On May 25, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
I would expect that if a Ni were able to fuse with 1D and 1H, it
would fuse with 2 H much more often.
There's no presumption of fusion of Ni with d and h. The assumption
is that Ni receives some of the momentum of the d+h reaction, since
it's nearby. This gets rid of the gamma. The Ni never fused with
the d+h, and in most cases it goes on being the same Ni it was before.
OK Eric, I understand. My confusion resulted because you had Ni in the
equation. You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was
suggested in 1989 and efforts were made to look for the resulting He3
without success. The only time He3 was detected, it resulted from
tritium decay. Nevertheless, tritium IS detected, which can only
result from H+D fusion with an electron added. The absence of He3
and the presence of tritium led to my model describing a process that
functions the same way no matter which hydron is present.
No evidence for the resulting nuclear product has been found.
Has anyone looked for 3He? If so, has this been done
systematically? Have the results been systematically correlated
with excess heat in Ni/H experiments? Have there been experiments
that conclusively establish that there *is* excess heat in Ni/H
experiments? Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this.
Presence of He3 has been looked for but not in the Ni-H2 system. If
the gas is examined for deuterium, as I suggest, the presence of He3
will be measured as well. However this is a more difficult measurement
than detecting D2 because the mass of He3 is very close to that of HD,
which is a major gas species in a mixture of D2 and H2.
And NO, I do not believe Ron's theory.
I appreciate that. I hope I didn't say anything to suggest that you
did.
No, you did not suggest that I accepted his theory. I just wanted to
make sure you know my attitude.
If as you say in a later posting, Ron suggests that the H and D are
brought near to a Ni by some process, he is now entering the world
of chemistry. There is no mechanism known in chemistry for this to
happen expect by a random process or because a new structure is
formed that requires generation of Gibbs energy. No such structure
is known.
Regarding the world of chemistry -- exactly: the Auger process.
This is an important insight -- it's necessary to find a way to
bridge the eV seen in chemistry with the tens of keV seen in nuclear
physics. Ron identified the Auger process as a likely bridge, since
in heavy nuclei the ionization energy of inner shell electrons is in
the realm of nuclear fusion. As far as I can tell, he proposes
neither a random process nor a structure that is formed. He seems
to be talking about something along the lines of waveguides in
optics, although this is where things start to go well beyond my
knowledge.
I object to theories that either suggest ideas that have no
relationship to known behavior or are pure hand waving. This idea
seems to be in both classes. Would you not expect the nuclear reaction
would be very common if the Auger effect only needed to occur for the
process to work?
I object when people make up rules that simple do not exist in the
real world of chemical behavior.
No one is making up rules -- they're putting forward tentative
suggestions that go back to previous experimental results and a
knowledge of the forces involved. Here we're exploring one
possibility along with many others. I think you've missing an
opportunity by failing to take Ron's theory seriously.
Why should I take an idea seriously that conflicts will everything I
know about CF and basic chemistry. I realize you like the idea. In
contrast, I have studied all of the published theories and most of the
observed behavior. I also have a background in materials science and
nuclear physics. All of this information conflicts with what Ron
proposes. So, I see no reason to give it any attention. Unfortunately,
most of the suggested theories suffer from the same problem. That is
why CF has made very little progress in being accepted or in making
the effect work better.
Ed Storms
Eric
