In reply to H Veeder's message of Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:35:34 -0400: Hi, Nuclear energies are 6 orders of magnitude larger than chemical energies, which I would expect to reduce the chances to the point where it's not even worth considering. However, that said, it should be noted that the same is not always true for reactions where D is converted into T.
e.g. the following reaction is exothermic:- 9Be+2H => 4He + 4He + 3H + 4.684 MeV >On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > >> In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for >> the >> >neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can give >> >up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a neutron >> >to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) >> > >> >Harry >> A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing so >> it >> would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of the >> deuteron. >> >> > >?That means it is an endothermic reaction, but that doesn't mean it is >impossible?. >I am not implying that neutron stripping should be discarded ?if the >reverse reaction is possible. >? >I >? ? >mentioned epicatalysis because >?theoretical research on? > >?the subject > >?was recently ? >published in Physical Review E. Along with some empirical evidence the >research suggests that deviations >?of practical significance ? >from the 2nd law of law thermodynamics are possible >?with epicatalysis >?:? > >https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128 > >Now the theory of epicatalysis is based on chemical activity, but I don't >see why the theory could not be broadened to include nuclear activity or >other unconventional high energy activity if a given heat anomaly is too >large to explain by just chemical activity. > >A tacit assumption of CF/LENR research is that an anomalous thermal signal >will have practical significance if it results from the conversion of >potential energy into kinetic energy in a one way process. The assumption >holds whether the source of energy is nuclear or chemical or some other. >Consequently, measured temperature anomalies are suspect until they are >supported by additional calorimetry which yields a global temperature rise. >If this global temperature rise (excess heat signal) is not found, and >measurement error is ruled out, then the temperature anomaly will be >classified as a local fluctuation with no practical significance. This >interpretation of temperature signals is motivated by the demands of the >2nd law of thermodynamics. > >However, if a process like epicatalysis is creating the temperature >anomalies then the methods used to measure an excess heat signal need to be >reconsidered. Detecting an excess heat signal ordinarily means looking for >a global temperature rise which requires that the source of an anomaly be >placed in a thermally closed environment since it is assumed the >temperature rise is based on the creation of kinetic energy from inside the >system. In contradistinction epicatalysis transfers energy from a lower >temperature region to a higher temperature region. If the purpose of the >enclosure is to detect a global temperature rise none will be found. > >Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
