10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Joseph Chikva]

You have the luxury to be deceived. And who asked you money Mr. Forest Gump? How old are you? 5-10?

You did "Bozo the clown".

Make a decision? Please, make a decision on my claim that I can levitate over the ground. No large launch vehicle like Saturn, Soyuz or Arian are required with consumption of many tons of cryogenic fuel per second. Please send me 100 thousands USD.
{emphasis added}

What is your IQ? 5-10?

>"5-10"

At least you BOTH have something common ;o)

I think that LENR fans have low IQ. But that does not matter. Russians say that foolishs are healthier.
Thanks.

[Giorgio]

Ok, on this I can agree. I tend for the "interesting delusion" at this moment.

Interesting. From a purely psycological viewpoint, is it more likely that a passionately deluded fellow might be more convincing than an experienced bunko artist?

I think so. From my experience I can say that generally people tend to believe you more if they feel you are deeply convinced of what you are saying.

Neither we can say that about MIB or "Crop Circle" believers...... but you have to draw a logic line somewhere.

True, but WHEN is the real question. And I feel no need to draw said line at this point. You might tell I am not one to choose on the basis of pleasing the masses!

I guess it all comes down to one's personal resistance to hearing that kind of stuff. Mine is pretty low

I was not clear in expressing my thought.
None of them has ever been seen before by anyone in a chamber with Nickel powder and Hydrogen under pressure when applying heat.
Something done in hundreds experimental labs in the last years.

Were they ever looked for? In almost all the experiments to date, the signal is SO small that it is not clear there IS a signal, let alone distinguishing what the signal truly is.
IF this field isn't hounded out of existance and finally proves real, it will be fasinating to find out what the processes are finally determined to be.

So small? It doesn't look a small signal to me what Rossi and Co. is claiming.
And these type of experiments have been deeply scrutinized for any type of signal coming from them, but the results have always been negative.

When you start to stretch logic it stops in being logic.

Neat but largely meaningless phrase. Logic unstretched is pedantry.

Heh, I was making a subtle allusion to silicon "logic" gates, but I guess I was too much subtle

Anyhow, even assuming that all what you postulated will happen, you will still need to assume that this process will prevent the global 100% of the unstable Cu decay events.

No, only those during the reactor operation (at least to be consistent with Rossi's statements). And to clarify, it would not PREVENT the decay, it would make it happen by electron capture instead. The unstable Cu would still convert into stable Ni, just by an appearantly prefered path. And if an electron IS available 99.999999% of the time, why not expect that EC would in fact happen 99.999999% of the time.

I do not really see the base to consider the possibility of an electron being present there 99,.999999% of the times. Is not like electrons do not have anything better to do than just hang around there waiting for the unstable Cu just to make it decay as stable Ni.

Is this logic?

How is it not?

How is it logic?

[MSimon]

Before you decide, think. Before you think, get relevant data. So far, no one has presented relevant data. Oh well.

We have claims and speculation. Those are kinds of data.

Fine, but I don't consider them "relevant". They are "opinion" data, not science data. I prefer my DECISIONS to be scientifically based.

You must have been a passenger on the "Vorga".

[bk78]

From other sources I get the impression that such hyperrelativistic electrons will be stopped quickly with a lot of LOoM keV X-ray which are fairly easy to stop. Why do you think differently?

*swallowing the first 3 answers that came to my mind*

This is what a bremsstrahlung spectrum looks like.
http://health-7.com/imgs/20/7488.jpg
You will note that a 6 MeV electron radiation will emit up to 6 MeV Gammas, with most of them beeing >1MeV.

This is the absorbtion capability of lead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pb-gamma-xs.svg
For the whole range of 1..6MeV, halfing thickness is about 1 cm, with a minimum of 1,4 cm at 2MeV.

For the bremsstrahlung yield, take a look here:

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=l ... mw&cad=rja

especially the example on page 4.
For 6MeV electrons and nickel (or iron), it is about 9% in terms of energy.

[MSimon]

From other sources I get the impression that such hyperrelativistic electrons will be stopped quickly with a lot of LOoM keV X-ray which are fairly easy to stop. Why do you think differently?

*swallowing the first 3 answers that came to my mind*

This is what a bremsstrahlung spectrum looks like.
http://health-7.com/imgs/20/7488.jpg
You will note that a 6 MeV electron radiation will emit up to 6 MeV Gammas, with most of them beeing >1MeV.

This is the absorbtion capability of lead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pb-gamma-xs.svg
For the whole range of 1..6MeV, halfing thickness is about 1 cm, with a minimum of 1,4 cm at 2MeV.

For the bremsstrahlung yield, take a look here:

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=l ... mw&cad=rja

especially the example on page 4.
For 6MeV electrons and nickel (or iron), it is about 9% in terms of energy.

As I said. Give me numbers (gamma KeV, production rate based on purported reaction) and I will guarantee you that you will not like the numbers when it comes to shielding. I did a BOE and found that a reduction by a factor of 1,000 comes in at around 22 mt. (IIRC) . Rossi claims 10 mt for everything.

[KitemanSA]

Neither we can say that about MIB or "Crop Circle" believers...... but you have to draw a logic line somewhere.

True, but WHEN is the real question. And I feel no need to draw said line at this point. You might tell I am not one to choose on the basis of pleasing the masses!

I guess it all comes down to one's personal resistance to hearing that kind of stuff. Mine is pretty low

Really? Mine is quite high for cutting edge science. It is just so fun to speculate and postulate and posit!!

I was not clear in expressing my thought.
None of them has ever been seen before by anyone in a chamber with Nickel powder and Hydrogen under pressure when applying heat.
Something done in hundreds experimental labs in the last years.

Were they ever looked for? In almost all the experiments to date, the signal is SO small that it is not clear there IS a signal, let alone distinguishing what the signal truly is.
IF this field isn't hounded out of existance and finally proves real, it will be fasinating to find out what the processes are finally determined to be.

So small? It doesn't look a small signal to me what Rossi and Co. is claiming.

ALMOST all EXPERIMENTS. I don't consider what Rossi is doing to be "experiment".

And these type of experiments have been deeply scrutinized for any type of signal coming from them, but the results have always been negative.

Really? Low power X-Rays? Seems no-one thinks of them as "nuclear" evidence. Why look?

When you start to stretch logic it stops in being logic.

Neat but largely meaningless phrase. Logic unstretched is pedantry.

Heh, I was making a subtle allusion to silicon "logic" gates, but I guess I was too much subtle

Yup, missed it completely.

Anyhow, even assuming that all what you postulated will happen, you will still need to assume that this process will prevent the global 100% of the unstable Cu decay events.

No, only those during the reactor operation (at least to be consistent with Rossi's statements). And to clarify, it would not PREVENT the decay, it would make it happen by electron capture instead. The unstable Cu would still convert into stable Ni, just by an appearantly prefered path. And if an electron IS available 99.999999% of the time, why not expect that EC would in fact happen 99.999999% of the time.

I do not really see the base to consider the possibility of an electron being present there 99,.999999% of the times. Is not like electrons do not have anything better to do than just hang around there waiting for the unstable Cu just to make it decay as stable Ni.

Actually, given the conditions posulated for this to work, there IS nothing better to do than oscillate in, near, or thru the nuclei. After all, these are NOT fermionic but bosonic particles at this stage and they can ignore (to a degree) any exclusion princiles that would tend to KEEP them from the nucleus. That is the whole point!

Is this logic?

How is it not?

How is it logic?

IF this reaction is real and IF it depends on assemblages of electrons escorting protons close to a nucleus while the electrons move near, past, or THRU the nuclei, THEN having electrons "near, past, or thru" the nuclei is a precondition. Seems logical to me.

PS: the string of nines was a slight dig at bk78 (or maybe seedload). One of them is fond of using strings of nines in lieu af 100%. I was teasing them, not actually implying a high decree of certainty.

[KitemanSA]

We have claims and speculation. Those are kinds of data.

Fine, but I don't consider them "relevant". They are "opinion" data, not science data. I prefer my DECISIONS to be scientifically based.

You must have been a passenger on the "Vorga".

Wow!
I had to wiki that to figure out what you ment. That book was DANG near before my time! I wonder if it is available on the Gutenburg Project.
But no, I just tend to think RAH knew whereof he spoke.

[KitemanSA]

From other sources I get the impression that such hyperrelativistic electrons will be stopped quickly with a lot of LOoM keV X-ray which are fairly easy to stop. Why do you think differently?

*swallowing the first 3 answers that came to my mind*

This is what a bremsstrahlung spectrum looks like.
http://health-7.com/imgs/20/7488.jpg
You will note that a 6 MeV electron radiation will emit up to 6 MeV Gammas, with most of them beeing >1MeV.

I see data up to LOoM keV, not MeV. Where is the MeV data?

PS: Since (afaik) Brem is USUALLY mentioned re ion interaction, are you sure this is for electrons?

[KitemanSA]

For the bremsstrahlung yield, take a look here:

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=l ... mw&cad=rja

especially the example on page 4.
For 6MeV electrons and nickel (or iron), it is about 9% in terms of energy.

Thank you for this reference. I will study it.

[Joseph Chikva]

IF this reaction is real

Sellings to very happy customers are in progress but you still if grandmother is virgin? How decision making goes?

[Kahuna]

IF this reaction is real

Sellings to very happy customers are in progress but you still if grandmother is virgin? How decision making goes?

You really need to stop the attempts at humor until/unless your English improves.

[cg66]

By the way, I don't know of any situation where a Ni63 would be created. As far as I know, only Cu 61 and 62 are in question, both of which, under NORMAL circumstances decay by β+ emission. If this happens, I believe that the signal would be difficult to miss without MUCH more shielding than plausible. Thus, either the p+60Ni and P+61Ni reactions don't happen, or the β+ emission is replaced by electron capture.

KitemanSA – I know you are focusing on a p+X type reaction but why not something like what Widom-Larson are theorizing? I’ve been thinking of it in terms of a solid-state S-process. If you can get the hydrogen to go through EC (I know a big if) then you get a B- decay. So based on bk78’s info aren’t we talking x-rays instead of gamma with respect to Ni isotopes? Interestingly the smallest element that is observed to undergo EC is Beryllium (Be-7) and there is some literature indicating that the decay behavior can be changed by its molecular environment. Is the key that some that some Ni meta-material is required? That seems to be the direction others like Ahern and Miley are heading.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/6159nj734576136u/

[seedload]

There are electrons available with regularity? What the heck does this mean?

At least when you were Konceiving your transmutation speculation of Konglomerates of electrons escorting protons into the nucleus, the electrons are supposedly in the neighborhood of the nucleus, thereby allowing your additional Kontrivance of IC dominating.

But, the decays happen later, and the Konglomerate particle system which you Konjectured has moved on. Where the heck are you Kontending that these secondary deep dive electrons are Koming from?

Kwite the kakophony of konsonant konversion!

As far as I can tell, except for perhaps the mini-atom hypothesis, all the other processes involve a quasi particle or condensate of oscillating electrons or plasmon electrons or exciton electrons. My mental picture is a lattice of electrons locked into simultaneous oscillatory motion. If the number of electrons is nearly, or potentially in EXCESS of the number of nuclei, there would be one or more electrons oscillating near (or even THRU) each nucleus. And, it seem plausible that if a reaction removed an electron from the lattice, the lattice may adjust back into the original pattern. Given this, there would quickly be another electron oscillating in the lattice near or THRU the unstable Cu.

Or, it may be a pile of dung.

You and I have a very different understanding of nuclear scales.

[KitemanSA]

You and I have a very different understanding of nuclear scales.

This may be true. Please explain with appropriate data how this affects things. What "scale" do you assume I have, how is yours different, how does this effect things. Please.

[KitemanSA]

By the way, I don't know of any situation where a Ni63 would be created. As far as I know, only Cu 61 and 62 are in question, both of which, under NORMAL circumstances decay by β+ emission. If this happens, I believe that the signal would be difficult to miss without MUCH more shielding than plausible. Thus, either the p+60Ni and P+61Ni reactions don't happen, or the β+ emission is replaced by electron capture.

KitemanSA – I know you are focusing on a p+X type reaction but why not something like what Widom-Larson are theorizing? I’ve been thinking of it in terms of a solid-state S-process. If you can get the hydrogen to go through EC (I know a big if) then you get a B- decay.

Yup, but I just can't get my head around the whole "it needs a simultaneous neutrino" issue. So far, my limited knowledge of EC with a single proton models it as a reverse neutron decay which invlolves the emission of a neutrino. Wouldn't EC on a proton require absorption of a neutrino... one that isn't necessarily there?

Anyway, there are three postulated processes that should accomplish the same result (get the H+ into the Ni nucleus) without ACTUALLY making a neutron. I lean toward those to explain this as yet unproven reaction.