10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Tom,

Acording to the link above your post, the instrumentation and monitoring was by third parties.

"The experiment was organized by Dr. Giuseppi Levi to establish the ECat’s performance as a “black box.” That is, Dr. Levi’s instruments measured the electrical power and hydrogen supplied to and consumed by the ECat and measured the amount and temperature of the water to be heated to steam by the ECat, which was operated by Dr. Rossi."

unplugged
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:13 pm

AndreaRossi's side of the PetrolDragon story

Post by unplugged »

Andrea Rossi's side of the PetrolDragon story

http://ingandrearossi.com/

or as translated by google.

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... .com&twu=1

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

Yes, yes, I know that.
But there are other energy production methods that also produce Tritium and that even need the Tritium.


Tritium exposure is first and foremost a political problem. The general public, at least in America, is highly sensitive to the “perceived” dangers posed by tritium. Front groups who compete with power generation using or producing tritium utilize this fear as a way to prevent or remove the nuclear based tritium producer.

Consider as a case addressing this point… Vermont is shutting down the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor for failure of its tritium containment.

This is a big and expensive step for government of the small state like Vermont. There; as in many other places, the fear of tritium borne radiation sources is acute. For example, a recent auditor’s report on the Vermont nuclear decommissioning trust fund found decommissioning costs for the Vermont reactor could hit $990 million in 2006 dollars, or more than $1 billion in today’s dollars.

A $billion disbursement in decommissioning costs shows clear, widespread, pressing and overwhelming fear. This is on top of the capitalization loss of a plant that has a construction and commissioning cost of many $billions to design, certify, and build in the first place. In addition the cost of replacing the cheap and abundant power generated by this plant using expensive imported power adds to the financial burden borne by the people who pay eclectic bills in Vermont.

Is tritium that fearful a thing? For many ordinary people it is. They will bear any cost and endure any hardship in the face of this “deadly and certain menace”.

The nuclear advocate that ignores or downplays this fear does so at his peril.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

As I said, most of the Tritium should IMHO be burned emmediately in the side reactions. That is at least what I would assume. One would have to see how it behaves in public. In any case and that was my point, no radiation of any kind was detected during the presentation. That is why I am so confused and sceptical of the whole thing.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Skipjack,

Why do you say that? Some radiation was reportedly measured and if the device is anything like the patent, it is shielded with lead.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Axil,

If tritium is so dangerous, what about ITER that will produce KG of the stuff.

Maybe we should tell the locals so it can be abandonned before wasting many more billions on it ;-)

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Why do you say that? Some radiation was reportedly measured and if the device is anything like the patent, it is shielded with lead.
Uhm, from what I understood, the reported radiation was just a short gamma radiation spike and nowhere near what would have to be expected if the thing was actually doing some sort of fusion reaction that went on for minutes.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by Tom Ligon »

And gamma spikes, as we all know, are common when burning hydrogen in air or from cell phone batteries?

LENR advocates have always had the problem of explaining the absence of radiation and, when it occurs, it is typically in short bursts. They can't explain why. But to their credit, they apparently are not faking it. If they were, they would put some convenient radiation source near the experiment and crank out rads consistent with theory, or just make up the data.

Thus, if this is a LENR device, a radiation burst is consistent with previous reports. If it is a fake, they faked a burst consistent with previous reports. Inconsistent operation does not bother me. That 0.1 C temperature stability, OTOH, is waaaay too steady. I mean, look at their cobby setup ... why would that thing be holding temperature like a NIST water bath? This is a field where reactors have supposedly blown up in runaway heat events.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

The hydrogen has to be all hydrogen with no deuterium or heavy hydrogen. Apparently, any heavy hydrogen stops the reaction.
Interesting! So sorry… please excuse me…I was barking up the wrong tree.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by Tom Ligon »

... and there have been LENR devices that run on hydrogen. Deuterium was something of a red herring for years. The reaction never was what most people assumed it must be. The same can be said for the use of nickel, which is obviously useless as a fission or fusion fuel in any conventional sense. And whatever is going on probably explains the radiation anomolies, as well.

We'd probably know what is going on in these things by now if the field had not been made such a pariah by the early excitement.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

No government will licence new nuclear technologies unless the science is totally understood. (The public has a pathological fear of all things nuclear). A glittering prize awaits whoever provides that understanding.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

Tom Ligon wrote:... and there have been LENR devices that run on hydrogen. Deuterium was something of a red herring for years. The reaction never was what most people assumed it must be. The same can be said for the use of nickel, which is obviously useless as a fission or fusion fuel in any conventional sense. And whatever is going on probably explains the radiation anomolies, as well.

We'd probably know what is going on in these things by now if the field had not been made such a pariah by the early excitement.
...or by an overall poor quality of critical thinking skills throughout the general population.

really, if you want to prove it's b.s., learn to reliably recreate the results of the experiments, then figure out what's causing them. duh.

maybe it's not nuclear. but you know what? even that would be an astounding result, because it would still be an explanation for a physical process that has never before been explained! it would still be a great advancement in our understanding of physics and it could lead to some entirely new and interesting approaches. it could lead to new inventions.

you know... same 'ol, same 'ol. boring stuff, really.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Axil wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
Axil wrote:www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAradiationl.pdf

Here is a quantum mechanical based explanation of what is going on in the Ni H LENR system.

The hydrogen must reside on the surface of the metal to form a composite quantum mechanical system of many ionically connected hydrogen atoms. Such a picture is appropriate for unbound particles; and not a chemically bound system like NiH.

Ni nano-powder maximizes surface area which in turn maximizes and amplifies the cross section of all nuclear reactions in the multi-atom hydrogen configuration. Quantum mechanically speaking, these individual hydrogen atoms loss there unique identity; they get confused. Nuclear reactions that rarely happen to any singe particular atom or atom pair happen all the time to a collection of many unbound N particle system.

The multi-atom hydrogen configuration of unbound particles must be considered a single quantum wave function where the nuclear reaction happens to the group of atoms (in quantum wave form) as a whole and not to any particular individual particle.
OK - coherent electron wave functions is possible in such a system - though pretty rare for nanoscale coherence at room temperature.

But that is the electrons, not the nuclei. For them to have any quantumn coherence is quite impossible. Each is a very small many-body system, and they interact trivially at normal densities. You would need neutron star density to get possible inter-nucleus quantum coherence.
The way I read the paper: this Ion Band State Theory deals with coherence associated with the collective action of electrons. The requirement is that the group of hydrogen atoms must fall into the same quantum mechanical state to negate their mutual electro-repulsive effects that usually stop the fusion of atomic nuclei. In effect, all the hydrogen atoms in their collective action combine into one quantum wave form (think waves not particles) within the coherent group and behave as one spread out atom where the probability of nuclei interactions increase within the collection. Any sub atomic coherence among the various hydrogen nuclei is not the issue or required.

“though pretty rare for nanoscale coherence at room temperature.”

This is true. With regards to rarity, with many billions of nickel dust particles in play at any given point in time, there will always be some few that meet the requirements for fusion; it’s a low probability thing in a system of large numbers.

“But that is the electrons, not the nuclei. For them to have any quantumn coherence is quite impossible.”

I wonder. There may be a way to tell if this statement is true. One experiment that can determine if the Ion Band State Theory has an effect on the weak nuclear force is to run the Russi device using tritium as the reaction gas.

If there is an increase detected in the beta decay of tritium caused by quantum coherency, then increased transmutation of elements through the increase in the weak nuclear force activity is indicated.

In detail, higher levels in H3 into He3 via beta decay transmutation will be detected with an observation of an increase in expected levels of He3 production.


In short, if this experiment shows positive results, then quantum coherence increases radioactive decay. Currently without any proof and as a matter of faith, I believe this to be true.
Well I stand by my statement. Coherent electronic wave functions cannot alter the Coulomb barrier for nuclei, which is not significantly affected by electrons but IS related to the nuclei.

Quantum coherence of the electron wave functions does not result in a very high charge density spike which could perhaps shield a nucleus/p reaction.

So this appears not to have enev a shred of plausibility. Maybe I am missing something?

Tom

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

Another possible reaction is described by the Widom-Larsen low energy neutron theory. This reaction describes a reverse beta decay fully supported within the Standard Model of elementary particles.


This doesn’t mean that the Ion Band State theory is not valid; the Ion Band State theory may just not describe what’s happing in the Rossi device.


The Widom-Larsen reaction transforms a hydrogen atom into a neutron with virtually no kinetic energy: a low energy neutron … thus the name Low Energy Neutron Reaction (LENR).


e- + p+ -> neutron + neutrino

The Widom-Larsen theory uses the same basic quantum mechanical coherence argument as we described previously in the Ion Band State theory to greatly increase the cross section (probability) of neutron based nuclear reactions.


This type of neutron production is due to weak interactions in very high surface electric fields present on the surface of the nickel nano-power and it is well-described by the generally accepted electroweak theory on which the W-L theory of LENRs is based.


Since “The hydrogen has to be all hydrogen with no deuterium or heavy hydrogen.” For the Rossi device to function, the Widom-Larsen theory may fit this case.


An isolated ‘normal’ thermal neutron outside a nucleus travelling through a solid has a quantum mechanical wavelength of about 0.2 nanometers and a speed of about 2 200 meters per second, which is faster than a rifle bullet. Interestingly, the ‘size’ of a neutron confined inside an atomic nucleus is even smaller, at several femtometers (10e-12).


By contrast, an ULM neutron formed on the hydrogen covered surface of a nickel nano-particle in a LENR is slowly drifting or even standing still. Being thus formed within a coherent collection of hydrogen atoms on the surface of a nickel nano crystal, ULM neutrons have little or no kinetic energy at the instant of their creation, effectively zero energy. This gives them huge quantum mechanical wavelengths compared to ‘normal’ neutrons. ULM quantum mechanical wavelengths (conceptually, effective ‘size’) increase dramatically. Note that ULM neutrons have much smaller energies (and correspondingly larger quantum mechanical wavelengths) than even the most ‘ultra cold’ neutrons produced so far in current nuclear experiments.


The ‘size’ of ULM neutrons is ginormous in comparison to thermal neutrons. It is directly determined by the spatial dimensions of the surface collection of coherent hydrogen atoms in which they were created. In particular, their wave function must span the entire area of the collection.


Therefore, on the surfaces of the optimum nickel nano crystal surface, the wave functions of ULM neutrons can easily reach 20 – 30 microns, i.e., 10 000 to 15 000 times that of thermal neutrons; and roughly the size of a large bacterium or a cell. Surfaces of hydrogen-loaded metallic surface are one of the few environments in the Universe where subatomic neutrons become almost microscopic.


Because Rossi said that the nickel power was dangerous, that means the size of the nickel dust is about .2 to 5 nanometers is diameter. Partials with diameters in the micron range are not dangerous.


High cross section capture of ultra-low momentum neutrons result in a variety of transmutations to non-radioactive elements


At a ‘size’ of 0.2 nanometers, a thermal neutron is only able to interact with just a few atoms at any given instant; and it is also moving fast. In contrast, the gigantic ULM neutrons can interact collectively with literally thousands of nearby ‘target’ atoms all at once. This unique property increases the cross section (probability) of their being absorbed by those nearby atoms to nearly 100 percent. A nuclear physicist would say ULM neutrons have phenomenally high “absorption cross-sections.”


ULM neutrons’ huge size and total abortion probability is exactly why biologically dangerous energetic (‘hot’) neutrons are not released by LENR systems.


ULM neutrons are extraordinarily ‘cold’ to begin with; and virtually all are absorbed locally; they never get a chance to escape and go anywhere. It is the first reason why LENRs are safe and environmentally friendly in comparison with standard heavy element neutron-triggered fission and light element hot fusion.


After being created, ULM neutrons are completely absorbed by nearby target atoms, resulting in nuclear transmutations into different elements or isotopes. Unstable transmutation products undergo subsequent weak interaction beta decays that, depending upon exactly which nearby target elements were used as ‘fuel.’ In the case of the Rossi device it is nickel that is releasing large amounts of nuclear binding energy as follows:

1H + 58Ni --> 59Cu(beta+) . . . . . . . . . . .Q=+3.419 MeV
1H + 60Ni --> 61Cu(beta+) . . . . . . . . . . .Q=+4.801 MeV
1H + 61Ni --> 62Cu(beta+) . . . . . . . . . . .Q=+5.866 MeV
1H + 61Ni --> 58Co(beta-) . + 4He . . . . .Q=+0.489 MeV
1H + 62Ni --> 63Cu(stable) . . . . . . . . . . .Q=+6.122 MeV
1H + 62Ni --> 59Co(stable) + 4He . . . . . Q=+0.346 MeV
1H + 64Ni --> 65Cu(stable) . . . . . . . . . . .Q=+7.453 MeV
1H + 64Ni --> 61Co(beta-) + 4He . . . . . .Q=+0.663 MeV.

Note that highly radioactive isotopes (gamma emitters like cobalt-60) will not be produced in detectable quantities.

Another reason why LENRs are green (environmentally friendly) is that extremely neutron-rich, very unstable intermediate transmutation products turn into stable, non-radioactive elements very quickly via cascades of rapid beta decays. Such neutron-rich intermediate nuclear products have short half-lives, of milliseconds, seconds, minutes, or at most hours; and typically not even days or months, let alone years.


That is why the Rossi device does not produces long-lived hot radioactive isotopes like today’s commercial fission reactors.

Image
Image

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

Work on fuel cell catalysts have shown that adding platinum to nickel increases the ionic binding power that this catalyst surface has for hydrogen by many fold. By varying the composition of the catalyst, it is possible to control the layout of the hydrogen atoms on the surface of the catalyst.

I think that this technology is at the bottom of the use of an additive to nickel in the Rossi device.

Post Reply