Indications are that it will settle near 23.8 MeV, and I say that because there simply is no other candidate for the reaction product at levels that would make any difference.
Did you consider any other candidates? How many helium producing reactions do you know which produce 23.8 MeV/4He within an order of magnitude?
Did you consider any other candidates? How many helium producing reactions do you know which produce 23.8 MeV/4He within an order of magnitude?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0302066.pdf
Euclidean resonance and a new type of nuclear reactions
Boris Ivlev
Department of Physics and Astronomy University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 and Instituto de F´ısica, Universidad Aut´onoma de San Luis Potos´ı San Luis Potos´ı, S. L. P. 78000 Mexico
Abstract
The extremely small probability of quantum tunneling through an almost classical potential barrier may become not small under the action of the specially adapted nonstationary field. The tunneling rate has a sharp peak as a function of the particle energy when it is close to the certain resonant value defined by the nonstationary field (Euclidean resonance). Alpha decay of nuclei has a small probability since the alpha particle should tunnel through a very nontransparent nuclear Coulomb barrier. The incident proton, due to the Coulomb interaction with the tunneling alpha particle, plays the role of a nonstationary field which may result in Euclidean resonance in tunneling of the alpha particle. At the resonant proton energy, which is of the order of 0.2 MeV, the alpha particle escapes the nucleus and goes to infinity with no influence of the nuclear Coulomb barrier. The process is inelastic since the alpha particle releases energy and the proton gains it. This stimulation of alpha decay by a proton constitutes a new type of nuclear reaction.
Helium work is difficult. It's inappropriate to deny that. However, "exceedingly difficult" is an exaggeration. Key to this work is control experiments. It is impossible to do helium work without "contamination," because helium is present in very pure nitrogen gas, as used by Miles to flush his cells.
When I write about the heat/helium correlation being confirmed, there is a large body of work involved. Much of it can be criticized in one way or another.
Because *no other ash has been measured and confirmed"
ABD: Are You a smoker? How ashy should Helium be ??
Yes, physics is difficult, it takes 9 years to grasp the difference between ash and gas...
May be it's time to read an actual paper...
"insists on his own errors." - One of your more telling comments. Shows a complete lack of understanding, which of course I already knew about and which made me aware of the futility of arguing with you. Most of what I do is aimed at educating others, especially those who seem uninformed.
Dear kirkshanahan Dont waste your time with ABD. Spend two hours with an actual paper which proves He/heat to the greatest extent.
I know that our most active FUD'rs hate sono fusion, because it outpaces ITER and others... It's cheap, portable and simple to explain and it's LENR in respect to the needed input energy(< 20 Watt/s) .
And the worst about Pd-D-D (D2O)sono-fusion is: It happens at room temperature!
Yes, we found it very interesting- all that sudden heat when the power input to a 5-litre un-insulated plastic tank was only around 24W. Radiation had to be Beta- Alphas would never have left the tank and Gammas would have been detectable further away than 30cms or so (we tried). We used a Netto Geiger with SBM-20 tube (see photo) connected to a data-logger (as supplied by our company www.lookingforheat.com ). As I have mentioned the biggest problem was the long duration of the tests - up to 240 hours -and the very unpredictable (time-wise) and destructive nature of the experiments. We got fed up with cleaning up litres of very dirty carbon-loaded electrolyte. And it could happen at 3 in the morning or indeed any inconvenient time -and generally did!
The second picture below was taken in my old laboratory and shows a fairly typical set-up. Two tanks with four (identical) electrodes connected in series to give identical current, plenty of temperature probes and my only good IR probe mounted above one - the nearest -tank. What fun!
I have just noticed that this picture (the tanks) was taken before the connecting tube was put between the tanks, and before everything was wired up. The upside-down plastic bottles are to top-up the liquid level btw, like the auto-drinkers used for pets,
The second picture below was taken in my old laboratory and shows a fairly typical set-up.
Did You ever write a kind of documentation of this experiment or is it secrete?
I think I have some notes. Not secret - there is enough info here for someone very patient to replicate it. Alternatively ask any questions you like here- it makes a change from discussing dowsing and playing 'who phoned up Jed' games.
I think I have some notes. Not secret - there is enough info here for someone very patient to replicate it. Alternatively ask any questions you like here- it makes a change from discussing dowsing and playing 'who phoned up Jed' games.
I have no lab! And I guess I would not step, without appropriate caution, in most labs of peoples that post here...
What interests me are the components of the reaction. Electrode material, electrolyte elements present in what state and concentration. Measured current/voltage over time... Just the mfp way...
We have to solve a puzzle and nobody knows, which small piece is the first one that fits any new theory.
Lead Electrodes, Sodium Bi-carbonate Electrolyte (saturated solution in water at 20C), Coconut Shell Carbon as sold for water-filters between the electrodes. Current 2A@12V DC for up to 240 hours.
ETA, electrolyte volume 5ltr, carbon approx 1.5kG
Lead Electrodes, Sodium Bi-carbonate Electrolyte (saturated solution in water at 20C), Coconut Shell Carbon as sold for water-filters between the electrodes. Current 2A@12V DC for up to 240 hours.
This sounds like the build up of an exotic galvanic cell. If you manage to free Sodium which is covered below a layer of oxygen or polycarbonate then this can go to be higly reactive/explosive if some air (or H2O) enters a crack.
Thus: Did you measure any CO2/ H2 outgassing?
Original title of this thread was about Brillouin Energy. Looks like they are still plugging away:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/…g-edge-nuclear-technology
I hope the best for this American Indian organization that has latched onto LENR -in particular BE, to make their environmental statement. Most of the article informs the readers of LENR...none of which we here do not already know, and even relies on relatively old news that may turn some off.
One thing I always liked about BE was their transparency. Rossi, in comparison, with his mysterious Leonardo, and very baffling/shady connection to AmpEnergo falls far short. After 9 years on the LENR scene, we have NEVER seen the make-up of his organization. Nor met one of his employees other than Fabiani.
On the negative side, BE seems stuck in this cyclic "2 years to a market product" mantra. On the bright side, that is much better than the hot fusion industries "50 years"! Maybe they learned a thing or two from their opponents...like shorten the time frame? 
I hope these native-americans are not taken advantage of. We shall see.
There is a little gassing, nothing extraordinary. There is nowhere for gas to collect in sufficient volumes to explode. And look at the temperature plots earlier- the system doesn't go from cold to bang- there is something more than that going on.
Radiation had to be Beta
Current 2A@12V DC for up to 240 hours.
Most of the questions you ask have already been answered in my posts above. But here goes. The normal background in the workshop is 20cpm. The phenomenon has seen count increases ranging up to 100cpm. We estimate 'group' half life 'post bang' to be around 10-15 minutes. But this is the crudest of estimates for the reasons you see below. Magnets were never deployed.
Don't overlook the fact that the things that give us the 'sudden heat-> bang' are disruptive and unpredictable, and we have never actually been present when (for example) the tanks have emptied their contents all over the workbench. A two man crew cannot babysit a tank for 10 days non-stop -especially when there is only a 20-30% chance of seeing anything unusual. Though our sample is too small to provide a reliable figure - there were 'lost experiments' before we had data logging. We were of course, not looking for LENR, LENR came looking for us.
The effect is (typical eh?) not reproducible on command, but is (possibly) more reliably produced using crushed Anthracite. It is also volume-dependent, the bigger the tank the better - but that is not proven. We also tried many kinds of dopants (heavy water, lithium salts, potassium salts etc etc) but without finding a trigger.
We gave up on this, as I said, because we could not reliably trigger anything - this is after probably 20 long runs - perhaps 200 days of tank-time. And the mess! But it did stimulate us to develop data-loggers and other techniques we still find useful. It is also very boring having the work-space so full of tanks that you can't do anything else for weeks at a stretch... and we are merely weak mortals.
On the negative side, BE seems stuck in this cyclic "2 years to a market product" mantra. On the bright side, that is much better than the hot fusion industries "50 years"!
Just to add some theory behind the BE (and others) claims. Somebody payed the translation of the following Russian paper:
http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/2/ratis-en.pdf
Which states the following: The probabilty that an elastic collision between an electron and a proton results in a short living "stable quasi particle" is high. This particle (quasi Neutron) looks like an inference of different particle 'forming/decay paths' known as Feynman diagrams, where you have to sum up all properties (momentum, spin, U,V etc.) of the participant particles.
There are other theoretical explanations of "neutron like Hydrogen": Deep Dirac level H* or H# or hydrinos...
The livetime of a "pseudo neutron" (unverified) is estimated to be up to 10-5 seconds long enough to cause transmutations.
Keep in mind, hat this is just half (or even less) the part of the story. I would say that it just explains one possible trigger of LENR not more, because we know that most transmutations go by increments of 2(4,6,8,12)
arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0302066.pdf
Euclidean resonance and a new type of nuclear reactions
Boris Ivlev
It would be more impressive if this theoretical paper had some experimental data to back it up. That data if it existed is surely known. As the author says, it should be easy to fire 200 keV protons at an actinide and measure any enhanced alpha decay. If this were a practical method for elimination of radio-active waste, it might also produce considerable nuclear heat.
The only example reaction given in the paper is the decay of 235U - not exactly a very intense radio-nuclide. Amongst its daughters 227Ac catches my attention with the longest half life of 21 years. Looks to me like the treatment will make such "waste" more radio-active not less!
Radiation had to be Beta- Alphas would never have left the tank and Gammas would have been detectable further away than 30cms or so
A 2 MeV beta might penetrate 1 cm of water. The range in air would be 7.8 m! Maybe you detected something else? http://www.alpharubicon.com/ba…ticle16radiological71.htm
I suggest you analyse any surviving carbon for 14C, which does not produce gammas.
I suggest you analyse any surviving carbon for 14C, which does not produce gammas.
Why would 14C be expected? If the general drift of Alan's observations is correct, it might be an impurity in the anthracite that is responsible for what they were witnessing, even allowing that anthracite is a relatively pure form of carbon. Or the anthracite might have catalyzed something else in the tanks. The pictures of the anodes above make the anodes suspect.
Why would 14C be expected?
Because a couple of theories predict 14C (Fisher, Bazhutov) when natural carbon is present. Secondly betas without gammas are observed. Of course it might be something else too. Do you have suggestions?
Most of the questions you ask have already been answered in my posts above.
I think the answer to only one of my questions might have been guessed from your earlier post. But how about another: did you mention what the electrodes were made of, and specifically the anode?
