To further elaborate on a previous hypothesis for the appearance
of significant 3H without excess heat - let's begin by suggesting
the controversial proposition that any robust LENR cell is most
likely operating on more than one modality - Ockham be damned -
even if those modalities must interlock before success is
guaranteed.
For instance, it is almost inconcievable that the basic underlying
reactions of LENR do not involve quantum tunneling in addition to
whatever normal macro EM processes (quasi-Lawson criteria) might
be involved - and this sets the field far outside the range of
normal nuclear physics. If the 'hydrino' or something like it it -
is real - then it is almost inconcievable that in LENR the
mechanics of the hydrino (deuterino) are not somehow involved in
promoting nuclear reactions, such as transmutation or actual
fusion (presumably with reduced output as no gamma signature is
witnessed).
The appearance of tritium could be just such a hybrid - as there
are two potential sources of this isotope - and these two
modalities might be so intertwined that achieving higher than
quantum-probability demands that both be active at the same site
at the same time.
First - the endothermic photofission of lithium:
1) 7Li --> 4He + 3H requiring -2.43 MeV (endotherm) of
mass-energy
and then there is:
2) D + D --> 3H(1.01 MeV) + 1H(3.02 MeV)
which is normally a branched reaction of nearly equal probability
with:
3) D + D --> 3He(0.82MeV) + n(2.45MeV)
The second reaction is the source of neutrons, which are seldom
seen in LENR reactions, especially with lithium electrolytes.
Notice that the reation 2) produces a proton of sufficient energy
to cause the photofission reaction 1) which will proceed with much
higher probability then if a direct nuclear impact of the proton
was needed. The can be autocatalytic in the reversed sense as
well - for an arcane but proven QM reason.
Given that there are no other sources for such a fast proton, then
the "net" reaction may depend on a tandem reaction of 2) followed
by 1) which in turn increases the probability of 2) in an
adjoining spatial geometry. IOW there is mutual synergy.
The actual "photon" involved in 1) which is a high energy gamma
but is never witnessed externally for well-known reasons (direct
exchange) comes from the Feynman exchange - the electroweak
process (and his famous diagrams) as the proton passes-by on a
"close" but non-impact interaction. That is: the close proximity
of of an accelerating proton with a relatively stationary 7Li
nucleus. The reaction will proceed much faster at lower
temperatures, and in a confined matrix (even if it is a surface
interface) since the Lithium provides a more stationary target at
lower temps + partial confinement. The cross-section for
photofission of lithium could in fact be as much as 10^6 times
higher, based on the penetration needed for actual fusion (which
is very low for H + Li).
This suggestion also provides an avenue for falsifiability - as an
actively cooled cell, especially a crogenic cell, should produce
more tritum than a warm one.
As mentioned, given that there are no other sources for such a
fast proton, then the "net" reaction may depend on a tandem
reaction of 2) followed by 1). It turns out that the required
endotherm is very close to this exotherm ... so perhaps these
reactions occur in tandem and with one further (gigantic) QM
benefit - that being the enhancement of QM probability based on
proximity considerations of like reactions(more on that later when
I dig it out of some old files).
Bottom line: ...isn't it a bit too coincidental that in carefully
documented experiments, you can come out to nearly "net neutral"
on the energy equation yet - still have lots of tritium? ... what
happend to the excess heat ?
Tiritum,by the way, is easy to find and document because of the
well-known decay curve. The is almost 100% certainty that Claytors
experiments are rick solid evidence for some of this. And
furthermore this is all in keeping with the observation of the
'absence' of noticable excess heat when large amounts of 3H are
seen.
Now - is it fair to say (albeit a bit immodestly) that there is a
hypothetical rationale for explaining many previously
contradictory observations of LENR ? - at least in the specialized
set of experiments involving lithium and significant tritum.
Jones
