Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:04:34 + (UTC): Hi Jones, [snip] > Is the correct Rydberg value 27.2 instead of 22.7 ? >...or was that a typo ? Not a typo, just a "senior moment" on my part. (Same numbers, wrong order.) It should of course be 27.2 and Erbium is not a match. > > > >Robin wrote: > >>The elements is rare, costly and does not appear in the list of Mills >>catalysts (but almost any element can be contorted to be catalytic,, as Mills >>has repeatedly shown). > >The 3rd ionization energy of Er is 22.739 eV. Close enough to 22.7 that >thermal kinetic energy can make up the >difference. >
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion
Is the correct Rydberg value 27.2 instead of 22.7 ? ...or was that a typo ? Robin wrote: >The elements is rare, costly and does not appear in the list of Mills’ >catalysts (but almost any element can be contorted to be catalytic,, as Mills >has repeatedly shown). The 3rd ionization energy of Er is 22.739 eV. Close enough to 22.7 that thermal kinetic energy can make up the difference.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion
In reply to JonesBeene's message of Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:49:32 -0700: Hi, [snip] >The elements is rare, costly and does not appear in the list of Mills >catalysts (but almost any element can be contorted to be catalytic,, as Mills >has repeatedly shown). The 3rd ionization energy of Er is 22.739 eV. Close enough to 22.7 that thermal kinetic energy can make up the difference.
RE: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion
From: CB Sites Any ideas as to why they chose Erbium for the host metal? I wondered about this too. The elements is rare, costly and does not appear in the list of Mills’ catalysts (but almost any element can be contorted to be catalytic,, as Mills has repeatedly shown). The one commercial use that appears on a google search for erbium is that it is used in control rods in nuclear reactors. This means that it has a high cross-section for neutrons - which several cheaper elements have… but in this case it could be a cross-section for a specific resonance/velocity which no other (cheaper) metal has. Perhaps the ability to absorb neutrons of a particular velocity or type – and the reason it is used in control rods despite being extremely costly - relates to “virtual neutrons” as well? Or… the cynic might say … maybe it relates to not wanting replication attempts … for whatever reason.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:39 PM CB Sites wrote: > Any ideas as to why they chose Erbium for the host metal? > I can think of one reason: Palladium 2,197.00 USD per Troy Ounce Platinum962.50 USD per Troy Ounce Erbium $650 per kilogram!
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion
Any ideas as to why they chose Erbium for the host metal? Seems like a pretty straight forward idea. I do wonder how quickly the host metal gets consumed. On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 11:06 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > Direct link to quote: > > https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion/ > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > >> "NASA Detects Lattice Confinement Fusion >> >> A team of NASA researchers seeking a new energy source for deep-space >> exploration missions, recently revealed a method for triggering nuclear >> fusion in the space between the atoms of a metal solid." >> >> https://e-catworld.com/2020/08/15/nasa-lattice-confinement-fusion/ >> >> What a brilliant idea! I wonder why no one else thought of it? >> >> ;) >> >
[Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion
Direct link to quote: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion/ On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > "NASA Detects Lattice Confinement Fusion > > A team of NASA researchers seeking a new energy source for deep-space > exploration missions, recently revealed a method for triggering nuclear > fusion in the space between the atoms of a metal solid." > > https://e-catworld.com/2020/08/15/nasa-lattice-confinement-fusion/ > > What a brilliant idea! I wonder why no one else thought of it? > > ;) >
