In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:31:12 -0400 (EDT): Hi Dave, [snip]
Actually I agree. I was just playing Devil's advocate a little. > >Actually I am far from convinced that the W&L theory is sound. Everything >that I have seen thus far suggests that neutrons decay into protons, electrons >and neutrinos but that the chance of a reversal is not very good unless you >are within a nucleus. > >All of the neutron generators that I am familiar with use fusion or fission >reactions to generate them. Does anyone know of a proven design which >operates according to the W&L theory? > >That is the main reason that I do not believe that the process you outline is >valid. The W&L theory looks like a free lunch to me. > >I would love to be found wrong in my belief toward that theory as it would >make life so much less complicated, but I just can not accept the many >miracles. NASA please prove me wrong! > >Dave > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: mixent <[email protected]> >To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 12:52 am >Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) > > >In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:27:52 -0400 (EDT): >i, >snip] > >The half life of Ni63 is 98.7 years. That path would not be useful in Rossi's >evice. > >he capture alone yields over 6 MeV. The beta decay energy is tiny by >omparison. Unless you are implying that the reaction is not useful because the >i63 would remain radioactive for so long. However Ni63 could be a useful >ortable/remote/no-moving-parts energy source. Initially about 32 W/kg, dropping >ff to half that after 100 years. Think of the sort of applications that >urrently use solar panels. >egards, >Robin van Spaandonk >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
