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

Quote from StephenC

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.

Quote from StephenC

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.

Quote from Andrea Calaon

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?

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Quote from Eric Walker

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

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.

Quote from Andrea Calaon

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).

Quote from Andrea Calaon

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.

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Quote from Eric Walker

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:

• Superconductivity at high temperature (but may be also at low T),
• Incompatibility between the beam and the bottle measurements of the neutron lifetime, due to a so far unrecognised small brunching fraction in the neutron decay, which produces Hyds: n -> p + W -> pe + v̅_e+ hν. It would fit nicely with the difference in the estimated lifetimes. (http://www.scientificamerican.…at-the-heart-of-the-atom/)
• Lack of primordial Li7 in the universe (http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab…03/PhysRevLett.116.211303),
• Anomalies in the correlation of internal pair creation when Li7 is hit by a proton and produces Be8, which then decays ... (http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab…03/PhysRevLett.116.042501)
• Dark Matter (Light DM).

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

Andrea, even though I don't find your explanation accessible to intuition, I like the creativity behind it.

Quote from Andrea Calaon

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".

I will be happy to argue that induced alpha and beta decay/EC/fission explains everything of interest in LENR, and that anything beyond those processes is either artifact or something else interesting but unrelated. I suspect these processes are sufficient to explain the results of the following researchers: McKubre and Miles (heat~helium correlation), Storms (excess heat, what seems like radioactivity with a very short half-life), Savvatimova, Mizuno (transmutations), Lipson (transmutations, charged particles), Mosier-Boss, Szpak (charged particles), Claytor (tritium), BARC (x-rays, apparent tritium). Iwamura ... I have more difficulty understanding what's going on there and explaining it in these terms. But that's a good thing — a theory that explains everything also explains nothing. What important classes of results have I missed?

Quote from Andrea Calaon

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?

I'm suggesting that short-lived, very high electron density transients lead to (1) fission of otherwise stable medium and heavy nuclides; (2) alpha decay of nuclides theoretically unstable against alpha decay; (3) beta decay and (4) electron capture. And maybe (5), an increased cross-section for alpha capture, although that's probably stretching things. The transients can be thought of as water sloshing around in a bowl. Part of the suggestion is that current modeling of solid state physics does not do a good job of modeling dynamic situations, in part because it's very hard to do.

Quote from Andrea Calaon

My single unusual ingredient, while allowing me to "explain" CF, could also be the reason for:

That's quite a list! I'm very happy not to be able to explain most of those things. (Unless the suggestion above does explain some of those things, and I'm just not seeing the implication.) I'm looking for measured, incremental changes to the existing understanding of physics, not something that turns physics upside down and inside out.

Quote from Alan Smith

FWIW worth gentlemen it is my opinion that this is (currently) the best thread in the forum. Well done!

This is a thread about theory; that automatically makes it a waste of time!

Quote from Andrea Calaon

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.

Under the force unification theory of LENR, the lack of hot fusion products can be explained as a complete merger of the EMF, Strong and Weak force.

There are cases where the merger of the electroweak forces are only partially complete.

This experiment shows the principle of incomplete force unification

Quote

Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf

The laser only partially screens the weak force so that tritium is produced. But also tritium is stabilized into He3 concurrently with tritium production as a parallel expression of both the weak and strong force. That is, both tritium creation and tritium stabilization are going on simultaneously.

When the fundamental forces are couple more completely, the stabilization of tritium occurs almost instantly.

The combining of the Weak, Strong, and EMF force lie on a continuum of varying strength levels. where tritium is produced without stabilization to a strong coupling were tritium is stabilized instantly.

Quote from Eric Walker

Andrea, even though I don't find your explanation accessible to intuition, I like the creativity behind it.

Have you had a look at the presentation (or at my article on JCMNS) on my web-page?:
http://lenr-calaon-explanation…ted_nuclear_reactions.pdf

I have a number of people who asked me questions about my theory (inclusive Edmund Storms, Norman Cook and William Collis) because they had actually read my proposal and wanted to better understand it. Generally I was told it is more or less accessible to intuition, but it is not the same for everyone. Thank you anyway for appreciating what you call "creativity", although creativity in this context sounds more like the equivalent of making things up ...

Quote from Eric Walker

What important classes of results have I missed?

None.

Quote from Eric Walker

I'm suggesting that short-lived, very high electron density transients lead to (1) fission of otherwise stable medium and heavy nuclides; (2) alpha decay of nuclides theoretically unstable against alpha decay; (3) beta decay and (4) electron capture. And maybe (5), an increased cross-section for alpha capture, although that's probably stretching things.

Let me say that this is a list of 5 "unusual ingredients" although you ascribe all of them to the same cause. My impression is that you are using 5 uncommon ingredients instead of 1 (which I consider to be the only possible number of "uncommon ingredients").
I will try to read the article you linked first.

Quote from Eric Walker

That's quite a list! I'm very happy not to be able to explain most of those things.

I am happy you are happy.
If CF is real, there must be some detail we do not understand correctly in physics. My proposal could be total nonsense, but some unexpected detail must be misplaced in our understanding of physics, otherwise we would not be discussing from zero a theory for phenomena which were described already 27 years ago (as William Collis sad at the beginning of his talk). Do you think that the detail we do not understand has consequences ONLY in LENR experiments? I think it is impossible.

Quote from Eric Walker

I'm looking for measured, incremental changes to the existing understanding of physics, not something that turns physics upside down and inside out

I am not trying to turn physics upside down. I have listed a series of evidences of well described unexplained physical phenomena/facts, and said they could all be due to the same cause. This is simplification rather than turning things upside down. The well recognized authors of the articles I linked (and others) suggest themselves some possible causes of the incongruences, and these explanations happen to match with what I am proposing. Is this trying to turn physics upside down? Proposing, as I did, that the nuclear force is actually an electromagnetic effect could instead be described as turning nuclear physics upside down.

Eric, I don't know you personally, but let me say something using an example related to CF that you can surely appreciate: one year ago for some months I had a very long email exchange with Edmund Storms, whom someone could considers dismissive and at times arrogant; we vastly criticized each others theories, but I've never had the impression he was arrogant. I haven't had the same impression with you.

Eric Walker wrote: "I'm looking for measured, incremental changes to the existing understanding of physics, not something that turns physics upside down and inside out ."

I don't agree that Calaon's EMNR theory 'turns physics upside down.'
That seems to be ill thought out rhetoric.
Physics is not a flower vase, it has no sides. It has no upside or down side, inside or outside.

My close reading of the theory at

http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/

taught me about the zitterbewegung a concept promoted by Dellasca, Cook for several decades
and having its genesis in the surah of Prophet Dirac via Schrodinger in1930.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung

Calaon has applied the zitterbewegung concept to the electron path around the proton.

Incremental? Incremental is not a necessity for physics.

Isaac Newton's theories were not incremental but were based on the theory and work of giants who went before him

Quote from robert bryant

I don't agree that Calaon's EMNR theory 'turns physics upside down.'
That seems to be ill thought out rhetoric.
Physics is not a flower vase, it has no sides. It has no upside or down side, inside or outside.

If a theory explains LENR, high temperature superconductivity and dark matter, it's going to turn physics upside down and inside out when it is shown to be true!

Quote from robert bryant

Incremental? Incremental is not a necessity for physics.

Isaac Newton's theories were not incremental but were based on the theory and work of giants who went before him

The question isn't whether all theoretical innovations have been incremental, it's what is needed to explain LENR? My intuition tells me we need something incremental, but I could obviously be wrong.

Quote from Andrea Calaon

Have you had a look at the presentation (or at my article on JCMNS) on my web-page?:
lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly…ted_nuclear_reactions.pdf

I have a number of people who asked me questions about my theory (inclusive Edmund Storms, Norman Cook and William Collis) because they had actually read my proposal and wanted to better understand it. Generally I was told it is more or less accessible to intuition, but it is not the same for everyone.

When I read your slides, a lot of questions come up for me.

You give an electron radius of 193 fm, and the electron is said to be rotating at the speed of light (slide 7). In this sense you seem to be envisioning the electron as an extensive body of some kind, rather than a field with a probability density. Is it the outer radius of the electron field that rotates at the speed of light, or is this the speed of the rotation of the center? Is there some kind of shearing that arises from different areas rotating at different speeds? Or something else?

You say that nuclei are attracted to one another through magnetic attraction, arising from the magnetism resulting from spinning of charges internal to the nucleons (slide 4). How are we to understand the approx. equal binding energy between two neutrons as between a neutron and a proton? (Because of Fermi statistics, two neutrons cannot form a triplet state and can only coexist in a singlet state, but the singlet state is unbound.)

With the Hyd, the electron is doing a spirograph-like pattern around the much heavier proton (slide 12). What happens to the spherical harmonics needed by quantum mechanics, within which an electron is normally confined? You say that the binding energy of the Hyd is in the MeV (slide 14) and that beta decay of free neutrons has a small branch that yields Hyds (slide 14). The energy of a neutron beta decay is ~ 782 keV. Is the binding energy of Hyds variable? Or is the binding energy actually below but close to the order of MeV?

You mention that Hyds should be able to travel more freely in condensed matter than neutrons (slide 14). Note that as a hydrogen atom is drawn into a metal such as palladium, the electron is stripped off and becomes unbound, because of its large cross section for interacting with other electrons in the metal. What keeps the electron bound in the case of the Hyd as the Hyd travels through a material?

Quote from Andrea Calaon

Let me say that this is a list of 5 "unusual ingredients" although you ascribe all of them to the same cause. My impression is that you are using 5 uncommon ingredients instead of 1 (which I consider to be the only possible number of "uncommon ingredients").
I will try to read the article you linked first.

I'll go with that. Another relevant article that you might find interesting (dated 1993): http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/…dNuclear/decay_rates.html.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/…dNuclear/decay_rates.html

That is interesting. Particularly the rhenium discussion. Now I'm beginning to get more of the idea Eric is presenting.

There must be ways of arranging orbitals and orbital overlaps along with other aspects of atomic structure / position and externally applied fields to influence decay rates to the magnitude closer to that necessary to at least support possible LENR..... or so it would seem.

Thanks Andrea and Eric for this very interesting exchange. My ideas are perhaps a bit similar th Eric's although less well developed than his deep study. I also tend to prefer to stick to conventional physics approach and think that approach should always be considered how ever deep and unsuccesful past studies have been.

I had wondered if the neutron cross section could in some way relate to the preferance to move towards stable nuclei and perhaps influence close nucleons beyond the Coulomb barrier. But in the transition of Ba137 to Sm149 discussed above we end up with Sm 149 which has a very large neutron capture cross section I think about 5900 barn or well even above at low energies. Ba 137 on the other hand has a much smaller one a few barns I think. This seems to discount neutron capture cross section as playing a role also it seems to discount the presence of free neutrons or neutrons playing a role as if they were present I think the Sm149 would quickly go to Sm150. (I do wonder though if proton, deuteron or alpha capture cross sections can still play a role despite the Coulomb barrier)

i'm also curious about accelerated decay. We have had a few exchanges on Vortex mail archive about it it's very interesting to see more details about where your ideas come from. I wonder if transiting protons or nuclear decays can lead to orbital electrons having insufficient energy to achieve a S1 orbital and if this can lead to the kinds of instability you mention or if it needs a more dynamic process at the time of interaction.

If unconventional physics is required in the end I like a lot Andreas very well thought through ideas. I have just read his interview with Peter on Ego out:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.n…erview-with-lenr.html?m=1

Andrea is a serious and methodical thinker it's a good approach.

I have a bit of a dislike for introducing new particles but the Hyd with its particular combination of electron and proton in this way is quite intriguing.

Andrea would the Hyd mimic in some way a Neutron as far as nuclear forces are concerned? I respect your ideas that those forces are EM in nature but have to understand it a bit deeper your theory. I suppose not otherwise I guess we would still see a neutron capture cross section dependence?

or is it just the large cross section of the Hyd that ensures it's interaction with the nucleus?

Could experiments be run with certain tracers to verify your ideas maybe such as Osmium for example?

would it work also for Nickel as well as Palladium?

Quote from Andrea Calaon

An LENR theory must address this preference for stability independently from energetic arguments

I don't follow your logic. Why cannot energetic arguments, explain stable products, or more accurately, as Collis shows, lack of detectable radiation?

I wonder if Collis' ENP model predicts gamma radiation with Rubidium? If it doesn't it may be wrong!