Should have done it 3 years ago before some guy planted parts of it all over the internet and ways to avoid pantent infringement~
arkiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01183 April 2017
Forsely et al 's Investigation of Deuterium Loaded Materials Subject to X-Ray Exposure
concludes "tritium by an unexpected nuclear effect"
Unexpected???? Really?
Why no mention of tritium production by other researchers using deuterated metals two decades earlier?
e.g. Claytor et al using ~1000 V plasma,1993.
Claytor, T. N., Tuggle, D. G., Taylor, S. F.; Evolution of Tritium from Deuterided Palladium Subject to High Electrical Currents, Frontiers Science Series No. 4, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion., October 21-25 Nagoya Japan., Ed. H. Ikegami, Universal Academy Press Tokyo Japan., 1993, p217.
or tritium production by Mizuno et al 1991 using electrolytic deuterium loading of palladium.
Tadahiko Mizuno, Tadashi Akimoto, Kazuhisa Azumi and Norio Sato, “Tritium evolution during cathodic polarization of palladium electrode in D2O solution”, The Electrochemical Society of Japan Vol.59, No.9, (1991) 798-799. in Japanese.
Understood. I'm jumpy that the deep pockets will roll in any time.
I will read more the next time.
Because NASA is governmental agency and its intention could be to cover and fudge cold fusion research history?
Is NASA's LENR endorsement merely a spin cycle to attempt to clean their hands of past suppression?
That is a horrible article by Hank Mills and Sterling back in 2012. They make the case that NASA suppressed LENR, and only jumped on board to save face after Rossi left them no choice. I can make a much better argument that NASA has been one of the few scientific institutions to have kept it on life support all these years. They are the hero in the CF story, and not the villain.
Dig deeper Shane, believe in your own reasearch outside what NASA hands out before you make a judgement.
Dig deeper Shane, believe in your own reasearch outside what NASA hands out before you make a judgement.
Seiber,
I am pretty well versed in the history of LENR, so not sure what my digging deeper will do. NASA first got involved with CF a few months after FPs announcement, are heavily involved today as their recent breakthrough Arxiv paper, and USPTO application show, and in between have worked quietly with many in the field to advance the research. So it baffles me how anyone that believes in LENR, or follows it, would see them as anything other than a friend? LENR has few friends as it is, and picking fights with one of it's few benefactors does not seem a very smart move IMO.
Of course, if anyone would know if NASA is friend or foe, it would be Jed. If he says foe, then I will start singing a different tune. Until then...thank you NASA for carrying the torch when few others in the mainstream would.
My sources tell me that NASA has made big advances in compact lightweight fission reactors too. But there is close to zero info about that in the public domain.
Should have done it 3 years ago before some guy planted parts of it all over the internet and ways to avoid pantent infringement~
I seem to recall someone with Disney Imagineering did some cold fusion experiments back in 90 or 91 pr so using X ray sources to induce the reaction. Someone here remember who that was or perhaps have copies of the old Hal Fox Fusion Facts?
...
QuoteMy sources tell me that NASA has made big advances in compact lightweight fission reactors too. But there is close to zero info about that in the public domain.
Unless it's changed recently, NASA can only conduct classified projects if they have overwhelming military significance, for example, launching military satellites. All else needs to be publicly available, by law.
So? I have told you before Mary, nobody would ever tell you anything in case you actually explode with indignation. Go complain to NASA.
QuoteSo?
So I suspect your sources may not be accurate. Unless that work is entirely military and classified, if it's done by NASA, it is accessible to the public. That's law. Advancing knowledge in the public domain is what NASA is for.
I could not possibly comment on that.
For the curious, here is the abstract of the second NASA paper, "Experimental Observations of Nuclear Activity in Deuterated Materials Subjected to a Low-Energy Photon Beam":
QuoteExposure of highly deuterated materials to a low-energy (nom. 2 MeV) photon beam resulted in nuclear activity of both the parent metals of hafnium and erbium and a witness material (molybdenum) mixed with the reactants. Gamma spectral analysis of all deuterated materials, ErD2.8-C36D74-Mo and HfD2-C36D74-Mo, showed that nuclear processes had occurred as shown by unique gamma signatures. For the deuterated erbium specimens, posttest gamma spectra showed evidence of radioisotopes of erbium (163Er and 171Er) and of molybdenum (99Mo and 101Mo) and by beta decay, technetium (99mTc and 101Tc). For the deuterated hafnium specimens, posttest gamma spectra showed evidence of radioisotopes of hafnium (180mHf and 181Hf) and molybdenum (99Mo and 101Mo), and by beta decay, technetium (99mTc and 101Tc). In contrast, when either the hydrogenated or non-gas-loaded erbium or hafnium materials were exposed to the gamma flux, the gamma spectra revealed no new isotopes. Neutron activation materials showed evidence of thermal and epithermal neutrons. CR-39 solid-state nuclear track detectors showed evidence of fast neutrons with energies between 1.4 and 2.5 MeV and several instances of triple tracks, indicating greater than 10 MeV neutrons. Further study is required to determine the mechanism causing the nuclear activity
Note that a nominally 2 MeV photon beam is not "low energy," although assuming there is LENR at lower energies, this may share a common mechanism with LENR. I would question the apparent assumption in the abstract that deuterium is a reactant; assuming LENR for the sake of argument, deuterium might be a catalyst.
Here is the abstract of the first NASA paper, "Investigation of Deuterium Loaded Materials Subject to X-Ray Exposure":
QuoteResults are presented from an exploratory study involving x-ray irradiation of select deuterated materials. Titanium deuteride (TiD2) plus deuterated polyethylene ([-CD2-]n; DPE), DPE alone, and for control, hydrogen-based polyethylene ([-CH2-]n; HPE) samples and nondeuterated titanium samples were exposed to x-ray irradiation. These samples were exposed to various energy levels from 65 to 280 kV with prescribed electron flux from 500 to 9000 μA impinging on a tungsten braking target, with total exposure times ranging from 55 to 280 min. Gamma activity was measured using a high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector, and for all samples no gamma activity above background was detected. Alpha and beta activities were measured using a gas proportional counter, and for select samples beta activity was measured with a liquid scintillator spectrometer. The majority of the deuterated materials subjected to the microfocus x-ray irradiation exhibited postexposure beta activity above background and several showed short-lived alpha activity. The HPE and nondeuterated titanium control samples exposed to the x-ray irradiation showed no postexposure alpha or beta activities above background. Several of the samples (SL10A, SL16, SL17A) showed beta activity above background with a greater than 4σ confidence level, months after exposure. Portions of SL10A, SL16, and SL17A samples were also scanned using a beta scintillator and found to have beta activity in the tritium energy band, continuing without noticeable decay for over 12 months. Beta scintillation investigation of as-received materials (before x-ray exposure) showed no beta activity in the tritium energy band, indicating the beta emitterswere not in the starting materials.
Some thoughts here: energies in the 65–280 kV (presumably keV) are an order of magnitude lower that the photodisintegration threshold of 2260 keV (to use your value, THH). The photodisintigration cross section is always quite low, so you'd need a large flux of 2.3+ MeV photons to see appreciable photodisintegration. Where would such an MeV flux arise in a 65–280 keV photon beam?
The low rate of observed activity is not an issue if the rate is several sigma above the measured background; they mention 4 sigma. I suppose you'd need systematic error or bad controls to discount this detail.
Or maybe I've mixed up the paper you were referring to, THH, with the other one?
Side note: tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years. I'm curious whether that's consistent with a lack of noticeable change in rate of decay over a 12 month period. (It might be; I'm too lazy to do the calculation right now.)
Display MoreHere is the abstract of the first NASA paper, "Investigation of Deuterium Loaded Materials Subject to X-Ray Exposure":
Some thoughts here: energies in the 65–280 kV (presumably keV) are an order of magnitude lower that the photodisintegration threshold of 2260 keV (to use your value, THH). The photodisintigration cross section is always quite low, so you'd need a large flux of 2.3+ MeV photons to see appreciable photodisintegration. Where would such an MeV flux arise in a 65–280 keV photon beam?
The low rate is not an issue if the rate is several sigma above the measured background; they mention 4 sigma. I suppose you'd need systematic error to discount this detail.
Side note: tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years. I'm curious whether that's consistent with a lack of noticeable change in rate of decay over a 12 month period. (It might be; I'm too lazy to do the calculation right now.)
I was getting things wrong (OOM issue!). So I've deleted my posts.
This looks interesting, but not much like LENR.
