me356: Reactor parameters [part 2]

  • And the Swedish votes are:


    "General relativity was accepted generally within 4 years. Many scientists accepted it immediately - it was too beautiful to be wrong. The problem with Wegener was that he didn't have a theory. It was only a description of observations. And geology was an underdeveloped science. The last two examples were in conflict with religious dogma - Darwin is not 100% accepted today!"


    Well, Cold Fusion is 100 years old.

  • I totally agree with Bob Greenyer's comments on discus. me156 is a bright light amid the shadows. Please keep shining.


    Bob Greenyer 11 hours ago First and foremost, me356 has shared most of what he has done to date, this is impressive since he is not a native English speaker. He hosted and ran with me the Padua cell for an extended run that work has given the MFMP confidence to run our cells for longer and push them harder (for instance, GS 5.2 & 5.3) - this has led to significant discoveries.


    I have put a lot of ideas out there and me356 is a fast cycler and has ran with several and read widely to add his own interpretations / additions and modifications to his experiments. He is a very intelligent guy with a broad skill set. Following the re-heat of the Padua cell, he made the very best use of MFMP equipment that he had on loan from us that would have laid idle otherwise.


    It is my understanding that he will share what he has done, When I have been with him in the past, there has been a free exchange of ideas and I have reported to the best of my ability as much information as possible complete with high quality visuals.


    He is a private individual that wishes, for now, to remain unidentified and we must respect that - he is not a member of the MFMP and so has no moral obligation to act in the spirit of the MFMP - that he has done so to date, and says he intends to, is something I am happy about. As an individual it is a big challenge to run so many experiments alone and run them Live.


    At this time of limbo, I understand the frustration felt by many, but active, productive and open (to any degree) researchers are few and far between, so we need to respect them and not drive them underground. He is very aware, as we all are, of the significance of the body of research being undertaken.


    About his equipment, he has


    1. SI-14B GM tube,
    2. a gamma spectacular like Mathieu in France
    http://www.gammaspectacular.co...
    Coupled to a NaI detector and
    3. some Bubbletech Neutron detectors similar to those that we used in GS5.3.


    From a radiation monitoring point of view, he is well placed to observe emissions.

  • In reply to ZeddicusZulZorander
    I understand your concern but don't you think that many people/organisations have vested interests not to diffuse publically this information that could ruin their business?
    At this point, in my opinion, more information from Me356 and others who make CF conclusive experiments is the best for them and humanity. The dangers can be mentioned but the results and how to reproduce them are of supreme importance.

  • Actually, right under your noses there is a kind of cold fusion that works very well.


    A free neutron can be regarded as the nucleus of an atom with atomic number zero. The name neutronium being taken let us call it zeronium. Zeronium is unstable with a half life of around 15 minutes.


    Being neutral zeronium is not bothered by the Coulomb barrier and therefore effortlessly can fuse with e. g. an atom of uranium 235. The resulting nuclid is unstable and quickly disintegrates into other nuclids including more zeronium thereby enabling a chain reaction. This process produces lots of useful energy with very high COP.


    Worldwide we have 442 generalized cold fusion reactors that together produce 65 GW of electric power.


    I think you will have to be satisfied with that.

  • Mankind can wait right? It's not like we're destroying the planet or anything.


    I agree, that we do have to find an energy miracle (as Gates is putting it) in a tight timeline.


    However, me measured considerable radiation emitted from his reactor. If this is true - in contrast to what we thought before about the low temperature phenomenon - then we seriously have to think about abandoning the idea.


    I also want to appeal to @me356 : If you - like you said - measured significant signs of ionizing radiation (i.e. more than a few µSv per hour) and if you have a family with kids, stop working on this boy. It's not worth it. Have you seen photos of how thin Rossi has become, and how he looks like now?


    In many european countries strong radiation emitting nuclear reactors are being abandoned. And rightly so.

  • Any jerk can figure out how to make things worse.
    You can build houses with wood and nails, or stick a big nail in a board and clobber people with it. You can save a village with a new well, or throw people in it.
    Amonia can make a nasty gas, or bring an agricultural revolution.
    The list is endless.
    One more way to save life or diminish it will make no difference. They are each a side of the same coin.

  • Rutherford worked on a similar problem. In his experiments, bombardment of hydrogen atoms of lithium atoms at 100 kV in the plasma discharge. For deuterium needed 40 kW. The novelty lies in the fact that the cross section of the reaction in gaseous form is very small. If you use nickel as the hub of the hydrogen atoms that the reaction cross section will increase significantly.

  • BobG wrote:


    He is a private individual that wishes, for now, to remain unidentified and we must respect that - he is not a member of the MFMP and so has no moral obligation to act in the spirit of the MFMP - that he has done so to date, and says he intends to, is something I am happy about. As an individual it is a big challenge to run so many experiments alone and run them Live.At this time of limbo, I understand the frustration felt by many, but active, productive and open (to any degree) researchers are few and far between, so we need to respect them and not drive them underground. He is very aware, as we all are, of the significance of the body of research being undertaken.


    I take your point here, and it is surely true that me356 has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to share anything. However he does, of his own volition, make repeated claims here that raise interest and invite reply.


    For myself I have been very limited indeed in how I have replied. I responded to his early posted evidence of a "bistable effect" by indicating a possible mundane explanation. I thought long and hard before making my point above about scientific evidence. But I feel me356 invites comment by posting here, and therefore it would be doing him a disservice not to comment.


    I'll make one further point which applies to both me356 and MFMP. Personally I feel it is far preferable to prove first and then claim, rather than claim first and then prove. The experience is that often the proof never comes, and people are then disappointed.


    Best wishes, Tom

  • Bryant wrote:

    Unfortunately the byproducts of Uranium fission include Cesium 137 and I-131 and plenty of longer lived ones. The residents of Fukushima will not be able to return home for a few hundred years.


    Perhaps you could provide some evidence for this 100 year timescale?


    Based on a short google search I find only a recent committee of scientific experts advising repopulation as soon as possible - since radiation levels are now well below that which is harmful.


    http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.c…repopulate-fukushima.html


    I want to put the serious point for being careful with radiation scare stories. The world faces guaranteed disruption from climate change the extent of which we just can't tell - all we know is that the change will be larger the greater are total CO2 emissions. The timescale for CO2 emitted to be absorbed is several hundred years - even given a total stop in emissions.


    No doubt there are risks to health from nuclear power, and very large cleanup costs. But risks to health much larger (numerically) come from NOX and PM2.5 pollution from cars, planes, and industry, which, because of a relatively small economic cost, we do not consider it worth stopping.


    When you look at the options for many countries (like the UK) to reduce carbon emissions it is difficult to do that without nuclear as part of the solution.
    See examples here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sustainable-Energy-Without-Hot-Air/dp/0954452933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462611664&sr=8-1&keywords=sustainable+energy
    People who, as you have just done, post scare stories about nuclear dangers that are innacurate, make wise decisions - about a problem that in terms of total human misery and death over the next 200 years is much larger - more difficult.

  • robert bryant,


    You misquoted me:

    Quote

    HG Branzell wrote "I think you'll be happy with that"


    I wrote:
    "I think you will have to be satisfied with that."


    Meaning: this is what you must accept if you want nuclear reactions.
    (Or, of course, hot fusion. Still decades or an eternity away.)

  • Dear Me356,


    I've done a lot of searching for information that could be useful to replicators.…


    Me too. I believe you are getting very close to an LENR cook-book, very close indeed! I suspect @me356 has already got his cook-book pretty well figured out.
    I am hoping @mfmp team and @me356 will team up soon. I believe that keeping the nickel surface free of contamination is CRITICALLY important...


    P.S. I'm one of the "so called many" people who have seen many hundreds of degrees temperature rise in seconds when "clean" nickel reacts with Hydrogen.

  • Any jerk can figure out how to make things worse.
    You can build houses with wood and nails, or stick a big nail in a board and clobber people with it. You can save a village with a new well, or throw people in it.
    Amonia can make a nasty gas, or bring an agricultural revolution.
    The list is endless.
    One more way to save life or diminish it will make no difference. They are each a side of the same coin.


    Wrong. Your analogy is not appropriate.


    Nuclear technologies can't be compared with any prior technologies, because of their new dimension.
    Their feature which distinguishes them from previous technologies is their ability
    to kill all mankind. Quite obvious and I wonder that I even have to mention this.

  • marjorana wrote:

    Their feature which distinguishes them from previous technologies is their ability to kill all mankind.


    It is true that nuclear bombs could in principle kill all mankind. But not nuclear reactors.


    Other "kill all mankind" technologies are:
    global travel - allowing a lethal natural epidemic to spread throughout the world before it is full understood
    genetic engineering - a man-made lethal disease could perhaps be engineered - though it is not clear that we can do this better than the billiuons of trials in natural systems
    uncontrolled carbon emissions - leading to a climate tipping point and a semi-permanent new temperature very hostile to human life (such changes in equilibrium points have occurred many times in the historic record - so they are possible).

  • Bad people will do bad things to innocents. This is the human way. But we should consider the greater good - cleaner cheaper energy would probably do more to save lives globally than any harm a few criminals might manage to do with LENR. To deny that is a little like saying 'the poor don't deserve clean water'.

  • Perhaps you could provide some evidence for this 100 year timescale?


    Cs137 has a half-life of 30.3 years. Ten half-lives of decay are about 300 years to get down to about 0.1 % of the initial contamination assuming it is fixed in the soil or other permanent features near Fukushima. 100 years, or a little more than 3 half lives gets us down to around 10% of the original. But, perhaps that was not your point?