We have more information about the heat pulse(plasma activation mechanism) from the Rossi reactor because we have a picture of the temperature pulse profile. The spark and the primary heater do the same function, they both build nanoparticles.
Has anybody profiled Rossi heat pulse in terms of duration and duty cycle? On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Chuck Sites <[email protected]> wrote: > Well you have a good point Eric, Why there wasn't a simple Geiger counter > available considering what is being investigated is a possible nuclear > effect? > > To me, it looks like the device ionizes H gas and accelerates it into the > (special) Ni lattice. If the Ni is ground. > If it's hot fusion then the Ni and trapped protons would be targets. > Until an equivalent system is built in a lab, will anyone really know what > the by-products of a low energy hydrogen bombardment would be. So it may > be naturally very low in emission particles. Rose, did a paper proposing > an Ni(sub x) + p reaction chain leading to Cu that had very low emissions. > > Correction to my previous comment, I meant 11 pulse's per second. But > Axil that was the only system they had to control the reaction was the > modulated spark plug pulse. > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Chuck Sites <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If I heard right during the demonstration, the spark was 11 pulses per >> minute, but I didn't hear a duty cycle mentioned. >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The spark (plasma activation mechanism) lasts for 12 seconds. The >>> reaction is then active for about 6 minutes. This cannot be a hot fusion >>> mechanism. >>> >>> The spark produces nanoparticles that are gradually consumed, It is LENR >>> for sure. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Chuck Sites <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Very interesting discussions. Thanks Axil for the two links in your >>>> earlier note.. I saw the video, but I wasn't aware of the paper >>>> presentation that described the isotopic shifts. So far, it looks like a >>>> very convincing experiment that looks to have nuclear origins. There are >>>> so many interesting points to bring up. For example the high voltage >>>> pulses from the modified spark plugs. That''s all secret IP, but at 10Kv >>>> pulsed, that has to be creating a plasma of hot H ions, and then assuming >>>> the Ni is the ground, it shouldn't surprise anyone that H ions are being >>>> accelerated into the NI nano powder. 10Kv is enough to circumvent >>>> the Coulomb barrier when you consider the screening potential of the >>>> metal's valence electrons. >>>> >>>> If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a >>>> controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice. You can almost thing of the Ni >>>> as forming a scaffolding to hold in place the H ions, and as spark plugs >>>> pulse, wave after wave of hot H ions would be bombarding the Ni. The fact >>>> that the cross section for a fusion event seems broad is unusual, but there >>>> may be more Ni + p reactions than p + p. >>>> >>>> Do you need Rydberg atoms to do that? I would really like to read the >>>> Kim paper before dumping on the Rydberg concept, but to me, this is an >>>> unnecessarily complex physics state to achieve in a solid state (or nano >>>> structure), when a simple hot fusion explanation might work. So I'm >>>> kind of with Jed in my hesitation about accepting the whole presentation by >>>> Defkcalion. Let me point out what is odd; The stainless steel container >>>> that has heat transfer coil around it. If you look at the diagrams, that >>>> should be pumped with hydrogen. Shouldn't there be an electrically >>>> insulating barrier between the hydrogen (plasma) and the stainless steel? >>>> If not then why isn't the H plasma interacting with the casing? >>>> >>>> Anyway, more food for thought. >>>> Best Regards folks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Arnaud Kodeck <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical >>>>>> speculations put one after another one. There no experiments that confirm >>>>>> their speculations. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying >>>>> anything here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a >>>>> physics conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The >>>>> standards of rigor should be higher for that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **** >>>>>> >>>>>> Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field >>>>>> that they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are >>>>>> they hiding the proof? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it >>>>> isn't enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in >>>>> parenthesis and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they >>>>> used a variety of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and >>>>> the >>>>> source of the isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should >>>>> list where you got them and how pure they are, so that other people can >>>>> judge your results. This rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. >>>>> If >>>>> it was some material that you can get from any supply house, such as >>>>> nickel >>>>> wire, there is no need to list the source. >>>>> >>>>> In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as >>>>> Johnson Matthey. The source makes a big difference. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The Defkalion theory might be right to explain the excess heat of the >>>>>> hyperion. But it might be as well something else that produces the extra >>>>>> energy. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps. They claim they know the source of the heat. They should make >>>>> a careful, rigorous case in a paper to back this up. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I hope the realtime spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor >>>>>> will open our eyes to what’s going on inside. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope so. (Question: Will it work for elements other than hydrogen >>>>> and helium? I have seen some light-element-only on-line spectrometers.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don’t blame Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right >>>>>> direction, and given a lot of hints to the public. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think the presentation at ICCF17 and 18 were a little slack by the >>>>> standards of academic physics. There are many slack presentations at these >>>>> conferences. I think we should cut back on them, and relegate more of them >>>>> to the poster sessions. >>>>> >>>>> I cannot judge Kim's presentation. I gather (now) that it was supposed >>>>> to be the proof for Defkalion's claims. Perhaps it was. It is over my >>>>> head. >>>>> It seems mostly theoretical rather than being based on experimental >>>>> evidence. >>>>> >>>>> - Jed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
