10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

Less and less probable IMHO.

Change that "probable" to "likely" and you agree with me. But I have no data with which to calculate probabilities.

FUTURE TALKING POINTS:
As I see this, there is one point of unusual engineering and three points of unusual physics. NONE of them are impossible, just not data filled at this time.
Engineering:
Ni 58 derichment:
This IMHO is the simplest of the issues, just not proven. Three methods seem plausioble for a well equipped lab it the goal is to reduce the presence of Ni58 by an order of magnitude, not multiple orders.
Physics:
Coulohm Barrier:
So far, all suggested processes involve, or at least SEEM to involve, the use of a quasi-particle (conglomerate particle, condensate, what ever you wish to call it) of electrons that in some manner neutralize the repulsion of the Ni on the H+. I have looked at a number of suggestions, all of them plausible, none proven.
Gamma Emission from Excited Cu. This would under normal circumstance emit a gamma of about 6ish MeV. Something of this energy would be VERY difficult to shield. It seems that the ONLY soluition to this is "internal conversion". Luckily, if the first condition (quasi-particle of electrons) is true, there should ALWAYS be an electron available at the time of the reaction to accomplish IC. Plausible, not aproven.
Gamma emission from ground state unstable Cu:
IF and Ni isotope other than 58, 62, or 64 is involved in the process, the copper produced will be an unstable isotope with a decay time on the low order of seconds. It would under normal circumstanced emit a positron (and a neutrino) by β+ decay. This positron would effectively immediately combine with an electron and emit a 1.4(?)MeV gamma. This would also be very difficult to shield. For a while, I thought this was the game stopper. HOWEVER, it seems the prefered mechanism for thise isotope to decay is by electron capture, relying on positron emission only becasue the statistics work out htat way. In THIS postulated case, there are electrons available with regularity so perhaps the electron capture path dominates... "while the reactor is on".
This is the "iffy"est of the plausibles based on my limited research so far. Plausible, far from proven.
No miracles, no new physics, just same old physics beyond the researched edge.

[cg66]

FUTURE TALKING POINTS:

Putting aside how the coulomb barrier is being overcome, can we assume the formation of isotopes in a solid lattice would be the same as isotopes created using a cyclotron or a neutron howitzer? Is it possible that only certain nuclear structures are preferred? Would this explain why Ni and Pd seem to be required for this reaction (I’ve heard claims that other elements should work but haven’t seen any literature)? Looking specifically at some sort of neutron capture, if you look at all the stable isotopes for Pd and Ni – the addition of a neutron to the nucleus results in an isotope that decays by B-. The only exception is Ni-59 which has a half-life of 76000 years. Does this explain the lack of gammas due to positron annihilation (if Ni-58 even participates)? Does nuclear composition play a role? Some of the Pd papers I’ve read seem to use on Pd-108 or Pd-110. Rossi (ugg I hate quoting this guy) says only Ni-62 and Ni-64 react. Is the ratio of protons to neutrons important? Does neutron capture in the lattice favor neutron heavy isotopes? Does nuclear spin play a role? I’m curious to hear people’s thoughts. (I am physicist by training but not a nuclear physicist so I may be showing my ignorance here –so go easy on me!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_palladium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel

[seedload]

When asked to explain yourself, you just go off on a rant about how you have such and so learning and others don't (though how you know that is also a mystery).

Have you such data?

No, but I don't claim to know the answer either. I am SEEKING data to make a decision, You seem to have decided without data. If you HAVE the data, please provide it.

One wonders why it is so surprising to you that you can't find any data on outlandish speculations?

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

FUTURE TALKING POINTS:

Putting aside how the coulomb barrier is being overcome, can we assume the formation of isotopes in a solid lattice would be the same as isotopes created using a cyclotron or a neutron howitzer?

I see no reason to expect different, except that I see no reason to believe it has anything to do with "neutrons" per-se.

Is it possible that only certain nuclear structures are preferred?

This is a very good question. Seems likely that a particular form of lattice may be important. So maybe the ELEMENT is important.

Would this explain why Ni and Pd seem to be required for this reaction (I’ve heard claims that other elements should work but haven’t seen any literature)?

I suspect you are confusing things. I've seen documents that posit at LEAST three DIFFERENT kinds of reactions. Two (P+P Fusion and D+D fusion) seem to happen in Pd lattices. The third (p+Ni) of course would work only in a Nickel lattice. My discussion has been limited to observations regarding posited p+Ni reaction. This is arguably NOT fusion but transmutation, but this MAY be purely symantics.

Looking specifically at some sort of neutron capture, if you look at all the stable isotopes for Pd and Ni – the addition of a neutron to the nucleus results in an isotope that decays by B-. The only exception is Ni-59 which has a half-life of 76000 years. Does this explain the lack of gammas due to positron annihilation (if Ni-58 even participates)?

I don't posit that neutron capture has any bearing. And as stated above, my comments are not related to Pd catalized fusion. With HNi (p+Ni) reactions, all the other isotopes of HNi reactions (except Ni58) all result in either a stable copper or an unstable copper that decays in LOoM second time frames. The electron quasi-particle permitted IC and EC mechanisms might explain the lack of OBSERVABLE gamma in both cases.

[MSimon]

No gammas might also explain the lack of gammas.

[KitemanSA]

FUTURE TALKING POINTS:

Does nuclear composition play a role? Some of the Pd papers I’ve read seem to use on Pd-108 or Pd-110. Rossi (ugg I hate quoting this guy) says only Ni-62 and Ni-64 react.

Actually, he says only 62 and 64 react... to form stable copper. And that is a "duhh" kind of statement. He also said that there is no observable radiation outside the unit while the reaction was working" which I find an interesting and POTENTIALLY telling modifier.

Is the ratio of protons to neutrons important?

To me, I suspect that it is. Proton rich isotopes would tend to re-emit a proton more readily than a neutron rich isotope; and thus be less likely to undergo a neuclear reaction as currently defined. But this is only partially speculation.

Does neutron capture in the lattice

I don't posit neutron involvement in the Rossi reaction, assuming there is a reaction at all.

[KitemanSA]

No gammas might also explain the lack of gammas.

This is another of the "well d'uhh" comments.

[MSimon]

No gammas might also explain the lack of gammas.

This is another of the "well d'uhh" comments. :D

I was waiting for that. I just knew you could,'t resist.

[KitemanSA]

No gammas might also explain the lack of gammas.

This is another of the "well d'uhh" comments.

I was waiting for that. I just knew you could,'t resist.

And who am I to deprive you of your simple joys in life?
Have you met your pieman?

[cg66]

I suspect you are confusing things. I've seen documents that posit at LEAST three DIFFERENT kinds of reactions. Two (P+P Fusion and D+D fusion) seem to happen in Pd lattices. The third (p+Ni) of course would work only in a Nickel lattice. My discussion has been limited to observations regarding posited p+Ni reaction. This is arguably NOT fusion but transmutation, but this MAY be purely symantics.

I would have to dig it up the paper - but i remember some apparent transmutation of Pd (e.g. increase in Ag) – however contamination seems to be a problem in determining isotope concentrations the electrolytic tests done with Pd.

[Ivy Matt]

Before you decide, think. Before you think, get relevant data. So far, no one has presented relevant data. Oh well.

We have claims and speculation. Those are kinds of data.

[KitemanSA]

Before you decide, think. Before you think, get relevant data. So far, no one has presented relevant data. Oh well.

We have claims and speculation. Those are kinds of data.

Fine, but I don't consider them "relevant". They are "opinion" data, not science data. I prefer my DECISIONS to be scientifically based.

[KitemanSA]

I suspect you are confusing things. I've seen documents that posit at LEAST three DIFFERENT kinds of reactions. Two (P+P Fusion and D+D fusion) seem to happen in Pd lattices. The third (p+Ni) of course would work only in a Nickel lattice. My discussion has been limited to observations regarding posited p+Ni reaction. This is arguably NOT fusion but transmutation, but this MAY be purely symantics.

I would have to dig it up the paper - but i remember some apparent transmutation of Pd (e.g. increase in Ag) – however contamination seems to be a problem in determining isotope concentrations the electrolytic tests done with Pd.

Ok, so there may be a fourth type (I DID say at LEAST three)! But I have not looked into THAT one either. My comments are on HNi (p+Ni) and no other.

[seedload]

Less and less probable IMHO.

Change that "probable" to "likely" and you agree with me. But I have no data with which to calculate probabilities.

FUTURE TALKING POINTS:
As I see this, there is one point of unusual engineering and three points of unusual physics. NONE of them are impossible, just not data filled at this time.
Engineering:
Ni 58 derichment:
This IMHO is the simplest of the issues, just not proven. Three methods seem plausioble for a well equipped lab it the goal is to reduce the presence of Ni58 by an order of magnitude, not multiple orders.
Physics:
Coulohm Barrier:
So far, all suggested processes involve, or at least SEEM to involve, the use of a quasi-particle (conglomerate particle, condensate, what ever you wish to call it) of electrons that in some manner neutralize the repulsion of the Ni on the H+. I have looked at a number of suggestions, all of them plausible, none proven.
Gamma Emission from Excited Cu. This would under normal circumstance emit a gamma of about 6ish MeV. Something of this energy would be VERY difficult to shield. It seems that the ONLY soluition to this is "internal conversion". Luckily, if the first condition (quasi-particle of electrons) is true, there should ALWAYS be an electron available at the time of the reaction to accomplish IC. Plausible, not aproven.
Gamma emission from ground state unstable Cu:
IF and Ni isotope other than 58, 62, or 64 is involved in the process, the copper produced will be an unstable isotope with a decay time on the low order of seconds. It would under normal circumstanced emit a positron (and a neutrino) by β+ decay. This positron would effectively immediately combine with an electron and emit a 1.4(?)MeV gamma. This would also be very difficult to shield. For a while, I thought this was the game stopper. HOWEVER, it seems the prefered mechanism for thise isotope to decay is by electron capture, relying on positron emission only becasue the statistics work out htat way. In THIS postulated case, there are electrons available with regularity so perhaps the electron capture path dominates... "while the reactor is on".
This is the "iffy"est of the plausibles based on my limited research so far. Plausible, far from proven.
No miracles, no new physics, just same old physics beyond the researched edge.

PAST TALKING POINTS

Rossi is captured intentionally pouring the water out of the hose.
Rossi shows a trickle of vapor coming out of the hose and claims total conversion to steam.

[Joseph Chikva]

Based on your personality, I feel you are being false and a scam. I choose not to send you any money.

Hehe, he feels. Declared scam is not scam but only the sample which is very similar to real scam of Mr. Rossi, my acute friend. Take a look on common fraud schemes: http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud