Question: why is hot fusion DD fusion seldom toward He4

After citing the "le Châtelier's Principle" article in the "never to be trusted for controversial issues, famous online encyclopedia" Hermes claims to "have just read" that same le Châtelier's article he/she had just cited earlier, ostensibly without reading it.

Quote from Hermes

Longview asks: So, why are you citing it?

Quote from Hermes

As another demonstration that Le Chateliers [sic] principle has nothing to do with CF!

Well, it appears we can write you off as a waste of time from now on. It seemed like you might have been in the mould of TC, but must have lost some vigor and rigor in the 2D replication process... too bad...

Longview. You are welcome to cite alternative sources backing up your contention that Le Chatelier's principle is not only applicable to near equilibrium conditions. I have already said this. Le Chatelier's principle is not a controversial issue. Simply asserting that someone is wrong, that his references are unreliable, and similar unsubstantiated polemics are boring. If you cannot justify your opinions, just keep them to yourself. You are wasting your time and everyone else's.

Quote from Hermes

As you say, photosynthetic plants do it. But Le Chatelier's principle is applicable to near equilibrium reactions

Le Chatelier / you right, my point only given syngas example not good example. Good remember reaction speeds too when talk Le Chatelier as key. Sometimes catalyst or product is more one way posibilities too. So big diffrencies exist.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Birkeland–Eyde process is commonly cited as an example of Le Châtelier's principle, because the fast heating favors production of unstable and energetically rich nitrous oxide (because the shifting of endothermic reaction by heating of reaction mixture favors the endothermic outcome of it).

Le Chatelier's princple applies to the Birkeland–Eyde process because the entropy, enthalpy, and free energy changes are small, that is to say, very close to equilibrium. The speed of heating is irrelevant. The high temperature is necessary to achieve a reasonable rate of reaction.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The sensitivity of cold fusion to temperature is quite pronounced and similar to chemical reactions - so its activation energy and reversibility looks comparable to chemical reactions.

This indicates that the rate limiting step is not a nuclear step. In uranium fission or muon catalysed fusion there also temperature dependencies. Edmund Storms thinks that diffusion of deuterium in palladium is a rate limiting step. Unfortunately the calculated activation energy does not coincide within the limits of experimental error. So chemistry may have a role, but it is unidentified at this stage.

The Coulomb barrier for hydrogen isotopes is about 100 keV high. Collisions have no effect on this barrier at normal temperatures. I don't know of any examples of reversible nuclear reactions in our solar system. Do you? At ultra high pressure it is calculated to be energetically feasible for 3He to "decay" back to tritium (in white dwarves). So the two could be in equilibrium.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

From the same reason the fast heating and cooling during asymmetric plasma collisions leads to nuclei with asymmetric, i.e. unbalanced number of proton and neutrons, whereas the symmetric collisions of atoms in long lattic

If you were to look at the isotopic composition of Earth, the vast majority, by weight, would be isotopes with equal numbers of protons and neutrons. These isotopes were dispersed by a supernova some 5.5 Gy ago (fast heating and cooling).

It is not clear to me how a plasma can be compared to the lattice.

/* The speed of heating is irrelevant. The high temperature is necessary to achieve a reasonable rate of reaction. */

Yes, but the fast cooling is required for high yield, or the nitrous oxide formed would decompose back again - just because of high rate of reaction.

/* Collisions have no effect on this barrier at normal temperatures */

Try to read my theory about it here or here. The low-dimensional character of collision decreases the effective activation energy of fusion in similar way, like the surface catalyst is doing it for chemical reactions, thus making it more reversible.

/* It is not clear to me how a plasma can be compared to the lattice */

At the very end both hot both cold fusion runs via particles collision - inside the lattice these particles are just collide well arranged along long chains.

Quote from Wyttenbach

For measuring Mills uses: Citation:

The pure hydrogen EUV spectra were recorded using an Aluminum (Al) (150 nm
thickness, Luxel Corporation) filter to demonstrate that the soft X-rays are emitted from the

plasma.

Headake: Most likely primary source: Strong varying B-magnetic
fields. Some get it near a thuderstorm. Not everybody is sensitiv.

Worst case: Hydrino radiation.

Display More

So Al mylar film pass some XUV. I'll try chips bag when get some PMT equipment ready. Ideas for suitable phosphor? Thank you

B-fields should find with compass and ED88T hall sensor. They decay fast too. Not found yet. And it feels long distance. Not observed feelings from thunderstorm yet, but low storm experince yet. High volt powerlines, mobile antennas etc. have given feelings about three months so far. Nothing EMP sensitivy / mental broblems before.

How much hydrinos need for kill?
Aquariums are not easy/compact, I'll try to find some plexi sheets

The Le Chatelier principle says, when the product of reaction is endothermic, i.e. rich of energy, then the heating (i.e. the introduction of energy) into a reaction will promote the formation of endothermic products. Period.

Now I'm just saying, that the introduction of additional energy into a fusion (i.e. making fusion hot) promotes the formation of energetically rich isotopes of hellium, i.e. these asymmetric ones (with different number of protons and neutrons).

Is it really so difficult to understand? The nuclear physics is full of way more complex stuffs - you shouldn't stuck with its understanding right here.

@Hermes

I suspect you have me confused with someone else, although I have critiqued some of your more outstandingly incorrect comments about le Châtelier's Principle, I have NOT advocated it for CF. I hold open the possibility that some aspects of le Châtelier's may be useful in explaining some aspects of CF / LENR / CANR / LANR.

I was simply questioning your "Hermes" apparently misguided comments here. Your citing of articles from Wikipedia that you have not read (but could have substantially edited yourself, for all we know). I was earlier critical of your odd attempts to explain le Châtelier using Gibbs Free Energy. With others here, I have attempted to get you straightened out on how le Châtelier's works in practice, with a couple of examples. Best not to confuse my modest attempt to "educate" with wider CF advocacy (for some measure of that read further below).

However, your reactions and misleading ideas expressed here, may lead many to question anything you may write about anything whatsoever. Sorry for that unfortunate observation and implication.

If you are not simply a troll here, then perhaps you can learn something from Zephir_AWT, who evidently has a far better grasp of important chemical principles than you. Further Zephir appears to have some imaginative energy left after proper absorption of chemical and physical principles. I recommend such looking a bit more ahead rather than always "back" via a peculiar mirror....for your best future in science, Hermes.

Hermes wrote or writes from his apparently "Wiki educated" device:
" Longview. You are welcome to cite alternative sources backing up your
contention that Le Chatelier's principle is not only applicable to near
equilibrium conditions. I have already said this.

Longview comments: If it truly were my "contention that Le Chatelier's principle is not only applicable to near
equilibrium conditions. I have already said this." I, Longview, would wonder about clear expression as well as about the state of
awareness of such a writer, whether it were myself or a "Hermes".

Longview further comments: le Châtelier's is literally the expression of action brought by disequilibrium... arguably toward establishing a new equilibrium. You, Hermes, apparently still have not understood le Châtelier's, or nearly anyone else's comments about it.

Longview also comments: If you bothered to study my posts here, you would find that I am most prone to view CF as a catalyzed nuclear reaction. The enthalpies (and delta G Free energy, under suitable catalysis, if you will) are vastly favorable for many simple CF / LENR / LANR / CANR / AHE proposed reactions. The question remains, what is the mechanism for this (or these) apparently frequently observed phenomenon (besides any measurement errors that may inevitably occur). I have written here, briefly, because it is key to some of my research interests.... that what I like to call "parametric" reaction mechanisms can give modest over unity COPs without necessarily invoking nuclear mechanisms-- while still absolutely requiring SOME negative delta H. The only delta H implications of such reactions as "parametric" are fairly easily understood as taking one or more statistical variables away from normal thermodynamically governed chemical reaction mechanisms--- thus making integrated COPs (total energy out over total energy in, only) somewhat "perfected" thermodynamics, as in superconductivity or say manifest in a heat pump (COP maximum 3 to 4).

Hermes continues: Here is my comment about le Chatelier's....
(material deleted as either incorrect, misapplied or irrelevant to the discussion at hand, that is le Châtlier's and CF). Or more broadly, to wit:

"Question: why is hot fusion DD fusion seldom toward He4".

Which brings up the much more productive discussion we could be having about the genre of "reaction coordinate diagrams" or "RC" here, and their meaning in a nuclear context. In a gaseous and/or all plasma state, the meaning of such diagrams becomes one where the reaction coordinate (that is the horizontal axis) is literally an expression of distance between the reactants. This is a simple way to understand the deep pickle Hot Fusion (HF) work finds itself-- and the necessity for both immense pressure and temperature (Lawson solutions). I gave earlier example of the immense pressures and very high velocities (temperatures) needed in a plasma environment to effect successful fusion (recall billions of atmospheres, that 10^10 and more). The fact that the "channel" evident in DD or dd apparent cold fusion is so low in neutrons, gammas or other hot quantized entities, but instead appears to be nearly completely thermalized has been the great and long effort of theoreticians such as Hagelstein. The RC surface model provides a way to see CF using RC and still explain the change of channels.... but more on that with folks who are interested.

In summary: Hermes, you seem to be sleep walking or worse. I did not advocate le Chatelier's as a primary mechanism for CF. You, Hermes, seem to have made at least two quite wrong-- or maybe those are Feynmann style "not even wrong" comments about le Chatelier's. I have critiqued your wrong comments about le Chatelier's, including especially your less than realistic reduction of le Chatelier's to a simple Gibbs free energy discussion. I have indicated a willingness to read Zephir's comments further and certainly will. I have supported critiques of your comments by Zephir and others, when justified.

Longview

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Now I'm just saying, that the introduction of additional energy into a fusion (i.e. making fusion hot) promotes the formation of energetically rich isotopes of hellium,

Agreed. Now please calculate whether any reasonable amount of heat makes an appreciable difference to far from equilibrium reactions. E.g. at what temperature are helium isotopes close enough to equilibrium such that 2 of them could be measured? You could use the formula -RT lnK = deltaH - T deltaS.
I think you may find that the most likely products (by many million orders of magnitude) are hydrogen isotopes at normal temperatures. No intuition required. For all practical purposes nuclear reactions are not reversible, and Le Chatelier's principle cannot be usefully applied. If you believe otherwise cite a reference other than your own blog.

Quote from Longview

If you are not simply a troll here,

I am 90 percent sure I know who Hermes is. Whether I do or not, he is assuredly not a troll. Let's not let things get personal and state when there's a disagreement and leave it at that.

Quote from Eric Walker

I am 90 percent sure I know who Hermes is. Whether I do or not, he is assuredly not a troll. Let's not let things get personal and state when there's a disagreement and leave it at that.

Perhaps you have it right, but don't be too sure. The style of deliberately conflating commenters, such as myself, with others who have quite different basic positions.... merely because they happen to be in unison on a particular set of errors...... I see that as a long time MO for certain types of sophisticated trolling. It is done all the time in other venues. The technique is "guilt by association" and I personally detest it. If it is not "paid for" behavior, or axe-grinding, at least I consider it evidence of poor attention or perhaps a lack of respect for others.

Hermes got his/her intellectual organ out there way too far. I don't see any reason to be sympathetic at this point if it gets called "out of place".

If we get too "respectful" of folks because they are "assuredly not a troll".... then we invite them to act effectively as trolls with impunity.

But I am willing to leave your position on Hermes as a potential "disagreement" -- since my comment was hypothetically worded. My lack of respect for Hermes elsewhere may be too obvious, and perhaps I should leave it at that. I generally reserve my criticisms of others when they grossly misrepresent some scientific principle..... but the personal can get in there too, if I am grossly misrepresented.

Quote from Longview

Hermes continues: Here is my comment about le Chatelier's....
(material deleted as either incorrect, misapplied or irrelevant to the discussion at hand, that is le Châtlier's and CF).

Now it is you who are sleepwalking. I never wrote this. Nor have any of my posts been deleted for any reason. I suggest that if you want to quote people, you do so using the inbult mechanism rather than rely on memory or wishful thinking.

Quote from Longview

I did not advocate le Chatelier's as a primary mechanism for CF. You, Hermes, seem to have made at least two quite wrong-- or maybe those are Feynmann style "not even wrong" comments about le Chatelier's

AFAIK nobody would advocate Le Chatelier's Principle as a mechanism! Thermodynamics is independent of any underlying mechanism!

Quote from Longview

I am most prone to view CF as a catalyzed nuclear reaction. The enthalpies (and delta G Free energy, under suitable catalysis, if you will) are vastly favorable for many simple CF / LENR / LANR / CANR / AHE proposed reactions. The question remains, what is the mechanism for this

Let me see if I understand. You claim there is some undefined catalyst but you are unable to identify the reaction(s) catalysed nor their mechanism? That seems like an unfalsifiable conjecture!

Actually I agree with you that catalysis may be occurring. There are several reasonable models that explain the mechanism and consequently the reactions. But I see you don't read the literature. In fact I have asked you to give references which you have failed to do.

Your contribution to this discussion seems to be limited to contradiction and ad hominem attacks. I am not aware that you made anything approaching a critique of my use of the Gibbs equation as a quantitative alternative to qualitative Le Chatelier's principle. I often ignore an argument when there is no substance to it. But if while I was sleepwalking I missed some conflict between Gibbs and Le Chatelier, I shall look forward to your Nobel prize after you reveal it to the world.

If anybody reading this thread thinks that Le Chatelier's principle can be usefully applied to ANY nuclear reaction occurring in the solar system, I would certainly like to know an example taken from generally accepted nuclear physics.

Quote from Hermes

Now it is you who are sleepwalking. I never wrote this. Nor have any of my posts been deleted for any reason. I suggest that if you want to quote people, you do so using the inbult mechanism rather than rely on memory or wishful thinking.

Someone posting as "Hermes" did write it, now about 9 hours ago. And by the way that post is strangely not available to the "inbult [sic] quote mechanism".

Quote from Hermes

If anybody reading this thread thinks that Le Chatelier's principle can be usefully applied to ANY nuclear reaction occurring in the solar system, I would certainly like to know an example taken from generally accepted nuclear physics.

Me too.

/* Agreed. Now please calculate whether any reasonable amount of heat makes an appreciable difference to far from equilibrium reactions. */

IMO you're confusing two things: reversibility of reaction and the shift of reaction. The reaction can be perfectly reversible and running smoothly, nevertheless its yield can be heavily shifted toward reaction products or reactants just because of strong exothermic/endothermic character of reaction. But it still doesn't imply that this reaction proceeds irreversibly - just the position of equilibrium is shifted to one side of reaction.

/* For all practical purposes nuclear reactions are not reversible */

They're heavily shifted toward reaction products due to their large enthalpy. It's not possible to slow-down the speed of radioactive decay by heating or pressure. But the generally low speed of reactions is given by low concentration of reaction centers at which the reaction runs. But at the scope of these centers the reaction can run quite reversibly, though.

Analogously the burning of hydrogen at the surface of platinum runs more reversibly (i.e. at lower temperature) than the burning of bulk mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. But does it mean, that this reversible reaction could be reversed easily? Not at all, because it produces lotta heat, so that it would proceed obstinately until most of hydrogen will be consumed. And does it also mean, that such reversible reaction must run faster? Not at all, the oxidation of hydrogen at platinum surface would actually run quite slowly, because only few places of platinum surface are capable of reversible reaction, all the rest is essentially inert to it.

The 1D stacks of atoms within nickel lattice therefore work for nuclear reactions in similar way, like the 2D surface of platinum for chemical reactions: i.e. like the low-dimensional catalyst improving the reversibility of reaction.

/* If anybody reading this thread thinks that Le Chatelier's principle can be usefully applied to ANY nuclear reaction occurring in the solar system, I would certainly like to know an example taken from generally accepted nuclear physics. */

This is in essence the whole nuclear physics at colliders with nearly no exception. The more energetic collisions we arrange, the more energetically rich and unstable products of collisions are formed. The more energy, the more asymmetric fragments and decay channels.

Just the fact, Holmlid is producing muons instead of alpha particles is also the consequence of the fact, he manages to heat the reaction mixture way more than it's absolutely necessary for fusion by his laser pulses. Muons are energetically so rich, they're unstable and decay fast in similar way, like the less stable and asymmetric helium nuclei, actually even faster - because the conditions of Holmlid fusions are even more distant from equilibrial cold fusion, than the tokamak and NIF fusions.

Now that he is "anonymous" the real Hermes can still bite.

Quote from Hermes

Thermodynamics is independent of any underlying mechanism!

It seems like Hermes" "thermodynamics" is independent of reality, itself has no moving parts, no components, no actions, no interactions, no forces, no energy, no change of phase, no work, no power, no potentials and certainly no guidance... Nothing but pure platonic thought on a god-like plane of abstraction. Something like "pure reason". It seems Hermes that actualities don't matter in Hermes' "real" thermodynamics. And certainly no thoughts about mechanisms... that might lead to dirty hands and dangerously interesting results!

Others here, others less certain, others who have a fresh outlook on the possibilities for CF / LENR / LANR / CANR etc. thankfully don't necessarily see it that way. Even Enrico Fermi thankfully did not, and wrote of the relationship between equations of "state" and descriptions in the real world in 6N motion in his 1936 Thermodynamics, which I believe Dover still has in print.

Reminds me of Feynman's comments about teaching advanced physics topics in Brazil. Back then (1950 and 60s), when he combined Carnival musicianship with teaching duties in Rio, he was repeatedly amazed that his advanced students were unable to see the practical and visible implications of the very topics the students appeared completely at home with as abstract theory. I recall one of his examples was the polarization of light reflecting off the water outside the classroom--- or quarter wave phase displacements of radiation passing through those windows.... and so on. He may have mentioned the role of a "class" societal system imported from Europe in a bygone era.

/* It seems like Hermes" "thermodynamics" is independent of reality */

Of course, the thermodynamics is the basic model of emergent multiparticle physicis on which dense aether model is also based. Not accidentally just the Ludwig Boltzmann who invented the thermodynamics was also convinced proponent of aether model and Boltzmann brain, which is the primary observatory perspective of AWT.

But the thermodynamics is not universal model, because it's itself time symmetric. The negentropic phenomena are quite common in nature (lasers, overheating, overcooling) and they also involve the cold fusion, which runs at lower number of dimensions, than the 3D. From this reason the cold fusion also violates the naive thermodynamics operating in 3D. The overunity phenomena are also negentropic phenomena, which have their origin in low-dimensional effects.

Therefore the thermodynamics not only remains dependent on underlying physical reality, it also has its own limits like any other simplified model of it.

Quote from Longview

It seems like Hermes" "thermodynamics" is independent of reality, itself has no moving parts, no components, no actions, no interactions, no forces, no energy, no change of phase, no work, no power, no potentials and certainly no guidance..

Do you have any evidence? Is it not the case that every attempt to prove that thermodynamics is wrong at the macroscopic scale has failed? Such as Maxwell's demon. I suggest that thermodynamics and reality are in prefect accord (excepting Heisenberg uncertainty which is not macroscopic).

/* I suggest that thermodynamics and reality are in prefect accord (excepting Heisenberg uncertainty which is not macroscopic). */

Thermodynamics applies only to equilibrium processes. The reality is full of negentropic phenomena. And thermodynamics gets violated at the macroscopic scales as well: the particle gas spontaneously expands, until its particles aren't larger than few milimeters - after then it collapses by its gravity instead.