I had one point of slight interest to add here.
Jones Beene wrote:
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)
This indicates that we _might_ expect 4MeV per tritium atom.
In the Iyengar paper Jed uploaded recently a number of tritium
measurements were done which very nicely included an estimate of the
total number of tritium atoms produced in each run. The largest number
they cited was about 10^16. Let's go with this for a moment.
The Lautzenhiser paper, also uploaded recently, documented a successful
2 month wet cell run. Total (net) heat produced appears to have been
about 50 kilojoules. Total tritium produced doesn't seem to have been
computed, unfortunately.
Let's suppose, arbitrarily, that the Lautzenhiser run also produced
10^16 tritium atoms. That would have been about 4e+16 MeV of energy, or
about 6400 joules, unless I messed up the division.
That's about 13% of the total energy generated in the run.
I'm not sure it's necessary to explain away the "missing" heat from the
tritium production, at least in this run; even if a totally conventional
reaction produced the tritium it would have amounted to just a fraction
of the total "OU out".
For whatever that's worth (which, given the fact that I got here by
slobbing together data from two totally unrelated experiments, is
probably not much)...
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
