Olá, Visitante. Por favor entre ou registe-se se ainda não for membro.

Entrar com nome de utilizador, password e duração da sessão
 

Autor Tópico: Fusão fria  (Lida 12499 vezes)

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Fusão fria
« em: 2013-01-04 11:48:43 »
Crio este tópico para ir colocando aqui notícias assunto e ir acompanhando o que daqui realmente sai.
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #1 em: 2013-01-04 11:48:56 »
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook

by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html

Although there is a quite long history of "anomalous" observations, including transmutations, the "recent" consideration of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) began in the late 80's with the Pons/Fleischmann observations and assertions regarding what they termed "Cold Fusion." However, subsequent difficulties with experimental replication and an utter lack of convincing theoretical explication forced research in this arena "underground" with minimal financial support.

The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena.


Allan Widom (left) and Lewis Larsen (right)

The next consideration is "What is real? What is happening?" For NASA Langley, the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory. It is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at Langley. The theory appears to explain nearly all the various and often variegated experimental observations and shifted the LENR theoretical focus from some way of "fooling" Particle Nuclear Physics/The Strong Force to Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics, Collective Effects, The Weak Force and "Heavy Electrons."


Beta decay results in a significant release of energy

The Strong Force Particle physicists have evidently been correct all along. "Cold Fusion" is not possible. However, via collective effects/ condensed matter quantum nuclear physics, LENR is allowable without any "miracles." The theory states that once some energy is added to surfaces loaded with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form-- neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.

The theory indicates several key issues/circumstances are required to enable-to-optimize LENR and explains the various experimental observations, including the often long initiation times required in some experiments. If the theory is experimentally validated in detail, it provides the understanding to shift LENR research from discovery into engineering development. The theory indicates energy densities, some several million times chemical. The current experiments are in the 10's to hundreds range. However, several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are "right" prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released. There are some six or so groups claiming device outputs in the 100 watt range and three others claiming kilowatts. Efforts are ongoing within NASA and other organizations to validate (or not) these claims. It should be noted that these devices are essentially "Edisonian," the result of attempts at experimental "discovery" vice ab initio design from the weak interaction theories per se.

Therefore, the LENR situation and outlook is the following:

  • Something real is happening.
  • The weak interaction theories suggest what the physics might be.
  • There are efforts ongoing to explore the validity of the theories.
  • There are continuing Edisonian efforts to produce "devices" mainly for heat or in some cases transmutations.
  • There are efforts to "certify" such devices.
  • NASA LaRC has begun LENR design studies guided by the Weak Interaction Theory
We are still far from the theoretical limits of the weak interaction physics for LENR performance and are in fact inventing (in real time) the requisite engineering, along with verifying the physics. When we concentrated upon nuclear engineering beginning in the 1940's we "jumped" to the strong force/ particle physics and leapt over the weak force/condensed matter nuclear physics. We are going "back" now to study and hopefully develop this arena.


Spaceworks/NASA LENR space plane concepts

The "precautionary principle" demands that we core down and determine realism for this arena, given the truly massive-to-mind boggling benefits – solutions to climate, energy and the limitations that restrict the NASA Mission areas, all of them. The key to space exploration is energetics. The key to supersonic transports and neighbor-friendly personal fly/drive air vehicles is energetics, as simplex examples of the potential implications of this area of research.

There are estimates using just the performance of some of the devices under study that 1% of the nickel mined on the planet each year could produce the world's energy requirements at the order of 25% the cost of coal.

No promises, but some seriously "strange" things are going on, which we may be closer to understanding and if we can optimize/engineer such, the world changes. Worldwide, it is worth far more resources than are currently being devoted to this research arena. There is a need to core down and determine "truth" and if useful, the need to engineer and apply.



Related information:

Video: NASA LaRC | Abundant Clean/Green Energy by Joseph Zawodny. http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/what/cif.html

Video: NASA's Method for a Clean Nuclear Energy For Your Power Operated Technology. http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

Kin2010

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 3989
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #2 em: 2013-01-06 20:33:08 »
"However, several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are "right" prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released. "

Sim, esta é uma forma de a ciência avançar... Também o laboratório do Alfred Nobel explodiu nas suas experiências que levaram à invenção da dinamite.
 :(

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #3 em: 2013-01-07 11:23:55 »
Pois é, roubar o fogo aos deuses para o dar aos homens, tem o seu preço, como mostra o mito de Prometeu:

Citar
In Greek mythology, Prometheus was the creator of mankind. The goddess Athene taught him architecture, astronomy, mathematics, navigation, medicine, and metallurgy, and he in turn taught them to humans. Zeus, the chief of the Greek gods, became angry at Prometheus for making people powerful by teaching them all these useful skills.

When the gods chose Prometheus as arbiter in a dispute, he fooled the gullible Zeus into picking the worst parts of the sacrificial bull by hiding them under a rich layer of fat. To punish Prometheus, Zeus withheld fire from men. "Let them eat their flesh raw," he declared. In response, Prometheus, snuck up to Mount Olympus, lit a torch from the sun, and hid a burning piece of charcoal in a hollow stalk. He slipped away with it and thus delivered fire to mankind.

Zeus, as revenge, tried unsuccessfully to trick Prometheus' brother, Epimetheus, into accepting the beautiful but mischievous Pandora as a gift. Epimetheus, mindful of earlier advice from his brother, refused. Even madder now that his trick had failed, Zeus had Prometheus chained naked to a pillar in the Caucasian mountains. A griffon-vulture ate at Prometheus' liver all day long. During the bitter cold of the mountain night, the liver became whole again.

So it went day after day, year after year. Epimetheus married Pandora in an effort to free his brother. Pandora -- as devilish as she was beautiful -- opened the famous box in which Prometheus had shut up all the evils that might plague mankind: Old Age, Labor, Sickness, Insanity, Vice and Passion.

Only years later, at the behest of Heracles (Hercules), did Zeus free Prometheus.

Tb foi essa parte do texto que me chamou a atenção, bem como a disposição do Dennis Bushnell por a cabeça no cepo. É essa a razão que me fez abrir este tópico.
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

Nuno

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2382
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #4 em: 2013-01-07 12:31:27 »
O projecto ITER em Cadarache é para isto não é?
Beware a closed mind, for it shuts away new ideas

Ashanath Leader Linnaeus

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #5 em: 2013-01-07 13:13:00 »
Não, o projecto ITER está a atacar o problema do lado da força nuclear forte e há 50 que se anda a tentar resolver o problema que as muito altas temperaturas colocam aos materiais.

O mecanismo para a fusão fria parece ser outro e agora parece haver uma explicação teórica plausível:

Citar
The next consideration is "What is real? What is happening?" For NASA Langley, the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory. It is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at Langley. The theory appears to explain nearly all the various and often variegated experimental observations and shifted the LENR theoretical focus from some way of "fooling" Particle Nuclear Physics/The Strong Force to Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics, Collective Effects, The Weak Force and "Heavy Electrons."

E começa-se a compreender o que correu mal tanto do lado teórico [não é a força nuclear forte que está em jogo na fusão fria] como principalmente do lado experimental desde os anos 80, quando o fenómeno foi relatado pela 1ª vez, devido a não ter sido reproduzido consistentemente experimentalmente [um dos problemas parece ser o tempo de activação].

Citar
The Strong Force Particle physicists have evidently been correct all along. "Cold Fusion" is not possible. However, via collective effects/ condensed matter quantum nuclear physics, LENR is allowable without any "miracles." The theory states that once some energy is added to surfaces loaded with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form-- neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.

The theory indicates several key issues/circumstances are required to enable-to-optimize LENR and explains the various experimental observations, including the often long initiation times required in some experiments. If the theory is experimentally validated in detail, it provides the understanding to shift LENR research from discovery into engineering development. The theory indicates energy densities, some several million times chemical. The current experiments are in the 10's to hundreds range. However, several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are "right" prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released. There are some six or so groups claiming device outputs in the 100 watt range and three others claiming kilowatts. Efforts are ongoing within NASA and other organizations to validate (or not) these claims. It should be noted that these devices are essentially "Edisonian," the result of attempts at experimental "discovery" vice ab initio design from the weak interaction theories per se.
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

Kin2010

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 3989
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #6 em: 2013-01-08 00:23:10 »
Por outro lado, pode estar aí o potencial para produzir um novo tipo de bomba devastadora. Se ela pudesse ser feita, e não requeresse materiais muito raros como o urânio ou plutónio, as consequências para a segurança mundial poderiam ser catastróficas.
 :-[

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #7 em: 2013-01-08 10:47:04 »
Se eu fosse a ti, não ficava lá assim muito preocupado com as eventuais aplicações em bombas, pois as bombas de hidrogénio são mais eficazes, pelo que nem sequer iriam conseguir competir com estas últimas.
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #8 em: 2013-01-08 16:06:42 »
E os estudos que fazem à bué de tempos sobre a fusão nuclear, que apregoavam que seria a energia abundante e barata para este Mundo sedento de energia?  Isso morreu ?

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fus%C3%A3o_nuclear
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #9 em: 2013-01-08 17:24:15 »
Pois, a energia está lá, o problema é agarra-la. Tanto quanto sei o ITER continua em andamento, mas trabalhar com muito altas energias traz problemas de materiais muito complicados de se resolver [por exemplo têm de ser suficientemente duráveis, para a exploração ser económica e energeticamente viável]. Caso as ideias do artigo se venham a confirmar, parece haver uma forma alternativa de colher essa energia a mais baixas temperaturas graças a fenómenos colectivos da física do estado sólido.
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

Kin2010

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 3989
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #10 em: 2013-01-09 03:32:15 »
Se eu fosse a ti, não ficava lá assim muito preocupado com as eventuais aplicações em bombas, pois as bombas de hidrogénio são mais eficazes, pelo que nem sequer iriam conseguir competir com estas últimas.

As bombas de hidrogénio precisam de bombas de fissão embutidas, logo urânio ou plutónio também. O meu problema é que se descubra uma bomba muito poderosa que funcione com materiais ao alcance de todos, como grupos terroristas.

rnbc

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 495
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #11 em: 2013-01-09 23:10:28 »
Não há "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", há reações nucleares que não necessitam de alta temperatura, ou de grandes "empurrões energéticos" para se fazerem, mas a reação em si das partículas produz sempre a mesma energia.

De facto há uma coisa chamada "Muon-catalyzed fusion" que funciona a baixa temperatura, o problema é que se gasta mais energia a produzir muões do que a que se obtém na reação, e os muões têm o terrível hábito de decaírem rapidamente. São uns chatos...

Mas neste momento pelo que sei o problema nem é fazer um reator que funcione e produza mais do que consome: isso está resolvido em principio há bastantes anos, via Tokamak. E há outras vias, tipo pinch-fusion, Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor, etc... O problema realmente grave é encontrar materiais que aguentem o nível de irradiação brutal gerado por um reator de fusão para uma dada potência. O aço tem tendência a transformar-se em pó quando sujeito a esses altos fluxos de neutrões, por exemplo. Neste momento para fazer um reator comercialmente viável e prático temos um problema cuja solução cabe à ciência dos materiais. Se for possível resolver, de todo: sinceramente tenho dúvidas. As reações de fusão a frio geram exatamente a mesma radiação para a mesma potência, portanto não resolvem o problema.

É mais fácil ter energia solar em massa, barata e fiável, no prazo de 10 ou 15 anos, do que um reator qualquer desses a funcionar.

PS: Há um artigo no thinkfn escrito por mim há uns anos sobre energias alternativas que infelizmente se mantém válido.  Inclusive na parte relativa à energia solar. Estávamos em 2006, e eu previa 20 anos até haver energia solar ubíqua. Agora prevejo 10-15.

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #12 em: 2013-01-10 11:21:44 »
Não há "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", há reações nucleares que não necessitam de alta temperatura, ou de grandes "empurrões energéticos" para se fazerem, mas a reação em si das partículas produz sempre a mesma energia.


O termo fusão fria ganhou muito má fama, nomeadamente porque até várias realizações experimentais realizadas pelas mesmas pessoas e [aparentemente] iguais umas vezes produziam a tal energia em excesso, outras vezes não. Pior ainda a radiação em excesso parecia ser pouco superior à ambiente [o que lançava a dúvida se estaria dentro da margem de erro das medições]. Todos estes problemas se encontram relatados no artigo da wikipedia sobre a fusão fria. É por essa razão que as poucas pessoas que a têm investigado lhe têm dado outros nomes.


Mas neste momento pelo que sei o problema nem é fazer um reator que funcione e produza mais do que consome: isso está resolvido em principio há bastantes anos, via Tokamak. E há outras vias, tipo pinch-fusion, Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor, etc... O problema realmente grave é encontrar materiais que aguentem o nível de irradiação brutal gerado por um reator de fusão para uma dada potência. O aço tem tendência a transformar-se em pó quando sujeito a esses altos fluxos de neutrões, por exemplo. Neste momento para fazer um reator comercialmente viável e prático temos um problema cuja solução cabe à ciência dos materiais. Se for possível resolver, de todo: sinceramente tenho dúvidas. As reações de fusão a frio geram exatamente a mesma radiação para a mesma potência, portanto não resolvem o problema.


Como os neutrões gerados parecem ser de muito baixa energia e por isso a maior parte nem sequer abandona o material, cf. a seguinte porção do texto, não me parece tão plausível a existência de problemas de materiais. O problema está em saber se o mecanismo é real e em torná-lo reprodutível.

Citar
The Strong Force Particle physicists have evidently been correct all along. "Cold Fusion" is not possible. However, via collective effects/ condensed matter quantum nuclear physics, LENR is allowable without any "miracles." The theory states that once some energy is added to surfaces loaded with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form-- neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #13 em: 2013-01-10 11:35:12 »
Estive a investigar quando foi criada a página e vejo que o foi em Maio do ano passado [podia dar-se o caso da página ser bastante antiga e o assunto ter ter morrido entretanto, pois o artigo mencionado é de 2006].

Segue-se uma descição um pouco mais detalhada dos mecanismos mencionados no tal artigo:

Is the “Weak Force” the Key to LENR?

By David Niebauer
On September 12, 2012

http://www.cleantechblog.com/2012/09/is-the-weak-force-the-key-to-lenr.html

In the early part of the 20th Century physicists theorized that a mysterious force held the nucleus of an atom together.  When it was demonstrated that this force could be tapped, releasing tremendous amounts of energy, a wave of excitement swept the scientific world.  It took only a few short years before atomic energy theories were experimentally validated in the first nuclear weapon detonations.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki followed.  Most of us alive today were born under the mushroom cloud that has loomed over humanity ever since.  Accessing the power of the strong nuclear force has been a mixed blessing:  it has brought the possibility of energy beyond our wildest dreams but with nightmarish consequences that were literally unimaginable a generation ago.

That physicists would become enamored of the strong nuclear force is understandable:  the energy locked in the nucleus of the atom is potent, it is real, and the challenge of harnessing it for useful purposes has become the “holy grail” of scientific endeavor.

But could another, more subtle, “fundamental force” hold the key to our energy future?

The Fundamental Forces of Nature and the Weak Force

Of the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force), the “weak force” is the most enigmatic. Whereas the other three forces act through attraction/repulsion mechanisms, the weak force is responsible for transmutations – changing one element into another – and incremental shifts between mass and energy at the nuclear level.

Simply put, the weak force is the way Nature seeks stability.  Stability at the nuclear level permits elements to form, which make up all of the familiar stuff of our world.  Without the stabilizing action of the weak force, the material world, including our physical bodies, would not exist.  The weak force is responsible for the radioactive decay of heavy (radioactive) elements into their lighter, more stable forms.  But the weak force is also at work in the formation of the lightest of elements, hydrogen and helium, and all the elements in between.

A good way to understand the weak force is in comparison with the actions of the other forces at work in the center of the Sun.  The Sun, although extraordinarily hot (10 million degrees), is cool enough for the constituent parts of matter, quarks, to clump together to form protons.  A proton is necessary to form an element, which occurs when it attracts an electron – the simplest case being hydrogen, which is composed of a single proton and a single electron.  By the force of gravity, protons are pulled together until two of them touch – but because of the electrostatic repulsion of their two positive charges, their total energy becomes unstable and one of the protons undergoes a form of radioactive decay, turning it into a neutron and emitting a positron (the antiparticle of an electron) and a neutrino.  This action forms a deuteron (one proton and one neutron), which is more stable than the two repelling protons.  This transmutation of proton into neutron plus beta particles is mediated by the weak force.

A neutron is slightly heavier, and therefore less stable, than a proton.  So the normal action of the weak force causes a neutron to decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino.  At any rate, at the center of the Sun, once a deuteron is formed, it will fuse with another free proton to form helium-3 (one neutron and two protons), releasing tremendous amounts of energy.  These helium-3 atoms then fuse to form helium-4 and releasing two more protons and more energy.  The release of energy in these fusion reactions from the strong force is what powers the Sun.  But the entire process is set in motion by the weak force.

Enter “Cold Fusion”

When in 1989 Pons and Fleishman stunned the world by reporting nuclear reaction signatures at room temperatures, physicists were understandably baffled and skeptical.  Given that virtually all nuclear physicists at the time were trained in the powerful energies of the strong force, table top fusion made no sense.  The fact that the phenomenon was dubbed “cold fusion” was unfortunate and likely contributed to almost universal rejection by the scientific community.  Standard theoretical models were not able to explain how cold fusion might even be possible and unless it could be understood it was pointless and a waste of time.  A comment attributed to Wolfgang Pauli describes the reaction of most physicists at the time: “its not right; its not even wrong”.  Without a coherent theory to explain it, it wasn’t even science at all.

This all changed in 2006 with the publication of a paper in the peer-reviewed The European Physical Journal by Allan Widom and Louis Larsen titled “Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces”.

In this paper for the first time a theoretical basis was put forth that explained many of the anomalous results being reported by experimentalists in the new field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) – and the common explanatory action was the weak force.

As explained by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center in his article “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook”:

“The Strong Force Particle physicists have evidently been correct all along. “Cold Fusion” is not possible. However, via collective effects/ condensed matter quantum nuclear physics, LENR is allowable without any “miracles.” The theory states that once some energy is added to surfaces loaded with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form– neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.”

Brief Description of Widom-Larsen Theory

Not everyone agrees that the Widom-Larsen Theory (“WLT”) accurately explains all, or even most, of the observed phenomenon in LENR experiments.  But it is worth a brief look at what WLT proposes.

In the first step of WLT, a proton captures a charged lepton (an electron) and produces a neutron and a neutrino.  No Coulomb barrier inhibits the reaction.  In fact, a strong Coulomb attraction that can exist between an electron and a nucleus helps the nuclear transmutation proceed.

This process is well known to occur with muons, a type of lepton that can be thought of as very heavy electrons – the increased mass is what pulls the lepton into the nucleus.  For this to occur with electrons in a condensed matter hydrogen system, local electromagnetic field fluctuations are induced to increase the mass of the electron.  Thus, a “mass modified” hydrogen atom can decay into a neutron and a neutrino.  These neutrons are born with ultra low momentum and, because of their long wavelength, get caught in the cavity formed by oscillating protons in the metal lattice.

These ultra low momentum neutrons, which do not escape the immediate vicinity of the cavity and are therefore difficult to detect, yield interesting reaction sequences.  For example, helium-3 and helium-4 are produced often yielding large quantities of heat.  WLT refers to these as neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions.  As Dennis Bushnell explains:  “the neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations.”  Nuclear fusion does not occur and therefore there is no Coulomb barrier obstruction to the resulting neutron catalyzed nuclear reaction.

Brief Description of Brillouin Theory

Robert Godes of Brillouin Energy Corp., claims that WLT explains some, but not all, of the observed LENR phenomena.  As Godes understands the process, metal hydrides stimulated with precise, narrow, high voltage, bipolar pulse frequencies (“Q-pulse”) cause protons or deuterons to undergo electron capture.  The metal lattice stimulation by the Q-pulse reverses the natural decay of neutrons to protons, plus beta particles, catalyzing an electron capture in a first endothermic step.  When the initial proton (or deuteron) is confined in the metal lattice and the total Hamiltonian (total energy of the system) reaches a certain threshold level by means of the Q-pulse stimulation, an ultra cold neutron is formed.  This ultra cold neutron occupies a position in the lattice where dissolved hydrogen tunnels and undergoes transmutation, forming a cascade of transmutations – deuteron, triton, quadrium – by capturing the cold neutron and releasing binding energy.  Such a cascading reaction will result in a beta decay transmutation to helium-4, plus heat.

The Q pulse causes a dramatic increase of the phonon activity, driving the system far out of equilibrium.  When this energy reaches a threshold level, neutron production via electron capture becomes a natural path to bring the system back to stability.

Theory and Experiment

Other well-known LENR theorists have implicated the weak force, including Peter Hagelstein, Tadahiko Mizuno, Yasuhiro Iwamura and Mitchell Swartz.  The project now, as with all scientific endeavor, is to match experimental evidence to theory.  The hope is that the electron capture/weak force theories will help guide new, even more successful experiments.  This process will also allow theorists to add refinement and new thinking to their models.  I am reminded of the two “laws” of physicists proposed by an early weak force pioneer:

  • Without experimentalists, theorists tend to drift.
  • Without theorists, experimentalists tend to falter.

(T.D. Lee, as quoted in “The Weak Force: From Fermi to Feynman” by A. Lesov).

Experimentalists have been reporting anomalous heat from metal hydrides since before Pons and Fleischmann.  But without a cogent theory, they have had to rely on ad hoc, trial and error methods.  Given this state of affairs, the progress made in the LENR field in the last twenty years is remarkable.  Perhaps we are now at the beginning of a new era in which theoretical models will guide a rapid transformation of the science.

Conclusion

Scientists have focused on the strong nuclear force due to the immense power that can be released from breaking the nuclear bond.  Less attention has been paid to the weak force, which causes transmutations and the release of energy in more subtle ways.  Recent theories that explain many of the phenomena observed in low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) implicate the weak force.  We are now at the stage where theory and experiment begin to complement each other to allow for the rapid transformation of the new science of LENR.

Journalistic disclosure:  David Niebauer is general legal counsel to Brillouin Energy Corp.
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

rnbc

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 495
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #14 em: 2013-01-10 12:23:40 »
Não percebi bem como é que os neutrões iriam ser libertados a baixa velocidade. Eles pelos vistos também não perceberam, senão aquilo funcionava ;)

Continuamos na onda da ficção cientifica. A fusão catalisada por muões anda bem mais perto de funcionar. A fusão a quente já funciona, é uma questão de escala, investimento, e materiais resistentes aos neutrões (se existirem?).

Antes de termos fusão a funcionar vamos ter painéis solares ao preço do papel de parede, portanto a relevância económica disto é zero. É a minha humilde opinião.

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #15 em: 2013-01-10 12:51:50 »
Diria que o termo certo não é libertação, mas sim produção de neutrões por captura electrónica [por parte dos núcleos dos átomos de hidrogénio]. Aparentemente o que as realizações experimentais estão a fazer é a aumentar a eficiência de tal reacção.

E sim, vou esperar e ver, não vá tudo ser mera ficção científica.
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

jeab

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 9270
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #16 em: 2013-01-10 14:46:50 »
Não percebi bem como é que os neutrões iriam ser libertados a baixa velocidade. Eles pelos vistos também não perceberam, senão aquilo funcionava ;)

Continuamos na onda da ficção cientifica. A fusão catalisada por muões anda bem mais perto de funcionar. A fusão a quente já funciona, é uma questão de escala, investimento, e materiais resistentes aos neutrões (se existirem?).

Antes de termos fusão a funcionar vamos ter painéis solares ao preço do papel de parede, portanto a relevância económica disto é zero. É a minha humilde opinião.


Há cerca de 2 anos e meio estive para formar uma Sociedade com uma seed da Universidade do Porto, que tinha desenvolvido uma pelicula que era introduzida nos vidros duplos e produzia electicidade. Fizémos estudos económicos e era viável a sua produção e comercialização.
Desisti quando tomei conhecimento que a Google estava a dispender cerca de $600M a desenvolver uma tinta para revestimento de edifícios, que gera electicidade.

Algo deste género:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=solar-paint-converts-light-to-elect-11-12-30

« Última modificação: 2013-01-10 14:47:30 por jeab »
O Socialismo acaba quando se acaba o dinheiro - Winston Churchill

Toda a vida política portuguesa pós 25 de Abril/74 está monopolizada pelos partidos políticos, liderados por carreiristas ambiciosos, medíocres e de integridade duvidosa.
Daí provém a mediocridade nacional!
O verdadeiro homem inteligente é aquele que parece ser um idiota na frente de um idiota que parece ser inteligente!

mgom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Mensagens: 150
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #17 em: 2013-01-19 14:16:36 »
Já existe.

E-CAT

http://ecat.com/
http://fusaoafrio.com/category/e-cat

O difícil é romper os interesses instalados de um sistema politico-económico baseado no petrodolar e os poderosos lobis da energia nuclear.
"Nunca discutas com um estúpido.  Te fará  descer ao seu nível e aí te ganhará  por experiência".

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #18 em: 2013-01-19 14:23:58 »
Já existe.

E-CAT

http://ecat.com/
http://fusaoafrio.com/category/e-cat

O difícil é romper os interesses instalados de um sistema politico-económico baseado no petrodolar e os poderosos lobis da energia nuclear.


Isso tem um aspecto um aspecto conspiracionista e de banha da cobra. Como se fosem os americanos os únicos a mandarem no mundo!  :D
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Fusão fria
« Responder #19 em: 2013-01-19 16:17:53 »
É obviamente banha da cobra, a teoria de que interesses não deixam avançar coisas que se imporiam pela sua própria economia é obviamente absurda. É tipo dizer que um motor a explosão não se consegue impor porque o lobby dos motores a vapor não o permite. Embora esse tipo de lobbying até possa acontecer, geralmente a sua acção dá-se por via de barreiras legais e não com uma qualquer nebulosa acção económica, porque o interesse dos utilizadores ultrapassa tudo o que não seja uma barreira efectiva.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com