10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[parallel]

You didn't answer the question

What contribution wrt polywell have you made that makes the slightest difference?
You would have to join EMC^2 to do that.

[chrismb]

I've made plenty of contributions to the discussions here. You know it. Are you saying that this forum is figurative in the development of polywell? That's not what I said. I'm talking about contributions to polywell discussions. We can't tell whether anything discussed here has had an impact on EMC2. It is quite possible that these discussions have had an impact and we just don't know it yet. Either way, what I have pushed is for some FoI requests to go through, and ladajo did make some and we found out that there is no Navy embargo on info these days.

What contributions have you made?

[parallel]

chrismb,

You have made thousands of posts here, most of which I've read, but you overrate their importance.
I doubt they have had much impact on EMC2 and having run several large engineering organizations in my time, I can judge that from experience.

I don't claim to have made any contributions to Polywell's development myself: much of it is outside my areas of expertise.
I did track down the early EMC2 report to the Navy through my Congressman including the reference number and contact person, that I wrote about at the time. Obviously you have forgotten.

[chrismb]

Why do you insist on discussing this point of 'making a difference to polywell'? I never raised it, so why do you think it is germane to raise it?

This forum isn't about 'making a difference to polywell', it is a forum 'TO DISCUSS POLYWELL'. This is what you've not done anything of - you have NEVER DISCUSSED polywell, so I've suggested that thisjust isn't the right forum for you.

There are plenty of fora (?) that have clap-trap pseudo-science on them. Why do you stick your [now self-confessed] idle speculations on COLD CON-FUSION here, as per anywhere else? It's not like this has been a regular haunt of yours where you have posted relevant ramblings to the forum subject matter!?

[Ivy Matt]

No that wouldn't work. As Rossi stated, if he sold them without patent protection (or even with protection in my view) for a few thousand dollars anyone could obtain an E-Cat and reverse engineer it.
Ross is no fool and has been around long enough to understand the game. It is naive PhDs that don't.

I agree with you on at least one point: if "patent pending" won't work to dissuade would-be copycats, a granted patent probably wouldn't either. Either way the patent's validity would have to be tested in court. Of course, that leads me to wonder if the patent application for the catalyst discloses anything useful, or even exists. I suppose Rossi has a reason for everything he does, but he sure doesn't make it easy to tell which of the two (or more) reasons is the real one. For now, and probably until October, at least, I remain unconvinced by him.

(I'm not referring to you.)

No worries, but I'd like to make it quite clear that I'm not a PhD, although it's entirely possible I'm naive about some (or many) things.

[Skipjack]

I agree with you on at least one point: if "patent pending" won't work to dissuade would-be copycats

Actually, your patent -if granted- is valid from the day you hand it in to the patent office, IIRC.

[parallel]

Skipjack,

Patent law is squishy to say the least.

Since the Uruguay Round Agreements in 1994, many countries have enacted laws providing that the enforceable term of patent protection begins on the date of grant of a utility patent (durations may differ for other types of patents such as industrial design and plant cultivar patents), and ends 20 years from the filing date of the application. The 20 year term is a minimum for compliance to TRIPS Article 33, but nations may choose to grant longer terms. Some countries, such as the USA, have provisions for limited recovery for infringement occurring between the date of publication of the application and date of grant.

[Helius]

Chris.... Your point is well hammered home. Parallel is a one trick pony.

Actually I get a kick out of this discussion, but 130 pages? Smokes!

Since the beginning, a simple application of Occams razor gives me 3 possibilities and indicates how I'd bet:

Win: Rossi is a victim of Wishful Thinking run amok
Place: He's stumbling himself into some sort of embarrassing fraud.
Show: He's actually found a way to violate thermodynamics.

If I was a betting man, I'd box the results.

[D Tibbets]

I've made plenty of contributions to the discussions here. You know it. Are you saying that this forum is figurative in the development of polywell? That's not what I said. I'm talking about contributions to polywell discussions. We can't tell whether anything discussed here has had an impact on EMC2. It is quite possible that these discussions have had an impact and we just don't know it yet. Either way, what I have pushed is for some FoI requests to go through, and ladajo did make some and we found out that there is no Navy embargo on info these days.

What contributions have you made?

I do not know what useful contributions any of the posters have provided, except for myself of course.

Comic relief can be very usefull !

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

KitmanSA, I also wondered if adding a proton or neutron to nickel could add energy, after all the binding energy for the neutron is very low and is zero for protons.

What I read yesterday says that in fact neutrons have zero and protons have ~13.6eV (effectively zero).

But, thinking about it, it does not matter whether the nickel is built up from a bunch of small nucleons, or only a few larger nucleons (like alpha particles) the maximum energy differential is represented by the proton to Ni62 range. It matters not how it is divided up. If you start with Ni61, and add a neutron and a proton. The first would release energy, but only the energy difference between the Ni61 and Ni62.

This is true. The amount would be about 8.8MeV. Exothermic.

The second nucleon (a proton) would add energy (endothermic) to the system, but only that represented by the energy difference between Ni62 and Cu63.

This will also be exothermic by about 8.8MeV.

Again the bowel analogy.

I am not sure anyone but you has been s#!tting anything. Bowl analogy?

It is a far distance to the bottom of the empty bowel for a proton, but when the bowel is almost full the proton can only fall a short distance.

This analog "bowl" cannot be filled. It is a positional bowl, not a volumetric one.

Another consideration: radioactive decay of a heavy element may produce an alpha particle. This helium nucleus is much lighter than Ni so it would seemingly have a lot of energy. But the source of this energy is the harvestable amount between the original isotope and how close it ends up to Ni62. This would manifest as the kinetic energy added to the products. Add in excited states and other mechanisms and the results become more blurred, but the general trend would remain.

Sorry, too oblique for me. Radioactive decay is a term used way too loosely for my tastes, so what folks mean when they discuss it is problematic. None the less, EVERY nuclear reaction follows the "sum of parts masses" equation I provided earlier.

There are two many inconsistencies between my and your understanding that I will give up. Except to point out once again. Ni62 has the highest binding energy- this is given as the energy required to tear it apart to individual nucleons (protons and neutrons). It is not the energy needed to tear off only one nucleon. That is given by tables. If Ni62 has 8.95 MeV (example, not accurate) and Ni61 has 8.94 MeV, then it would require 0.01 MeV to remove a neutron from the Ni62, or conversely liberate 0.01 MeV to go from Ni61 to Ni62.
Because of reasons I have referenced several times the opposite is true for elements above Ni61. The nuclear binding energy is less, but for different reasons and the addition or removal of nucleons liberate or consume energy in an opposite fashion.

I think the bowel analogy is good. It is similar to talking about potential wells- not like a Polywell where a potential well is maintained by the continuous injection of power, but a potential well on it's own. For a well created by the localization of 100 electrons, for each proton you add to the location, the potential will drop by a ratio of 1/100. Dropping one proton into the well does not make the potential drop all the way to zero. You would have to drop a full 100 protons into the well to completely neutralize it (or fill the Bowel up to the brim). And, the nucleus is indeed like a bowel being filled by marbles. The volume of the nucleus is what determines the relative competing effects of the strong force and the electromagnetic force. It is not just a matter of getting a larger bowel. the Maximum binding energy Bowel size is fixed. You can only partially fill it, or you can pile excess nucleons on top, but the bowel size (or nucleus volume at this maximam state is set by physical laws. The numbers of nucleons that can fit within this volume is much like a bowel and marbles. This is due to the points I tried to make and is more clearly presented in the references.

I have yet to see any meaningful arguments that the widely used and accepted nuclear binding energy graph is not applicable or false.

Dan Tibbets

[Helius]

KitmanSA, I also wondered if adding a proton or neutron to nickel could add energy, after all the binding energy for the neutron is very low and is zero for protons.

What I read yesterday says that in fact neutrons have zero and protons have ~13.6eV (effectively zero).

But, thinking about it, it does not matter whether the nickel is built up from a bunch of small nucleons, or only a few larger nucleons (like alpha particles) the maximum energy differential is represented by the proton to Ni62 range. It matters not how it is divided up. If you start with Ni61, and add a neutron and a proton. The first would release energy, but only the energy difference between the Ni61 and Ni62.

This is true. The amount would be about 8.8MeV. Exothermic.

The second nucleon (a proton) would add energy (endothermic) to the system, but only that represented by the energy difference between Ni62 and Cu63.

This will also be exothermic by about 8.8MeV.

Again the bowel analogy.

I am not sure anyone but you has been s#!tting anything. Bowl analogy?

It is a far distance to the bottom of the empty bowel for a proton, but when the bowel is almost full the proton can only fall a short distance.

This analog "bowl" cannot be filled. It is a positional bowl, not a volumetric one.

Another consideration: radioactive decay of a heavy element may produce an alpha particle. This helium nucleus is much lighter than Ni so it would seemingly have a lot of energy. But the source of this energy is the harvestable amount between the original isotope and how close it ends up to Ni62. This would manifest as the kinetic energy added to the products. Add in excited states and other mechanisms and the results become more blurred, but the general trend would remain.

Sorry, too oblique for me. Radioactive decay is a term used way too loosely for my tastes, so what folks mean when they discuss it is problematic. None the less, EVERY nuclear reaction follows the "sum of parts masses" equation I provided earlier.

There are two many inconsistencies between my and your understanding that I will give up. Except to point out once again. Ni62 has the highest binding energy- this is given as the energy required to tear it apart to individual nucleons (protons and neutrons). It is not the energy needed to tear off only one nucleon. That is given by tables. If Ni62 has 8.95 MeV (example, not accurate) and Ni61 has 8.94 MeV, then it would require 0.01 MeV to remove a neutron from the Ni62, or conversely liberate 0.01 MeV to go from Ni61 to Ni62.
Because of reasons I have referenced several times the opposite is true for elements above Ni61. The nuclear binding energy is less, but for different reasons and the addition or removal of nucleons liberate or consume energy in an opposite fashion.

I think the bowel analogy is good. It is similar to talking about potential wells- not like a Polywell where a potential well is maintained by the continuous injection of power, but a potential well on it's own. For a well created by the localization of 100 electrons, for each proton you add to the location, the potential will drop by a ratio of 1/100. Dropping one proton into the well does not make the potential drop all the way to zero. You would have to drop a full 100 protons into the well to completely neutralize it (or fill the Bowel up to the brim). And, the nucleus is indeed like a bowel being filled by marbles. The volume of the nucleus is what determines the relative competing effects of the strong force and the electromagnetic force. It is not just a matter of getting a larger bowel. the Maximum binding energy Bowel size is fixed. You can only partially fill it, or you can pile excess nucleons on top, but the bowel size (or nucleus volume at this maximam state is set by physical laws. The numbers of nucleons that can fit within this volume is much like a bowel and marbles. This is due to the points I tried to make and is more clearly presented in the references.

I have yet to see any meaningful arguments that the widely used and accepted nuclear binding energy graph is not applicable or false.

Dan Tibbets

Jeepers Dan. I read your stuff. You're smarter than I am and even I get it.
Maybe if it is explained by a relatively dumb person the explanation will work.

The Binding energy / nucleon isn't the weak force energy wanting to blow the nucleus apart, it is the Strong force binding energy required to hold the nucleus together, divided by the count of nucleons. Therefore, in your minds eye, turn the graph upside down. Now see where Hydrogen is.

The definitive argument is that the mass of Ni61+H1 is greater than the mass of Ni62.
When you form the Ni62, that mass/energy left over is the binding energy expressed as the extra energy.

[parallel]

D Tibbets,
As you say:

Comic relief can be very usefull !

I think bowl is the word you're looking for. Bowel the alimentary canal.

[KitemanSA]

There are two many inconsistencies between my and your understanding that I will give up. Except to point out once again. Ni62 has the highest binding energy- this is given as the energy required to tear it apart to individual nucleons (protons and neutrons). It is not the energy needed to tear off only one nucleon. That is given by tables. If Ni62 has 8.95 MeV (example, not accurate) and Ni61 has 8.94 MeV, then it would require 0.01 MeV to remove a neutron from the Ni62, or conversely liberate 0.01 MeV to go from Ni61 to Ni62.

And this shows where your fundamental misunderstanding lies.

Using your numbers (reasonable approximations), if 61Ni has 8.94 MeV/N and 62Ni has 8.95 MeV/N (where N=# of nucleuons) then 61Ni has 61*8.94= 545.34 MeV per nucleus and 62Ni has 62*8.95=554.28 MeV per nucleus and adding a proton (~0MeV) to 61Ni (545.34) resulting in 62Ni (554.28 MeV) releases {554.28 - 0 - 545.34 = 8.94} MeV, NOT .01 !!! This is a lot of energy. MORE per reaction than D+D!

Please look at the Y-axis label. "average binding energy per nucleon(MeV)"
IF you can attach a nucleon to a nucleus you WILL RELEASE ENERGY and excite that nucleus. Period. Absolutely without doubt, end of story. BUT what that nucleus does with said energy is what defines what we normally experience. If you add a nucleon to a nucleus that is on the down-hill side of the B/N graph (>~Fe) and do it without providing an alternate path to shed the excitation, my understanding is that in the vast majority of cases the excited nucleus just sheds an equivalent nucleon and drops happily back to ground state, no net change at all. You can't "fuse" beyond ~Fe... without providing conditions other than normal. Supernovae provide such conditions. PERHAPS so does a properly tuned polariton.

[KitemanSA]

Why do you insist on discussing this point of 'making a difference to polywell'? I never raised it, so why do you think it is germane to raise it?

This forum isn't about 'making a difference to polywell', it is a forum 'TO DISCUSS POLYWELL'. This is what you've not done anything of - you have NEVER DISCUSSED polywell, so I've suggested that thisjust isn't the right forum for you.

direct quote from the "News" thread guidelines:

This forum is for discussion of current events and news stories, whether on the Internet or in mainstream media. Each thread should discuss one story.

Start a new thread here if you've found a news story (or have inside information) that hasn't already been discussed. Include not just the link, but a synopsis of the story and comments about why you think it's of interest. Feel free to reply to existing posts to add your reaction, ponder the implications of the story, or give your own interpretation.

Hmmm, don't see the word "Polywell" anywhere. One would hope that all threads are SOMEWHAT germain to Polywell or fusion in that this is "Talk-Polywell" not "Talk-Hippopotomus", but...

[KitemanSA]

Since the beginning, a simple application of Occams razor gives me 3 possibilities and indicates how I'd bet:

• Win: Rossi is a victim of Wishful Thinking run amok
  Place: He's stumbling himself into some sort of embarrassing fraud.
  Show: He's actually found a way to violate thermodynamics.

If I was a betting man, I'd box the results.

No "violation of thermo-dynamics" is needed, IMHO. I have been gnawing on a concept that I believe COULD explain everything without even resorting to exotic physics, just uncommon physics. Lattice loading, plasmons, polaritons, all are known and used in day to day life. I suspect they COULD explain this claimed phenomenon. I don't think it even needs low probability occurences like the WL ULMN or Stremmenos' mini-atom conjecture.
I am slowly writing it up and plan to post it in the not TOO distant future. Oh happy days!