Understanding low energy nuclear reactions. An overview by Péter Kálmán, Budapest University of Technology and Economics

  • Perhaps this is the ad hominen Cherepanovist 2020 revisionism of science history...but it is irrelevant to LENR...


    find another unrelated question on researchgate to answer

    Sorry for you Robert! You are not able to realize today that all nuclear reactions in LENR are therefore "cold", since these reactions are magnetic in nature ... And they do not need millions of degrees ... This is a delusion of the "old physicists"! Today we have enough experimental evidence that there is no "electrostatic charge" on the proton, and this evidence is, first of all, experiments on the apparatus of Vachaev, Godin, Parkhomov, Matsumoto, Afanasyev, Klimov, Kanarev, Mizuno ...



  • Cherepanov2020 , you have pushed your model in many threads of this forum, you insist on calling the attention of everyone to your ideas, but as support you offer only lenghty and very hard to properly translate writings that offer little to none supporting evidence to your claims other than your opinion.


    Please stop spamming and derailing every thread with your ideas, you have seen we really don't find much merit to them, and unless you can provide experimental evidence (other than your particular interpretation of the work of others), I would like to ask you to stop spamming.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • You are not able to realize today that all nuclear reactions in LENR are therefore "cold", since these reactions are magnetic in nature ...

    Whether or not LENR are in fact magnetic in origin

    which is what I actually believe

    has no bearing on Charles Coulomb's positive and negative charge conception of his socalled Coulomb's Law 200 years or so ago.. the Cherepanovist revisionism is as relevant as the Trotskyist revisionism of MarxistLeninism.

  • . So, this three-body idea solves the two major riddles of LENR, that nuclear reactions can occur at ordinary temperatures and without emitting γ radiation. Cross sections and rates are calculated using standard quantum mechanics, and accepted nuclear and solid-state physics.

    More relevant to this thread... looking at Kalman's references.. they seem to be very limited and not uptodate..


    "This paper reviews a theoretical program to understand the field of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), initially called cold fusion, which was a puzzle of the last three decades."

    I looked for Takahashi's work ... there is none..



    perhaps Kalman needs to take a wider review of the literature..

  • Sorry for you Robert! You are not able to realize today that all nuclear reactions in LENR are therefore "cold", since these reactions are magnetic in nature ... And they do not need millions of degrees ...

    Where did you learn this ?? LENR is cold nuclear reactions?! We know this since quite a long time already. From simple experiments with uncharged fuel. May be Coulomb told my friend?!

  • Takahashi and also Iwamura are referenced (ref. #38).

    But no references of recent works though.

    Talking about awareness, I had a closer look at who is connected to who at ResearchGate.
    What surprises me is that there are hardly any connections between Holmlid and Takahashi/Iwamura.
    The only EU - Japan connection can be found with Francisco Celani, who is certainly aware of UDD/UDH.
    I could not find any references to Holmlid in Japanese publications from Takahashi/Iwamura.

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Cherepanov2020 , you have pushed your model in many threads of this forum, you insist on calling the attention of everyone to your ideas, but as support you offer only lenghty and very hard to properly translate writings that offer little to none supporting evidence to your claims other than your opinion.


    Please stop spamming and derailing every thread with your ideas, you have seen we really don't find much merit to them, and unless you can provide experimental evidence (other than your particular interpretation of the work of others), I would like to ask you to stop spamming.


    We get a strange dialogue ...
    Created by Mr. Rob Woudenberg - “Understanding low energy nuclear reactions. An overview by Péter Kálmán, Budapest University of Technology and Economics "

    Further, Mr. Cydonia gives us a link to this article -
    "Charged particle assisted nuclear reactions in solid state environment: renaissance of low energy nuclear physics" by Peter Kalman and Tamas Keszthelyi, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Institute of Physics.
    You invite us to discuss this article ... What am I doing? I am discussing ... And in my opinion I disclose my disagreement with the author of this article - Peter Kalman. What is my main disagreement? It consists in the fact that the particles are not charged with ANYTHING, i.e. there are no charges on the electron and proton and there were no ... I support my opinion by citing the original tracts of Charles Coulomb ... That is, I defend his position! I am against the distortion of the position of Charles Coulomb!
    You wrote - “you have pushed your model in many threads of this forum, you insist on calling the attention of everyone to your ideas, but as support you offer only lenghty and very hard to properly translate writings that offer little to none supporting evidence to your claims other than your opinion. "
    But excuse me - it was not I who discovered the proton's own magnetic moment in 1933 ... Is this my idea? It was not I who discovered the electron's own magnetic moment in 1947! And that's not my idea either ...
    In my opinion, I rely on those ideas that were open before me ... I am trying to explain to you and the site visitors the misconceptions of Peter Kalman. What are my opponents doing? They are braiding me with "revisionism" and "Trotskyism" ... Is that a discussion of physics and its problems ???
    Many of you continue to believe in the existence of a "charge" on the proton and electron ... To everyone who believes in this, I have long ago asked my simple questions - let's say you are “believers in the existence of a charge on a proton and an electron”, you are right and the charge is magically formed on both the proton and the electron ... Then explain to me and all physicists the following - "How is a charge of the same modulus and different" sign "on a proton and an electron born during the decay of a neutron?" Let me explain ... When the neutron rotates, forces arise that separate a small part from the neutron, i.e. the neutron is divided in the ratio 1: 1836 ... Due to the rotation of the neutron, the generated particles, the proton and the electron also rotate, and in this the Law of conservation of angular momentum is manifested ... The substance of the proton and the electron is absolutely the same as in the neutron ... What happens? Two identical substances rotate in the same direction - the proton's own magnetic moment was discovered in 1933, and the electron's own magnetic moment was discovered in 1947 ... Since the proton's mass is 1836 times greater than the electron's mass, their magnetic moments are different ... This is logical ? Yes, it is logical ... So why, having a different mass, two identically rotating substances generate the same charge modulo ??? This is nonsense! It can't be! There is and cannot be logic in this! And this is another proof that there are no charges on either the proton or the electron!
    But there is one more "blow in the gut" to "those who believe in the existence of a charge on a proton and an electron" - the question: "How can two identical substances that rotate in the same direction, but have a huge difference in mass, generate" electric lines of force " in such a way that they come out of the proton and enter the electron? "... This is real magic, this is fantasy and this is a delusional fantasy !!!

    There is the next question, which the “believers” are not able to answer - “how can two identical substances, which rotate in the same direction and have a huge difference in mass, generate TWO fields SIMULTANEOUSLY - electric and magnetic, while the configuration of these fields is absolute different ... It's a FAIRY TALE again and it can't be!

    None of this exists in nature!

    Therefore, your attempts to understand LENR mechanisms are doomed to failure - this is just my humble opinion ... Your right to agree with this or ignore ... What will happen next? History will judge us ... I wish everyone success in learning the truth.

  • Cherepanov2020 , is very different to debate an idea with specific facts about what is being discussed than what you do, which is simply insisting again and again on how wrong is everyone because they did misunderstood Coulomb. You have not been able to provide proof of your opinion, you just reiterate and insist you are right and everyone else is wrong, and no one will be convinced by that, at most we are all getting bored of your monotonous insistence.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Sir, for the thousanth time no fundamental changes to the understanding of nuclear physics and chemistry are needed to explain LENR like happenings. The 2d classical electron orbit field is probably the closest. The Russians/Americans/other who have an experiment backing their papers aren't screaming that all of chemical and nuclear science is wrong. They are looking at it from a different (pico-chemical Millsian from what I gatker) angle of known physical laws. Learn from them (Extiel), could swear you're a spy trying to confuse people.

    Electromagnetism is a dualistic force. You are right people will be proved to be misinformed when high density hydrogen energy is proven openly, how it works is important too, SO keep that in mind 😁.

  • Curbina i don't think relevant to incriminate Cherepanov2020 to defend his theoretical points of view.

    So many do the same here, that doesn' t mean they are right because already unproven.

    Only the ground work can give some new informations but not yet white papers.

    Cherepanov2020 , is very different to debate an idea with specific facts about what is being discussed than what you do, which is simply insisting again and again on how wrong is everyone because they did misunderstood Coulomb. You have not been able to provide proof of your opinion, you just reiterate and insist you are right and everyone else is wrong, and no one will be convinced by that, at most we are all getting bored of your monotonous insistence.

  • The notion that Coulomb with his pith balls and torsion balance and three data points was proving magnetic force rather than electrostatic force is based on a highly idiosyncratic translation of the 200 yr old original treatise. which ignores the fact that Coulomb states positive and negative rather than north and south


    The notion that the electrostatic charge is not fundamental but in fact is secondary and arises from electrodynamic / electromagnetic flux and geometry .sometimes described as


    ... topological charge..

    is much more modern and requires a lot more mathematically based theory than was available to Coulomb 200 yrs ago.


    In fact a complete mathematical theory is not available AFAIK even now..


    Kundu postulates quantised topological charge here in 1981


    http://www.iaea.org/inis/colle…ublic/14/729/14729620.pdf


    and Williamson/van der Mark devise a nonrigorous topological charge model for the electron here in 1997..

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…on_with_toroidal_topology

    Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology..

  • Kundu postulates quantised topological charge here in 1981

    The problem all classic tries face is the space-time approach for an effect that is not time like. So a classic split guv metric makes absolutely no sense. Further on a simple connected surface you cannot have nested flux lines as these always must cross. The other point is that flux lines should fully cover S3. Thus wrong space wrong symmetry. The best thing one could try is a chain like structure...

  • Many of you continue to believe in the existence of a "charge" on the proton and electron ... To everyone who believes in this, I have long ago asked my simple questions - let's say you are “believers in the existence of a charge on a proton and an electron”, you are right and the charge is magically formed on both the proton and the electron ... Then explain to me and all physicists the following - "How is a charge of the same modulus and different" sign "on a proton and an electron born during the decay of a neutron?" Let me explain ... When the neutron rotates, forces arise that separate a small part from the neutron, i.e. the neutron is divided in the ratio 1: 1836 ... Due to the rotation of the neutron, the generated particles, the proton and the electron also rotate, and in this the Law of conservation of angular momentum is manifested ... The substance of the proton and the electron is absolutely the same as in the neutron ... What happens? Two identical substances rotate in the same direction - the proton's own magnetic moment was discovered in 1933, and the electron's own magnetic moment was discovered in 1947 ... Since the proton's mass is 1836 times greater than the electron's mass, their magnetic moments are different ... This is logical ? Yes, it is logical ... So why, having a different mass, two identically rotating substances generate the same charge modulo ??? This is nonsense! It can't be! There is and cannot be logic in this! And this is another proof that there are no charges on either the proton or the electron!

    Because of gauge invariance and not because of rotation invariance as you suggest. This is actually the main success of gauge theory and AFAIK gauge invariance has never been proven to be violated.

  • Apologies if this has been posted before - but here is another January 2021 open access paper from Peter Kalman and co...


    Molecule splitting by coherent phonon field

    Abstract.


    The breaking up process of diatomic gas molecules at the surface of vibrating solid is studied. Introduction.-In a recent paper the effect of coherent phonon states on certain physical processes, e.g. nuclear reactions and bound-free transitions of interstitially bound particles, was discussed. Following the method worked out in quantum electrodynamics [1] the transformation of phonon field of coherent state to an external classical field was carried out in [2]. It was obtained that in the new representation charged particles are coupled , on the one hand, to the quantized phonon field initially in the vacuum state and, on the other hand, to a classical external field the amplitude and phase of which are determined by the eigenvalue of the coherent phonon state. The interaction Hamiltonian, which is switched on due to the creation of the coherent phonon field, between a charged particle and the vibrating crystal is determined. By analogy with the photon dressed states [3], [4], which are used to the description of many photon absorption and emission from a classical electromagnetic (laser) field, the phonon dressed states are introduced to describe the many phonon processes of absorption and emission. In [2] the modification of rate of nuclear reactions due to the appearance of classical vibrations was presented. Since the induced rate of nuclear reactions is proportional to the number densities of free atoms or atom-ions [5] which carry the reacting nuclei, the breaking up process of diatomic gas molecules interacting with surface of vibrating solid is studied here. Hamiltonian and phonon-dressed states due to lattice vibration.-The interaction Hamiltonian H I (r s , t) which is switched on between a charged particle of coordinate r s (with s = 2, 3 in the case of a diatomic molecule to be discussed) and a crystalline material due to the creation of one mode of coherent state.


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…_by_coherent_phonon_field

  • Deeeeep thoughts Kervran expected the same also 60 years ago :)


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corentin_Louis_Kervran


    http://www.kervran-info.de/leben_en.html