Electron-assisted fusion

Let say alpha particle overcomed Coulomb repulsion between two protons - this is gigantic force (MeV-scale), doing it with magnetic: Lorentz force is not realistic, would require gigantic velocities and magnetic fields ... in contrast, alpha particle has zero spin and nearly no magnetic field - what is well confirmed e.g. in energy spectrum of helium.

Topological reasons can be used e.g. for charge/spin quantization, but atomic scale is much too large.

Regarding connection between EM and mass, again physics disagrees: there are massive particles without EM (pi0, neutrino), or EM without mass: photon.

ps. I have finally found some downloadable Gryzinski's CF paper "Theory of electron catalyzed fusion in Pd lattice": https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.40688

His lecture: http://www.gryzinski.com/ramkiang.html

Hot fusion overview paper from his group: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/…n___energy_for_future.pdf

One (top)/two(bottom) electron trajectories for molecular bonds from his book, top-left is the one which could allow for fusion: with electron traveling between two nuclei, screening their Coulomb repulsion. In the paper above he writes that Pd lattice helps stabilizing such trajectories:

If you want to convince mainstream to LENR, introducing some crazy new unrelated physics is the last way - only further reducing credibility.

In contrast, Gryzinski just repairs Bohr model - by using Bohr-Sommerfeld degenerated to l=0 (well known e.g. for hydrogen), also adding missing classical analogue of well known spin-orbit interaction - only using mainstream physics, and confirming predictions of his model with experiment in dozens of peer-reviewed papers over a few decades:

https://scholar.google.pl/scho…t=0%2C5&q=gryzinski&btnG=

While mainstream physicists hold together, those outside usually go own ways - incompatible with others ... if you want to convince mainstream to LENR, Gryzinski is the only way - just repairing Bohr, no magical new concepts, shown agreement with experiments (also quantitative).

This is analogous to Bohr model, which gets energy levels right. Gryzinski focuses on more sophisticated problems (e.g. scattering, screening coefficients, diamagnetic constant, multielectron atoms, molecular bonds, solid state physics, Stark effect ...) in his peer-reviewed papers, but here is some separate one

about hydrogen: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0lxoxllldeyv14/hydrogen.pdf

and helium: https://www.dropbox.com/s/r31tg6fu254jtwu/helium.pdf

If by oxidation energy you mean of removing electron, it is popularly called ionization energy and for hydrogen atom it is R/n^2.

In Bohr you get the same energy as in Schrodinger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

Also in Bohr-Sommerfeld, which l=0 degeneration is basic model of Gryzinski, he has spin-orbit, Stark effect corrections.

Ten digits sounds like hyperfine correction: using also magnetic dipole moment of nucleus.

I haven't seen this kind of terms, numerical calculation was much more difficult in his times, but magnetic dipole of nucleus can be added there.

And generally this is not my field of research - I can help in recreating his work, but don't feel competent to do it alone.

ps. Talking about 10 digit energy accuracy - hyperfine level, the basic question to understand is why He3 and He4 behave so different - due to tiny difference of magnetic dipole moment of nucleus? Gryzinski comments it from perspective of his model in https://www.dropbox.com/s/r31tg6fu254jtwu/helium.pdf

The only hope for LENR is electron assistance - that electron remains localized between the two nuclei to screen Coulomb repulsion, down to femtometer scale distance.

But mainstream forbids such localization - requiring to spread probability cloud of this electron to ~5 orders of magnitude larger wavefunction.

The main counter-argument for such localization is Bell-theorem: seen as forbidding local realism, making controversial considerations of some hidden state behind the wavefunction.

But isn't Lagrangian formalism e.g. in EM, GR, Standard Model local realistic? Assumption of existence of some field is realism, it uses only values/derivatives, there is finite propagation e.g. in Feynman diagram - locality.

So should e.g. Standard Model particle physicists care about Bell theorem - basically saying that their work makes no sense?

I believe I have a final blow to Bell theorem - such inequalities are also violated in classical Ising model: https://physics.stackexchange.…zmann-path-ensemble-ising

Quantum mechanics is Feynman path ensemble (in time), Ising model is its Wick-rotated analogue: Boltzmann sequence ensemble (in space) - it is not the same (the latter has no interference), but they share many common features, like localization property (e.g. in rho~sin^2 in [0,1] instead of rho=1 of standard diffusion), Born rule, Bell violation.

And it also points the problem of Bell theorem - which assumes asymmetric locality (emphasizing past -> future direction), while Ising model has symmetric (P) locality, physics is fundamentally CPT symmetric - so maybe we should also solve its equations in symmetric way like through the least action principle, or path/diagrams ensembles, like in this nice animation:

So in Ising model (as in MERW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_Entropy_Random_Walk ), for E_uv energy of interaction between u and v neighboring spins or something more general, define M_uv = exp(-beta E_uv) as transition matrix and find its dominant eigenvalue/vector: M psi = lambda psi for maximal |lambda|. Now it is easy to find (e.g. derived here) that probability distribution of one and two neighboring values inside such sequence are:

Pr(u) = (psi_u)^2
Pr(u,v) = psi_u (M_uv / lambda) psi_v

The former resembles QM Born rule, the latter TSVF – the two ending psi come from propagators from both infinities as M^p ~ lambda^p psi psi^T for unique dominant eigenvalue thanks to Frobenius-Perron theorem. We nicely see this Born rule coming from symmetry here: spatial in Ising, time in QM.

Having Ising-like models as spatial realization of Boltzmann path integrals getting Born rule from symmetry, maybe we could construct Bell violation example with it?

Here is MERW construction (page 9 here) for violation of Mermin’s Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 inequality for 3 binary variables ABC, intuitively “tossing 3 coins, at least 2 are equal” (e.g. here is QM violation) :

From Ising perspective, we need 1D lattice of 3 spins with constraints – allowing neighbors only accordingly to blue edges in above diagram, or some other e.g. just forbidding |000> and |111>.

Measurement of AB spins is defect in this lattice as above – fixing only the measured values. Assuming uniform probability distribution among all possible sequences, the red boxes have correspondingly 1/10, 4/10, 4/10, 1/10 probabilities – leading to Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 0.6 violation.

We can also take it further to build Wick-rotated quantum computers in Ising model: https://physics.stackexchange.…d-with-ising-like-systems

Quote from Wyttenbach

Thus we can pretty much exclude that the coulomb barrier plays any role in cold fusion.

To bring two positive charges to r distance, we need to invest kqQ/r energy (Coulomb), what for protons and r=3fm nuclear force distance is ~500keV.

Where do you want to get this enormous energy from???

Thermal energy in 1000K is just ~0.1eV.

The only realistic way to get these two nuclei together in ~1000K is putting electron between them, e.g. "p----e----p" initial static situation would electromagnetically collapse into a point.
In reality this electron should/could be dynamic - discussion in this thread.

Just wow, electromagnetism is "an outdated theory" ... what more? Earth is flat and vaccines are bad? And then you wonder why people see LENR as another freak show...

If you want LENR to be treated seriously, what becomes less and less possible, you cannot just close in your world of some made up physics, but need to work within what is confirmed.

Sure there might be needed some tiny corrections in EM, but definitely not some magical allowance for ignoring Coulomb repulsion.

And generally I am not even trying to leave this single thread here - please let it be an oasis of real physics in this forum, come only if you want to discuss the topic in title - not your made up physics.

But neutron is much further - adding weak/strong interactions, QCD, nuclear forces holding protons together in nucleus against Coulomb - which is still necessary e.g. in droplet nucleus model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…mass_formula#Coulomb_term

These additional forces start acting in ~fm distance, long range interactions are mainly EM - requiring investing huge energy e.g. ~500keV to take two protons to 3fm distance - such that nuclear forces can start acting.

Neutron is unstable because it is heavier than proton: p + e + 782keV -> n.

If you need to ignore Coulomb to explain LENR, nobody outside your hermetic group will treat this field seriously.

And we don't have to ignore it - if localizing electron between the two nuclei - this thread is focused on, please leave made up physics for other threads.

The mainstream physics just works, is confirmed on every step.

Not having clear arguments against it (?), you can only work within it, maybe also use freedom of interpretation.

Do you have any experimental suggestion that Coulomb force does not work? There are millions of confirmations that it works.

Personally I have only a tiny hope left that LENR is not just a pathological science, but relying it on Coulomb negligence is just a total BS.

If somehow it is true, Coulomb says that symmetric "p e p" configuration should collapse - electron assistance is the only hope for LENR.

This possibility is suggested by plasma specialist working for decades on hot fusion e.g. in https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.40688