Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This is the sort of thing that makes me think that the primary energy release mode is via fast particles, e.g. protons, alphas, or even heavier nuclei (from a clean fission reaction). These don't usually produce much in the way of gamma radiation. Fast electrons may also be produced that would produce some x-rays that may be reported as gammas. What are ways, known or hypothesized, to preferentially get fast particles? Also, what are your impressions of Boris Ivlev's interference thesis? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2357.pdf Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
I wrote: What are ways, known or hypothesized, to preferentially get fast particles? Sorry about this question -- this is sort of the big one, I suppose. There's catalysis of helium by way of fractional hydrogen, for example. You may have even already answered this question. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:43:52 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This is the sort of thing that makes me think that the primary energy release mode is via fast particles, e.g. protons, alphas, or even heavier nuclei (from a clean fission reaction). These don't usually produce much in the way of gamma radiation. Fast electrons may also be produced that would produce some x-rays that may be reported as gammas. What are ways, known or hypothesized, to preferentially get fast particles? As already pointed out, you don't need to do anything special to preferentially get fast particles. Nature already prefers that method. Because the reaction time is very much shorter than for gamma radiation. As an example, take the conventional D+D reaction. Only very rarely do you get D+D= He4 + gamma. Most of the time you get either T or He3, despite the fact that the latter two reactions have a much lower energy yield than He4. It's simply a matter of fast particle de-energizing being far more probable because it's faster. IOW if you have a nucleus that has become energized through fusion (used in the broadest sense) that has multiple pathways via which it can lose that energy, then all those ways will get used, but the ones that take the least time are most likely to occur. When two pathways take about the same time (e.g. two equal particle emission pathways), then the most probable outcome is the one where the most stable nuclei remain. Also, what are your impressions of Boris Ivlev's interference thesis? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2357.pdf Interesting, and possibly correct (as far as I am able to judge, which isn't very far ;) but just one of many theories that may apply. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 12:27 PM 7/11/2012, David Roberson wrote: Abd, do you have information concerning the relative magnitude of the power input drop relative to the nominal value in its absence? Are we speaking of a large percentage change? The change is significant. I saw this in certain data, and discovered that a number of researchers in the field were familiar with it. Looking at the ENEA replication of the Energetic Technologies SuperWave work, a dc input experiment has a plot of Pin, Pout, and electrolyte temperature. There are two episodes of elevated temperature and XP. Both show a sudden drop in input power preceding the elevated temperature and XP. That is, the first sign of the anomaly is the reduction of input power. The increase in temperature/XP follows immediately. The paper is Replication of Condensed Matter Heat Production, by McKubre et al, ACS LENR Sourcebook, 2008, pp 219-247. The chart is on p. 240, and it is discussed on p. 236. McKubre et al ascribe the reduction of resistance to local heating: During the excess power burst the input power reduces due to the strong heating of the cathode and electrolyte canusing a reduction of the cathode interfacial impedance and the electrolyte resistivity (at constant dc durrent). It is not clear from the data that the reduction is due to local heating, because the reduction is not during the excess power burst. It precedes it, slightly. However, the excess power burst is measured through the temperature of the cell (not the cathode), so there will be a delay. From the data presented, it seems difficult or impossible to distinguish between a very local heating -- in the interface layer, which is quite thin -- and a reduction in impedance from a different cause, such as increased ionization. These heat episodes were with the power supply operating in constant current mode. This power supply mode can hold current constant very accurately, with a response time in the order of microseconds. So a reduction in input power is a reduction in measured voltage, thus represents a decrease in cell resistance. The reduction in input power cannot be the cause of the increase in temperature, one would expect the reversed effect, in fact. We'd think that reduced input power would result in reduced temperature, except for the anomalous effect creating apparent XP, excess power. In that chart, input power is quite constant until this anomaly shows up, for over three hours as shown on the plot. Input power drops, the first episode, from 200 mW to about 50 mW. Since current is constant, this represents a resistance being cut by 75%. The resistance then increases back to *almost* what it was before, after a few minutes at most. (One wishes for the raw data! I am sure they are collecting data at a much higher rate than they are plotting!) Some level of XP remains, input power slowly rises to the previous level, then it drops again, not so far this time, but again abruptly. 200 mW down to about 130 mW. Again the output temperature rises, to an even higher level. This time the lowered resistance is sustained, quite flat, for almost two hours. When the resistance again abruptly rises, the output power gradually falls. Looking at the other chart in the paper showing a fast episode, the L30 experiment, we see a fast rise in temperature simultaneously with the resistance drop. They represent the same plot time. In this case the time scale has been expanded, there are 18 data points per 0.2 hour. That would be 40 seconds per plot point. I can't disentangle the timing of the onset, though, because the critical transient is obscured under the heavier plot line for the Output power. It is quite obvious that researchers have not considered the resistance reduction to be very important, or it would have been plotted differently. This experiment is puzzling, because output power was substantially less than input power, though rising to meet it. Just before the transient, the input power was at about 130 mW, and the output power had risen to roughly 110 mW. What I'm used to seeing with CF XP bursts is that XP is running at about zero before the burst. Here it may have been negative. The analysis looks at this power burst and, considering calorimeter characteristics, they estimate it as equivalent to 7 W for 600 seconds. The initial purpose of my inquiry is not to explain the effect, but to examine and characterize it. How reproducible is it? Some of the data I've seen shows that it is quite reproducible. Lots of CF data is not presented in a way to make it visible. However, given the effect, we can speculate a bit about the cause. Something rather drastic is happening in these cells, and it's associated with power bursts. Notice that if the cause is the temperature rise of the interfacial layer, this is strongly indicative that the power burst is being sourced at or near the surface of the cathode, not
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 03:00 PM 7/11/2012, Rich Murray wrote: maybe, the cathode becomes coated with many micro and nano bubbles, raising its surface electrical resistance -- then micro and nano explosions on the surface, which quickly becomes much more rugged with tractal geometry, expose the metal directly to the electrolyte, with reduced average electrical resistance -- check this with microphones able to hear very brief, tiny micro and nano explosions -- This effect would be quite visible, if large enough to affect resistance in this way. Notice that with some observations of this effect, the lowered resistance persists and is sustained, along with sustained excess heat. That indicates that a single transient phenomenon like bubble-blowing-off is not the cause, that wouldn't last for more than a minute or two, at most given bubble generation rates. Bubble noise is well-known in this work, it shows up when you look at voltage with high data rate and no averaging. So, with this theory, there would be a rapid transient (the effect described) and bubble noise would disappear for a short time. Easy to spot. can this be done with unusual electrolytes at a few degrees above absolute zero? -- then the explosions might be more easily detectable as sounds and light flashes -- can verify any subtle nucear reactions -- strive to set up micro and nano scale experiments to allow detection and precise measurement of individual events ... Rich, you are to be congratulated for an ability come up with utterly preposterous ideas. Electrolytes at a few degrees above absolute zero, when nearly everything is frozen utterly solid? This is an electrolytic effect, with a deuterium oxide electrolyte (by the way, the effect has been seen with light water as well, another story. Less well established, for sure.) The FPHE is known to be generally enhanced at higher temperatures. We expect LENR to be non-existent at very low temperatures, at least this kind of LENR. Muon-catalyzed LENR is only operable at those very low temperatures, the formation of muonic hydrogen would be very transient at higher temperatures, I'd assume. Basically, nobody with resources is even going to think of looking there, and it makes no sense. We do know that deuterium at close to absolute zero, and even under very high pressure, doesn't fuse Good thing, too. Or we'd be minus at least one lab, the first one to try it.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 02:44 PM 7/11/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Could this be an indication of the onset of ballistic conduction in some micro-/nano-channels? I first want to know what this is before going much into possible explanations! The proposed explanation here seems overly complex to me, though. I'd prefer to look at what is close to what is already known, unless and until those ideas are exhausted. There are explanations that are fairly obvious as possibilities: 1. Local substantial heating, which could be due to LENR or to some other heat-generating effect. The key would be that the heating need only affect, initially, the interface layer, which is where the bulk of the cell resistance lives. It is where the electrochemical work is being done. This local heating only would show up with delay and with lesser temperature rise in the bulk electrolyte, where cell temperature is being measured. 2. Ionization, again in the interface layer, due to charged particle radiation. There are already indications that such radiation exists. If this is the case, it is of major interest because it would be a radiation effect, directly proportional to the nuclear reaction rate, providing an immediate tell for it. Even the local heating theory is of great interest, because it seems to be the first sign that appears of substantial heating. It's sudden, which makes chemical explanations more difficult, though not impossible. Both mechanisms could be operating, and any quantitative analysis should consider both. If we were looking only at this effect, we'd need to include non-nuclear explanations for the heat. In any given experiment, there can be non-nuclear origin for excess heat, but in some of this work, helium measurement has shown that the calorimetry is at least approximately correct, and that the origin of the excess heat is nuclear, i.e., helium is the ash. We do not need to keep reinventing the wheel just because some people don't know how to put together an axle with spokes or wheels that will work and not break.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil Gee, how could I say? Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? Gee, how could I say? Doorbell rings. Could it be some million-dollar giveaway? How could I say? Maybe I'll just answer the door and see who is there. *What is this effect? Under what conditions does it happen? What can be seen to be consistent about it? Anything?* What torpedoed the discovery of the FPHE in the first place was speculation about the cause, with most of the physics community imagining that if it was real, it must be X, and X wouldn't look like this, therefore it wasn't real. And most of the few others imagining that it was Y, which was preposterous and with very little foundation and certainly no proof. And only a few actually persisting with the question, How does this behave? What actually happens? As evidence from these few accumulated, we came to the point where we can actually say a little that is solid. We still don't know what the hell is going on, really, but we can now say that the probability is very high that the FPHE is a result of deuterium being transmuted to helium. How? We don't know. Lots of people have lots of guesses. In order to discriminate between these guesses, we need a lot more data. We do not collect data sitting at a computer screen typing out our opinions, fantasies, nor even what we know. I am, with this request for information, beginning the process of gathering what is actually known, as to a detail that might have some significance. When what is known has been collected and collated, further experiment may be suggested. That's how science actually works, other than through sheer luck. We do know, now, that Pons and Fleischmann were very lucky, If their batch of palladium had been ordinary, they would probably have seen nothing.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 03:19 PM 7/11/2012, Nigel Dyer wrote: I would agree that looking at the physical state of the water/bubbles at the surface of the electrode is a good idea. There was some work done many years ago on the sound of various chemical reactions. The sound of jelly setting was particularly odd (another situation where water is important). It was never followed up to the best of my knowledge It's not a bad idea at all. However, the idea that a bunch of bubbles are blown away at once could explain a transient reduction in resistance, but not a sustained one, which is often seen. It would be easy to see a bubble noise effect in the raw data, collected without the averaging that is often done (because researchers are generally interested in total heat input, integrated over time). Bubble noise would completely -- or largely -- disappear for a time until new bubbles built up to be released. The resistance would gradually rise until bubbles were replaced. There would be an echo of the effect as the new bubbles would *tend* to be released at the same time. I don't think this matches the data I've seen. At all. Yes, monitoring of cell sound would also show this effect, in various ways. It would also show an effect from any event that generates high local heat, enough to suddenly boil the water in a small volume.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 10:29 PM 7/11/2012, David Roberson wrote: A thought occurred to me concerning the drop in equivalent resistance that this thread covers. It would be quite important if the drop were due to a reverse voltage generated by the LENR mechanism that could be improved in such a manner as to act as an electric source of energy. How wonderful it would be if we would be so lucky as to discover an electric source of power that directly converts LENR activity into DC power with a decent efficiency. If I recall the Patterson Cell used DC input to generate heat output, maybe this coupling can be reversed in some fashion. This concept is just open minded dreaming. I will return to reality ASAP! No problem. The FPHE almost certainly involves the generation of helium from deuterium fusion. The helium will very likely end up, regardless of the mechanism, as positive helium ions. By the nature of this approach, half of that ionization would end up in the interface layer. When those ions are formed, the involved electrons are left behind. The result is a charge imbalance, with the surface layer being ionized positively, relatively, with respect to the metal. This is already the normal state. One way to look at this is that the ionization reduces the work necessary to create that charge difference, that voltage between the electrolyte and the cathode metal. I.e., the resistance is reduced. Now, if the electrolytic voltage could be reduced, but the reaction sustained, there would remain a voltage induced. However, the power made available in that way would be tiny compared to the power released as heat through the FPHE. The efficiency would be *horrible.* Consider that if one finds a way to steer the nuclear reaction involved so that the products have much higher energy as particles, sure, one could create a power generator. However, one would also create substantial radiation and radiation byproducts, including radioactive isotopes, probably. Not likely to be a useful approach. Thanks for playing Flights-o-Fancy, though.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? An alternative to fusion is the lowering of the coulomb barrier which increases the probability of alpha particle emissions from the heavy element nucleus. If light element ash is present, this tends to suggest that the cause of the alpha partial emissions from the cathode is a result of a fission process of the cathode material and a partial lowering in the coulomb barrier. Rossi explained the appearance of light element ash in his used powder as a fission process back in 2011. If true, how could fission be happening? Keep up the good work and your excelent posts; Kine regards: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil Gee, how could I say? Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? Gee, how could I say? Doorbell rings. Could it be some million-dollar giveaway? How could I say? Maybe I'll just answer the door and see who is there. *What is this effect? Under what conditions does it happen? What can be seen to be consistent about it? Anything?* What torpedoed the discovery of the FPHE in the first place was speculation about the cause, with most of the physics community imagining that if it was real, it must be X, and X wouldn't look like this, therefore it wasn't real. And most of the few others imagining that it was Y, which was preposterous and with very little foundation and certainly no proof. And only a few actually persisting with the question, How does this behave? What actually happens? As evidence from these few accumulated, we came to the point where we can actually say a little that is solid. We still don't know what the hell is going on, really, but we can now say that the probability is very high that the FPHE is a result of deuterium being transmuted to helium. How? We don't know. Lots of people have lots of guesses. In order to discriminate between these guesses, we need a lot more data. We do not collect data sitting at a computer screen typing out our opinions, fantasies, nor even what we know. I am, with this request for information, beginning the process of gathering what is actually known, as to a detail that might have some significance. When what is known has been collected and collated, further experiment may be suggested. That's how science actually works, other than through sheer luck. We do know, now, that Pons and Fleischmann were very lucky, If their batch of palladium had been ordinary, they would probably have seen nothing.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
An alternative to fusion is the lowering of the coulomb barrier which increases the probability of alpha particle emissions from the heavy element nucleus. I must not understand your point here. If the barrier is lowered then it would seem that an alpha particle would exhibit less of a coulomb repulsion away from the nucleus. Perhaps you are suggesting that more alphas would be generated if the source elements could get through the barrier easier? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? If light element ash is present, this tends to suggest that the cause of the alpha partial emissions from the cathode is a result of a fission process of the cathode material and a partial lowering in the coulomb barrier. Rossi explained the appearance of light element ash in his used powder as a fission process back in 2011. If true, how could fission be happening? Keep up the good work and your excelent posts; Kine regards: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil Gee, how could I say? Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? Gee, how could I say? Doorbell rings. Could it be some million-dollar giveaway? How could I say? Maybe I'll just answer the door and see who is there. *What is this effect? Under what conditions does it happen? What can be seen to be consistent about it? Anything?* What torpedoed the discovery of the FPHE in the first place was speculation about the cause, with most of the physics community imagining that if it was real, it must be X, and X wouldn't look like this, therefore it wasn't real. And most of the few others imagining that it was Y, which was preposterous and with very little foundation and certainly no proof. And only a few actually persisting with the question, How does this behave? What actually happens? As evidence from these few accumulated, we came to the point where we can actually say a little that is solid. We still don't know what the hell is going on, really, but we can now say that the probability is very high that the FPHE is a result of deuterium being transmuted to helium. How? We don't know. Lots of people have lots of guesses. In order to discriminate between these guesses, we need a lot more data. We do not collect data sitting at a computer screen typing out our opinions, fantasies, nor even what we know. I am, with this request for information, beginning the process of gathering what is actually known, as to a detail that might have some significance. When what is known has been collected and collated, further experiment may be suggested. That's how science actually works, other than through sheer luck. We do know, now, that Pons and Fleischmann were very lucky, If their batch of palladium had been ordinary, they would probably have seen nothing.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:59:54 -0700: Hi, [snip] Ed Storms has estimated that to generate 1 watt of power, a typical output, by way of helium production, you would need on the order of 10^12 reactions per second. (I think this is probably for a 1 cm^3 volume, but I am not sure.) 1 W = 1 J/sec = 6.24E18 eV/sec. If the formation of each He4 particle yields 23.8 MeV, then you need 2.6E11 / sec to produce one Watt. Volume is irrelevant. So I would probably need a 99.99 percent success rate in order for this approach to succeed. No, you just need that many reactions / second. The percentage success rate then depends on how many particles you have trying to react. E.g. if you have 100 times more pairs than you are getting He4, then your success rate is 1%. The evidence for gammas is quite strong. I recall seeing in one chart for an experiment hundreds of events for each of a number of energies in the gamma range. The main problem is that they are at levels much lower than that that would be expected for 1 watt of power, as mentioned above. But they are significant. This is the sort of thing that makes me think that the primary energy release mode is via fast particles, e.g. protons, alphas, or even heavier nuclei (from a clean fission reaction). These don't usually produce much in the way of gamma radiation. Fast electrons may also be produced that would produce some x-rays that may be reported as gammas. Right now I'm wondering whether they arise from secondary reactions or from primary ones. If they only arise from secondary reactions, I don't suppose you would need a mechanism like gamma quenching. But I should also add that it would be surprising if charged electrons and protons moving through a powerful magnetic field (assuming one sometimes arises) did not give off synchrotron radiation, even if all the radiation for the system is to radiate and decrease the energy of the particles. There is still plenty of room for magic. Whether there is gamma quenching or not, somehow you have to get from hydrogen or deuterium plus something else to tritium, which has been observed in small but significant amounts. Tritium is the isotope that has the highest neutron to proton ratio of all the isotopes with a reasonable half life. IMO that makes it a likely candidate to be the result of a fission reaction of heavier nuclei (since these have an excess of neutrons). Of course another possibility is the ordinary d+d - T+p reaction, though explaining the absence of He3 is difficult. (Mills had shot at it in his earlier work by suggesting that in a Deuterino molecule the protons try to stay as far away from one another as possible, resulting in the neutrons being closer, which in turn meant that T was the more likely fusion product. However muon catalyzed fusion (which is similar), yields T/He3 ratios approximately the same as those from hot fusion, so Mills' early reasoning may be a bit suspect.) BTW another possibility is that when two Deuterons are close together, it's easier for a neutron to hop from one nucleus to the other than for a proton, as the neutron has no Coulomb barrier to contend with. This may result in T formation by preference. BTW He3 with an electron trapped in the nucleus (as per Horace's theory), might look like T (since the electron would compensate for the charge of one of the protons), especially if the electron were occasionally able to escape, making it appear to be radioactive. In my ignorance I am not able to get from p+p or p+D to tritium or helium-3, a decay product of tritium, without electron capture or something even more mysterious. As long as D is present, then the D+D reaction can't be ruled out. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
The coulomb barrier is symmetric. It is just as hard to get a proton out of the nucleus as it is to get a proton into a it. In 1928, George Gamow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow had solved the theory of the alpha decay via tunneling. The alpha particle is trapped in a potential well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_wellby the nucleus. Classically, it is forbidden to escape, but according to the then newly-discovered principles of quantum mechanicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics, it has a tiny (but non-zero) probability of tunnelinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling through the barrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_barrier and appearing on the other side to escape the nucleus. Gamow solved a model potential for the nucleus and derived, from first principles, a relationship between the half-life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-lifeof the decay, and the energy of the emission, which had been previously discovered empirically, and was known as the Geiger–Nuttall lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Nuttall_law . When the coulomb barrier is suppressed, the tunneling rate of proton clusters increases. The lower the coulomb barrier gets the bigger chunks of elements that can get out of the nucleus. Since the kinetic energy of the emitted nuclear fragment is always approximately the same, by the Geiger-Nuttall law, what changes is the decay constants. A lower coulomb barrier means a higher decay constant. A simple way to derive this law is to consider an alpha particlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particlein the atomic nucleus as a particle in a box http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box. The particle is in a bound state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bound_state because of the presence of the strong interactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interactionpotential. It will constantly bounce from one side to the other, and due to the possibility of quantum tunnelinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelingby the wave though the potential barrier, each time it bounces, there will be a small likelihood for it to escape. Knowledge of this quantum mechanical effect enables one to obtain this law, including coefficients, via direct calculation. It was this calculation that was first performed by physicist George Gamowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamowin 1928. I speculate that what initially causes instability in the nucleus is the tunneling of a heavy electron into it through a depressed coulomb barrier. This electron changes a proton into a neutron and sometimes the nucleus must reorder itself via nuclear decay. But don’t be confused; heavy electron tunneling into the nucleus is just one of many LENR mechanisms that transmute elements. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: An alternative to fusion is the lowering of the coulomb barrier which increases the probability of alpha particle emissions from the heavy element nucleus. I must not understand your point here. If the barrier is lowered then it would seem that an alpha particle would exhibit less of a coulomb repulsion away from the nucleus. Perhaps you are suggesting that more alphas would be generated if the source elements could get through the barrier easier? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? If light element ash is present, this tends to suggest that the cause of the alpha partial emissions from the cathode is a result of a fission process of the cathode material and a partial lowering in the coulomb barrier. Rossi explained the appearance of light element ash in his used powder as a fission process back in 2011. If true, how could fission be happening? Keep up the good work and your excelent posts; Kine regards: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil Gee, how could I say? Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? Gee, how could I say? Doorbell rings. Could it be some
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 03:49 PM 7/12/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. The indicator that helium is coming from fusion is that it is correlated to anomalous heat, in the FPHE, at approximately the deuterium fusion ratio. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. Well, from the beginning, it was assumed that helium could not be the product. Helium only came to be known as the predominant ash when it was measured as correlated with the heat. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? I'm not at all interested in this question; the question is about the FPHE, which is an effect in palladium deuteride. I would not expect helium as the product from NiH electrolytic experiments, unless the reaction is due to deuterium impurity in the light water. As to gas loaded experiments, I expect the same ash as with electrolytic experiments, but this thread is only about a drop in resistance of the electrolyte (technically of the whole cell, but the resistance of the electrodes is small). (The resistance of the electrolyte appears largely in the interface layer, a thin layer adjacent to the surface where the electrochemical reactions take place. This layer may be particularly sensitive to heat generated at or near the surface, as well as to short-range ionizing radiation sourced at or near the surface. The FPHE reaction is generally considered a surface reaction. Storms is attributing it to phenomena that take place in cracks, again at the surface. The helium is found in two places: in the evolved gas -- and thus probably in the bulk electrolyte, and in a thin layer near the surface of the cathode.)
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
*The indicator that helium is coming from fusion is that it is correlated to anomalous heat, in the FPHE, at approximately the deuterium fusion ratio. * This assumption must be tested. If the precise composition of the reaction ash from the reaction is studied in detail, assumptions about the reaction can be verified. The material going into the reaction must be known with great purity to give credence to the ash analysis. For your convenience, this from A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion by Edmund Storms *Recently, and with great difficulty, evidence for nuclear reactions other than fusion is accumulating[227, 228]. These are called transmutation reactions and involve elements much heavier than hydrogen to which hydrogen has been added to their nucleus. Such reactions are found to occur in many environments, including living cells, and when a variety of methods are used. Indeed, the more often these reactions are sought, the more often elements are found in unexpected amounts and/or with abnormal isotopic ratios. Of course, some of the elements result from the unexpected concentration of normally occurring impurities or from simple error. Some proposed reaction products are clearly impossible because energy must be accumulated to account for the mass increase.* *Nevertheless, some of the observed products appear to be produced by LENR along with energy generation. Some of the isotopes are radioactive but most are not. Most evidence is based on using the electrolytic or gas discharge methods, or a combination thereof. Unexpected elements seem to result from many types of reactions, including fusion involving one or more hydrogen isotopes and a heavy nucleus, fusion between two different heavy nuclei, and fission of a heavy nucleus that normally does not experience this type of reaction. This type of reaction has been very difficult to explain using the mechanisms now (2012) being proposed and difficult to explore because the necessary analytical tools are not widely available and are expensive to use. * * * * * * * * Miley et al.[39, 229] have studied this process in some detail using electrolysis of H2O. A spectrum of nuclear products is found, with high concentrations falling into four mass ranges of 20-30, 50-80, 110-130, and 190-210 [230]. Mizuno et al.[13, 231] have also explored the subject in detail using mainly electrolytes based on D2O. Abnormal isotopic ratios of Hg, Fe and Si were found on the cathode after this study. Although some minor elements might have resulted from contamination, it is very difficult to understand how major concentrations could come from this source, especially those having abnormal isotopic ratios. Many additional reports are available.[1, 227] * * * On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:49 PM 7/12/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. The indicator that helium is coming from fusion is that it is correlated to anomalous heat, in the FPHE, at approximately the deuterium fusion ratio. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. Well, from the beginning, it was assumed that helium could not be the product. Helium only came to be known as the predominant ash when it was measured as correlated with the heat. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? I'm not at all interested in this question; the question is about the FPHE, which is an effect in palladium deuteride. I would not expect helium as the product from NiH electrolytic experiments, unless the reaction is due to deuterium impurity in the light water. As to gas loaded experiments, I expect the same ash as with electrolytic experiments, but this thread is only about a drop in resistance of the electrolyte (technically of the whole cell, but the resistance of the electrodes is small). (The resistance of the electrolyte appears largely in the interface layer, a thin layer adjacent to the surface where the electrochemical reactions take place. This layer may be particularly sensitive to heat generated at or near the surface, as well as to short-range ionizing radiation sourced at or near the surface. The FPHE reaction is generally considered a surface reaction. Storms is attributing it to phenomena that take place in cracks, again at the surface. The helium is found in two places: in the evolved gas -- and thus probably in the bulk electrolyte, and in a thin layer near the surface of the cathode.)
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
Abd, do you have information concerning the relative magnitude of the power input drop relative to the nominal value in its absence? Are we speaking of a large percentage change? Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 1:04 pm Subject: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect (this was also posted to the private list for CMNS researchers.) It's come to my attention that some researchers have frequently bserved a sudden drop in resistance of electrolytic cells associated ith the onset of XP bursts. I'm seeking to document this. In experiments where there is electrolytic power in constant current ode, this shows up as a drop in voltage, usually shown in reports as drop in input power, if input power is plotted. This seems to appear after substantial periods of stability in resistance. One paper which commented on the drop attributed it to heating of the lectrolyte close to the cathode. If so, this signal shows up before athodic heating has had time to increase cell temperature. The drop s abrupt in what I've seen. There is another possible explanation, though, which would be an ncrease in conductivity in that region due to ionization induced by hort-range charged particle radiation. This radiation could be well elow the Hagelstein limit and still have this effect, if it riginates at or very near the cathode surface. (The Hagelstein imit is a limit set by Peter Hagestein in a Naturwissenschaften aper studying the expected behavior of charged particle radiation. he absence of predicted effects from high-energy charged particle adiation led him to set a limit of 20 KeV for substantial charged article radiation from cold fusion experiments. If radiation is the cause, the resistance drop may appear even before he reaction has time to raise the temperature of the electrolyte. Hence I'm requesting communication from researchers regarding xperience with CF electrolysis, in regard to resistance reduction or the lack of same), associated with anomalous heat or other ignals of a nuclear reaction. Thanks in advance.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
Could this be an indication of the onset of ballistic conduction in some micro-/nano-channels? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: (this was also posted to the private list for CMNS researchers.) It's come to my attention that some researchers have frequently observed a sudden drop in resistance of electrolytic cells associated with the onset of XP bursts. I'm seeking to document this. In experiments where there is electrolytic power in constant current mode, this shows up as a drop in voltage, usually shown in reports as a drop in input power, if input power is plotted. This seems to appear after substantial periods of stability in resistance. One paper which commented on the drop attributed it to heating of the electrolyte close to the cathode. If so, this signal shows up before cathodic heating has had time to increase cell temperature. The drop is abrupt in what I've seen. There is another possible explanation, though, which would be an increase in conductivity in that region due to ionization induced by short-range charged particle radiation. This radiation could be well below the Hagelstein limit and still have this effect, if it originates at or very near the cathode surface. (The Hagelstein limit is a limit set by Peter Hagestein in a Naturwissenschaften paper studying the expected behavior of charged particle radiation. The absence of predicted effects from high-energy charged particle radiation led him to set a limit of 20 KeV for substantial charged particle radiation from cold fusion experiments. If radiation is the cause, the resistance drop may appear even before the reaction has time to raise the temperature of the electrolyte. Hence I'm requesting communication from researchers regarding experience with CF electrolysis, in regard to resistance reduction (or the lack of same), associated with anomalous heat or other signals of a nuclear reaction. Thanks in advance.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
maybe, the cathode becomes coated with many micro and nano bubbles, raising its surface electrical resistance -- then micro and nano explosions on the surface, which quickly becomes much more rugged with tractal geometry, expose the metal directly to the electrolyte, with reduced average electrical resistance -- check this with microphones able to hear very brief, tiny micro and nano explosions -- can this be done with unusual electrolytes at a few degrees above absolute zero? -- then the explosions might be more easily detectable as sounds and light flashes -- can verify any subtle nucear reactions -- strive to set up micro and nano scale experiments to allow detection and precise measurement of individual events ...
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:44 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Could this be an indication of the onset of ballistic conduction in some micro-/nano-channels? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: (this was also posted to the private list for CMNS researchers.) It's come to my attention that some researchers have frequently observed a sudden drop in resistance of electrolytic cells associated with the onset of XP bursts. I'm seeking to document this. In experiments where there is electrolytic power in constant current mode, this shows up as a drop in voltage, usually shown in reports as a drop in input power, if input power is plotted. This seems to appear after substantial periods of stability in resistance. One paper which commented on the drop attributed it to heating of the electrolyte close to the cathode. If so, this signal shows up before cathodic heating has had time to increase cell temperature. The drop is abrupt in what I've seen. There is another possible explanation, though, which would be an increase in conductivity in that region due to ionization induced by short-range charged particle radiation. This radiation could be well below the Hagelstein limit and still have this effect, if it originates at or very near the cathode surface. (The Hagelstein limit is a limit set by Peter Hagestein in a Naturwissenschaften paper studying the expected behavior of charged particle radiation. The absence of predicted effects from high-energy charged particle radiation led him to set a limit of 20 KeV for substantial charged particle radiation from cold fusion experiments. If radiation is the cause, the resistance drop may appear even before the reaction has time to raise the temperature of the electrolyte. Hence I'm requesting communication from researchers regarding experience with CF electrolysis, in regard to resistance reduction (or the lack of same), associated with anomalous heat or other signals of a nuclear reaction. Thanks in advance.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
I would agree that looking at the physical state of the water/bubbles at the surface of the electrode is a good idea. There was some work done many years ago on the sound of various chemical reactions. The sound of jelly setting was particularly odd (another situation where water is important). It was never followed up to the best of my knowledge Nigel On 11/07/2012 21:00, Rich Murray wrote: maybe, the cathode becomes coated with many micro and nano bubbles, raising its surface electrical resistance -- then micro and nano explosions on the surface, which quickly becomes much more rugged with tractal geometry, expose the metal directly to the electrolyte, with reduced average electrical resistance -- check this with microphones able to hear very brief, tiny micro and nano explosions -- can this be done with unusual electrolytes at a few degrees above absolute zero? -- then the explosions might be more easily detectable as sounds and light flashes -- can verify any subtle nucear reactions -- strive to set up micro and nano scale experiments to allow detection and precise measurement of individual events ...
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: It's come to my attention that some researchers have frequently observed a sudden drop in resistance of electrolytic cells associated with the onset of XP bursts. I'm seeking to document this. I skimmed over something to this effect in a paper by A.B. Karabut or perhaps A.G. Lipson or Miley. I do not recall which paper. I didn't think much of it when I read about it. But to tease out the idea -- where there is a sudden drop in resistance, there is high conductivity and the possibility of superconductivity. And where there is a high current flow, there would be a strong magnetic field. What I like about strong magnetic fields is that they bring gamma quenching just a little bit more into the realm of possibility. They could, for instance, lead to synchrotron radiation, although synchrotron radiation might imply a 511 keV peak. But I do not have a clear sense that gamma quenching would require synchrotron radiation; from the reading I have done so far, the main requirement seems simply to be a dense field of soft photons brought about through whatever means. The long axis of an elongated optical cavity could potentially provide such a field. If the motion of the interacting species in the cavity were longitudinal rather than thermal, you might expect the majority of gammas to be emitted in the direction of the length of the cavity rather than towards one of the walls. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
I wrote: What I like about strong magnetic fields is that they bring gamma quenching just a little bit more into the realm of possibility. They could, for instance, lead to synchrotron radiation, although synchrotron radiation might imply a 511 keV peak. I omitted the important point about pair production -- it's the pair production that could potentially imply a 511 keV peak (I'm not sure). What I should have said is that it might be possible to have gamma quenching, perhaps assisted by synchrotron radiation or perhaps not, without necessarily getting to pair production. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
Eric, I see that you are looking into gamma quenching as a method to control the dangerous gammas which are expected to be released by the reactions. Do you think that the process is virtually perfect such that there are essentially no gammas escaping to the outside world? I might accept that 99.9% of them are taken out by this process but that would still leave many to be detected outside of the devices. For this reason I have been seeking a process that keeps the gammas from forming in the reaction at any time. A quantum coupling of some form between the proton entering the nucleus and many other free ones nearby might fill the need. The action of my demon discussed earlier suggests that something of this nature might be active and possible. A thought occurred to me concerning the drop in equivalent resistance that this thread covers. It would be quite important if the drop were due to a reverse voltage generated by the LENR mechanism that could be improved in such a manner as to act as an electric source of energy. How wonderful it would be if we would be so lucky as to discover an electric source of power that directly converts LENR activity into DC power with a decent efficiency. If I recall the Patterson Cell used DC input to generate heat output, maybe this coupling can be reversed in some fashion. This concept is just open minded dreaming. I will return to reality ASAP! Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect I wrote: What I like about strong magnetic fields is that they bring gamma quenching just a little bit more into the realm of possibility. They could, for instance, lead to synchrotron radiation, although synchrotron radiation might imply a 511 keV peak. I omitted the important point about pair production -- it's the pair production that could potentially imply a 511 keV peak (I'm not sure). What I should have said is that it might be possible to have gamma quenching, perhaps assisted by synchrotron radiation or perhaps not, without necessarily getting to pair production. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
You wrote: Eric, I see that you are looking into gamma quenching as a method to control the dangerous gammas which are expected to be released by the reactions. Yes, unfortunately. It took me a little while to move away from neutron production, so there's still hope that I'll give up on gamma quenching as well at some point. Do you think that the process is virtually perfect such that there are essentially no gammas escaping to the outside world? I might accept that 99.9% of them are taken out by this process but that would still leave many to be detected outside of the devices. Ed Storms has estimated that to generate 1 watt of power, a typical output, by way of helium production, you would need on the order of 10^12 reactions per second. (I think this is probably for a 1 cm^3 volume, but I am not sure.) So I would probably need a 99.99 percent success rate in order for this approach to succeed. The evidence for gammas is quite strong. I recall seeing in one chart for an experiment hundreds of events for each of a number of energies in the gamma range. The main problem is that they are at levels much lower than that that would be expected for 1 watt of power, as mentioned above. But they are significant. Right now I'm wondering whether they arise from secondary reactions or from primary ones. If they only arise from secondary reactions, I don't suppose you would need a mechanism like gamma quenching. But I should also add that it would be surprising if charged electrons and protons moving through a powerful magnetic field (assuming one sometimes arises) did not give off synchrotron radiation, even if all the radiation for the system is to radiate and decrease the energy of the particles. There is still plenty of room for magic. Whether there is gamma quenching or not, somehow you have to get from hydrogen or deuterium plus something else to tritium, which has been observed in small but significant amounts. In my ignorance I am not able to get from p+p or p+D to tritium or helium-3, a decay product of tritium, without electron capture or something even more mysterious. It is perhaps this kind of problem leads Ed Storms to propose a type of slow compacting of protons screened by electrons that are sandwiched between them. I'm finding it easier to come at the LENR problem from the macroscopic thermodynamics of the system than to look at specific reactions. I would not be surprised if we eventually stumbled upon irreducible magic of some kind with regard to reactions. For this reason I have been seeking a process that keeps the gammas from forming in the reaction at any time. A quantum coupling of some form between the proton entering the nucleus and many other free ones nearby might fill the need. The action of my demon discussed earlier suggests that something of this nature might be active and possible. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this played out. Robin has warned about the strength of the strong force -- I can only imagine your demon will have its hands full gently easing the proton or neutron into the nucleus. A thought occurred to me concerning the drop in equivalent resistance that this thread covers. It would be quite important if the drop were due to a reverse voltage generated by the LENR mechanism that could be improved in such a manner as to act as an electric source of energy. How wonderful it would be if we would be so lucky as to discover an electric source of power that directly converts LENR activity into DC power with a decent efficiency. If LENR is the holy grail, direct conversion to electricity is the holy grail of the holy grail. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
I wrote: In my ignorance I am not able to get from p+p or p+D to tritium or helium-3, a decay product of tritium, without electron capture or something even more mysterious. I should clarify that what I'm hoping to find is an aneutronic reaction to get to tritium or helium-3. If you allow (high energy) daughter neutrons, then it's not difficult to get to helium-3. I think you can get tritium from deuterium via electron capture, but I don't know if that reaction can be influenced; and, anyway, you would not expect to see deuterium above background since it's already being produced by the deuterium. If you allow 6Li or 10B to be present, I think you can get tritium without daughter neutrons. Or perhaps the level of tritium is on the order of that of detected neutrons -- that would be an interesting correlation to look for. EXFOR is telling me that you can get tritium via proton capture with helium-4 and with carbon and other nuclei. So the mystery is perhaps not as mysterious as I was making it out to be. Since helium-3 is a decay product of tritium, Ed Storms has proposed that it is tritium production that precedes helium-3 production, and any explanation would need to address tritium. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
Eric Walker wrote: Yes, unfortunately. It took me a little while to move away from neutron production, so there's still hope that I'll give up on gamma quenching as well at some point. I think that we should give consideration to every possible concept that arises until Rossi or some of the others supply data revealing actual nuclear ash that has been measured. We could eliminate many ideas in fast order with this one act of mercy on their part. Gamma quenching has plenty of appeal as a way to tame high energy radiation and it might play an important part in the overall process. The evidence for gammas is quite strong. I recall seeing in one chart for an experiment hundreds of events for each of a number of energies in the gamma range. The main problem is that they are at levels much lower than that that would be expected for 1 watt of power, as mentioned above. But they are significant. Right now I'm wondering whether they arise from secondary reactions or from primary ones. If they only arise from secondary reactions, I don't suppose you would need a mechanism like gamma quenching. But I should also add that it would be surprising if charged electrons and protons moving through a powerful magnetic field (assuming one sometimes arises) did not give off synchrotron radiation, even if all the radiation for the system is to radiate and decrease the energy of the particles. I have gone around and around with the gamma shielding discussions in the past and still have many questions. Why would Rossi actually place so much material within his device unless he had a problem with gammas in the past? He stated previously that the lead shield converted the gammas into heat, but I am not sure that he still stands by that idea. I can see how 511 keV gammas due to the beta plus decay of some of the copper isotopes would need shielding, but the number of these gammas would depend upon his nickel isotope mix. Of course this line of thought is only true if he is fusing nickel with hydrogen instead of processes such as Ed Storms and others are suggesting. You mention synchrotron radiation as one source of high energy radiation. I think we can add acceleration of charged particles with or without a magnetic field as another source. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this played out. Robin has warned about the strength of the strong force -- I can only imagine your demon will have its hands full gently easing the proton or neutron into the nucleus. I am sure that the little demon would be a busy guy slowing down the proton as the strong force does its thing, but that is his job. A little help from proton entanglement and he might succeed. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
Eric, I think that tritium naturally undergoes beta decay to form helium-3. This process does not release any neutrons but it has a very slow decay rate which might not demonstrate much helium-3 during our time frame. Helium-4 is a strange acting element. It has an incredible amount of binding energy and it appears that the only way to end up with it as a fusion product is to simultaneously release a heavy nucleon or two when the source nuclei combine. I suspect that the released heavy nucleon allows the large binding energy to be released as kinetic energy keeping the helium intact. I have been reviewing the behavior of helium-4 recently as related to possible LENR paths. I saw somewhere that two deuterium nuclei can fuse into either tritium or helium-3. The helium-3 path releases a dangerous neutron while the tritium path ejects a proton. The ratio is about equal for the production of these items. I suspect that this particular fusion reaction is not active since few neutrons are seen. We do need to consider this expected behavior in light of the fact that it is true for hot fusion and may not apply to LENR. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 12:31 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect I wrote: In my ignorance I am not able to get from p+p or p+D to tritium or helium-3, a decay product of tritium, without electron capture or something even more mysterious. I should clarify that what I'm hoping to find is an aneutronic reaction to get to tritium or helium-3. If you allow (high energy) daughter neutrons, then it's not difficult to get to helium-3. I think you can get tritium from deuterium via electron capture, but I don't know if that reaction can be influenced; and, anyway, you would not expect to see deuterium above background since it's already being produced by the deuterium. If you allow 6Li or 10B to be present, I think you can get tritium without daughter neutrons. Or perhaps the level of tritium is on the order of that of detected neutrons -- that would be an interesting correlation to look for. EXFOR is telling me that you can get tritium via proton capture with helium-4 and with carbon and other nuclei. So the mystery is perhaps not as mysterious as I was making it out to be. Since helium-3 is a decay product of tritium, Ed Storms has proposed that it is tritium production that precedes helium-3 production, and any explanation would need to address tritium. Eric
