In a post today integral sited a death of a LENR developer in an explosion. The take away, LENR is dangerous when the power is high. It is best to be as safe as you can.
Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses > for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they > drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing > malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof > glass. > > Oddity and UNCERTAINTY > > Stewart > > > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown >>> powder. >>> >> >> Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a >> conclusion from strong evidence. >> >> >> J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process. >>> >> >> And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the >> process has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry >> monkey typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not >> true when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the >> availability of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that >> was, ah, a tad exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test >> engines is an exaggeration if you only have "test engines" that may not >> have run at all. He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or >> claiming to have 2 MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they >> are "secret" and his resume now claims his education is irrelevant. >> >> Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why did >> he claim the running test engines? He says why. He "had to say *something* >> or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you think an >> investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to maintain >> or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect, eventually. >> (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements. We have to >> remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions. I'm just >> saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he says >> it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.) >> >> Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a "popper kit," >> which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke >> one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and >> the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken >> from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and >> the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and >> believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown >> even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would >> need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a >> Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails. >> >> Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy." At least John is, that's >> obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are >> true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to >> long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are. >> >> I still don't see any significant evidence for "nuclear." The level of >> energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all >> that, if established, would show is "not chemical." Some brown powder isn't >> evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is. >> >> Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was >> identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we >> could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation >> between anomalous heat and helium production. It was "fusion." Because I'm >> being watched ("they" are under every rock), I'll point out that "fusion" >> does not just refer to "d-d fusion," and the correlation value (estimated >> at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction >> that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what intermediates are >> involved. That conversion is called "fusion." Fusion is the term for a >> whole class of reactions, not just one. >> >> However, interesting speculation, perhaps: >> >> This type fusion does not produce energy in fusing to boron8 atoms. But >>> all boron isotopes under B11 will decay by fission. There are two >>> conceivable ways in which the excited state in boron-8 could decay by >>> emitting one proton, making a brief pit stop at beryllium-7. However, one >>> of these ways is energy forbidden and the other does not conserve isospin. >>> >>> While conserving isospin is not a hard and fast rule, if there is any >>> other way for the nucleus to decay, it will jump at that alternative. In >>> this case the alternative, one that is both energy and isospin allowed, is >>> to decay by emitting two protons in one step to an excited state in >>> lithium-6, which is itself an isobaric-analog of the ground state of >>> helium-6. Recently, this decay mode was observed for the first time by >>> emitting two protons at the same time between isobaric analog states. >>> >>> To make a long story short, the fusion of 2 He atoms will possibly end >>> up with a number of sub atomic particles and one helium atom. >>> >>> Another energetic path (the triple proton chain) is as follows: >>> >>> 1. B8 -> Be8 + positron + neutrino (followed by spontaneous decay...) >>> 2. Be8 -> 2He4(18.074 MeV) >>> >>> >>> There is some unknowns involving boron 8 decay as follows: >>> >>> For example, nuclei of boron-8 in the sun decay by spitting out an >>> antielectron and an electron neutrino, and theorists can predict the number >>> of such low-energy solar neutrinos. >>> Researchers measured the actual number in the 1960s, counting rare >>> events in which a chlorine nucleus in a tank of dry-cleaning fluid absorbed >>> an electron neutrino and emitted an electron. They found only one-third as >>> many electron neutrinos as predicted, suggesting that the particles were >>> turning into something else during their trip from the sun to Earth. >>> >>> >>> Cheers: Axil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto: >>> [email protected]>a**[email protected] <[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Source for your info on boron? If adjusted out somehow, what is the ash >>> now? Does it vary with settings? Do we know? How? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Aug 16, 2012, at 9:53 PM, Axil Axil <<mailto:[email protected]>ja** >>> [email protected] <[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> The Papp engine produced boron as ash, but it was grossly inefficient. >>>> J Rohner improved the timing to eliminate the atomic pollution through >>>> nuclear recombination. >>>> >>>> Cheers: Axil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto: >>>> [email protected]>a**[email protected] <[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> At 05:04 PM 8/15/2012, Axil Axil wrote: >>>> >>>> The refuel process adds noble gas instead of replacing it. This >>>> on-the-fly refuel means that there is no buildup of reaction ash as is >>>> normal in all other LENR devices. >>>> >>>> >>>> If this thing works, it doesn't sound at all like LENR. I don't see any >>>> basis for "nuclear." So far. >>>> >>>> >> >
