subject:"RE\: \[Vo\]\:Tracking the colorful Quark"



On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


At 06:53 PM 12/7/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:

Similarly, the neutron reaction with 12C creates 13C*:

   n + 12C --> 13C*

which then fissions:

   13C* --> 3 4He

if the 13C* has enough energy.


Isn't that 13C* -> 3 4He + n?


Yes, that's right.  I forgot the neutron.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark


At 06:53 PM 12/7/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:

Similarly, the neutron reaction with 12C creates 13C*:

   n + 12C --> 13C*

which then fissions:

   13C* --> 3 4He

if the 13C* has enough energy.


Isn't that 13C* -> 3 4He + n?

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Horace Heffner
 wrote:> Similarly, the neutron reaction with
12C creates 13C*:
>
>   n + 12C --> 13C*
>
> which then fissions:
>
>   13C* --> 3 4He
>
> if the 13C* has enough energy.

Ah!  My mistake was assuming 13C resulted from the decay of 14C but
obviously the percentages are off by many orders of magnitude.

Thanks, Horace!

Terry

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

At 05:32 PM 12/7/2009, you wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner

> Mr. Heffner has kindly done the calculations, and I wouldn't
> consider myself qualified to do them right, at least not the first
> time!

I *never* get anything right the first time.  8^)

Whoa. What about elastic collision cross sections? If there is a mistake in
your underlying assumptions - then one of them could be this. Al-Najjar et
al. (1986) reported that the threshold energy of the neutron required to
fission a carbon atom (three alpha) is 9.6 MeV. The authors apparently
agree, and cite this reference several times.

Yes. So? 9.6 MeV neutrons, at least. Horace did his calculations with 14.1.

This is a cutoff, a threshold below which - nada - so if there is an elastic
collision of the high energy neutron first, with any hydrogen atom which is
half the atoms, then the neutron is lost for further consideration.

Yes. However, the cross-section for those collisions is still small. 
And most of those collisions would not take the neutron below the 9.6 
MeV threshhold. In any case, moot. triple tracks indicate energetic 
neutrons, there isn't any other reaction known to do that in this environment.

 To do
calculation correctly, it would seem that the cross-section for all elastic
collisions must be considered first to take this into account.

It's a small factor. Most of the neutrons would not have experienced 
an elastic collision.

 This seems to
absent since when you say "Thus 1 in 1/(1.036x10^-3), i.e. 1 in 966 neutrons
that is not stopped by O or H is involved in a 12C(n,n')3alpha reaction
within 1 mm" but that seems to assume that there is no elastic collision
possible with the carbon. Is that true?

There could be elastic collision with carbon. That would only be seen 
as a single track. And the cross section that was used was for 12C 
breakup. The cross section of 0.3 barns accounts for all the other 
reactions and effects that might happen, already. If I understand correctly.

A more likely source of underestimation of neutrons would be that 
most of the carbon fractures would not be visible, because they would 
not penetrate to the back side of the CR-39, only ones fairly close 
to the back would make it. I don't recall the depth of CR-39 that the 
alphas can penetrate, but it is way short of the thickness of the CR-39.

I was just reading that one can clean up the background from CR-39 by 
a heavy pre-etch. That wouldn't get rid of background from neutrons, 
but it would get rid of the charged particle radiation, one just 
takes off the top layer, maybe 20 microns or so?

What am I missing?

Is anything loose?

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark



On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:


Maybe someone can explain this comment in the paper:

"In the carbon breakup reaction, a
metastable 13C shatters into three α particles and the
residuals of the reaction can be viewed in the CR-39
detector as a three-prong star where each prong represents
each charged particle that occurs in the decay (Antolković
and Dolenec 1975)."

Is this saying that the reaction happens only with the 13C isotope,
typically 1% of the content?

Terry



No.  When a two particle nuclear reaction occurs it typically  
involves creating an "excited nucleus" of combined mass.  For  
example, ordinary fusion is not just a one step process.  Excited  
helium is created as a middle step, denoted:


   D + D --> He*

The unstable He* can decay in one of three ways, releasing a gamma, a  
T and p, or an He3 and an n.  I give an extended description of this  
process on pages 4-7 of:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

here are the reactions:

D(D,p)T 4.03 MeV
D(D,n)He3 3.27 MeV
D(D,gamma)He4 23.9 MeV

The He* in hot fusion has 23.9 MeV of "fusion energy".  If it  
fissions then those fissions require energy to break up the He*.  The  
bond breaking energy to enable the D(D,p)T reaction is 23.9 MeV -  
4.03 MeV = 19.87 MeV. Similarly the bond breaking energy to enable  
the D(D,n)He3 reaction is 23.9 MeV - 3.27 MeV = 20.63 MeV.


Similarly, the neutron reaction with 12C creates 13C*:

   n + 12C --> 13C*

which then fissions:

   13C* --> 3 4He

if the 13C* has enough energy.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark



On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner




Mr. Heffner has kindly done the calculations, and I wouldn't
consider myself qualified to do them right, at least not the first
time!


I *never* get anything right the first time.  8^)



Whoa. What about elastic collision cross sections? If there is a  
mistake in
your underlying assumptions - then one of them could be this. Al- 
Najjar et
al. (1986) reported that the threshold energy of the neutron  
required to

fission a carbon atom (three alpha) is 9.6 MeV. The authors apparently
agree, and cite this reference several times.


I think that is the energy required to *see* the triple tracks.




This is a cutoff, a threshold below which - nada - so if there is  
an elastic
collision of the high energy neutron first, with any hydrogen atom  
which is
half the atoms, then the neutron is lost for further consideration.  
To do
calculation correctly, it would seem that the cross-section for all  
elastic
collisions must be considered first to take this into account. This  
seems to
absent since when you say "Thus 1 in 1/(1.036x10^-3), i.e. 1 in 966  
neutrons
that is not stopped by O or H is involved in a 12C(n,n')3alpha  
reaction
within 1 mm" but that seems to assume that there is no elastic  
collision

possible with the carbon. Is that true?

What am I missing?



You are missing this:

I wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In 1/16 inch, or 1.5875x10^-3 m we have:

   R = 1 - I/I0 = 1 - EXP(-x/L) = EXP(-0.0015875 m)/(0.965 m) = 1 - . 
99835627 = 1.0644x10^-3


or 1 in about 600 neutrons.

If we assume 100 times the beam attenuation for O and H, about 1 in  
60,000 neutrons in a 12C(n,n’)3alpha reaction. Given the surface area  
is close to the wire, we could assume almost 50% detection rate. That  
means we can see about 1 in 120,00 neutrons.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
end quote

Note the "120,00" above should of course be "120,000".

The point is I provided a fudge factor of *100 times* attenuation due  
to proton and oxygen collisions. It is rough, but plenty good enough  
for this purpose. The actual cross section for incoherent neutron- 
hydrogen (knock ons) is about 15 times that for the 12C(n,n’)3alpha  
reaction, and the coherent reaction cross section for hydrogen plus  
oxygen is about equal to that of the 3 alpha reaction, at least at  
the 14.1 MeV neutron wavelength, which is 7.54x10^-15 m, or  
7.54x10^-5 Å.  That means the "straight through" neutrons to the 12C  
represent about 1/(1+15) = 1/16 = 0.0625 of the neutrons, or about  
one in 16, *not* 1 in a 100, which is what I used for a fudge factor.  
I gave a very conservative calculation AFAIK.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

Maybe someone can explain this comment in the paper:

"In the carbon breakup reaction, a
metastable 13C shatters into three α particles and the
residuals of the reaction can be viewed in the CR-39
detector as a three-prong star where each prong represents
each charged particle that occurs in the decay (Antolković
and Dolenec 1975)."

Is this saying that the reaction happens only with the 13C isotope,
typically 1% of the content?

Terry

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> All in all, I am still of the opinion that the triple tracks are not
>> indicative of a three-alpha reaction (12C fission), and that alternatives
>> should be looked at.
>
> But what about the geometry of the cones in figure 2 of my reference:
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/
>
> What else could have that signature inside the polycarbonate?
>
> Terry
>

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark



On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:32:56 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
your underlying assumptions - then one of them could be this. Al- 
Najjar et
al. (1986) reported that the threshold energy of the neutron  
required to
fission a carbon atom (three alpha) is 9.6 MeV. The authors  
apparently

agree, and cite this reference several times.

[snip]
I wonder how that is derived? The actual energy required to fission  
C12 is only

7.3 MeV.

Perhaps it was measured, and the number of fissions below 9.6 MeV  
was so small

as to go undetected?



You see a lot of different minimum energies referenced.  The problem  
is the three alphas have to have enough kinetic energy left over to  
make tracks in the CR-39, which is about 1 MeV/alpha.


The CR-39 triple tracks look to be from better than 9 MeV neutron  
tracks.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:32:56 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>your underlying assumptions - then one of them could be this. Al-Najjar et
>al. (1986) reported that the threshold energy of the neutron required to
>fission a carbon atom (three alpha) is 9.6 MeV. The authors apparently
>agree, and cite this reference several times. 
[snip]
I wonder how that is derived? The actual energy required to fission C12 is only
7.3 MeV.

Perhaps it was measured, and the number of fissions below 9.6 MeV was so small
as to go undetected?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

2009-12-07 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner 



> Mr. Heffner has kindly done the calculations, and I wouldn't  
> consider myself qualified to do them right, at least not the first  
> time!

I *never* get anything right the first time.  8^)



Whoa. What about elastic collision cross sections? If there is a mistake in
your underlying assumptions - then one of them could be this. Al-Najjar et
al. (1986) reported that the threshold energy of the neutron required to
fission a carbon atom (three alpha) is 9.6 MeV. The authors apparently
agree, and cite this reference several times. 

This is a cutoff, a threshold below which - nada - so if there is an elastic
collision of the high energy neutron first, with any hydrogen atom which is
half the atoms, then the neutron is lost for further consideration. To do
calculation correctly, it would seem that the cross-section for all elastic
collisions must be considered first to take this into account. This seems to
absent since when you say "Thus 1 in 1/(1.036x10^-3), i.e. 1 in 966 neutrons
that is not stopped by O or H is involved in a 12C(n,n')3alpha reaction
within 1 mm" but that seems to assume that there is no elastic collision
possible with the carbon. Is that true?

What am I missing?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:40:40 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin - I am surprised that you did not mention, as a possibility, some
>version of the hydrino - for instance the "deuterino" at very high
>redundancy. If in the form of a di-deuterino would have similar properties -
>to a neutral alpha particle, no?
[snip]
I suppose that if the fusion of two deuterons to He4 were to occur very close to
a C12 nucleus then perhaps the energy of the reaction might result in the break
up of the C12. Something along the lines of

2 x D + C12 => 4 x He4 + 16.6 MeV

In which case I would expect to see 4 tracks rather than 3.

I can't easily see a dideuterino molecule gaining enough kinetic energy to
fission C12.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark


At 12:16 AM 12/7/2009, Jones Beene wrote:

Abd,

I do not have the time to devote to this important topic tonight, and will
address the points in separate postings later, but first and because ...
apparently ... either you do not understand the situation as well as I had
imagined earlier, since you are wavering on many issues now - or else we are
having semantic problems - let's clear up a few important semantic things
first, and then determine who is, or isn't, paying attention at the end.

> Jones, you aren't paying attention. Please do. "Carbon fission" isn't
postulated as part of the reaction, nor are neutrons or tritium postulated
as having anything to do with the primary reaction.

Wow, that conclusion is most perplexing - that tritium is not important. You
must be looking at a different "primary reaction".


Nobody is proposing tritium involvement in the primary reaction. The 
"primary reaction" is the one generating excess heat and helium at a 
Q factor in the 25 +/- 5 MeV range. If this were classic d-d fusion, 
with tritium being the product about half the time, there would be, 
indeed, a fatal flux of neutrons, unless some very unusual and 
unknown circumstance changed the branching ratio for that specific reaction.


Therefore, it should have been obvious from the beginning, what is 
happening in CF cells is not classic d-d fusion. It is something 
else. This is not taking deuterium nuclei and mashing them together 
with brute force, i.e., high energy. If I'm correct, muon-catalyzed 
fusion, which takes place at very low energies, still produces the 
same branching ratios as hot fusion, but it could not be ruled out 
(to my feeble understanding) that a fusion with negative energy 
(resulting from some reaction like Oppenheimer-Phillips) might have 
different branching, perhaps being so delicately balanced that the 
symmetric outcome takes place, except that there is no symmetric 
outcome with d+d -> He-4.


To me, the default hypothesis, given the lack of the signatures of 
d-d fusion, is that d-d fusion is not taking place, and the 
scientific community should not have been content until it understood 
what *was* taking place. Being satisfied that d-d fusion wasn't the 
show was rather obtuse.


"Daddy, daddy, there is a million dollars piled in the garage, it 
must have been left there by the Easter Bunny." "No, sweetie, that's 
impossible, the Easter Bunny only comes at Easter." "But daddy, the 
money is in the garage." "Nonsense, sweetie, didn't you hear me when 
I said that the Easter Bunny could not have left money in the garage, 
it's the wrong time of year?"


Uh, is there money in the garage? Setting possible causation aside?


I am interested in only the *triple tracks* for now.


Good. Then tritium has *nothing* to do with it -- except that tritium 
reactions might explain neutron generation. But triple tracks are 
triple tracks regardless of how the neutrons are generated. They 
actually tell us nothing at all about that.



 That is the "primary
reaction" for me in this thread. These tracks are not possible IMHO without
carbon fission (three alpha reaction) and that is also in the opinion of the
authors of the paper. You seem to believe otherwise.


There is no other proposed mechanism for carbon fission under the 
experimental circumstances, plus energetic neutrons are known to be 
present for other (and more copious) reasons: knock-on protons. 
Bottom line: if we have some non-radioactive material, and if charged 
particle radiation is being generated *within* that material, under 
specific external conditions, and not when those conditions are 
absent, and there are no local energies in range to produce exotic 
particles (which would have to be neutral), we have neutrons. They 
might be thermal, epithermal, or energetic, which will cause 
different kinds of reactions, but we are seeing a radiation effect 
unique to neutrons and other neutral particles. In a cloud chamber, 
we would see tracks originating within the chamber, out of thin air, 
so to speak.



What are you considering to be the "primary reaction" if other than this?


The primary reaction is whatever is producing the excess heat and the 
helium. In some experiments, conditions might cause other reactions 
to be primary, but that's another story and doesn't apply here. I'm 
current assuming that there is one primary reaction, with some at 
least occasionally hot reaction products, which can then cause 
secondary reactions.



But if triple tracks is also the 'primary' issue for you,


Primary issue and primary reaction are entirely different. Yes, the 
primary issue here is the triple tracks. But the triple tracks are 
not a product of the primary reaction in the cell; they are clearly 
quite rare compared to whatever is heating and transmuting 
(deuterium?) into helium.



 then how are they
possible without the three alpha reaction, and especially with tritium as a
predecessor? (except "random overlap" which the

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark


At 11:45 AM 12/7/2009, Terry Blanton wrote:


They also got triple tracks from 5.5 MeV alphas from Am; but, of
course, that is 4 times the mass of the single neutron:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/


The critical triple tracks are those which are generated where the 
alphas can't penetrate.


The caption for a photo in the article seems to claim that there is a 
triple track from exposure to Am-241. But that's an isolated track 
and could be from cosmic ray background. I have some question about 
how easy it is to find triple tracks when they are scattering down 
into the material, as distinct from being generated deep in the 
material, almost before the neutron would have exited. Triple tracks 
would be generated at all depths in the detector at roughly the same 
rate, but the most beautiful photos of them show converging grooves 
at the bottom of the constellation of three pits. This has to has to 
be an image of the triple track from the back side of the detector. 
If it had been the front side and a three-lobed track were observed, 
the point of original would have been completely etched away.

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

2009-12-07 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

>But what about the geometry of the cones in figure 2 of my reference:

>http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/

>What else could have that signature inside the polycarbonate?

This is a good point. The absence of any track leading up to the origin of
the
triple tracks implies that the originating particle was neutral not charged,
so
that probably rules out carbon fission by fast alphas.


Robin - I am surprised that you did not mention, as a possibility, some
version of the hydrino - for instance the "deuterino" at very high
redundancy. If in the form of a di-deuterino would have similar properties -
to a neutral alpha particle, no?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark



On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


I believe that Mr. Heffner has responded on the issue.


Please feel free to refer to me as Horace.



I'm not an authority, I just have a big mouth and say what I see  
and think.


Ditto!


Mr. Heffner has kindly done the calculations, and I wouldn't  
consider myself qualified to do them right, at least not the first  
time!


I *never* get anything right the first time.  8^)


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:01:20 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> All in all, I am still of the opinion that the triple tracks are not
>> indicative of a three-alpha reaction (12C fission), and that alternatives
>> should be looked at.
>
>But what about the geometry of the cones in figure 2 of my reference:
>
>http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/
>
>What else could have that signature inside the polycarbonate?

This is a good point. The absence of any track leading up to the origin of the
triple tracks implies that the originating particle was neutral not charged, so
that probably rules out carbon fission by fast alphas.

BTW I wonder if an energetic gamma would do the job?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> All in all, I am still of the opinion that the triple tracks are not
> indicative of a three-alpha reaction (12C fission), and that alternatives
> should be looked at.

But what about the geometry of the cones in figure 2 of my reference:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/

What else could have that signature inside the polycarbonate?

Terry

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

I believe that Mr. Heffner has responded on the issue. However, to 
underscore part of it:

At 10:33 PM 12/6/2009, Jones Beene wrote:

-Original Message-
First question: what is the fission cross-section (3 alpha) of 12C for
energetic D+T neutrons? Caveat - please do not confuse this with the
elastic, inelastic, spallation or any other cross-section value.

I've written that I don't know, I only know that triple tracks under 
the subject conditions are considered diagnostic for neutrons. And I 
also know that I looked for information on this in newsgroups and 
found nothing.

The form of the question bothers me: the fission cross-section for 
the reaction 12C, 3alpha, does not depend on the source of the 
neutrons at all, it depends only on the density of the carbon and the 
energy of the neutrons. And that's a basic issue in this interchange: 
the detection of neutrons is one thing, and a hypothesis that tritium 
is involved in the production of neutrons is quite another. The 
evidence for neutrons is very strong, not only from triple-tracks but 
also from other charged particle radiation being generated within 
other materials.

>> JB: The supposition of higher energy neutrons in LENR is absolutely
ludicrous after all of these years of non-detectability  !!!

> Adb: This really shows, I'm afraid, ignorance of the situation, of why it
took so long to discover this radiation. The level is quite low, down  in or
close to the noise, for detectors at any significant distance from the
source.

Yes. And what in the world would make you imagine I think 
differently? I've been saying that: the level is very low, close to 
noise, "at any significant distance from the source."

Ok, next question. As an authority on this subject, as evidenced by your
previous remarks,

I'm not an authority, I just have a big mouth and say what I see and think.

 and assuming you have answered the first question
correctly, please calculate the flux of energetic neutrons necessary to
achieve the experimental evidence which the SPAWAR paper claims - giving
them full benefit for finding roughly 10 triple tracks in three days in the
CR-39 under their published parameters. You can assume that the film is
composed of 100% carbon if that helps.

Mr. Heffner has kindly done the calculations, and I wouldn't consider 
myself qualified to do them right, at least not the first time!

These two answers should not be difficult at all for an expert like
yourself.

No, actually, difficult for an "expert like myself." I could do it, 
I'm sure, but it would take me quite a long time, with a high error 
rate. I have a high error rate even when I'm quite familiar with 
methods and in this case I'd be doing a calculation for the first time.

Once you have posted them, it should be rather easy for even a rank amateur
like myself to demonstrate a point that apparently contradicts almost
everything you have implied in the previous posting.

Unless, of course, my ignorance of the situation is as you claim.

It seems it is, but I was hoping for those calculations from *Mr. 
Beene*, since he was the one making an unusual claim of a specific 
situation and specific results, and apparently without actually doing 
the calculations and possibly without having followed anyone else 
doing them: that finding 10 triple tracks in three weeks, i.e., 
evidence of 10 C12 breakup reactions from 10 neutrons, was evidence 
of a neutron flux so high that it would be fatal for the researchers. 
I tried to find any mention of anything like this, came up with 
nothing. Mr. Beene claimed to have seen this on "newsgroups." He's 
quite welcome to point us to them. Specifically, where and when?

On the face of it, if the C12 breakup were that rare, what I did find 
about it would seem to have been unlikely to have been reported. But 
that's quite speculative, and I'm glad that Mr. Heffner has done the math.

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

2009-12-07 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

> I am interested in only the *triple tracks* for now.

They also got triple tracks from 5.5 MeV alphas from Am; but, of course,
that is 4 times the mass of the single neutron:



... not to mention, the alpha is a charged particle. What would be the
threshold energy for an alpha to impinge on 12C ? (unless there is a
spallation neutron intermediary)

The chart that Horace found does make a prima facie case for fast neutrons,
since the cross-section has increased by two orders of magnitude compared to
lower energy neutrons - but it still appears to be too low to happen the 10
times per run, based on the tritium inventory in the small cell that they
have reported in earlier experiments. I'm still trying to get a handle on
the required flux to result in 10 triple tracks but think it would be much
higher than can be possible.

The .3 barns is about the same cross-section as the hydrogen atoms in the
water of a fission reactor, which does become slightly activated over years
of time in the confines of a reactor, in a flux that is typically 10^14
neutrons per cc... but that may not be a good indicator to compare with a
thin piece of CR-39 over three days in a flux that should be about 10^13
times less.

Triple tacks from another alpha interaction, unless that alpha first creates
a fast spallation neutron, as Robin suggested seems remote - and even then,
the needed flux just isn't there to make it work out statistically IMHO. 

All in all, I am still of the opinion that the triple tracks are not
indicative of a three-alpha reaction (12C fission), and that alternatives
should be looked at.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> I am interested in only the *triple tracks* for now.

They also got triple tracks from 5.5 MeV alphas from Am; but, of
course, that is 4 times the mass of the single neutron:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:16:04 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>First - let's begin with any fast neutron > ~7 MeV, as the author's mention
>this value range several times. What other source for these than D+T fusion
>do you imagine there to be in this situation? Please list the reactions and
>the value of neutron energy.
[snip]
23.8 MeV alphas could create spallation neutrons from Pd that still have the
necessary 7.2 MeV minimum energy required to split C12 into 3 He4.

For that matter, such an alpha could do the job itself if close enough.

BTW the spallation itself will usually consume 5-10 MeV depending on the nucleus
that the neutron is removed from. For that matter, it may come from a D nucleus,
requiring only 2.2 MeV to free it, which would mean that the original particle
would need at least 7.2 + 2.2 ~ 9.4 MeV.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

Abd,

I do not have the time to devote to this important topic tonight, and will
address the points in separate postings later, but first and because ...
apparently ... either you do not understand the situation as well as I had
imagined earlier, since you are wavering on many issues now - or else we are
having semantic problems - let's clear up a few important semantic things
first, and then determine who is, or isn't, paying attention at the end.

> Jones, you aren't paying attention. Please do. "Carbon fission" isn't
postulated as part of the reaction, nor are neutrons or tritium postulated
as having anything to do with the primary reaction.

Wow, that conclusion is most perplexing - that tritium is not important. You
must be looking at a different "primary reaction".

I am interested in only the *triple tracks* for now. That is the "primary
reaction" for me in this thread. These tracks are not possible IMHO without
carbon fission (three alpha reaction) and that is also in the opinion of the
authors of the paper. You seem to believe otherwise.

What are you considering to be the "primary reaction" if other than this?
But if triple tracks is also the 'primary' issue for you, then how are they
possible without the three alpha reaction, and especially with tritium as a
predecessor? (except "random overlap" which the authors effectively rule
out).

> The carbon fission they mention is not a rare reaction, it is a relatively
common one when energetic neutrons are present... 

This is wrong. It is a a rare reaction if you consider the likelihood of any
fast neutron accomplishing it or not, within the CR-39 layer. But let's put
down some guidelines about "rarity". 

First - let's begin with any fast neutron > ~7 MeV, as the author's mention
this value range several times. What other source for these than D+T fusion
do you imagine there to be in this situation? Please list the reactions and
the value of neutron energy.

Secondly, the issue of rarity. For every x-number of fast neutrons created,
how many (triple alpha) carbon fissions from that number of neutrons push it
into your category of "relatively common" ?  one in ten? one in a hundred ?
one in a thousand ? Please try to be roughly precise within a few orders of
magnitude ;-) ... close enough for government work, as they say.

Hey what the heck, I'll toss out a number for starters: my definition of
"rare" in this situation would be less than one triple alpha reaction per
every 10,000 fast neutrons created. And BTW - I do believe that tritium is
an absolute necessity for fast neutrons as we are defining them (>7 MeV).
What is your definition for "relatively common" ?

We can take it from there in steps, and if nothing else, I will try to walk
you through it step by step - since you seem to be so impressed with the
apparent lack of criticism from the mainstream. Selective reading, perhaps.
I may borrow some thoughts from skeptics who I know, even though I am
basically a strong believer in LENR, but obviously not in the author's
attribution of triple tracks to a rare reaction which demands an even rarer
predecessor event (tritium).

Cheers,

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

2009-12-06 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 07:46 PM 12/6/2009, Jones Beene wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner

> I think you need to read the SPAWAR articles.  SPAWAR detected triple
tracks deep the CR-39. They show the photos.

Yes, my original post cited both the article and the image of triple tracks-
which I am merely hypothesizing comes from something other than what the
authors ascribe them to. I have read articles by them going back to the mid
nineties where they find a tiny amount of tritium, but AFAIK only recently
did they make this dreadfully incorrect leap of faith to include such a rare
reaction involving carbon fission. As best I can tell, they are apparently
unaware of the low cross-section problem.

Jones, you aren't paying attention. Please do. "Carbon fission" isn't 
postulated as part of the reaction, nor are neutrons or tritium 
postulated as having anything to do with the primary reaction.

The carbon fission they mention is not a rare reaction, it is a 
relatively common one when energetic neutrons are present, and the 
triple-track that is the evidence of it -- direct evidence, there 
*are* triple tracks, appearing to be indentical in energy as far as 
one can tell, and visibly originating at a single point within the 
CR-39, with no charged particle initiating that reaction. That's just 
about got to be an energetic neutron.

And if there is fusion or other energetic nuclear reaction taking 
place in the palladium deuteride, we would expect a certain, possibly 
low, incidence of secondary reactions. Like D-T fusion, but that's 
only one possible example. D-T fusion would be rare, to be sure, 
because of nothing else than the rarity of tritium in the solution. 
Raise the tritium level, if tritium is involved with the neutron 
generation, the level of neutrons might go up. If they don't, then 
tritium is probably not the source, my guess is where the analysis would fall.

There is no cross-section problem. The level of knock-on protons, 
found from the abundance of single tracks on the back side of the 
CR-39, is such that the discovered level of triple-tracks indicating 
the well-known fission of C12 from the impact of an energetic neutron 
is reasonable, AFAIK. The protons also show the neutrons, except, of 
course, that protons themselves are as clearly and dramatically 
diagnostic of neutrons, and give less indication of the neutron 
energy, it takes a certain minimum energy to cause the C12 breakup.

> Such triple tracks in CR-39 are common when high energy neutrons are
present.

Nonsense, if you are talking about a small flux of fast neutrons ... or else
... to be diplomatic, let me change that to: can you please provide a
citation for this being a "common" occurrence with a very low flux of fast
neutrons.

They are known to occur with high frequency with high flux, so why 
not low frequency with low flux? Look, the peer reviewers at one very 
high-level publication, Naturwissenschaften, passed this paper, and 
Rothwell, who has worked with these reviewers, claims they are *very* 
knowledgeable about the field. Are triple tracks strongly indicative 
of energetic neutrons or not?

The terms "very low" and "common" are being juxtaposed here, and, in 
this usage, are obviously contradictory. The incidence of triple 
tracks is very low in the SPAWAR reports, on the order of 10 tracks 
per 2 square centimeters per experiment, which is several weeks. 
Evidence of knock-on protons is much higher, looks to me like 
hundreds of tracks or more, maybe thousands, I don't recall if they 
give figures. These are on the back side, and I believe that these 
chips are 1/16 of an inch thick, or over 1500 microns away from the 
cathode. The vast majority of neutrons are not being detected, and 
most that do show an observable effect are through single tracks, 
presumably from knock-on protons.

So ... there are papers that I can't read that do characterize the 
numbers and kinds of tracks for various energies of neutrons. What's 
clear from what I can see is that triple tracks are "commonly" 
considered to be indicative of energetic neutrons, I found quite a 
few references that predate the SPAWAR report. The flux is not "very 
low," compared to the numbers of triple tracks, which *are* very low.

I have not done the math, but the neutron flux in terms of overall 
emission could be, roughly, two per hour detected on the chip with a 
proton (which is most of them). Which, if the neutrons are emitted in 
all directions, would indicate maybe 12 per hour total if the 
detection layer were a sphere. But that layer only detects a very 
small fraction of the neutrons that pass through it, I'd be 
astonished if 1% of them result in a single track. So maybe we have 
1200 per hour, or 20 per minute, one every three seconds. That's a 
low flux, for sure, but quite enough to compare with the very few 
triple tracks seen. From other evidence, the neutrons probably occur 
in bursts, with a much higher flux for a very s

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

> triple tracks are strong evidence of energetic neutrons, that's why the
Triple Track paper had such an impact.

And you are certain it is seen by skeptics as positive impact? Let me ask
you a couple of questions Abd, since you are writing with the imprimatur of
a high level of technical understanding of this situation, and yet are
apparently unaware of the full implications of what you are saying. To make
it simple, I will ask only two questions.

First question: what is the fission cross-section (3 alpha) of 12C for
energetic D+T neutrons? Caveat - please do not confuse this with the
elastic, inelastic, spallation or any other cross-section value. 

>> JB: The supposition of higher energy neutrons in LENR is absolutely
ludicrous after all of these years of non-detectability  !!!

> Adb: This really shows, I'm afraid, ignorance of the situation, of why it
took so long to discover this radiation. The level is quite low, down  in or
close to the noise, for detectors at any significant distance from the
source. 

Ok, next question. As an authority on this subject, as evidenced by your
previous remarks, and assuming you have answered the first question
correctly, please calculate the flux of energetic neutrons necessary to
achieve the experimental evidence which the SPAWAR paper claims - giving
them full benefit for finding roughly 10 triple tracks in three days in the
CR-39 under their published parameters. You can assume that the film is
composed of 100% carbon if that helps.

These two answers should not be difficult at all for an expert like
yourself.

Once you have posted them, it should be rather easy for even a rank amateur
like myself to demonstrate a point that apparently contradicts almost
everything you have implied in the previous posting.

Unless, of course, my ignorance of the situation is as you claim.

Regards,

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

2009-12-06 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 04:05 PM 12/6/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:

Jones,

Our conversation is becoming garbled.  I'll summarize.

I wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SPAWAR proposed the triple tracks were from the three alpha producing
reaction:

  n + C12 + (9 MeV minimum kinetic energy for subsequent triple
tracks seen) --> 3 He

This was logical because that is commonly seen in CR-39 when high
energy neutrons are present. SPAWAR suggests the neutrons come from:

  D + T --> 4He (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You wrote:"... deuterium does not fuse at ambient temperatures ...
and never, never, never does 12C fission from a neutron capture."

I wrote: "The 3 alpha reaction 12C(n,n')3alpha is well known.  I
don't know what you are talking about. The triple tracks are rare.
They accumulate to an observable number over a period of days in
CR-39.  Their counts would be buried in background for a particle
counter."


*Unless* you can get the particle detector *very* close to the source 
of neutrons, very difficult to arrange with electronic detectors.


Even then the absolute numbers are low. Neutrons were, in fact, long 
reported, but the levels were so close to background, with the 
detection techniques being used, that it was always possible to claim 
that this was background radiation with some semblance of cogency.





You wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I am talking about essentially a zero cross-section of this reaction
for
thermal neutrons.  Duh! This is why graphite is used as a moderator in
fission reactors where the average fission neutron starts out at
about one
MeV.

The supposition of higher energy neutrons in LENR is absolutely
ludicrous
after all of these years of non-detectability  !!!

Geeze, where is any semblance of reality in this claim of carbon
fission?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -

I think you need to read the SPAWAR articles.  SPAWAR detected triple
tracks deep the CR-39.  They show the photos.  Such triple tracks in
CR-39 are common when high energy neutrons are present. It is a
logical conclusion on their part that their co-deposition experiment
created enough T that DT reactions were detected. This is uncommon in
the CF field, and thus assumed to be possibly unique to SPAWAR's
technique.


Perhaps. I'll note that neutron production seems to be greatly 
amplified if the cathode substrate is gold. This leads, for me and 
some others, to some suspicion that a different reaction is involved. 
It doesn't really matter, regardless of the cause, the reaction 
generating neutrons is rare enough that it could not possibly explain 
the excess heat and helium. Rather, it is a secondary reaction, which 
is exactly what should be expected, unless somehow, indeed, the 
reaction is able to "magically" transfer most of its energy to the 
lattice, all the time.


For example, under the TSC theory, the Be-8 nucleus will normally 
radiate most of its energy to the lattice through photon emission, 
before decaying. But there will be a certain incidence of Be-8 
fission before this has occurred, hence there will be some hot 
alphas. Hot enough to cause fusion. There may be other side-reactions 
or rare pathways. What can be said at this point is that (1) neutrons 
have been detected, above background, with no explanation other than 
some reaction in the experimental cell, and not found with controls, 
and (2) there is therefore a nuclear reaction *of some kind* taking place.



Neutrons have been detected in many CF experiments, just with *very*
low branching ratios, and low neutron to tritium ratios as well.


Yes. Exactly.


I have seen *no* evidence that thermal neutrons exist in quantities
within even orders of magnitude of enough to account for cold fusion
excess heat. If that happened then neutron activation of lattice
elements and lattice impurities would produce a massive signal that
neutron activation had occurred.  Theories which predict CF is
produced by slow neutrons are therefore without experimental
foundation. There *is* evidence in CR-39 tracks of medium energy
neutrons, on the order of 1-3 MeV, via knock-on reactions with
protons in the CR-39.


I will look for slow neutrons using a high-efficiency Boron-10 
neutron converter screen. I don't expect to find them, beyond maybe a 
few strays, but experiment is king. However, I'll have to leave it to 
someone else to theorize about what percentage of slow neutrons 
generated in the cathode itself might make it to a detector surface. 
I'm not sure I'm ready to dunk my precious Boron-10 in the 
electrolyte, so this could be a reason to use the windowed cells I 
have, with a 6 micron protective mylar window between the cathode and 
the Boron-10, plus the Boron-10 base layer (100 microns of polyester).

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

2009-12-06 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 02:00 PM 12/6/2009, Jones Beene wrote:

The 3 alpha reaction 12C(n,n')3alpha is well known. I don't know
what you are talking about.

I am talking about essentially a zero cross-section of this reaction for
thermal neutrons. Duh! This is why graphite is used as a moderator in
fission reactors where the average fission neutron starts out at about one
MeV.

Very odd, this conversation. The breakup of 12C into three 4He is not
from thermal neutrons, it is from energetic neutrons.

That's why triple tracks of the kind found by SPAWAR are considered
diagnostic for energetic neutrons. There are far more tracks
generated in the SPAWAR experiments, on detector surfaces unreachable
by charged particles, apparently caused by proton knock-on, so a
substantially lower level of triple tracks would be expected. Proton
knock-on tracks would resemble other radiation, but triple tracks are
strong evidence of energetic neutrons, that's why the Triple Track
paper had such an impact.

The supposition of higher energy neutrons in LENR is absolutely ludicrous
after all of these years of non-detectability !!!

This really shows, I'm afraid, ignorance of the situation, of why it
took so long to discover this radiation. The level is quite low, down
in or close to the noise, for detectors at any significant distance
from the source. To detect these neutrons, it was necessary to have a
detector very close, and even then the levels were too low for
reliable detection by electronic detectors, which is how the bulk of
searching for neturons was done. CR-39 doesn't actually detect
neutrons, it is only sensitive to charged particles. However,
energetic neutrons will, in a proper material (and the polycarbonate
itself is such a material), with generate knock-on protons from
hydrogen in the material and a few triple tracks from interactions
with carbon in the material. These tracks only have a limited range
in the material, so the large majority of neutrons aren't detected.

Thermal neutrons aren't detected at all. "Ludicrous"? Actually, if
there are LEN reactions that effect fusion, we would expect secondary
reactions that will generate neutrons. It is highly likely at this
point that the primary reaction does not involve neutron emission at
all; as a possible theory, I point to the Tetrahedral Symmetric
Condensate theory of Takahashi, which predicts deuterium as fuel,
helium as ash, a Q factor of the right value for d-d fusion (but not
through the mechanism of d-d fusion), and very short-range EUV
radiation as the excited Be-8 nucleus formed sheds energy before
fissioning into two alpha particles. The last prediction has not been
observed. And it's difficult to observe, Horace has suggested an approach.

There may be more than one reaction, but the Q factor observed leads
to a conclusion that the *effect* is to convert deuterium into helium.

If this is happening, there will be plenty of energy available to
sometimes cause classic brute-force fusion, and this explains the
neutrons. Heffner has also suggested, quite cogently, that if D-T
fusion is the reaction involved in these secondary reactions, doping
the cell with tritium should increase the neutron production. I doubt
I'll be able to test that myself, but the cells I'm designing should
make it very easy for anyone with access to tritium; these cells,
which will be quite inexpensive as experiments go in this field,
implement a codeposition protocol on a small scale, in a
configuration optimized for the production and measurement of neutron
radiation. (Gold cathode wire, stacks of CR-39 detectors, with the
detection surface being the interface between a pair of CR-39 layers,
and the detector surface being arranged all the way from very close
to the cathode and quite far away, looking for information about the
spatial distribution of the radiation and an inference as to its
original flux based on expectation of inverse square law variation of
detected radiation.)

Geeze, where is any semblance of reality in this claim of carbon fission?

As Horace has indicated, it's a well-known reaction. That should be
obvious; if it were not well-known, triple tracks would not be ascribed to it!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X49-46MV3DB-CG&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C50221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=17d04e2c34baf78840a5d01dff09d8c0

This wasn't an invention of the SPAWAR group. By the way, the above
link is to a paper, "Fast-neutron spectrometry using the
triple-reaction in the CR-39 detector," 2002, and if anyone can
provide me with a copy, I'd very much appreciate it. It appears to
contain information about the effect of etching time and neutron
energy on the triple-track production efficiency. Just what the
doctor ordered, it would seem.

http://www.iscmns.org/catania07/Abstracts.pdf

In Figure
2a, an arrow indicates what appears to b

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner 

> I think you need to read the SPAWAR articles.  SPAWAR detected triple
tracks deep the CR-39. They show the photos.  

Yes, my original post cited both the article and the image of triple tracks-
which I am merely hypothesizing comes from something other than what the
authors ascribe them to. I have read articles by them going back to the mid
nineties where they find a tiny amount of tritium, but AFAIK only recently
did they make this dreadfully incorrect leap of faith to include such a rare
reaction involving carbon fission. As best I can tell, they are apparently
unaware of the low cross-section problem.

> Such triple tracks in CR-39 are common when high energy neutrons are
present.

Nonsense, if you are talking about a small flux of fast neutrons ... or else
... to be diplomatic, let me change that to: can you please provide a
citation for this being a "common" occurrence with a very low flux of fast
neutrons. 

As best I can tell from what is available online, only a massively large
flux of fast neutrons would leave any detectable triple tracks in adjacent
film. This is due to the extremely low cross-section, and the extremely high
penetrating power of fast neutrons. A flux of fast neutrons, sufficient to
cause even one triple track in a single sub-mm layer of film - would seem to
be most undesirable - even deadly.

The infamous "Dead Graduate Student Problem" came to exemplify what hot
fusion practitioners thought about P&F's original announcement, and yet even
so- that was with no suspected tritium being involved (in 1989). If D+D
fusion generated heat, so the argument went -- the neutron flux should have
killed the Grad Student operating the cell... but later - the
rationalization was found that it was full helium fusion, and with very few
neutrons, so Grad Students are safe ... 

...but fast forward and now we find that the SPAWAR team wants to return to
that scenario made even worse via tritium ... and surely D+T fusion should
have nailed everyone in the entire SPAWAR lab, if even a few triple tracks
were seen. Of course, here we are not talking about excess heat - merely the
number of triple tracks observed (about 10 per every three day run it would
seem), and then calculating back from cross-section of carbon for fast
neutrons to the flux which should have been required to produce them. 

> It is a logical conclusion on their part that their co-deposition
experiment created enough T that DT reactions were detected. 

Horace, it could be logical that a few thousand DT reactions occurred, since
there was a tiny amount of tritium. What is not logical is that any of the
fast neutron would be stopped by carbon in a single layer of film. 

The problem that SPAWAR seems to dodge is statistical. They claim there are
only a few thousand tritium atoms, so that even if there is a complete
fusion of it all with deuterium, there are way too few fast neutrons; since
the probability of any of them being stopped in a single layer of CR-39 by a
carbon atom is beyond comprehension in a statistical sense, even in hundreds
of years. 

Plug in your own numbers. No, I have not done so, and am no expert - but
(self-appointed) expert in news groups say this claim is impossible. Even
the ones who are open minded about LENR will probably opine that the
cross-section is way, way too low for 3 triple tracks per day without a huge
and deadly flux. One remark claims that the SPAWAR authors appear to be
blithely unaware of the cross-section problem. Have you seen where they have
addressed it?

IOW, the bottom line seems to be that it would require such a high flux of
fast neutrons, that there would be extremely dangerous consequences for the
experimenters, who seem perfectly healthy. 

Unless there is something more to the story. What I now surmise is that:

1) They created bona fide LENR reactions, with some tritium 

2) they found a number of 'triple tracks' in a ratio of about 1:1000 with
the number of tritium atoms available

3) they looked for any possible explanation.

4) they chose a preposterously wrong explanation - pretty much by default,
since apparently it was the only one that they could fit into the
circumstances of having found tritium and triple tracks together.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

2009-12-06 Thread Michel Jullian

2009/12/5 Jones Beene :

>> So, who had the foresight to envision the cross-connection?
>
> Well that remark was not phrased very well, I agree - but if you google
> [Julian Schwinger LENR] this will be the first hit:
>
> www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf

Well, Feynman would have been hard put to beat Schwinger to any
connection related to CF obviously. But had he lived longer he might
well have!

Anyway, yes, QCD is necessary to complete the story after the close
encounter. It may even have a more active role if a nuclear chain
reaction is at play!

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

2009-12-06 Thread Horace Heffner


Jones,

Our conversation is becoming garbled.  I'll summarize.

I wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SPAWAR proposed the triple tracks were from the three alpha producing  
reaction:


  n + C12 + (9 MeV minimum kinetic energy for subsequent triple  
tracks seen) --> 3 He


This was logical because that is commonly seen in CR-39 when high  
energy neutrons are present. SPAWAR suggests the neutrons come from:


  D + T --> 4He (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You wrote:"... deuterium does not fuse at ambient temperatures ...  
and never, never, never does 12C fission from a neutron capture."


I wrote: "The 3 alpha reaction 12C(n,n’)3alpha is well known.  I  
don't know what you are talking about. The triple tracks are rare.   
They accumulate to an observable number over a period of days in  
CR-39.  Their counts would be buried in background for a particle  
counter."



You wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I am talking about essentially a zero cross-section of this reaction  
for

thermal neutrons.  Duh! This is why graphite is used as a moderator in
fission reactors where the average fission neutron starts out at  
about one

MeV.

The supposition of higher energy neutrons in LENR is absolutely  
ludicrous

after all of these years of non-detectability  !!!

Geeze, where is any semblance of reality in this claim of carbon  
fission?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
- -


I think you need to read the SPAWAR articles.  SPAWAR detected triple  
tracks deep the CR-39.  They show the photos.  Such triple tracks in  
CR-39 are common when high energy neutrons are present. It is a  
logical conclusion on their part that their co-deposition experiment  
created enough T that DT reactions were detected. This is uncommon in  
the CF field, and thus assumed to be possibly unique to SPAWAR's  
technique.


Neutrons have been detected in many CF experiments, just with *very*  
low branching ratios, and low neutron to tritium ratios as well.


I have seen *no* evidence that thermal neutrons exist in quantities  
within even orders of magnitude of enough to account for cold fusion  
excess heat. If that happened then neutron activation of lattice  
elements and lattice impurities would produce a massive signal that  
neutron activation had occurred.  Theories which predict CF is  
produced by slow neutrons are therefore without experimental  
foundation. There *is* evidence in CR-39 tracks of medium energy  
neutrons, on the order of 1-3 MeV, via knock-on reactions with  
protons in the CR-39.


I have updated my "Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions" article to include  
a discussion of this in the "TRACE TRITIUM AND TRIPLE TRACKS"  
section, basically a re-work of my earlier post.  See:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

I include there a reference to another earlier Russian experiment  
which detected high energy neutrons.


Appended below are the posts with the above quotes in context.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Dec 6, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner


If you are implying they are quarks, then no.  Quarks do not come

"unglued" even at near TeV energies...



Sure - but according to the very same authority,


What authority?

Let's see ... How about the mainstream of physics for starters ?


deuterium does not fuse at ambient temperatures ... and never,
never, never does 12C fission from a neutron capture.


The 3 alpha reaction 12C(n,n')3alpha is well known.  I don't know
what you are talking about.

I am talking about essentially a zero cross-section of this  
reaction for

thermal neutrons.  Duh! This is why graphite is used as a moderator in
fission reactors where the average fission neutron starts out at  
about one

MeV.

The supposition of higher energy neutrons in LENR is absolutely  
ludicrous

after all of these years of non-detectability  !!!

Geeze, where is any semblance of reality in this claim of carbon  
fission?


Jones


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Dec 5, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner


If you are implying they are quarks, then no.  Quarks do not come

"unglued" even at near TeV energies...

Sure - but according to the very same authority,


What authority?


deuterium does not fuse at ambient temperatures ... and never,  
never, never does 12C fission from a neutron capture.


The 3 alpha reaction 12C(n,n’)3alpha is well known.  I don't know  
what you are talking about.




If you are going to postulate "new physics" then there is  
absolutely no good reason to

RE: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark