Some typos corrected below.
On Nov 18, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The reactions appear to be completely independent of one another. I
base that on the patterns of heat shown in IR cameras. Also the
damage and the autoradiographs. . . .
The point I meant to make is that with a chain reaction from one
area on the cathode to other areas, caused by neutrons or something
analogous to photons in a laser, I would expect to see the reaction
begin at one spot and then spread out from there, perhaps in waves.
Uhhhh ... this is what I wrote about, a genuine chain reaction. Not
for all cold fusion processes, but as a side effect, just due to the
fact cold fusion can be expected to build up hyperons, and these
hyperons are capable of chain reactions triggered by cosmic rays. If
you read my paper you should be able to see this:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
A small cosmic ray initiated chain reaction event can be expected to
be all over long before the metal involved shows any outward signs of
melting or evaporating. The collective motions of the mass of metal
atoms is slow compared to the rate at which a photon based or near
light speed particle based chain reaction can speed through the
lattice. The effects of the heating, i.e. liquid metal motion and
gas release, follow after the chain reaction is over.
Instead, you see random spots appear and disappear, all over the
cathode. The spots would be coordinated over time in some pattern,
not random. As the cathode heats up you do see more and more hot
spots, but they are not adjacent or coordinated.
Exactly what you would expect from small cosmic ray initiated chain
reaction events.
Here is a macroscopic mousetrap chain reaction that starts at one
spot and spreads in waves to the rest of the material:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxzPN-vdP_0&NR=1
Here is another, not as clear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLv8Qflg6PQ
When I say "waves" I mean the reaction runs out of material with
potential energy in the initial location, so it peters out there
while spreading out from that spot. You do not see patterns like
this on cathodes.
Cold fusion reactions also seem to go for a short while at a small
spot, and then stop for a while. That's what the IR camera shows.
I have serious doubts the camera is actually showing cold fusion
events. See below.
When a spot peters out and stops, I do not think it has run out of
fuel. I assume the NAE is not longer suitable for some reason, for
a while, and then it becomes suitable again.
- Jed
The fact the sparse hyperons are used up by the chain reaction, and
then regenerated by CF, makes the theory I proposed fully consistent
with the above. However, I suspect the SPAWAR flashes on Pd mesh are
*not* cold fusion, as noted below,
For a chain reaction of the kind I suggested to occur there has to be
a high D loading, and more importantly, there has to be a build up of
low binding energy hyperons sufficient to sustain the chain reaction
throughout the hot spot. Hyperons, and possibly stable kaons, were
suggested to result from highly de-energized cold fusion reactions,
i.e. deflated hydrogen fusion reactions, that precede the chain
reaction. Some of these strange quark containing H/He entities are
known to have very low (keV order) binding energies. This was noted
on page 9 ff of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
This means a chain reaction can be sustained merely by x-ray
stimulation of such nuclei, or other keV order stimulation, by high
energy particles. A single MeV particle can thus unbind numerous
hyperons, depending on their local density. When such hyperons are
disrupted, more high energy particles are generated which can trigger
further hyperon disintegrations. It may be that some mu- muons can
be generated from some hyperon disintegrations, thus triggering some
"ordinary" muon based "cold fusion". However, if the bulk of
hyperons release K0 kaons, or produce decay of otherwise stable K0
kaons, then the bulk of the muons resulting will be neutral. It
takes the build-up of a sufficient density of low binding energy
hyperons to sustain a chain reaction, and they are not the "triggers"
but rather a partial fuel.
It is also notable that the ability of a hyperon chain reaction to
actually *sustain*, to not be a fast event, is affected not only by
the local density of hyperons, but also by the volume and shape of
hyperon dense material, and its ability to sustain hyperon generation
through ordinary cold fusion. One difficulty is such a reaction is
very difficult to moderate, so it has to essentially proceed in small
controlled bangs.
Once a critical density of hyperons is obtained in a locality, a
single cosmic ray can clearly set off a chain reaction, so fuel
storage is not feasible. The hyperons have to be generated by cold
fusion on the spot.
I should also make it as clear as possible that I think hyperon chain
reactions, if they exist, are an *unusual* form of CF, a secondary
effect of CF. The bulk of CF reactions produce no easily identifiable
signatures. The chain reactions I have suggested have clear
signatures, including neutrons. It still may be true that hyperon
stimulated chain reactions may provide some explanation for heat and
neutron producing excursion events, which are comparatively rare.
One thing of major concern about this hyperon chain reaction idea is
the expectation (necessity) that positrons result from a hyperon
based chain reaction. I don't know of any experiment that had an
excursion event in which positron annihilation gammas were detected.
I also don't know that any experiments where excursions took place
were designed to look for them.
DOES THE SPAWAR FILM ACTUALLY SHOW CF REACTIONS?
The following is just a recap of things I posted here in recent days,
questioning whether the SPAWAR film actually shows CF. Related to
all the above issues is the question of whether the filmed jumping
hot spots are actually fusion related events. I think they may in
fact be H3O+ OH- recombination combined with cavitation. See the
white dots and color (temperature) gradients in Figure 1 (b):
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf
SPAWAR states: "The ‘hot spots’ observed in the infrared imaging
experiments are suggestive of ‘miniexplosions’ (Figure 1b7). To
verify this, the Ag electrode on a piezoelectric transducer was used
as the substrate for the Pd/D co-deposition. If a mini-explosion
occurred, the resulting shock wave would compress the crystal. The
shock wave would be followed by a heat pulse that would cause the
crystal to expand. In these experiments, sharp downward spikes
followed by broader upward spikes were observed in the piezoelectric
crystal response. The downward spikes were indicative of crystal
compression while the broader upward spikes are attributed to the
heat pulse and the consequent crystal expansion following the
explosion."
See also the video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb9V_qFKf2M
and the associated article at:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf
The above article unfortunately does not give the voltage or current
at which the cell was running. That video looks very much like an
anode in the visible range in an electrospark experiment. The anode
spots in an electrospark experiment, especially at threshold
voltages, e.g. around 300-400 V after proper anode conditioning, look
on casual inspection to be jumping all over the place. However,
after careful inspection, you can see that special locations flash
periodically, giving the illusion of spots moving around. The SPAWAR
observed blinking effect is similar to what I observed when
experimenting with the electrospark phenomenon, including audible
noise. It was difficult for me to tell if the noise was due to
cavitation instead of an "explosion", but it seemed likely. I got the
impression that a small arc would expand and heat and partially
ionize a gas bubble, and then the bubble would collapse (I used
pulsed DC and/or AC), but the gas compressed would already be heated
and would quickly ionize in the compression cycle. I think the noise
became more intense when I put a small HV capacitor across (between)
the anode and cathode. The noise effect on the anode struck me as
electrochemically initiated, probably just an unusually initiated
form of cavitation, not the result of an explosion per se. SPAWAR's
low voltage induced cathode spots must be a different phenomenon, but
still the pattern looks so oddly familiar.
There are major differences between high voltage anode electrospark
experiments and low voltage electrolysis cathode experiments. The
SPAWAR spots are visible in infra-red. The electrospark spots are
visible. Both anode spots and cathode spots could be the result of,
initiated by, cavitation. Both increase in intensity and density as
things heat up. Both have similar sounds. Both tend to occur in the
center of the cathode, where it is hottest. I expect steam+hydrogen
cavitation is involved. Cavitation can produce plasma which is
conductive. A high current density will feed the plasma heat, and
further provide a hot gas for the re-compression cycle.
SPAWAR states in:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf
"The random time/space distribution of hot spots as well as their
varying intensity with time, Figs. 4a–4d, exclude the existence of
fixed location of the nuclear–active–sites. The random distribution
and the varying intensity arises from the coupling of the various
processes occurring on both sides of the contact surface in response
to fluctuations."
"Both, the frequency and intensity are a strong function of
temperature. In particular, both increase with an increase in
temperature, exhibiting the so– called positive feedback, cf Figs. 3
and 5. This is, perhaps, the most direct indication of the influence
of the chemical environment."
The small sites SPAWAR shows could be the result of cavitation
induced plasma *injection*, the forcing of a super hot plasma *into*
the Pd. Russ George's and Roger Stringham's cavitation experiments
forced the hydrogen into the Pd at tiny pores the cavitation opened
up in the metal surface. The pores were much much smaller than the
bubbles which formed them. They didn't look much different from what
SPAWAR shows. I don't know about scale though.
It is unfortunate SPAWAR did not show oscilloscope traces of
potential across the electrodes. By placing inductors between the
power supply and the electrodes, it might be possible to see sudden
current surges due to plasma formation on the surface of the cathode.
This plasma penetrates the interface layer and creates a moment of
sudden high conductivity, which shows up in the potential
differential between the cathode and anode. Alternatively, a current
sense resistor can see current surges due to the plasma formation -
at least that was the case in electrospark experiments. The
difference between HV anode and LV cathode effects might simply be
one of degree, which IR observation makes up for.
Here's a great article by Ed Storms:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEanewmethod.pdf
Note photo of bubble in Fig. 7.
Another interesting and early SPAWAR article showing hot spots (see
Fig. 7):
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf
Much better photos of cathode spots where scale can be determined:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSexperiment.pdf
I'll repeat here a measurement from one of my earliest AC
electrospark experiments:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The voltage waveform was a nice and clean sign wave, but the spikes
did show up on it when the sparking started. It looked kind of like
a rounded version of the following:
----
/ \
/ \
------ \
/ \
/..................\..........................
\ /
\ /
------- /
\ /
\ /
----
At the end of the experiment the scope measured .581 V rms, and 1.34
V pp on the current probe, giving 58.1 mA rms and 134 mA p-p or 67 mA
peak current. The DMM showed 53.9 mA at the time. The spikes were
very small. I measured the small spikes at only 15 mV, or
0.015V*100mA/V = 1.5 mA each, peak. I did not use a bypass capacitor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That means, even in the powerful electrospark domain, the little
plasmas are only getting 1.5 mA for microseconds. One AC phase is 8.3
milliseconds and there were dozens of spikes on the above current
wave form. It seems to me that, in a boiling cavitation regime, it
should be feasible to get IR flashes with much much less.
According to Bockris, most of the current flow of ions in a typical
electrolytic cell, in the space away from the interfaces, is due to
concentration gradients, not the E field between electrodes. The E
field is very small there. A Faraday ice pail effect will thus have
little effect on ion flow through the mesh from front to back side.
However, this still presents a very interesting question with regards
to electrolyte potential inside the Pd mesh used in the above
experiments. In other words, what is the electrolyte potential on
the surfaces facing each other inside the mesh? Suppose the mesh
were wrapped into a closed surface, like a sphere. What is the
electrolyte potential outside the sphere with respect to the Pd on
the inside surface of the sphere? Would an interface even form there
at all? I expect not! So, the mesh surface would present a
continuum of potentials to zero relative to the cathode around its
surface and even an area where the interface itself breaks down. It
would not be a surprise at all to find the spots are toward the
laterally facing sides of the mesh, at points near zero potential.
This means the laterally facing sides of the individual mesh
conductors, not the overall mesh. Interesting that the effect of a
potential gradient around the edges of the conductors of the mesh
remains no matter how fine and thin the mesh. The finer the
conductors the greater the potential gradient around the conductors.
It also does no good to have multiple layers of conductors in the
mesh. A single layer of very fine mesh between the electrolyte at
cathode potential inside the mesh cage and the electrolyte at cell
potential on the outside of the cage, would maximize the potential
gradient on the conductors, and maximize cathode area per volume
used. Use of a very fine mesh would limit the internal strain on the
metal, minimize loading time, and maximize flux.
It might be interesting to put a high voltage cathode inside a
grounded cage mesh, used on the outside surface as an electrolytic
cell cathode. This would make the inside of the mesh a HV anode, and
the outside a cathode. This would absolutely fry a fine aluminum
mesh cage in no time at all. I have to wonder what would happen with
a Pd mesh, which does not condition in the same way anodically. The
surface effects could be dramatic.
A fine Pd mesh, possibly spot welded around the edges, with an
insulating internal mesh, possibly a porous ceramic material,
something that can retain integrity at very high electrolyte
temperatures and pressures, would be interesting.
There would be an unusual amount of recombination in a mesh cell with
positive electrolyte on one side and negative electrolyte on the
other side of the mesh. The area of comparatively sheltered neutral
potential within the mesh would support large ion conductivity in
opposed directions, cations one way anions the other, due to
concentration gradients, and thus large amounts of recombination
would occur of the form:
H3O+ + OH- -> 2 H2O
within the mesh. I think this should give the vicinity the visible
blue-green glow characteristic of recombination.
At the points on the electrode between a cathode interface and an
anode interface, a transition line is made. The concentration
sustained ion current should be enormous past the transition line,
due to the short distance between anode and cathode surfaces there.
All bubbling might even be suppressed in the vicinity of the
transition line due to the high probability of recombination there.
Any bubbles may tend to temporarily move the boundaries of this
neutral line. Bubbles formed on or near the neutral line may in fact
even have a mix of H, O, H2, and O2. Bubbles there might also serve
as nucleation sites for steam formation, and ultimately cavitation.
Plasma on the neutral line, a location without any interface layers,
can provide a high current path at low voltage, especially if the
mesh surfaces on both sides or either side provide a capacitive layer
that can briefly feed the plasma energy via capacitive discharge.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
