If I heard right during the demonstration, the spark was 11 pulses per minute, but I didn't hear a duty cycle mentioned.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > The spark (plasma activation mechanism) lasts for 12 seconds. The reaction > is then active for about 6 minutes. This cannot be a hot fusion mechanism. > > The spark produces nanoparticles that are gradually consumed, It is LENR > for sure. > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Chuck Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Very interesting discussions. Thanks Axil for the two links in your >> earlier note.. I saw the video, but I wasn't aware of the paper >> presentation that described the isotopic shifts. So far, it looks like a >> very convincing experiment that looks to have nuclear origins. There are >> so many interesting points to bring up. For example the high voltage >> pulses from the modified spark plugs. That''s all secret IP, but at 10Kv >> pulsed, that has to be creating a plasma of hot H ions, and then assuming >> the Ni is the ground, it shouldn't surprise anyone that H ions are being >> accelerated into the NI nano powder. 10Kv is enough to circumvent >> the Coulomb barrier when you consider the screening potential of the >> metal's valence electrons. >> >> If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a >> controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice. You can almost thing of the Ni >> as forming a scaffolding to hold in place the H ions, and as spark plugs >> pulse, wave after wave of hot H ions would be bombarding the Ni. The fact >> that the cross section for a fusion event seems broad is unusual, but there >> may be more Ni + p reactions than p + p. >> >> Do you need Rydberg atoms to do that? I would really like to read the >> Kim paper before dumping on the Rydberg concept, but to me, this is an >> unnecessarily complex physics state to achieve in a solid state (or nano >> structure), when a simple hot fusion explanation might work. So I'm >> kind of with Jed in my hesitation about accepting the whole presentation by >> Defkcalion. Let me point out what is odd; The stainless steel container >> that has heat transfer coil around it. If you look at the diagrams, that >> should be pumped with hydrogen. Shouldn't there be an electrically >> insulating barrier between the hydrogen (plasma) and the stainless steel? >> If not then why isn't the H plasma interacting with the casing? >> >> Anyway, more food for thought. >> Best Regards folks. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Arnaud Kodeck <arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be> wrote: >>> >>> As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical speculations >>>> put one after another one. There no experiments that confirm their >>>> speculations. >>>> >>> >>> This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying anything >>> here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a physics >>> conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The standards of >>> rigor should be higher for that. >>> >>> >>> **** >>>> >>>> Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field >>>> that they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are >>>> they hiding the proof? >>>> >>> >>> I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it isn't >>> enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in parenthesis >>> and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they used a variety >>> of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and the source of the >>> isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should list where you >>> got them and how pure they are, so that other people can judge your >>> results. This rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. If it was >>> some material that you can get from any supply house, such as nickel wire, >>> there is no need to list the source. >>> >>> In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as >>> Johnson Matthey. The source makes a big difference. >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The Defkalion theory might be right to explain the excess heat of the >>>> hyperion. But it might be as well something else that produces the extra >>>> energy. >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps. They claim they know the source of the heat. They should make a >>> careful, rigorous case in a paper to back this up. >>> >>> >>> >>>> I hope the realtime spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor will >>>> open our eyes to what’s going on inside. >>>> >>> >>> I hope so. (Question: Will it work for elements other than hydrogen and >>> helium? I have seen some light-element-only on-line spectrometers.) >>> >>> >>> I don’t blame Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right >>>> direction, and given a lot of hints to the public. >>>> >>> >>> I think the presentation at ICCF17 and 18 were a little slack by the >>> standards of academic physics. There are many slack presentations at these >>> conferences. I think we should cut back on them, and relegate more of them >>> to the poster sessions. >>> >>> I cannot judge Kim's presentation. I gather (now) that it was supposed >>> to be the proof for Defkalion's claims. Perhaps it was. It is over my head. >>> It seems mostly theoretical rather than being based on experimental >>> evidence. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
