Professor Y.E.Kim: his theoretical analysis could explain the E-Cat?

E-Cat News ^ | July 8 2011 | Y E Kim

[Kevmo]

links

http://www.ecatnews.net/?p=1787

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

[Kevmo]

The Cold Fusion Ping List

[mikrofon]

Professor Y.E.Kim: his theoretical analysis could explain the E-Cat

[Kevmo]

Some very interesting discussion on this at the Vortex-L mail list

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49008.html





Interesting .... explains why the heater is needed.

July 4th, 2011 at 1:42 PM
< http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=14#comment-50600 >

WARNING TO OUR READERS:
TODAY IN STOCKOLM I RECEIVED A VERY INTERESTING PAPER:
“GENERALIZED THEORY OF BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION NUCLEAR FUSION FOR HYDROGEN-METAL SYSTEM”
THE AUTHOR IS YEONG E. KIM, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA 47907, USA.
THE PAPER HAS BEEN ISSUED ON JUNE 18TH 2011.
VERY INTERESTING, GOOD JOB, PROF. KIM ( WHOM I DO NOT KNOW PERSONALLY).

I took the liberty of adding it to the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

[B4Ranch]

ping

[SuziQ]

E-Cat ping!

[SuziQ]

I pinged my hubby, and sent a link to all three articles to our youngest son who is fascinated with all things nuclear energy, but especially small generators. He’s been following E-Cat, and he’s also interested in the LFTR technology. We’ve been trying to get him to change his major from Computer Sci. to Nuclear Engineering, but he (and probably rightly so) figures that that major is tied up with all the big stuff rather than the small tech.

[reed13k]

Bfl

[MrEdd]

Three months until October.

[PapaBear3625]

The mobility of Ni atoms/nuclei (condition (1)) is enhanced by the use of an electric resistance heater to maintain higher temperatures.

This part bothers me. If energy is being generated, then a heater should only be needed in the beginning, with temperature thereafter being maintained by the reaction, and kept in the desired range by controlling the flow of coolant.

I had been thinking the continued electricity was needed to maintain some sort of electric field condition.

[Wonder Warthog]

Thanks for the ping(s). Interesting, but WAY above my pay grade....I don't think bosons had been invented when I took physics, so I'll refrain from comment.

The experiments I am qualified to judge....theory.....not so much.

But I'll stick a thought in here that recently occurred to me that may help explain why a lot of the "scientist-types" don't "get" Rossi, and complain about his experimental methods.

Rossi is doing ENGINEERING research, not SCIENTIFIC research.

The goals of engineering research are a bit different from scientific research. One is intended to say, "I have proved (this natural phenomenon) does (something)". The other says "I've done enough data collecting sufficiently validly to justify spending further money on this possibly commercial idea".

The methods and standards for engineering research are a bit "looser" than for pure science. As I used to design instrumentation for use in engineering research (and production), I've worked under both regimes. In many cases, I have seen the engineers turn things over to the "pure science" guys to "dot the i's and cross the t's", just as Rossi is doing with the Bologna and Upsala folks.

[aruanan]

Rossi is doing ENGINEERING research, not SCIENTIFIC research.

The goals of engineering research are a bit different from scientific research. One is intended to say, "I have proved (this natural phenomenon) does (something)". The other says "I've done enough data collecting sufficiently validly to justify spending further money on this possibly commercial idea".

It's sort of like the Wright brothers and Edison: they did the research necessary to get something that worked. They didn't wait to devise an airtight theoretical basis for what they sought to do before doing it. And from what I've read, the physical basis for lift in heavier-than-air flight is still subject to contention.

[Wonder Warthog]

"This part bothers me. If energy is being generated, then a heater should only be needed in the beginning, with temperature thereafter being maintained by the reaction, and kept in the desired range by controlling the flow of coolant."

I think this is mostly an artifact of the relative crudity of the current reactors, and due to the low cost and simplicity of doing small-scale feedback control of electricity (heat), vs small-scale control of flow-rate. Temp controllers and RTD's are a lot cheaper and faster acting than precise flowmeters and control valves. Once you get into "industrial scale" situations, those criteria shift a bit.

"I had been thinking the continued electricity was needed to maintain some sort of electric field condition."

There are hints in some of theories and experimental work that such an effect "does" happen. But Rossi has said several times that he can run his reactors without the electricity...just that they are less stable/controllable.

And it might be possible that such an effect can be used in an E-Cat to either improve control, or boost output.

[lkco]

I pinged my hubby, and sent a link to all three articles to our youngest son who is fascinated with all things nuclear energy, but especially small generators. He’s been following E-Cat, and he’s also interested in the LFTR technology. We’ve been trying to get him to change his major from Computer Sci. to Nuclear Engineering, but he (and probably rightly so) figures that that major is tied up with all the big stuff rather than the small tech.

I sent the links to my oldest son, who is very interested in all the E-Cat stuff. He's still in high school (will be senior this year) and wants to be a theoretical physist ... someone has to do it.

[aruanan]

And from what I've read, the physical basis for lift in heavier-than-air flight is still subject to contention.

As the author of the above link states:

Note well: Newton and Bernoulli do not contradict each other. Explanations which are based on Newton's and on Bernoulli's principles are completely compatible. Air-deflection and Newton's Laws explain 100% of the lifting force. Air velocity and Bernoulli's equation also explains 100% of the lift. For the most part they're just two different ways of simplifying a single complicated subject. Much of the controversy arises because one side or the other insists that only *THEIR* view is correct. They insist that only a *SINGLE* explanation is possible, and the opposing view is therefore wrong. In other words... which is the One True Way to crack an egg? This is a war between the Big-endians and Little-endians from "Gulliver's Travels." They simply refuse to acknowledge that there are several valid yet independent approaches to solving the problem. They insist that their version must be the single right answer, the "One True Path," and anyone who disagrees is a heretic infidel who must be attacked and silenced.

[lkco]

I pinged my hubby, and sent a link to all three articles to our youngest son who is fascinated with all things nuclear energy, but especially small generators. He’s been following E-Cat, and he’s also interested in the LFTR technology. We’ve been trying to get him to change his major from Computer Sci. to Nuclear Engineering, but he (and probably rightly so) figures that that major is tied up with all the big stuff rather than the small tech.

I sent the links to my oldest son, who is very interested in all the E-Cat stuff. He's still in high school (will be senior this year) and wants to be a theoretical physist ... someone has to do it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"It's sort of like the Wright brothers and Edison: they did the research necessary to get something that worked. They didn't wait to devise an airtight theoretical basis for what they sought to do before doing it."

They and many others. Of course, "doing the science" gets you a higher degree of certainty, but in the meantime, you may get "scooped" by a competitor.

"And from what I've read, the physical basis for lift in heavier-than-air flight is still subject to contention."

That may no longer be true. Some time back I ran across an article that said that the aerodynamics guys could finally explain how the bumblebee "does its thing" in the air.

[aruanan]

That may no longer be true. Some time back I ran across an article that said that the aerodynamics guys could finally explain how the bumblebee "does its thing" in the air.

What I'm referring to is something that is relatively new, over the past 20 or so years. Check out that link.

[B4Ranch]

Rossi has had a hard go of it. Years ago, he didn’t understand why it worked, just that it did and he didn’t know how to explain why it worked. I’m not sure that he does yet. I believe he is hoping the university deep thinker, all brain types will find those answers and be able to explain it to the scientist types.