Thanks for writing this, I was also scratching my head trying to figure out whether Godes and W-L were saying the same thing or not.
Minor comment: I think you typo'd "782MeV" when meaning 782KeV. Jeff On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 03:06 PM 8/17/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > >> At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >> >>> Unreadable for me. >>> >> >> Full paper : >> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-** >> 17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-**Capture-Paper.pdf<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf> >> >> Appendix A just lists a bunch of reactions ... with NO direct reference >> to WL (may be in the other Godes papers). >> > > Interesting paper. > > This is *not* W-L theory compatible. However, first things first. This > paper is most of all an experimental report. The abstract does not mention > theory. The title, however, and the opening paragraph talk about the fusion > theory they had in mind. The conclusion, however, doesn't make a claim that > they proved the theory, only that they found certain operating > characteristics. > > We conclude that the reaction producing excess power >> in the nickel hydride is related to and very dependent >> upon the frequency of the Q pulses applied. We have >> thus demonstrated that there is a repeatable and >> measurable relationship between excess heat production >> from the stimulated nickel hydride in the test cell and the >> repetition rate of the applied electronic pulses. When the >> repetition rate is changed from the optimum frequency, >> excess power production ceases in the nickel hydride >> lattice. When that repetition rate is restored, significant >> excess power production resumes. >> > > I'm very interested in this work for the same reasons I've been very > interested in the THz (dual laser) stimulation work of Dennis Letts et al. > Control over the reaction is being demonstrated. There is a fly in the > ointment, though. > > Certain electrical >> inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a >> proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content. >> > > In other words, we aren't being told enough information so that this > finding could be independently replicated. > > We started with the hypothesis that metal hydrides >> stimulated at frequencies related to the lattice phonon >> resonance would cause protons or deuterons to undergo >> controlled electron capture. If this hypothesis is true then >> less hydride material would be needed to produce excess >> power. Also, this should lead to excess power (1) on >> demand, (2) from light H2O electrolysis, and (3) from the >> hydrides of Pd, Ni, or any matrix able to provide the >> necessary confinement of hydrogen and obtain a >> Hamiltonian value greater than 782KeV. Also, the excess >> power effect would be enhanced at high temperatures and >> pressures. >> Brillouin's lattice stimulation reverses the natural >> decay of neutrons to protons and Beta particles, >> catalyzing this endothermic step. Constraining a proton >> spatially in a lattice causes the lattice energy to be highly >> uncertain. With the Hamiltonian of the system reaching >> 782KeV for a proton or 3MeV for a deuteron the system >> may be capable of capturing an electron, forming an >> ultra-cold neutron or di-neutron system. The almost >> stationary ultra-cold neutron(s) occupies a position in the >> metal lattice where another dissolved hydrogen is most >> likely to tunnel in less than a nanosecond, forming a >> deuteron / triton / quadrium by capturing the cold neutron >> and releasing binding energy. >> This would lead to helium through a Beta decay. The >> expected half-life of the beta decay: if J_(4H)= >> 0-, 1-, 2-,t1/2=10 min; if J_(4H)=0+, 1+, t1/2=0.03 sec[1]. >> Personal correspondence with Dr. D. R. Tilley confirmed >> that the result of such a reaction would be ߯ decay to >> 4He. >> > > The only resemblance to W-L theory is that neutron formation from electron > capture by a proton is being hypothesized. W-L proposes a surface > mechanism, Brillouin is proposing a lattice mechanism, but that might be an > inconsequential detail, i.e., the actual reaction site might be near or at > the surface. > > W-L propose that ULM neutrons form by capture of "heavy electrons" have a > high capture cross-section (expected, if I'm correct, from the very low > momentum), but they have these neutrons react with lots of different stuff > in the surface region. > > Brillouin has the ULM neutron sitting in the site where it was formed (as > it would, initially at least), where it would be targeted by another > proton, as, with the original proton's charge gone, this would be the > preferred location for a new proton to occupy. > > Thus, with hydrogen, the initial (and doubtless main) reaction product > would be deuterium. > > This is somewhat similar to Storms' proposal, except for the site. Storms > has, in cracks: > > p + e + p -> d + e. (The electron is catalytic and is pushed out of the > way....) > > There are obvious problems to be solved, if this theory is to sprout > wings. Rate is not considered. The 782 MeV capture process is enabled by > the uncertainty principle, and such processes are normally very much > rate-limited. It's tunneling, in effect, but that's a boatload of energy to > borrow in this way. The net energy is not high for the first proposed step: > 2.2 MeV - 0.8 MeV. The process looks like, with H >>D, T, it would produce > tritium proportionally to the D/H ratio, and helium proportionally to the > T/H ratio. > > As I've many times point out with W-L theory, sequential processes where > the initiator of the process is rare and where later steps would have no > special advantage over early ones, become increasingly rare. > > When a neutron is captured, the resulting hydrogen is no more likely to > capture an additional neutron than is any other hydrogen in the vicinity. > Thus, until and unless deuterium is common, tritium production will be > rare, and helium production will be rare upon rare. > > Now, we don't know how much deuterium is being produced, but we do know > that tritium is being produced in PdD cold fusion at rates far, far below > that of helium. I think the ratio is 10^6, someone correct me. With > deuterium, the mechanism proposed goes to helium in one low-rate step, > followed by a necessary further transformation. > > d + e + d -> 2n + d -> H4 -> He-4 + e. > > And then we are left entirely without an explanation for how the immense > energy released in the conversion of d + d to He-4 is released. We know > that it isn't in the He-4 and e kinetic energies. Something else is going > on. Or this reaction is not going on. >
