Correcting: watt = Joule/second NOT joule-second
".....energy far beyond what is capable in an electrolytic system.
2.0 volt vs. 400 volt or higher."
Thanks for keeping this level of discussion alive. There are important possible distinctions here. The electrolytic "Nernst pressure" compared with the deceleration energy experienced by an electron or proton collision with a condensed matter surface. While admiting that some aspect here may be unifying, my recollection is that a Nernst overpotential nearing even 1 volt can result in immense pressure at or near the electrode surface, Tadahiko Mizuno mentions this and has it as far greater than the solar core. While the Lipinski's see their highest Q values (surrogate for COP) of thousands in the presence of square wave potentials and argon admixture.
One key metric implicit here is that potential gradients at the interfaces involved is best comparatively measured as " volts per cm" or the equivalent. That is the steepness of the gradient is a key parameter.
Thanks Alain. IMHO that WSJ article has the flavor of "trumping up" a case for war. Granting that the young "Un" appears to deserve the worst.
My concern is that diligent and well-intentioned workers on LENR may now be wrongly databased as suspect, since there are application and perhaps theory overlaps with thermonuclear miniaturization work.
Anyone with a Linkout to above article, please?
Today, Thursday, March 9, 2017 a Wall Street Journal article "North Korea tried to sell...." (p. A8 in my paper copy) of some possible interest to those hoping to work with lithium in a fusion context. I'll warn here that the subject is likely not perfectly covered from a nuclear physics standpoint, and that the motive behind this "news" might be similar to the infamous "aluminum tubes" under the younger Bush that very conveniently promoted a war harming many, except perhaps Defense contractors.
Note to Newbies:
Please consider getting older General Chemistry texts-- often "instructor's Editions" which are now seen in bookstores and online, as academic folks retire or go completely online. These texts of the last say 20 years and especially the recent ones, will give you the reasoning and the solved problems and the "dogma" which has quite well functioned as the "received" view, as say the era of "quantitative chemistry" (from about 1790-1850 to present ). I write this to help the Newbie appreciate the depth in this part of science and technology, both of the inertia and of the brilliance of current dogma. But most importantly how that dogma grew out of sustained, but open-minded investigation in the development of both chemistry and physics.
"Can" --- Thanks for your "amateur" efforts, which surely you know are possible raw material for future scientific advances.
Titanium, MFMP and/or any active and applied researchers caring to answer: How are you accounting for the energy budget of H2 dissociation in the preloading and loading phases?
BTW, I much appreciate your efforts!
Perhaps there is some kind of connection there? Which is why LFH is currently beginning experiments in ultrasound treatment of T255 Nickel particles in a hexane slurry. If only life didn't get in the way so much.
The use of a non-polar and electrically non-conducting liquid medium has interesting implications, to me at least-- not the least of which might be the ability to superimpose large electrostatic fields on the reaction medium.
Do you or LFH have a rationale here that you might briefly share?
Are there a couple of relevant references that might motivate this project?
Interesting, and it appears that the functional activity at the cleaved ends is not being invoked for the "superconductivity", but only for the n-alkane decomposition.
Perhaps look at the Lewis acid definition, that is rather than proton donors, instead electron pair acceptors, in a chain "handoff" structure conferring a semblance of superconductivity.
The machine is capable of pushing electrons up to an energy of six billion electron volts.
Source apparently The Harvard Crimson, and of course not referring to any Neutron Generator. Nevertheless an interesting news piece.
But then I have no access to the Miami property register.
Actually, you probably do: Miami-Dade County Property Records. These county records (for tax purposes) are quite revealing (last I looked), including location of real property, description of land area, type and area of structures, history of ownership, sale dates, amount of sale and the County Assessor's valuation.
“Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.
From a tank pressure standpoint 10 kpsia are as high as a professional / military diver might see in say the tiny oxygen
'make up' tank for a rebreathing apparatus... density equivalent roughly to cryogenic LO2 but giving much longer underwater times since no boil off .
The diamond anvil maximum pressures are, if I recall correctly much much lower than Nernst pressure computed at an electrode face with even a modest overvoltage. I don't have the numbers at hand, but they can be amazing. No one to my knowledge has yet taken the Nernst pressure argument to a convincing explanation of CF--- but I'd like to see it.
previous peer-reviewed record holder...
Note from the abstract: "The SEM analysis also indicates monophase composition." (my emphasis)
My deduction: the likely necessary phase boundary seen in nearly all HTSCs (and perhaps also higher COP LENR / CF examples), is not seen in this HTSC case because it is inherent at the molecular level and hence overlooked under conventional SEM.
Let me humbly suggest non-Newtonian in the last line. I believe it will more precisely communicate your intended meaning.
( journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.165404 )
These look like they may be very interesting articles.... unfortunately for me they are behind costly paywalls. At best, I have to pay dearly, or travel to some academic library (15 to 300 km) offering the hard copy or other public access. Or I have to accept the title and abstract at face value (that can be quite misleading in occasional cases) and/or your testimony that the full article remains relevant and makes the point you assert.
As an aside: It has been an on-going public interest issue in the US at least, that research results often substantially, if not completely, supported through public funding are becoming less accessible to many citizen taxpayers.
The ranking seems, at best, arbitrary. And it does not appear to be inverse order, except perhaps for CMNS. Children's programming languages have existed for decades. A quick overview suggests an understandable but unlikely focus on IT. Imminent flooding of major port cities worldwide may well push the focus from consumer electronics to planetary concerns.
not oil corps, not nuke industry, not industry, not militaries.
time to dispel the myths.
Are you certain that these other interested parties did not contribute to keeping LENR "on the back burner"?. Amoco's report (confirming F&P), for example was intended for internal use only.... and somehow it slipped out after a merger or two, no?
Jarek, Eric, Wyttenbach, Zephir_AWT, Axil and others;
I humbly submit that this old thread might have some relevance or at least modest interest re this current discussion:
(Thanks once again to Lou Pagnucco).
* This means closed, but it does not mean pressurized. Ed Storms guessed it was pressurized, like the loop in a water radiator. As I said, if it were pressurized you could not use a gravity return.
I don't see that pressurization necessarily precludes gravity return. Of course it can depend on the specifics of the circuit. Please clarify that point, Thanks.
you can be sure that IH and Jones Day would find grounds for an appeal.
But, keep in mind that successful appeals are generally based solely on judicial errors... with the very rare exception of some few that gain certiori with the U.S. Supreme Court. Grounds for "cert", include conflicting lower appelate decisions and/or other issues arising the "Supremes" consider to be of Constitutional magnitude.
(Longview: Not an attorney, nor lawyer, nor barrister, nor advocate, nor solicitor, nor counselor, nor agent).
The convention with nuclear reactions is to use a plus sign for exothermic reactions.
That could be a big problem communicating between nuclear physicists and chemical thermodynamicists.
And we would not be the only readers seeing and perhaps being misled by that issue. In the reference cited by Kirkshanahan here to support his contention that hydrogen absorption into Pd is due in large part to exothermic enthalpy, the authors (Wicke and Brodowsky pp.73 to 155 of Alefeld and Voelkl, Eds. Hydrogen in Metalls II, 1978) give positive delta H on pp. 79, 81 and 93, and negative on pp. 82. Under the thermodynamic convention only the negative would represent 'energy out' or exothermic or more correctly exergonic i.e. 'producing work'.
It is interesting that he has a BS degree (74) from Rutgers in----- Spanish
Your reading iappears mistaken. The reading should be clear: James Bass' degree is Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering "BSEE" from Rutgers--- summa cum laude (highest honors). It appears he may have earned another bachelor's with IT specializations, that appear under the rubric of "Spanish Software".
Bachelor Degree '74 Rutgers University Jan '74 BSEE Rutgers University, 1974 Summa Cum Laude Deans List, Presidents List, Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi. Bachelor Degree | Spanish Software: numerous assemblers, Visual Basic, C, C#, Windows Server, MS SQL, MySQL, Oracle, Linux, Unix, Alcatel Motive CPE Network Manager, National Instruments LabView. Speak fluent Spanish and conversant in French and Portuguese
Also, natural helium concentration in rocks can reach 7% ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium ) - is alpha decay sufficient to explain such huge concentrations?
Assuming the helium does not escape, this question could devolve to whether minerals can originally have levels of alpha decaying isotopes at a level of 7% or more? I imagine the answer is "yes".
Another factor may be that some minerals may have a high capacity to sequester helium as it "passes through".
that if Li6 is 'poison' as axil suggests
Should it eventually prove important, at least it is relatively easy and safe to separate the major lithium isotopes compared to U for example. Not only that, to my understanding, there are or were once substantial stockpiles and market activity in the enriched/isolated lithium isotopes.
Yes, it seems likely. Based also on Wyttenbach's comments above, I suspect the Lipinski's never found it necessary to be concerned-- Li-6 may simply not participate in their reaction... even though they (at least initially) appeared to claim otherwise. The presence of Be-7 would surely not have been missed given the array of detectors at three different U.S. National Accelerator Laboratories the Lipinski's utilized.
they need an accelerator...
I appreciate you and the others keeping exploratory threads open here. Thanks!
Let us think of the prospects without being hobbled by the past and its limitations. Clearly it takes a lot of energy to make a positron (511 keV), but that does not necessarily imply an accelerator. Nuclear proton beta decays can give rise to positrons, for example, particularly from proton rich nuclei (F-18, Mg-22, N-16, C-16 and so on). You may argue that those isotopes are generally made only by accelerators. But I imagine that Eric Walker or others here might argue there may be "catalytic" paths to enhance the rate of proton decay, just as there may be catalytic paths to increased rates neutron, and hence, negative beta decay. Could "naked protons" be manipulated to enhance their decay rate? If it can happen in a nucleus, then perhaps elsewhere. Surely there is at least a possibility that "excess" of a solitary proton might have some enhanced path to decay analogous to that of a vacuum neutron (15 minute half-life) relative to its nuclear bound twin, often with essentially an infinite half life.
Consider that positrons are the vacuum state equivalent of semiconductor "holes". Such holes are already made with annihilation energies below 200 nm, i.e. several electron volts (versus the one eV of the first visible LEDs, or the original small fraction of an eV for IR LEDs).
You have no reason to believe that the presence of Li6 is in any way detrimental to a reaction, or perhaps you do? Link please.
Alan, if anything in these reactions resemble that in the Lipinski UGC patent, then there may be very good reason to avoid Li6. If I recall Lipinski correctly, the Li7 gives rise to Be8, which gives nearly instant fission to two energetic alphas as an aneutronic reaction. However (and the Lipinskis neglect to mention this, to the best of my recall), Li6 [may] give Be7 with a 50 some day half-life and a different, perhaps less friendly decay regime.