Good morning.
What to write about today? Well, it may instructive to study magnetism with respect to the Fleischmann Pons cold fusion experiment. It appears that Bose Einstein condensate theory may be applicable to the F&P apparatus. Let's say that I'm willing to look at the idea for now.
The stock market was down yesterday. Let's take a look at that too.
And politics is always with us.
Stay tuned, it could get interesting.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
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.
Morning Summary, 10/3
Good morning. The discussion yesterday about Fleischmann-Pons was missing a few more details. Firstly, palladium is a noble metal, in the platinum group (pgm). It is expensive. Separating the many isotopes may be even more expensive. Perhaps the additional costs and complexity may have discouraged this line of experiment.
I will post a little more on this subject today. Currently, I am reading a little about their experiment to see if I can confirm anything I've written so far.
Also, today, I may write a little more about Skylon.
The day is rapidly approaching for the E-cat's big test. I will keep up to speed on that.
As usual, it will be a busy day.
I will post a little more on this subject today. Currently, I am reading a little about their experiment to see if I can confirm anything I've written so far.
Also, today, I may write a little more about Skylon.
The day is rapidly approaching for the E-cat's big test. I will keep up to speed on that.
As usual, it will be a busy day.
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
Test on E-Cat Will Be Conducted on Oct 6th in Bologna, Italy with Invited Academics
Daniele Passarini has posted a copy of a letter sent by Dr. Franco Sicogna to the European Patent Office inviting representatives to attend a demonstration of one of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat modules. The letter reads in part:
"There is certainly an air of confidence about this whole event"
Knock 'em dead!
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)