That death was from a chemical explosion. SRI, recombiner gunked up,
researcher picked up the cell, gunk fell off, fast recomb,. Bang! He
died, McKubre still has glass in him. As I recall reading. Closed
cells are dangerous. LENR *could* be dangerous. "Unreliable" can cut
both ways.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 17, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:
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]
>[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]>[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]
>[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.
