Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Michel Jullian wrote: They also ruled it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same pattern of radiation on both. Mmm, I doubt this, since the radiation doesn't cross the film as they say quite explicitly in the paper (in the two-sided film they find that only the top emulsion is impressed). See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKautoradiog.pdf Quotes: In order to achieve good resolution of the image, the sample was kept very close to the X-ray film. Standard medical X-ray film of medium grain size (10 to 15 µ m in diameter) on cellulose triacetate base was used for this purpose. The exposure time used for the deuterated samples varied from 18 hours to a few days. At times a stack of several films was used. In some cases films were placed on both sides of the sample. . . . The fact that the second film of a stack of films exposed to the target also indicates similar though less intense spots, rules out the possibility of any kind of chemical reduction reaction caused by the deuterium or hydrogen in the target being responsible for causing the spots. Some of the autoradiographs are beautiful. Here is a scan of one of the titanium cathode x-rays: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan Click on the image for a larger, 300 dpi positive scan, suitable for framing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Michel Jullian wrote: So the phenomenon did traverse the film in this older paper you quote. Strangely, as I said they clearly said it didn't, under any condition . . . I noticed this discrepancy. I believe the materials and strength of the reaction were different. The strongly exposed autoradiograph that I uploaded is from titanium. Others in this series were strong enough to penetrate through 1 or 2 films. I do not know if any of the palladium ones were as dramatic. Perhaps different phenomena are occurring? Maybe they found an experimental error in the earlier experiments? No, they would have said if they had found an error. I discussed this work with Srinivasan recently, and he assured me that nothing has been retracted. I will ask him about the discrepancy. It would be interesting to see their most recent papers on the subject. I may be able to upload the 1996 Fusion Technology paper in the near future. There is nothing after that. The research ended years ago because there is such strong opposition to cold fusion in India, as there is everywhere else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
So the phenomenon did traverse the film in this older paper you quote. Strangely, as I said they clearly said it didn't, under any condition, in the more recent paper we were discussing: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf In all the autoradiographs obtained (under any condition), the fogging was always observed only on the side of the film facing the samples, in spite of the fact that the X-ray film is transparent to optical radiation and had sensitive coating on both sides. This confirms the low range of the radiations and absence of optical emissions. Maybe they found an experimental error in the earlier experiments? It would be interesting to see their most recent papers on the subject. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper Michel Jullian wrote: They also ruled it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same pattern of radiation on both. Mmm, I doubt this, since the radiation doesn't cross the film as they say quite explicitly in the paper (in the two-sided film they find that only the top emulsion is impressed). See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKautoradiog.pdf Quotes: In order to achieve good resolution of the image, the sample was kept very close to the X-ray film. Standard medical X-ray film of medium grain size (10 to 15 µ m in diameter) on cellulose triacetate base was used for this purpose. The exposure time used for the deuterated samples varied from 18 hours to a few days. At times a stack of several films was used. In some cases films were placed on both sides of the sample. . . . The fact that the second film of a stack of films exposed to the target also indicates similar though less intense spots, rules out the possibility of any kind of chemical reduction reaction caused by the deuterium or hydrogen in the target being responsible for causing the spots. Some of the autoradiographs are beautiful. Here is a scan of one of the titanium cathode x-rays: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan Click on the image for a larger, 300 dpi positive scan, suitable for framing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Yes good point Horace, my chemical induced ionization hypothesis doesn't explain the barrier crossing. Unless maybe some neutral H atoms manage to leak through the micron-thin barrier before combining into H2? I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement, they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Jed, Very interesting paper. They observed the radiations not just in air, but also in oxygen to a lesser extent, and also in hydrogen to an even lesser extent, cf their table 1: Table 1. Density of autoradiographs under various conditions. Density averaged and normalised to 24 h exposure time. Condition for autoradiographyDensity (× 10-3) 1 In normal air atmosphere 80 2 In oxygen atmosphere 32 3 In hydrogen atmosphere 3.5 4 In air with 0.25 mg/cm2 filter 6.0 5 In air with +0.67 kV/cm field 230 6 In air with -0.67 kV/cm field 210 The facts that the presence of an electric field increases the phenomenon, and that the polarity makes little difference, indicate that ions of both signs are formed. The effect of the electric field would be to make the opposite signed ions move in opposite directions (one going to the sample to discharge, the other going to the film) rather than meet and combine. I'll dare a theory: combination of two desorbed atomic H (or D) atoms into molecular hydrogen being highly exoenergetic as is well known, the kinetic energy of the resulting H2 (or D2) molecule is sufficient to impact-ionize some of the ambient gas molecules and/ or the palladium (electron emission). Those initial reactions could in turn induce further ionization reactions in some gases. You would expect different ionization rates in different gases or gas mixtures as observed, none in some gases as observed, and none in vacuum of course as observed. Let's see how this fares. For 2H(g)-H2(g) my thermochemistry calculator says 434 kJ/mole at 25°C, which is ~4.5 eV per H2 molecule if I am not mistaken. Bombarding ambient air with 4.5 eV particles will definitely induce some ionization reactions I am pretty sure. Also there are many metals whose electron work function (the K.E. required for an impact to eject an electron out of it) is below 4.5 eV. Pd's is 5.12 eV i.e. not too far, so you would expect some tunneling probability, and a much higher probability if lower work function impurities are present e.g. lithium (electron work function: 2.9 eV!). Well, the hypothesis does seem to have have at least one leg to stand on. Comments/critiques/corrections welcome. This theory makes some sense except for the cases where a physical barrier was included. From: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf Fogging was also detected when thin filters (2 μm aluminised polycarbonate foil (0.25 mg/cm2) in one or several layers) were kept between the film and loaded samples. Weak fogging was always measured with one layer of such a filter (see Table 1). With two layers of filters fogging was observed only in one instance (barely above threshold). No fogging was ever observed, above threshold, with three or more layers of filters. Two microns is too much for tunneling to occur, so the barrier should be effective at preventing a chemical explanation *provided the barrier is not porous to chemical penetration.* The reduction of effect with increasing barrier thickness is consistent with higher than chemical energy particles. It might also be consistent with reduced chemical migration through pores. The fact the barrier is aluminized does make the prospect of ions moving through the barrier and actually reaching the film a less viable explanation though. Another explanation might be that both cation and anion chemical species with activated nuclei were created and selectively drawn to the barrier or film surface by the differing applied fields. Might be tritium in a LESS THAN NORMAL STATE OF NUCLEAR EXCITATION, only 300 eV. In an oxygen or air environment it would exist chemically in both cation (H+ or more likely H3O+) and anion (OH-) form, especially if the air were humid. In the past I have suggested a number of ways such lower that normal states of nuclear excitation might arise in CF. It would not matter if the ions discharged near the film, because the neutrals would be in proximity of the film and only migrate away by diffusion. All wild speculation, but I don't see any alternative explanations. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Michel Jullian wrote: I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement, they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier. Other papers from BARC say there was an air gap, usually or always -- I am not sure. This was to eliminate the possibility that water or other chemicals caused the autoradiographs to darken. That is extremely unlikely, but they wanted to rule it out. They also ruled it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same pattern of radiation on both. You can read more about the experiments at BARC here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/BARC.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 7, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement, they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier. Other papers from BARC say there was an air gap, usually or always -- I am not sure. This was to eliminate the possibility that water or other chemicals caused the autoradiographs to darken. That is extremely unlikely, but they wanted to rule it out. They also ruled it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same pattern of radiation on both. Much of the work in the paper did not involve direct contact, used separators, including the surprising electric field results. It appears most of the work noted in the paper included spacers or filters. BOTH TECHNIQUES USED For autoradiography the X-ray films were kept in contact or a few mm away from the sample. FIG. 1 IS A CONTACT EXPOSURE Fig. 1 shows a contact autoradiograph of a disk loaded with D2 using a PF device (30 discharge shots, 24 hours exposure). This almost appears to be used for control purposes. FIG. 2 IS 0.2 mm SPACING Fig. 2 is an autoradiograph of a similar H2 loaded sample (30 discharge shots, 90 hours exposure) kept 0.2 mm away from the film. ELECTIC FIELD SPACER WAS 1.2 mm THICK The emissions were also subjected to electric field. The electric field between the loaded sample (disk type) and the film was maintained by a perspex spacer, 1.2 mm thick, having an opening of 12 mm at its centre. POLYCARBONATE FOIL SPACERS WERE 2 MICRONS Fogging was also detected when thin filters (2 μm aluminised polycarbonate foil (0.25 mg/cm2) in one or several layers) were kept between the film and loaded samples. MEASUREMENTS WITH AND WITHOUT GLASS AND SILICA FILTERS The autoradiography and TLD (CaSC4 based) measurements were made with and without glass and fused silica filters. Activity observed without filter in case of TLD study was seven times above background. No radiation was observed to cross glass or fused silica, indicating the absence (or very low intensity) of optical, ultraviolet or infrared radiators. These results were confirmed by photomultiplier and photodiode study. The above use of filters is not relevant regarding the spacing or chemical isolation, but it is relevant in that it rules out any energetic chemical or particle reactions that produce photons that account for the fogging of the film. That pretty much leaves production of a radioactive species that degasses from the Pd. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Horace Heffner wrote: That pretty much leaves production of a radioactive species that degasses from the Pd. Only if one discounts the hydrino-hydride -- auger electron displacement explanation - or the one offered by Robin. Radioactive species degassing should fog film equally well, or better, in a vacuum situation. I certainly would blame no one for discounting the Mills hydrino in normal circumstances - since the species has not been proved to the satisfaction of most observers. However, to invent an even more improbable scenario, when the hydrino one has met minimum standards of viability, by virtue of dozens of peer-reviewed articles by Mills, and also fits the circumstances fairly well, does not make sense either. Jones OTOH, if Mills is correct, where's the beef (after 18 years)? [please don't say: in vitro] ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: That pretty much leaves production of a radioactive species that degasses from the Pd. Only if one discounts the hydrino-hydride -- auger electron displacement explanation - or the one offered by Robin. Radioactive species degassing should fog film equally well, or better, in a vacuum situation. It is not possible to get an exposure in a vacuum from degassing species using the same exposure time as with atmospheric pressure gas. This is not even a close call. The exposure times are way too long. The radioactive species gets immediately evacuated. The low ion energy prevents sources within the Pd from exposing the film. The exposure time varied from 24 to 120 hours.. From : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf Fig. 2, for example, had a 90 hour exposure time. I certainly would blame no one for discounting the Mills hydrino in normal circumstances - since the species has not been proved to the satisfaction of most observers. I discounted the Mills theory only to the extent that the suggested mechanism (below) should produce photons and energetic alphas, which also expose the film, and this was ruled out by experiment, and also to the extent that this explanation is inconsistent with the much higher film exposure in *both* a positive and negative E field. Reviewing: On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: I would offer the following suggestion. Hydrino molecules fuse with either O18 from Oxygen/air, or with D2 in Hydrogen gas to create either energetic alphas in the case of O18, or (T p)/(He3 n) in the case of D2. These in turn ionize the surrounding gas releasing low energy electrons. When alphas ionize gasses they typically lose about 400 eV per atom, which isn't a bad match for the purported electron energy. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Horace, It is not possible to get an exposure in a vacuum from degassing species using the same exposure time as with atmospheric pressure gas. This is not even a close call. The exposure times are way too long. The radioactive species gets immediately evacuated. Do you have a reference for this high initial degassing rate, followed by a subsequent almost complete degassing turn-off ? I would have thought that following a high initial rate (few seconds) which takes the loading down 10% or so, from the starting level, that the subsequent rate of degassing would be slow and steady. And besides - what kind of beta decay or radioactivity produces ~300 eV electons? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, It is not possible to get an exposure in a vacuum from degassing species using the same exposure time as with atmospheric pressure gas. This is not even a close call. The exposure times are way too long. The radioactive species gets immediately evacuated. Do you have a reference for this high initial degassing rate, followed by a subsequent almost complete degassing turn-off ? This is a nonsensical model of the process and certainly *not* one implied by me. Degassing rate from Pd follows a decline curve. It is not the Pd degassing rate which removes the radioactive species from the film vicinity, keeps its concentration low, but rather the vacuum pump. I would have thought that following a high initial rate (few seconds) which takes the loading down 10% or so, from the starting level, that the subsequent rate of degassing would be slow and steady. Yes it is slow and declining. It depends on the diffusion rate of the species in the matrix and the pressure differential. But that is not important to my point. My point is the gas, once out of the Pd, is quickly removed by the vacuum pump. It can't stick around to expose the film. And besides - what kind of beta decay or radioactivity produces ~300 eV electons? As I said, one from a tritium nucleus having a less than normal excitation level. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
A thought follows about the nature of the compartment, i.e. volume, close to the film, and its importance to experimental controls. The following is a simple diffusion model of the compartment close to the film. Pd---T_in-compartment--- T_out + gas_out ^ | gas_in The compartment has volume based flow rates T_in, T_out, gas_in and gas_out, where we can assume over a short time interval involved the Pd has a fixed flow rate of T_in into the compartment. The compartment is not fully sealed, so there is diffusion of ambient gas into and out of the compartment, and a diffusion of T out of the compartment as well. At equilibrium, the compartment maintains equilibrium pressure, so, : T_in + gas_in = T_out + gas out At equilibrium we also have: T_in = T_out so: gas_in = gas_out The concentration ratio of the gasses in the compartment at equilibrium becomes R = T_in / gas_in. This means the tighter the seal around the compartment the higher the concentration of the T, the higher its partial pressure. The partial pressure p(T) of the T in the compartment, p(T) is: p(T) = R * [p(T) + p(gas)] which at pressure P is: p(T) = R * P Given the compartment is shallow, the exposure rate of the film Ef is proportional to the mass of T, and thus to its partial pressure times its density: Ef = p(T) * (density of T at P) = R * P * (density of T at P) The higher the pressure the larger the exposure rate. The better the compartment seal, the better the exposure rate. For very shallow compartments, less than the beta mean free path, the thicker the compartment, the larger the exposure rate. Now, this might indicate a small flaw in the two experiments with the voltage applied. The control run should have been a run with the applied voltage zero. The compartment seal may have been very good, and the thickness just right to get a high T exposure rate. If the fogging at 0 volts matches those at positive and negative voltages, then the effect is not voltage related at all. A lack of this control data invalidates any conclusion based on field related data. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Horace, This is a nonsensical model of the process and certainly *not* one implied by me. Well - playing devil's advocate once again, if tritium were coming off in the vacuum exhaust in well-equipped labs, it would set off a warning - but maybe they did not have any such precaution... nevertheless ... in trying to get a better protocol pinned-down, in case anyone (such as a Mills proponent) might wish to whittle down the open possibilities, it would seem that tritium has such a unique signature that it would not be hard to find it, especially with a dedicated tritium detector, unless it is ALL at the much lower energy level (and how could that be?) That is, if one looks in the right place like the vacuum exhaust, or turning the pump off, tritium detectors should spot it like a sore thumb and also - another factor weighing against tritium is that one can doubt that helium would have much of an effect on tritium release, in the situation where there was only helium, but less fogging. You would agree that if a vacuum is drawn on a tight seal, then pump turned off for the multi-hour exposure, and there is still only minimal fogging - then the exposure is not due to the release of tritium ? If tritium can be eliminated, then beta decay of the neutron is still an open possibility - but a vacuum would not have eliminated that before (in the original) - and the crux of this puzzle is that the effect goes away with a either a vacuum or with an unreactive gas (He, Ar)... and also - the other factor weighing against tritium is that helium should not have much of an effect. If I am understanding this, with a reactive gas present - O2 or N2 there is an fairly large signal and it is not due to photons. If tritium, photons and neutron decay are eliminated and 300 volt electrons are the culprit, then my original take on this was to look for a species that would displace an inner electron of O2 or N2. Auger electron spectroscopy is where you usually see electrons of this energy. The hydrino-hydride, as a candidate - which in an ion having a bound electron of the exact energy to be displaced might be able to do this. At least that is one possibility which has not been ruled out. Look on Robin's site: http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/New-hydrogen.html ...for the shrinkage necessary (looks like 1/9 to 1/10) which is necessary to get almost exactly to this 300 volt level if both of the electrons in the hydride pair to the same level - which Mills may not believe happens, but others do. I do not buy the possibility which Robin mentioned of further shrinkage, as that involves a photon, nor the possibility of a nuclear reaction - which is eliminated by the low energy of the electron and the lack of gammas. Where else in physics does one normally find electrons in this range, other than Auger spectroscopy ? If anyone replicates this, they should borrow such a device and pin down the exact energy, perhaps. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper Michel Jullian wrote: I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement, they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier. Other papers from BARC say there was an air gap, usually or always -- I am not sure. Only sometimes, as Horace pointed out. In the specific case of their barrier tests they didn't say, so it might well have been a contact test. In which case H desorbing from Pd could well cross the micron thin barrier before energetically combining into H2 between the barrier and the film. It still can do so if there is an air gap, but the probability is much smaller. This was to eliminate the possibility that water or other chemicals caused the autoradiographs to darken. That is extremely unlikely, but they wanted to rule it out. They also ruled it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same pattern of radiation on both. Mmm, I doubt this, since the radiation doesn't cross the film as they say quite explicitly in the paper (in the two-sided film they find that only the top emulsion is impressed). Michel You can read more about the experiments at BARC here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/BARC.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, This is a nonsensical model of the process and certainly *not* one implied by me. Well - playing devil's advocate once again, I think my interest here is fast ending. I have a lot of mundane things I have to do before winter, and it looks like I won't be able to get to the science things that are of most interest to me. if tritium were coming off in the vacuum exhaust in well-equipped labs, it would set off a warning - but maybe they did not have any such precaution... nevertheless ... in trying to get a better protocol pinned-down, in case anyone (such as a Mills proponent) might wish to whittle down the open possibilities, it would seem that tritium has such a unique signature that it would not be hard to find it, especially with a dedicated tritium detector, unless it is ALL at the much lower energy level (and how could that be?) That is, if one looks in the right place like the vacuum exhaust, or turning the pump off, tritium detectors should spot it like a sore thumb and also - another factor weighing against tritium is that one can doubt that helium would have much of an effect on tritium release, in the situation where there was only helium, but less fogging. The above is a red herring. I never said anything about normal tritium. You would agree that if a vacuum is drawn on a tight seal, then pump turned off for the multi-hour exposure, and there is still only minimal fogging - then the exposure is not due to the release of tritium ? Of course I would not agree! I just went to a lot of trouble to show why. This is utterly frustrating. Ef = p(T) * (density of T at P) = R * P * (density of T at P) If the pressure P is zero then partial pressure p(T) of T is zero so the film exposure rate Ef is zero. If the p remains near zero then the exposure rate remains near zero. To the extent there is a vacuum, the exposure rate is diminished. If tritium can be eliminated, then beta decay of the neutron is still an open possibility Except for the fact the neutron decay energy (782,350 V) is about 2600 times too high. - but a vacuum would not have eliminated that before (in the original) - and the crux of this puzzle is that the effect goes away with a either a vacuum or with an unreactive gas (He, Ar)... and also - the other factor weighing against tritium is that helium should not have much of an effect. If I am understanding this, with a reactive gas present - O2 or N2 Just O2. Some samples were also kept in atmospheres of nitrogen, helium and argon gases. The gas pressure was retained slightly (~ 50 mbar) above one atmosphere. The exposure time in all the cases was 96 h. No radiation, above threshold, was observed on any of these autoradiographs. Maybe would get it with N2 also if an ammonia forming catalyst were present, but ammonia would not respond to an E field. Just because the E field experiment is not conclusive, due to a lack of control, does not mean there is reason to completely throw it out yet. There were runs with similar width gaps at 0 potential, so the results may be valid, and if so it will still require both positive and negative ions of the species to explain. there is an fairly large signal and it is not due to photons. If tritium, photons and neutron decay are eliminated and 300 volt electrons are the culprit, then my original take on this was to look for a species that would displace an inner electron of O2 or N2. Auger electron spectroscopy is where you usually see electrons of this energy. But you see x-rays from auger electrons, lots of photons from the cascades, and where's the needed 300 eV particles? Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Hi Jed, Very interesting paper. They observed the radiations not just in air, but also in oxygen to a lesser extent, and also in hydrogen to an even lesser extent, cf their table 1: Table 1. Density of autoradiographs under various conditions. Density averaged and normalised to 24 h exposure time. Condition for autoradiographyDensity (× 10-3) 1 In normal air atmosphere 80 2 In oxygen atmosphere 32 3 In hydrogen atmosphere 3.5 4 In air with 0.25 mg/cm2 filter 6.0 5 In air with +0.67 kV/cm field 230 6 In air with -0.67 kV/cm field 210 The facts that the presence of an electric field increases the phenomenon, and that the polarity makes little difference, indicate that ions of both signs are formed. The effect of the electric field would be to make the opposite signed ions move in opposite directions (one going to the sample to discharge, the other going to the film) rather than meet and combine. I'll dare a theory: combination of two desorbed atomic H (or D) atoms into molecular hydrogen being highly exoenergetic as is well known, the kinetic energy of the resulting H2 (or D2) molecule is sufficient to impact-ionize some of the ambient gas molecules and/or the palladium (electron emission). Those initial reactions could in turn induce further ionization reactions in some gases. You would expect different ionization rates in different gases or gas mixtures as observed, none in some gases as observed, and none in vacuum of course as observed. Let's see how this fares. For 2H(g)-H2(g) my thermochemistry calculator says 434 kJ/mole at 25°C, which is ~4.5 eV per H2 molecule if I am not mistaken. Bombarding ambient air with 4.5 eV particles will definitely induce some ionization reactions I am pretty sure. Also there are many metals whose electron work function (the K.E. required for an impact to eject an electron out of it) is below 4.5 eV. Pd's is 5.12 eV i.e. not too far, so you would expect some tunneling probability, and a much higher probability if lower work function impurities are present e.g. lithium (electron work function: 2.9 eV!). Well, the hypothesis does seem to have have at least one leg to stand on. Comments/critiques/corrections welcome. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 8:30 PM Subject: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf These results are baffling because the reaction only occurs in the presence of air. It does not work with a vacuum, helium or nitrogen gas (p. 2). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Jed, Very interesting paper. They observed the radiations not just in air, but also in oxygen to a lesser extent, and also in hydrogen to an even lesser extent, cf their table 1: Table 1. Density of autoradiographs under various conditions. Density averaged and normalised to 24 h exposure time. Condition for autoradiographyDensity (× 10-3) 1 In normal air atmosphere 80 2 In oxygen atmosphere 32 3 In hydrogen atmosphere 3.5 4 In air with 0.25 mg/cm2 filter 6.0 5 In air with +0.67 kV/cm field 230 6 In air with -0.67 kV/cm field 210 The facts that the presence of an electric field increases the phenomenon, and that the polarity makes little difference, indicate that ions of both signs are formed. The effect of the electric field would be to make the opposite signed ions move in opposite directions (one going to the sample to discharge, the other going to the film) rather than meet and combine. I'll dare a theory: combination of two desorbed atomic H (or D) atoms into molecular hydrogen being highly exoenergetic as is well known, the kinetic energy of the resulting H2 (or D2) molecule is sufficient to impact-ionize some of the ambient gas molecules and/ or the palladium (electron emission). Those initial reactions could in turn induce further ionization reactions in some gases. You would expect different ionization rates in different gases or gas mixtures as observed, none in some gases as observed, and none in vacuum of course as observed. Let's see how this fares. For 2H(g)-H2(g) my thermochemistry calculator says 434 kJ/mole at 25°C, which is ~4.5 eV per H2 molecule if I am not mistaken. Bombarding ambient air with 4.5 eV particles will definitely induce some ionization reactions I am pretty sure. Also there are many metals whose electron work function (the K.E. required for an impact to eject an electron out of it) is below 4.5 eV. Pd's is 5.12 eV i.e. not too far, so you would expect some tunneling probability, and a much higher probability if lower work function impurities are present e.g. lithium (electron work function: 2.9 eV!). Well, the hypothesis does seem to have have at least one leg to stand on. Comments/critiques/corrections welcome. This theory makes some sense except for the cases where a physical barrier was included. From: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf Fogging was also detected when thin filters (2 μm aluminised polycarbonate foil (0.25 mg/cm2) in one or several layers) were kept between the film and loaded samples. Weak fogging was always measured with one layer of such a filter (see Table 1). With two layers of filters fogging was observed only in one instance (barely above threshold). No fogging was ever observed, above threshold, with three or more layers of filters. Two microns is too much for tunneling to occur, so the barrier should be effective at preventing a chemical explanation *provided the barrier is not porous to chemical penetration.* The reduction of effect with increasing barrier thickness is consistent with higher than chemical energy particles. It might also be consistent with reduced chemical migration through pores. The fact the barrier is aluminized does make the prospect of ions moving through the barrier and actually reaching the film a less viable explanation though. Another explanation might be that both cation and anion chemical species with activated nuclei were created and selectively drawn to the barrier or film surface by the differing applied fields. Might be tritium in a LESS THAN NORMAL STATE OF NUCLEAR EXCITATION, only 300 eV. In an oxygen or air environment it would exist chemically in both cation (H+ or more likely H3O+) and anion (OH-) form, especially if the air were humid. In the past I have suggested a number of ways such lower that normal states of nuclear excitation might arise in CF. It would not matter if the ions discharged near the film, because the neutrals would be in proximity of the film and only migrate away by diffusion. All wild speculation, but I don't see any alternative explanations. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Might be tritium in a LESS THAN NORMAL STATE OF NUCLEAR EXCITATION, only 300 eV. What would keep T decay from showing up in a vacuum? It would show up, with enough time. It is just that its concentration adjacent to the film would be low because it is being pumped out. The 300 eV betas from T still in the Pd is screened by the Pd. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:24:20 -0700: Hi, [snip] Electrons of a few hundred volts, which is the best explanation offered by the author, has the problem you mention: absence of the radiation signature in a vacuum. Unless, that is, the electrons are not primary (from the sample) but instead are coming from the oxygen (air) itself. How could that be? Why wouldn't electrons also come from helium? Is this a supra-chemical reaction similar to an Auger cascade? [snip] I would offer the following suggestion. Hydrino molecules fuse with either O18 from Oxygen/air, or with D2 in Hydrogen gas to create either energetic alphas in the case of O18, or (T p)/(He3 n) in the case of D2. These in turn ionize the surrounding gas releasing low energy electrons. When alphas ionize gasses they typically lose about 400 eV per atom, which isn't a bad match for the purported electron energy. There is no reaction with Helium because no nuclear reaction is possible. None occurs with Argon because the central charge may be too high, and the reaction would take so long as to be undetectable. There is no reaction in vacuum because there is nothing to fuse with. Not sure about Nitrogen. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:21:58 +1000: Hi, [snip] Oops. I would offer the following suggestion. Hydrino molecules fuse with either O18 from Oxygen/air, or with D2 in Hydrogen gas to create either energetic alphas in the case of O18, or (T p)/(He3 n) in the case of D2. The D2 reaction is of course wrong. H2 + D probably - He3 + fast electrons/ gammas. (One proton from the Hy2 tunneling into the D nucleus). Note also that the reported reaction under H2 is likely to be weaker due to the scarcity of D in Hydrogen gas, compared to the relative abundance of O18 in Oxygen. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Electrons of a few hundred volts, which is the best explanation offered by the author, has the problem you mention: absence of the radiation signature in a vacuum. Unless, that is, the electrons are not primary (from the sample) but instead are coming from the oxygen (air) itself. How could that be? Why wouldn't electrons also come from helium? Is this a supra-chemical reaction similar to an Auger cascade? Also, since the radiation effect seems to be absent with helium and argon present, both of which are hydrino catalysts, one might assume that the Mills' hydrino - Hy- (if it exists at all in nature) could not be involved in this. However, IF the hydrino is real and is created through the loading of hydrogen or deuterium into a Pd matrix, and then gradually seeps out during the film-exposure stage (many hours) - as a hydride, then that scenario could explain this. It is the only scenario which I can imagine which fits the facts, and still requires that the species have the same preferential affinity for oxygen which hydrogen has. The Hy- ion, hydrino-hydride would act like a heavy electron and would replace one of the inner electrons in the O2 molecule, and then the expelled Auger electron from the oxygen would be expected to have that range of potential (few hundred volts) which is witnessed. Nice experiment, if it can be trusted. Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf These results are baffling because the reaction only occurs in the presence of air. It does not work with a vacuum, helium or nitrogen gas (p. 2).
