Electron-assisted fusion

    Quote from Eric Walker

    But I do not see any kind of precession that would deform the orbitsphere into something other than a 2d spherical surface.


    This is correct! In his thinking the whole plane is undergoing the precision, which I guess he is mapping/linking to the spin precision. (Its not electron torque! - this is treated separrately)


    Here two brand new actual papers (Russian) about alternative solutions of H deep Orbits . (Had no time yet to read them, just glanced..)


    http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0086v1.pdf
    http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0087v1.pdf

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This is correct! In his thinking the whole plane is undergoing the precision, which I guess he is mapping/linking to the spin precision. (Its not electron torque! - this is treated separrately)


    Earlier Jarek wrote: "And please don't compere it with modern magical 'explanations' using made up stuff like 2D membrane", in response to which you wrote: "Can You give us a paper, where You found this rubish citation ?" At which point I attempted to clarify that Mills, to my knowledge, in making use of the orbitsphere, assumes of a 2D surface (or membrane). Were you objecting to something else Jarek said?

    Quote from Eric Walker

    "Can You give us a paper, where You found this rubish citation ?" At which point I attempted to clarify that Mills, to my knowledge, in making use of the orbitsphere, assumes of a 2D surface (or membrane). Were you objecting to something else Jarek said?


    @Eric W: Do some reading first before You asking questions...


    If somebody calls a theory silly, then he didn' read it at all and made up his mind like any grandmother by reading Wikipedia...


    The Russian papers and Mills both use a semi classical formula to calculate e.g. the ionization energies of one electron (rest-) atoms. For lower Z Mill's formula seems to be more exact as for higer Z the Russians are closer.


    Just forget about QM for any exact calculations and start to discuss about "real physics" based on first principle calculations!

    Wyttenbach, your reply is cute. But you just provide insult without replying to my question. What were you replying to when you apparently called Jarek's description of the Mills electron orbital rubbish? He described it as a 2d membrane, which, it turns out, you can be made to agree with.


    I also take the opportunity to remind you once again that we're talking about Mills, and not something vaguely along the same lines.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    membrane


    Membrane is a biological term...


    Mills uses this term only as a comparision (picture) to explain the structures in chemical bonds not for the underlaying physical model. Further on in polar coordinates a 2D plane has a different meaning and is equivalent to a xyz 3D structure.
    Thus if Mills uses the term 2D membrane to explain a potential it's in fact a 3D structure...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Membrane is a biological term...


    Mills uses this term only as a comparision (picture) to explain the structures in chemical bonds not for the underlaying physical model. Further on in polar coordinates a 2D plane has a different meaning and is equivalent to a xyz 3D structure.
    Thus if Mills uses the term 2D membrane to explain a potential it's in fact a 3D structure...


    I see. You were quibbling over the use of the word "membrane." This was a perfectly reasonable term for Jarek to use for describing the orbitsphere. It conveys meaning, even if it is not precise. There was no confusion about its use. What he was conveying was pretty accurate and not "rubbish." The only place I see the word "plane" has been by you in the present discussion, and me some posts back on a completely different topic (Gryzsinki's radial orbitals).

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I see. You were quibbling over the use of the word "membrane."


    Sorry, but sometimes I'm alergic, if the wrong terms (quoted as silly by Jarek) come first...


    In the mean time I read the Russian papers (by flying high over them) and it seems they found just one more solution for deep H* orbits which works...
    BDW: Mills calculation model for hydrinos is to simple and highly inconsistent, if it comes to relativistic energies. But, strange enough some low energy results are the same...
    But we have to explain Holmlids (guessed, - this does not fit 2.3 pm) -600eV dense H* state.

    I hope the discussion about a magical membrane has ended here once for all ...


    Let's go back to real physics - screening constant.
    Gryzinski has written that in contrast to his classical calculations, QM has a real problem to get it right: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor6ang.html
    I a trying to test it against the physicsforum:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/…ants-slater-rules.887322/
    (the Stark problem remains unresolved there: https://www.physicsforums.com/…ory-vs-experiment.885330/ )


    "In multiple-electron atoms the effective charge of nucleus for a given electron, is reduced by the presence of other electrons (including those from more external shells, against the shell theorem:(
    Z_eff = Z - s
    where the screening constant s depends on Z and the concerning orbital. It is usually calculated by semi-empirical so called Slater's rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater%27s_rules


    I have tried to find some experimental values.
    On page 286 of 1936 English translation of Arnold Sommerfeld's "Atomic structure and spectral lines" there is a clear figure (on the left below) with dots suggesting experimental values (but I couldn't find it being explicitly written).
    Wikipedia article cites 1967 "Atomic Screening Constants from SCF Functions. II. Atoms with 37 to 86 Electrons" by Clementi, Raimondi, Reinhardt ( http://scitation.aip.org/conte…cp/47/4/10.1063/1.1712084 ) which contains Hartee-Fock calculations of screening constants (figure on the right) - unfortunately it doesn't seem to refer to any experiment (?)



    These two figures have some essential differences (including order!) - could anybody refer to some better experimental results?"

    Quote from Jarek

    the Stark problem remains unresolved



    In Mills compendium You can find a reference to newer measurements of H line spliting:

    N. Ryde, Atoms and Molecules in Electric Fields, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden, (1976), pp. 168-177.
    This (1976) is still "very old", as we know that you need absolutely undisturbed H to get no side effects...


    But this problem is unlikely to help solving LENR.

    I don't have access to this book of Ryde -
    does its experimental results agree with quantum predictions (equally spaced lines for Lyman gamma: 4 -> 1)
    or rather with Frerichs 1934 results (external lines are closer than predicted by QM)?


    Regarding Mills, I don't know about Stark, but the screening constant from my previous post is another clear argument against Bohr and Mills: outer shell electrons screen charge of nucleus for inner shell electrons.
    If electrons would stay in a circle or sphere, the shell theorem says that there would be no screening from outer shells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem


    Regarding LENR, it requires to understand how electron could stay between the two nuclei for a long enough time to screen the Coulomb barrier (like symmetric p - e - p initial system collapsing into deuteron) - it requires understanding dynamics of electrons inside atom - what we are currently discussing: should we be satisfied with quantum probability clouds (making LENR practically impossible), or maybe we can also ask for electron trajectories behind them - which average to these density clouds?
    How these trajectories shouo look like?
    Bohr's are excluded by many arguments, for example electron capture, magnetic dipole moment of hydrogen (orbital angular momentum), these screening constants ...
    Are low angular momentum (Gryzinski) also excluded?
    If they are allowed by experiments, such electrons could stay for a longer time between two nuclei - allowing for LENR.

    Quote from Jarek

    Regarding Mills, I don't know about Stark, but the screening constant from my previous post is another clear argument against Bohr and Mills: outer shell electrons screen charge of nucleus for inner shell electrons.


    There is no GUT theory covering everything so far, just a few proposals, but ideas count too.


    I mentioned several time the following paper: unconv-science.org/en/n2/ratis/


    Which is a serious attempt to handle the temporary p-e collapse, which many call H* or deep orbits etc...
    As you said: The key question is, how long can an electron stay close to a proton/deuteron. This is not solved by an orbit (like free fall ore else - "e" passes to fast), there must be a kind of 'close-orbit' resonance (pseudo particle like), which binds the electron for a long time close to the nucleus. Keep in mind that the electro weak transaction is quit slow and the resonance therefore must be powerful.

    Quantum probability clouds only make LENR impossible if you assume that LENR consists primarily of fusion (here I am going along with your assertion about probability clouds for the sake of argument). Significant fusion in LENR is contraindicated by several lines of evidence, and there are other possibilities. One I particularly like: induced alpha and beta decay reactions, and induced fission. To my knowledge there's nothing about quantum probability clouds per se that would preclude these things.

    Wyttenbach,
    GUT is for explaining everything, while here we have a different case: in a situation covered by a given theory, it provides wrong predictions.
    Like predicting lack of shielding of inner shells by outer shells, or forbidding electron capture - these fundamentally wrong predictions make this theory just wrong.


    Regarding staying between two nuclei, here we just have a series of successive scatterings - electron falls on one nucleus with nearly zero angular momentum, scatters back nearly 180 deg (also in pure Kepler), falls on the second nucleus and so on - staying between them, screening their repulsion.
    There is absolutely no magic in such explanation, no additional resonances needed (resonances are for stable systems like atoms) - just asking about trajectory of electron.


    Eric, could you elaborate?
    I thought we are talking about e.g. nickel nuclei absorbing protons from hydrogen?
    How would you like to avoid crossing the Coulomb barrier here by induced alpha or beta decay, or induced fission?
    There is hypothesized p + e -> n reaction, but it requires to invest ~782keV first, which seems completely unachievable to localize in this point using only chemical or mechanical ways (?)

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Quantum probability clouds only make LENR impossible if you assume that LENR consists primarily of fusion (here I am going along with your assertion about probability clouds for the sake of argument). Significant fusion in LENR is contraindicated by several lines of evidence, and there are other possibilities.


    If H*/ H(0) is able to build clusters, then we are talking of a completely new state of matter, not just about BCS pair like behavior. These cluster must be able to destabilize condensed matter which finally allows it to recombine.
    I think your alpha particle logic comes from the huge transmutation dataset. But I think the mechanism is more general and the factor two in transmutation increments originates from the fact that the bond between two H(0) is already very strong. Further on these "molecules" are a kind of spin-less particle, which is much less sensitive to any disturbance.



    But what is the final trigger?


    Jarek: An electron can only be a trigger, nothing more, not the explanation!

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Quantum probability clouds only make LENR impossible if you assume that LENR consists primarily of fusion (here I am going along with your assertion about probability clouds for the sake of argument).


    The evidence we have, by strong preponderance, is that the Fleischmann Pons Heat effect is the result of the conversion of deuterium to helium, mechanism unknown. All other known possible ashes are at far lower levels than helium. "Fusion" can be a mechanism, as it is often explained in pseudoskeptical articles, i.e, "forcing two deuterons together," but it can be a result, as I stated it. The conversion of deuterium to helium. If, arguendo, that process consists of "gremlins" dismantling the deuterium into quarks and then reassembling them to helium, would that be fusion?


    Yes, in my use of language, it would, but it would not be the ordinary fusion mechanism. W-L theory has a deuteron absorbing an electron, which makes it into a dineutron, which is unstable but, regardless, is neutral and can enter nuclei with relative ease, and if the dineutron dissociates quickly, it's still neutrons which will do the same. Then this leads to isotopic shifts. If a dineutron enters a deuterium nucleus, it will generate 4H, which will immediately beta-decay, I think, to 4He and an electron. Thus this is "electron-catalyzed fusion." The process is merely different, so the Widom-Larsen "not fusion" claim -- oft repeated by Krivit, is just BS. If heavier nuclei are being created from lighter ones, regardless of mechanism, it is a form of fusion.


    However, these mechanisms may generate differing heat/helium ratios. By the laws of thermodynamics, deuterium fusion to helium must release, eventually, 23.8 Mev/4He. Only if there are other products will this shift. Radiation energy leakage (as with neutrino generation) would shift it, as would transmutations, but, so far, as observed, these are at levels far too low to affect heat/helium results. (But neutrinos may have escaped observation.)


    Quote

    Significant fusion in LENR is contraindicated by several lines of evidence, and there are other possibilities. One I particularly like: induced alpha and beta decay reactions, and induced fission. To my knowledge there's nothing about quantum probability clouds per se that would preclude these things.


    Right. Further, modeling reaction probabilities in condensed matter is extremely difficult. Nobody can really do it without simplifying assumptions, so far. Takahashi's major accomplishment has been showing a prediction of fusion from a simplified analysis of a physical condition that may be possible in PdD. Nobody has confirmed that, or disconfirmed it (I'm talking about complex math and the application of quantum field theory), which is tragic, typical of cold fusion.


    At this point, the only major option on the table is deuterium conversion to helium (for PdD results). There is work in progress to nail down the ratio more tightly. This has a double benefit, if accomplished. The heat/helium ratio is direct evidence for the reality of cold fusion, quite strong. It is not circumstantial, like "hundreds of confirmations of anomalous heat all over the world." That's circumstantial. It is not "wrong, " merely indirect. After all, "what else could it be"? That is an argument that is a red flag for a circumstantial argument, argument from ignorance. We use that argument profitably all the time, but ... direct is direct.


    And the ratio has implications for theory.

    Quote from Jarek

    Eric, could you elaborate?
    I thought we are talking about e.g. nickel nuclei absorbing protons from hydrogen?
    How would you like to avoid crossing the Coulomb barrier here by induced alpha or beta decay, or induced fission?
    There is hypothesized p + e -> n reaction, but it requires to invest ~782keV first, which seems completely unachievable to localize in this point using only chemical or mechanical ways (?)


    It's quite likely this thread has been looking at the question of nickel nuclei absorbing protons. Because of Coulomb repulsion, I find this path of speculation exceedingly unlikely. Or any fusion at appreciable rates (if we allow proton capture to be a form of fusion). Throw in lots of electron screening, magically added in specific three-dimensional patterns to favor the absorbing of stray protons with a little bit of momentum: even then it seems to me to be unlikely to occur at appreciable rates.


    For alpha decay and fission, there is the Coulomb barrier working in the opposite direction, it is true. But consider the following: (1) these are already spontaneous processes in many cases, suggesting they're often just on the edge of happening in other cases as well but for reasons of activation energy are not. (2) As the Coulomb barrier is involved, and as the range of half-lives varies from the sub-second to the very long, small changes in the strength of the Coulomb barrier can be expected to have an outsized effect. And (3) electron density is both difficult to model in the solid state and may be subject to dynamic conditions. What happens at the tip of a protuberance on the surface of a metal grain when there's a strong magnetic or electric field that varies? We already know that electrons are attracted to sharp topological defects. Under dynamic conditions do they alter the electron density sufficiently to lower the Coulomb barrier in nuclides that are otherwise stable against alpha decay or fission?


    The question of induced beta decay reactions (including electron capture) involves a different but similarly interesting thought experiment. Re the p + e → n reaction, I find this one unlikely for the reason you mention. But what about 3He + e → t, which requires only ~ 19 keV?

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    The evidence we have, by strong preponderance, is that the Fleischmann Pons Heat effect is the result of the conversion of deuterium to helium, mechanism unknown.


    Abd, we've been over this several times in extended discussions in the past. I'm not even irritated by your repetition of this argument anymore. I just skim it to make sure I'm not missing something new or some shift in nuance. But I'll mention for the sake of others that I think you state your case with far too much confidence, which can be confusing for newcomers trying to sort out what is what. What we agree on: helium appears to be a byproduct of something going on in some PdD systems that have been examined. What we disagree about: the importance and significance of several experiments claiming to give evidence of a heat/4He ratio in the neighborhood of ~ 23 MeV. Newcomers: when it comes to what people claim with great assurance, caveat emptor!


    I will mention that I have only seen the term "arguendo" used by lawyers, in the context of a legal discussion.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    Abd, we've been over this several times in extended discussions in the past. I'm not even irritated by your repetition of this argument anymore. I just skim it to make sure I'm not missing something new or some shift in nuance.


    This is not new. For what it's worth, this has been published in numerous reviews in peer-reviewed journals, and then one paper by me, and is unchallenged in the journals. I call the situation "strong preponderance." Hey, I'm easy. I will strike the word "strong." Satisfied?


    There is practically no other major option on the table. There is very little contrary evidence. Those are rebuttable statements, but nobody has so far managed to get them into a peer-reviewed journal. Shanahan was the last to try, in his critical Letter to JEM, and he really didn't address the correlation issue, though he thought he did, with an amazingly wrong, face-palm, presentation of "non-correlation." That was, what, six years ago?


    Quote

    But I'll mention for the sake of others that I think you state your case with far too much confidence, which can be confusing for newcomers trying to sort out what is what.


    I strongly suggest that newcomers become familiar with the evidence, and not assume that any commentator is "correct." Cold fusion is a complex field. Expect it to take a few years to absorb it. Remember, this is a topic called by Huizenga, the "scientific fiasco of the century." There were reasons for the rejection cascade. If one simply decides that "they were stupid," the history has not been understood. Some very smart people rejected cold fusion. And then we would like to know why. Understanding that can be important.


    If I had "full confidence," I would not be stating "preponderance of the evidence," which is a qualified statement, not an assertion of proven fact. Really all I care about is that the evidence is strong enough to warrant serious funding, and that question has been answered. It appears that Gates took us up on this, with $6 million plus $6 million State matching funds. If you want to do something useful, try to identify possible artifacts or errors in the basic heat-helium work, that could explain the obvious correlation without an underlying nuclear process, or find some other nuclear process that would explain the results. Alpha decay is great, as an idea. Produces helium, yes. But not at the experimentally know ratio, and would show other effects not observed.


    It is not too late, perhaps, to suggest to those doing the work that this or that should be tested. If it is not too expensive or difficult, they might do it.


    Yes, Eric, you have discussed this at length. Where is the result of all that? Can it be reviewed to determine if there is some clear conclusion?


    Quote

    What we agree on: helium appears to be a byproduct of something going on in some PdD systems that have been examined.


    Product. It appears that other effects are byproducts at far lower levels. I know of only one PdD system that was an anomaly, this would be two tests done by Miles with a PdCe cathode. Some heat was found, no helium. In all other known and reasonable tests, where heat was found, there was helium and the amount of helium varied, at least roughly, with the heat. So as to PdCe it is reasonable to speculate that the cerium was somehow trapping the helium. In Miles' work there was no effort to release retained helium. There are only two experiments where that effort was made, and those two experiments revealed a ratio within experimental error of 23.8 MeV/4He, the given error bars being about 10% (McKubre, SRI M4) and 20% (ENEA, Apicella et al, Laser-3).


    Quote

    What we disagree about: the importance and significance of several experiments claiming to give evidence of a heat/4He ratio in the neighborhood of ~ 23 MeV.


    Get the number right, okay? 23.8 MeV is the theoretical value for energy from the production of helium from deuterium. And calling experiments by a dozen research groups, I think there were fifty or so total measurements, "several" is a bit, ah, distorted. What would you call it? Yes, there are "possibilities." But we can drive ourselves crazy with them. Until there is confirmed evidence, I will stay with what has already been confirmed, without rejecting other possibilities, simply not investing much time in them.


    Huizenga, in the second edition of his book, Cold Fusion, Scientific fiasco of the century, considered the original Miles report amazing and of high significance because the reported ratio was within an order of magnitude of the theoretical value. (Miles' original work had helium reported as powers of ten. Later work was more precise.) Storms has pointed to many studies. He gives an estimate of 25 MeV +/- 5 MeV, considering and factoring for helium trapping. It is now known to be possible to release that helium, apparently, so I expect to see much better data. I am not attached to any number, but the data so far is consistent with another fact: there is no other known product found at significant levels in PdD experiments, comparable to helium. Had this ash been known in 1989, with some decent evidence, cold fusion history might have been entirely different. Pons and Fleischmann proposed helium in an early press conference, then clammed up. And that is all understandable now. It was a serious error, it appears to have seriously contributed to the impression that they were hiding something.


    Quote

    Newcomers: when it comes to what people claim with great assurance, caveat emptor!


    Sure. But be careful in both directions. Sometimes people have a level of assurance born from knowledge and study. Can they back up what they say with evidence, when asked? "Great assurance" might be a projected emotional state, not their actual state, which might be ordinary assurance from familiarity. Etc.


    Quote

    I will mention that I have only seen the term "arguendo" used by lawyers, in the context of a legal discussion.


    Me too. Now, what am I engaged in here, as a major project? I'm not a lawyer, but the meaning of "arguendo" is clear, and shorter than "for the sake of argument." I've been reading the word frequently, I think from Annesser.


    There are some strong resemblances between legal process and science. Among other things, legal process requires clear thinking.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.