Question: why is hot fusion DD fusion seldom toward He4


  • I had feeling that was true, but that time I was not in this world. Happened so stranges, near c travel dimension shortenig, night illumination made skin burns if walk too fast (blueshift) etc.
    That stange radiation make brains sick. Be careful if test.


    Quote


    Soliton waves go through cages: jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/spg_shield.htm


    Some (also wierd) papers describing the consequnces (EMF for humans) can be found under sedonanomalies.weebly.com/brain-magnetite.html


    that test show posible magnetic waves to go through 5mm Al.


    tensor/caduceus make very low level same feelings in brain as reactor if coil end touch head and ~100w power. maybe 1/50th feeling as some meters from reactor.
    I tested when tryed to find explanation what it is. Scalar waves, but are they real. They say caduceus effet brains.


    Brain magnetite, mystery. Brains have ability to sense RF fields, atleast some people. ~3 months ago I don't have such skill, but now yes. It come from reactor.
    Ideas how to degauss brains? It is not fun, electric train is totally pain to use now.


    Quote

    Just to add one more thing: Everything regarding EMP,High power
    EMF EMP-Guns etc. is top secrete, as it of prime military interest.


    Yep, this is usable to weapon already. Too dangerous thecnology to give public. Me356 is right. This can do whole planet people sick if missused.

  • One
    strange plastic wire insulation erosion in some cm area, like that part
    of wire have been solar radiation for some hundred years but occurent
    in one night. Maybe XUV.


    XUV is best covered by R.Mills research. He can produce it with his LENR reaction, he names it "Hydrino"-reaction.
    Some open minded researchers found good arguments that many elements (H with Fe!) can undergo resonant low-orbit electron
    reactions, which may, in one specific case, emit XUV in the range of 83-85 eV.


    The following spectrometer may help You to detect XUV.


    http://www.mcphersoninc.com/pr…ases/xuvSpectrometer.html


    Thus XUV is one story. The other is condensed H*/D* also named H#/D# in the litterature.


    H* behaves most likely a fat neutron but can probably not be detected by most neutron detectors (missing energy).
    There are many reports about strange LENR radiation and H* is certainly a part of the story! (Distant transmutations were reported)


  • This would explain the breakdown of Your devices.


    Btw reactor device keeps one piece. It is stable to use for weeks. But near enviroment (atleast observer brains) dosn't keep stable few minutes more.


    One hard/too weird I destroyed with sulfuric acid after it had bend timespace -20min. After I need month+ to hospital get back this world. So I can say only that it is dangerous to brains.

  • CO2 breaks in very hot with catalyst to CO. With CO you can do H2O reduction etc. There is routo to gasoline, diesel, plastics, ammonia etc. But it is not economical and temps are exreme hard to engineer. Plants do it when got light.


    In theory, given enough Gibbs free energy you can make any reaction go backwards. As you say, photosynthetic plants do it. But Le Chatelier's principle is applicable to near equilibrium reactions. Of course if you heat any polyatomic molecule enough it will dissociate. In the case of CO2 you will not only make CO but also O2. Not very helpful. I gave a reference showing that this is NOT the way Syngas is made. But if anyone thinks I am wrong please cite practical (not necessarily economic) way of making syngas from an equilibrium mixture of CO2 and H2O.

  • One hard/too weird I destroyed with sulfuric acid after it had bend timespace -20min. After I need month+ to hospital get back this world. So I can say only that it is dangerous to brains.


    Was this a follow up accident?


    H* will not be blocked by metal! I recommend to put a wall of water (aquarium) between you and the reactor. May be plexiglas works too (as for neutrons).


  • Try to find Mr Mills later


    Such XUV "probe" is far too expensive, my equipment have under 100eur budget done. UV should show in fluorcresent phospor. Have not seen it yet illuminating but it dosn't mean anything. Reactor can send it only sometimes / hand + eye resolution is not high.
    Do you have idea for material/window that block light but allow UV-XUV. So I can try to get some feeds to PMTs. Need to put near because air filter XUV fast. UV may be present it can explain skin sun burns like areas..
    But UV dosn't explain radiation that go brains. Xrays should show in GM-tube. And X-rays don't make brains mad.


  • Downshift is what I think. Microscopical total diffrent as axil but BEC maybe.


    If BEC and hawkins radiation, then radiation profile should tell lot of BEC. How it translate? UV, XUV .. X-ray -> BEC energy, size, temp etc?

  • Actually, this process can work quite well chemically but not economically, essentially giving the quite satisfactory fuel "synthesis gas".


    And Longview, you cannot make synthesis gas from steam and CO2 (for the above reasons).
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas


    But if anyone thinks I am wrong please cite practical (not necessarily economic) way of making syngas from an equilibrium mixture of CO2 and H2O.


    I appreciate your learned efforts here Hermes. That being said, your challenge is a bit clever (reminds me of the "late" great Thomas Clarke). Hard to find a citation for any method of doing much of anything that is completely uneconomical. Further you, Hermes, have hedged your wording a bit with respect to the specific sentence I cite by adding "equilibrium", although it is consistent with your somewhat strained idea of le Châtelier, now being explained by you with the Gibbs equation... which can be applied to many situations but not necessarily with great predictive reliability. Nevertheless, your comment citing "gasoline" is likely completely correct, thermodynamically and economically. The phase change and the product mass C6 through C10 product mass (MW average say 70 to 110,) is very unfavorable there (delta S).


    But, syngas is not gasoline and may not represent an unfavorable phase change, particularly if means are found to segregate the products (oxygen, CO, hydrogen and say methane or higher alkanes, perhaps). So syngas is likely a different story chemically, but perhaps still not so great economically (see the Wikipedia article you cite, re microwaves and sequestrants-- as I like to call them). That is, selective reactivity via "tuned" energy AND functional ways of usefully removing various products of the otherwise "uneconomic" reaction (read the whole Syngas article above to see how such issues have been experimentally and developmentally messed with). I should note here my comment is essentially that le Châtelier can REVERSE a Gibbs prediction. Appropriate sequestration, escape or other manipulations can push reactions far from "native" equilibrium. This is le Châtelier per se.

  • Appropriate sequestration, escape or other manipulations can push reactions far from "native" equilibrium. This is le Châtelier per se.


    I suppose magnesium metal will "sequester" the oxygen in CO2 and H20 and when burnt. You might get some hydrocarbons, H2, CO etc. But this has little to do with Le Chatelier's principle. The reaction would not be reversible. It would not be "close to equilibrium".


    You might want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle if you still think my insistence on equilibrium is not appropriate.

  • Perhaps that is your problem: relying on selected phrases and articles culled from Wikipedia. This can have grave consequences. Just get yourself a good general chemistry textbook.


    Further, are we not writing of le Châtelier with respect to CF? I don't see any reversibility there either. And yet there the enthalpy and the Gibbs calculations are favorable as well, given a path through the high energy of activation which likely is Coulombic just as it often is in "ordinary" zero rate but otherwise favorable chemical reactions.

  • /* are we not writing of le Châtelier with respect to CF? I don't see any reversibility there either */


    The cold fusion is deeply reversible, as it follows from the lack of radiation and similar stuffs. It allows number of nuclear reaction run smoothly - after all, like any other catalyst, which accelerates the forward reaction: it also speeds up the reverse ones. Le Châtelier principle can be generalized easily even to nonequillibrial states, I'm writing about it here:


    http://aetherwavetheory.blogsp…mposed-of-antimatter.html

  • Perhaps that is your problem: relying on selected phrases and articles culled from Wikipedia.


    I had never read the Wikipedia article until a few minutes ago, so I don't rely on it. But if you think it is wrong, by all means cite an appropriate reference with a contrary view.


    Further, are we not writing of le Châtelier with respect to CF? I don't see any reversibility there either


    It is precisely for this reason that Le Chatelier's principle is not applicable to CF.

  • Le Châtelier's principle states that if a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium
    shifts to counteract the change to reestablish an equilibrium. Therefore it's not about equilibrium, but about shift from equilibrium, i.e. about outcome of non-equillibrial effect. Actually it's just a matter of semantic - what is important is, the non-steady state conditions of reaction favor energetically rich products - the Birkeland–Eyde process is commonly cited as an example of Le Châtelier's principle, because the fast heating favors production of unstable and energetically rich nitrous oxide (because the shifting of endothermic reaction by heating of reaction mixture favors the endothermic outcome of it). From the same reason the fast heating and cooling during asymmetric plasma collisions leads to nuclei with asymmetric, i.e. unbalanced number of proton and neutrons, whereas the symmetric collisions of atoms in long lattice chains leads to high amount of alpha particles.


    IMO this is very easily understandable at the intuitive basis: the alpha particle with the same number of protons and neutrons gets formed, when the nuclear reaction has enough of time to balance the repulsive forces of protons with attractive forces between protons and neutrons. Once the product of collisions decays faster than the neutrons and protons can be exchanged freely and their forces balanced, then the number of protons and neutrons remains unbalanced and the resulting nuclei is asymmetric and also more rich of energy, than the stable alpha particle. We could say, that the hot fusion not only more wastes the input energy by overcoming Coulomb barrier inertially, it also wastes the output energy by not leaving enough of time for the formation of energetically most poor product. In extremely low-dimensional arrangement the nuclear reactions would run as smoothly and reversibly at room temperature as many chemical reactions run at 2D surfaces: it's just about concentration of inertia of large volume into a small volume.


    /* If cold fusion were reversible (at normal temperatures), then it cannot produce heat either? */


    They produce heat instead of radioactivity or gamma just because they're reversible and they're running reversibly just because their activation energy (as given by Coulomb barrier) is heavily decreased (by collisions of many atoms from both sides of lattice stack). In the large scheme of things these low-dimensional collisions don't differ conceptually from common surface catalysis, which also speeds-up the chemical reactions by arranging them at lower number of dimensions (i.e. the surface) than in bulk. Such a catalyzed reactions (burning of hydrogen at the surface of platinum, for example) also doesn't produce ultraviolet photons, ions and another wasteful forms of energy, only mild heat so it's used as a warmer. As you can see, I just handle nuclear reactions in similar way, like these chemical ones - as a less or more equilibrium result of attractive and repulsive forces between their constituents.

  • Try to find Mr Mills later



    For measuring Mills uses: Citation:


    The pure hydrogen EUV spectra were recorded using an Aluminum (Al) (150 nm
    thickness, Luxel Corporation) filter to demonstrate that the soft X-rays are emitted from the
    plasma.


    Headake: Most likely primary source: Strong varying B-magnetic fields. Some get it near a thuderstorm. Not everybody is sensitiv.
    Worst case: Hydrino radiation.

  • The cold fusion is deeply reversible, as it follows from the lack of radiation and similar stuffs. It allows number of nuclear reaction run smoothly - after all, like any other catalyst, which accelerates the forward reaction: it also speeds up the reverse ones.


    Sure, in principle, the catalyst, heat input or "mechanism" tunneling or otherwise surmounting or undermining the Energy of Activation (Ea) does not discriminate the direction of the reaction. But the enthalpy of a typical nuclear reaction assures very deep irreversibility in a CF environment.


    But you have very good points that IMHO may need a bit of refinement.... and seem to come together well in your subsequent post here. I promise to look at your other cited writings.

  • /* But the enthalpy of a typical nuclear reaction assures very deep irreversibility in a CF environment */


    It's the activation energy (which can be also expressed by slope of speed of reaction with respect to temperature, i.e. by Arrhenius law) which determines the reversibility of reaction, not the total enthalpy as such. For example the reaction of hydrogen at the surface of platinum is deeply reversible, nevertheless it remains shifted toward reaction products heavily due to high enthalpy of the reaction. The sensitivity of cold fusion to temperature is quite pronounced and similar to chemical reactions - so its activation energy and reversibility looks comparable to chemical reactions.


  • It's the activation energy (which can be also expressed by slope of speed of reaction with respect to temperature, i.e. by Arrhenius law) which determines the reversibility of reaction, not the total enthalpy as such.


    No. The activation energy determines the rate of reaction not its equilibrium / reversibility.


    Longview asks: So, why are you citing it?


    As another demonstration that Le Chateliers principle has nothing to do with CF!

  • /* The activation energy determines the rate of reaction not its equilibrium / reversibility. */


    The zero activation energy implies that the reaction is fully reversible and it essentially corresponds the Coulomb barrier at the case of nuclear reactions. No Coulomb barrier implies, the reaction runs smoothly, its speed will still depend on many factors (concentration, etc.)