Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory
I just viewed Rossi's demo. He is the first to come to market with a commercial cold fusion product. That is something. I has to work. -Original Message- From: Mats Lewan To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 7:04 pm Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's theory Here’s the first publication of Rossi’s theory for the process in the E-Cat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions Kind Regards,Mats Mats Lewan, Speaker, Moderator, Author, Journalist – technology and future.www.matslewan.setel. +46-70-5907252, twitter @matslew, facebook, youtube, linkedin.Author of An Impossible Invention.Member of National Speakers Association of Sweden.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
IMHO hydrno moleules with Li must remain a gas or plasma where the shrunken hydrogen only exists as a function of the surrounding geometry therefore the molecule is free to drift thru the geometry and also provides a disassociating force when the geometry lessens and the contracted hydrogen tries to expand back to normal. I think these molecules can transition between atomic and molecular state repeatedly in an endless reaction when random motion returns some of them to regions where they again shrink.. I think the molecular bond acts as a lynch pin to carry potential energy to different regions where the normal symmetry of an atom transitioning transparently between geometries can become an asymmetry if the atoms form a molecule by discounting the molecular disassociation threshold when the atoms try to expand in opposition the bond. If the reactor temp is already close to that threshold I could see a runaway endless reaction where it takes less energy to disassociate the molecule than energy released upon reforming. Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 11:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:58:59 +1000: Hi, [snip] In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:12 -0600: Hi, [snip] There is very little Li7 in the ash, so the high masses based on Li7 might be below the detection threshold. The values for Li + 3 hydrinos can indeed be ruled out as you suggest. That leaves Li6 + 1 or Li6 + 2 with masses 7 8 respectively. The mass 7 would be masked by Li7 therefore be undetectable. That leaves the mass 8, which might show up, though in order to catalyze the neutron transfer reaction a fairly high p value molecule would be needed, and these tend to have binding energies in the keV for the third Hydrinohydride, so it's possible that it might be too tightly bound for the ion beam to dislodge with a sufficient frequency for Li6Hy2 to show up. [snip] I just realized that this explanation is nonsense, as if it were true, then Li6 itself wouldn't show up either. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
The arrangement of the atoms in the ultra dense hydogen produces superconductivity. From the experts here on hydrinos, I ask how hydrinos produce superconductivity. A test can be carried out where a magneric field is applied to the ultra dense hyfrogen to see if the superconductivity is produced by a BEC or is caused by topology. If the ultra dense hydrogen is produced by a nanowire structure, the superconductivity will not be distroyed by a magnetic field, otherwise the magnetic field will distroy the superconductivity. On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: IMHO hydrno moleules with Li must remain a gas or plasma where the shrunken hydrogen only exists as a function of the surrounding geometry therefore the molecule is free to drift thru the geometry and also provides a disassociating force when the geometry lessens and the contracted hydrogen tries to expand back to normal. I think these molecules can transition between atomic and molecular state repeatedly in an endless reaction when random motion returns some of them to regions where they again shrink.. I think the molecular bond acts as a lynch pin to carry potential energy to different regions where the normal symmetry of an atom transitioning transparently between geometries can become an asymmetry if the atoms form a molecule by discounting the molecular disassociation threshold when the atoms try to expand in opposition the bond. If the reactor temp is already close to that threshold I could see a runaway endless reaction where it takes less energy to disassociate the molecule than energy released upon reforming. Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 11:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:58:59 +1000: Hi, [snip] In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:12 -0600: Hi, [snip] There is very little Li7 in the ash, so the high masses based on Li7 might be below the detection threshold. The values for Li + 3 hydrinos can indeed be ruled out as you suggest. That leaves Li6 + 1 or Li6 + 2 with masses 7 8 respectively. The mass 7 would be masked by Li7 therefore be undetectable. That leaves the mass 8, which might show up, though in order to catalyze the neutron transfer reaction a fairly high p value molecule would be needed, and these tend to have binding energies in the keV for the third Hydrinohydride, so it's possible that it might be too tightly bound for the ion beam to dislodge with a sufficient frequency for Li6Hy2 to show up. [snip] I just realized that this explanation is nonsense, as if it were true, then Li6 itself wouldn't show up either. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
The problem I have with this analysis is that in the Lugano reaction, whose fuel/ash analyses are the basis of the hypothesis, the Ni seemed to have been largely converted to 62Ni and the Li converted almost completely to 6Li; yet in the experiment, the excess heat showed no signs of abatement. The reaction gave no indication of running low on fuel. It appeared that the reaction heat continued even though the fuel had been converted to 6Li and 62Ni. How is this explained in your theory? On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:17:15 -0400: Hi, How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62? [snip] I previously posted the following to Vortex on Oct. 9 2014, but can't get the archive to show me posts for 2014. _ In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700: Hi, [snip] Li7 + Ni58 = Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV Li7 + Ni59 = Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV Li7 + Ni60 = Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV Li7 + Ni61 = Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV Li7 + Ni62 = Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!) This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are depleted and Ni62 is strongly enriched. I have only briefly skimmed the report, but the basic reaction appears to be a neutron transfer reaction where a neutron tunnels from Li7 to a Nickel isotope. The excess energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the two resultant nuclei (i.e. Li6 the new Ni isotope), rather than as gamma rays. Because there are two daughter nuclei, momentum can be conserved while dumping the energy as kinetic energy in a reaction that is much faster then gamma ray emission. Because both nuclei are heavy and slow moving, very little to no bremsstrahlung is produced. There is effectively no secondary gamma from Li6 because the first excited state is too high. (I haven't checked Li7). There is unlikely to be anything significant from Ni because the high charge on the nucleus combined with the 3 from Lithium tend to keep them apart (minimum distance 31 fm). It would be nice to know if the total amounts of each of Li Ni in the sample were conserved (I'll have to study the report more closely). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: It appeared that the reaction heat continued even though the fuel had been converted to 6Li and 62Ni. How is this explained in your theory? Some thoughts here: - It's an open question as to whether and how much excess heat the Lugano authors were really seeing. (It might have been a lot, it might have been a little, or it might have been pure Joule heating.) - If there's neutron stripping along the lines of 7Li → 6Li, giving rise to 58Ni → ... → 62Ni, this process might not be the only neutron stripping one going on, and perhaps not even the primary one. That would allow the excess heat, if there was excess heat, to continue after that part of the fuel was spent. (If this particular process was an important one, I would expect some kind of rate change to show up in the data once the 7Li was spent.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:39:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] In that detection method, Lithium ions cannot remain without electrons through an acid bath. Take another look at the binding energy of the new particle. (See the last column in the table at the bottom of the pdf document attached to previous post.) The binding energy for some of them is so high that they would be chemically more stable than any normal substance. Even 100 eV would make then resistant to temperatures up to half a million degrees Kelvin. An acid bath is just going to wash them nice and clean, if there are any left. ;) The lithium ions will have been completly neutralized. The detection method will detect lithium as the results of the method have proven. The detection method only detected the remnant normal Lithium that was still left. That's why the percentage is so low. Your assertion does not make sense. It makes perfect sense when you don't make unwarranted assumptions. The analysts would not use a detection method that did not detect lithium because they provided results that showed lithium. The analysts don't know any better. This concept is not even in their vocabulary. Once lithium got inside the nickel particle why would lithium ever leave nickel. Thermal agitation would result in transport. The outer housing may not contain the particles either so presumably they would eventually escape the experiment entirely. The real question is, how many Ni nuclei can they convert before they do. If lithium was an a complete ion, it would be capured by the electrons from nickel and share them. A nickel lithium alloy would have formed. LiHy3 is neutral and doesn't get captured by anything (more like a neutron in that regard). LiHy4- is negatively charged, so electrons avoid it like the plague. OTOH it readily displaces an electron from the Ni and because of it's negative charge and large mass, immediately makes a beeline for the nucleus. As it gets closer, the chance of neutron tunneling from the Li7 to the Ni increases dramatically. (See also here below). There are so many free electrons on and inside nickel, the is not possiblity that a triply ionized lithium atom could get inside and then leave nickel metal. You just can't assert that such an ion process is possible. You are correct, I can't assert that. But then again, that's not what I'm asserting. We are not talking about a naked Lithium ion, but rather one that is surrounded and thus shielded by Hydrinohydride ions, that has already lost it's electrons, and has no interest in acquiring more. A good analogy is the sulfate anion :- SO4-- (Where Sulfur carries a charge of 6+). Note however the huge difference in size. SO4-- is vastly larger than LiHy4- because the Hy- anions are already much smaller than a Hydrogen atom, and Li+++ has for practical purposes, no size, so that the size of the particle is completely determined by the size of Hydrinohydride ions (also true for LiHy3 of course). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 08:34:52 -0600: Hi, The problem I have with this analysis is that in the Lugano reaction, whose fuel/ash analyses are the basis of the hypothesis, the Ni seemed to have been largely converted to 62Ni and the Li converted almost completely to 6Li; yet in the experiment, the excess heat showed no signs of abatement. The reaction gave no indication of running low on fuel. It appeared that the reaction heat continued even though the fuel had been converted to 6Li and 62Ni. How is this explained in your theory? Only a tiny sample of the ash was analyzed, and it may not have been representative. IOW we got lucky (our esteemed professors chose their particle well ;). At least some other particles probably still contained some unreacted nickel. As for the Li6, I have also previously postulated that the Li6 might also take part in reactions where it acquired a neutron (e.g. from O17), thus reforming Li7. The ratio of Li6 to Li7 would be determined by the balance between the rates of formation and destruction. Much like a chemical shift reaction, except that in this case we are talking about a nuclear shift reaction. IOW as long as there was a source of neutrons available (e.g. O17), the reaction could continue with a more or less constant ratio of Li6 to Li7. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
I wrote: If there's neutron stripping along the lines of 7Li → 6Li, giving rise to 58Ni → ... → 62Ni, this process might not be the only neutron stripping one going on, and perhaps not even the primary one. There is a further problem with explaining the excess heat in the Lugano test as being based entirely on 7Li neutron stripping. I recall calculations that have shown that the amount of 7Li needed to explain the reported excess heat was too low by an order of magnitude. It does not help our understanding, unfortunately, that the heat balance has huge error bars. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:58:59 +1000: Hi, [snip] In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:12 -0600: Hi, [snip] There is very little Li7 in the ash, so the high masses based on Li7 might be below the detection threshold. The values for Li + 3 hydrinos can indeed be ruled out as you suggest. That leaves Li6 + 1 or Li6 + 2 with masses 7 8 respectively. The mass 7 would be masked by Li7 therefore be undetectable. That leaves the mass 8, which might show up, though in order to catalyze the neutron transfer reaction a fairly high p value molecule would be needed, and these tend to have binding energies in the keV for the third Hydrinohydride, so it's possible that it might be too tightly bound for the ion beam to dislodge with a sufficient frequency for Li6Hy2 to show up. [snip] I just realized that this explanation is nonsense, as if it were true, then Li6 itself wouldn't show up either. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:15:31 -0400: Hi, [snip] What Is not clear in common sense terms... if the fuel has more lithium than the ash, why does the fuel need to wait to be loaded into the reactor for the reaction to take hold. placing some nickel powder into lithium should get te reaction going if reaction is all up to hydrinos. The Hydrinos first have to be created. This involves individual Li atoms individual H atoms being close to one another in space, but not bound in a molecule. That only happens once the LiAlH4 has been heated sufficiently to decompose completely. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 08:25:08 +1000: Hi, [snip] resistant to temperatures up to half a million degrees Kelvin. An acid bath is just going to wash them nice and clean, if there are any left. ;) Actually I may be wrong about this. It may be possible for the protons from the acid to combine with the Hydrinohydride and form a Hydrino molecule, thus releasing the Li+++ and allowing it to reacquire it electrons. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
If a lithium atom were to replace 1-3 electrons with hydrinohydrides as a stable molecule, this surely would show up in the SIMS of the fuel in the Lugano report. SIMS measures mass and you would see a spectrum of 6Li+(1,2,3) and 7Li+(1,2,3), or m/z=8,9,10 should show up and they don't. A possible counter argument would be that the fully populated Lithium tri-hydrinohydride would not be ionizable and hence not detectable in SIMS. However, a Lithium + 1 or 2 hydrinohydrides should be ionizable and should populate m/z = 8,9 and these are not seen. Bob Higgins On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400: Hi, [snip] But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do that. The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a charge of -1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle. The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++ at the core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added. Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride to a Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an existing electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because electrons are displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride is added. The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the attached pdf document. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
What Is not clear in common sense terms... if the fuel has more lithium than the ash, why does the fuel need to wait to be loaded into the reactor for the reaction to take hold. placing some nickel powder into lithium should get te reaction going if reaction is all up to hydrinos. On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 8:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 08:25:08 +1000: Hi, [snip] resistant to temperatures up to half a million degrees Kelvin. An acid bath is just going to wash them nice and clean, if there are any left. ;) Actually I may be wrong about this. It may be possible for the protons from the acid to combine with the Hydrinohydride and form a Hydrino molecule, thus releasing the Li+++ and allowing it to reacquire it electrons. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:12 -0600: Hi, [snip] There is very little Li7 in the ash, so the high masses based on Li7 might be below the detection threshold. The values for Li + 3 hydrinos can indeed be ruled out as you suggest. That leaves Li6 + 1 or Li6 + 2 with masses 7 8 respectively. The mass 7 would be masked by Li7 therefore be undetectable. That leaves the mass 8, which might show up, though in order to catalyze the neutron transfer reaction a fairly high p value molecule would be needed, and these tend to have binding energies in the keV for the third Hydrinohydride, so it's possible that it might be too tightly bound for the ion beam to dislodge with a sufficient frequency for Li6Hy2 to show up. If a lithium atom were to replace 1-3 electrons with hydrinohydrides as a stable molecule, this surely would show up in the SIMS of the fuel in the Lugano report. SIMS measures mass and you would see a spectrum of 6Li+(1,2,3) and 7Li+(1,2,3), or m/z=8,9,10 should show up and they don't. A possible counter argument would be that the fully populated Lithium tri-hydrinohydride would not be ionizable and hence not detectable in SIMS. However, a Lithium + 1 or 2 hydrinohydrides should be ionizable and should populate m/z = 8,9 and these are not seen. Bob Higgins On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400: Hi, [snip] But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do that. The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a charge of -1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle. The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++ at the core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added. Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride to a Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an existing electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because electrons are displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride is added. The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the attached pdf document. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
In that detection method, Lithium ions cannot remain without electrons through an acid bath. The lithium ions will have been completly neutralized. The detection method will detect lithium as the results of the method have proven. Your assertion does not make sense. The analysts would not use a detection method that did not detect lithium because they provided results that showed lithium. Once lithium got inside the nickel particle why would lithium ever leave nickel. If lithium was an a complete ion, it would be capured by the electrons from nickel and share them. A nickel lithium alloy would have formed. There are so many free electrons on and inside nickel, the is not possiblity that a triply ionized lithium atom could get inside and then leave nickel metal. You just can't assert that such an ion process is possible. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:12:56 -0400: Hi, 1) Lithium could get out the same way it got in. 2) ICP-AES relies on electron spectra, but the particles I'm talking about have no more electrons in normal orbitals, so the Li will not show up in the analysis. If anything the report actually lends support to my hypothesis. If the Ni62 reaction is based on Li, and the nickel is completely converted to Ni62, then the particle should be complettely saturated with lithium on an atom for atom basis. But the percentage of lithium was reduced from 1.17% as fuel, to 0.03% as shown on the last page of the Lugano report. This indicates that Lithium was not involved in the Ni52 conversion. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
If the Ni62 reaction is based on Li, and the nickel is completely converted to Ni62, then the particle should be complettely saturated with lithium on an atom for atom basis. But the percentage of lithium was reduced from 1.17% as fuel, to 0.03% as shown on the last page of the Lugano report. This indicates that Lithium was not involved in the Ni52 conversion. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400: Hi, [snip] But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do that. The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a charge of -1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle. The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++ at the core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added. Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride to a Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an existing electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because electrons are displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride is added. The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the attached pdf document. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400: Hi, [snip] But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do that. The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a charge of -1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle. The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++ at the core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added. Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride to a Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an existing electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because electrons are displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride is added. The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the attached pdf document. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html LiHy4-.pdf Description: Binary data
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:12:56 -0400: Hi, 1) Lithium could get out the same way it got in. 2) ICP-AES relies on electron spectra, but the particles I'm talking about have no more electrons in normal orbitals, so the Li will not show up in the analysis. If anything the report actually lends support to my hypothesis. If the Ni62 reaction is based on Li, and the nickel is completely converted to Ni62, then the particle should be complettely saturated with lithium on an atom for atom basis. But the percentage of lithium was reduced from 1.17% as fuel, to 0.03% as shown on the last page of the Lugano report. This indicates that Lithium was not involved in the Ni52 conversion. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do that. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:17:15 -0400: Hi, How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62? [snip] I previously posted the following to Vortex on Oct. 9 2014, but can't get the archive to show me posts for 2014. _ In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700: Hi, [snip] Li7 + Ni58 = Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV Li7 + Ni59 = Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV Li7 + Ni60 = Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV Li7 + Ni61 = Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV Li7 + Ni62 = Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!) This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are depleted and Ni62 is strongly enriched. I have only briefly skimmed the report, but the basic reaction appears to be a neutron transfer reaction where a neutron tunnels from Li7 to a Nickel isotope. The excess energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the two resultant nuclei (i.e. Li6 the new Ni isotope), rather than as gamma rays. Because there are two daughter nuclei, momentum can be conserved while dumping the energy as kinetic energy in a reaction that is much faster then gamma ray emission. Because both nuclei are heavy and slow moving, very little to no bremsstrahlung is produced. There is effectively no secondary gamma from Li6 because the first excited state is too high. (I haven't checked Li7). There is unlikely to be anything significant from Ni because the high charge on the nucleus combined with the 3 from Lithium tend to keep them apart (minimum distance 31 fm). It would be nice to know if the total amounts of each of Li Ni in the sample were conserved (I'll have to study the report more closely). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:17:15 -0400: Hi, How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62? [snip] I previously posted the following to Vortex on Oct. 9 2014, but can't get the archive to show me posts for 2014. _ In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700: Hi, [snip] Li7 + Ni58 = Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV Li7 + Ni59 = Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV Li7 + Ni60 = Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV Li7 + Ni61 = Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV Li7 + Ni62 = Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!) This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are depleted and Ni62 is strongly enriched. I have only briefly skimmed the report, but the basic reaction appears to be a neutron transfer reaction where a neutron tunnels from Li7 to a Nickel isotope. The excess energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the two resultant nuclei (i.e. Li6 the new Ni isotope), rather than as gamma rays. Because there are two daughter nuclei, momentum can be conserved while dumping the energy as kinetic energy in a reaction that is much faster then gamma ray emission. Because both nuclei are heavy and slow moving, very little to no bremsstrahlung is produced. There is effectively no secondary gamma from Li6 because the first excited state is too high. (I haven't checked Li7). There is unlikely to be anything significant from Ni because the high charge on the nucleus combined with the 3 from Lithium tend to keep them apart (minimum distance 31 fm). It would be nice to know if the total amounts of each of Li Ni in the sample were conserved (I'll have to study the report more closely). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Your point is if the experimental result does not fit the theory, then ignore or discount the experimental result. This sounds just like the process that the naysayes use to ignore LENR. My point is that the experiment was not done well; for example, there was no proper calibration. This complaint is about method and not theory. If one does not have good data to work with, it's a guessing game as to whether there was excess heat. Whether or not there was excess heat, the isotopic analysis was interesting, however. Where in the Lugano report does it say that the nickel particle you've been drawing attention to is homogenous 64Ni? I believe it would be something of a stretch to get at this conclusion indirectly on the basis of the isotopic analyses that were provided. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62? On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:20:56 -0400: Hi, [snip] What keeps this particle from interacting with the atoms on the outer region of the nickel particle more than the inner section of the nickel particle? More Ni64 should have been found on the outside of the particle and more Ni58 should have been fount at the center of the particle. Not if it had all been converted. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:20:56 -0400: Hi, [snip] What keeps this particle from interacting with the atoms on the outer region of the nickel particle more than the inner section of the nickel particle? More Ni64 should have been found on the outside of the particle and more Ni58 should have been fount at the center of the particle. Not if it had all been converted. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
Where do the neutrons come from? On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:27:49 -0400: Hi, [snip] How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of that particle. I already provided a possible explanation of that with the neutron transfer reactions I posted some time ago. Those reactions also disposed of the reaction energy in the form of slow moving heavy nuclei (hence little or no secondary radiation). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: How does the center of the nickel particle get their share of neutrons that hardly move, that is neutrons with no energy, IIRC, we don't know enough to say the nickel particle was 7Li throughout. I'm also open to the possibility that this particle was not a result of a LENR process. (Also, the method of the Lugano report has been badly discredited, so its findings are shaky.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
What keeps this particle from interacting with the atoms on the outer region of the nickel particle more than the inner section of the nickel particle? More Ni64 should have been found on the outside of the particle and more Ni58 should have been fount at the center of the particle. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:19:35 -0400: Hi, [snip] So the neutrons reside on the surface of the Nickel particle. How do they get into the middle of the nickel particle? The Lithium is combined with Hydrinos to make either a small neutral particle, or as a negative ion that is actually attracted to Ni nuclei. The whole construct is smaller and denser than a Hydrogen atom, so it can easily migrate through the interstitial gaps in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:27:49 -0400: Hi, [snip] How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of that particle. I already provided a possible explanation of that with the neutron transfer reactions I posted some time ago. Those reactions also disposed of the reaction energy in the form of slow moving heavy nuclei (hence little or no secondary radiation). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:04:10 -0400: Hi, [snip] Where do the neutrons come from? Li7. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:27:49 -0400: Hi, [snip] How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of that particle. I already provided a possible explanation of that with the neutron transfer reactions I posted some time ago. Those reactions also disposed of the reaction energy in the form of slow moving heavy nuclei (hence little or no secondary radiation). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
Your point is if the experimental result does not fit the theory, then ignore or discount the experimental result. This sounds just like the process that the naysayes use to ignore LENR. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: How does the center of the nickel particle get their share of neutrons that hardly move, that is neutrons with no energy, IIRC, we don't know enough to say the nickel particle was 7Li throughout. I'm also open to the possibility that this particle was not a result of a LENR process. (Also, the method of the Lugano report has been badly discredited, so its findings are shaky.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:19:35 -0400: Hi, [snip] So the neutrons reside on the surface of the Nickel particle. How do they get into the middle of the nickel particle? The Lithium is combined with Hydrinos to make either a small neutral particle, or as a negative ion that is actually attracted to Ni nuclei. The whole construct is smaller and denser than a Hydrogen atom, so it can easily migrate through the interstitial gaps in a metal lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
How does the center of the nickel particle get their share of neutrons that hardly move, that is neutrons with no energy, On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of that particle. I personally like Robin's 7Li neutron transfer explanation in this particular case. Rather than a hydrino hydride, I like to think that the neutron stripping is a result of the Oppenheimer-Philiips process, where an accelerated 7Li orients in such a way that a neutron faces the target nickel nucleus in order to get any protons as far away from the positively charged target nucleus as possible. My hunch is that the acceleration comes from sporadic electric arcing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
So the neutrons reside on the surface of the Nickel particle. How do they get into the middle of the nickel particle? On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:04:10 -0400: Hi, [snip] Where do the neutrons come from? Li7. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:27:49 -0400: Hi, [snip] How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of that particle. I already provided a possible explanation of that with the neutron transfer reactions I posted some time ago. Those reactions also disposed of the reaction energy in the form of slow moving heavy nuclei (hence little or no secondary radiation). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of that particle. I personally like Robin's 7Li neutron transfer explanation in this particular case. Rather than a hydrino hydride, I like to think that the neutron stripping is a result of the Oppenheimer-Philiips process, where an accelerated 7Li orients in such a way that a neutron faces the target nickel nucleus in order to get any protons as far away from the positively charged target nucleus as possible. My hunch is that the acceleration comes from sporadic electric arcing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:25:50 -0500: Hi Eric, I realize what you meant, but during normal decay reactions, the energy is not shared with an ensemble of electrons, so why would this case be special? On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:40 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: If the ensemble is large, even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the production of x-rays. If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might have little to no kinetic energy. [snip] I see no reason why this should be the case when it is clearly not the case for normal decay reactions. The idea was that if the momentum is imparted to the ensemble of electrons, since the electrons are so light, their share of the energy of the reaction would be the overwhelming majority, with little energy left over for the kinetic energy of the alpha particle. Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I realize what you meant, but during normal decay reactions, the energy is not shared with an ensemble of electrons, so why would this case be special? I'm not really sure. There's just enough of doubt on my part about the applicability of known behavior to this specific situation that I don't write off the possibility. Here are some potential explanations: - In the case of a short-lived nuclear transition yielding a gamma that occurs from the rearranging of nucleons, the nucleons reside in a field of strong positive charge, despite the presence of an electron cloud (I suspect). Perhaps the charge density has to be negative or strongly negative for a gamma-yielding transition to short-circuit to nearby electrons. - Maybe when it comes to gamma-yielding transitions, there is more natural activity than we think there is, and a lot of the transitions are short-circuited in the proposed manner, leading to heat rather than gammas. As observers outside of the system, we see only those gammas that escape for some reason. - Maybe there is a qualitative a difference between metastable transitions, which take a while to occur, and that of an extremely short-lived resonance like a [dd]* pair. The faster the transition, the more likely it is to short-circuit. Because we generally study dd fusions in a plasma system, this skews the data we have to work with, because there are few electrons nearby. (In cases where a dd fusion occurs during thin-foil ion bombardment, there is an anomalous screening effect.) - Perhaps the circumstances of the production of the alphas are a little different than simple fusion in the vicinity of lattice sites; for example, if there is electric arcing which is drawing the precursors near one another (which may or may not be d+d), the arc in conjunction with the electron cloud may provide a different environment than is witnessed in other contexts. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of that particle. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I realize what you meant, but during normal decay reactions, the energy is not shared with an ensemble of electrons, so why would this case be special? I'm not really sure. There's just enough of doubt on my part about the applicability of known behavior to this specific situation that I don't write off the possibility. Here are some potential explanations: - In the case of a short-lived nuclear transition yielding a gamma that occurs from the rearranging of nucleons, the nucleons reside in a field of strong positive charge, despite the presence of an electron cloud (I suspect). Perhaps the charge density has to be negative or strongly negative for a gamma-yielding transition to short-circuit to nearby electrons. - Maybe when it comes to gamma-yielding transitions, there is more natural activity than we think there is, and a lot of the transitions are short-circuited in the proposed manner, leading to heat rather than gammas. As observers outside of the system, we see only those gammas that escape for some reason. - Maybe there is a qualitative a difference between metastable transitions, which take a while to occur, and that of an extremely short-lived resonance like a [dd]* pair. The faster the transition, the more likely it is to short-circuit. Because we generally study dd fusions in a plasma system, this skews the data we have to work with, because there are few electrons nearby. (In cases where a dd fusion occurs during thin-foil ion bombardment, there is an anomalous screening effect.) - Perhaps the circumstances of the production of the alphas are a little different than simple fusion in the vicinity of lattice sites; for example, if there is electric arcing which is drawing the precursors near one another (which may or may not be d+d), the arc in conjunction with the electron cloud may provide a different environment than is witnessed in other contexts. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:40 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: If the ensemble is large, even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the production of x-rays. If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might have little to no kinetic energy. [snip] I see no reason why this should be the case when it is clearly not the case for normal decay reactions. The idea was that if the momentum is imparted to the ensemble of electrons, since the electrons are so light, their share of the energy of the reaction would be the overwhelming majority, with little energy left over for the kinetic energy of the alpha particle. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:37:01 -0500: Hi, [snip] Some reactions that produce alphas will also normally be accompanied by the emission of a gamma (but not all reactions). In the case of otherwise gamma-emitting reactions, it's possible that the reaction energy is instead transmitted to the ensemble of electrons, each electron dividing the total share into smaller pieces and emitting a photon. If the ensemble is large, even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the production of x-rays. If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might have little to no kinetic energy. [snip] I see no reason why this should be the case when it is clearly not the case for normal decay reactions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
From the Lugano report, the view of the nickel particle retrived as ash after 32 days of reaction looks identical to the fuel particle which itself looks like it came out of a old reactor run. The nanostructed surface looks prestine. This particle surface would have shown alpha impact in the micrograph. This indicates that there was alpha particles of any energy impacting on the surface of the nickel particle as a result of the LENR reaction. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles For context, can you provide the source of this statement? I find this statement hard to believe since energetic alpha particle emission produces lots of powerful EMF such as gamma rays in the process of Alpha thermalization. It would depend upon the nature of the reaction. Alphas of sufficient energy will generate x-rays and inelastic collisions. In the case of x-rays, inner shell lattice electrons will be excited and will emit photons with up to ~ 9 keV energy. In case of inelastic collisions, there are isomeric transitions for nickel in the MeV range. I am not sure what the relative cross sections for inelastic collisions from fast alphas are. Some reactions that produce alphas will also normally be accompanied by the emission of a gamma (but not all reactions). In the case of otherwise gamma-emitting reactions, it's possible that the reaction energy is instead transmitted to the ensemble of electrons, each electron dividing the total share into smaller pieces and emitting a photon. If the ensemble is large, even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the production of x-rays. If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might have little to no kinetic energy. The weak point in this line of investigation has to do with how to explain why the process would be so efficient that it would not result in stray gammas of the kind being short-circuited or in inelastic collisions with lattice sites. Nonetheless I find screening of some kind from the electron cloud provided by the lattice sites, together with thermalization through the agitation of a large ensemble of electrons, a very interesting line of exploration. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
Correction... From the Lugano report, the view of the nickel particle retrived as ash after 32 days of reaction looks identical to the fuel particle which itself looks like it came out of a old reactor run. The nanostructed surface looks prestine. This particle surface would have shown alpha particle impact in the micrograph if any occured. This indicates that there was no alpha particles of any energy level impacting on the surface of the nickel particle as a result of the LENR reaction. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the Lugano report, the view of the nickel particle retrived as ash after 32 days of reaction looks identical to the fuel particle which itself looks like it came out of a old reactor run. The nanostructed surface looks prestine. This particle surface would have shown alpha impact in the micrograph. This indicates that there was alpha particles of any energy impacting on the surface of the nickel particle as a result of the LENR reaction. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles For context, can you provide the source of this statement? I find this statement hard to believe since energetic alpha particle emission produces lots of powerful EMF such as gamma rays in the process of Alpha thermalization. It would depend upon the nature of the reaction. Alphas of sufficient energy will generate x-rays and inelastic collisions. In the case of x-rays, inner shell lattice electrons will be excited and will emit photons with up to ~ 9 keV energy. In case of inelastic collisions, there are isomeric transitions for nickel in the MeV range. I am not sure what the relative cross sections for inelastic collisions from fast alphas are. Some reactions that produce alphas will also normally be accompanied by the emission of a gamma (but not all reactions). In the case of otherwise gamma-emitting reactions, it's possible that the reaction energy is instead transmitted to the ensemble of electrons, each electron dividing the total share into smaller pieces and emitting a photon. If the ensemble is large, even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the production of x-rays. If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might have little to no kinetic energy. The weak point in this line of investigation has to do with how to explain why the process would be so efficient that it would not result in stray gammas of the kind being short-circuited or in inelastic collisions with lattice sites. Nonetheless I find screening of some kind from the electron cloud provided by the lattice sites, together with thermalization through the agitation of a large ensemble of electrons, a very interesting line of exploration. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
The alphas do not have to be the recipient of the mass energy loss as kinetic energy. The mass energy in a coherent system may end up with excess spin energy which is then distributed as phonic energy of the coherent system’s lattice. Bob Cook From: Axil Axil Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 1:34 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles I have not seen this confirmed as an experimental observation. I understand that this statement has its origins in the theory proposed from N. Cook. I find this statement hard to believe since energetic alpha particle emission produces lots of powerful EMF such as gamma rays in the process of Alpha thermalization. Out of the various successful replications, no one has confirmed the detection of Alpha radiation or gamma radiation. To make the N. Cook theory complete, there should be reasons and mechanisms provided that explain how the gamma radiation from Alpha particles are thermalized or downshifted. Furthermore, it is bad to base a theory of E-Cat reaction on the production of ionizing radiation. Any source of nuclear radiation has, is, and will be regulated. This most probably will place regulation of the E-Cat under the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) nationally in the U.S.A. and the IAEA internationally. In other words to make a long story short, the theory of Alpha particle production will KILL the E-Cat and all its various uses worldwide. Does Rossi understand that his current reaction theory will kill the E-Cat? The theory of the E-Cat has quintessential political and regulatory ramifications. The formulation of LENR theory must explain how the LENR reaction is not harmful in any way, shape or form, that it is totally benign, and that it is supported by experiential observation. The theory of LENR must be crafted so that it does not place a killing weapon into the hands of the opponents of LENR. Does Rossi understnd this? I would advise Rossi to change his theory for LENR now.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles For context, can you provide the source of this statement? I find this statement hard to believe since energetic alpha particle emission produces lots of powerful EMF such as gamma rays in the process of Alpha thermalization. It would depend upon the nature of the reaction. Alphas of sufficient energy will generate x-rays and inelastic collisions. In the case of x-rays, inner shell lattice electrons will be excited and will emit photons with up to ~ 9 keV energy. In case of inelastic collisions, there are isomeric transitions for nickel in the MeV range. I am not sure what the relative cross sections for inelastic collisions from fast alphas are. Some reactions that produce alphas will also normally be accompanied by the emission of a gamma (but not all reactions). In the case of otherwise gamma-emitting reactions, it's possible that the reaction energy is instead transmitted to the ensemble of electrons, each electron dividing the total share into smaller pieces and emitting a photon. If the ensemble is large, even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the production of x-rays. If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might have little to no kinetic energy. The weak point in this line of investigation has to do with how to explain why the process would be so efficient that it would not result in stray gammas of the kind being short-circuited or in inelastic collisions with lattice sites. Nonetheless I find screening of some kind from the electron cloud provided by the lattice sites, together with thermalization through the agitation of a large ensemble of electrons, a very interesting line of exploration. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
Its may be correct if the alphas not are from alpha decay but direct from LENR reactions. The alphas may have energy producing soft x-rays. On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:34:28 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles I have not seen this confirmed as an experimental observation. I understand that this statement has its origins in the theory proposed from N. Cook. I find this statement hard to believe since energetic alpha particle emission produces lots of powerful EMF such as gamma rays in the process of Alpha thermalization. Out of the various successful replications, no one has confirmed the detection of Alpha radiation or gamma radiation. To make the N. Cook theory complete, there should be reasons and mechanisms provided that explain how the gamma radiation from Alpha particles are thermalized or downshifted. Furthermore, it is bad to base a theory of E-Cat reaction on the production of ionizing radiation. Any source of nuclear radiation has, is, and will be regulated. This most probably will place regulation of the E-Cat under the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) nationally in the U.S.A. and the IAEA internationally. In other words to make a long story short, the theory of Alpha particle production will KILL the E-Cat and all its various uses worldwide. Does Rossi understand that his current reaction theory will kill the E-Cat? The theory of the E-Cat has quintessential political and regulatory ramifications. The formulation of LENR theory must explain how the LENR reaction is not harmful in any way, shape or form, that it is totally benign, and that it is supported by experiential observation. The theory of LENR must be crafted so that it does not place a killing weapon into the hands of the opponents of LENR. Does Rossi understnd this? I would advise Rossi to change his theory for LENR now.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Furthermore, it is bad to base a theory of E-Cat reaction on the production of ionizing radiation. Any source of nuclear radiation has, is, and will be regulated. This most probably will place regulation of the E-Cat under the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) nationally in the U.S.A. and the IAEA internationally. This is a surreal assertion. It makes no sense to say that basing a theory on this is a bad thing! The E-Cat is what it is. If the E-Cat does produce ionizing radiation, that is an inescapable fact. It will surely be discovered long before the device can be commercialized. Whatever institutions are now in charge of regulating ionizing radiation will be in charge of the E-Cat in that case. Perhaps these institutions can be changed, or the rules can be changed, but the radiation itself cannot be. You cannot avoid or negate radiation by changing the theory. A theory has no influence over reality. It can only explain that reality, or fail to explain it -- in which case it is useless. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
The Rossi theory is useless and does not discrible the LENR reaction. To promalgate a usless, invalid, and politically distrutive theory is foolhardy. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Furthermore, it is bad to base a theory of E-Cat reaction on the production of ionizing radiation. Any source of nuclear radiation has, is, and will be regulated. This most probably will place regulation of the E-Cat under the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) nationally in the U.S.A. and the IAEA internationally. This is a surreal assertion. It makes no sense to say that basing a theory on this is a bad thing! The E-Cat is what it is. If the E-Cat does produce ionizing radiation, that is an inescapable fact. It will surely be discovered long before the device can be commercialized. Whatever institutions are now in charge of regulating ionizing radiation will be in charge of the E-Cat in that case. Perhaps these institutions can be changed, or the rules can be changed, but the radiation itself cannot be. You cannot avoid or negate radiation by changing the theory. A theory has no influence over reality. It can only explain that reality, or fail to explain it -- in which case it is useless. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
The LENR reaction does not produce protons, alpha, beta, or gamma, radiation when the reactor is well heated. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Rossi theory is useless and does not discrible the LENR reaction. To promalgate a usless, invalid, and politically distrutive theory is foolhardy. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Furthermore, it is bad to base a theory of E-Cat reaction on the production of ionizing radiation. Any source of nuclear radiation has, is, and will be regulated. This most probably will place regulation of the E-Cat under the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) nationally in the U.S.A. and the IAEA internationally. This is a surreal assertion. It makes no sense to say that basing a theory on this is a bad thing! The E-Cat is what it is. If the E-Cat does produce ionizing radiation, that is an inescapable fact. It will surely be discovered long before the device can be commercialized. Whatever institutions are now in charge of regulating ionizing radiation will be in charge of the E-Cat in that case. Perhaps these institutions can be changed, or the rules can be changed, but the radiation itself cannot be. You cannot avoid or negate radiation by changing the theory. A theory has no influence over reality. It can only explain that reality, or fail to explain it -- in which case it is useless. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Rossi theory is useless and does not discrible the LENR reaction. To promalgate a usless, invalid, and politically distrutive theory is foolhardy. That is an entirely different issue. The first assertion you made was that it is it is bad to base a theory of E-Cat reaction on . . . ionizing radiation because such radiation will be regulated. That is surrealistic. It is irrational. If there is radiation, it will be regulated. If there is no radiation the device may not be regulated by agencies that deal with radiation. There is no doubt the E-Cat will be regulated. Every single machine and device is regulated, including spoons, scissors, pins and needles. They always have been regulated, in Medieval times by guilds, and today by government agencies and industry groups. There is nothing you can buy or consume in any first world country that is not covered by regulations. There is no chance anyone will ever buy or sell E-Cats that have not been tested and approved by some government agency. The only questions are which agency, and which set of rules. - Jed