On May 5, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF.
I am probably missing something important, but I don't see how the
statement below follows from the one above -- perhaps you are just
mentioning it and do not intend it as an essential detail to this
discussion.
This mechanism does not produce energetic particles because if it
did, they or their secondaries would be easily detectable when
multiple watts are produced, as occasionally happens.
It is the phrase "if it did, they or their secondaries would be
easily detectable when multiple watts are produced" that I am trying
to understand. I'm not saying it's wrong -- I'm just being like
Descartes and trying to start from the beginning, so to speak. At
one point you saw some evidence or a chain of reasoning that led you
to this conclusion. I'm trying to piece together what those details
might be. So far I gather they are these things:
If you have deuterium nuclei moving about at energies greater than
20 keV, you'll get a significant number of d+d→3He+n reactions, and
those neutrons will escape and be detected and/or be dangerous to
any humans around.
Yes Eric, that is correct.
If you have alphas and protons moving around at energies greater
than 20 keV, you'll get secondary EMF that will be of a spectrum
such that a significant part of it will escape the metal or glass
housing for the system, as well as the layer of (heavy) metal
substrate atoms that may be intervening between the nuclear active
area and the area between the substrate and the housing. For V
watts of power, that EMF can be known with within a confidence
interval W to have an X spectrum and intensity. Under those
conditions, the amount of radiation that can be expected to pass
through the Y mm of metal of a typical pressurized reactor housing
is Z.
Yes, correct
There are CR-39 experiments that provide evidence for the quantity
of fast particles that have been observed when there is excess heat,
but what they say is equivocal and/or the quality is poor. For this
reason, the CR-39 experiments are disregarded.
The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done.
Therefore, we do not know if the alpha relates to heat production or
not. In any case, so little radiation is detected that any associated
energy would be too small to detect. Nevertheless, the measurements
show that a nuclear reaction was occurring, but not CF as the
following logic shows.
If a single process operates, the heat and alpha radiation must result
from this process. If let's say ten watts were produced, the alpha
flux would have to be great enough to produce this power. A flux this
large (~10^13 alpha /sec) would be easily detected. It is not
detected. Therefore, the process that produces the detected alpha is
not the process that produces the measure heat. Nevertheless, the
measured energy is correlated with helium production. This helium can
not result from the production of alpha, based on the logic above.
Since I assume only one mechanism produces the heat, the alpha cannot
result from the reaction producing the heat. The reaction producing
heat creates non-energetic helium, which is called cold fusion.
Based only on my one assumption and the observations, two separate,
independent nuclear reactions can occur in a material. One generates
energetic particles, typical of hot fusion and the other generates no
energetic particles, typical of cold fusion. Confusion results when
these two separate reactions are combined and applied to CF. I have
proposed that what looks like alpha is actually energetic He3
resulting from the hot fusion reaction.
The logic is not complicated, although people keep making it
complicated. Once you accept this logic, my explanation gets much
easier to understand and accept. I have to wonder why people are
willing to explore complicated reactions and complex logic while
ignoring the most simple possibility.
Ed Storms
Does this sound about right? Have I missed anything important in
the reasoning that led you to the above conclusion? It is values
for V, W, X, Y and Z that I'm hoping to get some insight into. I
will try to see what I can find in those papers of Hagelstein. If
you have any information on these numbers, that would also be helpful.
Eric
