FUSION 5 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL FUSION AND SELF-COLLIDING BEAM IS THAT THE FORMER ^ HAS BACKGROUND PLASMA" ALL OVER THE REACTOR WOLUNE; AND THE LATTER MAS IN THE FORNER, BEAMS NEAT THE BACKGROUND PLASMA AND, IN TURN, NO SUCH PLASMA. THE SO HEATED IONS (FUEL) COLLIDE RANDOMLY AND FUSE. IN SELFGlossary LLIDER, THE BEAMS ARE THE FUEL IONS WHICH ARE AIMED AT EACH OTHER TO COLLIDE HEAD-ON AND FUSE. Self-collider. Self-colliding beam is a particle beam that is magnetically TH PROCESS made to turn around and collide head-on, or nearly head-on, with itself. Its first OF HEATING experimental demonstration is found in Ref. 1 18 CIRCUNVENTED, beam Self-colliding orbits is an assemble of particle orbits that are made to form around and undergo multiple self-collisions at all crossing angles by virtue of their precession in a magnetic field gradient. The term originates with Ernest Currant and first appeared in "Principles of Self-Colliding Orbits and its Application to x-x and μ-μ collisions"2. Its application to fusion is proposed in Ref. 3 and experimental observations reported in Refs. 4, 5 and 6. Magnetic Confinements: Non-Focusing Mirror, Weak and The strength of magnetic focusing action on a single particle is measured by The magnetic field, B2(n), shapes and the self-colliding orbits for various cases are shown in Figure 4. Positive magnetic field gradient, dB/dr > 0, means axial defocusing; dB/dr < 0 means axial focusing action. Strong focused requires alternate gradient (defocusing - focusing) action for single particle stability. The weak-focused self-colliding orbit configuration in Fig. 1(B) is referred to as migma-plasma or, simply, migma (Greek for mixture). Stabilization of plasma by electron oscillations was reported in Ref. 6 and discussed in Appendix E. "Experimental Studies Supporting The Transmission R.T. BUSH and R. D. EAGLETON Physics Department California State Polytechnic University 3801 West temple Avenue, Pomona, CA, USA ABSTRACT: Part 13 presented evidence in support of Bush's TRM Model1,2,4 and, in particular, his hypothesis of "alkali-hydrogen fusion" in a lattice as a prototype for cold fusion with both light and heavy water2. In Part II preliminary evidence is presented for x-ray emission accompanying both the heavy and light water excess heat effects in the form of both characteristic x-rays and bremmstrahlung. These studies had the unsatisfactory feature of low signal-to-noise, but the satisfactory features of reasonable statistics and excellent correlation. An interesting feature was that x-ray emission decreased somewhat after a cell was switched off, but then spiked upward to decay exponentially to the background level over a period of days. This emission was apparently associated with the desorption of hydrogen from the cathode. With the cell turned off it was also possible to study xray emission accompanying the thermal desorption of hydrogen by changing the cell temperature and studying x-ray emission as a function of cathode surface temperature. When this effect of x-rays accompanying desorption was factored in, Bush's TRM Model1,2,4 appears to account for the correlation between x-ray emission and excess power. 1. Introduction: : Copious amounts of radiation, either in the form of neutrons or radiation, have not been reported in the case of either heavy water cold fusion cells (Fleischmann-Pons5) or light water cold fusion cells (Mills), and this has been a puzzle. Bush poi out that his TRM Model incorporating the hypothesis of “alkali-hydrogen fusion” in a lattice offers a solution to this puzzle: Thus, if much, or all, of the excitation energy goes into the kinetic energy of the product particle; e.g. calcium nucleus in the case of a potassium nucleus adding a proton at, or just inside, the surface of a nickel lattice, one would expect radiation in the form of characteristic x-rays and bremmstrahlung, but no neutrons or gamma rays, which are far more penetrating. So, where are the xrays? Tantalizing evidence has been achieved by researchers such as Miles and Ben Bush7, who have had one instance in which a dental film placed inside a heavy water cell showed fogging in a case in which the cell was also known to be evidencing excess heat. In addition, Srinivasan has seen evidence of extraordinary electron fluxes in cases of palladium and titanium loaded with either deuterium or hydrogen electrolytically or by gas-loading. It was primarily private communications from these two groups that encouraged Bush to look for x-rays with cells designed by Bush and Eagleton and built by Eagleton. A limitation was that only one scintillation counter was available. Additionally, the emission was meager enough that it would not fog dental film positioned against the outer Styrofoam surfaces even for many days. However, by placing a scintillation tube on top of the cell, or as close as possible along side at the same height as the cathode (This orientation usually gave he best counting rates.) it was possible to attain data in support of the existence of both characteristic x-rays and bremmstrahlung and, also, to see two basic x-ray effects: 1. Qualitative and quantitative correlation of x-ray emission with excess power. 2. Qualitative and quantitative correlation of x-ray emission associated with the desorption of hydrogen from the cathode. The weight of the evidence provides support for Bush's three dimensional TRM Model1,2,4 (Transmission Resonance Model). An unsatisfactory feature of these preliminary studies was the low signal-to-noise ratio of the data, which meant that one must often count for long periods of time (hours or days). (This aspect is apparently consistent with those studies in which previous experimentalists anticipated seeing a readily-measurable effect.) However, a significant ameliorating feature was that, whereas characteristic x-rays required days of counting and then about half that of background subtraction at relatively low excess power to see, correlations of x-ray emission with excess power could be observed for cases in which each x-ray data point required only about fifteen minutes, provided that the counts from many channels of a multi-channel analyzer were added together to establish a single data point. Thus, the sum of the counts resulting from bremmstrahlung and numerous characteristic x-rays was employed to establish a single data point. This enabled the pattern of x-ray data points to be correlated either qualitatively, or quantitatively, with the excess power data achieved with the calorimeter. The result was that poor signal-to-noise was considerably compensated by reasonable statistics and a high correlation resulting in a high level of confidence in the results. Reproducibility also appeared to be good. 2. Apparatus: The electrolytic cell (light water case), calorimeter, and computerized data acquisition system were described in Part 13. For the heavy water cell the anode-cathode configuration (platinum wire anodepalladium cathode) of the cell was close to that of Fleischmann-Pons5. X-ray measurements were performed using a Bicron 1.5 inch diameter Nal scintillation detector. An 811-3 multichannel analyzer PC board and software by Nucleus, Inc. of Oa1: Ridge, Tennessee were employed by Bush for x-ray counting. 3. Experiments with a Heavy Water Cell (Cell 58): The electrolytic cell chosen for the initial studies attempting to correlate x-ray emission and excess heat, cell 58, had a cathode consisting of a (77% Pd/23% Ag)-alloy fabricated by Storms of Los Alamos. The platinum wire anode was wrapped uniformly around this thin flat cathode ala Takahashi. It took about 16 days of charging to produce any excess heat, with much current ramping along the way. Approximately 3 W was the highest excess power observed. (Cathode surface area: 4 cm2. An unusual feature was that the electrolyte was 0.85M LIOD.) Discovery of x-ray emission-vs.-current density fine structure mirroring that for excess power vs. current density and predicted by Bush's TRM Model. Fig. 1 portrays this situation for which calorimetric data and xray data were taken simultaneously, and show a strong correlation based upon the similarity of the typical “hill-and-valley" curve familiar from Bush's TRM Model. If the charged product nucleus is given kinetic energy, and/or if electrons present are given some of the excess energy, x-rays should be produced due to the deceleration of the charges. Data points were the result of summing the results of a large number of energy channels. Characteristic x-ray lines were observed: Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show apparent characteristic x-ray lines associated with platinum: Since the anode is of Pt, and part of this plates onto the cathode during electrolysis, this should not be surprising. Fig. 2 shows a characteristic Pt x-ray line centered at about channel 316 corresponding closely to the known energy of 75.6 keV. [Correspondence of the energies and channels was established via a calibration curve employing characteristic lines for such sources as Cs137 (32 keV x-ray line) and Co57 (122keV line).] Fig. 3 shows an apparent doublet of Pt x-ray lines centered at approximately the channels 272 and 280, corresponding, respectively, to the known Pt x-ray line energies of 65.1 keV and 66.8 keV. In all three cases note the reasonable Gaussian line shape. Fig. 4 is quite interesting: Apparent characteristic palladium xray lines centered at approximately channels 90,100, and 105 corresponding, respectively, to the known energies of about 21.1 keV, 23.8 keV, and 24.3 keV. Characteristic lines identified as those of silver are shown centered at channels 93, 107, and 109, corresponding, respectively, to the known Ag lines of 22.1 keV, 25.0 keV, and 25.5 keV. In addition, other lines in Fig. 4 have been identified as being associated with plausible typical impurities of Pd and Pt: A ruthenium peak is seen about 19.2 keV, and a rhodium peak is centered at about channel 87 corresponding to the known energy of about 20.1 keV. Apparently, then, the excess heat effect can be employed in conjunction with an xray counter and multi-channel analyzer to determine the presence of major metal impurities. Also, the presence of the x-rays (keV range) provides evidence of nuclear processes. With regard to x-rays potentially associated with energetic electrons, two possibilities suggest themselves: These electrons may result from internal conversion. Also, perhaps these are the electrons effecting the nuclear reaction via shielding, as in the case of the a "s-electrons” suggested by Bush2. After cell 58 was turned off, the x-ray counting rate initially decreased several percent for about a day and then spiked up in the time of about a day to a peak about 12% higher than when the cell was operating. The counting rate then decayed exponentially over a period of about nine days to the apparent background level later established by removing the cathode from the cell. This behavior is seen from Fig. 5 and apparently is a different xray emission effect in that it is associated with the desorption of the deuterons from the cathode. Based upon the finding of x-rays with a switched-off cell, Bush realized the possibility of looking for temperature-dependent x-ray emission peaks (sum of counts from large number of different channels) associated with the thermal desorption of deuterons. Fig. 6 shows that the first attempt at this was reasonably successful. The solid curve is based upon Bush's TRM Model. The latter predicts this temperature dependence in the same manner that it predicts the temperature dependence for neutron emission in the case of the thermal desorption of deuterons; e.g. recall the well known -30 C line established for neutron emission. Thus, with an electrolytic cell in which the cell, and thus cathode, can be heated by heating the bath, x-ray, and probably neutron, temperature-dependent studies can be conducted by simply switching off the current as an alternative to more "conventional" calorimetric experiments. With reference to Fig. 6, it is absolutely mind-boggling that minor temperature changes of the cathode, e.g. going from 32C to 23.4C in this case, can result in a major increase in the real x-ray intensity. |