Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance. There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon and calcium could fuse (if this were happening on a dying star) - the carbon would fuse with another carbon or other light element. There is no "clean" pathway to get iron alone as a desired goal, especially without deadly radioactivity. It's kind of absurd really. Bottom line - no mechanism exists to get excess iron via transmutation of silica and carbon. Even if there were, it would not add mass magically. Thus, it is likely that gross measurement error is the likely explanation. Otherwise, this kind of thing does not go unnoticed in a poor country. India is not exactly a major iron producer but would be if this were not some kind of silly anecdote. (It's a bit early for April 1). mix...@bigpond.com wrote: No, quite the reverse. Changing almost anything into Iron is exothermic, because the Iron is near the top of the binding energy curve .e.g. 44Ca+12C => 56Fe + 19.137 MeV
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV wrote: > > It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain >> must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an >> energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear >> isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold. >> Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers, >> chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain. >> > > In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not > explain a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe. Isomeric transitions involve > a transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, > or to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma. Narayanaswamy > reports that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from > something else. > > Eric > This is true, but isomer formation may play a role in the process. Also the apparent self contained nature of nuclei may be a function of how nuclei have been studied to date. It is presumed that a nucleus under bombardment is the same sort of "creature" as the nucleus in a lattice. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 11 Mar 2017 20:13:11 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Eric, > >Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an >electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of >even a few ounces. No, quite the reverse. Changing almost anything into Iron is exothermic, because the Iron is near the top of the binding energy curve .e.g. 44Ca+12C => 56Fe + 19.137 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:01 PM, wrote: One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe. Oxides and carbon > mass may also be involved. > The iron in iron oxide would presumably not be included in the "excess iron", because it's already iron. And the carbon would be a wash, existing in equal quantities before and after. If we're assuming a change in nucleus, as Narayanaswamy does, then there are the parent nuclides, whatever they are, and the daughters, which in this case is the excess iron. The change in nucleus is what causes the mass deficit (or mass excess) as a result of the putative nuclear reaction. That change in mass between parent and daughter nuclides is what implies an unrealistically huge energy release or deficit. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Eric— One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe. Oxides and carbon mass may also be involved. Bob Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Eric Walker Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 2:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33, wrote: The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy releases are the norm. The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical reaction pathway. It is in the amount of energy implied by going from not-iron to iron. If we assume that the "excess" iron is ~ 4 tons, and we subtract this mass from the mass of the not-iron that produced it, the difference will necessarily be significant. Drop that change in mass into Einstein's equation for calculating the energy for a given mass, and the value will be an unrealistically large positive (or negative) value. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33, > wrote: > > The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy > releases are the norm. The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical reaction pathway. It is in the amount of energy implied by going from not-iron to iron. If we assume that the "excess" iron is ~ 4 tons, and we subtract this mass from the mass of the not-iron that produced it, the difference will necessarily be significant. Drop that change in mass into Einstein's equation for calculating the energy for a given mass, and the value will be an unrealistically large positive (or negative) value. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy releases are the norm. It is obvious that6 that “trueidm” does not appl,y to LENR. Small changes within a many-bodied coherent system are the LENR norm. Many different nuclear changes apparently become possible within the many-bodied system. IIMHO this includes nuclear species changes that involve aonly small changes in total potential; energy of the coherent system. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV wrote: It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold. Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers, chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain. In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not explain a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe. Isomeric transitions involve a transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, or to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma. Narayanaswamy reports that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from something else. Eric
[Vo]:why has the cygnification of the little ugly LENR duckling delayed so much?
because he has not moved in the proper place! http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-12-2017-lenr-sad-story-of-retarded.html please read the essay of Maria Popova at LENR IN CONTEXT-2 too It is Sunday! peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV wrote: It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain > must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an > energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear > isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold. > Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers, > chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain. > In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not explain a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe. Isomeric transitions involve a transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, or to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma. Narayanaswamy reports that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from something else. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold. Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers, chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain. Harry On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an >> electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of >> even a few ounces. > > > I agree entirely. Technically speaking, I suppose you could have iron as > an exothermic fission product, but there would be many other daughter > elements besides, and the release of energy through fission needed to make > the 4 tons of iron would be catastrophic, as implied by the nuclear bomb > example. And there would need to be tons of some heavy element to provide > the fuel. So the creation of iron (either from fusion or from fission) > seems far-fetched. > > But taken at face value, that seems to be an implication of the > Narayanaswamy claim that iron comes from something other than iron; you'd > need a nuclear process for that: i.e., fission, fusion, or some kind of > alpha or beta decay (for neither of which I could find any exothermic > pathway). So I conclude that Narayanaswamy is mistaken about the > production of iron, and that perhaps there's an accounting error that is > leading to the conclusion about excess iron, perhaps along the lines you > suggest. > > Eric > >
RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
4 tons of carbon electrodes would be a production problem. Plus the resulting steel would have strange specifications—welding may be impossible— Bob cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 11:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 Eric, Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of even a few ounces. What they may overlooked is a monoclinic iron carbide which is 40% carbon ... and which is a good and even an expected candidate for the so-called "excess"... since they do not specify how much of the carbon electrode has been lost. Eric Walker wrote: Jones Beene wrote: "The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron and silica." A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in one day would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an astounding amount of energy. When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a relatively small amount of the fissile material is converted to other elements. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
The amount that comes from electrode consumption might be too small to account for the weight gain. <<*Relationship Between Graphite Electrode Demand and EAF Steel Production.* The improved efficiency of electric arc furnaces has resulted in a decrease in the average rate of consumption of graphite electrodes per metric ton of steel produced in electric arc furnaces (called “*specific consumption*”). We estimate that specific consumption declined from about 2.5 kilograms of graphite electrodes per metric ton of steel produced in 2000 to about 2.1 kilograms per metric ton in 2006.>> from http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/GrafTech_International_(GTI)/Graphite_Electrodes_Electric_Arc_Furnaces Harry On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Eric, > > Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an > electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of > even a few ounces. > > What they may overlooked is a monoclinic iron carbide which is 40% carbon > ... and which is a good and even an expected candidate for the so-called > "excess"... since they do not specify how much of the carbon electrode has > been lost. > > Eric Walker wrote: > > Jones Beene wrote: > > "The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and >> the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron >> and silica." > > > A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in one > day would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an astounding > amount of energy. When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a relatively small > amount of the fissile material is converted to other elements. > > Eric > > >
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an > electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of > even a few ounces. I agree entirely. Technically speaking, I suppose you could have iron as an exothermic fission product, but there would be many other daughter elements besides, and the release of energy through fission needed to make the 4 tons of iron would be catastrophic, as implied by the nuclear bomb example. And there would need to be tons of some heavy element to provide the fuel. So the creation of iron (either from fusion or from fission) seems far-fetched. But taken at face value, that seems to be an implication of the Narayanaswamy claim that iron comes from something other than iron; you'd need a nuclear process for that: i.e., fission, fusion, or some kind of alpha or beta decay (for neither of which I could find any exothermic pathway). So I conclude that Narayanaswamy is mistaken about the production of iron, and that perhaps there's an accounting error that is leading to the conclusion about excess iron, perhaps along the lines you suggest. Eric