Perreault-Bruce: Primer

Study document for the project "Perreault-Bruce": Bruce A. Perreault's US Patent 7,800,286 B2, "Alpha Fusion Electrical Energy Valve" (filed 4 May 2007, granted 21 September 2010), and his two-page leaflet "Direct Conversion from Atomic Decay to Electrical Power" (SonoMagnetics Alternative Energy Research Trust, Dorchester, New Hampshire). Verdicts come from arbiter.md; this primer adds no new verdicts.

Source tags: [read] from the project documents or earlier review files; [web] with URL; [memory] recalled, with confidence; [calc] computed in example.py.

Source note. Both documents were read in full (patent pages checked against page images). But neither contains a single measurement: no current, voltage, power, radon activity, dimensions or test result [read: deep reads]. Everything below is therefore about a design on paper plus the inventor's statements. Several of the inventor's later documents were found by the Investigator but not read by any reviewer: the 26-page "Radon Gas is the Ultimate Fuel" (only pp.1-2 read), "HF-box-lab-tests.pdf", the 2002 book "Harnessing Cosmic Energy", and about 30 other PDFs from his website radioionics.com (via the Wayback Machine). Any of these might contain the first measurements [read: arbiter.md, sites.md].

---

1. The idea in one paragraph

Radon is a radioactive gas that seeps out of the ground. It and its short-lived "daughter" atoms (polonium isotopes) shoot out alpha particles: fast helium nuclei carrying several million electron-volts of energy each. Perreault proposes a sealed glass or ceramic tube, pumped down to about a tenth of an atmosphere of air, with a radon-emitting radioactive material at its base that keeps the tube supplied with radon gas, and with a thin wire of germanium (or silicon, or lead sulfide) down the middle and a palladium or carbon cylinder around it. A high voltage, applied at first to "prime" the tube, pulls the radioactive atoms onto the wire. He says that alphas above a certain energy hitting the germanium cause an "alpha fusion" nuclear reaction that frees a flood of fast electrons; the wire also heats up and boils off more electrons; the electrons flow to the outer cylinder, and the tube delivers direct current. He says this gives far more current than earlier nuclear batteries (which he puts at "a millionth of a watt"), and that once primed it becomes "self-generating". The leaflet extends this to a chain of radioactive-cathode vacuum valves fed from an antenna and earth, which he links to the 1920s-30s "radiant energy" device of T. Henry Moray. The real physics underneath (radioactive decay, alpha-induced nuclear reactions, electrons knocked loose by alphas, nuclear batteries) is genuine. The question is where the energy comes from and how much there is.

---

2. What you need to know first

Atoms, nuclei and isotopes. A nucleus has Z protons and N neutrons; A = Z + N is the mass number. Isotopes of one element share Z and differ in N. Notation: Ge-72 (or ⁷²Ge) is germanium (Z = 32) with A = 72. Natural germanium is a mix of Ge-70, 72, 73, 74, 76 (Ge-72 is about 27%) [memory, medium]. Read: any modern-physics text, e.g. Taylor, Zafiratos and Dubson, Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers; Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics (Wiley, 1988).

Mass-energy and the Q-value. Einstein's E = mc² means a change in total rest mass is a change in energy. Nuclear masses are given in atomic mass units u (1 u = 1.6605×10⁻²⁷ kg, whose energy equivalent is 931.494 MeV). One MeV (mega-electron-volt) is 1.602×10⁻¹³ J. For a reaction A + B → C + D, the Q-value is Q = (m_A + m_B − m_C − m_D)c². If Q > 0 the reaction releases energy (exothermic); if Q < 0 it must be paid for out of the kinetic energy of the incoming particle (endothermic). This one number decides whether a reaction can be an energy source. Read: Krane, ch. 11 (Nuclear Reactions).

Radioactive decay and activity. An unstable nucleus decays with a fixed probability per second λ (the decay constant); the half-life is t½ = ln 2 / λ. Activity A = λN (decays per second, N = number of atoms). Units: the becquerel (Bq) = 1 decay/s; the curie (Ci) = 3.7×10¹⁰ Bq. Crucially, λ does not depend on temperature, pressure or chemistry (to within tiny corrections for electron-capture decays) [memory, high]. Read: Krane, ch. 6 and ch. 8 (Alpha Decay).

Alpha decay and the radon chain. An alpha particle (α) is a He-4 nucleus. Radon-222 (half-life 3.82 days) decays by α to Po-218, which decays by α to Pb-214, then by beta decays through Bi-214 to Po-214, which emits another α. The three alphas carry 5.49, 6.00 and 7.69 MeV [memory, high; the patent prints the same polonium values, read: p.4-5]. The thorium chain gives Rn-220 (6.29 MeV), Po-216 (6.78 MeV) and Po-212 (8.78 MeV).

How fast particles lose energy in matter. A charged particle slows by knocking electrons off atoms (ionisation). In a gas, each ion pair (one freed electron plus one positive ion) costs on average W ≈ 35 eV of the particle's energy [memory, high]. The fast electrons the alpha knocks loose are called delta rays. Because an alpha is about 7300 times heavier than an electron, it can give an electron at most T_max = 4(m_e/M_α)E, a few keV for MeV alphas (just as a bowling ball cannot make a ping-pong ball go faster than about twice its own speed). Read: Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement (chapters on interactions of radiation and on ionisation chambers).

The Coulomb barrier and tunnelling. Two positive nuclei repel. For an alpha (charge 2e) to touch a germanium nucleus (charge 32e) it must climb an electrostatic hill U = k Z₁Z₂e²/r, with ke² = 1.44 MeV·fm (1 fm = 10⁻¹⁵ m). Below the top of the hill it can only get through by quantum tunnelling, with a probability that falls off exponentially (the Gamow factor). This is the same physics that sets alpha-decay half-lives. Read: Krane, ch. 8.

Electron emission from surfaces. Electrons can leave a solid (a) when hit by fast particles (secondary emission, the basis of photomultiplier "dynodes"), or (b) when heated (thermionic emission). Thermionic current density follows the Richardson-Dushman law J = A_G T² exp(−W/kT), where T is absolute temperature, k is Boltzmann's constant (8.617×10⁻⁵ eV/K), W is the work function (energy needed to pull one electron out, a few eV) and A_G ≈ 120 A cm⁻² K⁻² [memory, high]. Read: any solid-state or vacuum-tube text; Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics.

Ionisation chambers and power. If you put two electrodes with a voltage V across a gas that is being ionised, the ions drift and a current I flows. The power that flows out of the supply to move that current is P = IV. Getting current is not the same as getting power: a current that flows only because you applied a voltage is powered by your supply. Read: Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics (power in circuits; work done by a field on a charge), and Knoll on ionisation chambers.

---

3. The textbook view

3.1 Nuclear batteries are real

A "nuclear battery" turns radioactive decay energy into electricity. The first was H. G. J. Moseley's 1913 radium cell, which charged itself to about 150 kV by collecting beta particles [memory, high]. The patent itself cites W. R. Corliss's 1964 government booklet Direct Conversion of Energy on such Sr-90 beta-current cells [read: p.4]. Betavoltaic cells (beta particles into a semiconductor diode) powered some 1970s heart pacemakers [memory, high]. Typical outputs are nanowatts to milliwatts. The hard limit is the decay power:

P_max = A × E_decay

where A is the activity (decays per second) and E_decay is the energy released per decay (joules). No arrangement of electrodes, voltages or materials can draw more than this from the source alone, and real converters get a small fraction of it.

3.2 Alpha-induced nuclear reactions are real

An alpha can enter a light nucleus and knock out a neutron. The classic case, which the patent cites, is

⁹Be + α → ¹²C + n, Q = +5.70 MeV [calc]

This is how James Chadwick found the neutron in 1932 and how radium-beryllium and polonium-beryllium neutron sources work [memory, high]. The patent also cites Enrico Fermi's US patent 2,206,634 for this kind of reaction [read: p.4]. It is a genuine nuclear reaction driven by decay alphas, and it releases energy (Q > 0). Whether it is called "fusion" is a matter of words: an alpha merges with a nucleus, so the word is defensible for this case.

Alpha reactions on germanium are also real and are measured with accelerators: ⁷²Ge(α,n)⁷⁵Se has been studied at 15 and 22.5 MeV [web: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01408425] and natural-germanium excitation functions from 9 to 28 MeV [web: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/6639619]. The arbiter found no measurement at 6.4-8.8 MeV, the patent's range [read: arbiter.md].

Whether a reaction releases or absorbs energy depends only on the masses: Q = (Σm_reactants − Σm_products)c². For an endothermic reaction (Q < 0) the incoming alpha must carry at least the threshold kinetic energy

T_th = |Q| (1 + m_α / M_target)

(the extra factor is there because momentum conservation keeps part of the alpha's energy as motion of the whole system; only the "centre-of-mass" part, T × M/(M + m_α), is available to make new mass).

3.3 Electrons knocked out by alphas are real, but modest

An alpha passing through germanium frees about one electron per few eV of its energy lost, all inside the material; only those near the surface escape. A 7.7 MeV alpha can give any single electron at most about 4.2 keV [calc]. These are the "delta rays" the patent names. They need no nuclear reaction: any solid does this.

3.4 Radon progeny plate out on negative electrodes

When Rn-222 decays, the new Po-218 atom is usually left positively charged. A negatively charged wire collects these ions, so the radioactivity concentrates on the wire. Radon monitors use this [memory, medium]. So the patent's idea that a negative high voltage "attracts and concentrates" the alpha emitters onto the corona wire [read: p.5] rests on real physics.

3.5 Gas rectifiers are real

A tube with a thin wire and a large cylinder, filled with mercury vapour or gas, conducts more easily one way than the other. Mercury-arc rectifiers converted AC to DC industrially for most of the twentieth century [memory, high].

---

4. Where the inventor departs

The exact point of departure is the sign of Q. The inventor's 6.06 MeV is the right magnitude of the right quantity (it matches the mass table to three figures [calc]), and the support calculation he hosts by Reginald Jaynes, Ph.D. E.E. reaches the same 6.06 MeV [read: research notes]. But it is the price of the reaction, not its yield. Everything that follows (high power, self-generation, heat feedback) depends on the reaction adding energy, and it subtracts energy instead. The analogy with beryllium breaks at exactly this point: same kind of reaction, opposite sign of Q.

Two things in the inventor's favour should be stated plainly. First, the threshold idea, the choice of Ge-72 as target and the list of which polonium alphas exceed it are real nuclear data, and the polonium energies he prints are the standard ones. Second, the patent hedges: it calls the equations "a few theoretical examples from whence the present invention obtains its energy" [read: p.5], and its only claim (claim 1) is for the apparatus (vessel, wire, collector, radon, pins), not for the reaction [read: p.6].

On the "self-generating" claim the patent is not consistent with itself. It calls the device "a self-generating electron source" [read: p.5], yet says "It is preferable that an electronic voltage source be used to keep the alpha fusion valve 8 in a constant energized state" [read: p.6], and that helium from the alphas builds up until the tube "eventually becomes electrically blocked" because "helium gas is electrically non-conductive" [read: p.5]. The patent's Fig. 2 block diagram, on the other hand, draws lines from the high-voltage capacitors 9 and the low-voltage capacitors 11 back to the step-up converter 7 [read: deep/US7800286, Fig. 2 page image]: the drawing's version of "self-generating", with the output feeding the supply that primes the tube. That closed loop is exactly why a test must meter all input and output power, with the loop closed and open.

The helium statement can be checked. Each alpha becomes one helium atom; one curie of Rn-222 with its two alpha daughters gives 3.7×10¹⁰ × 3 × 3.156×10⁷ s ≈ 3.5×10¹⁸ helium atoms per year, about 0.13 cm³ at standard temperature and pressure. Spread through a 100 cm³ vessel that is about 1.3×10⁻³ atm, roughly 1% of the 0.1 atm residual air [calc: example.py]. (QE's note gave 0.1 mm³; recomputing gives 0.13 cm³, still small.) Helium also ionises readily in an electrical discharge (it is used in gas-discharge lamps) [memory, high]. So the stated blocking mechanism is doubtful at curie scale; it is an unsourced assertion in the patent, recorded as such [read: arbiter.md, QE revision].

On Moray: the leaflet's evidence is a circuit Carl Betz drew from memory on 1 January 1954 after visiting Moray's lab, annotated by Betz as "only correct in a rough detail", with the radioactive material raised as Betz's own question ("This has a radio-active clay or bit of ore built in. Could it supply needed ions?") [read: leaflet p.1], plus a quotation from a 1927 affidavit in John E. Moray's book The Sea of Energy that the valve stones are "very very pure germanium mixed with various substances" [read: leaflet p.2]. Accounts of Moray's own demonstrations conflict: favourable accounts say investigators took the device apart and found no hidden power; sceptical accounts say he never let the inside be examined; the device was reportedly destroyed [web: https://www.billstclair.com/www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/moray.htm ; https://www.phils.au/thomas-henry-moray/; advocacy and wiki-type pages, not archival]. No instrumented independent test report was found. Perreault relays a Moray-family account of a prototype about 42 × 26 × 22 inches, under 60 lb, giving about 4 kW before witnesses [web: https://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/conftapes/archives/1999jul/600214.htm]; this is an interested-party account (the inventor, on a page selling his conference tape), with no instrumented record found. The same 1999 page reports that Perreault and his assistant Calvin Bahlmann "rediscover[ed] the Moray semiconductor material" and saw a star-shaped discharge ("star mode") between electrodes coated with it at certain frequencies, with photographs credited to International High Technology, and compares it with a Farnsworth fusor videotape by Richard Hull (January 1998) [web: same page]. It is an anomalous observation reported by interested parties, with no data given; it is kept here as their account. Betz's drawing also carries the note "Remember- 'It's the ions, not the electrons!' Moray", mentions three types of oscillator tubes and starting "with a static discharge like from a spark coil" [read: deep/Atomic-Decay; leaflet p.1]; the emphasis on ions fits the inventor's later turn to atmospheric ions (the 2018 plasma valve), though it is a 1954 recollection "only correct in a rough detail". One open dating question bears on the leaflet's germanium premise: the physicist asked whether "very very pure germanium" in a 1927 affidavit is unusual for that date, since high-purity germanium semiconductors date from the 1940s [memory, medium; not web-checked]. Two readings stay open: the wording may come from a later edition of the book that quotes the affidavit, or the affidavit may be as dated. It is a question, not a refutation [read: arbiter.md, QE revision, open question 7]. In his own 2014 report on the Moray radiation valve, Perreault concluded that "it was the circuitry, not the valve" that produced Moray's reported power [web via Investigator: Wayback radioionics.com; not re-read by the arbiter].

---

5. Worked example: where would the energy come from?

All numbers are reproduced by example.py (run: .venv/bin/python review/Perreault-Bruce/example.py). The example has two halves: (A) does the germanium reaction add energy? (B) how much energy does the radon itself supply, and how does that compare with what the bias supply puts in?

Part A. The Q-value of the patent's reaction

Atomic masses (standard tables, [memory, high]):

We use atomic masses (nucleus plus its electrons). Since Z balances (32 + 2 = 34 + 0), the electron masses cancel.

Step 1. Mass before: 71.92207583 + 4.00260325 = 75.92467908 u. Step 2. Mass after: 74.92252287 + 1.00866492 = 75.93118779 u. Step 3. Difference: before − after = −0.00650871 u. The products are heavier. Step 4. Q = −0.00650871 × 931.494 MeV = −6.063 MeV.

So 6.06 MeV of the alpha's kinetic energy is turned into mass; none is released. The patent's number is exactly this, with the sign dropped.

Step 5. Threshold: T_th = 6.063 × (1 + 4.0026/71.922) = 6.063 × 1.0557 = 6.40 MeV. Rn-220's 6.29 MeV alpha is below it.

Step 6. For contrast, Be-9 + α → C-12 + n: (9.01218307 + 4.00260325) − (12.00000000 + 1.00866492) = +0.00612140 u → Q = +5.70 MeV. Released. The two reactions the patent treats as the same kind have opposite signs.

Step 7. The most generous reading. Suppose every printed step happened, including a neutron finding a Ge-76 nucleus and the products decaying to As-75 and Se-77. The net is Ge-72 + α + Ge-76 → As-75 + Se-77, Q = +4.26 MeV [calc]. That is the most the whole chain could ever add per alpha that reacts, released mostly as gamma rays and in decays spread over months (Se-75 half-life about 120 days), not as electrons in the tube.

Step 8. How many alphas react at all? The barrier is 1.44 × (2 × 32) / 6.90 fm = 13.4 MeV (centre of mass), twice the alpha's energy. The tunnelling factor is about 1.8×10⁻²² at 6.4 MeV and 2.7×10⁻¹⁹ at 8.8 MeV, against about 8×10⁻⁴ for Be-9 at 5 MeV [calc]. The reviewers' estimates of the fraction of alphas that react range from 6×10⁻¹² to 1×10⁻⁷, depending on the assumed cross section [read: arbiter.md]. Even at the top of that range the reactions are negligible.

Part B. The radon energy budget

Step 1. Energy per Rn-222 chain: the three alphas carry 5.490 + 6.002 + 7.687 = 19.18 MeV (betas ignored). Step 2. One curie in equilibrium: P = 3.7×10¹⁰ s⁻¹ × 19.18 MeV × 1.602×10⁻¹³ J/MeV = 0.114 W. That is the ceiling per curie, in all forms (mostly heat). Step 3. How much radon is a curie? λ = ln 2 / (3.8235 × 86400 s) = 2.10×10⁻⁶ s⁻¹; N = A/λ = 1.76×10¹⁶ atoms; mass = N × 222 / 6.022×10²³ = 6.5 micrograms. Step 4. A hypothetical upper scale. The patent says the cavity "is evacuated of air at a low pressure of about 1/10th of an atmosphere" [read: p.6]; that is the residual air pressure, not a radon fill. The patent's radon comes from "radon gas emissive radioactive material 4" placed "at the base inside vessel 1", with "a natural alpha source" preferred [read: p.5]; it gives no activity for that material. So ask a hypothetical question: if a 100 cm³ vessel held pure radon at that 1/10 atm pressure, n = PV/RT = 4.2×10⁻⁴ mol = 0.092 g = about 14,000 Ci, about 1.6 kW of decay heat and a lethal radiation source [calc]. This is not the patent's design (an earlier version of this primer wrongly attributed it to claim 1(c); corrected after QE). The real inventory is set by the emanating material, which in any practical device would be far smaller. The 0.114 W per curie ceiling still applies, using the activity of the radon (in equilibrium with its parent) in the vessel. Step 5. Current. If all the alpha energy ionised gas, the ion pairs per second per curie would be 3.7×10¹⁰ × 19.18×10⁶ eV / 35 eV = 2.0×10¹⁶, a saturation current of 2.0×10¹⁶ × 1.602×10⁻¹⁹ C = 3.25 mA. Step 6. That sounds large for a nuclear battery. But to collect it the patent applies 1000 V. The supply then delivers P = IV = 3.25 mA × 1000 V = 3.25 W, which is 29 times the source's entire decay power. Any "high current" seen in such a tube under bias is current the supply is pushing; the most the radon can add is 0.114 W per curie. Step 7. Scale for a small source: 1 µW needs about 9 µCi of Rn-222 in equilibrium with its daughters (about 22 µCi if only Po-214's alpha is counted, the mathematician's basis) [calc; read: arbiter.md].

What the example shows

The energy can only come from the radon's decay (at most 0.114 W per curie) or from the external supply. The germanium reaction takes energy away, and so rarely that it does not matter either way. A radon-fed tube giving a small current is ordinary physics; a tube giving more power than its decay power is ruled out by the energy budget.

Bonus: a units slip in "Radon Gas is the Ultimate Fuel"

One gram of Rn-222 with its two short-lived alpha daughters releases 8.34×10⁹ J = 1.99×10⁹ cal = 7.9×10⁶ BTU [calc]. The inventor's 1.5×10⁹ cal/g is the right order. But 1.5×10⁹ cal = 5.95×10⁶ BTU, and the paper prints "5,944 BTUs per gram", a factor of 1000 low [read: Investigator note; calc]. The contrarian also found the paper's comparison with fission reversed: per pound, fission fuel releases about 13 times more than the radon figure, not 13.5 times less [read: arbiter.md].

---

6. Evidence table

No measurement by the inventor or anyone else on this device is on record [read: arbiter.md].

Related work kept in the record [read: sites.md, arbiter.md]: nine NASA Langley "Nuclear Thermionic Avalanche Cell" patents (Sang H. Choi et al.) cite this patent; published NTAC results found are designs and projections, not hardware measurements [web: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210024712]. A Chinese radon-enrichment alpha battery patent (CN113539542B, PLA Rocket Force University of Engineering) also cites it, as do R. W. Moses (US20220108814A1) and D. Weber (US20100062288A1). Citation as prior art shows others pursue radon or alpha secondary-electron cells with conventional physics; it does not corroborate "alpha fusion". Abbood and Ebrahiem (2020, Ibn Al-Haitham J.) compute alpha-induced cross sections on germanium from evaluated data libraries; the abstract states no conclusion about the patent or about (α,n) [web: https://jih.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/j/article/view/2374].

---

7. What a learner should take away

What is solid. - Radon and its polonium daughters really emit 5.5-8.8 MeV alphas, and the patent's energy list is correct. - Alpha particles really do drive nuclear reactions (Be-9 neutron sources; measured Ge(α,n) at higher energies), and the Ge-72 threshold idea is real nuclear data. - Alphas really do knock electrons out of any surface; radon daughters really do plate out on a negative wire; gas tubes really do rectify. - A radon-fed alpha cell producing microwatts is ordinary physics.

What is wrong, and why the mistake is instructive. - The sign of Q. The inventor (and the Jaynes calculation he hosts) found the right magnitude, 6.06 MeV, and read it as a gain when it is a cost. This is the single most useful lesson here: before asking whether a nuclear reaction "happens", compute Q from the mass table. A reaction with Q < 0 can never be a fuel. - An analogy across a sign change. Be-9 + α releases 5.7 MeV; Ge-72 + α absorbs 6.1 MeV. Same reaction type, opposite energy. Analogies have to be checked number by number. - Current is not power. A biased gas tube can pass milliamps, but at 1000 V the supply is doing about 29 times more work than the radon can. Any test of such a device has to measure input power as carefully as output power. - Temperature does not change decay rates, so heating a cathode cannot make more alphas arrive. A "positive feedback" loop needs a mechanism with gain, not only a story. - "Exponential" stage-by-stage multiplication needs energy fed into every stage. A photomultiplier multiplies electrons, but its high-voltage supply pays for every one of them.

What is genuinely open. - The actual (α,n) rate on Ge-72 and Ge-74 at 6.4-8.8 MeV: no measurement found. It cannot rescue the energy budget, but it is a real gap in data, and a gamma spectrum of a germanium electrode after radon exposure (looking for Se-75's 136 and 265 keV lines) would measure it. - The net power of a biased radon corona cell of this geometry with a proper control: never measured. Because the patent's radon comes from a long-lived emanating material (for example radium-226, half-life about 1600 years [memory, high]), the radon is continuously replenished and a genuine radon-powered output would not fade in days. The right control removes or replaces the emanating material, or compares sources of matched activity. A fade with the 3.82-day radon half-life is a test only if radon is sealed in with no parent material [read: arbiter.md, QE revision]. - Whether the inventor's unread documents ("HF-box-lab-tests.pdf", the full radon paper, the 2002 book) contain any measurement. - Where the record goes silent: the patent lapsed on 21 September 2014 for an unpaid maintenance fee and has no foreign family; "Alpha Fusion Energy Corporation" (website launched December 2012) left no captured proposal and no registry entry was found; the inventor's explanation moved from alpha fusion (2007-2010) to gamma "charge multiplication" (2014), an atmospheric "plasma valve" with withheld proprietary electrodes and a royalty request (2018), and electrets (2022), with no data at any stage [read: arbiter.md]. Competing explanations the arbiter set out: the mechanism did not give power and he moved on (supported by his own 2014 conclusion that Moray's power came from the circuitry); funding or commercial failure; rebranding under unregistered trade names; secrecy or suppression (not shown by any record, not excluded either; Google showed unexplained Lumen legal-removal notices on one query). Records that would decide: New Hampshire Secretary of State filings, the USPTO file wrapper for application 11/744,769, the unread documents. - What Moray's device actually did. Accounts conflict and no instrumented record was found.

---

8. Check yourself

1. Using the masses Ge-74 = 73.92117776 u, He-4 = 4.00260325 u, Se-77 = 76.91991415 u, n = 1.00866492 u, find Q for ⁷⁴Ge(α,n)⁷⁷Se and the lab threshold. Does this help the inventor?
2. The patent says Rn-220's 6.29 MeV alpha can drive the Ge-72 reaction because 6.29 > 6.06. What did it leave out?
3. A radon tube at 1000 V passes 2 mA. Someone says "2 mA from a nuclear battery is a thousand times better than the microamp cells in the literature". What must you measure before you believe this is power from the radon?
4. Why can heating the germanium wire not raise the number of alpha particles striking it?
5. Describe one cheap experiment that would show whether any Ge-72(α,n) reactions happen in the tube at all.

---

9. Further reading

Mainstream. - K. S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics (Wiley, 1988): alpha decay (ch. 8), nuclear reactions and Q-values (ch. 11). - G. F. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement (Wiley): interactions of charged particles with matter; ionisation chambers. - Taylor, Zafiratos and Dubson, Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers: nuclei, binding energy, radioactivity. - W. R. Corliss, Direct Conversion of Energy (US Government Printing Office, 1964), pp. 28-29: cited by the patent on beta-current cells [read: p.4]. - Data: the Atomic Mass Evaluation (AME) tables and the IAEA EXFOR database of measured reaction cross sections (search "Ge-72(a,n)Se-75"). - Related work: NASA "Nuclear Thermionic Avalanche Cell" reports [web: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210024712].

The inventor's own works [read: sites.md]. - B. A. Perreault, US Patent 7,800,286 B2, "Alpha Fusion Electrical Energy Valve" (2010) [in project folder]. - B. A. Perreault, "Direct Conversion from Atomic Decay to Electrical Power" (leaflet, SonoMagnetics Alternative Energy Research Trust) [in project folder]. The leaflet says "U.S. Patent Filed on May 07, 2007" and that its circuit "is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,800,286" [read: leaflet pp.1-2]. The patent was filed on 4 May 2007 [read: patent p.1], three days earlier, and no continuation application or other family member is on record [web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7800286B2/en, via Investigator], so "continuation" is used informally. - B. A. Perreault, Harnessing Cosmic Energy (NuEnergy, 2002, ISBN 1-930216-01-7) [web: https://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/books/480002.htm]; not obtained. Its listed contents include a chapter "My Radiant Energy Research (now includes details on how to obtain author's radon emissive material)", which bears on what the patent's material 4 was in practice. - 1998 article, Exotic Research Report v2 n2 [web: https://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/report/articles/v2n2art/radiant.htm]. The earliest dated statement of the idea found; it speaks of "alpha fission and thermoelectric effects", where the 2007 patent says "alpha fusion". It also states, as the inventor's claim, that Moray's valve was germanium-based and that a first cousin of Moray (Fletcher) worked at Bell Labs. The arbiter notes passages resembling statements attributed to Tesla without quotation marks. - "Moray Direct Conversion Radiation Valve" final report (2014); "Radon Gas is the Ultimate Fuel"; "Perreault Plasma Valve" and "Plasma Battery" (2018); "HF-box-lab-tests.pdf" (radioionics.com, via the Wayback Machine). - The inventor's own lineage (2018) of "plasma field discharge" devices, as he lists it: Coler (British Government report), Hendershot, Hubbard, Moray, Plauson US 1,540,998, Prentice CA 253,765 (fifty 60 W lamps from 500 W input, as he reports it), Britten US 1,826,727, Chernetski, Correa, and Gray US 3,890,548 / 4,595,975 / 4,661,747 [web via Investigator: Wayback radioionics.com]. These are related work; the characterisations are his. - R. Jaynes, "Calculations for 'Alpha Fusion Electrical Energy Valve'" (hosted by the inventor). - J. E. Moray, The Sea of Energy (5th edition), for the Moray background the leaflet relies on.

---

Answers

1. Mass before = 73.92117776 + 4.00260325 = 77.92378101 u; after = 76.91991415 + 1.00866492 = 77.92857907 u; difference −0.00479806 u; Q = −4.47 MeV; threshold = 4.47 × (1 + 4.0026/73.921) = 4.71 MeV [calc]. It lowers the threshold (so the patent's "6.06 MeV" is a property of Ge-72 only, not of natural germanium), but the reaction still costs energy. It does not help the energy claim.
2. Two things: the recoil correction (the alpha must carry 6.40 MeV, not 6.06, because part of its energy stays as motion of the system), so Rn-220 at 6.29 MeV is below threshold; and the sign, since even above threshold the reaction absorbs 6.06 MeV.
3. The power drawn from the 1000 V supply (here 2 W) and the net power delivered to a load, with and without the radon source (a control with the emanating material removed or replaced, or sources of matched activity). With the patent's emanating material in place the radon is replenished, so a real effect would not fade in days; only if radon were sealed in with no parent would the net effect fade with the 3.82-day half-life. Either way the radon can supply at most 0.114 W per curie.
4. The number of alphas per second equals the activity, λN, and λ is fixed by nuclear physics, not by temperature. Heating the wire changes neither how many radon/polonium atoms decay nor where the alphas go.
5. Expose a germanium electrode to a radon source for days to weeks, then take a gamma-ray spectrum with a germanium or sodium-iodide detector and look for Se-75's 136 and 265 keV lines (half-life about 120 days). Their strength gives the number of reactions. Compare with an unexposed control electrode.