On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:04 PM 4/2/2010, Toshiro Sengaku wrote:
The report written by Akito Takahashi can be downloaded below.
http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~sugi_m/takahashi-ACS2010.pdf
A Personal Report of ACS-ENVR-NET 2010 Symposium
Mr. Sugioka said that he got permission to upload by Takahashi.
http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~sugi_m/page286.htm
( in Japanese)
Really an excellent report, from an advanced theoretician with long-
term experience in the field and many publications.
Yes. It should be on LENR-CANR.org.
I was gratified to see that he is now explaining TSC theory as
involving D2 molecules, which I'd come up with as the explanation
for "Why four deuterons"? I think that's quite what he had in mind
from the start, but if he'd explained it, I missed it.
I think Takahashi explained this in early publications. The problem
he was addressing was that D + D -> He4 leaves nowhere for the
kinetic energy to go. If you throw one or more electrons on both
sides that specific momentum problem goes away. So does the problem
of explaining low energy photons. He addressed the problem by
providing *two* He4 nuclei, alphas, to carry away the momentum. The
problem with that is that energetic alphas must be produced, and
these are not detected in appropriate amounts.
I wished that he had confronted the discrepance between his
predictions, involving alphas of up to a few MeV, with Hagelstein's
paper, which he considered good work, which seems to rule those out
from the experimental evidence.
That is an understatement!
It would hinge on the preferred decay modes of the excited Be-8
(47.6 MeV). I suspect that under lattice/confinement conditions, it
might favor photon emission down to a minimal energy before decay.
Takahashi has a serious problem here, because there is no decay mode
which can release energy in numerous small energy packets - without
an electron present in the nucleus - a possibility Takahashi has
firmly denied in the past. If there were such a non-electron mode,
e.g. coupling the energy across thousands of nuclei throughout the
lattice, then the D + D -> He4 reaction could do the same, and there
is no need for the Be8 model to begin with. Also, if you work out the
geometry you will see that putting two D2 molecules into a
tetrahedral site is not realistic.
In his theory, if the reactions are taking place at the surface, as
he shows, it might be possible to detect, with the right
experimental set-up, the decay photons, which would be a strong
confirmation, at least that Be-9* is being formed. If the reactions
are taking place in lattice defects under the surface, that might
not work.
There are numerous theories which predict low energy photons in the
form of EUV, soft x-rays, and even IR (e.g. by Mitchel Swartz).
[snip]
These issues were discussed here before I think.
On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Jul 10, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Takahashi's theory ... it seems to me that it predicts most known
CF phenomena:
1. No direct neutrons.
2. Surface reaction, since deuterium dissociates on entering the
lattice.
3. Takahashi predicts from quantum theory that if the TSC forms,
it will fuse 100%.
4. No momentum transfer problem, all energy is kinetic with the
alpha particles.
5. Alpha radiation.
[snip]
The emission of small amounts of alphas from thin foils or co-
deposition experiments is not consistent with the excess heat
observed. Further, CR-39 tracks indicate uniformly far less energy
than 23.8 MeV alphas. Given that most fusion is said to occur, by
Takahasi's theory and many others, at the surface, and given that
co-deposted cathode surfaces are made up of nanometer scale
particles, there is not enough barrier to 23.8 MeV alpha particles
in typical cathodes to suppress their detection enough to account
for the low count densities. To make a rough approximation based
on copper, particle attenuation in Pd at 23.8 MeV should be less
than 0.3 MeV/mg/cm^2. The density of Pd is 12 g/cm^3. A 10 micron
foil weighs 12 g/cm^3 * (10x10^-6 m) = 0.0012 g/cm^2 = 12 mg/cm^2.
Attenuation in a 10 micron thick Pd foil, a 12 mg/cm foil, would
only be on the order of (0.3 MeV/mg/cm^2) * (12 mg/cm^2) = 3.6
MeV. Water would of course attenuate further but direct CR-39
contact, such as that used in the SPAWAR experiments, even with the
added attenuation of an intervening 6 micron plastic film, should
not significantly reduce the count of the 32.8 MeV alphas, only
their apparent energies. The actually observed SPAWAR charged
particles have much lower energies, so attenuate faster and are
effectively stopped by small distances. The excess heat, observed
in surface hot spots, by SPAWAR and various others, demand a
significant particle count and higher energy CR-39 pits, if their
source is from a Takahashi type mechanism.
On Jul 12, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
That sounds like the right objection. However, what I haven't seen
is estimates of the actual particle counts compared to what would
be expected from the generated heat.
It's common sense. An experiment producing a watt for two weeks
(various of the SPAWAR replications run about 2 weeks I think)
produces (1J/s)*(60 s/m)*(60 m/h)*(24 h/d)*(7d/week)*(2 weeks)=
172800 J. Obtaining the number of fusions we have (172800 J)/(23.8
MeV) = 4.5x10^16 fusions. Even if the experiment only produces 1/
millionth of a watt, that's 4.5x10^10 fusions, of which we should
see about half the particles, or 2.3x10^10 particles. If half of
those are emitted at too shallow an angle to observe we still
should get about 10^10 tracks. The observed tracks are on the
order of 1000/mm^2 or less if memory serves. SPAWAR infrared photos
showed roughly 2 degrees C hot spots developing on the cathodes. I
don't think it is uncommon for CF experiments that generate excess
heat to produce such hot spots, and for ordinary electrolysis that
does not produce excess heat to not produce them. You can do the
heat transfer estimate, based on the thermal conductivity of the
electrolyte, but I don't think that is necessary, because the
number of observed tracks vary from the expected (under Takahashi)
number of tracks by orders of magnitude.
Takahashi has since revised his theory, reducing the alpha energy I
think, but the same principles apply, just not to the same orders of
magnitude. And now Hagelstein has set the energy bar pretty low for
a theory like Takahashi's to fit under it. Still, there is no telling
what Takahashi might come up with next.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
