20%
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:34:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
From: cbsit...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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
