LENR: are you a type 2er?

  • Given that by definition LENR requires nuclear reactions, one way to distinguish the various approaches being pursued (with vigor) now is the characteristics of those reactions.


    We can make this distinction:


    Type 1 - reactions happen with unexpected high reaction rates in low energy systems: AND all (or nearly all) reaction products are forced to be low energy. Practically this means the excess nuclear-level quanta of energy must be fractionated over a very large number of particles so that the energy can couple to low energy phonons etc.


    Type 2 - reactions happen with unexpected high reaction rates in low energy systems. Although branching ratios may change from those expected, there is no fractionation so that where the reaction requires a high energy particle as product it must exist.


    This thread is to discuss - in the light of ICCF24 - what is the status of type 2 LENR? It has never been that popular in the past - every since F&P experiments did not show the expected high energy products from deuterium fusion. It is accepted that, for whatever reason, most LENR experiments are type 1. (A notable exception would be the CR-39 alpha track stuff).


    Examples of type 2 would be the google/NASA electron screening stuff, or hybrid fission/fusion systems driven by low energy reactions, or even relatively low power laser catalysed reactions. Much of Holmlid's work would also be type 2 (but maybe not all of it).


    Is this LENR?


    How does it relate to type 1 LENR?


    Are you an LENR skeptic if you are enthusiastic about type 2 LENR but highly skeptical about type 1? Is it OK to support type 1 but think therefore that the alpha track evidence is probably a mistake?


    Is the distinction artificial?

  • Entirely artificial. LENR is poorly understood because of the insistence on ignoring aspects that go entirely beyond hydrogen loading and Coulomb barrier.

    Is not an interesting question why, for type 1, high energy products do not appear? Hagelstein thinks so, And your reply does not address that.


    If so, surely what distinguishes type 1 and type 2. the type 2 google etc experiments shown only expected reactions, with expected products. Are they to be considered LENR?


    If there is some other method which does both fractionation and Coulomb barrier tunnelling - and accounts for type 1 - then surely type 2 (which does not depend on it) is not LENR?

  • I don't have an answer to your question, but let's dream a little. Let's say we have learned how to build atomic nuclei in a ruler and would like to find out how the Coulomb barrier depends on the length of the links in the chain of nuclei and on their number. Do you think LENR will appear in this simple system?

  • This thread is to discuss - in the light of ICCF24 - what is the status of type 2 LENR? It has never been that popular in the past - every since F&P experiments did not show the expected high energy products from deuterium fusion. It is accepted that, for whatever reason, most LENR experiments are type 1. (A notable exception would be the CR-39 alpha track stuff).

    Many 'hot and dry' LENR systems will produce energetic radiation at temperatures which are in the great scheme of things trivial when compared to the temperature requirements for hot fusion. I offered some references for this before, which you didn't much like. Cooler 'wet' systems seem to cause LENR within the bulk metal (Storms argues for this) or as a surface effect (McKubre, Szpak, et al)


    I see absolutely no reason why there should not be 2 or even more different mechanisms for LENR to occur, possibly more. After all we have reports of LENR type transmutations and energy release in plasmas, in liquids, in solids and in powders. Science likes reductionist theories because it makes events more comprehensible, but just possibly Nature is a lot bigger than we realise. Each new fundamental scientific discovery we make suggests that this is the case.

  • see absolutely no reason why there should not be 2 or even more different mechanisms for LENR to occur, possibly more. After all we have reports of LENR type transmutations and energy release in plasmas, in liquids, in solids and in powders. Science likes reductionist theories because it makes events more comprehensible, but just possibly Nature is a lot bigger than we realise. Each new fundamental scientific discovery we make suggests that this is the case.

    Well, the difference is between technology and applied science - where there is an infinite variety of things, and theoretical physics where (maybe against all odds) the fundamental rules are always simple and uniform.


    That might change, but any variation from simple/uniform has to deliver identical results to current simple/uniform over a LOT of experiments.


    That is why you need a technological/applied science explanation for LENR, not a theoretical physics one.


    We have it, just about, for type 2. Nowhere near for type 1.


    science = experiment + theory


    Each constrains the other - you cannot even interpret any experiment without quite a lot of theory.


    It makes a strong argument for type 2 being much more plausible than type 1. As always a replicable certain experiment that can be done by any team funded say as well as the google guys would change things.


    THH

  • I don't find your type 1 and type 2 classification useful at all.


    The observation that leads to non-thermonuclear fusion is a cluster of electrons. The greatest amount of information on this subject is in EV a Tale of Discovery by Ken Shoulder. You should be able to search the forum and find it. Ken didn't know how these things form, he just observed they spontaneous emerge from an electron-based plasma.


    If you google electro-gravity, you find that the electromagnetic force could increase gravity. An electro-gravity might counter the repulsive coulomb force between electrons. Leave the question of what in detail causes electro-gravity for now. The interaction of electro-gravity and the coulomb force would create a non-singular potential for electrons of the EV. The electrons (if that what there are) are repulsed at relatively large distances from each other but attracted at relatively short distances. A simple force balance at the escape horizon lets one solve for the magnitude of the coupling constant for electro-gravity. Let call it Gre. Gre = coulomb constant times the charge of the electron squared divided by the mass of the electron squared. So electro-gravity is 42 orders of magnitude stronger than universal gravity.


    So, what happens? There are conditions which create an unexpected new form of the electron (electron-neutrino string) which has a non-singular potential. This type of electron forms clusters. An accelerator/energy absorber in the form of a planetoid cause fusion. Nuclear fusion occurs primarily at the escape horizon of the planetoid. This is where the highest energy particles are (particles with energy sufficient to escape electro-gravity). Further, anions of hydrogen can be captured into the planetoid if the anion result from an electron-neutrino string combination with a hydrogen nucleus. Electro-gravity is between electron-neutrino strings. Because the electro-gravity is 42 orders of magnitude stronger than universal gravity, anions of hydrogen can achieve Lawson Criteria near the center of a sufficiently large planetoid. However, the gravity is so intense that they usual produce oxygen from a pure hydrogen fusion.


    Because the cause of fusion is a planetoid with an extreme gravitational attraction for electron-neutrino strings, then an atom which has an electron-neutrino string in place of an electron can become a target of the projectile (high energy orbiting or escaping particles from the planetoid). The extreme gravity tends to absorb high energy products of nuclear reactions. Hence, expected yields are lower than for thermonuclear fusion.


    I would be happy to walk you through step by step. For interested members of the forum, I can provide for your review 4 videos. If you want to see the videos (for now) you would need to share with me a gmail account. If I can get review by several members so that I can address, comments, then I would be willing to share the corrected videos on U-tube.

  • @Drgenec


    I don't think there is anything like enough understanding to choose some mechanism for type 1 LENR - nor for any theory that recasts theoretical physics fundamentally. You have to sow your new theory is identical (equivalent) to standard in all respects except specific LENR eperiments where it somehow leads to large detectable results.


    I've never seen the proof of how any of these alternate theories are normally identical to standard, and explain all the known plethora of particles and reactions.


    Like Storms "two flavours of He4" it seem harmless but adding something that gives you to diferent He4 nuclei with completely different properties - it is a big deal.


    Not impossible of course, He4 - like all nuclei - has multiple possible energy levels - but this is such a strange difference and we do not see it anywhere else.


    My point is - new fundamental theories which reject standard theory and propose different building blocks have a much tougher job than theories that use what we now have and propose some small - does not usually happen - special case.


    I am alas always on this site being tactful about what i think is the merit of the very many altyernate theories proposed.


    All I will say, which everyone will agree I'm sure, is that they are nearly all false (since they are not compatible).


    THH

  • I don't have an answer to your question, but let's dream a little. Let's say we have learned how to build atomic nuclei in a ruler and would like to find out how the Coulomb barrier depends on the length of the links in the chain of nuclei and on their number. Do you think LENR will appear in this simple system?

    I'm not quite sure what that means!

  • I propose a more controversial type: Let’s call it type X.


    Type X LENR is a subset of a broader area that involves a property of all matter and also of electromagnetic fields that is poorly understood and has been observed in many systems and has received many names depending on who observed it. Probably the most known of the names is EVOs (Exotic vacuum objects) which was the name given to the phenomena by Kenneth Shoulders. This is a coherent self assembling and stable structure that has many properties among which the ability to transform matter it enters in contact with and also release energy have been observed. Type X LENR posits that all the phenomena seen in LENR are better understood under the optic that these EVOs are involved. Being unaware of this is what causes the great variability and relative difficulty to replicate the phenomena. Ball lightning would be the natural expression of the EVO phenomena.


    I don’t expect to be taken seriously, just felt that this possibility is greatly overlooked albeit it has been formally proposed, and is much better known and accepted as a working hypothesis in the Russian research community, as the current

    27th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutations & Ball Lighting


    proves.

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

  • Curbina The exotic vacuum object is consonant with the exotic manifold known in mathematics. But in general it is clear that we do not yet fully understand the structure of the vacuum, therefore we cannot explain its exotic structures. However, perhaps a modification of the Schrodinger equation


    ietHℏ∂ψ(x,t)∕∂t = -ℏ22ψ(x,t)∕2m + V(x,t)ψ(x,t)


    where H is the Hubble constant,


    will reveal the secret of EVO.

  • THH,


    You might find the Metzler paper I just posted useful.


    From the abstract:


    Quote

    We investigate known mechanisms for enhancing nuclear fusion rates at ambient temperatures and pressures in solid-state environments. In deuterium fusion, on which the paper is focused, an enhancement of >40 orders of magnitude would be needed to achieve observable fusion. We find that mechanisms for fusion rate enhancement up to 30 orders of magnitude each are known across the domains of atomic physics, nuclear physics, and quantum dynamics. Cascading such mechanisms could lead to an overall enhancement of 40 orders of magnitude and more. We present a roadmap with examples of how hypothesis-driven research could be conducted in—and across—each domain to probe the plausibility of technologically-relevant fusion in the solid state.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.07245.pdf


    With the caveat - and preemptive apology - that this is not remotely my forte; a few venturing thoughts:


    It seems to me that if LENR is as Metzler suggests, then the distinction between 'Type 1' and 'Type 2' collapses.


    Understood this way, LENR could be conceived as a phenomenon that emerges out of many rate enhancement mechanisms working and interacting coterminously. What you term 'Type 2' LENR is then just an experimental design that is especially apt at kissing part of the sequence of mechanisms, but, for whatever reason, is unable to get the full sequence of cascading mechanisms going.


    It stands to reason that it would be easier to find a reliable experiment that could touch part of the sequence of mechanisms than one that could reliably proceed through / into the full cascade of mechanisms.


    I admit it's speculative but perhaps then something about the full sequence of mechanisms working together is responsible for the observed difference in reaction products between 'Type 1' and 'Type 2'. This would explain why 'Type 2' behaves in a more conventional manner.


    Perhaps then, LENR is better understood as a kind of 'spectrum', for the lack of a more apposite term, with the number of and the way that the different mechanisms are interacting being primary contributory factors. This makes it harder to define what LENR 'is', but it also feels like a much more plausible ontological grounding. This seems, at least to me, to be a much more dynamic way to think of the reaction.


    This would be in contrast to conceptualising LENR as a simple, unitary binary ("is the LENR 'on' or 'off'?" + the assumption that 'LENR' is always exactly the same thing).


    This is also the kind of ontological point of departure that reinforces the proposition that 'Type 1' is possible, and subsumes both types into a plausible theoretical framework. Moreover, it elegantly explains why 'Type 2' is more prevalent (read: easy to replicate) than 'Type 1'.


    This is useful (to me ;) ) because it runs counter to the suggestion of some that the existence of 'Type 2' somehow makes 'Type 1' less likely. Or indeed that a distinction need be drawn between the two at all.


    Okay. Enough somersaulting over my skis for today.

  • The fact is that in the approximation of three nuclei built in a line, the Coulomb barrier decreases by several orders of magnitude. You can easily check this with your own calculations.

    And what happens with the approximation of multiple nuclei built in a cluster, regarding to the Coulomb force?


    Many have postulated that LENR happens with multi body interactions, even Fleischmann pondered this.

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

  • And what happens with the approximation of multiple nuclei built in a cluster, regarding to the Coulomb force?


    Many have postulated that LENR happens with multi body interactions, even Fleischmann pondered this.

    The approximation of three neighboring nuclei means that we neglect the action of the remaining nuclei of the linear chain, that is, we neglect the long-range nuclei that weakly affect the central nucleus of the selected three nuclei. As for clusters, it seems to me that a lot depends on the geometry of the cluster - its dimension and shape.

  • The approximation of three neighboring nuclei means that we neglect the action of the remaining nuclei of the linear chain, that is, we neglect the long-range nuclei that weakly affect the central nucleus of the selected three nuclei. As for clusters, it seems to me that a lot depends on the geometry of the cluster - its dimension and shape.

    I assume that calculating the whole of the interactions is complicated, so isolating it in groups of three in line simplifies it. In a cluster you will probably have groups of three in line. But likely the cluster, being a nightmare to model, is where the answer is.

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

  • I assume that calculating the whole of the interactions is complicated, so isolating it in groups of three in line simplifies it. In a cluster you will probably have groups of three in line. But likely the cluster, being a nightmare to model, is where the answer is.

    Therefore, I am trying to create a cluster in the form of a circle, which in the approximation of three nuclei can be considered a line.

  • I agree that ball lightning is mysterious and interesting - I don't think it is the same mystery as LENR.


    If we could actually observe it properly I'm sure we could waok out which hypothesis is real. I like this one, because they can actually make "ball lightning" experimentally. It shows that such things are not too difficult to make, and has proper theory.


    Artificial Ball Lightning produced in the laboratory !?

  • I agree that ball lightning is mysterious and interesting - I don't think it is the same mystery as LENR.


    If we could actually observe it properly I'm sure we could waok out which hypothesis is real. I like this one, because they can actually make "ball lightning" experimentally. It shows that such things are not too difficult to make, and has proper theory.


    https://www.dos4ever.com/bolbliksem/bolbliksem.html

    Russian researchers are a bit ahead of the rest of the world in this regards...


    https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/19224-jhepgc-2021102216222468-pdf/

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