Axil wrote:The following speculation is offered as a springboard for discussion as regards to the chemical and physical processes that underlie the Rossi reactor. This is another attempt to connect the dots.
Down to the nitty-gritty...and I'm beginning to have trouble following. However, I've been wondering for a couple of months if the following hypothesis is helpful/relevant/sane/new (in relation to overcoming the Coulomb barrier):
As I understand it, the hypothesis is that interactions between nuclei are basically just a matter of electrostatic charge, velocity, and (the important new [?] idea here) posture/attitude/orientation of the whole arrangement of subnucleonic components. I don't know much about nuclear physics, though. (Then what am I doing on...?)
Wasn't the runaway reaction halted by flooding the reactor with nitrogen? If so, then a very simple, purely mechanical temperature + coolant flow 'kill' mechanism with a small bottle of pressurized N2 could be implemented. Hardly elegant, but if it prevents a runaway reaction then Rossi's catalyzer could be ready now.
I don’t think that Rossi can dynamically control the amount of hydrogen that the catalyst will absorb. He limits the amount of hydrogen used in the reaction by controlling the amount of catalyst he puts in the reaction tube to just one gram.
My theory does not allow for a negative feed back mechanism that is now universally common in modern nuclear power systems. Fail-safe passive reaction control would be the next major break-thought for Cat-E technology.
PS: One test that I would be interested in: stop the flow of cooling water and see if the Cat-E melts down. If this test fails, the Cat-E is not ready for prime time.
Wasn't the runaway reaction halted by flooding the reactor with nitrogen? If so, then a very simple, purely mechanical temperature + coolant flow 'kill' mechanism with a small bottle of pressurized N2 could be implemented. Hardly elegant, but if it prevents a runaway reaction then Rossi's catalyzer could be ready now.
I don’t think that Rossi can dynamically control the amount of hydrogen that the catalyst will absorb. He limits the amount of hydrogen used in the reaction by controlling the amount of catalyst he puts in the reaction tube to just one gram.
My theory does not allow for a negative feed back mechanism that is now universally common in modern nuclear power systems. Fail-safe passive reaction control would be the next major break-thought for Cat-E technology.
PS: One test that I would be interested in: stop the flow of cooling water and see if the Cat-E melts down. If this test fails, the Cat-E is not ready for prime time.
It has been stated that the reaction can be quenched by merely dropping H pressure to zero and outgasing the reactor body. Rossi seems to consider this feature as the primary saftey mechanism for the reactor.
Axil wrote:The following speculation is offered as a springboard for discussion as regards to the chemical and physical processes that underlie the Rossi reactor. This is another attempt to connect the dots.
Down to the nitty-gritty...and I'm beginning to have trouble following. However, I've been wondering for a couple of months if the following hypothesis is helpful/relevant/sane/new (in relation to overcoming the Coulomb barrier):
As I understand it, the hypothesis is that interactions between nuclei are basically just a matter of electrostatic charge, velocity, and (the important new [?] idea here) posture/attitude/orientation of the whole arrangement of subnucleonic components. I don't know much about nuclear physics, though. (Then what am I doing on...?)
Radiochemical Comparisons on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Uranium
(posted 20th December 2010)
the excitation energy of the intermediate compound nucleus in LENR is much less than in uranium fission. The reason is that the multi-body formation of the compound nucleus builds up less internal energy than the neutron absorption reaction in uranium. This leads to a "soft" fission in LENR, explaining the very low level of emission of energetic radiations such as gammarays (vs. low energy beta and x-rays) during the process.
An extrapolation (with hydrogen replacing deuterium) of the referenced conjecture from George H. Miley et al to a hydrogen fermionic condensate gets close to the observed transmutation products: cobalt, copper, zinc, and also nickel.
The transmutation products of the Rossi reactor might be explained by fission of a degenerate hydrogen condensate particle of combined mass in the range of between 126-156.
This is more likely to explain the Rossi reaction then the more common proton fusion conjecture or the L-W reverse beta decay theory.
Here is an interesting piece by Thomas Blakeslee that adds a unique perspective on the Rossi E-Cat including background and links on "Cold Fusion" reseach and Focardi's earlier work:
Kahuna wrote:Here is an interesting piece by Thomas Blakeslee that adds a unique perspective on the Rossi E-Cat including background and links on "Cold Fusion" reseach and Focardi's earlier work:
How is it interesting, and what is the unique perspective?
It appears to add absolutely nothing to anything obvious or known.
Kahuna wrote:Here is an interesting piece by Thomas Blakeslee that adds a unique perspective on the Rossi E-Cat including background and links on "Cold Fusion" reseach and Focardi's earlier work:
All existing nuclear plants, and the planned $13 billion ITER hot fusion project, are based on the "atoms for peace" idea of adapting military bomb technology to civilian use.
...
The disasters in Japan prove that these grandiose attempts to generate power from bomb technology are misguided.
Kahuna wrote:Here is an interesting piece by Thomas Blakeslee that adds a unique perspective on the Rossi E-Cat including background and links on "Cold Fusion" reseach and Focardi's earlier work:
All existing nuclear plants, and the planned $13 billion ITER hot fusion project, are based on the "atoms for peace" idea of adapting military bomb technology to civilian use.
...
The disasters in Japan prove that these grandiose attempts to generate power from bomb technology are misguided.
I do hope his perspective is quite unique.
Well, in this perspective, coal plants could be considered "weapon technology" as well (black gun powder is using carbon as component...).
