NASA: New Paper about Experimental Progress

  • It's a news.


    Maybe if they slip in AGW somewhere, it will not only be news, but make the news:


    "Experimental Observations of Nuclear Activity in Deuterated
    Materials Subjected to a Low-Energy Photon Beam could reverse Global Warming"


    or something like that. Randall Mills made CNN this past Jan. 1st, so why not NASA today?

  • M. Lipoglavšek et al.: "Observation of electron emission in the nuclear reaction between protons and deuterons" - Available on-line 6 September 2017


    ... "Our result clearly shows that during the electron screening effect the electrons do not just lower the Coulomb barrier from an atomic shell, but actively participate in the reaction at a much closer distance than the atomic radius."

    ... "Our result is the first indication that nuclear reactions behave differently at low projectile energies than at higher ones."

  • Related to electron screening, I have wondered about the following possibility for fission rather than fusion:


    Consider a moderate to heavy nucleus. In heavy nuclei, the balance between the Coulomb force and the nuclear force is a very delicate one. The sensitivity of this balance can be seen in the case of alpha emission in oblong deformed nuclei, where alpha particles are more likely to be emitted at the poles, where the Coulomb barrier is thinner, than at the waist; and in the spontaneous fission of synthetic elements, where the nuclear force is inadequate to compensate for Coulomb repulsion. I propose that if you could get nontrivial asymmetric electron screening for any amount of time, e.g., a gradient of electron density in which the nucleus momentarily resides, the tidal force caused by the differential balance of nuclear and Coulomb forces at either end of the gradient would cause the nucleus to become unstable and (more) liable to fission.


    At some point I might raise a question along these lines on Physics StackExchange.


    (The fact that the nucleus is likely to be spinning extremely rapidly with respect to the laboratory frame does not hurt this proposal.)

  • Interesting point of nucleus shape... I cannot judge.


    However if i follow my usual position inspired by Storms, reaction can only happen if something linked to "quantum coherence" have an impact on the nucleus... don't forget that not only the nuclei should pass the coulomb barrier, but also slowly, step by step, which is impossible is the nuclei are not coherent... any pair of nucleus who fusion, even if the coulomb barrier is missing, shoudl emit 24MeV in few energetic events (gamma, ejections)... the huge miracle is absence of those energetic particle, not the fusion.


    It seems very hard to swallow that cristal property, cracks, vacancies, allow many nucleus to interact so far away... but it have to happen.


    however if the electronic environnement is heavily anisotropic like in a linear crack (eg hydroton), maybe the nucleus can be deformed...

    As I understand it cannot be the 2H or 1H, but the heavy nuclei in the metallic environnement... surprising and not much considered, but maybe this is why nobody found yet the key...


    if I stay to a LENR reaction involving only hydrogen isotopes, anisotropy can do few things.

    one is to align nuclei along one axis... not much usefulness, except for creating quantum coherence? hum... need math.

    another is to create very elliptic electron orbits, and this connect to Storms ideas of oscillating nuclei slowly tunneling, but also ti picochemictry, deep ortbits, inverted rydberg matter...


    about the hypothesis of fission/alpha, it is finally easier to accept at first sight...

    the problem is that iwamura rather observed alpha absorption (1/2/3 alpha added to a nucleus)...

    Storms even reports some fission/decay induced by fusion


    maybe not fission but fusion/absorption involving heavily deformed nucleus in an anisotropic environnement like a crack or a twin cristal defect

  • I thought this was big news. Enough so maybe to make it into some of the standard online tech/science sites, i.e. Pop Sci. Sci Am, Science Digest, etc. Nothing though...so far. Yes, it is just a patent application, but this is NASA! They even make an effort to avoid saying LENR. Nothing stopping this from being reported on.

    I thought that too, but even within the LENR community this is facing very less interest.


    Even at ECW, where they usally disassemble and sniff each fart of Rossi in super prolonged discussions, the post covering this paper has not even 20 comments 8|:rolleyes:


    Guess this is too scientific and unspectacular for the general reader.


  • Fission in LENR is caused by muons. If Ed Storms would invest in a muon detector, then he would see that this assertion is true.


    The Chernobyl disaster was caused in part by an electric explosion in water as the source of added fission induced by muon emissions from the electric exposition.


    See:


    On the possible physical mechanism of Chernobyl catastrophe and the

    unsoundness of official conclusion

    A.A. Rukhadze,* L.I. Urutskojev,** D.V. Filippov**


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-ex/papers/0304/0304024.pdf


    "Apart from the neutron mechanism, other mechanisms of uranium fission are also known to exist, for example, fission induced by slow muons [24]. . The mechanism of uranium fission under the action of magnetic monopoles has been considered theoretically [25]. It was suggested [25] that the

    monopole-nuclear interaction is so strong that a monopole that comes close to a nucleus can induce 238U fission."


    L.I. Urutskojev and D.V. Filippov latter verified this assertion in exploding titanium foil experiments that produced fission in uranium at a distance from the electric arc explosion.


    As we now know through the work of Ken Shoulders and G. Egely, dusty plasma produces LENR activated nanoparticles and polaritons. The polaritons generate the monopole magnetic field lines that induce muon production.

  • Molecular screening in nuclear reactions: ... "The largest electron screening potentials were obtained in a graphite target containing hydrogen as an impurity. Some measured potentials are almost two orders of magnitude above the theoretical predictions."

    https://journals.aps.org/prc/a…0.1103/PhysRevC.92.065801

    https://ESPACE.CERN.CH/test-vila/WP4/Documents/A%20new%20energy%20source%20from%20nuclear%20fusion%20Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf

  • Strong screening by lattice confinement and resultant fusion reaction rates in fcc metals ... "High concentration of hydrogen isotopes segregated to monovacancies and divacancies in face-centered cubic (fcc) metals such as Ni and Pd with densities of 1023 atom/cm3, makes the hydrogen cluster a favorable active site for the fusion reaction."

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…68583X17306286?via%3Dihub

  • Tell Edmund Storm.

    Hydrogen trapping at divacancies and impurity-vacancy complexes in nickel: first principles study... "As a specific state of hydrogen, the H atoms embedded in Ni vacancies and divacancies have much higher density than any other phase, including the D-T targets used for the inertial confinement studies."

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…2231151630962X?via%3Dihub

  • Hey Jed, from the above, it certainly seems as if serious scientific research into the possibility of nuclear fusion using isotopes of hydrogen and various metals -- that this research is alive and well. Let's hope it results in some practical applications though, if I read the abstract right, and it's way out of my field, the effect detected is very small. Thanks, Ahlfors, for sharing this.

  • Link to a PhysicsForum question I raised on Monday related to the post above:


    https://www.physicsforums.com/…nd-nuclear-forces.925953/


    MFB is wrong. We know from the Cravens golden ball demo that a rare earth magnet (SmCo5) can produce nuclear effects. If you are honest and tell them that, they will ban you as a nutjob.



    http://www.nrcresearchpress.co…1139/p86-123#.WcQfOsj5hPY



    Muon-induced fission in 235U and 238U


    ABSTRACT


    Muon-induced prompt and delayed fission yields in 235U and 238U have been measured. A coincidence with the muonic uranium Kα X-rays was used to identify the muon stop in the target. The experimental absolute fission yields per muon stop were 0.142 ± 0.023 for 235U and 0.068 ± 0.013 for 238U. The disappearance rate of muons from the 1s state of muonic uranium has also been measured in the fission mode. Muon-induced fission lifetimes were 71.6 ± 0.6 ns for 235U and 77.2 ± 0.4 ns for 238U. No evidence for a short-lifetime fission – isomer component was found. Comparison of lifetime results with previously measured values in the electron, gamma, and neutron decay modes indicated that the systematic discrepancies could be explained by muon capture on fission fragments produced from prompt fission.

  • MFB is wrong. We know from the Cravens golden ball demo that a rare earth magnet (SmCo5) can produce nuclear effects. If you are honest and tell them that, they will ban you as a nutjob.



    http://www.nrcresearchpress.co…1139/p86-123#.WcQfOsj5hPY


    Axil, there is nothing in the latest best writeup of the Cravens demo that shows excess heat!


    The differential temperature data comes from thermocouples sealed into the globes which have different atmospheres. The D2 (reducing) atmosphere is known (from the TC datasheet) to lead to possible drift errors in the not industrially robust thermocouples which would exactly cause the stated apparent result. H2 vs D2 leads to different diffusion rates and therefore drift.


    So I don't see how you can know SmCo5 magnets generate excess heat via nuclear effects. Even if the Craven demo were proven to mean real excess heat and therefore (possibly) nuclear level effects, there is absolutely no way to know which element of the demo causes that effect.