is there a plausible theory of cold fusion : Mystery of the missing radiation: sense and nonsense

  • I have seen an interesting blog about LENR theory


    http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/?p=713#comment-11243

    Quote

    I’ve mentioned before (here and here) one of the main challenges of explaining cold fusion. In conventional nuclear fusion, nuclear energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of a few (usually 2 or 3) very-fast-moving particles. But if cold fusion is a real thing, then the nuclear energy would seem to be transformed into something else. The reason we know this is, very-fast-moving particles create radiation (I mean neutrons, gamma-rays, etc.), and people have looked for it and found that there is very little of it (see here). For example, some people have been doing cold fusion experiments for many years, without dying of radiation poisoning. Well, I mean, I’m not an expert, but they don’t look dead. So, this is themystery of the missing radiation. The mystery has been approached in sensible ways and in nonsense ways, and in this post I’ll give some examples of both. Edmund Storms’s “hydroton theory” will be my nonsense example.


    I have reacted to his critic of Hydroton, even if probably we agree much...


    I just read too quickly and this guy read the book... :/ 
    I should not advised him to read it... but sure you may be interested.

  • The "no radioactivity" problem is more severe than this.


    It is well established that LENR effects, if they exist, require some stimulus. They don't go on forever. To make an LENR hypothesis fit the facts you need some reason why the end results of LENR transmutation are always stable nuclei, rather than nuclei with half-lives in the range of minutes to years that would be detected, through radioactive emission, long after the LENR effect is switched off.


    To my mind this is the single most difficult to explain characteristic of the evidence under any "LENR works" hypothesis. After all, whether a nucleus is stable or not depends on many factors, not just the binding energy of the nucleus. So the idea that LENR can only work when the target nucleus is high binding energy does not properly hold water.


    There are many phenomena which considered individually provide some support, or at least consistency with, some of the various, different, LENR hypotheses. You cannot however take this volume of evidence as adding credibility. You need a single hypothesis that explains (and far preferably predicts) the whole range of different anomalous experimental data. That so far is missing.

  • Numerous experiments have confirmed that the amount of thermal energy liberated by the LENR is so large that it can only be of “nuclear” origin, in antithesis to chemical energy. The absence of significant high energy radiation, despite the large quantity of thermal (low energy) radiation, should have long suggested the most important key concept for understanding the LENR. I will try to explain.


    In common nuclear reactions the particles interact at a range that is less than 3 [fm], and there is no electromagnetic radiation emanating from the nuclear reaction itself. The mass difference (the binding energy) goes completely into the kinetic energy of the daughter particles.


    The LENR however demonstrate that the nuclear energy can be substantially transformed into electromagnetic radiation. This necessarily questions the very nature of the nuclear energy. Is it really something different from electromagnetism?


    What we call nuclear reaction involves only the binding of nucleons into small or large nuclei. Gluons, quarks, W+, W-, Z0, and neutrinos have nothing to do with this binding.


    The force that keeps the nucleons together in any nucleus is for sure of short range and has a strong quadrupolar nature (it strongly depends on the reciprocal orientations of the spins/magnetic dipoles). Therefore it apparently looks quite different from well known electromagnetic bounds.


    However there is a theory of the 1980’s that was recalled in the article “LENR and Nuclear Structure Theory” presented at ICCF-17 by Norman Cook and Valerio Dallacasa. In this article the authors say: “We have found a fermi magnetic effect that is a microscopic version of the Biot Savart law of magnetic attraction between parallel currents”. This magnetic effect originates from the phasing of the charge rotation inside the particles. And it has energies in the MeV range that are compatible with the binding energies of the “nuclear force”. This suggests that the nuclear force is actually not “nuclear” in nature, but is “simply” electromagnetic, but with all odd properties built-in. The authors suggest that the short-rangeness is essentially due to the lack of phasing for large distances.


    Therefore Cook and Dallacasa, who undoubtedly are experts in this field, actually suggest an explanation of the nuclear force in terms of a magnetic attraction, that would fit with what the LENR suggest. If that magnetic potential is correct, the LENR could be just a larger range version of the same nuclear binding. But what can extend the range of this magnetic attraction potential so much as to allow the attracted particles to accelerate towards each other and therefore radiate electromagnetically the energy in the magnetic attraction potential, well before the final “really nuclear reaction” takes place?


    Well I found an solution, and that is explained in my very simple web pages:


    http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/


    Essentially I think magic is done by the electron that in some conditions can extend the range of the nuclear force and accelerate protons/deuterons/tritons … for distances much larger than a few [fm], forcing them to transform the magnetic attraction into photons.


    I shared it with Professor Dallacasa himself.


    Maybe tomorrow I will comment all this a bit more in detail.


    Ciao


    Andrea