MOTTO
The new always carries with it the sense of violation, of sacrilege. What is dead is sacred; what is new, that is different, is evil, dangerous, or subversive. (Henry Miller)
From error to error, one discovers the entire truth. (Siegmund Freud)
DAILY NOTES
I am pleased to discuss with Edmund Storms who writes:
Peter, your idea is not heretic. Like most people, you keep looking for ways you can disagree with me even if you have to create disagreement out of thin air. I'm frustrated by an almost uniform unwillingness in this field to reach a common understanding. Everyone seems intent on going their own way.
Your response did not address my comment, yet you say you have a different opinion. Based on your response, you believe the PdD system operates by different rules compared to the NiH system. Presumably, you believe chemistry and physics operate differently in the two materials. Even if the two mechanisms are different, why would you expect the mechanism operating in NiH to violate basic chemical rules; the same rules I insist PdD follows?
Would not an understanding of how PdD produces energy have a relationship to how NiH does the same thing? Would not use of what we know about PdD provide some insight into another mechanism having the same effect? Why does ignoring the facts about PdD, give any advantage? My comment above contained these issues, which you ignored.
We know a lot about about how PdD causes LENR but practically nothing about NiH. We are also unable to get good information from the people who can cause NiH to produce LENR. We do not have this problem with the people studying PdD. Can you join me in trying to solve this problem?
a) Why people in the field are almost unanimously against a common understanding?
Because the field is great, more diversified than thought, cannot be reduced or grounded to the original and still dominant form of LENR, people come with different backgrounds and scientific myths- it is a great (>>6) group of myopic men examining a huge elephant.
But I guess you are more interested why the common understanding is not identical to your personal understanding achieved by hard work and deep thinking? So consistent and so naturally transferable to the entire field? I think exactly the same about my ideas, I have also analysed data information, knowledge- a lot taaken from your books and papers- just I came to very different conclusions- I think you cannot accept any of my Six Pillars of LENR, isn't it? On my turn, I see no direct proofs of nano-cracks as NAE and I cannot understand how hydrotons will work or even exist.
Other people think similarly, physicists think LENR is their problem and ignore the multidisciplinar character of LENR.
b) Why I think PdD and NiH work differently? More reasons: I know well the properties of the two metals, then there is a huge difference (the greatest for all isotopes) at the atoms level between protium and deuterium, Ni does NOT work with deuterium, I think the surface of metals works differently at 70, 450 and 1200 C. I think both systems work with NAE- and these are more sophisticated than cracks however the nature and the mechanisms of the reactions differ. Therefore, NiH cannot be managed on the basis of what we know about PdD
c) The best question is for me:
Why would you expect the mechanism operating in NiH to violate basic chemical rules; the same rules I insist PdD follows?
It exists an obsession with VIOLATING the Laws and this was used as a weapon against Cold Fusion LENR. It is not about VIOLATING it is just about respecting, using, obeying other Laws. Is nanoplasmonics violating some sacred laws of thermodynamics? Is the collective transformation of Urutskoev violating established laws? Is nanotechnology a sacrilege against thermodynamics?
Because we both are chemists, can you tell me what laws of chemistry, specifically are you speaking about and how could they be VIOLATED?
Chemistry can be surprising- allow me a simple question:
- you have a tall glass column filled with concentrated HCl' you start to bubble
ammonia gas through the bottom. What reactions happen and how? Which laws
of chemistry are respected?
d) You are perfectly right, there is an urgent and strong necessity to get solid scientific and engineering data about NiH, uncertainties must be eradicated.
This happens now.
DAILY NEWS
1) My friendly but firm dispute with Ed Storms on the classic new energy blog
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3665
Thanks to Vlad Plesa!
2) ECAT 1MW Technical Specification
http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw/ecat-1mw-technical-data
| Thermal Output Power | 1 MW |
| Electrical Input Power Peak | 200 kW |
| Electrical input Power Average | 167 kW |
| COP | Min 6 |
| Power Ranges | 250 kW-1 MW |
| Modules | 4 |
| Power per Module | 250kW |
| Water Pump brand | Various |
| Water Pump Pressure | 4 Bar |
| Water Pump Capacity | 1500 kg/hr |
| Water Pump Ranges | 30-1500 kg/hr |
| Water Input Temperature | 4-85 C |
| Water Output Temperature | 85-120 C |
| Control Box Brand | Leonardo Corp. |
| Controlling Software | Leonardo Corp. |
| Operation and Maintenance Cost | $1/MWhr |
| Fuel Cost |
| Recharge Cost | Included in O&M |
| Recharge Frequency | 2/year |
| Warranty | 2 years |
| Estimated Lifespan | 30 years |
| Price | $1.5M |
| Dimension | 2.4×2.6x6m |
| Weight | 10t |
All data provided above may be subject to change due to the ECATs rapid development. Technical specifications will continuously be updated when changes are made.
This specification is intensely discussed on the LENR Forum:
Rossi "long term test" data:
The old water vs steam dispute from 2011
It seems the plant produces low pressure 1.5-2.0 atm steam, so evaporation heat has to be included and it is OK.
Rossi, asked on his blog/journal says:
November 22nd, 2015 at 9:23 AM
Jurgen Schmitt:
Steam is water. Obviously the physical status of water is function of T and P.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
3) Rossi is contented now with the functioning of the plant:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2556151
6) The issue 124 November-December 2015 of the INFINITE ENERGY Magazine was published:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue124/index.html
7) Eddy Currents ‘An Issue’ With the E-Cat
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/22/eddy-currents-an-issue-with-the-e-cat/
AXIL DIXIT
OTHER
Good to know and to apply to LENR
How does our brain form creative and original ideas?
6) The issue 124 November-December 2015 of the INFINITE ENERGY Magazine was published:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue124/index.html
7) Eddy Currents ‘An Issue’ With the E-Cat
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/22/eddy-currents-an-issue-with-the-e-cat/
AXIL DIXIT
LENR as I see it today is divided into 3 frequency ranges. Holmlid and Papp have the XUV range, Mills has the visible frequency range, and Rossi has the infrared range,
These LENR types cannot be mixed, that is why Pd/D has so much difficulty being efficient. Deuterium does not want to operate at low energies.
To hear the LENR music, we need to tune into the correct frequency.
When the Russ George burnup event happened, the Pd/D cell switched from the infrared case where nothing much happened to the far more powerful XUV plasma case that melted through the floor. The water must have boiled away after months of use and an electric arc from a short circuit was generated.
The correct frequency of light is produced by the operating temperature of the reactor or a laser or a electric arc exciting a gas.
and
MHO to generalize, there needs to be a match between the frequency of light produced in a LENR system and the materials that produces that light. For example, nickel/hydrogen-1 produces infrared light and does not absorb it.
Deuterium produces XUV and does not absorb it. The use of water in a deuterium system is bad because pure water absorbs XUV.
The interesting case is with Co-deposition in a Pd/D system, When Palladium chloride is added to the water, that mix does not absorb XUV. That is why Co-Deposition works every time,
In Mills case, Copper and water produce visible light and does not absorb it.
Deuterium produces XUV and does not absorb it. The use of water in a deuterium system is bad because pure water absorbs XUV.
The interesting case is with Co-deposition in a Pd/D system, When Palladium chloride is added to the water, that mix does not absorb XUV. That is why Co-Deposition works every time,
In Mills case, Copper and water produce visible light and does not absorb it.
OTHER
Good to know and to apply to LENR
How does our brain form creative and original ideas?
Axil you know not of what you speak but sometimes your insights prove useful. As for producing melting of palladium and many other metals under water while being sonicated that is not a matter of the water disappearing first, the heat comes first in the water along with prodigious 4He. Works in D2O well poorly if at all in H2O.
ReplyDeleteRegarding producing cold fusion the most simple experimental apparatus is nothing more than a glow discharge tube, aka compact flourescent light bulb. Remove the interior coating on the glass tube, add nano-particulate hydrogen loving metals such as Pd, Ni, Ti, Nb, Zr and more. Reassemble under hiigh vacuum, this is where a lot of artistry comes in, evacuate the 'bulb' then add back some D2 gas, or if you are a die hard lenr type H2. You've now made a deuterium lamp, by managing the tube to contain the maximum amount of D2 while still striking a glow, a nice pinkish blue for D2, the tube will produce cold fusion. Beware of intense 'mischugenon' radiation which behaves somewhat predictably like neutrons but clearly is not neutrons. Not every bulb will become a fusion bulb but many will, especially good ones will slowly turn from dull red heat to brilliant white heat and self-destruct. The challenge of course is to refine and tune these cold fusion 'heat lamps' for long life and controllable heat output.
Very Interesting article in Infinite magazine on CF pioneer Richard Oriani, who died in august.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/OrianiObituary.pdf
"Fisher suggested to Oriani that he place the CR-39 detectors outside of the electrolyte. He says, “Oriani did that and he found evidence of particles that he could record outside the apparatus. He put two plastic detectors in the gas that was coming off the electrolysis...Lo and behold, he got a shower of tracks on those. Thousands of tracks, more than he cared to count.”
Reference:
http://www.fondazionefrisone.it/eventi/catania07/FisherJradiationprod.pdf
External Radiation Produced by Electrolysis — A Work in Progress
These particles are strange. What could these particles be? They don't obey the inverse square law that defines a spherical radiation pattern because the detectors outside the glass don't show any particle activity. Subatomic particles like neutrons are not effected by air flow, they are just to small to hit air molecules. Air has its own moderation profile and these particle don't look like they are being moderated.
In fact, airflow affects the movements of these particles by a factor of 7.
quote: "The results of this experiment are plotted in Fig. 4. When the fan is on the flux of particles in excess of preexisting background increases by a factor of about 7 compared with when the fan is off".
These particles are massive enough to be on the same mass level as air molecules.
Components in Dry Air
The two most dominant components in dry air are Oxygen and Nitrogen. Oxygen has a 16 atomic unit mass and Nitrogen has a 14 atomic units mass. Since both of these elements are diatomic in air - O2 and N2, the molecular mass of Oxygen is 32 and the molecular mass of Nitrogen is 28.
Total Molecular Mass of Air is 28.97. This is about 28 GeV.
From the article as follows:
"Fisher says that Oriani used the polyneutron theory on two major experimental efforts. The second collaboration is now a paper in progress on creating the same reaction in a solid, using a stack of two CR-39 detector chips. Fisher notes that they found “tremendous numbers of etch pits, thousands of etch pits.” Sometimes they were “not uniformly scattered across the surfaces; sometimes there would be a patch on an outside surface for which there was not a patch for the inside surface. Once there was a big patch on one inside surface that was matched by another patch on the facing inside surface on the other detector chip.” After matching up all of the pits and showers, Fisher says “it became clear that the reactions had started in various places in the interior of the sandwich of plastics and in at least one place the reaction had spread from one detector into the other.” He calls this “an incredible and terrific experiment” and hopes to finish the paper soon."
IMHO, these strange particles are tachyons with a mass of about 1,000,000 GeV.
These particle that Fisher and Oriani called polyneutrons produce LENR: they cause LENR in all LENR systems. I have explained how these polyneutrons form. They are relatively new to science which calls them "dark mode" Surface Plasmon Polaritons(SPP)