• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah, I missed the stipulation of a closed tube. That would indeed rule out a chemical reaction. It still stinks of a scam to me, but how it's so, is less obvious than I thought.
 
Checked out his blog, one of the more recent commenters linked this as a possible explanation for there not being a Coulomb barrier problem. I know nothing on the topic so if this is plausible or not I have no idea. Something to do with ultra-low-momentum neutrons?

http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

No Coulomb barriers exist for the weak interaction
neutron production or other resulting catalytic processes.
Click to expand...

Apparently some PhD types from Bologna U have released the paper linked in his blog below. If the university is genuinely involved to this point it might be more than your average scam.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Checked out his blog, one of the more recent commenters linked this as a possible explanation for there not being a Coulomb barrier problem. I know nothing on the topic so if this is plausible or not I have no idea. Something to do with ultra-low-momentum neutrons?

http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
Click to expand...

I've read this paper before. It's complete and utter nonsense. I'll try to dig up my older posts about it, but let's begin by noting that the authors know so little nuclear physics that they post the following nuclear "reaction chain" as the source of power in cold fusion:

4He + n --> 5He followed by
5He + n --> 6He

Uh, guys? There's no such thing as 5He. There's no such reaction as 4He + n --> 5He. It's energetically disfavored. If you shoot a medium-energy neutron at a 4He nucleus, they don't hang out for one orbit before parting company again.
 
ben m said:
Uh, guys? There's no such thing as 5He. There's no such reaction as 4He + n --> 5He. It's energetically disfavored. If you shoot a medium-energy neutron at a 4He nucleus, they don't hang out for one orbit before parting company again.
Click to expand...

Hi Ben,
Question relating to 5He.

If 5He does not exist, what are these papers all about?

http://www.tunl.duke.edu/nucldata/GroundStatedecays/05He.shtml

Measured Ground-State Γcm(T1/2) for 5He
Adopted value: 700 ± 30 ys (2003AU02)
Measured Mass Excess for 5He
Adopted value: 11390 ± 50 keV (2003AU02)
 
Andrea Rossi is an inventor and engineer. He does not know why the reaction works-- he only knows that excess heat is released. Being a practical experimenter, when he had built a working model he used it to heat three rooms in his facility when he owned EON, SRL where he made biodiesel powered gen sets.
The unit ran for an entire heating season on a single charge and this ruled out chemical reactions. At this point the physics is speculative but many are theorizing about possibilities. The many experiments pointing toward the reality of LENR are slowly converging and I expect that over the next few years, key aspects of the process will be understood and this will become an impoprtant energy source.
 
pteridine said:
Andrea Rossi is an inventor and engineer. He does not know why the reaction works-- he only knows that excess heat is released. Being a practical experimenter, when he had built a working model he used it to heat three rooms in his facility when he owned EON, SRL where he made biodiesel powered gen sets.
The unit ran for an entire heating season on a single charge and this ruled out chemical reactions. At this point the physics is speculative but many are theorizing about possibilities. The many experiments pointing toward the reality of LENR are slowly converging and I expect that over the next few years, key aspects of the process will be understood and this will become an impoprtant energy source.
Click to expand...
I assume he'll be providing some evidence for these claims, as communicated by you? Preferably without the non-existent scientists, fake "journal" and pseudo-scientific ramblings.
 
pteridine said:
Andrea Rossi is an inventor and engineer. He does not know why the reaction works-- he only knows that excess heat is released. Being a practical experimenter, when he had built a working model he used it to heat three rooms in his facility when he owned EON, SRL where he made biodiesel powered gen sets.
The unit ran for an entire heating season on a single charge and this ruled out chemical reactions. At this point the physics is speculative but many are theorizing about possibilities. The many experiments pointing toward the reality of LENR are slowly converging and I expect that over the next few years, key aspects of the process will be understood and this will become an impoprtant energy source.
Click to expand...

So far, this is in the realm of magic. The reaction would only take place at temperatures in the billions of degrees...celsius. Electro magnetic repulsion is that difficult to overcome. Most of the energy would be released as gamma rays. Unless this was well shielded, it would have killed people. There is no evidence of any nuclear reaction. In addition, the probability of the reaction occuring is really small.

Right now, this is just an argument from ignorance and that is never proof of anything. If this truly worked, it would be commercially available already.

glenn
 
Hindmost said:
So far, this is in the realm of magic. The reaction would only take place at temperatures in the billions of degrees...celsius. Electro magnetic repulsion is that difficult to overcome. Most of the energy would be released as gamma rays. Unless this was well shielded, it would have killed people. There is no evidence of any nuclear reaction. In addition, the probability of the reaction occuring is really small.

Right now, this is just an argument from ignorance and that is never proof of anything. If this truly worked, it would be commercially available already.

glenn
Click to expand...


Well, I think what is true, is that even though this is not "1989 Cold Fusion" in that it doesn't involve Deuterium or Palladium, we are being asked to exercise the exact same suspension of disbelief. The phrase "If this were true, they'd already be dead" has come up before...

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html

But I don't think this is "argument from ignorance". I mean, hydroelectric power is based on gravity, which has also never been explained.

What it is, like all other claims of excess heat, is a case of, "I have the recipe that would allow you to reproduce the experiment, but I can't tell you what it is yet for (insert reason here)."

Personally, I think Rossi should apply for the JREF prize. If the effect is legit, it would be a no-brainer, an easy way to get a million bucks.
 
Richard S said:
Well, I think what is true, is that even though this is not "1989 Cold Fusion" in that it doesn't involve Deuterium or Palladium, we are being asked to exercise the exact same suspension of disbelief. The phrase "If this were true, they'd already be dead" has come up before...

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html

But I don't think this is "argument from ignorance". I mean, hydroelectric power is based on gravity, which has also never been explained.

What it is, like all other claims of excess heat, is a case of, "I have the recipe that would allow you to reproduce the experiment, but I can't tell you what it is yet for (insert reason here)."

Personally, I think Rossi should apply for the JREF prize. If the effect is legit, it would be a no-brainer, an easy way to get a million bucks.
Click to expand...

The difference with gravity and hydro power is that we can calculate the potential energy of the water and calculate the electricity that can be achieved through harnessing that potential energy. And it will all add up with thermo.

Running calcs for this don't add up when considering binding energy and threshold energy..etc...but they claim it is nuclear because it can't be chemical and "something" is happening because the claim copper showed up. They are essentially claiming that the absence of evidence is proof of the nuclear process.

glenn
 
Hindmost said:
Running calcs for this don't add up when considering binding energy and threshold energy..etc...but they claim it is nuclear because it can't be chemical and "something" is happening because the claim copper showed up. They are essentially claiming that the absence of evidence is proof of the nuclear process.
Click to expand...

Note there is also the claim that radiation is produced, and that lead shielding was used. Add that with the heat produced and the rate of copper production and there's going to be some limits on what nuclear processes could be responsible.

IIRC, that was the final nail for Pons/Fleishmann - their neutron and helium measurements couldn't be reconciled with their heat claims.
 
Mr.D said:
Note there is also the claim that radiation is produced, and that lead shielding was used. Add that with the heat produced and the rate of copper production and there's going to be some limits on what nuclear processes could be responsible.

IIRC, that was the final nail for Pons/Fleishmann - their neutron and helium measurements couldn't be reconciled with their heat claims.
Click to expand...

For this reaction to produce energy, the proton would have to be captured by the nickel...if any nucleon was reemitted, it would be a net negative energy reaction. If a proton was captured, the energy released would be mainly in gamma rays. The shielding would end up being the heat source. It would be very easy to verify, but gammas are a poor heat source in this type of application. The probability for the all the possible reactions would have to be determined as a first step.

I think you are correct. Pons/Fleishmann didn't see neutrons above background.

glenn

I am sure Sol Invictus or Cuddles would be able amplify the topic
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom