10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[polyill]

You people suppose Rossi is the man who drives this show, the man to make decisions, the Strategic behind the game and then you are puzzled by how strangely and inconsistently he manages the whole thing.

Ha, that makes for a nice conspiration theory too!

Rossi is actually pawn of big oil (and greenpeace) hired to discredit CF field!

I am finding it hard to believe someone would hire Rossi.
Watch one of his interviews, then imagine you hire him... It's more likely he's been played/forced into it, IMO.

[bk78]

AGAIN, you said "only NI62 and NI64 are reacting to produce copper 63 and 65". He said you are correct. I agree. All the other Ni isotopes wind up with other copper isotopes (temporarily) and with other Nickel isotopes eventually.

And we do not see radiation from these other copper isotopes, even after the reactor is stopped because...?

[Luzr]

You people suppose Rossi is the man who drives this show, the man to make decisions, the Strategic behind the game and then you are puzzled by how strangely and inconsistently he manages the whole thing.

Ha, that makes for a nice conspiration theory too!

Rossi is actually pawn of big oil (and greenpeace) hired to discredit CF field!

I am finding it hard to believe someone would hire Rossi.
Watch one of his interviews, then imagine you hire him... It's more likely he's been played/forced into it, IMO.

That still makes him pawn, does not it?

[KitemanSA]

Actually, I think the Ni 58 is reduced by maybe a factor 2 or 3. Why? Just the impression I get. But he is not seperating out the 62/64, he is reducing the 58.

For your convenience: There exists no method for "separation" and no "elimination" of isotopes, only different grades of de/enrichment.

Oh yes, I find that ever so convenient... NOT!

Actually, this was what I was talking about.You COMPLETELY ignored my point. If deenrichment of Ni-58 to a few percent is enough to make it undetectable, why should he bother the first place. If he did not, the radiation would be 100 times that much... so what?

So what? Radiation putting out 100 times background? So what? Well, you may not think that important, but I suspect he does.

As I already explained, increasing the radiation by a factor of 100 does not mean 100 times background level:

To me, the prhase "undetectable" implys consistent with background, and in the same magnitude. Are you detecting it, or background?

Increasing IT 100X might take it to ~100X background.
Perhaps "indistinguishable" would be a better word.

Regarding the 4 orders of magnitude:
The detector was maybe 20..30cm away. For a person at 1m distance, dose rate is reduced by a factor of about 10. By summing up scintillator counts over a minute, you can easily detect changes at a few percent of natural background. Millions of people live all their life in areas with high natural background, and receive doses about an order of magnitude higher than someone in Bolgna, without known negative effects on health. Thats 4 orders of magnitude. Considering the limited time someone spends near the reactor, much higher levels could be regarded as harmless.

So once again, while you might think of yourself to be "open minded" you are beeing ignorant here. Funny thing is, now you actually dare to give a number: Reduction of Ni-58 by a factor 2-3. Going through the effort of enrichment for reducing radiation by a factor 2-3 is completely pointless. Just add 20 cm of water, 2 cm steel or whatever.

Reducing the concentration 3X need not mean the radiation output goes down only 3X. I suspect there are non-linearities involved.

And the reason for reducing it by 3X may have nothing to do with radiation. Don't get too hooked on one possible reason.

Considering radiation issues in general:
Let's say, the reactor produces his power in form of 6MeV (was it?) beta radiation. .

Lets not and pretend we did.

You were babbling something about internal conversion. For your convenience, I assumed, ALL of the radiation was internally converted. For some reason, you seem to assume this is a process that eliminates all radiation. Please explain. Even an imperfection of 1 in a billion for your magic process, and we would detect radiation.
Do you actually understand we have TWO miracles here:
1. cold fusion occurs
2. It emits no radiation
Which would be easily explained by assuming that they did not happen and all we saw was an electric water boiler.

Well, I tend to agree with the final phrase of this statement. It IS most easily explaind by common place explanations. AND, if I were FORCED to bet on the issue, that is the way I would bet. BUT, that doesn't mean that such a state has been PROVEN to exist.

Having said that... as I understand IC, the event does not carry away ALL the excitation energy, just a set part of it. The remained would still be emitted as a photon. TECHNICALLY, by definition, that photon would be a gamma. PRACTICALLY, that photon could be in the X-ray band. X-rays can be quite easily shielded.
The prime discussion here is whether #1 above must in fact be a "miracle".
Re #2, I did not intend to imply ZERO radiation, just nothing that changes background with sufficient scale to stop being considered "background" level.

[KitemanSA]

AGAIN, you said "only NI62 and NI64 are reacting to produce copper 63 and 65". He said you are correct. I agree. All the other Ni isotopes wind up with other copper isotopes (temporarily) and with other Nickel isotopes eventually.

And we do not see radiation from these other copper isotopes, even after the reactor is stopped because...?

First, since folks tend to take things out of context, my statement you quote above is at the end of a long chain wherein I tried to make it clear that I was not actually arguing that my statement was true, but playing devil's advocate to show that his simple interpretation need not be the ONLY interpretation. Now, to answer your question...

Their half lives are in the minute to low hour range. Gone before the "product" can be isotopically investigated?

The one piece of data of which I am aware that Rossi has provided, inadvertantly unless he is a truly crafty con, that relates to this is the "gamma detector" in the Krivit video. When he was having so much difficulty reading what the label on the meter face said, it was visible in the video. It looked to drop from ~15 to ~12 when he moved the probe away from the ecat. It would suggest tht there IS gamma, just not a lot and well withing the "background" range.

Not knowing all that much about background gamma levels, I don't know if I am interpreting that correctly.

[bk78]

To me, the prhase "undetectable" implys consistent with background, and in the same magnitude. Are you detecting it, or background?
Increasing IT 100X might take it to ~100X background.
Perhaps "indistinguishable" would be a better word.

100X detection limit does not mean 100X background radiation (for a person standing next to it). Do you agree, or should I explain it a 3rd time?

Reducing the concentration 3X need not mean the radiation output goes down only 3X. I suspect there are non-linearities involved.

Please explain how the Ni-58 nuclei know of each other so that there can be nonlinearities. Do they know about the generated copper, too? (And the iron?)

And the reason for reducing it by 3X may have nothing to do with radiation. Don't get too hooked on one possible reason.

It was one of the two possibilities you gave why Rossi enriches the Nickel. Do you finally agree it makes no sense?

Having said that... as I understand IC, the event does not carry away ALL the excitation energy, just a set part of it. The remained would still be emitted as a photon. TECHNICALLY, by definition, that photon would be a gamma. PRACTICALLY, that photon could be in the X-ray band. X-rays can be quite easily shielded.

nuclear internal conversion means, the energy is emitted as beta radiation instead of a gamma quant, with the electron carrying ALL the energy. No energy is split. We would see a sharp 6MeV beta spectrum.

chemical internal conversion means, to cite wikipedia:
"Internal conversion is a transition from a higher to a lower electronic state in a molecule or atom"
There is no state of the nickel shell that is capable of holding 6 MeV, THUS THERE IS NO CHEMICAL INTERNAL CONVERSION.
Even if it the electrons from the nickel would take as much energy away as they could, there would still be MeVs left. And even if the energy was evenly shared among the nickels electrons, then the shielding would be more effective, but radiation would still be millions of times above detection limit.

To stress it once more: You are not looking for a process that works sometimes, but for one that shields the beta and/or gamma with a propability of at least 99,9999999%.

Re #2, I did not intend to imply ZERO radiation, just nothing that changes background with sufficient scale to stop being considered "background" level.

Nitpicking. From my comment, is clear that this is what I meant.

[bk78]

Their half lives are in the minute to low hour range. Gone before the "product" can be isotopically investigated?

If you identify them with a gamma spectrometer, certainly not.

The one piece of data of which I am aware that Rossi has provided, inadvertantly unless he is a truly crafty con, that relates to this is the "gamma detector" in the Krivit video. When he was having so much difficulty reading what the label on the meter face said, it was visible in the video. It looked to drop from ~15 to ~12 when he moved the probe away from the ecat. It would suggest tht there IS gamma, just not a lot and well withing the "background" range.

I am speaking of the scintillator counter I have seen somewhere. (and any visitor could have brought one with him).
Rossis "Gamma scout" is a hotdog geiger-muller tube. It's target is evacuated gas. In a scintillar detector, it is i.e. a NaI crystal. Since these are more dense, they are typically about 100 times more sensitive at the same size. Gamma scintillator only detect gamma, while Rossis GM-tube is also confused by beta and alpha (Radon). If he integrated long enough (hours), he could get sensitive readings too (some people use this device to detect changes of natural radioactivity because of the weather), but the low numbers do not tell us whether there is an small increase in gammas. On the other hand, we can exclude there is a SUBSTANTIAL increase by a factor 10,100... or so, because that would immidiately be picked up. And even if that had happened, we are still many (>7) orders of magnitude short of explaining what we see.

[seedload]

Kite

A non-proportional reduction in radiation aas compared to the percent reduction in 58, 60, 61 would be yet another miracle. You don't reduce the proportional likelihood of nuclear scale reactions with macro scale changes to isotopic ratios.

This would lead one to conclude that 58, 60, 61 must be reduced substatially to make a significant effect relative to background. A 2 or 3 times increase in 62, 6r doesn't get you there.

Also, it would suggest that 58 needs to be nearly eliminated to avoid the production of 59. He can't sell this is he is producing 59.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

To me, the prhase "undetectable" implys consistent with background, and in the same magnitude. Are you detecting it, or background?
Increasing IT 100X might take it to ~100X background.
Perhaps "indistinguishable" would be a better word.

100X detection limit does not mean 100X background radiation (for a person standing next to it). Do you agree, or should I explain it a 3rd time?

Increasing something that is just under "background" by business headache standards by 100X takes it well over "background" by business headache standards, and therefore a potential business headache, or must I explain it for a fourth time?

Reducing the concentration 3X need not mean the radiation output goes down only 3X. I suspect there are non-linearities involved.

Please explain how the Ni-58 nuclei know of each other so that there can be nonlinearities. Do they know about the generated copper, too? (And the iron?)

This is in a crystal lattice. It is often theorized that it is being driven by large conglomerations of particles. What sticking unwanted particles into that conglomeration might do to said conglomeration is unknown to me. but I do not presume to "know" that it is linear. Indeed, VERY FEW things in nature are linear. So having non-linear effect is the norm, to me.

And the reason for reducing it by 3X may have nothing to do with radiation. Don't get too hooked on one possible reason.

It was one of the two possibilities you gave why Rossi enriches the Nickel. Do you finally agree it makes no sense?

No.

Having said that... as I understand IC, the event does not carry away ALL the excitation energy, just a set part of it. The remained would still be emitted as a photon. TECHNICALLY, by definition, that photon would be a gamma. PRACTICALLY, that photon could be in the X-ray band. X-rays can be quite easily shielded.

nuclear internal conversion means, the energy is emitted as beta radiation instead of a gamma quant, with the electron carrying ALL the energy. No energy is split. We would see a sharp 6MeV beta spectrum.

For clarity, and to be technical, it is NOT beta radiation. It is an shell electron that has a probablistic chance of being inside the nucleus when the reaction occurs and can be accelerated to a set value of energy. The same concept, that of having an electron available to carry off the excitation energy, may change if the electron is not coming from the atom's electron shells, but from some conglomerate particle (BEC of cooper pairs, excort electron, what have you). I don't presume to know what isn't known about this subject.

chemical internal conversion means, to cite wikipedia:
"Internal conversion is a transition from a higher to a lower electronic state in a molecule or atom"
There is no state of the nickel shell that is capable of holding 6 MeV, THUS THERE IS NO CHEMICAL INTERNAL CONVERSION.

??? Who ever said it was chamical internal conversion? Can you say "strawman"?

Even if it the electrons from the nickel would take as much energy away as they could, there would still be MeVs left. And even if the energy was evenly shared among the nickels electrons, then the shielding would be more effective, but radiation would still be millions of times above detection limit.

Not sure what you are saying, but if you are thinking chemical IC, readjust your think back to nuclear.

To stress it once more: You are not looking for a process that works sometimes, but for one that shields the beta and/or gamma with a propability of at least 99,9999999%.

And if the posited reaction is in fact happening, there should always be an electron available to carry away a large portion of the excitation energy. How many "nines" equal "always", I wouldn't guess, but near certainty.

Re #2, I did not intend to imply ZERO radiation, just nothing that changes background with sufficient scale to stop being considered "background" level.

Nitpicking. From my comment, is clear that this is what I meant.

No, I don't think we are meeting minds. You seem to think that Rossi is looking for no, zero, nyet, nada, zip, cyffr, none, whatever word you wish to use, radiation. You keep using long strings of nines as zero. I suspect he is accepting of maybe as high as 25% or there abouts the local background level. These are TOTALLY different things.

[KitemanSA]

Their half lives are in the minute to low hour range. Gone before the "product" can be isotopically investigated?

If you identify them with a gamma spectrometer, certainly not.

Has anyone tried? Would he think to. Would he care? Might he specifically be avoiding it? If the overall output of gamma is low enough (not zero, but not much different that background), whould he WANT you to know what is generating the gamma?

==================

The one piece of data of which I am aware that Rossi has provided, inadvertantly unless he is a truly crafty con, that relates to this is the "gamma detector" in the Krivit video. When he was having so much difficulty reading what the label on the meter face said, it was visible in the video. It looked to drop from ~15 to ~12 when he moved the probe away from the ecat. It would suggest tht there IS gamma, just not a lot and well withing the "background" range.

I am speaking of the scintillator counter I have seen somewhere. (and any visitor could have brought one with him).
Rossis "Gamma scout" is a hotdog geiger-muller tube. It's target is evacuated gas. In a scintillar detector, it is i.e. a NaI crystal. Since these are more dense, they are typically about 100 times more sensitive at the same size. Gamma scintillator only detect gamma, while Rossis GM-tube is also confused by beta and alpha (Radon). If he integrated long enough (hours), he could get sensitive readings too (some people use this device to detect changes of natural radioactivity because of the weather), but the low numbers do not tell us whether there is an small increase in gammas. On the other hand, we can exclude there is a SUBSTANTIAL increase by a factor 10,100... or so, because that would immidiately be picked up.

From this I suspect you mean that you have seen data, real data, on gamma rates. True? What is it?

And even if that had happened, we are still many (>7) orders of magnitude short of explaining what we see.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

[bk78]

Increasing something that is just under "background" by business headache standards by 100X takes it well over "background" by business headache standards, and therefore a potential business headache, or must I explain it for a fourth time?

Do you know what background radiation is?

This is in a crystal lattice. It is often theorized that it is being driven by large conglomerations of particles. What sticking unwanted particles into that conglomeration might do to said conglomeration is unknown to me. but I do not presume to "know" that it is linear. Indeed, VERY FEW things in nature are linear. So having non-linear effect is the norm, to me.

That's a lot handweaving and not and direct answer to my question. So i guess you can't explain it and you simply assume it based on no evidence so that it fits your view.

nuclear internal conversion means, the energy is emitted as beta radiation instead of a gamma quant, with the electron carrying ALL the energy. No energy is split. We would see a sharp 6MeV beta spectrum.

For clarity, and to be technical, it is NOT beta radiation. It is an shell electron that has a probablistic chance of being inside the nucleus when the reaction occurs and can be accelerated to a set value of energy. The same concept, that of having an electron available to carry off the excitation energy, may change if the electron is not coming from the atom's electron shells, but from some conglomerate particle (BEC of cooper pairs, excort electron, what have you). I don't presume to know what isn't known about this subject.

For someone who talks so lowly of Axil, it comes a bit as a surprise if he repeats the same nonsense. A BEC of cooper pairs, at room temperature, heated by several kWs, my ass! And you say you don't need new physics!
Do you understand why the electron for internal conversion usually comes from the K-shell? Do you understand any cooper pair would immediately break apart at such a distance, let alone when beeing heated with MeVs?
You have absolutely ZERO explaination why we don't see radiation.

To stress it once more: You are not looking for a process that works sometimes, but for one that shields the beta and/or gamma with a propability of at least 99,9999999%.

And if the posited reaction is in fact happening, there should always be an electron available to carry away a large portion of the excitation energy. How many "nines" equal "always", I wouldn't guess, but near certainty.

I don't care "if there is always an[singular!!!] electron availabe[!!!]".
The energy must be distributed within the very short half life of the metastable nucleus to HUNDREDS of particles. In at least 99,9999999% of the cases.

Re #2, I did not intend to imply ZERO radiation, just nothing that changes background with sufficient scale to stop being considered "background" level.

Nitpicking. From my comment, is clear that this is what I meant.

No, I don't think we are meeting minds.

What else can you do to demonstrate your ignorance.

You seem to think that Rossi is looking for no, zero, nyet, nada, zip, cyffr, none, whatever word you wish to use, radiation.

Lie.

[bk78]

Their half lives are in the minute to low hour range. Gone before the "product" can be isotopically investigated?

If you identify them with a gamma spectrometer, certainly not.

Has anyone tried? Would he think to. Would he care? Might he specifically be avoiding it? If the overall output of gamma is low enough (not zero, but not much different that background), whould he WANT you to know what is generating the gamma?

You missed the point. The question is: Why we don't see radiation from this decay. You asked whether the isotopes could be analyzed. They can.

The one piece of data of which I am aware that Rossi has provided, inadvertantly unless he is a truly crafty con, that relates to this is the "gamma detector" in the Krivit video. When he was having so much difficulty reading what the label on the meter face said, it was visible in the video. It looked to drop from ~15 to ~12 when he moved the probe away from the ecat. It would suggest tht there IS gamma, just not a lot and well withing the "background" range.

I am speaking of the scintillator counter I have seen somewhere. (and any visitor could have brought one with him).
Rossis "Gamma scout" is a hotdog geiger-muller tube. It's target is evacuated gas. In a scintillar detector, it is i.e. a NaI crystal. Since these are more dense, they are typically about 100 times more sensitive at the same size. Gamma scintillator only detect gamma, while Rossis GM-tube is also confused by beta and alpha (Radon). If he integrated long enough (hours), he could get sensitive readings too (some people use this device to detect changes of natural radioactivity because of the weather), but the low numbers do not tell us whether there is an small increase in gammas. On the other hand, we can exclude there is a SUBSTANTIAL increase by a factor 10,100... or so, because that would immidiately be picked up.

From this I suspect you mean that you have seen data, real data, on gamma rates. True? What is it?

This video gives you an impression of the behaviour of the gamma scout:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKAwSvN ... re=related
My "data" comes from the fact that in one of the early interviews it was said that they had an gamma scintillator and did not measure anything.
They also had one in the recent demonstrations with the results beeing "secret".

[Crawdaddy]

What is the current thinking on the origin of the surface energy? Is this an effect of crystallography, i.e. the lattice, defects, etc, or interaction at the interface of the solid with the vacuum, i.e. surface plasmon resonance type behaviour or something else?

How do we know that the nickel at atoms at the surface can be quite mobile?

Thnx in anticipation.

The concept of "surface energy" is broad and encompasses the large number of phenomena that make bulk materials lower in energy than nanoparaticles. Examples of such phenomena are lattice dislocations, stress, and weak bonding to chemisorbed surface species. Surface plasmons are not involved.

A surface plasmon, to my knowledge, is a special type of quasiparticle called a polariton. A polariton results from the coupling of light and matter, the light is not absorbed in the generation of a plasmon but is more like "joined" to the material in question. To my knowledge plasmons can only exist when the sum of the permittivity and imaginary permittivity of a material are positive. For nickel, this value is deep into the UV.

Atoms on the surface of nanoparticles are more mobile than bulk materials because of their high "surface energy". Monolayers of metal are an extreme example of high surface energy and for all practical purposes cannot exist as a close examination of the literature reveals.

Personally, I think this line of reasoning can not reveal any insight into the e-cat mechanism. The mechanism of cold fusion has already stumped such luminaries as Schwinger, Teller, Josephson, and Fleischmann. Direct observation of the cold fusion reaction with advanced instrumentation is the only way to generate a worthy hypothesis.

[KitemanSA]

A non-proportional reduction in radiation aas compared to the percent reduction in 58, 60, 61 would be yet another miracle. You don't reduce the proportional likelihood of nuclear scale reactions with macro scale changes to isotopic ratios.

Can you show me data the proves this statement to be true? The fact that you don't know of one is not the same as saying you know there isn't one. Show me the data. That is what I keep asking for. SHOW ME THE DATA! (With apologies to Jerry McGuire).

This would lead one to conclude that 58, 60, 61 must be reduced substatially to make a significant effect relative to background. A 2 or 3 times increase in 62, 6r doesn't get you there.

Actually, I said a 3ish times REDUCTION in 58Ni. Not the same thing. If 58Ni is ~ 70% and goes down to ~25%, and figuring the proportions pivot about the center of the mass spread, This would increase the 62 and 64 by more like 20 times.

Also, it would suggest that 58 needs to be nearly eliminated to avoid the production of 59. He can't sell this is he is producing 59.

Since 59 has a ~1E5 year half-life, perhaps he would think that low enough radiotoxicity. Alternatively, his reasons (ITRMIR) may have nothing to do with radiotoxicity but other reasons.
For example, speculatively speaking; 58Ni is SLIGHTLY unstable due (IIUTC) to being a bit proton rich. If it grabbed another proton, it would be MORE proton rich. The most probable outcome (IMHO) would be to kick that proton out again. My reading leads me to believe that this happens much more often than most people realize. Such absorbtion/emission is lumped with the "coulomb scattering" IIRC. Maybe the reason to reduce the Ni58 is that the re-emitted proton plays hob with the conglomerate particle system that drives the process. Maybe reducing the 58Ni to whatever value he reduces it without making the results untenably expensive, is to allow the process to proceed without interruption by excess coulohm scattering, i.e. tearing apart the conglomerate system.

[MSimon]

I suspect there are non-linearities involved.

Yeah. Me too! But I'm probably thinking of different ones than you are.

BTW have these non-linearities you posit been observed any where else? My nuke training is rather old ('66) but I have endeavored to keep up and I have heard of no such observation.

Activation in reactors is (neutron flux * #of particles/volume * cross section). I have never heard of the #of particles changing the cross section. Perhaps you could provide a link.