Posted by Morris Dovey on October 10, 2014, 4:30 am
On 10/9/14 2:07 PM, amdx wrote:
Opinion / conjecture:
Those two sentences may signal either that “basic general knowledge in
nuclear physics” is incomplete or that in order to produce a more
satisfying explanation, we may need to re-frame the basic question.
My gut feel is that the absence of β-particles and Ɣ/X-rays is an
important clue to understanding the process. Still, I have no plans to
unhook my G-counter. :-)
Posted by Morris Dovey on October 10, 2014, 4:28 pm
On 10/9/14 11:30 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
As I’m sure you’re aware, I’m a lot less interested in theoretical
physics than I am in having a suitable heat source for my generator
project, but last night I spent a bit of time surfing for info that
might provide some theoretical insights. I found some interesting stuff,
but the insights didn’t come until I’d slept on it.
Before focusing on nuclear physics, the theoretical folks probably need
to extend knowledge of plain old non-nuclear physics. In particular,
they might find a review of Smoluchowski’s work helpful – and then they
should consider how he might have extended that work had he lived
longer. That done, they may be more adequately prepared to deal with the
Now I /do/ have plans to retire my Geiger-Müller counter. :-)
Posted by Jim Wilkins on October 10, 2014, 10:12 pm
And there it is, they estimated the loss to smoke (convection) and
mirrors (radiation). For a credible test there would have been NO such
uncontrolled loss, all the heat produced would have gone into a
measurable temperature rise in a measurable weight of liquid coolant.
"A reaction calorimeter is a calorimeter in which a chemical reaction
is initiated within a closed insulated container. Reaction heats are
measured and the total heat is obtained by integrating heatflow versus
time. This is the standard used in industry to measure heats since
industrial processes are engineered to run at constant temperatures."
Posted by Morris Dovey on October 10, 2014, 11:50 pm
On 10/10/14 5:12 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
I, also, would have preferred a differently-designed experiment that
provided finer-grained results – but from
I’m inclined to think the exercise adequate and biased more toward
understated rather than overstated results.
I could be mistaken, but I doubt they’re much focused on engineering
industrial processes at this stage. :-)
Posted by mike on October 11, 2014, 12:03 am
On 10/10/2014 4:50 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
That's the most troubling part about all this.
If you offered .000001% of the profit from the eventual patent, you'd
have to hire a whole security company to keep out the real engineers
beating down the doors to help a credible project.
There's no excuse for sloppy calorimetry to be off by a factor of 3.2.
It's either working or a hoax.
IF it works, it would be working all over the world, even in your garage.
That leaves the remaining option.
I'm wishful, but not convinced.