Eric, I was referring to Jones post where he was taking about stripping the neutron from a deuterium to make hydrogen, but the fusion reactions you listed below are worth considering too.
Harry On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:55 AM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Going from D to H should be endothermic. >> > > Exciting slides. I do not have the wherewithal to assess their > calorimetry, so I will assume it is accurate. > > Here are some exothermic reactions involving generation of H from D: > > - d + 60Ni → 61Ni + p + Q (6.1 MeV) > - d + 61Ni → 62Ni + p + Q (8.9 MeV) > - d + 62Ni → 63Ni + p + Q (5.1 MeV) > - d + 64Ni → 65Ni + p + Q (7.9 MeV) > > Note that in the authors' back-of-the-envelope calculations using two d+d > branches, yielding 4.03 MeV and 3.27 MeV respectively, they came to an > expected energy output that was lower than the one they think they > observed. So the higher Qs of the above reactions fit that picture nicely. > Their slides on the neutron capture cross sections of nickel suggest that > they are also looking at thinking about the d+Ni reactions. Regarding the > radiation measurements they have not yet reported on -- I will call out a > guess that they will report evidence of beta+ and beta- decay. > > The treated nickel is interesting looking. I assume this is what the > nickel looks like prior to a reaction. Note that there is greater occasion > for electrically insulated grains after the treatment than before the > treatment. > > Note that the NiD system is quite different than the oft-studied PdD > system. I vaguely recall sometime back that proton and deuteron capture > are not favorable in palladium, whereas proton capture is favorable in > nickel. What is interesting in the above scenario is that we are looking > at the possibility not of proton capture but of neutron capture. > > Eric > >
