News about Woodford and Industrial Heat

    Ahlfors


    Ok re those papers and the patent, I see what you mean now, here are comments:


    (1) Key idea - SPP can increase local electron charge density and therefore shielding in metal lattices.


    This is a plausible idea - it is a mechanism for overcoming Coulomb barrier that any scientist would say cannot immediately be ruled out and - if it were found true - would need no new physics.


    It is consistent with the long-time LENR speculation about surface defects and Nuclear active environments


    (2) This applies (in principle) to p + p, d + d, p + (metal nucleus), d + (metal nucleus) reactions


    (3) The reactions with metal nuclei are much tougher to induce due to higher coulomb barrier


    (4) The keV energies ion still needed have been hypothesised as gettable from plasma oscillations (also possibly SPP related, or possibly not), but this was from a Miley Violente 2004 paper and I have not found much coherent follow-up, nor was this quantified.


    In fact Miley Violante 2003 has remarkably little follow-up I can find. A shame, but normally indicates that on further checking the ideas do not work.


    Of all the "LENR theory" stuff this is the direction I like most. The real no-no for me is that while it plausibly deals with Coulomb barrier it does not deal with lack of observed high energy products. Unusually high electron density might alter branching ratios

    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…/0953-4075/26/22/011/meta

    This is still a relatively small effect and also there is lacking any change that would magically discriminate against observable high energy products, where the null hypothesis of no nuclear reactions explains these very well...


    The trouble with this is that even at low branching ratios high energy products would be thousands of times easier to measure than heat as a sign of such reactions, because the released powers are comparable, but noise (background) against which they could be measured is billions of times lower in the case of high energy particles than phonons. Furthermore, phonons can be caused by many things, high energy particles not.


    For example, 1W excess heat = 0.6E19eV/sec ~ 1E13 Mev-level reaction products. Even given a capture probability of say 1cm^2 / 12m^2 (1 cm^2 detector sited 1m from emission) or 1E-5 that is 1E8 detections /second.


    Such OOM calculations are helpful in seeing what are the issues here. Suppressing high energy products by such very large ratios as to make them close to background of say 100 counts/sec is still a factor of 1E6. That must happen nearly all the time for excess heat observations to have this as mechanism.


    I know I've ignored detector efficiency but I've also uses a detector position a long way from the reaction, so that sort of cancels. We still have suppression of all high energy products to around 1E-6 probability in any given reaction: if you want those many excess heat results to come from this mechanism.


    Or, you could join the dark side, view the excess heat stuff as artifactual, and then this mechanism remains open as one occasionally noticed at lower levels...


    Regards, THH


    PS - the other mystery here is that for this type of mechanism deuterons work much, much better than protons because the nucleus can be polarised and so lower Coulomb barrier. That rules out the v large amt of not deuterium LENR results. Again, come to the dark side and you have no problems with this, and quite a number of LENR researchers would by Ok with the non-deuterium LENR results being not real...

    Here is one of the more interesting follow-ups of the 2003 speculation (open):

    https://www.academia.edu/18103…ESSES_IN_CONDENSED_MATTER


    Has some obvious holes; like the needed 100% down shifting of Mev energies into lattice phonons for the hypothesised lattice reactions.


    Another hole: e-m induced kev energies on deuterons or protons at high frequency would need to lead to oscillations comparable in magnitude with the lattice constant in order for nuclei to get close to each other, this is a separate bound from the required energy. Let us see:


    (classical OOM)

    E = peak plasma oscillation driving field

    distance = double time integral of force/mass= qE/m/(6E14)^2 (SI units) =

    1.6E-19 X E X (1/1.6E-27) X (1/3.6)E-29 ~ E X 1E-21 m


    We need a distance of 1nm or so (1E-9 m)


    so we have E = 1E12 V/m


    Use: Electric field (in V/m) = 2745*sqrt(intensity), whereas the intensity is given in W/cm²


    => Intensity = 0.16E18 W/cm^2.


    Can we get this order field from SPPs?

    G. proposal is a nanostructure-induced D-T [or D-D] fusion [ie artificial/nano-builded collections of "NAE"] - but no play: no moderator, nanostructures destroyed from activity itself, or no activity at all. Poor Carl Page, but first class researchers.

    Field here is quoted as up to 3E9V/m. That is a static field of course - and at this field (static) electrons can be captured from approaching atoms and ions ejected!


    So the 1E12 fields needed to make lattice ions approach each other in plasma oscillations are a whole different ball park.



    Quote from Ahlfors

    => Intensity = 0.16E18 W/cm^2. Can we get this order field [from SPPs]?


    Lene Hau: "Extremely large cross sections for ionization from an atomic beam are observed at modest voltages due to the nanotube’s small radius and extended length."


    DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.133002

    Should have been able to predict that the nano-structures would be destroyed as are NAE's by the heat generated from fusion reactions-so what can we learn from this? Need some base crystalline material (eg ZrO2,MnO2 or even Al2O3) to suspend the nano or metallic powder particles in to dissipate the energy (via Wyttenbach's coupled magnetic field collapse theory) without destroying the particles. The tetragonal nano-structure configuration of these oxides appears to be optimal for the formation of H or D magnetic field domains (0,5 - 1 nm pores) within and interfacing with Ni atoms in the metal lattice allowing energy dissipation rather than localised melt-down. Brillouin Energy have been exploiting this technique for years (probably without realizing it) at their Al2O3/Ni plated interface achieving low level but sustained and repeatable excess heat results. Higher level excess heat reactors require transition metal powder/oxide mixes in the Kg range to exploit the advantage of neutron, proton, tritium, He3 and possible high energy (heavy) electron accumulation within the reactor. And then there are gammas, which if Holmlid is correct, may have the capability of generating muons from ultra dense D. The plot thickens!

    Looks like Takahashi's group in Japan are way ahead of IH or whoever Larry/Carl Page is supporting:


    Results for elevated-temperature condition: Significant level excess-heat evolution data

    were obtained for PNZ-type, CNZ-type CNS-type samples at 200-400℃ of RC (reaction

    chamber) temperature, while no excess heat power data were obtained for single nanometal

    samples as PS-type and NZ-type. By using binary-nano-metal/ceramics-supported

    samples as melt-span PNZ-type and CNZ-type and wet-fabricated CNS-type, we

    observed excess heat data of maximum 26,000MJ per mol-H(D)-transferred or 85 MJ

    per mol-D of total absorption in sample, which cleared much over the aimed target value

    of 2MJ per mol-H(D) required by NEDO. Excess heat generation with various Pd/Ni

    ratio PNZ-type samples has been also confirmed by DSC (differential scanning

    calorimetry) experiments, at Kyushu University, using very small 0.04-0.1g samples at

    200 to 500℃ condition to find optimum conditions for Pd/Ni ratio and temperature. We

    also observed that the excess power generation was sustainable with power level of 10-

    24 W for more than one month period, using PNZ6 (Pd1Ni10/ZrO2) sample of 120g at

    around 300℃. Detail of DSC results will be reported separately. Summary results of

    material analyses by XRD, TEM, STEM/EDS, ERDA, etc. are to be reported elsewhere.


    Takahashi's theory for this seems unlikely, involving direct fusion of two D2 molecules, forming an intermediate Be which then decays to two He4's. He almost touches on Quantum Confinement Energy (similar to Zuppero's theories) and molecular electron entrapment. Whatever, their work demonstrates the value of using binary-nano-metal/ceramics with Pd, Ni and ZrO2. Might have to bake the reactor components first in a pottery kiln!

    Takahashi writes:


    From the uncertainty principle, the electron wave length should decrease accordingly to the decrement of Rdd. At t =1.4007 fs, the mean
    kinetic energy of electron for “d–e–d–e” EQPET molecule was estimated [4] to be 57.6 keV. Considering the relations,
    λ = h/(mv) ¯ of the de Broglie wave length and (kinetic-energy)= 1
    2mv2, we understand that the effective quantum
    mechanical wave length of trapped electrons in TSC has decreased dramatically during the 1.4007 fs condensation time.
    The estimated trapping potential depth of TSC at t =1.4007 fs was −130.4 keV. This is understood as an adiabatic
    state in very short time interval (about 10−20s) to trap such high kinetic energy (57.6 keV) electrons in a very deep
    (−130.4 keV) trapping potential, in order to satisfy the uncertainty relation. By the way, the mean kinetic energy
    of relative d–d motion was estimated to be 13.68 keV at this adiabatic state, which is also diminished relative to the
    deuteron wave length trapped in the adiabatic TSC potential. In this way, a very short Rdd (in other words, super
    screening of the mutual Coulomb repulsion) was realized in the dynamic TSC condensation to give a very large 4D
    simultaneous fusion rate. It is also worthwhile to point out that the simultaneous 4D fusion in the final stage interval,
    about 2 × 10−20s, of the TSC-minimum state should take place with a relative kinetic energy about 10 keV, by chance,
    similar to the target plasma temperature of the DT plasma-fusion device (ITER, for instance). In this sense, the 4D
    condensed cluster fusion is not “cold fusion”.

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.