CleanHME Kick-off Meeting presentations:

I was surprised to hear Konrad Czerski claim that d-d fusion occurs in stars at the beginning of his talk. (00:56). The level of deuterium in our own Sun is so low that it cannot be detected. The chances of 2 deuterons meeting is extremely slim!

Czerski continues "The idea is we put our Sun into the glass..."! So LENR and hot fusion have something in common? Have we learnt nothing in 31 years? If any hydrogen nuclei approach each other at low energy, with or without screening, we expect the p-d reaction to dominate over d-d. It follows that if we don't observe the expected 3He, there is no such approach and anomalous effects are not explained by fusion.

There's nothing wrong with studying hot fusion, but let's don't pretend it has anything to do with Clean Metal Hydrogen Energy! Misleading statements simply poison the good will for the field.

If you want to promote MHE you would need to explain:-

1. Why there is little (or no) penetrating radiation.

2. The role of the metal(s).

3. The role of hydrogen isotopes.

4. How helium is formed.

5. Why neutron detectors are activated.

6. The origin of transmutations.

Curbina, can you give a reference to the "short communication from Takahashi"?

If you exhaustively examine the expected nuclear interactions with every known stable isotope, according to various theories, you will find that copious radioactive products are predicted. I would cite Takahashi's TSC model, the Widom Larsen heavy electron model, Meulenberg's DDL model, Fisher's Poly-neutron model, Bazhutov's Erzion model etc. which all fail in this way. If there were only one reason for the failure, it would be that the agent used to provoke nuclear reactions is too energetic. It's like trying to crack a nut with a sledge hammer. One only has to think of simple neutron activation analysis to know that most neutron captures produce residual radioactivity. We need to dispense with the idea that any kind of "fusion" is occurring.

If anyone would like me to back up by assertions with a detailed analysis of any of the above failed models, ask me privately.

In the TSC model, 4 (or 6) deuterons or protons are supposed to fuse. The fused product may also fuse with other nuclides. Lets' just look at a well studied case, the Pd/D system. What do we expect from ground state 8Be capture (an optimistic case)? Unobserved radio-active 110Sn and 113Sn! I think someone would have noticed by now! Takahashi dos not discuss this problem nor the many others like it.

one of the shortest ways to make neutrons would be electron capture, a reverse beta decay.

Alan Smith had shared a paper in the past regarding Rayleigh plasma exps.

He had observed XSHs beyond 100eV per molecule, whether for hydrogen OR nitrogen OR oxygen.

That's why I expect the only thing in common should be the capture of one of their electron.

Unfortunately making free neutrons from protons is very endothermic. But even if you could do so, as I mentioned, the result would be copious residual radio-activity from neutron capture. It obviously doesn't happen in LENR. Similarly, natural nitrogen and oxygen cannot capture electrons either. We need another explanation for excess heat. I am sure such explanations exist without any electron captures and without residual radio-activity.

Quote from WJMFC

Similarly, natural nitrogen and oxygen cannot capture electrons either.

This is exact. But since Widom & Larsen published their nonsensical proposal (it never was a theory!) people look at nuclear physics like at chemistry. Time to learn.

Quote from WJMFC

Unfortunately making free neutrons from protons is very endothermic. But even if you could do so, as I mentioned, the result would be copious residual radio-activity from neutron capture. It obviously doesn't happen in LENR. Similarly, natural nitrogen and oxygen cannot capture electrons either. We need another explanation for excess heat. I am sure such explanations exist without any electron captures and without residual radio-activity.

Measurement of the enthalpy of formation of an iron pico-hydride and of its main properties (2017)

Read through this forum thread. Check the math and such of your experiments, don't just take my word for it. As far as I've checked, dense hydrides, this and accelerated beta emissions is the logical answer. I agree, proccesses other than fusion are the important hot thing going on.

Quote from "Check the math and such of your experiments."

I'm familiar with Jacques Dufour's pico chemistry. He detects a mass at 55 which he interprets as 54Fe plus a proton. But if iron can form such pico compounds every isotope of iron should do so but this is not observed. Even if the mass 55 represented FeH, this is not reason to suppose any pico chemistry.

If "accelerated beta emissions is the logical answer" can you tell me in where this is discussed?

Quote from WJMFC

I'm familiar with Jacques Dufour's pico chemistry. He detects a mass at 55 which he interprets as 54Fe plus a proton. But if iron can form such pico compounds every isotope of iron should do so but this is not observed. Even if the mass 55 represented FeH, this is not reason to suppose any pico chemistry.

If "accelerated beta emissions is the logical answer" can you tell me in where this is discussed?

Bob Greenyer quite a few others and myself talk frequently about the fact that LENR results tend to be stabler than the fuel used or standard predictions while producing less energy. I don't have links on hand atm but can get back to you. There is also research alluding to electron clusters/density and proton flux effecting beta decay but again I would need to find the papers myself. You made no comment on dense hydrides, H2 in 1/4th the electron diameter and *H4 which could be mistaken for He4. The info is on this forum though.

LeBob, I could comment on "dense hydrides, H2 in 1/4th the electron diameter and *H4" if you would give references. Dufour's pico iron is an example of a dense hydride. Depending on the precise density of such hypothetical structures (and I include hydrinos, DDL atoms) we expect unobserved residual radioactivity in many cases. This is how we know these states probably don't exist.

Quote from the fact that LENR results tend to be stabler than the fuel used or standard predictions while producing less energy.

I don't understand that phrase. What results? What predictions? What energy? What reactions?

Quote from WJMFC

LeBob, I could comment on "dense hydrides, H2 in 1/4th the electron diameter and *H4" if you would give references. Dufour's pico iron is an example of a dense hydride. Depending on the precise dendity of such hypothetical structures (and I include hydrinos, DDL atoms) we expect unobserved residual radioactivity in many cases. This is how we know these states probably don't exist.

I don't understand that phrase. What results? What predictions? What energy? What reactions?

In general I'm just talking about tapping the energy in core/condensed electron states and accelerated beta decay using atomic H/D, catalysts and medium energy electron dense environments.

(Screenshot from Thunderf00t Thorium car video)

As far as I know there are no known insurmountable barriers to such reactions other than, "mainstrean academic journals haven't publicly supported this plainely". It is basic chemistry, accept acknowledging rare but possible condensed binuclear EM bonds and picoscale electroweak effects. There isn't a need to include anything more abstract than the fundamental sub-atomic particles for a general understanding. These reactions are possible within standard model and multiple alterantive models because electromagnetic bonding and beta/electro weak effects are well known.

What we need is verifying dense hydrogen, controllable beta decay and psuedotransmuted hydride compounds. The collective effects emerging in relatively clean heat, light and electrons using hydrogen with metals and even graphite.

Oh its all so simple! E = mc to the power n!!!! There are no constants!!!!

Quote from WJMFC

Curbina, can you give a reference to the "short communication from Takahashi"?

If you exhaustively examine the expected nuclear interactions with every known stable isotope, according to various theories, you will find that copious radioactive products are predicted. I would cite Takahashi's TSC model, the Widom Larsen heavy electron model, Meulenberg's DDL model, Fisher's Poly-neutron model, Bazhutov's Erzion model etc. which all fail in this way. If there were only one reason for the failure, it would be that the agent used to provoke nuclear reactions is too energetic. It's like trying to crack a nut with a sledge hammer. One only has to think of simple neutron activation analysis to know that most neutron captures produce residual radioactivity. We need to dispense with the idea that any kind of "fusion" is occurring.

If anyone would like me to back up by assertions with a detailed analysis of any of the above failed models, ask me privately.

Agreed, great post. Most models have this flaw. One reason why I personnaly like the path "H -> Rydberg H -> UDH -> UDH spallation" with the by-products of the reaction falling exactly in the Bethe-Bloch range of how radiation interacts with matter. In that model, fusion still occurs but only as secondary/tertiary reactions (UDD -> He4, by-product muon -> muon catalyzed fusion).

JulianBianchi - I agree this is the best model to describe modern LENR - a lot of the previous studies get lost in random transmutations in incredibly chaotic systems (eg even SAFIRE do not seem to know what they are doing from a theoretical perspective!)). Such chaos can be reduced by selecting the correct components for the future LENR reactors - its just a matter of focusing down and not getting lost in all the noise!

Another way to put this is: the reason why quantum physics AKA the Standard Model has been so successful in the C20 was because it put everything into neat little boxes that physicists could be comfortable with and could sleep peacefully at night knowing that they could use their theories of constants to predict the functioning of the natural universe. But this is now the twenty-first century and the concept of physical constants has to be totally re-examined because now we have the computing power to do vastly more intricate calculations which has discovered a new physics (@Wyttenbach's SO(4) model) which transcends all the old crap. But the 'old guard' will not move on as they struggle to make ITER work like the SUN. Its impossible to do that without the same gravitational field of the sun, and after spending $billions is as we all know, doomed to failure. Which is why new Nature papers need to be written and accepted by the SM mafia until they realize that the universe is infiniite, eternal and multi-dimensional in both space and time at the level of both mega(stars and planets) and ultra-micro (protons neutrons and electrons) systems. Einstein and Sternglass knew this but without the algorithmic computing power we have today they couldn't either disprove or prove any of it so they left relativity at a pprimitive conceptual level. For the last time E = mc to the power n and there are no constants in the real Universe.

Or to put it more simply in terms of Artificial Intelligence the Playstation 5 now exceeds the computing power of the human brain! Which is why our children are relying so much on this crutch and have entered a hypnotic state in which they can no longer think for themselves! And yet they arrogantly think they are all so clever with their brand new i-phones. This is not really the fault of education as such it is more to do with a lack of discipline which is needed to learn and think constructively. I asked my own son how he thought his mobile phone worked and he hadn't a clue, what's a radio wave Dad? So I answered like a microwave but longer! Which then went into microwave cookers etc about which he knew nothing! Oh well, ignorance is bliss, I guess!

Quote from WJMFC

I was surprised to hear Konrad Czerski claim that d-d fusion occurs in stars at the beginning of his talk. (00:56). The level of deuterium in our own Sun is so low that it cannot be detected. The chances of 2 deuterons meeting is extremely slim!

At the begining of the solar system, the deuterium content of the sun was higher.

The first nuclear fuel to be fused is deuterium. As soon as it lights up, our little sun will start to shine like a blue giant of the Rigel type. This is "deuterium flash". All the dust from the accretion disk where the planets have just formed has melted, and it clumps together in droplets of a few millimeters that float in space: the chondrules. It is these droplets which constitute the famous meteorites of the “chondrite” type. Meteorite specialists do not agree on the origin of these "chondrules", but they are why not doubt the daughters of deuterium fusion.