Jones Beene wrote:
Ed,
I'm not a mind-reader, but I think that what Fred (and other assorted
non-skeptics tuned-in to Vo) really want to know is this:
Does LENR glow discharge benefit significantly from boron content in the
electrode?
No, boron has no effect.
If it does, then many of us would (at least partly) disagree with your
conclusion that "speculation based on conventional ideas serves no
purpose"...
... this is because there could be one critical thing (pathway) which
you are missing here, even though your logic is based on the voluminous
past findings of "lack of neutrons" in LENR.
That would be the likelihood that cold fusion, like hot fusion, does
indeed initiate a neutron producing reaction, but that the neutrons
themselves are highly (extremely) subthermal and not detectable in the
same sense (same equipment) that hot neutrons, or even thermal neutrons,
are detectable. This would indicate that the prior non-detectability is
itself what is flawed, and that is due to lack of a proper neutron
detector being placed extremely close.
Low energy neutrons will activate many elements in a normal cold fusion
environment producing radioactive isotopes. This kind of radioactivity
is seldom detected even though it would be easy to detect.
One might even surmise that CF neutrons could possibly have a negative
effective temperature, in the sense of low "compreture" (combined
pressure and temperature property).
Such a species might still interact with high cross-section elements
like boron of gadolinium, however, IF (and only if) that element were
close-by and did not require neutron transport over a few nanometers. An
extremely subthermal neutron might spend most of its lifetime locked in
a lattice vacancy, where its negative near-field and the electron cloud
of the the Pd keep it relatively "frozen" for extended periods.
I don't understand how a subthermal neutron can be made. If it results
from a nuclear reaction, it will take up some of the energy produced by
this reaction and not be subthermal.
That is: A neutron of very low kinetic energy, formed in any LENR
electrode, which is produced in a situation of high relative compression
but modest temperature, is most often locked in place till its
low-energy decay, leaving a proton. Or if it eventually emerges into an
ambient pressure situation, might show an effective kinetic profile
which would make it so highly subthermal that it would not go far in
distance. If such a neutron does not become thermal in its normal
lifetime (latest average lifetime: 886.8 seconds (about 14.8 minutes)
plus or minus 3.4 seconds according to NIST), then no one would suspect
that they were ever present, except for more hydrogen than expected.
Nevertheless, if such a neutron was exposed to a local absorber of high
cross-section, then that secondary reaction would be the evidence, but
that scenario would require extremely close proximity.
BTW - Far better than boron would possibly be gadolinium, element 64,
which is more than an order of magnitude improvement over boron.
This sounds crazy until one realizes that any neutron interacts so
slowly with low-cross section elements anyway - that a highly subthermal
neutron might never approach the kinetic energy necessary to propel it
into a detector, even if that detector was able to register the
interaction. Futhermore, the decay itself might not be detectable in
some detectors.
I don't understand the issue. You assume a thermnal neutron can form.
You assume that it does not react with the surrounding elements to make
a radioactive isotope, yet you assume it can react with deuterium to
make I presume tritium, which is not see. Or perhaps it reacts with
protium to make deuterium. What exactly do you expect to happen that
would explain the observations and make this a hot fusion process? In
any case, this is not hot fusion. Hot fusion makes energetic neutrons.
It does not use neutrons for subsequent reactions.
Ed
Jones
Edmund Storms wrote:
Fred,
Hot fusion initiates the neutron producing path, cold fusion does not.
This is the basic difference based an observation. The glow discharge
does not produce neutrons. In addition, the voltages are too low to
produce a hot fusion reaction. As for heat production, the glow
discharge technique is designed and being used to understand the
mechanism. Once the basic information is obtained, development of a
practical device will be easy. At this point, speculation based on
conventional ideas serves no purpose. In fact, the mechanism is very
unconventional.
Ed
Frederick Sparber wrote:
Ed Storms wrote.
>
> It depends on what you mean by relationship.
> Ed
"Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium"
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf
To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading
the Pd cathode with
Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding it with Deuterons to get
Hot Fusion energy multiplication.
Doping the Pd cathode with Lithium and/or Boron by Sputtering and/or
Ion Implantation might
enhance the Hot Fusion yield. Otherwise you're stuck with good
science and low-grade heat.
Fred
