10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[AcesHigh]

no idea. is density related to binding energy? I guess helium is the most densely packed nucleus - every one of its nucleons is in contact with every other one, and it's 'quite round' (as opposed to deuterium or 3H, 3He - which are linear or flat)

are you sure of that.

I mean... can we really determine the shape of quantum particles, to tell if they are flat or round?

I thought quantum particles were a little more "undetermined" than that. Wouldnt such shapes be more useful only for analogies and visualizations, just like the electron layers arent REALLY like that, but for usefulness, thats the best way to think of them?


I recently even saw an article where, with pretty good arguments, some scientists are saying that what we see in electron microscopes are the SPACES between the atoms, not the atoms themselves.

The original article (if I find it, cant remember where I saw it, if in NextBigFuture, or Physorg.com) of course explained it much better, along with some graphs.


ps: I am not as much SAYING atoms dont have such shapes, as I am actually more of asking questions for those of you who are knowledgeable on the subject. Unfortunatelly, my low IQ of 45 prevented me from becoming a scientist or engineer. But hey, you science guys are my heroes!

[chrismb]

are you sure of that.

Do you mean - beyond my polystyrene-ball-and-cocktail-stick model of the nucleus? I'm not sure of anything beyond that!!

[AcesHigh]

are you sure of that.

Do you mean - beyond my polystyrene-ball-and-cocktail-stick model of the nucleus? I'm not sure of anything beyond that!!

it was actually a real question. Is it 100% certain that the nucleus of atoms have these shapes? Or are those only approximations??

how exactly do we know the shapes of nucleus? Obviously, they cant be seen directly, not even with electron microscopes. We cant even see whole atoms with a microscope.

of course, we dont really need to see. So I ask, sincerely, how we determine the shape of an atom nucleus.

[Giorgio]

Giorgio

I rephrase his words: "This research is very promising if it is proven to be real".
Which is also my opinion, no more no less.

Sounds like you have backed off your earlier position that Rossi and the E-Cat are just a scam. In which case, I wonder why you wasted so much time running him down. (I recall you saying it was to warn off the innocent lurkers)

Never changed my position, this was and is my point from the start.
Science does not accept claims that come only from one person and that cannot be verified.There are a lot of good reasons for this and is better if it keeps this way.
People keep mistaking what is a scientific way of analyzing Rossi claims with a direct attack toward Rossi, as if there are some "obscure interest" to defend.

[Giorgio]

So I ask, sincerely, how we determine the shape of an atom nucleus.

It is derived using the Schrodinger equation.

[AcesHigh]

So I ask, sincerely, how we determine the shape of an atom nucleus.

It is derived using the Schrodinger equation.

its derived or can it be measured??

They did this by detecting gamma rays emitted when the nucleus moved between different energy states1. In addition, "we measured the [magnetic] spin of the nucleus, which is a very difficult experiment," Gaudefroy says.

Together, this information revealed the shape of the sulphur-43 nucleus. Whereas a magic or nearly magic nucleus is expected to take the shape of a sphere, the measurements showed that the sulphur-43 nucleus oscillates from a higher-energy spherical state to a lower-energy one that is prolate — that is, shaped like an American football.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090309/ ... 9.144.html

[chrismb]

are you sure of that.

Do you mean - beyond my polystyrene-ball-and-cocktail-stick model of the nucleus? I'm not sure of anything beyond that!!

it was actually a real question.

It was a real answer!

[chrismb]

Giorgio

I rephrase his words: "This research is very promising if it is proven to be real".
Which is also my opinion, no more no less.

Sounds like you have backed off your earlier position that Rossi and the E-Cat are just a scam. In which case, I wonder why you wasted so much time running him down. (I recall you saying it was to warn off the innocent lurkers)

Never changed my position, this was and is my point from the start.
Science does not accept claims that come only from one person and that cannot be verified.There are a lot of good reasons for this and is better if it keeps this way.
People keep mistaking what is a scientific way of analyzing Rossi claims with a direct attack toward Rossi, as if there are some "obscure interest" to defend.

Quite so. Also, always been my position. I've not seen G declare it is a scam. (Mr Chikva is the only post-er that springs to mind to have done so.)

Hearsay is insufficient to base any judgements on. That's why it is rejected as evidence in a court (but is a principle being eroded as we speak). So far, all we have is hearsay.

[cg66]

Speaking of modeling nuclei - here is an interesting article on Carbon-14 and why it has a slow decay. Now we just need an exaflop super computer and a model of a Hydrogen atom in a Nickel lattice...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 122913.htm

[KitemanSA]

This reply moved.

[KitemanSA]

....Actually in this regard, using made up numbers, if the conversion of Ni62 to Cu63 had some mechanics that caused a slight jog in the binding energy graph a small amount of excess energy might be possible. ....

Dan,
Simple questions for you. Please answer the two questions with one number for each.

How much binding energy does 62Ni have?

How much binding energy does 63Cu have?

I REALLY want you to answer these, PLEASE! One decimal place in "MeV" will be fine. Two if you must. PLEASE??? Heck, you don't even have to look it up. I'll accept a reasonable approximation. Pretty please?

[KitemanSA]

KitmanSA, I also wondered if adding a proton or neutron to nickel could add energy, after all the binding energy for the neutron is very low and is zero for protons.

What I read yesterday says that in fact neutrons have zero and protons have ~13.6eV (effectively zero).

But, thinking about it, it does not matter whether the nickel is built up from a bunch of small nucleons, or only a few larger nucleons (like alpha particles) the maximum energy differential is represented by the proton to Ni62 range. It matters not how it is divided up. If you start with Ni61, and add a neutron and a proton. The first would release energy, but only the energy difference between the Ni61 and Ni62.

This is true. The amount would be about 8.8MeV. Exothermic.

The second nucleon (a proton) would add energy (endothermic) to the system, but only that represented by the energy difference between Ni62 and Cu63.

This will also be exothermic by about 8.8MeV.

Again the bowel analogy.

I am not sure anyone but you has been s#!tting anything. Bowl analogy?

It is a far distance to the bottom of the empty bowel for a proton, but when the bowel is almost full the proton can only fall a short distance.

This analog "bowl" cannot be filled. It is a positional bowl, not a volumetric one.

Another consideration: radioactive decay of a heavy element may produce an alpha particle. This helium nucleus is much lighter than Ni so it would seemingly have a lot of energy. But the source of this energy is the harvestable amount between the original isotope and how close it ends up to Ni62. This would manifest as the kinetic energy added to the products. Add in excited states and other mechanisms and the results become more blurred, but the general trend would remain.

Sorry, too oblique for me. Radioactive decay is a term used way too loosely for my tastes, so what folks mean when they discuss it is problematic. None the less, EVERY nuclear reaction follows the "sum of parts masses" equation I provided earlier.

[Kahuna]

The latest installment on Rossit/E-Cat at Next Big Future:

Rossi Provides More Answers about the Energy Catalyzer and Nasa's Dennis Bushnell lists it as the number one energy solution

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/rossi- ... gfuture%29

[chrismb]

Rossi Provides More Answers about the Energy Catalyzer and Nasa's Dennis Bushnell lists it as the number one energy solution

Made to sound oh-so-close to him saying it is number one most viable. The text appears to show him saying it has the highest potential - which of course it does because of the kW being claimed.

"I think we are almost over the "this does not produce anything useful" problem." - Yeah, well that means we're not over it yet, buddy, doesn't it!? Kinda like things they were saying about fusion 50 years ago!

So what if a scientist says 'we're almost whatever' - hearsay on top of hearsay does not add up to make facts, yet it should be so easy to get these facts out (for those set up to do so) that the ongoing absence of facts MONTHS after this fiasco started is damning.

[Betruger]

Can you imagine if EMC2 had followed Rossi's protocol so far?

LOL