Correlations between Apparent Peaks in LENR Transmutation Data.

Thanks for sharing this paper Alan Smith . Is a good thing that I had recently studied in depth the work of Miley and Patterson (1996) that is referenced here. I had no idea that at least the transmutations had been replicated by the Little - Puthoff team in 1998.

It is indeed interesting to see those peaks, which means in turn reactions that have a higher probability to happen, I think one could relate this to many other works.

I wouldn’t be surprised if one could find that these peaks can also be derived by working the numbers in the so called Parkhomov tables which provide a way to rate the likelyhood of an outcome based on the energetic balance.

I also really liked the invitation to use AI to explore further the results, albeit I think form achieving that, integration of ChatGPT and Wolfram Alpha (which provides the data analyzing muscle) would be the only way to really find the underlying patterns as Nagel suggests.

The nucleus is structured and this leads to the uneven splitting of the U atom. The same principle applies to these results. The larger nuclei, Pd and Pt would fuse with D and trans-mutate upwards, causing the slightly heavier elements above Pd and Pt. These fusion reactions however we think, can also cause fission or spallation reactions to take place, due to reasons I hope to address at the upcoming ICCF conference. This mechanism of breaking off branches and where the breaking would occur is poorly understood at this time of writing, but simple taking off a few branches would yield atomic number in the order of 27-33, 51-57, 65-70 range. Those ranges would be the peaks in all likelihood.
I agree this is indeed an important topic and by no means have I given a thorough explanation here, I mean to point out how well the concept of a structured nucleus seems to fit the data by means of fission...

Presentation (PDF) about fission explain via SAM
https://structuredatom.org/sit…2019%20Final%20public.pdf

Read everything and still scratching my head. Can someone provide a simple (in layman terms), what the significance of the "5 peaks" is, and if eventually corroborated by other experiments, then becomes accepted within the community, what it will do to advance LENR?

This is again the mythology about a kind of fuel able to do everything by itself...

Even if Jurg ( for example) was sucessfull in this way, i don't expect this as an absolute prerequisite.

Quote from Shane D.

J'ai tout lu et je me gratte toujours la tête. Quelqu'un peut-il fournir un simple (en termes simples), quelle est la signification des "5 pics", et si finalement corroboré par d'autres expériences, devient alors accepté au sein de la communauté, ce qu'il fera pour faire avancer LENR ?

Hora, Miley, et al in ICCF-7 have a paper " Nuclear Shell Magic Numbers Agree with measured Transmutation by Low-Energy Reactions. See page 147 in this link.

ENECOtheseventh.pdf (lenr-canr.org)

The nuclear reactions initiated at seemingly at low energy (most fusion) happen and are followed by fission. The fission output is proposed to be due to whatever quantum structure governs stable nuclei.

The paper by Nagel relates the peaks to nuclear attraction wells of specific size based on atomic number but Hora et al relate the wells to Z or proton numbers. They propose the quantum relationship between sizes of wells as R(n) = 3ⁿ. see page 150.

Some nucleons have a positive bias (protons) while other have dipoles (neutrons). All nucleons exchange components so any bias of charge does not reside on any nucleon long enough to affect experiments designed to scatter off charges within the nucleus. Hence, the difference between neutrons and protons so short lived that nuclear structure is nearly undetectable. The nucleus can be modeled as liquid. Nevertheless, net field effects are observed such as spin and electron structure mirroring off an abstract nuclear structure.

This dynamic nuclear fluid causes higher rates of decay of elements as a function of A and Z numbers relative to the five peaks (the stable combinations of mobile charge with nucleons).

As far as mechanism, this data tells us that fusions to heavy elements occur in "LENR" and likely occurs far more often than hydrogen to hydrogen fusion. The mechanism of this type of nuclear reaction is like that of a star closer in mass to a black hole than to the mass of our sun.

The easiest way to model these reactions is with a gravitational constant which is orders of magnitude stronger than universal gravity.

Quote from Drgenek

The paper by Nagel relates the peaks to nuclear attraction wells of specific size based on atomic number but Hora et al relate the wells to Z or proton numbers. They propose the quantum relationship between sizes of wells as R(n) = 3n. see page 150.

This relationship between the quark R(n) = 3n structures of matter and LENR reaction could indicate that transmutation might be a process that completely deconstructs matter at the quark level allowing the individual freeform quarks to recombine free of any nuclear predispositions into new ways to combine consistent with the way nature has formulated new matter throughout the universe. In other words, transmutation rather than fusion is the primary matter building process at work throughout the universe.

Quote from axil

allowing the individual freeform quarks to recombine

To much brain aerobics . There are no free form quarks...

Quote from Wyttenbach

To much brain aerobics . There are no free form quarks...

As a believer in LENR as a fusion based process, you have no idea about how transmutation works. When quark mass is affected, so is their behavior including confinement.

Quark confinement comes out of the standard model that I understood you rejected? Are you inconsistent?

Quote from axil

you have no idea about how transmutation works

Thanks that you confirm having no idea how transmutations work. Yogurt, Bifidus,Quark are no help too.

Try it with real physics not with a collection of fringe ideas called standard model.

All elements can simply by generated by adding H*/D*. No supernova is needed just real physics.

Quote from Wyttenbach

All elements can simply by generated by adding H*/D*. No supernova is needed just real physics.

This posit does not comport with the lack of low mass elements seen in transmutation of elements like iron derived from carbon. The additive process that built to iron is not seen in transmutation experimentation. Only iron is seen with no range of lighter building block type elements other than aluminum and silicon were seen in the transmutation product. The full range of intermediate transmutation produces were not seen as you have assumed to occur.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336370630_Nuclear_Transmutation_with_Carbon_and_Oxyhydrogen_Plasma

Quote from axil

This posit does not comport with the lack of low mass elements seen in transmutation of elements like iron derived from carbon. The additive process that built to iron is not seen in transmutation experimentation. Only iron is seen with no range of lighter building block type elements other than aluminum and silicon were seen in the transmutation product. The full range of intermediate transmutation produces were not seen as you have assumed to occur.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…on_and_Oxyhydrogen_Plasma

The oxyhydrogen plasma causes fusion of hydrogen to oxygen. The expected output of this plasma is an increase in nitrogen without the seed carbon rod present. Obviously, the experiment you reference was not set-up to measure this. But it is seen with mass balance and stoichiometry of aquafuel. Further, neither the stoichiometry of the aquafuel reaction or Santilli's intermediate fusion indicates any fusion of oxygen or hydrogen to carbon. Both analyses indicate hydrogen fusion proceeds stepwise to produce oxygen but the oxygen is consumed in further reactions. Most of the deuterium produced from hydrogen is also consumed in further reactions.

Neither the low mass elements nor the elements produced in the intermediate steps of the fusion process are normally seen in an oxyhydrogen fusion reaction (also called a Kidman reaction). These reactions are confined to the "EVO"s. However, the carbon rod interferes with the process by collecting intermediates to crystals. Crystals require seed. The output of crystallization depends on the crystallization process not on the cascade of reaction in the fusion process. The intermediates would be primarily Na, Mg and Al. If the electro-gravity is strong enough the Al fuses to Al to create Fe. Hence, no intermediate atomic weight elements.

I proposed most likely cascades of nuclear reactions are as seen below.

Quote from axil

Only iron is seen with no range of lighter building block type elements other than aluminum and silicon were seen in the transmutation product.

May be once read before posting includes what you cite.... Or are carbon and hydrogen the same in your world??

Quote from axil

This posit does not comport with the lack of low mass elements seen in transmutation of elements like iron derived from carbon. The additive process that built to iron is not seen in transmutation experimentation. Only iron is seen with no range of lighter building block type elements other than aluminum and silicon were seen in the transmutation product. The full range of intermediate transmutation produces were not seen as you have assumed to occur.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…on_and_Oxyhydrogen_Plasma

NAE (nuclear active environments) in metal produce fusion of the metal lattice followed by fission. Hence, the kind of distribution in the figure you post. Obviously, that distribution of elements is different than from the oxyhydrogen plasma. The reaction occurs at the escape horizon of the of the catalysis. If the catalysis is imbedded in metal, then the metal is at the escape horizon. If the catalysis is a free-flowing gas, then the catalysis uses the gas as a reactant. I can point you to references if you like.

John Huizenga wrote a scathing book denouncing cold fusion research in 1993. He mocked cold fusion by alluding to its unexplained characteristics as "miracles." Huizenga's three miracles were:

Miracle #1: the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated

Miracle #2: the lack of strong neutron emissions

Miracle #3: the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays

Y'all still can't explain the 3 miracles of cold fusion. Where are the predicted fusion generated gammas and the neutrons? You talk of fusion and fission but the nuclear indicators are nowhere to be found.

Quote from axil

Where are the predicted fusion generated gammas and the neutrons?

If an idiot makes predictions why then should these become true?

Of course we have tons of gamma spectra from CF. But neutrons are not the basic building block of matter. Neutrons are rare events and usually not expected.

As said: Only people that do not understand physics can talk of a coulomb barrier for CF. All fusion matter interactions is driven by magnetic forces/resonances....

Quote from Wyttenbach

If an idiot makes predictions why then should these become true?

Of course we have tons of gamma spectra from CF. But neutrons are not the basic building block of matter. Neutrons are rare events and usually not expected.

As said: Only people that do not understand physics can talk of a coulomb barrier for CF. All fusion matter interactions is driven by magnetic forces/resonances....

This flight of fantasy devoid of any logic is why cold fusion has never been accepted by science.