Posts by Peter Ekstrom

Quote from axil

One of the mechanisms that seems to work in stimulating the LENR reaction is EMF stimulation. There is a number of threads of research that might be tied together to get a handle on what could be the character and structure of this stimulation.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. This is not LENR. It is true that high power lasers can create very high electric fields in a plasma. The fields accelerate particles to very high energies and these can induce nuclear reactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_acceleration
The problem is the efficiency. The probability that a particle causes a reaction (cross section) is small, so many particles have to be accelerated to induce one reaction. The rest of the energy is lost as heat. So even if lasers and accelerators can induce reactions with excess energy (positive Q-value) they are of no interest for energy production (with the possible exception of spallation/fission). The same holds for muon catalysed fusion: it costs too much energy to produce the muons.

The main beauty with the LENR is its small initiation energy. This is also the weakness: how is initiation achieved without loosing too much energy?

Quote from Wyttenbach

PS: I'm handicapped in reading: So I mostly read PDF's. I' don't buy printed books.
Paying for science is matter of conduct. Either You like a free world or you play the old Greek (US) democracy game, where only the wealthy were free.

More and more papers are published with Open Access since funding agencies demand it. It is a slow process, however, since the publishers demand very high profits. We who are affiliated to a university are blessed with almost complete free access - for a very high cost to the university, however.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Cl36 St90 have a beta- decay path where one of the confirmed ones (Ra226) was an alpha emitter!

Could you explain this, please. To a nuclear physicist it sounds like gobbledygook!

Quote from poelzi

You answer to threads in which you clearly have not even read the first post to approximately get what the thread is about. Are you a troll ?

Or, it could be my way of expressing what I think of the theory!

I do not think that it is easier for LENR to be accepted of it requires that the whole of physics has to be modified. Rather the opposite I would think!

I don't know how many imaginative new unified theories there are out there, probably in the hundreds. I got the latest ("Time Energy Theory", unfortunately probably not the last) two days ago via email. I do not think I will read it. It will go with the spam.

The theories are either very vague using fancy technical terms which together become complete nonsense, or they are an exercise in maths completely detached from experimental physics (like Randell Mills' effort).

Quote from axil

I know that you're a man of fire and steam weaned on your father's knee with tails of the iron clad sailing ships and the iron men who sailed them when the 20th century was young.

I can with my inner eye see the iron clad sailing ships wagging their tails.

Quote from poelzi

Peter: I can assure you at least of one thing, from the BSM perspective it is much less magical then the standard one. No spooky action at a distance (- of course you have the effect, but it's not spooky anymore), no wired big bang where all the formulas collapse and you have already invented over 20 free parameters to make the theory at least fit in some aspects, no strange neutrino oscillations and all this magic. That we are talking currently about more exotic effects that do not touch us in day to day life is a different matter.

What's BSM? Bull Shit Model?

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is complete bullshit: Anti electrons can be kept for hours... Ask the CERN guys. It's the other way round: BSM might propose a third form of matter which is similar to the known anti matter...

Any proposed theory should in first place be able to explain what we see in our lab, not what somebody claims to feel in his brain!

For once I agree completely with Wyttenbach! .

This Fantasy-tendency is too common with LENR-believers. We have a few more examples in the forum, no names but you know who...

Quote from Alan Smith

Here's the link again...

newenergytimes.com/v2/library/…ctromagneticRadiation.pdf

This is a very poor paper from 2004. It is a waste of time and I suggest that you draw no conclusions from it. If it had been correct, Focardi would have got the Nobel prize. 0.661 MeV sounds like 137Cs - a common contamination in nuclear labs. 1.44 MeV is also in the background and is suspiciously close to 1.46 MeV - always present 40K. There is also sloppy labelling of spectra (signal-background is bigger than the signal in fig 3).

Quote from Hermes

I was referring to the heat / helium ratio not the energies of individual reactions. Taking into account the expected rates of all 3 branches of d-d fusion and the energies of each, you can verify my estimate.

What I gave is heat (energy) per produced 4He. Since we are talking about cold fusion (are we not?) the p and n branches are missing.

Quote from Wyttenbach

That's the reason why I repeat it again and again that JET, ITER etc. is the work of a bunch of typing monkeys, which suck the most research money ever, spoiled for a ridicoulus approach.
We should focus on bringing this spoiled money into LENR.

Are you the German twin of Siffertroll? This was his main message in the Swedish energikatalysatorn.se!

Quote from JedRothwell

Hermes wrote:

I thought plasma fusion produced 50% 3He, 50% 3H and only 0.00001% 4He. The heat to 4He ratio is about 37000 GeV.

Someone who knows a lot more nuclear physics than I do informs me that you are correct. I had it wrong.

D+D to 4He is a rare branch of plasma fusion. However, for some reason it seems to be the only branch of cold fusion. If you could somehow force plasma fusion into the D+D => 4He branch only, you would get a certain amount of helium per joule of heat. That is how much you get with cold fusion.

Display More

No, the Q-value for d+d-->4He is 23846 keV. For GeV energies you need annihilation with anti-nucleons.
The branch to 4He is indeed very small (it involves the weaker electromagnetic interaction). The deviating branching ratio is still one of the mysteries of CF.

Quote from Wyttenbach

If you like to see a 1 MW boiler go for a swim in a heated basin 50X 20 Meters and afterwards - after a cool down - ask the chief of the bath to show You the heating. They typically use 500kWh units.

Are they replaced when the 500 kWh are used? I think you mean 500 kW or Rossis unit 500 kWh/h.

Quote from JedRothwell

Previous experiments with Pd-D cold fusion show that it converts deuterium to helium without significant radiation. So if this is actually cold fusion you would not expect measurable radiation. The laws have not been adjusted to deal with this fact.

Yes, exactly. The laws will have to be changed if there is CF without radiation. But as it is, they forbid nuclear reactions without a license (at least in Sweden, and probably in most countries). Didn't somebody have legal problems when he claimed to produce tritium?

Quote from JedRothwell

It is required by the state of Florida for any boiler over 110 gallons, 210 deg F operating temperature, or 400,000 btu/h (117 kW) production. It is required for other industrial equipment of similar size. See:

myfloridacfo.com/division/sfm/…lerSafetyBrochure2015.pdf

This has nothing to do with the contract or license agreement between Rossi and I.H. It is a legal requirement for operating equipment in Florida. If Rossi's gadget actually produced 1 MW, both he and his pretend company were in violation of the law. However, I am sure it did not produce more than 20 kW, so there is no problem.

And if the gadget used something nuclear in producing power it would be illegal also under radiation protection laws. But, if course, it isn't since it doesn't work.

Quote from andrea.s

I just realised you are the same person as "Obvious" posting on ECW who found the cut and paste repeated patterns. That really was a good catch. I was puzzled at the time by the absence of temperature gradients and steps, given the stepwise feedback control, and was looking quite deeply into those graphs: but you went deep into the pixels there - wow, that was impressive.

Not the first time cut and paste is used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…gations_and_investigation

Quote from Mary Yugo

I also offered Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto $100,000 cash if they could produce for me to test, the modified Honda Accord that they claimed got 100+ miles per gallon of gasoline using some sort of on board hydrogen generator they had devised.

Lucky you didn't bet on a Volkswagen. You may have lost that one!

Quote from JedRothwell

". . . assisted by his Northern Europe partner and licensee Hydrofusion, Rossi made an offer on the building in the order of USD 3 to 5 million. Negotiations are now ongoing."

Thanks for the info Jed!

Ah, the Swedish IH. It's their decision to waste their own money. As long as we taxpayers don't have to pay. Or Elforsk goes wild ...

Quote from JedRothwell

Because I do not like to see people defrauded. Swedish people, in this case.

Me neither! What are you referering to?

Quote from Alan Smith

I had heard that the Lithium idea came from Professor Roland Pettersen. But your version may be better.

Sven K told me when I visited him in Uppsala in the spring of 2011. Our discussion was mainly about the fuel analysis - he had some preliminary results.

Sven had been working on d+liquid Li with Ikegami, but anybody who can read a nuclear decay scheme could come up with it.

Quote from Alan Smith

Hello Peter! Welcome back- i was concerned we might have lost you somewhere in the fog of somebody's war.

Thanks Alan! I have trouble keeping up with the sheer volume of posts, and I do not want to repeat what has already been said. I have some fun things in the pipeline, though.