Electron-assisted fusion

  • Do you have any experimental suggestion that Coulomb force does not work?

    Rutherford anomalous scattering?

    since 1930..

    Analysis indicates that the Coulomb force(Charge)

    is not the exclusive operational force btw particles..


    Schaeffer suggestion is that the Poisson force(magnetic) is operational

    at small distances in addition to the Coulomb(charge) force..

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_the_Nuclear_Interaction

  • Dr Richard,

    Combining electron with proton into neutron again requires to invest energy which is completely inaccessible in these conditions: 782keVs.


    And if you don't do it, electron is just too light and EM interacting to calmly wait - for fusion it would need to wait between two nuclei down to fm-distance.

    If it cannot just wait, as it is attracted by both nuclei - it can travel there and forth between them in nearly lines - being backscattered every time.

    And in theory such single back-scatterings are possible, the difficulty is getting multiple in statistically non-negligible way.


    That's the only hope for LENR - electron jumping between the two nuclei down to fm distance.

    This is ~100000 smaller distance than condensed matter scale - we cannot just rely on condensed matter effects here.


    RoberBryant, sure - scatterings are definitely much more complicated than just Coulomb:

    - there is additional magnetic dipole-charge v/r^3 and dipole-dipole 1/r^4 interaction, which become essential in such tiny distances,

    - there might be also weak/strong interaction if this minimal distance gets down to fm-scale,

    - there might be also other effects like virtual particle creation in Feynman diagrams - they successfully use to describe scatterings.

    But these are additions to Coulomb, which might become stronger in such tiny distance - but how do you think it contradicts Coulomb????

  • there is additional magnetic dipole-charge v/r^3 and dipole-dipole 1/r^4 interaction, which become essential in such tiny distances,


    at close distances like (r=3fm) the Coulomb force may have helpers/competitors

    The SM invokes the strong force..at close distance

    and the Weak force and the W-boson


    The assumption that the Coulomb force operates exclusively down to 3 fm is only an assumption...

    it has been seen to be effective down to the Bohr radius 5 x 10(-11)


    but the mathematical assumption...Coulomb exclusive down to 3 fm?


    where is the femto experimental suggestion for this? femto m = 10(-15)

    who has measured the interparticle force in the region 10(-15)... up to 10(-14) or so?


    "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"


    Btw Coulomb force is not electromagnetic... it is electrostatic... charge only..


    however the electrons and protons are not static point charges...they move and spin...

  • 390MeVs is definitely not EM, but some other interactions.


    Sure, at ~3fm it can have helpers ... but the difficulty is getting to 3fm through larger distances, what would directly require ~500keVs energy from Coulomb ... unless there is (single!) electron between them.


    Wanting to negate Coulomb interaction, not having to exclude lots of other effects, you need to show an experiment where it fails in larger than a few femtometers distance.

  • If the p-e-p inter particle distances were on the 0.1-0.5 fm scale wouldn't the repulsive electrostatic force between protons exceed any attractive force mediated by the electron? Isn't this purely academic since at 0.56 pm separation Holmlid has observed spontaneous and laser driven fusion suggesting that this is as close as two protons can actually approach each other without disintegrating into kaons or fusing?

  • If p-e-p are in equal distances, then from Coulomb F~1/r^2: attraction by electron is 4 times stronger than proton repulsion.


    However, in practice this electron wouldn't be static, but dynamical - attracted by both nuclei.

    Fall on one nucleus, scatter - preferably toward the second, and so on a few times until they reach a few fm for fusion.


    The only hope for LENR is stability of such backscattering electron trajectories - statistically non-negligible number of them.

    See Gryzinski's materials like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model or https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.40688

  • Or somehow binding protons to neutrons condenses matter down to the fm scale of inter-nucleon distances. Maybe its the neutrons that mediate the strong nuclear force holding protons together (otherwise we would have multi-proton nuclei bound without neutrons!) Probably why free neutrons are inherently unstable without exerting this force on protons.

  • Neutralizing proton's charge with electron in fm-scale distance ... requires investing 782keVs to get neutron.

    This energy difference is why neutrons are unstable, understanding of which requires weak/strong interactions, which act only in fm-scale distance.

  • 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.


    You sound like your teachers: In fact almost nothing of value in SM is confirmed. No strong/weak force was ever measured that works in general. The silly idea of Quarks and a stamp collection of particles is all SM could do within 90 years.


    Contrary to your claim I strongly believe in the non SM Coulomb law but I now know the correct physics = "how charge is generated" and this is what leads to the understanding of LENR.


    LENR has nothing to do with believing. This completely rules you out as a serious researcher. We did run more than 100 experiments and measured highly predictive gamma radiation from a heater = what SM folks believe...


    And as others said: Take a styrene catalyst surface & traces of Hydrogen under 0.05 torr & use some light and 4-He fusion starts in combination with the production of kaon/pion/muons all confirmed by an independent lab.


    Personally I have only a tiny hope left that LENR is not just a pathological science,


    The only hope for LENR is stability of such backscattering electron trajectories - statistically non-negligible number of them.


    We don't need the hope. We have it already. Just forget the old outdated ideas. The electron acts like a point particle in kinetic experiments only. It owns a well define inner structure that allows it to form bonds. What, by the way, cannot be explained by SM...

  • But we are not talking abut weak/strong force here - which are negligible above a few fm distance


    The weak and strong force are theoretical constructs which have never been measured..


    In the femto region and below which is dense matter ...there is much theoretical construction


    but little measurement.

  • But we are not talking abut weak/strong force here - which are negligible above a few fm distance.


    We are talking about getting to this a few fm distance, which needs investing hundreds of keVs.


    The formation of weak bosons are restricted to a few fm distance. Only the weak force cause transformation (excluding color). So "colder fusion" would involve the weak force at some point.


    We don't need to abandon the coulomb barrier to explain "colder fusion". As you indicate we only need to explain how to bridge the coulomb barrier. The charge is not screened by orbiting electrons. The alternative is confinement by gravity. Not gravity per Newton but per relativity. You can read my pending patent for a crude model of how that might happen.


    Why waste your time on theory. "Colder fusion" occurs. You can verify that result yourself from publicly available certified lab data. You can repeat the calculations I did. There are a few reasonable assumption needed to identify unknowns in the mass spectroscopic data but using relativity to explain magnecules provides a basis for identification of unknowns. So if you have skills in mass balance and stoichiometry, you will get a data derived equation of state for a transmutation reaction. A little further reasoning and you get the whole sequence of transmutations.


    Conclusion colder fusion requires an energy input which energy first causes photodisintegration of deuterium and then absorption of neutrons, followed by an orientation specific lowering of coulomb barrier as a result of screening due to giant nuclear resonance. Not quite what you propose but essential the same concept.

  • Conclusion colder fusion requires an energy input which energy first causes photodisintegration of deuterium and then absorption of neutrons, followed by an orientation specific lowering of coulomb barrier as a result of screening due to giant nuclear resonance. Not quite what you propose but essential the same concept.


    As Holmlid did show cold fusion also works with Hydrogen thus your model has some holes.


    The basis for cold fusion is H*/D* that occurs in clusters on catalytic surfaces, now known since 30 years. It takes no energy input to produce this form of matter unless you account for the vacuum pump...


    There is no photo disintegration only orbit overloading that leads to synchronization of nuclear orbits. Its the exact opposite of what you propose. A cluster of at least 9 H* fuses to 2 4-He what blows off one proton. This is the giant resonance. With D* its a bit more tricky as the energies do not match very well. This is the Holmlid way of fusion just hard-core.

  • As Holmlid did show cold fusion also works with Hydrogen thus your model has some holes.


    The data analysis in my pending patent shows the cold fusion in the case of AquaFuel must work with hydrogen. Holmid's work does confirm clusters as predicted in my model also. I am not familiar with any fusion evidence by Homid that didn't use a laser. If a surface is involved then there could still be activation. Activation: the input of energy to overcome a barrier.

  • Is "splitting of" what does not happen in Holmlids case. Activation yes - always, no way around!


    Holmlid is looking at proton to proton fusion or as you claim a fusion chain that produces helium. The data in my patent is for fusion to oxygen. The fusion to oxygen follows an alpha ladder (without helium rather uses hydrogen or deuterium or neutrons produced from hydrogen). In fusion from water the source of the deuterium or helium is unknown. The end transmutation product (nitrogen-14 by fission of Si) is the same as with deuterium. However, in a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen there is no evidence of any intermediate formation of helium. So if holmlid gets helium, then what happens for him is not using the same mechanism as when oxygen is present. Also please note that the reactions I have studied are not expected to depend on metal catalyst so that could be a factor in the fusion pathway.

  • But we are not talking abut weak/strong force here - which are negligible above a few fm distance.


    We are talking about getting to this a few fm distance, which needs investing hundreds of keVs.

    fm distance is not required for fusion to occur, pm range is plenty enough because of quantum tunneling.

  • Are you going to ignore experimental results that contradict your learned theoretical limits and underpinnings? Who said it has to be fusion, forcing elements together? A major new hydrogen interaction and reactions are apart of what we are observing. I can't persist because it hasn't been written in a textbook yet? Even if it follows logic and doesn't violate conservation of energy. That's the persuation i'm getting from you. Though what your proposing could be true. I may be jumping to conclusions so don't mind me lol.

  • fm distance is not required for fusion to occur, pm range is plenty enough because of quantum tunneling.


    There is this ~500kB energy barrier - for reaching 3fm by two protons, probability of jumping through it with Boltzmann distribution in 1000K is ~exp(-500000/0.1).
    What do you think is probability of tunneling through it?



    LeBob,

    please specify - which experiment you think undermines Coulomb repulsion while taking two nuclei from nanometers to a few femtometers?