On Nov 20, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Thanks, I relay.
the same continue his story
@Alain Coetmeur
Tritium contaminates heavy water. Its beta-ray's kinetic energy
varies, averaging 5.7 keV - nasty for quantitative trace detection
differentials (decay energy residual is in an electron
antineutrino). Electrolysis concentrates tritium. Tritium content
and neutron detection reports are below research standards. Japan
invested $(USD)20 million researching cold fusion 1992 - 1997,
finding nothing. Yoshiaki Arata's 2008 claims are not reproducible.
Where does this person get his information, Alain?
Tritium can be detected with high accuracy and sensitivity. Yes,
tritium is present in heavy-water at low concentration. Yes,
electrolysis concentrates tritium. This information is well known and
is taken into account when tritium is reported. The reports have now
exceeded 67 papers describing successful production of tritium and
many efforts have produced tritium many times greater than background
or produced by enrichment. It is also produced by gas discharge and
gas loading where D2O is not used.
23.8 nanograms D + D fusion is a one gram TNT detonation. National
Ignition Facility targets are milligrams of fuel - 84,000 times
larger and also crap in action. The densest low average atomic
weight targets are (Li-6)D and (Li-6)T, not 17 K frozen DT. Recycle
an H-bomb secondary for business models' $(USD)0.25/target, and
still fail. Cold fusion "long lasting heat" is engineering nonsense
for MW and GW energy production, even it were true.
The NIF is producing hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, these
comments do nor apply to cold fusion.
Forget DTO "enhanced" cold fusion. Tritium oxide specific activity
is 2634 Ci/g, 21.28 calories/second. It boils itself within seconds.
Storage will be interesting, including remarkable oxidative
corrosivity from radiolysis product.
Tritium is well understood for use in the hot fusion process. Tritium
is not used to create heat by cold fusion. I think we all agree, hot
fusion will not be a useful source of energy any time soon. Cold
fusion has already made useful energy. The only handicap is lack of
understanding, which is being gradually achieved, no thanks to skeptics.
Ed
"Does modern science discourage creativity?" It certainly rewards
theoretic pandering orthogonal to empirical application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/06/dinner-with/
"They lacked discipline and protocols."
2013/11/20 Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
Alain, here are a few comments that might be useful.
On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
I've got an answer with claim of artifact... probably an old story.
I imagine that to fool Ed you need more tha recombination ...
can you comment, and check I did not answer stupidly
"Uncle Al said...
@Alain Coetmeur The uncooperative Pons-Fleischmann exotherm
requires Li-based electrolyte, high current density, thick Pd rods.
Li is only slowly reactive in water. Pd dissolves Li. As with Hg
dissolving Na, Pd dissolving Li is a hugely exothermic Lewis acid-
base neutralization. Pd-Li alloys have deep melting point
depressions vs. Pd 1552°C mp: 145°C mp for 12 atom-% Pd, 950°C mp
for 75 atomic-% Pd, J. Less-Common Met. 55(1), 67 (1977).
This description is not accurate. Li is not required in the
electrolyte, the Pd can be any shape from wires to foils, and the Li
reacts only very slowly with the surface and diffuses over a
distance of a few tens of microns from the surface.
(0) Catalyst in the condenser recombines electrolytic D_2 and O_2
to D_2O. It occasionally explodes when granules shift to expose
fresh surface. This does not count.
The recombination catalyst seldom explodes.
(1) Li metal electroplates onto the Pd cathode. Most reacts with
heavy water. Some dissolves in the rod's surface, creating a
lowering melting point Pd-Li alloy rind.
(2) Very high current densities have the rind eventually liquefy
vs. Li reaction with water and diffusion inward.
The surface does not liquify. A few local melted regions are
occasionally seen, but these are few and widely separated.
Sudden reaction with bulk rod is the Pons-Fleischmann exotherm
having no neutron, tritium (net 4.03 MeV), or He-3 (net 3.27 MeV)
production.
No neutrons are detected, tritium is occasionally made, and helium-4
production appears to be the source of energy.
(3) About 24 nanograms of D + D fusion is one gram of TNT
detonation. How big is the Pons-Fleischmann boom?
The total energy is being compared to the rate of energy production,
which is not correct. The rate of energy production from TNT is
huge. The rate from F-P is small even though the same amount of
energy is released. Consequently, the Pons-Fleischmann cell does not
explode.
Ed
1 gram TNT detonated = 4184 J (one dietary Calorie)
D + D = 3.65 MeV average, 5.848×10^(-13) joules
0.5 mole D + D, 2.0141 g total = 1.76×10^11 Joules
1 gram TNT detonated = 23.8 nanograms D + D fusion
12:57 PM, November 20, 2013"
2013/11/20 Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>
Interesting article on Science evolution...
It resonate with many things (out of LENR) I've noticed recently...
Mostly Science is dying of conformism... consensus...
It always have bee conformist, killing dissenters, but today this
conformism is getting industrialized, administered, funded, ,
globalized, mediatized, with method and rationality.
http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2013/11/does-modern-science-discourage.html#1384868525427
the comments are interesting...
the most funny is that answer:
"Phillip Helbig said...
"But if it wouldn't work, what all these publications are about?"
One can study theology at university, but I don't see this as a
proof of God's existence.
There is no confirmation of the Pons and Fleischmann result
published in a serious journal.
Even if your conspiracy theory is true and the establishment
boycotts cold fusion, why not just set up a power company and sell
the energy? Because it doesn't work.
8:42 AM, November 19, 2013"
