Peter Ekstrom Verified User
  • Male
  • from Lund, Sweden
  • Member since Mar 10th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Peter Ekstrom

    There's two things that are different in this case — (1) I'm looking at the question of heavy screening of nuclei lighter than the actinides and seeing what kind of activity might be expected (if you really crank up the electron screening); and (2) we're supposing spontaneous fission rather than fission following upon neutron capture. Although the fragments may fall away from the line of stability, there are many branches that lead to stable daughters, so much will depend upon what the predicted rates look like.

    The line of stable nuclei is bent all the way down to light nuclei (where fission is endothermic), so fission will always yield neutron rich nuclei. Even if some end up in stable nuclei, most will be radioactive with easily detected radiation. No radiation, no fission! And how does fission help you to explain reactions with Ni?

    I'm not doing elemental analysis, per se. I'm attempting to do modeling of decay rates of isotopes of various elements under electron screening, and this is why I've been talking about elements such as "platinum" and "palladium". Really I'm talking about isotopes of these elements.

    There are experimental papers where only elemental analysis was performed. What I meant was that these results may be unreliable.

    Alpha decay arises by the same mechanism as spontaneous fission (tunneling through the Coulomb barrier), so it's natural to deal with both. Alpha decay is being used to look at the helium in LENR helium/heat experiments, and fission is being used to look at the heat. As Hermes suggests, perhaps it's all very unpromising!

    Both alpha decay and fission are more complex than just barrier penetration! I agree with Hermes that fission is probably not the explanation for LENR.

    @Eric & Hermes
    Two comments and a question:

    N/Z ratio and stability
    If you fission a heavy nucleus both fragments will end up away from the line of stability - they will have the N/Z (number of neutrons/number of protons) ratio of the parent which is too high. The fragments will thus necessarily be radioactive and decay by beta-minus decay (exactly as actinide fission).

    Element analysis versus isotope analysis
    There is a danger of only doing elemental analysis: an element can be transported to a different place in the sample by chemical reactions. Element ratios could then be changed without any nuclear reactions. Isotope analysis would be much better. There could be effects also in this case, but they will be very small since isotopes of a given element have very similar properties.

    Alpha production
    Why do you talk about production of alphas when you are discussing fission? Alpha decay is not considered to be fission in nuclear physics.

    As we can see from papers have been published many places, like in American Physical Society meetings. So LENR will be known by many mainstream scientists.

    Many, but far from all.

    I attended a national nuclear chemistry meeting (ACS) in San Diego 1994 when the element seaborgium (Z=106) was named.

    In the nuclear structure session somebody (I do not recall his name) presented a completely crazy theory with all nuclei built up from alpha-particles. I asked the chairman how such rubbish can be accepted for presentation. The answer was: "It's too much work to write a motivation for rejection. You can always go out for a coffee while the talk is on! :) "

    Have you been able to find the acronyms LENR and CANR? I don't think so. Anyway, let us know, thank you.

    No, LENR and CANR and other CF acronyms are not in the databases.

    About EXFOR: it is straightforward experimental data which are updated when they appear. This is common to all databases - some data will be quite old. Normally that is not a problem, since also old data are usually reliable. There are not enough physicists to re-measure everything all the time!

    For non-professionals I recommend evaluated data, not straight off experimental: Table of Isotopes (mainly decay), ENSDF (nuclear structure), ENDF (reaction cross sections), NSR (references). For masses and reaction Q-values I recommend the Atomic Mass Data Center (earlier Wapstra's mass evaluation).

    Obviously they are not all archived, because cold fusion is a nuclear reaction but it is not archived. It could not be archived in any case, because no one understands the nature of the reaction well enough to fit it into a standard database yet.

    The Nuclear Science References available at BNL contains most experimental papers in nuclear physics. It does not have the tag LENR, you are right there, but funnily enough you can search for 'Cold Fusion'. The problem is that the conventional Nuclear Chemistry (I would use that here) definition is heavy-ion reactions producing super-heavy elements at low energy, resulting in few free nucleons in the exit channel. For traditional nuclear data i have a summary of links on our Nuclear Physics (yes! Physics) web site:…ear-physics/nuclear-data/

    Nuclear chemistry is the subdiscipline of chemistry that is concerned with changes in the nucleus of elements. These changes are the source of radioactivity and nuclear power. Since radioactivity is associated with nuclear power generation, the concomitant disposal of radioactive waste, and some medical procedures, everyone should have a fundamental understanding of radioactivity and nuclear transformations in order to evaluate and discuss these issues intelligently and objectively.

    From the introduction to the Penn State online course.

    If that is so, what is Nuclear Physics? I think Nuclear Chemistry is an historical name for what today is classified as Nuclear Physics. But as long as you don't say Nucilar, it's OK. :)

    I would say: electron shell - Chemistry. Nucleus - Physics.

    Yahoo used (maybe still?) to classify Nuclear Physics as a subgroup of Particle Physics. Historically it is the other way around, but Particle Physics is now considered a separate branch of Physics.

    My source confirmed that I may release the file:…0JsCucYkWtg&type=download
    If that doesn't work, it is in the filespace for newvortex.

    I cannot access any of these. Could you post a readable document, please.

    Edit: Why should these samples be more reliable than the samples given to Sven K in 2011? Rossi himself say they were faked!

    Edit 2: The engineer provided a readable version. The only news is info on who did the analysis. So, a sample has been analysed.

    I can give dozens -- hundreds! -- more examples from science, technology, business, banking, agriculture . . . You name it, I know of examples. I happen to have many books about folly, mistakes and failure.

    Since you can list the follies, they have obviously been identified as such. Of course scientists are sometimes wrong. That is why constructive criticism is so important in the scientific method. There are many poor and misleading LENR-papers - you have said that yourself. Can we dismiss LENR altogether because of that? I don't think you would say that!

    8Be will normally spontaneously fission within about a femtosecond, and that would generate a very hot gamma

    No, the fission as such has no gammas since 4He has no accessible excited states. There is, however, a very very small gamma branch to the 8Be ground state, which the fissions to 2 alphas. The gammas in the process is created by reactions of the two 9 MeV alphas.

    It is easy to take the route of looking at the strange jumble of LENR experiments, balking at the apparent inconsistencies and variable quality, and giving up and tuning it all out. But try some lateral thinking:

    Yes, but not too lateral! (Italics is Eric W):

    Do we already know of something that produces helium, and helium correlated with heat?
    Yes, of course! Bu they produce penetrating radiation directly or indirectly!
    [*]Do we already know of a nuclear process that generally favors stable daughters over unstable ones, all else being equal?
    [*]Not consistently. But reactions and decays usually like high positive Q-values. This would favour stable nuclides, but it is no guarantee.
    [*]Do we already know of cases where the chemical environment has an influence on nuclear processes?
    [*]Very small effects have been seen in electron capture.
    [*]Do we already know of processes that produce x-rays at energies far above any applied voltages?
    Of course, but the energy has to come from somewhere. Takin it in small portions from several sources is in violation with the second law of thermodynamics.

    Edit: Sorry about the ugly looking quotes! The system does not like bullets.

    Eric Walker and I seem to favour fragmentation as a method to explain helium production and to suppress penetrating radiation. But there is a problem - the so called Hagelstein limit - we do not see expected neutrons in deuterated systems from secondary / tertiary reactions. I may be clutching at straws but I would like to see this limit experimentally verified. After all, Peter Hagelstein has been proposing several incompatible models over the last decades. Maybe the limit is not relevant?

    What do you mean by fragmentation? Is it what we call spallation? If yes, it will cost a lot of energy and you would have reactions with negative Q-value. Not very useful since they consume energy.

    Why is fragmentation more promising? Why should it not produce penetrating radiation? Notice that high-energy (fast moving) particles (protons and heavier) produce gammas (typically 100-2000 keV) by Coulomb excitation. And what about neutrons? They are penetrating.

    What link, Peter? Engineer48 certainly sounds made up. Maybe Rossi, maybe an enthusiast, maybe one of Rossi's buddies, many of whom I suspect were his colleagues in prison.

    There is a link at the end of the post with Alan's message. The original is in ECW, and I don't know how to link it directly (it is hidden among more than 400 posts) Aldopho A's post seems to have disappeared, at least I cannot find it. Possibly due to ECW:s censuring principles. It said, in short, that A had access to a series of isotope results that indicated no effect. It is definitely not believable.

    Edit: The disappearance of the post was due to the fact that Adolpho spelt his name inconsistently. 8)

    MY: May be next time you ask somebody familiar with the field!

    As irrational as its sounds for old school physicians, LENR
    transmutation usually happen in clusters of 4 sometimes 2. The exception
    is Li7 which goes down to Li6. So as H,D, Li is just a donor of one P
    and not the product of a typical transmutation.

    Further on LENR avoids unstable nuclei, which may sound even more irrational to old school physicians...

    I suppose I qualify in the group old school physicist (actually both old-school physicist and
    old school-physicist :-)) Yes, as a nuclear physicist I find it
    irrational. There seems to be a separate reality when it comes to LENR:
    coupled reactions, no primary radiation, avoiding unstable nuclides (does
    the parent nucleus have intelligence and knows that the product is
    radioactive?), reduced Coulomb potential and also catalysis. How does
    nature know when to apply LENR laws and when to apply standard nuclear
    physics laws? There is an easier explanation according to Occam's
    razor: there is no nuclear reaction at all. No, Nature is not malicious,
    so if LENR is real it must have at better explanation!

    As far as I can see there is no proof that isotope analysis has even
    been performed. The result is thus a row of numbers with unknown origin,
    so Rossi would not even have to fiddle with the samples.

    My guess is that Engineer48 is Rossi and Aldopho A (see link) is Dewey or somebody connected to IH.

    Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)

    I wonder if Peter could offer his impression of Dubinko's paper cited above. It seems rigorous in development and clear in presentation.
    For me it was the high point of the ICCF19 program (other than Padua itself).

    Which paper are you referring to?

    about superwaves, if confirmed (it seems by McKubre & others) it means the phenomenon is very non-linear.
    if the phenomenon was linear, just sending white or colored noise would do the job.
    here the phase between the frequencies is important.

    no surprise as it is clear LENR is non-linear.

    Thank you all guys for answering my queries about superwaves. I gather it is related to Freak waves for mechanical waves:

    The problem is that they are random. Does that make LENR random?

    Two questions:
    1 Do people still believe in Superwaves for LENR?
    2 I assume the figure shows voltage versus time. This has to be a single valued function. You can not have two different voltages at a certain time.
    Apologies if the question is trivial. :)

    To me the figure looks like a remnant from the fractals that were popular in the 80s. Leaves, coastal lines etc.

    The term Low Energy Nuclear Reaction is used in the patent. Is this the first use of this term (I bet Jed knows this)?

    Yes, if LENR works the reactions definitely must be different. I do not think the whole physics has to be revised (it is mostly so solid that it cannot). But how does the nuclei "know" when the LENR exception kicks in?

    When we ran p+7Li --> 2*alpha for the analysis of Rossis fuel/ash (early 2011) we used a proton energy of 2.5 MeV. The reason was mainly that it is the standard energy for PIXE-analysis. We could probably have used much lower energy, maybe as low as 0.5 MeV. The alpha-particle reactions are well studied, se this thread:
    <a href="">Safety: Lithium Intoxication - Lithium Side Effects ?</a>

    You may imagine 8Be being in an excited state that decays into 2 alphas. Since the states are unbound and short lived, they are very broad (MeV range).

    It makes no difference to the nuclear reactions if the Li is liquid. Only the two colliding nuclei are involved since the energies are much greater than chemical bindings.

    Ikegami thought that there was a difference. He used much lower energy, but I do not trust the results (not published).

    I hope this answers your questions.

    I think You missed a big part of the LENR research discussion. Superwaves were a hot topic around 2004. Everybody knowledgable in the field used them. Superwawes were also used in the Lugano test and this was one reason nobody was able to correctly calculate the resistance of the wires... They are usuall modulated on top of the heating current.

    Of course I have missed a lot. I lost interest after F&P and did other things like most nuclear physicists. The quote sounds like alchemy to me, maybe because I don't understand. The trademarked Superwaves were obviously not the solution??? I don't remember Superwaves from the Lugano report, but I don't read it every day. :)…n/?postID=27727#post27727[/url]']In fact Alain: There is a separate LENR branch called sono-fusion. The COP of their reactors recently has gone up close to 4. May be You should start a seprate thread for this!

    I would not recommend that. A closely related subject (Acoustic
    cavitation) is well and truly debunked by the Uppsala group (Ericsson et al:(

    There are not neutron reactions in LENR, that concept is a destructive fantasy.

    Is that a law of nature? Many LENR theories involve neutrons, but I agree that they do seem to be conspicuous by their absence.

    Ikegama published in 2012 his (AFAIK) first paper descriing the use of Nickel/Lithium - but Rossi had visited Upsalla earlier than that and discussed the use of Li with Roland Pettersen. Maybe as early as 2009.

    Really? I know he tried accelerated deuterons on liquid Li. That had,
    however, no Ni involved. It has not to my knowledge been properly

    As I have pointed out several times: the high energy (9 MeV) alphas will
    produce secondary gammas from inelastic scattering on Li and Ni! Also:
    forget Cook's theory and Mössbauer!