Mentions Rossi's work. BEC's once again? I think so. My impression is that it seems to be once again about the nature of waves.
The quality of the video is not really too good. Here's a YouTube video that you can see the ideas, perhaps a bit better.
AlienScientist Interview with Frank Znidarsic Part 1 of 2
Showing posts with label Major Topic --- Sciences --- Armchair Physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Major Topic --- Sciences --- Armchair Physics. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The SuperWave™ Fusion Process
Uploaded by nofunclub Apr 23, 2009
Not exactly a new video, but I wanted to point out the "Wave" aspect of this process. It seems that waves have a significance in cold fusion. As a collective excitation, could they become bosons and form a BEC?
This video doesn't claim that, however. Now, if the collective excitation does become a BEC, it could explain the ability to cross the coulomb barrier and fuse.
Not exactly a new video, but I wanted to point out the "Wave" aspect of this process. It seems that waves have a significance in cold fusion. As a collective excitation, could they become bosons and form a BEC?
This video doesn't claim that, however. Now, if the collective excitation does become a BEC, it could explain the ability to cross the coulomb barrier and fuse.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Solar thruster calcs
Given that 25 kw of electrical power can be created and, assuming that this will lift 25 times 100 kg/kw equals 2500 kg giving a thrust to mass ratio of 1 to 1:
Let's break down the various components to see what we can come up with:
Allow 500 gallon tank, stainless steel for hydrogen storage, plus insulation 1000 lbs or 454 kg, 400 kg hydrogen fuel equals 854 kg for fuel and tank, 35 kg for a suncube 1 square meter times 64 suncubes to generate 25 kwh of electrical power in space. We don't need as much mass, because it is in space, no weather issues. So let's assume that you can cut the cubes weight down by 75%. That gives 560 kg. for the cubes. Together, the fuel and the power takes up 1414 kg.
Need a heat exchanger and a nozzle, pumps and plumbing. I am wondering if the heat exchanger and the nozzle can be combined. That would save mass, hopefully. Some of the plumbing will be inside the heat exchangers. This may not be comparable in weight, but this engine here would probably be powerful enough to lift off the moon. It's mass is 242 kg. If that is all it weighs, we don't need to worry about exotic new combination of heat exchange and nozzle. Double the mass for those two. That gives another 242 kg.
Summing up the two above paragraphs, we arrive at 1898 kg.
That leaves 602 kg. for all of the rest of your equipment before you even get to crew and crew hab.
But not to worry. The moon's gravitation is but 1/6 of Earth's, so the thrust to mass ratio can be less than 1 and still lift off. Perhaps it can be as low as 1/4 to 1. The Shuttle's thrust to mass at liftoff was 1.5 to 1, so if you take 1/6th of that, you get about 1/4. So, we have a lot of room left. Even if I underestimated by a factor of 2, it would still leave a ratio of 1/2, which is twice 1/4.
This exercise is speculative of course. I'm not qualified to do a thorough enough and accurate enough job for this, but given the possibility of not being too far off, it would appear that a lunar module could be constructed that would allow you to launch missions off the moon into lunar orbit and beyond. That could be back to Earth, or to a Lagrangian point where a more capable machine could take you to ??? Mars, maybe?
Let's break down the various components to see what we can come up with:
Allow 500 gallon tank, stainless steel for hydrogen storage, plus insulation 1000 lbs or 454 kg, 400 kg hydrogen fuel equals 854 kg for fuel and tank, 35 kg for a suncube 1 square meter times 64 suncubes to generate 25 kwh of electrical power in space. We don't need as much mass, because it is in space, no weather issues. So let's assume that you can cut the cubes weight down by 75%. That gives 560 kg. for the cubes. Together, the fuel and the power takes up 1414 kg.
Need a heat exchanger and a nozzle, pumps and plumbing. I am wondering if the heat exchanger and the nozzle can be combined. That would save mass, hopefully. Some of the plumbing will be inside the heat exchangers. This may not be comparable in weight, but this engine here would probably be powerful enough to lift off the moon. It's mass is 242 kg. If that is all it weighs, we don't need to worry about exotic new combination of heat exchange and nozzle. Double the mass for those two. That gives another 242 kg.
Summing up the two above paragraphs, we arrive at 1898 kg.
That leaves 602 kg. for all of the rest of your equipment before you even get to crew and crew hab.
But not to worry. The moon's gravitation is but 1/6 of Earth's, so the thrust to mass ratio can be less than 1 and still lift off. Perhaps it can be as low as 1/4 to 1. The Shuttle's thrust to mass at liftoff was 1.5 to 1, so if you take 1/6th of that, you get about 1/4. So, we have a lot of room left. Even if I underestimated by a factor of 2, it would still leave a ratio of 1/2, which is twice 1/4.
This exercise is speculative of course. I'm not qualified to do a thorough enough and accurate enough job for this, but given the possibility of not being too far off, it would appear that a lunar module could be constructed that would allow you to launch missions off the moon into lunar orbit and beyond. That could be back to Earth, or to a Lagrangian point where a more capable machine could take you to ??? Mars, maybe?
Monday, October 3, 2011
As cold fusion events demonstrate, modern science is ruled by conformity, not the search for scientific truth
Posted by aksell on August 29, 2011
Outline
Too many people dropping the ball, so to speak.
Outline
- The systematic discrediting of cold fusion
- A 30 percent success rate means it’s real
- Modern science seeks to protect its interests, not to reveal truth
- Ego is the enemy of science innovation
Too many people dropping the ball, so to speak.
How to enrich Uranium - Periodic Table of Videos
I'm putting this up because I want to understand how enrichment works. If that can be used for palladium. Now that I've looked, the answer is probably no. If it is possible, it isn't worth the effort.
Fleischmann Pons, II
It appears that I was on the right track yesterday in one regard. I put together this chart, which summarizes the reactions in a more succinct manner:
It appears that the reactions get more vigorous as you go down the chain. That is to say, the energy produced per minute is higher because of the increasingly shorter half lives.
The calculation is derived by taking MeV per minute of the half life. When less than a minute, it was converted to a fraction. When greater than an hour, it was multiplied by 60 minutes to the hour.
As you can see, once we get to palladium 110, the energy production rapidly diminishes from the peak. The peak is at 108, just before it. You could still take out the 105 and 110 isotopes, and just use the rest.
It may well be that I was mistaken about the first isotope. It it too slow and there isn't enough of it to make a difference. However, if the best reaction at 108 is underrepresented, it could slow down the overall reaction (maybe).
This discussion leaves off the mechanism of how the fusion takes place, as well as many other details. It is written as a thought experiment. Perhaps a real one could be devised to test it.
 |
| The reaction product is an unstable isotope of silver, it beta decays and transmutes back into palladium at 102, 104. At 105, silver is stable, at higher masses, it transmutes into cadmium. |
It appears that the reactions get more vigorous as you go down the chain. That is to say, the energy produced per minute is higher because of the increasingly shorter half lives.
The calculation is derived by taking MeV per minute of the half life. When less than a minute, it was converted to a fraction. When greater than an hour, it was multiplied by 60 minutes to the hour.
As you can see, once we get to palladium 110, the energy production rapidly diminishes from the peak. The peak is at 108, just before it. You could still take out the 105 and 110 isotopes, and just use the rest.
It may well be that I was mistaken about the first isotope. It it too slow and there isn't enough of it to make a difference. However, if the best reaction at 108 is underrepresented, it could slow down the overall reaction (maybe).
This discussion leaves off the mechanism of how the fusion takes place, as well as many other details. It is written as a thought experiment. Perhaps a real one could be devised to test it.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Fleischmann Pons: What might have gone wrong
This is mostly a wild guess because I am not studying their work. Instead, I'm speculating upon a few possibilities. From what little I've read about their work, it looks like they may not have considered the possibility that the deuterons could be fusing with the palladium. Secondly, the quality of the reactions may depend upon what isotopes were in the sample. Thirdly, if they weren't looking for this, they may have been overlooking the evidence of this, as there should have been cadmium, if the fusions were taking place.
Let's look at the normal concentrations of palladium:
Over 50% of the palladium is the isotopes of 102 and 104 through 106. Since a deuteron is of atomic mass approximately equal to 2, each fusion will move the atomic weight up by 2. For example, a fusion of palladium 102 will yield silver 104, which can be seen as beta plus decaying below:
But this is only 1 percent of the palladium. What about the rest? It so happens that the rest of the chain does not proceed as well if you start with an isotope of greater mass. Palladium 104 fused with deuterium yields the following:
Now, you are up to palladium 106, which is stable. What happens if another fusion takes place? You will get mostly cadmium via beta minus decay, as follows:
We get no further benefit, as we can see from the isotopes of cadmium chart, no further beta decays are going to be available. Cadmium 112, 114, and 116 just aren't going to be useful because they are stable, and the one isotope, 116 that isn't has a very long half life.
If we follow this chain, we get several good reactions, but it will have to stop with the production of cadmium. However, this chain starts with an isotope that makes up only 1% of the total amount of palladium. What happens if we start at some other isotope. If we start at 104 and 106, we get a shorter version of this chain.
If we start with palladium 105, which makes up a significant portion of the sample, the reaction stops with the production of silver. If palladium 105 is overrepresentative in the sample, the potential is reduced. Likewise, if palladium 102 is underrepresentative, the potential is also reduced.
Palladium 110 doesn't do much good since it will end there at cadmium, as indicated above. Very short chain. That leaves palladium 108, which is shown below:
In summary, 102, 104, 106, and 108 all work, but you should start with 102, which is the most rare isotope. I think that is the whole point. The other chains are too short and most of the palladium isn't all that useful. If you just start with 102, you will generate the rest of the chain in sequence. Most of it isn't very good. You can use it, but not for as much energy production as you may have wished for.
You could remove palladium 105 and 110 altogether since they don't help. This makes up almost a third of the palladium in a normal sample. Over 1/2 of the palladium gives short chains.
Let's look at the normal concentrations of palladium:
 |
| http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/resources/n-lengths/elements/pd.html |
 |
| http://www.kcvs.ca/site/projects/physics_files/nucleus/decays.swf |
 |
| slightly less energy from this beta plus decay |
 |
| This is still good, but cadmium doesn't like to cooperate any further, the chain stops here |
We get no further benefit, as we can see from the isotopes of cadmium chart, no further beta decays are going to be available. Cadmium 112, 114, and 116 just aren't going to be useful because they are stable, and the one isotope, 116 that isn't has a very long half life.
If we follow this chain, we get several good reactions, but it will have to stop with the production of cadmium. However, this chain starts with an isotope that makes up only 1% of the total amount of palladium. What happens if we start at some other isotope. If we start at 104 and 106, we get a shorter version of this chain.
If we start with palladium 105, which makes up a significant portion of the sample, the reaction stops with the production of silver. If palladium 105 is overrepresentative in the sample, the potential is reduced. Likewise, if palladium 102 is underrepresentative, the potential is also reduced.
Palladium 110 doesn't do much good since it will end there at cadmium, as indicated above. Very short chain. That leaves palladium 108, which is shown below:
 |
| Back to cadmium, it the chain will end here |
In summary, 102, 104, 106, and 108 all work, but you should start with 102, which is the most rare isotope. I think that is the whole point. The other chains are too short and most of the palladium isn't all that useful. If you just start with 102, you will generate the rest of the chain in sequence. Most of it isn't very good. You can use it, but not for as much energy production as you may have wished for.
You could remove palladium 105 and 110 altogether since they don't help. This makes up almost a third of the palladium in a normal sample. Over 1/2 of the palladium gives short chains.
Morning Summary, 10/2
Good morning. It seems like a good time to study Pons and Fleischmann a bit to see if there can be an explanation for why it gives inconsistent results. Posting will be light until or if one can be found. If there is, I will post it as an update.
Update:
I will have a post on this later, for sure. Maybe today, or by tomorrow.
Update:
I will have a post on this later, for sure. Maybe today, or by tomorrow.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?
by Dott. Giuliano Bettini Retired. Earlier: Selenia SpA, Rome and IDS SpA, Pisa Also Adjunct Professor at the University of PisaAdjunct Professor at Naval Academy, Leghorn (Italian Navy) link via Rossi's site or blog
This is as good of a post that can describe in as simple a fashion as possible how the E-cat may work. It depends upon one of the many theories that attempts to explain cold fusion. Frankly, I like the BECNF theory a bit better. Why?
Simple, really. I read about Bose Einstein condensates many years ago. I think it is fair to say that you favor that which you are most familiar. I am not familiar with Stremmenos' theory. It is as simple as that. It would be incorrect to say that I think one theory is better than another. I do not know the answer to that question.
It is, after all, a post that I categorize as "armchair physics". Not professional. I make no such claims. It is an attempt by yours truly to understand something that is difficult, and to try to discuss it in an intelligent manner. Hopefully, I don't botch it too badly.
Now, for Stremmenos' theory. Again, not trying to botch it too badly, so here goes a little ditty on that.
There is such a thing as muon catalyzed fusion. Muons exist and are, for want of a better explanation, are like "heavy" electrons. They are negatively charged, like electrons, but aren't electrons. So, they can balance out the electrical charge of a proton, which is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. The heaviness of the muon shrinks the size of the hydrogen atom. It then becomes something like Stremmenos' mini atom. The mini atom (muon proton combo) tunnels through the Coulomb barrier and fuses with the nucleus. Ta da! You have fusion. That's muon catalyzed fusion.
But Stremmenos doesn't depend upon muons, but some other mechanism for making mini atoms. Let's look at a quote from that post:
It appears that the mini atoms can exist for a long enough period to be captured. That's because 10 -18 is a bigger number than 10 -20 . The mini atoms exist long enough for the nuclear reaction to take place. I think that may be the key understanding here. That is, if I didn't botch it.
Update:
You get steam heat from that reaction
This is as good of a post that can describe in as simple a fashion as possible how the E-cat may work. It depends upon one of the many theories that attempts to explain cold fusion. Frankly, I like the BECNF theory a bit better. Why?
Simple, really. I read about Bose Einstein condensates many years ago. I think it is fair to say that you favor that which you are most familiar. I am not familiar with Stremmenos' theory. It is as simple as that. It would be incorrect to say that I think one theory is better than another. I do not know the answer to that question.
It is, after all, a post that I categorize as "armchair physics". Not professional. I make no such claims. It is an attempt by yours truly to understand something that is difficult, and to try to discuss it in an intelligent manner. Hopefully, I don't botch it too badly.
Now, for Stremmenos' theory. Again, not trying to botch it too badly, so here goes a little ditty on that.
There is such a thing as muon catalyzed fusion. Muons exist and are, for want of a better explanation, are like "heavy" electrons. They are negatively charged, like electrons, but aren't electrons. So, they can balance out the electrical charge of a proton, which is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. The heaviness of the muon shrinks the size of the hydrogen atom. It then becomes something like Stremmenos' mini atom. The mini atom (muon proton combo) tunnels through the Coulomb barrier and fuses with the nucleus. Ta da! You have fusion. That's muon catalyzed fusion.
But Stremmenos doesn't depend upon muons, but some other mechanism for making mini atoms. Let's look at a quote from that post:
it is conceivable that, for a very short time period (e.g. 10ˆ-18 sec), a series of neutral mini atoms of hydrogen could be formed, in an unstable state, of various size and energy level, distributed within the Fermi band, which is enlarged due to the very short time (Heisenberg).
The neutral mini-atoms of high energy and very short wave length – which is in phase with the “cyclic” orbit (de Broglie) – are statistically captured be the nickel nuclei of the crystal structure with the speed of nuclear reactions (10ˆ-20 sec).
It appears that the mini atoms can exist for a long enough period to be captured. That's because 10 -18 is a bigger number than 10 -20 . The mini atoms exist long enough for the nuclear reaction to take place. I think that may be the key understanding here. That is, if I didn't botch it.
Update:
You get steam heat from that reaction
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Free Energy Truth: Rossi eCat US Partner Firm: Is It KPCB?
Rossi eCat US Partner Firm: Is It KPCB?
Comment: What got my attention was the Bloom Box. I've never heard of it before. It appears to work, as it has several well known corporations who are using it.
Anyway, there's not a whole lot of time to comment upon the Free Energy post linked above. I wanted to make note of the Bloom Box.
I don't understand the Bloom Box, you see. I need to get up to date on that. If it looks good, I will have something to post about it later, time permitting.
Update:
The Bloom Box uses Scandium, a rare element, usually found with Rare Earths. These can be found on the moon. They can be found on the Earth as well, but evidently not in great abundance as I quote from Wikipedia:
What about making Scandium? You can try to make it from Calcium, if you have neutrons. But that looks to be easier said than done.
Just conquer space and all this stuff will be in such abundance that you won't know what to do with it all.
Comment: What got my attention was the Bloom Box. I've never heard of it before. It appears to work, as it has several well known corporations who are using it.
Anyway, there's not a whole lot of time to comment upon the Free Energy post linked above. I wanted to make note of the Bloom Box.
I don't understand the Bloom Box, you see. I need to get up to date on that. If it looks good, I will have something to post about it later, time permitting.
Update:
The Bloom Box uses Scandium, a rare element, usually found with Rare Earths. These can be found on the moon. They can be found on the Earth as well, but evidently not in great abundance as I quote from Wikipedia:
The absence of reliable, secure, stable and long term production has limited commercial applications of scandium. Despite this low level of use, scandium offers significant benefits. Particularly promising is the strengthening of aluminium alloys with as little as 0.5% scandium. Scandium-stabilized zirconia enjoys a growing market demand for use as a high efficiency electrolyte in solid oxide fuel cells.
What about making Scandium? You can try to make it from Calcium, if you have neutrons. But that looks to be easier said than done.
Just conquer space and all this stuff will be in such abundance that you won't know what to do with it all.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
More about E-cat, gold and LENR
Seriously, the idea of making gold this way is a disservice to the idea of wealth creation. When it comes to gold, you can't do anything with it. Sure, it is a traditional store of value, but you can't use it for much of anything.
Contrast this with platinum, which can be used for catalysts. You can make fuel cells much more affordable if you can come up with a source of platinum. I can look further into that today, if I get the time.
If you want platinum, you can mine it, or in this case, you can even make it. But why? Platinum is usually found with platinum group metals, and you have to start with a platinum group metal (pgm) in order to get it to platinum by way of neutrons and beta decays. Since pgms are valuable in their own right, it makes sense to use it all, instead of converting it to platinum. But you may be able to convert it if you want more platinum. For this, you need neutrons.
The trouble with neutrons is that it this means radioactivity, which is a problem. You don't want to go there.
Rather than make platinum from pgms, you can mine them off the moon. Or some folks think you can. This is what I'll look into further, since I purchased Wingo's book "Moonrush". It is about mining the moon for pgms, if I am not mistaken.
I am going to check back into Platinum Moon, which I read last year and wrote about on this blog. The author is said to have gotten his inspiration from Wingo's book.
Contrast this with platinum, which can be used for catalysts. You can make fuel cells much more affordable if you can come up with a source of platinum. I can look further into that today, if I get the time.
If you want platinum, you can mine it, or in this case, you can even make it. But why? Platinum is usually found with platinum group metals, and you have to start with a platinum group metal (pgm) in order to get it to platinum by way of neutrons and beta decays. Since pgms are valuable in their own right, it makes sense to use it all, instead of converting it to platinum. But you may be able to convert it if you want more platinum. For this, you need neutrons.
The trouble with neutrons is that it this means radioactivity, which is a problem. You don't want to go there.
Rather than make platinum from pgms, you can mine them off the moon. Or some folks think you can. This is what I'll look into further, since I purchased Wingo's book "Moonrush". It is about mining the moon for pgms, if I am not mistaken.
I am going to check back into Platinum Moon, which I read last year and wrote about on this blog. The author is said to have gotten his inspiration from Wingo's book.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Whimsical idea: create your own gold mine
This is an idea that is similar to the old alchemist's dream of turning lead to gold. What you could do instead is to turn mercury into gold. How? You need a source of neutrons and a some Hg 196, an isotope of mercury, which is in sparse concentration in nature.
It appears that mercury will accept a neutron, since it has a pretty good size barn . There's two problems (that I know of). 1) getting a source of neutrons and 2) getting the isotope needed, since it is rather sparse. Assuming you could do that, you could make gold by bombarding the mercury with neutrons. It will beta decay (electron capture) into gold, which assumes that you get a stable isotope.
How do you get neutrons? Usually this is done with radioactive sources ( as far as I know). There may be a couple other ways. The first way is by making a Polywell device and fusing deuterium. This will produce your neutrons all right, but you may want to slow them down. Also, you don't know if this is going to produce the number you need in order to make it worthwhile.
Another way is by way of LENR. Widom Larsen proposes that a suitable hydride can make ultra low momentum neutrons. These neutrons, assuming that they exist, can be used to bombard the mercury and make gold.
This is a bit whimsical because- once you make the gold, and assuming that you can make a lot of it at a relatively cheap price ( quite a presumption by the way), you will have destroyed its economic basis. Sort of self defeating. But diamonds can be made artificially. If there was no way to tell them from the real ones, diamonds would be worthless. ( ha ha)
 |
| the isotope needed would only be in concentrations of less than 1 percent |
How do you get neutrons? Usually this is done with radioactive sources ( as far as I know). There may be a couple other ways. The first way is by making a Polywell device and fusing deuterium. This will produce your neutrons all right, but you may want to slow them down. Also, you don't know if this is going to produce the number you need in order to make it worthwhile.
Another way is by way of LENR. Widom Larsen proposes that a suitable hydride can make ultra low momentum neutrons. These neutrons, assuming that they exist, can be used to bombard the mercury and make gold.
 |
| mercury to gold? you gotta be kiddin' me |
This is a bit whimsical because- once you make the gold, and assuming that you can make a lot of it at a relatively cheap price ( quite a presumption by the way), you will have destroyed its economic basis. Sort of self defeating. But diamonds can be made artificially. If there was no way to tell them from the real ones, diamonds would be worthless. ( ha ha)
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Morning Summary, 8/3
Good morning.
It appears that I have reached a snag in my armchair physics studies. It will take a long time to study it all in order to be able to understand it properly. After spending some time on it this morning, the significance of my lack of understanding was becoming more clear to me.
After reaching my age, I have noticed a tendency of mine- many times than what I care to remember- to take on more than I can chew. And here I am, having done it again.
With respect to "cold fusion", it is enough for me to say that I understand it to be incorrect use of language. I respect language enough to want to make that distinction. Cold, in this sense, means low energy. Fusion in this sense, means strong nuclear force. Putting those terms together appears oxymoronic. In order to bring about fusion, one needs high energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and bring the strong nuclear force into play. Therefore, it would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Hence, the confusion of cold fusion.
Low energy nuclear reactions seem to be the more correct term. It is not fusion, it is not overcoming the Coulomb barrier, it does not invoke the strong nuclear force. It invokes the weak nuclear force instead. The forces in the Standard Model of Particle Physics are: strong, weak, and electromagnetic. Strong and weak nuclear forces are substantially different from each other. For example, the Coulomb barrier implies electromagnetic force. Likewise, weak nuclear force involves beta decay; not fusion, nor fission. Fusion and fission belong to the strong nuclear force. Beta decays do not make bombs. But they can be used to make energy.
It has taken me awhile to get to this point. But I haven't got a lot of time. Let's just leave it at this point. I think I've got it now- so as to understand these most basic points. No need to pass myself off as an expert. Let that distinction be made clear. I am just an ordinary guy trying to understand a difficult subject. And write about it as best I can.
It appears that I have reached a snag in my armchair physics studies. It will take a long time to study it all in order to be able to understand it properly. After spending some time on it this morning, the significance of my lack of understanding was becoming more clear to me.
After reaching my age, I have noticed a tendency of mine- many times than what I care to remember- to take on more than I can chew. And here I am, having done it again.
With respect to "cold fusion", it is enough for me to say that I understand it to be incorrect use of language. I respect language enough to want to make that distinction. Cold, in this sense, means low energy. Fusion in this sense, means strong nuclear force. Putting those terms together appears oxymoronic. In order to bring about fusion, one needs high energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and bring the strong nuclear force into play. Therefore, it would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Hence, the confusion of cold fusion.
Low energy nuclear reactions seem to be the more correct term. It is not fusion, it is not overcoming the Coulomb barrier, it does not invoke the strong nuclear force. It invokes the weak nuclear force instead. The forces in the Standard Model of Particle Physics are: strong, weak, and electromagnetic. Strong and weak nuclear forces are substantially different from each other. For example, the Coulomb barrier implies electromagnetic force. Likewise, weak nuclear force involves beta decay; not fusion, nor fission. Fusion and fission belong to the strong nuclear force. Beta decays do not make bombs. But they can be used to make energy.
It has taken me awhile to get to this point. But I haven't got a lot of time. Let's just leave it at this point. I think I've got it now- so as to understand these most basic points. No need to pass myself off as an expert. Let that distinction be made clear. I am just an ordinary guy trying to understand a difficult subject. And write about it as best I can.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Electron-Phonon Coupling at the Tungsten Surface
Another BECNF post here. At first blush, this may not seem relevant since BECNF doesn't mention this coupling. I got interested in it because of phonons, as phonons can act as bosons, which are relevant to the theory.
There may also be an objection with respect to Tungsten, since the BECNF is about Ni H systems, not tungsten.
What caught my attention, besides the phonon reference was this quote near the end:
As I noted before, "cold fusion" has been said to be a surface effect phenomenon.
A closer look at this paper allows another quote that I find interesting:
Rossi's catalyst then, could be key. Maybe that is why it is such a big secret.
There may also be an objection with respect to Tungsten, since the BECNF is about Ni H systems, not tungsten.
What caught my attention, besides the phonon reference was this quote near the end:
This is an important dissipation channel for energy and will affect chemical reactions at surfaces, such as reactions on catalysts. Another interesting implication is the possibility of an electron-phonon-mediated superconductivity that is confined to the surfaces of metals and has a greatly enhanced critical temperature as compared to ordinary superconductors. [emphasis added]
As I noted before, "cold fusion" has been said to be a surface effect phenomenon.
A closer look at this paper allows another quote that I find interesting:
Since these "many-body" effects are often more prominent in physical systems with less than three dimensions [ comment: as you would find on the surface] carefully prepared surfaces furnish good two-dimensional test beds for examining these effects in detail.BCEs in this context probably qualify as a type of "many-body" effects referred to here.
Rossi's catalyst then, could be key. Maybe that is why it is such a big secret.
Pauli exclusion principle and the BECNF theory
I'm still trying to get my mind around this theory. The next question is this: How does a BEC suppress the Coulomb Barrier and allow "cold fusion"?
The answer? It must be the Pauli Exclusion Principle
As we saw in the last post, distance is key in the Coulomb Barrier
Therefore, the BEC allows the atoms to get close enough for the strong force to take over and fusion takes place.
Update 7/26
You know, this wasn't very clearly written. The point was supposed to be about the Pauli Exclusion Principle and somehow this didn't get explained. Very well, let me try again. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is what makes matter the way that it is. Matter takes up space, as mentioned above. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is why: two atoms, which must obey this principle, cannot share the same quantum state, and therefore must be far apart. For this reason, they are called "fermions", because they obey this principle. Bosons do not. As Bose and Einstein predicted, bosons will condense under appropriate conditions. This means that the atoms of matter will get closer together. The BECNF theory posits that a condensate is forming that is allowing the atoms to get close enough together in order to allow fusion to take place. Under normal conditions, this will not happen. The BECNF theory explains under what conditions these condensates may be forming which are allowing the Coulomb barrier to be overcome which will allow fusion at low temperatures.
With respect to the Coulomb barrier, fusion can take place either by the above theory, if proven correct, or by very high temperatures, which is the way it is being attempted by the hot fusioneers. Either way may work in theory, but what separates the two is that Rossi may have found out how to do this in a commercially feasible way, which would be quite an achievement.
The answer? It must be the Pauli Exclusion Principle
It causes atoms to take up the space they do, since electrons cannot all congregate in the lowest-energy state but must occupy higher energy states at a distance from lower-energy electrons, therefore matter made of atoms occupies space rather than being condensed.
As we saw in the last post, distance is key in the Coulomb Barrier
In order to accomplish nuclear fusion, the particles involved must first overcome the electric repulsion to get close enough for the attractive nuclear strong force to take over to fuse the particles.
Therefore, the BEC allows the atoms to get close enough for the strong force to take over and fusion takes place.
Update 7/26
You know, this wasn't very clearly written. The point was supposed to be about the Pauli Exclusion Principle and somehow this didn't get explained. Very well, let me try again. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is what makes matter the way that it is. Matter takes up space, as mentioned above. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is why: two atoms, which must obey this principle, cannot share the same quantum state, and therefore must be far apart. For this reason, they are called "fermions", because they obey this principle. Bosons do not. As Bose and Einstein predicted, bosons will condense under appropriate conditions. This means that the atoms of matter will get closer together. The BECNF theory posits that a condensate is forming that is allowing the atoms to get close enough together in order to allow fusion to take place. Under normal conditions, this will not happen. The BECNF theory explains under what conditions these condensates may be forming which are allowing the Coulomb barrier to be overcome which will allow fusion at low temperatures.
With respect to the Coulomb barrier, fusion can take place either by the above theory, if proven correct, or by very high temperatures, which is the way it is being attempted by the hot fusioneers. Either way may work in theory, but what separates the two is that Rossi may have found out how to do this in a commercially feasible way, which would be quite an achievement.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Rossi's Self Sustaining One Megawatt Reactor
by Hank Mills Pure Energy Systems News
I think that a self sustaining reactor should be the final "nail in the coffin" for the skeptics. Where does the energy come from if all other sources have been eliminated?
The fact that the one megawatt plant will use no input power (the vast majority of the time) is very important. This will be absolute -- beyond any doubt -- proof that the technology works as claimed. Simply put, the pathological skeptics and naysayers will not be able to refute that cold fusion is taking place. [emphasis added]
As for why it could work, the Bose Einstein Condensate Theory may check out. Several weeks ago, I recall seeing this observation about the phenomenon known as "cold fusion"
 |
| "cold fusion is a surface effect phenomenon", http://youtu.be/gGJiLrG3fLY, at 46 minutes into video |
Now, let's look at the Bose Einstein Condensate Theory, put forth by Yeong Kim, Purdue Nuclear and Many Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) Preprint PNMBTG-6-2011 (June 2011)
(1) additives used (not disclosed in the patent application) form Ni alloy and/or Ni metal/alloy oxide in the surface regions of nickel nano-scale particles, so that Ni atoms/nuclei become mobile with a sufficiently large diffusion coefficient and (2) local magnetic field is very weak in the surface regions, providing a suitable environment in which two neighboring protons can couple their spins anti-parallel to form spin-zero singlet state (S=0). Relatively low Curie temperature (nickel has the Curie temperature of 631 oK (~358 oC)) is expected to help to maintain the weak magnetic field in the surface regions [emphasis added]
There may be some objections to the Bose Einstein Condensates forming at these temperatures, but the others who say it can happen. The theory has to be experimentally tested.
Returning to Mill's article:
Secondly, the nickel powder is processed in such a way that tubercles or protrusions form on it. After this processing, the nickel may resemble filamentary nickel.
This further supports the notion that it is a surface phenomenon. Filaments mean more surface area, I gather.
The high surface activity of T255 nickel powder's fine filamentary structure facilitates diffusion during sintering, ensuring high porosity with good strength, superior conductivity and long battery life.[http://www.incosp.com/products/type_255/]In a Bose Einstein Condensate, the coulomb barrier is suppressed, which allows the "cold fusion" reaction to take place.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Bose Einstein Condensate and LENR
I won't discuss this much. Just that it struck me like a bolt of lightening. (okay, maybe that's an exaggeration) It did get my attention, put it that way. I put the key phrases in italics and bold for emphasis.
7. Summary and Conclusions
A generalization of the BEC mechanism for one specie LENR processes in condensed matters has been made to the case of a mixture of two different species of positively charged Bose nuclei in harmonic traps. Depending on the ratio of the parameters involved, it is shown that the two components may coexist in same regions of space, in spite of the Coulomb repulsion between two species. We have obtained an approximate selection rule involving nuclear masses and charges of two species.
When it exists in the same regions of space, fusion can take place. Normally, this is not possible. Okay, is this big time or am I dreaming?
This paper was created in 2004, so it isn't something dreamed up yesterday in order to explain the E-cat.
7. Summary and Conclusions
A generalization of the BEC mechanism for one specie LENR processes in condensed matters has been made to the case of a mixture of two different species of positively charged Bose nuclei in harmonic traps. Depending on the ratio of the parameters involved, it is shown that the two components may coexist in same regions of space, in spite of the Coulomb repulsion between two species. We have obtained an approximate selection rule involving nuclear masses and charges of two species.
When it exists in the same regions of space, fusion can take place. Normally, this is not possible. Okay, is this big time or am I dreaming?
This paper was created in 2004, so it isn't something dreamed up yesterday in order to explain the E-cat.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Bose Einstein Condensates and the E-cat
Somebody else responded to my question to Andrea Rossi besides Rossi himself. It was the observation that these condensates form at very low temperatures. However, a little digging shows that it can be predicted that these condensates can form at very high temperatures too. I cite the source here:
I found the link to this from the Wikipedia entry on Bose Einstein condensates, footnote number 10. There is more to this, but I have shortened it because of a lack of time. It should be easy enough to follow, though.
Update:
As I wrote before, the topic here is way above my pay scale, so I think I'll let it drop at this point. It is interesting reading to a certain extent, but without the formal education to fully understand it, I feel a bit confused sometimes when I read this stuff.
I've been spending the last few hours reading over such topics as "spin" and "anti parallel" and so forth. As best as I can determine, the theory offered to explain the e-cat's low energy nuclear reaction seems plausible. I'd rather not go much further than that. That belongs in a discussion elsewhere.
Update:
Here's some information on Yeong E. Kim. I'd say it looks pretty impressive.
It has been predicted that a quasi-equilibrium system of bosons could undergo Bose-Einstein condensation even at relatively high temperatures, if the flow rate of energy pumped into the system exceeds a critical value.
I found the link to this from the Wikipedia entry on Bose Einstein condensates, footnote number 10. There is more to this, but I have shortened it because of a lack of time. It should be easy enough to follow, though.
Update:
As I wrote before, the topic here is way above my pay scale, so I think I'll let it drop at this point. It is interesting reading to a certain extent, but without the formal education to fully understand it, I feel a bit confused sometimes when I read this stuff.
I've been spending the last few hours reading over such topics as "spin" and "anti parallel" and so forth. As best as I can determine, the theory offered to explain the e-cat's low energy nuclear reaction seems plausible. I'd rather not go much further than that. That belongs in a discussion elsewhere.
Update:
Here's some information on Yeong E. Kim. I'd say it looks pretty impressive.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Statistical correlation for the composite Boson
Baigeng Wang, Jian Wang
(Submitted on 16 May 2002)
I found this from a Google search on the words "singlet composite Bosons". It is not a new theory, since this was published nearly 10 years ago.
Just trying to grasp the theory put forth to explain the E-cat with a scientific theory that I've been looking at recently.
Just asked a question of Mr. Rossi
The question is awaiting moderation. I am anxious to see what the answer is.
Update:
Here's the answer:
Dear Greg M.:
Please make your point: I am sure Prof. Yeong E.Kim will answer you. His work is very good, this is my comment.
Warm regards,
A.R.
[emphasis added]
I guess the comment suffices. What's my point? Hell, I don't know. I figured he may have some idea and would like to comment upon it.
It looks to me like the theory is explaining how the fusion can take place. He wants to conduct some experiments in order to confirm the theory, if my reading is correct.
Greg M.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 17th, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi:
I have read the Bose Einstein Condensate Theory here. If I may quote:
“(2) local magnetic field is very weak in the surface regions, providing a suitable environment in which two neighboring protons can couple their spins anti-parallel to form spin-zero singlet state”
and
“…This may provide a suitable environment in which more of both Ni atoms/nuclei and protons become mobile, thus creating a favorable environment for the case of two species of Bosons (Ni nuclei and composite Bosons of paired two protons).”
and
“The generalized BECNF theory can now be applied to these two-species of Bosons and provides a mechanism for the suppression/cancellation of the Coulomb barrier”
Do you have any comments?
Many thanks,
Greg M.
Update:
Here's the answer:
Dear Greg M.:
Please make your point: I am sure Prof. Yeong E.Kim will answer you. His work is very good, this is my comment.
Warm regards,
A.R.
[emphasis added]
I guess the comment suffices. What's my point? Hell, I don't know. I figured he may have some idea and would like to comment upon it.
It looks to me like the theory is explaining how the fusion can take place. He wants to conduct some experiments in order to confirm the theory, if my reading is correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)