Mike E. Fullerton wrote:
> dmaster wrote:
>> Mike E. Fullerton wrote:
>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>> Chemical reactions are not nuclear events. If you can't tell which
you
>>>> are seeing, you don't know what you are looking at.
>>> And this is a problem because...? If I obtain a reaction with excess
>>> heat that can't be explained I might surmise its from a chemical or
>>> nuclear reaction. Why should I care? I've got a bloody (heavy) water
>>> powered car.
>>
>> He didn't say it produced heat. He said it produced electricity.
>
> You're right, the article writer mentioned chemical reaction not
Johnson.
>
>> Nuclear reactions produce energy in the form of radiation. Chemical
>> reactions produce energy in the form of heat. We know of a couple of
>> ways to produce electricity - photo-voltaic and bi-metalic junction -
>> but those aren't chemical or nuclear. Still the guy does mention
>> light and prisms. One of his materials, gallium, has been used in a
>> lot of semi-conductors. Deuterium is of course hydrogen and deuterium
>> oxide is water. Heavy water was used in the process of developing
>> fission reactions, though not in the reaction itself. Fusion
>> reactions use hydrogen. So the whole thing sounds like a complete
>> mishmash of science words related to energy. I suppose if you don't
>> really understand any of the science and you turn off your BS
>> detector, you could swallow this as another wonderful free energy type
>> story, but I hope you don't.
>
> Many cold fusion cells use heavy water as a source of hydrogen. Liquid
> gallium can theoretically be used to contain the heat involved in
> plasma fusion environments due to its wide temperature range and low
> chemical reactivity. Our fusion reactions typically use hydrogen but any
> atoms could fuse to form a heavier nucleus.
The major energy release is in fusing the small atoms, and past
the iron peak, it's a losing game.
> Did Johnson even call it
> fusion or was that some re****ter? In some accounts he described it as
> blending which is not the same thing.
Whoever came up with the story, it's quite the load. Google finds
more, and it's got the usual free-energy scam markers: nonsensical
science, bilked investors, even that powerful evil conspiracy that
keeps free energy down.
--
--Bryan
|
