Ragheb mentions Woodford in his recent LENr update.
https://mragheb.com/Possibilit…0Matter,%20A%20Review.pdf
He may heard his stuff on the academic grapevine.
"
Ragheb mentions Woodford in his recent LENr update.
https://mragheb.com/Possibilit…0Matter,%20A%20Review.pdf
He may heard his stuff on the academic grapevine.
"
the sensors recorded thermal neutron radiation at X10 times above background
Hopefully the radiation was just gammas..or an effect on the electronics.
neutrons are not very healing
Ask Jean-Paul Biberian
Armenian proverb
Lamb in the spring, snow in the winter.
Everything has its own time
Spring is almost over but I am in no hurry.
which he included in the upcoming paper
I look forward to reading it after its been through the reviewers.
Sometime soon?
Pessimism won't save the planet.
Neither will misreading
however remedial reading courses may benefit SOT.
You don't read carefully
SOT has a recurrent reading problem.
Remedial courses are recommended
Oh, almost forgot, there is this:
Mario at gsvit never commented on the extensive raw data even though I sent it to him
and has never commented on the final paper, which is different from the September version
this comment refers to.
Perhaps Mario dismissed the raw data as erroneous..
Maybe SOT could ask Mary about the raw data which was on this website in 2017
either failure or success
ITER propaganda continually touts success .. after 2050 now... never failure.
However nuclear research physicist, Jassby , does talk failure
"When confronted by this reality, even the most starry-eyed energy planners may abandon fusion. Rather than heralding the dawn of a new energy era, it’s likely instead that ITER will perform a role analogous to that of the fission fast breeder reactor, whose blatant drawbacks mortally wounded another professed source of “limitless energy” and enabled the continued dominance of light-water reactors in the nuclear arena."
much smaller with a route to commercial fusion by 2030:
2030 might be optimistic judging by previous fusion timelines
but with enough funding who knows?
Total funds raised for fusion venture Tokamak Energy exceeds £50M
But who here is against optimism?
I am not against optimism for LENR.. especially relative to ITER fusion
1.Most popular video re:ITER
Fusion Energy youtube 1.1 M views
External Content
www.youtube.com
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
2. Most popular video re:AR
Rossi failure via Krivit 160K views
These two pale in comparison to
Most popular video re:fusion views=40M
Popularity is meaningless
Nuclear technology is always more expensive than forecasts
Especially if neutrons are involved
I must point out that the Maestro in this orchestra is an American
The atomic score has a Mendeleevian flavour.. plenty of isotopes and isomers....
maybe even Ytterbium and Scandium will have melodies.
Best you not watch it
Hear not LENR See no LENR Speak lots of... SOT.
electron screening... is one of the more plausible ways that LENR might.. happen
Shenkel at al,2019 seem to have some inconsistency.. incoherence about Reference 8.
Is it included in References 5-11 or not?
I might ask them whether their results are consistent or inconsistent
with the 2005 Lipson Rusetski Miley and Karabut's 650 Ev result.
""But an electron screening potential of ~1000 eV is not consistent with established theories of electron screening, which reproduce measured values from gas phase experiments of ~27 eV [1, 5-11]. The value of Ue from our measurements in the neutron channel is consistent with earlier results in a similar glow discharge plasma regime and measurements of protons from D-D fusion reactions [8].""
[8] A. G. Lipson, A. S. Rusetski, A. B. Karabut, and G. Miley, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 100 , 1175 (2005).
Lipson et al stated a mystery in 2005
""Note that so far the screening mechanism of DD-reaction in metals remains a mystery because there is no developed approach
to explain Ue > 100 eV (strongly above adiabatic limit) by normal valence electron screening.
Here we note that metal host inner electron shells may somehow take part in the screening""
The 2019 authors present no plausible explanation for the mystery that Lipson et al stated in 2005, 14 years earlier.
but restate it as ""~1000 eV is not consistent with established theories of electron screening""
Perhaps the increased neutron emissions in in the 2019, 2005 exptal setups are not due to electron screening at all.
" Detection of Xrays induced by high energy electrons (15 keV) in a scanning electron microscope showed a surface composition of palladium with significant contributions from carbon (30 at%) and oxygen (20 at%) in the top 100 nm. The control sample wires had a near-surface composition with smaller contributions from oxygen and carbon (14 at% each)
Research question .. did the carbon come from stainless steel?
Larry gets around... on the spot with his video recording
Bob G: Ï need to go for a p"
Reiterating the problem with controlling neutrons
:Competing processes.. for gobbling up neutrons"... with U238 they mostly go into producing plutonium"
Neutron-reliant processes are OK inside lead shields or in outer space.
Steve Koonin is still around,, but not in energy production physics.
438 is the IH client number of legal representative for USPTO.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/8467-438-74-2-pdf/
438 may be DW's lucky number some time
definitely PH's work is based on more work than luck
but the find that Fe57 14.4Kev, and Kalpha undergo nonexponential decay was unexpected luck?
"
The non-exponential decay observed at early time in the Fe-57 14.4 keV line, and in the Fe Kα and Kβ X-rays, if real and if connected with phonon–nuclear coupling, potentially opens the door to a wide range of new experiments