Re: [Vo]:Journal Of Applied Science
Yes, good point Robin. BTW, Google is very helpful for this kind of calculations, try Googling: 1e19 MeV per 10 s in kW Michel 2009/12/5 mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:02:45 +0100: Hi, [snip] For instance, the laser welding nuclear fusion used by Arata and Zhang was only 300 watts and generated about 1019 to 1020 particles per 10 seconds. ...as I believe I have pointed out previously, this has to be wrong. 1E19 particles / 10 sec = 1E18 / sec. which in turn represents 1E18 reactions / sec. If we assume a very modest 1 MeV / nuclear reaction, this equates to a power of 160 kW, which I very strongly doubt actually happened. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Journal Of Applied Science
On Dec 8, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Yes, good point Robin. BTW, Google is very helpful for this kind of calculations, try Googling: 1e19 MeV per 10 s in kW Michel 2009/12/5 mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:02:45 +0100: Hi, [snip] For instance, the laser welding nuclear fusion used by Arata and Zhang was only 300 watts and generated about 1019 to 1020 particles per 10 seconds. ...as I believe I have pointed out previously, this has to be wrong. 1E19 particles / 10 sec = 1E18 / sec. which in turn represents 1E18 reactions / sec. If we assume a very modest 1 MeV / nuclear reaction, this equates to a power of 160 kW, which I very strongly doubt actually happened. I take it you are talking about: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmena.pdf Which summarizes: These data were obtained using an input pulse with a pulse power of 10^19 watt/50-ps. The plasma temperature was 10^4 ev and the number of generated particles was 10^13 per pulse. As shown in red color, using an input pulse with pulse power of 10^15 watt over a 1-ps period, the plasma temperature was 10^3 ev and the number of generated particles was 10^5/pulse. This is the latest report for thermonuclear fusion using ìgaseous deuteriumî as fuel. In contrast, there is the Laser Welding nuclear fusion system using ìsolid Pycnodeuteriumî as fuel. Our Laser implosion system used only 300 watt and generated about 10^19 to 10^20 particles per 10 seconds. I wonder if there is a typo there or problem in translation. Seems coincidental the laser pulse power is 10^19 watts. H... The laser puts out 10^19 watt for 50 ps, which is (1x10^19 W) (50x10^-12 s) = 5x10^8 J. Astounding! That is enough energy in 50 ps to provide 160 kw for 3,333 seconds, or about an hour. The power stated as actually used was 10^15 W for 1 ps, or 1,000 J, which only provides 160 kW for 6.7 ms. That is somewhat like using an earth mover to weed a pocket garden. It produced 10^15 particles, which at 1 MeV per particle is an energy output of 160 J, vs the 1,000 J applied. H... 160 J, 160,000 J/s ... strange numerical coincidence. It looks like there may indeed be some typos. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Journal Of Applied Science
2009/12/5 Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com ... Solid State Nuclear Fusion http://www.wbabin.net/science/shrair3.pdf This seems to be a very good up to date review of the field, by a Ph.D. candidate in surface physics and electron devices. Full text: Can a Solid-State Nuclear Fusion Reactor Be the Ultimate Green Energy Solution? 03.12.2009 Jamal S. Amar Shrair* Introduction We all know that palladium (Pd) is an ideal material to study hydrogen storage kinetics because its bulk hydride properties are well characterized. Pd absorbs hydrogen gas up to 900 times its volume. Furthermore, recent investigations have shown that the rate of hydrogen trapping inside Pd is even higher in the case of Pd nanoparticles. Hydrogen atoms are strongly trapped and stabilized in the lattice of Pd nanoparticles, compared to bulk Pd. The benefit of studying and modifying the surface of nanoparticle Pd and other large surface area nanoparticles can lead to better understanding of nuclear transmutation reactions in solids heavily loaded with H, D or both. The phenomenon is known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Since 1989 and particularly in the last two years, different research groups around the world have reported undisputable evidence on the presence of nuclear reactions in the Pd/D lattice. It was unfortunate that Fleischmann and Pons, who were the first to observe LENR in 1989, made mistakes and added wild extrapolations; nevertheless, they were not wrong with regard to their finding of excess heat, which has now been validated by so many research groups worldwide, like the valuable results that have been achieved by U.S.Navy researchers, Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and especially the results of Yoshiaki Arata and Yue Chang Zhang. However, by comparing the results and methods of these experiments, it seems that there is a better experimental approach to increase the reaction rates of this process and obtain clear and sound results. LENR is a surface-dependent phenomena. Thus, in order to increase the reaction rate and have a suitable process from a practical point of view, one has to focus on the surface area and try to create the right environment. Better results can be obtained by comparing the surface reactivity of different materials and different size nanoparticles in a new experimental configuration called “laser-driven solid-state nuclear reactor.” In addition to the above, better experimental results can lead to formulating a theoretical model for nuclear transmutation reactions in solids. I believe there are certain conditions that can be created which might bring the ions of H/D isotopes at distances of a few Fermi so the spontaneous fusion rate would increase considerably. Evaluations of the Research Activities Experiments show that when deuterium (or at times even hydrogen) atoms are inserted (or loaded) inside a metal — such as palladium, titanium, nickel, etc. — occupying interstitial lattice positions in sufficiently large numbers and if the right “active environment” is created, a variety of nuclear reactions are found to occur involving not only the deuterium nuclei but also the host metal atoms. In this process “excess energy” is often found to be produced and in some cases nuclear particles such as neutrons, X-rays and even charged particles are released. But increasingly it has been observed that new “transmutation” elements not present prior to the commencement of the experiments have been detected. Most of those stunning experiments demonstrating low energy nuclear transmutations are readily available for sincere skeptics in the website www.lenr-canr.org. LENR was first observed in 1989 by Fleischmann and Pons. Their work got embroiled in a worldwide controversy. Now there are hundreds of researchers in several countries working on this field to unravel the mystery behind what has now come to be also known as Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS). Some of the leading researchers in this field are or were employed at well known research institutes such as Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Igor Goryachev from the famous Kurchatov Institute, for example, is expecting to demonstrate his 100 KW “alchemical reactor” in the very near future. In 2007 researchers from the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California threw cold water on skeptics of LENR. They achieved “direct and undisputable evidence” of LENR in the Pd lattice and successfully detected the passage of atomic particles emitted from the reactions using CR-39 detectors. They say their method can be replicated and verified by the scientific community. The results were published in the respected journal Naturwissenschaften. Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries designed a flawless experiment that demonstrated 100% reproducibility. On May 22, 2009, Osaka University physicist Yoshiaki Arata and his associate Yue Chang Zhang continuously generated excess energy in the form of
