A simplified theory of LENR

Axil is twaddling a lot again about things which he doesn't understand at all - even at the solely shallow conceptual basis. Why just the people who have nothing to say are these more verbose ones?
The absence of proton decay confirms Standard Model, which doesn't allow LENR and it therefore strengthens the impossibility of LENR. This is the straightforward conclusion from experiments linked.
In addition, the fast running process like the LENR cannot depend on extremely low numbers like the 10^34-year lifetime of proton, the above experiment is therefore orthogonal/irrelevant to LENR.

All the rest is just confused postmodern word salad about things which aren't related to GUT/Standard Model at all.

Quote from Alan Smith

They are not really suitable for publication in full -but maybe one day.

Maybe you could summarize the evidence presented or publish the correspondence verbatim in the Italian section of this forum?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

In addition, the fast running process like the LENR cannot depend on extremely low numbers like the 10^34-year lifetime of proton, the above experiment is therefore orthogonal/irrelevant to LENR.

Orthogonal is the right way to view much of this speculation. If only there were programmatic changes made to add some tendency to choose a sensible path among the many ideas, those few that may have some merit might form ....

Quote from axil

Rossi has to explain where all those electrons, a product of muon decay, he is seeing

What evidence is there of muon decay being involved? Why don't we see Bremstrahlung?

Quote from magicsound

One tantalizing hint is the importance of lattice defects in the semiconductor cavity for the asymmetric generation of monopole-like soliitons. See "Methods" on page 8.

In the papers below you can find that SPP waves, usually occurring behind surface disturbance, can build up huge potentials. We see over 600x increase of the E-field. This is enough to 'strongly' weaken the coulumb shielding.
For me its not clear if their nature is a standing wave and how they devellop in time.

This leaves an other point open: Are the nano cavities in LENR fuel important to generate the disturbance or to be a NAE! I would opt for the first.

In fact Axils paper was a repost, with now hopefully some bigger audiance.

The following pages could also be interesting:
- http://physics.gsu.edu/stockman/
- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf

You must search
(Light: Science & Applications (2016) 5, e16017; doi:10.1038/lsa.2016.17)
(Nanoplasmonics: Stockman_Phys_Today_2011_Physics_behind_Applications.pdf - stockman)

axil: The SPAWAR patent explicitly claims (without details) other particles, I saw disclosed in an other publication! May be you can find this again!

Quote from axil

In LENR, there seems to be an energy dampening field in place. From CR39 experiments where the particle detectors is seeing 10s of thousands of high speed particles created and then impacting matter of all kinds at all distances from the particle creation source and yet no gammas are detected. Where does all that energy that these particles were carrying go? When the [articles impact, the holes are formed in the plastic detectors, but the production of those holes are without any gamma afterglow. Any theory of LENR must explain this lack of high energy broadcasting sometimes at extreme distances from the source of the particles. LENR theory must explain this wonder without sounding like word salad.

Axil: May be You should once calculate the 'density' of the events: Thousands of craters means 1 crater per second or, if the experiment lasted more than one day, even 1 per minute!

May be not every LENR lab has a CERN level detector which snoops every photon... But mfp did see some low energy gamma - what's up then ??

Quote from axil

From
Direct observation of particles with energy >10 MeV/u from laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium

Hello Axil: From DD LENR fusion we expect either alphas with up to 12 MeV or two protons with each up to 12 MeV.

I personally are more interesting in seeing two protons, with energy up to 12 MeV, because this could explain something...

@axil It doesn't need to be magnetic. See 10.1038/nature08318 for an experimental demonstration of visible light SPASER emission at ~530 nm (blue-green) from prepared nano particles.

Some background at https://www.technologyreview.c…smallest-laser-ever-made/

Thanks Wyttenbach for the pointer to Stockman's work!

The cold fusion is a consequence of multiple contributing factors, but the dominant one is driven with quite classical physics and it utilizes the low-dimensional character of lattice collisions. The cold fusion arising from free collisions in plasma cloud is extremely improbable from thermodynamic perspective, because the simultaneous collision of many atoms (along single line) is also extremely improbable inside the plasma gas. Not so inside the well arranged crystal lattice...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physi…ntional_source_of/cl8nnf8

There is no need to raise exotic extensions of GUT or Standard Model - especially not in the moment, when they were (again) falsified by (absence) of proton decay.

/* The mechanism of cold fusion is proton decay. */

Complete BS. You're just raising this concept, because you just read about it in context of some new experiments before few hours, which is your usual modus operandi for enthusiastic pushing of whatever idea thinkable at all places of the web.

Voila - a proton decay!! Who would think of that?!? Did you read about my new theory of cold fusion?
You're behaving like some little kid in this respect...

So now you're full of it - but you probably missed the detail, this decay was just dismissed by these experiments - not confirmed. Normal person would say: I see, this idea cannot work for cold fusion - if nothing else than because these experiments didn't confirm it. But it makes absolutely no obstacle for you. I'm pretty sure, if these experiments would confirm the proton decay, you would twaddle about it as enthusiastically, like today, because the logical thinking is not something which you want to bother with.

Hi Zephir, I read your linked article and see simularities with Me356 recent experiment where he reported Li visible to the NiH reaction gave nuclear effects.

You say Li must be molten and only a few degrees of temp window to get the reaction. May I ask from where are your sources?

Also: If NiH effect is phonon driven - what frequency(ies) would you suggest make most bang?

https://www.facebook.com/chemonuclearfusionproject http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…ear-Fusion-ER2006-42W.pdf http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MinariTexperiment.pdf http://www.diva-portal.org/sma…iva2:52651/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Fusion device particle spectrum

/* If NiH effect is phonon driven - what frequency(ies) would you suggest make most bang */

Did I say, it's phonon driven? I don't remember it... I did talk about low-dimensional collisions. There is Znidarsic theory, according to which the surface and bulk of atom orbitals must get into a mutual resonance and the resulting resonating frequency predicted is in range of few THz. IMO this frequency is too high, because what resonates is not surface of single atom orbital, but multiple entangled ones, so that the resonating frequency gets lower.

me356: Reactor parameters [part 2]

Regarding the plasmons, inside the metal lattice we cannot have subsurface vibrations (i.e. polarons) without some surface ones (i.e. plasmons) in similar way like we cannot have sound waves inside the water without some surface noise) and the composite vibrations of both (i.e. polaritons), but IMO the lattice collisions are dominated by subsurface effects, which manifest itself with jets and vortex rings at surface instead of ripples.

IMO the cold fusion can be initiated both with impacts of deuterons from outside, both by resonance of lattice waves, which essentially means, during cold fusion we should use the AC discharge with DC component: the DC component injects the ions beneath surface of metal and the AC components will hammer them there. If you find some resonance frequency for it, the better - but from my above links its apparent, the AC component and waves isn't really necessary for cold fusion, when the accelerating voltage is high enough.

But there is caveat with discharge at the atmospheric pressure during layman experiments, that the ions cannot get too high energy due to Towsend's avalanches and self-ionization - no matter how high voltage its used. We for example cannot generate X-rays with common plasma ball, but once it gets evacuated, then there is no problem with it.

So that once we try the LENR at sufficiently high pressure, we should use the AC component, i.e. HF discharge, we would compensate this negative effect a bit.

Another reason, why the plasmons wouldn't participate on nuclear fusion is, these surface ripples are rather slow, whereas the polarons are much faster (analogously to speed of surface ripples with respect to underwater sound speed). The nuclear reactions are extremely fast with compare to orbital transitions, not to say about surface waves of them so that the cold fusion will finish before these waves will be even able to move.