Hello everyone,
I'd just like to inform you about my paper entitled "Is Deuterium Fusion Catalyzed by Antineutrinos?" which may be found here:
http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0055
I know I was in a similar discussion about this on this board a few months ago, but I'd like to hear from you.
Thanks,
Isaac
Paper:
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Paper:
Chris Bradley wrote:
> Have you seen this thread?
>
> download_thread.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor ... 1220031208
I was actually unaware of this thread. I agree that there are quite a few questions yet to be answered about the data collected by Fischbach and Jenkins, and that their method of presenting the data is somewhat hard to follow. However, I also agree that trying to replicate this experiment in the southern hemisphere, or for that matter deep underground where fewer cosmic rays penetrate, would be worthwhile. However, it will be years before such results are obtained.
On a completely different note, another issue that I wanted to bring up in my paper that may be able to be examined more quickly is how much energy is really required for nuclei to overcome their coulombic barrier to fuse, given that the nuclear radius decreases with increasing momentum.
> Have you seen this thread?
>
> download_thread.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor ... 1220031208
I was actually unaware of this thread. I agree that there are quite a few questions yet to be answered about the data collected by Fischbach and Jenkins, and that their method of presenting the data is somewhat hard to follow. However, I also agree that trying to replicate this experiment in the southern hemisphere, or for that matter deep underground where fewer cosmic rays penetrate, would be worthwhile. However, it will be years before such results are obtained.
On a completely different note, another issue that I wanted to bring up in my paper that may be able to be examined more quickly is how much energy is really required for nuclei to overcome their coulombic barrier to fuse, given that the nuclear radius decreases with increasing momentum.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Paper:
Isaac wrote:
> another issue that I wanted to bring up in my paper that may be able to be examined more quickly is how much energy is really required for nuclei to overcome their coulombic barrier to fuse, given that the nuclear radius decreases with increasing momentum.
You might be unwittingly discussing the same issue there. Nucleii fuse because they tunnel under the Coulomb barrier. If they couldn't then we wouldn't see fusion as we do because you'd need some 40MeV to overcome it. Instead a few 10's keV is enough due to quantum tunneling, which in turn is related to the nature of how matter's wavefunction in space changes with momentum, as you indirectly mention perhaps.
Fusion is a purely probabilistic thing, being *very unlikely* when compared with Coulomb scattering. If nucleii were to have enough energy to be sure to overcome the Coulomb barrier then they have enough energy to split both target and projectile nucelii into smithereens - into their component nucleons, plus a few other odd particles as well.
> another issue that I wanted to bring up in my paper that may be able to be examined more quickly is how much energy is really required for nuclei to overcome their coulombic barrier to fuse, given that the nuclear radius decreases with increasing momentum.
You might be unwittingly discussing the same issue there. Nucleii fuse because they tunnel under the Coulomb barrier. If they couldn't then we wouldn't see fusion as we do because you'd need some 40MeV to overcome it. Instead a few 10's keV is enough due to quantum tunneling, which in turn is related to the nature of how matter's wavefunction in space changes with momentum, as you indirectly mention perhaps.
Fusion is a purely probabilistic thing, being *very unlikely* when compared with Coulomb scattering. If nucleii were to have enough energy to be sure to overcome the Coulomb barrier then they have enough energy to split both target and projectile nucelii into smithereens - into their component nucleons, plus a few other odd particles as well.
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Paper:
Hi Isaac,
I gave this a quick read. It's highly speculative, and since the central premise (that the cross-section for the charged-current reaction of antineutrinos and protons is higher than we think) seems to fly in the face of many measurements, and since some of the physics relating to quantum mechanics of the nucleus strikes me as simply inaccurate, I'm inclined to discount it.
To your credit though, I think your overall process obeys the necessary conservation laws. I think. I have not given it a thorough accounting.
A couple other things:
The process in Step 1 of taking a deuterium nucleus and rending it into two neutrons and a positron is endothermic to the tune of 3.5 MeV. The energy must be brought by the neutrino, and most beta decays aren't this energetic. One of the predictions of your theory then is that not all electron neutrinos are suitable catalysts, only those with sufficiently high energy. In particular, the part of Step 2 that regenerates the antineutrino does not necessarily (and does not usually) make an antineutrino this energetic. If the positron capture happens nearly at rest, as these things tend to, then the available energy is nowhere near enough to propagate the reaction.
The first process in Step 2, engaging in a 2H(p,g) fusion reaction, is in the microbarn range for MeV-range protons, according to established measurements. Furthermore, the reaction that forms the proton gives up almost all of its energy to the almost massless neutrino, and very little energy to the proton, in order to satisfy conservation of momentum. By conventional understanding, this will result in cross-sections that are minuscule, even relative to a microbarn, because the proton isn't going to be able to penetrate the deuteron's potential barrier. At the higher energies favorable to this fusion reaction, it's probably just as likely or more likely that the deuteron will be stripped in an endothermic reaction.
Lastly, a note about verification: nuclear reactors and spallation targets using heavy water as a moderator are already in widespread use (CANDU types and various experimental reactors and spallation targets at big labs). If the neutral or charged current reactions you talk about have high cross-sections, they would be noted here, much as the photodisintegration of deuterium is well understood and accounted for in such situations.
-Carl
I gave this a quick read. It's highly speculative, and since the central premise (that the cross-section for the charged-current reaction of antineutrinos and protons is higher than we think) seems to fly in the face of many measurements, and since some of the physics relating to quantum mechanics of the nucleus strikes me as simply inaccurate, I'm inclined to discount it.
To your credit though, I think your overall process obeys the necessary conservation laws. I think. I have not given it a thorough accounting.
A couple other things:
The process in Step 1 of taking a deuterium nucleus and rending it into two neutrons and a positron is endothermic to the tune of 3.5 MeV. The energy must be brought by the neutrino, and most beta decays aren't this energetic. One of the predictions of your theory then is that not all electron neutrinos are suitable catalysts, only those with sufficiently high energy. In particular, the part of Step 2 that regenerates the antineutrino does not necessarily (and does not usually) make an antineutrino this energetic. If the positron capture happens nearly at rest, as these things tend to, then the available energy is nowhere near enough to propagate the reaction.
The first process in Step 2, engaging in a 2H(p,g) fusion reaction, is in the microbarn range for MeV-range protons, according to established measurements. Furthermore, the reaction that forms the proton gives up almost all of its energy to the almost massless neutrino, and very little energy to the proton, in order to satisfy conservation of momentum. By conventional understanding, this will result in cross-sections that are minuscule, even relative to a microbarn, because the proton isn't going to be able to penetrate the deuteron's potential barrier. At the higher energies favorable to this fusion reaction, it's probably just as likely or more likely that the deuteron will be stripped in an endothermic reaction.
Lastly, a note about verification: nuclear reactors and spallation targets using heavy water as a moderator are already in widespread use (CANDU types and various experimental reactors and spallation targets at big labs). If the neutral or charged current reactions you talk about have high cross-sections, they would be noted here, much as the photodisintegration of deuterium is well understood and accounted for in such situations.
-Carl
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15031
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Paper:
Carl's point regarding the endothermic nature of the stripping or Oppenhiemer-Phillips reaction is the cause for the dip in the D-D cross sectional curve over 1.5mev. At some point there is a diminishing return. Nature isn't ready to let you do anything allowing you net energy via fusion unless you have a lot of spare energy on hand to spend. The return seems to always be less or, if more, not worth the initial expenditure. Self ignition, or chain reacting propagation, (burning), outside of a stored potential energy system is sort of against nature. Casual burning is not allowed, otherwise, wild fires would abound.
Richard Hull
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Paper:
Carl:
Thanks for the informed response.
Your comments about forming two neutrons and a positron from a deuteron, as well as your comment about nuclear reactors using heavy water as a moderator will likely be the topic of another paper, where I will address those issues more fully. Briefly, I am speculating that the Step 1 reaction is more thermodynamically favorable in a compressed state than in a non-compressed state such as heavy water.
Isaac
Thanks for the informed response.
Your comments about forming two neutrons and a positron from a deuteron, as well as your comment about nuclear reactors using heavy water as a moderator will likely be the topic of another paper, where I will address those issues more fully. Briefly, I am speculating that the Step 1 reaction is more thermodynamically favorable in a compressed state than in a non-compressed state such as heavy water.
Isaac
Re: Paper:
I must state that I am not quite familiar with quantum tunneling, or specifically how the probability of a quantum tunneling event relates to momentum.
I would imagine that it is still the case that nuclei are more likely to fuse when the distance between nuclei divided by the diameter of the nuclei is smaller. And while the distance between nuclei may decrease with increasing energy in certain cases, as nuclei are able to become more compressed, the nuclear diameter is likely to decrease as well, due to issues relating to momentum and the de Broglie equation.
I would imagine that it is still the case that nuclei are more likely to fuse when the distance between nuclei divided by the diameter of the nuclei is smaller. And while the distance between nuclei may decrease with increasing energy in certain cases, as nuclei are able to become more compressed, the nuclear diameter is likely to decrease as well, due to issues relating to momentum and the de Broglie equation.