On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace,
I considered this point (no neutron chain reaction nor obvious
substitute)
but am convinced that there is no need for the kind of chain
reaction we are
familiar with in fission. If you understand subcritical neutron
multiplication, you will see that massive gain is possible without
true
chain reaction dynamics.
Subcritical neutron generation merely makes expanded use of each
neutron supplied by an external source. If the neutrons themselves
generate more than a neutron on average, then the reaction is a chain
reaction. If not, the energy is limited in the extreme, by the input
flux, which in the case under discussion is cosmic rays. A large
explosion is not feasible without a chain reaction.
Obviously, my theory for gain is not the same as yours, although
there is
some similarity.
In this hypothesis, which borrows from Mills but is very different,
and also
from Robin's version of Mills - there is dense hydrogen
accumulation via
Mills' catalysis - not unlike the Holmlid/Miley model, and protons
reside on
a dielectric surface, ala Lawandy. Even with maximum pitting
(Casimir pits)
the IRH is too transitory, without cryogenics. Cryogenics is one major
limitation for weaponization (thankfully). Precision is another.
Planar configurations are not condusive to criticality.
Without cryogenics to quench during the IRH accumulation stage, and
the
occasional cosmic ray - you would likely have a Rossi-type of
reaction that
cannot go far beyond the meltdowns he claims to have seen.
Yes. Thermally driven slow (non-cahin) reactions necessarily die off
when the lattice melts.
Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each
other.
They can be degenerate or deflated.
They can form ordinary atoms in that case, i.e. being on a surface
with spare electrons.
There is no primary fusion nor fission.
Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by
strong
force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark
statistics.
As Robin says, this make no sense.
Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per proton.
There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain
is from
accelerated protons.
The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average, not
quantized like
quark mass, and can vary a fractional percent. Of course, some of
the mass
variation is convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted
against
Coulomb repulsion. The suggested P-e-P reaction is absurd except
under solar
conditions - and is discarded in place of strong force attraction,
followed
by energetic repulsion when the two cannot bind.
I am not sure what you mean here. If you are referring to:
I said "A very very small rate of pep reactions may occur ...". This
I think is obviously true. "Very very small" is very very small.
8^) I also noted that "... this gamma producing reaction was not
observed above background in the Rossi E-cats."
In a weapon, a surrounding ballotechnic (nano-thermite??) would be
needed to
implode a target with great spherical precision, so that a uniform
statistical "first wave" is instigated. This would be followed by the
functional equivalent of (slowly decreasing waves) of neutron
multiplication
in a subcritical reactor
This result depends on rapid timing and high initial energy density
in the
surround. The required level of precision would be another
limitation for
terrorist groups, since none of them would likely put up the
millions needed
for tooling - not to mention many years of development.
I don't see a neutron based chain reaction as feasible at all. For
that fast neutron fissioning material is needed. LENR stuff would
merely make that kind of thing even more difficult.
Rossi or DGT may change that situation.
Jones
-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner
It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized. The stuff that
permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at
all. This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
