In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:39:32 -0700: Hi Jones, >Robin, > >Yes - in the O-P effect, as you say - one or the other nucleons of D is >absorbed by a target nucleus; and in the Fusor, it usually is the neutron. >When the neutron is absorbed the net energy is ~20% less even though the >mass of reactants cannot explain that difference, and the net energy should >go the other way. O-P is a lower net energy reaction than thermonuclear and >the explanation offered by Oppie is "negative kinetic energy". Kim of Purdue >has a couple of papers out on the branching ratio energies.
I don't suppose you have URL for any of Kim's papers? > >To get both a free neutron and a free proton, when deuterium is the only >reactant there must be two reactions: D+D -> He-3 + n and D+D -> Tritium + >p. However, since you have both a free proton and a neutron in the end, >there is little way to be certain how they got there . other than theory. True, but you have consumed 4 D's (not 1) to get 1 proton and 1 neutron. > >The reason that Fusor enthusiasts can be fairly certain that this is "warm" >and not exactly "hot fusion" as seen in a Tokomak besides the low input >energy is the branching ratio is different, the energy per fusion event is >less, and the plasma is comparatively cold. Comparatively less tritium is >seen, This would appear to be inconsistent with the statement at the top: "and in the Fusor, it usually is the neutron." If it were usually the neutron, then the product would be D + n => T. IOW one would expect more T than in the hot fusion branching ratio, not less. >and significantly less net energy per fusion event occurs than if the >branching was the "hot" since the tritium reaction is more energetic by 700 >keV and it is suppressed. Please explain. Both reactions are energy positive, so how can either be suppressed? In order for energy loss to be the cause of suppression of the reaction that produces the least energy (i.e. the 3He reaction), (and thus retains the most) , one would need to "lose" the usual energy of that reaction i.e. 3.27 MeV, which would hint very strongly at a complete misunderstanding of the processes involved, or even the reaction taking place. Note that suppression of a reaction can also have reasons other than a lack of energy, so it may not be correct to claim that because the reaction appears to be suppressed, that the implication is an energy shortage. I get the strong impression here that what we are dealing with is another set of results for which someone, somewhere along the way, has come up with the wrong explanation. In order to sort this out, it is necessary to see the original experimental results. Can you point the way? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
