Display More
https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/technology/Note that QHe mechanism is incorrect because Cold Fusion will not be patented due to no common understanding of Cold Fusion mechanism.
Because patent examiners should not be involved in determining the principle of cold fusion, patent application of Cold Fusion will not be patented.
Thus all of the reasearchers must discuss the mechanism of Cold Fyusion in the Society of Physics, including nuclear physics.
Cold Fusion is caused by femto-D2 which electron orbit is at a few femto meters from the nucleus.
but transmutation experiment by Iwamura is inconsistent with nuclear physics because the experiments showed that d is constituted by two protons not by proton and beutron.
Correct Nucleus Model Proved by Transmutation Experiment by Cold Fusion.pdf
Thus common understanding in Physics Society must have the discussion that current nucleus model is incorrect.
No other way to make Cold Fusion real science.
femto-H2 decomposed by bibration of H-H at high heat, so it will be two neutrons( proton with electron in deep orbit)
Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38167629/
The reason (8) above is possible is because neutrin is a pair of proton and electron in deep orbit.
P is a proton with electron in deep orbit.
In other words, femtohydrogen molecules decompose into femtohydrogen atoms at high temperatures.
Because neutrons are formed.
This means that the idea that neutrons are composite particles of protons and electrons in deep electron orbits is correct.
The author has been contacted.
Therefore I think that "As a result of the reaction, copper is synthesized from nickel and a large amount of thermal energy is released!!!" is correct.
This can be a new version of Cold Fusion and I hope this trigger the discussion that current nucleus model is incorrect.
This is a great example of what I DO NOT LIKE about the field of LENR.
I agree that this would be a great thing to master, but the problem arises with the fact that even though this is a proper reaction (real and factual) we simply generally do not even believe it is possible.
The experimental results are trace qtys of 17O and 22Ne. We'd need a person very experienced in mass spectometry (not sure if any are here) to determine what are the possible false positives reading spectra and therefore how reliable are these results. There is no serious exploration of this possibility in the paper. Nor of reaction-induced outgassing of material that could lead to these results. Thus it can be a combination of these two potential mechanisms which opens up a lot of things to consider and rule out.
Many people here present the straw man that such reactions are not believed because of the Coulomb barrier and the perceived difficulty of making nuclear reactions happen.
I disagree, Personally, I have no problem envisaging weird QM processes that allow normally forbidden nuclear transitions. Many such processes have been suggested here.
The problem with the "low-level nuclear reactions of many different sorts happen quite easily" is what happens to the excess energy. It goes like this:
- Nuclear energy scales are much higher than chemical
- The chances of nuclear reactions exactly balancing (energetically) are low - and indeed the reaction proposed here as +3MeV or so.
- The expected high energy particles are never observed
- Coupling MeV energy scales 100% (or even 50%) to eV energy scales - allowing the excess energy to turn into heat - seems pretty well impossible.
Hagelstein noted this a long time ago and I know tried for quite a while to find solutions. That work or equivalent, if it had experimental evidence and the theory panned out, is what this "lots of nuclear reactions happen" view needs for people to start entertaining it as a sane hypothesis.
And remember - we need not just a "could possibly happen" coupling method. We need a reason why ONLY those nuclear reactions that couple near 100% in this way are allowed: otehrwise we would be getting clearly unambuguous high energy product signatures.
The disconnect for me here is that when you look holistically at the whole problem - people do not join these dots and instead suspend disbelief in this area (where are the high energy results?). Because if you had to characterise what was special about LENR you would say:
LENR reactions do not produce high energy result particles, nor unstable reaction products.
And the skeptics like me would note that this needs an explanation, and there is one obvious candidate:
"The apparent LENR reactions are in fact not nuclear reactions."
which ticks all the boxes in explaining this characteristic.
So: to make this type of "everywhere in many ways" LENR believable I need a better answer to the question: "where are the high energy products / unstable products"?". And I think most physicists who look at the LENR collection of evidence seriously would have the same question.