Posts by NEPS*NewEnergy

In order to determine if Aureon Energy Inc. is "making valid LENR experiments", one would need to know the starting materials, which they don't seem to want to publish. You indicated in an above post that their anode "is supplied internally with hydrogen or deuterium at high pressure". Thus, it is possible to assume that the anode(s) is/are made of nickel, palladium, or a combination of materials that enable hydrogen and deuterium to diffuse through them. The hydrogen and deuterium can be expected to diffuse through the material as positive ions. Pressure of the gas can help in the diffusion process. The high voltage between the anode and cathode can be expected to assist in this diffusion process. The high voltage would also support ionization the hydrogen and deuterium gas between the anode and cathode.

it is conceivable that, as the positive deuterons and hydrogen ions find their way through the cracks, crevices and channels of the anode material (due to gas pressure), some transmutations could take place. But, for greater success, the material where transmutation reactions occur will need to be part of cathodes, which are negatively charged.

In an above post, Dr. Richard asked: "So how do you propose we load the cathodes with hydrogen or deuterium if they are not positively charged?" My view is that for transmutation LENR to become more successful, the material where transmutation reactions are made to occur will need to be negatively charged and a component in an electric circuit. This material will, therefore, be considered part of cathodes, which are negatively charged. Cathodes are negative. The hydrogen or deuterium ions are positive.

In relation to this question, look at Professor Mizuno's patent application US20200156182. I think that the reactor body should be at ground potential; the Ni mesh lying along its inner surface should be treated as the cathode; its temperature should be increased by a heater internal to the reactor; and the anode should be in the center of the reactor. Also, helium should not be indicated for use in the gas handling system, as it could be produced as a cold fusion reaction product.

The work by Safire, Aureon Energy appears to involve high voltage ionization of hydrogen and deuterium gas. It is not of interest with regard to LENR and cold fusion.

The above posts provide a view into what will be needed to industrialize cold fusion systems. This information can now be compared with data from the work of others to develop transmutation-based LENR systems (e.g., see progress by Clean Planet, Inc. and Tohoku University discussed in a separate LENR-forum.com thread). While d,d and p,d reactions are of most interest for cold fusion systems development, neutron-type reactions are of interest in transmutation. A theory by K.P. Sinha, discussed in "A Theoretical Model for Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions" (Infinite Energy Magazine, pages 54-57, January/February 2000), is considered by some as important both for cold fusion and transmutation. The theory by Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen, discussed in “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces” (Condensed Matter, pages 1-4, May 2, 2005), is considered by others as important in transmutation. The use of gas pressure, electric field and thermal diffusion to load cathodes in cold fusion systems is emphasized in several of the above posts. Similarily, the importance of pressure (i.e., hydrogen concentration) and temperature gradient is discussed for a transmutation-based system in “Excess Energy Generation using a Nano-sized Multilayer Metal Composite and Hydrogen Gas,” by Yasuhiro Iwamura et al., Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 33, pages 1-13, 2020. The material where cold fusion reactions are made to occur is a negatively charged component in an electric circuit. By comparison, however, the material where transmutation reactions are made to occur is not negatively charged or a component in an electric circuit.

You should be able to purchase it easily from your favorite bookstore for $13.95 (U.S. dollars). Or, if you need a free copy, just let us know your name and mailing address.

It is important that serious readers of these posts take the opportunity to study "Bridging the Gaps: An Anthology on Nuclear Cold Fusion" and also its references.

An earlier email thanked NEPS for its technical inputs (which are many, e.g., in the above posts), and asked if the work is purely theoretical or purely experimental. NEPS has noted that readers of the posts have not provided any supporting technical comments, and this condition could be expected for any experimental details. Thus, the expertise does not appear to exist here for judging the information. Instead, we look to the likes of Storms, Miley, Haglestein, McKubre and other like-minded PhDs for this type of knowledge and expertise.

The above post by Robert Bryant again appears to have a purpose of throwing cold water on NEPS technical contributions by claiming, incorrectly, that NEPS associated scientists "mangled Mizuno's results" by "correlating them with the Uranium FISSION yield curve". The analysis performed by NEPS scientist, however, did not change Mizuno's data. And, the analysis only compared (not correlated) Mizuno's data with the uranium fission yield curve. The paper, "Critical Factors in Transitioning from Fuel Cell to Cold Fusion Technology", also says: "Insufficient data and resolution in the measurements prevent definitive conclusions to be drawn concerning reaction processes. It is interesting to note that hypothetical palladium and nickel "fission yield curves" appear to have the same width-to-midpoint ratio as the uranium fission yield curve."

The above post by Robert Bryant appears to have a purpose of throwing cold water on NEPS technical contributions by claiming, incorrectly, that NEPS is unaware of Professor Mizuno's important work, such as described in Mizuno's paper, "Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel". Conversely, post #7 in this thread that was posted on January 6, 2020, indicates that NEPS associated scientists have been aware of Professor Mizuno's work at least since August 1998, when they presented an analysis of his findings in "Critical Factors in Transitioning from Fuel Cell to Cold Fusion Technology". That paper says: "Relative quantities of elements in the electrodes can begin to be estimated from results obtained by T. Mizuno at Hokkaido University for palladium and G. Miley at Urbana for nickel." The NEPS scientists applied a relatively standard radiochemistry method to analyze Mizuno's and Miley's data. The results from the NEPS scientists were graphed in Figure 2 shown in that paper.

In the above post, Robert Bryant indicates the difficulty in producing pycnonuclear reaction in the laboratory, although such reactions are not planned by the cold fusion community. This appears, therefore, as another "detractor" that will delay programs in cold fusion systems development.

In a recent post, Robert Bryant pointed out that Ichimaru's October 2010 paper was more about hot fusion (i.e., "7-12 Gigapascal theory") than cold fusion, and that the paper doesn't relate very much to LENR (i.e., "such as Mizuno's which actually run under kilopascal and less D2 pressures"). NEPS first mentioned the paper in an earlier post as follows: "In an October 2001 paper, "Radiative Proton-Capture Nuclear Processes in Metallic Hydrogen,” (Physics of Plasmas, Vol 8 (#10), 4284-4291), Setsuo Ichimaru has indicated that "For a possible laboratory detection of, and for the ultimate goal of power production by pycnonuclear reactions, the p-d reactions may (thus) be looked upon as the most promising process. The fusion yields of stable helium-3 and gamma rays (at 5.494 MeV) would not produce dangerous radioactive byproducts." The reason was simply to point out that someone in the scientific community is interested in p-d reactions. Perhaps p-d reactions should also be considered in cold fusion. Another consideration is that p-d reactions should occur more easily than d-d reactions since protons have less mass than deuterons.

In a recent post, Robert Bryant continued to express a view that two deuterons would not collide when they have opposite charges and are accelerated towards each other. A comparison with operation of industrial neutron generators may help to describe the paths directly towards each other that the deuterons would take, so that they would have good probability for colliding. In some neutron generators, an electric potential of about 100 kV is used to accelerate positive deuterium ions through a long, 0.5 meter, evacuated tube. While each of the positive charges can be expected to affect other charges as they travel down the tube, a diagram of self-generated magnetic fields from the many charges can show that the magnetic fields are in the same direction and do not interfere with each other. Currents of 0.06 to 10 milliamperes can produce 10⁸ to 10⁹ neutrons per second. Thus, a great many deuterons with positive charge can be accelerated with good success toward an oppositely charged (cathode) target area. Similar consideration of self-generated magnetic fields from negative charges traveling in the opposite direction can, likewise, show that they are in the same direction and do not interfere with each other.

In one of the above posts concerned with gamma radiation escaping from the cathode, Dr. Richards has asked for “direct evidence for conversion of gamma radiation into infra-red to liberate heat,” as this would be needed for calorimeter calibration. An example that comes to mind is the use by others of cobalt-60 heat sources. The possibility of using cobalt-60 heat sources for remote power was investigated during the 1960s and 70s by DOE’s Savannah River Laboratory. For example, see “Design Definition and Safety Evaluation Study of a Compact 60Co Heat Source in Space, AGN-8441, Aerojet-General Corporation, September 1969. Cobalt-60 is also important in medical and industrial applications due to its relatively long half-life compared to other gamma ray sources. It is used in radiotherapy cancer treatment, food sterilization, and in non-destructive detection of structural flaws in metal parts. Gamma radiation is attenuated by the photoelectric effect (most important for gamma energy below several hundred keV), by Compton scattering (most important for gamma energy between several hundred keV and a few MeV), and by pair production (considered for gamma energies above 1.022 MeV). Each process involves scattering of electrons in construction materials; and, heat is produced as the electrons lose their energy by Coulomb interactions with atoms in the material. In the process of producing heat, gamma radiation can be expected to ionize thousands of atoms and molecules in surrounding construction materials, as only 10 to 1000 eV are needed for each ionization.

The above indicates interest in experimental details that support information in the many NEPS posts provided earlier. As indicated before, this technical area of investigation can be expected to encounter, or to continue to encounter, many detractors. Readers of the posts, thusly, have not provided any supporting technical comments - an issue that can be expected for any experimental details. Furthermore, an arbiter would need to be expected to serve as a judge, an authority, a determiner, a controller, director, master, expert. There has been no evidence of such capabilities in the comments that readers have provided.

The above comment, "I missed the evidence bit too, like Alan" is interesting. Cold fusion and LENR has been demonstrated to be real. For the evidence, one could start with results from Alan's LEN reactor. Then, pick and choose from a great many reports for the more specific areas in which the reader is interested.

The above post was provided simply to address Dr Richard's concern about gamma radiation being produced. The book, "Bridging the Gaps: An Anthology on Nuclear Cold Fusion" contains a data table (see page 85) for example calculations.

The above posts are concerned with gamma radiation escaping from the cathode (i.e., need to shield with dense lead (Pb)/10 feet of concrete; and an example of gammas from the LEN reactor). A reaction chamber containing the cathode and a heat exchanger surrounding the reaction chamber can be designed to be sufficiently thick to absorb practically all 5.5 MeV gamma radiation from the p, d reactions, converting the radiation into heat. The XCOM photon-cross-section database available from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) can be referenced to determine amounts of gamma ray energy absorbed in various materials; and, attenuation calculations can be performed on the web with one of several x-ray/gamma radiation calculators. Much of the primary gamma radiation will be absorbed through a combination of the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering and pair production. Additional radiation could be absorbed if a steel sleeve around the cathode were replaced by a tungsten sleeve. Any remaining radiation could be prevented from being hazardous to operators by housing the generator in a room that provides a safe keep-out distance.

The amount of radiation leakage during operation will need to be monitored with a high-energy gamma radiation detector or spectrometer located outside of the heat exchanger. The spectrometer should be able to provide a history of radiation levels during system operation, showing the radiation’s “full-energy peak” at 5.5 MeV, with related lower energies. The appearance of the spectrum can be estimated with the “The Gamma Spectrum Generator (GSG)” provided by the Joint Research Centre Institute for Transuranium Elements in Karlsruhe, Germany.

Data from these recent posts indicate that industrialization of cold fusion systems with long-lasting cathodes should be more successful if based upon (p,d) fusion than for systems based upon (d,d) fusion.

By comparison, deuterium-deuterium (d, d) cold fusion experiments have demonstrated that sufficient energy can be produced in the microscopic, local vicinity where reactions occur to melt the reaction material. This concern stems from the observation of “volcanoes” formed from melted metal on cathode (palladium) surfaces. The volcanoes have a diameter of a few tenths of a micron to tens of microns. Depths are about the same as the diameters. Temperature of the material would need to be raised by at least 1500 degrees for melting. Since the heat capacity of metals is 25 joules per mole per degree-Kelvin, about 20 reactions at 5 MeV each (a total of 100 MeV or 0.016 nanojoule) should provide enough energy to “melt” a million (10⁶) atoms of the material.

For extended operation, it seems, therefore, that the amount of energy produced per reaction site might need to be controlled, especially if the focus were on (d, d) fusion. Visualize the nickel surface internal to each of these very small spaces as having an internal circumference of approximately 3.9 microns (3.9 x 10^-4 cm), an internal surface area of 4.8 square microns, a volume of one cubic micron, and a radius of 0.6 micron. The surface would contain about 8,000 metal atoms around a circumference, and 2 x 10⁷ atoms around its internal surface. Also consider the number of metal atoms in an imaginary sphere centered on and surrounding the small space. If the sphere has a radius of 2 microns, for example, it would have a volume of 40 cubic microns. The volume of 40 cubic microns, less the volume of small space (1cubic micron), would contain 3 x 10⁷ atoms. Since only 20 reactions at 5 MeV each (a total of 0.016 nanojoule) can provide enough energy to “melt” a million (10⁶) atoms of the material, these atoms (3 x 10⁷ atoms) would be expected to melt if they absorbed energy from 600 or more cold fusion reactions.

WRT item “j”, it is next important to estimate energy within each of the cathode’s reaction sites. A cubic centimeter of nickel would contain 10²² atoms if the metal atoms were separated by approximately 5 Angstroms (5 x 10^-8 cm). Instead of solid metal, consider a cubic centimeter of cathode reaction material produced, for example, by consolidating nickel metal particles. If a cubic centimeter contains a total of 2.7 x 10¹⁰ spaces between the metal particles (emulating cracks/crevices/defects), it would have about 3000 spaces along each dimension. As an estimate of energy that could be produced in each small space, assume that it could be loaded with 20,000 deuterium and hydrogen atoms, providing the possibility of 10,000 (p, d) cold fusion reactions, and assume that each of the reactions were able to produce 5 MeV of energy. Gamma radiation from the (p, d) cold fusion reactions would be adsorbed by the entire cold fusion generator mass, rather than within the local reaction sites. Since 1 MeV equals 1.6 x 10^-13 joule, 10,000 reactions would produce 8 x 10^-9 joule. This is only eight nanojoules – a very small amount of energy. A total of 2.7 x 10¹⁰ spaces, however, may be able to produce 216 joules/cm³. If this energy were produced each second, then it would result in 216 watts of power for each cubic centimeter of reaction material, which is about the same power density as that produced by nuclear fission power plants.

This technical area of investigation can be expected to encounter, or to continue to encounter, many detractors. A review of Ichimaru’s October 2001 paper, for example, makes it clear that the paper does not discuss muons as a reason for the reactions. Even some well-regarded scientists from the hot fusion community have focused upon alternative information as a type of detractor. The basic problem is that they have not been convinced that nuclear fusion can be made to occur without high voltages or temperatures required for hot fusion.