D-D fusion

  • 1. You need some deuterium loaded metal (palladium, titanium, nickel, ..) as target.
    2. Accelerate ions of hydride to the target.


    Result: D-D -> 3He + n


    This reaction can generate 2.5 MeV and can be boosted significantly.
    Temperature must be kept low enough so desoription of the deuterium can't occur.
    This will work and will generate significant amount of neutrons.


    Why this phenomenon is ignored?


    On the other hand, we can start isotopic transmutation to deuterium, tritium, quatrium from hydrogen by electron scattering. And this is more complicated, but not impossible.

  • You are probably asking if we really need neutrons? Yes, by neutron capture process one can generate even more energy.
    Thermal neutrons are captured very well by some elements, especially Lithium. So it is possible to generate Neutron flux that is just necessary but not more. In this case reaction can be safe enough.


    Moreover Neutron flux can be concentrated to one direction with DD fusion and also with strong magnetic field you can change its direction even more.


    By changing deuterium to protium we have another complication as mentioned above - neutrons can't be generated that easily.

  • Thank you for your warning. Of course, neutron detectors are necessary.


    Quote

    And magnetic fields do not deflect neutrons.


    Neutrons can interact with a strong electromagnetic fields quite well. Neutron's magnetic moment is not zero so basically you can send neutron where you want to be.


    Reactor that I have described can be built in 20x20mm area without any problem. Ions accelerated by tens of kV are enough.

  • Thank you for the link.


    I know that mentioned reaction is working and it is actually used by some devices at the present time.
    Question is, why mainstream scientists are still saying that LENR is not working if we have real evidence for longer time?


    This reaction is working perfectly even at room temperature and is very simple.


    In case of Rossi's reactors, reaction is more sophisticated, because he is working with protium. Because of this, mechanism to transmute protium to next isotopes is necessary. And this is what we are unable to replicate very well. If you know this, reaction can be even stronger if you can create tritium or even quatrium for very short time. In Brillouin patent or other papers very same reaction is described as well.


    So all these reactions are same, just the way how to achieve it is different.


    Working with deuterium can simplify it a lot for replicators, but protium is cheaper so it is worth to do the research.

  • Regarding DD reaction - not yet, but I saw working reactors with COP of 10.
    I know also another groups that are successfull and I trust them.


    If it work as should, there is no detectable neutron radiation and process can be very safe.
    I am perfectly sure that it work, there is no doubt.

  • One thing you could easily try with your current setup is to replace LiAlH4 with LiAlD4.



    As to the question whether d+d fusion has been ignored until now:


    No it has not. It is too hard to maintain in the plasma chambers of hot fusion reactors. That is why ITER and other demo reactors will work(if at all) by D+T- Reaction.


    Invoking these reactions by acceleration does not work to generate energy because you will need more energy to accelerate than you get out of the reactions.

  • About
    Helium-3 Generation from the Interaction of Deuterium Plasma
    inside a Hydrogenated Lattice: Red Fusion

    http://iopscience.iop.org/arti…c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org


    Ions from a deuterium plasma are allowed to collide with a hydrogen loaded crystal. The authors claim that this interaction produces Helium-3.


    Their conclusions are:

    Quote

    It was to demonstrated that Helium-3 could be produced using Deuterium-Ions interacting with Hydrogen-Ions already inside our Hydrogenated Lattice or “Red”, according to Julian Schwinger’s Hypothesis. The results obtained with the Quadrupole Mass Analyzer show masses of three (3) in the mass spectra. Because the average kinetic energy of the plasma was over 10 eV, which is larger than the bonding energy of the molecule of H-D (4.6 eV), H-D molecules are dissociated in the Deuterium Plasma. The Optical Spectra show the distinct peaks that are the visual fingerprint of Helium-3. Therefore, the Atomic Mass three (3) corresponds to Helium-3, as Schwinger predicted.


    Yes, Figures 3, 4, and 5 show clear peaks at Mass / Charge = 3 (aka m/Z).This certainly could mean a signal from He-3. There is also a much higher peak at m/Z = 4 that could correspond to He-4.


    Let us assume that those two peaks represent background helium. If that were the case the signal from He-3 would be invisible since, as they say, “the percentage of abundance is only 0.000137 in a naturally occurring mixture of Helium isotopes”. So this m/Z = 3 peak cannot be background He-3.


    Then what is it? Here is an example of a mass spectrum:
    http://www.fusionvic.org/LastR…ore-Quality_Rec_Text2.gif


    Note that H2+ gives a peak at around 2, which is expected since it has two nucleons and one electron’s worth of positive charge. Now, let us replace one H with a D, getting HD+ and shoot it through our mass spectrometer. It would end up in bin 3 together with our He-3, wouldn’t it?


    The authors also present an optical spectrum in Figure 6. “He-3 peaks are clearly identified.”, they say. Are they really?


    He-3 should emit the same spectrum as H-4 since they have identical electron systems. Moreover, the spectrum indicates presence of HD with unique peaks at 430, 480 and 890 Nm and this gives support to my “He-3” = HD+ conjecture.


    The above explanation seems too simplistic. Please help me out geniuses, where did I think crazy?


    (Talking about crazy, I enjoyed axil's pretty cherry tree above. Looks yummy! )

  • Quote

    I guess what me356 wants to say is, that Rossi found a way to transmutate protium to deuterium and directly use it in a following reaction. So the deuterium is very short living.


    Since any possible LENR mechanism is rampant speculation, I guess i can understand why such suggestions are made. After all, if you can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, why not 12, 100, 1000?


    In reality one impossible thing is enough for any speculation. The sign of a bust argument is when, to make your first impossibility pan out, you invoke others.


    Sort of the difference between open minds (allow one impossibility in case somehow it can be made to work) and brains falling out (any collection of words strung together makes an equally likely argument).


    I suspect many but not all LENR supporters have given up on the "one impossibility" caution and just let it all fall out...

  • Thomas Clarke: You are absolutely not right. I know what I saw and many other scientists as well.
    It is useless to convince you. Can you promise, that you will not ever buy any LENR device?


    And as I said earlier, soon I would like to invite you so you can check my reactor and tell me, why it does not work.
    You can take any measurement tools you wish.

  • Note that H2+ gives a peak at around 2, which is expected since it has two nucleons and one electron’s worth of positive charge. Now, let us replace one H with a D, getting HD+ and shoot it through our mass spectrometer. It would end up in bin 3 together with our He-3, wouldn’t it?


    Yes -- this sounds right.


    He-3 should emit the same spectrum as H-4 since they have identical electron systems.


    Perhaps. The spectra might have different intensities in different regions, in the manner of the differences between the spectra of H and D.


    The above explanation seems too simplistic. Please help me out geniuses, where did I think crazy?


    I don't think they've established that they are seeing 3He in their spectra on the basis of what they show in this conference report. Perhaps a mass spectrometer accurate enough to discriminate between 3He+ and HD+?

  • Eric, I just copied my post to the thread "Red Fusion" Paper + Aneutronic Patent Application with intention to remove it here, but never mind.


    The authors also say that they repeated the same experiment over a hundred times. Shall I take it that you (almost) agree that I just have have debunked over hundred allegedly positive LENR experiments? That should earn me at least one like from some skeptic forum member. :)

  • Shall I take it that you (almost) agree that I just have have debunked over hundred allegedly positive LENR experiments?


    Yes -- I almost agree. I think you've made a great case for a plausible alternative. I'm still curious as to whether they're actually seeing 3He, but I don't have a strong opinion that they would be. I'd like them to tighten up their experiment and their description.


    It seems to me that the debunking of their conclusions would assume a much higher burden of proof. Which is not to say that I wouldn't lose interest in them long before that.