OK, here is another example of wishful thinking based on no data what-
so-ever. The idea that lithium can be involved in LENR is based on the
W-L theory, which has no support at all, neither from basic science
nor from the observed behavior of LENR. Yet, it is used as an
explanation of the Li-battery problem.
But suppose Li does participate in a LENR reaction. What would be the
consequence? The nuclear product would be helium and heat. This heat
would not give the battery more capacity, hence can not be the source
of the claimed extra energy even though it might produce enough heat
to cause local failure. Nevertheless, NO evidence exists anywhere
that Li is involved in LENR even though Li batteries have been studied
and used for years. Scientists are not stupid. They might not go
looking for LENR, but if evidence for such a reaction were found as a
result of a careful study, it would have been noticed and reported.
The extra energy might not be called LENR, but the paper would note
the evidence. I know of no such evidence. Do you?
The reason a nuclear reaction does not contribute to the electric
power of a battery is that energy in a battery results from electrons
being released in one region while, in this case, Li is able to react
with these electrons in another location. A nuclear reaction does not
have any relationship to such a process. The separation of charge
does not take place at different, independent locations in the circuit
when a nuclear reaction occurs. Therefore, a current does not flow,
hence electric power cannot be generated unless special conditions are
added.
The battery problem is obvious. The battery was made as compact as
possible, with no effective way provided for heat to be released. As a
result, local heating could damage a cell causing further release of
heat. Sometimes the most obvious and simplest explanation is correct.
Of course, finding out why the one cell started to make extra heat
gets more complicated, but regardless of the reason, stopping run away
heating must be the goal. This goal was not considered in the design.
Ed Storms
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
My hope is that the Li-battery industry with a projected market in the
tens of billion$ should have strong incentive to produce a safe
product.
Imagine the law suits if a new "improved" battery brings down one
(or two)
jumbo jets - not to mention lost revenue from people who stop flying.
Also - imagine that the study of lithium batteries uncovers part of
the
puzzle of LENR!
Aside from battery failures - there are reports circulating now about
lithium batteries which have achieved anomalous energy density - far
over
chemical energy storage potentials. Why should we be surprised? This
is the
flip-side of the failure model.
If Boeing knows anything - it is how to convert a problem into a
"feature" -
so why have they dropped the ball this time? ANS- they think LENR is
pathological science. The fact that Boeing has thrown $10s of
millions at
the problem and NOT discovered what it is, that alone is itself strong
evidence that they have NOT looked at LENR. As far back as 1990, at
the very
first ICCF, there is a paper showing anomalous energy using a lithium
electrolyte.
Fast forward 23 years, and Boeing is seeing anomalous energy from a
lithium
electrolyte causing battery failure and yet LENR is not considered
relevant!
How bizarre is that?
That is the legacy of mainstream physic's denial of the PF effect.
Jones
