Overturned scientific explanation may be good news for nuclear fusion; PB11 has 2 high energy alphas

[bananas]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-overturned-scientific-explanation-good-news.html

Overturned scientific explanation may be good news for nuclear fusion
April 4, 2011

Flat out wrong. That’s what a team of Duke researchers has discovered, much to its surprise, about a long-accepted explanation of how nuclei collide to produce charged particles for electricity – a process receiving intense interest lately from scientists, entrepreneurs and policy makers in the wake of Japan’s nuclear crisis.

Plasma physicists have been trying for 25 years to create electricity from the fusion of boron and hydrogen atoms.

The new study says their efforts have been based on a misunderstanding of the underlying physics – although the error could end up actually helping those looking to fusion energy as an alternative energy source.

<snip>

The unexpected finding appears to confirm a long-forgotten observation from physicists at Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, England. In 1936, they made crude, but apparently correct, estimates of the two higher-energy alphas.

<snip>

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/research-shows-that-p-b11-aneutronic.html

April 10, 2011
Research shows that P-B11 Aneutronic fusion will work better than previously thought

Proton boron aneutronic nuclear fusion research shows that the reaction will produce two usable high energy alphas and not one. Paper - Understanding the 11B(p,a)aa reaction at the 0.675 MeV resonance

This means that the P-b11 reaction will have a higher percentage of energy that is directly convertible into electricity than previously believed.

<snip>

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2996

P-B11 has 2 high energy alphas, not 1
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:56 pm

---
Weller and his colleagues took a fresh look at the hydrogen-boron reaction at the Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory (TUNL) on Duke’s campus. They expected to confirm the accepted wisdom that a collision of one hydrogen particle and one boron-11 particle produces a single high-energy alpha particle -- which produces electricity well – and two lower energy alphas, which are less useful for generating electricity.

Instead, the team found the collision yields two high-energy alphas, which shoot off at an angle of 155 degrees, along with one lower-energy alpha. The existence of this second high-energy alpha could mean these kinds of fusion systems are able to produce much more electricity than expected, says Duke nuclear physicist and study co-author Mohammad Ahmed. The results appear online in Physics Letters B.

The unexpected finding appears to confirm a long-forgotten observation from physicists at Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, England. In 1936, they made crude, but apparently correct, estimates of the two higher-energy alphas.
---

excerpted from an article at physorg

Here's the paper (pdf): http://research.duke.edu/sites/default/files/tri-alpha-paper.pdf

Understanding the 11B(p,a)aa reaction at the 0.675 MeV resonance

Abstract
The 11B(p,a)aa reaction at energies between 200 keV and a few MeV has a very long history, dating
back to studies by Lord Rutherford and Dee and Gilbert in the 1930s. It is shown that the modern view of
this reaction, established in 1987, is incorrect. This model viewed the reaction as a two-step process with
a primary high energy α-particle having ℓ = 1 going to the first excited state of 8Be, with the subsequent
emission of two low energy secondary α-particles. We have found that an earlier result (1969) which
showed that the primary α-particle must have ℓ = 3 does, as originally noted, account for the data. Our
simulations show that this view leads to the prediction of two high energy α-particles (of almost equal
energy), as originally proposed in 1936, one being the primary α-particle and the other a secondary
α-particle. Coincidence data verify the existence of these two high energy α-particles. The implications
of this result on astrophysics and fusion energy production are noted.

<snip>

[drm604]

1. Interesting.

Definitely not my field, so I can't really judge, but if what they seem to be saying pans out this could be revolutionary. However, how many times has the word "revolutionary" been used and nothing came of it?

Time will tell. I hope this leads to something big.