Thermal imaging of NAE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb9V_qFKf2M&feature=player_embedded
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
