Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:36:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Takahashi gives very strong arguments as to why >the hypothesis of direct d-d fusion to He-4 is implausible. [snip] It is implausible unless the energy can be disposed of by fast electrons. (I must confess however that I would prefer alpha particles ;) BTW at his best power to weight ratio of 3 W / cc of Pd and at the current price of Pd it would take 43 years for the Pd to pay for itself, assuming no interest, power at 15 cents/ kWh, and 100% efficient conversion. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
At 05:19 PM 12/22/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:29:37 -0500: >Some of the alphas, >statistically, would be hot enough to induce secondary reactions as >well. (Which comes first, the photon emissions or the fission?) [snip] Be8 has a very short half life. I would expect an excited state to have an even shorter half-life (a lot shorter). Therefore I would expect the fission to occur first. However perhaps energy is radiated from the complex while it is shrinking? I don't think so, as to radiation while condensing. However, Takahashi has covered the expected radiation after fusion, in an earlier publication. First, though, looking for the earlier paper, I'll quote this as an explanation of the process, from a 2007 paper. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2007/2007TakahashiA-TheoreticalSummary.pdf In Fig. 3, TSC will form in the near surface region of condensed matter by the mechanism (A) or mechanism (B) as discussed in Session 2, with certain probability depending on methods of experiments and near-surface physics of condensed matter: Step 1 (TSC forms). Then TSC starts Newtonian squeezing motion to decrease linearly its size from about 100 pm radius size to much smaller size and reaches at the minimum size state: Step 2 (minimum TSC). Classical squeezing motion ends when four deuterons get into the strong force range (5 fm) and/or when four electrons get to the Paulis limit (about 5.6 fm for ee distance). Here for the Paulis limit, we used the classical electron radius of 2.8 fm, which is determined by equating the static Coulomb energy (e2/Re) and the Einsteins mass energy (mec2) to obtain Re = e2/mec2 = 2.8 fm; classical electron radius. (16) Since the range of strong interaction (about 5 fm) is comparable to the classical electron diameter (5.6 fm), as shown in Fig.3(2), the intermediate nuclear compound state 8Be* will be formed just after the minimum size state (overminimum state); Step 3: 8Be* formation. Immediately at this stage, 4d-cluster shrinks to much smaller size (about 2.4 fm radius) of 8Be* nucleus, and four electrons should go outside due to the Paulis repulsion for fermions. Shortly in about few fs or less (note; Lifetime of 8Be at ground state is 0.67 fs), 8Be* will break up to two 4He particles, each of which carries 23.8 MeV kinetic energy; Step 4: Break up. It will take about 60 fs from about 100 pm initial size of TSC to its minimum size about 10 fm. About 60 fs is regarded as rough measure of TSC lifetime for this very transient squeezing motion. Takahashi gives very strong arguments as to why the hypothesis of direct d-d fusion to He-4 is implausible. In any case, I found the page I'd seen where I got the idea that Takahashi is proposing loss of Be-8 excitation energy through photons. His more recent papers, as far as I saw, don't mention this, but I don't see a discussion, either, of the rejection of the idea. However, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TakahashiAdeuteronst.pdf, a presentation from ICCF 13 (2007), has a copy of a diagram from his earlier paper, which is from Fusion Technology (1994), see page 36 of the linked paper. In the "extreme scenario," the final products are two alpha particles with 46.6 keV each, and "most energy (47.7 MeV) is transferred to lattice vibration via QED photons." He then predicts a series of energies will be found, ranging from the minimum all the way up to the full 23.8 MeV that would be expected to result from immediate decay. And he states, after this, that "quantitative studies on transition probabilities will be needed." Apparently Takahashi thinks, contrary to what Robin suggests, that photon emissions are possible in the lifetime of the Be-8 nucleus, before it breaks up. He does not predict the ratios, only the values expected for He-4 energies.
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:03:53 -0800: Hi, [snip] I think the main problem here is that there is only a significant cross section for alpha emission when the neutron is fast. In fact, alpha emission upon absorption of a slow particle is a form of fission, and only seems to happen with either very heavy or very light nuclei. Pd is pretty much in the middle of the table. I thought a possible example might be Be7 + n => 2 He4 however this reaction has a cross section of about 1 barn for slow neutrons, whereas the ejection of a proton instead i.e. Be7 + n => Li7 + p has a cross section (for thermal neutrons) of about 10 barns (huge!). The cross section increases for exothermic reactions as the neutron temperature drops. >Mark, Horace > >In the original context of that posting, the problem is this. When Pd >adsorbs a neutron and becomes activated, Pd (n,a) there should be a >detectable secondary gamma. > >BTW - this process would typically leave ruthenium, which is often seen in >transmuted electrodes. In fact, years ago Passell found gammas, of an energy >from the known ruthenium isotope emission spectrum, but that is one of those >papers that was never replicated. > >Usually gammas are nearly absent in LENR, certainly less than the excess >heat would indicate. That is why the suggestion was made that the UCN might >not "act like a neutron" in the sense that even though the kinetic energy >(which the UCN lacks) is small, in comparison to a typical ~1 MeV gamma, >this could simply be an indication that it falls short of some unknown >threshold, which still allows alpha emission, but at lower kinetic energy. > >Of course, in the sense of the virtual neutron, quasi-neutron, hydrex or so >on, of the older theories - where the activating particle is stated as "not >a real neutron" there is less of a problem ... > >...except in lack of documentation ;-) > >Jones > > > >-Original Message- >From: Mark Iverson > >Horace wrote: >"I don't know why a neutron would not act like a neutron." > >Let me take a stab at that one... >Perhaps because it's in a fully D-loaded palladium lattice, where other >things aren't acting like >they 'should'? ;-) Yeah, I know, that wasn't much help... > >-Mark > > >-----Original Message- >From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] >Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:27 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR > > >On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Horace Heffner >> >>> That of course assumes the W&L claim that "neutron is thus absorbed >>> within about ten nanometers" is valid >> >> As you go on to imply, that particular version is almost certainly not >> valid, due to NA, and is probably "undergoing revision" as we speak >> ... ;-) but of greater interest would be this: >> >> Is there a version of the broader UCN dynamic, using published >> characteristics of the same instead of a tailor-made invention, which >> stands up better to criticism and do involve NA ? >> >> This might go back many years. The weight of evidence for helium in >> LENR, based on known reactions prior to 1989 together with lack of >> ~24 MeV gamma - still favors alpha release from Pd via adsorption of a >> neutron - and a subthermal neutron and with activation fits the bill >> if it will emit no gamma ... > >I don't know why a neutron would not act like a neutron. > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:29:37 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Some of the alphas, >statistically, would be hot enough to induce secondary reactions as >well. (Which comes first, the photon emissions or the fission?) [snip] Be8 has a very short half life. I would expect an excited state to have an even shorter half-life (a lot shorter). Therefore I would expect the fission to occur first. However perhaps energy is radiated from the complex while it is shrinking? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
At 01:19 PM 12/11/2009, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: TSC would be neutrally charged, because it includes the electrons -- Heffner note! -- and so it could fuse with Other Stuff, occasionally. I say nonsense to the above because electrons in a nucleus are not part of Takahashi's concept. In fact, he strongly argues against any such possibility. They aren't in a "nucleus." They are in the Condensate, though, if I'm correct. If you are talking about just plain old atomic hydrogen, for which there is little evidence it spontaneously fuses, I recommend looking into lattice sizes and the size of atomic hydrogen and molecular hydrogen to see just how well 4 hydrogen atoms fit into a tetrahedral space. Very poorly. That's why the reaction is very rare. Fitting just an H2 molecule into a tetrahedral space requires significant lattice expansion. Yup. For any reasonable rate of occurrence. Now if you have a D2 molecule (same size) that energetically is inserted into the lattice, you have stress. We know that this stress does not disrupt the lattice, rather, what normally happens is that the molecule dissociates, the stress rips apart the molecule. But this is a process and might take a certain time. We also know that in palladium deuteride, packing over 1.0 is possible, and occurs with some frequency under some conditions. So we would get some level of two deuterons per lattice space, that's certain. It's also hard on the lattice, tends to disrupt it, if I'm correct. But the disruption takes time. And then what happens when this occurs from two orthagonal directions at once? Could there be a transient state where there were four deuterons? Obviously Takahashi considers this possible, and that seems reasonable to me. But to be sure will require much more study of the behavior of deuterium (and hydrogen, about the same) in the palladium lattice, and, in particular, of the frequency with which these unusual configurations actually occur. We may be seeing, with CF, a direct measure of the frequency of four deuterons in a single lattice position. That is the significance of the math Takahashi has done, says this non-mathematician who would love to see an analysis of Takahashi's work by someone who can actually follow it and criticize it as math.
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
At 11:56 AM 12/11/2009, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: TSC would be neutrally charged, because it includes the electrons -- Heffner note! -- and so it could fuse with Other Stuff, occasionally. Nonsense! Isn't this a form of electron screening? If it's nonsense, I'd like to see a cogent analysis of why. I brought up TSC theory here months ago, and reaction to it, mostly negative, was based on a misunderstanding -- which I shared -- that 23.8 MeV alphas would be expected. How about an update based on the actual theory, as published by Takahashi, which predicts a series of photon emissions that dump most of that energy most of the time? TSC would not normally fuse with other nuclei, though I think Takahashi mentions it, because it would be formed with low momentum and would not be likely to reach other nuclei within the femtosecond or so it has, if I understand it right.
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: TSC would be neutrally charged, because it includes the electrons -- Heffner note! -- and so it could fuse with Other Stuff, occasionally. I say nonsense to the above because electrons in a nucleus are not part of Takahashi's concept. In fact, he strongly argues against any such possibility. If you are talking about just plain old atomic hydrogen, for which there is little evidence it spontaneously fuses, I recommend looking into lattice sizes and the size of atomic hydrogen and molecular hydrogen to see just how well 4 hydrogen atoms fit into a tetrahedral space. Fitting just an H2 molecule into a tetrahedral space requires significant lattice expansion. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: TSC would be neutrally charged, because it includes the electrons -- Heffner note! -- and so it could fuse with Other Stuff, occasionally. Nonsense! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
At 12:39 AM 12/11/2009, Mark Iverson wrote: Horace wrote: "I don't know why a neutron would not act like a neutron." Let me take a stab at that one... Perhaps because it's in a fully D-loaded palladium lattice, where other things aren't acting like they 'should'? ;-) Yeah, I know, that wasn't much help... A "fully loaded palladium lattice" is still only a little more dense than deuterium metal, though there are possibilities of local densities much higher than that because of statistical variations possible because the atoms are more mobile than in a metal. Still, at any moment in time, most neutrons in this unusual material would still behave like neutrons anywhere, it is *very* difficult to conceive of something that would be able to control all that local behavior so that it was anomalous. Consider, again, my own broken record: Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory. In short, the basis of this theory was, experimentally, that Takahashi discovered and reported in the 1990s that multibody fusion cross-section was significantly higher in palladium deuteride than expected. He did the difficult quantum field theory work and predicted that if four deuterons form a tetrahedron, confined in a lattice cell, they will fuse to Be-8 within a femtosecond, 100%. If this is true there really isn't much going on that is that unusual, just conditions which allow a very rare Bose-Einstein condensate to form for a flash. NAE would then be a region where, momentarily, deuterium gas concentration (the likely reason for four deuterons to be in the right locations: two deuterium molecules) is enhanced by shifts from equilibrium. The rest follows from that Be-8 fusing and the resulting emissions from the excited nucleus, and then the fission of this unstable nucleus into two alpha particles. No new physics, really. Just process conditions that had not been anticipated. Seen from this perspective, theories that require new kinds of neutrons that behave differently from other neutrons (why? What's different about them, once formed? How do they carry this difference with them, to know to behave differently, so to speak?) see to be rather tortured. But until we have strong evidence for a particular theory, we do have to keep that door pretty wide open. The Be-8 theory does, however, explain just about everything known about these reactions, AFAIK. Heat. Helium. Subsurface, not too deep, but not actually on the surface, insufficient confinement. TSC would be neutrally charged, because it includes the electrons -- Heffner note! -- and so it could fuse with Other Stuff, occasionally. Some of the alphas, statistically, would be hot enough to induce secondary reactions as well. (Which comes first, the photon emissions or the fission?) No branching ratio problems, no Mossbauer effect transfer of energy to the lattice needed. Perhaps we could think of it as Oppenheimer-Phillips pushed to the edge, with four deuterons, my classical physics brain likes to think. What's remarkable is the prediction of 100% fusion if the TSC forms. So ... does it form? What would be the expected formation rate?
RE: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
Mark, Horace In the original context of that posting, the problem is this. When Pd adsorbs a neutron and becomes activated, Pd (n,a) there should be a detectable secondary gamma. BTW - this process would typically leave ruthenium, which is often seen in transmuted electrodes. In fact, years ago Passell found gammas, of an energy from the known ruthenium isotope emission spectrum, but that is one of those papers that was never replicated. Usually gammas are nearly absent in LENR, certainly less than the excess heat would indicate. That is why the suggestion was made that the UCN might not "act like a neutron" in the sense that even though the kinetic energy (which the UCN lacks) is small, in comparison to a typical ~1 MeV gamma, this could simply be an indication that it falls short of some unknown threshold, which still allows alpha emission, but at lower kinetic energy. Of course, in the sense of the virtual neutron, quasi-neutron, hydrex or so on, of the older theories - where the activating particle is stated as "not a real neutron" there is less of a problem ... ...except in lack of documentation ;-) Jones -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson Horace wrote: "I don't know why a neutron would not act like a neutron." Let me take a stab at that one... Perhaps because it's in a fully D-loaded palladium lattice, where other things aren't acting like they 'should'? ;-) Yeah, I know, that wasn't much help... -Mark -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Horace Heffner > >> That of course assumes the W&L claim that "neutron is thus absorbed >> within about ten nanometers" is valid > > As you go on to imply, that particular version is almost certainly not > valid, due to NA, and is probably "undergoing revision" as we speak > ... ;-) but of greater interest would be this: > > Is there a version of the broader UCN dynamic, using published > characteristics of the same instead of a tailor-made invention, which > stands up better to criticism and do involve NA ? > > This might go back many years. The weight of evidence for helium in > LENR, based on known reactions prior to 1989 together with lack of > ~24 MeV gamma - still favors alpha release from Pd via adsorption of a > neutron - and a subthermal neutron and with activation fits the bill > if it will emit no gamma ... I don't know why a neutron would not act like a neutron.
RE: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
Horace wrote: "I don't know why a neutron would not act like a neutron." Let me take a stab at that one... Perhaps because it's in a fully D-loaded palladium lattice, where other things aren't acting like they 'should'? ;-) Yeah, I know, that wasn't much help... -Mark -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Horace Heffner > >> That of course assumes the W&L claim that "neutron is thus absorbed >> within about ten nanometers" is valid > > As you go on to imply, that particular version is almost certainly not > valid, due to NA, and is probably "undergoing revision" as we speak > ... ;-) but of greater interest would be this: > > Is there a version of the broader UCN dynamic, using published > characteristics of the same instead of a tailor-made invention, which > stands up better to criticism and do involve NA ? > > This might go back many years. The weight of evidence for helium in > LENR, based on known reactions prior to 1989 together with lack of > ~24 MeV gamma - still favors alpha release from Pd via adsorption of a > neutron - and a subthermal neutron and with activation fits the bill > if it will emit no gamma ... I don't know why a neutron would not act like a neutron.
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner That of course assumes the W&L claim that "neutron is thus absorbed within about ten nanometers" is valid As you go on to imply, that particular version is almost certainly not valid, due to NA, and is probably "undergoing revision" as we speak ... ;-) but of greater interest would be this: Is there a version of the broader UCN dynamic, using published characteristics of the same instead of a tailor-made invention, which stands up better to criticism and do involve NA ? This might go back many years. The weight of evidence for helium in LENR, based on known reactions prior to 1989 together with lack of ~24 MeV gamma - still favors alpha release from Pd via adsorption of a neutron - and a subthermal neutron and with activation fits the bill if it will emit no gamma ... I don't know why a neutron would not act like a neutron. which is in keeping with the 'virtual neutron' (Russel, 1991; Dufour, 1993; Kozima and Arai, 2000) and the related hydrex (Dufour et al., 2001). Do you have URLs on those? That would be as an alternative to other theories, or even other results with no theory - where both helium and NA are witnessed (via transmutation perhaps) and not forgetting ... of course ... that tomorrow's version of WL may be different, new & improved, and so on ... when they realize these old errors are insurmountable, and make the necessary changes. Jones Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner > That of course assumes the W&L claim that "neutron is thus absorbed within > about ten nanometers" is valid As you go on to imply, that particular version is almost certainly not valid, due to NA, and is probably "undergoing revision" as we speak ... ;-) but of greater interest would be this: Is there a version of the broader UCN dynamic, using published characteristics of the same instead of a tailor-made invention, which stands up better to criticism and do involve NA ? This might go back many years. The weight of evidence for helium in LENR, based on known reactions prior to 1989 together with lack of ~24 MeV gamma - still favors alpha release from Pd via adsorption of a neutron - and a subthermal neutron and with activation fits the bill if it will emit no gamma ... which is in keeping with the 'virtual neutron' (Russel, 1991; Dufour, 1993; Kozima and Arai, 2000) and the related hydrex (Dufour et al., 2001). That would be as an alternative to other theories, or even other results with no theory - where both helium and NA are witnessed (via transmutation perhaps) and not forgetting ... of course ... that tomorrow's version of WL may be different, new & improved, and so on ... when they realize these old errors are insurmountable, and make the necessary changes. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Falsifiability of cold neutrons in LENR
On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: It just occurred to me that the hypothesis of ultra cold neutrons in LENR is falsifiable ! Not only that, it should be relatively easy to do, and with a significantly large and obvious level of discrimination in side-by- side testing. As mentioned, according to the information on the Wiki site, some of it going back to Fermi, the kinetic energy near absolute zero of 300 neV neutrons corresponds to a maximum velocity of 7.6 m/s. Consequently, there will be travel from point of origin, since even with high reflectivity at first, the neutrons will be gradually thermalized and can move significant distances if there is an outside influence. Which there always will be, if you think about it. Here is the key to falsifiability: Due to the small kinetic energy of an UCN, the influence of gravity is significant. Kinetic energy of an UCN is transformed into potential (height) energy with ~102 neV/m. which is a third of total kinetic energy on formation, if they are very cold. This effect is less in proportion, as the particle warms up, but it should allow a gravity gradient to exist when capture occurs. Thus, it would seem that a small CR-39 cell of the SPAWAR variety, designed so that it can be rotated 180 degrees - so that the CR-39 is "either down or up" will show a rather pronounced variation in tracks if UCN are involved, due to the effect of gravity. There will be viewer per unit of time in the "up" position than in the down. Now that should be rather easy to pull off, no? ... or has this been tried already? Using 300 neV = 300 x 10^-9 eV = 4.807x10^-26 J. 1/2 m v^2 = (4.807x10^-26 J) v = (2*(4.807x10^-26 J)/(1.675x10^-27 kg))^(1/2) v = 7.6 m/s From: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269v1 "The ultra low momentum neutron is created when a heavy electron is absorbed by one of many protons participating in a collective surface oscillation. The neutron wave length is thus comparable to the spatial size of the collective oscillation, say λ ∼ 10−3 cm." As I noted earlier, their arbitrary assumption of a neutron wavelength of 10^-3 m yields the value of v: lambda = h/p p = h/lambda = h/(10^-3 cm) = 6.626x10^-29 kg m/s p = m * v v = p/m = (6.626x10^-29 kg m/s)/(1.675x10^-27 kg) v = 3.96x10^-2 m/s = 0.0396 m/s Needles to say, the two velocities are highly inconsistent. W&L goes on to say in the above article: "An ultra low momentum neutron is thus absorbed within about ten nanometers from where it was first created. The likelihood that ultra low momentum neutrons will escape capture and thermalize via phonon interactions is very small." In ten nanometers, 1x10^-8 m, even at the higher speed of 7.6 m/s neutron will exist a mean time of (1x10^-8 m)/(7.6 m/s) = 1.316x10^-9 seconds. The speed due to gravity s_g = s_g = g * t = (9.8067 m/s^2)*(1.316x10^-9 s) = 1.285x10^-8 m/s and fall a distance d of: d = (1/2) * g * t^2 = (1/2)*(9.8067 m/s^2)*(1.316x10^-9 s)^2 d = 8.41 x 10^-18 m or about 1/100th the diameter of a nucleus. That of course assumes the W&L claim that "neutron is thus absorbed within about ten nanometers" is valid. If a neutron of the nature W&L claims survives it seems that thermalization would be the overwhelming effect - it would overwhelm gravity that is, and motion would be essentially be pure brownian in nature. It strikes me as self-evident the lack of neutron activation thoroughly denies the W&L theory. It is also notable that NA is not mentioned once in their papers AFIK. Beyond that, the W&L theory has many criticisms, like this critique of the heavy electron hypothesis: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3810 Response to the above: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0466v2 and on and on in the blogs etc. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
