graph.
The nuclear binding energy is more complex because it is derived from two opposing forces with different ranges. This results in a starting point (lowest potential energy) located away from the origin, and is located where the graphs of these two opposing forces cross. This has been found to be at Ni62. As you approach the tipping point (N162) from the low side the strong force dominates, near Ni62 the forces are nearly balanced (that is why the binding energy per nucleon graph is nearly level at this point, beyond this point the electromagnetic force begins to dominate. The nucleus compacts towards Ni62 and expands on either side, but due to different forces. The Ni62 is the most condensed, or if you prefer the ground state of a nucleus. Nuclei on either side have more potential energy ( sum of strong force and electromagnetic force. Note that this potential energy is not equivalent to the energy/ mass content of the nucleus. If you were talking about total annihilation of the nucleus, then the total mass/ energy content of the nucleus would apply as the effective maximum potential energy, but this is an entirely different story from nuclear fusion/ fission, radiactive decay.
I believe that nuclear fusion (nucleosynthesis) up to Ni62 yields energy to the system by releasing kinetic energy from strong force interactions and that this overwhelms the eleectromagnetic mediated endothermic interactions. Beyond NI62, the electromagnetic mediated endothermic forces dominate( increasing stored potential energy) and resulting in energy loss in the system as it progresses. Fission, and perhaps radioactive dacy is the reverse. The stored electromagnetic energy is released and this overwhelms the strong force energy balance, untill again Ni62 is reached. This is why both fusion and fission can release energy to the system/ environment, provided you are on the right side of Ni62.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
D Tibbets wrote:Using the Total binding energy graph as the final description, fusion always adds decreasing,
I went to considerable effort to plot out a 'total binding energy' graph for you, and you still don't recognise what the data is telling you.
Sorry, Dan, you are flat-out wrong on this. I said the same as you initially, then it became obvious that it wasn't true.
Think not what nikel can do for H, but what H can do for Ni. Picture, if you will, that the H is the one giving up its exothermic potential. H has the capacity to fuse to released energy - when it fuses it has release the exothermic potential, whilst the Ni, being at the top of the per nucleon binding energy, changes only a little. The Ni DOES, effectively, consume energy (2MeV or so) to become its part of the 53Cu, but the H part of that reaction releases more (8MeV). The result is 6MeV released. The Ni, in your parlance DOES consume energy endothermically, but what happens to the H is to release more energy than that, so the overall is exothermic.
Capiche?
The textbook I referenced and quoted earlier in this thread is again/ still(?) available on the Web at the following link.
Pay attention to pages 28-35
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46231603/Plas ... ion-Energy
Dan Tibbets
Pay attention to pages 28-35
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46231603/Plas ... ion-Energy
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
As far as I have delved (not far) any natural isotope (except 4He)! This seems true even at the HEAVY end like Lead or even Uranium. I haven't done those numbers but the ones I have done lead me to suspect that statement is true. Also, I can't quite be sure about adding a H to some of the truly proton rich, unstable isotopes.intrigued wrote: Kiteman:ANY REACTION TOWARDS Ni62 RELEASES ENERGY, ANY REACTION AWAY FROM Ni62 ABSORBS ENERGY.
And H+Ni=Cu is MUCH more TOWARD Ni62 than away.
But which Ni?
Thank you for the link. It crashed my computer.D Tibbets wrote:The textbook I referenced and quoted earlier in this thread is again/ still(?) available on the Web at the following link.
Pay attention to pages 28-35
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46231603/Plas ... ion-Energy
Dan Tibbets
Do the numbers, "think Hydrogen".
He seems to alternately think that total binding energy shows the something opposite reality (it shows that reaction to be endo), and that total binding is the wrong process to determine whether a reaction is endo or exo.chrismb wrote:I went to considerable effort to plot out a 'total binding energy' graph for you, and you still don't recognise what the data is telling you.D Tibbets wrote:Using the Total binding energy graph as the final description, fusion always adds decreasing,
He made a point to get me to watch a video on youtube and when I pointed out that IT used total binding energy as the process, he ignored that and changed his reference again.
I am beginning to think that Dan is really a mis-programmed computer. Dan can pump out voluminous postings, find endless links, and seems to understand none of them. I don't get it! In other subjects he doesn't demonstrate this inability to learn, does he?
Dan, one last try by analogy.D Tibbets wrote: I have repeatedly asked how fission of heavy elements could release energy if fusion is always exothermic. Using the Total binding energy graph as the final description, fusion always adds decreasing, but always positive energy to the nucleus. There is no way fission could proceed exothermically in this case. No one has tried to defined exothermic fission in this 'universe'. This glaring inconsistency is simply ignored, as is the physics in geneal.
Hydrogen is WOOD.
Nickel is ASH (You can't burn ash, I got that and agree, you can't burn nickel.)
Uranium is CHARCOAL.
If you burn wood in a bed of ash, the ash doesn't burn but it facilitates the creation of charcol. The burning of wood to charcoal is exothermic. The burning of charcoal to ash is exothermic. Uranium is a "PART OF THE WAY THERE" stage from Hydrogen to Nickel.
Copper is a "by-God almost all the way there but not quite" stage to Nickel (ash). But burning wood to "by-god almost ash" still gives off a bunch of energy.
Do the numbers, "think Hydrogen".
Last edited by KitemanSA on Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
