D+D "activation energy" ?

  • Perhaps someone here can shed light on the frequently seen ~900 Mega eV putative activation energy requirement to overcome the coulomb barrier, for d+d and the like (P+p, p+D, D+D and p+p). It does not take much Web searching to show that this level in no way truly reflects the actual barrier, even in an extremely energetic plasma. Such a high "activation energy" would make hot fusion, cold fusion and even thermonuclear weapons inherently unworkable.


    Is the 900 MeV perhaps a large typographical error? Could the barrier actually be 900 kilo eV, or even less?


    My own "back of an envelope" calculation shows, with perhaps unjustifiable oversimplifications, that the putative temperature at which D+D [or more correctly in a plasma, d+d], overcomes coulombic repulsion is at 400 million Kelvin. Since one degree K is 8.62 X 10e -5 eV, I get an equivalent energy of 34.5 keV. Such a number, or even one as large as 900 keV, would make chemically catalyzed fusion, and all other forms of fusion, far more reasonable to contemplate-- For example, at 900 keV, the uncatalyzed activation "cost" would be around 5% of the yield. Uncatalyzed COPs of 20 then become reasonable. Catalysis could lower the "barrier" greatly... then immense 8o COPs become theoretically possible, since the activation "cost" may well be nearly completely eliminated.


    Looking more closely, I see that the situation may well be even more favorable. That is at 34.5 keV, the activation "cost", even without catalysis, is but 0.15 % of the final 24 MeV yield.


    It makes me wonder why someone repeatedly placed the ridiculously high 930 MeV coulomb barrier in the public, web based, discourse. Is this an example of "innumeracy" in the skeptic community? -- or is it a deliberate obfuscation?


    Thanks in advance for any informed answer, correction or learned speculation. [Please feel free to cross post this to other online venues.]


    Longview

  • The coulomb barrier for hydrogen fusion can easily be reduced with a reactor charged with a suitable catalyst. Considering a theoretical barrier is a useless exercise when actually witnessing a reactor in operation. This is a new and unique level of physics requiring a new view of activation energy associated with hydrogen fusion.


    At dissociation temperature for hydrogen gas the catalyst will cause hydrogen fusion. There is little or no coulomb barrier because the atomic proximity in this interaction overcomes any repulsive force. I've done this as a lab experiment 50 years ago and have been waiting for someone to repeat the process.

  • ""Is the 900 MeV perhaps a "large typographical error?" Could the barrier actually be 900 kilo eV, or even less?""


    A very large typographical error! How many orders of magnitude is million to thousand?


    Actually not worth considering in this reaction since there is no barrier. The catalyst overcomes any barrier in the dissociated hydrogen interaction with the catalyst.


  • 900 Mev is this not doubt an error :
    the optimum energy for DD fusion is well known : 200 keV.
    (Reifenschweiler, and more recently Li et al , Current Science 108,
    2, 20012015 « SRT-Turning Hydrogen-Storage Material Into
    Energetic Material »)


    But it is very important for every Cold
    Fusionneers who like to play with plasma tubes to understand that the
    rate of DD fusion is important over 5 kev (Five kiloelectronvolts!)


  • As far as I see it (From BSM-SG perspective), as long as the resonance frequencies(/mismatches) of the protons and especially the space in between is not considered, most of this barrier strength values give nothing of value for cold fusion purposes. Stop thinking that a fast approaching particle causes the same effect as more static atom in a lattice structure. You will never get a nice frequency match if you use brute force - the harder you shoot, the more resistance you get (till some limit of course).

  • Again, my reactor began hydrogen fusion as evidenced by extreme heat generation with thermal input of 830 C. This is the temperature that enabled the periodicity of the Ni0/NiO... array to overcome the Coulomb barrier.


    With respect, I wonder whether you were actually measuring heat?


    If you observed temperature, then that can runaway very easily in small reactors fed with high power as follows:


    (1) wire meltdown resulting in transient high power in.
    (2) fast exothermic chemical reaction
    (3) physical change resulting in variation in thermal resistance to ambient. For example a 20% increase would lead to a sudden +200C spike in temperature for no change in heat production.


    with regard to (3) the stabilising T^4 dependence of radiation on temperature would normally stablise things quite reliably at high temperatures, but given the reducing total emissivity of Al2O3 with temperature that stabilisation will maybe be less effective than normal - that is another factor making local thermal runaway in al2o3 reactors more likely.


    Perhaps you had some corroborating evidence to make the big jump to excess heat from H+H fusion?


    Best wishes, Tom

  • Thomas, yes I was measuring heat with a simple thermocouple set up. Answers to your questions in order:


    (1). No melting of resistance heater wire. Pyrex envelope melted.
    (2). Yes fast exothermic reaction with unchanged appearance of catalyst after reaction. Green NiO same before and after reaction.
    (3). Catalyst appeared visually unchanged before as after.


    I don't think it was a big jump to blame simple hydrogen fusion to produce heat in what I observed. What would you have thought if your experiment was a NiO reactor with a hydrogen supply that included an RGA for gas analysis and you measured a change in helium concentration. RGA easily resolved deuterium and helium and indicated an increase in helium in the exit gas? Thermal output was a sudden increase in temperature with a departure from linearity as monitored with power input to the heater.

  • Thomas, yes I was measuring heat with a simple thermocouple set up. Answers to your questions in order:


    (1). No melting of resistance heater wire. Pyrex envelope melted.


    Not surprising:
    Pyrex MP - 820C
    Inconel MP - 1210C


    My contention stands.

    Quote


    (2). Yes fast exothermic reaction with unchanged appearance of catalyst after reaction. Green NiO same before and after reaction.


    Not sure what this proves. Perhaps that (1) is more likely cause?

    Quote

    (3). Catalyst appeared visually unchanged before as after.


    I don't think it was a big jump to blame simple hydrogen fusion to produce heat in what I observed. What would you have thought if your experiment was a NiO reactor with a hydrogen supply that included an RGA for gas analysis and you measured a change in helium concentration.


    I'd look for the (various) mundance reasons for small increases in helium, outgassing etc, and also try to replicate in a way that tested the positive result (linear correlation with total energy out as measured from calorimetry, slope as expected from mass balance). Such a correlation with the correct slope would be very suggestive. Lack of it and the results mean nothing.


    The positives in the literature are random and no more than would be expected given that high temperature heating is likely to cause gas migration and other physical changes that can have marginal affect on measurements - the changes observed are very small.

    Quote


    RGA easily resolved deuterium and helium and indicated an increase in helium in the exit gas? Thermal output was a sudden increase in temperature with a departure from linearity as monitored with power input to the heater.


    Sudden / departure from linearity - all expected in systems which undergo local transformation relasing heat (either from physical, chemical, or input power change mechanisms). It is pretty well impossible to rule out anomalous local runaway (sometimes global runaway) effects as you will see if you instrument in detail almost any reaction. And very difficult to pin them down except in simple cases.



    But - do not despair. If LENR is really hapenning there are certain signs that would be very easily detectable:
    (A) large amounts of excess heat, competently measured. Cheap options:
    Temperature delta inside oven (this removes most of the anomalies because heat production is now linear with temperature delta and varying thermal resistance affects slope but not direction).
    Liquid flow Calorimetry (not that cheap, but entirely possible)
    Large volume of water, enclosed and insulated, with reaction inside. Measure temperature change. There are some issues about how you stir teh water to equalise temperature without introducing too much extra energy but that can be resolved. A low power pump is all is needed and input power can be monitored.


    (B) Generation of non-natural isotopes


    (C) Generation of high energy products.


    Of course we do not have any of these - instead we have what you'd expect of LENR did not exist, a whole collection of claimed results all either non-reproducible or within experimental error - and getting smaller as experiments are tightened up.


    The sign of new physics is that you have something unusual that gets more definite, revealing structure, as you tighten up experiments.


    LENR positives thus far are something unusual but random, non-reproducible, and with no pattern.

  • This method of producing energy at low cost would create a very serious economic problem. Instead of performing experiments that would prove that it can be controlled, now that the problem of catalyst poisoning is understood let's argue that it's not possible.


    I agree, let's argue it to death and forget it.

  • This method of producing energy at low cost would create a very serious economic problem. Instead of performing experiments that would prove that it can be controlled, now that the problem of catalyst poisoning is understood let's argue that it's not possible.


    I agree, let's argue it to death and forget it.


    In science and engineering it is very difficult to interpret experimental results, or make progress, without decent analysis of what is going on.


    You seem to argue that LENR can best be discovered by not analysing the experiments and their results, since such analysis shows there is no LENR. On the contrary, if LENR does exist, reliably noting experiments which do NOT show it is helpful because it allows experimental work to be concentrated elsewhere.


    Of course, if this is pathological science there is no elsewhere, and all of the apparent results have other explanations. That however is a different argument.

  • "The definition of pathological is someone obsessive or something done obsessively, or it is something related to a disease."


    I copied the above to insure that our definition of pathology is on the same track.


    The reactor from my lab experiment ~50 years ago did cause hydrogen fusion. I have analyzed the results and found helium as the product with no higher amu isotopic changes. I've stopped being obsessed by this long ago. Not pathological any more for me. I've shown that nanoscale fusion exists, now it's up to the disbelievers to become obsessed with showing it's non existent. The arguments against nanoscale fusion do lead into the realm of abnormal psychology. Greatest discovery since fire and the modern cavemens' mentality is an expected obsessive resistance.

  • If for some perverse reason someone wants to witness nanoscale hydrogen fusion firsthand try this pathological approach to KISS:


    Wind an alumina tube with heater wire and load submicron particle size nickelous oxide on Al2O3FiberFrax into the central section. A silver powder getter must be present adjacent to the NiO/FiberFrax reactor to eliminate all sulfur compounds.
    Run helium gas through the tube while resistance heating to 830 C. Adjust the variable power input to maintain a steady 830 C and then switch from helium to hydrogen. The reactor will self distruct when fusion initiates.

  • If for some perverse reason someone wants to witness nanoscale hydrogen fusion firsthand try this pathological approach to KISS:


    Wind an alumina tube with heater wire and load submicron particle size nickelous oxide on Al2O3FiberFrax into the central section. A silver powder getter must be present adjacent to the NiO/FiberFrax reactor to eliminate all sulfur compounds.
    Run helium gas through the tube while resistance heating to 830 C. Adjust the variable power input to maintain a steady 830 C and then switch from helium to hydrogen. The reactor will self distruct when fusion initiates.


    From Peter Gluck's Ego out blog, http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…n-of-successful-heat.html


    his translation of a recent Russian Parkhomov style replication, has this:


    "Initialization of the mode of thermogeneration with the destruction of the reactor during the transition 900- 1000 deg C
    Power Watt 400…Transition 800-900 deg C
    Destroyed reactor.
    "

  • My reactor distructed at 830 C. fifty years ago. May have been the first to initiate hydrogen fusion in a laboratory. The ragoel catalyst is ideal for initiating hydrogen fusion. Trial and error attempts using special forms of nickel metal are circumvented by using the nickelous oxide array. This catalyst is ideal for initiating hydrogen fusion.

  • I propose that we relegate LENR to the science of alchemy. When I first witnessed hydrogen fusion 50 years ago my role was as a research alchemist. In this time span there has been no satisfactory explanation for the phenonom, hence it’s a candidate for the relm of alchemy.