Thoughts on Neutron Production in LENR (Guest post)

The following post was submitted by ECW reader Ian Walker who also posted these same thoughts on the Vortex-L list.

The Reference to Neutron production in ‘Paul’s’ posting yesterday is telling. This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n.

Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe.

p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR as opposed to the higher energy decay path of Neutrons for HOT fusion and normal fission!

What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that creates such supposed Neutrons.

MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably repeated both by themselves and other labs. For some time I have thought they were the equivalent of a car backfiring that poisons the LENR, and that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as for possible health reasons.

If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain the reaction. If they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction. Then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor and such Neutrons don’t feed the reaction.

Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction. other Neutrons exiting the reactor proper, and yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is just right the reaction maintains itself.

Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi’s secret catalyst is an addition that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct — JUST RIGHT –goldilocks level.

This leads us to thoughts on possible catalysts such as Boron or Lithium as absorbers to ionised particle transmitter at a lower than hot fusion or normal fission energy level; moderation may be the key. Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a Hydrocarbon. Moderation may well be the key and granular size and percentage in the mix.

As water acts as a Neutron an absorber/moderator it may also explain why the F/P water based reaction was not as successful.

Kind Regards, Ian Walker

 

  • bachcole

    Bronocbet, I am what you could call gung-ho about the E-Cat and all things LENR+, yet I get “moderated” lots of times, for like being subtly abusive or off topic or whatever. So you can stop casting aspersions by playing the victim.

    I also don’t complain about it because I want Frank to thrive and I know that I can be outrageous sometimes.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Thanks.Yeah, is lithium the special sauce? We’ll soon find out.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I agree that engineers are a widely undervalued group, in comparison to average scientists or artists. Although modern engineering seems to be impossible without considering the findings of science, engineers are as well researchers. The difference is that they operate on a much less abstract level than scientists typically do.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      engineers are middlemen.
      they connect scientists, with technicians, with businessmen…
      most don’t do it totally, and are often simply technicians, or businessmen/executives, but the trainnig is to connect many interest, many vision…

      engineers also often know how the developement of real science they use was difficult, and how industrialization from lab to plant is difficult…

      I took the argument of physicist that something that is not totally predictable does not deserve any interest as one of the stupidest for someone trained in semiconductors…

      this is engineering illiteracy of many top scientists (not all, but the outspoken one) which makes those fallacies popular among academics and the mass of people…

      most of arguments against cold fusion as simply laughable for engineers…

      perceived science laws, replication, peer review, we all know what it mean in real world… better than the academics.

  • ecatworld

    Please check the posting rules (see the menu above).

    • Omega Z

      Posting Rules only appear on the Home Page.

  • LCD

    Mean lifetime of a free neutron is like 14 minutes so at the temperatures we are talking about most neutrons should be thermalized specially with Ni. It’s doubtful they would be absorbed in any way we know of after being produced and so likely would be emitted and not become part of the reaction.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe it’s just proton-proton fusion that creates deuterium (like in a star) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction and then two deuterium fuse to make helium-3
    and a neutron.
    H(1) + H(1) > D + positron 0.42 MeV
    then
    D + D > He(3) + n 3.29 MeV

  • Ophelia Rump

    Since the technology was not derived from theory, it seems pointless to throw theory at guessing the technology without a factual understanding of the process.

    Be patient and there will be real mysteries to unravel with real facts to approach them from and probably deeper mysteries beneath that layer.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Even „facts“ need to be interpreted, otherwise they won’t help us much. For example, if we would not constantly interpret our perceptions, we would get serious problems – at the latest, when we try to cross a road. In addition, many people have the desire to learn how things are connected. Theoretical speculation is some kind of training which might speed up our understanding when new information becomes available. Besides, it’s just fun – so why should it be forbidden?

    • pelgrim108

      There should be a plan B for when plan A fails to deliver.
      Maybe some theorising here will be the eureka moment for an genius garage experimenter somewhere on this planet

      • Ophelia Rump

        Good luck with that. Theory is based upon facts. Unfounded theory is not theory at all, it is conjecture. Groundless conjecture about things which actual theory says cannot be. Carry on, in the end, I think the credit will still go to Rossi and IH.
        Indulge yourself.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          If scientists had waited until they know all „facts“ – or, to be more precise, observations (the term “facts” is somewhat misleading) – before they had started to think, there would have been no science at all.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      But didn’t Brian Josephson get his Nobel Prize for predicting the Josephson Effect?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    The problem is that if the neutrons were created via inverse beta decay (as has been hypothesized by Widom/Larsen), this process would consume the same amount of energy which results from their final decay, or even somewhat more. As you say, the kinetic energy of the neutrons will also have to be considered, but that energy can as well not come from nowhere.

    On the other hand, if the neutrons should result from fusion, the additional energy gain from their decay (about ¾ MeV) would be negligible, I guess.

    • pelgrim108

      Just a quote from a video where Rossi is speaking:
      We have found traces of fusion because we have found 511 KeV gamma rays at the output wich is the emission of a positron and an electron, and the positron is a product of a proton turned into a neutron. So, maybe we have some kind of fusion inside but I do not think this is the main energy source.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Interesting, obviously I missed that statement. Focardi/Rossi have proposed a beta-plus-decay of certain copper isotopes, but without mentioning that they had found a 511 keV signal, as far as I remember. Some time ago Rossi said that they had not been sure about some measurements, but I don’t know which of them he meant. So we’ll have to wait until he presents us his latest results.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        beta decay can also be caused by tritium disintegration, and tritium seems part of LENR story, produced or consumed (BARC/Srinivasan see it consumed).

        see

        https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36822/SuccessMakingTritiumPresentation.pdf?sequence=1

        ot “The science of LENR” by Ed Storms for how to measure it, and for known results.

        Beaudette have a chapter too on tritium

        http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

        less detailed

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          I made a mistake, tritium emit beta- electron, not beta+ positron as is discussed here.

          This is indeed new to see positron, and is probably specific to NiH.
          as some says, HiH involve many protons that fuse, and produced nucleus are too rich in protons and have to decay by beta+

          the alternative story by Ed Storms is that electrons is part of the fusion…
          no beta+ required so.

          If on support Ed vision, the beta+ may be consequence of a parasitic transmutation like the neutrons, the Iwamura transmutations…

          we need more experiments to conclude.

    • GordonDocherty

      A possibility that “fits all the facts” is that Hydrinos are being formed in Casimir spaces, but when too much energy is added, as they emerge, those Hydrinos collapse into Slow Moving Neutrons, ready to fuse with “free” protons above the Casimir space – or neighboring crystal lattice atoms. This gives us the “balancing act” that explains the many different outcomes – and what Rossi et al. have been working on to control. Of course, resonance (induced by phononic and magnonic waves) and heat is also required – and probably why AC is the favored starting point for an in-line THz oscillation / spin control + heating mechanism, so this gives another avenue for control. It is noteworthy that if any of these parameters is removed, the reaction rate slows significantly and quickly falls of a precipice – which is why the reactor is safe within the shortest time period. As has been said elsewhere, once we have the facts, we need to consider mechanisms that take all the facts into account – and don’t eliminate an observation just because it doesn’t fit the current front-running theories… One final point. With all these factors – and physical effects – involved, the math had better wait until we have a very good idea of what is going on. This is not a simple 2 or 3 body “treated as a point” problem with simplified forces being dealt with here…so Lagrangians on massive bodies, in particular, do no apply – yet we still see people trying to describe the LENR phenomena in terms of Lagrangians. It is becoming clear that LENR effects are best considered NOT in terms of coordinate systems and velocities, but instead in terms of interactions (and interrelation) of particles/fields (fermionic and possibly bosonic) with each other in the context of “space energy” (on which they “feed” or are powered, as it were), which must now also be considered. To try to shoe-horn LENR reactions into simplified (though still complex, “frightening looking”) equations by making umpteen simplifying assumptions and comparing to Hot Fusion is therefore not the correct response in this instance. This is probably why the physics community has found it so hard to come to grips with LENR because, unknown to themselves, they have become slaves to the simplifying assumptions and “fancy math”.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        The question is if there is a difference between „virtual“ and „real“ neutrons, regarding their energy content. Even the mass of a ‘normal’ hydrogen atom is significantly lower than the mass of a neutron. Since the formation of hydrinos releases (according to Mills) energy, they should be still somewhat lighter than hydrogen atoms in the ground state. Thus, switching from a “virtual neutron” in the form of a low-level hydrino to a real neutron would require plenty of energy. (This point of view is perhaps too simple, but my limited knowledge of physics does not allow me to propose a better one.)

        In principle I like your idea: There might be a non-nuclear process – involving hydrinos (Mills), magnecules (Santilli) or whatever you want –, which may, under certain circumstances, trigger a nuclear reaction (CF/LENR, or even HF). That would at least explain the necessity of limiting the COP, since the second reaction (or class of reactions) might be too violent and/or produce unwanted radiation.

        • GordonDocherty

          Just a thought – in and around the NAE in LENR systems, it is postulated that impedance has fallen to zero – that is, energy can move freely between “objects” without loss. So, electrons and / or protons may well find little difficulty in pulling in / absorbing energy to “grow”, especially if there is plenty of (IR) EM around heating the mix… again, this is a numbers and probability game, but now in an environment where energy can transfer without loss…