@ Jokola: It's about 200MeV/ per fission if a Uranium Atom, what is huge compared to LENR energies.
Perhaps a more important number than total Q value is MeV per nucleon. Consider platinum, usually used as the anode in CF experiments, with atomic weight 195.084:
195.084 / 200 MeV (just to use a number) = 0.97 MeV/nucleon
The (presumably two) fragments would be large ones, just lumbering along. They would kick up lots of electrons, and maybe cause some Coulomb excitation.
But that's sort of stuck too,,
Dont believe Wiki everything: Li7 + n goes to Be8 --> 2 He4
Wiki: It was assumed that the lithium-7 would absorb one neutron, producing lithium-8 which decays (via beryllium-8) to a pair of alpha particles on a timescale of seconds! <-- wrong in Wiki!
The truth is: Timescale is femtoseconds..... and the energy is huge. ->> no new theory needed for that one!
Dont believe Wiki everything: Li7 + n goes to Be8 --> 2 He4
Wiki: It was assumed that the lithium-7 would absorb one neutron, producing lithium-8 which decays (via beryllium-8) to a pair of alpha particles on a timescale of seconds! <-- wrong in Wiki!
The truth is: Timescale is femtoseconds..... and the energy is huge. ->> no new theory needed for that one!
Well, the official whole story is, (and this was also the expectation in Castle Bravo, but NOT the reality)
Li8 + n --> Li8 --> Be8 --> 2 He4
And the decay times are 0.84 seconds for Li8 and 6.7(17)×10−17 s for Be8 (<-this is a copy paste from wiki, and (17) is "inaccuracy" -help I don't remember the corrct word in english) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_beryllium
So it was this, (in lab proved) 0.84 seconds, which produced the expectation that Li7 is not going to add in to explode velocity, but instead it is delaying the process and rather controlling it trough neutron absorbtion. As it must be noted, that this doesn't make any chain reaction. -It's a dead-end, as there is no free neutrons. And thus even though a single decay might have high energy, it's just that; a single decay, and not a bomb.
Edit: added the Answer for Alan Smith
6.7(17)×10−17 s
I'm probably being a bit thick, but I don't really understand this time notation. Why the (17)?
Thank you Jokela - btw, the bibliographic term for a single error in a text is an 'erratum', plural is 'errata'. I usually use 'Ooops!'
Well, the official whole story is, (and this was also the expectation in Castle Bravo, but NOT the reality)
Li7 + n --> Li8 --> Be8 --> 2 He4
Jokela: From LENR we know, that also the process Li7--> Li6 delivers neutrons (in cluster fusion) and thus it's not a dead end until all Li7 is consumed. Just forgett the collision fusion rates, as under high pressure the laws are different and we simply have no confirmed measurements...
It was assumed that the lithium-7 would absorb one neutron, producing lithium-8 which decays (via beryllium-8) to a pair of alpha particles on a timescale of seconds! <-- wrong in Wiki!
Excuse my ignorance but what is wrong with this statement? The assumption may have been incomplete (if there are fast neutrons) but the fact there was an assumption is surely correct?
Excuse my ignorance but what is wrong with this statement? The assumption may have been incomplete (if there are fast neutrons) but the fact there was an assumption is surely correct?
@Jokola: The citation is correct under the assumption that the standard collision energy rates can be used in the environment of a nuclear detonation, what is highly doubtable. You linked the page where the authors clearly state that even the classical decay times are energy dependent.
What the papers don't tell you is that each A-bomb used to ignite an H-Bomb is surrounded by a mantle of neutron spending material (secondary fission), which roughly leads to a 10x increase of the free neutrons. This was later opimized for the neutron bombs. But, as said, we don't have the details for bravo.
From the Ni-LENR samples we know (wiki doesn't know), that Li7-->Li6 is happening in parallel under strict (no free degrees) confinement.
Conclusion: Classical physics cannot (or only to a very restricted degree) be applied to explain LENR nuclear reaction results!
Classical physics cannot (or only to a very restricted degree) be applied to explain LENR nuclear reaction results!
This conclusion is the one of Edmund Storms in his book, but he finds a narrow corridor of ideas to reconcile physics with observation.
If you accept all his conservative assumption (good old physics, thermodynamic and chemistry) you conclude
The rest of his theory is a proposed mechanism which is challenged by his peers.
Anyway as you can see, all the trick is to avoid the standard energy transition of two-body physics.
The usual assumption of particle physics, of nuclear weapon, of atomic energy physics, is that from fission to decay through fusion, there is nearly always few body interacting in an incoherent way.
The required trick of LENR is collective effect, multi-body interaction... or new physics, not just unknown phenomenon.
Can LENR multi-body effect change decay time ? why not, since it seems to allow the slow decay of deuterons into He4 through thousands/million of energy levels.
You talk here of
[quote='Hermes','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3565-Hydrogen-couln-t-be-essential/?postID=43621#post43621']
Conclusion: Classical physics cannot (or only to a very restricted degree) be applied to explain LENR nuclear reaction results!
LENR is a amplified weak force reaction, where pions and muons are the secondary cause of any nuclear reactions that are produced. The reaction starts out with a decay of a proton or a neutron into subatomic particles and a fraction of energy. Pions produce some nuclear effects but the pions don't remain in the picture for too long because they decay at a accelerated rate under the effects of the amplified weak force into the longer lived muons. Muons produce most of the fusion and fission reactions so one must look to the current body of research on muon nuclear catalyzed reactions.
There is some neutron based nuclear reactions in play but free neutrons are rendered into protons very quickly by the amplified weak force.
The end product of the LENR reaction is an abundance of muons and electons which produce intense ionization in the structure contained in the volume that surround the LENR reaction.
An explanation of muon fusion by Star Scientific
Spark detector.
This conclusion is the one of Edmund Storms in his book, but he finds a narrow corridor of ideas to reconcile physics with observation.
alains: The term NAE is an obvious fact, because any reaction has a close environment. Nevertheless the ungoing Storms summary process (paper) is a good starting point for people interested in LENR phenomenas.
The lack of his writeup is the omission of any concrete mathematical model/theory. It seems that he, as others too, has no clue how to model the LENR physics.
There are a few reasonable ideas right on the table, but without a concentrated effort by a bigger team, I see only peace meal progress in the next few years.
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-drift-tubes
Drift tubes is the method used in professional muon detection. An array of these spark discharge tubes are utilized to determine the important parameters that science uses to characterize muon behavior in science.
Andrea Rossi
December 14, 2016 at 11:17 AM
Svein Henrik:
My main concern is the ightmare of a massive distributed products that have shortcomings.
It will pass.
Warm Regards
A.R.
If LENR is a muon based reaction, it is important to prove that reaction mechanism to keep the nightmare of massive distribution of products from occurring. This type of knowledge is valuable to all parties that are interested in selling LENR products. Both Rossi and I.H. would benefit greatly from foreknowledge of this reaction behavior before massive distribution of products begins. Such knowledge might impact the legal situation between Rossi and I.H. as the commercial profile of LENR might be significantly effected.
alains: The term NAE is an obvious fact, because any reaction has a close environment. Nevertheless the ungoing Storms summary process (paper) is a good starting point for people interested in LENR phenomenas.
Not so evident. In fact Storms is attacking many theories that propose that reaction happens in the bulk or in very common defects like vacancies.
You are right and, this may explain my positive bias about it, his theory is not formalized in the way physicists like.
There is a huge need of good experiments, not simply to prove LENR, but to characterize it, and refute many theories.
Storms propose some test, like testing the current that should happens if the energy is dissipated by electrons, or x-rays if energy is dissipated by keV photons. One problem I see is that many experiments are not solid/replicated/characterized enough to take their outcome as solid refutation of anyone's theory...
