Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: AbdThe only reason to do it is to convince dodo-head skeptics, which is not enough of a motive to spend the several hundred thousand dollars that would be risked. And from what I've seen, skeptics would *still* not be convinced, quite likely. Especially if it exploded.And here I thought the lack of funding for CF was dodo-head skeptics. If so, I bet 15 kilowatts sustained for days or weeks would convince them. I'm not involved in funding but it would certainly convince me (if it wasn't some Rossi phony dog and pony show).
Posted By: maryyugoPosted By: hairykrishnaHave I missed something? Where's the danger? There are no neutrons or gammas so no rad hazard. Why not build a 50kW one?
They heat up and break up violently. Apparently nobody in cold fusion understands *cooling* systems and heat exchangers. Except Rossi of course. He understands them all too well.
I've always said they need a big bang, so to speak. But they refuse to do it. Just take a cell to the desert and have a huge explosion, measure the yield, voila!
Posted By: AbdPosted By: hairykrishnaPosted By: Abdd+d->4He, your example, isn't actually possible.
That is *probably* correct. However, there are *conceivable* mechanisms. The big problem with dd fusion is that we already know what is likely to happen if you single-body cold-catalyze dd fusion, you get the same branching ratio as hot fusion, it's demonstrated by muon-catalyzed fusion. To be more precise, d-d fusion would be expected to generate neutrons and He-3, which are not observed. But we do not necessarily know all possible *mechanisms* for d-d fusion, which is why we cannot rule out d-d fusion with certainty. It's unlikely, though, hence other possibilities are explored, including multibody fusion in various forms, plus, for some -- very unlikely also -- neutron formation and activation.
Posted By: AbdIf CF is real, why not build a big one?
For what purpose? It will not be more reliable because it is larger, it will simply be more dangerous. It will be impractical as a commercial application, so there is no motive there. The only reason to do it is to convince dodo-head skeptics, which is not enough of a motive to spend the several hundred thousand dollars that would be risked. And from what I've seen, skeptics would *still* not be convinced, quite likely. Especially if it exploded.
Posted By: AbdWhen the quantities involved are below what most people consider sensible detection limits they're not all that convincing.
The detection limits are *far below* what is detected. This is nuts. The difficulty is not in detecting the helium, it is capturing all of it. So results are above the 23.8 MeV level, as much as double it or so, depending on measures taken to capture and measure all the helium.
A more reasonable argument, on the face, is that the helium is often below ambient levels, so it's an easy charge that the helium is leaked from ambient. However, two facts:
1. The levels in some experiments rise above ambient, and enough energy has been released to explain and expect that. Generally, where helium levels have been continuously plotted, they do not slow in rise as ambient levels are approached, but remain proportional to generated energy. ("anomalous heat")
2. There is no anomalous helium detected in otherwise identical experiments that don't generate heat, so-called "dead cells." That includes hydrogen controls. (That's a fact that was missed in the 2004 DoE report, they assumed that *all cells were generating energy.* It was a blatant misreading. There were hydrogen controls, no heat and no helium.)
Leakage from ambient does not explain the correlation.
Posted By: AbdAnd anyone who has that money to spend on this will not spend it on a big bang. Why should they?Because, at the moment, nobody in main line science believes them.
Posted By: hairykrishnaSimple conservation of momentum rules out d+d->4He.That's a naive expectation, but a very reasonable one. Those who are working on d+d theories are physicists, generally. They know about conservation of momentum, and so do I. If you want a description of how they are attempting to deal with the problem, I could give that, and it would simply irritate more people, and for little benefit.
Jan. 25, 2013 -On day 4, Prof. Hagelstein began with evidence, based upon PdD and D2O as the detectors, that de novo Helium 4 must be “borne” with energies below 10 keV or less, and that the upper limit for neutron production must be less than 0.01 neutrons/joule. Then, having demonstrated that destructive interference in the spin boson model prevents its use in CF/LANR, he corrected that, and expanded the Hamiltonian to now include coupling parameters and examined the quantum exchange characteristics based upon coherence.
Successful energy transfer was demonstrated to require interactions of all the atoms in the lattice. For further analysis, a donor-receptor system was then included. At that point, he showed how the Coulomb barrier need not be overcome, because by this method the factor is linear, rather than quadratic (needed for classical analysis of D+D interactions). Supporting this analysis is the Karabut data in glow discharge on Pd which yielded both diffuse emissions and collimated x-radiation. with beamlets of energy bandwidth which were consistent with the theory Prof. Hagelstein developed. Finally, he used the Foldy-Wouthuysen rotational operation, and demonstrated how this analysis is becoming assymptotic [sic] with what is being observed in CF/LANR, with the use of his corrected condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) Hamiltonian. Finally, with the addition of nonlinear Rabi oscillations (which yields Dicke superradiance), his model was shown to also be near-complete and consistent with both the observed pulse emissions and the wide bandwidth.
Posted By: AngusWe've now got a poster called AbdBIPS, BIPS, BIPS, wonderful BIPS.
-ul Rahman Lomax. To the Blab
He's addicted it seems,
For he types it by reams
In a style that is more drab than fab.
Posted By: hairykrishnaFuck me. I start answering one post point by point and another wall of text appears.BIPS, BIPS, BIPS, wonderful BIPS.
Posted By: maryyugoPosted By: AbdAnd anyone who has that money to spend on this will not spend it on a big bang. Why should they?Because, at the moment, nobody in main line science believes them.
If they want funding to do something more clever about theory and optimization, they need to be convincing to main line scientists.
A proper cooling system is an excellent device for measuring enthalpy properly (with a good calibration and blank run). It doesn't matter if it costs more than an insufficient and inadequate and unconvincing experiment.
If by 'dodo-head' skeptics' you mean 'the entire nuclear physics community' then yes, that's it's purpose.
Posted By: joshsBIPS, BIPS, BIPS, wonderful BIPS.
Posted By: maryyugoPosted By: AbdStorms has concluded that there is only one mechanism, and that it will explain both PdD and NiH results.
There are NiH results worth explaining? Whose are those? Where are they published?
Deuterium is not the only active hydrogen isotope. Nickel exposed to hot H2 gas was discovered by Piantelli to produce heat and nuclear activity. This behavior has been studied by Focardi and co-workers at the University of Bologna and University of Siena (Italy) for many years and has been replicated by Cammarota and co-workers.and then he gives more details. He gives 10 references on this, of which five seem to be conference papers, some of which might be peer-reviewed, some not. The reports seem to go back to 1993, and did not begin in Italy. Nickel results were always a puzzle. Deuterium fusion is unlikely enough! But experiment is experiment. Nobody had proposed a plausible and confirmed ash, and that's still so.
Posted By: E-ManWhere the brain has been fully anesthetized sensory feedback has little effect.Posted By: joshsBIPS, BIPS, BIPS, wonderful BIPS.
Eventually I'll be the only one talking at Abd. Maybe his ass won't be so sore by then.
Posted By: Abdhe does think that there are NiH results, and thought that Rossi had managed to enhance those results.If Storms thinks anything about Rossi is credible, then he is more woowoo than I thought. As far as Piantelli is concerned, I browsed some of his reports and found them to be unconvincing.
Posted By: AbdThe skeptical position retired about then, except for very few comments and papers. Positive papers on cold fusion had outnumbered negative ones, since about 1991, the Britz database shows that. Sure, confirmation bias. But ... what's the substance?
Posted By: maryyugoI love quotations like this on artists' web sites, LOL!"P-word" habitues love to write "LOL," but my guess that they don't actually laugh out loud. They sort of snort or sneer.
Jan. 25, 2013 -On day 4, Prof. Hagelstein began with evidence, based upon PdD and D2O as the detectors, that de novo Helium 4 must be “borne” with energies below 10 keV or less, and that the upper limit for neutron production must be less than 0.01 neutrons/joule.
Then, having demonstrated that destructive interference in the spin boson model prevents its use in CF/LANR, he corrected that, and expanded the Hamiltonian to now include coupling parameters and examined the quantum exchange characteristics based upon coherence.
Successful energy transfer was demonstrated to require interactions of all the atoms in the lattice.
For further analysis, a donor-receptor system was then included.
Supporting this analysis is the Karabut data in glow discharge on Pd which yielded both diffuse emissions and collimated x-radiation. with beamlets of energy bandwidth which were consistent with the theory Prof. Hagelstein developed. Mmmmm.... color me skeptical, but maybe. I'd need to see the specific application.At that point, he showed how the Coulomb barrier need not be overcome, because by this method the factor is linear, rather than quadratic (needed for classical analysis of D+D interactions).
Hey, Swartz didn't get an A in spelling. I'm not familiar with the terms and am not looking them but my comment so far is that the summary was not well-written to explain clearly what was covered. I might try to write something myself as I watch the video. The audience for those videos is who? If it's quantum physicists, fine. They might be able to follow it. But if it's the general public forgeddaboudit.Finally, he used the Foldy-Wouthuysen rotational operation, and demonstrated how this analysis is becoming assymptotic [sic] with what is being observed in CF/LANR, with the use of his corrected condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) Hamiltonian.
So Hagelstein is explaining his theory. That's actually a bit unfortunate. His theory is considered a reasonable candidate, but is *not* accepted, and there are problems. We'll see.Finally, with the addition of nonlinear Rabi oscillations (which yields Dicke superradiance), his model was shown to also be near-complete and consistent with both the observed pulse emissions and the wide bandwidth.
Jan. 23, 2013 – On day 2, Prof. Peter Hagelstein presented his original theory involving de novo helium formation in CF/LANR, specifically at vacancies surrounded by loaded octahedral sites, and made very clear -in that light- exactly why early attempts at reproduction of CF were so difficult to achieve. The roles of loading (Volmer, Tafel, and Heyrovsky reactions), chemical potential, sigma-bonded hydrogen, codeposition, embedded atom theories, vacancy diffusion and stabilization by loading, and the important differences between Pd and Ni were also made clear; as he tied these together based upon years of condensed matter data.
The only things they left out are Rydberg hydrogen, Einstein-Bose condensates, and of course, dark matter. Also dog bones, qi birds, and unicorns.Indeed. There is a person who advances dark matter to explain cold fusion. To be blunt, he's crazy. You can read him on Vortex. Dog bones, qi birds and unicorns would require a revision of my model of reality, to be clear. As to Rydberg hydrogen and BECs, there are some theories that involve them, or at least BECs. If they were not mentioned in the course, that's too bad, because these are notable theories, they have been published under peer review, they are part of the mix.
http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/
Where the brain has been fully anesthetized sensory feedback has little effect.Well, I recently suffered a rather striking loss of hearing. I no longer can hear my children's mice squeaking. Are there mice squeaking here?
Posted By: AbdPosted By: maryyugoBecause, at the moment, nobody in main line science believes them.
That's not true. I've cited sources showing quite the opposite. They are ignored by ... dodo-head skeptics. Who mostly live *here* and in places like this.
Posted By: AngusWho was it here who ever said categorically that no fusion could ever occur in the kind of experiment Pons and Fleischman did?Posted By: AbdDid I say that someone here said it? I don't recall either (someone saying it or my saying someone had said it.)