Crawdaddy wrote:The five nine in this statement refers to 99.999% pure. In materials research this is how we talk about the purity of our reagents. Alternatively for gases one might say 5.0 to refer to a gas that is 99.999% pure.
Also when dealing with precious metals one might hear someone say the silver bar is five nines purity.
In Italian the way to express the two concepts is quite different.
If he wanted to specify the purity he should have used the phrase "Cinque Noni", but he stated "Cinque - Nove".
The two are completely different concept and can hardly be mixed, so I tend to believe that he was referring to the isotope, not the purity.
KitemanSA wrote: I suspect that a polariton (electron) interacts as a quasiparticle boson and nudges a proton near enough to a (Z,A)Ni nucleus for the strong force to grab the real proton. This creates an excited (Z+1,A+1)Cu nucleus. At that point, the polariton electron, being close enough to the nucleus, accepts the released binding energy by internal conversion and sheds enough of the energy for the residual gamma to be in the Xray range. Thus, 2cm of lead would be sufficient to stop it.
That is my thought.
Even if something similar is happening, I find it hard to believe that we never saw such a process in act in the last 20 years of experiments. Additionally the energy to nudge a proton near enough to a nucleus is not small, and what happens when it misses the nucleus?
Looking forward to Giorgio & co commenting how stupid he is to be sucked in by this fraud.
If you quote the opinion of someone you should be enough objective to quote the full opinion of that person:
Despite his positive statements about LENR, he also made a few statements that indicate his lack of ability to admit that nuclear fusion at low temperatures could be a reality. He stated that all of the so called, "cold fusion" experiments performed over the last twenty years did not produce fusion reactions. His position is that they produced energy via a process called "Widom Larsen" theory, that does not involve fusion at all, but only "beta decay."
His opinion is in line with mine. We have big hopes for it to be real, but to date nothing proves that cold fusion does exist.
Rossi wrote:On the Beta decay and W&L theory, here is Rossi opinion:
5) Others claim there is no radiation being produced, except from beta-decay. Some push this idea to support a pet theory they religiously proclaim all over the net called, “Widom Larsen” theory.
Beta decay has nothing to do with my process, Widom Larsen theory has nothing to do with my process
KitemanSA wrote: Suppose the process were something like the variation of WL that I speculated about several posts back. Might Bushnell consider the variation "WL" while Rossi considers it "NOT WL" and BOTH be right?
Or both be wrong
KitemanSA wrote:Until the language is settled, "WL" and "Not WL" may be the exact same thing!
We will need some real data to clear this up, IMHO.
As some seem to think Bushnell said something else, read on...:
NASA’s Bushnell: LENR Most Promising Energy Alternative, and It’s Not Fusion
J. William Moore: I’d like to [look at] some of the [energy alternatives] that you think look most promising from your perspective.
Dennis Bushnell: The most interesting, and promising, at this point, in the farther term, but maybe not so far, is low-energy nuclear reactions. This has come out of [22] years of people producing energy but not knowing what it is — and we think we have a theory on it. It’s producing beta decay and heat without radiation. The research on this is very promising and it alone, if it comes to pass, would literally solve both [the] climate and energy [problems.]
Giorgio wrote: Even if something similar is happening, I find it hard to believe that we never saw such a process in act in the last 20 years of experiments. Additionally the energy to nudge a proton near enough to a nucleus is not small, and what happens when it misses the nucleus?
As far as I understand this situation, a polariton is an interaction between a photon and a quantum of oscillation, which suggests that there is oscillation involved. So perhaps the nudging is oscillatory and makes numerous passes thru the Ni matrix.
I've been wondering if the real "improvement" of Rossi's is twofold, the INTENTIONAL creation of plasmon polaritons, and the enrichment of the higher mass Ni isotopes. If the 62 and 64 react to nudged H more readily than the lower mass nickels, and if the polaritons in prior work had been created only accidentally, perhaps the marginal results have been related to that. Maybe.
Rossi wrote:On the Beta decay and W&L theory, here is Rossi opinion:
5) Others claim there is no radiation being produced, except from beta-decay. Some push this idea to support a pet theory they religiously proclaim all over the net called, “Widom Larsen” theory. Beta decay has nothing to do with my process, Widom Larsen theory has nothing to do with my process
What do you say about that?
I don't see how this modifies my prior statement at all. Plasmons and Polaritons are not WL. WL says they SPPE creates a neutron. If Rossi says, "no, it doesn't (it does something else like that) this is NOT WL in any way"... well...
Please understand that I am NOT saying that I believe that this is what is happening. I'd be surprised if it was happening this way, but it wouldn't shake my view of pysics and the universe. And, so far, it is the only one that makes much sense. Maybe I'll read up on "mini atoms" soon.
KitemanSA wrote: Suppose the process were something like the variation of WL that I speculated about several posts back. Might Bushnell consider the variation "WL" while Rossi considers it "NOT WL" and BOTH be right?
Or both be wrong
KitemanSA wrote:Until the language is settled, "WL" and "Not WL" may be the exact same thing!
We will need some real data to clear this up, IMHO.
parallel wrote:This has come out of [22] years of people producing energy but not knowing what it is — and we think we have a theory on it.
True, except the extra energy from repeatable experiments was measured in maximum few % in respect to the input energy. This adds nothing to the validity of Rossi claims.
His opinion is well expressed in this phrase:
parallel wrote:The research on this is very promising and it alone, if it comes to pass, would literally solve both [the] climate and energy [problems.]
I rephrase his words: "This research is very promising if it is proven to be real".
Which is also my opinion, no more no less.
KitemanSA wrote:As far as I understand this situation, a polariton is an interaction between a photon and a quantum of oscillation, which suggests that there is oscillation involved. So perhaps the nudging is oscillatory and makes numerous passes thru the Ni matrix.
Dunno... even if possible these are a little bit too wild speculations for me. I am still trying to find a plausible way on how they could get the formation of polaritons with an electric heater.
I am not convinced at all of this polaritons route.
seedload wrote: Rossi continues to say that this IS NOT Widom Larson Theory. So, who is wrong, Rossi or the NASA chief. If Bushnell doesn't have any special insight into Rossi's reactor (ie, he claims the wrong theory) then what importance is there in his support? Seems like he knows less than everyone else about Rossi's claims.
Suppose the process were something like the variation of WL that I speculated about several posts back. Might Bushnell consider the variation "WL" while Rossi considers it "NOT WL" and BOTH be right?
Personally, and with no real reason to point to other than personal probability prejudice, I do not think WL is quite right, in the DETAILS. That still allows that many of the general conditions me WL in general.
Until the language is settled, "WL" and "Not WL" may be the exact same thing!
Jokes aside, I suppose it could be some alternate theory that is somewhat like WL and something like what Rossi thinks it is and it therefore has both of them fooled - IF IT IS REAL.
That said, my main point was that having Nasa Guy's support isn't that valuable unless he that support adds something. In this case, it doesn't seem to.
