This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links


389) Joke or Ignorence?

Ludwik Kowalski

Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA
March 14, 2010

A) A reference to Santilli’s article was made at the end of Unit 388. Then the following was posted by one CMNS researcher: “I attache another extraordinary claim. The article containing it is circulating around. The title is "Ecological Nuclear Energy." I downloaded the file, and appended it it to this unit (see below). After reading the article, I posted the following message on our CMNS list.

The article, downloadable from

www.nuenergy.org/pdf/electronically-activated-radioisotopic-carbon-generator.pdf

is probably a joke. If I were a referee I would ask the following questions:

(a) What experimental evidence does Perreault have that electrons fuse with atomic nuclei, as in process (1)?

(b) Yes, the process (2) is exothermic (Q=+13.4 MeV). But the reverse process (1) would be endothermic (Q=-13.4 MeV). In other words, no net energy can be generated by two processes, unless something else is involved. What can this "something else" be?

(c) An experimentalist can be forgiven for not being able to speculate about (b). But s/he cannot be forgiven for not providing convincing evidence for the excess energy. How much energy is released in each round trip--process (1) followed by process (2)?

(d) An experimentalist claiming that most of the released energy appears in the form of beta and gamma rays is expected to provide evidence for such radiation.

No one responded so far. Interesting comments and observations, if any, will be appended at the of this unit (after the end of the article). Some sentences in the article are too long for my taste. But I am not going to correct anything.

Can the Electron Capture process, competing with the beta+ decay, be called fussion? I do not think so. In fact, I am not aware of nuclear reactions induced by electrons. Scattering of high energy electrons, on the other hand, was studied to measure sizes of atomic nuclei.


ECOLOGICAL NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR THE HOME

Translated and edited by Bruce A. Perreault on 11-20-2006


I have forced myself to write this article to shape my practical experiences that I have made about nuclear energy to the order of many people whom have requested for me to make references of the case.

Nuclear energy is a subject that has been badly focused and badly used from the beginning of the times, from the discovery of the radiations and the experiments performed by the Curies, the Uranium and all that derived from it in a technology at the moment is very complex, of high cost, dangerous and generates polluting by-products. What makes this single energy possible is that it is available only to the countries that can pay for such expenses. Furthermore, never can this form of energy be used to take to the home or to use it to impel automobiles or to feed a generator for our houses for the same reason before mentioned, but we watch around us the enormous amount of processes of disintegration and nuclear reactions that surround us everywhere on the Earth we see here that IF a system can be made nuclear simple, ecological and very cheap.

Common occurrences such as electrical discharges, lightning, etc…, produce nuclear reactions, which also includes processes that simply happen in electrical circuits. If we can design an electrical circuit that produces a nuclear reaction within itself in stable form and controlled, everything is certain.

We do not need to look for difficult things and dangerous things like Uranium, Plutonium, etc… if we watch the spontaneous nuclear reactions that happen in our planet we will see that the radioactive elements participate more in the same way as the one that is perhaps one of most abundant of the planet and that is CARBON, and pure coal is something very easy to obtain, the more typical nuclear reaction we see in nature involves carbon. When carbon is bombarded by electrons in a process of nuclear fusion electrons are attracted to the nuclei of carbon atoms to form Boron in the following reaction:



When carbon transforms into boron the electron must appear with energy within the rank of thousands of electron-volts, once the Boron is formed, the boron atom is seen that it is an unstable isotope and therefore is disintegrated again to transform itself back into the stable Carbon atom of the principle of this reaction:



The electron is emitted or given back. Now, I illustrate through the symbol of the beta particle because the energy whereupon leaves with the electron from the nucleus which is initially much greater, no longer is it thousands of electron-volts, the exit energy is extreme, now in the 13 million electron-volt range, that is to say, an energy thousands of times to initiate the reaction, it is feasible to capture these beta rays of great energy, for example, in a toroid and thus to obtain immediate electrical energy of the nuclear process with no need of an intermediate process.

Reactions 1 and 2 are reversible reactions because the carbon once transformed into Boron returns to be reconstituted to initiate indefinite cycles, the later giving off more energy than the former but does not break any law of power conservation because the excess of energy corresponds to the stored internal energy in the atoms resulting in the conversion of matter into energy, this can be illustrated.

For the person who does not understand; as if we went to a zoo and we threw a peanut to an elephant, then the elephant takes the peanut and returns it to the thrower with the power of his trunk with many times greater energy, this is the same. In addition to this fact, one knows that of each 100,000 carbon atoms that are bombarded with electrons only 1 enters the reversible reaction that it gives us. I calculate that 8KW of power is available per gram of transformed carbon. It is not necessary to resupply the system with coal because the system regenerates, but after a certain time it is advisable to change the coal source which is subject to wearing down. Not only is light and heat generated from all nuclear reactions but electrons are also freed.

Practical implementation:

How then we can accelerate electrons and shoot them into coal so that it will catch electrons in the form of beta radiation? Very simply, we obtain a pure coal bar and discharge a condenser into it, depends on the capacity of the condenser and of the voltage of the energy of discharge required for the reaction in equation 1 will be reached. All we know that when we discharge a condenser, especially in a short circuit through a coal bar, very high currents will take place that guarantee a high electron flow to favor greater collisions, and it is that simple, nothing of nuclear reactors, systems of cooling, pumps of high vacuum, only a simple electrical circuit will transform the nuclear energy released directly into electricity since the same emitted beta radiation is captured and stopped to feed an electrical load, which makes it more efficient than a nuclear system of a power station. For example; in which the reactor warms up the water for in the end with the pressure of that steam moving a turbine and generating electricity, we did not need any intermediate process here, because the nuclear energy becomes directly processed into electricity. The following figure shows the system and the process in general form that I have actually used:



Fig 1. Practical system of direct transformation of nuclear energy to electrical

In the figure a condenser C is loaded initially to a Voltage Vc and is discharged when closing the switch SW1, said switch can actually be a FET of high current, in conjunction with a pure coal bar the awaited nuclear reaction will take place and it will free to the desired beta rays which are captured by the illustrated toroidal coil, as a simple coil catches the radiation, said toroid acts as a transformer of current for the current circulates through the coal bar but in addition to that the toroid is polarized initially with a continuous source composed by the Vp battery and the Rp resistance makes a low current circulate around the toroid, in order to guarantee beta rays they do not go through the toroid but are turned aside onto itself and thus to capture most of the released possible energy.

The practical results I have obtained are remarkable, to begin with it is appreciated that the effect of the polarization of current around the toroid hugs the coal bar, when not polarized the collected energy varies until it is at a factor of 3, and with a small system of a bar-toroid, with a maximum dimension of 15 cm, I easily managed to obtain 6KW with the load by all means placed in the output of the toroid, and as the power output of the system is much greater than the input simply refed in the tests and the initial starting battery was removed, this is justified by the enormous energy available because it is like the calculations before referred to which we have 8 KW of useful power per each gram of transformed carbon.

It is possible to finally emphasize that although the beta radiation is the practical fuel of the system here it is used completely being transformed into useful energy, unlike the conventional technology where the radiations are a dangerous by-product, in any case in the process of the safety of this system we are due to follow strict safety measures oriented to prevent damages to the health to the builder of this system by radiation exposure either through burns or repeated exposure to the medium or long term exposure, that is to say, during the tests to use suitable sealing, suitable shields that are of lead, concrete or another material and a radioactivity indicator, leaving until the emission level during the tests is at a tolerable level, and by all means for the end assembly of the generating unit sealed, isolated to guarantee during its life utility that there is never is going to exist a radiation leak, even if in case of faults or accidents since this it is a passive system, if the bar is not excited its radioactivity will no longer be present, it is enough to disconnect the feeding without the problem of an explosion, critical mass or a chain reaction, only to take our own precautions to work with radiations with people who activate the circuit, the users only use these calibrated activated systems and they don't mention it and do not have to worry.

Conclusion:

The fact that conventional nuclear technology is so complex, expensive, dangerous and damages ecological systems seems to be something more than an accident of history, that is to say, all we know that from a sample of history that such technology wanted to be used to make a nuclear pump and all the pursuit oriented to that without fully accounting for the expenses involved and it moved forward as rapidly as possible, it is very probable the scientists who worked in those projects knew of all this but given the circumstances to make something possible or to pressures they received and the idea that anyone could simultaneously develop the technology that we today now call nuclear energy, I do not want to propose that people who use this technology are mistaken or making expenses at the cost of others, I only want to show the light of this evidence that anyone can verify on their own that nuclear technology could be today in our houses, impelling our automobiles, airplanes and spaceships without the contamination fear or damage to the ecology when anyone can have a system of these for their own use, coal abounds in our planet and is an inexhaustible and limitless source of energy.

If you have serious doubts or desire consultations about this brief and a clearer explanation send your e-mail to:

gigawattgratis@123mail.cl
jarayam@latinmail.com

Original Article: http://econuclear.tk/

B) Responding to my message (see the top of this message) Z1 reminded us about intersting Japanese experiments (Kohji KAMADA, Hiroshi KINOSHITA and Heishitiro TAKAHASHI ) in which excess heat was produced by exposing the aluminum loaded with deuterons to beams of electrons of several hundreds keV. My reply was:

1) To avoid confusion I would make a distinction between a nuclear process and a nuclear reaction. Any nuclear reaction is a nuclear process but some nuclear processes are not nuclear reactions. Consider a situation in which the released nuclear energy is received by a crystal lattice, rather than by a nucleon or a small cluster of nucleons, such as an alpha particle. I would not call this a nuclear reaction. Radioactive decays are  usually not called nuclear reactions; they are not triggered by collisions of two nuclear objects. (A nuclear object is a nucleon or a group of nucleons bound by strong nuclear forces).

A nuclear reaction is often defined as a process in which two nuclei or nuclear particles collide to produce products different from the initial particles.  Electrons are not nuclear objects. I never heard of processes in which nucleons, or clusters of nucleons, are emitted from atoms bombarded by electrons.   

2) Thank you for summarizing spectacular results reported by Kamada, Kinoshita and Takahashi. Why should we argue about how to call their experiments? Are they nuclear reactions or are they nuclear processes?  They are interesting experimental facts. That name is sufficient, at this stage.

3) My attitude toward the Perreault's paper at

   www.nuenergy.org/pdf/electronically-activated-radioisotopic-carbon-generator.pdf

is the same as described several hours earlier. I still suspect a joke. Naturally, I can add more questions to those four that were already asked. For example,

e) What were the numerical values of Vc, C, Rp and L? 

f) How was the excess energy measured and how large it was? Answers to (e) and (f) would be essential for researchers trying to verify your results. 

g) How many experiments were performed and how reproducible your results were? 

h) Why do you say that each gram of carbon produces "8 kW of useful power?" One gram would correspond to a certain amount of energy (kWh, not kW). For a given amount of energy, the power depends on the rate at which the fuel is consumed.  

Do you people agree that the article is very weak? Is my reaction (pretending I am a referee)  justified? If not then what should it be? 

Ludwik
= = = = = =

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links