Page 1 of 2

Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:05 pm
by Doug Coulter
I recently saw an interesting number, one I kind of knew, but it puts things in some perspective.
So excuse me for thinking out loud for a minute.

And it is: 1 amp is .629 e19 unit charges per second. So one microamp is .629 e13 charges per second.

OK, let's get to brown numbers here (you know, the ones you pull out of your a**). We just want to get close enough for rough order magnitude of the task at hand.

Call that .629 "one" for the moment, we're only interested in exponents right now. So, one microamp is now estimated as e13 e/s. If one microamp gets you a million fusions/second, that's a one in e7 rate, right? One ten millionth of the charges you accelerate make a fusion. Using DT and beam-target, the Phillips book shows about ten times that, or one in a million, for a decent borehole tube from the '50s (I don't have more recent numbers for newer ones that could be a little better).
I'll be duplicating that work with the nice quartz pieces MarkB made for me, but that's beside the point at the moment.

Lets look at gain per fusion. Assume 100kv in (close enough). We get perhaps 3.5 MeV out of DD, and maybe 20 MeV out of DT, for gains of 35 or 200, respectively. This means that to get to gain, we need to have an interaction/fusion rate of 1/35 or 1/200 to be "there" or close, not one in a million. For various reasons, we'd rather not need the tritium for this -- one being that the high energy neutrons are pretty hard on things, so lets go with needing 1/35 for the moment and be a little pessimistic. If you were doing p->Li into 2*He, you'd need about 1/64 or so, as that takes more like 250 KeV to make go decently, but puts out more energy (17 MeV or so). Still that gives us a nice brown number too - call it one in a hundred.

Again, being very brown, that implies we need to improve the rates e4-e5 or so to get to useful "gain", even remembering we can likely capture all the wasted input energy to help "boil that cup of tea" -- and that's for the already-better beam on target approach (so far it's better). What I'm saying here is that it takes about 2 units of heat to make one unit of net electricity, but assuming we put in 100 watts, and make 100 watts fusion on top -- we get 200 watts net heat, and that's enough to make our 100w of electricity to keep things going with more or less conventional heat engines. Lerner thinks he knows some tricks, but really, that's not where the attack needs to be made here -- even at 100% conversion efficiency, we only get a factor two more, and we need much larger factors, and even he's not claiming 100%, just better than a steam turbine at all.

For the fusor, we start off disadvantaged, even taking my super-good pulse mode into account -- we don't get a million fusions (or two million) per microamp, not hardly, and I do believe the Phillips numbers are for real. I'm only doing about 100th of that best-case so far.

In a normal fusor run, what I call static mode, we're putting in 50kv at about 10 milliamps. My superQ mode puts in 50kv at ~100ua (hard to read on my meter), a vast improvement in input for the same number of neutrons output. But still, not even close to beam on target, where 100 ua would result in e8 neutrons, where I'm doing e6-e7 neutrons in that mode (which could mean twice the actual fusions, but we're being brown here).

So we're only doing a millionth of the efficiency we need to get to gain, more or less. Kind of a sobering number -- I may have various small mistakes and fudge factors in here (please point out any you see), but that's the size of the problem in brown notation. And that's big, it's almost like the difference between zero and some actual number -- the difference between the mechanical energy out of a wood fire (hot air going up and logs falling down), vs the same kind of BTUs put into an internal combustion engine, which is pretty huge.

This implies that the required approach, and the subtlety needed is about similar to just burning fuel on the ground compared to burning it in an Otto cycle engine. An incremental difference, like say putting the fire in a woodstove and controlling the in-out flow is not the kind of thing needed, though it might be a step on the way, speaking in analogy.

Now, in Farnsworth's view, you get most of the acceleration energy back via induction -- things that pass through the grid are decelerated and by induction that provides energy back to accelerate them again, the old spring and mass deal. Tests here show that this doesn't actually happen with a plasma, though it's well known to work with pure charge in accelerators and ion traps, and is even responsible for input conductance at high frequencies in radio valves -- same effect of charge passing a conductor where energy is moved from one to the other.

Now, where can this observation possibly lead us? I've been pondering this awhile now (years). For the moment, let's assume we want to limit things to the e6 neuts/second range, so we don't have to bury our gear in a safe place to run it while we learn. Let's assume we can somehow get to that 1/100 fusion rate, so we only need to be putting in X deuterons/second -- 100 times that e6, for e8 charges per second. So we need to work that out in current. That would be on the order of e-19 * e8, or e-11 amps. Or e-5 microamps. Or e-2 nanoamps. Ten picoamps.

Looks to me like we went big before we went smart, eh? Would it not be one heck of a lot easier to deal with things like space charge defocusing at 10 picoamps than it is at 10 milliamps? Are we lucky it didn't work? If we deem e6 n/s enough for research, and as much as we want to be in the same room with, getting to gain at the 10ma level implies how many neutrons per second again? Ratio of 10ma to 10pa times e6, or...e16 n/s, about the same flux as there is in a fission reactor per cc. We'd all be dead if it worked!

That's getting down there into a range where a lot of more precise techniques work well, and you can almost even ignore the repulsion between incoming projectiles as far as fine focus goes! You could begin to consider ion trap, pure positive charge types of things -- no electrons, and at that scale, no special issues with say a group of positive charge merely yanking electrons off the tank walls to put them back into play, wasting input energy, right? They do have problems like that at CERN, where the charge density of a bunch in the beam can yank electrons off the tank walls via field emission -- but they're working at milliamps, too.

This part of the parameter space seems almost completely unexplored. It's the kind of thing you do with an "infinite" mean free path, no neutrals, no electrons, just deuterons at +1, period.
And you do it with the amount of atoms that are more typical of a Bose-Einstein condensate, or what you can hold in an ion trap, no need for "big" before you get "accurate" it seems. And in fact, "big" comes with a bunch of issues we don't want or need -- space charge beam blowup, less accuracy aiming our little toys at one another, and energy loss via electron pathways.

So, forgetting scaling to gigawatts for the moment -- why not look for gain at *any* power level whatever and see what we can learn? If we don't have it, it seems a little premature to worry about scaling it up just yet.

This is what got me thinking of fusor-II and some other things -- how can we get to gain at all? Seems we start with these numbers, realize that at such low current densities different techniques are usable, and go from there. Chris' idea flows along similar lines, or something like it could do so pretty well. It's all about accuracy it seems, not brute force thermalized input power -- and a self ionizing fusor run in high pressure (by these standards) gas isn't even in the running for that. To get down to pa and without electrons, it's going to take a whole different class of technique than a simple grid in a volume with volts on it, no matter how well designed that is.

Let's suppose, as I do, that there's maybe another factor of 100 on top of my super pulse mode. That still leaves roughly e4 needed, and I just can't convince myself that's there to be had at this point -- my gut says there's 100, but not much more. Not much to go on, but my gut is pretty good.

I am also wondering what that other idea kicked around here might do for us, the one where we use the crystal lattice of silicon as a funnel to take two shotgun "beams" and push them down tiny paths where the interaction rate just has to be a lot higher -- Rutherford scattering should direct our projectiles into head on collisions if the silicon is thin enough that they don't lose too much energy traversing it from either side. In other words, I'm not thinking about implanting D into a target, then firing at it stationary, but having it coming in from both sides for energetic head-on collisions in there. Might not be super practical -- you'd tear up the target to the extent it worked, with the energy from the reaction products. But silicon is cheap, you could step and repeat, and perhaps it even anneals the xtal damage by the next time you step back to the same spot?

Or perhaps something like the Cone Trap, utilized as a recirculating beam collider with bunched beams counter rotating. I know when we discussed it that Curtis is a fan of the idea. Here's the cone trap as a ring. This idea is extensible to adding another beam going the other way, and adding bunching and focusing electrodes to get a collider that's pretty energy efficient, and which can re-gather scattered but non fusing nuclei back on path.

Or maybe some of the technique Crewe did with electron microscopes that could resolve atoms...we have shorter wavefunctions here, so if anything we should be able to do better than he did, and that should be good enough. And in fact, he was working in a similar range of current as I show we need...and he got results like what we need. I don't have his papers at hand just now, but here's a book on the topic.

I am further intrigued about that hint I got the other day that slight variations in conditions affect which DD reaction pathway is taken. Even when we weren't seeing neutrons, we were seeing gammas a factor of ~40 hotter than power supply voltage input, so something interesting was surely going on. Whether further development just lets us choose that pathway, or helps us with overall reaction rates is anyone's guess at the moment. For that matter, it needs to be re-verified at all, and it's on the list now that I'm back in action with no leaks and no EMI.

So, having tried to give something back to the guys on fusor improvements (not my fault they didn't want to try it), I'm going to soon give up on the approach altogether, as it just doesn't look to me like it's going to get out of the toy range real soon. Very educational, and a quick way to fusion "at all" but not in the class of desired possible results. Maybe someone can show me how to do it with a fusor, and fusor-II is kind of a way to use almost the same hardware in the attempt, but it's really not a "fusor" in the classical sense at all anymore.

At any rate, radical as it is, these numbers show that the conventional wisdom is wishful thinking at best, and we're lucky it's wrong!

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:26 pm
by chrismb
Have you read Rider's PhD 'Appendix E' yet, Doug, or should I paste it up as images here to get you to read it!! ;)

Yeah, dead right that it is good beam-target systems aren't 'over unity'. - The very first attempt was Oliphant who, whilst Rutherford was away, did the very first deuteron-through-deuterium experiment. I am not sure what he was hoping to find by doing that, but can you imaging if the cross-section of fusion had been bigger than scattering!Pfff... no more Oliphant!!

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:32 am
by Doug Coulter
Ok, I read it (well, skimmed it). So, what part of it do you want to discuss, since it's all over the map, and shy of my point here where I discuss

a: running a lot lower density outside the interaction zone
b: forgetting all about "plasma" and getting rid of the electrons, using technique more like accelerators and less like glow discharge bulbs. The plasma soup is too complex to be controlled by techniques we know -- proved by the fact no one really has.

He's all about "extracting entropy" and such, which is going to require either maxwell's demon, or energy input, so I'm not sure I see the points he seems to be trying to make. What do you gain by extracting the entropy if you have to put in energy to do so?

In a pure ion environment, you can use things like quadrupole magnets to re-collimate particles into a more or less Gaussian beam profile, and use lenses near the interaction points to temporarily increase density only where you need to, avoiding most of the nasty Coulomb repulsion for most of the time. And the old drift cavity (2 element) to bunch and re-bunch the bursts in a beam. Just can't even consider those things in an electron dense plasma.

Same basic idea as yours with refinements. The idea is a colliding beam device that redirects the beams after every interaction/scattering point, which can be done without energy input.
I can't figure a way to do that with both charges and masses present -- if I've got a pure species (say all D+) then I can solve it.

And of course, he doesn't consider doing this at microwatt levels as I am. He only gets the idea of "bunching" indirectly at best -- and no words about the problems that can potentially solve.

But what I'm really after here, and proposing, is at least looking at things that may affect the ratio of scattering to real fusion interaction, he doesn't touch that, no one else does that I'm aware of. Eg getting it right on the first go, rather than having various elaborate ways of fixing it up when you don't get it right.

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:18 am
by chrismb
Doug Coulter wrote: So, what part of it do you want to discuss, since it's all over the map, and shy of my point here where I discuss...

But what I'm really after here, and proposing, is at least looking at things that may affect the ratio of scattering to real fusion interaction, he doesn't touch that, no one else does that I'm aware of. Eg getting it right on the first go, rather than having various elaborate ways of fixing it up when you don't get it right.

I think he is not only touching on this, he is practically banging the door down!

'Getting it right' is about making sure the fast stuff doesn't thermalise. Even if you have pure ions, some will up-scatter while others down-scatter. A strictly mono-energetic bunch of fast ions is 'low entropy' and thermalised ions are 'high entropy'. Whatever you want to do to achieve fusion from non-thermalised ions, you have to keep the entropy low. And that, as you say, always takes a) a mechanism to do it, b) energy.

The key to what he's put in that chapter is that there are macro-configurations that can be conceived of that might act to limit velocity-space diffusion by acting as quantum-mechanical systems (even though the particle mechanisms themselves are classical).

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:00 pm
by Doug Coulter
No, he's not, read again. He's talking about recovering the non-thermal-ness after scattering happens, not avoiding scattering in the first place. He's not talking about improving the interaction rate directly at all, just how to recover from a bad one.

Which is my point. How about some discussion on improving the interaction/scattering ratio up front? How about some discussion about removing the losses electrons produce by leaving them out of the picture in the first place. That wouldn't be possible due to space charge issues at 10 milliamps and up, but is surely do-able at picoamps (and done by many every day) point.

Why not aim the suckers accurately, instead of shooting shotguns at one another and hoping some of the pellets have a good impact factor? He doesn't address that.

I know of no theory that indicates I can't get two (just two) D+'s aimed at one another well enough to almost guarantee they'll fuse. The wavefunctions permit it, uncertainty principle permits it, and of course, the real issue is "can I make an accurate enough gun" in practice, not in theory -- theory (as much as I understand) says "Yes, it's possible".

Which I was talking about on my first post -- going smart first, rather than going big. If I can get pairwise fusion reliably....then I'll worry about making it big. Until I can do that, I'm having trouble seeing how we get past the "step two, a miracle occurs".

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:26 pm
by chrismb
Doug Coulter wrote:No, he's not, read again. He's talking about recovering the non-thermal-ness after scattering happens, not avoiding scattering in the first place. He's not talking about improving the interaction rate directly at all, just how to recover from a bad one.
If you put it like that, then it may be so. But he is talking about reality as we know it.
I know of no theory that indicates I can't get two (just two) D+'s aimed at one another well enough to almost guarantee they'll fuse. The wavefunctions permit it, uncertainty principle permits it, and of course, the real issue is "can I make an accurate enough gun" in practice, not in theory -- theory (as much as I understand) says "Yes, it's possible".

That's not my understanding of 'the theory'.

Deuterons tunnel by quantum means. This is a probabilistic process. It is guaranteed by quantum theory that you will not always get tunneling. If you were nailing deuterons at energies that have energies in excess of the Coulomb barrier then lining them up perfectly would likely mean that they may, then, 'kiss' each other every time. But as we know, if you run them at those energies then you end up with a pile of nuclear shrapnel rather than fusion.

Fusion is a probabilistic tunneling process and perfect geometrical alignment will still lead to scattering. The only thing to do that fits in the theory is to ensure the total energy expended in keeping low entropy is less that the total fusion power out.

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:12 pm
by Joe Jarski
If there is something to the theory that fusion can be tailored to favor one reaction chain verses another under certain conditions, then maybe quantum tunneling isn't as probabilistic as it initially appears. If it can indeed be biased from 50/50 then it seems to me that there is a way to control not only the reaction path, but scattering and tunneling probability also.

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:46 pm
by chrismb
It is, of course, possible that the quantum theory on which nuclear fusion is based is wrong. But the derivations for tunneling transparency* are considered fairly robust and exclude "100%" tunneling probabilities. I'm not aware of anything embedded within quantum theory that provides for variable outcomes to a fusion event. But it is known for p-11B that you can increase the tunneling probability by a few times [no orders of magnitude to be found, it seems] according to the spin of the 11B and approach of the p.

It may well be that the branches of DD fusion can be, likewise, influenced if one considers a model where the proton or neutron 'side' of the deuterons approach each other in some sort of selective way. I did suggest this kind of hypothesis on; ... 1224095205 , but, alas, no robust experimental evidence for this... yet.

*(see ... _mechanics and links therein)

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:25 pm
by Doug Coulter
Or it could simply be your understanding of current theory is wrong...Probability and full understanding of its implications is no joke. Why does a fair coin give you half heads and half tails over enough time?

Because there's something else going on that probability doesn't touch on, the mechanical symmetry of the coin, and the broken symmetry that keeps it from landing stable on an edge, or some other non pure heads-tails state. Obviously the number of possible outcomes is not touched on by probability, it's plain old underlying properties of the shape that give a coin two states, and a die 6 (or more if you play some weird role playing games). There is zero probability of landing on 120 in roulette for a similar reason, and that has nothing to do with the (assumed) equiprobable other numbers, right? And as I found here, there's not even the same number of pockets in a European wheel as an American one.

Yes, as we understand it, it's probabilistic, sure. And that probability is such that the rate is effectively zero at normal atomic spacings and center of mass energies. So, there's one extreme case where you get a single valued output for a probabilistic thing. Zero. No one measures fusion coming out of a tank of D, or a frozen block of the stuff. And I can't measure any below about 16kv input for that matter, and I have the best most sensitive gear there is in existence. If any fusion is happening at 12 kv, it's a terribly small amount.

If you can hold two D's some distance apart ("close" by some definition) long enough, the probability of fusion is 100% -- eventually -- another nice discreet number out of a probabilistic thing. It's just hard to do that! And since the Coulomb force is so huge at that kind of distance, it's probably pretty hard to have any orientation other than the lowest energy one -- neutrons first, which in all likelihood isn't the one most likely to fuse when you think about the forces involved in binding. Unless things are spinning and just happen to hit at the right moment during that.
And it seems pretty obvious the impact parameter (how close to perfectly head on they approach) has quite a lot of effect on "how close" and "for how long" the two are inside some limiting distance for the probability to be effectively non-zero. With a glancing blow, they are merely scattered, as they never get either very close, nor stay there very long. With a perfect "aim" they can come to a stop, then bounce back, which give more time and closer distance, both.

Although the underlying math is apparently there, no one has worked out for example how the orientation of the two D's would matter to that probability, or the orientation and/or quantum numbers of their net spins. But there's obviously a mechanism that gives you one reaction pathway sometimes, and the other one other times, in thermal, random approaches of D nuclei. Or there just wouldn't be the two (main) reaction pathways that are almost equiprobable. Obviously, to get that third, rare one, things must have to be "just so" in a way that will rarely occur in thermal conditions, which is pretty much the only thing ever measured -- I've not seen beam on target data for chilled beams for example, much less with pre polarized beams and targets.

In fact, the number two is a very strange number....the fact that they are nearly equi-probable is strange (eg both 1/2). When you think of all the ways they can approach, and what various spin orientations are possible, why are both paths so nearly equally taken? As someone once said, there are 3 real numbers in math. Zero, one, and howevermany. So there's a question for the visual thinker -- why are the two most-taken paths nearly equally taken, when there are so many possible phases of approach? What is the involved symmetry here that you either get one, the other, or no fusion?

Obviously, in the scattering case, they didn't get close enough for long enough to make the probability of fusion high enough to have a high rate. It appear that this probability is a very strong function of both distance (mainly) and time (not very much).

Rotation/vibration rates are BTW, in the 10^22 hz range...from what math I can work out.

I do have some experimental evidence, I believe I posted it here and there was discussion -- where do all those hot gammas come from when I'm not making neutrons? Must be the other reaction pathway is favored, or please come up with a better explanation on what could make ~2 MeV gammas with a 50kv power supply! You may not call that robust, and I will be repeating and improving on it, as I now have dual neutron detectors, different technologies, and will soon be able to say that about gamma-ray heads as well. Maybe when you make some neutrons, you can make more robust measurements than I.

Further, I'm making plans to "jiggle" things in there (various H and E field mods, at high RF frequencies down to DC) and see if I can get correlation between what the detectors show and my jiggling. That may not satisfy your definition of "robust" one else has got to the point where they could even try to make the measurement. I tried to get Richard H to do it, and he refused, citing the danger to his gamma head moving it from the house to the outbuilding. A more real worry would be activating the I in the NaI, which I'm willing to do if I have to to get the data, as I have a few heads and the game is worth the candle. I wouldn't even ask JonR, as the risk to his Ge/cryo head wouldn't be something I'd undertake myself, were I him. That pretty much covers all the currently running fusors, sadly. Jonathan's is down for work, dunno what Carl is doing, and Tyler is busy with school for now.

Joe, I don't see any issue with the probabilistic explanation (only misunderstandings about what it really means), given that no one has taken any data vs orientations as of yet. There could merely be two sets of probabilities in play, and only the sum has been measured, for one example -- tells you a lot about the joint probability, but nothing about the ones that sum to the joint number, other than that they do sum to this number.

OK, there's a lot of ways to make numbers add to 10 even in just positive real integers. Make those real numbers, add sign, and it gets hairy fast to know the sum is 10, but how did we get there? Sure seems probabalistic, but maybe not so much so. This particular 10 was made of these particular underlying numbers that were summed. The fact they always sum to 10 tells you nothing about how many of them it took, or which ones. You could get to ten with two fives, or a near infinite number of tiny or enormous positive and negative numbers, but the 10 is just a ten, and only knowing 10 means there's a lot you don't know. If you know you have 9.95, then you know one of the numbers must be .05, but then you only know one of the numbers.

I do tend to agree more with Einstein than some do -- I don't think dice are really as involved here as some others seem to. For one thing, if we go through how the wavefunctions are calculated, it's all in complex numbers. But at the end, the wavefunction math merely takes the magnitude (A^2+B^2) and tosses out phase, which, as any signal processing engineer would instantly know, throws away data and makes say, an FFT, no longer invertible -- you won't get the same waveform back without that phase data in the inverse transform, it was crucial information. Then they complain they don't have the info that was tossed in the trash. It's a pretty obvious flaw in the math.

I'm willing to scan and post those 20 pages or so of the derivation, if anyone here wants to (or thinks they can) work with it. I've only found it in one book, S, Flugge, "Practical Quantum Mechanics". Everyone else just writes the little greek letter, talks about implications, and considers it done with -- probably because they can't penetrate this dense math themselves, and just take it on faith it works like the great past physicists said. I see that in all fields, physics isn't special that way. Clearly, the human race is getting dumber. And hey, that's just for the wavefunction for on nucleon, it really gets hairy for two or more.

But sadly, I lack the ability to get step by step through the previous 12-19 pages of dense math with it all still in my head at that last page, so I can't show how to fix it, other than that, yeah, there's a problem when you throw away information that was there to begin with. Even if it turns out phase was meaningless -- well, why is that? No answer ever given. If was meaningless, why do the math all in complex numbers in the first place? No answer.

I just don't happen to think we need to get that one (though I'd love to -- that's serious Nobel prize turf) to get what we want here, we can co-exist with the mystery if we can control it.

I also suggested this, not sure which of us was first, but it was before I knew there was -- many years back. (in fact, this goes back to the late '60s in my original manifestos) That interesting picture of the D net wave-functions I posted along with my last book review shows that it may not be a good model to look at D's as having a proton and a neutron "end" at all (or at all times), but the underlying idea seems sound enough. Even if a D+ is just a ball of quarks that only combine as a proton and neutron when you break on up, you could have the effect where for an instant, most of the charge was on one side of the hairball. In fact, it's a near certainty.

Now, what I saw, was drifting in between what fusion pathway was taken at fairly slow speeds (~1/4 second) in conditions that were as precisely held as anyone has ever held a fusor -- sealed off, no vibration, all supplies regulated, minimal temperature drift, you name it. Given the expected rotational speeds, there is no surprise at all here that we'd drift in and out of some "phase". Imagine throwing a tomahawk that spun at 10^22 rps over a path of 10^-6 seconds and getting it to land point first every time. In very carefully controlled conditions, we find that they do land point first for awhile, then the other way for awhile, then back to the first way as things inevitably drift no matter how hard you try and keep them from doing that.
In fact, one thing I find amazing, given the other speeds involved, is just how stable it was for 1/4 second at a time. In "scale" with those other numbers, that's an eternity.

Now, the trick would be, not just noticing this, but controlling it. We'll just have to see about that one. ;)

There is quite obviously something there, or it's obvious if you've seen all my data. Just about any "jiggling" off the normal fusor equilibrium makes more fusion happen -- it's not the least bit fiddly. Just today, I was playing with AC on the second grid (really, mainly just testing the new valve setups but hey, I try and extract the most data per millirem of personal rad exposure as I can) and noticed that all the neutrons came out in one particular phase of the AC waveform, and no other. Turn it off, they come out randomly, time wise, at about the same net average rate. But just distorting the E field a bit at 60 hz seems to "herd" the correct phasing for fusion around, so that zero neutrons come out at other times in the waveform. I've seen this tons of times before as well, it's established fact from my POV. Maybe that's one reason I promote others doing this work, so if they see it themselves on their own gear, they begin to believe me!

And then help to make progress, as this is the door opportunity seems to be knocking on just now. I opened it. Now what?

And this effect is NOT EMI, for sure and certain. Unless that is, you can figure out how EMI makes both silver and indium hot with a "book" decay rate thereafter.
And have it always coordinate with my "EMI sensitive" other detectors too -- the detectors always agree with the silver, EMI or not, pretty closely.

Re: Fun on the back of an envelope...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:09 pm
by Joe Jarski
Without any means of controlling some of the variables and the sheer number of nuclei that make up the statistical sample, the probabilities are what they are. I'm not going to pretend that I have any level of knowledge on the subject and I agree with Doug that it's probably not as simple as sending the neutrons in head first (if they even exist as such), but in my mind, quantum tunneling is probably more likely due to up quarks approaching down quarks so that the effective coulomb barrier is reduced, if not locally reversed. Since neutrons can be polarized using fields, then it's likely that it could be done with with D nuclei and remove some of the variables present during the initial statistical sampling. I think this is some of what Doug may be seeing - while his results are still statistically valid with a 50/50 reaction path, they seem to be shifting from one reaction path to the other at a relatively low frequency (maybe because of some complex wave interference?). I think that there is more to using some finesse in the process and getting the nuclei to approach in a fusion friendly manner rather than trying to pound a cylinder into round hole sideways.