Dear SERGEI are they linked too with those from Letts and Cravens ?
No. This is the effect of a laser as a titanium deuteride heater.
Known mechanisms that increase nuclear fusion rates in the solid state - Metzler et al. - August 2022
-
-
Well, by this way how you could explain your excesses heat ? The theoretical side i meant.
No. This is the effect of a laser as a titanium deuteride heater.
-
Well, by this way how you could explain your excesses heat ? The theoretical side i meant.
In this work, we recorded gamma radiation and neutrons. We registered excess heat in previous works.
-
I am pleased with the link to our early work: 118. Beltyukov I. L. et al. Laser-induced cold nuclear fusion in Ti-H2-D2-T2 compositions.
Fusion Techno. 20, 234–238 (1991)!
I found it available here, the good old times when Fusion Technology published Cold Fusion papers. Was a fine work SERGEI !
-
Was a fine work
The gamma emissions were in the 1 Mev range? (if calibrated by Cobalt 60?
You wouldn't need many packets in this range to get rid of the 20 Mevs or so from D2 fusion..
The problem with Meztler's view is he has very small packets..
eg
nuclear
Magnetic dipole-dipole coupling between
nuclei (e.g., between between C nuclei
in 13C NMR measurements). Coupling
strength: <0.1 neV lto get rid of 20 Mevs you would need lots of 0.1 NeV packets...coordinated together
-
to get rid of 20 Mevs you would need lots of 0.1 NeV packets...coordinated together
Co-ordination via self-organisation is a feature of so many LENR discoveries. I think it's what Nature likes to do.
-
Display More
The gamma emissions were in the 1 Mev range? (if calibrated by Cobalt 60?
You wouldn't need many packets in this range to get rid of the 20 Mevs or so from D2 fusion..
The problem with Meztler's view is he has very small packets..
eg
nuclear
Magnetic dipole-dipole coupling between
nuclei (e.g., between between C nuclei
in 13C NMR measurements). Coupling
strength: <0.1 neV lto get rid of 20 Mevs you would need lots of 0.1 NeV packets...coordinated together
What he did not say was the fact that getting coherence from 0.1neV coupling requires noise coupling below 0.1neV level. Kim (following Hagelstein) had the reasonable view that lower temperatures would enhance coherent effects and therefore help. His experiments did not however show this.
-
Kim (following Hagelstein) had the reasonable view that lower temperatures would enhance coherent effects and therefore help. His experiments did not however show this.
It depends what you mean by 'lower'. I and many others have found that 300-350C is a very productive temperature.
-
THHuxleynew , The idea that coherence can only be attained at lower temperatures is what mainstream science maintains. There's however a patent from Lockheed Martin granted in 2011 for a method of producing coherent matter beams that shows a way to induce coherence by restricting movement instead.
As Alan Smith suggests, and as experiments like SAFIRE and many others show, even if mainstream insists in ignoring them, is that self organization and self attainment of coherence is something that Nature likes to do.
-
Cold Fusion is Back (there's just one problem) If the atoms float around freely, the electron shells are really large compared to the size of the nucleus. If you bring these nuclei close together, then their electron shells will be much farther apart than the nuclei. So the electron shells don’t help with the fusion if the nuclei just float around.
Mainstream scientists ignored it for decades and laymen public didn't draw consequences from it - this is the problem..;-) So that we shouldn't allow nuclei to just float around - and this is just what cold fusion running within metal lattices does. Hot fusion tries to get rid of electrons, but in general electrons are our friends and ally in fusion efforts as they compensate repulsive forces of protons. They just seem not to compensate them enough - could they compensate them more under more clever arrangement?
As it turns out they indeed can - we just must concentrate electrons at place, where they're most needed - i.e. at the connection line BETWEEN colliding nuclei - not OUTSIDE them. This is the principle of electron screening mechanism. For to achieve it, we shouldn't compress and crush atoms from all directions, as tokamak or laser fusions do. We must collide them uni-dimensionally, i.e. between long chains of inert atoms which act like miniature pistons crushing atoms against each other.
This is the principle of lattice confinement fusion, as it runs within crystalline metal lattices, which contain atoms naturally oriented into lines already. Here we can observe many paradoxes, such as cold fusion yield decreases with temperature, because low temperatures help atoms to maintain their order better.
Also, hot fusion releases the more gamma radiation and neutrons and he4 atoms, the hotter it is. But cold fusion releases only few gamma and neutrons and he-3 instead, because neutrons and gamma are released in direction, along which the atoms just collide, i.e. long chain of atoms which have much higher absorption coefficient than randomly oriented bulk material. Which gets indeed even better, because gammas and neutrons are unwanted and dangerous products of fusion, which require lotta shielding and make everything radioactive.
Cold fusion is literally hot fusion all the way round.
-
QuoteThere’s another type of “cold fusion” that we know works, which is actually a method for neutron production. For this you send a beam of deuterium ions into a metal, for example titanium. Deuterium is a heavy isotope of hydrogen. Its nucleus is a proton with one neutron. At first, the beam just deposits a lot of deuterium in the metal. But when the metal is full of deuterium, some of those nuclei fuse. These devices can be pretty small. The piece of metal where the fusion happens may just be a few millimeters in size. Here is an example of such a device from Sandia Labs which they call the “neutristor”.
The major reason scientists do this is because the fusion releases neutrons, and they want the neutrons. It’s not just because lab life is lonely, and neutrons are better than no company. Neutrons can also be used for treating materials to make them more durable, or for making radioactive waste decay faster. But the production of the neutrons is quite an amazing process. Because the beam of deuterium ions which you send into this metal typically has an energy of only 5-20 kilo electron Volt. But the neutrons you get out, have almost a thousand times more energy, in the range of a few Mega electron Volt. It’s often called “beam-target fusion” or “solid-state fusion”. It’s a type of cold fusion, and again we know it works.
There’s just one problem: The yield of this method is really, really low. It’s only about one in a million deuterium nuclei that fuse, and the total energy you get out is far less than what you put in with the beam. So, it’s a good method to produce neutrons, but it won’t save the world.
This problem was also solved already. The problem with deuterium ions is, they smash atom lattice with high energy making it irregular. But we have to collide deuterons with oriented lines of atoms for to keep cold fusion running, right? There is still the way, how to achieve it with easily melting metals like lithium. A thin layer of molten lithium kept just a few degrees above its melting point in vacuum maintains surface layer semicrystalline with atom chains oriented perpendicularly to surface in similar way, like exclusion zone of water. In addition, this surface layers heals its crystalline defects very quickly by Oswald ripening. The deuterons or just a protons hitting such a surface maintain cold fusion yield very high and reliable - above 60% or so. They release a beam of alpha particles from surface which can be directly converted into an electricity and/or utilized like reactive medium within cold fusion powered inertial engines.
-
QuoteHowever, when physicists studied this process of neutron production, they made a surprising discovery. When you lower the energy of the incoming particles, the fusion rates are higher than theoretically expected. Why is that? The currently accepted explanation is that the lattice of the metal helps shielding the charges of the deuterium nuclei from each other. So, it lowers the Coulomb barrier, and that makes it more likely that the nuclei fuse when they’re inside the metal. This isn’t news, physicists have known about this since the 1980s.
Another explanation is, that low energetic particles don't destroy metal lattice, thus allowing Mossbauer resonance effects, which are an lattice analogy of famous Astroblaster effect multiplying energy of rigid ball collisions. So that their energy gets fully absorbed in elastic collisions during it. At any case, the cold fusion is known by its thermal runaway effect, which means with increasing temperature there is smooth transition from cold fusion to hot fusion under release of neutrons. This of course can be dangerous, because once the lattice gets destructed, them the hot neutrons aren't absorbed with it anymore (see Thermacore incident and many others running cold fusion).
QuoteBut, let me honest, I find it somewhat suspicious that the power production in cold fusion experiments always just so happens to be very close to the power that goes in. I mean, there isn’t a priori any reason why this should be the case. If there is nuclear fusion going on efficiently, why doesn’t it just blow up the lab and settle the case once and for all?
These cases apparently did happen already, but the arrangement described in the above post is perfectly safe, as it doesn't allow accumulation of deuterium nuclei within fusion environment. Instead of it the layer of lithium must be cooled thoroughly: once the lithium metal gets heated just a bit more, then it becomes amorphous and cold fusion simply stops there in similar way, like fission in subcritical nuclear reactor.
In brief, we already have technology allowing to produce arbitrary amount of energy for many years - instead of it we are fu*king with Russia and another totalitarian regimes hoarding fossil fuel reserves. These are paradoxes of the world under control of dystopian progressivists and ignorant conservatives.
-
Probably that is right however only a low effect fortunately because it not we will see nuclear reactions everywhere and no stability could be exist.
low effect, that means Tesla cathodes will "burn" not so often BUT sometimes yes
THHuxleynew , The idea that coherence can only be attained at lower temperatures is what mainstream science maintains. There's however a patent from Lockheed Martin granted in 2011 for a method of producing coherent matter beams that shows a way to induce coherence by restricting movement instead.
As Alan Smith suggests, and as experiments like SAFIRE and many others show, even if mainstream insists in ignoring them, is that self organization and self attainment of coherence is something that Nature likes to do.
-
THHuxleynew , The idea that coherence can only be attained at lower temperatures is what mainstream science maintains. There's however a patent from Lockheed Martin granted in 2011 for a method of producing coherent matter beams that shows a way to induce coherence by restricting movement instead.
As Alan Smith suggests, and as experiments like SAFIRE and many others show, even if mainstream insists in ignoring them, is that self organization and self attainment of coherence is something that Nature likes to do.
I don't think Mother Nature pays much attention to patents. Coherence is a known thing - technologically you are right you can get high temperature coherence in various ways - for example topological superconductors (I have not looked at that patent so do not know whether it is one of those ways - undoubtedly reducing degrees of freedom gives you the possibility of higher energy gaps). You need to restrict energy levels so that you have a larger gap between the coherent state and any adjacent state - that gap must be larger than thermal noise to start to get coherent behaviour. Which is why, if coherence underlies an LENR mechanism, you would expect lower temperatures to be a good idea.
With 0.1neV coupling in a distributed coherent state, you get a 0.1neV change from whatever is the ground state by altering the relative spin (or whatever is doing the coupling) between components. So it is difficult to see how you can get a large gap. Nuclei are pretty well defined isolated things. With electrons the wave functions interpenetrate and all sorts of complex things are possible. With nuclei you have very long-range (comparatively) couplings where each nuclei can see the other nuclei as a set of quantum numbers for spin, charge, etc.
It is always good to distinguish between fundamental limits (like the speed of light, or the fact that coherence requires a single state) and technological limits.
THH
-
This is the principle of lattice confinement fusion, as it runs within crystalline metal lattices, which contain atoms naturally oriented into lines already. Here we can observe many paradoxes, such as cold fusion yield decreases with temperature, because low temperatures help atoms to maintain their order better.
Except that nearly all the experimental results I have seen show CF increasing with temperature.
I agree - a lot of CF mechanisms would be more plausible at much lower temperatures.
-
Nuclei are pretty well defined isolated things.
Well we should ask only LF people involved in nucleus way to see they won't go especially in the same way of understanding.
Trying to explain the nucleus is similar as speaking with god
Grateful for Egos even mine 
-
Trying to explain the nucleus is similar as speaking with god
My long ago physics lecturer said of the electron when asked about it's structure 'it's an electron for goodness sake, an almost imaginary convenience for describing some aspects of physics'.
-
Well we should ask only LF people involved in nucleus way to see they won't go especially in the same way of understanding.
Trying to explain the nucleus is similar as speaking with god
Grateful for Egos even mine Since no-one here likes to look at QCD calculations, and what we know from experiment is that nuclei are a whole mess of quarks interacting (not juts in triplets as nice clean nucleons) no-one here is going to understand it.
And if you do look at the QCD stuff it does not help much because it is in a regime where the high order terms are too complex for us to calculate with any precision. Think of its a being like predicting the exact shape and dynamics of a waterfall. It is a chaotic system that that cannot be done, even though there are some emergent features that can be calculated easy enough.
Emergent features like the moments (of different fields) seen from a long way away.
Anyone who says they can avoid that complexity?
They are not looking at the experimental evidence.
However, it is possible we will find better ways to calculate QCD - so all is not lost - though the known complexity of the structure will limit neat solutions
-
It depends what you mean by 'lower'. I and many others have found that 300-350C is a very productive temperature.
I was actually looking at the dependence of excess heat on temperature. All the Ni-H work, if you believe it, shows a positive relationship.
Mind you - I don't believe the Ni-H work and although F&P claim the same, I do not believe their results (at least as described in the paper Curbina says he will delete my posts if I mention either).
(I think these tangential references I make would not be necessary if here gave me a different F&P gold standard reference).
-
My long ago physics lecturer said of the electron when asked about it's structure 'it's an electron for goodness sake, an almost imaginary convenience for describing some aspects of physics'.
That is because he was old fashioned and thought that something exhibiting strong QM behaviour had to be described by wave-particle duality (an unpleasant thing) rather than by the beautiful anti-commutative maths of QM.
But - we know from experiment what are to the limits of what we can see (which is very very small) point particles (electrons, quarks, other leptons) and what we have seen are composite particles (baryrons, mesons).
Understanding that point particle is not a particle but a QM wave function.
