10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Joseph Chikva]

However, hidden agendas, jealousy, phobias, financial interests and the like (the seven cardinal sins ...but lust and gluttony are not at issue here) usually make comity, tolerant consideration and interested critique for the ideas of others impossible.

You forgot snakes.

[KitemanSA]

Do you disagree with my statement or is it that you just have to be a smart-a$$ about everything?

"If"
The purpose of experiment/demo or how you want to call that is to exclude any "if".

If the reaction p + 62N = 63Cu occurs, for whatever reason, is that reaction endo or exo-themic? That is the "If" in question. So please answer that question. If you prefer the statement to be "given that" the reaction... In either case, is the reaction endo or exo thermic?
PS: Didn't read the rest of your off issue diatribe.

[Joseph Chikva]

If the reaction p + 62N = 63Cu occurs, for whatever reason, is that reaction endo or exo-themic? That is the "If" in question. So please answer that question.

Ok. I am answering. That will occur if that type of reaction is possible in principle. And if that possible, so that is already would be investigated.
And investigated not now in 2011 but in 20s, 30s and 40s of last sentury. And not by people like Rossi but by Lawrence, Oppenhemer, Kurchatov in SU, etc.

PS: Didn't read the rest of your off issue diatribe.

You flatter yourselves if think that I have a need to convict you. Or someone else with youtube, nextbigfuture or discovery channel education.

[Crawdaddy]

Tomclark

He wants Ni nuclei to form a plasma (not held in place by electrostatic bonds as is normally the case in a solid or liquid).

This is not correct.

The paper postulates that nickel above the Currie temperature and/or in the form of an alloy will be mobile within the metal lattice. There is no plasma involved and the author never suggests that there is.

[tomclarke]

Tomclark

He wants Ni nuclei to form a plasma (not held in place by electrostatic bonds as is normally the case in a solid or liquid).

This is not correct.

The paper postulates that nickel above the Currie temperature and/or in the form of an alloy will be mobile within the metal lattice. There is no plasma involved and the author never suggests that there is.

He wants the Ni nuclei to form a BEC. They can't do that unless they are a plasma

[Crawdaddy]

Tomclarke

He wants the Ni nuclei to form a BEC. They can't do that unless they are a plasma

I don't think the professor agrees with you. It is obvious from the paper that no plasma is formed. Your argument is that no BEC involving nickel can form inside a solid/liquid matrix. The author never claims a plasma is formed because under the conditions of the reaction the idea is absurd.

[Joseph Chikva]

Tomclarke

He wants the Ni nuclei to form a BEC. They can't do that unless they are a plasma

I don't think the professor agrees with you. It is obvious from the paper that no plasma is formed. Your argument is that no BEC involving nickel can form inside a solid/liquid matrix. The author never claims a plasma is formed because under the conditions of the reaction the idea is absurd.

Besides that paper who said that Bose-Einstein condensate can be created at the temperature of above some limit. Or where and who says about magnetic nature of that conversion?

I have done some searching now and saw anywhere the talk about only low temperatures (near absolute zero). Or in the other words not above but lower than certain limit.
Also who says that in the matter being at that condition the overcoming of Coulomb barrier is possible without acceleration of particles or heating the matter?
Here that secret Rossi's catalyst plays?

If that is truth that is worth for Nobel Prize. 2011 or atleast 2012. But I do not see any movement on it.

[Axil]

I have done some searching now and saw anywhere the talk about only low temperatures (near absolute zero). Or in the other words not above but lower than certain limit.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISIT ... ustLPB.pdf


You’re looking at the wrong stuff. Look for Rydberg matter. Rydberg matter is bosonic in nature and can form a Bose-Einstein condensate when it condenses at or above room temperature.



Thermoelectric devices have been shown to be just jammed packed with this stuff and they operate at very high temperatures.

As an alternative to professor Kims offering, I humbly offer this alternative explanation to the origin and possible functionality characterized by the atomic coherence that is required if radiation from the nuclear reactions that makeup the Rossi process are to be suppressed.





First off, the formation of Rydberg matter begins with the production of highly excited alkaline atoms (HEAA) when hydrogen, lithium and/or potassium are heated to high temperatures and pressures enclosed within a gaseous envelope composed primarily of hydrogen gas. Yes, lithium or potassium is the most probable secret element additives that catalyze the formation of Rydberg matter.





In all methods currently known to successfully form Rydberg matter; an adjacent surface removes the excess energy released by the condensation of these HEAA. The most efficient process to form this condensate of Rydberg matter clusters so far has been desorption (evaporation) from a solid surface as they seek to minimize their energy, which means that the excess bond energy is deposited in the surface.





In more detail, Rydberg matter is bosonic in nature and can form a Bose-Einstein condensate. like bosons at low temperatures that can be condensed to form usually well understood Bose-Einstein condensates, Rydberg matter can be condensed, but not in the same way. The reason for this is that Rydberg matter behaves like a gas where it cannot be condensed without removing the condensation energy. If this heat removal is not done, ionization of the component atoms occurs. All solutions to this problem so far involve using an adjacent surface in some way, the best being evaporating the atoms of which the Rydberg matter is to be formed from and leaving the condensation energy on the surface.





However in the Rossi reactor, the absorption of energy from HEAA is done onto the cold walls of the reaction vessel. This formation of Rydberg condensate matter is a change of state process that will cause Rydberg matter to first form and then to hover very near to the surface of the reaction vessel walls through an electrostatic attraction at the point on the electrostatically grounded reaction vessel wall where it was initially formed. This condensate then acts to catalyze the Rossi process.

[Joseph Chikva]

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISIT ... ustLPB.pdf


You’re looking at the wrong stuff. Look for Rydberg matter.

Ok, let's say your staff is correct.
For inertial confinement. Not interested in density? 10^29 cm-3=10^35!!!!!! m-3
I heard about white dwarfs, black holes and such other objects having an extremely high density.
But I also see the attempts of explanation of non-existing effect with juggling of terms: Bose-Einstein, Rydberg, etc.
In reality please explain in clear for my primitive brain manner is there catalyst converting the conventional crystal to Bose-Einstein Condensate, Rydberg matter?

Temperature with density plays, only temperature, magnetism?

well understood Bose-Einstein condensates?

Here people do not know that two unidirectional currents attract each other. For whom that is well understood?
For me not. But that is not a big tragedy. ]
The highest level of my understanding is that at big enough densities matter has the different properties. And 10^35m^-3 is very high. Much higher than Nickel crystal lattice has.

[tomclarke]

Tomclarke

He wants the Ni nuclei to form a BEC. They can't do that unless they are a plasma

I don't think the professor agrees with you. It is obvious from the paper that no plasma is formed. Your argument is that no BEC involving nickel can form inside a solid/liquid matrix. The author never claims a plasma is formed because under the conditions of the reaction the idea is absurd.

Read the paper carefully. I agree no plasma is formed, which is why the hypothetical conditions don't apply. Actually the paper is cautious, it does not say they do apply. But it is disingenuous in that it puts forward as a premise something which cannot apply.

The key is what does he mean by "mobile", and what is meant by BEC? Are you claiming that BECs can occur other than in gases?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80 ... condensate

I'll give you the reason from first principles.

He needs ultra low energies to get large de broglie wave packets. These are not possible in electrostatic potential wells because larger size => higher potential energy.

A normal gas would have nuclei interacting with associated bound electrons, and so unable to form nuclear BEC. Hence must be not only gas but plasma.

This is obvious from solving simple QM wave equations which presumably you have done, else why discuss it?

Even with a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable journal the views of author must be taken with caution - there are always mavericks. For example look at the very respectable peer reviewed papers suggesting that ultra-dense deuterium exists. This is exotic indeed, and if it exists will enable CF. The papers are all from the same group and although well written the evidence for ultra-dense deuterium is not at all conclusive. They are published because they contain useful experimntal data which needs to be explained - if not ultra-dense deuterium by something else. But until this work is taken up by others it remains an outlier, and it is inherently not very likely (reasons in another thread if you are interested).

For a paper in a less good journal the standard is a lot lower. For a self-published paper (as here) you should assume no authority.

That does not mean such papers are not helpful. You can read them and come to your own conclusions.

But your argument "X is a prof and says it so it must be right" will cut no ice with me without a lot of qualification. (e.g. a good resercher with a track record of good papers in the relevant area). Even then the best people can make mistakes and I would want to check. If you think this is harsh it is the way science must work - otherwise you end up with all sorts of weird wrong hypotheses being given status of fact. That was what used to happen before we had enough tools to systematise and understand from bottom up science. it still happens in areas like economics which are not science!22

Remember even famous physics profs tend to go off the rails when older - for example Penrose and QM powering consciousness.

PS - there are others here I am sure who can do QM and will corect me if I am wrong (giving reasons).

[tomclarke]

I have done some searching now and saw anywhere the talk about only low temperatures (near absolute zero). Or in the other words not above but lower than certain limit.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISIT ... ustLPB.pdf


You’re looking at the wrong stuff. Look for Rydberg matter. Rydberg matter is bosonic in nature and can form a Bose-Einstein condensate when it condenses at or above room temperature.



Thermoelectric devices have been shown to be just jammed packed with this stuff and they operate at very high temperatures.

As an alternative to professor Kims offering, I humbly offer this alternative explanation to the origin and possible functionality characterized by the atomic coherence that is required if radiation from the nuclear reactions that makeup the Rossi process are to be suppressed.

Axil, every time you post this untruth on this thread I correct you, with reasons. You do not refute my correction, but then post same thing again.

Rydberg matter is about electronic bonds from electrons in higher energy states. The electrons can be coherent, just as is possible in normal matter. It is not magical. Nor does it help the topic here which is how to get larger size of de broglie wave packet for Ni nuclei and protons.

BTW I suspect the evidence for Rydberg matter at high temperatures is very very contentious - but since my argument does not rest on this I will ignore it.

Notice the difference? Electrons are not nuclei.

[KitemanSA]

Here is a post from the nextbigfuture that shows a positive energy production from NI58 to CU63

So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy.

When you go through the calculation, you get positive energy output.

I ran the mass calculations with H = 1.007825032 and all the beta particle included but to no avail there math is correct I got 37.1778MeV the discrepancies being the difference in our mass tables. So despite what they tell you about the curve of binding energy, fusions for elements heavier then Iron can make energy (it surprised me anyway).

Again, the mass defect represents just that, the mass equivalent of a nucleus that is not measured on a scale. That is because it is in the form of energy. The total binding energy in fact.

Right, which is the total energy RELEASED by the nucleus during the reaction.

Why people believe that this energy represents some released energy is beyond me.

Becasue that is its definition. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.

It is a part of the nucleus. The nucleus cannot exist without this incorporated energy- it is the binding energy - a part of the nucleus.

No, the binding energy is the energy RELEASED. The remainder up to the ~14MeV is the part that stays with the nucleus as part of it's mass.

A lead rock sitting on the ground doesn't release any more energy than a lithium rock sitting on the ground. The lead rock has a lot more mass in the form of neutrons and protons and electrons, and binding energy, but that means nothing in this static situation. If you apply kinetic energy (an equal shove on both) it will not have any more energy than the light rock. If you divide up the mass in the lead into that represented by neutrons and protons, and mass deficit or binding energy, the total does not change. The binding energy may have increased, but this is a part of the nucleus, not the energy released in the formation. The total binding energy is simply the missing mass or the change in the balance between the defined masses of the particles in isolation and their mass within a nucleus. The mass- energy total does not change, only the ratio.

Dan, I begin to believe you are hopeless.
Go back to the empirical binding energy equation you linked to before. Notice that the FIRST term is a positive term of about 14MeV and the rest (except the final) are negative. Those NEGATIVE terms are what you are calling (inaccurately) the binding energy. Those terms relate to the amount of mass that DOESN'T go deficit upon a reaction. If no energy was absorbed by stretching bonds and going into surface tension, then each and every nucleon added would release 14MeV. But they don't. They release somewhat less, but still positive. Each and every time you add a nucleon.

The binding energy per nucleon is a different matter.

The binding energy per nucleon is by definition the amount of matter lost in the sum total of all reactions that make up the nucleus divided by the number of electrons. It is by Einstein's equation, the amount of energy lost (released) by the sum total of reactions divided by the number of nucleons.
DAN LISTEN, DON'T TRY TO MAKE IT ANY HARDER!!! It is just that simple. E=Mc². Mass deficit = energy released. This is called "binding energy". All those other terms (surface tension, couloum repulsion, symmetry) REDUCE the binding energy.

This experimentally derived table/ graph is less confusing (for me) if you consider it as the packing fraction, or nuclear density. Ni62 is the most tightly packed due to the interactions between the strong but short range Strong nuclear force, and the relatively weak but long range Electromagnetic repulsive force.

Seems it just makes it more confusing to you since you just refuse to get it.

Nuclear physic sometimes uses a liquid model (or gas) to describe things. As you compact/ increase the density of a fluid, the temperature increases (energy is released), as the fliud/ gas expands heat is absorbed. This is the same for nickel62. It is the most dense collection of nucleons possible for this consideration (neutron stars is different physics).

Dan, if you start condsing something, it may be the mopst compact form, but you continue to release energy from the least compact for if you condense it onto the unit. Same with nuclei. 62Ni may be the most dense, but it plus a proton are MUCH less dense that 63Cu. And it is the PROTON (or neutron) that releases the energy, NOT the nickel.

[KitemanSA]

dupe

[Crawdaddy]

Tomclarke

But your argument "X is a prof and says it so it must be right" will cut no ice with me without a lot of qualification. (e.g. a good resercher with a track record of good papers in the relevant area). Even then the best people can make mistakes and I would want to check. If you think this is harsh it is the way science must work - otherwise you end up with all sorts of weird wrong hypotheses being given status of fact. That was what used to happen before we had enough tools to systematise and understand from bottom up science. it still happens in areas like economics which are not science!22

Ummm that is not my argument!

I was simply pointing out that the paper doesn't claim there is a plasma.

I agree that the paper is speculative. There is no viable theory of cold fusion and speculating about it is almost foolish at this point. In the author's previous paper on deuterium palladium cold fusion he theorizes that a BEC is formed within small micro-crystalline grains that are isolated from the bulk by grain boundaries. He even does a bit of math to test his theory.

Many of the speculative theories of cold fusion revolve around condensates such as BECs being formed. It is interesting to note that, within a solid, coulomb screening effects might lower the separation between nuclei resulting in the possibility of degenerate overlap of wavefunctions at higher temperatures than in the gas phase. I can't see how this would apply to nickel in this case however.

BEC like condensates do exist in liquids and have been used to theoretically explain super-fluidity.

[KitemanSA]

If the reaction p + 62N = 63Cu occurs, for whatever reason, is that reaction endo or exo-themic? That is the "If" in question. So please answer that question.

Ok. I am answering. That will occur if that type of reaction is possible in principle. And if that possible, so that is already would be investigated.
And investigated not now in 2011 but in 20s, 30s and 40s of last sentury. And not by people like Rossi but by Lawrence, Oppenhemer, Kurchatov in SU, etc.

PS: Didn't read the rest of your off issue diatribe.

You flatter yourselves if think that I have a need to convict you. Or someone else with youtube, nextbigfuture or discovery channel education.

Actually, you "convict" yourself of religeous thinking by your statements that everything has been done.
You sound like Duell, the patent commissioner who was credited with the suggestion to shut down the Patent Office in the late 1800s because "everything worth inventing has been invented". Turns out he probably didn't say it, but you sound like that none-the-less.
Sorry to upset your religious beliefs, but not everything is known. New stuff is being discovered all the time. MAYBE even a new way to do what supernovae do, make heavier elements than nickel.
Did Rossi do it? I don't know. But there is no scientific reason that H:Ni LENR COULDN'T work that anyone has presented yet.