About the missing Gamma Rays of Low Energy Fusion

juliusfriedma

Hello Guys,

I have some questions relating to Cold Fusion / Low Energy Fusion.

It seems Gamma Rays are not present from Cold Fusion experiments and Neutrons cannot be seen released from a sonar luminance reaction within the same nanosecond of time as the Alpha Process Completes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_fusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_generation

I think I have an explination for this that seems very apparent to me and I just wanted to get your opinion.

Light moves slower than C in various mediums such as such as glass. Quantum Loop Gravity explains this phenomena. Additionally the Special Glass typically utilized in these experiments can absorb much higher frequencies of energy and will not explode when high frequencies of waves are passed through its structure. If I have a bad understanding of these concepts please correct them.

[Cite]
When a gamma ray passes through matter, the probability for absorption in a thin layer is proportional to the thickness of that layer. This leads to an exponential decrease of intensity with thickness. The exponential absorption holds only for a narrow beam of gamma rays.

[Cite]
Gamma-ray generation can occur whenever charged particles pass within certain distances of each other without being in fixed orbits, the accelerations (or decelerations) may give off gamma rays. Gamma radiation (γ ray) is electromagnetic radiation that borders and in some circumstances overlaps with X-radiation in wavelength ≲ 8 pm, frequency ≳ EHz and energy ≳ 120 keV. In terms of temperature, 1 eV = 11,604 K. Gamma rays (≳ 120 keV) correspond to ≳ 1.39 x 109 K (1.39 GK).

...

Thus I argue that with higher tempratures you have much more energy and thus much more movement among the particles.

If a Neutron was to be released from this process it would be travelling at or below C, thus we would either recognize the Neutron being created slightly after the exact nanosecond the fusion occurs or not at all due to its speed. When the Neutron is created it may be in a condensed state and only register as a Wave Packet until its temperature changes enough or it decelerates enough to be considered a packet which could happen long after the initial nanosecond of fusion has occurred.

IMHO It is impossible to see it at the same exact time because of the speed or temprature of the neutron is so great its position cannot be accurately measured until the speed / temprature decreases and it is registered as a neutron. Can this be correct? IF NOT WHY?

Is this not the same type of thing which can be seen when you perform the photo static slit experiments? The collapse of the wave function creates 2 seperate electrons which registered as a hit in the detector going through both slits.

This is explained because the two discreet waves being formed are a duality of the single electron being passed through the system. The energy of each wave packet becomes a representation of the particle, after entering in a lower energy state it exhibits the same fundamental rules as a particle and thus is captured twice in the detector, one for each slit.

Also wouldn't this explain why HOT Fusion can seem to create Gamma Rays and Cold / Low Energy Fusion does not? IF NOT WHY?

Thank you for your time!

Drakkith

Fusion creates gamma rays and high energy neutrons because it releases those as products from its reactions. For example, Tritium fusing with Deuterium releases a high energy Neutron with an energy of 14.1 MeV directly from the reaction. Since Tritium has 2 neutrons and Deuterium has 1, the resulting product would be 2 Protons and 3 neutrons. However that is unstable and the excess energy from the fusion is released by ejecting a neutron. The energy is split between the two products (The helium nucleus and the neutron) with the neutron having 4 times as much kinetic energy as the helium nucleus. (14.1 MeV is 4x as much as 3.5 MeV, as a helium nucleus is 4 times as heavy as a neutron)

The speed of released neutrons depends on the energy released in the reaction. In D-T fusion the neutron released at 14.1 MeV is traveling at 17% the speed of light. Since this is the most energetic neutron released by fusion that I know of, I can't see any other reaction releasing a neutron that travels any faster.

I don't think that there are 2 seperate electrons in this experiment.

juliusfriedma

First Thank you for taking the time to reply to my thread!

Second I would like to clarify your response a bit to ensure I am comprehending your statements.

It seems if you are describing the alpha process from start to finish in the context of DT Fusion.

The instability you speak of appears to be due the fact that 3 neutrons orbiting a Nucleus create a unstable spin network and eventually they kick one neutron out of orbit and this is the neutron which is to be observed during the experiment.

My further clarified question from your response is as follows...

"Since the expected result is a neutron to be released from the decaying isotope of the resulting TD fusion, is it not possible that we can instead observe a duality of the neutrons presence or lack thereof."

E.g. What if for some reason the Neutron was ejected from orbit but collapsed into a wave packet variant of the neutron due to the conditions of the process. Would we still be able to see the neutron as a neutron?

This is where I was going by bringing in the double slit Experiment.

E.g. My take on that is that there only is a Single Electron however it appears it collapses into a Wave and exhibits Wave / Particle Duality.

The two waves resonate against the detector causing them to act as if they were both triggered by a separate electron when in fact the single electron turned into a wave and set off both detectors.


Thank you again for your time!

Drakkith

I'm not sure where you are getting your information on wave packets and such, but a neutron is always a neutron. There is no "variant wave packet" If it is detected it will be detected as a neutron.

One way a detector detects them is by the following:
As you can see the detection of neutrons has nothing to do with detecting individual neutrons and their wave packets and collapsing and all that. It is very very different than the double slit experiment.

Are you sure you understand the double slit experiment correctly? (That is the experiment you are referring to isn't it? I cannot find anything on Photo Static Slit Experiment) The idea is when we fire SINGLE electrons at a time through the slits, without knowing which slit each electron will go through, the overall pattern after many electrons are sent through shows an interference pattern, even though there was only 1 electron at a time. This infers that the electron interferes with itself!

juliusfriedma

I guess I am confused by the following statement:

[Cite]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection

"Both register similar energies after scattering into the detector from the target or ambient light, and are thus hard to distinguish."

Is that not an indication of some type of duality? Similar to the double slit experiment? The Neutron is being interfered with or interfering with itself thus preventing it's detection. Or more succinctly exhibiting Wave - Particle Dualities.

How about in this form...

"Rather than trying to detect the REAL neutron couldn't we also verify the process by detecting a duality of the REAL Neutron"

What I mean by "detecting a duality of the REAL neutron" is something extra but not just a neutron by itself.

I know the neutron must be ejected but what if it's ejected after some type of entanglement/interaction with another atom?

"What if's" aside there not really one succinct way to ask this... and then furthermore I assume it would only be a guess because if we knew the answer we would be using the process to generate energy.

I guess if I had to formulate a question in closing to bring this to an end it would be as follows:

"It seems we are only having some type of timing problem in getting the fusion process to chain correctly and thus making it a viable source of energy production."

Is that correct or incorrect?

If incorrect what would you say is incorrect about that statement? This was I can further my research to ensure I do not make the same mistakes again and possible in the future ask a meaningful question which does not waste others precious time.

Sincerely Thank you for your time, I hopefully did not aggravate you too much :)

Drakkith

Incorrect.

One of the main issues here is that you don't understand how a neutron detector works. Let's say that a 14.1 MeV neutron enters a detector. It will collide with many many atoms inside the detector. Each collision causes the nucleus to recoil out of the atom and form an Ion. Once the Ion settles it attracts other electrons back to it. Large numbers of these all at the same time enable the detection of a pulse of current, which is the result of a neutron entering and scattering off of many atoms. Nothing here requires any knowledge of wave packets and such to understand or explain.

The detectors CAN detect interference from high energy photons, since those also result in ionization of atoms. This is why having multiple detectors and other features ensure that you only detect neutrons and can ignore the background noise and stray photons.

Negative. There is no chaining in a fusion process. Fission typically requires a neutron to collide with an atom, splitting that atom and releasing MORE neutrons that will also collide and split other atoms as well. This leads to the chain reaction seen in power plants and nuclear weapons.

Fusion requires high enough temperatures (AKA kinetic energy) for the nuclei to overcome their mutual repulsion to each other due to the positive charges and get close enough for the strong force to overcome the electromagnetic force and "fuse" the nuclei together. There is no chain here. The only thing that might come close is that the energy released by this fusion process can be used to generate the heat required for other nuclei to fuse. But this is very different from the chain reaction in Fission.

That wouldn't have any effect on our detection of the neutron. And I don't know if it's possible for a neutron to be entangled with anything other than another neutron. I'll have to look that up. Also, there isn't anything extra to detect other than noise or interference in the detector.

juliusfriedma

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I appreciate you also taking the time to explain the detection process in some detail. One immediate clarification I require is of the meaning of settle in "Once the Ion settles". However I am sure that with further research into neutron detection my questions on that will also be answered.

I thank you again for your time and patience. Hopefully it was not a total waste of your time.

juliusfriedma

Sorry to bring this back to life but....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0316204743.htm

In short

What if a Neutrino Hit another Neutrino and both of these hypothetical constituents were travelling at 'c'.

Where 'c' represents the highest 'attainable' speed to mass ration the constituent may attain?

Drakkith

I am uncertain if neutrinos can "hit" each other. Besides, I don't see how it is related to this thread at all. There are many threads discussing the speed of light here on PF, I'm sure a quick search will find them for you.

juliusfriedma

If I clarify with the postulation that it is a Neutrino which collided with a Anti Neutrino and both constituents were moving at the constant 'c' in free space with no tangible deterrents or likewise constituents in the field then can I be correct in assuming a speed greater than 'c' has been attained when viewed as a total of vibration patterns on the field(S) in question in toto?

Drakkith

I'm sorry I can't make any sense of your question. What vibration patterns on what fields?

juliusfriedma

I have a single neutrino and a single anti neutrino.

I have accelerated both constituents to 'c'.

I then introduce a scenario in which energy is added in a way so that both constituents which are traveling at 'c' collide at a angle in which compliments the bearing and does not subtract from either's speed.

I most likely would have a new constituent and the new constituent would be created at a velocity of 'c' or greater, the stability of the new constituent is not in question.

ZapperZ

Locked, pending moderation.

Zz.