Randy Davis Patents/Marathon, and New Energy Power Systems

  • Robert Bryant's recent post says: that gammas are not emitted appears to be the approximate reality in experiments.


    The most logical explanation from studying nuclear physics would be to assume that some of the energy produced by the third d+d fusion branch is transferred by electrons emitted from internal conversion and pair production. In addition, the third d+d fusion may have a low cross section, as indicated in an earlier post. The possibility of internal conversion and pair production doesn't seem to have been discussed previously by cold fusion scientists. Instead, researchers devoted significant time and resources developing alternative theories to explain the reason gamma radiation is not detected.


    The idea of varying the amounts of deuterium and hydrogen should help in understanding cold fusion, as gamma radiation would be expected from p+d fusion.

  • d+d fusion

    In cold fusion D*-D* is a complex oscillating magnetic mass with a oscillating internal charge that allows coupling to other constant magnetic flux = magnetic gamma states. This is the fast track relaxation. The slow track is by emission of the fine structure coupling frequency what takes quite some time.

    There is a closed formula that gives the expected relaxation time based on the current D*-D* coupling depth based on teh magnetic moment. But to fine tune it more reliable/reproducible P&F like experiments would be needed. So in physics always a part of the progress needs good experiments.


    You can find some Ecalox gammas on researchgate under my account.

  • assume that some of the energy produced by the third d+d fusion branch is transferred by electrons emitted from internal conversion and pair production.

    testable assumption.. nuclear energy transfer by IC and PP..


    internal conversion/pair production both have characterisitic " Xray" fingerprints

    PP 511Kev

    IC K/L etc peaks eg Pd Kalpha 1 21kev Sm 40 kev W 69 keV


    any significant increase vs background needs to be compared with the heat output


    Kalman et al state

    "

    Our result [32] obtained for the solid state internal conversion process [for the electron catalyzed reaction(e) +p+d(e)+3He] was significantly larger than the result obtained in [6] for the case of hydrogen molecules.The solid state internal conversion calculation was repeated for the case of a lattice [33], where the initial cat- particles and one of the reacting particles were described by a Bloch-function [34]. The results of calcuations based on the concept of solid state internal conversions indicated significant effects compared to molecular calculations. However, the obtained counting rates were not high enough and therefore they could not explain the reported extremely high diffusion rates and excess heat[1]. Moreover, the solid state internal conversion mechanism would result in energetic electrons, the traces of which have been found in recent experiments [35] only

    (6) (PDF) Understanding low energy nuclear reactions. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…_energy_nuclear_reactions [accessed Jan 15 2022].


    Pair production is eliminated at ~TM 11.oo by Kasagi

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Robert Bryant's post says that nuclear energy transfer by internal conversion and pair production is a testable assumption. These are two normal nuclear phenomena and are studied in nuclear physics courses. "Bridging the Gaps: An Anthology on Nuclear Cold Fusion" poses a concern that they were not seriously considered by the cold fusion community, and researchers have devoted significant time and resources developing alternative theories to explain the reason gamma radiation is not observed.


    The two references (Kalman et al., "Understanding Low Energy Nuclear References," January 2021, and Kasagi, Search for Gamma Rays, ICCF-21) provide interesting background information. Each appears to regard "cold fusion" as a transmutation ("LENR") process. This is mainly due to absence of significant amounts of gamma radiation from d+d fusion. Nuclear physics courses have pointed out, however, that excited He4 resulting from d+d fusion should not be expected to emit gamma radiation.

  • K.P. Sinha's work from the late 1990s and discussed in "A Theoretical Model for Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions," Infinite Energy Magazine, January-February 2000 introduced the first theory that seriously viewed cold fusion as occurring in cracks, crevices and defects of the cathode reaction material (instead of the bulk between atoms of the material). A drawing on page 35 of "Bridging the Gaps: An Anthology on Nuclear Cold Fusion" depicts related reaction mechanisms. The double dash indicates two electrons around a deuteron, causing it to have a negative charge. Examples of fusion occur when protons, deuterons, or tritons (tritium) combine with the negatively charged deuteron ions shown on the top row of the drawing. Some researchers have indicated that, instead of the first reaction where (p,d) fusion produces helium-3, the proton could combine with an electron, forming a neutron, which might then enter the deuteron to form tritium, rather than helium-3. This is not expected to occur with high probability since deuterium has a low neutron adsorption cross section and (p,d) experiments are reported to produce helium-3 . In the case of (p,d) fusion, the extra electron(s) is (are) envisioned to help the proton and deuteron come together but not become part of the nucleus.


    A heavy electron or pairs of heavy electrons close to the nucleus can be captured by a proton to form a neutron through an electron capture process. The neutron can cause transmutation of adjacent reaction material.


    Professor Sinha initially suggested the role of electron pairing during a cold fusion meeting held in Bangalore, India in 1989. The idea was also mentioned in an obituary that he wrote for Professor F.C. Frank in 1998. He indicated that he could explain how cold fusion works during a conference hosted by the Integrity Research Institute at the Holiday Inn in Bethesda, Maryland in April 1999. The staff and technical consultants for Epoch Engineering, Inc. in Gaithersburg, Maryland assisted him in further documenting his theory in the summer and fall of 1999. Professor Sinha discussed the theory in a meeting on "The Role of Electron Pairing in Facilitating Fusion, Fission and Other Mechanisms in Reproducible Experiments," held at the Hilton Hotel in Arlington, Virginia on November 18, 1999. About forty copies of his briefing charts were distributed as a technical note to scientists across the nation. The theory was also discussed in a March 2000 proposal on "New Power Production Technology Reaction Material" to the US Department of Defense.

  • "The Role of Electron Pairing in Facilitating Fusion, Fission and Other Mechanisms in Reproducible Experiments,

    Electron pairing in fact is joining the magnetic flux in a shared orbit. This the first time can be seen in 4-He where teh two electrons release some 11eV when they join in a 1FC orbit. The same you get in D*-D* pre-fusion SC- Cluster state what some call Rydberg matter.


    The real problem up to now was that within standard model you cannot get anything about spin pairing...

  • A recent post indicates that about 40 copies of Professor Sinha's briefing charts were distributed as a technical note to scientists across the nation. This note is identified as NEPS-TN-003 dated November 18, 1999, and was distributed at that time, for example, to scientists in the DoD (DARPA, ONR, NRL, Army Research Office and Air Force Office of Scientific Research), SRI, LANL, the University of Illinois, and MIT, among others.

  • Key local electron pairing concepts listed in NEPS-TN-003:

    a, The role of local electron pairs (S=0) was first demonstrated to enhance superconductivity in 1966.

    b. The importance of local electron pairs in high-temperature oxide superconductors was identified in 1988.

    c. Species such as (H+D-), (D+H-), (D+D-) exist in reaction material in addition to H+ and D+.

    d. Squeezed D-(H-) results from trapping of electron pairs (local charged bosons), due to interaction with phonons of the lattice field.

    e. The electrons acquire a heavy effective mass and the ionic radius becomes much smaller.

    f. These entities are located in internal channels of the reaction material.

    g. The electrons shield the nuclear charge, and the Coulomb barrier is reduced.

    h. The reaction material (host matrix) role is to provide a confining potential and channels.

    i. The channels are essentially one dimensional.

  • Related theories are discussed in "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" by Edmund Storms (Infinite Energy Press, 2014) and in "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," by Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen (Condensed Matter, May 2, 2005).

  • The electrons acquire a heavy effective mass and the ionic radius becomes much smaller.

    heavy electrons are in the Clean Planet Patent alreadygranted in 2017

    " Thus, when plasma is generated by the wound reactant 25 and the reactant 26 in a deuterium gas atmosphere, hydrogen atoms are also occluded in the metal nanoparticles of the wound reactant 25, and nano-sized metal nanoparticles.

    Electrons (free electrons) are strongly influenced by surrounding metal atoms and other electrons and act as heavy electrons.

    As a result, the internuclear distance between hydrogen atoms in the metal nanoparticles is reduced, and reactor 2 A fusion reaction that generates heat while emitting neutrons inside can be caused.

    JPWO2015008859A1 - Heat generating device and heat generating method - Google Patents

  • A recent post indicates that about 40 copies of Professor Sinha's briefing charts were distributed as a technical note to scientists across the nation. This note is identified as NEPS-TN-003 dated November 18, 1999, and was distributed at that time, for example, to scientists in the DoD (DARPA, ONR, NRL, Army Research Office and Air Force Office of Scientific Research), SRI, LANL, the University of Illinois, and MIT, among others.

    And did anything come of this distribution of Sinha's briefing charts by NEPS?

  • anything come of this distribution of Sinha's briefing

    after 1999 there was this RG publication by Sinha,Meulenberg 2011

    lochons phonons deep electron states maybe

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288135454_Quantum-correlated_fluctuations_phonon-induced_bond_polarization_enhanced_tunneling_and_low-energy_nuclear_reactions_in_condensed_matter


    speculation... but no hypothesis test... no reactor,,

    maybe they could just go back to 1989 wet chemistry?

  • The definition says yes. Every muon is negative. Every anti-muon is positive.


    And a lot of muons pass through our bodies: ~10,000 muons per minute.


    "...


    Secondary effects


    At sea level, the majority of cosmic ray secondaries are highly penetrating muons. About 10,000 muons pass through our bodies every minute. Some of these muons will ionize molecules as they go through our flesh, occasionally leading to genetic mutations that may be harmful.


    At present, the average human receives the equivalent of about 10 chest X-rays per year from cosmic rays. We shouldn't be alarmed by this, since it is just part of the natural background radiation under which humans and our ancestors have been exposed to for eons. Indeed, cosmic-ray-induced mutations may sometimes be beneficial.


    "It is clear that in some way cosmic rays shaped evolution of organisms on Earth," says Franco Ferrari from the University of Szczecin in Poland.


    In a recent issue of the journal Astrobiology, Ferrari and Ewa Szuszkiewicz from the same university reviewed what we know about cosmic rays, and they argue that the current biological relevance of these particles is not necessarily representative of the past.


    "It is very likely that organisms of early Earth possessed DNA that was unstable and could easily mutate under external agents, more so, perhaps, than the DNA of present-day bacteria," the authors write.


    ..."


    From: https://www.space.com/7193-death-rays-space-bad.html


    .

  • Seems that this gentleman expands on their early works (Sinha et.al.) Has he his own thread?


    Andrew Meulenberg's Lab

    https://www.researchgate.net/lab/Andrew-Meulenberg-Lab-2


    A model for enhanced fusion reaction in a solid matrix of metal deuterides Goal: to provide an understandable, standard-physics basis under special conditions for LENR


    The Photon-Quantized Atom

    Preprint

    File available

    Nov 2019

    A model of the atomic orbitals is described considering a classical argument that does not presume the integer values of electron-orbital angular momentum proposed by Bohr. A model of the atomic orbitals is described considering a classical argument that includes the photon fields as part of the total hydrogen atom. Assuming only the known properties of light (e.g., E = h nu and L = h/2pi), the electron-orbital energies about a nucleus (including a ground state) are predicted and calculated in an intuitive (and mathematically simple) manner. This first-order model considers neither electron-spin nor relativistic effects. A ground state is predicted based on the reduced probability of coupling net energy from a driver into a lower-frequency oscillator. The long-term stability of the ground state is further explained in terms of angular-momentum requirements of the photon. A derivation for the radius of photons is provided along the way.


    -GBGOBLENOTE


    Srandard Model and Beyond for LENR Annotated Presentation at 14th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals. 28/8/21 - 1/9/21 Author: Jean-Luc Paillet, Aix-Marseille University, France

    Presentation

    • Oct 2021

    The theoretical understanding of the Cold Fusion processes is very complex, because they seem to involve all the known interactions. It seems reasonable to place ourselves in the Standard Model, which totals the most knowledge and observations in the field of fundamental physics, with certainly the necessity to go beyond.

    View




  • The post #115 states that after 1999 there was a Research Gate (RG) publication by Sinha and Meulenberg in 2011.


    "Bridging the Gaps: An Anthology on Nuclear Cold Fusion" (pages 37-38) says that Professor Sinha continued his theoretical work on cold fusion as a visiting scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2000-2003). He met Andrew Meulenberg (PhD, Vanderbilt University in Nuclear Physics) who has been working with him under the aegis of the Science for Humanity Trust in Bangalore, India, which they founded. Since that time, they have co-authored about a dozen related papers and briefings that can be found on the internet. Information on electrostatic fields in the channels was discussed in 2006 and 2007 and additional information on reaction rates was discussed in 2012.

  • Posts #116 and 117 are interested in the term "lochon".


    This term is explained as follows in "A Theoretical Model for Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in a Solid Matrix," published in Infinite Energy Magazine: The central idea of the model is that an electron, or electron pairs, located on the proton or deuteron and interacting with high frequency modes of the solid material (phonons or ionic plasmons) can acquire heavy effective mass, and the corresponding atoms or ions are squeezed to much smaller size. Such tightly bound electron pairs will have integral spin (S=0) and behave like local charged bosons (acronym "lochons"). The small ions can be called bosonic ions and the composite boson (electron pair) can pull towards it another proton or deuteron, overcoming Coulomb barrier and taking advantage of the attractive nuclear forces leading to fusion.