Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Jones Beene]

Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting 
elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the 
Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance.


There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon 
and calcium could fuse (if this were happening on a dying star) - the 
carbon would fuse with another carbon or other light element. There is 
no "clean" pathway to get iron alone as a desired goal, especially 
without deadly radioactivity.


It's kind of absurd really. Bottom line - no mechanism exists to get 
excess iron via transmutation of silica and carbon. Even if there were, 
it would not add mass magically. Thus, it is likely that gross 
measurement error is the likely explanation. Otherwise, this kind of 
thing does not go unnoticed in a poor country. India is not exactly a 
major iron producer but would be if this were not some kind of silly 
anecdote. (It's a bit early for April 1).


mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
No, quite the reverse. Changing almost anything into Iron is 
exothermic, because
the Iron is near the top of the binding energy curve .e.g. 44Ca+12C => 
56Fe + 19.137 MeV

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> ​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain
>> must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an
>> energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear
>> isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold.
>> Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers,
>> chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain.
>>
>
> In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not
> explain a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe.  Isomeric transitions involve
> a transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state,
> or to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma.  Narayanaswamy
> reports that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from
> something else.
>
> Eric
>

​
This is true, but isomer formation may play a role in the process. Also the
apparent self contained nature of nuclei may be a function of how nuclei
have been studied to date. It is presumed that a nucleus under bombardment
is the same sort of "creature" as the nucleus in a lattice.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 11 Mar 2017 20:13:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Eric,
>
>Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an 
>electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of 
>even a few ounces.

No, quite the reverse. Changing almost anything into Iron is exothermic, because
the Iron is near the top of the binding energy curve .e.g.

44Ca+12C => 56Fe + 19.137 MeV

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:01 PM,  wrote:

One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe.  Oxides and carbon
> mass may also be involved.
>

The iron in iron oxide would presumably not be included in the "excess
iron", because it's already iron.  And the carbon would be a wash, existing
in equal quantities before and after.  If we're assuming a change in
nucleus, as Narayanaswamy does, then there are the parent nuclides,
whatever they are, and the daughters, which in this case is the excess
iron.  The change in nucleus is what causes the mass deficit (or mass
excess) as a result of the putative nuclear reaction.  That change in mass
between parent and daughter nuclides is what implies an unrealistically
huge energy release or deficit.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

Eric—

One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe.  Oxides and carbon 
mass may also be involved.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 2:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20




Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33,   
wrote:
The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy 
releases are the norm.  

The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical 
reaction pathway. It is in the amount of energy implied by going from not-iron 
to iron.  If we assume that the "excess" iron is ~ 4 tons, and we subtract this 
mass from the mass of the not-iron that produced it, the difference will 
necessarily be significant. Drop that change in mass into Einstein's equation 
for calculating the energy for a given mass, and the value will be an 
unrealistically large positive (or negative) value.

Eric 

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33,   
> wrote:
> 
> The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy 
> releases are the norm. 

The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical 
reaction pathway. It is in the amount of energy implied by going from not-iron 
to iron.  If we assume that the "excess" iron is ~ 4 tons, and we subtract this 
mass from the mass of the not-iron that produced it, the difference will 
necessarily be significant. Drop that change in mass into Einstein's equation 
for calculating the energy for a given mass, and the value will be an 
unrealistically large positive (or negative) value.

Eric 

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy 
releases are the norm.  

It is obvious that6 that “trueidm” does not appl,y to LENR.

Small changes within a many-bodied coherent system are the LENR norm.  

Many different nuclear changes apparently become possible within the 
many-bodied system.  IIMHO this includes nuclear species changes that involve 
aonly small changes in total potential; energy of the coherent system.

Bob Cook
From: Eric Walker
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV  wrote:

​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain must 
involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an energy in 
the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear isomers there are 
few known instances where this truism does not hold. Since there is also great 
deal that is not known about nuclear isomers, chemical like energy changes 
might be even more common the nuclear domain. 

In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not explain a 
nuclear transition such as X -> Fe.  Isomeric transitions involve a transition 
from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, or to the ground 
state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma.  Narayanaswamy reports that he is seeing 
"excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from something else.

Eric

[Vo]:why has the cygnification of the little ugly LENR duckling delayed so much?

[Peter Gluck]

because he has not moved in the proper place!

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-12-2017-lenr-sad-story-of-retarded.html

 please read the essay of Maria Popova at LENR IN CONTEXT-2 too
It is Sunday!

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV  wrote:

​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain
> must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an
> energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear
> isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold.
> Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers,
> chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain.
>

In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not explain
a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe.  Isomeric transitions involve a
transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, or
to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma.  Narayanaswamy reports
that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from
something else.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain
must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an
energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear
isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold.
Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers,
chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain.

Harry

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>  Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an
>> electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of
>> even a few ounces.
>
>
> I agree entirely.  Technically speaking, I suppose you could have iron as
> an exothermic fission product, but there would be many other daughter
> elements besides, and the release of energy through fission needed to make
> the 4 tons of iron would be catastrophic, as implied by the nuclear bomb
> example.  And there would need to be tons of some heavy element to provide
> the fuel.  So the creation of iron (either from fusion or from fission)
> seems far-fetched.
>
> But taken at face value, that seems to be an implication of the
> Narayanaswamy claim that iron comes from something other than iron; you'd
> need a nuclear process for that: i.e., fission, fusion, or some kind of
> alpha or beta decay (for neither of which I could find any exothermic
> pathway).  So I conclude that Narayanaswamy is mistaken about the
> production of iron, and that perhaps there's an accounting error that is
> leading to the conclusion about excess iron, perhaps along the lines you
> suggest.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

4 tons of carbon electrodes would be a production problem.  Plus the resulting 
steel would have strange specifications—welding may be impossible—
Bob cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 11:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Eric,
Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an electric 
arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of even a few 
ounces.
What they may overlooked is a monoclinic iron carbide which is 40% carbon ... 
and which is a good and even an expected candidate for the so-called 
"excess"... since they do not specify how much of the carbon electrode has been 
lost.

Eric Walker wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
"The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and the 
output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron and 
silica."

A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in one day 
would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an astounding amount of 
energy.  When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a relatively small amount of the 
fissile material is converted to other elements.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

The amount that comes from electrode consumption might be too small to
account for the weight gain.

<<*Relationship Between Graphite Electrode Demand and EAF Steel
Production.* The
improved efficiency of electric arc furnaces has resulted in a decrease in
the average rate of consumption of graphite electrodes per metric ton of
steel produced in electric arc furnaces (called “*specific consumption*”).
We estimate that specific consumption declined from about 2.5 kilograms of
graphite electrodes per metric ton of steel produced in 2000 to about 2.1
kilograms per metric ton in 2006.>> ​

from
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/GrafTech_International_(GTI)/Graphite_Electrodes_Electric_Arc_Furnaces

Harry

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Eric,
>
> Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an
> electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of
> even a few ounces.
>
> What they may overlooked is a monoclinic iron carbide which is 40% carbon
> ... and which is a good and even an expected candidate for the so-called
> "excess"... since they do not specify how much of the carbon electrode has
> been lost.
>
> Eric Walker wrote:
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> "The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and
>> the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron
>> and silica."
>
>
> A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in one
> day would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an astounding
> amount of energy.  When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a relatively small
> amount of the fissile material is converted to other elements.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

 Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an
> electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of
> even a few ounces.


I agree entirely.  Technically speaking, I suppose you could have iron as
an exothermic fission product, but there would be many other daughter
elements besides, and the release of energy through fission needed to make
the 4 tons of iron would be catastrophic, as implied by the nuclear bomb
example.  And there would need to be tons of some heavy element to provide
the fuel.  So the creation of iron (either from fusion or from fission)
seems far-fetched.

But taken at face value, that seems to be an implication of the
Narayanaswamy claim that iron comes from something other than iron; you'd
need a nuclear process for that: i.e., fission, fusion, or some kind of
alpha or beta decay (for neither of which I could find any exothermic
pathway).  So I conclude that Narayanaswamy is mistaken about the
production of iron, and that perhaps there's an accounting error that is
leading to the conclusion about excess iron, perhaps along the lines you
suggest.

Eric