Thursday, October 24, 2013

A SEMINAL NEW PAPER ABOUT NEW ENERGY.

The ICCF-18 paper:
"Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for 
Experimental Results of Hydrogen-Nickel Systems" by Yeong E. Kim and John Hadjichristos can be accessed from now at
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-1.pdf

I consider this paper of paramount importance, both by what it says and by the
new ways it opens, trends it suggests- it is a (the) genuine New Wave in New Energy opus.
I hope you will approach it with a positive/open minded attitude; your questions
and comments focused on the paper are welcome.
Peter

18 comments:

  1. I wonder why the estimable Dr. Kim did not choose a main line paper such as Nature or Science to publish in. If indeed he and Hadjichristos proved the existence of high power LENR and giant magnetic fields associated with it, it would have been very easy to pass peer review and get published.

    I suspect the data in the paper and level of detail given do not support the possibility of publication in a *real* journal subject to peer review and that is why they chose to use a venue which is not reviewed and in which any professor at that institution can publish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just noticed that some of the more out-of-the-box papers written by the physics superstar and my latest hero Xiao-Gang Wen - BMO Financial Group Isaac Newton Chair in Theoretical Physics at Perimeter Institute were rejected for publication.


      You cannot go too far without shocking the system. A good deal of time is required to ease in new ideas; even Einstein had trouble getting his foot in the science door of his day.


      In my opinion, rejection of publication just says that the ideas are not main-streamed enough.

      Delete
    2. Not a bad idea at all- for the near future. However THIS paper was presented at ICCF-18 and this fact determines its way of publication.
      Rules have to be respected
      Peter

      Delete
    3. unless Defkalion succeed in reaching the market and ridiculing the dogmatic decidedr of Science/Nature, there is no hope of any LENr paper to enter that aristocratic arena.


      Report41 was much more detailed, and was dumped before peer-review.
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?404-Report-41-DeNinno-by-ENEA-and-rejection&p=1780&viewfull=1#post1780

      before that a peer-reviewed paper was dumbped even good, just because it was LENR
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?374-Nature-policy-on-CF-critic-Oriani-s-paper-dumped-despite-positive-Peer-review


      bad papers on the opposites were not corrected because they were th keystone of lenr denial:

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?799-How-Nature-refused-to-re-examine-the-1989-CalTech-experiment

      remember that quote:

      "please stop pretending thos magazine are honest...
      believing that is not even delusion, but just manipulation of innocent readers who don't know how things are in real life."

      Delete
    4. sorry I forgot the quote
      ""It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann. . . . Putting the 'Cold Fusion' issue on the same page with Wien, Rayleigh-Jeans, Davison Germer, Einstein, and Planck is analogous to comparing a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible." [7]"

      Delete
  2. Part 1 of 2

    There is too much unknown physics happening inside the Ni/H reactor to support the analysis that has been supplied in this paper.


    First off, only fusion is sited as occurring in the Ni/H reaction. There is good evidence from the characterization of the ash coming from the Ni/H reactors to support the limitation of just fusion as this reaction’s only nuclear mechanism.


    The most appropriate characterization of the Ni/H reaction is that the nuclear process underway is producing quark plasma where the nucleus rearranges itself in a new lattice configuration of protons and neutrons.


    In explanation, the nucleus seems to have seven magic numbers. An atom with a magic number of protons or neutrons is super stable.


    When both the protons and neutrons are magic, that's a double magic atom. There are only seven of them.


    The seven magic numbers are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, and 126. They are the number of nucleons - which can be either protons or neutrons - you need to fill up the shells found in the atomic nucleus. The completely filled shells cause the atomic nucleus to be more tightly bound together than simple calculations would predict, meaning the magic atoms are unusually stable.


    So, if both the neutrons and protons happen to be magic numbers, the atom is not only extra stable, but its nucleus is also rigidly symmetrical, which is very unusual and helps observers confirm the doubly magic properties of the atom.


    These isotopes - which include helium-4 (2 protons and 2 neutrons, and one of the most abundant isotopes in the universe), lead-208 (82 protons and 126 neutrons, and the heaviest stable atom), and the pair of calcium-48 and nickel-48 (the former has 20 protons and 28 neutrons, while the latter is vice versa). The latest to be discovered is tin-132, which has 50 protons and 82 neutrons.


    These protons and neutrons form proton and neutron lattice layers as follows


    The magic numbers are then

    •   2
    •   8=2+6
    •  20=2+6+12
    •  28=2+6+12+8
    •  50=2+6+12+8+22
    •  82=2+6+12+8+22+32
    • 126=2+6+12+8+22+32+44
    • 184=2+6+12+8+22+32+44+58


    Miley and Hora identified that nuclei undergoing a LENR reaction want to stabilize at the highly stable double magic number configuration.


    This is because neutrons want to be paired with protons to form a symmetrical nucleus with perfectly shaped lattice based shells.
    .

    Elements with lots of unpaired neutrons like Th232 and U238 would make for great LENR metals. These metals would stabilize at lead 208.


    Some nuclides are double-magic, in that the number of protons and neutrons are both magic, such as helium-4, oxygen-16, calcium-40, calcium-48, nickel-48, and lead-208. These isotopes are particularly stable and this is where LENR wants to go.


    Hora who is Miley’s collaborator, makes a convincing case that the nucleus conforms to a R (n) (n = 1, 2, 3…) of the Boltzmann probabilities, namely R (n) = 3 to the nth power. This suggests a threefold property of stable configurations at magic numbers in Nuclei, consistent with a quark property.

    Now, we can use this nuclear engineering background to predict what the LENR ash content will look like when the nucleus is broken down into a quark soup.


    In LENR two concurrent processes are occurring simultaneously: fusion and fission.


    Fusion occurs when more than one nucleus is affected in the zone of the reaction.


    The relative strength of these two reactions will reflect the amount of screening that the reactor can produce.


    Elements built up by the fusion process will be subsequently disassembled by a fission process.


    But the chances are good that you can expect to see proton magic number elements like helium, calcium, oxygen, nickel, tin and lead appear in the LENR ash because they are proton magic number elements.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Part 2 of 2


    Also, you can expect to see Neutron magic number isotopes favored in LENR.


    Furthermore thing get more complicated, it is a well-known fact that the lowering of the coulomb barrier in the nucleus can increase the radiation levels of alpha emitters.



    When screening intensity is increased, it is reasonable to expect that other light elements besides Helium(Z=2) will be expelled(aka fission) from the nucleus.


    These are Lithium(Z=3) , Beryllium(Z=4), and Boron(Z=5).


    Also intermediate elements will form that result from the emissions of these light elements like iron, chromium vanadium, titanium, and scandium.


    Sulfur(Z=16) will form from the beryllium(Z=4) emission from calcium(Z=20).


    The large amount of iron found in the ash products of the Ni/H reaction point to alpha decay of nickel.

    Many of these questions can be either laid to rest or verified by the type of experimentation that Defkalion plans to do in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To my way of thinking, Localized magnetic traps (LMT) are EMF solitons that amplify and modify infrared photons into entangled spin dominated quasiparticles.


    Through some new physics (maybe String-net liquid), they project anaopole based magnetism amplified to huge levels by dark mode whispering gallery wave resonance.


    When these quasiparticles generate a magnetically mediated nuclear reaction, the associated energy is transferred to them and is shared by the other members of the LMT condensate which use this infrared energy to grow the collective power level of the soliton condensate.


    This magnetically mediated nuclear reaction can be fusion, fission and/or alpha/beta decay, but always produces positive levels of nuclear binding energy as the nucleus(s) are reorganized.


    This infrared energy has been frequency downshifted by the LMT condensate.


    But quantum mechanics absolutely requires that the transfer of nuclear energy break the LMT away from the extended soliton entangled ensemble.


    This energy transfer causes the LMT to collapse into decoherence causing a Bosenove,


    This collapse will transform the light confined in the soliton into many electrons as the Floquet-Bloch state (light electron mixture) is disrupted. This should result in large numbers of excess electrons produced inside the Ni/H reactor as gamma level nuclear binding energy is converted into electrons.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Uhho... looking at the graphs in the article, the average *measured* power during the experimental run is about 10kW. But they neglect the phase change, so that means probably more like 20kW!

    But how do they discharge that heat with the small coolant flow they have? And using water which flashes to steam as a coolant? In the tiny volume of that reactor? Without disastrous temperature rises?

    The temperature of the chamber is shown to be around 350 degrees C. Sorry, folks, that doesn't compute. With that level of heat energy generation, I predict that the interior temperature would be much higher.

    Peter, maybe you could ask Hadjichristos or Kim for a heat transfer analysis, assuming the real power output (not the 10kW incorrectly measured without accounting for the phase change in the coolant). I think that this would show something is wrong. Maybe the spark circuit is influencing the sensors or the LabView preamps and signal conditioners.

    Unless they ran the spark during the control run, they wouldn't know about artifacts due to the spark. And Lewan, if I recall correctly, said that they did not run the spark during the control run with argon. That was a serious perhaps fatal omission if true. Peter, again, could you verify how that was done with the experimenters? One problem is that they should say in the paper. And they don't.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. don't play the manipulative pseudo-skeptic as usual.

      wattmeter know how to manage power factor, phase change, and even deforming power... modern powermetter are i*v multiplicator integrator... question their bandwith, sampling frequency, ADC precision and you get a narrow windows of possible imprecisions...

      merchant of doubt method.

      the 350c is quite low compared to a gaz boiler... it is about a pizza oven,. nothing surprizing.

      my computation made on a similar test assuming 30kW allow less than 1litter per minute of 20c water to evacuate the heat.

      I agree that for me , as they say, the power is about 30kW...
      present to the skeptics... but skeptics don't care of the present, they use it to claim fraud fraud fraud...

      would they have claimed steam they whould have said wet steam wet steam wet steam...

      would it be thermometry, they would have accused the IR cam and the TC placement...

      you are predictable. like a constant. your final position have no sensibility to facts. if evidence don't support the constant deduction, ignore the facts and invent facts that match what you need.

      Delete
    2. "my computation made on a similar test assuming 30kW allow less than 1litter per minute of 20c water to evacuate the heat."
      *
      Just out of curiosity, Alain, in your calculation above, what did you assume for the thermal resistance between the hot nickel-hydrogen mix inside the chamber and the metal coils containing the coolant? How did you arrive at your value?

      Did you compute the heat flux flowing from the hot interior mix of hydrogen and nickel to the coolant flowing inside the copper coils? Is it enough to account for dissipating 30 kilowatts with a delta T of about 330 degrees C? (350 inside the chamber by measurement, and about 20 in the coolant)

      Do you mind sharing the calculations of heat flux with us based on your assessment of the geometry in Defkalion's diagram in their paper?

      As I am sure you know, it is not sufficient for the coolant to have the heat capacity and flow rate to carry off the heat output of the reactor. It is also necessary to provide a large enough delta-T to accommodate the thermal resistance between the cell and the coolant!

      As an example, consider what would happen if the chamber were insulated from the coolant. How hot would it get then with 30 kW input?

      Delete
    3. what is your calculation?
      my calculation is simply that is H2O is at 150C with open exit and flat period at 100C (giving a hint of 1ath vaporisation), I assume it was steam (ok defkalion don't assume and is pessimistic - their prudence, my realism)

      what you say is that 350 to 150C is impossible with that reactor?

      thermal conductance is 30kW/150C=200W/K

      the chamber is about 7cm long, 2.7cm diam, thus 60cm2

      copper conductivity is about 400W/K/m
      Iron is about 80W/K/m

      you can thus get that thermal conductivity with full coper reactor and 30cm thick wall...
      For iron wall as they are the walls should be 6cm

      in fact the wall are 2cm, but you see that in the middle you have resistors, thus the wall are not full, then the contact with the copper may not be perfect (it seems not flat to round, but maybe not 100% ).

      one thing may be more important, is that the steam may insulate the copper from the fluid... charichristos seems to discuss of that fact.

      nothing unrealistic. more date to confirm or ruleout the results.






      Delete
  6. DGT has found that “Ni58, Ni60, Ni62 and Ni64 stable isotopes where “willing” to participate in a LENR reaction, whilst Ni61 was not. So there was no need for any costly enrichment method.”


    The number of nucleons (Z) is a known parameter in the fission of heavy metal isotopes U233, U235, Pu239, Np237, Am241, and so on.


    Fission occurs when a neutron is added to these nuclei making their nucleation count even and for the most part completely spin balanced having zero total spin.


    So it is these even nuclei that fission with zero spin.


    The Spin orientation and balance of the subatomic particles that comprise the LENR reactive nucleus may be the key factor in their propensity for LENR reactivity. And there is an intimate connection between magnetism and spin.


    This sort of inference leads credence in my mind to the applicability of the String-net liquid theory of space and to it as foundational to LENR.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What the existence of Bose-Einstein condensation in the Ni/H reactor at very high temperatures (700C nominally or 2000C at meltdown) tells us is that the global condensate must have little or no mass.

    This makes any form of proton condensation very unlikely, but supports the condensation of photon based quasiparticles or some other form of Floquet-Bloch state mixtures of light and electrons in the condensate.


    This implies that gamma thermalization and energy distribution must be supported by a (near) zero mass based condensate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unrelated, but DGT's IPO was supposed to be announced this month. What happened?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Business wise is our listing at the Toronto Stock Market. We are working on our paperwork and we believe that we would be able to negotiate after October 15th, 2013. Starting November 1st, we will hold a Road Show from city to city to promote our share. "

      don't forget that in real-life projects are late... even project based on real technology...

      Delete

  9. That's interesting! Can you please share more about it? Thank you.





    Quantum Legal

    ReplyDelete