Anyway any theory that create energetic impact, then usual two-body nuclear reaction with energetic outcome, cannot explains LENR.
The real mystery is that the outcome is not energetic.
Ed Storms propose his "slow fusion" idea, that allows multi-steps (thousands or millions of energy levels required) fusion, instead of the single step like in two-body reactions.
What is nearly sure is that any theory that does not involve thousands of body, and sub MeV transitions, is not an LENR theory.
What is nearly sure is that any theory that does not involve thousands of body, and sub MeV transitions, is not an LENR theory.
I disagree and invite you to elaborate on the basis for your comment. I suspect it goes back to dogmatic assertions from well-known LENR researchers and watchers. I should add that any LENR theory that involves sub-MeV transitions and thousands of bodies seems likely to be unphysical.
I disagree and invite you to elaborate on the basis for your comment. I suspect it goes back to dogmatic assertions from well-known LENR researchers and watchers. I should add that any LENR theory that involves sub-MeV transitions and thousands of bodies seems likely to be unphysical.
My vision is influenced by Ed Storms, Julian Swinger, Preparata, Widom/Larsen/Srivastava, Luca Gamberale, Dubinko, Hagelstein, Kim/Zubarev.
Without adding new physics, any few body interaction with Heat/He4 ratio around 24MeV, would produce massive penetrating radiation , directly (gamma, neutrons) or indirectly (Bremsstrahlung), that is not observed.
This is why I relay ed Storms conclusion that energy is dissipated by tiny quanta.
Moreover breaking coulomb barrier with few body requires high energy input.
LENR happens in condensed matter because it requires collective effect, like superconductivity, Laser, superfluidity...
If you add new physics... it is a wild card... But for me new physics is "too easy excuse" not to accept horrific "multi-body" physics that is the key to material science.
Worst of all, it seems that LENR is not even linked to regular-3D collective effect, but to something terrible like 2D (WLS) or 1D (hydroton), or (my desperate proposal) to fractal (damaged surface, or arborescent cracks).
Note that Hagelstein is assuming a 24 MeV transition; it's just being fractionated into small pieces across a number of targets. Ed Storms is the only person I know proposing that the source of the nuclear event is undergoing sub-MeV transitions. In doing that he's setting aside 80 years of quantum mechanics, as far as I can tell.
It's clear that not much penetrating radiation has been observed in the Fleischmann and Pons heat effect. That is different from saying none has been observed, and it's different from saying that any charged particles must have sub-MeV energies in all of LENR. I'm going to guess that you would not necessarily get bremsstrahlung, even from MeV electrons, unless there are heavy atoms around (e.g., lead and bismuth).
Coulomb barrier penetration is not a consideration when we're talking about induced decay -- alpha decay, beta decay, electron capture, etc. What penetrating radiation would be produced by a 2.5 MeV alpha particle that results from an alpha decay? I'm guessing not much. I would be interested in seeing the question examined experimentally before drawing any hard conclusions. What bremsstrahlung, etc., arises when a heavy nucleus fragments into two high momentum but slow moving pieces? Again, I bet not much.
Hagelstein talks about a 20 keV limit on charged particles in the Fleischmann and Pons effect. This is an interesting conjecture, and one that should be given experimental attention. It's fine to put forward a conjecture, but it should not be allowed to become an unchallengeable assumption, as many advocates would have it. And it applies to PdD and not necessarily NiH.
My vision is influenced by Ed Storms, Julian Swinger, Preparata, Widom/Larsen/Srivastava, Luca Gamberale, Dubinko, Hagelstein, Kim/Zubarev.
It's fine to have a vision influenced by these people. It's a different thing to go beyond what we know experimentally and say that LENR requires a many-body explanation, and that anything with more than sub-MeV transitions is not LENR. We need to do a lot more experiments before we can say something like this for sure, despite what some advocates confidently assert.
The real mystery is that the outcome is not energetic.
What is nearly sure is that any theory that does not involve thousands of body, and sub MeV transitions, is not an LENR theory.
What is broblem? PP fusion do 0,42Mev positron, that drop/hit Ni nucleus and it gives 1,4Mev braking radiation. 2x511kev =1Mev annihilation energy summs total 1,4Mev braking radiation..
As far I know standard physics if/when PP happens.(?)
Without adding new physics, any few body interaction with Heat/He4 ratio around 24MeV, would produce massive penetrating radiation , directly (gamma, neutrons) or indirectly (Bremsstrahlung), that is not observed.
This is why I relay ed Storms conclusion that energy is dissipated by tiny quanta.
Oh, you look too far. Use standard physics and 1/1H(p, e+ ve)D transition 0,42Mev braked internal to Ni target + annihilation (+1Mev) at same.
He (the cat, or cat can be Li+p too) come later. One of first step is observed, stairs continue when we see more
Hagelstein did put a ceiling on the energy of outcomes, at least alpha, much below 100keV.
Because we don't observe consequence of high energy particles, even just braked (Bremsstrahlung).
Phonon-gamma coupling (Mosbauer, is a collective phenomenon that split the energy of a gamma to a collectivity, but yes it is far from the slow fusion of ed Storms that I have in mind.
My expression is a bit too radical, but most ideas today involve some concentration then splitting, involving collective effects.
If I understand Ed Storms ideas it is indeed quite lonely in that it does not propose concentration of energy from multi-bodies to overcome a barrier, but creation of a strange collective quantum system which lose energy until it concludes with a transmutation done.
Nearly all theory are collective today, but there are families of solutions.
Some concentrate energy to produce something that catalyse the reaction, a way preventing visibly energetic outcome
Some concentrate energy, to overcome a barrier, produce energy, then split it.
and Ed propose that a collective system produce energy through small "isomeric transitions" until a normal state of transmutation is reached.
Hagelstein talks about a 20 keV limit on charged particles in the Fleischmann and Pons effect. This is an interesting conjecture, and one that should be given experimental attention.
Can 20kev be PeP reaction when e- (or e+ with 0,42Mev) drops to H nucleus?
Btw if PP and PeP runs 50:50 ½x1.4Mev is generated. Is it enough to climb coulomb barrier once reaction start?
Such reaction is almost invisible, only D2 content rise. Maybe low band X-rays when e- or e+ drop H nucleus but it is not sure.
And if even one positron is generated and it drops to H2 molecyle it give needed 1Mev coulumb barrier energy to bring fusion to D.
I think it is not violating charge symmetry, but is not wide public known fusion reaction because it is Pe+P.
It should have 1Mev extra energy vs PeP from annihilation.
Can anybody find it literature??? Hard to belive it is unknown.
Hagelstein did put a ceiling on the energy of outcomes, at least alpha, much below 100keV.
Yes. And people in an earlier century had a conjecture about phlogiston, which was shown to be false when oxidation was discovered. That doesn't mean that Hagelstein is wrong; but the empirical method says we do some experiments to verify that he's correct.
Because we don't observe consequence of high energy particles, even just braked (Bremsstrahlung).
It's untrue that we don't observe the consequences of high energy particles. We see CR-39 tracks (SPAWAR), we see x-rays (nearly everyone), we see fast protons (Piantelli), we see fast alphas (Karabut, etc.) and much more. Which experiments do we call "LENR" and which do we throw out? Whose overgeneralizations about what constitutes LENR do we adopt?
My expression is a bit too radical, but most ideas today involve some concentration then splitting, involving collective effects.
Nearly all theory are collective today, but there are families of solutions.
Then perhaps most LENR theories are wrong. Almost all of them certainly seem unphysical. Science is not a democracy. (But maybe one of them is right.)
