| Pages:
1
2
3 |
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
| Quote: | | just a few guys slowly raising money to prove an idea. I know how governments work in this regard and there does not appear to be massive interest
out there. This concept of lack of development is another one of the clues I apply |
He claims that he has a hard time distantiating himself from the bad name that cold fusion research has acquired over the years. People simply don't
believe it and the military or any other serious organization doesn't want to waste its money on magic tricks.
From the photo's, I have always wandered if there was anything hidden in the piece of board to which the reactors are attached. In some of the photos
it looks like it consists of two sheets of wood glued together. For instance at
http://lenr.qumbu.com/110502-Test_1_april+058_600px.jpg
(from one of gregxy's links)
Why not take a single thick slab if you need the rigidity? Also, the reactors are attached to it with a metal support, so there is the potential for
an electrical connection (or if they are hollow, even the infusion/removal of chemicals into the stream.
[Edited on 12-7-2011 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
So a chemical catalyst is causing Ni to achieve a specific crystal lattice of Ni atoms. This lattice is tuning to a certain energy level to achieve
capture of a proton at such specific energy level to cause the fusion reaction to take place? In effect the recoil energy is tuned until the proper
energy level is achieved to create a large cross section for fusion? It would seem proton velocity is key meaning a precise temperature for the
hydrogen gas must be achieved and maintained? Or did I get that wrong?
Two posts while I was writing this shifts me to where it is not clear, but these questions are directed at the last post by watson.fawkes . Also, I
agree watson failure to mention the catalyst or it's function would seem to make any patent invalid.
[Edited on 7-12-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
fledarmus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 187
Registered: 23-6-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A US patent is not valid if it is not enabling, and in a field with this much skepticism, the patent office will be looking very closely at that
aspect before it grants the patent.
"Enabling" means that a person with ordinary skill in the art, using nothing more than the patent disclosure and whatever is publicly known, could use
the invention without an unreasonable amount of experimentation (roughly considered six months to a year).
A US patent is a bargain with the American people - you tell us exactly how to make your invention work, and we will give you the right to prevent
anybody else from making, using, or selling it for a fixed period of time. After that, you have no rights whatsoever, and the invention is public
property. If you would rather keep the secrets, fine, keep it as a trade secret - you don't get a patent. Doesn't keep you from building and selling
the invention, but if anybody else figures out how to do it (without stealing from you - there are trade secret laws as well), you can't stop them. If
a competent technician can't make your invention based solely on your disclosure, you haven't fulfilled your half of the bargain.
|
|
|
bhl
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 12-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi All,
I am a fan of the idea of Rossi transmutation and am looking for collaborators on reproducing experiments. This sounds like a good forum for
experimenters.
I am in the process of building heat/pressure reactors to look for excess heat. I'm doing it "on the cheap" using galvanized pipe and I'm running into
trouble keeping my device sealed when exposed to heat and pressure. (200C at 150PSI).
But my concept of running two units side by side with the same heater input and looking for excess heat looks to be close to working.
Rossi mentions "catalytic action of optional elements" in his WIPO patent.
I have a few catalysts that I'd like to try-- carbon, tungsten, MnO2, steel wool (to increase surface area), and perhaps later nastier elements K, Li,
Rb and Cs.
Ideas on "prepping" the Ni are also a big question mark. I do not think it is isotopic enrichment. It may involve degassing the Ni by subjecting it to
vacuum and heat or inert gasses or "loading" it with hydrogen. It took Rossi 15 years to discover, but with a large audience of interested people, we
should be able to figure it out in no time.
Feel free to PM or reply if you have ideas on making a better reactor vessel (up to 600C and 20bar), testing for radiation (on the cheap), etc. Would
be great to find a bunch of people interested in trying a few simple experiments to potentially help solve this multi-trillion dollar mystery
invention.
- Brad
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  | | So a chemical catalyst is causing Ni to achieve a specific crystal lattice of Ni atoms. This lattice is tuning to a certain energy level to achieve
capture of a proton at such specific energy level to cause the fusion reaction to take place? In effect the recoil energy is tuned until the proper
energy level is achieved to create a large cross section for fusion? It would seem proton velocity is key meaning a precise temperature for the
hydrogen gas must be achieved and maintained? Or did I get that wrong? |
In the phrase "a chemical catalyst is
causing", I have a problem with the word "is". I'd assent to "might be". You outlined one mechanism, which seems, at this stage, at least plausible.
It broad strokes, you're outlining a kind of modified collision process. This is certainly one possibility. Personally, I wouldn't look so much as
collisions at all, but tunneling. It's conceivable that there's some effect that a proton can migrate into a position where the fusion cross section
is higher. If it's a tunneling mechanism, you get a simultaneous increase in electrostatic potential together with a decrease in strong-force binding
potential.
I should also say that it conceivable that this material only works with <sup>58</sup>Ni and not with other isotopes. For example, suppose
the lattice assists with the decay <sup>59</sup>Cu --> <sup>59</sup>Ni. Then you might see an essentially instantaneous
reaction <sup>58</sup>Ni + <sup>1</sup>H<sup>+</sup> --> <sup>59</sup>Ni +
β<sup>+</sup>, essentially a short-circuited double reaction. This sort of thing is already known about with the fairly rare
process of double-beta decay. I've got no a priori reason to believe that it's impossible to change the kinetics of this kind of reaction in
the solid state.
Also, I'd have to say that it seems likely that this is some kind of surface process. If it were some bulk process, you're going to get transmutation
inside the lattice, which, being a transmutation, going to change the lattice. This change would almost certainly stop the effect locally. So to get a
30% eventual yield, I find it more likely that there's a surface process, so that transmutation produced Cu spalls off the lattice surface. In
addition, the claim is that H<sub>2</sub> pressure modulates the reaction, and pressure has more effect on surface dynamics than interior
dynamics.
----
But as to reproduction, I have absolutely no interest in doing it or even thinking about it. There's a good likelihood that this is fraud or
self-delusion. Even if it works, it seems likely that there are undisclosed secret ingredients or instructions. In either case, effort put toward
replication seems just crazy.
All the possibilities I've outline address only the idea that this device "couldn't possibly work". I find this argument completely unpersuasive. On
the other hand, given the secrecy of the inventor, I am equally unpersuaded it's real. My attitude is that until the inventor drops their secrecy or
someone else replicates it, I'm going to mostly ignore it.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
You are assuming that the crystal lattice is somehow important, but as far as I know this is not stated anywhere. The function of the catalyst in the
process or in the preparation of the nickel is unknown. Very little is also known regarding the state of the nickel, except that it is finely powdered
(suggesting that, indeed, the surface area matters) and that it is not Raney-nickel.
There is all kinds of wild speculation regarding the mechanism. I guess the most described variants all are based on the existence of a putative 'mini
hydrogen' atom, in which the electron orbits the proton in an orbital much nearer orbital. The shielding by the elecron at this range allows the atom
to diffuse into the nickel and allow the proton to approach a nickel nucleus to a much closer distance than it normally could.
Perhaps you've heard of 'hydrino's', another one of those controversial concepts. A bit like that, I image. The catalyst is then speculated to have
something to do with the formation of the mini hydrogen atoms.
But so far, Rossi has remained silent with respect to the mechanism as far as I am aware.
[Edited on 12-7-2011 by phlogiston]
|
|
|
Mildronate
Hazard to Others
Posts: 428
Registered: 12-9-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ruido sintetico
|
|
Energy for free is not advantageous. I had discusion with one profesor from Moscow Physical chemistry institute profesor about cold fusion he said
its rubbish (and he laying), but few minutes later he said that they had done reserch in it.
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Ene...
If you read the above, the only conclusion is that it is a fake.
1. Rossi is not a professor at the university and has a questionable background, so you cannot trust what he says.
2. In all the public demos water was converted to "steam".
The error in estimating the energy boil water is 6 to 1 depending if the water is actually converted into a gas or simply sprayed into small droplets.
(Think of a "cool mist" humidifier which uses 30W or so to run a small motor).
3. In his recent demos Rossi claims the power conversion rate is down about 6 to 1. This is consistent with the error of assuming water mist is a gas.
4. To accurately measure the power he should use only liquid water in liquid water out.
5. All the nuclear arguments are negative: no gamma rays, missing isotopes and how to overcome the electrostatic barrier.
Sorry for wasting everyone's time on this.
The signal to noise ratio on the internet for this kind of thing is about -30db.
[Edited on 12-7-2011 by gregxy]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I don't see it as wasting anyone's time. I have not had anything really interesting to talk about here for a while.
"observers were prohibited to do a spectral analysis of possible gamma radiation, since it might allow the identification of elements of the compound"
From your link. The way I read this is similar to all the other free energy claims, namely subterfuge. My bullcrap meter 7th sense reads the same
statement as "there is no radiation and no nuclear reaction and we are not about to let anyone prove it by actually measuring this parameter". You
see, what I have found over decades is most of these people really do believe they have an earth altering new idea, if only they can just keep working
on it until they get it right. Having no money for equipment, space, and materials, combined with not wanting to waste time getting a real job, they
bait and switch looking for wealthy people to dump money into their idea. Usually they are committed and ignore all evidence contrary to the failure
in their results. "If only I can get over that next mountain I know I'll see the pot of gold". Actually many are sincere in their beliefs they can
succeed, yet never do. I love experimenting on this stuff because I am convinced there is a secret out there the universe has thus far refused to give
up. Pisses me off too since the universe has had my cell number all along and I call this just plain rude. So long as I am not wealthy enough to have
my dream lab I will keep working to survive and piddling around as much as I can. With what I can afford as I can. No doubt many do the same. Also as
long as I am still burning dead lifeforms to get around. The simple truth is we as a race will die if we do not find it. Or at minimum the survivors
will end up back in the stone age. Fuel will run out, pollution will destroy, it is only a matter of time. I for one as a member of this race wish to
survive. With my car and television not a club and a cave.
The simple fact is we are all doomed and are all going to die. Both as individuals and as a race. The human race. There is no escape from this doom.
Unless we find a new non polluting source of unlimited energy. Survival folks plain and simple. No escape, no way out. I see the atmosphere in the
ways of science as a dire enemy in this quest for survival. Treating cold fusion like a media circus stops real scientists from looking into it using
real science. No matter if so far it has failed, every attempt done properly teaches us new ideas even if it is merely Edison's 2,000 ways not to
build a light bulb. We have lots of ocean, and H2O (or D2O) can be made to burn clean. From the viewpoint of chemical reactions it simply will not
save us. Clean unlimited (and safe) fusion is still the best hope mankind has for survival on a long time scale. From the nightmare of politics and
peer reviewed science to the bashing and humiliating everyone trying something new, even if we do not yet see how a thing can possibly work, so far
the art of science as a whole today is the greatest obstacle to any hope of long term survival for us all. I look deeply into all the new and yes even
wacky ideas simply because there are many brilliant people out there each working along their own lines. They may be blinding themselves to the truth
their idea will never work yet in each we may find a grain of salt of an idea of a method or device which used in some other way may yield the answer
we are trying to find. Or some new insight into physical processes we can apply to something else in some other way. I study an idea I know cannot
work but along the way I learn something I never thought of before and this sends me off along some new avenue of research. Maybe it's all vanity, but
hey, I tried. Kills time better than something useless like watching TV.
So no gregxy I do not think you wasted at least my time, you gave me something new to think about.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
I hope it is fake. Now would be the worst time ever for an invention like this to come along. Finally, after decades, the public at large and those in
power are beginning to recognize the need for real change if climate change at a terrible scale is to be prevented. This need will drive innovative
ways to reduce our energy consumption, like real needs have always driven technological/scientific progress. If we find a way to produce virtually
unlimited energy now, this will doom any efforts to reduce energy consumption.
Anyway, time will tell.
And BTW, you guys were right about the von Braun .sig. It was Tom Lehrer actually.
Yay, I'm not harmless anymore 
[Edited on 13-7-2011 by phlogiston]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston | I hope it is fake. Now would be the worst time ever for an invention like this to come along. Finally, after decades, the public at large and those in
power are beginning to recognize the need for real change if climate change at a terrible scale is to be prevented. This need will drive innovative
ways to reduce our energy consumption, like real needs have always driven technological/scientific progress. If we find a way to produce virtually
unlimited energy now, this will doom any efforts to reduce energy consumption.
Anyway, time will tell.
And BTW, you guys were right about the von Braun .sig. It was Tom Lehrer actually.
Yay, I'm not harmless anymore
[Edited on 13-7-2011 by phlogiston] |
I could not disagree more. You are saying your house radiates earth endangering heat from your electrical use. The problem is not caused all that much
by you running your lights and TV but rather by the burning of fuel to generate the power used, combined with the fuel you burn to drive, and all the
gasses pumped into the air in said processes. If every house on earth used electricity at the rate of an average US home providing a new clean source
is devised and all current methods of generation are ceased, the earth would do just fine.
Draconian back to the stone age measures to reduce energy use for your daily life is pointless and quality of life lowering. What is needed is a way
to generate all electrical power cleanly without pumping heat and chemicals into the air. So your point about this device being harmful if it worked
is diametrically opposite to the truth of the matter. We need a clean non polluting and low heat generating (on a global scale) source of this
electricity. Cheap as well.
If this device really worked we could stop burning coal entirely, and with improvements in electric cars provided we had the electrical generation as
I am saying here we could also stop burning fossil fuel. There would then be no need to cut back power use to where everyone's quality of life was as
far in the toilet as would make the green earth people happy.
I have yet to meet one green person who has volunteered to live in a cave making their life miserable in their own personal effort to fix the problem
they spend so much time prophesying about. Al Gore uses more power than a small Midwestern town in his mansion, look it up. And he burns more jet fuel
a month than I have used or ever will use in my entire 60 years of life.
You are equating our use of power with global warming and this is untrue. It is the way we get that power which is the problem so why the desire to go
back to the stone age? Invent the new clean non polluting energy of the future and global warming (if any) will cease to be a problem. Without
drastically lowering the quality of everyone's life on the planet. So I say make it work if it can be done and if not figure out what will.
You entire point directly correlates energy consumption with global warming while saying a new clean source of power will make things worse by causing
people to not lower said consumption. Again, the way this power is produced today is the sole heart of the matter.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
I agree, actually, for the specific case of global warming, but I still think it would serve humanity more in the long run if we were to run into a
period of very serious lack of resources. It would make us work hard, think and improve rather than sit back and enjoy the comforting glow of a fusion
reactor. A lack of energy (or another important resource) would be an excellent drive to find novel materials/technology/phenomena. You could argue
that this fusion device is exactly such a novel technology, but it is more like a lucky find. Then again, all good inventions are, ofcourse, but they
often remain undiscovered untill someone recognizes that the discovery could fill a need. People may stop noticing if there is no need.
[Edited on 13-7-2011 by phlogiston]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston | | You are assuming that the crystal lattice is somehow important, but as far as I know this is not stated anywhere. The function of the catalyst in the
process or in the preparation of the nickel is unknown. |
I'm not assuming anything of the sort. This whole
affair is much more that I'm-for-it-or-I'm-against-it, though if you wish to misunderstand me, I'm only concerned that you don't assist others in
propagating a shallow reading of what I wrote.
Therefore, to be explicit, I brought up lattice structures to argue against the class of assertions that can be summarized as "Inconceivable!", which
is perhaps too short a summary. There's a particular class of naysayers that would claim that such a device is impossible because (1) physical law
prohibits it, (2) no such thing has ever existed, (3) no known mechanism explains it, (4) I didn't think of it, and the like. All these have in common the assumption, always implicit, that somehow human knowledge and understanding is
perfect and able to deny the existence of such a device, even in the same breath that it acknowledges human frailty generally.
This assertion is bogus, for the simple reason that humans have limitations. It's not even likely, given the huge possibilities in the solid state.
And now I refer you back to my original post on the subject.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
No, IrC seemed to make that assumption:
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | So a chemical catalyst is causing Ni to achieve a specific crystal lattice of Ni atoms. This lattice is tuning to a certain energy level to
|
I did not mean to interpret anyones words and I have no opinion or useful theory regarding this ecat device whatsoever. I was trying to be helpful by
saving you all a whole lot of reading by mentioning that there is no published information that the lattice structure is somehow important. If that
was already clear to everyone then my apologies.
To be 'for' or 'against' any theory without evidence is indeed pointless. It is not a democratic process. Sooner or later properly conducted
experiments will tell.
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Inventing a new idea is very difficult and rare event but once that the idea is conceived the evaluation goes fairly quickly.
One way to look at the probability of these things working is from an economic standpoint. Information travels very quickly these days. When a new
idea shows up it will quickly be evaluated by corporations, the military, governments and various investment firms. Then "voting with dollars" occurs.
You could say the money invested is proportional to the value of the idea multiplied by the probability that it will work. This is an extension of the
idea of "efficient markets".
Something like this eCat has enormous value, trillions of dollars. The low level of investment means the "scientists of the world" think it has zero
probability of working. Of course it is a relatively new idea but I would think the "evaluation time" would be on the order of a few weeks for
something with such potential.
Other fusion ideas are ITER, funded at $20B. A large sum but not that much if the idea had true potential. After reading about it I think that
eventually they will achieve energy production through this approach, but it will not be cost competitive with fission or fossil fuels. This seems to
be consistent with its funding level. (Plus it's not clean. It will produce lots of low-level scrap and may require use of a fission reactor to
produce its fuel.)
The third candidate is polywell, which is funded by the Navy at $20M. It has been around for 20+ years and the researchers appear to be dragging their
heels to keep their jobs. The "consensus opinion" therefore is that the probability of success is extremely small. The Navy may also be keeping the
program going with some outside motive like having a more effective radiation generator for testing.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston | No, IrC seemed to make that assumption:
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | So a chemical catalyst is causing Ni to achieve a specific crystal lattice of Ni atoms. This lattice is tuning to a certain energy level to
|
I did not mean to interpret anyones words and I have no opinion or useful theory regarding this ecat device whatsoever. I was trying to be helpful by
saving you all a whole lot of reading by mentioning that there is no published information that the lattice structure is somehow important. If that
was already clear to everyone then my apologies.
To be 'for' or 'against' any theory without evidence is indeed pointless. It is not a democratic process. Sooner or later properly conducted
experiments will tell. |
Not so much an assumption but rather trying to look at possible ways for the ecat to function. In this case I was looking at a resonance effect where
protons in a certain energy range are 'trapped' or to quote Watson 'tunneled' into a lattice where the surrounding electrostatic pressure gave rise to
fusion. But Watson brought up good reasons to show how more likely if the device is real it's all going on at the surface. He made good points. Not
sure if any of you ever were in think tanks or still are but it really is a good way to figure things out. You bounce an idea off people and they go
along adding to it, or come up with good reasons why not, or what the 'different way' is and why their idea is better. I really enjoyed my time in
such a setting. We got a lot done. There was a Dr from SRI and one from Cornell who were to me the sharpest people I ever met. A lot of fun when it's
not too political.
I digress. My idea was thinking about enough confinement to overcome the electrostatic barrier yet Watsons comment about pressure modulation of
reaction rate leads me to believe He is more likely correct, it's all on the surface. Assuming of course the whole ecat idea is not another in the
line of BS claims we see far too often. The one thing I like is it sets me thinking about ways where such an idea may be possible without the need for
me to keep playing with D2O. I still have a gallon or so left but everything is getting far too expensive for the average amateur (meaning me), and
this approach finally gives me something to try with the pounds of Ni dust I just could not pass up years ago due to a very low price at the time.
Still unsure how Watsons tunneling would work, to me it seems more likely a moving proton would just recoil from the surface.
Should add: is it possible the catalyst gives rise to conditions where a 'resonance capture' or an increase in the probability for a 'resonant
tunneling' effect occurs?
[Edited on 7-13-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
'Tunneling' is when a particle (a proton in our case) is able to overcome a potential barrier (electrostatic in our case) even though it would not
have sufficient energy to so according to the laws of classical mechanics. The laws of quantum mechanics allow this to happen with a non-zero
probability, which is higher for lighter particles.
So, in standard physics as we understand it, tunneling is certainly an important factor for predicting the probability of fusion. No new physics
there.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by 'resonant tunneling', however. The term resonance implies the matching of two frequencies. Which two
frequencies?
BTW, the diffusion of hydrogen into a nickel crystal lattice is well documented and this process is seen as a candidate for storing hydrogen as a fuel
in vehicles, etc. Titanium is more commonly used for this purpose, but it also works with nickel.
To my surprise 70% D2O -only- costs Eur 250 per liter (I had to feed 4 liters of it to a bunch of mice over the course of the last month).
[Edited on 13-7-2011 by phlogiston]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Not cheap here in small amounts, if I were buying it in large volume then maybe so. Even at the surface Ni atoms are in a lattice structure. Being at
high temperature and pressure every atom in the device is vibrating. Given the excursion distance and the number of oscillations per unit time I look
at this as a frequency. I am not all that great at explaining what I see in my head though. If a proton is oscillating back and forth recoiling off
the lattice surface while the Ni atoms in the lattice are also oscillating along their bond axis I can see where at the right moment a proton could
penetrate the lattice. As the Ni atoms move back they exert an electrostatic pressure on the proton which raises the probability amplitude for quantum
tunneling to occur. By two frequencies I am looking at the vibration of the proton hitting the lattice surface in such a way that it is synchronous
with the rate the Ni atoms are oscillating within the lattice structure. This effect would be controlled by the temperature and pressure of the
hydrogen obviously, and the function of the catalyst would be to affect the structure of the Ni lattice possibly altering the bond energies in the Ni
atoms within the lattice. This would in turn affect the vibrational modes in the Ni lattice. The more I try to explain this I think the poorer I am
doing but anyway I look at cyclic events as a 'frequency'.
Or for example if someone is hitting me in the head with a club 5 times each second I think 'wow I'm getting a 5 HZ head bashing'. While looking for a
bigger club of course. The guy is not getting away with that for long.
[Edited on 7-13-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The conventional theory is that the proton must approach within a few femto meters of the nickle nucleus to fuse with it. The electrostatic force is
proportional to 1/r^2 so the energy is proportional to 1/r. The total energy needed to bring the proton close enough is hundreds of KeV. For a proton
to get this much energy requires a plasma at millions of degrees or to fire the proton out of an accelerator. Due to the 1/r^2 dependence of the
electrostatic force most of the protons energy is used up deep inside the nickle atom in the last few femtometers of approach. In this close the
electrons of the hydrogen and nickle atoms and any lattice structure don't have any effect.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Except that what I was talking about was the setting up of conditions which would increase the probability amplitude for quantum tunneling which as
Watson said earlier would overcome the need for enough energy to overcome electrostatic repulsion. I thought I made this clear but as I said earlier
I'm not real great at explaining what I see in my minds eye.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
I think I get what you mean. Essentially, if I get it correctly, you are saying that the timing is important for a hydrogen atom to penetrate the
nickel lattice, and you are probably right. This is important for describing the kinetics of any (chemical) reaction. When two molecules meet, they
have to meet in the right orientation, at the right speed, phase of internal vibrations etc. for them to be able to react in a given way. Imagine a 3D
landscape graph in which each point on the graph represents the energy of a configuration of the two molecules. Typically here is only a small valley
passing through the high energy hills, describing the orientations/speeds etc with which two molecules need to meet.
When translating these things to rates of reaction at macroscopic levels, statistics rule.
For the nickel atoms in the lattice, indeed they will be oscillating around their positions in the lattice. However, they will not all oscillate at
the same frequency. The distribution of frequency's that occur will be described by a so-called Boltzman distribution, and the temperature is indeed
the main factor here.
Hydrogen molecules will impinge onto the surface at random moments. The higher the pressure, the more often a molecule will come along. The higher the
temperature, the fast it will be moving (again, not all molecules move at the same rate, and the distribution is again described by Bolzmann). To
speed up the reaction, higher pressure and higher temperature will therefore probably help.
Although ideally you would want to, there is no known way that will allow you to time the moment of arrival/direction/speed of individual hydrogen
atoms to allow them to penetrate the nickel lattice at individual locations.
| Quote: Originally posted by gregxy | | femtometers of approach. In this close the electrons of the hydrogen and nickle atoms and any lattice structure don't have any effect.
|
Therefore, some people hypothesize that the electrons orbit much closer to the proton that mainstream physics considers possible, shielding the
positive charge of the proton even at much shorter distances atom. Very much like muon-catalysed fusion.
|
|
|
bhl
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 12-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The two big questions:
1. Are transmutations taking place?
2. Is there excess energy to be extracted?
Others have reported complex nuclear transmutations of Ni when exposed to heat and pressure. (Piantelli, et. al)
Seems like any hint of transmutation would suggest that the method could be improved. Maybe Rossi built himself a Model-T, maybe a Yugo.. but unless
he is completely lying about the transmutations, I think he is on to something important. And imagine the results when a company like GE, Siemens or
Honda start working on it.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by bhl | The two big questions:
1. Are transmutations taking place?
2. Is there excess energy to be extracted?
Others have reported complex nuclear transmutations of Ni when exposed to heat and pressure. (Piantelli, et. al)
Seems like any hint of transmutation would suggest that the method could be improved. Maybe Rossi built himself a Model-T, maybe a Yugo.. but unless
he is completely lying about the transmutations, I think he is on to something important. And imagine the results when a company like GE, Siemens or
Honda start working on it.
|
Good questions. Not sure but GE won't pay taxes on it whatever it is.
Sort of like that phlogiston, I was also thinking outside my brain on ideas I would try if I were going to attempt this. Studying mode locking, FEL's,
and so on I do not see why you could not get groups of protons oscillating in harmony as electrons do in say a Klystron using a wave of proper
frequency which could also double as the heating supply. Really just floating some ideas and wondering what others think of them. A separate RF wave
could be the heating source and harmonically locked to the primary wave used to drive protons in bunches.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
bhl
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 12-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
heat source
For what its worth, Rossi states that heat alone is enough to drive his reaction, e.g. from a Bunsen burner. So initial experiments could forgo RF
heat sources, cathode/anode configurations, etc.
An anonymous "Axil" thinks that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_matter">Rydberg Matter</a> is the key to whats going on.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
You could accelerate protons like that, but only if they have a charge, so you would need bare protons, i.e. not hydrogen atoms or molecules. There
will be no electron to shield the protons charge, which may or may not be important depending on who you believe. Also, even if you can time the
arrival of the protons at will, you still have to deal with a lattice of nickel atoms that all oscillate with a different phase and frequency.
I've never read of anyone actually attempting to replicate the result so far, so if you do be sure to report any result. It would completely change
everything if someone manages replicates it.
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
