10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote:As for example for D-T fuel Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction means the birth of hydrogen nucleus with three neutrons.
Now understand?
Actually, no. Are you saying that the above highlighted statement is true or are you saying that HE is saying this it true but you think not?

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:As for example for D-T fuel Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction means the birth of hydrogen nucleus with three neutrons.
Now understand?
Actually, no.
Actualy, yes
Oppenheimer-Phillips for D-T would be the following:
D+H3 (or tritium) => p + H4 (or hydrogen with three neutrons)
KitemanSA wrote:Are you saying that the above highlighted statement is true or are you saying that HE is saying this it true but you think not?
And above "highlighted statement" is nonsense. Big nonsense.

Am
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 5:21 pm

Post by Am »

Live coverage of the conference here: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate ... =&ie=UTF-8

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

I Posted it also in the new thread:

Here is a quick translation of the main points of today conference till now (is still going on).
Start from the bottom.


18.39 - The first reactors that will be offered for sale will be on the range of the Kw. After they will scale up.

18.37 - Piantelli is not using catalizers, just Nickel and Hydrogen.

18.35 - Piantelli is not willing to to make any type of publicity. He will arrive on the market with a commercial product and let the market decide if the technology is real or not.

18.26 - Roy Virgilio takes the word. He states that Piantelli research is going good. A new company (NickEnergia) has been formed 5 month ago and is already licensing his know how to other industries to produce reactors of different sizes.


17.56 - Celani states that he is researching on nanoparticles deposited on thin and long strings of Pd, in Deuterium atmosphere.
He states he is getting 400/W/g at 500°C with good reproducibility.
He has worked also with Ni strings in Hydrogen atmosphere and he is getting an efficiency of 1800W/g at 900°C, but with difficulties in reproducibility.

17.05 - Focardi states that many samples of reactors has been tested, including closed circuit reactors.

17.03 - The temperature when the reaction starts is 60-70° C.

16.57 - Focardi in his pre-recorded interview states again that he does not know the Nuclear process that brings an atom of nikel to capture a proton and transform it into Copper, but the chemical analysis prove that this is what happens.

16.13 - Rossi is contacted on Skype, he confirms delivery of the 1MW plant according schedule. The first industrial plant will be delivered "patent pending", hoping that this will push the European patent application.
Domestic reactors will have to wait a couple of years due to certifications.

Giorgio
Posts: 2731
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Another interesting tidbit from the conference.

19.10 - Among the public Milly Moratti takes the word and states that there are clearly now experimental evidences of Cold Fusion.

Now, for the one who do not know, Milli Moratti is the wife of Massimo Moratti, one of the richest man in Italy and owner of the Saras Petrol Refinery, The biggest in Italy and one of the biggest in Europe.
That's a 5,3 Billion Euro Company.

She has money and the political knowledge.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:As for example for D-T fuel Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction means the birth of hydrogen nucleus with three neutrons.
Now understand?
Actually, no.
Actualy, yes
Actually, no, I don't understand what you are saying but I would like to.
Joseph Chikva wrote: Oppenheimer-Phillips for D-T would be the following:
D+H3 (or tritium) => p + H4 (or hydrogen with three neutrons)
KitemanSA wrote:Are you saying that the above highlighted statement is true or are you saying that HE is saying this it true but you think not?
And above "highlighted statement" is nonsense. Big nonsense.
Ok, so if I understand what you are saying, you are saying that ChrisMB made the statement "for D-T fuel Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction means the birth of hydrogen nucleus with three neutrons" and you think that statement is wrong. Did I understand what you are saying?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D Tibbets wrote:For those still interested in the possibility of energy release (heat) from the 62Ni + P reaction that Rossi claims-

Sorry for the delay, but I needed to try to look up more resources and cogitate for a while before trying again to explain why Ni62 is the tipping point for fusion / fission exothermic reactions. The arguements have become circular and positions are entrenched, but I'll try again.
And you go on from there ad nauseum.

As I said in the "General" forum, I had been planning to comment on this but there is SOOO much wrong here I just am not willing to take the time needed.

Dan, you are incorrect. I am not sure why you have such a confused idea of what is going on. You presented all the data you need to understand this. You showed me the semi-empirical binding energy curve; I'd seen it and understood it before, but YOU showed me. Why don't you read it and understand it yourself. It shows all those factors effecting the end-point binding energy curve you are so enamoured with. All of the factors are in it.
The BE/A is the end-point binding energy per nucleon for any nucleous. SIMPLE.
The (BE/A)*A is the binding energy per nucleous for ANY nucleous, SIMPLE.
The difference between the BE for reactants and products is the amount of energy added or subtracted per reaction; SIMPLE.
The energy added or subtracted divided by the speed of light squared is the mass change for the reaction; SIMPLE.
Everything is so simple! Really, it is just that simple! Why don't you get it?

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Joseph Chikva wrote: Dan, you are wrong.
Energy balance with the help of mass balance in such a manner can be calculated not only for nuclear reactions but for chemical as well.
Total mass of reactants should be compared with total mass of reaction products regardless what type of interaction occurs and kind of forces involved.
Best regards,
No , in this regard you are wrong.
The mass deficit can indeed be a measure of the energy balance. The difference is that in chemical reactions only the electromagnetic mediated force is involved. This thus represents the the total applied force and the sum of it's parts (of which there is only one). In nuclear binding energy both electromagnetic and strong force is involved. As they oppose each other, the net effect is the difference between the two parts. Using the sum of the absolute values of these two parts is inappropriate. We are not talking about the total energy that is bound up in the nucleus, but that portion of this bound energy that is in play on a per nucleon basis, or rather that portion that contributes to the balance of the competing values and which is greater.

Some made up examples:
Nuclei A to which a nucleon is added to get nuclei B. 10 units of strong force energy is added, and 9 units of electromagnetic energy is added. Total is 19 units of energy (= mass deficit). The strong force contribution exceeds the opposing electromagnetic contribution. This is an exothermic fusion reaction (or inversely an endothermic fission reaction.).
This is consistent with the relative small energy gains or losses involved with these near Fe reactions. That is a large part of why these reactions can support a large star against gravitation collapse for only a few thousand years, as opposed to the fusion of hydrogen and helium which can support these massive stars for up to 10's of millions of years. If you used the mass deficit (total binding energy curve per nucleus) as your measure, these real world observations are off by several orders of magnitude. The growth of the total binding energy / nucleus slows, but at this region it is still predicting several MeV energy release per reaction, where an estimate that I made is that the energy difference of the opposing forces in this region is more on the order of a few 10's of KeV consistent with comparison of the difference in binding energy per nucleon of the two compared bound nuclei.

Nuclei B to which a nucleon is added to get 9.5 units of attractive strong force energy, and 10 units of repulsive electromagnetic energy. This is 19.5 units of total binding energy. This is an increase over the previous example, but the added portion is now greater for the electromagnetic portion. This is repulsive, makes the nucleus less stable, less packed. This represents endothermic fusion or exothermic fission. This is key. You have to consider the balance between the two opposing forces, not the sum of the absolute values ( mass deficit).

Also, I have still to see any defense of exothermic nuclear fission of heavy elements, if the total binding energy/ nucleus is the measure of the energy balance. you cannot ever have regions where fission releases energy, if fusion (adding neutrons or protons to any nucleus) is always exothermic. It is a perpetual motion machine. In this case adding a neutron to 235Ur would not make it less stable, it would make it more stable, and less likely to fission. Admittedly this ignores some other effects, but it makes the point.

If you argue that stability is a different issue than the energy flow, then explain why a more stable nucleus, which is equivalent to a lower potential energy nucleus would have an ability to release more kinetic energy than the comparison nucleus. It is a basic violation of thermodynamics.

Dan Tibbets



Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D Tibbets wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: Dan, you are wrong.
Energy balance with the help of mass balance in such a manner can be calculated not only for nuclear reactions but for chemical as well.
Total mass of reactants should be compared with total mass of reaction products regardless what type of interaction occurs and kind of forces involved.
Best regards,
No , in this regard you are wrong.
The mass deficit can indeed be a measure of the energy balance. The difference is that in chemical reactions only the electromagnetic mediated force is involved. This thus represents the the total applied force and the sum of it's parts (of which there is only one). In nuclear binding energy both electromagnetic and strong force is involved. As they oppose each other, the net effect is the difference between the two parts. Using the sum of the absolute values of these two parts is inappropriate. We are not talking about the total energy that is bound up in the nucleus, but that portion of this bound energy that is in play on a per nucleon basis, or rather that portion that contributes to the balance of the competing values and which is greater.

Some made up examples:
Nuclei A to which a nucleon is added to get nuclei B. 10 units of strong force energy is added, and 9 units of electromagnetic energy is added. Total is 19 units of energy (= mass deficit).
Dan, you are in error here. 10 units strong force - 9 coulomb repulsion results in 1 unit of mass deficit for the reaction. Look at the liquid drop model you touted.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

D Tibbets wrote:The mass deficit can indeed be a measure of the energy balance. The difference is that in chemical reactions only the electromagnetic mediated force is involved.
Electromagnetic mediated force binding atoms creates molecule, strong nuclear force mediated force binding nucleons creates nucleus.
In both cases there are a certain binding energy and mass deficit. Difference is in orders of magnitude as nuclear forces are much shorter in range but at the same time much stronger in value: in result we have eVs per each chemical event vs. keVs or MeVs per each nuclear.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:The mass deficit can indeed be a measure of the energy balance. The difference is that in chemical reactions only the electromagnetic mediated force is involved.
Electromagnetic mediated force binding atoms creates molecule, strong nuclear force mediated force binding nucleons creates nucleus.
In both cases there are a certain binding energy and mass deficit. Difference is in orders of magnitude as nuclear forces are much shorter in range but at the same time much stronger in value: in result we have eVs per each chemical event vs. keVs or MeVs per each nuclear.
Joe, Dan tends to get the "elecrtmagnetic" and the "coulomb repulsion" forces confused. Where you are discussion the EM forces involved in chemical reactions, he is thinking that the coulomb repulsion energies that reduce the total binding energy values are the same thing.

The CR energies ALWAYS counter (are negative to) the stong force part of the binding energy equations, but the EM binding energy for chemical are typically considered positive. Oh well.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:Joe, Dan tends to get the "elecrtmagnetic" and the "coulomb repulsion" forces confused. Where you are discussion the EM forces involved in chemical reactions, he is thinking that the coulomb repulsion energies that reduce the total binding energy values are the same thing.
No, no repulsion forces.
But an external layer of valency electrons (cloud) intersecting the cloud of another atom combines them into molecule.
At that level electron should not be concidered as point charge. But its density has a distribution in space around nucleus.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

[/quote]
Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Joe, Dan tends to get the "elecrtmagnetic" and the "coulomb repulsion" forces confused. Where you are discussion the EM forces involved in chemical reactions, he is thinking that the coulomb repulsion energies that reduce the total binding energy values are the same thing.
No, no repulsion forces.
When talking chemical, you are correct. The EM is as you describe it. Where Dan gets confused is that when talking nuclear, the proton / nucleus interaction involves a coulomb repulsion factor. He equates this with the chemical EM, it seems.
Joseph Chikva wrote: But an external layer of valency electrons (cloud) intersecting the cloud of another atom combines them into molecule.
At that level electron should not be concidered as point charge. But its density has a distribution in space around nucleus.
Yup.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

This paper appears to offer some insights to a mechanism for cold fusion. At least the theory comes from some experimental evidence.
COLD NUCLEAR FUSION
E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration)
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA

Abstract

Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated
that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle
is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of
interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These
experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.
ref http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... fusion.pdf

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

parallel wrote:This paper appears to offer some insights to a mechanism for cold fusion. At least the theory comes from some experimental evidence.

ref http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... fusion.pdf
The paper is interesting, but not applicable to the Rossi reaction, since it deals with D-D fusion in a matrix, not Ni-H fusion.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

Post Reply