Merged: Cold Fusion Claims

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by unclep2k

Miley is getting over 200 watts with nothing in.

Evidence of this claim? Preferably from a neutral party with the relevant expertise.

Originally Posted by unclep2k

I can't see how he could miscaculate the calorimetry. All he has to do is measure the 200 watts. I really don't care much about the transmutations he says he is seeing.

That would depend on his alleged process. Of course he could be deluded or lying.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Not that I think he has anything, but many companies who want to retain control of their products have developed leasing situations in which you did not own and so could not disassemble their products.

Sounds good to me. I don't think I'd want to disassemble a contraption that's got weird unknown nuclear reactions going on somewhere in its insides.

[BenBurch]

Calorimetry can be screwed up in a lot of ways. Pons and Fleischmann, in spite of being professional electrochemists, botched it badly.

Things that are problems;

1. Not accounting for mass leaving the system.
2. Not accounting for energy leaving the system.
3. Not accounting for phase change energy of mass in the system.
4. Not accurately measuring power supplied to drive the electro-chemical initiator.
5. In a flowing water system, not accounting for the energy supplied to or removed from the system properly.
6. Failure to deal properly with product gasses.
7. Failure to run a system longer than would be required to consume the materials contained in a chemical reaction.
8. Failure to do the maths correctly in any one of dozens of ways.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Not that I think he has anything, but many companies who want to retain control of their products have developed leasing situations in which you did not own and so could not disassemble their products.

Yes, but then you're just quibbling about the difference between a sale and a lease. Even a real company agreeing to leasing these things based on proven performance would be major news, and yet, we're told absolutely nothing about the customers, their industry, or any deals they may or may not have signed.

[BenBurch]

Agreed. If anybody has a working LENR power plant, they have certainly been silent about it.

If this were true, the Chicago Tribune would have broken out the font usually reserved for things like "MAN ON MOON".

[Yevgen Barsukov]

wow, FoxNews this time:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...-fusion-plant/

Looks like it became interesting enough story (just from its colorfulness standpoint) regardless if it works on not...

Regards,
Yevgen

[pedrone]

by W. Guglinski in Rossi's blog:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physic...age=8#comments


The operation of the eCat in self sustained model during 5,5 hours has stimullated the reaction of the physicists, as we may see in some mainstream journals, as Discovery News:
“Scientists say the method — cold fusion — is patently impossible. They say it defies the laws of physics.”
Of course cold fusion does NOT violate the fundamental law of thermodinamics: the energy comes from some “place”. The problem with the current prevailling theories is because from their foundations there is no way to explain what sort of “place” it can be.

However, there is another mystery that current theories cannot explain. Because beyond the quantum spin of elementary particles, they also have an intrinsic spin: they gyrate about their axis (as the Earth gyrates about its axis in 24 hours). Such rotation of the particles create their magnetic fields. For instance, within a nucleus the protons gyrate, and their rotation is responsible for the nuclear magnetic field of the nucleus (the nucleus also has a rotation, which increases the magnetic field created by the protons).

But from Maxwell’s theory an electric charge with rotation must irradiate eleoctromagnetic energy (photons). And so, a proton gyrating would have to emit electromagnetic energy, and it would have to stop to gyrate after its kinetic energy of rotation is over.

Therefore the current theories cannot explain why the elementary particles like the proton and electron violate the Maxwell’s law.

In Quantum Ring Theory the proton has two fields: one inner principal field (composed by a flux of gravitons), and its rotation induces an external secondary electromagnetic field (composed by electric massless particles of the aether).
The electromagnetic field does not gyrate (and therefore it does not violate the Maxwell’s law).

But the inner gravitational field of the proton gyrates, and so it must emit gravitational energy.
But the proton’s gravitational fields does not stop to gyrate.
And therefore we have to conclude that, in spite of its field of gravitions emits gravitational energy, obviously it must receive gravitational energy from “somewhere”, in order to replace the energy emited.

The question is: “where” the energy which replaces the energy emitted by the proton’s gravitational field comes from ?

It is known that Tesla supposed that the energy of the radiactive nuclei comes from the Sun. And he has reason to be intrigued with the phenomenon. After all, the radiactive nuclei emit energy along billion years. It’s hard to believe that such energy was stored into a nucleus, which continues emitting it along billions years.

I think Tesla was right. I suspect that the gravitational energy which replaces the energey emitted by the proton’s field comes from the Sun.

I also think such gravitational energy coming from the Sun is responsible for the excess energy in cold fusion occurrence.

As it’s impossible to have violation of the fundamental law of thermodinamics, then (when Rossi’s eCat will be definitivelly accepted by the scientific oomunnity) the physicists will be obliged to realize that the energy supplied by the eCat working in the self sustained mode comes from somewhere.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The plant will catch fire after being lost at sea but will be rescued by friendly pirates who accidentally explode, taking out his bank's data centre. The inability to reach his money will, of course, prevent him from being able to follow the government's health and safety regulations, leading to a major supplier pulling out. Hearing this, the patent office will fake its own death. Rossi will ignore all of this, but will be forced to make everything public when a lone pirate survivor washes ashore on Christmas day.

Disaster	Oct. 15-21	Oct. 22-28	Oct. 29-Nov. 4	Nov. 5-11	Nov. 12-18	Nov. 19-25	Nov. 26-Dec. 2	Late Dec.
Fire	Cuddles		Horatius		Aepervius	Aepervius	Aepervius
Lost at Sea	Cuddles			Horatius
Pirates!		Cuddles			Horatius
Explosion!		Cuddles	Aepervius	Aepervius
"Accident"	catsmate1	Cuddles
Dang Gubbmint!		catsmate1	nathan	Cuddles		TjW
Health&Safety		nathan		Cuddles			marplots
Technical Problems		TjW	Cuddles
Money Problems			Cuddles			TjW
Supply Problems			Kid Eager	Kid Eager	Cuddles
Patent "Issues"			CriticalThanking			Horatius	Cuddles	Craig B
Fakes Death		catsmate1	BenBurch				Cuddles	Horatius
Ignores everything		Horatius	Mr.D	Mr.D				Cuddles

Who is the winner ?????????

[unclep2k]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076.../#.TrMK8XJXexs

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by unclep2k

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076.../#.TrMK8XJXexs

Quote:

"There is not sufficient reliable information available about the E-cat for a rational opinion to be made yet, in my view," Hagelstein told Life's Little Mysteries.

So even Hagelstein, who's spent over twenty years advocating cold fusion is pointing out that Rossi still hasn't demonstrated any actual proof.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

by W. Guglinski in Rossi's blog:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physic...age=8#comments

A fair amount of ignorance from W. Guglinski about Rossi's work
(and physics in general).

Rossi's proposed mecahnaism is not classical cold fusion (which is hydrogrn fusing).
It is the magic transformation of nickel into copper.

That cold fusion violates "the fundamental law of thermodynamics" is a fantasy of W. Guglinski not a statement that I have seen abut cold fusion.
Cold fusion violates the known laws of nuclear physics, i.e. that you need enormous energy to overcome the Coulomb repulsion between protons and atomic nuclei. That means that fusion needs high pressures and temperatures.

W. Guglinski has no idea what intrinsic spin is in quantum mechanics. It is not a classical spin ('gyrating' as he calls it).

Quote:

Spin is a type of angular momentum, where angular momentum is defined in the modern way as the "generator of rotations" (see Noether's theorem).[1][2] This modern definition of angular momentum is not the same as the historical classical mechanics definition, L = r × p. (The historical definition, which does not include spin, is more specifically called "orbital angular momentum".)

Also Maxwell’s theory states that a accelerating charge radiates energy. A rotating point particle like a proton does not have a surface to have charge on it which accelerates. The measured size of the fundamental particles means that if they have a surface then that surface must be rotating at many times the speed of light to explain their magnetic moments.

The rest of the post is just gibberish and a sales pitch for his book

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Who is the winner ?????????

It's still ongoing; none of us predicted a fake customer. Once this falls through, we might see one of the other options win out.



But I despair of Rossi being creative enough to blame it on pirates, alas....

[Mister Earl]

You didn't add my guesses to the chart? :\

[unclep2k]

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...-Find-Out.html

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

You didn't add my guesses to the chart? :\

I might have missed it. What was it again?



And if it's "Fake a customer on the 28th", we're going to need a link as proof!

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by unclep2k

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...-Find-Out.html

That post is pretty much a cut-and-paste of this blog:


http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/ne...e-cat-is-real/


And it reveals a complete lack of understanding on his part as to the history of cold fusion devices, and the techniques of scam artists.

Quote:

Al Fin, Bless ‘em, said, “It is fascinating that so many people want to put themselves on record on either one side or the other, when the obvious rational thing for most people — most outsiders — to do is to wait for more information. Unless you have money or reputation on the line here, there is no need to declare a strong opinion one way or the other — if you have no inside knowledge.”

Well, this is just complete ********, because it denies the possibility of coming to a conclusion based on twenty years of failed promises about devices very similar to Rossi's, and twenty years of failed theories, that contradict well-established theories. With this sort of attitude, we would never be allowed to ever express an opinion on the validity of any claim, ever, because we don't have "inside knowledge" of all the scams out there.

But we don't take that position anywhere else; the latest homoeopathy claims are likely bunk, because every other homoeopathy claim we've ever examined has been bunk. The latest psychic claims are likely bunk, because every other psychic claim we've ever examined has been bunk. This latest cold fusion claim is likely bunk, because every other cold fusion claim we've examined has been bunk.

Is it 100% certain bunk? No, but it's not the 50-50 wait and see probability he implies, either. Twenty years of failed promises means the cold fusioners have lost the benefit of the doubt - it's time to put up, or shut up, and so far, they haven't put up.

Quote:

There is also the prospect that some firms will buy an E-Cat both for the leadership opportunity as well as the energy savings. That sets up the prospect that the definitive proof won’t come from Rossi or a proponent – we may hear of a firm whose E-Cat experience meets or exceeds that original specification. Perhaps that will accompany a new lower priced better product.

That kind of scenario isn’t going to make world headlines.

And here, he's simply delusional. This business is already producing headlines. Definitive proof by a real customer who is really using this system would make headlines everywhere. Does he really think a working device that overturns major laws of physics would not make headlines?

Quote:

All this simply puts facility managers, planners and designers on notice. What those folks need to get done is to get on the list at Rossi’s firm and start the process of getting past the defensive wall there to be on the inside for the due diligence needed for assessing the risks and costs for buying an E-Cat for a plant. Heaven forbid a competitor getting one first, especially if the process heat an E-Cat makes is a major cost in production expense.

And here, he buys into, and urges everyone else to buy into, exactly what the scam artists want you to buy into - the panic buy. "Got to get it now, now, now! I'm late, I'm falling behind, ignore the doubters, I might miss out!" Get them excited, get them to stop thinking, then get their money. And he's encouraging that.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

A fair amount of ignorance from W. Guglinski about Rossi's work
(and physics in general).


Also Maxwell’s theory states that a accelerating charge radiates energy. A rotating point particle like a proton does not have a surface to have charge on it which accelerates. The measured size of the fundamental particles means that if they have a surface then that surface must be rotating at many times the speed of light to explain their magnetic moments.

Reality Check does not know that particles like the proton have an electric field.


He also does not know that if a particle with its field rotates, according to Maxwell's theory it must emit energy.

[pedrone]

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for Rule 4. Do not post lengthy quotes from other sites. Links to sources are OK.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Reality Check does not know that particles like the proton have an electric field.


He also does not know that if a particle with its field rotates, according to Maxwell's theory it must emit energy.

Come back when you have actually studied.

http://www.markusehrenfried.de/scien...hatisspin.html

Spin is not rotation.

Spin is not rotation.

Spin is not rotation.

Spin is not rotation.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Spin is not rotation.

Well, to be fair, protons are not point-like particles in the Standard Model, so pedrone was not wrong to point out Reality Check's mistake (although he's wrong about why)

[Craig B]

The indefatigable Steve Krivit has now republished a critique of Rossi, at http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/...t-rossi-claim/ .

[Craig B]

The scientist whose critique of Rossi Steve Krivit has circulated appears to have a wide range of interests, some of them rather exotic.

Quote:

Dr. Rainer W. Kühne is a German physicist. He published in peer-reviewed science journals about Steven Jones type cold nuclear fusion, Kurt Gödel's intrinsically rotating universe, Paul Dirac's magnetic monopoles, Abdus Salam's magnetic photon, aether drift, Elie Cartan's torsion theory, Paul Dirac's Large Number Theory, the fundamental equation of unified field theory, Werner Heisenberg's quantum spin systems, and Plato's Atlantis.

What, for example, is the current status of "aether drift" in the scientific world? I ask as a lay person.

[Aam]

Originally Posted by Craig B

The indefatigable Steve Krivit has now republished a critique of Rossi, at ...

Here's something from another POV

mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg54330.html

mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg54331.html

Stick a www on the front... and an http...

Quote:

Before I embark on what I perceive to have been a deliberate exploitation of
Rossi's broken English I want to briefly focus on Krivit's self-perceived
powers of prediction. Krivit states:



> As I predicted on Thursday night, promoter Andrea

> Rossi's final demonstration of a series of boxes of

> pipes and wires did not light any bulb or turn any

> motor. Again, he failed at science, and he failed

> to deliver a technological device.



I believe it was common knowledge that Rossi was building the equivalent of
a 1 megawatt thermal reactor to do nothing more than heat water. My
impression was that prior to the demo there may have some speculation as to
whether Rossi would attempt to generate steam or just make a lot of hot
water. Be that as it may, I don't recall Rossi ever planning to produce
electricity from generated steam, presumably in order to power light bulbs
or motors. Granted, while it might have been impressive to see a bunch of
bright lights or a whirring motor that never appeared to have been Rossi's
intent. Even if Rossi had powered a bunch of light bulbs or a motor I doubt
their inclusion would have contributed anything useful in the scientific
sense. Skeptics (and that obviously now includes Krivit) would have, as they
have in the past, continued to doubt Rossi's claims. They would have
continued to cry foul and scam precisely because Rossi's demonstrations, as
they always have in the past, continued to avoid following adequate
scientific protocols. However, because it was common knowledge as to what
Rossi was planning to demonstrate I find it very odd that Krivit seems to be
self-congratulating himself for predicting that there were no light bulbs or
running motors. It was a frivolous and meaningless prediction for Krivit to
have broadcast to his readers.

Krivit is a [sserto]{4}.

[Craig B]

I'd like to respond, but what's a "[sserto]{4}"?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Craig B

The scientist whose critique of Rossi Steve Krivit has circulated appears to have a wide range of interests, some of them rather exotic. What, for example, is the current status of "aether drift" in the scientific world? I ask as a lay person.

There are some theoreticians still interested in aether; aether drift was hot stuff around ~1900.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Aam

Here's something from another POV

mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg54330.html

mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg54331.html

Stick a www on the front... and an http...



Krivit is a [sserto]{4}.

Are those ramblings supposed to add something to the discussion? They fail to address Rossi's history of fraud and his current scam.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Come back when you have actually studied.

http://www.markusehrenfried.de/scien...hatisspin.html

Spin is not rotation.

Spin is not rotation.

Spin is not rotation.

Spin is not rotation.

benburch,
actually nuclear physics is full of paradoxes.

There is no way to explain the nuclear magnetic moments if you do not consider that protons have rotation within the nuclei.

So, sometimes the physicists consider the spin as a rotation (for instance within the nuclei).

But sometimes they do not consider the spin as a rotation (because the spin has properties that cannot be explained by considering it as a mere rotation)

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by pedrone

So, sometimes the physicists consider the spin as a rotation (for instance within the nuclei).

But sometimes they do not consider the spin as a rotation (because the spin has properties that cannot be explained by considering it as a mere rotation)

Which is haw we know it's not a rotation, but something else for which there is no macro-world analogy.

You really, really need to figure out what an "analogy" is, why it's used, and the limit of their usefulness. Pretty much all of your problems stem from this one underlying problem.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Craig B

I'd like to respond, but what's a "[sserto]{4}"?

A way to circumvent the auto censor I think, using smiley to despict him as a natural human orifice. I might be wrong though.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by pedrone

benburch,
actually nuclear physics is full of paradoxes.

There is no way to explain the nuclear magnetic moments if you do not consider that protons have rotation within the nuclei.

So, sometimes the physicists consider the spin as a rotation (for instance within the nuclei).

But sometimes they do not consider the spin as a rotation (because the spin has properties that cannot be explained by considering it as a mere rotation)

Don't try to teach me nuclear physics until you learn it yourself, please.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

There is no way to explain the nuclear magnetic moments if you do not consider that protons have rotation within the nuclei.

So, sometimes the physicists consider the spin as a rotation (for instance within the nuclei).

But sometimes they do not consider the spin as a rotation (because the spin has properties that cannot be explained by considering it as a mere rotation)

Physicists never consider spin as a rotation of the particle for the simple reason that it is not a classical rotation. If it were a rotation then very little of QM would work. It would have been discarded as soon as this was realized (in the 1930's).

All of the time the physicists consider that "protons have rotation within the nuclei". This has nothing to do with spin. It is their orbital angular momentum. This is why the nuclear shell model (which is an explanation of the nuclear magnetic moments which you seeem to be ignorant of) includes "total angular momentum j, orbital angular momentum l and spin s".

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Reality Check does not know that particles like the proton have an electric field.


He also does not know that if a particle with its field rotates, according to Maxwell's theory it must emit energy.

Reality Check does know that particles like the proton have an electric field.


He also does know that if a point particle with its field rotates, according to Maxwell's theory it must not emit energy.




He also does know that if a non-point particle with its field rotates, according to Maxwell's theory it'e surface must emit energy.




He also does know that if a fundemental particle had a surface and rotated then the measured upper limit to the radius of then means that the surface rotates faster than the speed of light.


Reality Check also knows that pedron did not understand what he read:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
A fair amount of ignorance from W. Guglinski about Rossi's work
(and physics in general).


Also Maxwell’s theory states that a accelerating charge radiates energy. A rotating point particle like a proton does not have a surface to have charge on it which accelerates. The measured size of the fundamental particles means that if they have a surface then that surface must be rotating at many times the speed of light to explain their magnetic moments.

(emphasis added)
IN order for a charge to emit radiation, it has to accelerate. A charge on the surface of a non-point rotating object will be accelerating (the direction of velocity changes). That charge will be accelerating.
A rotating point particle has no surface.

[Horatius]

Quote:

Rossi was asked at the JONP whether he had sold 2 or more plants, and he answered, “more.” Also, asked if he could say who any of the other customers were he declined to do so saying, “I want not our Customers assailed by the puppetts moved by their puppetteers. Let the plant go to work, then they will reveal themselves automatically. Probably you did not understand that there is a war against us.”

Latest claims by Rossi, with the paranoid CT baiting highlighted.

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I might have missed it. What was it again?

And if it's "Fake a customer on the 28th", we're going to need a link as proof!

Gonna have to dig... wait, here they are!

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Put me down for "Severe bout of inexplicable scurvy" for Nov 19-25, and "Alien equivalent of the U.N. passed a vote to change universal physical laws, preventing the use of this device on odd numbered 'Galactic Days' which are twelve Earth years." for late December.

[Craig B]

Mister Earl

Your

Quote:

Put me down for "Severe bout of inexplicable scurvy" for Nov 19-25, and "Alien equivalent of the U.N. passed a vote to change universal physical laws, preventing the use of this device on odd numbered 'Galactic Days' which are twelve Earth years." for late December.

is far too boring and commonplace for the Rossi affair.

Rossi has now teamed up with one Sterling B Allen. See Allen's blog journal PESwiki http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page "Full Disclosure: PES Network has a business relationship with Andrea Rossi." This journal contains exciting items like the following:

Quote:

Thursday, November 10, 2011 Mars visitors Basiago and Stillings confirm Barack Obama traveled to Mars (2 | interview mp3) - Two former participants in the CIA’s Mars visitation program of the early 1980’s have confirmed that U.S. President Barack H. Obama was enrolled in their Mars training class in 1980 and was among the young Americans from the program who they later encountered on the Martian surface after reaching Mars via “jump room.” (Examiner; November 6, 2011)

The journey to Mars was effected by means of teleportation, apparently, rather than mere jumping. Easy when you know how.

[SusanB-M1]

Today I was listening (CD version) to an article on cold fusion in the New Scientist of 5th November. I hasten to add that I didn't atually understand any of it, but find it so ineteresting to try. There was something about the LHC there too and about magnets and the experiments being done there. A question occurs: if particles are being sent off to travel, why is it better to make them travel in a circle and is it the magnets that make them follow that circle? I appreciate that it would of course be somewhat difficult to build a 27-mile straight tube!! In theory, would a straight tube work better?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Mister Earl

Your is far too boring and commonplace for the Rossi affair.

Rossi has now teamed up with one Sterling B Allen. See Allen's blog journal PESwiki http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page "Full Disclosure: PES Network has a business relationship with Andrea Rossi." This journal contains exciting items like the following:
The journey to Mars was effected by means of teleportation, apparently, rather than mere jumping. Easy when you know how.

Actuually, it is MUCH MUCH more funny. Rossie *disowned* / disclaimed any business relationship , said he approved nothing, and asked Sterling to take it down.

Quote:

Andrea Rossi
November 12th, 2011 at 8:57 AM

WARNING: THE WEBSITEhttp://WWW.LEONARDO-ECAT.COMIS NOT OUR WEBSITE. IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, IT IS A DRAFT OF A PROPOSAL WHOSE TEXT HAS TO BE CONTROLLED, APPROVED. WE ASKED TO THE INFORMATIC WHO PROPOSED IT TO PUT IT IMMEDIATELY OUT OF THE NET, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS, WRONG NAMES IN WRONG PLACES :SPECIFICALLY, ALL THE NAMES PUT IN THE PAGE “BONA FIDE” ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND SUCH NAMES HAVE NOT TO BE PUT IN THAT POST.
WARM REGARDS,
ANDREA ROSSI

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physic...p=510#comments

Quote:

NOTICE: November 13, 2011; 9:00 am MST
Andrea Rossi has removed his "official" designation from this site until he has time to make certain corrections. Only those pages with the designation: "Approved by Andrea Rossi" should be considered "official".

Quote:

From: “Andrea Rossi – Leonardo Corp.” <info@…>
To: “Sterling Allan” <sterlingda@…>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: temporary notice posted

Sterling, please: all the website is not approved, please take out
from the net all the website. I have to review all of it, I continue
to receive a lot of troubles from it, instead of making my work I have
to handle all the very bad comments I am receiving! I do not publish
on the blog these comments, because I want not to polemize and expose
you, but I am totally exasperated. Take immediately all the website
out of the net, all of it is not approved!
I looked at it superficially when I said that was good, because I had
not time to read throughly and because I did not realize the very bad
problems it was going to raise. Please take it off!
I am sorry, I know you worked with honesty and enthusiasm, but it has
been my mistakem not yours, now please take it all off the net!
Warmest Regards,
Andrea

Quote:

NOTICE: November 13, 2011; 12:30 pm MST
Andrea Rossi has removed his "official" designation from this site. The content herein should be considered under the editorial control of Sterling D. Allan of PES Network, Inc. and not approved by Andrea Rossi. See http://ecatnews.com for chronicle (independent site).

LOL ? ROFL ?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Today I was listening (CD version) to an article on cold fusion in the New Scientist of 5th November. I hasten to add that I didn't atually understand any of it, but find it so ineteresting to try. There was something about the LHC there too and about magnets and the experiments being done there. A question occurs: if particles are being sent off to travel, why is it better to make them travel in a circle and is it the magnets that make them follow that circle? I appreciate that it would of course be somewhat difficult to build a 27-mile straight tube!! In theory, would a straight tube work better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator

Scroll to "Circular or cyclic accelerators" response is there

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Today I was listening (CD version) to an article on cold fusion in the New Scientist of 5th November. I hasten to add that I didn't atually understand any of it, but find it so ineteresting to try.

What was the article called? I can't seem to find it on the online version.

Quote:

There was something about the LHC there too and about magnets and the experiments being done there. A question occurs: if particles are being sent off to travel, why is it better to make them travel in a circle and is it the magnets that make them follow that circle? I appreciate that it would of course be somewhat difficult to build a 27-mile straight tube!! In theory, would a straight tube work better?

It's basically about how hard you can accelerate the particles. In a linear accelerator, a particle will only pass through the accelerating cavity (actually a series of them) once, so you have to give it all the energy in that one pass. With current technology, it's just not possible to get to the really high energy of cutting edge colliders that way. But with a circular accelerator, the particles can go around in circles millions of times, and each time they will pass through the cavities and get accelerated a bit more. So you can get to very high energies with only relatively simple and low power cavities.

There are also similar issues for the collisions themselves. The particles are actually travelling in bunches containing billions of particles, and only a few of those will actually collide when they pass each other, since the particles are so small. In a circular collider, you can keep the same bunches going around for hours, with a few collisions each time they pass, whereas with a linear one you need to create and accelerate new bunches for every set of collisions.

Linear accelerators do have some advantages though. Going in circles causes charged particles to lose energy, and the amount they lose increases at higher energies and with lower mass. So at very high energies, such as at the LHC, a lot of energy is wasted just keeping them going round. If it used electrons, with about 1000 times lower mass than the protons it actually uses, so much energy would be lost that you wouldn't be able to get them up to full energy in the first place. So there's currently a lot of effort being put into designing linear accelerators that can get to the same energies, because that might be the only option in the future.

[SusanB-M1]

AEpervius and Cuddles
Many thanks for your replies - much appreciated.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator

Scroll to "Circular or cyclic accelerators" response is there

Thank you. I have listened to that section as you suggest. I will listen again later..

Originally Posted by Cuddles

What was the article called? I can't seem to find it on the online version.

Ah, sorry, I used the wrong word!! It's all about super-conductivity, not cold fusion!!!

That is very interesting about the groups of particles, the LHC and the advantages of the circular one. .