I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur.
Harry On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:30 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > In reply to H Veeder's message of Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:35:34 -0400: > Hi, > > Nuclear energies are 6 orders of magnitude larger than chemical energies, > which > I would expect to reduce the chances to the point where it's not even worth > considering. > However, that said, it should be noted that the same is not always true for > reactions where D is converted into T. > > e.g. the following reaction is exothermic:- > > 9Be+2H => 4He + 4He + 3H + 4.684 MeV > > > >On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > >> In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: > >> Hi, > >> [snip] > >> >If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for > >> the > >> >neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can > give > >> >up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a > neutron > >> >to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) > >> > > >> >Harry > >> A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing > so > >> it > >> would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of > the > >> deuteron. > >> > >> > > > >?That means it is an endothermic reaction, but that doesn't mean it is > >impossible?. > >I am not implying that neutron stripping should be discarded ?if the > >reverse reaction is possible. > >? > >I > >? ? > >mentioned epicatalysis because > >?theoretical research on? > > > >?the subject > > > >?was recently ? > >published in Physical Review E. Along with some empirical evidence the > >research suggests that deviations > >?of practical significance ? > >from the 2nd law of law thermodynamics are possible > >?with epicatalysis > >?:? > > > >https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128 > > > >Now the theory of epicatalysis is based on chemical activity, but I don't > >see why the theory could not be broadened to include nuclear activity or > >other unconventional high energy activity if a given heat anomaly is too > >large to explain by just chemical activity. > > > >A tacit assumption of CF/LENR research is that an anomalous thermal signal > >will have practical significance if it results from the conversion of > >potential energy into kinetic energy in a one way process. The assumption > >holds whether the source of energy is nuclear or chemical or some other. > >Consequently, measured temperature anomalies are suspect until they are > >supported by additional calorimetry which yields a global temperature > rise. > >If this global temperature rise (excess heat signal) is not found, and > >measurement error is ruled out, then the temperature anomaly will be > >classified as a local fluctuation with no practical significance. This > >interpretation of temperature signals is motivated by the demands of the > >2nd law of thermodynamics. > > > >However, if a process like epicatalysis is creating the temperature > >anomalies then the methods used to measure an excess heat signal need to > be > >reconsidered. Detecting an excess heat signal ordinarily means looking for > >a global temperature rise which requires that the source of an anomaly be > >placed in a thermally closed environment since it is assumed the > >temperature rise is based on the creation of kinetic energy from inside > the > >system. In contradistinction epicatalysis transfers energy from a lower > >temperature region to a higher temperature region. If the purpose of the > >enclosure is to detect a global temperature rise none will be found. > > > >Harry > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
