"Fast Recomb"? What the hell is that? Matter collapse? What was the chemical reaction?
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]> > [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]> >> [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]>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]> >>>> [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]> >>>>> [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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
