Robin, > Note also the possibility, that if deuterons are used and produce di-neutrons, > then direct absorption of a di-neutron by U238 may be possible, resulting > directly in fission. IOW this may make U238 a fissile material, presumably > with > a cross section approximating that of U239 or Pu239 for single neutron > fission.
We have speculated on this kind of thing before, but has any hard evidence turned up that it is true? Does Larsen rally know anything new? [BTW - apology - to him for misspelling his name previously- and one can suspect from the appearance of what seems to be a rather inflated-ego, which comes through clearly in his writing, that he would be offended by such an oversight] However, I suspect he is completely ignorant of the liklihood that what he is seeing is NOT a "real" neutron. This particle appears "cold" and neutral to him because it is highly energy deficient, but less neutral than suspected for a real neutron- due to the formative process, quark difference, etc (i.e.the effective lack of a neutrino, which effectively prohibits a secondary beta decay reaction and completely changes the range of end reactions which are possible). As a best-guess from my perspective, the best chance for using LENR and fission together (via the ultra-cold neutron - which we both consider to be hydrino-based) is to convert depleted U238 directly to Pu239 in what "seems" to a proton adsorption. The U238 at Oak Ridge, left over from 60 years of enrichment for both civilian and military use - with a potential energy content greater than all the oil in Arabia, could be one of this country's greatest "hidden assets" ... Jones
