So, Jones, lets examine the energetics of this proposition against experiment. In Parkhomov's experiment, his 0.1g of LiAlH4 would have had 10.6 mg of hydrogen and given the natural isotopic ratio of deuterium, there would have been 3.3 micrograms of deuterium. If the reaction is as you describe, producing 233 keV per 2 atoms of deuterium, producing 100W of excess power would exhaust 5.36e15 atoms/second, or .0187 micrograms per second. So, the 3.3 micrograms of D in Parkhomov's fuel would last 176 seconds. Of course, long before the 176 seconds, the reaction would have been slowing down. At half of this time, the power would have dropped to 50W.
Now consider the fact that most of Parkhomov's hydrogen probably leaked out (in a well sealed reactor like Glowstick 5, we do not see the H2 pressure decline like it did in Parkhomov's epoxy sealed reactor) and by the time excess heat was being produced, there was a net vacuum in Parkhomov's reactor. Probably less than 10% of the original hydrogen charge remained in his reactor by the time excess heat was produced. This takes the available deuterium and energy down by another factor of 10. My conclusion is that this hypothesis fails for not being energetic enough. Though, it is a nice single miracle hypothesis. Bob Higgins On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem (as always) in LENR: can we identify a version of a known > nuclear reaction which will provide substantial excess energy, at low > input energy, without a substantial output of gamma radiation or > bremsstrahlung from a fast electron or activation from a neutron … thus > requiring ONLY one miracle (the nuclear event itself), instead of two > miracles (the event, and the masking of the physical evidence of the > event)? > > Answer: if deuterium experiences accelerated beta decay (the first > miracle) then a modest amount of excess energy and no high energy > radiation are expected. No other “single miracle” reaction of deuterium > has yet been proposed to meet this criterion, since the excess energy is > generally way too large to hide with any alternative explanation such as > fusion or spallation. > > If one wishes to tie this problem into current topics in LENR (such as > Holmlid’s > UDD), then the specific premise would be that an accelerated decay, not a > nucleon > disintegration, would be the probable result of dense deuterium being > exposed to a laser pulse. > > Deuterium is not radioactive. However, all free neutrons are radioactive > and decay in about 1000 seconds to a proton and electron with an excess > energy of 780 keV. All neutrons, even bound neutrons, have been said by > some physicists to be technically unstable in the long-term due to free > neutron radioactivity … (but with exceedingly long half-lives). > Accelerated beta decay is an accepted phenomenon in hydrogen isotopes, and > occurs with tritium, for instance. We can propose a version of > accelerated decay for UDD which solves many observational problems of > LENR, and requires only the “single miracle”. > > If an accelerated beta decay occurs in deuterium, you end up a nucleus > consisting of two protons and no neutrons (a diproton). The protons repel, > and so long as the available input energy is moderate, no gamma is > expected. > > Background numbers. The mass of the proton is 1.0079 amu. The mass of the > neutron is 1.0087. The difference is .0008 amu. The electron mass in amu > is 0.00055. If the bound neutron in the deuteron undergoes a novel type > of decay to a proton and an electron, which is instigated by a laser, a large > magnetic field, or both - there is extra mass energy of .00025 amu = 233 > keV. The former deuterium nucleus, after emitting the electron using a > fraction of that energy in a quasi-beta decay, now has two protons which > repel with an average energy which could be absorbed in the water of an > electrolysis cell and avoid detection. > > Protons are composed of two Up quarks and one Down quark. The neutron is > made of two Down and one Up quark. Can an intense magnetic field with > laser irradiation, disrupt QCD color exchange to convert a DQ to a UQ due > to QCD disruption in strong magnetic field? M. N. Chernodub or CNRS, > University of Tours, France has a paper which makes a case for this > proposition: “QCD in strong magnetic field”: > > *physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf > <http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf>* > > If he is correct, then some of Holmlid’s work can be reinterpreted – not > as nucleon disintegration but as accelerated beta decay of deuterium due > to QCD disruption, resulting in a temporary diproton. > > Then and finally … ta da… (drum roll)… we have identified the long awaited > conservation > of miracles explanation of cold fusion, having reduced the problem to the > single miracle, instead of two or more… > > …leaving open the related question of explaining Ni-H… but let’s face it, > there is no possibility of a single explanation for both, other than > Holmlid’s complete disintegration. Like many here, I find “complete > nucleon disintegration” with only laser input - hard to accept, > especially compared with accelerated decay. > > Jones > > Accelerated decay of tritium: > > *www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf* > <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf> > >
