At 03:06 PM 8/17/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Unreadable for me.
Full paper :
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf
Appendix A just lists a bunch of reactions ...
with NO direct reference to WL (may be in the other Godes papers).
Interesting paper.
This is *not* W-L theory compatible. However,
first things first. This paper is most of all an
experimental report. The abstract does not
mention theory. The title, however, and the
opening paragraph talk about the fusion theory
they had in mind. The conclusion, however,
doesn't make a claim that they proved the theory,
only that they found certain operating characteristics.
We conclude that the reaction producing excess power
in the nickel hydride is related to and very dependent
upon the frequency of the Q pulses applied. We have
thus demonstrated that there is a repeatable and
measurable relationship between excess heat production
from the stimulated nickel hydride in the test cell and the
repetition rate of the applied electronic pulses. When the
repetition rate is changed from the optimum frequency,
excess power production ceases in the nickel hydride
lattice. When that repetition rate is restored, significant
excess power production resumes.
I'm very interested in this work for the same
reasons I've been very interested in the THz
(dual laser) stimulation work of Dennis Letts et
al. Control over the reaction is being
demonstrated. There is a fly in the ointment, though.
Certain electrical
inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a
proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content.
In other words, we aren't being told enough
information so that this finding could be independently replicated.
We started with the hypothesis that metal hydrides
stimulated at frequencies related to the lattice phonon
resonance would cause protons or deuterons to undergo
controlled electron capture. If this hypothesis is true then
less hydride material would be needed to produce excess
power. Also, this should lead to excess power (1) on
demand, (2) from light H2O electrolysis, and (3) from the
hydrides of Pd, Ni, or any matrix able to provide the
necessary confinement of hydrogen and obtain a
Hamiltonian value greater than 782KeV. Also, the excess
power effect would be enhanced at high temperatures and
pressures.
Brillouin's lattice stimulation reverses the natural
decay of neutrons to protons and Beta particles,
catalyzing this endothermic step. Constraining a proton
spatially in a lattice causes the lattice energy to be highly
uncertain. With the Hamiltonian of the system reaching
782KeV for a proton or 3MeV for a deuteron the system
may be capable of capturing an electron, forming an
ultra-cold neutron or di-neutron system. The almost
stationary ultra-cold neutron(s) occupies a position in the
metal lattice where another dissolved hydrogen is most
likely to tunnel in less than a nanosecond, forming a
deuteron / triton / quadrium by capturing the cold neutron
and releasing binding energy.
This would lead to helium through a Beta decay. The
expected half-life of the beta decay: if J_(4H)=
0-, 1-, 2-,t1/2=10 min; if J_(4H)=0+, 1+, t1/2=0.03 sec[1].
Personal correspondence with Dr. D. R. Tilley confirmed
that the result of such a reaction would be ߯ decay to
4He.
The only resemblance to W-L theory is that
neutron formation from electron capture by a
proton is being hypothesized. W-L proposes a
surface mechanism, Brillouin is proposing a
lattice mechanism, but that might be an
inconsequential detail, i.e., the actual reaction
site might be near or at the surface.
W-L propose that ULM neutrons form by capture of
"heavy electrons" have a high capture
cross-section (expected, if I'm correct, from the
very low momentum), but they have these neutrons
react with lots of different stuff in the surface region.
Brillouin has the ULM neutron sitting in the site
where it was formed (as it would, initially at
least), where it would be targeted by another
proton, as, with the original proton's charge
gone, this would be the preferred location for a new proton to occupy.
Thus, with hydrogen, the initial (and doubtless
main) reaction product would be deuterium.
This is somewhat similar to Storms' proposal,
except for the site. Storms has, in cracks:
p + e + p -> d + e. (The electron is catalytic
and is pushed out of the way....)
There are obvious problems to be solved, if this
theory is to sprout wings. Rate is not
considered. The 782 MeV capture process is
enabled by the uncertainty principle, and such
processes are normally very much rate-limited.
It's tunneling, in effect, but that's a boatload
of energy to borrow in this way. The net energy
is not high for the first proposed step: 2.2 MeV
- 0.8 MeV. The process looks like, with H >>D, T,
it would produce tritium proportionally to the
D/H ratio, and helium proportionally to the T/H ratio.
As I've many times point out with W-L theory,
sequential processes where the initiator of the
process is rare and where later steps would have
no special advantage over early ones, become increasingly rare.
When a neutron is captured, the resulting
hydrogen is no more likely to capture an
additional neutron than is any other hydrogen in
the vicinity. Thus, until and unless deuterium is
common, tritium production will be rare, and
helium production will be rare upon rare.
Now, we don't know how much deuterium is being
produced, but we do know that tritium is being
produced in PdD cold fusion at rates far, far
below that of helium. I think the ratio is 10^6,
someone correct me. With deuterium, the mechanism
proposed goes to helium in one low-rate step,
followed by a necessary further transformation.
d + e + d -> 2n + d -> H4 -> He-4 + e.
And then we are left entirely without an
explanation for how the immense energy released
in the conversion of d + d to He-4 is released.
We know that it isn't in the He-4 and e kinetic
energies. Something else is going on. Or this reaction is not going on.
