About the Coulomb barrier in LENR

  • Usually, based on the distance at which a pair of colliding nuclei begins to attract, the kinetic energy necessary for this convergence is calculated. However, for LENR, we propose to use the approximation of three nuclei lying on the line and calculate the potential energy that accumulates when the central nucleus is displaced to the extent that it overcomes the Coulomb barrier. Then it will be possible to calculate the force of the shock wave igniting the LENR. For details, see
    Preprint Vortex plasma thruster

  • I hope that the lack of replicas does not mean that you think I'm a fraud playing with three nuts. But believe me, the approximation of three nuclei is, in principle, sufficient to solve the problem of substantiating the cold synthesis of nuclei and it is not necessary to involve ether theories for this. However, if there is a desire to dig into my thoughts, then welcome to "Mathematical notes on the nature of things"

    (PDF) MATHEMATICAL NOTES ON THE NATURE OF THINGS
    PDF | Book proposal | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
    www.researchgate.net

  • I hope that the lack of replicas does not mean that you think I'm a fraud playing with three nuts

    Don't be discouraged. We have a lot of theories floating around, and members are hesitant to put their time and effort into understanding each and every one that comes along. They have just so much time in the day to devote.


    It takes something special to get their attention, and that is either experimental evidence, or a big name behind the theory.


    Hang in there.

  • No such thing as a Coulomb barrier in real life. Only a limitation imposed by quantum theory physics. When are you going to move on to understand new RELATIVITY which ousted the STANDARD MODEL at the turn of LAST CENTURY?? It is only useful for explaining CHEMICAL reactions but NOT LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR FUSION PHYSICS!!! Please read @Wyttenbach's papers and Leif Holmlid's too to get an idea of what I'm talking about. :) :) :)

  • Dear bayak , don't take lack of interest personally. LENR has never had a trouble of having potential theoretical explanations, of which are well over 120 by now. The problem has been, and quite consistently, a lack of experimental reproducibility, and this is why our community will rather focus on experiments than theory. We recently had an invitation to a zoom conference from a mainstream nuclear researcher that is also a member of LENR-forum and has gotten an interest on the topic, and It did not seem to gather much interest either. You can see the conference recording in this thread:


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

  • For reproducibility of the experiment, LENR should be based on theory. Therefore, carefully read the note from the original post.


    I agree, theory is of great importance. Howver, complex experiments also require a great deal of process knowledge -this is where 'the rubber hits the road'. Many people have failed to reproduce experiments that have been demonstrated many times by really skilled lab workers.


    Neither theory, or technical skill alone gets LENR over the finish line

  • Alan Smith, I agree, but an experiment without a theory is unreliable, you have to hope for luck. I have just been given a link to a talk where the author (Pankaj Jain) relies on the duration of the interaction (based on the time-dependent perturbation theory). A good move, but do not forget about the impact force in LENR.

  • an experiment without a theory is unreliable, you have to hope for luck

    As is a theory with no experimental foundations. You can't have one without the other. As an example, in the more mundane world of process chemistry I am working on the purification of metal oxides/hydroxides. At 99.99% purity many of these are valuable industrial chemicals. There are theories and also experimental papers about doing this - but after doing the reading you just have to keep hammering away at the experiments day after day finding out what works and how and why.

  • I agree that every theory should be confirmed by experiment. However, in this case we are not talking about a new theory, so let's bet on testing the proposed model. In this regard, look at the final paragraph from the note presented here 'In conclusion, we recognize that our theoretical conclusions require more detailed mathematical modeling and experimental verification. On the other hand, it should also be recognized that the presented mathematical calculations are quite sufficient to initiate R $\&$ D. We also draw your attention to the fact that the analysis of the operation of the vortex plasma engine device is based on classical physical concepts, but taking into account a new view of the mechanism of collective interaction of nuclei in the reaction of the so-called cold nuclear fusion.'

  • Quote

    we propose to use the approximation of three nuclei lying on the line and calculate the potential energy that accumulates when the central nucleus is displaced to the extent that it overcomes the Coulomb barrier

    Your assumption is essentially correct and there are even reproducible experiments confirming it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Except that it's way easier to achieve displacement of electron orbitals (which would shield the atom nuclei) than displacement of atom nuclei itself.

  • Concretions are such objects, there are just a few points, and there are always 3...

  • Quote

    In my example, we are talking about plasma, which is why the nuclei in the double layer of plasma are displaced

    In plasma the probability that atom nuclei spontaneously arrange along a single line is extremely low. Which is why cold fusion runs within metal crystals, along their nanocracks and dislocations (where thermal motion of atoms gets constrained even more) in particular.


    What is double layer of plasma?