They also spoke of the excess heat being caused by "efficient" recombination of 
hydrogen atoms. "efficient" doesn't get you over-unity and they should have 
been looking at the other end of the reversible reaction where the environment 
was actually lowering the disassociation threshold to the point where it could 
be repeatedly disassociated for less "supplied" energy than it was releasing 
during recombo. As I have said before there is a fundamental misunderstanding 
of catalytic action, It is derived from HUP and change in Casimir force and the 
notion that HUP is an unexploitable energy source has an exception when large 
Casimir force changes value rapidly due to rapid changes in very small Casimir 
geometry like Rossi's tubules or the packing geometries of Ni nano powder. This 
rapid change in Casimir force relative to the random motion of gas inside the 
tapestry of the Ni boundaries is equivalent to a mechanical shaker table. 
Instead of a spatial axis the hydrogen is subjected to jerk in values of 
Casimir force.
Fran

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] 
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear 
Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight

Am 16.12.2011 21:59, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc
>
It is interesting and looks very convincing.
However, it is unclear to me how performant this is.

For example they measure neutrons. So far I know the neutrons from 
cosmic rays are 20 neutrons /(cm^2*s) respective 72000 neutrons per hour 
per cm^2. There are also cosmic muons.
If they measure many hours, then spurious nuclear reactions in this 
reactive environment should not be too surprising. These could even 
release more neutrons, but not enough for selfsustaining.
Possibly they invented a neutron multiplier? They should try to put many 
of these cells close together and see if the reaction is amplificated, 
and the efficiency improved.

Peter


Reply via email to