In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 25 May 2014 17:53:19 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >This is a waste of time. The fast protons lose most of their energy ionizing >> surrounding atoms. Only one in thousands will undergo a further nuclear >> reaction. >> Thus the original reaction must be seen as the primary energy generating >> mechanism (assuming that there is anything to this at all). >> > >I think my main takeaway from Piantelli's patents is that he's seeing >sufficient fast protons (e.g., in his cloud chamber) to put up the cost of >a patent application to capitalize on them. I would be surprised if they >are the primary channel.
If they are fast, then clearly they are carrying energy. Most of that energy will end up in the electron population. Only a tiny fraction will be used to produce new fusion reactions. Protons are not like neutrons. With neutrons, if you surround them with enough absorbing material, then most of them will be absorbed and result in a nuclear energy release. Protons OTOH hand are repelled by other nuclei, and tend to steer clear. Furthermore, they interact strongly with the electron population, losing energy as they go. All of which means that fast protons can't be counted on to initiate many nuclear reactions. A few yes, but only a very few. >Mizuno's NiD experiments and the increase in >species of m=1 are suggestive here; perhaps Piantelli is seeing activity >from the deuterium fraction of the hydrogen he's feeding into his device. Perhaps so, something along the lines of a stripping reaction. Even so, the protons are probably carrying the energy of that reaction. Of course that doesn't rule out that there are potentially other reactions contributing to the energy production that do not produce fast protons. > >I also wonder how much energy output Piantelli is seeing in comparison to >Rossi. Pure guess:- not much. :) > > >> This would mean that both fast protons and fast electrons would be >> produced, but >> almost no gammas compared to what one might normally expect (the electrons >> will >> produce some bremsstrahlung but this will only be about 1% of the amount of >> gammas that would have been produced, and furthermore the bremsstrahlung >> energy >> spectrum is more spread out than a gamma spectrum would have been, so some >> it >> won't make it through the "shielding". >> > >The principles I'd relate to these points are something like: > > - If there are MeVs worth of energy per reactant, the energy most likely > comes from the nuclei and not the electronic layer. Agreed. > - If there are broadband emissions, the immediate source of the > emissions is no doubt from electronic activity and not the nuclei. Do you consider bremsstrahlung to be electronic or nuclear? > >Putting these two together, I'm inclined towards a nuclear source for the >energy that is somehow passing through the electronic layer. In >Piantelli's case, I know of no evidence that he's seeing MeVs worth of >energy; Doesn't a 6.7 MeV proton count? I think it's pretty strong evidence that some form of nuclear reaction occurred. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
