Yeas Alan: This paper did confirm the 1.44MeV radiation of the intermediate HH-> D fusion...
Aaaawww shucks. I never thought you would notice that.
I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right
-
-
No recent replication experiments using pure nickel have been shown unequivocally to produce excess heat,
I presume you mean that no recent peer reviewed paper has been published showing excess heat.... May be we should persuade get rich quick engineers that they need to unequivocally demonstrate their claims. But in any case the consolidated results of previous studies are not overturned. My feeling is that f------sters will do all they can to avoid unequivocal demonstrations.
Or momentary transients of considerable electron screening by, e.g., a rush of electric current passing through the nuclear volume for a brief moment. It seems not only plausible that this kind of thing happens, but likely.
Can you quote a reference for this? Have you done any calculations? How much screening is required in your opinion? What evidence is there that electric currents can alter decay rates? You'll get a Nobel prize if this is true.
Ditto for palladium fission. Evidence? Calculation? Wishful thinking has its limits. As does patience.
-
Yeas Alan: This paper did confirm the 1.44MeV radiation of the intermediate HH-> D fusion...
Why would HH-> D create 1.44 MeV gammas and where were they detected? Now if you were to say that 1.44 MeV undetectable neutrinos were produced we might understand.
-
May be we should persuade get rich quick engineers that they need to unequivocally demonstrate their claims.
Even better — let's persuade the funders of get-rich-quick engineers to ratchet up the requirements on experimental rigor. Independent scientific judges who are skeptical but open-minded would be very welcome. Make those engineers squirm.Can you quote a reference for this? Have you done any calculations? How much screening is required in your opinion? What evidence is there that electric currents can alter decay rates? You'll get a Nobel prize if this is true.
Ditto for palladium fission. Evidence? Calculation? Wishful thinking has its limits. As does patience.
Sorry — nothing but suggestive evidence (see older ICMNS volumes, JCMNS issues and pdfs on lenr-canr.org and squint your eyes, ignoring contradicting evidence). No calculations. One can be right and not get the Nobel Prize, and I'm not convinced that I'm right. But my intuition tells me this line of investigation best matches the accumulated evidence thus far. Hopefully the general possibility of alteration of decay rates is suggestive enough to get some people who have actual training to ignore any pre-programmed reflexes and take a closer look. -
I never thought you would notice that.
By the way: What was the final outcome with the mysterious 661.5keV radiation? Did they check all resonances of the involved elements? Or was it home made EMS?
-
By the way: What was the final outcome with the mysterious 661.5keV radiation? Did they check all resonances of the involved elements? Or was it home made EMS?
Here's the link again...
-
Do you have a non-speculative source for this detail?Eric, small update. I would not dare to call this a 'non speculative' source, but for some reason Rossi seems to have felt important to emphasize his statement about Penon in his response to Frank Ackland in JONP
Quote
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT:
The ERV is a nuclear engineer, with experience of nuclear power plants and certification+validation of plantsSpooky eh
-
With a top-class degree from one of Europes oldest universities. His CV is (or was) on the web somewhere.
-
Here's the link again...
... Did not close it yet... I'v forgotten? that many found Am243 in LENR ashes. But I found an other member which exactly delivers 661.x keV - Ga150. Also frequently found in LENR ashes...Not mentionned in the paper!
-
I think at the time the creation of heavy elements was considered just too too heretical. In fact this idea lingers on -which is not really surprising. It seems there was no ash analysis...shame!
-
Longview:
QuoteHere is are two consecutive examples of two related fundamental errors in assessing energy production. "Kilowatt level" has to be related to power or energy density to have meaning here. As one example, Mitchell Swartz has demonstrated power levels on density and/or volumetric basis that would easily equate to kilowatts per kilogram of reactor. That is he has shown excess energy per gram of reacting device that are to my mind impressive. Our Sun, to put a relative metric on it, is distinctly unimpressive, that is in the center of the core, energy production density at best on the order of 275 watts per cubic meter. At the core the density is reportedly 150 g / cm^3, thus one cubic meter weighs 150,000 kg, and the core extends outward to about 25% of the distance to the Sun's surface, the density at the outer edge of core is around 20 g / cm^3. Power volume at the center by one estimate: 17 watts per cubic meter. Power density? Generously allowing 275 watts per cubic meter for the whole core (it's not that high) and assuming a linear density function (also only approximate) we would get a power density of 3.2 mW per kilogram or 3.2 microwatts per gram. LENR often far exceeds this as is pointed out in the nice review at:coldfusionnow.org/power-equiva…e-sun-we-already-have-it/
It should have been obvious but I will spell it out. My criteria for high power LENR are >100W continuous output (or continuous average output) at a "COP" (power ratio out/in) >6 sustained for an order of magnitude longer than required to prove without a doubt that the energy produced was neither stored nor made with a battery or chemicals. Of course, larger numbers are even better. I don't give a flea's fart for peak power during brief periods or for "power density". Those are too hard to measure accurately if they involve brief transients or low average power levels (Swartz). I am not personally interested in laboratory curiosities or subtly anomalous results.
Finally, the measurement must be made by a credible organization (not Rowan University for example) officially, not by individual professors, and not paid for or arranged or set up by the inventor. The inventor should provide the device to be tested as a black box, that's all. All power supplies and power connections and all output power measuring should be by the independent organization. Clear 'nuf? Sorry I tried to shorthand it.
PS: I don't understand comparing experiments on Earth to what happens on the Sun, except for academic interest. If the sun consumed it's fuel more efficiently and faster and made more energy to a significant extent, we wouldn't be here.
-
If Brillouin are talking about electron capture now, I wonder whether this is a new thing
I can vouch for it being at least two years old, but I'm pretty sure this has been Godes's go-to theory since day 1, more or less.
-
I was referring to the heat / helium ratio not the energies of individual reactions. Taking into account the expected rates of all 3 branches of d-d fusion and the energies of each, you can verify my estimate.
What I gave is heat (energy) per produced 4He. Since we are talking about cold fusion (are we not?) the p and n branches are missing. -
I think at the time the creation of heavy elements was considered just too too heretical. In fact this idea lingers on -which is not really surprising. It seems there was no ash analysis...shame!
Yeah, that is much more then just shame.
-
-
Here's the link again...
newenergytimes.com/v2/library/…ctromagneticRadiation.pdf
This is a very poor paper from 2004. It is a waste of time and I suggest that you draw no conclusions from it. If it had been correct, Focardi would have got the Nobel prize. 0.661 MeV sounds like 137Cs - a common contamination in nuclear labs. 1.44 MeV is also in the background and is suspiciously close to 1.46 MeV - always present 40K. There is also sloppy labelling of spectra (signal-background is bigger than the signal in fig 3). -
Ga150. Also frequently found in LENR ashes..
Are you sure you identified the element and mass correctly?
-
Quote from damn_right _man: “Yeah, that is much more then just shame.”
Did You say something?
You just quoted, what I said.
-
This is a very poor paper from 2004. It is a waste of time and I suggest that you draw no conclusions from it.
Thank you for your observations, Peter, I will bear them in mind.
-
This is a very poor paper from 2004. It is a waste of time and I suggest that you draw no conclusions from it.
I do not know enough about spectroscopy to judge, but . . . you sound like you do know, and I know there are many bad papers in the cold fusion literature.f it had been correct, Focardi would have got the Nobel prize.
That does not follow. If the discovery is real but there is a great deal of opposition to it, the Nobel might be delayed for years. Or someone else might get it for rediscovering the effect.
