Andrea Calaon Member
  • Male
  • 49
  • from Monza (Italy)
  • Member since Oct 20th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Andrea Calaon

    Why do electrons in Hyd's play by different rules than normal electrons, even relativistic ones? Is this not a hint that the system is unphysical?

    Eric, the Hyd may well be physical, but I think in this case we are talking about two different things.
    When I say that the electron size shrinks I speak about a free electron. When its speed is relativistic relative to the observer, the observer will see a smaller electron.
    The electron inside the Hyd does not "travel" at relativistic speeds. The Hyd could absorb energy and the electron would simply spirograph-like rotate more quickly "around" the hydrogen nucleus. I am not sure about the possibility of the photon absorption. However, in the case of the absorption, the size of the Hyd would not change, at least not much. In fact it would do it in proportion to the added energy, which is in the 100[eV] range, while the electron energy (that "defines" its size) is 511[keV]. The Hyd is not defined by the Hamiltonian for the electron in an atom. It is defined by a Hamiltonian in which the main component is the magnetic attraction.

    Most nuclear reactions "almost always" fail to conserve linear momentum and spin without gamma emission. The fact that there is an unexpected class of reactions which do not predict radiation is intriguing. I feel you still haven't explained why energy considerations cannot explain lack of radiation. In order for Collis' ENP reactions to produce gammas, there would need to populate a low lying excited state of the appropriate spin. These are unlikely, so cases probably haven't been discovered yet. Incidentlly your comment would apply to your own theory too.

    Collis explains the lack of radiation through these three properties of LENR reactions:

    • There should be two reactants (no decay and no multi-body reactions) and more than one product, in order to have the chance to conserve linear momentum and avoid prompt gammas. In fact whenever momentum is not conserved the excess energy of the daughter is liberated in single large quanta (prompt gammas).
    • Spin should be conserved, again to avoid prompt gammas, which would be needed to take away the excess of spin angular momentum.
    • One of the two reactants must be neutral.
    • One of the products must be neutral.
    • The products must not be unstable decaying nuclei, i.e. the reactions should go straight to the final and stable nuclei, “jumping” the formation of unstable isotopes on the reaction path.

    Neutrons cannot be the neutral agents for LENR because they do not cause only reactions following rules 1 and 2, they do not select only little energy differences and they cannot select reaction paths with no radioactive nuclides. So there must be a new neutral particle with some properties which cause the 5 special features.

    About the preference for stable nuclides, the presentation of Collis says:

    “We start from stable isotopes so if reaction energies are intrinsically low (not the case for nuclear captures) then there is a chance the products will be stable also.
    Most, (but not all) beta radioactive products produce gammas which would be lethal at a few Watts.”

    Collis speaks about a process in which a nucleus does not capture a proton, nor a neutron. He says “we are doing something much less energetic”, and this is where his tale becomes mysterious (at least to me). My theory explains qualitatively the energy fractionation (as due to the neutral particle, but Collis does not mention my theory in his talk. So what are the less energetic reactions he is talking about?

    Nuclear reactions essentially consist in changes to the number of neutrons and/or protons inside nuclei. Most of these changes liberate large quanta of energy which should be clearly “visible” in LENR experiments (proton or neutron capture/emission, beta decay (plus or minus), alpha emission and fission, all well dressed with gammas). Collis is thinking instead about nuclear reactions which:

    • by following rules 1 and 2, do not emit gammas;
    • produce stable nuclei directly.

    He says that with “gentle” changes stable nuclei should transmute into other stable nuclei. However nuclear reactions are never “gentle”, and, apart from the LENR exception, nothing prevents the generation of radioactive nuclides if these happen to be on the reaction path, even from processes liberating relatively small quantities of energy. The only escape from this dead-end road for me is the existence of a mechanism for energy fractionation, which also (in addition) favours stable nuclides.

    Rules 1 and 2 are necessary to prevent prompt gamma emissions IF the nuclear reactions of LENR are identical to the known ones. However there could be a novel mechanism which does not need to satisfy rules 1 and 2 because it:

    • Fractionates the nuclear quanta into much less energetic bits while not changing the intermediate nuclear “steps” (nuclides and nuclear states). In fact the intermediate steps MUST be the ones we know, otherwise the nuclei produced by the LERN would need to be DIFFERENT from those we know. And this is not possible.
    • Can prevent the actual formation of unstable nuclides.

    Back to my theory:

    My theory suggests a mechanism which should allow to break rules 1 and 2 without gamma emissions, by fractionating the large nuclear quanta into smaller EUV quanta. This thanks to the fact that the nucleus remains “trapped” inside the electron ZB, so that additional “intermediate” energy levels at distances of tens of eV appear between the known “gamma-spaced” levels.

    The preference for stable nuclides should be due to the continuous perturbation of the electron which does not allow the formation of unstable nuclei. However this perturbation does not interfere with the weak interaction, so that purely beta decaying nuclei can actually be produced (and in fact tritium is definitely produced).

    So the precise and “unavoidable” criteria which William Collis suggests in his presentation, with the caveats explained, seem to match what my theory predicts.

    R.Mill extensively describes the energy transfer between a catalyst and hyd (H*, H#). Andreas proposal is theroef just a cut and paste!
    The general problem with an energy quantum of 85eV (81.6eV + band gap as Mills) is, that a catalyst (Ca, Zr,Pd,Fe..) is able to accept this energy as a classical quantum, but hyd is not allow to release it!

    Please read my presentation before commenting. I would appreciate it.

    As far as I understand the theory, hyd level electron orbits are below QM minimum levels. R. Mills, with the help of semi-classical analysis, showed that hyd states posses no possibility to radiate

    The Hyd (if it exists) must be defined by an equation analogous to the Shrödinger/Pauli/Dirac equation, but with an additional energy term which prevails over the electrostatic energy. The Hyd is not the Hydrino. You keep considering the Hyd an Hydrino, but it is not so.

    These facts are in line with many LENR experiments which show that the ignition is primarily of kinetic (Delta function at nuclear level?) nature.

    Ignition of kinetic nature? Could you please be more specific? Delta function at nuclear level? What do you mean?

    The question was how you can add 85 eV and lower the electron trajectory to get H*? - That's phantasy.

    What definitely is impossible: A low orbit hyd state can not be reached by absorbing a photon. In contrary the enrgy must be released!

    You do not add 85 eV. The initial 85 eV necessary to extract the electron from its orbital are given by the nuclear force (magnetic attraction) between the electron and the hydrogen nucleus. Then the rest of the binding energy of the Hyd is liberated in chunks with energy near to 85 eV. The binding energy of the Hyd should be in the hundreds of keV range.

    You must remove (re-emit!) 85 eV, which only could work for the transversal kinetic Mills process.

    We've understood you favour Mills' theory ... :S Transversal kinetic? If you think Mills' is the correct theory for LENR, why bother analysing other theories and try to reinterpret them through Mills'?

    But up to now absorption of energy always leads to an increase of charge radius!

    Increase in charge radius? What do you mean? Anything seen travelling at relativistic speeds contracts, but does not increase.

    Above you’re merely echoing the common wisdom that the atomic environment has little effect on nuclear decays;

    Yes, I am echoing something that comes from the expertise of most physicist who worked in the field, I guess. This matter has been explored by hundreds of carefully checked experiments, and non-equilibrium-thermodynamics does not go that far in increasing electron density.

    “We might in these [nuclear] processes obtain very much more energy than the proton supplied, but on the average we could not expect to obtain energy in this way. It was a very poor and inefficient way of producing energy, and anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine.” (Rutherford.)
    “There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” (Einstein.)
    “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” (Lord Kelvin.)
    “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” (Also Lord Kelvin!)

    Let me try to reply to these unlucky forecasts:

    • Rutherford was commenting on the work of two of his students who had bombarded lithium with ACCELERATED protons, and goes back to 1932. From Wikipedia: “accelerator-induced fission of light elements remains too inefficient to be used in this way, even today”. The phrase of Rutherford sounds to apply to any nuclear reaction, but it was based only on that experience with accelerated protons. Neutrons were discovered by James Chadwick the same year of the unlucky phrase of Rutherford.
    • The phrase of Einstein is about a technology, which at that time would have had to be based on an unknown mechanism. In fact he said “indication”, not that it was impossible.
    • Lord Kelvin was simply an arrogant chap.

    Thermodynamics tells us that concentration of electron density would not happen spontaneously. It has little to offer us as a guide as to what would happen under dynamic perturbations from external forces. I’m suggesting that dynamic conditions brought about in the external environment might produce far more significant changes in electron density than thought up to now. Here we’re talking not about static systems but instead dynamic ones. The energy for concentrating the electrons would presumably come from external stimuli of various kinds, such as varying magnetic fields and arc discharge. What would be important would be that they induce a movement of electrons from one location to another. Forces like z-pinch might constrain the current to a narrow waist. Anything at that waist would be subject to higher electron density. Another possibility is for electrons to pool in great numbers at sharp protrusions and other surface defects. Again we’re considering the dynamic case and not the static, equilibrium case.

    The assumption at the present time seems to be that electron density is very static and hard to change. But perhaps that is just laziness going back to the fact that it’s hard to model solid state systems. There might be far larger swings in electron density than understood up to now, for very brief moments. As long as the timespan for those swings is long in comparison to the timespan of the strong interaction, I think things could get interesting

    My experience is that thermodynamics has a lot to say about non-equilibrium. Going outside the domain of non-equilibrium thermodynamics inside condensed matter requires extraordinary conditions … possibly those generated by well orchestrated nuclear reactions. The concentration of energy near to nuclei for very high electron densities based on chemical processes remains utterly unlikely in my opinion. To obtain high electron densitites the electron orbitals near to the nucleus of relatively heavy atoms should be squeezed inside. But chemistry can hardly touch orbitals beyond valence ones.

    In my opinion you are following the impossible path of energy concentration for your theory. Sharp protrusions, z-pinch, … what about non-linear phonos? I think you are betting on the wrong horse. Chemical processes (in their widest definition) can not access the nuclear well without specific mechanisms outside the standard model. I am repeating myself …

    Wouldn’t similar scattering lengths and effective ranges for p-p and n-n scatterings suggest that protons (with charge) and neutrons (with any internal charge canceling out) are interacting with one another in a way that is independent of charge, rather than an outcome of it, since the net charge is dramatically different in each case?

    Here I do not exactly understand this question.

    The p-n scattering parameters must be similar enough to the p-p and n-n scatterings for physicists to arrive at the overwhelming conclusion that the nuclear force is an attractive (and at close ranges repulsive) force independent of the electromagnetic interaction at energies below that dictated by a unified field theory that has yet to be discovered. You might disagree with the conclusion; but perhaps you’ll agree that physicists are strongly convinced of it?

    Yes, absolutely, definitively, … yes.

    A fact is however that p-p and n-n are not bound, while deuterium, although weakly bound in its triplet state is stable. Moreover if nucleons arrange in nuclei in the fcc isospin - antiferromagnetic lattice, as suggested by Cook, the data about scattering from nuclei (above hydrogen and neutrons) could well be very similar to that of a charge-independent nuclear force, despite having only p-n attractions, I guess.

    I just noticed that another word that can be used here is “rosetta”.

    I prefer spirograph. Words reminding of childhood are always better for our brains, I think.

    When the electron bound in a Hyd absorbs a photon, will it will acquire one unit of angular momentum? In atomic orbitals, the additional orbital angular momentum leads to a transition from, e.g., an s-orbital (no angular momentum) to a p-orbital. The orbital angular momentum is separate from the intrinsic angular momentum, and it forces in the electron into occupying the strange and remarkable shapes described by the spherical harmonics:

    The electron in Hyds cannot exist into orbitals because the very existence of an electron IS its ZB (the ZB gives it mass, inertia, magnetic moment, …), so changing it would mean to destroy the electron. Therefore the only thing that could happen is the increase in the (spirograph) orbital component. The orbital momentum of the Hyd must be quantized, I agree. I am not sure however if it can change value. It should instead remain equal to the sum of the spin angular momentum of the electron plus that of the hydrogen nucleus, like in any nucleus. The orbital component (due to the spirograph-like movement) is very tiny and should in some way be “eaten” by the electron spin, analogously to what happens to the ZB radius seen by an external observer which shrinks when the electron reaches relativistic speeds relative to that observer. I should investigate better these matters.

    I think the orbital angular momentum will also be relevant in obtaining the magnetic moment?

    If you actually calculate its contribution it is a minuscule component. In fact it corresponds to the unitary charge (e) travelling at the electron ZB radius (193[fm]) with a frequency which is much lower than the ZB electron frequency, and so it generates a correspondingly lower magnetic moment (the ZB motion generates the magnetic moment of the electron). The frequency ratio (here I write the circular frequencies) is about 2E16/2.5E20=8E-5, so the orbital component is this tiny fraction of the electron magnetic moment.

    Condition I is when the frequency of the electron plus the orbital contribution is equal to the frequency of the proton divided by the integer in the first column. Condition II is when the frequency of the proton plus the contribution divided by the integer is equal to the electron frequency.

    The energy for the formation of the Hyd at its lowest energy level is 85 eV. But then the Hyd could absorb a photon of 557[eV] (or 556.4 when inverting the rotation direction) and reach the next energy level (one upper and one lower in the multiplier scale) which has a higher spirograph-like component.

    Condition II in chemical system is clearly unreachable.

    It is interesting that the first excitation level in Condition I and II could have been seen respectively by Holmlid and by the people of the p+Li7->Be8 internal pair production anomaly.

    Still quite an open question, but different energy levels would mean a simple way of detection of the Hyds!

    The magnetic moment of the Hyd should be practically the sum of the magnetic moments of its components, like any nucleus. So its magnetic moment should be very similar to that of the electron, which is very large in nuclear terms. You can find this on slide 14 of my presentation. The large magnetic moment should be responsible for the significant deviation in the angular correlation in the internal pair creation from protons against Li7. Plus the large magnetic moment should also allow to trap Hyds in solids or magnetic traps. Explosions in LERN experiments should be essentially due to the accumulation of Hyd in condensed matter.

    1991 patent,

    I had a quick look at the patent. I have to say that my trust on the scientific value of patents is near to nil. The explanation given for the accelerated decay goes on the lines of your explanation, sure. The problem is the realistic magnitude of the influence of the atomic (i.e. electronic) environment on nuclear decay matters.

    Another relevant article that you might find interesting (dated 1993):…dNuclear/decay_rates.html.

    The comment at the end of the web page says: “All told, the existence of changes in radioactive decay rates due to the environment of the decaying nuclei is on solid grounds both experimentally and theoretically. But the magnitude of the changes is nothing to get very excited about.“

    I am far from an expert of these subjects, but I would trust the comment.

    Your attempt Eric seems to me to share the problems of the LENR theories which predict extraordinary concentration of energy in a single very small volume of the lattice. In fact obtaining very high electron densities, which would significantly influence nuclear decay rates, would require extraordinary high energy concentration, which is thermodynamically too unlikely.

    on what basis do you assert that the electron has structure? Shouldn’t that be something borne out by experiment?

    The ZB frequency is very high, so it is not easy measure it, however there are some experiments showing data in agreement with the ZB of the electron:

    David Hestenes commented this effort in the reference I gave you some comments ago:

    Essentially an 80MeV electron beam crosses a thin silicon crystal and at 0[deg] (pass through) there is an 8% dip in the transmission rate at the expected energy/frequency.

    You can also have a look at some of these:

    Charge independence is not simply a theoretical supposition; it’s an experimental conclusion. It is a conclusion that comes from doing things like noting the isospin of various systems at different energy levels, and then looking at angular correlation in neutron-proton and proton-proton scattering. All else being equal, systems with the same isospin demonstrate the same behavior. This is a very different case from, e.g., string theory, where there’s very little experimental evidence that can be produced to sift between different possibilities. In this case there are lots of experiments to account for.

    An example is the deviation from Rutherford scattering, i.e., deviation from a pure Coulomb potential as neutrons and protons are scattered at moderate energies, which is also seen as protons and protons are scattered. Once one factors out the Coulomb repulsion that arises only between two protons, the scattering data look similar. Since the strong force is 1000 times stronger than the Coulomb force, there should be a clear signal.

    See also ch. 4 of Krane, “Introduction to Nuclear Physics” (a textbook), as well much of Bethe and Morrison, “Elementary Nuclear Theory” (another textbook). It’s fine to take a position at variance with mainstream physics on the question of charge independence, I suppose, but be prepared to be asked to respond to some very difficult experimental questions that point in a different direction. Physicists will ignore you if you don't have good answers for those questions, so it's worth the time to really look into this.

    So, charge independence. The absence of a bound state for p-p and n-n comes from the the theory of the magnetic attraction, and I can not change it. As I said, I am discussing this matters with Norman Cook and Valerio Dallacasa, who know much more than me about scattering results with nucleons. I know that p-p (corrected for the Coulomb interaction) and n-n scatterings have similar scattering lengths and effective ranges. Which I suppose is not in contrast with the features of the magnetic attraction mechanism. p-n scattering has instead slightly different parameters.

    The magnetic force hypothesis predicts a dependence on reciprocal spin orientation and can depend on the momentum of the nucleons for high energies. However it is not clear if it can be responsible also for the repulsion between nucleons.

    Anyway I think you are right about physicists ignoring the magnetic force proposal, and, with it the whole EMNR theory, if the model does not answer all detailed questions correctly. I am aware of this. I will try and study more in this direction.

    I would like to stress however that my contribution can not be in going into the details of the magnetic attraction mechanism and compare it with a mole of scattering and other experiments and nuclear data. This could be done by professionals in the field. I do something very different for a living. My contribution instead can be in suggesting that, if mass is rotational frequency, and identical (or multiple) rotational frequency means attraction, the electron with its mass (and intrinsic frequency), can feel the nuclear force. This requires an orbital contribution for the “frequency match” which can be provided by some sub-valence electron orbitals. If one uses the ionization energies as proxy of the energy/frequency of these sub-valence orbitals, the list of the best atoms starts with Osmium, Calcium and Palladium, and Zr is not far. Osmium is rare, expensive and nasty, so it has never been used in LENR experiments (as far as I know). But Ca and Pd are the base of the device of Iwamura, who has the only device activated by diffusion only(!). And Pd is the material which started the whole story ...

    At 2 fm the Coulomb force is not 1000 times smaller than the nuclear force. It is smaller, but by less than one order of magnitude.

    How do you differentiate between an electron trapped in the Coulomb potential of a positively charged proton (i.e., an atom) and an electron-proton system that forms a neutral (and very large) composite particle (a nucleon)? Is the neutron also composed of an electron and a proton in this scheme, with the electron orbiting within a much smaller radius? If not, why not?

    Is the binding energy of the Hyd a smoothly varying function, or is it quantized into energy levels? Or is it constant?

    If the force that binds the electron to the proton in the Hyd is magnetism, does the Hyd have a large magnetic moment?

    An electron in an atomic orbital cannot feel the nuclear force because it doesn’t have the correct orbital frequency and, when it is near it, it is shielded by the other core electrons. So it resides in an orbital, which is defined by an Hamiltonian contemplating only kinetic and coulomb (plus spin, …) energies. The electron in the Hyd instead feels a stronger force and its Hamiltonian has a “magnetic attraction term” which sort of “prevails” on the kinetic energy operator (the Coulomb energy is anyway attractive). It is this term which I guess could be the additional term missing in the Hamiltonian for high temperature superconductivity. This term should be responsible for the otherwise inexplicably strong electron-phonon necessary for the formation of Cooper pairs at high temperature. If sub-valence orbitals, which are the “floor” for metallic (and superconductive) orbitals, react strongly to phonons, the (metallic)electron-phonon coupling should appear.

    I regard the Hyd as a neutral nucleus, because the mechanism which keeps the electron and the hydrogen nucleus together is the same which keeps nucleons together in ordinary nuclei.

    A neutron is a totally different thing. It is almost as a proton, small, massive … and differs from the proton not only by an electron, but also by an anti-neutrino. I guess the neutrino component is not electromagnetic, so Hyd and neutron are two very different objects.

    Energy levels in the Hyd. Excellent question! You are the first to ask this. The equations say that the Hyd could have energy levels, since the frequencies of the electron and of the hydrogen nucleus have only to be multiple of each other, but the multiplier is free.

    Attached you can find the table of the first “possible” energy levels.

    I don't follow your logic. Why cannot energetic arguments, explain stable products, or more accurately, as Collis shows, lack of detectable radiation?

    The path from a stable nuclear state/nucleon/set of nuclei to another eventually stable state/... with lower energy is almost always full of intermediate states which are not stable and emit "radiation". The roles defining the path/the steps between two stable states do not contemplate mechanisms for jumping the intermediate states based on the energy.
    When transmutations take place (A and/or Z change) the lowest energy differences are still "radiation" because they are in the MeV range. When neutron manage to "enter" nuclei they "always" generate excited new nuclei which need to emit gamma, as William Collis mentioned.

    Andrea would the Hyd mimic in some way a Neutron as far as nuclear
    forces are concerned? I respect your ideas that those forces are EM in nature but have to understand it a bit deeper your theory. I suppose not otherwise I guess we would still see a neutron capture cross section dependence?
    or is it just the large cross section of the Hyd that ensures it's interaction with the nucleus?
    Could experiments be run with certain tracers to verify your ideas maybe such as Osmium for example?
    would it work also for Nickel as well as Palladium? .

    Well, Stephen, good luck with conventional physics! William suggest otherwise, he suggest the existence of an unknown neutral particle, which seems to have a lot in common with my Hyd.

    In the Hyd proton and electron do not interact weakly, each remains a separate entity, as nucleons in nuclei (I agree with the nuclear model of Norman D. Cook). I don't know if the cross sections for the Hyd are similar to those for neutrons, but there should be cross sections for the "capture" of a Hyd by a nucleus. Hyd have the electron "rotating" at the right frequency, so they should interact nuclarly (in my theory this means through the magnetic attraction mechanism) near to any nucleus.
    I don't know if the large size of the Hyd does give it special nuclear properties; I mentioned the large size of the Hyd when I was talking about the scattering of Hyds inside condensed matter.

    I always suggest to accelerate protons against ZrO2 or OsO and measure EUV. Os is very expensive and the tetraoxyde is troxic. The NAE orbital of Palladium is a bit deep (6th) and is well shielded by valence/metallic electrons, so it is not easy to use it. Probably the need for very high deuterium loading ratios is due to the need to take away from the Pd cores as many electrons as possible, not only the metallic ones. Ni is not a good NAE, but can be used to carry hydrogen at high density.

    You give an electron radius of 193 fm, and the electron is said to be rotating at the speed of light (slide 7). In this sense you seem to be envisioning the electron as an extensive body of some kind, rather than a field with a probability density. Is it the outer radius of the electron field that rotates at the speed of light, or is this the speed of the rotation of the center? Is there some kind of shearing that arises from different areas rotating at different speeds? Or something else?

    Hi Eric, I was away for a while, I am now back.

    The description of the electron I give is not mine, comes from the Dirac equation reformulated through Geometric Algebra (totally equivalent) and reinterpreted in geometrical terms. You can have a look at the publications of David Hestenes like these ones:

    Essentially the electron appears to be a point charge (or very pointy) which has an intrinsic rotation movement at the speed of light, which by the way should not make sense for charge sources. Anyway these properties of the electron emerged in many different papers by many authors. In the CF arena Holmlid leverages on the theory of Hirsch for the interpretation of his experimental results, and that theory uses an equivalent description of the electron with the same radius of 193[fm]. Some researchers propose a radius of 386[fm], the double, but the discussion is more or less limited to that. So the electron seems to have a size, and the reduced Compton length is not just a useful tool, it actually is the measure of a geometrical structure. The electron seems to carry a clock. When we see electrons travel at relativistic speeds, we also see the radius shrink exactly as SR prescribes. Sort of automatically.

    The probability density and all the rest remains as you know it from QM. No difference. For sure, the ZB geometrical interpretation naturally “suggests” the localization of the electron and Hidden Variables ... But that regards the INTERPRETATION of QM, and could be for another talk.

    The size of the electron is intermediate between the size of the nucleus and that of atoms. The size and properties of electron orbitals is determined by the ZB “essence” of the electron. The reason for the ZB rotation is unknown, but the electron has a structure, despite the so called Copenhagen interpretation prescribes not to consider it. Here the talk could be long and we would need to enter into Hidden Variables …

    You say that nuclei are attracted to one another through magnetic attraction, arising from the magnetism resulting from spinning of charges internal to the nucleons (slide 4). How are we to understand the approx. equal binding energy between two neutrons as between a neutron and a proton? (Because of Fermi statistics, two neutrons cannot form a triplet state and can only coexist in a singlet state, but the singlet state is unbound.)

    Here you are going straight into the core of the description of the nuclear force through the magnetic attraction. Very acute (seriously). Describing nucleons with one single rotating charge necessary ends with the contradiction you mentioned. But if you use three charges as the quarks’, you actually get that n-n is unbound, as als p-p. There can be binding only for p-n pairs. In other words the magnetic attraction mechanism (real or not as it may be) tells you that identical systems of rotating multiple charges can not have a positive binding energy. I am discussing these subjects in these months with Dallacasa and Cook.

    With the Hyd, the electron is doing a spirograph-like pattern around the much heavier proton (slide 12). What happens to the spherical harmonics needed by quantum mechanics, within which an electron is normally confined? You say that the binding energy of the Hyd is in the MeV (slide 14) and that beta decay of free neutrons has a small branch that yields Hyds (slide 14). The energy of a neutron beta decay is ~ 782 keV. Is the binding energy of Hyds variable? Or is the binding energy actually below but close to the order of MeV?

    Spirograph-like, that’s the English compact description I was looking for! Thank you Eric! Davidson suggested me the expression “racetrack” for the proton inside the electron ZB and you this. Sometimes a single word/expression is better than lengthy explanations.

    The electron is confined into orbitals, which have angular dependencies structured upon spherical harmonics, only when it is “trapped” inside an atom. The electron in the Hyd is not trapped inside an atom. The Hyd is a neutral nucleus, free to travel through structures of charged particles.

    About the binding energy: WELL SPOTTED! My latest understanding is that the binding energies of the Hyds are in the hundreds of [keV] range. So slide 14 is not up to date. I checked on my working version of the presentation and it had been updated, but the web version is still old. Thank you again. I will update soon.

    You mention that Hyds should be able to travel more freely in condensed matter than neutrons (slide 14). Note that as a hydrogen atom is drawn into a metal such as palladium, the electron is stripped off and becomes unbound, because of its large cross section for interacting with other electrons in the metal. What keeps the electron bound in the case of the Hyd as the Hyd travels through a material?

    Here i don’t know if I understand your question right. The electron in the Hyd is bound to the p/d/t through the magnetic attraction, which should be the nuclear force, and the binding energy is some hundreds of [keV], plus the Hyd is a neutral nucleus (it is not a particle). Chemistry is at energies far below and there is no chemical way to break the Hyd apart.
    Hyd should be quite difficult to detect because they are neutral and do not generate “spectacular” (energetic) emissions when they cause nuclear reactions.

    I haven’t done my homeworks reading what you suggested me. I will do it soon.

    Andrea, even though I don't find your explanation accessible to intuition, I like the creativity behind it.

    Have you had a look at the presentation (or at my article on JCMNS) on my web-page?:

    I have a number of people who asked me questions about my theory (inclusive Edmund Storms, Norman Cook and William Collis) because they had actually read my proposal and wanted to better understand it. Generally I was told it is more or less accessible to intuition, but it is not the same for everyone. Thank you anyway for appreciating what you call "creativity", although creativity in this context sounds more like the equivalent of making things up ...

    What important classes of results have I missed?


    I'm suggesting that short-lived, very high electron density transients lead to (1) fission of otherwise stable medium and heavy nuclides; (2) alpha decay of nuclides theoretically unstable against alpha decay; (3) beta decay and (4) electron capture. And maybe (5), an increased cross-section for alpha capture, although that's probably stretching things.

    Let me say that this is a list of 5 "unusual ingredients" although you ascribe all of them to the same cause. My impression is that you are using 5 uncommon ingredients instead of 1 (which I consider to be the only possible number of "uncommon ingredients").
    I will try to read the article you linked first.

    That's quite a list! I'm very happy not to be able to explain most of those things.

    I am happy you are happy.
    If CF is real, there must be some detail we do not understand correctly in physics. My proposal could be total nonsense, but some unexpected detail must be misplaced in our understanding of physics, otherwise we would not be discussing from zero a theory for phenomena which were described already 27 years ago (as William Collis sad at the beginning of his talk). Do you think that the detail we do not understand has consequences ONLY in LENR experiments? I think it is impossible.

    I'm looking for measured, incremental changes to the existing understanding of physics, not something that turns physics upside down and inside out

    I am not trying to turn physics upside down. I have listed a series of evidences of well described unexplained physical phenomena/facts, and said they could all be due to the same cause. This is simplification rather than turning things upside down. The well recognized authors of the articles I linked (and others) suggest themselves some possible causes of the incongruences, and these explanations happen to match with what I am proposing. Is this trying to turn physics upside down? Proposing, as I did, that the nuclear force is actually an electromagnetic effect could instead be described as turning nuclear physics upside down.

    Eric, I don't know you personally, but let me say something using an example related to CF that you can surely appreciate: one year ago for some months I had a very long email exchange with Edmund Storms, whom someone could considers dismissive and at times arrogant; we vastly criticized each others theories, but I've never had the impression he was arrogant. I haven't had the same impression with you.

    @Eric Walker
    Thank you Eric, now I understand better your approach.

    I cannot think off the top of my mind of other theories that predict stable daughters, but then again, there are not many theories that don't involve fusion of deuterium, they are interspersed in old ICMNS proceedings

    You are right, most theories go for d-d fusion or similar, whereas LENR do no show signs of d-d fusion. (hot) d-d fusion produces half of the times tritium + p and the rest of the times He3 + n.
    Building a theory which explains the preference for stable nuclides requires something very special, something to which the classical rules of nuclear reactions do not fully apply. Everyone instead seems to be contempt with squeezing light nuclei together with energies which can not be present, so that the sum of the nucleons makes a He4. Bah ...

    Your high electron density environment can favour your reactions, but can not jump the production of unstable nuclides.
    The same is valid for all theories I know of. For me the requirement for a mechanism that prefers stable nuclides is an essential ingredient in any "realistic" theory for LENR. It has been so far overlooked, probably because it is something outside of the Standard Model.

    I suspect the need for there to be an extended period of time for things to settle out in order to get stable daughters is a requirement you've introduced on your own initiative.

    I require an extended holding time because I think that the addition of nuclides is progressive, i.e. it takes place in more separate steps. At the end of each step the environment has to survive, sometimes without giving any nuclear reaction. A Hyd "linked" to a nucleus will look like a nucleus with an electron as a component, and be relatively stable.

    Your objection, that someone would have already found something along these lines right now, is a meta-historical objection and not a scientific one. It may persuade some people, but I'm very alive to the possibility that there are some strange things that have been hiding in plain sight for the last 100 years.

    You are right. My argument is not scientific, it is more a gambler's talk ;). More "scientifically" I can say that, despite the fact that I should better consider your theory, I have the impression that at most you could find a few VERY specific reaction paths/material combinations which explain specific LENR experimental results. But you will never be able to explain the extensive phenomenology of LENR, and you will need to say that all experiments not matching your theory are the results of mistakes, as happens in many LENR "theories".

    William started the talk saying that he is frustrated. I am as well.

    If I understand correctly your "unusual" ingredient is limited to admitting that the electron density can, in dynamical conditions, reach values which cause unusually high screening effects, or favour EC?

    Instead I am convinced that the "unusual" physical phenomenon/ingredient is something more unusual/radical, which must have already caused unexpected results in other branches of physics. My single unusual ingredient, while allowing me to "explain" CF, could also be the reason for:

    I know it sounds a bit over... something and ridiculous, but is what I have found to my own surprise.

    At a general level, yours is not the only theory to explain the strong preference for stable nuclides — there are several, including Bill Collis's, above, and my own preferred fission/alpha decay approach.

    Well, as I said, I think the explanation of William Collis is not correct, so I do not count it in the list. I thought his argument was plausible, but it is not. Could you mention me another theory, apart from yours, which qualitatively explains the preference for stable nuclides?

    As far as I understand you are trying to assemble ordinary properties of nuclear reactions to explain the evidences of CF. I simply think, as William does, that if it were possible, someone would have already found the combination. But the rejection of CF is so strong exactly because it is based on the inexistence of such a combination.

    Data shows that there is no preference whatsoever for stable nuclides, even for reactions with low mass difference. There is a set of rules for the reactions, but no one is about stability. All sorts of nuclide get generated, beta + and - decaying, alpha decaying, fissile, neutron emitting, prompt and delayed gammas, EC_ing, …

    The only way to cause a preference for stable nuclides is to have the nuclear reactions happen “inside” an environment which is totally different from the "free" condition we well know from nuclear data. This environment should CONTINUOUSLY PERTURBATE the forming nuclides, and should BE ABLE TO HOLD (indefinitely?) combinations of nucleons which do not form stable nuclei. Without such an environment the essential absence of radiation of the LERN would be simply impossible. I realized this only after having understood that the Hyd is an environment for nuclear reactions; a electromagnetically perturbing environment.

    I claim that the nuclear force is actually an electromagnetic effect; so, if the perturbation is electromagnetic, as in my theory, it could be much less effective against the weak interaction. And in fact LENR can produce 100% beta-decaying nuclei, like tritium.

    if your explanation can explain Iwamura, and that's what you're referring to,

    The experimental results of Iwamura are quite complex (and unavoidably a bit messy), plus I don’t know how to estimate the cross sections of my Hyds for the nuclei; so it is not possible for me to claim that I can EXPLAIN the results of Iwamura. What I can say is that his results are not incompatible with my theory.

    When Iwamura uses Barium the transmutation reaches further than the other cases, in fact he obtains Sm149 and Sm150, corresponding to an addition of 3 Alphas. In my theory Ba is a very good NAE, so that it could be that the additional boost is not given only by the cross sections of the different nuclei for the Hyd, but also by some additional Hyd formed by the Ba NAE. Actually Ca, Cs and Sr are all good NAE (Ca is the best of the bunch, while Cs and Sr are less optimal than Ba). The only transmuted element which is NOT a good NAE for my theory is W. However W can generate Os, which should be the absolute best NAE of all stable elements. So as soon as Os appears, the transmutation should be boosted.

    It would be interesting to know if Iwamura has noticed any initial delay followed by a boost in the reactions when starting from W.

    In general when I compare my list of best NAE and the materials used by Iwamura, both its Pd and CaO multi-layer and the deposited nuclei/atoms he transmuted, it seems he has “magically” selected “near optimal” materials. One possibility that has come to my mind is that in reality in these many years MHI, Toyota, and the other Japanese have actually explored many more materials than those described in the articles, but have obtained good results only in the published cases. Even the choice to use a corrugated surface, which is not what you would do if you do not have a good reason, matches with the need to increase the view factor of the Hyd, which are generated deep inside the multy-layer (at the CaO layers). So the system of Iwamura seems to be quite advanced/optimized, if seen through the eyes of my theory.

    I too “would like to see someone else reproduce Iwamura's results”. However, Toyota reproduced the results with Praseodymium, which is what Iwamura commented to Kidwell directly at his presentation at ICCF18 (see

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    at 51:40). My impression is that Japan has much more data than what it shares … And in fact the University of Tohoku is the third best university of Japan …

    Back to William Collis, I think my theory fulfils his criteria. I will write him in the coming weeks for comments. He told me he knows my theory, at least superficially.

    @Eric Walker
    I remember having discussed the point of the supposed addition of alpha particles to the nuclei in the transmutation experiments by Iwamura with Edmund Storms and possibly someone else as well. If you look carefully in the experimental results (I don't recall all the details) you will see that there are also the intermediate nuclides, but in lower amounts. The binding energy of nuclei often has dips at a 2p2n (alpha) distance, so if you keep gently adding neutrons and protons you will end up with more nuclei in the dips.
    I think that in the experiments of Iwamura protons and neutrons are added progressively, but unstable nuclides are avoided. An LENR theory must address this preference for stability independently from energetic arguments. As far as I know only my theory suggests a mechanism which, at least qualitatively, explains the reason for the strong preference for stable nuclides.
    Some time ago I used to think exactly as William suggests in the video (at 8:00 minutes into the talk), but then I realized it is wrong. In fact William asks if what he is saying makes sense to anybody ..., because he knows the argument is not really standing ... but says that experiments will proof the pudding.


    Perhaps if we can remove the Coulomb barrier ..........

    Please don't get me wrong, you sound enthusiastic about LENR, but William is suggesting sort of the contrary to your swirl of "not accurately thought through" ideas: he is suggesting that even many "structured" theories are essentially wrong, and that there is a precise minimal requirement for the right explanation of LENR. This leaves a narrow path towards the final LENR theory, which requires "cold blooded" comparison with experimental evidence and less resort to series of miracles.
    You also add "my gut feels, however, that there is probably some blend and combination of all the various ideas out there though including some exotic ideas ...". Let me remark that Science is not a social exercise, often is the opposite.

    The development of a LENR theory requires the introduction of something exotic in the nuclear realm. Chemistry, which is the background of many LENR theorists, is not enough for pinpointing the exotic ingredient.

    @george Hody,
    the assumption is about the nuclear force, which should NOT be due (at least mainly) to the strong interaction (which keeps nucleons, kaons, pions, ... together). The suggestion comes from some publications of Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook, and dates back to the '80. I am in contact with them and we are still discussing it. The proposal is clearly against the Standard Model.

    @George Hody
    The essence of my theory shouldn’t be that complex. Your comment tells me I haven’t been able to describe it clearly.
    My theory assumes that the nuclear force is an electromagnetic effect instead of being due to a residuum of the strong interaction, as the Standard Model suggests (it is actually a so far unproved assumption of the SM).
    If that is the case, the electron could feel the nuclear force as well, and be attracted towards nuclei. Evidently this almost never happens. One necessary condition for the attraction to manifest is that the electron has to “rotate” around the proton at a specific frequency. Electron orbitals can provide this rotational frequency. This frequency, turned into an energy, is higher than the energies of binding orbitals: it is 85[eV]. Valence orbitals, which reach up to a few tens of [eV], are what chemistry is all about. The core orbitals instead have energies up to several hundreds of [keV]. So 85[eV] is just inside in the realm of core orbitals.

    Core orbitals have no chemical meaning, and do not differentiate one element from the other in chemical terms.

    The precise energies of core orbitals in bound systems of atoms depend on the orbitals above them, because these partly shield the nuclear charge. The external orbital of a free ion (which determines the ionization energy) is more bound than an orbital in a chemical system because the nuclear charge of a free ion is less shielded. However I took the ionization energies of free ions as a proxy of the core orbital energies in chemical systems.

    I took the ionization energies of all atoms from the NIST database (partly made of experimental values and part of theoretical values) and looked for the atoms with the energies nearest to the coupling value of 85[eV]. The elements listed on page of 30 of my presentation are those with the ionization energies nearest to the value of 85[eV].

    You correctly say that the atoms are unrelated, because there is no chemical similarity between them. The fil rouge is instead the energy of one of their core orbitals.

    This is the main reason why top-class chemists from all around the world haven’t managed in 27 years to improve substantially the yield of their experiments. And this is also the reason why many totally different substances (in solid, fluid, or plasma state) have been seen producing excess heat and other strange phenomena. Everyone looks for a Nuclear Active Environment in chemical terms, whereas there is nothing CHEMICAL in it!

    Please feel free to ask again any detail about my theory which is not clear to you.

    I agree with you, Lipinsky-like experiments should be very convenient for investigating the LENR mechanism. They are simple and "clean", however they need some specialized equipment and are not the cheapest experiments one can think of.
    Following my theory I have suggested accelerating protons against a ZrO2 or OsO2 target, and looking for EUV.
    I suggested this to Iwamura and the Lipinsky themselves. While I don't know if Iwamura will perform any experiment in this direction, the Lipinsky told me they are definitely not interested.
    I hope someone will follow your and my suggestions and explore what happens when low energy protons meet good NAE (Os, Ca, Pd, Ba, K, Zr, Li, ...). My theory suggests a list of the best atoms-NAE. The same list contains many atoms present in High Temperature Superconductors. It could be that the mechanism at the origin of HTSC is the same of LENR.