The recent Mizuno presentation at the MIT colloquium and the surprising implications of hydrogen ash from deuterium as the starting gas - are the instigation for the following ramblings on developing an early stage theory.
This developing theory strives to explain how two deuterons can react in
such a way as to provide more energy than chemical, without fusion to helium
and with few gamma rays and few neutrons - and with hydrogen as the ash.
The Oppenheimer-Philips reaction is also known as deuterium stripping. This
explanation could be called a QM "bi-stripping" or BOP reaction
(Bi-Oppenheimer-Philips). If it can happen with two deuterons, it probably
comes with the added requirement of nanocavity confinement, since there is
no evidence of it in plasmas. Heisenberg uncertainty could be involved.
However, it is not beta decay of the deuteron - even though it might appear
that way.
When a free neutron decays to a proton, substantial energy would be released
as well as a neutrino, which carries away energy undetected. That is one
problem to overcome in a theory where the energy release is not great to
begin with. Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean
lifetime of about 15 minutes. Free neutrons usually beta decay by emission
of an electron and electron antineutrino leaving a fairly cold proton. The
decay energy for this process which is usable is about 0.78 MeV for the
electron. The energy of the emitted neutrino is not well defined and it is
really there to resolve problems of conservation of spin.
A small fraction of free neutrons decay with an emitted gamma ray (about one
in 1000) - thus the gamma, and its disproportion relative to excess heat and
its signature energy is another route to falsifiability of this suggestion.
The free neutron mass is slightly larger than that of a proton: 939.565378
MeV compared to 938.272046 MeV would be the standard values. The difference
is ~1.3 MeV indicating that the neutrino usually carries away about 500 KeV
- but is the neutrino really necessary if spin issues are resolved in
another way?
Since the neutrino was invented, for among other reasons to solve the
"allowed spin" problem in single neutron decay - we must ask if they are
necessary when two neutrons decay together in a new kind of reaction of
deuterons which do not have enough energy to fuse.
Consider the spins of the electron and antineutrino with a net spin of zero.
This is called a "Fermi decay" since the electron and antineutrino take no
spin away, and the nuclear spin cannot change. The only other possibility
allowed by QM is that the spins of electron and antineutrino combine into a
net spin of one; that is called a "Gamow-Teller decay." The angular momentum
can change by up to one unit in an allowed beta decay. Without neutrinos,
then there is a possibility for spin issues to be resolved in the context of
two linked decays but what other problems are created?
Anyway there is another issue - the extended half-life of free neutrons -
which means this energy is not normally available instantaneously to "lend"
in the sense of QM. This is where QM enters the picture in two different
ways. The mass of the deuteron is 1875.613 MeV. The mass of a free neutron
plus a free proton is 1877.8374 - thus about 2.2 MeV would be required (to
be supplied via kinetic energy) in order to split the deuteron - without QM
being involved. The net deficit of this reaction is somewhere around ~900
keV if the neutrino is avoided. So far we are still at endotherm.
This is why no one ever imagined Oppenheimer Philips as being relevant
before now. It looks endothermic, without Heisenberg uncertainty - and even
more so with neutrinos to solve spin issues. However, one can surmise that
with time alteration or compression - if two deuterons approach each other
so that both undergo the OP splitting reaction instantaneously as a result
of the single impact, then it is possible that the same 2.2 MeV of kinetic
energy results in a net energy release of 2.6 MeV (from two neutron decays
without neutrinos) but the two neutrons have decayed to protons instantly,
instead of with an extended half-life. This could indeed be an expected
result of Heisenberg uncertainty and other QM principles.
Thus the net reaction gain is 400 keV. The big stretch of the imagination is
that the same kinetic energy can split both atoms at the same time using
what can only be called a quantum time alteration and borrowed energy from
the net reaction - and that neutrinos are suppressed. Admittedly, this is a
stretch, but isn't everything in QM?
The reality of this explanation is highly dependent on the accuracy of
Mizuno's mass spec in the context of no other possible explanation. If
Mizuno is correct, this is not a bad first step. Adding QM into the mix, we
can surmise that most of the 2.2 kinetic energy deficit is supplied from the
net energy of the two linked neutron decay reactions, not a single decay -
and also that the normal half life of neutrons is greatly compressed to
supply this net available energy of 2.6 MeV (2 x 1.3 MeV) as part of the
borrowed input, and that no neutrino emission is involved.
Only then is the net reaction gainful, but the beauty of it is that
electrons carry off the 400 keV (or less) net gain - which is at a level
which is low enough and consistent with what is seen and bremsstrahlung
would not be extreme. Plus there are two routes to falsification.
If you don't buy this explanation (that kinetic energy can be shared in such
a way that two approaching deuterons are stripped at exactly the same time,
and instantly decay together) then there are alternatives. They will come up
in a later post. In fact, to place this in context - there could be many
gainful reactions happening at the same time.
This bi-stripping BOP hypothesis is all of a few hours old... but hey, in QM
terms - a few hours is a virtual eternity :-)
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
