Electron-assisted fusion

Quote from Jarek

However, then there are these femtometer orbits, closer than the ground state - as I have just written, they contradict the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition, so EM field cannot evolve in a resonant way, there are needed some nasty high energy fluctuations there.

The deep orbits are highly relativistic and should also lead to an increase of the dipolmomentum and raise other strange questions. But for a first guess we must answer the following question: Which state lives longer? In one paper they (P & M ?) prove that H₂+ deep orbit states live reasonably long, to cause LENR reactions. A scattering electron stays there (deep) for a awfull short period of time. But could cause some LENR effects too.

Quote from Jarek

But this slowing down does not seem sufficient for quantization condition - that the clock will perform one tick during the closed orbit (?)

I finally had some time to look up the H^- paper which describes one half of the story: http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/2/ratis-en.pdf

One more question: Does the clock rule not only apply for "long time" stable orbits? We only need picoseconds stability!

For the hardcore theoreticans I have one more paper, which is far out of my scope, but from the conclusion sounds very seductive. It deals with transversal electromagetic energy exchange at nuclear level, which could change some dogmas of QM. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.2383v3.pdf

Quote from Jarek

And as Gryzinski has showed in many papers in the best journals (Phys rev etc, one has 1300 citations), in contrast to circular orbits, these radial ones are in agreement with scattering experiments: predicted cross-sections, capture probabilities while scattering on atoms with electrons or protons.

Gryzinski and R.Mills seem to follow the same path, more or less the same explanations about scattering etc.. interesting.
May be we should compare some more papers.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Jarek wrote:
And as Gryzinski has showed in many papers in the best journals (Phys rev etc, one has 1300 citations), in contrast to circular orbits, these radial ones are in agreement with scattering experiments: predicted cross-sections, capture probabilities while scattering on atoms with electrons or protons.

Gryzinski and R.Mills seem to follow the same path, more or less the same explanations about scattering etc.. interesting.
May be we should compare some more papers.

Jarek can correct me, but I think his point goes the other direction, with Gryzinski making the experimental case for radial orbits and Mills basing his theory on circular orbits. (And another possible difference: Mills talks about "orbitspheres," which are surfaces rather than volumes, whereas the usual spherical harmonics are generally both radial and 3-dimensional. There are several problems created by using a 2-dimensional surface for the orbit of the electron.)

Quote from Eric Walker

Jarek can correct me, but I think his point goes the other direction, with Gryzinski making the experimental case for radial orbits and Mills basing his theory on circular orbits.

@EW: You are right:
Mills definition is quite more elaborate: Citation:
Orthogonal great circle current density elements (one dimensional “current loops”) serve as basis elements to form two distributions of an infinite number of great circles wherein each covers one half of a two dimensional spherical shell and is defined as a basis element current vector field (“BECVF”) and an orbitsphere current vector field (“OCVF”).
The only matching part with G. is the "great circle current density loop".

Gryzinski is only looking at scattering orbits, which are of no help to define the intrinsic behavior of an atom.

Quote from Jarek

If we want to understand the nucleus itself, we should use much larger energies - but this is a separate story.

This has been done for the last 100 years, with only partial success!

Inteligent narrow bandwidth scattering, like presented in the electron orbit/charge decoupling paper, is the way to the future! We must find all hidden resonances!

Quote from Jarek

However, if we want to understand LENR, we don't have to get into nuclear physics - the crucial question is crossing the Coulomb barrier: getting to a distance where nuclear forces can start acting.
Crossing this Coulomb barrier is a question about dynamics of electrons - understanding why they have remained between two nuclei for a sufficiently long time.

Regarding solitons and in general transversal energy resonances I agreee with You, that they will play a key role in all LENR explanations.

One way to carve into the coulomb barrier are the well known sin (x²) waves which cause the coulumb field to split. The resulting potential hole has a similar form like the classical quantum well.

Since LENR works despite coulumb barrier, it is more like that it is not the key! If the real trigger is a nuclear resonance (Li 230 eV) then the coulumb barrier is broken/overcome inside out, which is easier than the other way round.

/* What option other than electron do you see for LENR to cross this distance/barrier? */

In my theory the shielding of electrons is just one of many factors contributing to the lowering of Coulomb barrier.
If the electrons could manage it itself, then we would have LENR everywhere, don't you think?

/* Electron's assistance is to "catalyze" (increase probability) from virtually impossible (like 10^-100 probability) fusion, to "statistically existent under specific conditions" - electrons doesn't make it frequent, just statistically not-negligible. Crossing the Coulomb barrier is still extremely difficult (improbable) in 1000K. */

You just missed my point: the electrons are around all atoms, why they lower the Coulomb barrier just around nickel? The "specific conditions" of cold fusion is what I'm solving here.

It's not so difficult - the LENR enabled atoms (Ni, Ti, Pd) tend to form hydrides, which brings the hydrogen more close to atom nuclei, where the electron orbitals get more dense and enable more effective shielding. But there are another dependencies and connections, where the electron shielding has nothing very much to say about...

Jarek is correct in that solitons play a central role in LENR. Superconductivity produces cooper pairs of electrons where the coulomb barrier is nullified. This indicates that LENR and superconductivity are like processes.

The nanometer size cavities in transition metals in which hydrogen accumulates produces huge pressures due to vacuum energy and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This pressure transforms the protons in the hydrogen into a coherent soliton, a condinsate of like positive charged particles that becomes metastable(Hole superconductivity) even when this soliton leaves the nanocavity. This metalized hydrogen condinsate gains energy over time in a positive feedback loop where the hydride soliton is made stable.

Quote from Jarek

I don't understand how would you like to overcome Coulomb barrier "inside-out"?

223eV protons are able to "tunel" through the Li coulumb barrierer. Tunnels have two ends and who tells you that the Li core doesn't feel the approaching proton? An approaching proton induces pressure on the electrons which are coupled to the central charge. May be somebody should try to modell this process. and look at the induced perturbations.

QM assumes a "well shaped" probabilty cloud for electrons in the lattice. This works well for some calculations dealing with a few eV. But if there exist resonances, which live for a very short time, they wouldn't disturb the QM picture. Thus QM is no help for finding an explanation.

Further on, the halo nuclei paper showed (confirms!!) that the range of the nuclear force may reach at least 7fm! ( for up to seconds!)
Conclusion: Our knowlege has deep holes. We just know the steady state, nothing about the intrinsic dynamics.

Quote from Jarek

- for electrons, beside Bohr-Sommerfeld, there are also these resonances for low energy scattering, e.g. as in this results from Helbig Evenhart 1965: journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.140.A715

Interesting that those resonances are graphed above down to say 50 keV. The Lipinski data show clearly that Herb's 1938 data were very accurate, i.e. very low cross section at higher energies. The interesting "windows" that is remarkable "resonance"(s), if that is what is causal, in the extensive Lipinski data only begin to be impressive below 5 keV.

I am certain there are lessons for any thermal Ni-H and/or Li-H scheme in the Lipinski data set. As before, I advise not attempting to understand their theory at this time.

For those interested, please see this late April 2016 thread at the LENR Forum:

USPTO Patent Application: HYDROGEN-LITHIUM FUSION DEVICE