Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet
Dave--To answer your question about reactor control I offer the following: Light water fission reactors using U-235, U-233, and Pu-239 fissionable isotopes depend on thermal or relatively slow neutrons to react with those isotopes. The slower the neutron the more likely it will be absorbed by one of these isotopes and cause it to fission. Each fission produces more neutrons at high energies that are slowed down by collisions with water and other material in the reactor until they are thermalized--at an average energy determined by the temperature of the reactor. At criticality the population of neutrons is steady with as many being produced as are leaking out of the reactor (not to enter the fuel region again) or being absorbed by materials such as control rods.More power is produced as the temperature is decreased because the average energy of the population of neutrons is reduced and the interaction rate with the fissile isotopes in the reactor is increased. If the power generated is not extracted from the circulating coolant the temperature goes up and the reaction rate (fission rate) goes down on average because the energy spectrum of the neutrons is higher. This is a negative feed back called a negative temperature coeff. and is an inherent control feature of the power in the reactor. However if the water is cooled again the power increases and holds the reactor at a selected average operating temperature. Heat extracted from the primary coolant of the reactor by a steam generator is such a cooling mechanism for the primary coolant. The fissile isotopes also react with faster neutrons at various energies, however at lower probability than they do with the thermal neutrons. Thus, they there are many fewer fissions caused by fast neutrons before they are thermalized in the reactor during normal reactor critical operation. However, with a rapid addition of neutron population, power can drastically increase at a high rate and cause a large increase of fast neutron compared to the thermal neutron population. If this happens a condition of prompt criticality can occur and the reactor can explode because of a high energy production rate. Reactors are designed to add a poison--a control rod--to absorb neutrons if the rate of production--the rate of population increase--is too high. Such control rod action avoids prompt criticality. An accident called a cold water accident can occur in reactors which adds a slug of cold water to the reactor and causes prompt criticality before the control rod system has a chance to add poison. This must be avoided to keep the reactor in tact. The various assemblies in a core produce differing amounts of power with the colder regions near the entering coolant producing more power than the hotter regions. Thus at higher powers the differential temperature across the core is greater given a constant coolant flow rate. To keep the temperatures in a core closer to an average temperature the flow is increased as more power is generated. Fuel assemblies are loaded with differing amounts of fissile material depending upon the location of the fuel assembly in the core with higher loading in radial positions that may have a lower neutron population on average. The fuel design objective is generally to create a system with even power generation throughout the core. Such a condition can only be approached in practice and changes as fuel is depleted with operation. Most modern reactors include burnable poisons--for example boron--that are depleted as the same time the fuel is depleted. This reduction of the poison in the fuel allows an increasing thermal neutron population inside the fuel element and thus maintains an more constant fission rate with time as the local fissile isotopes decrease. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:41 PM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet You make a good point Robin. My concept is to make one pebble first that has the characteristic that you wish and then to work on the complete system of them to end up with a good overall plan. For instance, if a coolant is flowing through a large number of them, it will extract heat from the group. I suspect that the geometry of the complete system can be played with so that all of them contribute to the net heat being extracted. This may require that coolant be injected along the container sides or other structures so that none of the pellets is over stressed. I would not think that a big random pile of these devices would work properly due to problems with heat generation and extraction, but a good engineering plan should be able to solve the problems. I would assume that a nuclear reactor would face similar issues with their multiple fuel rod assemblies yet they seem to be able to operate properly. Perhaps one
Re: [Vo]:New Patent- Field Emission Device configured as a Heat Englne.
Reading the provisional filing: *We foresee it potentially becoming the dominant class of heat engines of the mid-21st* *century, and specifically as an inexpensive, simple, no-moving-parts, super-high powerdensity,* *near-Carnot-efficiency transformer between heat and electricity in a plethora of* *circumstances, very specifically including heat-electricity transformation on essentially all* *scales and across virtually all temperature spans of practical interest.* *As such, we anticipate its use in everything from personal electronics-powering (e.g.,* *powered by a LPG/butane micro-flame) to prime-mover applications in transport vehicles* *of all types and in central power-stations of all scales - and not-quite-incidentally in making* *refrigeration--HVAC cheap--practical--thus ubiquitous in the tropics* Also remarkable from the provisional: *Acknowledgments:* *We are grateful to Bill Gates for inspiring and encouraging this exploration, and to Rod* *Hyde, Jordin Kare and David Tuckerman for discussions which helped to clarify physics* *and technology issues*. On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: it seems to be a thermionic device... a heat to power converter ? 2015-01-16 1:12 GMT+01:00 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com: Greetings Vortex-L, An invention by some Highly Talented Researchers. I am clueless. http://www.google.com/patents/US8575842 Applications...aircraft and other energy applications... Ad astra, Ron Kita,Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:New Patent- Field Emission Device configured as a Heat Englne.
Toaster? :) On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, An invention by some Highly Talented Researchers. I am clueless. http://www.google.com/patents/US8575842 Applications...aircraft and other energy applications... Ad astra, Ron Kita,Chiralex Doylestown PA
[Vo]:Hydrino and Parkhomov seminar January 29
Deae Readers a bit earlier than usual, I wrote : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/a-charismatic-seminar-on-hydrino-and.html Waiting for good news- from you too Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
Great Your results look very meaningful, Dave. We are still thinking about the problem of not uniform temperature across the reactor vessel just after the power pulse are applied, but it seems to me that you have solved them. I hope to read the full report very soon. GG 2015-01-16 5:29 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I ran out of patience waiting for an input from Gigi and decided to construct a simple numerical model of the calorimeter used with the Mizuno test. After playing around with it for a while using the thermal values derived by Gigi and his team, I have come to my first conclusion. It is a bit early and I might find a glaring error somewhere with further analysis but felt it was reasonable to offer an interim report. It is consistent with the model for the device to be generating an output power of 100 watts. I have rounded the value off at this time until further research can pin point it more accurately. Even if 4 watts of leakage is present due to the pump action, the calorimeter appears to be fairly immune to that input provided the ambient does not change more than 2 degrees during the test. Again, this is a first pass result and subject to revision. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Hydrino and Parkhomov seminar January 29
Peter, Does this seminar imply that Parkhomov is leaning towards a fractional hydrogen (hydrino) explanation for the thermal gain, or is his attendance coincidental ? Jones From: Peter Gluck Deae Readers a bit earlier than usual, I wrote :http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/a-charismatic-seminar-on-hydrino-and.html Waiting for good news- from you too Peter
Re: [Vo]:Hydrino and Parkhomov seminar January 29
No, there are two independent presentations and i have no idea what wil Samsonenko say about hydrinos. His conference is exkurs in Russian that is a digression. If I get an opportunity I will ask him before the data of presentation. As regarding Parkhomov he is dedicated to the experimental aprt and says the inner mechanism of the reaction is a very difficult task. As you can see, the Lugano testers are also silent- gossip says they will publish something next month- but what? Peter On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Peter, Does this seminar imply that Parkhomov is leaning towards a fractional hydrogen (hydrino) explanation for the thermal gain, or is his attendance coincidental ? Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Deae Readers a bit earlier than usual, I wrote : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/a-charismatic-seminar-on-hydrino-and.html Waiting for good news- from you too Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Jack Cole's report on Hot Cat replication
Thanks Axil. Some useful information there. On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: An excerpt from the Lugano report: A thermocouple probe, inserted into one of the caps, allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by measuring the internal temperature of the reactor. The hole for the thermocouple probe is also the only access point for the fuel charge. The thermocouple probe cable is inserted in an alumina cement cylinder, which acts as a bushing and perfectly fits the hole, about 4 mm in diameter. When charging the reactor, the bushing is pulled out, and the charge is inserted. After the thermocouple probe has been lodged back in place, the bushing is sealed and secured with alumina cement. To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal. The alumina to metal sealing technique that Rossi uses is both elegant and simple. Rossi's alumina core tube has a hole at its end that is just a little bit wider than the metal plug used to fill it. After Rossi fills the alumina tube with fuel, there is a slight space (say ten thousandth of a inch)between the metal plug and the hole in the alumina body(5.4). The space will be coated with fuel which includes aluminum(22), lithium(46), and nickel(13). The numbers in parentheses are the thermal coefficients of expansion of of the various materials in the alumina and the fuel found in this table as follows” http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html A hole sealing process will occur to thermally bond the metal plug to the hole in the alumina when heated as follows: As the alumina heats up, the fuel residue coating will form a tight fitting metalized gadget between the metal plug and alumina hole. The fuel will liquefy and form a aluminum nickel lithium alloy and fill the micro-cracks on the surface of the hole and the metal plug. The metal plug will be pressure welded into the hole because of the differences in the thermal coefficients of expansion between the various metals ad the alumina to form a leak proof seal that will stand up to very high gas pressure, These recent tests by MFMP indicate that sealing alumina from hydrogen leakage is a challenge. But the Rossi Hot Cat did run for weeks without apparent loss of hydrogen. Rossi has come up with a way to effectively seal alumina. How could have Rossi made the alumina tube resistant to hydrogen leakage? Could Rossi have used a self sealing fuel additive included in the fuel mix that entered the pores of the alumina after the reactor was started to minimize hydrogen exfiltration? There was a large amount of carbon in the element analysis of the fuel load. Could it be that Rossi used a organic sealant to stop hydrogen leakage? An excerpt from the Lugano report:Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. Where did all those rather high concentrations of elements go? Could it be that the C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn were nano particles used to seal the fuel including hydrogen by blocking the pores of the alumina in a self anodizing process in the initial stages during reactor startup? Carbon is a well know hydrogen blocker. On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: The description in the report is insufficient to determine what was used to make the seal and whether it was hermetically sealed. On Jan 15, 2015 8:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It does work, It worked for Rossi for 32 days. On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: It might work. I have been looking at those options (i.e., metal compression fitting). On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Like Rossi did, MFMP has just tested and intends to use in their next experiment a metal plug or a thermocouple probe to seal the fuel feed hole in the alumina rod. Why is this sealing process not right for you? On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, it bolsters the results of the first experiment by demonstrating that reliability. On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: Well, it is a nice clean blank anyway. The two sets of points fit on top of one-another beautiful. Meaning the instrument is reliable as a calorimeter. This is important. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet
Thanks Bob, You have offered an educated description of some of the more intricate inner behavior of a light water fission reactor. I had been previously introduced to some of the processes at work but your input is much more of the type that engineers understand. It is always refreshing to be exposed to the real life secondary considerations that result in modifications to the original less sophisticated designs. I find your information concerning the cooling factors quite interesting and demonstrates that where a problem exists a solution can be found. Perhaps a pile of Axil pellets would not work due to the very same issues that you discuss as applying to nuclear reactors, whereas a well engineered geometry should lead to a successful design. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 4:40 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet Dave--To answer your question about reactor control I offer the following: Light water fission reactors using U-235, U-233, and Pu-239 fissionable isotopes depend on thermal or relatively slow neutrons to react with those isotopes. The slower the neutron the more likely it will be absorbed by one of these isotopes and cause it to fission. Each fission produces more neutrons at high energies that are slowed down by collisions with water and other material in the reactor until they are thermalized--at an average energy determined by the temperature of the reactor. At criticality the population of neutrons is steady with as many being produced as are leaking out of the reactor (not to enter the fuel region again) or being absorbed by materials such as control rods.More power is produced as the temperature is decreased because the average energy of the population of neutrons is reduced and the interaction rate with the fissile isotopes in the reactor is increased. If the power generated is not extracted from the circulating coolant the temperature goes up and the reaction rate (fission rate) goes down on average because the energy spectrum of the neutrons is higher. This is a negative feed back called a negative temperature coeff. and is an inherent control feature of the power in the reactor. However if the water is cooled again the power increases and holds the reactor at a selected average operating temperature. Heat extracted from the primary coolant of the reactor by a steam generator is such a cooling mechanism for the primary coolant. The fissile isotopes also react with faster neutrons at various energies, however at lower probability than they do with the thermal neutrons. Thus, they there are many fewer fissions caused by fast neutrons before they are thermalized in the reactor during normal reactor critical operation. However, with a rapid addition of neutron population, power can drastically increase at a high rate and cause a large increase of fast neutron compared to the thermal neutron population. If this happens a condition of prompt criticality can occur and the reactor can explode because of a high energy production rate. Reactors are designed to add a poison--a control rod--to absorb neutrons if the rate of production--the rate of population increase--is too high. Such control rod action avoids prompt criticality. An accident called a cold water accident can occur in reactors which adds a slug of cold water to the reactor and causes prompt criticality before the control rod system has a chance to add poison. This must be avoided to keep the reactor in tact. The various assemblies in a core produce differing amounts of power with the colder regions near the entering coolant producing more power than the hotter regions. Thus at higher powers the differential temperature across the core is greater given a constant coolant flow rate. To keep the temperatures in a core closer to an average temperature the flow is increased as more power is generated. Fuel assemblies are loaded with differing amounts of fissile material depending upon the location of the fuel assembly in the core with higher loading in radial positions that may have a lower neutron population on average. The fuel design objective is generally to create a system with even power generation throughout the core. Such a condition can only be approached in practice and changes as fuel is depleted with operation. Most modern reactors include burnable poisons--for example boron--that are depleted as the same time the fuel is depleted. This reduction of the poison in the fuel allows an increasing thermal neutron population inside the fuel element and thus maintains an more constant fission rate with time as the local fissile isotopes decrease. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:41 PM Subject: Re:
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
Thanks Gigi, I am continuing to develop the model further and as I give it consideration I find that it may allow us to obtain a second, accurate backup calculation for Jed's original conclusions. We appear to be able to enter known data, including the 20 watt drive pulse and the pump leakage power along with ambient temperature conditions into the model and obtain a well defined temperature versus time plot. Your original model does a remarkable job of replicating the measured results from the point in time where it begins to model the linear system. Now, I have figured a way to extend that initial time as far into the past as needed in order to determine the magnitude of the LENR power pulse. To achieve that goal it is necessary to have reasonably accurate measurement data for the ambient temperatures over that entire time period. I believe that Jed has that information available within his files. Jed, can you verify that this is true? According to the excellent work by Gigi, we have a model with a main basic time constant of 5.84 hours. This is the dominate pole of the system and therefore we will need to operate back in time with the input data for a period at least 3 time constants in order to obtain an accurate projection of the thermal behavior of the Mizuno device. The really good news is that we should be able to begin our analysis at the beginning of a day just before the power pulses are applied and make a decision at the end of that same day (24 hours) with reasonable accuracy. At each increment of time we will need the value of the ambient temperature and any applied power plus the assumed magnitude of the resulting response power of the LENR process. We can include the 4 watts of leakage for the pump which Gigi has determined as just another input that is constant over the simulation period. If the model works as it should then we will see good agreement between the water temperature over that entire time period and what the model predicts. Obviously we will need to have accurate data of the initial conditions of the system, which in this case is the water temperature just prior to the first power pulse, in order to begin the simulation. Regards, Dave -Original Message- From: Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 7:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far Great Your results look very meaningful, Dave. We are still thinking about the problem of not uniform temperature across the reactor vessel just after the power pulse are applied, but it seems to me that you have solved them. I hope to read the full report very soon. GG 2015-01-16 5:29 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I ran out of patience waiting for an input from Gigi and decided to construct a simple numerical model of the calorimeter used with the Mizuno test. After playing around with it for a while using the thermal values derived by Gigi and his team, I have come to my first conclusion. It is a bit early and I might find a glaring error somewhere with further analysis but felt it was reasonable to offer an interim report. It is consistent with the model for the device to be generating an output power of 100 watts. I have rounded the value off at this time until further research can pin point it more accurately. Even if 4 watts of leakage is present due to the pump action, the calorimeter appears to be fairly immune to that input provided the ambient does not change more than 2 degrees during the test. Again, this is a first pass result and subject to revision. Dave
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet
In a TRISO pellet nuclear reactor, the pellets are passively safe. There thermal expansion when heated to high temperatures reduces there reactivity to such a high degree that the reactor stops of its own accord. A pellet reactor is intrinsically safe and cannot meltdown. However, such a reactor has other drawbacks. These drawbacks can be mitigated if a molten salt is used as a coolant to replace helium. In my concept of a LENR based TRISO pellet reactor, a two way thermal diode control layer build from thermally insolating material must be developed to transfer heat into the pellet core only when the temperature is below 1400C. When the core reaches 1400C and above, the control layer reverses heat flow so that heat can only flow out of the core and not into it. This control layer is the control mechanism that stabilizes the temperature in the reactor. As a systems engineering requirement of the LENR TRISO pellet, this control layer is in direct contact with the core of the pebble. It may be built using one direction micro heat pipes(two way simplex interface) using lithium as the heat transfer medium imbedded in the isolating layer material where the set of heat pipes function until the temperature gets to 1400C, then the heat input set shuts down at 1400C and above. The other set of heat micro lithium based heat pipes function in an opposite fashion where heat above 1400C is sent to the surface of the pellet but they shut down at temperatures lower than 1400C. Such a LENR pellet design will be passively safe. On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks Bob, You have offered an educated description of some of the more intricate inner behavior of a light water fission reactor. I had been previously introduced to some of the processes at work but your input is much more of the type that engineers understand. It is always refreshing to be exposed to the real life secondary considerations that result in modifications to the original less sophisticated designs. I find your information concerning the cooling factors quite interesting and demonstrates that where a problem exists a solution can be found. Perhaps a pile of Axil pellets would not work due to the very same issues that you discuss as applying to nuclear reactors, whereas a well engineered geometry should lead to a successful design. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 4:40 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet Dave--To answer your question about reactor control I offer the following: Light water fission reactors using U-235, U-233, and Pu-239 fissionable isotopes depend on thermal or relatively slow neutrons to react with those isotopes. The slower the neutron the more likely it will be absorbed by one of these isotopes and cause it to fission. Each fission produces more neutrons at high energies that are slowed down by collisions with water and other material in the reactor until they are thermalized--at an average energy determined by the temperature of the reactor. At criticality the population of neutrons is steady with as many being produced as are leaking out of the reactor (not to enter the fuel region again) or being absorbed by materials such as control rods.More power is produced as the temperature is decreased because the average energy of the population of neutrons is reduced and the interaction rate with the fissile isotopes in the reactor is increased. If the power generated is not extracted from the circulating coolant the temperature goes up and the reaction rate (fission rate) goes down on average because the energy spectrum of the neutrons is higher. This is a negative feed back called a negative temperature coeff. and is an inherent control feature of the power in the reactor. However if the water is cooled again the power increases and holds the reactor at a selected average operating temperature. Heat extracted from the primary coolant of the reactor by a steam generator is such a cooling mechanism for the primary coolant. The fissile isotopes also react with faster neutrons at various energies, however at lower probability than they do with the thermal neutrons. Thus, they there are many fewer fissions caused by fast neutrons before they are thermalized in the reactor during normal reactor critical operation. However, with a rapid addition of neutron population, power can drastically increase at a high rate and cause a large increase of fast neutron compared to the thermal neutron population. If this happens a condition of prompt criticality can occur and the reactor can explode because of a high energy production rate. Reactors are designed to add a poison--a control rod--to absorb neutrons if the rate of production--the rate of population increase--is too high. Such control rod action avoids
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet
Dave- The parameter that controls the LENR should extend throughout the reacting material and affect the reaction in a similar manner to be effective. My guess is that it is temperature that changes the reaction rate as the temperatures rises and, then, reduces the rate, if the temperature gets to high by allowing the configuration of the active nano structure to change. There may be a magnetic field that aligns active nano particles or atoms to promote the LENR also. And/or there may be various resonant conditions caused by electric or magnetic field manipulation that promote or poison the LENR. Any of these parameters may affect the formation of the SPP population which I believe is involved in the LENR intensity. I also believe there is a good heat transfer mechanism operating in the Ni-Li-H-Al reactor that promotes fairly uniform temperature profiles and hence resonant lattice vibrations and LENR. I think spin energy manipulation of the nano system of atoms and transmutations to lower energy states is the ultimate source of energy in these reactors. This feature is what keeps the hard gamma radiation down with small changes in the nano system energy states and no hot kinetic particles. Who knows? These are merely guesses. Temperature seems to be the main controlling parameter--at least one that the people who understand the LENR mechanism talk about and reveal. The recent Russian experiment also seems to point to the controlling nature of the temperature. However, resonant RF signals may also be important in the Russian experiment and are used to control it. A separate RF noise generator could be used to shut down a reaction by interfering with the resonant conditions. The heater coil windings may act as a source of non-resonant or resonant RF, for example. As Bob Higgins pointed out, the Russian experiment uses a ribbon type wire wound around the reactor with a gap in the middle where the windings appear to be further apart. This design seems strange and must have a purpose. The apparent non-univorm heating of the reactor along its length may reflect this winding configuration. It may also promote a RF pattern within the reactor that is necessary for resonances to occur. Again, who knows. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 7:23 AM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet Thanks Bob, You have offered an educated description of some of the more intricate inner behavior of a light water fission reactor. I had been previously introduced to some of the processes at work but your input is much more of the type that engineers understand. It is always refreshing to be exposed to the real life secondary considerations that result in modifications to the original less sophisticated designs. I find your information concerning the cooling factors quite interesting and demonstrates that where a problem exists a solution can be found. Perhaps a pile of Axil pellets would not work due to the very same issues that you discuss as applying to nuclear reactors, whereas a well engineered geometry should lead to a successful design. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 4:40 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:TRISO LENR pellet Dave--To answer your question about reactor control I offer the following: Light water fission reactors using U-235, U-233, and Pu-239 fissionable isotopes depend on thermal or relatively slow neutrons to react with those isotopes. The slower the neutron the more likely it will be absorbed by one of these isotopes and cause it to fission. Each fission produces more neutrons at high energies that are slowed down by collisions with water and other material in the reactor until they are thermalized--at an average energy determined by the temperature of the reactor. At criticality the population of neutrons is steady with as many being produced as are leaking out of the reactor (not to enter the fuel region again) or being absorbed by materials such as control rods.More power is produced as the temperature is decreased because the average energy of the population of neutrons is reduced and the interaction rate with the fissile isotopes in the reactor is increased. If the power generated is not extracted from the circulating coolant the temperature goes up and the reaction rate (fission rate) goes down on average because the energy spectrum of the neutrons is higher. This is a negative feed back called a negative temperature coeff. and is an inherent control feature of the power in the reactor. However if the water is cooled again the power increases and holds the reactor at a selected average operating temperature. Heat extracted from the primary coolant of the reactor by a steam generator is
Re: [Vo]:New Patent- Field Emission Device configured as a Heat Englne.
I seems a good source of LENR heat hooked up to the Field Emission Device may be a good way to make electricity directly like in a thermo-electric couple, only with this device. Gates and his Woods side kick, who is also on the patent list of names, may have gone to Italy recently to discuss this option. Did anyone recognize any other participants at the meeting in Italy besides Woods and Gates that may be inventors on the patent list of names? Bob - Original Message - From: Teslaalset To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Patent- Field Emission Device configured as a Heat Englne. Reading the provisional filing: We foresee it potentially becoming the dominant class of heat engines of the mid-21st century, and specifically as an inexpensive, simple, no-moving-parts, super-high powerdensity, near-Carnot-efficiency transformer between heat and electricity in a plethora of circumstances, very specifically including heat-electricity transformation on essentially all scales and across virtually all temperature spans of practical interest. As such, we anticipate its use in everything from personal electronics-powering (e.g., powered by a LPG/butane micro-flame) to prime-mover applications in transport vehicles of all types and in central power-stations of all scales - and not-quite-incidentally in making refrigeration--HVAC cheap--practical--thus ubiquitous in the tropics Also remarkable from the provisional: Acknowledgments: We are grateful to Bill Gates for inspiring and encouraging this exploration, and to Rod Hyde, Jordin Kare and David Tuckerman for discussions which helped to clarify physics and technology issues. On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: it seems to be a thermionic device... a heat to power converter ? 2015-01-16 1:12 GMT+01:00 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com: Greetings Vortex-L, An invention by some Highly Talented Researchers. I am clueless. http://www.google.com/patents/US8575842 Applications...aircraft and other energy applications... Ad astra, Ron Kita,Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:Hydrino and Parkhomov seminar January 29
Hello Peter , Always good to see your blog. I especially think the article about the patent situation is right. I would even go further and say that 'patents are seldom worth the paper they are written on and certainly not worth all the costs involved'. A good idea is not possible to steal as it contains more than can be in writing and therefore it has its own protection. However, just the technical idea has very little value. The whole idea incl. of organization, business plan, team etc needs to be present. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: No, there are two independent presentations and i have no idea what wil Samsonenko say about hydrinos. His conference is exkurs in Russian that is a digression. If I get an opportunity I will ask him before the data of presentation. As regarding Parkhomov he is dedicated to the experimental aprt and says the inner mechanism of the reaction is a very difficult task. As you can see, the Lugano testers are also silent- gossip says they will publish something next month- but what? Peter On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Peter, Does this seminar imply that Parkhomov is leaning towards a fractional hydrogen (hydrino) explanation for the thermal gain, or is his attendance coincidental ? Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Deae Readers a bit earlier than usual, I wrote : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/a-charismatic-seminar-on-hydrino-and.html Waiting for good news- from you too Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
I have been simulating the Mizuno device and adjusting a piecewise linear ambient temperature function for several hours. I felt that it was time for a short update. In an earlier report I stated that the output power might be as much as 100 watts, well I need to adjust that figure downwards somewhat to 60 watts. This is because I did not see that the ambient began at 22.5 when the device was at 23 degrees C. I assumed that the system had stabilized before the pulses began. Had this been true, the device would have settled to a temperature that was 2.05 degrees above the ambient before the test began. With that inclusion as well as a piecewise linear fit to the ambient temperature function I made another more accurate run of the simulation. This time I found the peak at the correct time and at the right temperature when 60 watts of output power (add 4 watts for the pump also) was dissipated into the water. That means that 40 watts of excess power appears to be generated by the device. The ratio of output power to input power comes out at 3.0 at this point in time. Jed measured 3.42 for this day Oct 21. I am sure that I will continue to adjust the results as better data is applied. I hope to add the actual ambient measurements instead of my crude linear section fit. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 11:24 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far Thanks Gigi, I am continuing to develop the model further and as I give it consideration I find that it may allow us to obtain a second, accurate backup calculation for Jed's original conclusions. We appear to be able to enter known data, including the 20 watt drive pulse and the pump leakage power along with ambient temperature conditions into the model and obtain a well defined temperature versus time plot. Your original model does a remarkable job of replicating the measured results from the point in time where it begins to model the linear system. Now, I have figured a way to extend that initial time as far into the past as needed in order to determine the magnitude of the LENR power pulse. To achieve that goal it is necessary to have reasonably accurate measurement data for the ambient temperatures over that entire time period. I believe that Jed has that information available within his files. Jed, can you verify that this is true? According to the excellent work by Gigi, we have a model with a main basic time constant of 5.84 hours. This is the dominate pole of the system and therefore we will need to operate back in time with the input data for a period at least 3 time constants in order to obtain an accurate projection of the thermal behavior of the Mizuno device. The really good news is that we should be able to begin our analysis at the beginning of a day just before the power pulses are applied and make a decision at the end of that same day (24 hours) with reasonable accuracy. At each increment of time we will need the value of the ambient temperature and any applied power plus the assumed magnitude of the resulting response power of the LENR process. We can include the 4 watts of leakage for the pump which Gigi has determined as just another input that is constant over the simulation period. If the model works as it should then we will see good agreement between the water temperature over that entire time period and what the model predicts. Obviously we will need to have accurate data of the initial conditions of the system, which in this case is the water temperature just prior to the first power pulse, in order to begin the simulation. Regards, Dave -Original Message- From: Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 7:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far Great Your results look very meaningful, Dave. We are still thinking about the problem of not uniform temperature across the reactor vessel just after the power pulse are applied, but it seems to me that you have solved them. I hope to read the full report very soon. GG 2015-01-16 5:29 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: I ran out of patience waiting for an input from Gigi and decided to construct a simple numerical model of the calorimeter used with the Mizuno test. After playing around with it for a while using the thermal values derived by Gigi and his team, I have come to my first conclusion. It is a bit early and I might find a glaring error somewhere with further analysis but felt it was reasonable to offer an interim report. It is consistent with the model for the device to be generating an output power of 100 watts. I have rounded the value off at this time until further research can pin point it more accurately. Even if 4 watts of leakage is present due to the pump action, the
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: In an earlier report I stated that the output power might be as much as 100 watts, well I need to adjust that figure downwards somewhat to 60 watts. If it were 60 W, that would phenomenal. Input power is only 20 W. Anomalous heat peaks at about 3 W. This time I found the peak at the correct time and at the right temperature when 60 watts of output power (add 4 watts for the pump also) . . . 4 W is more than the average output for the whole day! That means that 40 watts of excess power appears to be generated by the device. That is off by a factor of 10, at least. The ratio of output power to input power comes out at 3.0 at this point in time. Jed measured 3.42 for this day Oct 21. That is the ratio I found for energy over the entire day, not for power. And I did not measure that; I extrapolated based on how hot I suppose the reactor vessel got. I measured only 1.38. I have no idea where your numbers come from. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
Thanks for the information Jed. Of course the average power is much less than the peak as would be expected. When you drive the heating wire with 20 watts of power, you are producing a large number of joules of heat during the 500 second period. I believe you said that you get approximately 500 seconds * 20 watts = 1 joules per pulse on average. With 3 pulses that means you get around 3 joules. The report actually lists 30794 on Oct 21 which is the day I am simulating. Also on that day within your report you state that 105321 total joules is deposited within the complete system due to a combination of the drive power, pump power and excess power from the device. This means that you have a ratio of output energy to input energy of 3.42. I am simulating a ratio of approximately 3.0 at this time. Perhaps the fact that I conveniently used the same time frame for the excess power as the drive is what is causing the confusion. You are correct that the output energy is being produced throughout a much longer period of time than the 500 seconds of 20 watt drive itself. If you have a method of determining the actual shape in time of the energy being released by the active LENR wire please give me that information. I can not imagine it being only 3 watts instantaneous as you seem to be implying. That would suggest that the same number of joules in each second are constantly being generated throughout the pulse repetition period. I would certainly think that as the structure cools down, less heat is generated. And, if past experience is a guide then the rate of production falls off very quickly as the temperature drops. So, the instantaneous power must be far greater than 3 watts peak. If we can come up with a method of measuring the true behavior then I will gladly find a way to include that factor into my model. I can also report total joules over the entire pulse periods if that makes better sense to you. In that case my model now calculates that 9 joules total are detected versus your 105321 joules reported. As I have stated, the number I have posted thus far is going to be adjusted as more accurate information is included. I felt that it was a reasonable plan to keep everyone informed somewhat periodically as the simulation is honed in and that is why I made the posting. Gigi is working in parallel on some type of model and it makes sense for us to share information instead of waiting for many weeks until a cleaned up report is generated. Do you agree? I hope that this clarifies what I am reporting. To recap, I am currently using your data from Oct. 21, 2014 to model the amount of heat generated by Mizuno's device during that day. My model simulates the behavior of a linear differential equation acting upon the inputs that you have reported. The initial condition that I am using is the temperature of the coolant water just prior to the application of the first 20 watt power pulse. I am using the 4 watt pump leakage power that Gigi has determined to be accurate. I am including an improving set of ambient temperature data that you have measured to be present during the test period. The effects due to the ambient are taken into account by the configuration used in defining the differential equation. Then, since excess power and energy are generated by the device during a power pulse I am making an assumption of its equivalent value. This value is then adjusted so that the final temperature of the coolant matches what you have reported at a particular time. In this case it is at the point in time where the peak temperature is noted as you have done. Gigi did an excellent job of determining the equivalent models of the thermal resistance and heat capacity of the Mizuno device from your data that I am using to define the coefficients of my differential equation. I verified that his model matched in two independent cases. The first was with the pump active and the second was when it failed. After reviewing this remarkable degree of correlation between a split apart system and a combined one I became convinced that it will be possible to achieve an accurate model that can be used to verify excess heat production. If you have any additional questions please post them so I can answer any concerns you might foster. I believe the model is going to be extremely useful. Besides, it is adding strong support to your report. Of course, had it shown otherwise I would have reported that as well since the truth is what we all seek. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: In an earlier report I stated that the output power might be as much as 100 watts, well I need to adjust that figure downwards somewhat to 60 watts.
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If you have a method of determining the actual shape in time of the energy being released by the active LENR wire please give me that information. I can not imagine it being only 3 watts instantaneous as you seem to be implying. As far as I can tell it is. It is hard to separate out the spike from the pulse and the anomalous heat but I do not see any indication that the anomalous heat is much higher at one point than another. It gradually fades away at the end. As I said in the report, you cannot tell when exactly it stops; you can only see that losses exceed anomalous heat sometime in the evening. When you download the spreadsheets you have as much information as I do. That would suggest that the same number of joules in each second are constantly being generated throughout the pulse repetition period. I would certainly think that as the structure cools down, less heat is generated. There is no anomalous heat effect proportional to input power. If it were proportional, I would suspect an instrument artifact. Cold fusion does not work like that. It is triggered by some sort of stimulation -- such as heat or laser light -- and then it goes off on its own, at its own pace, at a power level completely unrelated to the stimulus power. And, if past experience is a guide then the rate of production falls off very quickly as the temperature drops. I do not think so. Pd-D systems producing heat after death continue for a long time as they cool down. To recap, I am currently using your data from Oct. 21, 2014 to model the amount of heat generated by Mizuno's device during that day. The spreadsheet shows temperature changes every 24.4 seconds. There is a large lag between the water temperature and the reactor body temperature, and on the scale of individual readings there is a lot of noise. Despite these problems, you can derive power in watts by multiplying the temperature difference from one reading to the previous one, and multiplying that number by 4.12 (conversion factor) * 4000 g (of water) / 24.4 s. This results is extremely noisy so I suggest you data smooth it with the spreadsheet function, making it an average over several minutes. You will see that it never gets anywhere near 40 W, and most of the time it is far lower than 4 W -- which you think is the pump input power. As I said, I cannot imagine where you got that number. As I have often pointed out, the heat from the pump has already driven the system up by 0.6 deg C after the first 90 minutes, and can drive it no higher. So you will not see any sign of the pump in the minute-to-minute changes after that. When there is only the pump running and ambient is stable, the Delta T change over 24 s is zero, and the Delta T change over 24 minutes is zero, and if ambient were stable then you would find that over 24 hours, days or weeks it is . . . zero, exactly. This is dead obvious from the data. Why Gigi does not understand it I cannot say. He clearly does not understand calorimetry. If you think you are detecting 4 W from the pump -- or 4 W from anything for that matter -- you do not understand this either. If you do not data smooth the segments you will find huge power changes, up 100 W in one reading and down 80 W in the next. This is noise. It is caused by the instrument electronics and by water swirling around in the tank. You can simulate it at home with a thermocouple in a pot of water over a stove, for example. I averaged out power over 10 segments of 24 s each, graphed that, and then computed total energy from those instantaneous power measurements. The answer is about the same as taking energy from the total change in temperature for the whole day, which is the method I use. The second answer, from the 10-segment average power, is slightly higher. It is probably more accurate, because it captures heat before the heat leaks from the reactor. The difference is minor because the insulation is good and the temperature difference from ambient is small. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
Gigi, I need for you to check your model very carefully in order to ensure that I am using the best value for pump power leakage. Take time to verify that 4.0 watts gives you the best fit to the data match with Jed's excel file for the period after the drive pulses have ended. If I recall you entered the coolant temperature as the initial condition for your model run. It will be better if you move far enough in time to a place where the water and the cell have the same temperature. Ideally, the heating will be mostly due to pump power input and little from the cell history within the desired region. I modified my simulation model now to use Jed's data directly for the input parameters. I adjusted my time increments to use the ones he measured to obtain a better match to what he sees. The results are quite interesting. Dave
[Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
I guess Piantelli said this . . . or there is a misunderstanding. Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: [Piantelli?] also spent a lot of time on the all important matter of credibility in claims. Principally about the HUGE amount of energy that can be stored in various forms of Hydrogen and that must absolutely be excluded before any meaningful conclusion could be had about anomalous heat. What is that supposed to mean? It isn't all that huge. It is the heat of formation of water, 285,800 joules per mole. That is the most energy-dense chemical reaction there is. Palladium holds more hydrogen than any other hydride. In my book, I computed how much hydrogen 0.2 g of palladium can hold when loaded 100% (which no actual hydride can achieve) will produce 286 J: . . . 0.2 grams = 0.002 moles of Pd. Fully loaded at a 1:1 ratio with hydrogen, 0.002 moles of Pd hold 0.002 moles of H (0.002 grams) which converts to 0.001 moles H2O. The heat of formation of water is 285,800 joules per mole. It is very difficult to load as high as 1:1, except at very low temperature. The palladium cigarette lighters would have achieved no more than a 1:0.5 ratio in a mixture of alpha and beta loaded Pd-H. In other words, a 1 ounce (28 gram) palladium lighter would hold roughly as much energy as 20 wooden matches. That's 1,430 J/g. A few 1 g samples of palladium have produced 50 MJ and more. 50,000,000 is a lot more than 1,430. It is easy to see this is not a chemical reaction. He talked about ionisation, absorption, re-combination, para and ortho and various charge states etc. These changes cannot produce more net energy than the formation of water. That is the absolute upper limit to what a hydride can produce. 1430 J/g. No chemical system can produce more than ~4 eV/atom which is close to what the heat of formation of water is. Just ionisation energy of 1.008 g (1 mole of Hydrogen) is 1,312 kilojoules, the re-combination is 423 kilojoules and so on. That would make great rocket fuel if you could store it! NASA would pay you a billion dollars and you would get a nobel prize. But no one can. As I said, the upper limit is 285 kJ and that's for 2 moles of H (and one of O). That's why NASA used H2 and O2 to power the space shuttle. There is no better fuel measured in energy per gram. You can subject a mole of hydrogen to a laser and make it real hot for a nanosecond too, but that doesn't count. That is not energy storage, and you cannot release that in any system. If Piantelli said this, he has a screw loose. Without a full account of the amount of potential hydrogen in a reaction, results are a fantasy and will not be taken seriously. The full account is what I said: 285 kJ per 2 moles. End of story. NASA and every automobile maker on earth will pay you billions if you release more energy than that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
Jed, if the system is stable for only a few ours, it is an important consideration. I think you won't get it running it smoothly for more than a few hours in the first trials. 2015-01-16 23:58 GMT-02:00, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (jedrothw...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule: https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DclhPdJ5e8RQQ%252FBAw5aru%252Bkt0rlXuF6Wo8iKiYWOKfobKWg2%252B%252BaoT16xA4huZHxU7e95bO9lTaUftat9z9fc30SXsJ1ofLNPnMURmJVeaPBzqnKRKFFfUGJNfoMp5UiY9DpZ2LGDWAr%252FGEs%252Fl7P8nxw%253D%253D%26key%3D07DJJtCKIJvbDiOEyVgarI2ejhwLER0VeZzhdSjLPSY%253Dtc_serial=20085958731tc_rand=1763548419utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 More info: http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=20085958731tc_rand=1763548419utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
Jed, if you review your figure 8 for the Oct 21 test that I am concentrating upon you will see a plot of the reactor internal temperature. It appears pretty obvious that the internal temperature is quite high for a short period of time and not during anywhere near the complete cycle. Also, the reactor wall temperatures are very restricted in time when compared to the drive pulse dead time period. I have a difficult time accepting the premise that the power is constantly being generated during the complete period from this figure. It is much more likely to be restricted to .3 hours maximum. Have you given this figure much thought? I do not expect the anonymous heat to be proportional to input power in any linear fashion. Also, the time domain emission of that heat will not match the input. My model does not really care about the exact shape of the input pulse at this point, only the number of joules emitted. Thanks for smoothing out the data for me. What I see looks fairly clean. I realize that there remains a major difference in opinion between you and Gigi concerning the pump heating. I want to remain out of that argument but need the best proven information to use for my model. He has done extensive curve fitting and I have asked him to prove his case better. Jed, the system time constant is a bit less than 6 hours. That means that it takes several of these periods before an input no longer effects the final temperature. What do you suppose will happen if the ambient takes a step upwards? It will be many hours before the transient finally settles out. The same will happen for a step in pump power as well. I agree completely with you that if the ambient is completely stable and the pump power constant then any change in the coolant temperature is directly determined by the joules added by the drive power pulse and the excess power waveform. Unfortunately, that condition has not been met since the ambient is changing constantly. Also, since there is thermal leakage from the system, the coolant temperature will slowly fall with the system time constant determining the rate. In this case the time constant is 5.84 hours according to Gigi's excellent analysis. We obviously do not agree in several important ways, but that should not be a reason to prevent us from working as a team in order to prove that the Mizuno system is generating excess power. So far the indications are very positive, but I aim for the best possible proof. We are getting close to that goal. You will appreciate the end product of this exercise. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 8:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If you have a method of determining the actual shape in time of the energy being released by the active LENR wire please give me that information. I can not imagine it being only 3 watts instantaneous as you seem to be implying. As far as I can tell it is. It is hard to separate out the spike from the pulse and the anomalous heat but I do not see any indication that the anomalous heat is much higher at one point than another. It gradually fades away at the end. As I said in the report, you cannot tell when exactly it stops; you can only see that losses exceed anomalous heat sometime in the evening. When you download the spreadsheets you have as much information as I do. That would suggest that the same number of joules in each second are constantly being generated throughout the pulse repetition period. I would certainly think that as the structure cools down, less heat is generated. There is no anomalous heat effect proportional to input power. If it were proportional, I would suspect an instrument artifact. Cold fusion does not work like that. It is triggered by some sort of stimulation -- such as heat or laser light -- and then it goes off on its own, at its own pace, at a power level completely unrelated to the stimulus power. And, if past experience is a guide then the rate of production falls off very quickly as the temperature drops. I do not think so. Pd-D systems producing heat after death continue for a long time as they cool down. To recap, I am currently using your data from Oct. 21, 2014 to model the amount of heat generated by Mizuno's device during that day. The spreadsheet shows temperature changes every 24.4 seconds. There is a large lag between the water temperature and the reactor body temperature, and on the scale of individual readings there is a lot of noise. Despite these problems, you can derive power in watts by multiplying the temperature difference from one reading to the previous one, and multiplying that number by 4.12 (conversion factor) * 4000 g (of water) / 24.4 s. This results is extremely noisy so I suggest you data
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:58:06 -0500: Hi, [snip] These changes cannot produce more net energy than the formation of water. That is the absolute upper limit to what a hydride can produce. 1430 J/g. No chemical system can produce more than ~4 eV/atom which is close to what the heat of formation of water is. Formation of 1 molecule of liquid water from Hydrogen and Oxygen gasses yields 2.96 eV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I guess Piantelli said this . . . or there is a misunderstanding. Perhaps he speaks of fractional Rydberg states? You could call that energy stored from about 13 billion years ago. :-)
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:50:01 +1100: Hi, [snip] BTW, formation of 1 molecule of Hydrogen gas from atomic Hydrogen yields 4.519 eV per H2 molecule. (Of course there is no way to store atomic H.) Formation of 1 molecule of liquid water from Hydrogen and Oxygen gasses yields 2.96 eV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have a difficult time accepting the premise that the power is constantly being generated during the complete period from this figure. It is much more likely to be restricted to .3 hours maximum. Have you given this figure much thought? You can see for yourself it is constantly being generated. There is no doubt about it. If there were no sources of heat in the cell, after the pulse the temperature would fall right back to where it was before the pulse. You can compute where it would hit the line, using Newton's law of cooling. It does not do that. It continues to rise all day, until evening when the heat peters out and it begins to fall. (It would not return to ambient, because the pump heat holds it 0.6 deg C above that.) I do not expect the anonymous heat to be proportional to input power in any linear fashion. Also, the time domain emission of that heat will not match the input. My model does not really care about the exact shape of the input pulse at this point, only the number of joules emitted. Thanks for smoothing out the data for me. What I see looks fairly clean. I realize that there remains a major difference in opinion between you and Gigi concerning the pump heating. I want to remain out of that argument but need the best proven information to use for my model. He has done extensive curve fitting and I have asked him to prove his case better. He can do curve fitting until the cows come home! Mizuno measured the pump heat in an actual test. I uploaded his data and graph. The temperature does not rise after 1.4 hours. It does not rise in the last 3 hours when ambient is stable. If ambient remained stable, it would never rise or fall, period. Any source of heat will always reach a terminal temperature where the heat leaks equal the heat generation. The test proves Mizuno is right. All the curve-fitting and blather in the world cannot disprove what you see in that graph. Gigi is confused because he does not understand the difference between a decline in ambient and an increase in cell temperature. Jed, the system time constant is a bit less than 6 hours. That means that it takes several of these periods before an input no longer effects the final temperature. You mean for it to return back down to ambient + 0.6 deg C. Yeah, but with this method, energy is measured by a *rising* temperature, not a stable temperature. This is not an isoperibolic calorimeter. Given enough time it would rise until it reaches the peak, but we never give it enough time with this test. Instead, the heat peters out and the temperature begins to fall. It would take several hours -- all night in fact -- for it to cool down back to ambient, but once the anomalous heats cuts out, you can clearly see that has happened because the temperature stops climbing and starts to fall. The previous tests were in isoperibolic mode lasting days or weeks, with less insulation. That was a whole different kettle of fish. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: That is the absolute upper limit to what a hydride can produce. 1430 J/g. No chemical system can produce more than ~4 eV/atom which is close to what the heat of formation of water is. Formation of 1 molecule of liquid water from Hydrogen and Oxygen gasses yields 2.96 eV. Right. Yes. Burning a diamond produces ~4 eV per carbon atom, I believe. That is the maximum of any chemical reaction because diamonds have more electron bonds per atom than any other common material. That is more energy per atom but less per gram of fuel than hydrogen, because hydrogen is lighter. H2 + O2 make the best fuel per unit of mass. Someone told me years ago there are a few exotic rocket fuels that might reach 8 eV/atom, but nothing has actually been demonstrated. Rockets propelled by burning diamonds would be kind of neat! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: BTW, formation of 1 molecule of Hydrogen gas from atomic Hydrogen yields 4.519 eV per H2 molecule. (Of course there is no way to store atomic H.) That is my point about Piantelli's statement. Okay, there may be moments when individual molecules or atoms produce more energy than the formation of H2O does. Such as the formation of atomic H. But you can't store atomic H. The stuff immediately reforms into H2. Or such as ionization -- one of the things Piantelli listed. Something has to ionize the ion, giving it a bunch of electrons, which takes energy. They don't stay ionized. The overall system does not produce energy, and it cannot store a lot of energy. If you can find a way to super-ionize hydrogen -- making it super-duper-capacitor I suppose -- that would be great. As I said, if you could store more energy than H2 + O2 fuel produces, NASA and many others would be thrilled. But you can't. Piantelli can't. . . . We know this is not what cold fusion does because it has produced 100,000 times more than any conceivable combination of short term and long temp chemical storage mechanisms. (Electron bond mechanisms.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 16 Jan 2015 22:18:15 -0500: Hi, [snip] mix...@bigpond.com wrote: That is the absolute upper limit to what a hydride can produce. 1430 J/g. No chemical system can produce more than ~4 eV/atom which is close to what the heat of formation of water is. Formation of 1 molecule of liquid water from Hydrogen and Oxygen gasses yields 2.96 eV. Right. Yes. Burning a diamond produces ~4 eV per carbon atom, I believe. That is the maximum of any chemical reaction because diamonds have more electron bonds per atom than any other common material. That is more energy per atom but less per gram of fuel than hydrogen, because hydrogen is lighter. H2 + O2 make the best fuel per unit of mass. Someone told me years ago there are a few exotic rocket fuels that might reach 8 eV/atom, but nothing has actually been demonstrated. Rockets propelled by burning diamonds would be kind of neat! - Jed One would think that it ought to be possible to significantly reduce the weight of the first stage of a rocket by using jet engines iso rocket engines. That way you save the weight of the Oxygen (by far the heaviest component), by using environmental air. I guess the Oxygen concentration in air isn't high enough to produce the required power level. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far
Curve fitting is a powerful method of determining system responses. A linear system can be completely defined by its response to know stimuli. In one case a pump is adding joules of heat to the coolant, in the other the pump is dead. Gigi was able to match your measured response curve extremely well in both cases. That can not be a coincidence. I have requested that he prove in much detail that he is truly getting that degree of matching. I await the completion of that task to make a final judgement on how well he meets the objective. To me words are not as important as mathematical proof when solving a problem. When the results of my differential equation solution match what is seen perhaps you will realize the power of this type of approach. Relax and don't get so uptight about what Gigi is doing or saying since he is working toward a fair understanding of the system. If he veers off due to bias against LENR, then we can get mad. My biggest question at this point is how to handle the way the power pulse is filtered by the water coolant flowing. There obviously must exist a long time constant path that does a good job of filtering the signal. It may be tricky getting to the bottom of this effect. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 10:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed's Results Look Good So Far David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have a difficult time accepting the premise that the power is constantly being generated during the complete period from this figure. It is much more likely to be restricted to .3 hours maximum. Have you given this figure much thought? You can see for yourself it is constantly being generated. There is no doubt about it. If there were no sources of heat in the cell, after the pulse the temperature would fall right back to where it was before the pulse. You can compute where it would hit the line, using Newton's law of cooling. It does not do that. It continues to rise all day, until evening when the heat peters out and it begins to fall. (It would not return to ambient, because the pump heat holds it 0.6 deg C above that.) I do not expect the anonymous heat to be proportional to input power in any linear fashion. Also, the time domain emission of that heat will not match the input. My model does not really care about the exact shape of the input pulse at this point, only the number of joules emitted. Thanks for smoothing out the data for me. What I see looks fairly clean. I realize that there remains a major difference in opinion between you and Gigi concerning the pump heating. I want to remain out of that argument but need the best proven information to use for my model. He has done extensive curve fitting and I have asked him to prove his case better. He can do curve fitting until the cows come home! Mizuno measured the pump heat in an actual test. I uploaded his data and graph. The temperature does not rise after 1.4 hours. It does not rise in the last 3 hours when ambient is stable. If ambient remained stable, it would never rise or fall, period. Any source of heat will always reach a terminal temperature where the heat leaks equal the heat generation. The test proves Mizuno is right. All the curve-fitting and blather in the world cannot disprove what you see in that graph. Gigi is confused because he does not understand the difference between a decline in ambient and an increase in cell temperature. Jed, the system time constant is a bit less than 6 hours. That means that it takes several of these periods before an input no longer effects the final temperature. You mean for it to return back down to ambient + 0.6 deg C. Yeah, but with this method, energy is measured by a rising temperature, not a stable temperature. This is not an isoperibolic calorimeter. Given enough time it would rise until it reaches the peak, but we never give it enough time with this test. Instead, the heat peters out and the temperature begins to fall. It would take several hours -- all night in fact -- for it to cool down back to ambient, but once the anomalous heats cuts out, you can clearly see that has happened because the temperature stops climbing and starts to fall. The previous tests were in isoperibolic mode lasting days or weeks, with less insulation. That was a whole different kettle of fish. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One would think that it ought to be possible to significantly reduce the weight of the first stage of a rocket by using jet engines iso rocket engines. That way you save the weight of the Oxygen (by far the heaviest component), by using environmental air. Yup. That's called an air-launched rocket. The SpaceShipOne is an example. I guess the first air-launched rocket was the X-1, launched from a B-29 bomber. They also managed to take off from the ground once, but it was designed to be air-launched. A space elevator would have many advantages but with the early models it would take a long time to reach the geosynchronous terminal. Days or weeks. It might be possible to slowly send a small rocket up a few hundred kilometers, well above the atmosphere, drop it, and have it space-launch from there to make a quick trip to the terminal, in a few hours. I think this would take less fuel than going through the atmosphere. I wouldn't want to ride in it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
Piantelli is correct in principle if not in detail. The ionization process inside the Ni/H reactor is all pervasive and is not limited to just hydrogen. In Piantelli's reactor, not only hydrogen is ionized but also a significant amount of nickel located on the surface of his bars. The energy for this ionization comes from the heat that initiates the LENR reaction during reaction startup. The dipole vibration starts out weakly across a broad front of many elements and compounds but it accumulates over the hours and the energy contained in the dipoles steadily increases in a latter like amplification process as short lived attosecond long SPPs converts heat energy into dipole motion. The SPP process is the bridge between blackbody heat energy radiation to eventually reach heavy relativistic electron XUV energy levels. With each short lifetime of the SPP adding just a little more energy to the dipole vibration. The dipole's energy starts out in the infrared energy range, it gradually builds into untranslated and then into extreme ultraviolet and mild x-ray range. A general condition of dipole ionization is reached where the vast majority of nickel and hydrogen atoms are vibrating in sync at very short optical wavelengths. When sufficient dipole energy is cashed in the energy savings bank, it eventually begins to accumulate interest aplenty in energy gain from the nuclear processes that it catalyzes. In the Rossi type reactor, not only nickel and hydrogen is ionized, but also the secret sauce elements lithium and aluminum join the dipole vibration party. On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One would think that it ought to be possible to significantly reduce the weight of the first stage of a rocket by using jet engines iso rocket engines. That way you save the weight of the Oxygen (by far the heaviest component), by using environmental air. Yup. That's called an air-launched rocket. The SpaceShipOne is an example. I guess the first air-launched rocket was the X-1, launched from a B-29 bomber. They also managed to take off from the ground once, but it was designed to be air-launched. A space elevator would have many advantages but with the early models it would take a long time to reach the geosynchronous terminal. Days or weeks. It might be possible to slowly send a small rocket up a few hundred kilometers, well above the atmosphere, drop it, and have it space-launch from there to make a quick trip to the terminal, in a few hours. I think this would take less fuel than going through the atmosphere. I wouldn't want to ride in it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
I am not sure what Piantelli meant, but even if the magnitude of the heat anomaly is real, can we say with confidence that cold fusion will be a cost effective means of generating energy, i.e. will the energy required to a manufacture a cold fusion reactor be significantly less than the energy it can produce? eg. Oil is a cost effective means of generating energy, because the energy required to extract one barrel of oil from the ground is significantly less the energy produced by burning one barrel of oil. Harry On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I guess Piantelli said this . . . or there is a misunderstanding. Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: [Piantelli?] also spent a lot of time on the all important matter of credibility in claims. Principally about the HUGE amount of energy that can be stored in various forms of Hydrogen and that must absolutely be excluded before any meaningful conclusion could be had about anomalous heat. What is that supposed to mean? It isn't all that huge. It is the heat of formation of water, 285,800 joules per mole. That is the most energy-dense chemical reaction there is. Palladium holds more hydrogen than any other hydride. In my book, I computed how much hydrogen 0.2 g of palladium can hold when loaded 100% (which no actual hydride can achieve) will produce 286 J: . . . 0.2 grams = 0.002 moles of Pd. Fully loaded at a 1:1 ratio with hydrogen, 0.002 moles of Pd hold 0.002 moles of H (0.002 grams) which converts to 0.001 moles H2O. The heat of formation of water is 285,800 joules per mole. It is very difficult to load as high as 1:1, except at very low temperature. The palladium cigarette lighters would have achieved no more than a 1:0.5 ratio in a mixture of alpha and beta loaded Pd-H. In other words, a 1 ounce (28 gram) palladium lighter would hold roughly as much energy as 20 wooden matches. That's 1,430 J/g. A few 1 g samples of palladium have produced 50 MJ and more. 50,000,000 is a lot more than 1,430. It is easy to see this is not a chemical reaction. He talked about ionisation, absorption, re-combination, para and ortho and various charge states etc. These changes cannot produce more net energy than the formation of water. That is the absolute upper limit to what a hydride can produce. 1430 J/g. No chemical system can produce more than ~4 eV/atom which is close to what the heat of formation of water is. Just ionisation energy of 1.008 g (1 mole of Hydrogen) is 1,312 kilojoules, the re-combination is 423 kilojoules and so on. That would make great rocket fuel if you could store it! NASA would pay you a billion dollars and you would get a nobel prize. But no one can. As I said, the upper limit is 285 kJ and that's for 2 moles of H (and one of O). That's why NASA used H2 and O2 to power the space shuttle. There is no better fuel measured in energy per gram. You can subject a mole of hydrogen to a laser and make it real hot for a nanosecond too, but that doesn't count. That is not energy storage, and you cannot release that in any system. If Piantelli said this, he has a screw loose. Without a full account of the amount of potential hydrogen in a reaction, results are a fantasy and will not be taken seriously. The full account is what I said: 285 kJ per 2 moles. End of story. NASA and every automobile maker on earth will pay you billions if you release more energy than that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested In physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics, energy economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_economics and ecological energetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetics, *energy returned on energy invested* (*EROEI* or *ERoEI*); or *energy return on investment* (*EROI*), is the ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio of the amount of usable energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#cite_note-mh2010-1 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#cite_note-eo-2 When the EROEI of a resource is less than or equal to one, that energy source becomes an energy sink, and can no longer be used as a primary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy source of energy. On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:46 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure what Piantelli meant, but even if the magnitude of the heat anomaly is real, can we say with confidence that cold fusion will be a cost effective means of generating energy, i.e. will the energy required to a manufacture a cold fusion reactor be significantly less than the energy it can produce? eg. Oil is a cost effective means of generating energy, because the energy required to extract one barrel of oil from the ground is significantly less the energy produced by burning one barrel of oil. Harry On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I guess Piantelli said this . . . or there is a misunderstanding. Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: [Piantelli?] also spent a lot of time on the all important matter of credibility in claims. Principally about the HUGE amount of energy that can be stored in various forms of Hydrogen and that must absolutely be excluded before any meaningful conclusion could be had about anomalous heat. What is that supposed to mean? It isn't all that huge. It is the heat of formation of water, 285,800 joules per mole. That is the most energy-dense chemical reaction there is. Palladium holds more hydrogen than any other hydride. In my book, I computed how much hydrogen 0.2 g of palladium can hold when loaded 100% (which no actual hydride can achieve) will produce 286 J: . . . 0.2 grams = 0.002 moles of Pd. Fully loaded at a 1:1 ratio with hydrogen, 0.002 moles of Pd hold 0.002 moles of H (0.002 grams) which converts to 0.001 moles H2O. The heat of formation of water is 285,800 joules per mole. It is very difficult to load as high as 1:1, except at very low temperature. The palladium cigarette lighters would have achieved no more than a 1:0.5 ratio in a mixture of alpha and beta loaded Pd-H. In other words, a 1 ounce (28 gram) palladium lighter would hold roughly as much energy as 20 wooden matches. That's 1,430 J/g. A few 1 g samples of palladium have produced 50 MJ and more. 50,000,000 is a lot more than 1,430. It is easy to see this is not a chemical reaction. He talked about ionisation, absorption, re-combination, para and ortho and various charge states etc. These changes cannot produce more net energy than the formation of water. That is the absolute upper limit to what a hydride can produce. 1430 J/g. No chemical system can produce more than ~4 eV/atom which is close to what the heat of formation of water is. Just ionisation energy of 1.008 g (1 mole of Hydrogen) is 1,312 kilojoules, the re-combination is 423 kilojoules and so on. That would make great rocket fuel if you could store it! NASA would pay you a billion dollars and you would get a nobel prize. But no one can. As I said, the upper limit is 285 kJ and that's for 2 moles of H (and one of O). That's why NASA used H2 and O2 to power the space shuttle. There is no better fuel measured in energy per gram. You can subject a mole of hydrogen to a laser and make it real hot for a nanosecond too, but that doesn't count. That is not energy storage, and you cannot release that in any system. If Piantelli said this, he has a screw loose. Without a full account of the amount of potential hydrogen in a reaction, results are a fantasy and will not be taken seriously. The full account is what I said: 285 kJ per 2 moles. End of story. NASA and every automobile maker on earth will pay you billions if you release more energy than that. - Jed
