The other day I hypothesized that the density of the NAE along the surface of the active metal should be an important factor related to the magnitude of a nuclear reaction once initiated. The reason I suggested was because of the fact that any energy released by the reactions taking place must diffuse away from that source into the remaining metal. This energy is generally considered to be in the form of heat since there is little highly penetrating radiation detected at the surface and just outside.
I realize that some of it might initially be in the form of low energy X-rays or gammas, but these can not be a major long range effect since they would easily be located. So, I would expect to see a large heat release from a reaction that diffuses rapidly away by normal measures, but slowly compared to nuclear reaction time frames. For this reason it should have a direct influence upon the nearby NAE unless the density of these structures is low relative to the temperature gradients. It is well understood that the temperature of the metal and gas combination is important in as far as establishing the overall reaction rates for LENR systems. No one has made a serious rejection of this particular fact that seems to be accepted. And Rossi and every other person that claims to have a device clearly state that temperature is important to the reaction rates that they measure. So, I consider this hypothesis to be an important consideration that helps to answer some of the questions that have arisen. For one in particular it is revealing. I have seen pictures of craters that inhabit the surfaces of several experiments. The effect that I am proposing would have a tendency to generate this phenomena. The first reaction would cause the temperature to rise in the adjacent NAEs and then the rate of reactions for these would be increased due to that rise. A stronger temperature dependency among the NAE would result in more nearby fusion events as would a higher density of the basic NAE structures within the surface. Also, activity that occurs very close to a surface would result in a larger temperature rise and longer duration since the heat diffusion is mainly into the bulk metal and the surface retards that process. The net effect of my hypothesis is that a certain density of NAE is required before the positive feedback reaches a point that would result in craters becoming prevalent. Hot spots should be seen on the surface just as is observed in many experiments as the chain reaction proceeds in that direction. There is no need for significant high energy radiation since heat is the main driver of the reactions. This hypothesis does not exclude the existence of slow heat generation, but instead enhances those systems that achieve a sufficient level of NEA density within a finite region. A bulk effect would be possible just as before and even surface related fusion should be as expected by earlier theories; this concept adds a multiplier effect due to positive feedback. My hypothesis can be verified or proven wrong by a relatively simple measurement. First, a material that is clearly demonstrating significant fusion activity needs to be observed with a thermal camera. If there are no hot spots of significance that would tend to suggest that each reaction is independent of its neighbors. The best way to falsify my hypothesis is to find a method of measuring the individual fusion events by some method and looking for clusters of activity at varying energy release levels. The shape of the thermal noise level within the metal might yield a clue since I would expect that to increase unless the number of reactions is so great that they average out smoothly. I think that we already have evidence that this is happening with Rossi's ECAT among others. I would appreciate it if other vortex members would join in and add support to this concept or find evidence against it. This might be one of the important pieces of the puzzle that help us to unlock the mechanism and better explain the evidence to further along our theories. Dave
