This thread is going completely off topic ....
WJMFC Verified User
- Member since Oct 28th 2014
- Last Activity:
The production of 14.1 MeV neutrons is the result of fast tritons as I explained. The paradox is how to produce low energy tritons in LENR. I suggest (controversially) that there may not be any tritons at all. If you have a different explanation, let's hear it. Same goes for neutrons.
"if tritium is formed in deuterated systems, then fast neutrons with an energy of 14.1 MeV are expected (but not observed)." Let us ask ourselves the main question: what FORCES accelerate a neutron in an atomic reactor up to an energy of 14-15 MeV?
This is not the question at all. It is an experimental fact that 10+ keV tritons will produce 14.1 MeV neutrons in deuterated media. The force involved is the strong force as any electromagnetic interaction would be 7 orders of magnitude slower (less probable).
Can you please write in English?
If we want to talk theory, it would first be helpful to discuss what kind of observations need to be explained and what kind of predictions would be necessary to verify the theory. In the field of LENR, very few theoreticians spell out the predictions of their model. When did you last read of a novel prediction being verified experimentally?
30 years ago, it was thought that helium, tritium and neutrons were products, and indeed they were detected. The trouble is:
- Helium is a ubiquitous product expected from thousands of nuclear reactions. Detecting it tells us little about the underlying nuclear processes.
- If tritium is formed in deuterated systems, then fast 14.1 MeV neutrons are expected (but not observed). But tritium is also detected in natural hydrogen systems (e.g. BARC) but no theory predicts it.
- Neutrons are easy to detect by 3He, BF3, gold activation etc. But again, no current theory, AFAIK predicts these neutrons!
Maybe the detection of tritium and neutrons are an example of confirmation bias. Reexamining long held assumptions might allow theory to move forwards.
No, this is where I'm stuck-getting the formula for calculating the binding energy.
Unless we have a generic formula for predicting the atomic mass (or binding energy), we don't have a model at all. A formula which sometimes works on cherry picked cases requires much more work. The late Norman Cook, and more recently Philippe Hatt both claimed geometric models of the nucleus, but required you to know the energies before "calculating" them!! No predictions were possible. If you cannot make predictions, your theory of model is not falsifiable, not scientific.
An nuclear model which predicts ground state atomic masses is as good as the accuracy of its predictions. Serious models publish standard measures of accuracy (including RMS errors) which are much better than text book graphs. There are plenty of opportunities "to get an accurate calculation of the binding energy [much] better than weizsekker and for absolutely all nuclides".
See "New global atomic mass formulas", International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 31, No. 25 (2017) for an example claiming an RMS error of 100 keV. This is more than 30 times more accurate than the old Weizsäcker formula of 85 years ago!
"And it turns out that the binding energy values are perfectly correlated". Perfectly? What are your error figures? Can you provide an algorithm to calculate atomic masses?
What does the program do?
LeBob, I could comment on "dense hydrides, H2 in 1/4th the electron diameter and *H4" if you would give references. Dufour's pico iron is an example of a dense hydride. Depending on the precise density of such hypothetical structures (and I include hydrinos, DDL atoms) we expect unobserved residual radioactivity in many cases. This is how we know these states probably don't exist.Quote from the fact that LENR results tend to be stabler than the fuel used or standard predictions while producing less energy.
I don't understand that phrase. What results? What predictions? What energy? What reactions?
Quote from "Check the math and such of your experiments."
I'm familiar with Jacques Dufour's pico chemistry. He detects a mass at 55 which he interprets as 54Fe plus a proton. But if iron can form such pico compounds every isotope of iron should do so but this is not observed. Even if the mass 55 represented FeH, this is not reason to suppose any pico chemistry.
If "accelerated beta emissions is the logical answer" can you tell me in where this is discussed?
Unfortunately making free neutrons from protons is very endothermic. But even if you could do so, as I mentioned, the result would be copious residual radio-activity from neutron capture. It obviously doesn't happen in LENR. Similarly, natural nitrogen and oxygen cannot capture electrons either. We need another explanation for excess heat. I am sure such explanations exist without any electron captures and without residual radio-activity.
In the TSC model, 4 (or 6) deuterons or protons are supposed to fuse. The fused product may also fuse with other nuclides. Lets' just look at a well studied case, the Pd/D system. What do we expect from ground state 8Be capture (an optimistic case)? Unobserved radio-active 110Sn and 113Sn! I think someone would have noticed by now! Takahashi dos not discuss this problem nor the many others like it.
Curbina, can you give a reference to the "short communication from Takahashi"?
If you exhaustively examine the expected nuclear interactions with every known stable isotope, according to various theories, you will find that copious radioactive products are predicted. I would cite Takahashi's TSC model, the Widom Larsen heavy electron model, Meulenberg's DDL model, Fisher's Poly-neutron model, Bazhutov's Erzion model etc. which all fail in this way. If there were only one reason for the failure, it would be that the agent used to provoke nuclear reactions is too energetic. It's like trying to crack a nut with a sledge hammer. One only has to think of simple neutron activation analysis to know that most neutron captures produce residual radioactivity. We need to dispense with the idea that any kind of "fusion" is occurring.
If anyone would like me to back up by assertions with a detailed analysis of any of the above failed models, ask me privately.
I was surprised to hear Konrad Czerski claim that d-d fusion occurs in stars at the beginning of his talk. (00:56). The level of deuterium in our own Sun is so low that it cannot be detected. The chances of 2 deuterons meeting is extremely slim!
Czerski continues "The idea is we put our Sun into the glass..."! So LENR and hot fusion have something in common? Have we learnt nothing in 31 years? If any hydrogen nuclei approach each other at low energy, with or without screening, we expect the p-d reaction to dominate over d-d. It follows that if we don't observe the expected 3He, there is no such approach and anomalous effects are not explained by fusion.
There's nothing wrong with studying hot fusion, but let's don't pretend it has anything to do with Clean Metal Hydrogen Energy! Misleading statements simply poison the good will for the field.
If you want to promote MHE you would need to explain:-
1. Why there is little (or no) penetrating radiation.
2. The role of the metal(s).
3. The role of hydrogen isotopes.
4. How helium is formed.
5. Why neutron detectors are activated.
6. The origin of transmutations.