PostRE: USEFUL PAPERS THREADHere is the latest paper from Ed Storms:
Storms, E. The Nature of Cold Fusion (Cold Fusion Made Simple). in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA.
Try this recent theory from Ed Storms. Not everyone in the field agrees with it, but it is derived from extensive data.
Sorry Alan - I got tangled up here posting.
I replied to this on the wrong thread
Have now deleted that and put reply here:
I agree with much of this speculation
There are two parts I have issues with:
1. This part that clearly could be substantiated in detail, but has not been. It would be good to do that quantitatively - it seems inherently unlikely:
Fusion involving only D does not make tritium. Instead, 4H is formed and rapidly decays to 4He as the final product. Fusion involving only 1H will slowly make tritium, deuterium, and 4H, with 4He being the final nuclear product. All of these reactions dissipate their energy by the emission of energetic ions, electrons, and X-rays with each being unable to pass through the walls of the apparatus. Very few free neutrons are produced.
2. This part is a truly unlikely assumption. In maths you can prove anything by assuming at some point that 1 = 0 (I mean that quite precisely - it is easy to prove). Similar in physics if you are allowed an arbitrary assumption contrary all direct evidence and with no rationale - you can make any hypothesis seem plausible:
The 4H isotope, when made by bombarding T with D at high energy, is found to decompose immediately by ejecting a neutron. The model suggested here assumes that when 4H is made at low energy, the nucleus remains stable and eventually loses its energy by beta emission to produce 4He.
So - there is something about the LENR 4H nucleus which makes it very stable when it is normally incredibly unstable (too many neutrons) so one gets ejected immediately.
It is plucked out of thin air to make the rest fit. It needs, at least, a clear understanding of how the nuclei differ to be a hypothesis rather than ideas with a gap in the middle.
If we had that understanding then it would probably put a lot of other constraints on LENR, if indeed there were such "special" nuclei. The real question is why there has been no hint of special nuclei in all the enormous quantity of carefully scrutinised data on particle collisions.
Were I wedded to type 1 LENR (Storms's stuff does OK without the difficult bits for type 2) I would:
- Work out - in ways that preserve quantities we know are preserved, how that 23MeV could be emitted and what range of energies the constituents would have.
- Work out in detail whether they are all stopped by containers of reactions as is claimed. It seems most unlikely to me.
The other bit - the magically different 4H nuclei - needs a completely new theory of nuclear physics which nevertheless gives identical results for all nuclear reactions except the LENR ones. A very big ask - but I'd be interested to see one.
Then we could argue (about that bit).