tomclarke wrote:birchoff wrote:
Like I said before when someone else made this argument. There are (Huge) assumptions in this argument.
- Is the Fuel distribution uniform?
Is the distribution of ash uniform before a sample was taken?
Why was the test limited to 32 days?
The first one isnt too big of an assumption but without knowing how the fuel is prepared only Rossi/IH knows. The second one is the biggest because no mention of whether or not they extracted all the remnants mixed everything together then pulled a sample. Without this information your left with assuming that yes the fuel as an equal distribution of hydrogen throughout, and that the burn was uniform throughout the entire burn chamber. Those seem like pretty big assumptions to me. Also, inferring that the fuel was entirely consumed is based on the assumption that 62NI is the end of the reaction chain.
You cannot be absolutely sure of anything, but it is very strong circumstantial evidence. I think sometimes I'm living in a looking glass world where instead of Rossi having to 100% prove he has something miraculous, people commenting on the tests based on a report have to 100% prove it is fraudulent!
It is however, if this is real, difficult to understand how it could happen. The point is that 1g of fuel converting from 58Ni to 62Ni makes a lot of energy - roughly (if I remember the report) half what was claimed observed. I should maybe check tis. But there is no sign of reduction in power out over the time of the test. Which means the 58Ni->62Ni conversion must be uniform throughout the test. That beggars belief. There is no way that (one of the) fuels could be so exactly depleted and yet there is no loss of power.
I agree the length of the test and indeed the temperature may well have been guided (roughly) by Rossi to make the total energy out comparable with the Ni reaction. Rossi will know from last time the critical importance of isotopic changes. It is just that when you examine in detail what we have got it falls to bits, like all of Rossi's stuff.
There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is wrong.
In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson condensate throughout the entire volume of the reactor including all the alumina. It is in the alumina where the reaction is centered. At high temperatures, any transmutation that happens in the nickel is secondary and does not contribute that much to the production of power when the reactor is in a maximum power configuration.
Tom, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it.
To reconcile these contradictions between what engineering would rightly expect and what is really going on inside the reactor points to isothermal heat distribution throughout the entire structure of the reactor as supported by the boson condensate.
This even heat distribution implies that the entire reactor is quantum mechanically coherent including the alumina body. The entire reactor is participating in a boson condensate.
Heat cannot be coming only from the nickel particles because they would be just too hot to produce the concentrated heat flow needed to support observed black body heat distribution. The entire structure of the reactor is producing even heat (isothermal) including the alumina.
The nickel powder is setting up the quantum mechanical field conditions to cause the entire reactor structure to produce heat.
This assumption is consistent with what we know happens during reactor meltdown. During meltdown the temperature of the reactor goes beyond 2000C which is well beyond the melting point of the nickel powder and eventually the alumina. The alumina even becomes hot enough to produce sapphires. The energy output of the reactor goes beyond one megawatt in ten seconds. A few flakes of nickel powder cannot produce this much power not even from a nuclear source.
We must assume that the alumina is producing the heat and not the nickel powder. Even heat production by the alumina would work against any stress effects on the alumina. Nothing is liquefying. The nickel and lithium is just an enabler of the LENR reaction and not its primary source.
The heater wire must be tungsten that is encased inside the alumina to protest is from oxidation.
The alumina should have been put under isotopic study to see if it was LENR active.