Electron-assisted fusion

Quote from Jarek

Eric, regarding me being fixed on electron remaining between the two nuclei as the only reasonable explanation for hypothetical fusion in 1000K, so we had 260 posts in this thread and I honestly haven't seen any other reasonable explanation here (?)

I proposed one that has nothing to do with fusion: induced decay/fission. You didn't like it, which is fine. For several reasons I think it's more probable than fusion, even with Gryzinsky to help out with the screening. We can agree to disagree.

Quote from Jarek

Chemistry, charge concentration, screening, topological defects etc. might be sufficient for taking two nuclei to picometer distance ... but fusion requires thousand times smaller distance, and so thousand times larger energy (V ~ 1/r).

You keep on seeking to connect electron screening with fusion. Now that you're fixated on fusion, you're on your own. I suggest that there's nothing on this worldly plane of existence apart from a neutral particle theory such as that of Bill Collis that will bring two nuclei sufficiently close to fuse at rates commensurate with LENR excess heat results. Perhaps you disagree. I will step back and try to learn from the secondary details that you marshal in support of your proposal.

Quote from Jarek

This is just far beyond such "electron-cloud-related" explanations - it is a completely different energy scale.

The scenario I proposed in connection with induced decay (not fusion) was a dynamic one, one that is difficult to model. I have explained above that the potential energy is already there, in the nucleus, and that what might be needed is a small amount of screening to bring about a very large change, like the small amount of mechanical energy in a gun trigger that fires a bullet, or the small amount of chemical energy in a fuse that sets off a bomb. So the energy of the electrons is not an immediate consideration. What is a consideration is how much an electron fluid could under dynamic conditions impinge upon the Coulomb barrier of lattice sites out at the far edge of a topological defect. If you argue that this is impossible, I'll reply that dynamic modeling of solid state systems is hard.

Quote from Eric Walker

I suggest that there's nothing on this worldly plane of existence apart from a neutral particle theory such as that of Bill Collis that will bring two nuclei sufficiently close to fuse at rates commensurate with LENR excess heat results.

You just stumbled over history! Myon catalysed fusion was the first low energy fusion detected and myons are charged...

Quote from Eric Walker

I have explained above that the potential energy is already there, in the nucleus

This is only true for Z > Z(Ni, Fe)!

QM-electron (probability-) clouds are only usefull in statistical environements, i.e. systems near equilibrium conditions. The formalism was not invented to handle sudden multidimensional changes. You may know what was before a Dirac puls and after, but not what happens during this small part of time. They call this short period just tunnelling... (= lack of explanation...)

Quote from Jarek

They should earlier align their spins

That's exactly what happens in sono-fusion. One dimensional alignment (Z-pinch) of nuclear charges. In a highly polarized system there are no "free momentums" that can be widely radiated. This makes 3 (multi) body decay events (D+D-> T + P + Gamma) highly unlikely.

In "classical" LENR all you need is a Z-pich which compresses a pile of H(0). A part of the energy is already released during the compression and migrates to the highly conductive (may be internal too) surface, where a circular current is induced.
The only thing what must be answered (hen egg problem): Is there first a current or the collapse or is it all together a well synchronized cascading event!

According to the standard model. a proton and electron can only form a neutron through the intervention of the weak force in a decay process. That means that a W boson must be created to mediate the weak force. That takes 90 MeV more or less.

Quote from Alan Smith

This was Prof Sergio Focardi's thought on the mechanism involved in Ni/H Lenr.

Prof Sergio Focardi was a professional scientist and a good one too.

Quote from Jarek

I thought there is this large interest in LENR becouse of bringing hope for amazing power source ... where I think we agree that

1. We need fusion, ...

Do we agree here?

It seems we disagree. Our disagreement appears to be on the meaning of the term "LENR". LENR in my view consists a set of experimental findings to be further explored, understood and explained. These findings include, in certain systems (e.g., PdD), excess heat and a correlation of excess heat with helium, as well as transmutations, x-rays, energetic charged particles and, at very low levels, neutrons and tritium.

Theorists and experimentalists of various stripes have hypothesized that beyond these experimental findings, LENR in certain systems consists of the fusion of, e.g., deuterium. Or of the capture of a proton by a nickel nucleus. Or of the capture of multiple numbers of deuterium nuclei by barium. Or a number of other possibilities. In my view these conclusions are on a shaky foundation and should be carefully distinguished from the experimental findings. Once we've made that mental distinction, it becomes easier to appreciate that LENR does not necessarily imply fusion, as you have suggested above. A book I have found very helpful in clarifying this matter is Charles Beaudette's "Excess Heat".

LENR might or might not be a future source of energy; my interest in LENR is partly a bet on it possibly becoming a source of energy. But this is not assured; it could forever be a laboratory curiosity.

Quote from Jarek

So please give an example of sequence of LENR reactions which could lead to a practical energy source without: fusion, crossing the Coulomb barrier, or just using decay of some isotopes (used e.g. to power satellites) ?

Some possible reactions to be explored:

• W + (screening) → (asymmetric fission daughters) + ~ 10’s of MeV
• Pt + (screening) → (asymmetric fission daughters) + ~ 10’s of MeV
• 190Pt + (screening) → α + 186Os + 3.2 MeV
• 40K + (screening) → 40Ca + β- + ν + 1.3 MeV
• 40K + (screening) → 40Ar + ν + 1.5 MeV

In the case of alpha decay/fission, there is in fact a Coulomb barrier that needs to be crossed, but from the other direction: the alpha particle must tunnel through the Coulomb barrier of the daughter nucleus, from the inside. The idea is that this process can be enhanced appreciably through electron screening. Alpha decay and fission are particularly sensitive to the width of the Coulomb barrier, and screening decreases that width and hence increases the tunneling rate.

I do not know whether LENR will end up becoming a practical source of energy, although it might be.

Quote from Eric Walker

Some possible reactions to be explored:

@ Eric W: This proposal is not very serious! Who will burn precius metalls (Pd) only? Or implement a new fission reactor? If W fission would produce no radiation then it would be OK, but some fission products of W can be nasty.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@ Eric W: This proposal is not very serious! Who will burn precius metalls (Pd) only? Or implement a new fission reactor? If W fission would produce no radiation then it would be OK, but some fission products of W can be nasty.

By referring to precious metals, you're alluding to the question of practicality, which is not a primary concern of mine at this point. I'm just looking for something that does a decent job of explaining LENR results, without reference to practicality. But I'll note that Pd is probably too lightweight to fission much, even with very significant screening. For this reason I suspect that PdD results do not go back to Pd (or D). In the case of PdD electrolytic experiments, there is almost invariably a platinum anode.

The asymmetric fission daughters in W will be moderately heavy, so even though they will have significant momentum, that will not necessarily result in particularly high velocity. The radiation would primarily be x-rays excited as the daughters are stopped. There's also the possibility of Coulomb excitation, which results in gamma emission, but there's a question about how much of this there would be (there could be very little). There is also the question of the daughters being left in excited states which must be dealt with. Since we're talking about the fission of nuclides significantly lighter than U, which is not something that has been carefully explored before, there are some unknowns, and the daughters might be relatively stable, or close to stable (e.g., beta unstable to a stable daughter with a short half-life). The Gamow factors for specific sets of daughters will determine which branches are most likely.

Quote

These are just fission, alpha and beta decay - a natural tendency of some isotopes to spontaneously release energy ... these seem to be conventional nuclear energy sources?

Almost conventional. (1) We almost never see reference to fission of anything lighter than thorium, which makes this proposal unconventional. And (2) the current assumption is that screening cannot vary sufficiently to influence alpha decay/fission and beta decay at more than minor levels (in the case of beta decay). So screening having a significant effect is also something unconventional about this suggestion.

One reason I like this train of thought is that it is very close to being conventional. Instead of being an entirely new set of processes to understand and explain, it consists of modifications of our understanding of some well-accepted processes.

Quote

By (screening) you mean that the presence of electron cloud affects the rate of these reactions? In other words, ionization of atoms reduces the rate. It is what they observe for electron capture: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture#Reaction_details "The electron that is captured is one of the atom's own electrons, and not a new, incoming electron, as might be suggested by the way the above reactions are written. Radioactive isotopes that decay by pure electron capture can be inhibited from radioactive decay if they are fully ionized ("stripped" is sometimes used to describe such ions). "

No ionization would be involved as a primary mechanism to my knowledge. But the reference to EC is directly relevant. The bit about only bound electrons being captured in the Wikipedia quote is what physicists take for granted and is usually the case. But even conventional physics allows an unbound electron to be captured as part of the pp chain that powers the sun. The thought here is that under dynamic conditions the electron density can be sufficient to lead to electron capture of conduction electrons.

Quote

So one reason might be presence of electrons traveling very close to the nucleus. A different reason can be indeed the screening - ionized atom is positive, attracting negatively charged particles.

I don’t know exactly what ionization looks like in a metal; I wonder if it is a meaningful concept. Perhaps it is.

Quote from Jarek

I don't have experience with such unconvential fission, alpha, beta ... but their standard versions are well seen in detectors.
I understand it is not seen? What is experimental evidence of such events? Only excess heat?

This approach has the potential to explain the following LENR findings: excess heat, correlation of excess heat with helium, energetic charged particles (incl. electrons), x-rays, transmutations and tritium. Areas where it faces difficulties include a lack of gammas through several mechanisms (e.g., Coulomb excitation, de-excitation of exited daughters, beta-delayed gammas), lack of secondary fusions from knock-on of deuterium, and, perhaps most important, it makes very unclear the role of hydrogen and deuterium in all of this.

A frequent claim is that energetic charged particles are not seen at a level commensurate with excess heat. There is presumably some experimental experience that supports this claim, but it's necessary (1) to trace the claim back to specific experimenters rather than allowing it to be left as a generic objection to explanations. And (2) once that's done, figure out what was being detected and what was detectable in the setups that were being used by those specific experimenters. There are also a set of calculations from Peter Hagelstein which claim to limit significant charged particle radiation to energies of ~ 10-20 keV or lower. This is an interesting calculation, but I think it needs to be followed up experimentally in different configurations and systems and using different detector arrays. So I do not think energetic charged particles commensurate with excess heat can be ruled out at the present time, although it can be acknowledged that this is the common understanding.

Quote from Jarek

The lack of gammas is a big objection.

The gamma problem is a big challenge, but I don’t think it’s the basis for disqualifying the idea. The thought right now is that the same conduction electrons that are causing the screening and inducing the decays are then caught up in something like internal conversion when a nuclear transition is about to happen. The decay/fission event itself will occur very rapidly, at which point the supernumerary electrons will still be around. It might be that the energy of the nuclear transition is dumped to one of the electrons more quickly than the slow process of emitting a photon would take to complete.

Quote from Jarek

As for fusion, EM impulse might be the answer: that instead of releasing the energy as EM soliton (gamma), the EM wave could have a different shape, e.g. a cylindrically-symmetric shape like in line antenna, dispersing the energy with 1/r.
Or maybe nuclear processes could radiate energy in non-quantized portions, e.g. maintaining the power (released energy per second) for a longer time, instead or radiating it in nearly immediate steps (? spatial explanation seems more likely for me).

There are different explanations that invoke the fractionating an MeV quantum of energy into many small photons. If somehow a compound nucleus is able to de-excite through some kind of collective action involving many, many nuclei, consider the vast distances involved and the amount of time that it takes light (e.g., virtual photons) to travel between the nuclei. That places a lower bound on the amount of time required, namely the time that it takes light to travel to the furthest of the nuclei involved. If the de-excitation does not occur all at once, but instead gradually, we must assume either a great number of tightly spaced nuclear levels, or we must set aside quantum mechanics. You, being a fan of Gryzinski, might be open to the latter. But consider that Gryzinski is seeking to explain atoms in terms of classical mechanics and not nuclei, as I understand it.

Quote from Jarek

Regarding mechanism for indirect action of shell electron on the nucleus, these frequent (~petahertz) electric and magnetic shocks from electrons passing in ~10^-13m distance seem quite a shaking of the nucleus - might be crucial for rate of releasing abundant energy.

If we go with quantum mechanics, a number of small “shocks” from an orbital electron perturbing a nucleus would not do anything to excite it, unless there is a match between the energy of the electron and the spacing between two energy levels in the nucleus. My guess is that the mismatch between the two will in the case of orbital electrons generally be large.

Quote from Jarek

There is documented difference of rate for electron capture while ionizing the atom - are there more processes with observed such difference (nuclear process being affected by shell electrons) ?

This interesting page gives an overview, mentioning pressure and chemical environment. I’m suggesting something related but different: dynamic changes in electron density in metals brought about through external perturbations such as electric or magnetic fields.