Hydrogen couln't be essential ?

Quote from gameover

Could be, but others are using only hydrogenated metal catalysts + oxygen flow in an inert atmosphere with similarly anomalous results, no potassium.

There are many possibilities for interesting reactions that do not involve potassium (or hydrogen). This is not to say that hydrogen is not a catalyst — I assume that it is (although a catalyst of a different kind than a Mills catalyst).

Quote from David Fojt

Lenr explanation could be more revolutionary than expected.

@David: This is a reverse (MY)² paper! If they, daily, would have produced tons of Fe₅₆, Si₂₈ out of a LENR reaction then everybody could see a huge (some miles diameter) crater at the place of the furnace...

Quote from David Fojt

i join a paper from last ICCF in Sendai.

Thanks for posting this Paper;

I read it with interest, and found immediately an explanation through Material synthesis according to my theory which is "just" a completed version of the Apher-Bethe-Gamow theorie;
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpher-Bethe-Gamow-Theorie

Most propable source for Silicon is; N-14 +N-14 = Si-28
and further for Iron; Si-28 + Si-28 = Ni-56
(decays in 6 days to) Co-56 (Decays in 77 days to) Fe-56.

This seems to be even quite "known" process; "George Oshawa Steel"
http://amasci.com/freenrg/carbiron.html

The fusion even seems to be Endothermic;

Quote

In these experiments, the degree of transmutation from C and O to Fe is approximately 5 percent to 20 percent immediately, with a larger percentage of transmutation occurring gradually in the air, which has the effect of cooling the metallic powder to below room temperature.

But this must be mainly because of the new matter has more or less absolute zero temperature.

At the original paper the electricity consumption went from 7934 kWh/ton to 6788 kWh/ton which means -14.4%,
which can compared to the produced silicon tons; 18.315 Tons instead of 15.379 tons; +19%.

...This should be calculated more accurately with atom masses....

Quote from Jokela

...This should be calculated more accurately with atom masses....

@Jokola: Yeas indeed... that is what you should do before posting nonsense!

The whole mass difference is about 0.048 amus (atomic mass units) and the reaction thus highly exotermic - some Giga Joule per mole....

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from Jokela: “...This should be calculated more accurately with atom masses....”

@Jokola: Yeas indeed... that is what you should do before posting nonsense!

The whole mass difference is about 0.048 amus (atomic mass units) and the reaction thus highly exotermic - some Giga Joule per mole....

Display More

Thanks for reply. Pls read the title of my message.
I didn't ment calculating some energies. They were allready calculated with the Appendix A from the linked paper. So obviously these calculations are nonsense;

Quote

Transmutation of 1 ton of Si will generate 0.72 * 106 = 720 GWd.
Or roughly the thermal energy generated by 240 nos. of 1000 MWe Nuclear power plants in one day!
Transmutation of 3 tons of Si would yield 770 nos of 1 Gwe nuclear stations

and thus we have to find some other explanation for truckloads of new matter produced. And it's truly cant be a measuring problem, that some process produces systematically 4.27 tons / day material for 11 week period. It totals 328 tons, and means 1.5 truck loads per week.

I mean if some one is enough intelligent to control such a process profitably over decades, they must by also enough intelligent to be able to count TRUCKLOADS. These loads are (propably?) even paid by customers, und thus also weighted there.

So you just forced me to do the calculations I was talking about;

Process Uses Normally 7935 kWh to produce 1 ton of Ferro Silicon alloy of 73.8% Si content. (Weight %)
But it uses 6788 kWh to produce 1 ton, which includes +19% of Silicon and + 26% Iron compared to the input weights.
Now Silicon has a atomic weight of 28 and Iron 56 so the ratio of new silicon atoms is 38/26; which is intersingly pretty precisely 1.46

And the atom amount growth is something like 73.8X2+26.2=173.8 in the expectation and
(73.8x2)*1.38+26.2*1.26=236.7 and thust the growth is 236.7/173.8=1.362 -> +36.2 %

Which means that there was now direct correlation with the energy consumption; (to put the prosents in line; 7934/6788=1.1688 ->) +16.2 % material with SAME energy.
and the actual material particle-production +36.2 %

The total mass difference 24.75/20.479=1.209 -> +20.9 % is more closer to the 16.2% energy consumption, but it can be concluded that I wasn't able to found any reasonable mathematical connection through atom masses. But this also verifies that there really is some thing strange in the process. As Energy measurement is completely separated from weighting the process material and it shows a difference, but closes out the possiblity for plain measurement error, as this difference is not 1:1

But I think you declared my post as "nonsense" for other reasons.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@David: This is a reverse (MY)² paper! If they, daily, would have produced tons of Fe₅₆, Si₂₈ out of a LENR reaction then everybody could see a huge (some miles diameter) crater at the place of the furnace...

Here you have huge (many miles diameter) rings around some redox centers. Google maps satellite view;
https://www.google.com/maps/@4…10289,2000m/data=!3m1!1e3
These are real life observation, which everybody could see.

But there are even frozen ice in a place where it shouldn't be. (Figure 28.3)
https://www.researchgate.net/p…0258_Brauneder-OGSOFR2008

Doesn't sound "highly exothermic"

Quote from Alan Smith

For this reason alone, I am somewhat sceptical about the accuracy of anything that ultimately depends on weighbridge records, I have known them be tweaked far too often.

I agree with what you say. And Whilst doing reality-check I considered this too. I closed this possibilty out because of following reasons;

- The Value of the product is too high; ~1000 USD / ton. (~3 x your example)
- The daily production vs. mistake is too low; 4.3 ton / 25 ton (Your example 6 ton/ 140ton (?))
- The plant was running on Full load 24h-7days a week; 12 MVA Furnace averged 8.5-8.75 MVA. (No difference between shifts?)
- The profit of the "stolen" sales went on the company, but the Company managment was worried about this and started to investigate it. (Writer is Former Managing Director) but couldn't trace any reason. This froad is openly discussed, but still no client claimed to have deliverd short. to get some scale 4300 USD / day is the pay of Indian Prime-minister for ~2 month at that time.

I even checked that this guy really exists, and I found him on Indian businees catalogs with this position, and also the plant can be found with fotos.
http://www.indsil.com/palakkad-smelter/

So to me this is plausible. But I am felxible if some new evidence occures.

Btw. I thought that the source of this mass is Atmospheric Nitrogen, but after reading this I am not so sure anymore;
https://books.google.ch/books?id=ayNYEqxsi_YC&pg=PT782&lpg=PT782&dq=George+Ohsawa+Steel&source=bl&ots=Y2b61wJYYX&sig=46FEAWYXujmPLjChXCypSLQjp0A&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj69rbmge3QAhWBPBQKHbETBxQQ6AEIXTAJ#v=onepage&q=George Ohsawa Steel&f=false

Quote

Interestingly, the authors found that when arcing was carried out with nitrogen gas dissolved in the water in place of oxygen, no addtional Fe was detected in debris. This experiment thus not only ruled out the diffusion-concentration theory but also supported that oxygen is indeed necessary for the genertion of iron as suggested by the ....

So, I am also bit confused right now. I cant undestand how this reaction could work with Oxygen and Coal. As it was "suggested". But as this link;

http://amasci.com/freenrg/carbiron.html

Method 3;

Quote

The applied electricity is the same as in the above methods.

During the process of transmutation, Ni (nickel) is temporarily produced. But it disappears very soon, for it is an isotope with a radioactive nature. The life of an Ni isotope is considered approximately 1/lOOOth of a second.

In these experiments, the degree of transmutation from C and O to Fe is approximately 5 percent to 20 percent immediately, with a larger percentage of transmutation occurring gradually in the air, which has the effect of cooling the metallic powder to below room temperature.

I am now thinking that as you cant dissolve too much Oxygen (or any gas) in water;
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…lubility-water-d_841.html
The difference between water and air, is that the free oxygen of Water increses the Ion (H⁺ and OH^-) in water, and the whole process goes through these single protons. But in air it goes through the Nitrogen. And this make the difference of the used gas in water.

Quote from Jokela

Thanks for reply. Pls read the title of my message.
I didn't ment calculating some energies. They were allready calculated with the Appendix A from the linked paper. So obviously these calculations are nonsense;

Transmutation of 1 ton of Si will generate 0.72 * 106 = 720 GWd.
Or roughly the thermal energy generated by 240 nos. of 1000 MWe Nuclear power plants in one day!
Transmutation of 3 tons of Si would yield 770 nos of 1 Gwe nuclear stations

and thus we have to find some other explanation for truckloads of new matter produced. And it's truly cant be a measuring problem, that some process produces systematically 4.27 tons / day material for 11 week period. It totals 328 tons, and means 1.5 truck loads per week.

Display More

@Jokola: In order to make the right guess, we should forget the 4N-->2Si-->Fe reaction, which truly is nonsensical!

There are many examples of distribution -transmutations under high E-fields. Thus, if you want to spend some time, you should look at the following reaction:

x ( N+N), y(C+O) --> Si and 2Si <-- z(Fe56) . This matches the reality much closer as the reduction of Fe is highly endothermic. The reality will be much more complex, as we have several additional isotopes to look at! As a first exercise You could calculate x,y,z! based on the material delivered/produced.

Quote from Wyttenbach

x ( N+N), y(C+O) --> Si and 2Si <-- z(Fe56) . This matches the reality much closer as the reduction of Fe is highly endothermic. The reality will be much more complex, as we have several additional isotopes to look at! As a first exercise You could calculate x,y,z! based on the material delivered/produced.

This 2Si <-- z(Fe56) is not possible according to the case under discussion.

Quote

Therefore total excess production of Silicon & Iron per day works out to 4.27 tons. Of this excess silicon was roughly 3 tons and balance of ~ 1.3 tons excess iron. Note that this constitutes roughly 20 % excess metal both for Si and Fe.

It must be other way around; 2Si --> z(Fe56)

I also agree with your proposal to calculate; So let do it;
Total Input 51.237 tons
-- Silicon 15.379 tons
-- Oxygen from Quartz 32.955-15.379 = 17.576 tons
-- Iron 5.1 tons
-- Carbon ~13.182 tons.

Total weight of Si and Fe in Input; 20.479 tons.
Total weight of Si-Fe Alloy produced; 24.75 tons.
Difference; 4.271 tons.

Total weight of O and C in input; 30.758 tons
Difference 4.271 tons/ 30.758 => 13.8 % of the input materi should have been changed!
I don't know if this is plausible.

If the source is Nitrogen it comes from air, which has 78% of it. Density ~1.3 kg/m3 so around 1 kg of N₂ needes 1 m³ air. 5 tons need 5000 m³.
If this consumed over 24 hours it's 5000/(24*3600)=0.05 m³/s or 50 l/s.
Is this plausible? a normal aircondtion of a 5x5x2.5 room consumes 135 m3/hour, 17 l/s of air.
But the effciency can't ofcourse be 100%.

I can't make any new conclutions form calculating x,y & z

Quote

worthy of serious forensic study rather than a true LENR event.

That was also my first approach. -But you just can't produce 328 tons extra worth 328 000 USD from thin air. The hole in your material stock would be way too big. The denisty of the material is ~3 kg/m³ so just it's solid volume would be 100 m³ If it would have been a mistake, it would have been noticed in the inventary. The main problem in this forensic study is that there was no crime. You can't follow the money and find the quilty person, like was the case with your pellets. The whole stoling process just goes wrong way.

About LENR event. If something happens in nature, it happens in big scale. if LENR is true. You just need to observe nature and find where it happens.
- I propose forest rings.

Osawa steel is probably bogus, many products of graphite heating are ferromagnetic. It fooled Osawa, Egely and many others

http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo…5/n11/full/nphys1399.html

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Osawa steel is probably bogus,

This was also my first interpretation. But as I read from the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia (my prev. google book link), it was verified quite scientifically.
Read the "43.12. Carbon ARC Experiments";
Ultra pure distilled water and pure carbon rods were used. I would appreciate if you would have time to point more precisely where the mistake lies.

To Alan Smith; The Sun. Yes, -I agree.
My problem is that according to my approach the Fusion must be always endothermic. And Though I agree that Fusion is the main Process which happens in the Sun, claiming openly that Sun is consuming energy, is too much for the most. Though it actually makes the whole physic to work without any contradictions.

Quote from Jokela

Ultra pure distilled water and pure carbon rods were used. I would appreciate if you would have time to point more precisely where the mistake lies.

@Jokola: All you need is either an energy balance = 0 (close to 0) raction or an explanation how the atomic bomb goes off silently.

A good solution for balancing the excess energy is to produce some limited amount of H (hydrogen), which reduces the free enregy to a great part.

Anyway: They will find muons in large distribution transmutations, but I hope only a few...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Anyway: They will find muons in large distribution transmutations, but I hope only a few...

The LENR reaction is likely to produce huge amounts of muons of which most are lost to the far field without producing fusion or fission side reactions. A well designed Lenr reactor will confine these muons in a superconductive magnetic bottle to amplify these muon catalyzed side reactions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@Jokola: All you need is either an energy balance = 0 (close to 0) raction or an explanation how the atomic bomb goes off silently.

Ofcourse. And here comes the point why we are arguing. Ofcourse I am totally wrong if E=mc² -binding energy argument is valid. But it isn't.
The exothermic energy of Fission is actually quite low, as long as the protons/neutrons are not destroyed to muons -> light.
The same must thus be valid also to Fusion. It endothermic absorbtion is also relatively low. And even lower if some of the protons/neutrons is distroyed to muons. This can even turn the whole process to exothermic, but the source of the heat is still fission, NOT fusion.

But then is the question of atom bombs. They really dont go off silently. Yes. -Agree.
But then, this kind of suprises have occured; see ie. Ruth & Ray from Serie Upshot-Knothole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…n_Upshot%E2%80%93Knothole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…test_tower_1953-03-31.jpg
The reason is "suprisingly" logical;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hydride_bomb
Just use Deuterium, & slow nuclear fission and your bomb does go off very silently. Pls. note that this 200 t is so not far from the Implosion made by triggering (chemical) high explosives.

But as DF already noted about the reasons of this Thread, with title "Hydrogen couldn't be essential?" let's go back to issue;

What is the exlantion for nuclear bomb going off like Castle Bravo;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_yield
or like Upshot-Knothole Ruth&Ray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)

Not to forget that this (pretty depressive) test was also very real;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

Well, Hydogen is ESSENTIAL. Or basically low atomic number. Ofcourse Uran is good, because it causes proton/neutron to be directly destructed.
But for explosions; it's basically all just ideal gas law; PV=nRT
If you split the molecule, you double the n, and thus you double the pressure. But this is not so critical if the molecule is heavy.
If the molecule is light, like Hydrogen The kinetic energy of the particle is much higher than with heavy mass with SAME temperature;
Here's the math; http://calistry.org/calculate/…cTheoryVelocityCalculator
Put 0.001 kg/mol (H) and say 3000 K, you have 8650 m/s
Put 0.004 (He-4) and have 4325 m/s
Li-7; 3270 m/s
Be-9; 2883 m/s
N-14; 2311 m/s
Si-28; 1634 m/s
Fe-56; 1156 m/s etc.
As you see, it's the single Neutron/Proton which is dangerous and causes explosion-velocities.

So what happened in Castle Bravo? (Besides that there were people killed because of explosion was 250% more than expected.)
The Lithium-7 went through this;
n + Li-7→ T + He-4 + n – 2.467 MeV
But the -2.467 MeV is more or less nonsense, as This doesn't seem so endothermic to me;

So the Ideal gas law gives the following difference in -say- 1 000 000 K
Li-7; (60 000 m/s) -> T (91 000 m/s) + He-4 (80 000 m/s) + n (223 000 m/s)
But we should not forget the Pressure rise, cause n -> 3 n, so we end up having 3 000 000 K if the Pressure remains constant, and thus;
Li-7; (60 000 m/s) -> T (158 000 m/s) + He-4 (137 000 m/s) + n (274 000 m/s)

Ok. -Instead of flooding too much, I let you absorb this first. For those who are able to absorb high amounts once; pls search here;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…/QED-Theory-of-everything
Edit; -oops- I forgot the Neutron, so it's even more worse. (added)

Quote from Jokela

The exothermic energy of Fission is actually quite low

@ Jokola: It's about 200MeV/ per fission if a Uranium Atom, what is huge compared to LENR energies. One problem with current fission is, that it runs at slightly suboptimal conditions and about 10% of the energy is spent to the universe as heavy neutrinos...

Quote from Jokela

he Lithium-7 went through this;
n + Li-7→ T + He-4 + n – 2.467 MeV
But the -2.467 MeV is more or less nonsense, as this doesn't seem so endothermic to me;

(-) means exothermic as everywhere in science...

If you like to do real calculation (science!) and not just citations, then I can e-mail you a complete spreadsheet with amu's etc...

Quote from Jokela

Ofcourse I am totally wrong if E=mc² -binding energy argument is valid. But it isn't.

We are not talking about the same issue. I understand what you mean. But I think IT ISN'T SO.

Quote from Wyttenbach

(-) means exothermic as everywhere in science...

Pls. check the signs. Ie. here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…usion#Important_reactions
I copied it from there, it's the (12) "sort of" -I hope you find it. And I also hope that you note, that this "whole story" stinks, ("Fusion" of Castle Bravo & Lithium-7)

I think I don't need amu spread sheets. I allready went through some ~3000 isotopes to produce this paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…187_Nucleosynthesis_chain
to found out possible problems with nucleosynthesis-theory. Which I did, and I also found the explanation;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ory_of_everything_-Chemie
Yes, it's all written by hand with ink. -It sort of forces you to think throughly what you write.

I've tried to make some -big data- analysis about the atomic masses of certain isotopes, and it actually showed me things from nucleus-structures, I have ie. solved the Muon stuff, but my papers are still bit in a mess. It might be allready written on the latest version of this,,,
https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_Physics_3032016_version
But that's sort of stuck too,,