RNBE 2016 William Collis - a heretical theory involving unusual particles.

  • Very enlightening, a breath of fresh air.


    The relationship between neutron donors and neutron receptors that do not result in radiation is an interesting proposition as a requirement for a suitable theory.


    The crux of the presentation is that any 'theory' must predict what is actually observed in experiments. This of course becomes a subject for debate when observations which are made, which are challenged. Conversely, as he acknowledged, some reactions may remain unrecorded where they are not expected or monitored.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Giuliano Preparata was correct. Coherence from superconductivity is the keystone of the LENR reaction. The exotic neutral particle theory is correct in principle but not in the detail as explained in this lecture above. Nuclear reactions are a result of LENR causation and not its cause.


    Metalized hydrides or alternatively know as hydrogen rydberg matter is the coherent exotic neutral particle that produces hot spots in LENR experiments.

  • After so much noise from all sources, the lecture of William is an excellent guideline for any theory. Knowledge of the nuclear realm is NECESSARY for the explanation of LENR, and its lack costed so much to F&P!

    The neutral particle is necessary.


    Still the preference for stable nuclei has to be addressed...

  • Hi Andrea I do wonder if the neutron cross section can be important. This can be quite large for less stable nuclei especially those with odd numbers of neutrons.


    Perhaps if we can remove the Coulomb barrier/ charge repulsion component from proton interactions due to interaction with electron wave functions the equivalent proton cross section for nuclei with odd numbers of protons quite large too but weeker than the Coulomb repulsion when the charge is important.


    i agree it's hard to see how charged particles could cross the coulomb Barrier unless some what conventional fusion ivvolving particles at high KE are involved. Especially for heavier nuclei larger than Li say.


    But perhaps if the particles can come close enough to the nucleus to be with in the neutron cross section for sufficient time this may result in them coming under the nucleus influence.


    since we effectively input protons I see 2 conceptual possibilities:


    1. protons would need to look like a neutral particle perhaps due to a certain probability their wave function interacts with an electron shell wave function so as to appear neutral for a short period of time. Perhaps then the combination can cross the barrier some how


    2. The protons are under the influence of the nucleus for sufficient time that they interact as a nucleus proton and undergo electron capture with a shell electron and are subsequently absorbed or ejected as a neutron. Some of the excess energy above ground state will be absorbed in the neutron production. Perhaps the excess energy above ground state is taken in part in the neutrino ejected and in part with KE of the resulting nucleus without the necessity of ejecting a Gamma photon. Perhaps this might be shown with some kind of signature internal bermstrahlung similar to that observed by MFMP but this would need to be checked of course especially with respect to the Q values in this environment etc. I suspect if we have X-rays/UV from bremsstrahlung they can effectively strip inner electrons from other atoms making hollow atoms and perhaps continue exciting Hydrogen to Rydberg states. It may be that these excited states are more likely to interact wit a Hydrogen - anion say (and thus bring a proton close to the nucleus) than atoms in ground state. I Think the signature of 2 is possibly quite close to observed phenomena and would require very specific environments with H-anions and excited atoms in close proximity also similar to what had been observed.


    Although these thoughts are conceptual and not accurately thought through or analysed at scientific level, I'm curious if this can work as a perhaps more conventional approach than those using DDL more exotic physics.


    my gut feels, however, that there is probably some blend and combination of all the various ideas out there though including some exotic ideas and even maybe some local kinetic fusion of light elements that is needed to explain the whole picture. Especially if we need to explain the the necessary environment as well as the nuclear level processes and perhaps observed collective behavior.

  • @StephenC

    Perhaps if we can remove the Coulomb barrier ..........


    Please don't get me wrong, you sound enthusiastic about LENR, but William is suggesting sort of the contrary to your swirl of "not accurately thought through" ideas: he is suggesting that even many "structured" theories are essentially wrong, and that there is a precise minimal requirement for the right explanation of LENR. This leaves a narrow path towards the final LENR theory, which requires "cold blooded" comparison with experimental evidence and less resort to series of miracles.
    You also add "my gut feels, however, that there is probably some blend and combination of all the various ideas out there though including some exotic ideas ...". Let me remark that Science is not a social exercise, often is the opposite.


    The development of a LENR theory requires the introduction of something exotic in the nuclear realm. Chemistry, which is the background of many LENR theorists, is not enough for pinpointing the exotic ingredient.

  • After so much noise from all sources, the lecture of William is an excellent guideline for any theory. Knowledge of the nuclear realm is NECESSARY for the explanation of LENR, and its lack costed so much to F&P!


    I agree. It's fantastic to see someone with real knowledge of nuclear physics apply it to LENR experiments, and to see how he does that.


    The neutral particle is necessary.


    I disagree. Bill Collis prematurely dismisses induced decay/EC/fission, in my opinion, and some of the arguments he uses to deal with the aftereffects of the operation of the neutral particle can also be applied to induced decay/EC/fission. Alas he is not around to elaborate!

  • I just want to remind you all, that nuclear charge movement of 4,6,8,12, as seen in many Russian and mizuno experiments, can not be explained by one single neutral particle.


    We must distinguish two phases in transmutations.
    1) Ignition
    2) Action = exchange of nuclear charge


    What you discuss is the ignition phase only.

  • I just want to remind you all, that nuclear charge movement of 4,6,8,12, as seen in many Russian and mizuno experiments


    The Z=2,4,6,... increments could come from pile-on from alpha capture, which is my working assumption. Since any alpha capture will be a fraction of the alpha emission, it doesn't happen very often, and would not be a source of much heat.

  • Hello Andrea,


    please forgive me but I am certainly not suggesting in my thoughts that we can remove the Coulomb Barrier!!! (It's half my sentence and out of context) Rather that the nucleus forces can have an effect beyond it In particular for neutral particles. For example nuetron capture cross-sections for certain less stable nuclei can be quit large and conversely quite small for stable nuclei.


    I do think Williams approach is very important and hopefully will bring some good insights.


    My Gut statement is in the context that I prefer to look at what can be explained conventionally first before looking at exotic particles and other exotic physics but agree it may be necessary to consider them when considering certain active environment requirements and collective behavior.


    But I take your point that I was probably caught up in a swirl of over enthusiasm .


    Stephen

  • The Z=2,4,6,... increments could come from pile-on from alpha capture, which is my working assumption. Since any alpha capture will be a fraction of the alpha emission, it doesn't happen very often, and would not be a source of much heat.



    Eric, where do these alphas come from? Are these the product of accelerated decay that you have advocated? But why are these more accessible through coulomb than any other light atom?


    Thanks for your continuing efforts to find a theoretical and mechanistic explanation for LENR in any case.

  • Eric, where do these alphas come from? Are these the product of accelerated decay that you have advocated? But why are these more accessible through coulomb than any other light atom?


    Presumably the alphas that lead to the Z=+2,4,6 increments come from the decay of an alpha emitter of some kind that is present in the system. A common suspect is platinum, which is often used for the anode. If some kind of induced decay is what is leading to the transmutations observed in Mizuno's Iwamura's studies, the implication would be, no alpha emitter, no Z=+2,4,6 increments.


    The alpha activity need not be so great as to produce much in the way of measurable heat. If there is measurable heat, that might come from induced fission, a generally more energetic process that could occur with a greater number of possible precursors and leading to daughters that are slower moving than decay alphas.

  • Taking a second look at one of the write-ups of Iwamura et al., I see no obvious source of alphas that is reported, even under induced alpha decay. That leaves me to conclude one of the following:

    • The Z+2,4,6 transmutations go back to something other than pile-on of alphas (i.e., induced alpha decay).
    • There is a significant impurity not being reported that is susceptible to alpha decay.
    • There is some undetected artifact in their experiments that is leading them to incorrectly conclude that there has been transmutation.

    I note that David Kidwell, when he worked with MHI, reported both contamination and an inability to replicate.

  • Yes, the Kidwell observation / finding is credibly reported and troubling. I still see open the question of access for alphas across the coulomb potential. Is that somehow supposed to be overcome because of kinetics imparted to the alphas? If so, that seems difficult to credit, since the alpha energy itself would constitute heat and a flux rate that is quite unlikely in view of the atom % compositions.

  • To my shame I have not yet looked in detail at the Mizuno experiments. I wonder if someone could let me know a good link to get started. (I did look at Erics link above.)


    I find Erics and Wyttenbachs comments interesting.


    Are these experiments and the Russian ones using Protium as a Hydrogen source or Deuterium? I appreciate that deuterium still only has 1 proton though.


    Do we see this same Z evolution when Protium is used?
    Do we know if those nuclei are heavy isotopes of those elements or still natural isotopes?

  • This is a very basic introduction to the Mizuno experiments- a mini-biography of the ma himself, translated from Japanese by Jed Rothwell. A good place to start, light on the science, but it gives you some idea of the brain behind the research.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf

    And here is a more recent 'poster' (short conference paper) also created by JED.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf

  • I initially mentioned Mizuno, but I had in mind Iwamura et al. They are with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and are known for depositing small amounts of some heavy element like cesium or barium on a target, permeating the target with deuterium, or perhaps bombarding it with D+ ions, and then seeing an element that is some multiple of protons greater than that of the target. So they'll report that they saw cesium (Z=55) deposited on a target decrease and praseodymium (Z=59) increase, or they saw barium (Z=56) deposited on a target decrease and samarium (Z=62) increase. Mizuno has looked at transmutations more generally, often seeming to involve a beta decay or electron capture, or a fissioning of heavy nuclides into lighter ones. Iwamura's work is pretty unique, while Mizuno's is consistent with a lot of other investigators.


    I still see open the question of access for alphas across the coulomb potential. Is that somehow supposed to be overcome because of kinetics imparted to the alphas? If so, that seems difficult to credit, since the alpha energy itself would constitute heat and a flux rate that is quite unlikely in view of the atom % compositions.


    As you mention, there's the Coulomb barrier when we're talking about alpha capture, working in two directions. There's the barrier as it works to prevent the alpha decay, and there's the barrier as it works to prevent the alpha capture. In the first case, the barrier presumably would be inhibited due to a very wild change in electron density for a brief moment (think of water sloshing around in a bowl that's being moved around, and the height of the water at any given point the electron density, which screens the Coulomb barrier). On the alpha capture side, there would also be the Coulomb barrier preventing the alpha capture (and then all kinds of things potentially happening after that, such as beta decay, gamma emission, and so on). The thought there is that (1) if there's something inducing alpha decay, perhaps it's also increasing the cross section for alpha capture in the same proportion for a short period of time; and (2) you'd only need to have a relative fraction of successful captures in proportion to whatever is decaying to start seeing the new element, if significant alpha decay is occurring. But I'm not sure this speculation is worth anything, as I'm not sure there's any basis to apply it to Iwamura's stuff (where's the alpha emitter?), and I'm not confident that Iwamura's reports are not artifact.


    Mizuno's work, by contrast, is readily understood in terms of induced beta decay and fissioning of heavy elements.

  • Thank you Alan for this link.


    And thanks to Jed for that website and the translation of these papers. In a real world with different views with some subjects it's good to be reminded how someone has contributed so much in the past.


    Thanks Eric also for the clarification and explanation. I will try to take a look at both their works. It looks very interesting.


    i do wonder if deuterium is involved in these experiments and not protium if we can get a similar Z evolution if some kind of induced beta decay is responsible or normal beta decay if heavy isotopes of the nucleus are generated. But I suppose it's a bit of a stretch to speculate that. Even deuterium would struggle to get over the coulomb barrier of these heavy nuclei.


    Do we know if free neutrons were also observed?