FrankSpecht
Registriertes Mitglied
Ich bestätigeHallo Ralf ... Dein Postfach ist voll.
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Ich bestätigeHallo Ralf ... Dein Postfach ist voll.
From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to Ni. Moreover from the EDS and XPS analysis one finds large amounts of C and O. It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ substantially depending on which granule is analyzed. In addition to these elements there are small quantities of several other elements, but these can probably be considered as impurities.
The main result from our sample is nevertheless clear, that the isotopic composition deviates dramatically from the natural composition for both Li and Ni.
The Lithium [Anmerkung: Standard Lithium Aluminum Hydride, LiAlH4 ?] content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place.
Another remarkable change in the ash as compared to the unused fuel is the identified change in the isotope composition of Ni.
The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e.
58Ni (68.1%),
60Ni (26.2%),
61Ni (1.1%),
62Ni (3.6%), and
64Ni (0.9%),
whereas the ash composition from SIMS is:
58Ni (0.8.%),
60Ni (0.5%),
61Ni (0%),
62Ni (98.7%),
64Ni (0%),
and from ICP-MS:
58Ni (0.8%),
60Ni (0.3%),
61Ni (0%),
62Ni (99.3%),
64Ni (0%).
Evidently, there is also an isotope shift in Nickel. There is a depletion of the 58Ni and 60Ni isotopes and a buildup of the 62Ni isotopes in the burning process. We note that 62Ni is the nucleus with the largest binding energy per nucleon. The origin of this shift cannot be understood from single nuclear reactions involving protons. With alpha particles colliding with Ni one can in principle raise the atomic mass number by 4 via exciting 58Ni to 62Zn, which then via positron emission decays back to 62Cu and 62Ni, but that is hardly believable to occur due to an enormous Coulomb barrier to merge 4He and Ni. Besides, with this reaction one can also go to stable Zn isotopes, which are not found in the ash.
It should be pointed out that the fusion towards heavier isotopes of Nickel releases energy. For example the reaction p + 58Ni ?59Cu + ? and 59Cu decaying back to 59Ni emission releases 3.4 MeV. Even if that particular reaction is excluded, since no gammas are observed, we can tentatively use this number for each step towards 62Ni, and the information from ICP-AES that there is about 0.55 gram Ni in the fuel. We find then that there is about 2.2MWh available from the Nickel transformations. Accordingly, from Nickel and Lithium together there is about 3 MWh available, which is twice the amount given away in the test run. Consequently we can conclude that the amount of fuel is probably compatible with the energy release being measured, although a quantitative statement requires detailed knowledge of the prevailing reactions.
However, as discussed above, it is of course very hard to comprehend how these fusion processes can take place in the fuel compound at low energies. Presently we should therefore restrict ourselves to merely state that an isotope shift has occurred in Lithium and Nickel. We refrain from speculations in any dynamic scenario making this reaction possible at low energies. The reaction speculation above should only be considered as an example of reasoning and not a serious conjecture.
The reaction speculation above should only be considered as an example of reasoning and not a serious conjecture.
Quelle?Der e-cat nutzt 28Ni[...]
Quelle?[...]aus 58Ni soll werden 59Cu[...]
Damals wurde darauf hingewiesen, daß man aber ein gegenüber dem natürlichen verschobenes Isotopenverhältnis erwarten würde.The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.
Hallo Herr Senf,... zumal mich etwas verwundert, daß auch alte User mit Physikbackground noch auf das typische Prinzip Hoffnung einer pathologischen Physik setzen....
Steht das irgendwo so explizit - z.B. im Patentantrag, den ich (zu meiner Schande) bisher nicht gelesen habe.Der e-cat nutzt 28Ni und Wasserstoff und erzeugt dabei exotherm angeblich 29Cu...
Jetzt schalt ich den e-Herd ein und brat Forelle - Grüße Senf
One can speculate about the nature of such reactions. Considering Li and disregarding for a moment from the problem with the Coulomb barrier the depletion of 7Li might be due to the reaction (Anmerkung:Wasserstoff Proton)p + 7Li -> 8Be ->4He + 4He. The momentum mismatch in the first step before 8Be decays can be picked up by any other particle in the vicinity. In this case the large kinetic energy of the 4He (distributed between 7 and 10 MeV ) is transferred to heat in the reactor via multiple Coulomb scattering in the usual stopping process.
From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to Ni. Moreover from the EDS and XPS analysis one finds large amounts of C and O.
Seite 53 Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash
So war's eigentlich nicht gemeint, ich bin obwohl auch in der Kategorie "old" hier ein noch "jüngerer" user, die anderen sind länger dabei.wenn Sie mich schon praktisch persönlich "ansprechen":
Zeitschriften und internet-blogs sind doch voll von Gegenargumenten, meine Informationen hab ich auch nicht aeroheuristisch hergeleitet.Wenn das alles so einfach physikalisch zu widerlegen ist, warum erfolgte das nicht schon vor x Jahren
vielen Dank für die PN. Ich würde Dir gerne darauf antworten, aber Dein Postfach ist voll.
Hallo barty,Du hast den Bericht also nicht mal quer gelesen? Sehr schön.
Also das jetzt beginnende Wochenende!Bis übernächstes Wochenende wissen wir mehr
Michael C. H. McKubre schrieb:If pressed the authority of experts in the fields of nuclear or particle physics are invoked, or early publications of null results by ‘influential laboratories’ – Caltech, MIT, Bell Labs, Harwell. Almost to a man these experts have long ago retired or deceased, and the authors of these early publications of ‘influential laboratories’ have long since left the field and not returned. The issue of ‘long ago’ is important as it establishes a time window in which information was gathered sufficient for some to draw a permanent conclusion – some time between 23 March 1989 and ‘long ago’. Absurdly for a matter of this seeming importance, ‘long ago’ usually dates to the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) on 1 May 1989. So the whole matter was reported and then comprehensively dismissed within 40 days (and, presumably, 40 nights).
Michael C. H. McKubre schrieb:From what we know today, and Figure 1 clearly illuminates, none of the cells in any of these early cited null studies would be expected to produce any excess heat. Not only for the reasons of a loading deficiency (as stated explicitly); the durations of the experiments were wholly insufficient. The Caltech work13 was completed and conclusions made public within 40 days of the Fleischmann and Pons public announcement. None of the Caltech experiments was operated for the 300 h (12.5 days) that was the minimum initiation time observed at SRI for bulk Pd cathodes and the entire set of Caltech experiments was complete well within the 1000 h (42 days) established as the minimum time of observation at SRI (see note 6). In addition, the current density stimuli used in these early null experiments were too small to reliably produce the effect and the deuterium flux was not measured. None of the criteria of eq. (1) was shown to be met, at least three demonstrably were not. In hindsight it is evident that the authors13–15 were victims of ‘unknown unknowns’, and perhaps ‘undue haste’ – but this is understandable in the frantic circumstances of 1989. What is important is that these experiments be recognized for what they are, not what they are not. They are important members of the experimental database that teaches us under what conditions one encounters FPHE. They are not any part of a proof of nonexistence of the phenomenon and cannot be used to support such a conclusion; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.