@Longview My theory suggests actually what you say: “There is no need for a lattice”. A hydride lattice is only convenient because it provides a dense source of hydrogen nuclei.
@Eric Walker I share with you the impression that their Unified Gravity Theory is wrong.
@everyone I think we should appreciate the openness and the honesty of the Lipinskys.
During the weekend I wrote to Stephen and Hubert Lipinsky suggesting an experiment I had suggested already to Iwamura last summer (2015): accelerating low energy protons (up to a few hundred [eV]) against a ZrO2 target, and look for EUV and soft gammas. According to the numbers I get, ZrO2 should be the best material for a dense and stable Nuclear Active Environment, with a low proton energy requirement. Other choices are possible. Non-metallic Lithium ( Li(I) ) is one possibility. But it should require protons with roughly double the energy.
Stephen Lipinski answered promptly declining very politely the suggestion “because we are pursuing other technologies and patents predicted from the MEE gravity theory”. They seem very busy working in the direction suggested by their theory.
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.
I had never done the numbers of Krivit myself because the dispute is not one of my favourite subjects. But I remembered that the “test” had been criticized not only by Krivit, but also by others (there were other Youtube videos ridiculing the event): Rossi declared that the peristaltic pump was pumping 7 kg of water per hour, which was going out as steam, and then showed the steam flowing out of a hose at a very low rate.
I thought, wait a minute, 7 [kg/h] are about 2 [g/s]; at 100 [C] those 2 grams should be a fairly large volume that would cause a much higher speed in a 10 [mm] hose. Then I did the numbers, which anyone can do in a minute, and probably thousands have done. PV=NRT, so the 1.95 [g/s] correspond to 0.108 [mol/s] of water, and a volume of about 3,300,000 [mm3/s]. This volume is the minimum volume possible for steam, because at more than 100 [C] it would be even more. The hose had a diameter of about 10 [mm], which gives a cross section of 78.5 [mm2]. The exit speed from the tube should have therefore been: 3,300,000[mm3/s] / 78.5[mm2] = 42,000[mm/s] = 42 [m/s]=151 [Km/h]! (in Imperial Units it is roughly 94 [mph]). It is practically the same result of Krivit.
Having steam flowing at 42 [m/s] out of a hose is something that could create problems in a laboratory.
Well, the speed shown by Rossi and Levi can be estimated to be at most 0.4 [m/s] (I do not particularly like Krivit, but agree with him in this case as well).
Then a series of questions come to my mind:
What was wrong? Rossi was absolutely sure about the 7[kg/h]. Levi and Focardi were present and listening to the declarations of Rossi.
My intuition tells me also that a speed of 42 [m/s] would generate an impulse on the tube that would most probably run the hose loose out of the hole in the wall …
I would imagine that what was coming out of the hose was water and steam, so that the majority of the 2[g/s] was liquid.
In fact at 11:05 Rossi took the hose and (“just a moment, just a moment …"), before extracting it, he carefully raised it and waited a few seconds as to let the liquid water in that part of the hose flow out unseen behind the wall; then Rossi with a quick gesture (a bit too quick to look natural …) turned up the hose end immediately after it exited the hole, and and then kept it straight vertical as to prevent any further water flow.
Then Rossi talked about the visibility of dry steam. His steam is very hot ... It was more than clear from the visible turbulence that the exit speed of the steam was VERY low.
Was the e-cat not actually working when Krivit recorded the video?
I know this is VERY OLD stuff, and has probably already been discussed at length, but can anyone please help me understand what happened?
Additionally:
In his calculations (Part 2) Rossi considers the water temperature with 1/10th of Celsius precision, and then uses a single value for the cp, which changes significantly between 25 and 100 C. Rossi should have calculated the difference in the enthalpies …
Rossi, while describing the e-cat says that the water is evaporated in the chimney. Actually exchanging about 5 kW (corresponding to heating 2[g/s] of water from 25 C to 100 C and evaporating it) on a small surface like that of the inner jacket of the module shown (just guessing the size), would cause a violent boiling, so that the steam should have come from the boiling at the jacket surface and not from a smooth phase change in the chimney.
Why is Rossi insisting in using Wh/h instead of simply saying W?
@padam73 We should have long switched to the Geometric Algebra approach to QM. Instead there are still physicists thinking that complex structure has a "magical" role in QM. Still saying that it is the square root of -1 ... Multiplication by i is just a rotation. Anyway ...
About the puzzle about the size of proton charge radius I can only tell you a coincidence I found some time ago: the proton radius calculated with my extremely simplified approach with one single charge rotating at the speed of light (0.105154.. [fm]) corresponds almost exactly to 1/8th of the proton charge radius measured with muons. The difference is only 0.04%, inside the experimental error.
The ZB of the muon should be different from that of the electron since the radius should be 207 times smaller, due to the larger mass.
Shiv Singh The problems could be many, and it clearly depends on the type of reactor. For sure the NAE is not common. You can look at page 25 of my presentation. For the NAE you need free hydrogen nuclei, and it could be they are not in most cases. You also need them to gain the necessary energy in the right place. To be able to measure a noticeable effect you also need a sufficiently high density of NAE ... In general if you don't know what the NAE requires you tend to be lost, particularly because the NAE is not directly related to electron orbitals, and therefore chemistry.
@Wyttenbach Localized Anharmonic Vibrations have been considered by many, and are not new to science. The point is that it is not possible to concentrate so much chemical energy (some hundred [keV] for d-d fusion) in one point of the chemical structure. It would mean (conservation of energy) to cool down macroscopic portions of the active material while having all the energy in one point, against the second low of thermodynamics. Again I must say that I agree with Edmund Storms.
When I mentioned the mass change of an electron I was trying to answer to a question about the ZB. If you assume the theory of Randell Mills is correct you can create something very similar to my Hydronion. Mills suggests not only that the Hydrino exists, but also that there exist a chemical catalysis able to create it. The process is not based on energy concentration to cross the coulomb barrier. It is instead a way to produce a neutral particle, which does not have the problem of the Coulomb barrier.
David Brady Edmund Storms in his latest book on Cold Fusion "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction ...", summarized the main critics to the WL theory. I agree with him. He analysed the the theory much more in detail than I did. Hagelstin and others criticized the formalism supporting the formation of "heavy electrons", necessary to produce ultra cold neutrons from protons and electrons. The energy of the proposed reactions is not consistent with the measured energy. The elements experimentally produced by cold fusion do not match with what you would get from reactions involving neutrons. The "heavy electrons" should be responsible also for the energy fractionation from MeV to thermal, and therefore shield from gamma radiation, but such phenomenon has never been seen.
The WL theory as most of the LENR theories suggests an energy concentration, so that chemical environments can access the nuclear wells. In short I think this is impossible.
@Rigel I don't understand your question. About the radius of the ZB I can say that an external observer would see it shrink as the electron speed becomes relativistic. However nothing would change aboard the electron. The two observers separate in time as usual. The mass change of a relativistic electron is simply due to the shrinking of its ZB radius seen from an observer which did not accelerate as the electron.
A significant change in this electron density in the nuclear volume and Coulomb barrier surrounding it would clearly have important effects
. In this case the point is then: which chemically controlled mechanism can cause the "significant change" in the electron density near the nucleus? If chemistry were able to cross the Coulomb barrier and access the nuclear well, our world would look very different. But even if you had a magic way to concentrate electron energy and access the nuclear well, you still don't have something that:
prefers stable nuclei,
does not emit [MeV] quanta,
produces tritium without neutrons,
crosses large distances through condensed matter causing transmutations,
generates strange traces in nuclear emulsions even many minutes after the end of "stimulation",
emits radio frequencies,
...
And the mysterious chemical mechanism which wins over the electrostatic repulsion should work in solids, liquids and plasmas ... and VERY different chemical environments. Plus anything crossing the Coulomb barrier kinetically would cause classical nuclear reactions, and not LENR.
Consider the experiment of Iwamura with diffusion only. There is almost no energy input and no way to concentrate energy and cross the Coulomb barrier. However he obtains transmutations and a few gammas.
27 years of attempts to find a magic mechanism that chemically overcomes the Coulomb barrier without success should teach us something. And when you have found it, it would not match experimental evidences.
@Wyttenbach I know the work of Randell Mills, but I am not an expert in plasmas. He did not publish the Hydronion. He published a (for me partly arbitrary) theory suggesting that there are a series of solutions of the Shrödinger (or Dirac if you prefer) equation for the electron around a proton, which are much more bound than the well known minimum energy (13.6 [eV]). What I propose is different. I say that the mechanism which keeps nucleons together in nuclei can also manifest between electrons and nucleons. This has nothing to do with the electron eigenfunctions of an atom. Chemistry for me is correct and without further secrets.
There are MANY LENR theories based on what Edmund Storms calls "virtual neutrons". Mine and the one of Mills I would guess fall in this same category.
I don't know about the calculation of the g factor of electron and proton done by Mills.
About Ni62 I just meant that Ni62 can not undergo nuclear reactions that liberate energy, because it has the lowest energy possible among all stable and unstable nuclei (highest binding energy per nucleon). So, by a virtually nil added energy, Ni62 will not react. For sure if you provide the missing energy for reaching other nuclei Ni62 could fuse or fission, as it commonly happens in conventional nuclear where the particles have high kinetic energies.
@Thomas Clarke, As you say HV do not predict different experimental outcomes from those of standard (Copenhagen) QM. My EMNR proposal is independent from HV. The reason for naming them in my comment was just because my theory starts from the description of the "inner" structure of an electron, which standard QM would "prohibit", while HV theories would be less prone to do. Just this. You say:
Quote
Particles travelling along null cones does not generate non-locality, because that is a correlation across space-like separations.
I should have better explained my point of view when I said that non-locality is due to the fact that particles travel always at the speed of light. I think we live in a block universe, where fields are somehow localized in ST, in the form of particles. The pilot wave associated with particles extends infinitely in space AND time. What is "inside" particles, like what we see as a point charge spinning at the reduced Compton frequency for the electron, travels always, or better said EXISTS, at the speed of light. And at the speed of light time does not exist. Particles and their pilot waves are the same “object”, like a whirl in a flow. They both exist at the speed of light and extend infinitely in space and time; in space the extension is easy to imagine for our brains, but in time the extension is more difficult, because it is both in the past and in the future. So space-time locality cannot be right. A pilot wave can be “divided” in different very separate (space-like separation) paths, while the whirl/whirls follow only one. In delayed choice experiments the flow (pilot wave) flows all free paths; particles (with their pilot waves) seem to know about our delayed choice because their pilot wave extends also in what our brain interpret as the future. So, from our fooled perspective, they do know the future. Entanglement is a measure of how much two whirls share the same flow. I believe there is no such thing as the wavefunction collapse. Time, as we commonly interpret it, is a concept that can emerge only from time-like entities, which do not exist (if everything is light-like), so “time” must be an illusion of the brain. Brains are thermodynamic machines which keep predicting (what we interpret as) the future, based on the elaboration of “the past”. They can only "eat" order generating disorder (entropy …) though the flow of energy. So the apparent asymmetry of time we experience comes from the fact that our brains work following the rules of thermodynamic, which in turn are just statistics. Contextuality is based on the application of the Kochen–Specker theorem to spin. If you interpret spin as Hestenes, Doran, Lasenby, Gull, Somaroo and others do in "SPACETIME ALGEBRA AND ELECTRON PHYSICS" (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0509178), you see that the Kochen Specker theorem cannot really be applied. “The problem” disappears because spin becomes something that is always well defined and continuous; experiments like the famous one of Stern and Gerlach become spin orienters, instead of ways to know the (somehow pre-existing) spin state. Contextuality would only be apparent. This is only an interpretation, and would not change the experimental evidences (Alice and Bob ..., EPR, Aspect, ...). I agree with you that GA itself does not alter physics. The time-evolution of the wavefunctions is just a shift of the coefficients of time-less states (eigen(auto)solutions) … So the result of an experiment on a particle can only give one of the eigen-states. This must be so, otherwise the very brittle structure of QM would not be consistent. Particles know their future so that they know they will cross an experiment and behave consequently giving the strange digital outcomes everyone gets.
I am not expecting that my bla bla makes perfect logical sense to an epistemologist. It is just my view.
All this talk is very philosophical, and not related to my EMNR theory.
By the way, Thomas, I would like to ask you in admiration, how do you find all the time to write so much on this and other LENR sites? I am asking you because I always struggle with finding the time for cold fusion stuff.
Nuclear energy is work done by the strong nuclear force. The range of the strong nuclear force is extremely low, so low that it is limited to the interior of atomic nucleuses.
If what you describe, which is essentially what the Standard Model suggests, is correct, then LENR could not exist. In fact anything coming from the energy of electron orbitals (chemistry) cannot access the nuclear world. This is not only my opinion, it is also the fundamental reason for the almost complete refusal of Cold Fusion by the Physics Community. Than you say:
Quote
Therefore no nuclear energy can be released gradually from approaching nucleuses as is proposed in the hydronion theory.
If the nuclear force is a residuum of the strong interaction that keeps nucleons together inside nuclei, you are right. However what I looked for when I put my theory together was precisely a way to give a different explanation to the nuclear force. Without it LENR, as I just said above, are impossible. The mechanism I took from the proposal of Cook and Dallacasa, while being qualitatively in agreement with the enormous set of experimental data on nuclear reactions, opens the possibility of a "nuclear interaction"(with the magnetic attraction mechanism) between the electron and nucleons. And this interaction could lead to an energy release mainly in the EUV range (not in the [MeV] range), which is probably what you describe as "gradually". So I think we agree. What you mentioned was precisely the starting point of my journey.
I don't know if axil would like my approach. It is almost as the opposite of his. I think.
@Gerard McEk Thank you for your appreciation of my theory. I am answering only now because I had missed your comment. Hydronions are neutral nuclei that can trigger soft nuclear reactions. I suggested Dr. Iwamura to shoot protons at a few eV against a ZrO2 target, and measure any emitted EUV. Moreover Iwamura should increase the amount of B10 in his multilayer and see if the amount of gamma at 1,445 and 1,745 keV will also increase proportionally. LENR can only follow the known routes, because the nuclei cannot be changed. The differences are that the energy is not emitted as kinetic energy, but as gammas, and only stable nuclei are produced at the end.
Andrea Rossi knows about the existence of my theory, through our exchanges on the JONP and by emails, and through Norman Cook, with whom I often exchange comments. I don't think Rossi agrees with my theory.
Michel Vandenberghe Introducing a new force field means turning Physics upside down ... a bit too much for me. In my theory, I sort of went in the opposite direction, and tried not to introduce unnecessary ingredients (Occam).
Low Energy No Reactions is not bad at all Peter Ekstrom... LOL. It really matches what the vast majority of physicists think, without really looking into it. Physiological and not surprising reaction.
I have a name for CF, but it is related to my theory only, so it is not suitable for the forum: Electron Mediated Nuclear Reactions.
CF, LENR, CANR (or any other name) produce more energy than the chemical potentials can possibly release. They also produce new nuclei, X, gamma, Extreme Ultraviolet, and possibly a strange neutral radiation. If we do not want to invent a new force field, or say that these reactions CREATE energy, we have to admit that what they release comes form the nucleus. Apart from dark-energy and dark-matter, energy seems to be mostly concentrated in nuclei, and stars liberate progressively part of that energy, allowing the existence of civilizations like our own. LENR seems to be the door to a chemically controlled way to access the nuclear potential, and a way to avoid/destroy unstable nuclei. A sort of "good nuclear". Therefore I would suggest not to be afraid to use "nuclear" in the subtitle of this forum.
My guess is that Rossi told the client the plant needed a stop and go for refuelling short to the conclusion of the year. They had a meeting and Rossi was given the chance to anticipate the end of the test. So he was given the chance to move the official end date "to the past". He agreed. The Plant was stopped for good and everyone moved to a new lab.
@padam73 I think Mills never addressed many issues about his funny theory. The missing decay is one. If I understood right he claims QM is fundamentally wrong ...
@anyone I watched part of the video. Mills is once again showing high power in the Extreme Ultra Violet (EUV) range. He now decided to use Tungsten to de-energize the photons to the visible range for feeding solar panels. My guess is that Rossi is now doing something similar with his X-Cat.
When I first obtained the EUV energy of 85 [eV] (wavelength of14.6 [nm]) for the emission, I thought it was wrong. Then after a while I understood that all the energy of LENR experiments was actually emitted in the EUV. Since practically all experiments make the reaction happen in solids, the EUV radiation transforms locally into thermal, and sometimes generates the funny local shapes due to local melting.
@Mary Yugo, Well, this EDITORIAL on Arab News (the regime newspaper of the Saud family) does not say "Andrea Rossi" ... you are right: http://www.arabnews.com/editorial/news/714186
They only mention Cold Fusion, but probably ignore the existence of Rossi...
@David Fojt yes, "in our case, plasma should be just some nucleus with" an incomplete electrons' shell.
There is no relationship between the Hyd (my particle) and iron. Iron is not even a good NAE. However the Hyd is huge if compared to a neutron (the radius is 260 times) and has a magnetic moment that is 960 times the neutron magnetic moment. This makes the magnetic interaction of this particle (the only interaction it has) much stronger than that of the neutron. So in condensed matter it will scatter magnetically, loose energy and some will end up trapped. Materials with high magnetic field gradients will be more effective in trapping this particle.
I think Rossi knows very well what happens if he loads with pure deuterium or a mixture. He does not want to produce tritium. Plus deuterium, I think, would produce more localized power, which can more easily spoil the system.
For sure there is no agreement on the theoretical explanation of the mechanism. But it will be necessary for a real adoption.
I don't know which are the main effects of my particle on living tissues. The soft gammas from the electron shell jumps during the formation of the Hyd will not be present outside the NAE. So my guess is that the principal danger from Hyds comes from (almost emission-less) transmutations; and DNA does not like it ...
@H-G Branzell I don't think rust has been caused by the Hyd. In a vapour system corrosion is quite common. I think instead that the containment vessels could start having cracks and may be small blisters. Ni62 is transparent to Hyd, so, as its content increases, the mean free path of Hyds will increase and reach out. A metallic shroud could be enough to save the day. I don't know.
@David Fojt, obtaining a NAE diffused in a volume is not easy. Only Li(I) can allow it at not too high temperatures. Solid NAE will remain always limited to VERY thin surfaces, because hydrogen nuclei can not cross many atomic layers. About your question. I think Rossi stimulates in ways he did not disclose so far. Fabiani partially confirmed this in his recent comment. Rossi needs a plasma of Li(I). Lipinsky works on a proton-Li(I) plasma, so the essence is the same of the E-cat. How Rossi maintains a "diffuse" plasma is an essential part of his technique that so far has not been disclosed an that I guess will not be disclosed soon. It could be microwaves or other means ... magnetic stirring, electrical arcs, ... . I also guess Rossi is accumulating the produced Hydronions (neutral particles with a large magnetic moment) in a "magnetic" lattice. It could be iron. The kHz stimulation frees the Hydronions from the traps (Larmor mechanism, seen by Kidwell and ENEA as well, radio emissions ...). The magneto-phonon coupling does the rest and expels the Hyd progressively into the surrounding where they can cause isotopic shifts and fissions. If Rossi loaded with deuterium he would get a completely different series of reactions, but he would also produce some tritium and cause upwards transmutations. When the kHz stimulus ceases the Hydronions remain trapped and the energy release rate drops rapidly, as Fabiani noticed. Iron or the magnetic trap material helps in two ways: it spreads the power more homogeneously in the volume and makes the "cooling" dynamics more rapid. Keeping a proton-Li(I) plasma alive in a solid-fluid-vapour mixed system I guess is not too easy. Unfortunately I can not help in it, I am not a chemist. Anyway engineering can improve rapidly only when the fundamental mechanism has been understood. I think Rossi has a lot of data, but not a complete explanation, so he must rely on many painstakingly long experiments. I am "sure" that the presence of neutral particles will soon emerge and will need careful measurements for ensuring safety. Without a theory this fact could become a significant hinder in the spreading of the technology. After 1 year at 1 MW the number of transmutations produced by the neutral particles could have compromised the structural integrity of some of the components, and I suspect this is at least part of the cause of the problems he is having lately.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.More DetailsClose