As I said, using logical fallacies (and pseudo-scientific linguage) you can demonstrate anything. Peter
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:58 PM, francis <froarty...@comcast.net> wrote: > From Goat Guy on Next Big Future: > > · > > Well... I smell a rat, *unfortunately*. > > FIRST, the rapidly technology "turned off" when the hydrogen supply was > cut. Anyone else catch the slip? If the reaction is hydrogen-atomic > consolidation with nickel nuclei, *and it is presupposed that upon > entering the metallic-valence sea of electrons, the 1H protons are both > shielded and able to tunnel past the pretty substantial coulomb barrier of > the 58Ni nuclei* then ... turning "off the hydrogen" should not quench the > reaction for minutes, or hours. Either the hydrogen is being consumed > (burned, chemical heat, making the "steam'), or the nickel reactant is at > such an elevated temperature (1000ºK ?) that hydrogen's surface absorption > is only measured in half-life seconds (instead of the usual hours at 373ºK / > 100ºC). So, there could be an explanation for the rapid turn off. > > SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement. > Rising 50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000 > watt (proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there > should be roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level > achieved. 50% is nothing. The meter should have been pegged. > > THIRD (but not mentioned, so this is a surmise), elevated gamma output > should have remained for many minutes (essentially 3-4 hours, in a classic > half-life decaying curve, with an initial short half-life spike). But there > was no mention of this. > > FOURTH were they condensing the water-vapor into a vessel for weighing? The > heat-of-vaporization of water is very well known, and a very useful proxy > for figuring out thermal-energy production rates. It isn't (unfortunately) a > very quick responder to thermal-generator fluctuations, but at least when a > final quantity has been condensed and measured, the conversion to joules, > calories, kilowatt-hours is straight forward. > > FIFTH the *picograms per kilowatt* is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by > a lot! I estimated that 10,000 watts for 1 hour (36 MJ) would consume some > 17 milligrams of nickel. (hey, it would be a good result - I'm not > complaining). Assuming that the researcher is talking about "grams per > second", then its easy to convert: > > 17,000 µg × (6,000 / 10,000) watts × (1 / 3600) hour =2.8 µg per second > > Not picograms, in any way, shape or form. More like 2,800,000 pg/sec ... > > *SO THEREFORE I AM LEAD TO BELIEVE* that the researcher is deluded, that > his collaborative senior professor is also deluded, and that they're somehow > on a far limb that is not nuclear. > > Sorry goats. I'm expecting more from all this. > > PS: (and this is almost amusing) - if the nuclear reaction was really > kicking out kilowatts of nuclear energy, the gamma ray flux would be > essentially lethal at table-top distances. 1 Sievert (100 REM) is 1.0 > J/kg. In an isotropic gamma radiation field (dominated by 511 keV and 720 > keV positron annihilation and k-shell electron capture or nuclear > rearrangement photons), at a rate of over (pessimistically) 2,000 > joules/second of emission to achieve their claimed 6,000± watt output (and > allowing for their fantasy of significantly lowered gamma output due to some > atomic nuclei rebounding effect!) ... at tabletop distances (2 meters) the > gamma flux would be over (... hmmm 4πr², r=2, surface area of sphere of > radius 2 m is about 50 m², 2000 joules / 50 = 40 joules per square meter. > Human frontal area is about 1 m², 511 keV absorption is about 80% in body... > so, if the espresso quaffers weigh in at 165 pounds (75 kg), then their > whole-body absorption would be 0.4 Sv/sec. To put that in perspective, 1 Sv > rapid exposure leads to nausea. 3 Sv is the LD50 (50% of people die) level, > and no one has survived over 10 Sv. ) > > So ... unless they have a LOT of lead in that tin-foil masked reaction > container (which of course, physically they simply cannot have), if it were > nuclear and generating all these kilowatts, then this would be one hell of a > dangerous desktop demo. Kind of like the sieverts that were absorbed by the > poor researcher who dropped a tungsten block onto a sub-critical-mass sphere > of plutonium in the 1950s, only to have it go critical and irradiate > everyone in a matter of seconds with a lethal dose of neutrons and gamma > radiation. > > If it was nuclear and not particularly well shielded - I'd not want to be > in the same BUILDING as the thing. > > Put that in your pipe and smoke it. > > *G O A T G U Y* > > > > Froarty in reply to goat guy: > > · I would agree they don't have the correct theory and that the > energy SOURCE is not nuclear - But - I believe they are unknowingly > extracting energy from an interaction of a synthetic skeletal catalyst with > different bond states of hydrogen along the lines of Moller's MAHG, Lyne's > Furnace or Mill's BLP reactor. No one has totally nailed the theory yet (Jan > Naudts may be real close with relativistic hydrogen) but it doesn't matter, > if they have learned to reliably reproduce the energy at this level, the > race for low hanging IP will ensue. > > > > > > 2 hours > ago<http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html#comment-129393341> > in > reply to > froarty<http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html#comment-129329397> > > · The fall-back position, isn't it? *Well, it doesn't > really have a nuclear signature, so, hmmm... yeah, that's it... its probably > related to the work by Mills 'n' Dunderhead(s) **AKA**Blacklight Power, > etc* Little hydrino fairies that everyone in physics somehow missed > (except Mills, Moller, Naudts...) that using nothing more intriguing than a > bottle of powdered metals and a magic wand, create kilowatts of thermal > heat. (For how long? - never for days, that's for sure!) > > The same goes for the whole hydrino thing. Hell, I'm not even seriously > "taking on the proof", just noodling on the backs of napkins with my trusty > spreadsheet calcs. > > BLP and its derivatives have exactly the same "problem" - they bear the > burden-of-proof in either 'fessing to having none of the byproducts expected > from their theory, or, having an abundance of easily quantifiable data that > supports their contention. It is a matter (per another of my posts) of > scale. You simply cannot produce kilowatts of heat - even for periods as > short as "minutes" - and not have macroscopically observable changes in > reactant density, consumed hydrogen, and if nuclear in nature, all sorts of > alarmingly nasty radioactive byproducts. No *significant radiation* == no > nuclear signature. In the case of BLP, either the magic pixie powder gains > weight (bonding to hydrogen), which can be weighed - and reversed by > applying high heat (which then isn't very magic at all, but clearly just > good old hydrogen surface adsorption) - or there is the presence of a > stunning new form of hydrogen (the hydrinos) that *necessarily exhibit*all > sorts of OMG, wow! behavior. > > NOTHING can be subtle about "new physics", goats - and still get away with > producing kilowatts of thermal signature. It is upon this fulcrum that I > balance the claims versus the results. Hard radiation ("peg the needle"), > copious byproducts, milligram-to-kilogram changes of mass, intense UV, > X-rays, ... but not "oooh, we think we *might have seen an increase in > neutrons *but our detector was having calibration issues; we're buying > new, more sensitive equipment." > > - > > *froarty *[image: > http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1295043606/images/themes/narcissus/moderator.png]13 > minutes > ago<http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html#comment-129424758> > > - AS I SAID , Mills has it wrong also - You seem to insist on painting > me as a supporter of Mills theory -I am not! He and others do seem to have > physical DEVICES that rectify energy from an environment which is NOT > included in their theories. I have my own theory based on Naudts concept of > relativistic hydrogen which led me to a relativistic interpretation of > Casimir effect in skeletal catalysts. The nuclear effects being only side > effects of an ashless oscillation between h1 and h2 due to gas molecules > opposing migration between changes in vacuum energy densitycaused by > changes > in casimir geometry inside a skeletal catalyst. The cavity represents > abrupt > changes in energy density/isotropy of gravity - something that focardi > seems > to be noticing with references to > gravitational changes in the device - he is on the right path IMHO. > Regards > Fran > > > http://froarty.scienceblog.com...<http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded> > / > > http://byzipp.com/energy/ > > > > >
![http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1295043606/images/themes/narcissus/moderator.png]13](http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1295043606/images/themes/narcissus/moderator.png]13){kind=link}