Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni
Terry, Dennis, This makes a lot of sense. Especially since I believe that DGT had stated that a temperature gradient across the reactor is needed, presumably to establish hydrogen flow through the active material. On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:55 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I think that people are mistaken about the spark plugs. Most people think about them as sparking like an auto plug (they are but ..) across some gap. I think they are using them just as HV feed throughs. Notice they have 2 of them on each end. I think they are not sparking on each end but through the sample. I agree with this observation, Dennis.
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Can someone tell me the diameter of the steam exhaust tube? If I assume a 1 cm diameter, along with 18 g/mole of H2O and 1000 g/liter and 1000 cc/liter for water and 0.5 liter/minute input flow, then assuming the ideal gas law (22.4 liter/mole at STP) as an approximation for steam at atmospheric pressure I get for the output velocity, v = (0.5 l/minute)(1 minute/60 sec) (1000 g/liter) (1 mole/18 g) (22400 cc/mole)/(pi*1cm*1cm) = 3300 cm/sec = 33 m/sec for the exhaust. This seems quite large although the cooling and back pressure may lead to condensation/slowing-down as the steam proceeds further out of the reactor. Note that this calculation of the exit speed does not rely on any knowledge of the back-pressure but simply on the input flow (water is incompressible) and the assumption that it is all converted to steam. If instead, it is converted to superheated water droplets (wet steam?) due perhaps to back-pressure which raises the boiling temperature, then the exit speed would be much less, and might be more reasonable. Any comments? On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine activity.** ** ** ** Ah, I see your point. ** ** Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like. ** ** Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but …. think about the sound (or lack thereof). ** ** When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car – about 20 kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. ** ** The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil. ** ** Is this criticism “sound” or not? ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Correction: my previous calculation actually assumed a 2 cm diameter (1cm radius). Assuming a 1 cm diameter and pure steam give a 4 times higher value (132 m/sec). On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Can someone tell me the diameter of the steam exhaust tube? If I assume a 1 cm diameter, along with 18 g/mole of H2O and 1000 g/liter and 1000 cc/liter for water and 0.5 liter/minute input flow, then assuming the ideal gas law (22.4 liter/mole at STP) as an approximation for steam at atmospheric pressure I get for the output velocity, v = (0.5 l/minute)(1 minute/60 sec) (1000 g/liter) (1 mole/18 g) (22400 cc/mole)/(pi*1cm*1cm) = 3300 cm/sec = 33 m/sec for the exhaust. This seems quite large although the cooling and back pressure may lead to condensation/slowing-down as the steam proceeds further out of the reactor. Note that this calculation of the exit speed does not rely on any knowledge of the back-pressure but simply on the input flow (water is incompressible) and the assumption that it is all converted to steam. If instead, it is converted to superheated water droplets (wet steam?) due perhaps to back-pressure which raises the boiling temperature, then the exit speed would be much less, and might be more reasonable. Any comments? On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine activity.* *** ** ** Ah, I see your point. ** ** Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like.*** * ** ** Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but …. think about the sound (or lack thereof). ** ** When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car – about 20 kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. ** ** The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil. ** ** Is this criticism “sound” or not? ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Another comment: since the pressure at the *reactor exit* is likely to be significantly higher than 1 atm, then even if there were dry steam at the reactor exit, the velocity at the *reactor exit* might be significantly less (perhaps 10 times less) than my previous calculation. As the steam proceeded down the tube to the tube exit, the speed would be further reduced if the density increased due to condensation. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Correction: my previous calculation actually assumed a 2 cm diameter (1cm radius). Assuming a 1 cm diameter and pure steam give a 4 times higher value (132 m/sec). On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Can someone tell me the diameter of the steam exhaust tube? If I assume a 1 cm diameter, along with 18 g/mole of H2O and 1000 g/liter and 1000 cc/liter for water and 0.5 liter/minute input flow, then assuming the ideal gas law (22.4 liter/mole at STP) as an approximation for steam at atmospheric pressure I get for the output velocity, v = (0.5 l/minute)(1 minute/60 sec) (1000 g/liter) (1 mole/18 g) (22400 cc/mole)/(pi*1cm*1cm) = 3300 cm/sec = 33 m/sec for the exhaust. This seems quite large although the cooling and back pressure may lead to condensation/slowing-down as the steam proceeds further out of the reactor. Note that this calculation of the exit speed does not rely on any knowledge of the back-pressure but simply on the input flow (water is incompressible) and the assumption that it is all converted to steam. If instead, it is converted to superheated water droplets (wet steam?) due perhaps to back-pressure which raises the boiling temperature, then the exit speed would be much less, and might be more reasonable. Any comments? On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine activity. ** ** Ah, I see your point. ** ** Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like.** ** ** ** Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but …. think about the sound (or lack thereof). ** ** When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car – about 20 kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. ** ** The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil. ** ** Is this criticism “sound” or not? ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
Eric, You might be interested to know that your suggestion (p + d - 3He + Q) is the same as that proposed - based on the fact that p + Ni would form hard gammas which are not observed - by Prof. Kim in his ICCF18 talk. Based on this he has suggested that Defkalion try varying the heavy hydrogen content in their cells. He also proposed that the reaction is promoted by the formation of Rydberg atoms which pair due to their electric moments to form bosons and are then trapped by short-lifetime local magnetic wells due to the magnetic alignment of Ni atoms on the surface of the Ni powders. Franco Talari On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: 1. p+p - p+p reversible fusion, along the lines of Jones's hypothesis. 2. p+e+p - d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis. 3. p+d - 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite) 4. p+Ni - Cu (as suggested by Rossi a long time ago, and which no one really likes). I'm betting on (2), somewhere beneath the surface. Typo -- I'm betting on (3). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Proximate Significance of the E-Cat HT Paper
DGT's ICCF17 paper suggests that enrichment is not needed: We realized also that Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes where “willing” to participate in a LENR reaction, whilst Ni61 was not. So there was no need for any costly enrichment method. Ni58 is 68% of the natural metal while Ni60 is 26% of the natural metal. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Alain Sepeda** The article makes the buzz worldwide, as if there was many lurkers entrenched and waiting for real news (would be rational). there is already people prepared to oil the revolution... ** ** Speaking of “oil” - when you think about the big picture and look for the potential bottlenecks which are foreseeable, based upon what is in the public record – one is becoming obvious: enriching nickel in the rare isotope nickel-62 which is less than 4% of the natural metal. The other is what to do with Big Oil … to minimize obstruction. ** ** BTW - the way Rossi’s patent is worded, only Ni-62 is protected. This points to the need for a National effort for optimized enrichment of the isotope, if it will really replace oil. ** ** For gas centrifuge enrichment, nickel is known to form one gaseous molecule, which is fluoride based, so that is no problem given the similarity to present mature processes for U-235. In fact, there is every likelihood that the same plants which enrich Uranium can be converted for nickel enrichment. ** ** If the access to the gas centrifuge process is going to be required for this kind of device to succeed– then this will be a major political issue in the end. This is problematic, since control of politics usually get back to wealth, and wealth gets back to Oil. ** ** The candidate who wishes to become the next in line after Obama would be wise to get on this bandwagon at an early stage. However, that candidate will probably have to stand up against Big Oil, early-on - since any expedited effort to get LENR into production will hurt that industry eventually but may depend on access to ultracentrifuge plants. ** ** May you live in interesting times… ** ** …that is going to be our collective curse, or opportunity …depending on a few political decisions soon to be on the horizon. ** ** Jones
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jones, I don't understand how you can call 2 protons (which combine to form a bosonic quasiparticle) a 'condensate' (transient or otherwise) since protons are Fermions and only 1 quasiparticle boson is formed from 2 protons. A single boson (pair of protons) is not a condensate. In Kim's theory of Ni-H LENR, he assumes that 2 protons can combine above the Curie temperature (when the internal magnetic field is weak) to form a spin zero bosonic quasiparticle and that a quasi BEC condensate can then be formed due to overlap between bosonic Ni nuclei with even nucleon number and bosonic quasiparticles (pairs of protons) with spin zero. I don't think he explains what the attractive interaction is that causes the protons to pair-up, but with many such pairs one could imagine a condensate forming. Franco On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: All in all, this Zhao paper reinforces the strategy of JoJo and/or anyone else who may be considering it - to work with hydrogen and CNT. I hope that a number of experimenters can get hold of adequate material to try, and will report results, even if negative. If you want to tie this paper into a particular Ni-H theory – there is the nanomagnetism concept of Ahern. That theory is a work in progress, but it fits right into the picture of high-temperature local superconductivity for sustaining near-fields and thereby reducing randomness, in order to arguably form a ‘transient condensate.’ As to why magnetism would be important – very simply this gets back to another form of structural uniformity, and to boson statistics. Two bound protons in a Casimir cavity represent the bare minimum composite boson, but already at identical ‘compreture’ due to the cavity containment. Magnetism aligns spin, so immediately you have a near-condensate in the sense of extreme DFR (Divergence From Randomness) in the physical properties of those atoms. Even if - from this highly structured but non-cryogenic state forward - a “virtual BEC” can lasts only a picosecond due to thermal irregularities – all the better … since on decay of the transient condensate - there will be an expected huge acceleration gradient, courtesy of Coulomb repulsion. A transient or virtual BEC may actually be preferred over the ultracold variety. Jones From: Eric Walker http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf Axil: The above paper attempts to prove that carbon nanotubes are superconductive at very high temperatures by imbedding nickel nanoparticles in the outside wall of a multi walled nanotube and detecting magnetic changes produced by superconductivity. The paper mentioned possible critical temperatures of 1000 K or more…
Re: [Vo]:How to convert nickel FCC lattice into C4 / Pm3m structures ?
Try googling nickel rutile pigments. You should see a link to a product called HEUCODUR made by HEUBACH. It appears that these are yellow pigments/paints made with 0.1 micron sized 'nickel rutile particles' with 'molecular formula:(Ni,Sb,Ti)O2 which I interpret as an oxide of an alloy of Ni, Sb, and Ti. Their brochure indicates that high-temperature processing (above 800 C) via 'calcination' is used. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: All, I tried to find how to convert metal FCC lattices into C4 / Pm3m lattice structure (this is what Defkalion is claiming to do in preparation of their Nickel). Until now I have failed in finding ways to do that. Anyone knowledgeable on this?
Re: [Vo]:How to convert nickel FCC lattice into C4 / Pm3m structures ?
A little more searching indicates that the composition of nickel rutile yellow is: (Ti_0.85 Sb_0.10 Ni_0.05)O_2, so I doubt that this is the rutile nickel you are searching for. Still perhaps this gives a clue... On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Try googling nickel rutile pigments. You should see a link to a product called HEUCODUR made by HEUBACH. It appears that these are yellow pigments/paints made with 0.1 micron sized 'nickel rutile particles' with 'molecular formula:(Ni,Sb,Ti)O2 which I interpret as an oxide of an alloy of Ni, Sb, and Ti. Their brochure indicates that high-temperature processing (above 800 C) via 'calcination' is used. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: All, I tried to find how to convert metal FCC lattices into C4 / Pm3m lattice structure (this is what Defkalion is claiming to do in preparation of their Nickel). Until now I have failed in finding ways to do that. Anyone knowledgeable on this?
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion NIWeek slides
. They said they did no isotope analysis, yet they said there was no transmutation of Ni. I don't know how could they conclude that. . In the paper they clearly state, and I quote: We have positive results, presented in this paper, from the analysis of NAE with XRF and isotopic mass-spectrometry-ICPMS methods before and after any such LENR of transmutations in: • Fe-Co-Ni-Cu-Zn and K-Ca , with ppm changes higher than any instrumental analysis error factor • Li-Be-B species not present before the LENR, detected only by isotopic distract analysis methods (ICPMS). Any other species (D/T, He or others) were impossible to be traced maybe due to the very short period of their half time. In other words they claim transmutations in Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, etc. and this can be clearly seen in the before and after XRF analysis tables (although I'm not sure why they cite different run numbers in the 2 tables).
