10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

tomclarke wrote:...So my conclusion is:
yes there are ways to increase cross-section in lattices
...
Axil wrote:...
These atomic CN imperfections induce bond contraction and the associated bond-strength gain deepens the potential well of the trapping in the surface skin.
...
finally, Axil, you have said something that might hold some water. (IMHO).

would seem one of the more promising directions to start any real research from.

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

This has been already researched, as example, here:
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/ecqsun/rtf/PSSC-size.pdf

Yet I still do find highly improbable that this can explain Rossi claims.

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Post by cg66 »

Lots of efforts to follow now besides Rossi – now if only we could get some good papers...

List of Ni-H efforts to date:
Brian Ahern – claiming 8W excess power
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian- ... n-low.html

Brillouin Energy – claiming 2X excess power
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brillo ... ation.html

Tom Claytor – claiming 5-16% excess power
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40 ... 49051.html

Rossi/Focardi – claiming 6-30X excess power (and the focus of this 200+ page monstrosity aka chrismb’s bane :-P)

Piantelli – read rumors Piantelli’s group has something in the works.

Did I miss any?

DancingFool
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:01 pm
Location: Way up north

Post by DancingFool »

Axil, don't you have any idea at all of how these things work?
Axil wrote:[Nano-defects are very tough. This toughness and associated resistance to melting and stress is conducive to the production of high pressure inside the defect.

Rossi has stated that his temperature of his nano-powder can reach 1600C before it melts. Nano-powder usually melts well below the 1350c melting point of bulk nickel in a regular lattice. This revelation informs us how much Rossi has increased the strength and available atomic bond tension in his nano-powder.
Defects which put the local material under stress do so by reacting against the undistorted matrix in which thery are embedded. As temperature approaches melting, the undistorted matrix will lose strength (in the most extreme case, liquifying). As the matrix softens, the defects relax and stop being defects. Melting point remains unchanged.

Come on, Axil. Take a deep breath. Stop trying so hard.
And stop grasping at straws to defend Rossi. His 1600 degree comment (which I quoted a week ago) is not a revelation - it's bogus.
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he strafed the lifeboats.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Axil wrote:Rossi has stated that his temperature of his nano-powder can reach 1600C before it melts. Nano-powder usually melts well below the 1350c melting point of bulk nickel in a regular lattice.
Hehe
Axil wrote:This revelation informs us how much Rossi has increased the strength and available atomic bond tension in his nano-powder.
This revelation informs us that you are bubbling bosh.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Giorgio wrote:This has been already researched, as example, here:
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/ecqsun/rtf/PSSC-size.pdf

Yet I still do find highly improbable that this can explain Rossi claims.
that looks like a heck of a broad paper, thanks G - will take me ages to read (try to comprehend).

Just at a glance::

BOLS (Bond Order Defficiency)
p124::
10.2.2. Brillouin function - intruiging
and...
p133:: (on 'dangling bonds')::
... It is true that the concept of localized bond is not applicable to metallic systems due to the demoralized valence electrons whose wave function often extends to the entire solid. However, the demoralized valence electrons are often treated as a Fermi sea and the metal ions are arranged regularly in the Fermi-sea background...
'demoralized electrons' - just picturing it .. :lol:

as to Rossi - yes. I am fed up discussing him (in particular).

We do not even know yet 'whether' there is anything to investigate, let alone start wondering 'how' it (if 'it' is anything) might be happening.

Maybe Chikva's grandmother has grown appendage. It will not be the first time this has happened. ;)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D Tibbets wrote:KitemanSA, some more references about the nuclear binding energy per nucleon relationship, nucleosynthesis, etc.
The video is perhaps useful to change your perspective.

The Facts on File of ASTRONOMY
by: Valorie Illingsworth & John O.E. Clark
Copyright 2000 by Market House Books Ltd.

From pp 290
...
Even higher temperatures will trigger reactions by which almost all elements up to a mass number of 56 can be synthesized. The iron- peak elements, ie 56Fe, 56Ni, 56Co, etc., represent the end of the nucleosynthesis sequence by nuclear fusion: further fusion would require rather than than liberate energy because nuclei with this mass number have the maximum binding energy per nucleon.
Obviously assumes similar sized reactants which is one of the two definitions of "fusion".
Then he wrote: http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/class19.html
Iron is the heaviest element that can be created through a fusion process in which energy is released, as is shown in (a similar figure) Figure 17.14 You can fuse iron with other elements to create lead or uranium, but this absorbs energy instead of releasing it. Iron is the end of the road!
:
Ditto.
Dan, in stars you don't get to "fusion of higher elements" until the hydrogen is basically GONE. So when folks talk about fusion in stars, they are basically ALWAYS talking fusion of similar sized elements. And I have agreed since day one that fusion of iron with iron is endothermic. The Rossi reactor, if it actually works, is NOT talking about fusing Ni with Ni. It is talking of reacting H with Ni. And H is nowhere NEAR that "end of the road" state.
And here we have an interesting dicotomy. FISSION is well known to be the splitting of one nucleus into two similar sized elements. The splitting into a big element and a small particle (say U224 to Th220 + α) is called decay, not fission. Unfortunately, the analog term for fusion seems to be either "synthesis" or "transmutation" and both terms have baggage to carry. "Synthesis" almost always is thought of in terms of stellar processes while "transmutation" is generally thought of in terms of high energy accelerator processes. Each situation involves assumptions that do not necessarily apply to solid state lattice reactions (given they occur). Oh well.
Then he wrote: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... nd-evolve/
Supernovae Leave Behind Neutron Stars or Black Holes
Main sequence stars over eight solar masses are destined to die in a titanic explosion called a supernova. A supernova is not merely a bigger nova. In a nova, only the star's surface explodes. In a supernova, the star's core collapses and then explodes. In massive stars, a complex series of nuclear reactions leads to the production of iron in the core. Having achieved iron, the star has wrung all the energy it can out of nuclear fusion - fusion reactions that form elements heavier than iron actually consume energy rather than produce it. The star no longer has any way to support its own mass, and the iron core collapses. In just a matter of seconds the core shrinks from roughly 5000 miles across to just a dozen, and the temperature spikes 100 billion degrees or more. The outer layers of the star initially begin to collapse along with the core, but rebound with the enormous release of energy and are thrown violently outward.
Again with stellar processes! We are NOT talking stellar processes here. We are talking solid state.

What a star CAN'T do because of certain characteristics, a solid state lattice reaction MAY do. As an example, if a p-Ni reaction happens (by remote porobability) to occur, the simpest way for the exited Cu to reach ground state is to eject the proton again. this is the result unless another energy release path is found. When the proton is ejected, this becomes part of the "scattering" cross-section rather than a reaction cross section. Thus, in stars, p-Ni is most unlikely to happen. But on the VERY low probability results where it does, it is exothermic. A lattice based p-Ni reaction (at least for some Ni isotopes) has a significant probabilty of employing "internal conversion" to shed the excitation energy. Thus the probability that the reaction will "stick" (it's cross section) is higher. And when it does, it is exothermic.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

I wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:KitemanSA, have you even read any of the many links I provided?
Yes, and except where they assume stellar evolutionary process (which are not necessarily the same as solid state processes) they all agree with my statements.

You provided as the first link in your prior post a page called "FurryElephant". I propose we discuss that page section by section. To begin:
...
...
...
So this has been a pretty boring (read uncontentious) beginning to the section by section. Any concerns? Shall we go on?
Dan, shall we go on?

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:Dan, shall we go on?
Certainly:
2+2=2+1.9+0.1
2+2=2+1.8+0.2
Shall we go on?

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

Post by D Tibbets »

KitemanSA wrote:
I wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:KitemanSA, have you even read any of the many links I provided?
Yes, and except where they assume stellar evolutionary process (which are not necessarily the same as solid state processes) they all agree with my statements.

You provided as the first link in your prior post a page called "FurryElephant". I propose we discuss that page section by section. To begin:
...
...
...
So this has been a pretty boring (read uncontentious) beginning to the section by section. Any concerns? Shall we go on?
Dan, shall we go on?
I don't understand your point . The link you refer to

http://www.furryelephant.com/content/ra ... ss-defect/

Is indeed named that. I don't see why that has any significance. The text explains things fairly well.

As fas as stellar evolution, I don't know how much solid state (within nickel crystal latticeses) varies as far as probability of coulomb shielding, but it would not change nuclear reactions once the reactants get within range of the strong nuclear force, unless you are proposing new physics.
Stars are actually believed to proceed with nucleosynthesis through multiple pathways. As the star heats up much of the nucleosynthesis of the light elements proceeds as proton absorption, neutron absorption and alpha absorption. Once the iron/ nickel limit is reached in massive stars, the core is mostly iron and there is little hydrogen available within the core. But, when the star explodes the iron/ nickel mixes with huge amounts of hydrogen in the outer layers of the star. Now there is plenty (actually a large excess) of protons available, At the temperatures and pressures within this expanding fireball a whole zoo of nuclear reactions occur. Very many neutrons are also produced. , but don't forget that the cost of providing these neutrons must be factored into the final balance. Many of the light element fusion reactions that produce neutrons are endothermic. The heavier elements are built through alpha absorption, neutron capture, and yes proton capture. Iron plus iron nuclei fusion is a vanishingly small occurrence. The neucleosynthesis primarily proceeds by small nuclei absorption - protons, neutrons, and alphas. As has been pointed out in many provided links, these are endothermic reactions past Ni62 .

Have you watched the video?

How can you justify exothermic heavy element fission, if the energy output from adding nucleons to progressively heavier nuclei is always exothermic. You could cycle between say nickel and uranium, gaining energy from both pathways. You now have an inexhaustible free energy system. There has to be a tipping point where the energy balance reverses, otherwise nothing makes sense.

I don't know why you insist on the idea, that just because a heavier nucleus has more mass/ energy (binding energy) that it must always release more energy as it forms. These are two related but separate issues. Again, it is the average energy of the nucleons contained within the nucleus that determines the energy balance, not the total binding energy.
As often stated if you pulled all of the nucleons apart from the parent nucleus, the total binding energy applies. But you are pulling apart (or adding) one or a few nucleons to the outside of the nucleus where the strong force is weaker. Some of the internal nucleons are very tightly bound, others are barely clinging to the surface of the nucleus. This relationship is governed by the very short range of the strong force in competition with the much longer range electromagnetic force. It turns out that the average energy per nucleon predicts things, and this is represented by the experimental finding that Ni62 is the peak/ turnaround point of the energy flow. It is the most stable, tightly bound possibility.

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

Jded
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:01 am

Post by Jded »

D Tibbets wrote: How can you justify exothermic heavy element fission, if the energy output from adding nucleons to progressively heavier nuclei is always exothermic. You could cycle between say nickel and uranium, gaining energy from both pathways.
He would use some H on the way to U and end up with more Ni after full cycle. H-> Ni is a perfectly legal way of getting energy.

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

Dan Tibbets> You could cycle between say nickel and uranium,
Dan Tibbets> gaining energy from both pathways.

Yes, apparently such E+ cycle may be drafted:

i) Ni+p...Cu+p ...Pb+p..........-> U235 (fission-bang) go to (i)

Every step decreases the mass according M -= Ei/CC

Note(*): the fission products should have enough light enough atoms to ensure exothermic path.

Dan Tibbets> You now have an inexhaustible free energy system.

Absolutely not, once mass == 0 thee is no E.

Needless to say that such cycle is highly hypothetical nevertheless, it shows that 100% mass->energy conversion by means of nuclear reaction may be possible if Note(*) can be provided.

Stefan

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D Tibbets wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
I wrote: Yes, and except where they assume stellar evolutionary process (which are not necessarily the same as solid state processes) they all agree with my statements.

You provided as the first link in your prior post a page called "FurryElephant". I propose we discuss that page section by section. To begin:
...
...
...
So this has been a pretty boring (read uncontentious) beginning to the section by section. Any concerns? Shall we go on?
Dan, shall we go on?
I don't understand your point . The link you refer to
http://www.furryelephant.com/content/ra ... -defect/Is indeed named that. I don't see why that has any significance. The text explains things fairly well.
Yes, I know it is named that, and in the prior post I quoted I had started to go thru that page section by section. Did you read my prior post? Do you want to ontinue discussing that page section by section?
Then he wrote: As fas as stellar evolution, I don't know how much solid state (within nickel crystal latticeses) varies as far as probability of coulomb shielding, but it would not change nuclear reactions once the reactants get within range of the strong nuclear force, unless you are proposing new physics.
No new physics, just physics in a different regime.
As you point out below, while a star is using "fusion" the H runs out in the core where the Fe generally is, so such reactions are unlikely to start with. As I stated in my prior post, in stars, the only ways to shed the energy produced by the improbable p-Ni reaction is either to release gamma radiation (low prob) or to spit out (eject) the proton again and "pretend it never happened" (high prob, they call this part of the scattering cross-section). In a lattice, two things are different. First, unlike a star, there are about as many H as Ni. Second, the inner electron shells are filled and so there is another path to shed the energy, a path called "internal conversion" (IIRC). Basically, there is a significant probablilty that an electron will be inside the nucleus at the time of the reaction and will carry off a good deal of the energy. Thus, there will not be enough energy remaining to eject the proton. As such, the scattering cross section goes down and the reaction cross section goes up. My recollection is that the probability of IC varies with isotope. It may be that 56Ni doesn't use IC so doesn't "react" while 62Ni has a high probability of IC so the reacion takes place frequenctly. When it does, it excites the nucleus which must shed the energy by ejecting the proton, emitting gamma, or some other mechanism. It is that "other mechanism" that may be significant in lattice reations. But in any case, the p:Ni reaction is exothermic.
Then he wrote: Stars are actually believed to proceed with nucleosynthesis through multiple pathways. As the star heats up much of the nucleosynthesis of the light elements proceeds as proton absorption, neutron absorption and alpha absorption. Once the iron/ nickel limit is reached in massive stars, the core is mostly iron and there is little hydrogen available within the core. But, when the star explodes the iron/ nickel mixes with huge amounts of hydrogen in the outer layers of the star. Now there is plenty (actually a large excess) of protons available, At the temperatures and pressures within this expanding fireball a whole zoo of nuclear reactions occur. Very many neutrons are also produced. , but don't forget that the cost of providing these neutrons must be factored into the final balance. Many of the light element fusion reactions that produce neutrons are endothermic. The heavier elements are built through alpha absorption, neutron capture, and yes proton capture. Iron plus iron nuclei fusion is a vanishingly small occurrence. The neucleosynthesis primarily proceeds by small nuclei absorption - protons, neutrons, and alphas. As has been pointed out in many provided links, these are endothermic reactions past Ni62 .
Please show me ONE link that says that p:Ni is endothermic. Just one.
Then he wrote: Have you watched the video?
Not yet. Don't have access at work and have limited time at home.
Then he wrote:How can you justify exothermic heavy element fission, if the energy output from adding nucleons to progressively heavier nuclei is always exothermic. You could cycle between say nickel and uranium, gaining energy from both pathways.
Yup, but the point to remember, it is not medium+medium>large and then large>medium+medium. It is medium+p+n+p+n...>large and then large>medium+medium. It is the +p+n+p+n part that releases the energy (storing some excess as it goes until the L>M+M when some of that excess is released.
Then he wrote:You now have an inexhaustible free energy system.
Only so long as you have an inexhaustible p&n supply.
Then he wrote:There has to be a tipping point where the energy balance reverses, otherwise nothing makes sense.
The "tipping point is ~Ni, but H is NOWHERE NEAR that tipping point. H (e.i., p) is a potent source of potential energy.
Then he wrote: I don't know why you insist on the idea, that just because a heavier nucleus has more mass/ energy (binding energy) that it must always release more energy as it forms.
I didn't insist on it, Einstein did thru that little wequation E=mc². You should be arguing with him.
Dan, I really don't understand you. You have done the numbers yourself (wrongly but when corrected you acknowledge the fact. Your own corrected numbers showed that Ca+p has about the same binding energy as Ni+p. Believe your own (corrected) numbers, dude!
Then he wrote:These are two related but separate issues. Again, it is the average energy of the nucleons contained within the nucleus that determines the energy balance,
No, it is the average that determines the stability, the "urge" to change, the stability. It is the SUM that determines the energy released.
Then he wrote: not the total binding energy.
IBID
Then he wrote: As often stated if you pulled all of the nucleons apart from the parent nucleus, the total binding energy applies. But you are pulling apart (or adding) one or a few nucleons to the outside of the nucleus where the strong force is weaker.
That define HOW MUCH of the protons potential is release, not THAT it is released.
Then he wrote:Some of the internal nucleons are very tightly bound, others are barely clinging to the surface of the nucleus. This relationship is governed by the very short range of the strong force in competition with the much longer range electromagnetic force. It turns out that the average energy per nucleon predicts things, and this is represented by the experimental finding that Ni62 is the peak/ turnaround point of the energy flow. It is the most stable, tightly bound possibility.
It is the most tightly bound PER NUCLEON. But if you can get a proton to stick, it will release about 8.7MeV when combined with Ni. Do the math. It is quite simple. You've done it before (with a glitch but you know what you did wrong there). Do it again. You will find that p+anything releases energy (except MAYBE for p+4He). Try it, I beg you. LEARN BY EXPERIENCE! Do the math.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Jded wrote:
D Tibbets wrote: How can you justify exothermic heavy element fission, if the energy output from adding nucleons to progressively heavier nuclei is always exothermic. You could cycle between say nickel and uranium, gaining energy from both pathways.
He would use some H on the way to U and end up with more Ni after full cycle. H-> Ni is a perfectly legal way of getting energy.
Thank you, I appreciate that someone understands this!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

stefanbanev wrote:Dan Tibbets> You could cycle between say nickel and uranium,
Dan Tibbets> gaining energy from both pathways.

Yes, apparently such E+ cycle may be drafted:

i) Ni+p...Cu+p ...Pb+p..........-> U235 (fission-bang) go to (i)

Every step decreases the mass according M -= Ei/CC

Note(*): the fission products should have enough light enough atoms to ensure exothermic path.

Dan Tibbets> You now have an inexhaustible free energy system.

Absolutely not, once mass == 0 thee is no E.

Needless to say that such cycle is highly hypothetical nevertheless, it shows that 100% mass->energy conversion by means of nuclear reaction may be possible if Note(*) can be provided.

Stefan
As I pointed out in another post, the supply of energy is only as "inexhaustible" as the supply of protons and free neutrons. Once you no longer have either of those, the process stops. Not sure why he refuses to get that point.

Post Reply