On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:22 AM 10/24/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
If neutrons are produced in the lattice in an amount corresponding
to He and heat production then they should be readily detectable
via neutron activation of materials in or near the cathode.
One would think. It seems conceivable that there is some mechanism
that results in immediate and contained capture of generated
neutrons. Seems conceivable to someone like me, that is, who knows
not nearly enough to come up with all the reasons either way.
Well, here's a WL take on it:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269v1
"Low energy nuclear reactions in the neighborhood of metallic hydride
surfaces may be induced by ultra-low momentum neutrons. Heavy
electrons are absorbed by protons or deuterons producing ultra low
momentum neutrons and neutrinos. The required electron mass
renormalization is provided by the interaction between surface
electron plasma oscillations and surface proton oscillations. The
resulting neutron catalyzed low energy nuclear reactions emit copious
prompt gamma radiation. The heavy electrons which induce the
initially produced neutrons also strongly absorb the prompt nuclear
gamma radiation, re-emitting soft photons. Nuclear hard photon
radiation away from the metallic hydride surfaces is thereby strongly
suppressed."
"... the mean free path of a hard prompt gamma ray is L ∼ 3.4 Å~
10−8 cm. Thus, prompt hard gamma photons get absorbed within less
than a nanometer from the place wherein they were first created."
" ... one finds a neutron mean free path of ∼ 10^−6 cm. An ultra
low momentum neutron is thus absorbed within about ten nanometers
from where it was first created. The likelihood that ultra low
momentum neutrons will escape capture and thermalize via phonon
interactions is very small."
Twice the Bohr radius is about 1x10^-10 m, an angstrom, so the mean
free path WL suggest is about 10,000 hydrogen atoms in width.
Heavier atoms are not all that much bigger because atomic radius does
not grow much with atomic number, e.g. radii in angstroms: Pd 1.79,
Au 1.79, Ni 1.62, Li 2.05, K 2.77, Al 1.82, Cu 1.57, Pb 1.81. They
apparently completely ignore the fact that most fusion in
electrolysis experiments apparently happens near the surface of the
cathode. They apparently ignore neutron activation of other nuclei,
the atomic radii of which are not much larger than the Bohr radius,
and make no effort to account for lattice element transmutation
without signatures. The WL math and QM is beyond me, though highly
controversial (e.g. via Hagelstein and Chaudhary), but the logic and
common sense in problem definition and conclusions are in my opinion
clearly controversial and not so complex issues. Experimentally, and
by their own results, their theory can be tested by including in a co-
deposition electrolyte extremely small trace amounts of metals
(cations) suitable for delayed gamma analysis.
Thermal neutrons are readily detected. See:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation_analysis>http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation_analysis
wherein thermal neutrons, i.e. with kinetic energies of less than
0.5 eV, are used. Notice the extreme sensitivity of Al, Au, Ag,
Cl, Cu, Ca, K, Pt, Ti, and S to neutron activation, all elements
commonly used in CF experiments. It is difficult to imagine that
20 years of experimentation with large amounts of these materials
present would fail to result in the detection of the effects of
slow neutrons in or near the lattice, especially in transmutation
detection experiments in which the cathode is digested. This must
be a common thought in response to the WL claims. There is not
necessarily any emotional content, and certainly emotion is not
necessary, to such a reaction to WL claims.
I haven't read the material Krivit points to yet,
What material? URL? Certainly reading WL material is essential if
you are going to design an experiment based on this theory, if WL has
any relation to your goals at all.
but I'm very interested in the discussion.
I don't want to be abrasive, but I dislike discussion which takes me
a lot of time and work, especially if the discussion looks open ended
and very time consuming, the correspondent is prolific and appears to
have unlimited time on his hands, and has no compunction regarding
thread hijacking followed by directing questions in a personal way. See:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread+hijacking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonDiego/Thread_hijacking
No worries, in this case I'll at least momentarily be a cooperating
subject. 8^) However, there may be a limited tolerance to thread
hijacking here.
One of the things I intend to focus on is the detection of neutrons,
Your personal focus does not seem to me relevant to Rothwell's
opinion about theory or the digression which has occurred in this
thread toward the merits of WL theory.
Again, no worries. I suggest a good experimental approach for you
might be to get a good neutron detector to make sure you are actually
getting neutron emissions and know their spectra so you can make an
educated guess as to origin, and support any advertised claims
regarding kits you might sell.
the Galileo project was designed for alpha detection, and only
detected neutrons,
It is highly controversial as to exactly what was detected or
achieved by the Galileo protocol, if anything. For example, see:
http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html
The Galileo Project was a great idea in its time, and as well
executed as can be expected. It took a HUGE amount of personal time
and sacrifice from Pam Mosier-Boss, of SPAWAR and I expect a repeat
project might have some severe difficulties, unless perhaps you are
willing to step up to her role. However, hopefully, progress can be
made well beyond that point, as the results, by themselves, are thus
far *far* from convincing. I have enormous respect for Steve Krivit
(and I should also say Jed too, since they seem to be having outs at
the moment and I don't want to take sides, and Jed is the subject of
this thread!), but the Galileo protocol seems to me to be *NOT* a
protocol appropriate for dissemination on a commercial basis.
if it did, by accident, more or less like what SPAWAR did, when
they decided to look at the backs of detector chips where the alpha
radiation didn't penetrate, and found triple tracks.
SPAWAR experiments detect particles on the front side too. The
nature of both the front side and back side particle tracks is
controversial, but, for what it is worth, it seems to me personally
that the SPAWAR group currently has a correct assessment regarding
particle types and energies.
Gold is sensitive to neutron activation, but what will hot alphas
due with gold
Get some gold foil and an alpha source and see how many neutrons you
get out from the other side. Hint: this experiment has been done.
that is less common with silver or palladium, i.e., why is it
reported that neutrons are more readily detected (using CR-39,
looking for triple tracks) with gold substrate rather than other
metals?
I don't think that conclusion is firm. Not a lot of metals have been
tried and the most recent SPAWAR results, while very well done, need
replication. Follow up work is clearly needed using different
protocols. However, if you want some wild guesses, gold forms an
excellent well sealed barrier to back side diffusion, so the rate of
de-loading loss of hydrogen is small compared to the loading rate.
Without some additional form of stimulation this back side barrier
can, in my opinion, work against some forms of reaction and rates of
reaction because the diffusion rate and thus tunneling rate is
diminished.
I'm suspecting the nuclear behavior of gold under alpha bombardment
is responsible for it. Any ideas:
Beryllium is used as a source of neutrons, it emits them under
alpha bombardment. So... how can I incorporate beryllium into a
simple codep cell, where the alphas can reach it while they are
still hot? What if I had a silver cathode, with a layer of
beryllium plating, followed, or not, by gold plating? Any effect?
What about a small piece of beryllium foil suspended near the
cathode? Chemical reactions of beryllium in the electrolyte? What
would happen? So much fun, so little time.
I suggest more time be spent reading the literature.
If I get an amplified neutron signal from the presence of
beryllium, it would be a strong sign of hot alphas. This
possibility was suggested to me by a critic of cold fusion, there
are a few who actually *think* about the problem. We need more of
those.
Think!
What effects are predicted by Widom Larsen? Is neutron activation
predicted, or is that mechanism interdicted in some way by the theory?
See above.
Slow neutrons are easy to detect, in fact, because they are so
highly active, being able to penetrate nuclei.
Depends on the nucleus cross section for thermal neutrons. Some
reactions require kinetic energy to pull off.
I'd think that in a palladium lattice at 1:1 loading, there would
be more neutron activation of palladium than of deuterium. What
would the products be?
I strongly recommend you buy a CRC handbook of Chemistry and
Physics. The Table of Isotopes is extremely useful in that regard.
Hot neutrons won't be produced by a low-energy process. Hot
neutrons are being reported by SPAWAR, estimated energy, on the
order of 10 MeV. So some other process is producing them, either
some kind of fusion or as a byproduct of some kind of fusion or
other energy-yielding nuclear process, and hot alphas, given all
the helium produced, that correlates with the excess heat in the
right range, seem the most likely source of the energy for hot
neutrons, given the very low levels of neutrons found, they would
be signs of secondary reactions. I.e., an alpha signature, and
sensitive to the environment, i.e., what the alphas can hit before
they become thermal and merely ordinary helium.
I suggest you read my postings here with regard to SPAWAR and D-T
reactions.
Here is a first cut at what I think might be a useful method for you,
assembled from prior posts and modified:
AN EDGE-ON-GRID CO-DEPOSITION METOD
Here is suggested a means of improving the SPAWAR experimental design
to (a) avoid scratching or chemical deterioration of the particle
detector surface, (b) permit very close proximity of the active
material and the particle detector, (c) establish a very thin cell
geometry which maximizes external applied field intensities, and (d)
permit use of BC-720 plastic from Bicron Inc. or other scintillating
material or counters as detectors in order to more definitively
determine particle energy level spectra. This means consists of
using an edge-on-grid method, described below, for co-deposition of
the active layer. This method has the added advantage of
establishing a cathode surface vs electrostatic field direction
relationship similar to the original SPAWAR cell design.
A method to prepare an edge-on-grid is to (a) prepare a foil primary
metallic layer (base) on which co-deposition is to occur (say,
silver, gold, or platinum, or a metal foil for plating such on it) by
coating in a grid array an etching mask on both sides of that foil,
i.e a conductive grid consisting of a bunch of squares with central
circles not masked, (b) etch out the array of round holes in those
circles to complete the grid array, (c) leave the mask on but then
go ahead and plate on any additional layers (if) desired, thus
causing the inside *edges* of the grid holes to be plated, (d) bond 6
micron Mylar (the separation layer) to the back side of the foil, (e)
cut a hole in the side or bottom of the electrolyte container of
appropriate size so as to bond the edges of the front side of the
metal foil to it (probably with chemically resistant epoxy), and
then, (f) bond the base foil edges to the electrolyte container, thus
sealing in the electrolyte.
Now it is possible to sandwich, on the back side of the 6 micron
Mylar, i.e. the separation layer, thus unaffected by the electrolyte,
particle discriminating layers of various thicknesses and types in
front of particle or light detectors or detecting plastic layers like
CR-39 or Bicron Inc. BC-720 scintillating plastic. It is further
feasible to examine directly, or with intervening materials, one or
more grid holes with photomultipliers, cameras, etc.
When running the experiment the co-deposited layer is deposited on
the edges of the grid holes.
Another method might be, in place of steps (a) and (b) to coat the
primary metallic (base) layer with an etching mask and then simply
punch or laser etch the grid holes into it.
It may be feasible to use pressure to hold the 6 micron Mylar in
place, as SPAWAR did with magnets. It is also feasible to make bags
of the mylar foil to surround the cell as Earthtech did, to prevent
any possibility of electrolyte contamination of particle detectors.
However, if magnets are used for effect, CLOSE THE MAGNETIC CIRCUIT
by using soft steel stock! Soft steel stock is cheap stuff.
It is feasible to use very thin glass, ceramic, diamond coated
material (even metallic), photosensitive material, or other kinds of
sheet materials as a separation layer in place of the Mylar. It is
feasible to coat most any layer which is exposed to the electrolyte
to achieve far less than a 6 micron separation, i.e. a very thin
separation layer, especially if that layer is a particle
discriminating layer. If a coating is used on a detector like CR-39,
then it has to be removable by or before etching without affecting
the etching results. The main objective of the layer immediately
adjacent to the electrolyte, the separation layer, is merely to keep
the electrolyte from affecting the next layers. The separation
layer, the layer adjacent to the grid, and electrolyte, referred to
as 6 micron Mylar above, provides a direct window into a cross
section of the co-deposition layer on the surface of the cylindrical
hole. A useful separation layer might consist of a UV transparent
plastic. If the main purpose of a given experiment is to observe
light emission in the UV spectrum then a much thicker layer than 6
microns of UV transparent material can obviously and conveniently be
used for the separation layer.
This overall approach hopefully has the following additional advantages:
1. The stress of the expansion of the hydrogen loaded layer is
applied primarily to a longest and thus strongest axis of the
underlying metal grid,
2. The layer where the major action is, the co-deposited layer, is
right up close to (within at most 6 microns of) the discriminating or
detecting layers, avoiding long and variable paths of high energy
particles through the electrolyte,
3. Hydrogen which diffuses into or through the primary metallic
layer (base) has a large volume in which to continue its migration,
as it diffuses sideways, as well as an alternate escape path under
the mask layer, thus preventing a full build-up of pressure at the
metal-to-detector laminations,
4, Micrographs of co-deposited D-Pd shows a grainy nature which is
not as structurally strong as, for example, a pure Pd loaded lattice,
thus the edge de-lamination force for co-deposited layers should not
be nearly as strong as it was for the Patterson beads, and since some
of the Patterson beads survived, hopefully a sufficient number of
cells will survive without delamination,
5. By making the grid elements small, say under 0.1 cm, there will
be a clear marking of a scale on the micrographs and this will
hopefully assist in counting and locating tracks, although the hole
diameter should of course be larger that the thickness of the primary
metallic layer (base),
6. In the case of multiple plated layers, it will hopefully be clear
in the tack images from which layer the track originated because the
CR-39 (or other material) is essentially imaging a cross section of
the plated and co-deposited layers.
Discriminating layers can be applied between the separation layer and
the detecting layer. This then leaves the layers in order as:
1. electrolyte
2. acid mask with holes for making holes in the grid
3. grid base, a conductor with etched holes, with only the hole edges
exposed to electrolyte
4. mask protecting conduction to the base
5. the separation layer which isolates the electrolyte from the
discriminating or detecting layers
6. particle discriminating layers, if present
7. the detecting layer, i.e CR-39, BC-720, or particle or photon
detectors
The edges of the holes contain the D-Pd co-deposited layer. Assuming
the separating layer, and outer underlying layer, are much more
compressable than metal, it also provides, in operation, some cushion
for the lateral (axial) expansion of the D-Pd co-deposited layer,
avoiding damage to the underlying discriminating layers or detecting
layers.
There are of course a vast number of discriminating materials and
thicknesses. It seems highly inadvisable to use beryllium in
metallic form for various reasons, including that it is toxic,
especially by inhalation, regardless of the compound. It is not
something that should be provided to minors or high school students.
There may be extreme liability issues for adults as well. As an
aside I should mention the father of a friend of mine suffered life
long from the effects of machining beryllium for use in neutron
reflectors for the Manhattan Project, and was blinded by watching an
atomic blast as well. Beryllium compounds might be comparatively
well contained by vitrification. If you are set on using beryllium
then a compound should be much easier and cheaper to use than foil.
Be is very inefficient at neutron production, providing only 30
neutrons per million alpha particles. There are vastly more
effective neutron detection mechanisms. Be has a low thermal neutron
cross section, so should be useless in looking for WL neutrons.
I am personally interested in using high voltage fields in variations
(e.g. using the grid configuration with an insulated HV electrode
adhered to the back of the CR-39) related to Fig. 1 (p. 14) of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusionExp.pdf
but much of that was discussed here before.
Best of luck with your adventure,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
