Posts by Andrea Calaon

Quote from Wyttenbach

You assume the speed of the electron (in the frequency calculation) which orbits inbound to be = c, if I correctly understand.
But that's impossible as we know. According to the most recent classical papers 1/2 c seems to be the limit.

Which are the "classical papers" which say that the speed of the electron in the Zitterbewegung should be c/2 at most?
In my theory I refer to this work by David Hestenes and the related works you can find referenced in it:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2728

Quote from Wyttenbach

The 1016 Hz rotation are on top of the 1020 Hz. base frequncy ??

Yes. When the orbital frequency sums to the intrinsic frequency the "coupling condition" can be satisfied. Please refer to my presentation:
http://lenr-calaon-explanation…ted_nuclear_reactions.pdf
at page 25.

@padam73
Thank you for your interest in my article in the JCMNS!

Quote from padam73

One of the prediction of your theory is a resonance at 85eV for the proton. Since the magnetic moment of the deuteron is ~3 times smaller, I expect a difference not only in the amplitude of the attractive force but also in the resonant energy.

I have been asked this question a couple of times. The resonance, as you call it, comes from a condition between the intrinsic charge rotation frequency of the nucleons and that of the electron; and both proton and neutron seem to share the same intrinsic frequency. The coupling condition therefore should be the same for all nuclei. In other words the attraction should be something between the single nucleons and the electron.

Quote from padam73

I admit that I don't understand the logic to take the integer 1836.

In the article I took only 1836 because it is the integer nearest to the mass ratio; however you could in principle pick any integer. In my presentation on my webpage you can find a couple of other frequencies (obtained with other integers). And there is also a "dual" coupling condition at higher energies, starting from 156 [keV].
85[eV] is simply the lowest energy required, which happens to be so low that is proper of some low energy core orbitals.
The requirement of an integer comes from the need for the attraction force not to average to zero. In other words when the frequency ratio is an integer the cycles of attraction and repulsion average to an attraction.

The magnetic moment of the nucleus should only scale the modulus of the attraction force, but have no effect on the coupling condition.

@stefan
My family name is CalAon, not CalEon. But that doesn’t really matter.
You did not say that you would like to “quest” into QM. You said something slightly more audacious.
I’ve never heard anyone working seriously with QM defining it a MESS which needs SANITIZING. Even David Hestenes, who developed and proposed a complete reformulation of the Dirac equation based on Geometric Algebra (which made many things much more intuitive and allowed a clearer “visualization” of the ZB) has ever expressed similar opinions.
Not even the proponents of Hidden Variable theories are that critical about QM.
Instead probably QM needs contributions, reinterpretations, better formalism, a bridge to General Relativity, simpler ways to perform calculations, ...
I mentioned the bright minds who developed QM because, before contributing to a field one should somehow “master” it. You said “QM has fundamental flaws that is too unbelievable to not search for something else”. You seem not to recognize that physicists are as willing to improve (not sanitize) QM as you are. There have been legions of physicists who attempted to modify/improve QM. Mill belongs to a very long list. And so far none has been very successful.
When you said that you would just need a chance to reform QM you sounded “just a bit overconfident ...”. Well, you could be a Mr. Feynman, I simply don’t know it. I hope you are!

If your semester of QM with excellent results and your study of Mill’s theory gave you the background to reform QM (or QCD), go for it! Robert Bryant is right.
If you will do it I will be among the people buying any interesting article or book you would write on the subject.
I am myself not knowledged enough to really contribute to QM for what I am proposing. So I prefer only to suggest and look at the phenomena from a distance. My theory is not even formally QM. I wish a professional theoretical physicist would consider my suggestions and somehow transform them to fit them inside the QM framework.

You seem to think that the theory of Mill will revolutionize QM (“ … just ignorance of the potential of Mills work and that there is an alternative explanation to everything”) and that it will explain Cold Fusion. I simply do not agree.

You say: “QM ...have weird consequences and is difficult to understand what physically it is”.
Physics is what it is. If it is difficult for a brain to grasp it foundations is not important.
But may be by using Geometric Algebra a couple of things become clearer. Do you know the works of David Hestenes about the application of Geometric Algebra to QM?

@stefan

Quote from stefan

The standard theory is a mess and QM has fundamental flaws that is
too unbelievable to not search for something else

And again:

Quote from stefan

If I could get a grant to take a second phd, this time in physics, doing the necessary work of helping SANITIZING physical science I would do that

QM is the result of the effort of many of the best minds of the 20th century. An unbelievable masterpiece. Do you REALLY think you would be able to simply pop in and improve it? Do you really think the pitfalls are that obvious? What do You know about quantum mechanics?
Before making your claims, if I were you I would make sure I know at least the basics:
http://theoreticalminimum.com/…tum-mechanics/2012/winter
http://theoreticalminimum.com/…antum-mechanics/2013/fall

But first I would listen carefully to this nice podcast by the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b051ryq8

@Wyttenbach

Quote from Wyttenbach

The deepest orbits allowed are around -511kEv. This means + 511keV of energy are freed if the orbit shrinks. If You get a "free 511keV" then you cannot convert them to any particle You like to have... CERN Protons have many 100 GeV and this does also not produce thousands of protons if they are stopped...

Probably I should have said that the electron "opens up" loosing all its energy? Do you like it?

Quote from Wyttenbach

The Zitterbewegung of electron's is known as larmor precision and is well integrated into QM! Do You say that there exist's even more Zitterbewegung ?

I think you meant Larmor precession. Given the controversial literature about the ZB I would not be sure that it is well integrated into QM. I think robert bryant is right when he says

Quote from robert bryant

Planet Physics in 2016 still appears to have not heard Hestenes

The ZB is only partially visible from the Dirac equation in its complex formulation (4x4 complex matrices). Using Geometric Algebra it appears more clearly:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2728

What do you mean with your comment about the multiplication?

I think the ZB is the essence of the electron. The point charge of the electron appears as travelling at the speed of light on a circular orbit at fixed radius and frequency around the centre of mass of the particle. The plane of the rotation defines the spin direction. For relativistic speeds the apparent radius shrinks exactly as the (relative) mass increases. What traps a photon in a very localized circular motion (along which it looks like it interacts with itself) is not known. My guess is that there is something causing a local very large spacetime curvature, so that a plane wave looks like a circular orbit, and half of the wave (the part with the positive sing) is hidden. The mysterious origin of the curvature could have an "opposite" which can leave the positive part of a photon wave visible, giving origin to the positron. So you would have two opposite "curvatures", which behave in two different ways with respect to the electric charge.
In fact the Dirac equation says that any moving electron carries a fraction of a positron. This presentation on Youtube is very nicely layed out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCuaBmAzqek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR6UebCvFqE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DL-Xa1f3QI

Please note that all these rumbling speeches about the electron and the positron have no part in my EMNR theory and are just what I can imagine about the origin of the electron in connection with the concept of the trembling motion.

There are some recent articles suggesting the experimental evidence of the ZB, it should not be impossible:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4580v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7037

Dear Wyttenbach,
You say: “I never said that Mill's theory is correct. In contrary his H* model seems to be simple (as I explained in another post), but as long as nobody makes serious research we cannot decide.”.
Pardon me, but I don’t get your point: I wouldn’t care if a theory is simple or not, if I think it is wrong. Probably I should read your other posts.

From this exchange with you I take that in the presentation of my theory I can not skip the comparison of my Hydronion with at least some of the “mini-atom” theories (Edmund Storm calls them “virtual neutron theories”). As you say there are many mini-atom proposals; the most theoretically established ones are those solving the Dirac equation.
You say that I OBVIOUSLY did not read any of them. Well my problem is more about remembering them …
Let me say that personally I would not mix the imaginative suggestions of Mills (which you commented me) with the work of Dirac and others using its equation (which you only mentioned).
Anyway. While assembling the first proposal of my theory (a while ago) I had a look at some of the mini-atom theories based on the unconventional solution of the Dirac equation. Those I looked at did not seem convincing to me and I discarded them as good candidates for explaining all the features of Cold Fusion.
At ICCF19 I assisted from the forefront to the presentation of Paillet, who described his view of the “Nature of the deep-Dirac levels”.
J.-L. Paillet and A. Meulenberg / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 18 (2016) 1–26.

Here are my comments:
If one considers:
- the Dirac equation (fully relativistic) and
* a non-pointwise central potential, plus
* the corrections of QCD, …
- or if one uses a potential which fits the known properties of the innermost core orbitals (those which overlap most with the nucleus),
one can get orbital bound solutions that are more bound than the Hydrogen atom and much smaller in size. Some call the solutions Deep Dirac Levels (DDL).
1) These orbitals can shrink below the Zitterbewegung size, which, from my point of view is impossible, since that is the intrinsic size of the electron itself. And in fact the deepest DDL have to deal with a series of problems especially related to the hypothetical interaction of the electron with a “naked” point particle without an intrinsic structure.
2) All “anomalous” solution to the Dirac equation for a p-e system have a potential which is singular (or even hypersingular) at the origin. I do not think this makes sense, neither the “smearing” proposals which have been put forth. In fact smearing does not even correspond to the reality of the quark pointwise charges inside nucleons;
3) Using the Klein Gordon equation (Jan Naudts does it in order to make the wave function square-integrable) means forgetting about the spin, which in turn is the ZB, .... so it would mean to forget about the very nature of the electron (similar to my first point),
4) Even very excited DDL are hundreds of keV below the 13.6 eV of the hydrogen orbital. This should lead to a rapid decay of any hydrogen atom to these states. Why does it not happen? My guess is that, if the governing equation, which defines DDL, is the same which determines the standard hydrogen levels, there should be no obstacle to the decay. Instead I think that the mechanism defining the tightly bound state must be different from the Coulomb attraction to a central charge. Instead it must be a mechanism that is always inaccessible, apart from some special conditions. Coulomb attraction from a central charge would work as for any standard orbital and, if the solutions were “physically admissible”, the electron in any hydrogen atom would decay to DDL.
5) The energy limit of the DDL is around 511 keV, the mass of the electron. It is as if by forcing the electron near to a point charge, it became possible to build a second electron. This seems to suggest that an ingredient is missing, because the electron seems to build an image of itself around the fixed point charge of the nucleus.
6) The Dirac equation suggests strongly the existence of the electron Zitterbewegung, but, in the search for DDL, it is solved with boundary conditions representing particles (nucleons) without any (nuclear) ZB. So the solution can not possibly reflect the presence of the magnetic attraction I think is at the base of the nuclear force. I don’t know what would happen if the proton were modeled/represented by a shrunken electron with radius=r_e/1836.1526… and a corresponding higher ZB frequency.

Please correct me if you think I am saying something wrong. I am definitely not an expert in the solution of the Dirac equation.

@Wyttenbach,
I have read only parts of Mill’s theory, enough to know more or less the basics you mentioned me, and to understand at least some of its critical points.

Looking also at other threads of this Forum I see that you like the theory of Mills.
So I will shortly comment the Hydrino theory.
Dr Mills is quite bold in many of his statements, for example when he minimizes the engineering hurdles he would face in developing a working reactor (even imagining he had the complete understanding of the phenomena he shows), or when he criticizes Quantum Mechanics.
I am not a professor of QM, but I would imagine that the thousands of professionals who invented and developed it were not that confused and blind. The classical picture is inconciliable with the evidences of the quantum world, which, by the way, is EVERYTHING around us.
The following published article, which is a partial analysis of Mill’s theory, (as you probably already know) is not positive about it:
http://iopscience.iop.org/arti…088/1367-2630/7/1/127/pdf
I tend to agree with the criticism of the article.

About the prediction of the angles of molecules, as far as I know, standard Hartree Fock methods predict the angles generally within less than 1%.
I can add a point: Mills suggests that the transition to the Hydrino states is mediated by chemical interactions. So why is the Hydrino not being produced in other chemical systems? What is so special in those chemical interactions?

Um eine lange Geschichte kurz zu machen: meine Theorie wird sich nicht mit der Theorie for Randell Mills verwandeln.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Andrea Calaon

@Wyttenbach
With H* do you mean the Hydrino? I don’t think the theory of Mills makes sense. You need something different from the EM field to generate a neutral nucleus. In other words chemistry can not produce nuclei.
Anyway we are speaking about a tightly bound state between an electron and a hydrogen nucleus; it is clearly neutral object, plus has a very large magnetic moment.
I wrote to T. J. Ketel, and A. Krasznahorkay with some comments, on the line of your comment, but so far have received no answer. I do not have reputable published work on my side, so probably my suggestion went straight to the bin. I might give it a second go, but I doubt.
Anyway the existence of the Hyd would:
- Provide an explanation for Cold Fusion,
- Provide an explanation for the neutron lifetime problem,
- Provide an explanation for the lack of primordial Li7 in the universe,
- Provide a very good candidate for Dark Matter (Light).
- Explain the bump in the angular correlation of internal paris production by Be8 when bombarding Li7 with protons.
Plus the magnetic attraction, which I think is at the origin of the Hyd, could be the additional ingredient that should be added to the electron Hamiltonian for orbitals near 85 [eV]. It would allow the application of the BCS theory to high temperature superconductors. In fact metallic orbitals (hosting Cooper pairs) float above external core orbitals, which in some cases would react strongly to nuclear displacements: phonons.

So the mechanism at the origin of Cold Fusion would be something very difficult to spot precisely, but giving its signs in several different branches of Physics. As it MUST be if Cold Fusion is real … indeed!

@magicsound
I think the blue light comes form the Extreme Ultraviolet emitted when Hydronions form (see my theory).
Only Randell Mills measured it directly. Possibly me356 has measured it as well. You need good gratings. EUV disappears as soon as matter is in its way. I don't know what to comment about the claims of Rossi.
The first stage of the EMNR emits a lot of EUV, and some X rays. The second stage can emit also more energetic X and gammas. EUV are responsible for most of the thermal energy. The mechanism of formation of the Hyd fractionate into EUV. Swartz measured non-thermal near IR and attributed it to Bremsstrahlung.

Dear all,
I have recently updated the presentation describing my Electron Mediated Theory:
electron_mediated_nuclear_reactions.pdf
Since I first proposed it, my theory has changed a lot. I always like comments and critics, especially if constructive.

The main recent changes are the following:

• added some additional coupling energies inclusive those in the MeV range, which I had previously discarded,
• improved the list of best NAE with the complete table from NIST (many of the ionization energies however are only calculated),
• added some comments for the clarification of the mechanism in the NAE,
• added comments about the decay of the Hydronions; is the Hyd a candidate for Dark Matter?
• added comments on the possible evidences of the existence of the Hyd:
  
  
  • Anomaly in the Internal Pair Creation from Be8 when generated by Li7 bombardment with protons; the energy range at which the anomaly appears is one of the coupling energies of the EMNR model,
    Incompatibility of the neutron half-life with bottle and beam experiments: the neutron could actually decay producing a Hyd with a low branching fraction: n-> p+W -> pe + antineutrino.
  • A recent article suggests that a neutral particle with a sufficiently large cross section for deuterium and Be7 would resolve the so called Li7 problem (lack of Li7 in the universe compared to the best theoretical predictions),
• added some additional comments on the extreme ultraviolet emissions measured by Randell Mills,
• added the list of reactions Li7 should undergo with Hydronions.

@Mats002
Dear Mats, thank you for the link, which possibly shows an interesting evolution in the position of Michio Kaku on Cold Fusion.
Let's hope more and more "science pop(ular)-stars" will have a honest look at Cold Fusion and be at least non-dismissive.

When I started this thread I did not want to start a trial against Michio Kaku.
I wanted only to stress that the mainstream of Physics, even in "educational" occasions, is teaching to the legions of interested people (among which there are future students of physics, chemistry, engineering, ...) that F&P and all the scientists who investigated CF and found "something" were and are simply fools, ignorants, unprofessional.
And one of the base reasoning is that if there are no neutrons the process can not be nuclear fusion.
Has Kaku, as the majority of professional and influential physicists, ever considered even a small part the evidences that Edmund Storms reports in his books, for example?
My guess is that Kaku and others never really looked into the evidences with an open mind.
Science has antibodies against unscientific behaviour, but in cases like CF these antibodies are preventing evolution because they are too strong.

Today I stumbled upon this (2015) Youtube video by Michio Kaku:

The Cold Fusion part starts at about 46:20, but there are other similar cold fusion stories starting some minutes before that point.
The opening says "Huge FIASCO".
Charles Seife is totally dismissive, he knows more than anyone. He says that Cold Fusion is chemical, but no one understood this. Expert chemists. May be some chemists know little about physics, I agree, but they know about chemistry!
No neutrons means no fusion ... AGAIN ...
Scientists convinced themselves ... humiliation.

@Arnaud
Zn and Cu allow an initial voltage for proton movement once H2 has been broken by the FT catalyst...
I would guess
???
Who knows?

Dear Jarek,
the model of Gryzinski describes the possible trajectories of electrons in atomic orbitals.
The object I am talking about, the Hyd/H(0) is 3 orders of magnitude smaller. It has the size of the electron ZB.
I think Gryzinski showed an trajectory compatible with the s (spherically symmetric) electron orbitals, which are "very strange" for classical mechanics.
The ZB instead happens on a plane that travels through spacetime.

@StephenC,
Thank you for you VERY INTERESTING questions.
The experimental findings of Holmlid are quite solid and well documented. His interpretation has become a bit self-referential since no one seems to share it.
The neutral particle he sees and he is trying to make a sense of has strong analogies with my Hyd. In the article "Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0)" published in 2015 (but also in other earlier articles), Holmlid suggests, in accordance with the theory of J. E. Hirsch that:

• there is a narrow bound state between a hydrogen nucleus and an electron,
• the state has no orbital angular momentum,
• the state is somehow "planar",
• the state has a unitary spin.
• the radius of the electron in it is 193[fm],
• the speed of the charge is the speed of light.

WELL, IT IS PRECISELY THE DESCRIPTION OF MY HYD.

The theory of Holmlid proposes a state without orbital angular momentum and with the size of the Zitterbewegung; is this an orbital, or is more of a new particle?

When I first developed my theory I was not aware of the theory of J. E. Hirsch.

Holmlid writes: “... the electrons which give the ultra-dense matter structure have no orbital motion, but only a spin motion. This electron spin motion may be interpreted as a motion of the charge with orbit radius rq=ħ/2mec=0.192 pm and with the velocity of light c (‘zitterbewegung’) [33]. This spin motion is centred on the D atoms and may give a planar structure for the DeD pairs as in the case of the planar clusters for ordinary Rydberg matter.”

The formula of the electron radius is the one I use and Hirsch uses references to works of D. Hestenes about the Zitterbewegung I use as well.

I am not an expert in Rydberg Matter (RM), but I doubt that the formation of H(0)/Hyd needs first the formation of ordinary RM. The simplest reason is that CF happens in very different systems and RM is not that omnipresent … In addition to that the size of ordinary RM is huge in comparison to a H(0)/Hyd, and the energy difference is … immense. What could provide all that binding energy? You need a mechanism, or something ...

While QM predicts (common) Rydberg matter, the condensed Rydberg matter Holmlid and Hirsch suggest is only a guess, and it is not based on rigorous QM. My theory is not formulated in the rigorous framework of QM either, but at least provides a basic explanation for why compact neutral particles (not neutrons) can form.

In common RM it is like you say, the electrons behave pretty much as planets around a star and there are no states with zero angular momentum.

I do not see what common RM shares with H(0)/Hyd. Hirsch suggests a path between the two, but I think the common thread is too thin.

My theory suggests that Holmlid is producing Hyd thanks to the presence of K in a Fischer–Tropsch catalyst (the styrene catalyst Shell S-105 he uses). The hydrogen molecule is broken in two pieces by the catalyst and one of the two protons, probably helped by the impinging laser light, is accelerated and captures an electron from the K to form a Hydronius. Then probably the Hyd gather in clusters possibly thanks to the magnetic attraction that stationary protons in neighbouring Hyd should feel.

I agree with Hirsch that probably superconductivity (at least that at “high temperatures”) originates from the same mechanism of cold fusion, but I don't think he is pointing at the right one.

@Zephir_AWT
I think your "Astroblaster" could somehow be similar to what Edmund Storms proposes ... but it is not rally clear to me from your explanation. Anyway I am firmly convinced that no chemical effect can possibly win over the Coulomb repulsion, whatever the energy concentration (entropy and energy conservation), the delocalization, ...
In your comment you say Mossbauer/Astroblaster. Are you adding the Mössbauer resonance to the recipe?

Why should delocalization help overcome the Coulomb barrier? You say "heavily delocalized at this confined space around atom nuclei" ... but if something is in a confined small space is not delocalized? What do you mean?

The article on PhysicsWorld you mentioned is about the study by neutron scattering of the configurations of the water molecule inside beryl. A Beautiful work, but I do not see what chemical tunnelling should suggest about nuclear fusion.

You say:

Quote

Yes and the binding energy of neutron is just 2 MeV for in deuterium - these energies become comparable quantitatively.

80[keV] are not 2[MeV] and, even if they where, electrons are in orbitals.

About you comment on John S. Kanzius, let me say that I am not convinced ...

@Zephir_AWT
Thank you for your interest in my theory.

You say:

Quote

In this case the inertia of remaining electrons must be considered, as these residual electrons represent an effective shielding of Coulomb force from atom nuclei and when the nickel atoms collide, then the residual electrons must also move aside from the place of collision - or they get involved in the nuclear reaction. This lateral motion must proceed very fast, so that even the subtle inertia of electron is important here.

While it is true that the binding energy of electron orbitals grows to tens of [keV] for inner orbitals of heavy atoms, their shielding can not be very effective up to the small distances where the nuclear force starts to be felt: about 2-3 [fm] from the nucleus surface.

At this link you can find a nice explanation of the effective charge seen by orbitals.

Nickel nuclei never collide, at least in LENR experiments. For that kind of event you need a monstrous amount of energy.
The only correct approach to understand the effect of electrons is QM.

I do not understand why you are commenting about the inner core electrons orbitals.
My theory suggests that some external core orbital, just below the valence electron orbital energy (or not far from that), can be captured by the nuclear attraction mechanism. The attraction between an incoming proton and an electron arises from an average zero value when the orbital frequency of the electron plus the incoming proton “speed” combine reaching the attraction condition. At that point the nuclear force mechanism provides the energy to extract the electron (near to 85 [eV]) from the orbital. After that the nuclear attraction causes the release of MANY photons around 85[eV] up to when the Hyd binding energy has been radiated completely. It is an unusually high amount of EUV. Plus there will be some soft X due to the electrons rearranging after the extraction of the external core orbital.

me356
how do you detect neutrons: He3, BF₃, Li6, bubbles , ...?
Cold Fusion is too important for your scaring messages without details. You are (almost) the first to declare high neutron fluxes.
The way you proceed looks really like you are in an attempt to scary people out of Cold Fusion and in particular H-Ni system, even if you were honest.
CF can be dangerous, but you are not helping with your claims to make it any more understandable and controllable. All good researchers keep neutron detectors on all the time anyway.
I will ignore you claims up to further and detailed explanation, and I hope everyone, not only on LENR Forum will do the same.

@rakitsa
Let me say that I agree with you: in LENR experiments the Coulomb barrier cannot be overcome by kinetic energy (temperature), and it would be hot fusion ...
You say:

Quote

To achieve their fusion, we have to somehow overcome this Coulomb barrier. There are only two ways for it: either raise the temperature or to make the barrier thinner.

Well I am proposing a third way. What if the nuclear force, which is precisely what balances the Coulomb repulsion between protons allowing the existence of nuclei, is not a residuum of the strong interaction, but instead is an electromagnetic effect? And this effect can in some rare cases attract the electron and lead to the formation of neutral particles (neutral nuclei) different form the neutrons?
The suggestion of an electromagnetic nuclear force is not mine, and goes back to the '80s.
Then you can generate a large neutral nucleus with a huge magnetic moment (see RF emissions) which can reach heavy nuclei like Ba and allow for "soft and perturbed" nuclear reactions which strongly prefer stable nuclei.
You can find the details of my theory in this presentation:
http://lenr-calaon-explanation…ted_nuclear_reactions.pdf

With my theory the nuclear force itself grabs the electron, and there is no need for a kinetic overcoming of the Coulomb barrier.
Plus you explain:

• That most of the nuclear energy is emitted as EUV emissions (non-thermal near IR by Swartz and direct detection by Mills),
• The gamma emissions,
• The preference for stable nuclei,
• The strange traces on nuclear emulsions,
• What is the NAE and which are the best atoms for it. You discover that Ca is the best one, as Iwamura knows with his diffusion activated transmutations. Zr follows suite and Li is not too far. But there are some other atoms not explored!
• The radio emissions,
• Why top chemists did not manage to improve the NAE density by chemical means,
• Which is the difference between hydrogen and deuterium loadings,
• Why sometimes you get neutrons,
• How you get tritium without neutrons,
• Why energy correlates well with production of He4 with deuterium loading,
• Why there are evident metachronous effects triggered by phonons,
• Why explosions can take place (accumulation of neutral nuclei in condensed matter),
• Why Holmlid needs K, and measures clusterings at 2 [pm] and less,
• Why zeolites seem to push the existence of life on this planet to times when the planet was too hot,
• And many other things.

So there is a third way to nuclear reactions triggered at "chemical energies".