People are assumming this LENR is a nuclear system.. There is just about as much data to support this as UFOs.
I think LENR is real, but probably a Mills-like reaction. The 1995 Thermacore report was the hgih water mark until Rossi showed up.
I think Rossi is nt real.
People are assumming this LENR is a nuclear system.. There is just about as much data to support this as UFOs.
I think LENR is real, but probably a Mills-like reaction. The 1995 Thermacore report was the hgih water mark until Rossi showed up.
I think Rossi is nt real.
The test that will determine the nuclear nature or not of the Mills reaction is the production of transmutation of elements. Transmutation must have a nuclear cause.
People are assumming this LENR is a nuclear system.. There is just about as much data to support this as UFOs.
I think LENR is real, but probably a Mills-like reaction. The 1995 Thermacore report was the hgih water mark until Rossi showed up.
I think Rossi is nt real.
What is confused in LENR is cause and effect. Oftentimes, effects are confused a being the cause of LENR but in fact the effect is not the cause. For example, what produces the hydrino?
In the Fractional quantum Hall effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect
Hall conductance shows a factional chance as a result of a change in a strong magnetic field. The reason for this is the creation of the composite fermion, a electron/magnetic quasiparticle. The magnetic field produces quasiparticles that change the nature of the electron.
A strong EMF field could be changing the nature of the electrons in the presence of a catalyst that is producing a magnetic effect to form hydrinos which might be composite fermions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_fermion
The magnetic flux quanta could result in a modification of electron orbitals as Mills observes. But the cause is an applied magnetic field, the hydrino is the effect of that magnetic field.
If the magnetic field is the true cause of LENR and the hydrino also appears as a result of the magnetic field, it is possible that the the hydrino is mistakenly assumed to be the cause of LENR. But the real cause that works at a deeper and irreducible fundamental level is the applied magnetic field.
Based problem of high temperature in the reactor is lithium sintering metals or ceramics with the cell casing. Lithium is a vapor at such a temperature over 890 degrees Celsius. To avoid burn-out and sintering of the cell body to be manufactured from tantalum tab. The only material that does not chemically reacts with lithium vapor and has a high melting point of 3100 degrees Celsius. Not good only that the tantalum metal has a high cost. But who has the means to buy a tube of tantalum to solve many problems.
Lithium is a vapor at such a temperature over 890 degrees Celsius.
Although the vapour pressure of Lithium would be quite high at 890C, from memory the boiling point -at which it all becomes vapour is much higher- around 1350C.
Based problem of high temperature in the reactor is lithium sintering metals or ceramics with the cell casing. Lithium is a vapor at such a temperature over 890 degrees Celsius. To avoid burn-out and sintering of the cell body to be manufactured from tantalum tab. The only material that does not chemically reacts with lithium vapor and has a high melting point of 3100 degrees Celsius. Not good only that the tantalum metal has a high cost. But who has the means to buy a tube of tantalum to solve many problems.
Tantalum is also paramagnetic which is good. Tantalum will not fight the applied EMF stimulation for control of the LENR reaction even though the high operating temperature of the reactor usually makes this material characteristic unnecessary.
The ultrasonic experiments I refers to are indeed electrochemical, but not cavitation induced hot fusion like some try... It should be listed in the paper by Ed on triggering techniques.
If lithium vapor is absolutely necessary for CF you could do some LI vapor bulbles by cavitation at low temperature just close to each Ni particles.
Gerard McEk
July 6, 2016 at 9:16 AM
Dear Andrea,
At the site Ecat.com I found a link to one of your first publications. (https://espace.cern.ch/test-vi…20Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf)
In that document there is no mention of Lithium used although very high COP’s are reported. The theory in that report just assumes reactions between Ni and H. Now we know (or assume) lithium is the reactant that generates most of the released energy (as I found in later documents at this site). I am just curious: Didn’t you really use any lithium in the ‘secret cathalyser’ at that time?
Thanks for answering our questions.
Kind regards, Gerard
Andrea Rossi
July 6, 2016 at 9:31 AM
GerardMcEk:
Surely there has been an evolution. I cannot give the particulars of such evolution.
Warm Refards
A.R.
==========================
In the low temperature systems that Rossi first build, the operating temperatures were too low for lithium, so Rossi used potassium instead or maybe even cesium.
Ikegama published in 2012 his (AFAIK) first paper descriing the use of Nickel/Lithium - but Rossi had visited Upsalla earlier than that and discussed the use of Li with Roland Pettersen. Maybe as early as 2009. Certainly the reactor that was test-run in the E.ON warehouse in Ferrara, Italy in various experiments (most notably June 25th 2008?) did NOT use Lithium, or Potassium, or Cesium. It really was Ni/H plus several other unknown additives (in very small amounts) to promote the Nickel Hydrogenation process. This was the low-temperature device described by Professor Focardi at around the time the first patent was issued.
There are photographs (screenshots) showing this device on the web already, taken during the course of Focardi's lecture. From memory these are shown on the 'Stop Rossi' website. I include here a much better one, showing that bottled Hydrogen was still in use. The large 'N' on the cylinder denotes that it is colour-coded according to a new euro-system and does not- as I first thought - suggest it contained Nitrogen.
/* If lithium vapor is absolutely necessary for CF you could do some LI vapor */
The lithium must cover the nickel surface in very thin film similar to liquid crystal: the arranged atoms of lithium (which get their arrangement from underlying metal lattice) is what reacts with hydrogen ions there (we can recall the Pollock's fourth phase of water in this connection). The actual nuclear reaction would run at the surface of few nanometers thick molten lithium layer covering the surface of nickel, which would give it oriented crystal-like structure required for astroblaster-like low-dimensional collisions. According to Norman D. Cook theorythe major source of energy is Li(7) + p > Be(8)* > 2 He(4) reaction between the first excited-state of Li-7 and a proton, followed by the breakdown of Be-8 into two alphas with high kinetic energy, but without gamma radiation. The unusual property of the Li-7 isotope that allows this reaction is similar to the property that underlies the Mossbauer effect: the presence of unusually low-lying excited states in stable, odd-Z and/or odd-N nuclei.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…n/?postID=27727#post27727[/url]']In fact Alain: There is a separate LENR branch called sono-fusion. The COP of their reactors recently has gone up close to 4. May be You should start a seprate thread for this!
I would not recommend that. A closely related subject (Acoustic
cavitation) is well and truly debunked by the Uppsala group (Ericsson et al
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3501
There are not neutron reactions in LENR, that concept is a destructive fantasy.
Is that a law of nature? Many LENR theories involve neutrons, but I agree that they do seem to be conspicuous by their absence.
Ikegama published in 2012 his (AFAIK) first paper descriing the use of Nickel/Lithium - but Rossi had visited Upsalla earlier than that and discussed the use of Li with Roland Pettersen. Maybe as early as 2009.
Really? I know he tried accelerated deuterons on liquid Li. That had,
however, no Ni involved. It has not to my knowledge been properly
published.
Display MoreAccording
to Norman D. Cook theorythe major source of energy is Li(7) + p >
Be(8)* > 2 He(4) reaction between the first excited-state of Li-7 and
a proton, followed by the breakdown of Be-8 into two alphas with high
kinetic energy, but without gamma radiation. The unusual property of the
Li-7 isotope that allows this reaction is similar to the property that
underlies the Mossbauer effect: the presence of unusually low-lying
excited states in stable, odd-Z and/or odd-N nuclei.
As I have pointed out several times: the high energy (9 MeV) alphas will
produce secondary gammas from inelastic scattering on Li and Ni! Also:
forget Cook's theory and Mössbauer!
I would not recommend that. A closely related subject (Acoustic
cavitation) is well and truly debunked by the Uppsala group (Ericsson et al):
Sorry Peter: You mix up two fields: Piezo nuclear fusion is close to be a hoax. Sono-Fusion is well documented and correlated with Helium production...You should sometimes dig a bit deeper.
/* Piezo nuclear fusion is close to be a hoax */
Why do you think so? It's the same principle, like the me356 reactor - just the voltage required is generated by local heating of piezoelectric material...
A couple of questions from another old guy, in this case trained far from nuclear physics... but who seeks expert opinion to dispose of misconceptions or to reinforce them.
We have certainly seen and appreciate Dr. Peter Ekstrom's position on this. It still remains a question in my mind whether this particular reaction and perhaps others in the CF / LENR realm may be subject to different paths than those seen from collisional datasets, depending on the activation energies involved. A straightforward collisional reaction may involve a relatively huge activation energy to reach a product. That large excess energy may be seen in one or more of the product species--- it cannot easily "disappear". But if the reaction coordinate diagram shows a much lower activation energy pathway available, it shows us that there is likely a reaction coordinate surface where identical enthalpies are given up, but where a high energy path over say coulomb or other activation barrier is accompanied by excess activation energy returned to the products--- but conversely some or all of that same excess activation energy "return" is not present through another and lower path on the reaction coordinate surface.
I would ask Professor Ekstrom this question: What are the typical energies of particles involved in say the Li(7) + p --> Be(8) and then spontaneous scission to He(4) alphas reaction that have been studied to give the data he has shown or pointed out to us? Is the shortlived Be(8) in an excited state that is conferred to some extent to the scission products? Are the participant particles themselves bringing much of the this 9 MeV to the alpha or other products?
A definitive and convincing answer either that these input energies are low would cause me to drop this line of questioning. Or that they are high (that is aggregate somewhere in the range of 9 MeV or more) would cause me to continue to pursue this idea.
Another question, if the lithium is liquid, what influence might that have on "inelastic" scattering, if any?
Thanks, in advance.
Why do you think so? It's the same principle, like the me356 reactor - just the voltage required is generated by local heating of piezoelectric material...
If You use engineered piezo elements as IBM did already 30 years ago in their laser printers, then you could use them to generate high frequency waves. But banging a rock and locking for transmutations is not a sustainable process. It's just a curiosity! (May be an important one if you look at the latest earth quake papers.)
It still remains a question in my mind whether this particular reaction and perhaps others in the CF / LENR realm may be subject to different paths than those seen from collisional datasets, depending on the activation energies involved.
If You give me a try too..: Kinetic/scattering data is useful (for LENR) as an upper limit only. Up to now the old measurements had no direct impact on the LENR field, what is astonishing and the main source for criticism.
Contrary to a kinetic (source or target) nucleus, a nucleus which is more or less fixed in space/time can undergo entanglement, which has been neglected by most theories. To my understanding: In a kinetic experiment time is the dominat dimension, where as in a local one (LENR), space sometimes dominates over time...
Sooner or later you will hear a more precise statement.
Another question, if the lithium is liquid, what influence might that have on "inelastic" scattering, if any?
1) The valence electron is statistically farther away and thus the coulomb shielding is a bit fainter.
2) More important. In a liquid every atom has a random motion with a much higher amplitude than in a "condensed matter env.". The probability to get a sweetspot match (same input energy) is higher...
But for me it's not clear whether you refer to the Mizuno liquid Li experiment, or to a Rossi/me356 version - promoting LENR?
Display MoreWe have certainly seen and appreciate Dr. Peter Ekstrom's position on this. It still remains a question in my mind whether this particular reaction and perhaps others in the CF / LENR realm may be subject to different paths than those seen from collisional datasets, depending on the activation energies involved. A straightforward collisional reaction may involve a relatively huge activation energy to reach a product. That large excess energy may be seen in one or more of the product species--- it cannot easily "disappear". But if the reaction coordinate diagram shows a much lower activation energy pathway available, it shows us that there is likely a reaction coordinate surface where identical enthalpies are given up, but where a high energy path over say coulomb or other activation barrier is accompanied by excess activation energy returned to the products--- but conversely some or all of that same excess activation energy "return" is not present through another and lower path on the reaction coordinate surface.
I would ask Professor Ekstrom this question:
What are the typical energies of particles involved in say the Li(7) + p --> Be(8) and then spontaneous scission to He(4) alphas reaction that have been studied to give the data he has shown or pointed out to us?
Is the shortlived Be(8) in an excited state that is conferred to some extent to the scission products? Are the participant particles themselves bringing much of the this 9 MeV to the alpha or other products?
A definitive and convincing answer either that these input energies are low would cause me to drop this line of questioning. Or that they are high (that is aggregate somewhere in the range of 9 MeV or more) would cause me to continue to pursue this idea.
Another question, if the lithium is liquid, what influence might that have on "inelastic" scattering, if any?
Yes, if LENR works the reactions definitely must be different. I do not think the whole physics has to be revised (it is mostly so solid that it cannot). But how does the nuclei "know" when the LENR exception kicks in?
When we ran p+7Li --> 2*alpha for the analysis of Rossis fuel/ash (early 2011) we used a proton energy of 2.5 MeV. The reason was mainly that it is the standard energy for PIXE-analysis. We could probably have used much lower energy, maybe as low as 0.5 MeV. The alpha-particle reactions are well studied, se this thread:
<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3228-Safety-Lithium-Intoxication-Lithium-Side-Effects/?postID=19711#post19711">Safety: Lithium Intoxication - Lithium Side Effects ?</a>
You may imagine 8Be being in an excited state that decays into 2 alphas. Since the states are unbound and short lived, they are very broad (MeV range).
It makes no difference to the nuclear reactions if the Li is liquid. Only the two colliding nuclei are involved since the energies are much greater than chemical bindings.
Ikegami thought that there was a difference. He used much lower energy, but I do not trust the results (not published).
I hope this answers your questions.
