Referencing the DGT paper for ICCF-18
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-1.pdf DGT has made public the Bosenova energy release mechanism. This is how energy gets out of the BEC. The Ni/H reactor is like a infrared LASER turned in on itself. Resonance modified infrared Photon energy builds in a dark mode in each NAE at the same level. When a nuclear energy transfer occurs to a NAE from a nuclear reaction, its gamma frequency is down shifted through sharing within the global BEC. However, the NAE that received the packet of gamma radiation is destroyed through quantum decoherence. The transfer of energy always disrupts quantum coherence. The energy stored as light is converted to energetic electrons that explode into the hydrogen gas or stainless steel walls and the kinetic energy is converted back to heat through electron collisions with the reactor contents and structure. Under this mechanism over time, nuclear binding energy is mostly converted to newly minted electrons but some is converted to heat through the transfer of kinetic energy of the electrons to the reactor contents. An experimental prediction that will verify this energy release idea is the detection of excess negative charge produced by the Ni/H reactor. Most energy produced by the Ni/H reactor is stored as energy converted to newly minted electron mass. Because of this, the Ni/H reactor should act like a low voltage battery. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I am assuming that the heat is generated either on the surface or > throughout the mass of each sphere. All of the heat must find its way out > of the sphere through the surface area which is how I approached the > problem. If some mechanism exists that allows the energy to escape, for > example, by energetic charged particles then the temperature of the actual > surface is not as important. > > I see that you suggest that some overall mechanism that encompasses many > spheres at once might allow an even temperature distribution, but I would > like to see additional evidence to support that idea. I tend to believe > that the energy is more localized in generation with the active regions > being much smaller than a sphere. My calculations indicate that there are > around one half million fusion events occurring per second within or on > each 10 micrometer sized sphere. > > The idea that original particles of matter collect together as a result of > electrostatic attraction seems reasonable and I like to think that magnetic > forces also play a role. The cores of most astronomical objects contain > magnetic elements such as iron and nickel which supports this assumption. > Gravity is so weak at small particle sizes that it is difficult to believe > that it was the main driver until the material collection became very > massive. > > The nanoparticles might well be the location of the active energy > generation mechanism as you discuss. There appears to be several > candidates for this source including hydrinos that need to be analyzed. It > would be great to be able to use classical physics in the manner used by > Dr. Mills to get around the uncertainty of quantum mechanics if possible, > but I still find it difficult to accept the existence of hydrinos. Maybe > one day the clouds will lift. > > I suspect that you agree that the temperature of the core particles must > be greater than that of the load heat sink in order for the generated heat > to flow outward. One of my main questions is how the heat leaves the > actual point of generation. Does it escape as high energy radiation that > becomes converted into heat within the larger device or is it released in > the form of heat energy within the tiny spheres? My inclination is that > the release is within the sphere mass, perhaps on its surface. It will be > interesting to see how this develops. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 2:24 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Sphere Radiation Calculations > > Dave: > I see my view of the Ni/H reaction does not support the underlying > assumptions of your study. > > The nuclear active sites (NAE) in the Ni/H reactor form on the surface of > balls of nanoparticles that have congealed out of the plasma. > > Small particles tend to clump together under electrostatic attraction to > form bigger particles. This is how the earth, the other planets and the sun > eventually formed from a gas/dust cloud. > > Dipole based electrostatic attraction occurs early before the mass of the > particle clumps get weighty enough for gravity to take over. > > On the surface of these dust balls, one or many NAE form. But these balls > are weak in dipole power because they have many surface discontinuities > which are not supportive of dipole development. > > These small dust balls are attracted to the 5 micron nickel particles. > They land on the surface of the micro powder and share in their huge store > of dipole energy. > > The NAE(s) on the nano-dust balls are thus more greatly empowered and > strengthen by the dipole energy stores of the micro-powder. > > Most importantly, no matter where these NAEs exist, they are all members > of a global Bose-Einstein condensate that share in their collective power > production. > > The NAE collection share thermal energy isothermally and superfluidically. > These boson quasiparticles share heat energy superfluidically with no > resistance to flow. > > This results in an absolutely stable temperature both in the nickel > particles and hydrogen envelope that surrounds the nickel particles. > > This isothermal temperature distribution will provide experimental proof > that the NAE sites are all members of a system wide BEC. > I think we have seen evidence of this when Rossi’s high temperature > reactor melted down including the 2000C heater insolation. > > The whole reactor melted down evenly including the hi-temp insolation. > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:09 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I have been researching the ECAT sized metal spheres in order to >> determine the expected behavior as their diameters are varied. This has >> lead to some interesting results which I share on occasion with the vortex >> in the hope that the insight will spark ideas within the group. Whether or >> not this information is helpful is left to the discretion of the readers. >> >> My assumed system consists of 100 grams of nickel generating 10000 watts >> of heat power. Each reaction releases 5 MeV of energy. The actual >> physical source of the energy is not taken into consideration since that is >> not generally understood as of this time. >> >> My crude model consists of a very large quantity of nickel spheres of an >> assumed diameter such that the total mass is as listed above. One of my >> variables is obviously the diameter of each sphere which is modified in an >> attempt to understand what might be expected as this dimension is changed. >> For the following results I am attempting to estimate the temperature of a >> single sphere in open space that emits all of the energy generated within >> without having any incoming radiation to balance since it sees cold space >> as it looks outward. In normal operation each sphere will be surrounded by >> the thermal environment so that it must operate at a higher temperature >> than my calculation suggests and that is one of the paths that I am >> pursuing in further research. The calculations that I am posting would >> therefore represent a low extreme temperature value that could not be >> reduced if the power output constraints are to be met. >> >> I chose an emissivity of .8 for the nickel material, but this can be >> modified if anyone has a better estimate and wants me to take it into >> consideration. The radiation from the surface is assumed to be normal to >> the sphere surface. >> >> I calculate that the temperature of the 10 micrometer diameter test >> sphere is 425 K degrees (152 C) in open space. This is the minimum >> temperature that the surface of the sphere supports which will result in >> the expected radiation level. If the sphere is surrounded by other spheres >> or parts of the system at an operating temperature that is required to >> transfer energy to the load by radiation the temperature will have to >> increase in order to deposit its portion of the total energy. Conduction >> and convection are not taken into consideration for this calculation. >> >> The absolute surface temperature of each sphere must increase as the >> diameters increase. This is not too surprising since the total surface >> area of the large collection of spheres is reduced as the diameter of each >> sphere increases. Since the power is assumed constrained at 10000 watts >> the surface power density by necessity must rise. My model was tested with >> varying diameters of spheres and the relationship appears to follow an >> interesting function. It so happens that the absolute temperature is >> directly proportional to the forth root of the diameter ratio. To clarify >> the calculation, you take the desired sphere diameter and divide it by the >> original diameter first. Then take this ratio and raise it to the .25 >> power. The result will be the absolute temperature ratio expected for >> radiation of a constant total power. >> >> In the case that I use as reference you would obtain: initial 10 >> micrometer sphere collection, with absolute temperature of 425 K: desired >> 160 micrometer diameter spheres. Calculate 160 micrometers/10 micrometers >> = 16. Take the forth root of 16 and obtain 2. Since the 10 micrometer >> spheres reach 425 K, the 160 micrometer spheres should be at 850 K (578 >> C) as the calculated value. The numbers are rounded for clarity. >> >> Dave >> >> >> > >
