Oppenheimer Phillips vs. stripping in fusion and neutron production

If you wonder how/why fusion works, or how/why the Fusor works, look here first.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Oppenheimer Phillips vs. stripping in fusion and neutron production

Post by Richard Hull » Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:42 am

The deuteron is a relatively loosely bound nuclei. Its charge center is not the center of mass of the nucleus and is constantly changing. Thus, it is electrostatically susceptible to charge exchange reactions, especially at lower energies with other deuterons. So long as the deuterons never hit head on and classically fuse to helium 4, (very rare), charge exchange fusions at low energies are possible due to the relatively long time period the deuterons are in close proximity to each other. (Glancing blows and even very close misses.) Here, the quantum uncertainties of lopsided charge centers have a higher probability of fusion exchanges due to lengthened times of interaction. This is the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction. It is the one we use to do fusion. It only happens at lower energies. A look at the D-D fusion cross section shows that fusion increases up to the 1-2 MeV level and then nose dives.

"Stripping" is possible and is the cause of the above nose dive and reduced fusion after 2MeV. The deuterons at this energy will not fuse but are literally ripped apart into protons and neutrons at 4 MeV. Naturally, at a sufficiently higher energy you will get twice the neutrons and twice the protons from this stripping reaction than from genuine D-D fusion.

The lower energy "true" D-D fusion can begin at amazingly low energies, 5keV and above. However, the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction cross section has a very sharp rise due to the battle between the electrostatic coupling in charge exchange reactions occurring with more effective shearing force at higher energies, (speeds), versus time to allow for quantum uncertainty to have the ideal lopsided charge presentations at the correct moment while passing or glancing deuterons might interact. A sort of electrostatic brisance, if you will, due to higher energies 20Kev-500keV.

We note the cross section really loses "steam", (reduced slope) above 200keV due to the high velocity of D-D encounters, coupled with the still rare probabilistic opportunities for the quantum lopsided charge centers to align for charge/particle exchange.

The upshot is that D-D fusion is not one so much of classic particle collision, but more of a true electrostatically induced fusion via charge exchange reactions still governed by quantum uncertainty of charge distributional alignment in these non-charge-centric small nuclei.

Admittedly, I must now confess that I had thought, and expounded in the past, that both of the two reactions being discussed in this FAQ were one and the same. Recent, more extensive reading and study have given my earlier exhortations related to stripping and the O-P reaction the lie. All here might have noticed a rather long period since much active fusion work has come from me. I have been doing a lot more intensive studying, reading and introspection related to D-D fusion. D-D fusion is what we do and deserves the best treatment in the FAQs possible. All of my musing about quantum tunneling is still valid, but for far more clear and easy to grasp reasons. Quantum uncertainty controls that chance of nuclear charge exchange probability.

I Have always felt and continue to feel that this very uncertainty limits the success of any fusion for net energy gain here on earth that is within any sort of cost effectiveness weighed against output power versus input power in a reactor that functions on a continuously operated schedule.

Musings.......

It seems that deuterons which might be confined at zero relative velocity within a certain fermi closeness might simply, due to this very same charge exchange reaction of fixed nuclear proximity might fuse as in a chain reaction!! This smacks at the loading of Deuterium-palladium in the old cold fusion, (CF), scenario. Unfortunately, molecular separations of deuterium atoms itching to fuse via the above OP charge exchange reactions in metal lattices are not compact enough. Remember the Lawson criteria. In a lattice, D atoms are in rather close proximity with the special willingness to simply do charge exchange fusion, confined in time forever. So many claims of excess energy, well measured on only very rare instances were recorded in the CF work of the past. It just proved not to be easily or even regularly repeatable. One must open one's mind on this one. In the NIF hohlraum, are the lasers raising the temperature to fusion energies or collapsing the D-T hohlraum like a Pu fission core to do fusion? I can't say for sure. Are we are too conditioned to thermal fusion? There is a hint at quantum, naturally induced, electrostatic charge-exchange fusion with D and T! Can we take off the "input, hot energy blinders" we are so conditioned to?? Worth thinking about.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Oppenheimer Phillips vs. stripping in fusion and neutron production

Post by Richard Hull » Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:33 am

I feel in view of the OP reaction a bit of musing by itself is in order, but only by the reader. I have my own musings. I feel it is only natural that some interesting base level factoids be recounted to start the theoretical and inductive reasoning turning the mental gears....

The electronic shell of all atoms tend to determine the molecular distances and ordered structures in elemental metal lattices.

D is the only stable nucleus containing a single neutron. As a hydrogen isotope bearing nuclei it has but one single electron in an unfilled single shell. This fact, in itself, lends to easy ionization and orbital diatomic molecular sharing at room temperatures.

Metal surfaces are often referred to as a "sea of electrons" which is why they are typically considered more or less, good conductors. Regardless of conductivity or because of it, even at relatively low frequencies, 100hz and up, conduction of electricity is pretty much a near surface conduction phenomenon. At 1 Mhz, regardless of metal thickness only a few mils of depth in the metal carry 100% of the current.

Metal lattices and the ability to absorb hydrogen, (deuterium), vary according to temperature, pressure, electrochemistry and mechanical, (Kinetic), implantation. Each method of loading has a factor related to rate of absorption and desorption of the hydrogen atom.

Fusion, as a process, has been drilled into the heads of all physicists a an energetic thermo-nuclear process. (solar bias and theory certainly points to a possibility of predilection to a thermal only process)

Regardless of quarks, spins and magnetic moments all neutrons decay or present in the unstable nucleus as a net electron and proton source. The neutron, itself, is measured to be a continuously quantum charge lobed entity. (you didn't know this? Look it up.) Only the neutron's net charge is neutral in macroscopic reactions. Unfortunately, outside of the nucleus the neutron, in about 10-13 minutes, fissions or decays, (your preference), to a normal proton and electron with the usual vaporous neutrino.

Inside many unstable nuclei the neutron and neutron alone is the beta decay item pushing the elemental atom up by one atomic number to a new element.

From all of the above it is noted that within a deuterium atom, its single neutron has a lobed charge nature within itself and the deuterium nucleus, as an entity has an external lobed charge distribution that is eager to enter into pure electrostatic based, charge exchange reactions at the nuclear level within fermi distance scales.

In many well conducted cold fusion experiments of which there is a huge body of experimental reports, over many years, a number of very rare deuterium metal lattice loadings were shown to spontaneously, over minutes to hours release energy. In only one well known incident, the researchers saw the loaded metal in the disconnected cell boil off almost all of the water. Such powerful and overtly energetic reactions are extremely rare and found not to be consistently repeatable to a suitable level of scientific confidence. Many good researchers also never saw any evidence of any reactions over their span of experiment in the field. No typical fusion debris particles were seen to exist, neutrons protons or the like. However, some tiny amounts of tritium have been recorded. Far more puzzling are new metallic atoms found in what were pretested pure metal palladium electrodes in parts per billion! Curiouser and curiouser as noted in Lewis Caroll's writings.
Let your gears grind. This is a fusion theory forum, but all theory needs an experiment. The design of that experiment is critical to prove or disprove the mental machination we call a theory.

Richard Hull
Attachments
curiouser-and-curiouser.jpg
curiouser-and-curiouser.jpg (120.5 KiB) Viewed 1651 times
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

User avatar
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 1798
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Re: Oppenheimer Phillips vs. stripping in fusion and neutron production

Post by Frank Sanns » Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:13 pm

I really like this post Richard. It revisits many things that have been discussed here back a decade and more again. Since we cannot do effective fusion yet, then we need to contemplate what you have written.

Some thoughts.

1. The world is full of empty space. This is true of the universe as a whole as well as matter. We are fooled by our eyes to see things a certain way, 100% because of the electrical force.

2. The charge separation seen in the nucleus of a deuterium ion does not necessarily mean it is exclusive. We may be being fooled by that pesky electronic force again. There may also be one of the nuclear forces that also are asymmetric within the nuclei.

3. Time and relativistic effects certainly come into play as does the uncertainty principle. They are not symmetrical either. Orientation in one direction relative to another nucleus will not be the same for all. There are a nearly infinite number of reference frames distributed around. Two near nuclei, at a moment in time, have significantly different physics affecting them. Look at the resonances in cross sections

4. High pressure fusion is interesting. Again back in the day, I had recorded neutrons down to around 10Kev in the fusor. The diffuse gas and the temperature made me calculate how much fusion would occur in a normal high pressure deuterium tank at room temperature. It was a good thought but the tail of the Boltzman falls off fast at such low temperature. The answer is essentially zero but at only 2,000 keV, it starts to pick up.

5a. Related to #4 was the cold fusion interest of a decade or more ago. Inconsistencies plagued those studies for many reasons from poor experimental procedures, poor measurements, poor interpretation, impurities, and on and on. One could not believe anything after a while. Still, the proximity of deuterium nuclei to each other is intriguing. If something is going to happen on a quantum level, then that might be the place to observe them. You have mentioned some interesting results like higher Z impurities forming. It makes far more sense that this would be from lattice induced fissioning. I mean, splitting larger atoms in to a smaller one is much more likely than self assembly of 30 individual atoms for fusion.

5b. Slow is the new fast. The uncertainly principle can spread matter out over large regions when there is little motion. Electron clouds that behave as one in a lattice focuses on the electrical again. But the nucleus is following the same rules. Really interesting stuff.

Oh there is so much more that I am sure many would like to discuss. Thanks for revisiting the O-P stripping. It really stimulates the thinking along many lines.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Oppenheimer Phillips vs. stripping in fusion and neutron production

Post by Richard Hull » Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:54 pm

Thanks Frank. I attach a good smattering of tid-bits from selected books and papers compiled on CF, LENR, etc., by Science direct. Every snippet is worth a read especially from a chemists point of view. Notation is made of ppb of helium after successful runs. As you note in your 5a, elements of lower atomic number are found is palladium electrodes (often wire) after low excess power runs. Folks think that Cold fusion died shortly after debunking the 1989 Pons-Fleishmann original claims. Good and better research into these issues continued into the current century.

Much to chew on outside of the high energy regime of fast moving deuterons. Forget the concept of useful energy from CF and LENR! If fusion is just found to be occurring in the relatively stagnant CF world of chemistry/material science, that would be profound.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ch ... old-fusion

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Oppenheimer Phillips vs. stripping in fusion and neutron production

Post by Dennis P Brown » Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:30 am

One really must mention quarks when discussing the nucleus. That the nucleons exhibit non-symmetric charge arrangements (at extremely small scale) is an interesting part of the quark model and is easily explained by this model. This aspect of the model is solely due to the type of quarks that make it up.

The neutron has two down quarks (-1/3 charge) and one up quark (+2/3 charge) so on nuclear scales (proton/neutron size) the neutron does offer non-zero charge distributions so isn't really neutral on that scale. Very near a neutron the effect of these charged quarks and their arrangement can be detected. Of course, the neutron is net neutral far away.

Obviously, the proton then has to then have two up quarks and only one down quark to create its net plus one charge. And just like the neutron it too has a distribution of charge very near it (but is net 1 positive far away.)

In very precise scattering experiments these aspects of the nucleons is easy to measure and lends extremely strong support to this model.

The amazing thing about this idea of quarks is this model explains 100% of all the extremely complex array of elementary particles that occur at all collision energies that come out of the nucleus. It is incredible how well this theory explains so much that is experimentally seen - including the charge behavior of these unique particles. This entire model requires just six types of quarks.

I will only say in passing that the "force carrier" between nucleons is the "Gluon" particle; this causes what we see in experiment as the strong nuclear force that occurs between nucleons (leakage out of any nucleon.) Interestingly, gluons make up about 95% of the mass of any nucleus and hence, makes up the bulk mass of any object.

When combined with Field Theory this model has created the most accurate predictions that agree with experiment of any theory in existence. For this reason, it is the best theory so far ever created by science compared to any other theory.

Post Reply

Return to “FAQs: Fusion and Fusor Theory”