LENR paper from China Institute of Atomic Energy

  • Thermal Resonance Fusion - http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.01650



  • It is always helpful, as here, when people write up ideas properly.


    The calculations here (not original, but still worth doing) show that with high lattice energy (3keV or greater) tunnelling probability is greatly enhanced, as you'd expect.


    The paper then suggests that lattice energy of individual deuterons can be enhanced by resonance above the typical value of 0.1ev at 1000K. That is also true.


    The paper provides no estimate of what is the possible strength of that effect, and here the hole in this work becomes obvious to any physicist. At high energies solid state lattices behave nonlinearly - as you would expect, and the simple equation for resonance does not work. At energies of 100eV or so, some 30X lower than needed for this mechanism to work, the deuteron energy is larger than its lattice binding energy and therefore no resonance is possible - instead the deuteron escapes the lattice. (100eV is an upper approximation, the actual energy needed on any real lattice is a good deal lower than this).


    For this class of mechanisms to work you need some way of binding deuterons electrostatically at an energy on the order of 3keV. Unfortunately QM prohibits that by quantising deuteron and electron wave functions as is well known.


    I'd hope the LENR community is sufficiently clued up to point out such an obvious hole as this. In fact I'm sure parts of it are.

  • It makes no difference to the argument, but for a quick and dirty calculation, and I'm happy to be corrected if any of these steps are wrong:
    kT = 25meV at 300K (as anyone doing semiconductor physics would know).
    1500K = 5 X 300K => 0.125eV


    average kinetic energy is (3/2) * (kT) so we get:
    0.18eV


    Of course, I would not choose 1500K, I'd choose (for the Rossi Lugano tests) 1000K. That corresponds to 0.125eV.


    For 1500C you get 6X300K or 0.22eV





    Actually 1500C is ~0.9 eV



  • Your statement above is benignly worded, but contains implicit assumptions that deserve a few shotgun replies. I don't expect that all my comments below will have a decisive effect on you or your thinking, but at least others here can see what might be said in response. Perhaps one or another will cause you to sharpen your approach or understanding of what we think is going on. I'm fairly certain the LENR community is "clued up" to the problems with deductions from "big physics".


    Personally, I don't find any reference by you or anyone else to Quantum Mechanics "QM" to be constraining in the regard you mention. QM as suggested above "prohibits that by quantising deuteron and electron wave functions..." What? Virtually everything known is quantised [quantized], regardless of one's interpretations of wave functions. Further that which is not known to be quantised, is assumed to be so. [For the casual reader / bystander: statistical smoothing makes continua typically apparent to us.] Quantisation itself does not prevent interference nor does it prevent resonance-- otherwise one should never see either. The constraint argued above appears to redound to one of insufficient energy to work. It is simply another repeat of the same old, and quite irrelevant, idea that insufficient energy to overcome some perceived activation barrier, in this case the usual coulomb barrier.


    And a note: If a deuteron is "escaping the lattice" at a particular energy, then someone did not make sure there was one ready to take its place, that is, the lattice should be in at least in an equilibrium with deuterons. [But that is not the greatest problem with your comments.]


    Tunneling is not energy dependent, on the contrary, tunneling represents a lessened input energy requirement. Tunneling is introduced to explain initiation of phenomena whose reaction would otherwise would be exceedingly improbable on classical thermodynamic "energy" grounds. In a reaction coordinate diagram, the E sub a, is the uncatalyzed barrier to the reaction, nearly always this thermodynamic limitation can be understood as work requirement to be overcome, that is the Ea is positive. To repeat: Tunneling is exactly the avoidance or at least lessening or undermining of such activation energy constraint. [And a note to others: Tunneling can work both ways. If the thermodynamics are not ultimately able to yield energy, that is if the reaction is not exothermic, but microscopic reversibility of simple binary reactions allows tunneling to work "backwards", so essentially fission itself may also be enhanced by "tunneling".]


    But direction of the reaction is NEVER the issue in LENR. All LENR, CF and CANR reactions of any note are enthalpically favorable (that is, if they can be initiated, they will release very substantial net energy). So, as an example, while the "untunneled" activation barrier is large for say D-D fusion, it not larger than the energy released on such a fusion. But in fact, it is irrelevant that the "normal" barrier is large-- since tunneling is quite likely possible, and may already be evident in F-P and successful F-P type replications as well as many other CF / LENR type reactions putatively resulting in nuclear fusion. The two important things are: Is the overall reaction energetically favorable, that is are the products more stable than the reactants? [negative delta H, or more completely, negative delta G, representing net energy out to the environment]. And secondly, can a means be found to lower the activation energy [bypass some or all of E sub a], enough bring the reaction about frequently enough to produce useable net energy?


    I believe many here would appreciate it if you found a way to distinguish your comments from a somewhat archaic "physics" view of the impossible. Such limitations have apparently disappeared in catalytic chemistry, enzymology or semiconductor electronics, to give just three diverse examples of fields where the quantised nature of the fine structure of reality is not an impediment to conducting "difficult" reactions. The path to which, so often seen, is simply "tunneling", or catalysis and often enabled rather than prohibited by quantisation.

  • I agree with the principle - that detailed analysis is worth more than broad-brush statements. However in this case I disagree with the details, and so will comment carefully on your points below.

    Your statement above is benignly worded, but contains implicit assumptions that deserve a few shotgun replies. I don't expect that all my comments below will have a decisive effect on you or your thinking, but at least others here can see what might be said in response. Perhaps one or another will cause you to sharpen your approach or understanding of what we think is going on. I'm fairly certain the LENR community is "clued up" to the problems with deductions from "big physics".


    Parts of it are. For example, Hagelstein has the clearest understanding of the problems inherent in any LENR theory that explains high levels of excess heat as shown in many experiments. I'm not quite sure what "big physics" is?


    Quote


    Personally, I don't find any reference by you or anyone else to Quantum Mechanics "QM" to be constraining in the regard you mention. QM as suggested above "prohibits that by quantising deuteron and electron wave functions..." What? Virtually everything known is quantised [quantized], regardless of one's interpretations of wave functions. Further that which is not known to be quantised, is assumed to be so. [For the casual reader / bystander: statistical smoothing makes continua typically apparent to us.] Quantisation itself does not prevent interference nor does it prevent resonance-- otherwise one should never see either. The constraint argued above appears to redound to one of insufficient energy to work. It is simply another repeat of the same old, and quite irrelevant, idea that insufficient energy to overcome some perceived activation barrier, in this case the usual coulomb barrier.


    My point here could have been made at more length. I thought it was obvious. Electrostatics (unquantised) allows arbitrary energy to be stored in systems of positive and negative charges, because there is no limit on how close they can get to each other. Quantisation of electron wave functions shows you cannot do this. If you could then the energy available from chemical bonds would be in principle unlimited - and any excess heat could be explained as some "super-bond" being created leading to a lower energy state lattice than normal.


    I was not saying that QM prohibited resonance - rather that all resonance has a limit when the amplitude of oscillation is larger than the available restoring force. Inside a lattice that restoring force is electrostatic, and once the energy in the oscillation is comparable with the binding energy of the lattice we cannot invoke resonance, because at such high energies the kinetic energy of the deuterons is greater than the binding energy and therefore just like an object reaching escape velocity they will not remain in the lattice.


    Quote


    And a note: If a deuteron is "escaping the lattice" at a particular energy, then someone did not make sure there was one ready to take its place, that is, the lattice should be in at least in an equilibrium with deuterons. [But that is not the greatest problem with your comments.]


    "Escaping from the lattice" happens. It is why solids to not remain solid at high temperatures. Once the temperature gets high enough that bonds can be broken easily you get a phase change. In this case there is nothing to take the place of the atoms knocked out of the lattice.


    Of course there remains some binding energy in a liquid. The ultimate limit is when energies are high enough to make a plasma with + and - charges far from each other - and that energy (per atom) represents the maximum available binding energy in the lattice.


    I do not see any problem in my statements relating to reaction kinetics or equilibrium - so if you continue to think this point valid perhaps you could amplify it addressing the comments above? I'm concerned that you are not understanding me.


    Quote


    Tunneling is not energy dependent, on the contrary, tunneling represents a lessened input energy requirement. Tunneling is introduced to explain initiation of phenomena whose reaction would otherwise would be exceedingly improbable on classical thermodynamic "energy" grounds. In a reaction coordinate diagram, the E sub a, is the uncatalyzed barrier to the reaction, nearly always this thermodynamic limitation can be understood as work requirement to be overcome, that is the Ea is positive. To repeat: Tunneling is exactly the avoidance or at least lessening or undermining of such activation energy constraint. [And a note to others: Tunneling can work both ways. If the thermodynamics are not ultimately able to yield energy, that is if the reaction is not exothermic, but microscopic reversibility of simple binary reactions allows tunneling to work "backwards", so essentially fission itself may also be enhanced by "tunneling".]


    Here we have no disagreement. What you say about tunnelling is of course true - and that it works both ways. I can't see what relevance this point has to my comments? I fully accept the point made in the paper here that tunnelling can allow significant fusion at energies much lower than the Coulomb barrier. (Indeed "big physics" - if by that you mean physics - has accepted this for a long time and calculated the magnitude of such affects).


    Quote


    But direction of the reaction is NEVER the issue in LENR. All LENR, CF and CANR reactions of any note are enthalpically favorable (that is, if they can be initiated, they will release very substantial net energy).


    This is OT for your point here, but I cannot resist pointing out an exception. Mat Lewans is convinced that the 62Ni from the Lugano tests represents nuclear conversion and he invoked an endothermic nuclear reaction with the Li (Li7 -> Li6) to explain the lack of excess heat.


    So people have claimed endothermic LENR. Since "LENR" is merely a set of broad hypotheses about mechanisms for a class of results you cannot logically rule this out. You may feel that an endothermic reaction would be kinetically disadvantaged, but overcoming such an objection is surely no more extraordinary than the other problems (see Hagelstein). In fact it is quite strongly related to them.


    I'm not saying that endothermic LENR is likely. Merely that you have no reason to rule it out. The "extraordinariness" needed to explain LENR is enough to break many other intuitions.


    Quote


    So, as an example, while the "untunneled" activation barrier is large for say D-D fusion, it not larger than the energy released on such a fusion. But in fact, it is irrelevant that the "normal" barrier is large-- since tunneling is quite likely possible, and may already be evident in F-P and successful F-P type replications as well as many other CF / LENR type reactions putatively resulting in nuclear fusion. The two important things are: Is the overall reaction energetically favorable, that is are the products more stable than the reactants? [negative delta H, or more completely, negative delta G, representing net energy out to the environment]. And secondly, can a means be found to lower the activation energy [bypass some or all of E sub a], enough bring the reaction about frequently enough to produce useable net energy?


    The issue here, which is explicitly calculated in this paper, is how likely is tunnelling to occur? No-one denies that tunnelling is part of fusion. All fusion reactions rely on tunnelling.


    Quote


    I believe many here would appreciate it if you found a way to distinguish your comments from a somewhat archaic "physics" view of the impossible. Such limitations have apparently disappeared in catalytic chemistry, enzymology or semiconductor electronics, to give just three diverse examples of fields where the quantised nature of the fine structure of reality is not an impediment to conducting "difficult" reactions. The path to which, so often seen, is simply "tunneling", or catalysis and often enabled rather than prohibited by quantisation.


    So the misunderstanding here is that you think I'm saying tunnelling does not play a part in enabling otherwise impossible reactions. That would be absurd. I'm saying that, following the calculations explicitly made in this paper, tunnelling is not enough to close the gap to deuteron fusion, because it requires 3keV. In fact I'm reading the paper linked here (most of which I agree with) and drawing conclusions directly from its work.

  • I'm fairly certain the LENR community is "clued up" to the problems with deductions from "big physics".


    Parts of it are. For example, Hagelstein has the clearest understanding of the problems inherent in any LENR theory that explains high levels of excess heat as shown in many experiments. I'm not quite sure what "big physics" is?


    One thing about Peter Hagelstein is that he is close to the "Big Physics" category to which I refer. Sorry, I was using a personal shorthand: "Big Physics" is my notion of physics with "big funding", "big name institutions", "big energies", "big equipment", and "big name physicists" .... I will only facetiously suggest "big egos", "big errors". For the non-facetious portion, I suppose there could be definitions, but that is another post.


    And one might ask, who cares if it is "big physics" or not? No one should had to have cared, but to us out here on the fringes of "little physics" or "no physics" perceive that "big interests" may be influencing the show that should have been an ideal of experimental science.

  • My point here could have been made at more length. I thought it was obvious. Electrostatics (unquantised) allows arbitrary energy to be stored in systems of positive and negative charges, because there is no limit on how close they can get to each other. Quantisation of electron wave functions shows you cannot do this. If you could then the energy available from chemical bonds would be in principle unlimited - and any excess heat could be explained as some "super-bond" being created leading to a lower energy state lattice than normal.


    I appreciate your clarification Thomas Clarke, thanks. But on re-examining Bao-Guo Dong's July 2015 draft article from the China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, I see that he may not intend quite what you interpret above, and not what I was originally thinking either. Surely no one is suggesting that single, or small number of some chemical bonds is directly supplying the restoring force, as you aptly describe it. There are some language usage problems in his article that show some paragraphs with excellent English structure and others with rather "Google Translate" genre of expressions (perhaps being a little unfair to Google there, but I think most will know what I mean). Reading past the language, it appears that he may be using "tunnel" in another way, perhaps referring to what I would like to call "channel"---which in at least most of its manifestations I know of, is certainly not identical to the quantum "tunneling" we see as anglophone chemists and physicists. Suppose a pair of deuterons bearing some particular charge values between +1 and -1 found themselves in a crystallographic channel, whence constrained by the metallic / electronic structural surround sufficiently to make their resonant excursions much more linearly constrained and steered toward direct head-on collisions than in relatively free gaseous or vacuum conditions. This would allow any mass differentials to influence phasing of such motions and hence frequency of the collisions that might result once the 10 fm or lesser barrier (if that is what it in fact is) were statistically breached.


    Work with ultra-pure and crystallographically oriented Pd has shown that it does not work "ever" to give excess energy (I believe that was a comment by Mitchell Swartz, perhaps quoting others and/or his own work). Truncated or discontinued linear channels could allow de-phasing of such channeled resonances as well. Small crystalline domains would have such truncations as a matter of course, and would be surely present, both in alloyed/impure Pd and in near amorphous off-the-shelf or supplier annealed, or "hammered" Pd (all reported examples, I recall). So a modification or expansion of the recent paper might be suggested. That is that the presence of infinitely long channels prevents deuterons from ever finding a collision, since there is always room to back away from/by coulomb. But if the deuterons were oppositely charged, that is quite another story, that is say a neutral deuterium atom (the latticed deuterons are monoatomic to my best knowledge) and a deuteron in such a context would see one another only once it was too late to restore themselves from collision. Further, I suggest, without quantitation, that the oscillating electrostatic field, or phonon / magnon field should be felt quite distinctly by these two species. Another oppositely charged possible pairing is the deuterium atom and the D (minus) ion, also known to be present at some level in atomic hydrogen welding arcs, so perhaps within loaded lattices... Actually both might be more stable in the presence of the electronic orbitals of the Pd, Ni etc, with the positive ion tending to want to ground out on the nearby orbitals forming at least a transient hydride species.


    One critique of such an idea is the depth to which electrostatic oscillations can penetrate a conductor such these transition metals. I don't think the depth has to be extreme, the skin effect has a value that is proportional to the square root of lambda (wavelength of the electromagnetically propagated signal). Of course that is transverse conductance and may well be quite different of direct reflectance and for magic angle (typically 54.7 degree) incidence-- that latter is the exact formulation for maximizing surface plasmons / evanescent waves. This is deeply related to resonance per se without necessarily any of the implication of the Widom-Larsen polariton construct, whether or not it has any validity. [I withhold judgement there until ULM neutrons are detected in context... I've written of this before, here and may have to drum up interest again. I believe they are detectable and have suggested an approach.].

  • I was not saying that QM prohibited resonance - rather that all resonance has a limit when the amplitude of oscillation is larger than the available restoring force. Inside a lattice that restoring force is electrostatic, and once the energy in the oscillation is comparable with the binding energy of the lattice we cannot invoke resonance, because at such high energies the kinetic energy of the deuterons is greater than the binding energy and therefore just like an object reaching escape velocity they will not remain in the lattice.


    [Longview had written} And a note: If a deuteron is "escaping the lattice" at a particular energy, then someone did not make sure there was one ready to take its place, that is, the lattice should be in at least in an equilibrium with deuterons. [But that is not the greatest problem with your comments.]



    "Escaping from the lattice" happens. It is why solids to not remain solid at high temperatures. Once the temperature gets high enough that bonds can be broken easily you get a phase change. In this case there is nothing to take the place of the atoms knocked out of the lattice.


    Of course there remains some binding energy in a liquid. The ultimate limit is when energies are high enough to make a plasma with + and - charges far from each other - and that energy (per atom) represents the maximum available binding energy in the lattice.


    I think you are getting closer to a viable concept there. A gas dissolved in a condensed state (solid or liquid) may remain a gas... or it may be constrained in some way by the crystalline structure and have behavior that is neither that of a gas (limited motion) nor of a condensed phase (gaseous freedom of motion in at least one dimension). I contend that energy can be imparted to that gas (at least over small near surface domains) that does not necessarily melt the lattice, or energy can put it into to such an intercalated "gas" phase if the "lattice" were wholly or partially a liquid at the outset.


    I believe we who follow this field, should consider means by which energy levels of the intercalated "deuteride" or "hydride" does not necessarily equilibrate destructively with the lattice. Think of electrical conduction. It can carry immense energy through a solid conductor such as silver or copper. And those levels are no where near the limit, electrons or charges can reach 1000 fold greater energy flows in the case of superconductivity. I would remind readers that protons and deuterons are much smaller than electrons. What prevents them from special "conduction" through selected or specially engineered solids? Proton conductors have been associated with LENR in occasional reports.


    I do not see any problem in my statements relating to reaction kinetics or equilibrium - so if you continue to think this point valid perhaps you could amplify it addressing the comments above? I'm concerned that you are not understanding me.


    See my comment above, hopefully that will clarify what I was trying to get at. I imagine that you see that the intercalated "gas" of deuterons or deuterium atoms, or deuterium negative ions, is not necessarily at the thermodynamic equilibrium with the lattice, and even if it is on a massed (non-directionally discriminant) statistical level, that equilibrium does not necessarily translate to lattice dissociation at collective collisional energies within "channels" (tunnels?) within a condensed lattice. I will grant you that the productive output of MeV energy by such collisions may be a problem, and of course this is something Dr. Hagelstein has wrestled with for a long time with "many models buried".

  • Note: If you are following this thread, or have an interest, there are several new posts in it on the preceding page.


    So people have claimed endothermic LENR. Since "LENR" is merely a set of broad hypotheses about mechanisms for a class of results you cannot logically rule this out. You may feel that an endothermic reaction would be kinetically disadvantaged, but overcoming such an objection is surely no more extraordinary than the other problems (see Hagelstein). In fact it is quite strongly related to them.


    I'm not saying that endothermic LENR is likely. Merely that you have no reason to rule it out. The "extraordinariness" needed to explain LENR is enough to break many other intuitions


    And as you know, kinetically disadvantaged reactions can be driven by coupling with kinetically advantaged reactions. That happens all the time in living cells, both by ATP hydrolysis, but also by another form of "channeling" which closely links reactions physically so that real concentrations would look crazy in free solutions, but work as direct "handoffs" of product to reactant status.


    Of course I would not necessarily claim that has much to do with what is going on here, although one might pay some attention to my comment below about Nernst pressure, which takes PV = nRT and its solute-solution equivalent to possible parameter-blowing levels. I think non-specialists may sometimes neglect the relationship that Gibb's free energy [delta G = delta H - (TdeltaS)] defines is set at standardized conditions, such conditions can be dramatically changed with concentrations, pressures, including but not limited to initial and final pressures for fluid components. And that is not even considering the rather wide range of delta H values for fairly simple and common reactions that can be found over decades of highly competent, peer reviewed work. The point being, textbook "endothermic" may actually be empirically "exothermic".... it is often not as simple as the equations and tables suggest.


    [Longview had written} So, as an example, while the "untunneled" activation barrier is large for say D-D fusion, it not larger than the energy released on such a fusion. But in fact, it is irrelevant that the "normal" barrier is large-- since tunneling is quite likely possible, and may already be evident in F-P and successful F-P type replications as well as many other CF / LENR type reactions putatively resulting in nuclear fusion. The two important things are: Is the overall reaction energetically favorable, that is are the products more stable than the reactants? [negative delta H, or more completely, negative delta G, representing net energy out to the environment]. And secondly, can a means be found to lower the activation energy [bypass some or all of E sub a], enough bring the reaction about frequently enough to produce useable net energy?


    The issue here, which is explicitly calculated in this paper, is how likely is tunnelling to occur? No-one denies that tunnelling is part of fusion. All fusion reactions rely on tunnelling.


    [Longview had written] ...... Such limitations have apparently disappeared in catalytic chemistry, enzymology or semiconductor electronics, to give just three diverse examples of fields where the quantised nature of the fine structure of reality is not an impediment to conducting "difficult" reactions. The path to which, so often seen, is simply "tunneling", or catalysis and often enabled rather than prohibited by quantisation.


    So the misunderstanding here is that you think I'm saying tunnelling does not play a part in enabling otherwise impossible reactions. That would be absurd. I'm saying that, following the calculations explicitly made in this paper, tunnelling is not enough to close the gap to deuteron fusion, because it requires 3keV. In fact I'm reading the paper linked here (most of which I agree with) and drawing conclusions directly from its work.


    Well, not at this point. I accept your comments. Moving on, I suspect that the 3 keV may be in error far on the high side, but not if the only variables present were those examined by Bao-Guo. I suggested also that Bao-Guo's "tunneling" might be misnamed. And my point may also be that "real" tunneling in the catalytic sense may, or may not actually overlap my re-interpretation of Bao-Guo "tunneling" as actually "channeling" which I here put forward as an alternate translation. In any case, I suggest that tunneling in a broader or deeper sense may enable input energies of much less than 3 keV to achieve a useful rate of fusion.


    A final point related to that possibility. I have read that it had been suggested by F&P that Nernst pressure might be operative in their observed over unity electrolytic reactions. This idea was revived by Tadahiko Mizuno [his book "The Reality of Cold Fusion" as translated by Jed Rothwell, 1998, b.t.w. a book still available very reasonably from Infinite Energy Press, as new but very slightly worn covers]. Whether or not either of these research groups had the magnitudes or implications of Nernst pressure exactly correct (there has been criticism), it still is nevertheless a factor that might well be added to the "thermal resonance" idea under development by Bao-Guo. Nernst pressures in some forms of electrolytic cells can be immense (it is claimed by Mizuno and others), far greater than seen in the core of our Sun. That itself may not be too impressive, since the excess fusion energy produced in the core of the Sun is on the order of a few watts per cubic meter (undetectable in a terrestrial lab-- and something I suspect might have forewarned the hot fusion community of the problems ahead over half a century ago!). But as a means of changing important parameters, such as the dimensional threshold for strong force interaction, or for the probability of D-D, d+-D, D--D or even more complex tetra nucleon or higher interactions, the Nernst pressure should still be considered a possible modifier.

  • This experiment and considerations remember to me the theoretical work of V. I. Vysotskii about the "Reduction of the Coulomb barrier hypothesis".


    In this 2011 paper, Vysotskii has wrote "Such results can explain Rossi-Focardi experiments" and wrote "in biological systems".


    I reported it there and I wrote " This hypothesis is in fact a more complete study of the tunnel effect in the standard model. It extends without contradiction, naturally and theoretically the standard model to phenomena known as cold fusion (LERN and others) and biological transmutations. "


    This experiment and this theory seams to me a big step to unify physical sciences.

  • Vysotskii reduction of Coulomb barrier and sharp conditions


    In e-catworld, Frank Acland writes : Cold Fusion devices have long been known to be temperamental. If one variable is out of place, no excess heat may be produced. The unforgiving nature of LENR seemed to extend to the E-Cat ...


    The "Reduction of the Coulomb barrier hypothesis" from V. I. Vysotskii is very global and cannot help to accurately perfect an experiment.


    But this hypothesis and the chinese CIAE experiment reveal and explain that accurate and sharp conditions are needed. Thermal help enlarges these conditions, the diversity of biological conditions also.