Quote from Cydonia

Don't become imbued with yourself, get to the required level, before speaking.

Quote from nkodama

Please read my manuscript

All in included in my manuscript and mine is correct and others are incorrect.

reply me in conversation or send me email to

[email protected]

I do not see the all of patent figure , so I am notsure of the invention, however Mizno is using Rod type electrode sorrounded by wire cage, so that is mainly from FPE, but it can generate the larger power with proper D absorption, so I do not deny the invention.

But basically learned from E-CAT, I think that proper trigger is available using fully asbrobed metal with narrower space to store D can generate the very high power and the cycle of D absorption and cold fusion is the most important.

In case of Cold Fusion, D supply rate is the important as well as the capture rate of D at the surface T site, so we do not need to persist in the mechanism of all but need some compromize the mechanism and I compromise not to use paralell metal plate but comb fin plate with counter electrode can be better power density per unit volume.

AND refer to my psot on metal surface nano roughness creation by blast etc.

It is very easy and valuable for the experiment.

Hydrogen transfer through thin hydrogen storage metal firm with multi layers.

Multilayer example attatched at 20 .

Probably this is important graph and Ni-Cu=7:1 is the highest energy production

The above is the schematic to show the mechanism of heat generation.

But he told that the dissimilar substance interface 73 allows hydrogen atoms to permeate.

THus this is not my mechanism of cold fusion.

My mechanism is the surface T site of the hydrogen storage metal not at interface between multiplayer metal,

my mechanism is the compression of molecules so the surface T site is very important and I do not think at the interface there must not the compression stress.

BUT I THINK this experiment shows the possibility of surface T site property adjustment by changing the multilayer structure or alloys.

So It is worth to run experiment with single layer metal alloy.

Quote from Cydonia

Your work is very interesting, there is for sure ideas, concepts to retain.. BTW more interesting than Mizuno way to me.

I have had a close look to recent Iwamura's patent too.

I have to say the same, some ideas are interesting to be retained too.

As attached file , main chapters i copy/pasted.

Refer to My Cold Fusion Cold fusion and CP patent [PCT/JP2019/048396] by Iwamura-san

I think this patent may have clue to change the reaction site adjustment. I think that reaction site is surface T site, but they think that reaction site is at the interface of multilayer.

Quote from Cydonia

My mechanism is the surface T site of the hydrogen storage metal not at interface between multiplayer metal,

my mechanism is the compression of molecules so the surface T site is very important and I do not think at the interface there must not the compression stress.

Yes, that right however at interface this is not a compression constraint but rather a resonance one.

Now, compression is needed to vibrate at higher frequency. Higher means the good one in my mind.

>Now, compression is needed to vibrate at higher frequency. Higher means the good one in my mind.

this is the same mechanism of mine, at surface T site compression create the small hydrogen or small-D2.

I think the resonance mean the same mechanism.even not at surface T site, the compress occures in the metal everywhere, however experiment shows that reaction id on the surface and neutron diffraction study on the nanopoweder shows that H occupied at surface T site, so the experiment clearly shows the surface T site is the reaction site.

In the early pot on"MIZUNO REPLICATION", I found metal wire method, and it must be improved by the potential control because the cold fusion need the positive metal surface potential.

nano-powder' s efficiency is very good however their potential control is not done so It is by far better to use

nano-powder on metal wire(deposition of metal on metal wire, with potential control

The above structure can be prepared by nano-imprinting and semiconductor process steps of Ni dryetching.

Quote from magicsound

nkodama I see from your link above that Brastron is a version of the Dycron hard chrome plating process of Chiyoda Daiichi company. Do you know if that process leaves a chemical residue from the treatment.

Thanks

I correct my mistake.

It is not beast Ron but simple shot blast technique to make roughness. The head. Particle are used to make surface roughness and other techniques are available like planting etc.

Iwamura's mentions that they use die-neutron with D2O water for transmutation experiments.

Yes Di-neutron has the capability to transmute the large nucleus.

But note that no neutron actually exists as a fundamental particle but

As I am discussion with nuclear physics society no neutron exist as a fundamental particle but it is the tightly bound proton-electron pair.

So the di-neutron means that p-p pair with electron in deep electron orbit.

its is straightforward to create this di-neutron with LENR(Not Cold Fusion no excess heat)

with light water not heavy water, and so I guess that heavy water of Iwamura's experiment can have the contamination of light water(this is often the case of this experiment because (heavy)water can absorb the H2O from the air(humidity), so resulting in the creation of di-neutron.

It is common that Cold Fusion experiment sometimes show the transmutation of metal because of this phenomena.(creating di-neutron from H2O in D2O from air moisture.

again it is important to control the surface potential for this tool configuration.

But the transmutation is the surface reaction there must have some other way to transmutes the bulk metal like powdering-transmuting cycles, etc.

But I think these transmutation tools will be developed to transmute the wastes of nuclear-power-plant if the government invest in the development in this tools.

I find the discussion on the mechanism of Cold Fusion so I would like to summarize the real cold fusion mechanism based on the nuclear physics to be corrected.

The experiment in below prove the electron deep orbit of hydrogen.

Electron transition from n=1 to n=0 change the hydrogen size to be smaller at the pressure at around 50GPa.

The compress stress on V-H-V bond can create the small hydrogen with electron deep orbit(n=0)

So the same mechanism on the compression stress on D-D bond for Cold fusion case at surface T site

and coulomb potential is completely shielded by this small D2.

So the heat generation is via the heat transfer of 4He ash.

Nota that this is softer fusion not the hot fusion so no excited state of 4He which create high energy gamma ray and neutron.

The below is the heat generation data vs number of 4He atom.

The Cold Fusion mechanism indicate that during fusion, less excess energy of d because no coulomb repulsive force between d-d.

So I explained elsewhere it is important to implement the electron deep orbit theory into the conventional nuclear physics.

because based on the EDO theory no neutron exists but tightly bound proton-electron pair is "neutron".

So nuclear physics have big mistake on the nucleus model.

Current model is that proton and neutron constitute the nucleus, but no neutron actually.

So the correct model is that proton and internal electron constitute the nucleus.

So Firstly nuclear physics theory need to be corrected.

The impact of this mistake is so huge. No neutrino exists!!!!!!!!!

I informed this to Kyoto university, Tokyo University Fermi-lab, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, US-office of science on nuclear physics.

Thus I hope the nuclear physics to be changed in a few years after the heavy discussion and several experiment on EDO.

The cold fusion need the opposite polarity of counter-electrode.(metal surface need to be positive)

as is shown in the below figure.

because D+ hops to D- at surface T site by D+ attract to D- and to be joined to D2 at surface T site and compression of D2 cause cold fusion.

So in order to avoid the coulomb attractive force shielding, surface potential of metal to be positive to deplete free electron.

For the D absorption the metal is Cathode(-), but cold fusion metal is anode(+).

The above figure shows that the longer charging time of D cause the higher resistivity of the metal

under electrolysis condition(metal is cathode(-) for D absorption.

The above figure is "Fleischmann and Pons Effect"(FPE) vindicated if we admit the mechanism of Cold Fusion.

under the condition of D absorption cold fusion is very difficult to occur due to the metal surface has larger number of free electrons

to shield the coulomb attractive force. so longer D charging time with higher electric filed grow the insulator generated with high electric filed on Pd Rod((C) partially

due to the very electric filed variation(A), with Pt wire cage.

and longer charging time causes the larger resistance on the open area on Pd Rod surface uncovered with insulator.(C)-->(D), and heat is locally generated on

the current path on open area, and very high temperature can trigger cold fusion.

So FPE is vindicated by the special case of Cold Fusion.

Neutron is tightly bound proton-electron pair it can be explained based on the theory of DEP(Deep Electron Orbit).

This is the old theory but it is very reasonable to explain the beta decay of neutron(emitting electron and neutron turns into proton)!!!!!

Note that proton is constituted by 3 quarks, so the proton shape is not true spherical shape.

So the electron is unstable at the protrusion point, and the energy distribution is so large.....

Originally neutrino hypo is to compensate this very large energy distribution of the emitted electron by neutron beta decay, so

Based on this, no neutrino hypo is needed.

the below is soft x-ray emission during LENR.

The spectra shows the broader peak at 500keV, which is similar with beta decay electron.

IN SUMMARY

Proton and internal electron constitute the nucleus is the correct nucleus model.

Current incorrect nucleus model is that proton and neutron constitute the nucleus.

Currently nuclear physics understand the electron deep orbit which cause the Cold Fusion.

This has a huge impact on nuclear physics.

neutron is tightly bound proton-electron pair.

The nucleus is constituted by proton and internal electron.

Thus we(LENR) need to persuade the nuclear physics society

to change the current model of neutron and nucleus to be the correct model based on EDO.

Abstract

Original nucleus model in 1920s is internal electron theory that the atomic nucleus is constituted by protons and electrons, and Rutherford already suggested in 1920 that an electron-proton pair could be bound in a tight state. Both of which were forgotten after Chadwick's discovery of the neutron in 1932.　However, at the time of neutron introduction we had no experimental nor theoretical evidence to prove the existence such electron deep orbit to tightly bind proton and electron, so we must validate the neutron introduction and change to the current nucleus model because now we have the solid evidences to probe this orbit and we have more advanced knowledge on the nucleus structure of quark theory. I would like to inform the nuclear physics society on the latest experimental data to prove existence of the electron deep orbits(n=0) which bind electron-proton pair with the electron in an electron deep orbit because the related experiments are conducted outside the nuclear physics community. One is “the high compressibility of hydrogen” and another is the soft-x-ray spectrum measurements during a low-energy nuclear reaction, both of which showed the electron transition from n=1 to n=0. At the time of the decision to introduce neutron, EDO was not found, so we must decide whether it is necessary to introduce neutron or adopt the nucleus model in the 1920S with the latest knowledge of nuclear physics and quarks. The latest experiments revealed that a proton has protrusions on its surface by quarks. Based on the experiments of this proton shape and electron deep orbit theory, it is reasonable to employ the tightly bound proton-electron pair as “neutron”, which was found by Chadwick, because this model can reasonably explain the neutron beta decay nature of “neutron” to proton conversion by just the emission of electron, and larger electron energy distribution of emitted electron based on the proton surface protrusion affected by 3 quarks. Thus, I presume that the introduction of “neutron” and change the nucleus model was maitakes and neutral particle found by Chadwick was proton-electron pair in a tight bound state with electron deep orbit and nucleus model that proton and internal electron constitute the nucleus is correct.

Introduction

I would like to inform the nuclear physics society that the experiment to prove Electron Deep Orbit (EDO) because the current nucleus model that protons and neutrons constitute the nucleus is incorrect, and the original model in the 1920s that protons and internal electrons constitute the nucleus is correct judging from the latest experiments.

1.2.1 Historical Background

A good summary of the history of the neutron is provided in the introductory section of Va’vra’s research [1].

In the 1920s, when quantum mechanics was not yet established, there was an internal electron theory that the atomic nucleus is constituted by protons and electrons.

Rutherford suggested in 1920 that an electron and a proton could be bound in a tight state [2]. Rutherford experimentally confirmed the existence of atomic nuclei in 1911 and attracted attention [3]. In a lecture given at the Royal Society of London in 1920 [4], Rutherford predicted that the particles that constitute the nucleus include neutral particles, with almost the same mass as protons in addition to protons. He asked his team, including Chadwick, to search for this atom, and 12 years later, Chadwick discovered neutrons [5,6], as Rutherford expected. In response to their discovery, Dmitri Ivanenko changed his conventional view of the structure of the nucleus, saying, “Only neutrons and protons are in the nucleus and there are no internal electrons” [7].

Heisenberg also supported this, and his trilogy papers “Über den Bau der Atomkerne I-III (About the Structure of the Nucleus 1-3)” [8,9,10], which decided to adopt the current nucleus theory that proton and neutron constitute the nucleus as the basic assumption of the current nucleus model.

However, Dr. Yukawa wrote critically in a memo [11] about Heisenberg’s abovementioned papers. He told that “these papers have not denied the internal electron theory but just mentioned that the possibility of protons and neutrons can stabilize the nucleus quantitatively. Therefore, we will have not reached the conclusion until the interaction between the unit particles that constitute the nucleus is revealed.”

Although it must have been obvious to Schrödinger, Dirac and Heisenberg, that there is a peculiar solution to their equations, which corresponds to the small hydrogen, was in the end rejected [12], because the wave function is infinite at r = 0. The infinity comes from the Coulomb potential shape, which has the infinity at r = 0; it was a consequence of the assumption that the nucleus is point-like. In addition, nobody has observed a small hydrogen. At that point, the idea of a small hydrogen died.

However, its idea was revived again ~70 years later [13,14], where Maly and Va'vra argued that the proton has a finite size, being formed from quarks and gluons and that the electron experiences a different non-Coulomb potential at a very small radius. In fact, such non-Coulomb potentials are used in relativistic Hartree–Fock calculations for very heavy atoms, where inner-shell electrons are close to the nucleus [15,16]. Maly and Va'vra simply applied a similar idea to the problem of small hydrogen, i.e., they used the Coulomb potential in the Schrödinger and Dirac equations to solve the problem outside the nucleus first, then, they used the above mentioned non-Coulomb potentials in a separate solution for small radius, and then matched the two solutions at a certain radius. Using this method, they retained solutions for small hydrogen, which were previously rejected. They called these new solutions “deep Dirac levels” (or electron deep orbits (EDOs)).

1.2.2 Beta decay of the neutron

In nuclear physics, beta decay (β-decay) is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (fast, energetic electron or positron) is emitted from an atomic nucleus, transforming the original nuclide to an isobar of that nuclide.

Beta decay is a consequence of the weak force, which is characterized by relatively lengthy decay times.

The study of beta decay provided the first physical evidence for the existence of the neutrino. In both alpha and gamma decay, the resulting alpha or gamma particle has a narrow energy distribution since the particle carries the energy from the difference between the initial and final nuclear states.

In 1914, James Chadwick’s measurements showed that the spectrum was continuous. The distribution of beta particle energies was in apparent contradiction to the law of conservation of energy. If beta decay were simply electron emission, as assumed at the time, then the energy of the emitted electron should have a particular, well-defined value [17]. For beta decay, however, the observed broad distribution of energies suggested that energy is lost in the beta decay process. This spectrum was puzzling for many years.”

A second problem is related to the conservation of angular momentum. Molecular band spectra showed that the nuclear spin of nitrogen-14 is 1 (i.e., equal to the reduced Planck constant); and more generally, that the spin is integral for nuclei of even mass number and half-integral for nuclei of odd mass number. Beta decay leaves the mass number unchanged, so the change of nuclear spin must be an integer. However, the electron spin is 1/2; hence, the angular momentum would not be conserved if beta decay were simply electron emission.”

From 1920 to 1927, Ellis (along with Chadwick et al.) further established that the beta decay spectrum is continuous. In 1933, Ellis and Mott obtained strong evidence that the beta spectrum has an effective upper bound in energy. Now, the problem of how to account for the variability of energy in known beta decay products as well as for the conservation of momentum and angular momentum in the process became acute.

1.2.3 Neutrinos

In a famous letter written in 1930, Pauli attempted to resolve the beta particle energy conundrum by suggesting that, in addition to electrons and protons, atomic nuclei also contained an extremely light neutral particle. He suggested that this “light neutral particle” was also emitted during beta decay (thus, accounting for the known missing energy, momentum, and angular momentum), but it had simply not yet been observed.

In 1931, Fermi renamed Pauli's “light neutral particle” as “neutrino” (“little neutral one” in Italian). In 1933, Fermi published his landmark theory for beta decay, where he applied the principles of quantum mechanics to matter particles, supposing that they can be created and annihilated, just as the light quanta in atomic transitions. Thus, according to Fermi, neutrinos are created in the beta decay process rather than contained in the nucleus; and the same happens to electrons. The neutrino interaction with the matter was so weak that detecting it proved a severe experimental challenge. Further, indirect evidence of the existence of the neutrino was reported to be obtained by observing the recoil of nuclei that emitted such a particle after absorbing an electron. Neutrinos were believed to be detected directly in 1956 by Cowan and Reines in the Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment [18]. The properties of neutrinos were said to be (with a few minor modifications) as predicted by Pauli and Fermi.”

1.2.4 Non-conservation of parity

In 1956, Lee and Yang noticed that there was no evidence that parity was conserved in weak interactions, and so they postulated that this symmetry might not be preserved by the weak force. They sketched the design for an experiment for testing the conservation of parity in the laboratory [19]. Later that year, Wu et al. conducted the experiment, showing an asymmetrical beta decay of cobalt-60 at cold temperatures that proved that parity is not conserved in beta decay [20]. This surprising result overturned long-held assumptions about parity and the weak force.

Therefore, the remaining problem of how to account for the larger energy deviation of electrons in beta decay became acute.

2.1 Latest situation concerning the electron deep orbit and nuclear physics studies

There are two reasons why the idea of small hydrogen was not theoretically investigated further: (1) experimentally, nobody has found it, and (2) the theory at a small distance from a proton is too complicated.

In the theoretical studies conducted by Va’vra, Meulenberg, Sinha, Paillet, Maly, and Zhang et al. in [13-14], [21-24], the issue at r = 0 was fixed by using a modified Coulomb potential, assuming the positive charge to be distributed uniformly inside the nucleus.

Experimentally EDO was proved in the experiment that Electron transition to EDO was found in the experiment as is discussed in sewc2.2.1, and Regarding the complicated theory at a small distance from a proton, Research on the quark property and proton shape is progressing, and this can help to understand the correct nucleus mode as in sec 2.6.1.

2.2 Experimental evidence to prove existence of electron deep orbits

2.2.1 High compressibility of the negative hydrogen ion

Fig.1 is the engineering research on the property of separator, which is layered SrVO2H (Strontium Oxyhydride Oxyhydride) by applying pressure to SrVO2H and the authors have discovered two new properties that are unique to hydroid and found that it plays a role of the thinnest "metal atom separator" in the world

Fig.1(A) shows the pressure dependence of lattice parameters for the experimental (red) and the density functional theory-computed (sky blue) values of SrVO2H. Note that some error bars are smaller than the width of the symbols. The decrease in pressure from 52 to 49 GPa as the cell volume decreases suggests a phase transition to a denser phase.

In Fig.1(A) and Fig.1(B), a small but distinct anomaly is observed in the plot of lattice parameters vs. pressure just below 50 GPa, the discontinuity in the plot arises because at this point a reduction in the volume of the sample space causes a decrease in the measured pressure, which observation is consistent with a phase transition to a denser state.

As shown above, the authors show via a high-pressure study of anion-ordered strontium vanadium oxyhydride SrVO2H that H− is extraordinarily compressible, and that pressure drives a transition from a Mott insulator to a metal at ~50 GPa.

Fig.1(B) shows that only C/C0 became smaller at 50 GPa; hence, the connected hydrogen with the upper and lower layer of SrV2 became smaller, as is shown in Fig.1(C)-(D).

In other words, electron transitions from H (n = 1) to H (n = 0) by the mechanical pressure from above and below results in a smaller size hydrogen.

I presume that this experiment is the direct evidence to prove the existence of the EDO, as discussed in Section 2.3. In other words, the mechanical stress on the V–H–V bond caused the electron transition from n = 1 to n = 0 (EDO), causing the size of the hydrogen to be smaller. This mechanism of the compression of the bond is common in cold fusion experiments as is explained in Section 2.3.

2.3 Low-energy nuclear reaction

2.3.1 Low-energy nuclear reaction mechanism

Fig.2 shows the mechanism of LENR. Firstly, I shall explain briefly the mechanism of LENR in Fig.2 because I intend to utilize cold fusion studies to prove the existence of the EDO.

A detailed paper describing this process will be published elsewhere; hence, I have summarized the mechanism of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) here. As shown in Fig.2, LENR occurs at the surface spaces of a metallic lattice, which is the T-site. Fig.2(A) shows a negative deuterium (D−) ion at T-site, which is the narrowest space available for hydrogen storage in the metal. Fig. 2(B) shows the creation of a D2 molecule when a D+ ion hops to join the D− ion at the surface T-site. Fig.2(B)-Fig.2(C) show D2 being compressed by the mechanical stress exerted by the metal atoms around the T-site, which is the same compression mechanism of the D–D covalent bond as is the compression of V–H–V bond in case of Section 2.2.1. Fig.2(C)-(E) show that the compression of D2 molecule at the surface T-site causes a transition from normal D (n = 1) atoms to small D atoms with EDO (n = 0) electrons, which can shield the repulsive Coulomb force completely because the EDO is located closer than a few femtometers from the center of d nucleus as shown in Section 2.4 in Fig.3 and Fig.4.This final compression step (Fig.2(B)-Fig.2(F)) is the most important one, and it occurs during cold fusion in the electron transition in Fig.2(B)-Fig.2(F), producing the soft x-ray spectrum in sec. 2.5.

2.4 Electron deep orbit shields deuteron–deuteron repulsive Coulomb force

Fig.3 Fig.4

Fig.3 shows the mechanism of electron transition from n=1 to n=0(EDO) by the compression of D2 covalent bond. I briefly explain my LENR mechanism based on small hydrogen model based on Fig.3. I presume that due to compression stress at the surface T-site, a normal D2 molecule turns into a small D2 molecule with an EDO by the same mechanism shown in Fig.1 in Section 2.2.1. The hypothetical structure of a small D2 molecule is shown in Fig. 2(D), (E). Maly and Va'vra explained that the existence of EDOs was predicted many decades ago from the relativistic Klein–Gordon and Dirac equations [13,14]. The size of a D2 molecule at a surface T-site is determined by the balance between the compressive stress produced by the lattice of metal atoms and the elastic rebound force of the covalent bond. Due to the nature of the covalent bond, compression can cause the deuteron–deuteron (d–d) distance to decrease along the d–d vibration direction or the covalent bond direction, and compression brings the two ds closer together than the transition distance from n = 1 to n = 0 (EDO) due to less Coulomb repulsive force shielded by electron in EDO, as is shown in Fig.3, and Fig.4.

Fig.3 shows the mechanism of LENR based on small D2 generation by the compression of the d–d bond. When a D2 molecule is compressed by external pressure, the d–d distance can decrease, and the tail of the D1s wave function can extend sufficiently far inward to overlap with the EDO wave function, which is localized at a distance of a few femtometers from the nucleus. Because the d–d distance is so small, the overlap (region C in Fig.3) of the wave functions can be large enough to achieve a high tunneling probability of electrons from the D1s state to the EDO (the D0s state). The EDO radius is calculated to be a few femtometers [13,14], which is far smaller than the 0.53 pm Bohr radius of the D1s state.

Fig.4 shows the mechanism of complete coulomb potential shielding with small molecule. A small D2 molecule can be created by the simultaneous transition of both D atoms into small D atoms so that the D2 molecule can transform into a small D2 molecule with the covalent electron in the EDO, as shown in Fig.4(d).

2.5 Soft x-ray spectra from low-energy nuclear reaction

Fig.5 is the soft x-ray spectra from LENR experiment [26] which also prove existence of the EDO. The inserted graph in Fig.5, obtained by subtracting the background, shows the typical γ-ray structure, which consists of a photoelectric, Compton, and backscattering peak. Many x-ray measurements have been performed to study LENR, and among them, the authors provide clearest information about the energy of the electron orbit; the existence of EDO was proved by the EDO theoretical study by the comparison with the theoretical study of the orbit energy based on EDO theory [13-14] as follows.

The position of the spectral peak can be calculated from the EDO theory, with the following results. The theoretical calculation is currently under study by Va’vra et al., and preliminary results (from private communications) show that the photon energies obtained from the relativistic Schrödinger equation are ~507.27, ~2.486, ~0.497, or 0.213 keV, depending on which transition is involved. From the Dirac equation, the corresponding energies are 509.13, 0.932, 0.311, 0.115, or 0.093 keV, again, depending on which transition is involved.

The study [25] contains an overview of the experimental activity during the last 12 years. The authors have been studying the nickel–hydrogen system of LENR Reactor at temperatures of approximately 700 K. The experiments have been performed in several laboratories.

As shown in Fig.5, the soft x-ray spectra have a broad peak at 500 keV and a single sharp peak at around 10keV. These roughly match the theoretical calculations, except that the 500 keV peak is broader than the peak at around 10keV. This indicates that the energy distribution in the deepest orbit is larger than in other orbits. I noticed that this can be related to the proton shape and Coulomb force can be different from the conventional orbit (n = 1), as is mentioned by Vavra [1] and Yukawa [11].

2.6.1 Shape of the proton

Fig.6

Fig.6 is the shape of proton study in ref [27]. The different panels (dY = 0 to dY = 9) in Fig.6 show a contour plot of the real part of the trace of the Wilson line as a function of the transverse coordinates x and y. The small (large) circles show the position and size of the three constituent quarks (the proton).

The different panels show a contour plot of the real part of the trace of the Wilson line as a function of the transverse coordinates x and y. The small (large) circles show the position and size of the three constituent quarks (the proton).

3.1 A nucleus model composed of protons accompanied by electron deep orbits, with electrons in the electron deep orbit

Here, I discuss various phenomena qualitatively because I believe that it is important to show the possible beta decay mechanism and the new nucleus model to the physics community.

Fig.8 shows a schematic illustration of a tightly bounded proton–electron pair, with an electron in the EDO, which is now believed to be a neutron. From this illustration, the electron appears to be unstable at the protrusions of the proton, and the energy deviations due to these protrusions must be very large, so an isolated particle can easily undergo beta decay.

The fig.9 is the correct nucleus model that the proton and internal electron constitute the nucleus and internal electrons are in the shared Electron deep orbit. Because the new nucleus model is too complicated to be proven theoretically, so I have just discussed it quantitatively.

In this model, a nucleus is composed solely of protons accompanied by EDOs, together with some electrons occupying the EDOs. The total charge is, thus, equal to the total number of protons minus the total number of electrons. The EDOs are shared with adjacent protons via the contact region between protons.

Inside the nucleus, the protrusions of the protons are covered by the EDOs of protons and the surface potential around the nucleus is smoother than an isolated proton with an EDO. Thus, I presume that an isolated proton with an EDO has a much larger possibility of beta decay because, at a protrusion, an electron can be unstable as is shown in Fig.8.

In summary, I presume that the very wide electron energy distribution during beta decay is caused by a proton for which an EDO electron encounters a protrusion on the surface of the proton. This leads to large energy deviations, as observed in the 500 keV soft x-ray peak during cold fusion experiments in Fig.5.

Fig.9 shows the nucleus model based on the previous model at the time of Rutherford, after considering the studies of the EDO and proton shape. From the schematic illustrations, a larger nucleus can experience less impact from the proton protrusions on the Coulomb potential. Thus, the smaller isolated proton with an electron in an EDO at the location of protrusion can have a larger impact on the Coulomb potential as is shown in Fig.8 and Fig.9. If so, the beta decay electron has very large energy distribution from the location at the protrusion, and it can be instable for the isolated proton with an electron in the EDO.

4. Proposition to the physics community

4.1 Resume discussion on the previous nucleus model by Rutherford Pauli and Fermi

As explained in the historical background section, at the time of the decision to introduce a neutron, we had no experimental data on EDO and no theoretical study to verify at the time of the decision; hence, the neutron was introduced and a neutrino was introduced to explain the very large electron energy distribution of the beta decay electron. However, we have solid experimental data to prove the EDO, the theoretical study to show the possibility to have the EDO, and the deep knowledge on the nucleus of quarks, which affects the proton’s shape. Thus, now is the time to resume the discussion on the nucleus model by the nuclear physics community. It affects the overall nuclear physics, including LENR.

The mechanism of cold fusion (LENR) is based on EDO, so the physics community needs to change the nucleus model first and needs to contemplate again about the neutrino, which, I presume, does not exist.

5. Summary

I have shown the experimental evidence of an EDO based on and the high compressibility of the hydrogen study, soft-x-ray study, and high compressibility of hydrogen study combined with the theoretical study on EDO.

I showed that these experiments prove that EDO exists, and neutral particle is tightly bound proton-electron pair, it explains the mechanism of beta decay and its electron has very large energy distribution based on the latest study of proton shape shows that the proton shape has the protrusion caused by three quarks. Thus, I presume that neutral particle found by Chadwick is tightly bound proton-electron pair, and the nucleus model that proton and internal electron constitute the nucleus is correct.