Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:51:45 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00  
>> -0600:
>> Hi,
>>> The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
>>> transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.
>>
>> It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
>> transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation  
>> must be ruled
>> out.
>
>Yes, all transmutation as a source of energy can be ruled out. The  
>targets cannot move. They cannot seek out the NAE. Either the NAE is  
>located in a particle, in which case the reaction can exhaust all the  
>target in that small particle or the particle is dead and no  
>transmutation can occur in that particle. The target cannot move to  
>where the NAE might be located. This severely limits how much energy  
>can come from this source, which is less than is reported.   Hydrogen  
>as a source of energy does not have this problem because, as a gas, it  
>can seek out every NAE in each active particle and continue to make  
>energy as long as the gas is supplied.
>
>>
>> Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the  
>> broadest
>> sense). ;)
>
>No, my theory is based on FUSION of hydrogen isotopes. We need to be  
>clear how we define words because otherwise we will never understand  
>the process. 

I did say "in the broadest sense". The word transmute simply means to change. In
that sense, all nuclear reactions where one isotope changes into another, are
transmutation reactions. However I grant that in the context of CF it has
commonly come to mean an isotopic change of the host lattice.

>I believe that transmutation takes place as a minor  
>consequence of fusion in the same NAE if a target nuclei happens to be  
>in the wrong place at the wrong time. Otherwise, transmutation does  
>not occur.

IOW transmutation as you define it does occur sometimes, and therefore does
contribute some energy. This is a little different to your first statement
here-above.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Axil Axil]

Proton21 transmutation results:

http://www.proton21.com.ua/publ/Proton21_Energy_EN.pdf


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The NAE is a topological construction. It appears whenever the required
> shape comes into existence.
>
>
> Once created, the NAE can be static, or it can come into existence and
> then disappear in a variable timeframe; I call this a dynamic NAE.
>
>
> The energy produced by a dynamic NAE is proportional to its production
> rate compared to its destruction rate.
>
> What is important to the effectiveness of a NAE in LENR is the output of
> the NAE; that output is its ability to produce an anapole magnetic field.
>
> Examples of NAE are cavitation bubbles, Solitons of surface plasmons as
> formed between nanoparticles, ring current on the surfaces of nanowires,
> stress cracks in metal lattices, ring electron currents on, in, and around
> nano-protrusions on metallic surfaces. Magnetic nano-clusters formed on the
> surface of nickel and other magnetic materials when the temperature of the
> magnetic material exceeds its curie temperature.
>
> Also see the following as a source of anapole magnetic fields in spin ice:
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.1174.pdf
>
> Dirac Strings and Magnetic Monopoles in Spin Ice Dy2Ti2O7
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>>
>>  In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00 -0600:
>>> Hi,
>>>
 The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
 transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.

>>>
>>> It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
>>> transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation must be
>>> ruled
>>> out.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, all transmutation as a source of energy can be ruled out. The
>> targets cannot move. They cannot seek out the NAE. Either the NAE is
>> located in a particle, in which case the reaction can exhaust all the
>> target in that small particle or the particle is dead and no transmutation
>> can occur in that particle. The target cannot move to where the NAE might
>> be located. This severely limits how much energy can come from this source,
>> which is less than is reported.   Hydrogen as a source of energy does not
>> have this problem because, as a gas, it can seek out every NAE in each
>> active particle and continue to make energy as long as the gas is supplied.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the
>>> broadest
>>> sense). ;)
>>>
>>
>> No, my theory is based on FUSION of hydrogen isotopes. We need to be
>> clear how we define words because otherwise we will never understand the
>> process. I believe that transmutation takes place as a minor consequence of
>> fusion in the same NAE if a target nuclei happens to be in the wrong place
>> at the wrong time. Otherwise, transmutation does not occur.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>>
 Ed
 On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

  The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
> reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken
> down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so
> derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process
> indefinitely.
>
> For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
> fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then
> fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over
> and over again.
>
> In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
> metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.
> The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of
> operation.
>
> As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
> can operate for months of years without reload.
>
> This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit
> on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of
> nuclear power.
>
 [snip]
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.**com/project.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Axil Axil]

The NAE is a topological construction. It appears whenever the required
shape comes into existence.


Once created, the NAE can be static, or it can come into existence and then
disappear in a variable timeframe; I call this a dynamic NAE.


The energy produced by a dynamic NAE is proportional to its production rate
compared to its destruction rate.

What is important to the effectiveness of a NAE in LENR is the output of
the NAE; that output is its ability to produce an anapole magnetic field.

Examples of NAE are cavitation bubbles, Solitons of surface plasmons as
formed between nanoparticles, ring current on the surfaces of nanowires,
stress cracks in metal lattices, ring electron currents on, in, and around
nano-protrusions on metallic surfaces. Magnetic nano-clusters formed on the
surface of nickel and other magnetic materials when the temperature of the
magnetic material exceeds its curie temperature.

Also see the following as a source of anapole magnetic fields in spin ice:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.1174.pdf

Dirac Strings and Magnetic Monopoles in Spin Ice Dy2Ti2O7




On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>  In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00 -0600:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
>>> transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.
>>>
>>
>> It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
>> transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation must be
>> ruled
>> out.
>>
>
> Yes, all transmutation as a source of energy can be ruled out. The targets
> cannot move. They cannot seek out the NAE. Either the NAE is located in a
> particle, in which case the reaction can exhaust all the target in that
> small particle or the particle is dead and no transmutation can occur in
> that particle. The target cannot move to where the NAE might be located.
> This severely limits how much energy can come from this source, which is
> less than is reported.   Hydrogen as a source of energy does not have this
> problem because, as a gas, it can seek out every NAE in each active
> particle and continue to make energy as long as the gas is supplied.
>
>
>
>> Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the
>> broadest
>> sense). ;)
>>
>
> No, my theory is based on FUSION of hydrogen isotopes. We need to be clear
> how we define words because otherwise we will never understand the process.
> I believe that transmutation takes place as a minor consequence of fusion
> in the same NAE if a target nuclei happens to be in the wrong place at the
> wrong time. Otherwise, transmutation does not occur.
>
> Ed
>
>
>>
>>> Ed
>>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>>  The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
 reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken
 down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so
 derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process
 indefinitely.

 For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
 fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then
 fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over
 and over again.

 In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
 metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.
 The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of
 operation.

 As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
 can operate for months of years without reload.

 This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit
 on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of
 nuclear power.

>>> [snip]
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.**com/project.html
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Edmund Storms]

On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00  
-0600:

Hi,

The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.


It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation  
must be ruled

out.


Yes, all transmutation as a source of energy can be ruled out. The  
targets cannot move. They cannot seek out the NAE. Either the NAE is  
located in a particle, in which case the reaction can exhaust all the  
target in that small particle or the particle is dead and no  
transmutation can occur in that particle. The target cannot move to  
where the NAE might be located. This severely limits how much energy  
can come from this source, which is less than is reported.   Hydrogen  
as a source of energy does not have this problem because, as a gas, it  
can seek out every NAE in each active particle and continue to make  
energy as long as the gas is supplied.




Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the  
broadest

sense). ;)


No, my theory is based on FUSION of hydrogen isotopes. We need to be  
clear how we define words because otherwise we will never understand  
the process. I believe that transmutation takes place as a minor  
consequence of fusion in the same NAE if a target nuclei happens to be  
in the wrong place at the wrong time. Otherwise, transmutation does  
not occur.


Ed




Ed
On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken
down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so
derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process
indefinitely.

For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then
fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over
and over again.

In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.
The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of
operation.

As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
can operate for months of years without reload.

This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit
on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of
nuclear power.

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00 -0600:
Hi,
>The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,  
>transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.

It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation must be ruled
out.

Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the broadest
sense). ;)

>
>Ed
>On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR  
>> reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken  
>> down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so  
>> derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process  
>> indefinitely.
>>
>> For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it  
>> fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then  
>> fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over  
>> and over again.
>>
>> In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of  
>> metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.  
>> The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of  
>> operation.
>>
>> As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction  
>> can operate for months of years without reload.
>>
>> This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit  
>> on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of  
>> nuclear power.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Axil Axil]

I try to react to experimental evidence when formulating LENR theory.
Others gain solace by choosing to understand experimental evidence to suit
their theory(s) and political stances. They say that certain observations
are due to contamination or error in measurements and so on and even the
assertion of fraud.

The denialists tend to use this sort of myopic deluded intellectual
behavior in their interpretation of facts. They go way too far in coming up
with arguments to support their assertions based on inconsistent
examinations of reality.

Both the denialists and the stubborn LENR theorists should just embrace the
dictates of detailed reality in the formulation of theory and avoid cheery
picking.

Personally, I only say that “That’s my story and I am sticking to it” as
ironic disparagement of the myopic mind set which is too often apparent in
theoretical discourse.




On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Also see tables II and III in this reference:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fconferences%2F2012%2FICCF17%2FICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf&ei=wYdRUO6bKqH20gGC64H4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGT9S6MSfTNDMcAs1KjI6lnTbzMNA&sig2=J0nTrYnPz0dbSOKYgP5VPg
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Transmutation has been observed as follows:
>>
>> http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of%
>> 20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
>>> transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>>  The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
>>> reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken down
>>> by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so derived
>>> could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process indefinitely.
>>>
>>>
>>>  For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
>>> fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then fission to
>>> Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over and over again.
>>>
>>>
>>>  In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
>>> metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes. The
>>> mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of operation.
>>>
>>>
>>>  As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
>>> can operate for months of years without reload.
>>>
>>>
>>>  This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit
>>> on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear
>>> power.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
 Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an
 energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions
 proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate must be
 between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the reactants must move
 at this rate from where they are normally located in the material by
 diffusion and assemble where the nuclear reaction can occur.  Which model
 do you think can be consistent with such a reaction rate?

  In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in
 one year while 10 kW is made.  The amount of deuterium isotope is easily
 contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to be contained
 and would have to be added from an outside source to produce this much
 energy.  Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted to Cu. This means that
 ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have to be converted to copper
 to achieve this much energy. Why do you think this might be possible?

 Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as
 the basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.

 1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while
 using H2 only contained in the e-Cat.  So far, no test has run ling
 enough to test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the
 practical use of this energy source.

 2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a
 typical charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number
 of small Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many
 particles would be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the
 logical assumption that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni,
 while a few particles would be active and have to suffer complete
 conversion to account for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not
 depend on HOW the reactio

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Leonard Arbuthnot]

The graphs in that paper are certainly consistent with the broad spread of 
products I saw back in the 90s.

At the time I had been using a notional working hypothesis of resonant protons 
using quantum tunneling to fuse with heavier nuclei - pushing then into the 
unstable positron emitter / electron captutre isotope region of the next 
element.  But then I saw that the products of the hot gas erosion tests were 
all over the damned place - a wide variety of both heavier and lighter elements 
(as compated to the host metals) - and I realised that something far more 
complex was happening

- Leo




 > From: Axil Axil 


> Transmutation has been observed as follows:
 
>  
>http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Axil Axil]

Also see tables II and III in this reference:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fconferences%2F2012%2FICCF17%2FICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf&ei=wYdRUO6bKqH20gGC64H4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGT9S6MSfTNDMcAs1KjI6lnTbzMNA&sig2=J0nTrYnPz0dbSOKYgP5VPg


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Transmutation has been observed as follows:
>
> http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of%
> 20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
>> transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>  The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
>> reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken down
>> by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so derived
>> could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process indefinitely.
>>
>>
>>  For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
>> fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then fission to
>> Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over and over again.
>>
>>
>>  In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
>> metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes. The
>> mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of operation.
>>
>>
>>  As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
>> can operate for months of years without reload.
>>
>>
>>  This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit on
>> the reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear power.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an
>>> energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions
>>> proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate must be
>>> between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the reactants must move
>>> at this rate from where they are normally located in the material by
>>> diffusion and assemble where the nuclear reaction can occur.  Which model
>>> do you think can be consistent with such a reaction rate?
>>>
>>>  In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in
>>> one year while 10 kW is made.  The amount of deuterium isotope is easily
>>> contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to be contained
>>> and would have to be added from an outside source to produce this much
>>> energy.  Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted to Cu. This means that
>>> ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have to be converted to copper
>>> to achieve this much energy. Why do you think this might be possible?
>>>
>>> Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as
>>> the basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.
>>>
>>> 1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while
>>> using H2 only contained in the e-Cat.  So far, no test has run ling
>>> enough to test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the
>>> practical use of this energy source.
>>>
>>> 2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a typical
>>> charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number of small
>>> Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many particles would
>>> be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the logical assumption
>>> that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni, while a few
>>> particles would be active and have to suffer complete conversion to account
>>> for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not depend on HOW the
>>> reaction might occur, which creates an entirely different problem. Once all
>>> of the Ni is converted to Cu in an active particle, why is the Cu not
>>> converted to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a proposed model
>>> that requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take these questions
>>> into account.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event
>>> 1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec
>>> 10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2
>>> p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event
>>> 1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec
>>> 10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2
>>> 62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event
>>> 1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec
>>> 10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Axil Axil]

Transmutation has been observed as follows:

http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of%
20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf




On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
> transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.
>
> Ed
>
> On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
> reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken down
> by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so derived
> could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process indefinitely.
>
>
> For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it fissions
> to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then fission to Ti, then
> fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over and over again.
>
>
> In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of metal
> and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes. The mass of
> the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of operation.
>
>
> As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction can
> operate for months of years without reload.
>
>
> This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit on
> the reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear power.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an energy
>> consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions proposed to
>> occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate must be between
>> 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the reactants must move at this
>> rate from where they are normally located in the material by diffusion and
>> assemble where the nuclear reaction can occur.  Which model do you think
>> can be consistent with such a reaction rate?
>>
>>  In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in one
>> year while 10 kW is made.  The amount of deuterium isotope is easily
>> contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to be contained
>> and would have to be added from an outside source to produce this much
>> energy.  Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted to Cu. This means that
>> ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have to be converted to copper
>> to achieve this much energy. Why do you think this might be possible?
>>
>> Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as the
>> basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.
>>
>> 1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while using
>> H2 only contained in the e-Cat.  So far, no test has run ling enough to
>> test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the practical use
>> of this energy source.
>>
>> 2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a typical
>> charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number of small
>> Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many particles would
>> be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the logical assumption
>> that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni, while a few
>> particles would be active and have to suffer complete conversion to account
>> for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not depend on HOW the
>> reaction might occur, which creates an entirely different problem. Once all
>> of the Ni is converted to Cu in an active particle, why is the Cu not
>> converted to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a proposed model
>> that requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take these questions
>> into account.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event
>> 1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec
>> 10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2
>> p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event
>> 1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec
>> 10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2
>> 62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event
>> 1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec
>> 10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Edmund Storms]

The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,  
transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.


Ed
On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR  
reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken  
down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so  
derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process  
indefinitely.


For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it  
fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then  
fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over  
and over again.


In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of  
metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.  
The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of  
operation.


As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction  
can operate for months of years without reload.


This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit  
on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of  
nuclear power.



On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an  
energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three  
reactions proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power,  
the rate must be between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that  
the reactants must move at this rate from where they are normally  
located in the material by diffusion and assemble where the nuclear  
reaction can occur.  Which model do you think can be consistent with  
such a reaction rate?


 In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted  
in one year while 10 kW is made.  The amount of deuterium isotope is  
easily contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to  
be contained and would have to be added from an outside source to  
produce this much energy.  Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted  
to Cu. This means that ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would  
have to be converted to copper to achieve this much energy. Why do  
you think this might be possible?


Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used  
as the basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.


1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while  
using H2 only contained in the e-Cat.  So far, no test has run ling  
enough to test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine  
the practical use of this energy source.


2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a  
typical charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large  
number of small Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni  
in many particles would be converted to Cu? This requirement is  
based on the logical assumption that many particles would be dead,  
typical of normal Ni, while a few particles would be active and have  
to suffer complete conversion to account for the claimed amount of  
energy. This fact does not depend on HOW the reaction might occur,  
which creates an entirely different problem. Once all of the Ni is  
converted to Cu in an active particle, why is the Cu not converted  
to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a proposed model that  
requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take these  
questions into account.


Ed

d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event
1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2
p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event
1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2
62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event
1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Axil Axil]

The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR reactors
point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken down by fission
and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so derived could be
reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process indefinitely.



For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it fissions to
Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then fission to Ti, then
fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over and over again.



In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of metal
and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes. The mass of
the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of operation.



As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction can
operate for months of years without reload.



This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit on the
reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear power.


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an energy
> consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions proposed to
> occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate must be between
> 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the reactants must move at this
> rate from where they are normally located in the material by diffusion and
> assemble where the nuclear reaction can occur.  Which model do you think
> can be consistent with such a reaction rate?
>
>  In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in one
> year while 10 kW is made.  The amount of deuterium isotope is easily
> contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to be contained
> and would have to be added from an outside source to produce this much
> energy.  Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted to Cu. This means that
> ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have to be converted to copper
> to achieve this much energy. Why do you think this might be possible?
>
> Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as the
> basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.
>
> 1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while using
> H2 only contained in the e-Cat.  So far, no test has run ling enough to
> test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the practical use
> of this energy source.
>
> 2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a typical
> charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number of small
> Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many particles would
> be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the logical assumption
> that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni, while a few
> particles would be active and have to suffer complete conversion to account
> for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not depend on HOW the
> reaction might occur, which creates an entirely different problem. Once all
> of the Ni is converted to Cu in an active particle, why is the Cu not
> converted to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a proposed model that
> requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take these questions into
> account.
>
> Ed
>
> d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event
> 1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec
> 10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2
> p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event
> 1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec
> 10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2
> 62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event
> 1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec
> 10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni
>

[Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

[Edmund Storms]

Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an  
energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions  
proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate  
must be between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the  
reactants must move at this rate from where they are normally located  
in the material by diffusion and assemble where the nuclear reaction  
can occur.  Which model do you think can be consistent with such a  
reaction rate?


 In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in  
one year while 10 kW is made.  The amount of deuterium isotope is  
easily contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to  
be contained and would have to be added from an outside source to  
produce this much energy.  Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted  
to Cu. This means that ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have  
to be converted to copper to achieve this much energy. Why do you  
think this might be possible?


Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as  
the basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.


1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while  
using H2 only contained in the e-Cat.  So far, no test has run ling  
enough to test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the  
practical use of this energy source.


2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a  
typical charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large  
number of small Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in  
many particles would be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on  
the logical assumption that many particles would be dead, typical of  
normal Ni, while a few particles would be active and have to suffer  
complete conversion to account for the claimed amount of energy. This  
fact does not depend on HOW the reaction might occur, which creates an  
entirely different problem. Once all of the Ni is converted to Cu in  
an active particle, why is the Cu not converted to Zr by addition of  
another p? I suggest a proposed model that requires use of  
transmutation to make energy MUST take these questions into account.


Ed

d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event
1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2
p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event
1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2
62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event
1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni