This is a good point. If all that transmutation occurred in such a homogeneous fashion it would be good evidence that BECs were forming. Once there's a BEC working around such a large soup of constituents, some very conventional physics get thrown out the window. Strangely enough, the weak nuclear force might be the driving motivator inside of a BEC, and Widom-Larson would be the winners. Ni(58) + n > Ni(59) Ni(59) + n > Ni(60) Ni(60) + n > Ni(61) Ni(61) + n > Ni(62)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is a boatload of bad assumptions made by you, the testers and Rossi > involving the mechanisms of the reaction. I believe that the DGT theory of > the reaction is the correct one and the Rossi theory of the reaction is > wrong. > > In the DGT theory, the nickel powder sets up a high temperature boson > condensate throughout the entire volume of the reactor including all the > alumina. It is in the alumina where the reaction is centered. At high > temperatures, any transmutation that happens in the nickel is secondary and > does not contribute that much to the production of power when the reactor > is in a maximum power configuration. > > Jones, your analysis points to some understandable contradictions between > valid everyday engineering assumptions and the actual processes that are > going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But > the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the > latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted > since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was > representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other > nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right > on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it. > > To reconcile these contradictions between what engineering would rightly > expect and what is really going on inside the reactor points to isothermal > heat distribution throughout the entire structure of the reactor as > supported by the boson condensate. > > This even heat distribution implies that the entire reactor is quantum > mechanically coherent including the alumina body. The entire reactor is > participating in a boson condensate. > > Heat cannot be coming only from the nickel particles because they would be > just too hot to produce the concentrated heat flow needed to support > observed black body heat distribution. The entire structure of the reactor > is producing even heat (isothermal) including the alumina. > > The nickel powder is setting up the quantum mechanical field conditions to > cause the entire reactor structure to produce heat. > > This assumption is consistent with what we know happens during reactor > meltdown. During meltdown the temperature of the reactor goes beyond 2000C > which is well beyond the melting point of the nickel powder and eventually > the alumina. The alumina even becomes hot enough to produce sapphires. The > energy output of the reactor goes beyond one megawatt in ten seconds. A few > flakes of nickel powder cannot produce this much power not even from a > nuclear source. > > We must assume that the alumina is producing the heat and not the nickel > powder. Even heat production by the alumina would work against any stress > effects on the alumina. Nothing is liquefying. The nickel and lithium is > just an enabler of the LENR reaction and not its primary source. > > The heater wire must be tungsten that is encased inside the alumina to > protest is from oxidation. > > The alumina should have been put under isotopic study to see if it was > LENR active. > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> I talked to Brian also, and I know the reputation of the person he >> refers to and that he can be trusted. Both are good eggs. >> >> >> >> Thus, the excess heat is likely to be real, but that says nothing about >> the isotope analysis. But it does narrow the controversy down to the single >> issue. >> >> >> >> Brian’s suspicions are as strong as ever about the isotope analysis, >> maybe more so. The reality of excess heat make that deception even more >> important to understand. >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> *From:* Foks0904 >> >> >> >> Thanks for posting Jed -- I too appreciated Brian's efforts to add to our >> collective understanding on this matter. We need to get as many expert eyes >> on this as possible, and each of us drawing on our own network of experts >> is actually a big deal and necessary I think. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> >> >> Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal >> imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right >> kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy >> said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows >> something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and >> wavelengths he would select. >> >> >> >> Brian said his own doubts have been resolved. >> >> >> >> Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert's >> name, but I didn't because Brian promised to send me a note with the >> particulars. It occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy >> bee . . . If he does not send me the info. I'll call him back and get it. >> >> >> >> This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I >> told Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are >> good for uncontrolled, high-temperature phenomena. >> >> >> >> Details to follow. >> >> >> >> Brian is a good egg. >> >> >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >> >> > >
