From: "Robin van Spaandonk" > How should D decay?
a variety of beta decay - not markedly different from the situation where the neutron became partially disengaged and decayed. There are QM reason why the neutron cannot itself decay within the confines of the D nucleus; which is, I suppose, what you are getting at. But there are also QM reasons why the neutron is periodically disattached far enough to allow decay - the double-low-probability accounting for the presumed rarity. BUT...consider that 'setting the stage' for the latter may hasten the former... or vice versa. > >Where is all this leading? [snip] a gallon of water has 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. > More if the neutrons are allowed to fuse with other nuclei, yielding on average > about 6-8 MeV per neutron. Considerably more than if they are allowed to decay. Whoa, Robin! You are missing the major point of post - the beauty of properly engineered *decay energy* over fusion energy. There is a HUGE advantage of not having to create fusion conditions, and not requiring rare metals like palladium and not having toxic ash like tritium. Sure D+D gives slightly more net energy per nucleon, but who really cares when your energy-multiple is already way in excess of a million to one?... and the related problems of setting the stage for fusion are so much more demanding than with accelerating the rate of decay, which is trivial by comparison. > > 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. > Probably as a result of fusion reactions:- Yes, but the proportion of neutrons due to stripping, as opposed to real fusion has never been anything more than guesswork. Richard Hull will tell you it is 100% fusion - but despite his expertise, I think from Oppenheimer's old and largely neglected work, that the correct figure is closer to 10% with fully 90% from stripping, most of those going unmeasured as they decay in situ creating some of the AMAZING efficiency of the device. As you know, the threshold for D+D is supposed to be in the several MeV range and yet we have it found it in the Fusor "on the tail" in the low KeV range - why? well, some of that efficiency may be due to that beta decay electron coming in at much higher energy (as the maxwellian tail of the energy distribution is nowhere near long enough, otherwise). And, of course, the Fusor was mentioned by analogy, as it does not look like a device which can be pushed above unity because of that issue you mentioned - mean free path - which requires very low energy density (same as with BLP) > And why do you believe that field gradient alone is sufficient [to free a neutron] No. I believe that field gradient alone will NOT be enough, but there is a chance that when combined with other synergistic field-effects, and/or acceleratd QM effects, such as spin/isospin disruption - that neutron stripping can be accomplished efficiently enough to allow net energy production. And the main point of the previous post is that the secondary methodology, once you have some free neutrons, should be from accelerated decay of the neutron, not fusion and not neutron absorption (unless it something clean like boron) as these create enormous secondary problems and residual radioactivity which cannot be allowed in a transportation-fuel setting. Even the tiny amount of tritium from CF would likely not be permitted in automobiles, as tritium is hygroscopic and extraordinarily toxic if ingested in water vapor. > Personally, I think that hydrino formation using O++ formed by the spark stands a > better chance. Yes, I agree with that for sure. And... this might be the way to proceed IF you accept all that Mills has claimed, and that he has been up-front in his disclosures. However... and please don't misinterpret this - as I am convinced that the redundant ground state of hydrogen is real - but not necessarily most of Mills' theory, nor necessarily the positive energy balance claimed by Mills, nor even the validity of some of the techniques Mills' has claimed. The Arie de Guess *theory* of hydrino formation, for instance, makes more sense to me, even though he has not yet publically demonstrated a working device either. It may be impossible, in either case, due to low energy density and low cross-section and negative scaling factor. Lately, more and more doubts are creeping in about Mills results, not to mention candor and honesty. When the guy can't tell you the density of HHCs, which should be well known by now, one can only assume that his silence is indicative of having either been caught in a lie or at best needlessly trying to protect something as a trade secret which should not be secret at all, as it relates to a basic physical property which should be known by all concerned. AND moreover is testable against related compounds. It pains me greatly to suspect that this guy is not being honest with the details, but as of today, that is my conclusion... which may change tomorrow as it has done (see-sawed) many times in the past. > If field gradient alone were sufficient, then just about any ion (pair) would do the > trick. The difference in voltage between them is on the order of volts, and they can > easily be separated by distances on the order of Angstroms, which leads to voltage > gradients on the order of billions of volts / meter. Yes that is true, but gradient alone is not going to be enough. However, one thing that is appealing from all of this is that in a reciprocating engine where fast sequential changes in p/v are routine (as in sonofusion) then one can at least recover some of the parasitic energy used to achieve the field gradient. IOW if we use a highly acidified water-based fuel, its vapor is similar to a capacitor. You have no doubt heard about "exploding capacitors" ? BTW - any of this will require a ceramic or non-conductive cerrmet engine. Jones Oh and I think I will continue this interesting (to a few nerds at least) speculation in a second post today, but here is my *best overall* candidate for the ideal transportation fuel for the year 2100. It is water ! But wait, not just plain old water but water in which the deuterium content has been raised from about one in 4000 to about one in ten and acidified to pH<1. I am told by a former CANDU engineer that any conventional steam plant can do this as a fringe benefit of step-wise steam-condensation, and for minimal cost, pennies per gallon (with official enticements).
