Speculations on LENR theory, coherence, stimulated emission, and fusion

    • Official Post

    As debate on useless subject are torching some thread,

    I'll try to propose my irresponsible, incompetent and hopeless contributions, miles above my own peter principle limits.


    I think under the key ideas of Edmund Storms approach, and to simplify in PdD (NiH won't change much).

    The LENR happens inside a rare structure in Pd, because of D (and other isotopes).

    LENR produce He4


    My proposal is based on a very strange characteristic of LENR, the lack of energetic radiation, AND I will add what I suspect from Iwamura(replicated by takahashi) thin film experiment :

    some transmutation of heavy nucleus from X to Y=X+2k.d (k=1,2,3) k chosen so Y is stable (This is my key guess/assumption/claim, risky but that is the game)


    My vision is that LENR is a decay of some D(s) to a lower energy level (He4 (s)), with emission of energy.

    Why ? because there is more energy available for the public in He4 than in DD... 24MeV if I remember well...


    The NAE is a safe, a quantum safe, with many deuterium nucleus who keep 24MeV treasures on shelves.

    The NAE proposes Ed is a quantum insulated object, a private club, with deuterium nucleus ready to produce energy if you let them kiss...

    First problem is that under usual situation, a huge barrier prevent that energy to be relieved.

    you know that old chaperon lady who prevent teens to kiss in the ball room.

    Second and worst problem is that the energy is not freed by 24MeV quanta, but by tiny quanta...

    Only solution for Ed and me is some collective behavior... Hydroton says Ed, no idea what for me.

    Let us translate in normal term: you cannot fool the old lady individually, or you will have to box her to KO, and there will be blood on the floor...

    My proposal is that it is leaking energy like water from a cracked barrel.


    Another good reason to think the NAE content is decaying, and not "hot fusing" is the Iwamura reaction cited above, and the possible preference to stability. If the reaction is "a rape" as is hot fusion, or even neutron absorption, the nucleus is in a so unstable state that it desexcitate as fast as possible...

    Preference to stability make me think the reaction is to follow a slope, not to crash.


    Now it does not seems easy.

    What should happen is that the nucleus in the NAE reorganize step by step, between various configuration with keV transitions.

    Like sand does when compressed and shaked... freeing some energy down to the level where He4 have replaced deuterons...

    All that happening in a dark box, where Schroedinger cats can mate without witnesses (intermediate states don't need to be classical).


    Since all must be a collective effect I thought about LASER, and thus stimulated emission.


    the NAE full of deuterons waiting to fuse, but blocked by a huge energy gap make me think of the population of excited electrons pumped in a LASER, who fall to the lower energy level in group...

    My naive ignorant question is whether stimulated emission increase the probability of the reaction ?

    Does the coherence make an improbable transition, followed by a group of stimulated partners, massively more probable, and also phase coherent?

    However it cannot be 24MeV fall, that would be detected.

    Even breaking the coulomb barrier would make noise.


    The only possibility is mixing the two ideas.

    • NAE contains a coherent population of deuterons (or pseudoparticles), insulated from outside
    • the deuterons can transition, reorganize, in an unusual way, through keV transitions
    • I propose to consider if the coherent deuterons cannot be stimulated by one lucky transition, following the leader like in LASER

    A big problem is the nature of the interaction. It have to involve the nuclei, but with distance that are big enough for the coulomb barrier not to be noisy... Seems impossible.

    now what could be imagined is that complex interaction happens, involving weak-interaction, strong force, but allowed because synchronous/stimulated. Complex is normally improbable, but maybe is there some emerging pseudo particle (like SPP, cooper pairs) but specific to LENR, which make it probable.


    Now a hint may came from Iwamura experiments in thin films.


    He observes fusion of heavy nucleus with 2,4 or 6 deuterons...

    Ed support that LENR reactions are geometrically symmetrical, thus pairs of d...


    An Idea came to my mind : 1,2,3 is the possible number of dimension, the possible number of axis of Pd Crystal lattice you can use.

    What if an heavy nucleus locked in a NAE bear the fusion of nearby deuterons in a cavity ? reacting with 1,2 or 3 pairs depending on what is most stable finally ?


    Abd have wild proposal where Takahashi inspired cavities are excited by Storms hydrotons.

    Why not also some ideas of Widom-Larsen-Srivastava-Swain theory, that Axil would appreciate too, with SPP from the surface reacting with hydroton, pumping a TSC cavity...

    Why not DDL (Paillet/Meulenberg), or picochemistry (Dufour) allowing keV transitions involving nucleus and electrons, all working in hydroton, TSC cavities, SPP and surface coherence patch (WLSS)...

    Why not ponderomotive force allowing the keV "swap" interactions that are needed...


    Maybe does the experiments tell us much, not on the QM implementation, but on the structure of the reaction...

    I propose we can already say it is coherent interaction, decay-style, exploiting a new pseudo-particle and stimulated emission, happening in 1 to 3dimensions ...

    Or maybe it's all wrong.


    Now, don't ask me anything about an hamiltonian...

    Maybe explanation on what is a Laser, a pseudo particle, how to have keV transitions in a system... could help us understand it is all wrong.

    “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
    twitter @alain_co

  • http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf


    Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole


    Georges Lochak, Leonid Urutskoev


    When Leonid Urutskoev, a top nuclear scientist in Russia was asked to analyze the Chernobyl reactor disaster, he came to the conclusion that the official reason put forth for its cause was wrong. He suspected that the disaster was produced by a number of electrical explosions in a nearby generator.


    To prove his theory, he came up with a new type of experiment using electrically exploding arcs in titanium foil. He found that the residue from the pure titanium foil explosion contained new elements, elements produced by transmutation. But he also found that dissolved uranium salts in the water that surrounded the titanium foil explosion channel was found to fission because of the detection of the fission element byproducts produced by the explosion.


    This implied that the explosion of the titanium foil had an effect at two separate locations, first, inside the titanium foil itself and second outside of the explosion channel at a considerable distance from the explosion.


    Urutskoev asked around the Russian nuclear community and found that other than neutrons, the only thing that could produce fission in uranium was muons. But U235 did not fission as expected, U238 fissioned as the even isotope reaction rule in LENR dictate.



    The LENR reaction sent out something that produced the reaction at a distance from the primary zone of causation (Nuclear active environment - NAE) that caused even isotopes of uranium to fission.


    Next, Urutskoev placed the titanium ash on a photographic emulsion (film) and spotted charged particles coming out of that ash that behaved like magnetic monopoles.


    What this all means is that the LENR reaction is a complex multi-faceted reaction consisting of many stages and causations.


    In detail, the NAE produces nuclear reactions but it also produces particles that can exist independently once created and can produce nuclear reaction remote n space and time from the NAE.


    From the reference above:

    To add some knowledge that we has aquired from other research:


    The Surface Plasmon Polariton produces a monopole magnetic field. The SPP is naturally found on the surface of metal including metallic nanoparticles. The SPP a boson is coherent and will readily form Bose condensates.


    The Ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticle is coherent and formed under high pressure conditions or via catalysts.


    The UDH as a superconductor will allow SPP formation on its surface spin wave.


    Once created, the UDH can persist indefinitely on its own and travel in swarms of coherent particles that will share in the nuclear energy(fusion and fission) that the swarm will generate via entangled muon generated outreach.


    A UDH swarm



    http://restframe.com/mm/images/actual_setup.jpg




    tracks from Fig. 1 are correlated as a group but cannot all be overlaid on top of each other. These tracks appear to be correlated, yet twisted or acted upon by some central force. The tracks were digitized in a vector graphics editor and shown in Fig. 2.




    http://restframe.com/mm/images/vector_swarm_d.jpg




    Measurements taken at successive common points of corresponding tracks indicate a swarm of identical particles each going through coordinated abrupt transitions at each vertex or kink. The field influence on corresponding track segments are geometric centers.




    http://restframe.com/mm/images/15.jpg

    Edited 2 times, last by axil ().

  • Axil or anyone, Is there a minimum size and weight or density threshold for LENR to occur? You have addressed many things over the years I may have missed it. Has anyone mentioned how large or small the samples have to be?

  • Axil or anyone, Is there a minimum size and weight or density threshold for LENR to occur? You have addressed many things over the years I may have missed it. Has anyone mentioned how large or small the samples have to be?

    I estimate that the minimum size is a sphere with a circumference of 10 nanometers, which is the wavelength of the light that is released when a polariton decays.

  • Thank you, I am addressing the issue of reactors that can only test one sample at a time. In reference to 10 nanometers. Are you saying that you could possibly create 30 BB' size spheres and test in bulk? Do you know of reactors that can test 5 or more samples (I am thinking of maybe 30 samples BTW). Do you think that if you used a tube design you could pot say 5 mixtures in a tube? Then cluster the tubes like a boiler does? At some size you are going to get cross contamination. I just like to think how to improve things. I really like MFMP but worry they will get disheartened in a few years when they can only test one mixture at a time against a control. Even though they have come a long way.

    • Official Post

    Do you know of reactors that can test 5 or more samples (I am thinking of maybe 30 samples BTW). Do you think that if you used a tube design you could pot say 5 mixtures in a tube? Then cluster the tubes like a boiler does?

    The big problem with multi-tube reactors is ensuring that it is properly calibrated - keeping all the tubes (dummies of course) at the same temperature throughout the entire heat zone you wish to explore. Having done it, calibration of 4 tubes is time consuming, calibration of 30 would take a very long time indeed

  • Axil, you are always kind to my questions. I am posting 2 links. Be-forsale-on-ebay It is selling 99% Be from broken x-ray windows. The second link Oxyacetylene-reaches-5000f is just what heat a torch could produce no need to look at the second link, as it is just for reference, But the torch would easily melt Be at roughly 2300f. The first ebay link shows a hand full of bb size balls. Do you see why it would be unfeasible to create different bb size samples and pot them in the melted Be? The samples would be transparent to X-rays and pretty much all EM. Then lasers or an electron gun could be used to create plasma for both temp and coherence. Once potted the samples would be ready for the reactor. Please provide any critique. Thanks as always.


    /shame I unloaded that pottery furnace last summer.

  • AlainCo,


    Your starting point is correct: the most significant property of low energy nuclear fusion is the absence of hot fusion radiation. No theoretical physicist had done it better.


    However, it has no sense to go any further when you don’t understand the origin of this “low energy” radiation. So forget all the other sentences you wrote and try to understand the consequences of this novel phenomenon.


    First, the origin of electromagnetic radiation is always the release of energy from a local source and every alteration has a volume. So when we want to understand the relation between frequency and different local sources, we only have to imagine a composed molecule of different types of atoms. For example HCl (hydrogen chloride).


    The molecule is like a dumb-belt and it can rotate along its centre of mass. To get rotation of both atoms we must apply 0,0026 eV. However, both atoms can also vibrate mutually, an alteration that occurs within an evident smaller volume than the rotation of the whole molecule. Now we have to apply 0,358 eV. And when we want to alter an electron in the outer shell of one of the atoms we have to supply far more energy. So the general rule of thumb is: the smaller the volume of the local source of the alteration, the higher the frequency of the released energy. So we cannot force a proton to release energy with the frequency of 0,0026 eV or 0,358 eV. The proton is far to small to radiate the size of half the wavelength of the 0,0026 eV electromagnetic wave (E = f h [f = frequency; h = Planck’s constant]). By the way, this is no new physics, students had to understand this at the end of the first half of the last century (1935 - 1950).


    In other words: the volume of the cold fusion process by the nuclei of the hydrogen/deuterium atoms must be much larger than the volume of the same nuclei by the hot fusion process.


    That isn’t awkward, because the size of a simple nucleus (proton) isn’t always the same. In general it depends a lot on the energy of the collisions physicists use to measure the dimensions. On the other hand: hot fusion is only possible when the involved nuclei have a very high velocity to overcome the Coulomb force. So the volume of the interaction (fusion) between the 2 nucleus is really small.


    Now you understand this “phenomenon” about the unusually fusion radiation, do you think you have to make changes to the rest of your post?

  • The hypothesis I'd like to share is sort and simple: 99% of Ni-H tests don't result in adequate hydrogen absorption and simultaneous creation of lattice defects/voids/cavities (the spaces where exotic hydrogen species can form). If we optimized hydrogenation, we would have far more successful tests and we'd sort out the remaining issues (like stimulation and the use of lithium to boost output) very rapidly.

  • @Alan, this is very helpful. My plan was to possibly load the bb's into a tube and fire gas/heat/EM and see what radiation came out. If any this is just to narrow down the mix. But I see it would be null based on calibration as you have said. Back to the drawing board. How long does it take to calibrate the LFH reactor? Is there a readme?


    //I am quite aware of the dangers of handling beryllium. It is going to be an issue.

    Edited once, last by Rigel ().

  • Axil, you are always kind to my questions. I am posting 2 links. Be-forsale-on-ebay It is selling 99% Be from broken x-ray windows. The second link Oxyacetylene-reaches-5000f is just what heat a torch could produce no need to look at the second link, as it is just for reference, But the torch would easily melt Be at roughly 2300f. The first ebay link shows a hand full of bb size balls. Do you see why it would be unfeasible to create different bb size samples and pot them in the melted Be? The samples would be transparent to X-rays and pretty much all EM. Then lasers or an electron gun could be used to create plasma for both temp and coherence. Once potted the samples would be ready for the reactor. Please provide any critique. Thanks as always.


    /shame I unloaded that pottery furnace last summer.



    In the light of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, and the insights that we can glean from it, the best LENR reactor design, IMHO, is a LENR molten salt LENR fission reactor.


    In professional nuclear engineering, it is well understood that fission produces 100 times more energy per reaction mare or less than fusion, but fission produces relatively few neutrons to keep the reaction going. On the other hand, fusion is weak at producing energy but generates neutrons by the boatload.


    If an abundant source of muons is available, the lack of neutron production that drives the fission reaction is not a concern anymore. A single muon will produce 200 MeV per muon fission reaction vs. 3 MeV for fusion.


    So a muon fission reactor is very rich and efficient in energy production and a muon fusion reactor is energy poor. So a muon fission reactor is the way to go because it is about 100 times more energetic than of fusion reactor at producing energy per muon.


    For example, if the QuarkX produces as many muons as I think that it does, It will require only a few QaurkX reactors inside the core of a molten fluoride salt based thorium reactor to produce a ton of high quality heat energy.


    Rossi said that 20 watts of electric power is produced by his old 100 watt QUARK reactors


    Assuming a low voltage of 1 volt, 20 watts means 20 coulombs of electrons are produced a second. If one muon decays to one electron not counting muon escape from the QuarkX, then (20) (6.25 x 10^18 electrons) or about 10^20 of muons per second is produced by 100 watts of QuarkX power production. This assumes that most of the atoms in the molten salt blanket are thorium atoms.


    That much neutron flux would support a 100 megawatt nuclear reactor on a single reaction per muon basis. But Muons might generate 150 fission and/or fusion reactions per muon. Just a few QuarkX reactors can push out a lot of power and also confine muons inside the reactor thereby utilizing muon production at high efficiency.

    Edited 2 times, last by axil ().

  • Axil, I am interested in testing multiple samples. I am just concerned how to make a modular reactor that could easily swap samples without break down. As Alan mentioned it is the calibration that is the issue. I want to break it down (of course I could be off base completely) and see which sample can be stimulated and by what method. I do not think I can handle it safely since my thoughts are in a different direction than what has been done in the past. The input power is not a concern at this point. I plan on using plasma to drive it. I am aware that you do not think it is fusion any longer. After all I read your references. This is not designed to produce power, just test samples to narrow down what lattice will produce either radiation or heat. My thoughts are any samples that show either one will then be examined and retested, and tested. Then the candidates will go in a more rigorous reactor with better calorimetry. The smaller the sphere the more samples can be tested in a drop down (gravity) reactor. So it is clear it is a plasma reactor. Do you see issues?

  • Axil, I am interested in testing multiple samples. I am just concerned how to make a modular reactor that could easily swap samples without break down. As Alan mentioned it is the calibration that is the issue. I want to break it down (of course I could be off base completely) and see which sample can be stimulated and by what method. I do not think I can handle it safely since my thoughts are in a different direction than what has been done in the past. The input power is not a concern at this point. I plan on using plasma to drive it. I am aware that you do not think it is fusion any longer. After all I read your references. This is not designed to produce power, just test samples to narrow down what lattice will produce either radiation or heat. My thoughts are any samples that show either one will then be examined and retested, and tested. Then the candidates will go in a more rigorous reactor with better calorimetry. The smaller the sphere the more samples can be tested in a drop down (gravity) reactor. So it is clear it is a plasma reactor. Do you see issues?

    I don't think that multiple simultaneous fuel tests will be valid. The muon radiation from the samples that work well will influence the other samples. This is how I think that the Cat/Mouse setup works for Rossi.

  • Alan, I will not be making the spheres maybe outsource to an aircraft fab plant, I am not even sure that Be is required but it is transparent to x-rays and can withstand heat. Do you have a feeling for what size a sample would be required to test. Oh and as always thanks for putting up with me.

    • Official Post

    In other words:the volume of the cold fusion process by the nuclei of thehydrogen/deuterium atoms must be much larger than the volume of thesame nuclei by the hot fusion process.


    Interesting hint.


    It have to be confirmed but it seems, and this is the basis of my speculations, that energy is freed by keV (<50keV if I remember well) quanta. This put a minimum size for the size of the reacting zone.


    I've read that around 20-50keV x-rays react with k-shell (photoelectric effect) of common atoms like iodine.

    So, LENR reaction maye happens over small range like that ? like the k-shell.

    It gives support for DDL, pico-chemistry


    Looking at wavelength of such X-rays, it seems to be around 1 angstroem, the size of an atom...

    so it does not seems incompatible with inter-atomic interactions, but not the usual electron-electron interactions...

    • Official Post

    Hi Rigel. You can buy spherical beryllium pellets on Ebay. Assuming that this is what you mean to package your fuel inside they would need to be drilled and plugged. Perhaps you could plug the hole with a stainless ball forced into the hole under pressure? Or a smaller beryllium sphere? Very tricky work for sure. I am not at all sure how ductile/malleable beryllium would prove to be in practice.

    As for how to heat them uniformly, perhaps they could be arranged on the surface of a sand-bath of some kind, though the choice of 'sand' would be critical. You want something with just the right thermal conductivity and a suitable elevated melting point.


    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/0-5g…397c64:g:pPAAAOSw37tV9953


    On the topic of calibration, a 4-tube reactor like the one shown undergoing calibration takes a couple of days tweaking coil lengths and so on to calibrate to the point where all 4 cores will 'run empty' at the same temperature when the reactor overall is run at any temperature you wish, even then the best you can manage is +/- 2%. That is not really good enough IMHO.


    ETA- the best way is (for me) to run several 2-core systems in parallel- the thermal losses etc are then essentially uniform and 'cross-matching' calibration is relatively easy.

  • AlainCo,


    You can find all the evidence at Wikipedia (electromagnetic wavelengths in relation to the volumes of electron shells, etc.). That’s why I gave the example of the HCl molecule. However, every electrical engineer knows the relation between wavelength and the dimension of the antennae.


    The radiation of the low energy fusion starts when the quanta of both nuclei are forced together. So the actual distance between both nuclei at the beginning is not involved into the wavelength of the radiation. Both fusible boundaries must be together (adjacent) before the rearranging of all the involved quanta starts.


    That’s why the wavelength of low energy fusion not only indicates the origin of the volume of the fusion process, it also shows that the Coulomb force is surmounted (decreased).


    First the boundary expands, second the Coulomb force decreases, third the fusion process starts, fourth the fusion radiates quanta, fifth the new boundary of the fused nuclei is formed.

    • Official Post

    H.G.

    My quick computation for wavelength of 50keV Xrays is 1/4 of angstroem (25pm),

    but it is not clear if 50keV is the hard limit. it may be lower

    The lattice constant of beta phase is said to be just above 4 angstroem (>410pm), while the d nucleus is above 2 femtometer

    Holmlid push that metallic hydrogen have latice constante around 150nm (1.5 angstroem)



    If I follow your reasoning, the reaction zone is thus big compared to the nucleus, but one order below the atom size, the lattice parameter...

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.