In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 16 Jul 2004 07:49:44 -0700: Hi, [snip] >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.
I still don't see how this can happen without supplying the 2.2 MeV binding energy of the deuteron. [snip] >> >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. I think this is a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. > >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?... Conservation of mass/energy tells me that this is an imaginary reaction. I suspect you will find that all stripping reactions are in fact fusion reactions where half of the deuteron is absorbed, thus providing the energy required to split the deuteron, and the other half flies free. (Usually the neutron is absorbed). However I won't deny the possibility that this can occur under the equivalent of CF conditions, and yes, I agree that any resulting clean reactions would be well worth considering. > 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. If you can accelerate decay, then you might note that several Pb isotopes should at least in theory be unstable to alpha decay, though with enormously long half lives. > >> > 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. You wouldn't have reference to Oppenheimer's work would you? > 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? \ Primarily because you only need to get two deuterons near enough for fusion to take place which releases more energy than is required to split a deuteron, and 5-10 keV is enough to overcome Coulomb repulsion and get them close enough to increase the probability of tunnelling to within a human lifetime. ;) >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). But fusors don't depend on Maxwellian tails. All the deuterons get accelerated to thousands of eV, which equates to a temperature of approx. 1E8 K. > >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. What is "spin/isospin disruption", and do you have an example of where it happens? > >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) I wouldn't have suggested a dirty fusion reaction as we already have a dirty reaction that produces plenty of energy (fission). >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. ..and how are you going to prevent this from happening anyway, assuming it's even possible to create said free neutrons? The only thing I can think of is wrapping the centre of production in a neutron absorbing material, however in this case why bother with the accelerated decay? Why not just let the absorbtion happen, and get the 5-10 fold energy boost? > >> 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, I had a look at his electron/proton model. The electron and the proton "pump" aether in opposite directions, with one of them pumping aether into the middle of the particle through the large hole. This makes me wonder what keeps the particle from exploding. I also pointed out what appeared to me to be errors in his reactions, however he shot me down in flames, by telling me I was wrong! ;) Consequently I don't have a lot of faith in his particle theories, though he may be on to something with his nuclear structure. > 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. I don't think there is a negative scaling factor in Mills hydrino formation, in fact I suspect quite the opposite. I think in his case it's more a problem of operating at too low a temperature. He needs to run at 10-20,000 K, where there should be many more He+ ions. This is why I suggested to Scott Little that a fusor might make a good hydrino factory, and consequently fusion through hydrinos possible. When one considers that fusors make some He3 anyway, it seems probable that if one is left running long enough, it might suddenly "take off" when the He3 population gets high enough. Alternatively, one could simply add He4 to the gas mix at the start (which is essentially what I suggested to SL, and what I believe he passed on to RH, who didn't want to do anything with the notion). As anecdotal support for this scenario, I offer the report that Farnsworth actually got the fusor to break even, or even go OU. No one nowadays wants to believe this, because no one understands what happens when He3 builds up in the device. [snip] >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" ? Yes, but I always thought was due to pressure build up from conversion of high current to heat when the dielectric blows. > >BTW - any of this will require a ceramic or non-conductive cerrmet engine. Would they be acid resistant? [snip] >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). I assume you are referring to heavy water production. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Hot fusion is sort of like Heaven, It's the reward you get long after everyone's dead
