Newsgroup sci.physics.fusion 27184

Directory

In article <01BBEDE1.0315B780@ts003p7.pop9a.netvision.net.il>,
poratmy@nvsgi1.netvision.net.il (Porat) wrote:
(snip, snip) 
> Now, before we lose our readers, I will give you some some  meaningful 
> information.
> 
> Let's take for instance a 'hot 'item - the lead that Mily found in his 
> cell.
> My Model can explain what  his 'lead' is.
> If you read my book you will find that the Nickel metal mesh
> is built as follows: it is composed   of a hexagon of double  Ni Atoms. in 
> the  'middle  of this hexagon  there are  another couple of Ni Atoms and 
> another single Atom.
> That is also the structure of Iron and a few other
> and the unprecedented specific weight analyses that I provide, confirm  it. 
> 
> That strange structure is explained as a direct result of the structure of 
> the Nickel Nucleus
> and the specific weight analysis  just cross - verifies the Nuclear data.
> 
> Now ,since the Ni metal mesh includes  both double and single Atoms,
> it is possible ( this is only a suggestion and nothing more )
> that  during strong electrolyses, three Ni Atoms combine longitudinally
> to form something that is only similar to the lead Atom. The mass 
> calculation
> of the in -products and out - products enables this possibility .( I can't 
> show this on one page)
> If the above  is right, then indeed, it  is involved in some minor Nuclear 
> process as the cold fusion people
> claim. The nuclear process takes place  at  only four points of connections 
> and not
> at dozens of them, and that was the reason I was against the 'soup
> theory" but not against cold fusion as a whole. ( Now I regret if I was a 
> bit too blunt
> against the 'soup' theory ). I am against that 'soup theory' but  I am 
> ready to die
>  for  the right of those people to suggest it (as Voltaire said)
> 
> Yet that is not all. If the above is right,  I am able to predict, that if 
> a sample of that 'lead'
> is melted in heat - it will be broken up into three Atoms of Nickel.
> To make it short ,we all understand that the above is only a suggestion.
> What I say is that there are no many theoties that are able to make
> even such a suggestion.
Porat,
Maybe I'm missing your point, but there is a lot of crystallographic
evidence against the structure of "Ni mesh" that you propose.  I can go
downstairs to our electron microscope and produce images and diffraction
patterns that unequivocally demonstrate that Ni atoms are arranged in a
face-centered cubic structure, which does not include hexagons of double
Ni atoms.
Any comment?
I hope you all have a happy holiday season.
Cheers,
John Vetrano
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

Chernobyl was undoubtedly the world's greatest commercial nuclear disaster
-- ever.  Now, you can access *extensive* information about the disaster
as brought to you by three highschool students.  At
http://tqd.advanced.org/3426/ you will find the largest and farthest
reaching compilation of information about the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster! 
We encourage you to visit the site and leave any feedback about Chernobyl
or our project.
http://tqd.advanced.org/3426/
Thank you!

Jim Carr  wrote: 
| 
|    To the contrary, this article is actually on topic. 
"Karim Alim"  writes:
>
>See in the subject, where it says "Miley paper (was Re: CETI Demo..."?  *I*
>did not change the topic to "Miley paper."  *My* original comments were
>about the CETI Demo at the American Nuclear Society meeting.  
 Which concerned the claims of nuclear transmutation presented by 
 Miley and some new ones.  The only hard evidence we have are those 
 in the Miley paper, so I changed the subject to emphasize this. 
|   Since we are talking about Miley's experiment, it would seem that 
|   only his data are relevant.  I am looking at depth profiles given 
|   in a table as figure 5.  He tabulates "relative atomic %" and 
|   the ratios of Ag to Ni are: 
|  
|      0 Angstroms deep:  2.68/   9.99
|    100 Angstroms deep:  9.94 / 12.30
|    700 Angstroms deep: 11.77 / 22.28
|   2000 Angstroms deep:  3.07 / 12.56
|  
|   The highest relative concentration of the Ag is near the surface. 
|  
|   Also note that the depth resolution quoted was 250 Angstroms. 
>Okay, I see your point.  I *could* very well be wrong, but I would make the
>following points:
>
>- Relative amounts are not absolute amounts.  If there is other stuff on
>the surface of the bead and less Ni, it will of course increase the
>relative amount of  to Ni.  Likewise, if Ni comes off the
>surface of the bead, it could increase the relative amount.
 Right.  It would have been nice if Miley had been clear about this. 
>- There is not a consistent concentration through the film.  What SHOULD we
>be seeing?  Probably not a layer cake, and probably not MORE Ag as we
>burrow in, if contamination/migration is to blame.
 My point is that we were certainly not seeing all of the Ag inside, 
 so the problem is not how to explain the massive tunneling of a 
 block of Ag through a block of Ni as Karim posed the problem. 
>- At 700 A there is a much higher relative amount than at 100 A.  Why?
>- Ditto 2000 A.  Below 650 A and certainly within the ability to
>resolve.
 The ability to resolve is 250 Angstroms, which is not a small number. 
>And of course, the depth resolution you mentioned is an important point.
 And that is a limit, since sputtering can sample the edges, and thus 
 all depths, at any time.  No error bars or ranges were given on this 
 number, but the sharpness with which they are able to resolve the 
 Ni coating is an empirical measure of the resolution. 
>So instead of seeing Ag only under the thin film you suggest there is a big
>increase (relative to Ni) on the surface, very little or none in the film
>itself, and a big increase under the film?
 Read the table. 
 The large relative increase is near the surface. 
>If you believe in either contamination or migration, then the elements are
>probably either DEPOSITED onto the bead or DIFFUSED through it, yes?  Okay,
>if they are deposited, how does that explain the increases on the inside? 
>If they are DIFFUSED, what sort of mechanism do you suggest?  
 Since Ni is also a metal, there is the additional possibility of a 
 deposition of both elements.  We do not know the thickness of the 
 coating on this particular bead before the experiment began and it 
 was exposed to electrolysis for a long time. 
 A transmutation mechanism has to explain how the reactants got to 
 the site where the Ag appears as well, so it has to answer the 
 same questions as well as others. 
|   He has to sputter for 12 minutes to get through the 650 Angstrom 
|   coating, so it is unclear how much of a contribution one gets from 
|   surface and near-surface materials when sputtering deep into the 
|   sphere.  Note that Miley states "the amplitude of the peaks is too 
|   small to draw definitive conclusions about diffusion -vs- internal
|   source."  Given the questions raised by Murray and my subsequent 
|   analysis of specific data for other measurements, one might also 
|   ask what the error bars should be on the 4 sig.fig data above. 
>If the contribution from the analysis makes the analysis invalid, how good
>is the analysis method?
 It would have been nice if Miley had addressed this question by 
 analyzing a layered sphere. 
>Maybe I should revise my question to "*significant amounts* of Ag?"  
 What do you consider significant? 
>Your point about "accumulating Ni from other beads during electrolysis"
>works IN FAVOR OF the alternative hypothesis in that now we would have to
>explain how the silver got underneath an even THICKER layer of Ni.
 Nope, they can both be deposited at the same time.  This would also 
 explain why the concentration is low when you look deep into the bead. 
|   Elsewhere Miley has a table showing more Ni as well. 
>To use your argument, "that assumes a closed system that included only the
>beads." 
 Right.  That means Karim agrees that there might be an external source 
 for substantial amounts of material.  You used to disagree with this 
 possibility.  Perhaps Karim could elaborate on this along with the 
 measure of what is a significant amount of product. 
>Well, all I can do is restate my point.  If you see those increases in 10
>beads (admittedly picked non-randomly) out of 1,000, that implies that a)
>Miley has a good ability to spot the magic "10" beads and b) those 10 are
>significantly different from the other 990 -- over multiple runs.
 Would a bead near the cathode that accumulated lots of material on 
 it from electrolysis look different? 
>One thing you might not be aware of -- and this I think is from the Vortex
>list again, not Miley's paper -- is that they have sampled beads from
>numerous places throughout the cell to rule out migration (not just at the
>cathode end, and not just one layer).  
 This was stated in the paper but no data were given. 
 If there are data on the vortex list, post them here. 
>When they are looking for the
>greatest changes, supposedly they pick from the most reactive of the 3-5
>layers.  
 Exactly.  See my question above. 
|   Most elements do not appear in the original sample.  
|  
|   Some isotopes do not appear at all.  
>Are you talking about before or after here?  I don't think you can argue
>"natural abundances" on one end and then talk about isotopes appearing that
>weren't originally present on the other.
 Before.  
 Looking at the data plots in the paper, it is clear that Miley 
 should not have concluded that there was "zero" present initially 
 when the natural abundance would predict zero counts for his very 
 small data sample. 
 My favorite bit of data in the paper is the presence of A=213 or 
 so in the "before" sample.  There is a good reason he does not 
 talk about it -- there are no stable isotopes up there.  A=212, 213, 
 and 214 is a wasteland of short-lived isotopes.  
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW.