I believe you have mentioned this more than once. I take it seriously. Please indicate what energies and what flux rates of gammas and neutrons one might expect in such system. Each 9 or17 MeV (or whatever seems possible and/or claimed) alpha would have what likelihood of generating what energy of gamma and/or neutron on interaction with say 7Li or say 58Ni.
Yes, I have posted some calculations based in Stelson's publication:
Safety: Lithium Intoxication - Lithium Side Effects ?
Data supports the possibility that Li7+H1->Be8->2He4 + 17 MeV fusion is one of the main contributors to the excess energy. In accordance with it the injecting of deuterons into a molten lithium leads into formation of heat and huge amount of alpha particles - at five thousands of volts only. But only at the temperature of lithium few degrees above melting point (180.54 °C), not above. Once the lithium gets hotter just a bit more (200 - 250 °C), then the reaction stops,
Fine, but where are the gammas and neutrons produced by the 9 MeV alphas travelling in the Li?
If the Rossi Effect is real it needs to be proven (or perhaps proven further in a way that satisfies everyone) and if there has never been any excess heat produced by any of Rossi's own tests/demos or by third party replications that needs to be exposed.
There will never be complete acceptance of LENR and reactors will not be legal until we have a good model of what is happening. For this end it is important to complement excess heat determinations with good measurements of radiation and isotope shifts. Notice the word good! That means good energy resolution gamma/X-ray detection and isotope ratios, not only elemental composition.
This was what happened to Wegener and his continental drift hypothesis: he lacked a good model for the drifting continental plates, and it took fifty years until the theory was generally accepted. Another reason may be the fact that Wegener was a meteorologist not a geologist.
Every human activity should have some reason.
Oh dear, how boring! 
Re: thoriated rods.
The thoriated rods are being phased out, and are banned in some jurisdictions. For the most part they are just being inventory depleted and no longer being made.
I thought it was strange. Do you know what the Th was for?
I see what i take to be a possible mixed decimal convention there.
I don't know what you mean. The scientific convention is to use . and not , (as in Swedish). Intensities are given per 100 decays of the parent, i.e. %. Anyway your interpretation is correct. What can be trickier is to interpret the errors.
| E(gamma) 63.83 2 means +-0.02 keV | I(gamma) 0.263 13 means +-0.013 |
The data are from
http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/toi/
where you will find all decays, old Table of Isotopes data but enough for most purposes.
Q-values, masses are available here:
http://nuclear.lu.se/database/masses/
Welding rods are available in 0%, 1/2%, 1% and 2% Thorium.
Let's calculate the activity of 1g of rod material with 2% 232Th.
Amount 232Th 1*0.02 = 0.02 g = 0.02/232 mole = ( 20*10^(-5)/2.32)*6.022*10^23 = ( 20/2.32)*6.022*10^18 = 52*10^18 atoms = N
Half-life T1/2 = 1.40510^10 y = 1.40510^10 *365.24*24*60*60 s = 4.4*10^17 s
Decay constant lambda = log(2)/T1/2 = 0.693/(4.4*10^17) = 0.157*10^-17 /s
Activity = N*lambda = 52*10^18 *0.157*10^-17 = 52*10*0.157 Bq = 82 Bq
which is a very low activity. Very few alpha particles would escape from the rod, but there are some low-energy gammas that will:
http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/toi/nuclide.asp?iZA=900232
The activity is, however, way over the limit 300 Bq/kg for foodstuff, especially taking account the increased danger with alpha-particles.
Anyway, there is no need to worry about neutrons from spontaneous fission.
Yes, Thorium is in fact optionally included in W welding electrodes. It does in fact undergo radioactive decay. I have measured the radioactivity myself with a geiger counter held close to the W + Th rod.
It is of course 232Th. It alpha decays, but there are some gammas that can escape to a detector. Don't give it to a kid to lick on!
It seems to me that the Kullander materials were called "new" and "old", rather than "fuel" and "ash".
Although that may be a purely semantic distinction, it might instead be a more accurate distinction.
The bottles are labelled "new" and "after 2.5 months of operation in Leonardo's reactor"
Yes, Prof. Ekstrom. It is also possible that me356 dangerous experience with
high neutron flux was caused by thorium content of a tungsten welding
rod. Welding rods are available in 0%, 1/2%, 1% and 2% Thorium. It is
entirely possible that the neutron flux in the me 356 experiment could
be avoided by using a W rod with no Th .
I don't understand. Do they really put radioactive material in W rods?
Anyway, if he sees more neutrons that the normal background they come
from nuclear reactions. There are no isotopes of Th decaying by
significant spontaneous fission:
http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/toi/listnuc.asp?sql=&Z=90
Granting someone "due respect" might feel good, and has a certain Kantian categorical to it. Unfortunately there is a "trojan horse" risk embracing these folks of the "old guard". Look carefully at role of dogma in the history of CF / LENR / AHE.
I am flattered that you hold me in such a high regard that I could decide the Trojan war. No, I am just a simple nuclear physicist and not that influential. As always, money will talk. But in some respect you are right. Science and the scientific method is strong and will prevail in the end. But fear not, we will find the golden nugget... if it is there.
The Grump,
He even acknowledged a theoretical basis upon which the proton generation
could be based.
Yes. Unfortunately wrong, though.
Simply put he encouraged out of the box research and understood that the
standard model was in no way complete or even necessary.
Yes, but sometimes people get too far outside the box and need to be
brought back. Also, the main thing is not theory - theories come and go -
but an enormous amount of experimental results.
..at least accepting that the LENR results are at the least enticing and
worthy of further work even if, in the end, that is futile.
I do, but some touch with reality is needed!
This is getting way to pleasant for this thread, so I'd better stop before I get in trouble with the moderator.
PS. I think it is a shame that Thomas felt he had to leave the forum
because of something I can only classify as bullying. His dedication and
knowledge will be sourly missed! The purpose of this forum is, I hope,
to make progress by discussion. Not like The Other Place were the
purpose is to promote dubious products.
Read this: nautil.us/issue/7/waste/einsteins-lost-hypothesis, Mr. Ekstrom. If Albert Einstein can consider the possibility of unexpected properties and reactions in the atomic and nuclear realm, so to, could you!
I have read it. It is a sweet little story that is like a gospel for the LENR religion. Scientifically, Sternglass did not have the best of reputations and he even failed to replicate his own experiment! The article ends with a few heroes of the LENR world, e.g. Krivit's favourite Lewis-Larsen. A very nice attempt to make out that Einstein is part of LENR history!
Thanks Eric and Alan for the support!
Rossi also uses a fuel pre-treatment step. His patent says that he starts with 5 micron nickel powder and sinteres it until he gets a particle mix of between 1 to 100 microns. This reshaped powder is covered with lithium.
The fuel analysis from the Lugano test shows that the nickel powder in the fuel had rare earths and a range of other heavy elements welded onto the surface of the fuel particles. This may have been caused by using a rare earth doped tungsten electron to sinter the fuel during pre-treatment.
The first (spring 2011) fuel analysis showed no 7Li whatsoever in the fuel.
Perhaps this shows a worthy example of the hobbled thinking that may be pervasive among skeptic "physicists" with little knowledge of the real world.
Ekstrom's response: "Yes I have access to the Indiana ion source article and I have read it. But I cannot see why I should do your job!"
Maybe you should take a step back and see what caused my reaction. I found your comment arrogant. And why do you need help from somebody "with little knowledge of the real world".
Display More
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring-imaging_Cherenkov_detector
Holmlid is claiming that his experiments are producing short lived subatomic particles. It seems to me that the simple detection of excess heat can only get us so far in the explanation of the LENR reaction. What might be the correct next step in LENR experimentation is to come up with a low energy subatomic particle detection method that can identify the particles that may be produced by the LENR reaction.
The reference above explains the way high energy subatomic particles are detected. With the advantage of your life long scientific backgrounds, might this technology be converted to a method that can detect particles with energy levels in the LENR energy range?
The use of aerogel in a Cherenkov style detector might be adapted to such a task. Your opinions and that of the other members of the community are most welcome.
The following reference is an application of this idea using aerogel
jlab.org/Hall-C/talks/06_22_12/hlavin.pdf
I have no experience in high-energy detectors like Cherenkov detectors.
Also, I do not believe that Holmlid produces heavy elementary particles.
It is hard enough to understand MeV energies in LENR. For heavy
particles to be detected with Cherenkov counters you need GeV energies (velocities approaching c).
To detect charged particles (protons, alphas...) I would use Si DE/E
detectors to determine the mass). For neutrons NE215 liquid plastic
scintillators with pulse shape discrimination (PSD) should be safe.
But, frankly, I think it is a waste of time.
About the work about neutron generation by brittle failure of rocks (I have this paper of the italian team somewhere...)
Here is one:
https://www.researchgate.net/p…anical_Compression_Tests1
Very sharp criticism of the group's work from a Uppsala group:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3501
Here a standard paper as a wakeup call: currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0636.pdf
Interesting result, and worth billions if it works. But 14 out of 17 references are self references to the main author Vysotskii, so caution is advisable.
From the context, I gather that the second "not" was a typo?
No, that was the reason I asked the question.
magicsound and sveinol
I asked myself if you two + Holmlid could not join forces and prepare a replication
of the Holmlid-style setup instead of trying to replicate Rossi?
If you need funds for this, maybe the forum could organize something like this for you?
Sorry if I insult Rossi fans but his work is and has been unscientific crap.
The Holmlid concept is the only real scientific one that is worth to be pursued.
I agree about Rossi, but you should not go for one possible LENR solution. You may go for the wrong one and it will just create unhelpful bickering. Accept criticism from people with relevant knowledge. Improve your instrumentation and procedures. And forget about those who have made promises for years without delivering.
I'm not too optimistic about the final result, but it is worth a try. If a device with excess energy is found, I think it will look and behave very differently from what most of you imagine.
I too find this intriguing. The apparent fact that acidic conditions in Pd-D electrolytic CF Pons & Fleischmann style cells are almost never shown or claimed to be giving excess power, whereas nearly invariably those cells "work" when the conditions are basic. That is one clue.
Sure, if you accept the data as good. You still haven't shown me a naked proton. 
