On Oct 3, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:52 AM 10/3/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
I suggested a possible means to beat this co-location problem (and
thus cause fusion) here in 1996. It is described here:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf
Once we have simple, cheap, standard cells operating and available
and being produced in quantity, it becomes possible to efficiently
test lots of ideas. Adding some radioisotope that might co-deposit
with the palladium and deuterium could be pretty simple to do. And
if we can develop sensors and sensor analysis that show in real
time the level of nuclear activity, we might get very quick
results. Thus even long shots might be tested. Has the idea of
seeding the palladium deuteride with alpha or beta emitters been
tried?
Partially. I know Dennis Cravens has done some of this. There
certainly have been some tests using radiated cathodes, both with
charged particles and with neutrons some of which showed moderately
positive results, but not attributed to 3rd particle triggered BEC
collapse. Actually every CF experiment, except those done deep in
mines, are stimulated experiments, due to cosmic rays. However,
irradiating electrodes, or including isotopes in the cathodes, can
not assist the reactions (under this model) if BEC creating
conditions are not established.
What has been lacking is testing a (3rd particle) seeding concept as
an augmentation to a protocol that has already been shown to work for
CF fairly reliably, such as SPAWAR's codeposition methods.
I think one of the most useful experimental techniques, not so much
for generating energy, but for diagnostic purposes, might be light
tritium doping. Consider the SPAWAR article:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/
"The presence of three alpha-particle tracks outgoing from a single
point is diagnostic of the 12C(n,n′)3alpha carbon breakup reaction
and suggests that DT reactions that produce ≥9.6 MeV neutrons are
occurring inside the Pd lattice. To our knowledge, this is the first
report of the production of energetic (≥9.6 MeV) neutrons in the
Pd–D system."
This is a peer reviewed article by credible researchers. Their data
and conclusion should be taken seriously.
There in fact is experimental data corroborating the lattice DT
hypothesis feasibility. Here is an article relating to T2O + D2O
electrolysis with some rare (8 +-4 counts per second) 10 MeV plus
neutrons found: Quote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rusov VD, Zelentsova TN, Semenov MYu, Radin IV, Babikova
YuF Kruglyak YuA;
Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 15(#19) (1989) 9--13 {In Russian}
"Fast neutron recording by dielectric track detectors in a palladium-
deuterated -tritiated water system in an electrolytic cell".
** Experimental, alloy, electrolysis, neutrons, res0
Used a 50:50 mix of D2O and T2O, a "corrugated" alloy
(Pd 72, Ag 25, Au 3) electrode, 10 mA/cm**2 and
"200 V" cell voltage (no electrolyte!). A polymer
track detector (CR-39) (1-5 E-04 track/n sensitivity)
was used to detect the integrated neutron flux from
possible cold fusion of light nuclei. Some rare
high-energy (>10 MeV) neutrons (8+-4/s) were found.
071989|101989
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End quote.
The above summary was taken from Dieter Britz's site:
http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/alpha_R
The above experiment provides a solid indication of a nominal amount
of D-T fusion even though there is no indication whatsoever that
proper lattice conditions for cold fusion were established. If
repeatable, that is a landmark achievement because it proves fusion
from chemical conditions. Hopefully with what is known today the
results can be greatly improved.
The SPAWAR data does indeed suggest high energy neutrons from a DT
reaction. The source of the tritium in SPAWAR experiments logically
can be expected to be DD fusion, and thus of a low probability
because the concentration of tritium (or possibly some form of
tritium precursor) is very low. It should be no surprise that tritium
can be produced in small quantities via cold fusion reactions.
The conclusion of the Boss et al article implies the need for
repeating exactly the same experiment using D2O + T2O (actually just
a trace amount of TDO) instead of just D2O. If the flux of high
energy neutrons does not increase, then the conclusion is suspect.
Otherwise, this will provide some confirmation of the Boss et al
conclusion. More importantly, if high energy neutrons can be
reliably produced using the more sophisticated, successful, and
controlled protocol as used by Boss et al, this could provide a solid
starting point for narrowing down the underlying physics. A tritium
atom does not differ significantly from a deuterium atom with respect
to the Coulomb barrier. Whatever mechanism permits deuterium to
defeat the Coulomb barrier should also permit tritium to do so
also. The difference may be that the cross section is larger and
the signature unmistakable and highly repeatable.
Though the use of tritium can only be done in the US by licensed
labs, and practical devices would preferably be deuterium only,
tritium doping experiments may provide a necessary step in the
progress toward practical devices.
Because the tritium available in the SPAWAR D loaded cathode must be
nominal in the extreme, and likely primarily there due to DD fusion,
the cross section for lattice based DT fusion has to be enormous,
much larger than 100 times the DD cross section (if cross section is
even a valid concept for lattice assisted fusion) to support the DT
hypothesis. The tritium must be used up very quickly after forming.
Perhaps lattice half-life (LHL) would be a better concept than cross
section, in loaded lattices, because the term cross section pre-
supposes a collision, kinetic interaction, hot fusion. LHL is a term
which would have meaning only in the context of a specific degree of
lattice loading. I expect when highly confirmed theories of LENR are
available such a term could be defined including a formula component
descriptive of lattice loading conditions.
If Boss et al are correct in their deductions of the source of high
energy neutrons, then a huge breakthrough is at hand. If
contradictions are found in the D-T hypothesis, or unexpected energy
spectra are identified, it does not necessarily mean that increasing
the D-T reaction rate is not useful, and it does not mean huge
benefits cannot be obtained by increasing the miniscule T
concentration even by a factor of a few orders of magnitude. Tritium
doping should be useful for analyzing and improving any CF protocol,
especially those capable of producing excess heat.
Lattice assisted DD fusion nearly eliminates the neutron forming
branch, but there is no reason to believe that lattice assisted D-T
fusion will nearly fully suppress neutron generation. In the case of
D-D fusion there are three branch possibilities, two of which create
no neutrons. Given that a lattice assisted D-D fusion nucleus is not
created by energetic kinetic action, but rather by electron
catalysis, it should be no surprise the branch producing the highest
energy is highly favored, namely D+D->He4, and the other feasible
branches highly suppressed. There is no probable similar
alternative branch for the D-T or T-T fusion that creates no
neutrons. All the tritium fusion reactions create neutrons. Tritium
doping is thus extremely useful for diagnosing whether excess heat is
from actual fusion or from some other source.
Tritium doping provides a window into what is happening in the
lattice, via the energy spectrum of the resulting high energy
neutrons. It certainly is not logical that D-D fusion can occur in a
lattice assisted manner and yet D-T or even T-T fusion can not. The
Coulomb barrier is the same. Tritium likely provides a large
tunneling target because the D-T hot fusion cross section is large.
If D-T fusion is indeed in fact occurring in the lattice, as Boss et
al hypothesize, it is therefore unreasonable to not expect neutron
generation. However, the mechanism of fusion in the lattice is
energetically different from hot fusion, and I would expect the
neutron energy to differ. In fact I would expect high energy
neutrons to exhibit a spectrum of kinetic energies for reasons I have
posted here and published regarding the "Deflation Fusion" scenario.
Under that or any electron catalysis scenario, I would in fact not
expect 14 MeV neutrons from D-T fusion reactions, while a significant
number above 6 MeV could be expected, with a fuzzy peak.
Tritium doping should (a) produce highly repeatable and
incontrovertible proof of nuclear reactions and (b) provide an
effective means of quickly measuring reaction rates while dynamically
varying experimental conditions.
If tritium doping is used, then lattice assisted fusion should also
result in the p-T reactions: T(p,n)3He and T(p,gamma)4He. The latter
reaction might be considered as unlikely as D(D,gamma)4He is
conventionally considered to be due to initial kinetic energy
requirements and lack of an inertial pair to distribute resulting
kinetic energy. However, under the deflation fusion scenario, or some
other electron catalyzed fusion scenarios, the nucleus enclosed
electron provides a means of releasing radiant energy and momentum in
small increments, and high initial energies are not required to
trigger the reaction. The T(p,n)3He reaction requires from 1 to 5
MeV kinetic energy to pull off as hot fusion. Given that electron
catalyzed fusion reactions result in highly de-energized nuclei, and
the resulting radiant energy is largely from the vacuum, it may be
that T(p,n)3He is feasible as a cold electron catalyzed reaction. If
lattice assisted D-T reactions can occur with much higher observed
frequencies than expected for the reactant concentrations, as
possibly indicated in SPAWAR results, then p-T reactions may also
have a higher frequency than expected for the reactant
concentrations. Protium from ambient humidity can be expected to
contaminate D2O cells, especially long running open cells. This
could account for highly variable neutron production over long run
times. In a D2O experiment an initial period is required to build up
trace T and another period is required to build up p. The SPAWAR
CR-39 could possibly have 3He tracks resulting from T(p,n)3He or D
(D,n)3He reactions, as well as neutron reaction induced tracks. All
this indicates that tritium doping of even all protium based
experiments may not provide adequate controls.
If lattice fusion reactions should produce high energy particles,
especially third particle Bose condensate stimulation based reactions
(as opposed to low energy electron catalyzed reactions) produce high
energy particles, and conditions for producing many small Bose
condensates exist, then it is clear that unexpected chain reactions
can result. The D(D,n)3He reaction, for example, produces two
particles for each reaction. It is thus important to diagnose
exactly what conditions in the lattice are producing energetic
results in what proportions. It seems to me feasible that both 3rd
particle seeded Bose condensate collapse mechanisms as well as
electron catalyzed fusion mechanisms can be at work in differing
proportions in differing experiments, or a given experiment at
differing times. What has been missing is a means to diagnose these
kinds of things. Tritium doping may well lead to such a diagnostic
capability.
Lastly, I should mention x-ray stimulation, because I think it has
the greatest chances of robust effects. Deflation fusion is driven
by (1) creating the deflated state with high probability, and (2)
maximizing tunneling rate in the lattice. X-ray stimulation can be
used to increase the latter. X-ray stimulation might be combined with
radioisotpe lattice doping. Impurities like B, SI, and C, are known
to create interstitial locations wherein "trapped hydrogen can jump
between a limited number of sites without diffusing away from the
trapping atom." (see Topics in Applied Physics, Volume 73, Hydrogen
in Metals II, p. 76.) Also worthy of note is the fact (noted on p.
77), regarding hydrogen motion between double well potentials between
two nearest neighbor tetrahedral sites, that tunneling is the
dominating transport mechanism, with coherent tunneling occurring at
less than 10 K, and incoherent tunneling occurring above a
temperature of 10 K. Further, "tunneling dynamics is strongly
affected by a nonadiabatic interaction of the hydrogen with the
conduction electrons." Given the existence of such trapping sites,
it seems to me beneficial to find a way to stimulate a high tunneling
rate, using a method not involving diffusion, but rather conduction
band electron stimulation. The best method of doing this seems to me
to use coherent x-rays, probably from a wiggler, as that would be
capable of producing a volume effect. Even if effective at producing
fusion the problem then might be too high a requirement for energy
in. It may be that a resonant ultrasound vibration could be set up to
stimulate tunneling without excessive diffusion. Phonons should in my
opinion stimulate significant conduction band - partial orbital state
changes for ionically bound electrons. This kind of stimulation
would also avoid the helium blocking of diffusion problem, as fusion
would be triggered throughout the lattice without the need for other
than the initial loading diffusion. This then would provide a volume
effect instead of a surface effect. It also would enable loading at a
high temperature and cooling a bit to increase orbital stressing
without worries about reduced diffusion rates. The problem of
course is finding the right mix of all these things.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
