chris,
I have not studied the matter. So I have no worthwhile proof. Just a thought experiment. If the lattice is squeezing the D's together the lattice will absorb the recoil.
You say - impossible. I say - maybe this way. What I suggest is "plausible". Meaning that your idea of impossible is off the table. Does it happen the way I suggest? No guarantee. But it is not impossible.
Cold Fusion Proven True by U.S. Navy Researchers
Chris,
What I am saying is that whatever is actually happening in these devices is not impossible.
Not having done the experiments personally, I can only read what I see available and speculate. If this were done by wild-eyed whack-jobs I would dismiss it, but I don't consider Miley a whack-job. Some people do ... but only because he has been willing to sully himself by dabbling in alchemy. Which is exactly what this field seems to be turning out to be.
The thing that convinces me this is some form of nuclear process is that a number of researchers have found wholesale unambiguous transmutation of electrode metal. Or wholesale fraud, with Miley participating. So if transmutation of transition metals is occuring, the question is how the devil is this possible? So far I have seen no better explanation than Dr. Bussard's paper, which supposedly is grounded in known physics. Did you actually read the whole thing?
You keep wanting this to be DD fusion. I'm leaning to some form of fission, initiated by slipping a small nucleus into a larger one via Gamow barrier penetration in an environment that tends to naturally shield from Coulomb repulsion until extremely close proximity of the nuclei. The available energy for such a fission would be very low compared to DD fusion. I believe the present researchers lean this way as well, hence the shift to "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" instead of "Cold Fusion." And yeah, it should be either impossible or so infrequent as to be a quantum mechanics fluke, but if it really does occur at significant levels and we have failed to understand why, it is important.
What I am saying is that whatever is actually happening in these devices is not impossible.
Not having done the experiments personally, I can only read what I see available and speculate. If this were done by wild-eyed whack-jobs I would dismiss it, but I don't consider Miley a whack-job. Some people do ... but only because he has been willing to sully himself by dabbling in alchemy. Which is exactly what this field seems to be turning out to be.
The thing that convinces me this is some form of nuclear process is that a number of researchers have found wholesale unambiguous transmutation of electrode metal. Or wholesale fraud, with Miley participating. So if transmutation of transition metals is occuring, the question is how the devil is this possible? So far I have seen no better explanation than Dr. Bussard's paper, which supposedly is grounded in known physics. Did you actually read the whole thing?
You keep wanting this to be DD fusion. I'm leaning to some form of fission, initiated by slipping a small nucleus into a larger one via Gamow barrier penetration in an environment that tends to naturally shield from Coulomb repulsion until extremely close proximity of the nuclei. The available energy for such a fission would be very low compared to DD fusion. I believe the present researchers lean this way as well, hence the shift to "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" instead of "Cold Fusion." And yeah, it should be either impossible or so infrequent as to be a quantum mechanics fluke, but if it really does occur at significant levels and we have failed to understand why, it is important.
Heh.alchemy. Which is exactly what this field seems to be turning out to be
Actually, two winters and two summers iirc.The Met Office in Britain is in trouble because they got two winters in a row wrong. Beaten twice by Piers Corbyn who uses a solar model.
--
He's been as good as a coin flip.
What's funny is that AGW models themselves do no better than coin flips. Forecasting scientists found naive models do just as good a job of forecasting.
They can have our momentum, as long as they don't send us all their goobacks.DeltaV wrote:Somebody upstream on the experiment's worldline is operating a Mach-Lorentz Thruster ("Tomorrow's momentum today!").chrismb wrote:No-one has yet suggested the alternative to my *where's the momentum gone* conundrum.
Chris,
I think I'm not the one not to have thought the bullet example thru. In my little gedanken experiment, which one might suppose a young and curious kid might possibly try if he had more curiosity than gedanken, involved a .22 cal long rifle high velocity round. This particular cartridge features a fairly heavy bullet on a much lighter brass shell casing, with a fairly modest dose of smokeless power and a primer in the rim of the casing. When it cooks off, the lower-mass casing does the moving and the bullet does not develop a high velocity. They push against each other, not the air, and I never implied they push against the air.
The noise produced is a surprisingly soft pop, much quieter than is produced by firing such a round from a firearm.
Just in case anyone ever did such a crazy thing, and happened to do so in a metal can just to contain the particles, they might find a dent in the can caused by the shell casing, and no dent or hole caused by the bullet.
In short, a lighter particle recoils from a heavier particle, and not as much radiation as you would think.
I'm not sure what your comment about chemical bond energies is about. I did indicate that particles at typical nuclear energies would overwhelm the bond energies in molecules they struck, resulting is a certain degree of chemical chaos, but that does not produce energy. If your objection is that nuclear processes seem to be initiated by apparatus normally used for chemical reactions ... yeah, that is the most salient remarkable and incredible (literally) factor in the whole thing. Yet it seems to result in transmutations. Verifying the transmutations becomes the most fundamental step, as proof it occurs would be absolute proof the process occurs in nuclei. Doing it requires a certain courage in light of the number of people willing to condemn anyone who attempts it.
As for the idea the particle emitted is an alpha, and the insistence that the energy is 23 MeV, that came from you. I suspect a mix of possible particles, depending on the original isotope and what particle the nucleus picked up to trigger the reaction. I also expect much lower energy is produced per reaction.
I think I'm not the one not to have thought the bullet example thru. In my little gedanken experiment, which one might suppose a young and curious kid might possibly try if he had more curiosity than gedanken, involved a .22 cal long rifle high velocity round. This particular cartridge features a fairly heavy bullet on a much lighter brass shell casing, with a fairly modest dose of smokeless power and a primer in the rim of the casing. When it cooks off, the lower-mass casing does the moving and the bullet does not develop a high velocity. They push against each other, not the air, and I never implied they push against the air.
The noise produced is a surprisingly soft pop, much quieter than is produced by firing such a round from a firearm.
Just in case anyone ever did such a crazy thing, and happened to do so in a metal can just to contain the particles, they might find a dent in the can caused by the shell casing, and no dent or hole caused by the bullet.
In short, a lighter particle recoils from a heavier particle, and not as much radiation as you would think.
I'm not sure what your comment about chemical bond energies is about. I did indicate that particles at typical nuclear energies would overwhelm the bond energies in molecules they struck, resulting is a certain degree of chemical chaos, but that does not produce energy. If your objection is that nuclear processes seem to be initiated by apparatus normally used for chemical reactions ... yeah, that is the most salient remarkable and incredible (literally) factor in the whole thing. Yet it seems to result in transmutations. Verifying the transmutations becomes the most fundamental step, as proof it occurs would be absolute proof the process occurs in nuclei. Doing it requires a certain courage in light of the number of people willing to condemn anyone who attempts it.
As for the idea the particle emitted is an alpha, and the insistence that the energy is 23 MeV, that came from you. I suspect a mix of possible particles, depending on the original isotope and what particle the nucleus picked up to trigger the reaction. I also expect much lower energy is produced per reaction.
What about the Wider-Larson theory? I have not read Bussard's paper on this. Is it available on the internet?Tom Ligon wrote:
The thing that convinces me this is some form of nuclear process is that a number of researchers have found wholesale unambiguous transmutation of electrode metal. Or wholesale fraud, with Miley participating. So if transmutation of transition metals is occuring, the question is how the devil is this possible? So far I have seen no better explanation than Dr. Bussard's paper, which supposedly is grounded in known physics. Did you actually read the whole thing?
This suggests to me that there is a whole family of such possible reactions that is currently undiscovered. It also suggests that low energy nuclear reactions may lead to and be more useful for industrial-scale transmutation rather than energy production. This would, indeed, be alchemy in that the emphasis would be on the development of cost effective transmutation processes for manufacturing Platinum-group metals out of more common metals.You keep wanting this to be DD fusion. I'm leaning to some form of fission, initiated by slipping a small nucleus into a larger one via Gamow barrier penetration in an environment that tends to naturally shield from Coulomb repulsion until extremely close proximity of the nuclei. The available energy for such a fission would be very low compared to DD fusion. I believe the present researchers lean this way as well, hence the shift to "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" instead of "Cold Fusion." And yeah, it should be either impossible or so infrequent as to be a quantum mechanics fluke, but if it really does occur at significant levels and we have failed to understand why, it is important.
Kurt,
Bussard's CF paper is on Askmar.com. The link is up on the first couple of pages of this thread.
As for the utility of transmutations, so far the process seems to start with palladium and generate trash. Dr. Bussard said that if you could use it to make heat, expending palladium electrodes would be comparable to burning oil at $400 a barrel. But he speculated it might just possibly be coaxed into economical energy production using nickel.
There has been some mumbling about the capacity for this class of reactions to destroy nuclear waste. I have no idea if there is any veracity to this, but if the underlying mechanism hastens decay it might be useful that way. I think I would stay really far away from that process.
Bussard's CF paper is on Askmar.com. The link is up on the first couple of pages of this thread.
As for the utility of transmutations, so far the process seems to start with palladium and generate trash. Dr. Bussard said that if you could use it to make heat, expending palladium electrodes would be comparable to burning oil at $400 a barrel. But he speculated it might just possibly be coaxed into economical energy production using nickel.
There has been some mumbling about the capacity for this class of reactions to destroy nuclear waste. I have no idea if there is any veracity to this, but if the underlying mechanism hastens decay it might be useful that way. I think I would stay really far away from that process.
Tom, I don't think you've really got what I'm saying at all. You are welcome to your speculations and you are free to critique and/or reject my analysis. I just need you to recognise that what I say is based on my analysis, not on any faith-based belief system that automatically rejects the notion of LENR. You can say my analysis is wrong. You can say my analysis is insufficient. It certainly looks to me like my analysis isn't explained sufficiently that you understand it. But what I reject you saying is that any matter of subjective belief has entered into my above rejection of the claims that I have heard made.
This CF/LENR stuff doesn't really interest me that much. It is tedious and badly put forward, whether there is any truth to the underlying suggestion of nuclear physics or not. So I'm not gonna say anything more on it. Done. QRT.
This CF/LENR stuff doesn't really interest me that much. It is tedious and badly put forward, whether there is any truth to the underlying suggestion of nuclear physics or not. So I'm not gonna say anything more on it. Done. QRT.
Tom,
You were lucky, my friend in gradeschool nearly lost an eye because his bullet exploded (.45 I think).
Of course, he put it on an open stove, which wasn't a great idea.
chrismb,
LENR certainly deserves skepticism, though. They've earned it.
You were lucky, my friend in gradeschool nearly lost an eye because his bullet exploded (.45 I think).
Of course, he put it on an open stove, which wasn't a great idea.
chrismb,
That sounded a little too faith-based to me as well, a sort of Thou Shalt Not Question Thine Assumptions outlook. Bussard seems to give a pretty reasonable theory of nuclear reactions that could generate heat without killing an unshielded observer. If you're not looking at the evidence, you're taking it on faith such ideas must be wrong, even if you have an analysis.The very notion that you can actually get some measurable heat out of an exposed nuclear reactor of any kind without actually killing yourself in the process demonstrates, to my thinking, such a basic lack of understanding that it automatically excludes anyone making such a claim from any semblance of credibility. It's like a person making an announcement that they are going to sail around the edge of the flat world and map out which continents are closest to falling off the earth - it's just not worth wasting time listening to what they are about to say on the subject when they start off like that.
LENR certainly deserves skepticism, though. They've earned it.
But I'm not "not looking at the evidence". What "evidence"? Stop accusing me of this, y'all.TallDave wrote:If you're not looking at the evidence, you're taking it on faith such ideas must be wrong, even if you have an analysis.
No evidence = no conflict of evidence between reality and any analysis I can give = not a faith based thing.
Defending an unsubstantiated proposition against a counter-proposal without evidence = *is* a faith based position.
QRT
QSL?
Then CF com up first time there was geologist propose there is CF involved in geochemical energy. The also said there is small amount of tritium in volcanic gases how nobody have an idea for the origin.
There also are a Ukrainian corporation how state they have odd nuclear reactions in metals.
http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html
There also are a Ukrainian corporation how state they have odd nuclear reactions in metals.
http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html
Chris,
Read what you wrote:
Read what you wrote:
That's a declaration that you're not going to consider any evidence (such as Bussard's theory. W-L theory, the link in the post above) that might lend credence to their claim. Justified or not (and sometimes faith is justified; we generally take it on faith the guy on the streetcorner doesn't really know when the world is ending and don't investigate further), you can't then take umbrage when it's pointed out you're taking it on faith they must be wrong.it's just not worth wasting time listening to what they are about to say on the subject when they start off like that.
Last edited by TallDave on Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you can reverse the process and take trash and make it into Palladium (or other Platinum-group element), no doubt it will be highly endothermic. However, if you can do this for less cost than mining, the process is economically viable and makes mining such materials obsolete, especially if the only mines for such materials are in unstable regions of the world. It seems to me that the Wider-Larson and other theories suggest that this could be possible. If so, I think transmutation is more likely to be the first commercial application of LENR rather than energy production, because the value added is far higher. New technologies usually appear in the most value-added applications first, then move to lower value-added applications as the technology matures and becomes cheaper. Despite all the talk about energy crisis, energy is remarkably cheaper than just about any other commodity made by man.Tom Ligon wrote:Kurt,
Bussard's CF paper is on Askmar.com. The link is up on the first couple of pages of this thread.
As for the utility of transmutations, so far the process seems to start with palladium and generate trash. Dr. Bussard said that if you could use it to make heat, expending palladium electrodes would be comparable to burning oil at $400 a barrel. But he speculated it might just possibly be coaxed into economical energy production using nickel.