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?

  • 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.


    Yes, light hydrogen controls would be relevant here. The paper I linked to does not mention any such controls. I vaguely recall them being used in one or more studies elsewhere.


    Deuterium would indeed struggle to get over the Coulomb barrier. Where's the energy release needed to make that happen? That does not prevent people from speculating that there's some kind of multiple deuteron capture going on. There are several difficulties with this suggestion beyond the question of the Coulomb barrier, including the question of why there are not Z+1,3,5 transmutations as well.


    Do we know if free neutrons were also observed?


    It's an interesting question. I suggest digging into Iwamura's papers and reading for that detail. If there's been any attempt to measure neutrons, I don't suppose the number were very high.

  • Thanks Eric, It looks like I have some reading to do.


    If there is a difference with protium then it might be interesting to compare with Tritium too but I can see that would likely be more problematic due to its radioactive decay nature.


    I can see your point about alphas it's very hard to account for steps of z=2 otherwise especially as we seem to get 2 neutrons for each step too if we end up with Sm150 and Sm149 from Ba138 and Ba137 respectively.


    I had wondered if there is a path from Deuterium with beta decays that might account for steps of 2 Z
    but if we include the fact we have equal numbers of neutrons added as well it's not as easy to find as I had hoped. It's very curious.


    Incidentally whilst looking at the neutron capture cross sections for these elements I noticed that naturally occuring Sm had one of the highest neutron capture cross sections of all elements almost an order of magnitude higher than Boron! However I think this very high value is mostly for certain Natural isotopes and is much less but still significant for Sm150. But perhaps it is an indication that there are no free neutrons since we do not see a spread of heavier isotopes of Sm. (Note in the other hand I think Ba138 has a very low neutron capture cross section)


    I think this maybe discounts neutrons playing a role in this case but absorbing charged particles has other problems as already noted. So it's very curious
    I will do some reading incase they were observed.


    In case it is relevant i did find this interesting link about neutron cross sections that might be interesting to someone.


    http://www.iaea.org/inis/colle…ublic/28/060/28060364.pdf

  • @Eric Walker
    I remember having discussed the point of the supposed addition of alpha particles to the nuclei in the transmutation experiments by Iwamura with Edmund Storms and possibly someone else as well. If you look carefully in the experimental results (I don't recall all the details) you will see that there are also the intermediate nuclides, but in lower amounts. The binding energy of nuclei often has dips at a 2p2n (alpha) distance, so if you keep gently adding neutrons and protons you will end up with more nuclei in the dips.
    I think that in the experiments of Iwamura protons and neutrons are added progressively, but unstable nuclides are avoided. An LENR theory must address this preference for stability independently from energetic arguments. As far as I know only my theory suggests a mechanism which, at least qualitatively, explains the reason for the strong preference for stable nuclides.
    Some time ago I used to think exactly as William suggests in the video (at 8:00 minutes into the talk), but then I realized it is wrong. In fact William asks if what he is saying makes sense to anybody ..., because he knows the argument is not really standing ... but says that experiments will proof the pudding.

  • I think that in the experiments of Iwamura protons and neutrons are added progressively, but unstable nuclides are avoided. An LENR theory must address this preference for stability independently from energetic arguments. As far as I know only my theory suggests a mechanism which, at least qualitatively, explains the reason for the strong preference for stable nuclides.


    At a general level, yours is not the only theory to explain the strong preference for stable nuclides — there are several, including Bill Collis's, above, and my own preferred fission/alpha decay approach. But if your explanation can explain Iwamura, and that's what you're referring to, then it's doing a better job than my own working hypothesis, as I don't see an obvious alpha emitter. My approach wouldn't rely wholly on energetic alphas to explain Iwamura, although it does happen that the alphas would be energetic; if the receiving nuclides are under similar conditions to the ones giving up the alphas, I suppose you'd have an enhanced alpha capture cross section (a sort of resonance).


    The intermediate nuclides you're referring to — are they Z+2n nuclides, or Z+n nuclides? At a high level I'd really like to see someone else reproduce Iwamura's results. David Kidwell wasn't able to.

  • That's a good point about nucleus stability Andrea. It's curious though that when we start with Ba137 we end up with Sm149, but when we start with Ba138 we end up with Sm150. It's curious we do not end up with the same Sm isotope if nucleus stability is the issue and nuetrons, protons or neutron+proton pairs are being added. Does this imply that we require alpha absorbtion?


    note also that Sm149 is one of those isotopes with a very very high neutron cross section especially at low energies so if free neutrons were present I would expect this to go to Sm150. Sm150 is also a stable isotope. (Note even if neutron pairs are some how absorbed Sm151 has a long half life of 90 years or so)


    I suppose that we end up with equal numbers of protons and neutrons (6 of each for the final Sm isotopes) added it implies either Proton+neutron pairs are added or alpha particles are some how added. Unless there is an absorption + beta decay path which somehow preserves this balance.

  • Eric do we know if signifacant Helium is present or generated?


    i wish I could find a good link for proton, deuteron (proton+neutron pair) or alpha capture cross sections similar to the one i found for neutrons. Do you know of one?

  • At a general level, yours is not the only theory to explain the strong preference for stable nuclides — there are several, including Bill Collis's, above, and my own preferred fission/alpha decay approach.


    Well, as I said, I think the explanation of William Collis is not correct, so I do not count it in the list. I thought his argument was plausible, but it is not. Could you mention me another theory, apart from yours, which qualitatively explains the preference for stable nuclides?


    As far as I understand you are trying to assemble ordinary properties of nuclear reactions to explain the evidences of CF. I simply think, as William does, that if it were possible, someone would have already found the combination. But the rejection of CF is so strong exactly because it is based on the inexistence of such a combination.


    Data shows that there is no preference whatsoever for stable nuclides, even for reactions with low mass difference. There is a set of rules for the reactions, but no one is about stability. All sorts of nuclide get generated, beta + and - decaying, alpha decaying, fissile, neutron emitting, prompt and delayed gammas, EC_ing, …


    The only way to cause a preference for stable nuclides is to have the nuclear reactions happen “inside” an environment which is totally different from the "free" condition we well know from nuclear data. This environment should CONTINUOUSLY PERTURBATE the forming nuclides, and should BE ABLE TO HOLD (indefinitely?) combinations of nucleons which do not form stable nuclei. Without such an environment the essential absence of radiation of the LERN would be simply impossible. I realized this only after having understood that the Hyd is an environment for nuclear reactions; a electromagnetically perturbing environment.


    I claim that the nuclear force is actually an electromagnetic effect; so, if the perturbation is electromagnetic, as in my theory, it could be much less effective against the weak interaction. And in fact LENR can produce 100% beta-decaying nuclei, like tritium.


    if your explanation can explain Iwamura, and that's what you're referring to,


    The experimental results of Iwamura are quite complex (and unavoidably a bit messy), plus I don’t know how to estimate the cross sections of my Hyds for the nuclei; so it is not possible for me to claim that I can EXPLAIN the results of Iwamura. What I can say is that his results are not incompatible with my theory.


    When Iwamura uses Barium the transmutation reaches further than the other cases, in fact he obtains Sm149 and Sm150, corresponding to an addition of 3 Alphas. In my theory Ba is a very good NAE, so that it could be that the additional boost is not given only by the cross sections of the different nuclei for the Hyd, but also by some additional Hyd formed by the Ba NAE. Actually Ca, Cs and Sr are all good NAE (Ca is the best of the bunch, while Cs and Sr are less optimal than Ba). The only transmuted element which is NOT a good NAE for my theory is W. However W can generate Os, which should be the absolute best NAE of all stable elements. So as soon as Os appears, the transmutation should be boosted.


    It would be interesting to know if Iwamura has noticed any initial delay followed by a boost in the reactions when starting from W.


    In general when I compare my list of best NAE and the materials used by Iwamura, both its Pd and CaO multi-layer and the deposited nuclei/atoms he transmuted, it seems he has “magically” selected “near optimal” materials. One possibility that has come to my mind is that in reality in these many years MHI, Toyota, and the other Japanese have actually explored many more materials than those described in the articles, but have obtained good results only in the published cases. Even the choice to use a corrugated surface, which is not what you would do if you do not have a good reason, matches with the need to increase the view factor of the Hyd, which are generated deep inside the multy-layer (at the CaO layers). So the system of Iwamura seems to be quite advanced/optimized, if seen through the eyes of my theory.


    I too “would like to see someone else reproduce Iwamura's results”. However, Toyota reproduced the results with Praseodymium, which is what Iwamura commented to Kidwell directly at his presentation at ICCF18 (see

    at 51:40). My impression is that Japan has much more data than what it shares … And in fact the University of Tohoku is the third best university of Japan …


    Back to William Collis, I think my theory fulfils his criteria. I will write him in the coming weeks for comments. He told me he knows my theory, at least superficially.

  • Well, as I said, I think the explanation of William Collis is not correct, so I do not count it in the list. I thought his argument was plausible, but it is not. Could you mention me another theory, apart from yours, which qualitatively explains the preference for stable nuclides?


    As far as I understand you are trying to assemble ordinary properties of nuclear reactions to explain the evidences of CF. I simply think, as William does, that if it were possible, someone would have already found the combination. But the rejection of CF is so strong exactly because it is based on the inexistence of such a combination.


    Data shows that there is no preference whatsoever for stable nuclides, even for reactions with low mass difference. There is a set of rules for the reactions, but no one is about stability. All sorts of nuclide get generated, beta + and - decaying, alpha decaying, fissile, neutron emitting, prompt and delayed gammas, EC_ing, …


    I also don't agree with Bill Collis's explanation. But I looked through your earlier posts and did not see the reasons for your objections to his approach. Knowing Bill, if you raise those objections with him I'm sure he'd be able to answer each one. I cannot think off the top of my mind of other theories that predict stable daughters, but then again, there are not many theories that don't involve fusion of deuterium, they are interspersed in old ICMNS proceedings, and I may have missed or be overlooking what ones there are. My approach is not really mine, by the way. It goes back at least to this 1991 patent, and probably a lot earlier. (I can take credit for any modifications, I suppose.)


    You've sort of identified how I'm approaching the whole thing — I'm trying to explain LENR using existing physics, with minor modifications in less explored parts of the parameter space. Your objection, that someone would have already found something along these lines right now, is a meta-historical objection and not a scientific one. It may persuade some people, but I'm very alive to the possibility that there are some strange things that have been hiding in plain sight for the last 100 years. Indeed, I think people have been thinking about what I'm describing for many years, and simply convincing themselves that it's not possible for want of experimental evidence.


    The data you refer to must be for actinide fission, both spontaneous and following upon neutron capture. In the neutron case the captured neutron adds a whole lot of energy to the compound nucleus that is formed, and the situation is very different from what I'm describing. The spontaneous fission case for actinides is similar to what I'm describing, but it involves very heavy nuclides. I've been looking mostly at medium-sized nuclides (e.g, Pt, W, Sm, Nd). That is not a trivial difference. Why would the approach lead to more stable daughters? First, there's the simple observation that non-actinide alpha emitters when they decay generally lead to daughters that are more stable than the parent, e.g., 190Pt (t1/2=6.5e11 y) → 186Os (t1/2=2e15 y) → 182W. Next, if one looks at the Gamow factors for (theoretical) two-body spontaneous fissions for medium elements, one will see among the pairs with the lowest Gamow factors at most beta-active daughters, whose half-lives are generally very short. Third, consider that you're far more likely to get 4He as a daughter in a decay of a medium nucleus than 5Li, or 4H, or 30Al, the reason being that 4He is very stable and 5Li, 4H and 30Al are not stable. The thing that makes this different from something like neutron spallation is that the perturbation is very low energy (discussed below).


    The only way to cause a preference for stable nuclides is to have the nuclear reactions happen “inside” an environment which is totally different from the "free" condition we well know from nuclear data. This environment should CONTINUOUSLY PERTURBATE the forming nuclides, and should BE ABLE TO HOLD (indefinitely?) combinations of nucleons which do not form stable nuclei. Without such an environment the essential absence of radiation of the LERN would be simply impossible. I realized this only after having understood that the Hyd is an environment for nuclear reactions; a electromagnetically perturbing environment.


    In my case the environment that is different is an excess of electron density brought about under non-equilibrium conditions. The assumption is that solid state modeling is not very good for modeling dynamic situations, and that the electron density swings about much more wildly than has been appreciated up to now. Where there's a brief spike in electron density, you get massive screening, and the careful balance of forces holding together the nucleus is momentarily overwhelmed, and the thing splits apart. Since the strong interaction, which is what is controlling in decays and spontaneous fission, happens in the briefest timespan imaginable, once it kicks in the whole thing will happen very quickly, including any taking into account of the various combinations. I suspect the need for there to be an extended period of time for things to settle out in order to get stable daughters is a requirement you've introduced on your own initiative.

  • @Eric Walker
    Thank you Eric, now I understand better your approach.


    I cannot think off the top of my mind of other theories that predict stable daughters, but then again, there are not many theories that don't involve fusion of deuterium, they are interspersed in old ICMNS proceedings


    You are right, most theories go for d-d fusion or similar, whereas LENR do no show signs of d-d fusion. (hot) d-d fusion produces half of the times tritium + p and the rest of the times He3 + n.
    Building a theory which explains the preference for stable nuclides requires something very special, something to which the classical rules of nuclear reactions do not fully apply. Everyone instead seems to be contempt with squeezing light nuclei together with energies which can not be present, so that the sum of the nucleons makes a He4. Bah ...


    Your high electron density environment can favour your reactions, but can not jump the production of unstable nuclides.
    The same is valid for all theories I know of. For me the requirement for a mechanism that prefers stable nuclides is an essential ingredient in any "realistic" theory for LENR. It has been so far overlooked, probably because it is something outside of the Standard Model.


    I suspect the need for there to be an extended period of time for things to settle out in order to get stable daughters is a requirement you've introduced on your own initiative.


    I require an extended holding time because I think that the addition of nuclides is progressive, i.e. it takes place in more separate steps. At the end of each step the environment has to survive, sometimes without giving any nuclear reaction. A Hyd "linked" to a nucleus will look like a nucleus with an electron as a component, and be relatively stable.


    Your objection, that someone would have already found something along these lines right now, is a meta-historical objection and not a scientific one. It may persuade some people, but I'm very alive to the possibility that there are some strange things that have been hiding in plain sight for the last 100 years.


    You are right. My argument is not scientific, it is more a gambler's talk ;). More "scientifically" I can say that, despite the fact that I should better consider your theory, I have the impression that at most you could find a few VERY specific reaction paths/material combinations which explain specific LENR experimental results. But you will never be able to explain the extensive phenomenology of LENR, and you will need to say that all experiments not matching your theory are the results of mistakes, as happens in many LENR "theories".


    William started the talk saying that he is frustrated. I am as well.


    If I understand correctly your "unusual" ingredient is limited to admitting that the electron density can, in dynamical conditions, reach values which cause unusually high screening effects, or favour EC?


    Instead I am convinced that the "unusual" physical phenomenon/ingredient is something more unusual/radical, which must have already caused unexpected results in other branches of physics. My single unusual ingredient, while allowing me to "explain" CF, could also be the reason for:

    I know it sounds a bit over... something and ridiculous, but is what I have found to my own surprise.