If the author can't be bothered to stay up to date with what is probably the biggest scam ever in the LENR field, why bother reading the rest?
Electron-assisted fusion
-
-
Why read when you can criticise without making any effort whatsoever? Reading isn't difficult Mary, one word at a time. You get there in the end.
-
New post on Vessela Nikolova blog (Italian only, for now):
-
-
The first part of their explanation sounds like the beginning of Dr. Mills work. Mills also says that the electron is a current distribution - but jugding the rest of both models ocams razor would clearly favour Mills. Stability of electron radii is purely based on maxwells laws (http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.14729).
-
Another new possibly related preprint on enhancement of fusion, and other nuclear, reactions in plasmas --
"Effect of impurities on nuclear fusion"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05270
This appears to be related to the phenomenon of the "Astrophysical S-factor" where (mostly) electron screening enhances fusion events in stellar (and in some lab) environments.
For anyone interested, many papers can be found on Arxiv.org Advanced Search page with "astrophysical AND s-factor" in the abstract entry.
-
Display More
Another new possibly related preprint on enhancement of fusion, and other nuclear, reactions in plasmas --
"Effect of impurities on nuclear fusion"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05270
This appears to be related to the phenomenon of the "Astrophysical S-factor" where (mostly) electron screening enhances fusion events in stellar (and in some lab) environments.
For anyone interested, many papers can be found on Arxiv.org Advanced Search page with "astrophysical AND s-factor" in the abstract entry.
Great to Lou Pagnucco to share this work..
Another papers here from P Kalman, the first one about Rossi's LIH.
Be careful no "solaritron" here.
-
-
Great find Ahlfors
The Physics Review paper by M.Lipoglavsec et al https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0370269317307025
has more explanation including.
"Our result clearly shows that during the electron screening effect the electrons do not just lower the Coulomb barrier from an atomic shell, but actively participate in the reaction at a much closer distance than the atomic radius. Namely, the internal conversion coefficient for a 5.6 MeV dipole transition in a helium nucleus is close to 10−8[22], while our measured one is at least 104 times higher. Our result is the first indication that nuclear reactions behave differently at low projectile energies than at higher ones.
To better understand the described results and electron screening in general, it would be interesting to search for a similar effect in different targets and at different beam energies. Eq. (3) together with measured cross sections [19] predict that even more electrons will be produced at beam energies below 260 keV, but they are inaccessible with our accelerator"
How much would be the electron screening ratio at lower proton energies of 100 keV,
10 keV,1 keV 0.5 kev ? using equation 2 or 3.
...tests at lower beam energies would be great. .perhaps they would get more than 2% energy conversions to electrons as well.
-
Yes interesting paper. The argument(that electrons can carry away the fusion energy seems to depend on ref #12.
Ref 12 is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0370269317307025 -
The electrons could of course come from another source (spheromaks??)
If the input proton beam energy rather than 260,000 Ev was as low as 1500 eV
and the screening energy was 800eV then according to Equation 2 I calculate
that most of the energy would go out as electrons rsther than gammas.
But then whether or not any energy comes out at all at this low energy input level
is a question.
-
Recall that these electron screening experiments, while interesting, are not yet obviously related to LENR as observed in the PdD system. In the screening experiments, the usual branching ratios are seen (or are assumed to be seen), including energetic gamma photons, while in PdD LENR, you have deuterium and palladium as inputs and helium and heat as outputs and few gammas reported. The relevance of the d(d,ɣ)4He reaction or some variant, to take the obvious example, where ɣ is somehow quietly thermalized, is not apparent in these electron screening experiments.
I suggest that fusion of deuterium is infertile ground for seeking to understand LENR and that other kinds of explanation should be sought.
-
Recall that these electron screening experiments, while interesting, are not yet obviously related to LENR as observed in the PdD system. In the screening experiments, the usual branching ratios are seen (or are assumed to be seen), including energetic gamma photons, while in PdD LENR, you have deuterium and palladium as inputs and helium and heat as outputs and few gammas reported. The relevance of the d(d,ɣ)4He reaction or some variant, to take the obvious example, where ɣ is somehow quietly thermalized, is not apparent in these electron screening experiments.
I suggest that fusion of deuterium is infertile ground for seeking to understand LENR and that other kinds of explanation should be sought.
The screening experiments are definitely related to LENR-Pd reactions, no question about it IMO. The above paper provides an explanation as to why the branching ratios are different: the impact energy is higher in the screening experiments than LENR. According to the reasoning in the paper, with higher impact energy, the screening electron is less likely to carry away some energy of fusion.
Pd is the best screening material in the beam experiments, AND the best material for LENR fusion. Is that a coincidence? -
Pd is the best screening material in the beam experiments, AND the best material for LENR fusion. Is that a coincidence?
I think you minimize the difficulties. The connection to PdD LENR requires a stretch of the imagination:
- Not just fewer gammas, but practically no gammas in PdD LENR.
- Not just fewer than 50 percent neutrons/3He, 50 percent fast protons/tritium, but almost no neutrons, 3He and tritium in PdD LENR.
- Attaining energies comparable to those seen in the screening experiments when the average energy in a metal lattice is on the sub-eV level.
So yes, I'd say it's probably coincidence if I had to guess.
By contrast, you state that "The screening experiments are definitely related to LENR-Pd reactions, no question about it". That is a lot of certitude for still having to fill in so many gaps. -
I think you minimize the difficulties. The connection to PdD LENR requires a stretch of the imagination:
- Not just fewer gammas, but practically no gammas in PdD LENR.
- Not just fewer than 50 percent neutrons/3He, 50 percent fast protons/tritium, but almost no neutrons, 3He and tritium in PdD LENR.
- Attaining energies comparable to those seen in the screening experiments when the average energy in a metal lattice is on the sub-eV level.
So yes, I'd say it's probably coincidence if I had to guess.
By contrast, you state that "The screening experiments are definitely related to LENR-Pd reactions, no question about it". That is a lot of certitude for still having to fill in so many gaps.All those differences are due to the electron screening and low impact energies. Its a different reaction involving 3 particles instead of two, and in a different environment of high electron density. IMO there is no reason to presume the reaction products will resemble
products from 2-particle, unscreened hot fusion.
I am convinced, but I dont necessarily expect others to be convinced. This is material to me because I am working on LENR experiments and using electron screening models as a guide. -
Debarium,
An EVO or spheromak will be the most charge intense, electron-like particle you can possibly find to be used in LENR experiments.
-
IMO there is no reason to presume the reaction products will resemble products from 2-particle, unscreened hot fusion.
Let me enlarge upon the difficulties you face in applying results of the mainstream electron screening experiments to PdD LENR. Assume 1 W excess power produced from a small palladium electrode. Now assume that the power is produced by fusing deuterium in a d(d,*)4He reaction, where * fills in for the missing gamma photon. 1 W power is 1 joule of energy per second. To get 1 joule of energy from d+d reactions, we must have:
1 Joule * 1 reaction / 24 MeV * 6.24e12 MeV / Joule = 2.6e11 reactions (per second).
What must be the efficiency of the bias of the branching towards our preferred branch of dd → 4He in order not to detect neutrons in a neutron detector above background or make the inventor sick? Suppose somehow we have an excellent efficiency of 99.9 percent of all reactions yielding the 4He/not-gamma-photon branch. That leaves 0.1 percent of reactions that produce the other branches:
(0.1 / 100) * 2.6e11 reactions / s = 2.6e8 reactions / s
producing something other than 4He and not-gammas. In other words, on the order of 1e8, or 100,000,000, neutrons per second. It seems our efficiency of 99.9 percent of good reactions is far too low. Whatever is using deuterium fusion to produce LENR along the lines of the mainstream electron screening experiments must be orders of magnitude more efficient at avoiding the usual branches in order to match the results of LENR experiments. Our LENR version of dd fusion must be nearly perfectly efficient.
The difficulty, of course, is that the mainstream experiments give no hope of such efficiency, no matter how much screening occurs. This should at least provide motivation for using lateral thinking to come up with another plausible explanation.
I am convinced, but I dont necessarily expect others to be convinced. This is material to me because I am working on LENR experiments and using electron screening models as a guide.
All the more reason to do some due diligence regarding whether the common understanding of deuterium fusion is a good fit for the facts. Perhaps there are other explanations that do not require such narrow tolerances and so many ad hoc assumptions.
-
Is there an analogous SV assisted fusion mechanism possibility
as in the muomolecular mechanism?
-
Display More
Let me enlarge upon the difficulties you face in applying results of the mainstream electron screening experiments to PdD LENR. Assume 1 W excess power produced from a small palladium electrode. Now assume that the power is produced by fusing deuterium in a d(d,*)4He reaction, where * fills in for the missing gamma photon. 1 W power is 1 joule of energy per second. To get 1 joule of energy from d+d reactions, we must have:
1 Joule * 1 reaction / 24 MeV * 6.24e12 MeV / Joule = 2.6e11 reactions (per second).
What must be the efficiency of the bias of the branching towards our preferred branch of dd → 4He in order not to detect neutrons in a neutron detector above background or make the inventor sick? Suppose somehow we have an excellent efficiency of 99.9 percent of all reactions yielding the 4He/not-gamma-photon branch. That leaves 0.1 percent of reactions that produce the other branches:
(0.1 / 100) * 2.6e11 reactions / s = 2.6e8 reactions / s
producing something other than 4He and not-gammas. In other words, on the order of 1e8, or 100,000,000, neutrons per second. It seems our efficiency of 99.9 percent of good reactions is far too low. Whatever is using deuterium fusion to produce LENR along the lines of the mainstream electron screening experiments must be orders of magnitude more efficient at avoiding the usual branches in order to match the results of LENR experiments. Our LENR version of dd fusion must be nearly perfectly efficient.
The difficulty, of course, is that the mainstream experiments give no hope of such efficiency, no matter how much screening occurs. This should at least provide motivation for using lateral thinking to come up with another plausible explanation.
All the more reason to do some due diligence regarding whether the common understanding of deuterium fusion is a good fit for the facts. Perhaps there are other explanations that do not require such narrow tolerances and so many ad hoc assumptions.
99.9% may sound like a lot, but perhaps in this context it isnt. I agree that neutron and gamma measurements set a limit for the branching ratio, and this limit is quite restrictive. Your calculation is a reasonable thing to consider. But I dont think it means much because we cannot assume there must be limits on the branching ratio that are incompatible with electron screening.
"Perhaps there are other explanations that do not require such narrow tolerances and so many ad hoc assumptions."
I have looked at other theories and they don't make sense to me. They generally require more speculative and unreasonable assumptions. For example, Widom-Larsen theory IMO lacks supporting experimental evidence.
"the mainstream experiments give no hope of such efficiency, no matter how much screening occurs"The electron screening experiments also use impact energies many thousands of times higher than LENR (like about 100,000X higher). This higher impact energy may impact the branching ratio. One way this could happen is by differences in angular momentum and the "centrifugal barrier". With high impact energy, the product nucleus can have very high angular momentum (for non-zero impact parameter, i.e. off-axis collision). With low impact energy, the product nucleus will always have very low angular momentum. It is known that the centrifugal barrier can affect the branching ratio in nuclear reactions/collisions.
Also, it should be noted that the electron screening experiments may be underestimating the effectiveness of screening! This is because the experiments measure high energy particles to determine the fusion rate. So, the experiments will miss reactions that do not produce high energy particles (i.e. LENR-type reactions). There could be lots of undetected LENR-type reactions occurring in these experiments. -
I have looked at other theories and they don't make sense to me. They generally require more speculative and unreasonable assumptions. For example, Widom-Larsen theory IMO lacks supporting experimental evidence.
One possibility for understanding PdD electrochemical results: there's almost invariably a platinum anode. Platinum includes 0.012 percent platinum-190, which is an alpha emitter. Perhaps there's something about the action of deuterium migrating under a current which catalyzes the alpha decay of the platinum-190. Excess heat, de novo helium, few to no gammas, and no need for particles in a low-energy system to be mysteriously accelerated to sufficient levels to initiate fusion.
Also, it should be noted that the electron screening experiments may be underestimating the effectiveness of screening! This is because the experiments measure high energy particles to determine the fusion rate.
This is a possibility that should be explored. Sometimes experimenters will make assumptions that seem to them to be reasonable and conservative in order to reduce the amount of work. But I also think it's worth keeping tabs on whether such assumptions are actually being made.
