10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

We will ask to the University of Uppsala to participate: I will be in Uppsala for this reason in July.

This seems to confirm that there will be no e-cat for independent verification until after the start of the 1 MW plant.

[bhl]

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.

I have spare time and a little budget.. but I don't have access to a lab or the skills and equipment to measure the radiation or transmutation, which is what many of you would be interested in.

I (or anyone) could definitely heat two reactions in parallel and measure watts in, heat output of both and hopefully see a significant temperature difference between the Ni+H experiment.

But why would I post my results here if you're only interested in peer reviewed papers? I'm probably just a shill for Rossi trying to prop up his scam.

[D Tibbets]

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
...

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.

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.

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 think this will be my final argument on the nuclear binding energy, the mass defect, excess or deficit. Mostly because it is extremely complex the more you look at it and it is making my head hurt.

First- I argue that fusion of light elements releases energy (is exothermic), while fission of heavy elements releases energy. For both processes to work there has to be a balancing point between the competing processes and this is repeatedly given as Fe56 or Ni62, depending on the definitions used. The opposite of this exothermic process (fission vs fusion of appropriate nucleons is required, otherwise nothing makes sense. If building nuclei liberates energy when the end product is lighter than iron then tearing them down requires energy. The opposite is true for nuclei heavier than iron.

Cu 63 is heavier than iron (or Ni62) so it requires energy to make it from lighter nuclei. There are all sorts of complexities in nuclear synthesis radioactive decay, possible isotopes and isomers, so this general rule may have some exceptions (the Helium4 isotope is the best example of this), so I cannot say with absolute certainty that Ni62 to Cu63 cannot be slightly exothermic through some pathways, but this bucks the general trend, so I ask for experimental or theoretical description of this specific situation before I believe it.

Obviously if nuclear fusion reactions remained exothermic beyond some limit (~iron) stars would not have this endpoint in their fusion heat generating lifespan. They would continue to burn ever heavier elements till the star was one gigantic nucleus. Yes there does seem to be a mass deficit increase as the nucleii size continues to increase. This is due to the strong force. But there is a competing electromagnetic force (proton-proton repulsion) that catches up as the diameter of the nucleus increases. As described in the first link below this has a tipping point at ~ iron. This is news to me- that the electromagnetic force plays a pivotal role inside the nucleus. The first link is long but it is the best treatise I have found. It is well worth the read!

Another point , mostly from the first link. The Nuclear binding energy of Ni62 is 9.1481 MeV, while the nuclear binding energy of Cu63 is 8.758 MeV. This is the energy necessary to tear the nucleus apart to it's constituent protons and neutrons. I confuse myself when I try to determine the sign of this energy difference. So I depend on the binding energy curve often presented with the obvious points that Ni62 is the peak binding energy, and that fusion of nuclei lighter than this yields excess energy, while the opposite (fission) yields excess energy on the high side of nickel62 (or Fe56- again depending on definition).

The best description I have found:

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/binding+energy/en-en/

Other perhaps helpful information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

"The fusion of two nuclei with lower masses than iron (which, along with nickel, has the largest binding energy per nucleon) generally releases energy while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy. The opposite is true for the reverse process, nuclear fission.
...........

The net result of these opposing forces is that the binding energy per nucleon generally increases with increasing size, up to the elements iron and nickel, and then decreases for heavier nuclei. Eventually, the binding energy becomes negative and very heavy nuclei (all with more than 208 nucleons, corresponding to a diameter of about 6 nucleons) are not stable. The four most tightly bound nuclei, in decreasing order of binding energy, are 62 Ni, 58 Fe, 56 Fe, and 60 Ni.[6] Even though the nickel isotope, 62 Ni, is more stable, the iron isotope 56 Fe is an order of magnitude more common. This is due to a greater disintegration rate for 62 Ni in the interior of stars driven by photon absorption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-62

The calculation of the mass deficit and Nuclear binding energy for Copper 63 is shown here. The same process applies to any other isotope.

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/howto ... energy.htm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy

"A general and simple description of nuclear binding energy is the energy required to break apart, split, or break down, the nucleus of the atom into its component parts (nucleons), i.e. neutrons and protons. If the binding energy for the products is higher when light nuclei fuse, or when heavy nuclei split, either of these processes will result in a release of the "extra" binding energy, and this energy is referred to as nuclear energy. It is also loosely called nuclear power."

A discussion about this topic in more depth:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 74443.html

JK423
Feb4-10, 05:02 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The only thing needed to have the system mass be < than the sum of the individual masses is a bound state (attactive force, so energy of system is LOWER if the particles are bound). You don't need quantum mechanics for this. You only need an attractive force.

None of the details of the energy levels, nor how the system settles into it (emitting photons, etc.) are important to understand the sign of this effect

To put it another way: the protons and neutrons in the nucleus stick together. To pull them apart, you have to do work on them, that is, put energy into the system. This energy manifests itself as an increase in the mass of the system, via E = mc^2. (assuming the particles start and end up stationary, so we don't have to deal with kinetic energy.) This part is simple and well-understood.

Finally the quote from the textbook you referenced seems reasonable, except it goes against observed fusion/ fission characteristics.
After reading the first link above I conclude that the quote of increasing mass deficit may be true as nuclei build up. But the author is ignoring the electromagnetic effect as the diameter of the nucleus grows past 4, then 6 nucleons in diameter.
The strong nuclear force effect drops off so quickly, that the electromagnetic repulsion becomes more significant. This is essentially a cancelling out of a portion of the strong force considerations that is described by the mass deficit at lower nuclear sizes (?).

That is my final understanding on the situation, and I'm going to stand by it, at least until I forget, get distracted, or am presented with a work around for the binding energy curve, and/or the competing strong and electromagnetic force interaction.

Dan Tibbets

[Tech]

Hope it´s not a repost, from Rossis FB page:

The scientist Brian Ahern wrote a letter to CMSN about a successful experiment similar to the Rossi Ni-H

From: Brian Ahern, Boxborough MA

Re:

Zr-Ni-Cu alloy performance Ames National Laboratory processed metal alloy foils via arc melting followed by melt spinning. This is the Yamaura process employed by Arata and others. The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours. The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours. This resulted in 30 grams of black powder with a median grain size of about 40 microns.Presumably, each grain has about one million nanoscale islands of NiCu inside. The 30 grams occupies about 7 ml inside the 50 ml dewar. The system was vacuum baked at 220C for 24 hours and cooled to room temperature. H2 gas was added at 200psi. The pressure dropped only to about 185 psi over twenty minutes. In these replication experiments the exothermic reactions have had peak temperatures above 220C with substantial loading above 3.0 H/M ratios. This time the temperature only rose by 2 degrees C. The system was heated with a band heater to high temperature. There was no controller. A rheostat was set at an arbitrary position and the system comes to a an arbitrary temperature.The average power input was 90 watts. After several hours the hydrated system was evacuated overnight at a constant high temperature at 530C. The next day H2 gas was again added at 100psi and the temperature rose by 40C to 570C and came back down to 530C after two hours. At the end of the day the dewar was again evacuated while still at 530C overnight. The third day repeated the same procedure. H2 gas was added at 100psi and the temperature rose by 44C to 574C. However, this time it did not come back to the initial temperature. It remained at the elevated temperature overnight. On the fourth day H2 gas was again added at 100psi and the system rose by 50C to 580C and again stayed at the elevated temperature indefinitely. A rough calibration suggests that the 30 grams of hydrated nanopowder is putting out 5 watts of excess power. Yesterday Peter Gluck suggested that the relationship between loading and excess power may be a myth. This seemed to be true for electrolysis with Pd and heavy water where loading levels exceeding 0.9 D/M were a prerequisite for observing excess power. My loading level with this nanopowder sample as less than 0.1 H/M. This 5 watt excess is very much less than Rossi, but it is a real and repeatable experiment There was no radiation above the background level. Other alloys from Ames NL are expected within ten days.

Celani confirms a "beatiful mail" from Brian Ahern "so beatiful it could not believed".

[seedload]

In the video about the Jan 15th demonstration there were a couple of interesting things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4JUJhkpc3I

1) At 26:30 Rossi says that gamma radiation is hidden by the extremely complex internal geometry of the reactor system.

This seems inconsistent with other claims.

2) At 39:50 or so, Rossi says that a rare isotope of copper is produced in his reactor.

This seems inconsistent with other claims of only NI62 and NI64 reacting and producing stable copper isotopes.

3) At about 40:30 Rossi claims to have run the reactor using NI59 (only?) for six months.

This is inconsistent with claims that only NI62 and NI64 react.

EDIT:

About item (3) above. If I had been paying attention, I would have figured out that NI59 is not a realistic isotope. Sorry, my bad. But the translation is saying something about 59 at that point. Anyone know what is really said there? Thanks.

Also, about item (2) above. Rossi says he never said that. Is the translation there wrong?

Charlie Zimmerman
May 30th, 2011 at 8:00 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

I am so excited about your invention that I often go back and watch older information. I was watching the Jan 15th video, with English subtitles and was confused by some comments in it compared to more recent information you provided:

1) You said that gamma radiation may be hidden by the extremely complex internal geometry of the device. Did you mean physical geometry or the geometry of the reaction, ie, Nickel lattice?
2) You said that a rare isotope of copper is produced. Can you elaborate on this more? I thought only NI62 and NI64 are reacting to produce copper 63 and 65.
3) You said that you ran a reactor for 6 months with NI59. You didn’t mean pure NI59 did you? Plus, since you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react, then how did this reactor with 59 work?

Obviously some things are confusing me. Potentially, it was just bad translation in the subtitles or my own misunderstanding of comments you have posted here.

Best Regards,
charlie zimmerman

Andrea Rossi
May 30th, 2011 at 8:25 PM
Dear Mr Charlie Zimmerman:
1- I cannot give this information
2- No, I did not say that. There has been a misunderstanding. Is correct what you thought.
3- Ni 59 doesn’t exist. It is a typo. We buy regular Ni powder, then we make a treatment of it wich changes the isotopical composition. In that paper I referred to the powder as we buy it, not to the composition of the powder after the treatment we make. In any case, the composition of Ni, as we buy it, is well known: 58 (67,88%), 60 (26,23%), 61 (1,19%), 62 (3,66%), 64 (1,08%).
After that, we change it.
I do not think you misunderstood, I think some typo is in the translation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[R.Nkolo]

NASA Working on LENR Replication and Theory Confirmation

I too am replicating Piantelli and getting between 4 – 10 watts of excess power when operating above 350C. We are examining new spillover catalysts to amplify the output.

Hope it´s not a repost, from Rossis FB page:

The scientist Brian Ahern wrote a letter to CMSN about a successful experiment similar to the Rossi Ni-H

[Giorgio]

About item (3) above. If I had been paying attention, I would have figured out that NI59 is not a realistic isotope. Sorry, my bad. But the translation is saying something about 59 at that point. Anyone know what is really said there? Thanks.

Exact words are: "the reactor was loaded with nickel five nine, and at the end we found spikes where there was more copper than Nickel."

Also, about item (2) above. Rossi says he never said that. Is the translation there wrong?

He said it in the video. Maybe he was meaning something different, but the exact statement is:
"... we also noted isotopic variations inside the Nickel. Copper was formed, copper of an extremely rare isotope was formed, that probably is not present....."

[Giorgio]

Hope it´s not a repost, from Rossis FB page:

The scientist Brian Ahern wrote a letter to CMSN about a successful experiment similar to the Rossi Ni-H

That's interesting.
Thanks for the head up.

[Giorgio]

But why would I post my results here if you're only interested in peer reviewed papers? I'm probably just a shill for Rossi trying to prop up his scam.

Again, and hopefully for the last time, there is a huge difference.
Right now we only have Rossi word and papers that are not peer reviewed. This literally means believing his word. No more no less.
Any external verification of his claims, even if NOT peer reviewed will add credibility to his claims because there will be two different sources and one will not be obliged to only believe Rossi.

You need to understand that this is the way science works. Not because scientist are are lazy bureaucrats (well, some do are), but because this has been the way to keep pseudo science and snake oil salesmen out of mainstream science till now, with huge benefits for everyone, especially end users of science like you and me.

Clearly this makes it hard to "new science" to become mainstream, because it it must bring verified and repeatable claims, but this is part of the game.

[RobL]

The scientist Brian Ahern wrote a letter to CMSN about a successful experiment similar to the Rossi Ni-H

That's interesting.
[/quote]

Be even more interesting if we knew who CSMN was (getting a bit sick of opaque acronyms on the web)

[seedload]

About item (3) above. If I had been paying attention, I would have figured out that NI59 is not a realistic isotope. Sorry, my bad. But the translation is saying something about 59 at that point. Anyone know what is really said there? Thanks.

Exact words are: "the reactor was loaded with nickel five nine, and at the end we found spikes where there was more copper than Nickel."

Also, about item (2) above. Rossi says he never said that. Is the translation there wrong?

He said it in the video. Maybe he was meaning something different, but the exact statement is:
"... we also noted isotopic variations inside the Nickel. Copper was formed, copper of an extremely rare isotope was formed, that probably is not present....."

Thanks. Odd. The Nickel/Copper isotope story seems to have never been well formed.

[Giorgio]

That's interesting.

Be even more interesting if we knew who CSMN was (getting a bit sick of opaque acronyms on the web)

It's a discussion list, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. People there are quite careful before posting claims.

[KitemanSA]

I think this will be my final argument on the nuclear binding energy, the mass defect, excess or deficit. Mostly because it is extremely complex the more you look at it and it is making my head hurt.

It only hurts due to confusion. When you get it, the ache will ease.

First- I argue that fusion of light elements releases energy (is exothermic), while fission of heavy elements releases energy.

Simple question. Are you under the impresion that U235 has less binding energy than 56Fe or 62Ni? Please answer this, as your answer may help reveal your confusion.

[KitemanSA]

Finally the quote from the textbook you referenced seems reasonable, except it goes against observed fusion/ fission characteristics.

No, sorry, it doesn't.

Code: Select all

                A         u	
235U          235       235.04393	
n               1         1.00866 +
total in      236       236.05259 =
92Kr           92        91.92616 -
141Ba         141       140.91441 -
3n              3         3.02599 -
Remaining       0         0.18603 =

The fission of 235U results in a large amount of missing mass so is exothermic. In both cases, fission and fusion are exothermic by the same formula. I really don't understand your confusion.

Please remember that Fe/Ni are at the "most binding energy PER NUCLEON" region but in no way at the "most binding energy per nucleus" region.

[KitemanSA]

Cu 63 is heavier than iron (or Ni62) so it requires energy to make it from lighter nuclei.

Say WHAT?????
By this logic, Fe is heavier than H so it takes energy to make it. Ridiculous.
Cu is heavier than Fe because it has more nucleons. Indeed it is LESS "heavier than Fe" than a simple addition of the proper number of ps and ns would suggest! It is the "less heavier" part that is the binding energy which is RELEASED when you put the free nucleons into the Fe nucleus, if you can.

"The fusion of two nuclei with lower masses than iron (which, along with nickel, has the largest binding energy per nucleon) generally releases energy while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy. The opposite is true for the reverse process, nuclear fission.

The point here is that we are NOT trying to fuse TWO heavier than iron nucleii. We are adding the LIGHTEST of nucleii (a proton) to the Ni nucleus. It is this ZERO binding energy nucleon becoming a ~8.7MeV binding energy nucleon in the Cu nucleus that makes it exothermic.