MOTTO
History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. (Abba Eban)
The Motto is really not a bad idea and I think we can give a try with applying it to LENR too; beyond any doubt we were very effective in "exhausting"- you know well what.
I have studied a lot the Cook-Rossi paper including a few hundreds of comments, including my own gut reaction.
The paper is based on the results of the Lugano test- and this is simply good.
The situation is as follows:
a) on Oct.8 last year the Lugano report was published and many people hostile ab ovo to LENR said it is not real, the calorimetric measurements are in error and the analytical results (supporting energy release) are fake. No problem, this is the mission of LENR killers- both paid ones and fanatics. However there were also good, highly intelligent and perfectly honest people who were not able to accept the Lugano report, and this is disturbing.
Then on December 26 came Parkhomov with his very creative confirmation of the Lugano experiment; the scenario was repeated, bad people against it, but also so - some really good and skilled ones.
I was forced to learn again that;
"Not only Good and Evil are Siamese twins, but sometimes Truth and Untruth too"
And separation surgery is an ordeal n many cases- for the surgeon..
Untruth has to be distinguished from a Lie that is an outright negation of a Truth. A Lie exists only as an opposite of a Truth, an Untruth is simply and innocently not true.
Now comes this paper, it shows again that the Lugano experiment was, the analytical results are very unexpected but real; an explanation is offered.
Fast calculation
The explanation,Li-7 does the job is possible in principle, as an elementary calculus shows is.
a) Energy: The Lugano experiment has generated 2000 W for 32 days continuously
2000 x 32 x 24 x 3600 + 5.529 10 exp9 Joules- i.e. 5529 Mjoules.
1 MJoule is equal to 6.24150934 × 10exp24 electron volts so it were produced0.0
History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. (Abba Eban)
The Motto is really not a bad idea and I think we can give a try with applying it to LENR too; beyond any doubt we were very effective in "exhausting"- you know well what.
I have studied a lot the Cook-Rossi paper including a few hundreds of comments, including my own gut reaction.
The paper is based on the results of the Lugano test- and this is simply good.
The situation is as follows:
a) on Oct.8 last year the Lugano report was published and many people hostile ab ovo to LENR said it is not real, the calorimetric measurements are in error and the analytical results (supporting energy release) are fake. No problem, this is the mission of LENR killers- both paid ones and fanatics. However there were also good, highly intelligent and perfectly honest people who were not able to accept the Lugano report, and this is disturbing.
Then on December 26 came Parkhomov with his very creative confirmation of the Lugano experiment; the scenario was repeated, bad people against it, but also so - some really good and skilled ones.
I was forced to learn again that;
"Not only Good and Evil are Siamese twins, but sometimes Truth and Untruth too"
And separation surgery is an ordeal n many cases- for the surgeon..
Untruth has to be distinguished from a Lie that is an outright negation of a Truth. A Lie exists only as an opposite of a Truth, an Untruth is simply and innocently not true.
Now comes this paper, it shows again that the Lugano experiment was, the analytical results are very unexpected but real; an explanation is offered.
Fast calculation
The explanation,Li-7 does the job is possible in principle, as an elementary calculus shows is.
a) Energy: The Lugano experiment has generated 2000 W for 32 days continuously
2000 x 32 x 24 x 3600 + 5.529 10 exp9 Joules- i.e. 5529 Mjoules.
1 MJoule is equal to 6.24150934 × 10exp24 electron volts so it were produced0.0
3.45 x 10exp28 eV
b) The source is Li7, its content in the sample decreases from 91.7 to 7.9 i.e 83.8 %; LiAlH4 contains 18,2% Lithium, the used quantity of Lithium from the initial 100 mgr is;
100 x 0.182 x 0.838 = 15.2 mgr.
1 mol Lithium is 7000 mgr, we have 15.2/7000 = 0.00217 mols i.e. 0.00217 x 6.022 = 0.01310 exp 23- i,e, 1.31 10exp21 atoms of Li-7
So, if this is the only source of energy in this reaction, each atom of Li-7 has to release 3.45/1.31.10 exp 7 eV i.e. 26 MeV. PLEASE show me if there is some error here
De facto a bit more than 2 milli-mols of Li-7 have to generate 5529 MJ heat.
Revelation
The paper and the models of atomic structure have reveaked me forcefully how beautifully complex the structure of matter is. And HOW MUCH WE DONT KNOW!
I can only admire Cook's ideas I have not the tools to understand and I am lacking the courage to accept them - it is the job of a remote future to decide how is Matter built.
I had a very similar intellectual feeling when reading Stoyan Sarg similar book:
http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Physics-Nuclear-Fusion-BSM-SG/dp/1482620030/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 Fundamental nuclear physics is simply wonderful!
Help received from a theorist
Professor Andrew Meulenberg has generously answered to my appeal to theorists. He writes:
DAILY NEWS
Rossi says the disturbing errors from the paper will be corrected:
Andrea Rossi
April 7th, 2015 at 7:57 PM
Daniel De Caluwè:
There are typos that we are correcting. Not just this, but also others, like Ni instead of N on pag. 3-4 and some other evident typo derived from a wrong trascription…We are correcting.
Thank you for your attention and for your kind words.
Tohoku University's Research Center for Electron Photon Science announces new joint research division with Clean Planet Inc. to study Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction
b) The source is Li7, its content in the sample decreases from 91.7 to 7.9 i.e 83.8 %; LiAlH4 contains 18,2% Lithium, the used quantity of Lithium from the initial 100 mgr is;
100 x 0.182 x 0.838 = 15.2 mgr.
1 mol Lithium is 7000 mgr, we have 15.2/7000 = 0.00217 mols i.e. 0.00217 x 6.022 = 0.01310 exp 23- i,e, 1.31 10exp21 atoms of Li-7
So, if this is the only source of energy in this reaction, each atom of Li-7 has to release 3.45/1.31.10 exp 7 eV i.e. 26 MeV. PLEASE show me if there is some error here
De facto a bit more than 2 milli-mols of Li-7 have to generate 5529 MJ heat.
Revelation
The paper and the models of atomic structure have reveaked me forcefully how beautifully complex the structure of matter is. And HOW MUCH WE DONT KNOW!
I can only admire Cook's ideas I have not the tools to understand and I am lacking the courage to accept them - it is the job of a remote future to decide how is Matter built.
I had a very similar intellectual feeling when reading Stoyan Sarg similar book:
http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Physics-Nuclear-Fusion-BSM-SG/dp/1482620030/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 Fundamental nuclear physics is simply wonderful!
Help received from a theorist
Professor Andrew Meulenberg has generously answered to my appeal to theorists. He writes:
He, like most knowledgeable people, does not know how the proton can overcome the high Coulomb barrier about the 7Li nucleus. X. Z. Li, et al. (7th item in http://www.currentscience.ac.After hearing Norman for the 3rd time at an ICCF, I decided that I needed to make the time to read his book. I am glad that I did. In that process, I became convinced that he had the best approach to nuclear structure. So I (with a PhD in low-energy-nuclear physics) consider him to be a good source.Cook has made a number of minor mistakes in his paper and others have pointed them out, so I won't repeat them. None seem to be serious. He has also made a number of comments that I will address.
"... the lithium nucleus itself may be promoted to low lying excited states."He has identified the special trait of the 7Li nucleus on which I have commented previously in the CMNS group - the 477 keV 1st excitation level. He does not read the material there and did not figure out (publish) why it is so important. He wrote:
"It must be stated that an energetic justification of the 7Li4 + p => 8Be4 reaction is still lacking,"in/php/spl.php?splid=3) has written about the anomalously high proton-capture cross section for 6Li. However, this is an entirely different mechanism, which, if the Lugano results are believed, has a much lower interaction probability than the one I propose.
The deep Dirac level (DDL) model gives the answers. An atomic electron, decaying to the DDL needs to get rid of 509 keV. It cannot do this by ordinary photo-decay. However, with much closer coupling of H and Li within a Ni (or Pd) lattice surface region, the proton-bound electron can transfer most of its potential energy (via near-field coupling) to the 7Li nucleus while shrinking its orbit about a proton. Even if it does not reach all of the way down to the DDL, in the resonant exchange of energies between the electron and 7Li nucleus, the electron orbital radius is greatly decreased for a significant percentage of its time. This 'strong screening' of the greatly shrunken electron orbit greatly increases the tunneling probability of the proton into the 7Li nucleus. If an electron actually is able to attain the DDL, then the femto-H atom (as a 'fat neutron', less than 10 fermi across) could easily penetrate to, and into, the nucleus of either the interacting 7Li or an adjacent lattice Ni.
If femto-H penetrates the 7Li nucleus, then the fusion of the 7Li to 8Be and the fission to two 4He atoms follows the predicted pattern. However, the tightly bound DDL electron now becomes a means of dissipating the excess nuclear energy to the lattice in the process of its absorption and re-radiation* of the radiant energy from the excited nuclear protons prior to its being ejected (in an internal conversion process). It would mean that the release of nuclear energy is not confined to the alpha pair. The multi-body decay process allows a range of alpha decay energies, mostly much lower, This process is identical to the one that prevents fragmentation of the excited 4He in D-D fusion.** It is a continuous process that is faster than nuclear decay processes, which are probabilistic.Cook has recognized a possible path for CF:
"If the excitation of stable nuclei to low-lying excited-states is indeed an essential prerequisite of LENR phenomena, it would not be surprising that LENR effects can occur in very different solid state/chemical environments, provided only that the necessary proton/deuteron constituents can be brought into contactHowever, he has not explained why it happens. On the other hand, his nuclear model may be able to help unravel the apparent Defaklion and Lugano differences in the 61Ni activity. I have proposed an answer, but I would like to see confirming data before committing whole-heartedly to it. Nevertheless, Cook's lattice-nucleus model complements my DDL-fusion model and both are strengthened by the other in the CF results. Perhaps he and I can work together to resolve some apparent differences in the fusion rates between lattice-H and the 7Li and 61Ni nuclei.
with the unusually-reactive low-lying excited states of substrate nuclei."
Andrew
____________________________________ * A. Meulenberg, “Deep-orbit-electron radiation absorption and emission,” ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science, Columbia, Missouri, 25/07/2013, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015), 125 – 136
** A. Meulenberg and K.P. Sinha, “Deep-Orbit-Electron Radiation Emission in Decay from 4H*# to 4He,” 17th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Daejeon, Korea, 12-17 August, 2012, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014), 357-368______________________________
_____________________________________
DAILY NEWS
Rossi says the disturbing errors from the paper will be corrected:
Andrea Rossi
April 7th, 2015 at 7:57 PM
Daniel De Caluwè:
There are typos that we are correcting. Not just this, but also others, like Ni instead of N on pag. 3-4 and some other evident typo derived from a wrong trascription…We are correcting.
Thank you for your attention and for your kind words.
Tohoku University's Research Center for Electron Photon Science announces new joint research division with Clean Planet Inc. to study Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction
http://www.tohoku.ac.jp/en/news/research/news20150406_1.html
I think the key phrase is:
"Search for enhancing methods of the reaction rate of the CMNR"
An Italian Blog attacks Parkhomov:
http://smarcell1961.blogspot.ro/2015/04/come-inventarsi-la-fusione-fredda.html
AXIL DIXIT
Like so many LENR theories, the Cook theory of the LENR reaction is not fundamental. Like almost all other LENR theories, it deals with the emergent results of the fundamental LENR reaction without explaining the cause of the observed experimental results.
If a theory cannot explain EVERY aspect of the experimental results in every dimension, it is not valid.
In particular, the way energy of these high powered alpha particles are converted to heat is not addressed, even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.
I have concluded from the experimental results derived from many LENR systems that the gamma suppression and the basic LENR nuclear reaction is tightly coupled together so that if a LENR based nuclear event occurs, no gamma is ever seen in a environment that has gotten hot enough (500C).
Gamma suppression is an essential part of the LENR reaction. So Gamma suppression is an essential part of what is going on inside the Nuclear Active Environment. If energy is carried away from the NAE, it cannot be converted to its final moderated form (soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.) by the LENR reaction.
Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy. If this were true, there is always a slight chance that the alpha particle could exit the gas envelop and deposit its kinetic energy in the Alumina shell where a gamma ray would result. This gamma ray is never seen. So if an alpha particle is produced it must have little or no kinetic energy that is transferred to the far field.
All the energy of the nuclear reaction is carried away from the NAE by the LENR reaction itself. The gamma emission or better said, the lack of gamma emissions, is an intrinsic part of the LENR reaction energy transfer mechanism.
What could Andrea Rossi do for this theory?
The noblesse oblige of an researcher is to demonstrate that his theory is resistant even to the most perfidious falsification- Karl Popper dixit.
Relaying an idea of Brian Ahern, it is children's play to make a Hot Cat test with LiAl D4 instead of LiAlH4 - If hydrogen is the key and not Li-7, then this stuff does not work. If in Rossi's lab, or at the testers there are still made serial experiments, just insert one with the deuteride? What happens? Or is the problem even more complex?
I want return in the experimental world, writing blogs is too easy.
Peter
I think the key phrase is:
"Search for enhancing methods of the reaction rate of the CMNR"
An Italian Blog attacks Parkhomov:
http://smarcell1961.blogspot.ro/2015/04/come-inventarsi-la-fusione-fredda.html
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Update On Latest ...
AXIL DIXIT
Like so many LENR theories, the Cook theory of the LENR reaction is not fundamental. Like almost all other LENR theories, it deals with the emergent results of the fundamental LENR reaction without explaining the cause of the observed experimental results.
If a theory cannot explain EVERY aspect of the experimental results in every dimension, it is not valid.
In particular, the way energy of these high powered alpha particles are converted to heat is not addressed, even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.
I have concluded from the experimental results derived from many LENR systems that the gamma suppression and the basic LENR nuclear reaction is tightly coupled together so that if a LENR based nuclear event occurs, no gamma is ever seen in a environment that has gotten hot enough (500C).
Gamma suppression is an essential part of the LENR reaction. So Gamma suppression is an essential part of what is going on inside the Nuclear Active Environment. If energy is carried away from the NAE, it cannot be converted to its final moderated form (soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.) by the LENR reaction.
Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy. If this were true, there is always a slight chance that the alpha particle could exit the gas envelop and deposit its kinetic energy in the Alumina shell where a gamma ray would result. This gamma ray is never seen. So if an alpha particle is produced it must have little or no kinetic energy that is transferred to the far field.
All the energy of the nuclear reaction is carried away from the NAE by the LENR reaction itself. The gamma emission or better said, the lack of gamma emissions, is an intrinsic part of the LENR reaction energy transfer mechanism.
What could Andrea Rossi do for this theory?
The noblesse oblige of an researcher is to demonstrate that his theory is resistant even to the most perfidious falsification- Karl Popper dixit.
Relaying an idea of Brian Ahern, it is children's play to make a Hot Cat test with LiAl D4 instead of LiAlH4 - If hydrogen is the key and not Li-7, then this stuff does not work. If in Rossi's lab, or at the testers there are still made serial experiments, just insert one with the deuteride? What happens? Or is the problem even more complex?
I want return in the experimental world, writing blogs is too easy.
Peter
The simple measurement of 4He in any e-cat experiment would clearly show the helium produced. If that 4He is shown then the Be to a pair of 4He reactions is demonstrable. There are a few cold fusion experimentalists who have looked at helium production and one even offered to loan such equipment to Rossi, no strings attached.
ReplyDeletehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf
ReplyDeleteCasimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potential
This paper has shown me how protons and neutron live together inside the nucleus, and it is a very comfortable idea. If this concept is true, then the lattice theory of nuclear structure is invalid.
The referenced paper says that pions are canalize out of the vacuum by the casimir force. This pions bounce back and forth between the proton and neutron so that the proton will turn into a neutron and a neutron will turn into a proton in a rapid cycle.
Cook thinks of protons and neutrons as cue balls that never change. But in order to keep the neutron from decaying in 15 minutes, the neutron must be reset within that time frame and the ping-pong game that the casimir force creates though virtual pion condensation out of the vacuum does that. A valid theory of nuclear structure allows for the proton/neutron pair to go through their transmutation mambo.
I believe that Cook needs to go back to the drawing board and try again.
See this animation to see the proton/neutron mambo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Nuclear_Force_anim_smaller.gif
"Fat hydrogen" I like that one, more than a few of us resemble that description but rarely does being fat help one with the always desirable hot fusion, alas that too often leaves only cold fusion for the fat.
ReplyDeletePeter, Terrific to read Norman Cook's ideas and also Axil's commentary. What I am seeing is that some very good minds are working effectively to spread better understanding of the sub atomic structures (Proton & Neutro in particular) and the possible effects and behavior in certain environments.
ReplyDeleteThe overall impression (also given your QAD calculations on energy out vs the stated isotopic shifts) is that this is looking both viable and real.
Thanks Peter and Axil (and of course Norman Cook for his efforts).
DSM
The ultimate cause of LENR is rooted in the nuckeus of the atom. Rossi as the most influential authority on LENR has bought into the lattice theory of the nucleus where subatomic particles are immutable and static as cue balls cemented into a block of stone. This view of the nucleus is counterproductive to the ultimate understanding to what is the nuclear mechanics of LENR will be revealed to be. Protons and neutrons together with all their subatomic helpers: the pions, mesons, and the various nuclear forces are dynamic unpredictable in the extreme.
ReplyDeleteThe nucleus is a Quantum Cheshire Cat where its parts change without reason or apparent cause. A fixed and unchanging lattice is counterproductive to the understanding of such a quantum mechanical reality. It will block understanding of how LENR works inside that kind of subatomic world. In my view, LENR is complex and mysterious. Rossi has now bought into a simplistic mental structure that rejects the force driven transmutation of subatomic particles that I believe is at the heart of LENR. The lattice model is at most and engineering aid that predicts some mainline nuclear processes.
The ultimate cause of LENR is rooted in the nuckeus of the atom. Rossi as the most influential authority on LENR has bought into the lattice theory of the nucleus where subatomic particles are immutable and static as cue balls cemented into a block of stone. This view of the nucleus is counterproductive to the ultimate understanding to what is the nuclear mechanics of LENR will be revealed to be. Protons and neutrons together with all their subatomic helpers: the pions, mesons, and the various nuclear forces are dynamic unpredictable in the extreme.
ReplyDeleteThe nucleus is a Quantum Cheshire Cat where its parts change without reason or apparent cause. A fixed and unchanging lattice is counterproductive to the understanding of such a quantum mechanical reality. It will block understanding of how LENR works inside that kind of subatomic world. In my view, LENR is complex and mysterious. Rossi has now bought into a simplistic mental structure that rejects the force driven transmutation of subatomic particles that I believe is at the heart of LENR. The lattice model is at most and engineering aid that predicts some mainline nuclear processes.
It would be an excellent idea to try LiAl D4 and LiAlH4 in two experimentations in the same conditions, if it is possible, and to compare
ReplyDeletethe results
Yes,l dear Jean Luc, only in the same conditions nad at least 3 series x 2 comparative tests to see with certainty wht goes and what not.
DeletePeter
I would like to remind you all that before trying to find an explanation on how the e-cat works, one should have solid proofs that it works! In his Arxiv paper Rossi quotes two references to tell the world that lenr exists and works. One is Parkhomov work. Too bad for him that this was just a fraud, with a pathetic cut-and-paste work to produce a nice plot. So one of the two works is pure rubbish. The other is the Lugano test that, I remind you, lacks the most fundamental tests needed for such a "discovery": it is by far not independent, and, moreover, it does not have a proper and credible energy calibration. And this is the reason why the patent office refused Rossi's request.
ReplyDeletesmarcell
Deleteon what sources are based your infos?
Iit would be better to sign with your real name and use Law - start a trial to punish the sinners.
Peter
Peter, see for example the thread of the discussion in this link. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/27/parkhomov-report-thread-agp-speaks-at-seminar-in-moscow-mar-26/ My name is Stefano Marcellini
ReplyDeletehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735v1.pdf
DeletePhysics in 100 Years
Frank Wilczek
March 27, 2015
Frank does't talk about LENR...is he right?
Caro Stefano,
DeleteThat is fair, I disagree with you but only the future experiments can give an absolutely certain answer. Are you going to ICCF-19? You could discuss with Alexander Parkhomov. Let's see.
Tanti auguri,
Peter