On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:53 PM 12/7/2009, Jones Beene wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner
I think there may be a little bit of reason for doubt, as I noted in:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
More than a little doubt, I would say ;-)
I don't think so, because the doubt and question you raise isn't
about the triple tracks. In a way, you may be making the same
mistake as Mr. Beene, confusing the neutron inference with the
hypothesized source of the neutrons.
Not at all. A 50-50 mix of D-T will produce D+D --> T+p reactions.
The T will be hot. There should be T+T reactions from the "hot" T.
If *huge* amounts of hot T in a lattice produce barely observable
amount of neutrons, then it is indeed highly questionable that a
lattice with non-detectable amounts of T can produce hot neutrons.
Perhaps I don't know what you are saying here.
The conclusion of the Mosier-Boss et al. article, that triple
tracks are due to the
12C(n,n’)3á reaction, implies the need for repeating exactly the
same experiment
using D2O + trace T2O instead of just D2O.
I've said that tritium doping is an obvious thing to try, but it's
quite possible that even if the neutrons are from tritium fusion,
there would be no increase.
You might be surprised how much resistance from intelligent
physicists one might encounter to the suggestion of using tritium. I
have to wonder if it might be a subconscious fear of bursting a
fantasy bubble.
Now, if the increase were from tritium fusing as the initial
reaction, you'd be right. And that is a possibility. After all, if
there is some tritium in the cell, and it ends up in the place
where some deuterium would fuse, it would also likely fuse. But
very little of this tritium would fuse, just as very little of the
deuterium fuses. Good thing, eh?
But if the tritium is generated in the initial reaction, sometimes,
it would be hot, and very likely to fuse. Adding more tritium would
not increase this, because the new tritium would not be hot.
This is an interesting idea, but as noted above, a 50-50 D-T
experiment produced nominal high energy neutrons. For this idea to
be valid that hot T fusion works in a lattice, and cold T fusion does
not, there needs to be an explanation as to *why* lattice conditions
foster cold D+D but not cold D+T. In other words, hot T should not
be necessary for a reaction. If cold D fuses then cold T should also
fuse, and if anything better. It may well be there is a reason, but
on the surface it looks nonsensical.
We know that something generates tritium in these cells, at low
levels. And it would quite likely be hot tritium formed, so it
would probably fuse with deuterium, and it would then produce the
required neutron to produce the triple tracks.
This might explain a significant decrease in T lattice half life.
However, it does not explain why T does not fuse cold in exactly the
same conditions D does.
In other words, from what we already know (tritium generation),
we'd expect a low level of neutrons. So neutrons are merely a
confirmation of this. It's a coherent picture already, and, while
that doesn't prove that this picture corresponds exactly to the
reality, there isn't much need to conjure up exotic reactions.
The exotic reactions are merely a natural outgrowth of a specific
model, a natural consequence. They are not expected to be the
*prominent* channels, but are of interest because they may be
feasible channels, and of diagnostic use. Their possibility was a
natural consequence of the deflation fusion model. It struck me as
worthwhile to alert the community as to the possibilities, as they
are new and verifiable.
Except, of course, for whatever it is that is going on in the cell
that would generate tritium! I think the TSC
I used to know what the TSC was, but don't any more. If you are
referring to Be -> 2 alpha, due to a condensate forming then there
still has to be an explanation as to how co-location is overcome and
why the bremsstrahlung, gammas, and alphas disappear even near the
surface.
would do it, and a lot of other things, both directly if it
encounters a nucleus before collapsing and decaying, and indirectly
as it generates a few very hot alphas. I believe that if it's
generating seriously hot alphas (these would be from early decay of
the Be-8, before the bulk of the energy of the excited nucleus has
been emitted as EUV or whatever it is), these would be generated
below the surface, there would be significant loss of energy before
they escape the cathode.
I don't think that is true. CF also occurs very near the surface.
There would have to be *huge* numbers of alphas and gammas produced
to account for excess heat. Gammas aren't absorbed, they are
attenuated (except in some unusual CF models). It is one thing for
gamma producing reactions to occur once every few seconds, and
another entirely to occur at large excess heat rates. Such a
reaction might be an oddball reaction, like the exotic strange matter
reactions I suggested should be feasible, but not the predominate
reaction, certainly not an explanation for CF excess heat.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
