Alan Smith  Shane D.  David Nygren

Not sure where to put this.

Has Nathaniel been discussed here? This is LCF cold hot fusion CMNS plasma REGINALD Little concepts

They reference#8#9 Jones89et.al. not Pons Fleischmann

Thanks

Gregory

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is a United States Department of Energy national laboratory for plasma physics and nuclear fusion science. Its primary mission is research into and development of fusion as an energy source

https://w3.pppl.gov/~fisch/fischpapers/Son_Chain_react.pdf

Pycnonuclear reaction and possible chain reactions in an ultra-dense DT plasma

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University

• April 2005

Authors:

Soyeong Son

• ASM International N.V.

Nathaniel J. Fisch

• Princeton University

Acknowledgements

The authors thank R. Kulsrud, G. Hammett, S. Ichimaru, and S. Cohen for useful discussions. This work was supported by a US DOE under contract AC02-76CH0-3073.R

Quote (pg 2/11)

The electrostatic effects still can be, if large, expressed as a multiplicative factor [6,7].

However, in an ultra dense plasma, even the reacting nuclei are bound in a Coulomb lattice.

To obtain the fusion reaction rate in this regime, quite different methods must be used.

While the so-called cold fusion reactions [8,9] also have employed this pycnonuclear fusion concept,...

....it must be emphasized that the pycnonuclear fusion reaction itself is generally accepted theory [1], even if general acceptance has not been accorded to all the effects to which it has been associated.

A prominent feature of the pycnonuclear reactions....is that the fusion rate is extremely sensitive to the density,...but almost independent of the temperature.

7. Conclusion

We show that, in an ultra dense D–T plasma with ρ = 106 (g cm−3), the pycnonuclear reaction might

be observable in the laboratory although it is not yet clear whether such a dense and cold condition can be achieved. We also show that the local field correction and relativistic correction increase the rate by 40%. We also predict a chain reaction regime.

References

[1] A.G.W. Cameron, Astrophys. J. 130 (1959) 916.

[2] H. Kitamura, Astrophys. J. 539 (2000) 888.

[3] S. Ichimaru, H. Kitamura, Phys. Plasmas 6 (1999) 2649.

[4] E.E. Salpeter, Aust. J. Phys. 7 (1954) 373.

[5] A.V. Gruzinov, J.N. Bahcall, Astrophys. J. 504 (1998) 996.

[6] S. Ichimaru, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 (1993) 255.

[7] H.E. Dewitt, H.C. Graboske, Astrophys. J. 181 (1973) 439.

[8] S.E. Jones, Nature 338 (1989) 737.

[9] S.E. Jones, D.L. Decker, H.D.

Tolley, Nature 343 (1990) 703.

[10] E.E. Salpeter, H.M. Van Horn, Astrophys. J. 155 (1969) 183.

[11] H.M. Van Horn, Astrophys. J. 151 (1968) 227.

[12] C.J. Horowitz, Astrophys. J. 367 (1991) 288.

[13] S. Ichimaru, H. Kitamura, Phys. Plasmas 7 (2000) 3482.

[14] S. Ichimaru, Phys. Plasmas 8 (2001) 4284.

[15] H. Kitamura, S. Ichimaru, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65 (1996) 1250.

[16] N.J. Fisch, J.M. Rax, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 612.

[17] N.J. Fisch, M.C. Herrmann, Nucl. Fusion 34 (1994) 1541.

[18] S. Ichimaru, S. Mitake, S. Tanaka, X. Yan, Phys. Rev. A 32

(1985) 1768.

[19] S. Ichimaru, K. Utsumi, Astrophys. J. 269 (1983) L51.

[20] B. Jancovici, Nuovo Cimento 26 (1962) 428.

[21] W.B. Hubbard, T. Guillot, J.I. Lunine, Phys. Plasmas 4 (1997)

2011.

[22] D.H.E. Dubin, T.M. O’Neil, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 (1999) 87.

[23] H.K. Mao, R.J. Hemley, Science 244 (1990) 4911.

[24] D. Bohm, D. Pines, Phys. Rev. 92 (1953) 609.

[25] J. Lindhard, K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd. 28 (8)

(1954).

[26] K.S. Singwi, Phys. Rev. 176 (1968) 589.

[27] S. Ichimaru, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54 (1982) 1017.

[28] B. Jancovici, J. Stat. Phys. 17 (1977) 357.

[29] I. Nagy, J. Laszlo, J. Giber, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.

B 27 (1987) 276.

[30] G. Maynard, C. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A 26 (1982) 665.

[31] G. Gouedaid, C. Deutsch, J. Math. Phys. 19 (1978) 32.

[32] C. Deutsch, G. Maynard, J. Physique 46 (1985) 1113.

[33] I. Nagy, A. Arnau, P.M. Echenique, Phys. Rev. B 40 (1989)

11983.

[34] I. Nagy, Phys. Rev. B 62 (2000) 5270.

[35] I. Nagy, A. Arnau, P.M. Enchenique, Phys. Rev. A 43 (1991)

6038.

[36] E. Fermi, E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 72 (1947) 399.

[37] M. Tabak, J. Hammer, M.E. Glinsky, W.L. Kruer, S.C. Wilks,

J. Woodworth, E.M. Campbell, M.D. Perry, R.J. Mason, Phys.

Plasmas 1 (1994) 1626.

[38] D.H.E. Dubin, Phys. Rev. E 53 (1996) 5249.

[39] R.E. Kidder, Nucl. Fusion 19 (1979) 223.

[40] M.D. Rosen, Phys. Plasmas 6 (1999) 1690.

[41] L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, Pergamon,

Elmsford, 1980.

[42] J. Dawson, Fusion, vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, 1981.

[43] S. Eliezer, J.M. Martinez-Val, Laser and Particle Beams 16

(1998) 581.

[44] T. Honda, Y. Nakao, Y. Honda, K. Kudo, Nucl. Fusion 31

(1991) 851.

[45] Y. Nakao, T. Honda, K. Kudo, Nucl. Fusion 30 (1990) 143.

[46] S. Son, N.J. Fisch, Phys. Lett. A 329 (2004) 76.

[47] P.C. Gibbons, Phys. Rev. B 13 (1976) 2451.

[48] M. Buttiker, R. Landauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1739.

[49] T. Tanizawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65 (1996) 3157.

Nathaniel has been busy

The Rotamak is a proposed thermonuclear fusion device which employs rotating magnetic fields (RMF) to generate an azimuthal current to produce a field-reversed configuration. The efficiency of the currents that produce the field reversal by RMFs was debated some 40 years ago. The debate revolved around whether the currents would incur dissipation by the conventional Spitzer perpendicular resistivity, or whether some other relation between current and dissipation would be more appropriate. By employing an electron–ion pitch-angle scattering model, we find that the dissipation is non-Spitzer in nature.

However, curiously, there appears to exist a regime where the power dissipated to maintain the current becomes vanishingly small.

Nathaniel has been busy

The Rotamak is a proposed thermonuclear fusion device which employs rotating magnetic fields (RMF) to generate an azimuthal current to produce a field-reversed configuration. The efficiency of the currents that produce the field reversal by RMFs was debated some 40 years ago. The debate revolved around whether the currents would incur dissipation by the conventional Spitzer perpendicular resistivity, or whether some other relation between current and dissipation would be more appropriate. By employing an electron–ion pitch-angle scattering model, we find that the dissipation is non-Spitzer in nature.

However, curiously, there appears to exist a regime

where the power dissipated

to maintain the current

becomes vanishingly

small.

And another reason why solar panels on earth are a waste of time when we have much more efficient plant based systems for converting photons from the sun into carbo-hydrates! And making oxygen for rocket engines. We will always have petrol or alcohol, diesel (bio-diesel) and kerosene for home-heating or aviation fuel! We just have to deal with a somewhat spoilt (socio-pathic) new young teenage generation who think they are all little geniuses with their new shiny mobile phones (which COST THE EARTH TO MANUFACTURE!). Like my own son who is now 33 yrs old and has no idea how his hand-held computer device actually works! Ask any of them what happens if they put their heads into a microwave oven (which is what they are doing using the new 5G network!). They don't even see the point of my question!

Quote from Dr Richard*

We will always have petrol or alcohol, diesel (bio-diesel) and kerosene for home-heating or aviation fuel!

So I recommend you to buy an SUV and use the famous US made corn bio fuel. For 100 miles, besides the corn fertilizer (add blue....) you burn also the weekly meal of an average African family...

So can anybody justify to me the point of solar panels vs chlorophyl-plant based systems? Apart from corporate control and greed?

Your average African family is already doing the logical thing. Hence their very low incidence of COVID but because of socio-political reasons they still suffer from a myriad of other diseases, including HIV, cholera, malaria, diphtheria etc etc etc........the list is endless. There would be no point in converting their precious corn meal into fuel for cars they don't even possess, or feeding it to animals to produce meat. Its only the spoilt First World Countries that waste food by producing meat, just as we make bio-diesel for fuelling our cars. So would you rather buy a TESLA or a FERRARI driven on alcohol? There is no difference - except the Ferrari will be worth far more in the future as a collector's piece. Just like the original dual-fuel Prius is becoming collectable if they haven't rusted to pieces!

Quote from Dr Richard*

So can anybody justify to me the point of solar panels vs chlorophyl-plant based systems?

Solar panel efficiency ranges from 11% to 15%. Plant photosynthesis with sunlight is 3% to 6%, but in terms of energy storage it ends up at about 1%. If you were to burn the plants to generate electricity, you would get only about 1/3rd of that energy, making the total ~0.3%.

photosynthesis - Energy efficiency of photosynthesis

photosynthesis - photosynthesis - Energy efficiency of photosynthesis: The energy efficiency of photosynthesis is the ratio of the energy stored to the energy…

www.britannica.com

it may be a interesting storage devise if a ball of it was created..

pele's hair meaning - Google Suche

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Nature paper describes the target and laser designs that achieved a burning plasma at Lawrence Livermore

COP still below 1%....

@Jed Rothwell true, but you are not factoring in as is the case for Tesla cars the cost to the environment of factories producing the solar panels or cars. What is the energy cost in relation to photosynthesis?

Quote from Dr Richard*

@Jed Rothwell true, but you are not factoring in as is the case for Tesla cars the cost to the environment of factories producing the solar panels or cars. What is the energy cost in relation to photosynthesis

Photosynthesis more efficient than believed, study finds

Photosynthesis more efficient than believed, study finds | Cornell Chronicle

A new study suggests photorespiration wastes little energy and enhances nitrate assimilation, the process that converts nitrate absorbed from the soil into…

news.cornell.edu

A new study by researchers at Cornell and the University of California, Davis, suggests that photorespiration wastes little energy and instead enhances nitrate assimilation, the process that converts nitrate absorbed from the soil into protein.

Quote from Dr Richard*

@Jed Rothwell true, but you are not factoring in as is the case for Tesla cars the cost to the environment of factories producing the solar panels or cars. What is the energy cost in relation to photosynthesis?

The energy cost for using the product of photosynthesis is sometimes higher than the energy you get out of it. Especially with ethanol. It is an energy sink, not an energy source. By the time you irrigate the crop, harvest it, and process it, the energy that goes into it is far greater than what you get out by burning it. See "Food, Energy, and Society" by Pimentel and Pimentel.

If you could use all of the stored energy from photosynthesis directly, with no processing, the way you use photovoltaic electricity, it would be a positive energy source. It would be roughly 10 times smaller than photovoltaic electricity, but still positive.

Burning wood directly instead of producing ethanol is a net positive source of energy, but it is extremely wasteful, destructive, and dirty.

The energy and dollar cost of making a Tesla car is far smaller than the cost of ethanol agriculture, conversion factories, ethanol distribution to gas stations, and burning ethanol. The latter has has extremely low Carnot efficiency, except perhaps in a hybrid car. Tesla cars powered by photovoltaic or wind produce no CO2 during transportation, whereas the production of ethanol produces more CO2 than any other source of energy, and -- as I said -- it is a net energy sink. It uses more fossil fuel than gasoline from oil does. The only way to power an automobile with photosynthesis is to make ethanol, or to burn wood and generate power. Both options are environmental and economic nightmares.

Electric cars can be produced in factories powered by photovoltaics or wind, whereas with present technology, ethanol requires the use of gasoline, for farm equipment and transport to gas stations.

Please Please purchase and read the book. My hope is that members of this Forum buy one for their own library and teachers and advocates here buy 10 as gifts to students. As teachers be sure to advise it as required or recommended reading on your syllabus. On the 10th anniversary of the passing of Martin Fleischmann... this year...

Thanks

Alan Smith

Big big Thanks

JedRothwell

Let's popularize the book... the publisher will be pleased I'm sure.

"Developments in Electrochemistry

Science Inspired by Martin Fleischmann" 2014

ISBN: 9781118694435, 1118694430

The book is of interest to both students and experienced workers in universities and industry who are active in developing electrochemical science.

Source: Publisher Wiley

I will take the time, next week, to mail a letter to Wiley et al. personally thanking them for publishing extensively in this controversial field. It seems to me they are to be credited as leaders in the publishing industry of science, in regards to 'cold fusion'. Others here are invited to do so as well. Perhaps this year we enter the market, no? Thanks Wiley et al.

Quote from Fm1

Photosynthesis more efficient than believed, study finds

https://news.cornell.edu/stori…ient-believed-study-finds

A new study by researchers at Cornell and the University of California, Davis, suggests that photorespiration wastes little energy and instead enhances nitrate assimilation, the process that converts nitrate absorbed from the soil into protein.

During my plant physiology courses at the university I learnt that the energy that chloroplasts receive versus what they can fixate into chemical bonds is a very low proportion (1% sounds about right), and the process creates a lot of free radical oxygen (in the for of h2o2) that has to be dealt with by an enzymatic system, if not, the leaves get literally destroyed from the inside. One of the most widely used contact herbicides (paraquat) simply blocks the enzymatic system so the leaves destroy themselves just by doing their job.

There are, as always, nuances. There are three major kinds of photosynthetic pathways known as c3, c4 and CAM. C3 plants are plants that can’t deal with too much solar energy, they grow in temperate and cold zones. C4 are the more “evolved” ones that can take the most advantage from the sun due to an intracellular adaptation that allows a better efficiency of use of the photosynthesis energy for carboxilation. These plants can actually grow faster with more sunlight, within a certain range (example, corn and sugar cane).

CAM plants are very slow growing as they adapted to accumulate an intermediate metabolite and do their carboxylation at night to avoid dessication (cactuses), it’s a testimony of how resilient and adaptable is life.

Gregory Byron Goble

There is nothing controversial about electrochemistry per se. Anyway, this is a book thread, not a discussion thread. OT posts will be gone tomorrow.

Source
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., commonly known as Wiley, is an American multinational publishing company founded in 1807 that focuses on academic publishing and instructional materials.

·https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

Quote from Alan Smith

. OT posts will be gone tomorrow.

yes

To the clearance items thread.

Thanks

Photosynthesis can be more than 1% efficient, but only with artificial light. That is, light in photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) wavelengths. Which is to say "not green." Indoor farming uses LED generated PAR. See the discussion starting on p. 130:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

Indoor farming uses LED generated PAR.

Yes! The best pot is grown indoors now. 16 hours a day working plants with 100% sunlight up to 20% THCD...what potentially kills you....