Posts by Peter Ekstrom

Quote from Eric Walker

Peter, I will take a look at those references, which I assume you have read, and will assess them for relevance to the kinds of NiH experiments I am familiar with. One detail I note is that they look at Coulomb excitation by energetic alpha particles in lithium and in even nuclei with 58 < A < 82. The point you make here about Coulomb excitation is a good one and is worth keeping in mind. The tentative conclusion, then, is that there are few energetic alphas in the NiH experiments that I am aware of, with the possible exception of Piantelli.

You make it more difficult than necessary - nuclear physics is exceedingly easy.

It is really very simple: All charged heavy particles moving with MeV energies cause CE in even-even nuclei and in most other nuclides. You just need an E2 component in a transition from the ground state. And you don't need to pass the Coulomb barrier! The excited state will decay with gamma.

About the uranium paper. The results are sensational and will give a Nobel prize if correct. It would need independent confirmation. I do not think that will happen. Changing half lives in nuclear physics has been looked for many times without luck. It would of course be nice in we could shorten the half lives of trans-uranium elements.

AlainCo,

Executive summary:
The article is reasonably balanced. A short review of different energy sources and Holmid's ultra dense deuterium. The Norwegian scientist Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen (never heard of) has built a fusion reactor on Holmlid's ideas. He claims to get out so much energy that it can only be cold fusion.
And yes, Fleischmann and Pons announcement to the press was called the biggest scandal of the century!
That is probably a bit exaggerated.
(Norwegian is rather similar to Swedish)

Quote from Eric Walker

Can you cite two or three specific mainstream studies concerning Coulomb excitation that you have personally read that you believe to be directly relevant to the question of whether energetic charged particles can be excluded a priori from NiH LENR experiments?

I haven't time now to check your references but I bet they use primitive equpment (e.g. GM-counters).
There are hundreds of references with Li and Ni reactions, most show actual spectra:
R Y Cusson, Levels in ¹¹B from ⁷Li(α, α)⁷Li and ⁷Li(α, α')⁷Li∗(0.48), Nucl.Phys. 86 (1966) 481-508
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0029558266904925

L van der Zwan and K W Geiger, The ⁷Li(α,n)¹⁰B
differential cross section for α-energies of up to 8 MeV, Nucl.Phys. A180
(1972) 615-624
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0375947472908834

Gy Gyürky, Zs Fülöp, E Somorjai, G Kiss and C Rolfs, Absolute resonance strengths in the ^6,7Li(α,γ) ^10,11B reactions,[/i] The European Physical Journal A 21 (2004) 355-358
http://link.springer.com/artic…40%2Fepja%2Fi2003-10212-2

P H Stelson and F K McGowan, Coulomb excitation of the first 2⁺
state of even nuclei with 58 < A < 82,Nucl. Phys. 32
(1962) 652--668
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0029558262903681

L W Fagg, E H Geer, and E A WolickiI, Coulomb Excitation of V, Ni, Ga, and Rb, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 1073-1076
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.104.1073

Quote from Longview

The lithium+proton interactions described in Lipinski-UGC are there claimed to give alphas at high energy from the prompt Be-8 scission, and these alphas are claimed and used by those researchers to assess the product and are claimed to yield the energy measured in their several devices with many different operational parameters.

This reaction came up partly since it would explain why there is no detectable external radiation. The two alpha-particles are indeed stopped in the reactor and there is no gamma-radiation. Indirectly, however, we get gamma-radiation from the reactions created by the moving alpha-particles. One would easily detect neutrons from 7Li(alpha,n)10B and gammas from 7Li(alpha,alpha')7Li. If there is Ni in the fuel we would also observe gammas from Coulomb excitation in the Ni isotopes. These are all very well studied reactions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

2 Rossi manipulated fuel-
→ Of course did Rossi manipulate the fuel .. prior to the test, but other call this preparation of fuel...
The experimenters took their probes prior to the test and after the test.
The experimenters planted their fuel probe in a way they would detect any manipulations by Rossi...

In the case of the first fuel analysis (spring 2011) Rossi himself admits that the fuel was manipulated. I believe that. I do not believe, however, Rossi's statement that Sven K knew this. He would not have performed a complicated and expensive analysis if he had known about the manipulation, because the manipulation made the analysis useless. This was the case where the ash contained 10% Cu, which was very conveniently consistent with the proposed reaction p+Ni-->Cu. However, the Cu turned up to be as separate particles, not integrated with the Ni powder. As an explanation has been offered that the Cu content was due to an accidental contamination from Cu tubing. I find it more likely that Rossi did not realize how detailed an analysis was possible, so he added the Cu deliberately to confirm the suggested (Focardi, Ross J N Phys paper) reaction.

This manipulation of the ash is consistent with Rossi's handling of the Lugano test ash where it contained 99% ⁶²Ni. In the 2011 sample the isotope ratios were, however, natural values. Especially since it turns out that Rossi had purchased isotopically separated ⁶²Ni, I would say that the most likely scenario is that Rossi used separated ⁶²Ni for the ash sample, which for no good reason was very small (⁶²Ni is expensive).

It is interesting that we have a problem even if both ash samples were genuine. For the 2011 sample there is no viable reaction that could give excess energy! If the active reaction in Lugano were Ni-->⁶²Ni (which would give some energy), one could conclude that the E-Cat and the Hot-Cat use completely different reactions for producing heat. How likely is it that Rossi has found not one but two different routes to LENR?

Quote from Longview

Few here have seemed to attend to the risks in opening a post run lithium containing cell, where if the run were successful, the dust or scraped residues could easily contain Be, Ni and Lithium.

The problem is that nobody has detected any induced radioactivity (you will surely correct me if I am wrong). So, if LENR is nuclear reactions (and the energy density speaks for that), we have a problem. Why do the reactions always en up with stable nuclei?

I would like to take up one point which was discussed but not resolved: If radiation (gamma, neutron) is part of the energy production, the radiation level is enormous and very easy to detect. If the radiation is "by accident", it may be more difficult to detect. But then it has no value as a proof of nuclear reactions. This has been the problem already from F&P: too little radiation compared with the excess energy.

And to you guys (or girls?) who test different reactors. Use energy dispersive systems with an MCA so you can identify gammas by their energy. In most cases you can also tell the difference between a proper signal and induced noise. Use non energy dispersive system (GM-counters etc.) only for safety measurements.

Quote from Mats002

Well, Cold Fusion is 100 years old.

Well, almost. I thought a Swede (whatshisname) trying to make He in 1927 was the first. That is one reason to be pessimistic. But there is nothing wrong in trying as long as the scientific method is adhered to.

Quote from Longview

In your view, which of the three, or is it more than one mechanism at work, in a Teller thermonuclear device (H-bomb)?

Inertia. Fission bomb instead of laser.

Quote from GlowFish

A question regarding your plasma experiments. From what I read you claim to have seen neutrons. I have no idea as to how you performed your experiment or the nature of the apparatus used but I would like to point out the "desktop fusion" experiments with the Farnsworth Fusor. The Fusor has been around for ages and fusor experimentalists can readily obtain neutrons from it. Similar plasma principles are used in industrial neutron generators. Obtaining fusion with electric fields has been done fairly readily. The ever present problem is that fusors (as of to date) generate no net excess power. My question is, how do your plasma experiments differ from that of a fusor? Did you get excess heat or did you base your findings just on the fact that the system produced neutrons?

I do not know much about plasma experiments, but I can say something about neutrons. To get a measurable excess energy you need many reactions (MeV is a small unit macroscopically) and you will get lots of neutrons. Plasma experiments is presumably similar to accelerators (not Axillerators :-)): you can make fusion but it costs a lot of energy to accelerate since the efficiency (fusions/accelerated particles) is low. Same thing with muon fusion: it works but costs energy. Apart from cold fusion there are tree methods that work:
1 Gravity (in the sun's centre)
2 Magnetic fields (tokamak)
3 Inertia (laser fusion)

Quote from Timar

Not sure about the merit of this particular theory, but your statement seems rather ridiculous to me. It applies to any mainstream science theory prior to the point where it became mainstream. You could have asked the same about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity prior to ~1920, about Wegener's Theory of Plate Tectonics prior to ~1960, about Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection prior to ~1910 and even Heliocentrism prior to the 18th century. All those groundbreaking scientific advancements where not hindered by a conspiracy (at least not in the strict sense) of most of the world's leading scientific authorities of the time, but by groupthink and narrow-minded conservativism (fear of the unknown and fear for the loss of authority). ...

Am I not allowed to ask the question? I did not say that was my only criterion or accepting theory, but most of us need help from other physicists. I do have some trust in the research community. Another aspect is that the knowledge of physics, both experimentally and theoretically, is so advanced that it is difficult to make a ground breaking theory fit in.

Your examples are not convincing. General relativity was accepted generally within 4 years. Many scientists accepted it immediately - it was too beautiful to be wrong. The problem with Wegener was that he didn't have a theory. It was only a description of observations. And geology was an underdeveloped science. The last two examples were in conflict with religious dogma - Darwin is not 100% accepted today!

Quote from axil

There is a new idea that is making the rounds in physics these days; its
called non commutative quantum mechanics. It is finding applications in
subatomic interactions that as not based on waves.For example, Twistor
theory was first proposed by Roger Penrose in 1967, as a possible path
to a theory of quantum gravity.

I have problems with statements like this. If the new theory is so wonderful, why is it not established as a mainstream physics theory? The same applies e.g. to R Mills' theory. A conspiracy involving most of the worlds physicists is not very likely.

Quote from k.sass

Hallo from Estonia,
im just a finemechanics engineer but interested in Lenr too. So , most stupid is notasked question - what will happend if working ( producing extra heat ) reactor will be covered with safe container with inside nuclear material ?

Welcome to the forum k.sass!

If I understand your question correctly: If nuclear reactions are proven most countries will have laws regulating the use. If radioactive material is produced, the use will be restricted. If there is very little radiation (which is hard to understand) the device will be allowed like for instance smoke detectors. In any case it is very important that we understand exactly the physical process that creates the excess energy. This is of course important also to be able to optimize the process.

Quote from axil

The liquid sun theory shows that metalized hydrogen can retain its liquid nature upto the 10s of thousands of centigrade.

There is fusion in the sun...cold fusion.

Say no more!

Quote from axil

phys.org/news/2016-03-quantum-…liest-superconductor.html

When a hydride is compressed, its hydrogen chemical bonds tend to become symmetric. This produces high temperature superconductivity. Any hydride that is sufficiently compressed will become superconducting. These compressed hydrides are important in LENR.

"Last year, German researchers identified the highest temperature superconductor yet - hydrogen sulphide, the same compound that gives rotten eggs their distinctive odour. When subjected to extreme pressure - about one million times higher than the Earth's atmospheric pressure - this stinky compound displays superconducting behaviour at temperatures as high as 203 Kelvin (-70 degrees Celsius), which is far higher than any other high temperature superconductor yet discovered."

A million atmospheres and -70 degrees C. Not very relevant for LENR. I do not think you advance LENR by mystifying it! There is fusion in the sun, but that is hardly relevant here.

Quote from axil

Why is water blue?

Where does it say that you have cut and pasted most of this from
http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/5B.html

Wouldn't it have made more sense to give a link?

"We invite you to link to any page within this exhibit. You can also copy or display this exhibit for noncommercial purposes, if you clearly credit WebExhibits."

Quote from axil

In a Rossi type system, it might not work because the arc generates a high magnetic field that might disrupt the LENR reaction where superconductivity pays a major role.

Don't write a novel now, but superconductivity at several 100 K, how does that work? It would be a sensation if true.

Quote from axil

To
set the stage, we know from Holmlid that UV based LENR reactions
produce an abundance of subatomic particles including K-mesons, pions,
and electrons. We know from Dr Kim’s experiments at DGT, that solitons
explode in a Bosenova releasing XVU and X-ray radiation, and from R.
Mills we know that 10 nn radiation is produced in his reaction (I say it
is LENR based)

Display More

Thanks for your long answer. You needn't write a textbook, and much was
way too advanced for most of us! I can see the point, however, that if
vibrations and rotations are important, there could be differences
between p and d since d is twice as heavy.

What all this has to do with LENR, I cannot see. And the list of
speculations, what do they have to do with each other except they are
all criticized. Holmlid has proven neither mesons, strangeness or ultra
dense H or D. Defkalion is, as far as I know, an established bluff and
they have vanished from the face of the earth. Bosenova is my favourite,
I thought it was a dance. :-). As for Mills, his new physics theory is
wrong, silly (especially the pathetic expressions for the masses of
particles) and not needed. His energy machine has been "ready next
year" for 25 years. I wonder if the long distance runner Rossi will last
25 years.

Quote from axil

Because of the difference in the light absorption character of protium vs. deuterium, protium is most effectively used at low temperatures(infrared) and deuterium for high temperature plasma based systems(visible light).

Why would the light absorption of deuterium be different from that of protium? The wavelengths are almost the same:

which gives a wavelength difference of about 1 part in 1000.

Quote from Longview

Perhaps
that 17.2 includes the subsequent fission, but I doubt it. I took
Norman Holden's 1995 revised table value from the Handbook of Chemistry
and Physics, 76th Ed., p. 10-39, which gives "2alpha / 0.046 MeV" for
the decay of Be-8.

I think you are misinterpreting the data. If the 2 alpha decay channel
were not available 4Be would have been the stable nuclide with A=8. But it isn't:
http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/toi/listnuc.asp?sql=&A1=8&A2=8

The alpha decay of 8Be ground state has indeed the Q-value of 92 keV:
B.E.(1) = 56499.506 ± 0.037 keV
B.E.(2) = 28295.673 ± 0.005 keV
B.E.(3) = 28295.673 ± 0.005 keV
Q-value from masses: 91.84 keV
That is, if you prefer, 46 keV for each alpha.

The problem is that you should not see the problem as a decay but as a reaction:

¹H + ⁷Li --> ⁴He + ⁴He
B.E.(1)= 0.0 ± 0.0 keV
B.E.(2)= 39244.526 ± 0.473 keV
B.E.(3)= 28295.673 ± 0.005 keV
B.E.(4)= 28295.673 ± 0.005 keV
Q-value: 17346.82 keV
Uncertainty: 0.473 keV (ignoring correlations)

The very large Q-value comes from having two poorly bound nuclides
before and two very tightly bound nuclides after the reaction. All
energy from the reaction ends up as kinetic energy of the two alphas
going in opposite directions sharing the energy equally. I.e. E(alpha) = 8.67 MeV.

The masses and Q-values are from http://nuclear.lu.se/database/masses/

Bonus information:
That the 8Be ground state is very close to 2 alpha in mass is important
for the first step in the triple alpha process to make 12C in old stars.

End of Nuclear Physics 101

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Have we established that Levi is a "pinball wizard"?

Testing the water with your big toe?