25 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, I think they are still at a very early stage with this and may be blowing soap bubbles but it is worth looking at even if it is a low probability situation. Ten years down the line maybe they will understand it so well they can say with certainty yea or nay.
I found the article extremely vague and in some places unintelligible.
26 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn that link the reporter said they got to see inside the reactor but they did not show a video of that, and which one they opened. If they opened up the one from the demo they did not have video.
http://ecat.com/ecat-questions/how-does-an-ecat-work
Apparently it's possible to use chemical catalysts to help nickel fuse with a proton (hydrogen nucleus) transforming the nickel to copper and releasing heat in the process.
They also did not have to use aluminum foil to cover it, they could have made it totally out of glass so everything would have been visible. If it didn't produce quite as much heat, no big deal. It would show there was not a car battery or something inside producing the energy.
I would have to see them put one together from scratch, watch the entire assembly process and then see it start producing energy and not for just 3 hours at the claimed 5 kw output, that is only about 15 kwhr at best and that can be faked.
If I saw them assemble it and saw there was no energy source from current technology and THEN produced power not for 3 hours but for 60 hours or so, that would be about 300 Kwhr, an entirely different situation than one running for a couple or three hours, 300 Kwhr from a box the size of a toaster-oven like they showed would be impossible for any normal source. I would also have to rule out induction heaters under the table.
The energy could be transmitted from as much as 6 feet away and you would not feel it. There is technology like that readily available. I would like to see them put it together and me supply the table and let it run for a few days, that would satisfy me.
26 May 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn hot fusion that is right, iron is star poop. The end of the fusion road and the end of the fission road. Not sure how they rationalize that in LENR theory. I also don't know what a 'heavy' electron is either. The only 'heavy' electron I know about is the muon, an electron like particle but 200 times heavier.
One thing that bothers me is that I've heard fusion only works for elements smaller than iron. The argument here is that nickel, which is heavier than iron, is fusing to make something even heavier than that - copper. That shouldn't work.
27 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThere is also a heavier version called the tau particle. The tau is approximately 17 times heavier than a muon, but otherwise has the same properties.
In hot fusion that is right, iron is star poop. The end of the fusion road and the end of the fission road. Not sure how they rationalize that in LENR theory. I also don't know what a 'heavy' electron is either. The only 'heavy' electron I know about is the muon, an electron like particle but 200 times heavier.
27 May 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo. A proton is a composite particle consisting of three quarks (two up, one down). An antiproton is similar, but consists of two anti-up and one anti-down quark. The quarks are glued together by the strong nuclear force, transmitted through particles called gluons (like the photons that transmit electromagnetic interactions).
Is the tau particle the same as the antiproton?
27 May 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnd the tau?
No. A proton is a composite particle consisting of three quarks (two up, one down). An antiproton is similar, but consists of two anti-up and one anti-down quark. The quarks are glued together by the strong nuclear force, transmitted through particles called gluons (like the photons that transmit electromagnetic interactions).