I try to react to experimental evidence when formulating LENR theory. Others gain solace by choosing to understand experimental evidence to suit their theory(s) and political stances. They say that certain observations are due to contamination or error in measurements and so on and even the assertion of fraud.
The denialists tend to use this sort of myopic deluded intellectual behavior in their interpretation of facts. They go way too far in coming up with arguments to support their assertions based on inconsistent examinations of reality. Both the denialists and the stubborn LENR theorists should just embrace the dictates of detailed reality in the formulation of theory and avoid cheery picking. Personally, I only say that “That’s my story and I am sticking to it” as ironic disparagement of the myopic mind set which is too often apparent in theoretical discourse. On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Also see tables II and III in this reference: > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fconferences%2F2012%2FICCF17%2FICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf&ei=wYdRUO6bKqH20gGC64H4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGT9S6MSfTNDMcAs1KjI6lnTbzMNA&sig2=J0nTrYnPz0dbSOKYgP5VPg > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Transmutation has been observed as follows: >> >> http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of% >> 20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree, >>> transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR >>> reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken down >>> by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so derived >>> could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process indefinitely. >>> >>> >>> For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it >>> fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then fission to >>> Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over and over again. >>> >>> >>> In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of >>> metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes. The >>> mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of operation. >>> >>> >>> As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction >>> can operate for months of years without reload. >>> >>> >>> This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit >>> on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear >>> power. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an >>>> energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions >>>> proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate must be >>>> between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the reactants must move >>>> at this rate from where they are normally located in the material by >>>> diffusion and assemble where the nuclear reaction can occur. Which model >>>> do you think can be consistent with such a reaction rate? >>>> >>>> In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in >>>> one year while 10 kW is made. The amount of deuterium isotope is easily >>>> contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to be contained >>>> and would have to be added from an outside source to produce this much >>>> energy. Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted to Cu. This means that >>>> ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have to be converted to copper >>>> to achieve this much energy. Why do you think this might be possible? >>>> >>>> Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as >>>> the basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain. >>>> >>>> 1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while >>>> using H2 only contained in the e-Cat. So far, no test has run ling >>>> enough to test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the >>>> practical use of this energy source. >>>> >>>> 2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a >>>> typical charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number >>>> of small Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many >>>> particles would be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the >>>> logical assumption that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni, >>>> while a few particles would be active and have to suffer complete >>>> conversion to account for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not >>>> depend on HOW the reaction might occur, which creates an entirely different >>>> problem. Once all of the Ni is converted to Cu in an active particle, why >>>> is the Cu not converted to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a >>>> proposed model that requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take >>>> these questions into account. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event >>>> 1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec >>>> 10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2 >>>> p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event >>>> 1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec >>>> 10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2 >>>> 62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event >>>> 1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec >>>> 10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
