How would that explain the absence of radioactive elements of random half life times?
2011/10/30 Higgins Bob-CBH003 <bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com> > And let us not forget Occam’s razor. Dr. Ed Storms, in his book, makes > a good point that any theory of the mechanism should explain all of the > experimental evidence, not just a convenient subset. It seems to me > (Occam’s razor) that there is only one truly new phenomenon taking place in > this cold fusion effect as opposed to many. After reading some of the > proposed theories, I think that Widom and Larsen (W&L) may have at least > part of the solution. If we can place some pieces of the puzzle, it may > help focus the search for the pieces that still don’t fit.**** > > ** ** > > There has been documented cases of tritium and He formation in PF cells. > There has been widely documented transmutation. As hard as it is for > skeptical physicists to accept the possibility of D+D fusion in solid > state, it is even more unthinkable that such high coulombic barrier as a > nickel nucleus would have could be crossed by a charged particle. This > strikes me as supporting evidence for W&L ultra-low momentum (ULM) neutron > theory. W&L hypothesize that ULM neutrons are formed form hydrogen or > deuterium (how is a separate issue). A ULM neutron is a relatively > stationary neutron. Once it is formed, it will drop into the nearest > nucleus almost immediately – as a neutral particle, it is unaffected by the > coulomb barrier. The nearest nucleus could be another hydrogen atom > causing formation of deuterium. It could be a nickel nucleus giving rise > to an isotopic shift in the nickel that ultimately may decay into something > else. If deuterium is present, then this process of ULM neutron creation > creates them in pairs because deuterium already comes with one neutron – > thus you have formed a neutron pair that can fall into a nucleus. There > has been evidence of nuclear weight increasing in multiples. These two > neutrons could also fall into another hydrogen and make tritium.**** > > ** ** > > Now imagine a flood of such ULM neutrons being created. As these get > pumped into nearby nuclei, the nuclei will become unstable and decay into > daughter elements by fission giving off energy. Whenever a neutron enters > a nucleus, the result is an excited nucleus that will need to give off > something (as I understand it). If it decays into a proton as at falls to > a ground state, it will give off a beta particle and a neutrino to account > for the spin. Some nuclei will get a greater and some a lesser number of > neutrons. In this neutron rich environment, nearby nuclei may be > constantly undergoing neutron transmutation while the nuclei are still > excited, or just after fission. Perhaps when lots of ULM neutrons are > present, it statistically results in more rapid upswings in nuclear weight > that allows the subsequent relaxation to more stable heavy isotopes like > copper. It would be an interesting statistical simulator to write.**** > > ** ** > > But on startup, the reaction would go from producing no ULM neutrons to a > situation where there is a flood of ULM neutrons being created. Between > must come the case where there is a low density of ULM neutrons. Perhaps > in this case, it is more likely that the fissions occur to lighter weight > elements in a process that yields short term gammas, not as prompt > radiation, but due to the fissions. This might explain the reported bursts > of gamma at the startup and shutdown of the reaction.**** > > ** ** > > Also, it is interesting to note that Focardi’s early reports of isotopic > analysis of the ash showed substantial generation of light nuclei. Yet > Kullander’s analysis of the ash showed Cu and Fe. Possibly in the early > days when Focardi reported the results, the catalyst design was not > optimized and resulted in lower ULM neutron density. In that case lower > neutron density might have biased the reaction to creation of lighter > isotopes more likely to fission into lower atomic number; probably also > resulting in more gamma.**** > > ** ** > > To me it seems that the ULM neutron mechanism is fairly compelling. It is > easy to see how it explains formation of deuterium, tritium, helium, and > enables the transmutation despite huge coulombic barrier. It means that it > is also likely that deuterium and tritium will be found in the gas in the > Rossi reaction and creation of these may supply a portion of the heat. I > don’t think there has been a report of a test on the gas product of the > reaction – I understand that quantitative analysis for deuterium requires > specialized equipment.**** > > ** ** > > Widom and Larsen have their own theory for how the ULM neutrons form – > they posit creation by SPPs (Surface Plasmon Polaritons). I am not > convinced of this, but it is an interesting theory and there is some > supporting evidence. There is also evidence that suggest possible > collective, perhaps BEC, behavior could be implicated in the ULM neutron > formation. How these ULM neutrons form could be a harder piece of the > theory to identify, but would be key to understanding how to optimize the > reaction.**** > > ** ** > > There will certainly be interesting reading to come from the theorists. I > am looking forward to the flood of analysis that will occur once the stigma > of cold fusion research is eliminated by incontrovertible evidence. I > don’t know what that evidence will be – will there still be stigma when > everyone has an E-cat heating their home?**** > > ** ** > > Bob Higgins**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > >David Roberson wrote: > > >I recall an old phrase attributed to Sherlock Holmes along the lines of > “Once all of the probable answers have been proven wrong, >then it must > be the improbable”. Someone among the vortex will correct my phrase and > that is a good thing. My wording is >incorrect, but that is not the > important issue.**** >
