On Jul 12, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
That sounds like the right objection. However, what I haven't seen
is estimates of the actual particle counts compared to what would
be expected from the generated heat.
It's common sense. An experiment producing a watt for two weeks
(various of the SPAWAR replications run about 2 weeks I think)
produces (1J/s)*(60 s/m)60 m/h)*(24 h/d)*(7d/week)*(2 weeks)= 172800
J. Obtaining the number of fusions we have (172800 J)/(23.8 MeV) =
4.5x10^16 fusions. Even if the experiment only produces 1/millionth
of a watt, that's 4.5x10^10 fusions, of which we should see about
half the particles, or 2.3x10^10 particles. If half of those are too
shallow to observe we still should get about 10^10 tracks. The
observed tracks are on the order of 1000/mm^2 or less if memory
serves. SPAWAR infrared photos showed roughly 2 degrees C hot spots
developing on the cathodes. I don't think it is uncommon for CF
experiments that generate excess heat to produce such hot spots, and
for ordinary electrolysis that does not produce excess heat to not
produce them. You can do the heat transfer estimate, based on the
thermal conductivity of the electrolyte, but I don't think that is
necessary, because the observed tracks and expected (under Takahashi)
tracks are off by orders of magnitude.
We do know that helium is generated in the right amount.
That has been a topic of considerable debate!
It is also notable that it appears the SPWAR protocol generates
neutrons, even the high energy >9MeV MeV neutrons that would be
expected from D-T reactions.
Mosier-Boss et al talk about attenuation from the water film
between the cathode and the CR-39.
That is important when the alphas have the low energy observed in the
SPAWAR experiments. It would not be important if the alphas were
23.8 MeV alphas for the reasons I outlined earlier. Attenuation is
principally due to electron density, and electron density in water is
less than in Pd.
It's also possible that there is some spatial bias in the emission
of the alphas from a TSC collapse and fusion; half the alphas are
pretty much known to end up buried in the palladium; ones emitted
at a low angle would have a longer path through the palladium film,
if generated below the actual surface, and a longer path through
the water, but we should be able to tell from the energy
distribution and path indications as shown in the CR-39.
Experimentally, we need to know what the actual counts are, what
the trajectories are, correlated with excess heat.
I don't think so. The track counts/densities are many *orders of
magnitude* less than what would be expected under Takahashi's
scenario. It is also true that the energies indicated by the tracks
are way less than what would be expected from a 23.8 MeV alpha
source, even considering the Pd, the water and the 6 mil protection.
Takahashi proposes that the TSC does other things besides fuse all
on its lonesome. Being neutrally charged, it can approach the other
nuclei present, and some of the resulting reactions may end up with
different end products, thus we might be seeing, with the alphas,
only a fraction of the generated TSCs. He says it fuses 100% but
that would presume certain initial conditions that might not always
apply.
I wonder at "barely detectable." I'd be much more comfortable with
real numbers,
The track counts/densities are available in the SPAWAR papers on
LENR_CANR.org.
since the normal CR-39 direct-contact chip is solidly damaged in
areas in contact,
The CR-39 is not damaged when the 6 micron protective film is in
place. Also, the "electrolysis damage" and "contact damage"
arguments were invalidated by control experiments.
the scattered pitting is only seen away from direct contact. What
is seen if there is only contact for a short time? By comparing
pitting over short time intervals, it should be possible to come up
with good measures of alpha flux, assuming those are alphas. The
most recent SPAWAR paper published is addressing these kinds of
issues, but it seems to have only begun.
As I recall reading the papers, the 6 mil film does greatly reduce
the count, so would this mean that the alphas are at much lower
energies by the time they encounter the film?
There are two populations of particles, some large, some smaller,
with the smaller ones much more numerous when the 6 micron film is
not in place. One is apparently alpha, and I think the other is
consistent with about 1 MeV protons.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
