There are many assertions in this post that may be misapplied. The polariton will form a BEC up to a temperature of 2300K. The generation of heat in Rossi's reactor is superfluidic.
During the reactor meltdown event in the first impartial Rossi test, the picture of the meltdown showed that the entire pipe glowed red, this glow not just produced by the heat concentrated at hot spots near the nickel nano-powder. The reaction is not based on accelerating charged particles; it is based on screening caused by the production of intense EMF. This EMF turns down the force that keeps the nickel nucleus together. This is what I mean by photo-fission. Oftentimes, a single alpha particle is released from the nickel and iron is formed. Sometime, multiple alpha clusters are released as indicated by the large amount of light elements that are seen as transmutation produces in the DGT ash samples. That 7MeV of binding energy that you site is released into the gamma thermalization process of the BEC. The strong force is not affected or overcome by the kinetic energy of an excited particle; the strong force is just removed by an EMF that gently deactivates the strong force. The alpha particle drifts out of the nickel nucleus gently. Energy handling is not kinetic, it is all electromagnetic. This lack of kinetic activity is why excited isotopes are not formed. All energy release processes are done at very low energies under the influence of the coherent and entangled averaging potential of the polariton BEC. This BEC energy averaging is why no gamma radiation is seen in the Ni/H reactor. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:01:07 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > > BTW as for the concept of laser induced nuclear reactions, consider the > following: > > Most of the thermal energy in a Rossi reactor will be random. Even if some > of it > is made coherent by nano-particles, that is still likely to only be a small > portion. Of that small proportion of coherent infra red, only a small > proportion > will accelerate charged particles. Of those accelerated charged particles, > only > a small fraction (1 in 10000?) will actually trigger nuclear reactions. > > Therefore I think it very unlikely that sufficient energy would be > released by > those reactions to produce the original amount of laser energy that was > required > to start the process. IOW I doubt this approach would be energy positive > overall. > > However, I could be wrong...;) > > BTW, the most likely nuclear reaction (IMO) would be:- > > p (fast) + (A,Z) => (A+1,Z+1) > > which usually produces gamma rays, which are not in evidence. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
