On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is some additional info on the 18-hour test. I do not think I
will add this to the News section. It can wait for a paper from
Levi. This may have been reported here by Cousin Peter:
Approximately 0.4 g of hydrogen was consumed in 18 hours. This is
based on what sounds like a crude estimate to me: measuring the
weight of the hydrogen tank before and after the test with the
electronic weight scale. The weight scale has a margin of error of
0.1 gram. They measured a 0.3 g difference and they assume it was
actually closer to ~0.4.
Total energy production was ~1,037 MJ. This seems like much less
than you get from a fusion reaction with 0.4 g of hydrogen.
Hydrogen fusion yields 1.35 * 10E7 per kilogram says this source,
Table 1:
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1996/TM-107030.pdf
So for 0.4 g that would be 54,000 MJ. This is ~1000 MJ, so it is
off by a factor of 54. I guess that isn't such a big difference
given the crudeness of these measurements. My guess is that
hydrogen leaking or absorbing into the materials far outweighs the
hydrogen consumed by the reaction.
Unless . . . UNLESS! . . . I don't know . . . unless Mills is
right? Or the W-L theory is right? It ain't my bailiwick. The
experts in theory such as Krivit can hash this out.
- Jed
This 270kWh per 0.4 g if hydrogen is obviously well beyond chemical
if the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is:
E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1.00797 gm/mol)) = 2.54x10^4 eV / H
E = 25.4 keV per atom of H.
This is about 2.5 times the ionization energy of the innermost
electron of Ni. This is well under expected conventional weak
reaction energies feasible between protons and Ni, but not out of
the range of feasibility for hydrino reactions, or deflation fusion
reactions.
Deflation fusion reactions which do not involve the weak force can
trigger shuffles between electron quantum levels post reaction, due
to the post fusion reaction electron escape, and thus radiate a
significant amount of x-ray and EUV energy. Here are some candidate
Ni + H deflation fusion reactions, not involving the weak force, all
of which show a net initial energy deficit, but positive net reaction
energy, thus making strong force reactions feasible which generate x-
rays and EUV:
58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 32S16 + 28Si14 + 1.859 MeV [-15.209 MeV] (H_Ni:1)
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 32S16 + 30Si14 + 00.554 MeV [-16.327 MeV] (H_Ni:2)
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 34S16 + 28Si14 + 1.530 MeV [-15.351 MeV] (H_Ni:3)
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 50Cr24 + 12C6 + 00.365 MeV [-16.516 MeV] (H_Ni:4)
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.973 MeV] (H_Ni:5)
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 33S16 + 30Si14 + 1.376 MeV [-15.416 MeV] (H_Ni:6)
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 34S16 + 29Si14 + 2.184 MeV [-14.608 MeV] (H_Ni:7)
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 47Ti22 + 16O8 + 00.026 MeV [-16.765 MeV] (H_Ni:8)
62Ni28 + p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV] (H_Ni:9)
62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] (H_Ni:10)
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 34S16 + 30Si14 + 2.197 MeV [-14.507 MeV] (H_Ni:11)
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 48Ti22 + 16O8 + 1.057 MeV [-15.647 MeV] (H_Ni:12)
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 52Cr24 + 12C6 + 3.249 MeV [-13.455 MeV] (H_Ni:13)
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-6.825 MeV] (H_Ni:14)
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-10.582 MeV] (H_Ni:15)
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.869 MeV] (H_Ni:16)
64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV] (H_Ni:17)
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 36S16 + 30Si14 + 2.576 MeV [-13.958 MeV] (H_Ni:18)
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 50Ti22 + 16O8 + 3.642 MeV [-12.891 MeV] (H_Ni:19)
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 54Cr24 + 12C6 + 4.411 MeV [-12.122 MeV] (H_Ni:20)
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-4.734 MeV] (H_Ni:21)
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-9.080 MeV] (H_Ni:22)
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-0.155 MeV] (H_Ni:23)
taken from:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptH
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
Fusion Product Chart for Ni + n p reactions
Relative Percent
Abs. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Z Percent El.|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|
1 3.142 H |***
2 10.106 He |*********
6 1.019 C |*
8 00.489 O |*
14 00.804 Si |*
16 00.804 S |*
22 00.489 Ti |*
24 1.019 Cr |*
27 00.068 Co |*
28 10.038 Ni |*********
29 56.507 Cu |**************************************************
30 15.517 Zn |**************
|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The above chart is merely a very approximate visual aid to show
feasible reaction product probabilities by a rule of thumb estimate.
Copper is visualized as a most likely product.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
