At 09:55 PM 7/21/2010, Rich Murray wrote:
SPAWAR CR-39 single "triple track" gives neutron energy -- repeats
"external electric field" error in July EPJAP paper, PA Mosier-Boss
et al -- L Kowalski re lack of proof of nuclear reactions
2010.06.12: Rich Murray 2010.07.21
Rich, you placed a lot of weight on the electric field issue. The
vast majority of SPAWAR reports in this area don't involve a high
electric field. I think your argument is cogent, but .... it turns
out that fairly small effects, effects that might only affect a
single layer or partial layer of atoms at the surface of the cathode,
may strongly affect results. I was just at a LANR colloquium at MIT
and considered asking a question about the electric field issue, but
to the people there, the whole set of SPAWAR results weren't
important enough to justify, for me, the time involved in the
question and answer.
As to the accuracy of the neutron energy estimation and your
skepticism regarding deriving a 1% value from 8% length measurements,
I'll put it this way: these papers don't detail all the thinking
behind a report. The behavior of SSNTDs, it turns out, is not as
straightforward as someone unfamiliar with the field might think.
Track length isn't a linear function of energy, for example. I don't
know the situation with CR-39 well, and much of the literature on the
topic is behind pay walls, but Pam Boss has pointed out to me
(indirectly, through Jed Rothwell) that LR-115 will only show tracks
in a narrow range of energies. Charged particles *above* that energy
do not show tracks. I.e., a gross measurement of track length might
specify a much more accurate measure of particle energy. I don't know
how this relates to CR-39, but it might.
To me, the most important aspect of the SPAWAR work is that they
have, indeed, found conclusive evidence for neutrons, for that
conclusion does not depend on triple tracks, the triple tracks are
(rare) frosting on the cake, so to speak. Don't miss the forest for
the fact that there are a few odd trees there. The issue is the
proton recoil tracks. The only other possibility to explain them
would be a new form of radiation, which would be quite a discovery of
its own, eh?
In no way is this like the Curie project work of Kowalski re Oriani.
Oriani is showing marginal results from many uncontrolled experiments
amalgamated together, very shaky.
If you want to understand the present situation with LENR, look at
the heat/helium results of Miles, orginally back in the early 1990s.
Huizenga recognized that this work was of stunning import, but he
believed that it would not be confirmed. It was confirmed, with
improved accuracy. Helium is being produced commensurate with the
heat found, a roughly 24 MeV, Storms says 25 +/- 5. This is well
covered in Storms, 2007, and I've helped edit a new paper by Storms
on the topic.
This does not prove that the reaction itself is simple d+d -> He-4 +
23.8 MeV, which has lots of obvious problems.
The basic reaction produces no radiation, that's clear. Hagelstein
has set an upper limit for radiation produced that is a low level,
something like 10 KeV. The SPAWAR work is showing neutrons from some
side-reaction or rare branch.
There are theories as to how this could happen. None of them are proven.
The neutrons are interested because if LENR is impossible, they
should not be there at all. The neutron energy result from the SPAWAR
paper is interesting, but not terribly important, I think.
Your mail is way too long and complex and difficult to read -- to
distinguish your comments from original text -- for me to answer it in detail.
