There seems to be a common misconception that if you overcome the Coulomb barrier then radiationless fusion results. Unfortunately physics predicts hot fusion products in such circumstances. This is experimentally verified with muon catalysed fusion experiments. We should conclude that overcoming the Coulomb barrier alone does not solve the problem.
Hermes
Member
- Male
- from Europe
- Member since Jun 23rd 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by Hermes
-
-
most people here - regardless of their opinion of Rossi - believe that at least some version of the e-cat actually does produce excess energy. Can anyone explain why they think so?
That's easy to answer. Since the early 90s peer reviewed papers have claimed anomalous heat in the Ni/H system. In contrast, Rossi doesn't have a single peer reviewed paper to his name and has not permitted any successful independent validation the Ecat technology.
-
Once you involve muons into cold fusion mechanism, you should also explain, how the muons could form there.
Not only. Experimentally (and theoretically) we know muon catalyzed fusion produces hot fusion products. So if we don't observe hot fusion products at appropriate rates we know muons are not involved. The same goes for any other exotic negatively charged catalysts.
-
a possible low-energy fission reaction in which 204Pb fissioned into 7Li and 197Au (204Pb → 7Li + 197Au).
Alas this "fission" reaction is endothermic (by 8.875 MeV). It also violates parity conservation. If you want to make gold this is probably not the way to go!
-
I disagree. It is possible that the reaction is so fast that melting happens later...
Can you cite some evidence for such a conjecture? Just how fast would your reactions have to be? As I have already explained it takes at least tens of thousands of nuclear reactions to make a visible molten hot spot. How are these reactions all synchronized when there isn't enough room in a nano crack (according to Storms) to fit so much deuterium fuel? Just how would an ordered state like a Hydroton form if there had just been a nuclear reaction in the neighborhood raising the local temperature? Don't the laws of thermodynamics apply?
-
Just wanted to remind you that a cubic nanoparticle of 40nm contains only about 4 mio Ni atoms. Most experimenters use smaller particles and not cubic ones...
The point is not that you can get anomalies without molten hotspots, but the contrary namely that heat production must be created in molten hotspots! Is this concept so hard to grasp? It implies that the NAE if any, is not a special physical nor chemical structure which could be destroyed by melting. It is irrelevant to this argument what most experimenters do or how nano-particles behave. I challenge anyone to come up with an alternative explanation.
-
The energy of one alpha 23.6MeV particle is enough to create a hotspot and a new cavity.
24 MeV could melt some 10 million atoms (assuming no heat loss), far too few to cause any visible hot spot. I repeat, you need tens of thousands of reactions, all occurring in the same vicinity to cause visible hot spots. Any model needs to take this into account.
-
It is possible that the reaction is so fast that melting happens later...
The speed of individual nuclear reactions is not relevant because you need tens of thousands of reactions just to create a microscopic hot spot. The conclusion is obvious: there can be a major source of heat in molten metal.
-
Is it unreasonable to assume that when a nanocrack gets hot enough it will melt the metal around it?
Yes. First it would melt and remove the source of heat. But if the source of heat could survive melting you would and we do see melted hot spots, usually circular in shape suggesting that the heat source is near the centre. This is what we observe. Consequently we can conclude that the site of heat production is localized, but it is NOT a chemical or physical structure that would be destroyed my melting. I'd be happy to hear any alternative explanations. (N.B. The fact that most of the heat does not cause melting is irrelevant.)
-
Cracks don't survive molten metal, that is normal,
Good. Now how do you explain the observation of approximately circular hot spots where metal has melted? Hint: Jacques Ruer has shown that it takes at least tens of thousands of localized nuclear reactions to create a molten hot spot.
-
It's important to realize, that nanocracks of Eduard Storms are merely
These nano-cracks are conjectured to exist, and probably we would not disagree. But they exist everywhere not just on a metal surface. We know that solid palladium cubes becoms spheres whgen loaded / del;oaded a dozen or so times. Stress which produces cracks must exist in the bulk too. But as not much helium cannot be released from the bulk we kbow that cracks are not the source of helium.
-
And there is strong experimental evidence that cracks cannot be the NAS.
Such as?
Cracks cannot survive in melted metal.
-
I think we need to clarify some fundamental issues. Storms is unique in conjecturing a Nuclear Active Site or Environment. This site has NEVER been identified experimentally. It is pure conjecture that nano cracks are such a site. And there is strong experimental evidence that cracks cannot be the NAS. Collis has pointed out in the CMNS forum that the existence of circular hot spots of melted metal indicates that any such NAS must survive local melting. Cracks cannot survive in melted metal.
Furthermore there is no attribute of any crack which could promote any significant bypass of the Coulomb barrier.
-
ISCMNS has reminded us that the last day for early bird registration for the Workshop is 31 January. After that, the fee increases by 10 or 20%.
-
when Focardi was working with Piantelli there was no confidential technology
Where did you get this information from? I think Piantelli was privately supported by private companies Lumenergy, Ecodep and others long before Nichenergy existed.
-
If NiH CF works, and can be verified by a credible / independent 3rd party, wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider Piantelli's name as the nominee?
I'll second that proposal! But maybe Piantelli who is in his 80s may not suirvive long enough to see his work finally recognized. Perhaps ISCMNS could be persuaded to give him the Gold Medal? Piantelli is surely the father of high temperature gas loading with Ni/H. There is no Rossi effect. Rossi appears to have simply applied some of Piantelli's confidential technology learnt from Focardi.
-
Brianza was the town where Rossi lived
Try googling before making statements you are not sure of. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brianza (Sorry to be pedantic but a little accuracy is a good thing isn't it?). -
Sometimes it's not just what people say, but what they don't say which counts.
"To be clear, Defendants knew, or should have known, that there is no factual basis to
support Defendants’ claim that Plaintiffs have failed to report and/or pay any appropriate taxes. This naked allegation is without factual or evidentiary support and is alleged for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating the Plaintiffs."Note that Rossi et al. merely claim the the counter plaintiffs have no evidence. And Rossi provides no evidence to counter the claim. But perhaps someone can tell us how much the Condos cost and whether any cash was left over to pay taxes.
"Moreover, even if such allegations were true, which they are not, such allegations would not give rise to a material breach of the License Agreement which could excuse their performance under such Agreement". If Rossi sincerely thought that the tax requirement was immaterial, why did he sign the contract including such a requirement? One can only conclude that Rossi never had any intention of respecting the contract.
-
ISCMNS has a version of this video with English audio.
-
"Lastly, the purported hiring of a fake engineer and restriction of access to JMP’s facility and operation
are also not deceptive or unfair because pursuant to the Term Sheet, JMP, Johnson,
and Bass did not have a business relationship with Counter-Plaintiffs for anything other than the
rental of the Plant (in fact, pursuant to the Term Sheet, JMP, Johnson, and Bass were not even
allowed access to the Plant) and access to JMP’s facility or operation was never promised or required."So the defense against fraud is that any amount of deception is permissible so long as there is no contractual violation. I don't think that will stand up in Court!
What is interesting here is that there is no attempt to deny that JMP had no use for the energy supplied and consequently they will need to explain why they paid for it if not as part of a conspiracy to defraud.
