At 10:59 am 14-07-04 -0700, you wrote:
>For whatever reason, the subject of "accelerated radioactive decay" may be the most
>neglected concept in free energy research. At the same time, accelerated decay may
>offer an immediate solution to the problem of finding an acceptable transportation
>fuel, or fuel additive, for the future. Here are some further off-the-wall thoughts
>on the prospect that this effort should involve a closer look at both accelerated
>decay and water.
>
>First, I think one reason for the neglect of this subject matter by some scientists
>relates to religious fundamentalism. Some religious zealots have co-opted the
>'accelerated decay' field for their own agenda (yes, there are a few who do care
>about science): which agenda is to justify (unnecessarily) a literal doctrine of
>'creationism' - their interpretation of ancient text which should not require
>scientific justification to begin with, but nevertheless...
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0321acc_beta_decay.asp
>
>Although it has been mentioned before in less detail, a possible but yet unproven
>mechanism to explain energy anomalies with water, including many with other forms of
>LENR, involves the fundamental particle, the *neutron*. The neutron is one of the few
>candidate particles which will decay leaving a large amount of energy with a small
>gamma 'footprint,' so as to be nearly undetectable.
>
>Lets look only at 'accelerated' decay of the neutron for a moment, and forget fusion
>(hot, cold or warm) for the time being. I won't recite here the litany of
>reproducible experimental validations for the concept of accelerated decay, except to
>say that billion-to1 rate changes have been documented, as in the cite above, not to
>mention the Barker patents. And now the concept is being grudgingly accepted by
>mainstream physics.
>
>Free neutrons are unstable with a half life of *about* 636 seconds. Unlike the
>disinformation which you will find in many university-level textbooks, I have
>emphasized the operative word: "about" because one can find cited 'authoritative'
>ranges for the half-life of neutrons in respectable journal literature that go all
>the way from 600 to 1000 seconds, a gigantic range for such a fundamental and
>important particle... and that doesn't include the 'anomalies,' which are many!
>Anecdotal stories from researchers who have tried to determine the neutron half-life,
>and given up in frustration, may sound like science fiction.
>
>At any rate the energy yield is also wildly variable averaging close to 1.3 MeV of
>which a fourth to a half is usually carried away by the electron, but the variation
>is so great that there is no precise footprint. This is about 500,000 times more
>energetic than combustion - actually if you look at from an equal mass standpoint, a
>neutron decay gives about four million times more heat, pound-for-pound than burning
>hydrogen in air. Although there still exists this considerable measure of uncertainty
>as to the precise value of the neutron half-life and why the decay energy is so
>variable, but it is not unfair to suggest that- like with many other forms of beta
>decay, the rate can be massively influenced by strong proximate electric fields. It
>is also probable that the existence of electric fields is the reason why this very
>fundamental value, the neutron half-life, cannot be stated accurately and has not
>been measured by any laboratory with any degree of certainty. The mass-s!
pectrometer, for instance, is an instrument which uses intense electric fields which
probably changes the half-life dramatically.
>
>It is also not well-appreciated that deuterium is unstable, although the half life is
>normally deemed to be so long that it can be, and usually is, ignored for most
>purposes. Why shouldn't it be unstable? - the added neutron in D serves no real
>purpose (except as an energy 'dump' following the 'big bang') and probably interferes
>with atomic charge balance, and we know that two added neutrons (tritium) are rapidly
>unstable. The yield on D decay is over 1.4 MeV. As with the neutron, there still
>exists a considerable measure of uncertainty as to the precise value of deuterium
>half-life, but it is not unfair to suggest that like many other forms of beta decay,
>the deuterium decay rate, which is difficult to distinguish from deuterium
>"stripping" may be influenced by strong proximate electric fields.
>
>Where is all this leading?
>
>In a gallon of water, there is about a gram of 'potentially' free neutrons. At any
>given time most of these are somewhat firmly attached to hydrogen in a deuterium
>nucleus, which exists in one part in 3-6,000 in water, depending on its source. By
>the way, just the gram of neutrons in that gallon of water have the energy equivalent
>of 250-300 gallons of gasoline - and if only one in a hundred neutrons is utilized
>for its decay energy, the water still has an energy content equal to about 3 gallons
>of gasoline.
>
>If both the firmness of that p-n attachment in the D nucleus, and the resultant
>half-life of the free n, can be modulated by proximate electric fields, and also by
>*spin/isospin* coupling (which sounds exotic, but might end up being a mundane
>variable) then many possibilities emerge. In a Farnsworth type Fusor, it has been
>proven beyond any doubt that a non-static electric field of 10,000 volts per CM will
>result in a lot of free neutrons. That works out to a gradient of only one volt per
>micron. Normally this will also be close to the static field strength needed to
>change the decay rate of those neutrons which are freed. Can the two mechanisms ever
>accomplish this simultaneously? And how does one create a non-static electric field
>of this gradient at interatomic distances efficiently?
>
> We know of one way this strong proximate electric field can be accomplished
> efficiently - in fact nature is obliging us part of the way, as we speak, with a
> static high gradient (capacitive field) in "acid rain."
>
>The CO2 and sulfur in the atmosphere creates acid rain which can register a pH of 0
>in many parts of the USA!. Now a pH=0 is maximum acidity; 7 is the neutral point in
>the middle of the scale; 14 = maximum alkalinity (the opposite of acidity). The
>smaller the number on the pH scale, the more acidic the substance. Rain measuring
>between 0 and 5 on the pH scale is acidic and therefore called "acid rain." Small
>number changes on the pH scale actually mean large tenfold increase in acidity,
>which is basically a static capacitive electric field. It is not really static in the
>sense of frozen, but there is no net flux of charge at the macro level.
>
>Is a resultant electric field in water with a pH <1 high enough to strongly influence
>the neutron decay rate of a free neutron? No -certainly it would not be enough alone
>- without an external boost to increase the gradient and to change the static field
>into a low current flux. Obviously, the moving charge in batteries themselves will
>give some boost, and you can actually measure some variable radioactivity with any
>car battery (with a sensitive instrument) even though the flux is ionic. There are
>'standard' alternative explanations for this radioactivity, but it would make a good
>'science fair' type experiment to link up a few dozen car batteries in a series
>resonant circuit (where some of the back EMF is due to free electrons) in order to
>document how the decay rate changes with increasing electron flux... ;-}
>
>Bottom line: when someone tells you that water (with or without some additive) can be
>burned as fuel in an internal combustion engine, don't roll your eyes in comic
>disbelief. That spark plug has most of the features of Graneau's OU arc discharge
>experiment, and who knows what other variables may have been stumbled on by some poor
>engineer trying to save a buck on fuel, especially when using highly acidified rain
>water... and maybe something else which will efficiently change the spin/isospin
>characteristics of that small amount of naturally occurring heavy water. More on that
>later...
>
>Jones
>
>BTW this post is a continuation of an extended effort to get a handle on any possible
>mechanisms which can be utilized to explain the numerous reports of water being used
>either as a stand-alone fuel or as an active combustion booster.
>
>It is admittedly beyond speculative in one sense - grasping at straws even. But I am
>convinced from the past few years of experiments and looking at the work of others,
>that 'water-fuel' can be and has already been accomplished, hit-or-miss fashion, yet
>the variables are so poorly understood that reproducibility (and scientific disdain)
>are more pronounced than even in other forms of LENR.
>
>Those few who have thought about the subject of water-fuel in the context of the
>natural deuterium content of water may have noticed my agenda in this speculation,
>which is twofold.
>
>First there is the problem of efficiency, which boils down to how does one
>efficiently spread a parasitic electric field over a large mass of molecules, when
>only one in 4000 (or less) is active. The partial answer to that may involve using a
>very low natural pH, which can be made even lower by compression at the instant of
>ignition.
>
>The second problem to hypothetically overcome is avoiding the 'free neutron' problem,
>by assuming that one can accelerate the decay of the target neutron while it is still
>in the immediate range of the D nucleus, perhaps even using the freed electron which
>is generated to provide energy to accomplish this sequentially in a quasi-chain
>reaction.
>
>Admittedly - all this is based on educated guessing (many will say only the later)
>and as such is closer to science fiction than to science -
>
>.....but occasionally, truth really does turn out to be stranger than fiction.
>
Fascinating stuff Jones, especially about the Neutron.
When I read 636 seconds I thought,
"Hang on! I always thought it was around 14 minutes.
I must have remembered it wrong"
Your subsequent words showed that I probably hadn't. 8-)
Funnily enough in an appendix of a 1987 note of mine
I had a quotation by Prof.Dudley. It is appropriate to
give it here.
=============================================
"Long and well taught is the axiom that
radioactive decay rates are described by
N = No - kt,
with half-life constant = 0.693/ k.
These equations result initially from
studies done with crude instruments
some 70 years ago.
Bluntly, they are incorrect, nonetheless
appear in our latest textbooks to compound
the errors of past generations. This in
spite of the more recent evidence.
=
As a result of the development of
sophisticated electronics the k of 7Be
was first shown (1949) to vary by about
0.1% (Be/BeD). Later (1965) the k of 9ONb
was altered about 4% (metal/flouride).
Studies have varied the decay characteristics
of 12 other radio nuclides with changes in
the energy state of the orbital electrons by
pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic
fields, stress in monomolecuIar layers, etc.
(Emery; Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci., 1972, page 165).
The beta emitters 14C, 6OCo, and 137Cs have
had their decay characteristics altered
[Anderson and Spangler; ].
Phys. Chem., 76, 3603 (1972); 77, 3114 (1973)].
Analysis of these results indicates that
decay event A is causally related to decay
event B occurring later, such that the time
distributions of all decay events were no
longer truly random, as requited by current
theory ."
=============================================
I got quite a shock when I first read that. I wondered
what might happen if the earth ran into a Gamma atmosphere
low pressure area, for example. Would all the nuclear
reactors speed up and go critical at the same time? It
makes one wonder if these chaps really know what they're
doing. Especially after my experience with the member
of my "Expert Examining Committee" who couldn't or wouldn't
understand a simple result in probability. The fact he was
down in Who's Who [1990] as "Director, Safety Reliability
Directorate, Atomic Energy Authority," don't exactly fill
one with confidence, do it.
Cheers
Frank Grimer
