Electron-assisted fusion

    Regarding lack of gammas, you have written about 10MeVs - you would need a really long cascade of gammas (requiring semi-stable states of nucleus), electron of this scale from e.g. internal conversion would also be well seen, e.g. from bremsstrahlung gammas it would produce.


    What do you think about releasing this energy in a form of a less localized form - gammas "maintain their shape" while traveling, so technically they are solitons of EM field.
    Why this energy couldn't be released in a form of e.g. cylindrically-symmetric EM wave, like from line antenna - such wave would disperse this energy in 1/r way, converting it into local thermal energy.


    Regarding me being "a fan of Gryzinski", it is much more complex. So much earlier (~2008) I was working on Maximal Entropy Random Walk (MERW, my physics PhD) - showing that thermally perturbed trajectories average to quantum probability distributions (MERW has started in my physics MSc alongside ANS coding your data is written with if you use Apple or Facebook).
    MERW has also lead me to the question of the structure of particles (~2009), which should start with the question of charge quantization - it has a natural analogue in mathematics: topological charge. Using such picture for electron (started by Manfried Faber), a qualitatively trivial model (vector field with e.g. (||v||^2 - 1)^2 Higgs potential) recreates electrons as the simplest charges - with quantization, pair creation/annihilation, finite energy of charge (infinite for point charge), Coulomb force and the rest of electromagnetism. I have expanded it other particles and nuclei (slides, essay).


    Anyway, we finally need concrete trajectories for these solitons/electrons ... which in time average to quantum statistics due to MERW - and I know only Gryzinski who has made a solid work here - basing on agreement with experiments, many on them. But I am open for other reasonable approaches (?)
    His model doesn't cover the structure of nucleus (and he believed neutron was proton with electron, I disagree with) - I rather use intuitions from my model here, but only for this possibility of radiating energy as cylindrically-symmetric EM wave.


    Regarding shocks from PHz electron passing in ~10^-13m distance, it doesn't transfer energy, just kicks the structure of nucleus, shake it to speed up finding energy minimum.
    This nucleus can release abundant energy, what means it is in a local energy minimum, but there is a lower energy minimum behind a barrier.
    A single kick from the passing electron is not sufficient to cross this energy barrier, but many of them can help crossing it (decay), like in stochastic resonance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance ).


    Regarding the webpage you cite ( http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/…dNuclear/decay_rates.html ), it mainly discusses electron capture, but there is also:
    "A 1996 paper discusses this bound-state decay of bare-nucleus
    rhenium-187. Whereas neutral rhenium-187 has a half-life of 42 ×
    10^9 years, the authors measured fully ionised rhenium-187 to have a half life
    of just 33 years! They discuss the cosmological implications of the altered half
    life of rhenium-187 in various degrees of ionisation in stellar interiors, and what that
    implies for our knowledge of galactic ages."
    which surprisingly has an opposite effect - the presence of electrons prevents from decay - I will have to think about it, but these kicks from passing electron could have also stabilizing effect e.g. through a resonance: decay may require change of the frequency, while the regular kicks can stabilize nucleus in a different frequency.

    Maybe (or not) a helpful suggestion regarding resonance. Resonant systems tend to collapse earlier than aresonant or arhythmic systems. Resonant systems can get more easily nudged into constructive or destructive interference modes, which cause failure modes.


    The heart, for example, beats not exactly at the same beat, but in a semi-random pattern that is always a little out of step from a constant pattern. When a constant pattern sets in, a heart attack is most likely to occur.

    Quote from Jarek

    which surprisingly has an opposite effect - the presence of electrons prevents from decay - I will have to think about it, but these kicks from passing electron could have also stabilizing effect e.g. through a resonance: decay may require change of the frequency, while the regular kicks can stabilize nucleus in a different frequency.


    I started to read a muon bible... There one sentence is striking. The decay rate (life time) of a muon depends on its polarization. The more the muon toggles the sooner it will decay, because else, the sum of the available frequencies for radiating energy decreases, if the muon is polarized.
    This is similar to Mill's argument ( no free spherical harmonics available) for stable Hydrino configurations. The main binding is confined in a plane (which is allowed to toggle).


    As Jarek ( and many papers) pointed too: An external field (shaped electron "cloud") may be able to polarize the nucleus, this might slightly change/ (de-) polarize the internal trajectories of so called B-electrons, which are sassumed to be "banging around" inside the nucleus.

    Quote

    Regarding lack of gammas, you have written about 10MeVs - you would need a really long cascade of gammas (requiring semi-stable states of nucleus), electron of this scale from e.g. internal conversion would also be well seen, e.g. from bremsstrahlung gammas it would produce.


    The fission reactions would be in the 10’s to potentially 100+ MeV. Bremsstrahlung photons can be expected. Keep in mind that two heavy fragments from the fission of tungsten (just one of many possible heavy elements) would each be on the order of A ~ 90. So even 100 MeV will be divided per nucleon, resulting in two big heavy fragments that are just lumbering along like slow trucks. Given the energies involved, one problem that needs further consideration on my part has to do with the potential for the “boiling off” of nucleons above and beyond the heavy fragments, given that the total Q value is far higher than the binding energy of nucleons. A great advantage of such a high Q value is that far fewer such reactions would be needed to account for excess heat than even dd fusion reactions.


    Quote

    What do you think about releasing this energy in a form of a less localized form - gammas "maintain their shape" while traveling, so technically they are solitons of EM field. Why this energy couldn't be released in a form of e.g. cylindrically-symmetric EM wave, like from line antenna - such wave would disperse this energy in 1/r way, converting it into local thermal energy.


    I don’t have an opinion, except that this sounds like new physics to me. Are you aware of other evidence that non-localized high-energy gamma photons are a possibility? Keep in mind that there is the de Broglie wavelength, which is inversely proportional to the energy carried away by the photon. Can something have a small de Broglie wavelength and not be highly localized?


    Quote

    Regarding me being "a fan of Gryzinski", it is much more complex. So much earlier (~2008) I was working on Maximal Entropy Random Walk (MERW, my physics PhD) - showing that thermally perturbed trajectories average to quantum probability distributions (MERW has started in my physics MSc alongside ANS coding your data is written with if you use Apple or Facebook).


    I will take a look at the links you link to.


    Quote

    A single kick from the passing electron is not sufficient to cross this energy barrier, but many of them can help crossing it (decay), like in stochastic resonance ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance ).


    I think I see where you’re going with this now. According to QM, the degrees of freedom of a nucleus are quantized. The speed of rotation, the number and energy of any nuclear phonons, the potential energy latent in arrangements of nucleons above the ground state, etc., all correspond to distinct energy levels of the nucleus. This picture does not seem to leave open the possibility of a kind of white noise that perturbations from orbital electrons could build on top of in order to move a nucleus into a higher energy level through some kind of stochastic resonance. Perhaps zero point energy provides such a noise floor. This is not an area where I can speak from a position of knowledge.


    Quote

    Regarding the webpage you cite ( math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics…dNuclear/decay_rates.html ), it mainly discusses electron capture, but there is also [rhenium-187] ... which surprisingly has an opposite effect - the presence of electrons prevents from decay - I will have to think about it, but these kicks from passing electron could have also stabilizing effect e.g. through a resonance: decay may require change of the frequency, while the regular kicks can stabilize nucleus in a different frequency.


    You mention an interesting point. I don’t think the relationship between screening (as I am assuming) and decay activity is straightforward. Another possibility is that the opposite happens: when there is a significant deficit of electron density, then interesting things happen. This is what Robin van Spaandonk has argued on the Vortex list, and it makes intuitive sense (because in that case there would be a deficit of negative electron charge to counteract Coulomb repulsion). So I think that’s an interesting possibility as well. Since the Coulomb barrier is used in the calculation of the tunneling rates, I assume the opposite is usually the case, but all of this is an unknown area for exploration.

    Quote

    A single kick from the passing electron is not sufficient to cross this energy barrier, but many of them can help crossing it (decay), like in stochastic resonance ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance ).


    This is super-radiance in a Bose condinsate. The condinsate can have the power of N charge carriers. Find a mechanism(as a quasiparticle) that can produce a Bose condinsate and you will have the driver of LENR.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    As Jarek ( and many papers) pointed too: An external field (shaped electron "cloud") may be able to polarize the nucleus, this might slightly change/ (de-) polarize the internal trajectories of so called B-electrons, which are assumed to be "banging around" inside the nucleus.


    I don't think electrons can "bang inside" a nucleus: while the largest diameter of nucleus is ~15fm, Lorentz force bends the trajectory of free-falling electron making the minimal distance ~100fm.
    This distance is sufficient for nuclear forces e.g. to capture electron or give it some energy in internal conversion, but not to directly enter the nucleus.


    Quote from Eric Walker

    I think I see where you’re going with this now. According to QM, the degrees of freedom of a nucleus are quantized. The speed of rotation, the number and energy of any nuclear phonons, the potential energy latent in arrangements of nucleons above the ground state, etc., all correspond to distinct energy levels of the nucleus. This picture does not seem to leave open the possibility of a kind of white noise that perturbations from orbital electrons could build on top of in order to move a nucleus into a higher energy level through some kind of stochastic resonance. Perhaps zero point energy provides such a noise floor. This is not an area where I can speak from a position of knowledge.


    The quantization corresponds to a discrete set of (dynamical) metastable states: local minima separated by energy barriers.
    For atomic orbitals, like in Couder's picture, the quantized states correspond to resonance with the field to get a standing wave to avoid bremsstrahlung.
    Changing the (dynamical equilibrium) state is rapid but not instant (e.g. delay in photoemission)


    For nucleus I also believe that we can ask about dynamics hidden behind effective quantum description (expanding liquid drop model) - some dynamical structure of fields, with a complex landscape of local minima - states between which we observe as transitions.
    The mainstream view is that we need some QFT to describe it - as there is a varying number of particles in this never-ending series of creations and annihilations of e.g. interaction bosons.
    However, there is also an alternative way to describe a varying number of particles: classical field theory with solitons (nonlinear) - it also supports varying number of particles.
    I believe there is a correspondence between classical FT with solitons and QFT - we could calculate effective parameters describing interactions of solitons and insert them into Feynman diagrams of perturbative QFT ... however, this is really hard to calculate.


    Anyway, I imagine nucleus as a (dynamical) spatial structure of a field - I have some candidate (it explains e.g. why proton is lighter than neutron, deuteron than p+n: because baryon structure requires some positive charge (less than e) - neutron has to compensate it what is costly, in deuteron baryons share the positive charge), but I am not insisting on the details.
    Transiting between its states is rapid (not instant) and due to Noether theorem it has to release the energy (and momentum and angular momentum) difference - as gamma.
    It is really surprising that these photons cannot disperse - have to be localized (be soliton).
    For optical photons my intuition for its reason is the angular momentum - they are created from changing spin of electron e.g. from -1/2 to +1/2: by rotation 180 deg.
    This rotation creates photons as twisting wave like behind marine propeller - in contrast to water, they don't disperse because EM field has no viscosity.


    For nucleus again the angular momentum might be what prevents this energy in EM field from dispersing.
    But there might be nuclear processes without any twisting, like symmetric p-e-p collapse. This symmetry should be maintained for the EM wave carrying the energy difference - no angular momentum preventing photon from dispersing its energy.


    Regarding experimental evidence - such EM impulse would convert this energy into thermal energy of surrounding atoms - it seems extremely difficult do directly detect.
    So lots of LENR claims: with silent detectors but excess heat might be seen as such experimental evidence.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    think I see where you’re going with this now. According to QM, the degrees of freedom of a nucleus are quantized.


    But where are the limits of QM for the nucleus? Nobody is publishing all the failures, where QM was off some 10x...



    Quote from Jarek

    I don't think electrons can "bang inside" a nucleus: while the largest diameter of nucleus is ~15fm, Lorentz force bends the trajectory of free-falling electron making the minimal distance ~100fm.


    There are models for the B-decay where one assumes that the "to be emitted" electron is virtualy "flying" around, mostly inside the cucleus.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    But where are the limits of QM for the nucleus? Nobody is publishing all the failures, where QM was off some 10x...


    I think this question is best addressed to someone who suggests that the degrees of freedom of the nucleus can result in stochastic resonance with bound electrons: what are the limits of QM for the nucleus? :)

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Did you change idea about the electron capture in LENR, after the recent troves on the matter?
    Thanks,
    Kris


    Andrea Rossi
    October 5, 2016 at 3:54 PM
    Kris:
    No, electron capture happens only in atoms with excess of protons. To say that in LENR happens electron capture means either to fool naif audiences or not to have understood what LENR are.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Some cold fusion systems runs in potassium carbonate solutions, while in sodium not.
    It would indicate, that potassium is also involved in LENR and it decays just with electron capture.


    The experiments are usually run in alkalione media. According Mills only NaH is activ, which can only exist in acid conditions!

    /* The experiments are usually run in alkalione media. According Mills only NaH is activ, which can only exist in acid conditions! */


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Nuclear force has range ~1fm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force ) so for fusion we would need to take two protons to approximately this distance - Coulomb says that it would require ke *e*e/r ~ 1.4 MeV.
    However, the temperature in the core of our sun is said to be 15 million Kelvins ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core ), what means only ~1.4 keV thermal energy - it is thousand times smaller than required to get nuclei to 1fm distance, could only get to 1pm distance.


    How is it explained that it is sufficient for fusion? If just as "tunneling", it should be compatible with Boltzmann distribution - giving ~exp(-1000) ~ 10^-435 scale of probability.
    Maybe it is already required to consider electron-assistance here: that there is electron remaining between the two collapsing nuclei?

    Quote from Jarek

    Nuclear force has range ~1fm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force ) so for fusion we would need to take two protons to approximately this distance - Coulomb says that it would require ke *e*e/r ~ 1.4 MeV.
    However, the temperature in the core of our sun is said to be 15 million Kelvins ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core ), what means only ~1.4 keV thermal energy - it is thousand times smaller than required to get nuclei to 1fm distance, could only get to 1pm distance.


    How is it explained that it is sufficient for fusion? If just as "tunneling", it should be compatible with Boltzmann distribution - giving ~exp(-1000) ~ 10^-435 scale of probability.
    Maybe it is already required to consider electron-assistance here: that there is electron remaining between the two collapsing nuclei?



    The Sun is driven by LENR


    first, the sun is a liquid


    See the following post as follows:


    Examples of Cold Fusion in nature.


    A liquid and a plasma cannot coexist.


    Next, the sun is composed of metalized hydrides.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Jarek

    How is it explained that it is sufficient for fusion? If just as "tunneling", it should be compatible with Boltzmann distribution - giving ~exp(-1000) ~ 10^-435 scale of probability.


    Ethan Siegel has it that the temperature in the sun is too low for any fusion at all through overcoming Coulomb repulsion, and that fusion goes back to tunneling alone. He gives this interaction a probability of 1e-28, significantly higher than your 1e-435.

    Pressure, and its correlate, density.


    Keeping in mind that the solar fusion rate, even at the core, is nevertheless very modest. One reference gives 276.5 watts per cubic meter, and at a density of 150 g/cc that is under two microwatts per gram.


    It is hot fusion, so the "Lawson criterion" is still relevant. That is the triple product of density, confinement time and temperature. The solar core privides not only the 'inadequate' 15 million degrees, but also very high density (about 150 times that of liquid water) and essentially infinite confinement time.

    /* Maybe it is already required to consider electron-assistance here: that there is electron remaining between the two collapsing nuclei? */


    Under these extreme pressures the electrons will be pushed between protons again, i.e. their shielding effect would apply there more than inside the sparse plasmas.

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.