Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Enhancement

[1] Tunneling of slow quantum packets through the high Coulomb barrier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2014.02.016

[2] Correlated states and nuclear reactions: An experimental test with low energy beams

https://journals.aps.org/prab/…ysRevAccelBeams.22.054503

Worth reading the papers in full.

Points to make:

(positives)

• This is all good physics, standing up to peer review and if anything pans out it will attract more work
• The theory is predictive (like all good physics) with plenty of detail that can be confirmed / denied by the experiments
• The experimental work is quite mature - Czerski et al have been doing this stuff for quite some time - the various experimental issues are known (and mentioned in [2])
• The google guys have said they intend for more such experimental work to be done - good to have ready funds
• Because the theory involves known working QM it can easily be calculated and definite quantitative predictions made - not just numbers but parametric relationships - which in general are a lot more informative
• There is an expected change in branching ratios favouring fast reactions over slower ones. It is not entirely clear to me whether that is enough to correlate better with the corpus of claimed LENR results but it might be so. More work on this would be helpful and not difficult.
• This stuff might explain the higher than expected fusion cross-sections observed at low energies by many

(negatives)

• The quantum Coherent Correlated States (CCS) needed here to enhance cross-section are very strongly correlated. It is not clear whether that can be generated - but equally not clear it can't. The mechanisms for correlating position and momentum in deuterons are well known and there is (I think?) no difficulty in ensuring coherence persists long enough to be relevant.
• The work here all depends on quantum mechanics, QFT, and standard model of particle physics (including to some extent quark/gluon "dense matter" physics). Some people here seem to dislike all this stuff that generates predictive results for a wide range of relevant phenomena.
• CCS is an acronym that clashes with other context here and for historical reasons some here don't like. My view: terminology: suck it up, it is often unfortunate.

It surprises me that these highly relevant to LENR ideas are not much considered here.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.11068 (from the previous thread under physics that got rather hijacked by EVO and Rossi stuff).

Surface plasmons have never seemed to me to correlate well directly with LENR experiments. However, high localised time-dependent e-m fields are one way to make CCS protons or deuterons. Not sure this is relevant, because you can correlate position and momentum easily using grazing incidence to nuclei, but you never know.

but as QM is not thought to be adequate to explain LENR results

By whom? References and specific reasons, please. If this is based on SAPPHIRE then I'd want more info: it has not gained much traction here? In any case, where is the SAPPHIRE theoretical work showing this mechanism could not generate the claimed results, whatever they are

SAFIRE: https://www.safireproject.com/…SAFIRE-Project-Report.pdf

Maybe there is some other report? This pdf shows impressive equipment, fun playing with plasma, but no evidence of transmutation nor of excess energy.

Quote from Curbina

You have to see the video presentation. And also the one hour interview of Montgomery Childs. The final paper report is going to take months

I don't rate either forms of communication when it comes to determining what is the definite evidence they have. The PDF shows naivetee and little expertise in plasma work - but of course all will depend on the real results written up and analysed. Till they have those I'd count it as no more than fun PR.

Quote from Ahlfors

Negative: cabaret and jokes from authors

"a) Periodic structure of Fe-Mn geology crusts with isotopic anomalies of selfcontrolled

global biostimulated isotope transmutation in oceans and lakes. b) The

possible role of LENR in dentistry"

Perhaps they are familiar with LENR research - where the role of LENR in dentistry is an active research topic?