In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:43:52 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > >This is the sort of thing that makes me think that the primary energy >> release >> mode is via fast particles, e.g. protons, alphas, or even heavier nuclei >> (from a >> clean fission reaction). These don't usually produce much in the way of >> gamma >> radiation. Fast electrons may also be produced that would produce some >> x-rays >> that may be reported as gammas. >> > >What are ways, known or hypothesized, to preferentially get fast particles?
As already pointed out, you don't need to do anything special to preferentially get fast particles. Nature already "prefers" that method. Because the reaction time is very much shorter than for gamma radiation. As an example, take the conventional D+D reaction. Only very rarely do you get D+D=> He4 + gamma. Most of the time you get either T or He3, despite the fact that the latter two reactions have a much lower energy yield than He4. It's simply a matter of fast particle de-energizing being far more probable because it's faster. IOW if you have a nucleus that has become energized through fusion (used in the broadest sense) that has multiple pathways via which it can lose that energy, then all those ways will get used, but the ones that take the least time are most likely to occur. When two pathways take about the same time (e.g. two equal particle emission pathways), then the most probable outcome is the one where the most stable nuclei remain. > Also, what are your impressions of Boris Ivlev's interference thesis? > >http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2357.pdf Interesting, and possibly correct (as far as I am able to judge, which isn't very far ;) but just one of many theories that may apply. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
