Posts by Andrea Calaon

Dear Thomas,
today I wrote a long post to the JoNP explaining the emissivity mistake in the Lugano report, calling for comments.
The comment didn't get published, while more recent comments were and Rossi replied to them.
I will wait tomorrow, if nothing appears I will post here my long comment.

Dear Thomas,
I am revisiting the Lugano report and I stumbled upon a doubt:
In Fig. 7 of the report the comparison with the emissivity of a known target (rutile on Kapton film) gives the correct temperature, when using an alumina emissivity, I believe, of 0.71 (the value is not precisely stated ...). Since the equivalent emissivity of alumina at this temperature is about 0.882, the temperature of the rutile target and alumina should not give precisely the same temperature.
How would you explain the remarkable match (235 vs 237.5 [C])?

Thomas,
do you mind if I comment about your findings to Andrea Rossi on the JoNP?
I would try to put thinks as simple as possible making a summary of the origin of the mistake and ask for comments. Rossi will surely say he can not comment, but probably many will react and consider the "emissivity mistake". Intellectually honest people will consider it.
Andrea

Dear Thomas Clarke,
I am analysing in detail your article and your code (I just run the script through Anaconda Python and I checked the input data). I am not finished yet, but I have some comments.
You say: “In [5] the dependence of R on T is assumed to be R∝T⁴”.
I do not understand what you mean.

In [5], in order to obtain the surface temperature during the test, the following system is solved iteratively:

• eq_emiss(T)*integral(Planck(λ,T)) = integral(Planck(λ,T)*emiss(λ)*sens(λ))
• T = CameraSoftware( eq_emiss*integral(Planck(λ,T) ) )

The two unknowns are:

• T, the alumina surface temperature,
• eq_emiss, the equivalent emissivity to be input in the camera. It is defined at each temperature by the equation: eq_emiss(T)*integral(Planck(λ,T) ) = Measured_Power(T). Where Measured_Power is the unknown total power measured by the camera at each temperature.

Planck is the black body spectral radiance, emiss is the known emissivity of the alumina (assumed independent of T), sens is the known sensitivity of the IR camera (assumed independent of T). The integral is performed only on the camera range (7.5 to 13 [μm]).

The function CameraSoftware, is not exactly known, but can be investigated by testing it.

What Higgins does is to find (iteratively) first a curve of eq_emiss(T) defined by equation (1):

eq_emiss(T) = integral(Planck(λ,T)*emiss(λ)*sens(λ)) / integral(Planck(λ,T))

This curve is then combined with the second equation, by iterating experimentally on the camera software:

T = CameraSoftware(Measured_Power,eq_emiss),

finding the combination (T, eq_emiss) that satisfies both equations and solves the system. At the solution temperature alumina would emit (in the camera range) a radiation that, attenuated by the sensitivity of the camera, would cause the same temperature reading (by the camera software) when using the eq_emiss.

Once the operating temperature is known, in [5] the total radiated power is calculated as the black body radiation scaled down by the emissivity of alumina.

Higgins actually does something more, he calculates an equivalent broad-band emissivity for each surface temperature, so that it becomes possible to calculate the total radiated power just multiplying the total Planck radiation (Stefan–Boltzmann law=σT⁴) by a single number: the equivalent broad-band emissivity,eq_emiss_tot.

The broad-band (single value) emissivity is calculated “averaging” the alumina emissivity curve (completed “manually” by Higgins between 1 and 4 [μm] because of lack of data and considering the progressively increasing transparency of alumna at higher temperature), using Planck’s spectral radiance as weight, similarly to what was done for the first equation of the system above:

eq_emiss_tot(T)=integral_broad( Planck(λ,T)*emiss(λ)*sens(λ) ) / integral_broad(Planck(λ,T))

This time the integral (broad-band) extends from 1 to 25 [μm], covering the vast majority of the emitted power. Therefore the integral_broad(Planck(λ,T)) is now practically equivalent to σT4. So at any temperature the broad-band single value emissivity allows to scale down the Stefan–Boltzmann power obtaining the real total radiated power, and so the COP.

I do not see the mistake you point out: “The mistake in the Report comes from using textbook values for total emissivity when what is needed is the corresponding value of the band emissivity”.

The only missing bit in Higgins’ procedure is your calculation of the apparent higher emissivity due to the ridges on the surface. Apparent emissivities of corrugated surfaces are higher than the “flat” (real) emissivities, especially at intermediate values (around 0.4-0.5). This, as you say, influences the estimation of the temperature reached by the reactor surface. Apparent higher emissivities due to the ridges mean that the Optris camera will receive in its measuring range more energy than that of a flat surface. So the real surface temperature and the radiation power are lower than as estimated without the correction.

However the total power radiated will be more than that calculated without the correction because of the higher apparent emissivity (higher surface, limited by the reciprocal view factors of the faces inside each ridge). Since the second effect is larger than the first, as you point out in your table, the final radiated energy is higher than that estimated by Higgins.

The dummy run in series, as you say, is an essential operation that unfortunately was not carried out in the Lugano test.

About isotopic shifts. They are real, have been measured not only by the testers of Rossi, but by tens of researchers in LENR experiments. IMHO suggesting that Rossi could have tampered with the powders, is in between ridiculous and offensive for all the people involved.

The client of Rossi will comment and this will settle all debates. We shall be patient.

Dear Jarek,
You theory is in many ways similar to mine. The most important point we share is that we understood that the electron is what makes LENR possible. And Edmund Storms shares this as well.
On my web-page you can find my theory. The quickest way to look at it is through my poster and the draft article of ICCF19:
http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html

Last year I was convinced as you are now that the LENR are p/d/t-e-p/d/t. They would be ternuclear reactions (three particle react at the same time). But then I understood that the required symmetry (events synchronization) is too much even for a coupling mechanism. Moreover there MUST be a neutral intermediate particle which is NOT the neutron. In fact without a neutral particle there could be no transmutations far from the NAE and heavy nuclei should not react because are far too heavily protected by the electron shells from any intrusion of a charged particle. Think about Cs133 …

In addition, with ternulcear reactions you end up with inconsistencies with the experiments and you need to postulate strange things like the beta decaying H4 isotope.

Electrons do not not fall on the nucleus because they have a size which is much larger than the nucleons: the diameter of the ZB is around 386 [fm].

About Hidden Variables (HV):
HV have two drawbacks (Bell): They are non-local and Contextual.
My opinion: the non-locality comes from the fact that all particles are intrinsically light-like.
I think (I am not alone …) that the commonly accepted formalism of spin is, as unbelievable as it may sound, WRONG. So the theorem of Kochen and Specker cannot be applied and HV are NON-contextual. Sooner or later HV will be reconsidered and will supersede what is now the canonical interpretation.

Best regards

Andrea Calaon

A few days ago, on the 6th of march 2015, Arab News, which is “Saudi Arabia's first English-language newspaper”, owned by the House of Saud, issued an Editorial(!) where Cold Fusion is named explicitly. But first let us step back.

As already mentioned in this thread, on the 21st of December 2014, Ali Naimi, oil minister of Saudi Arabia, said that the strategy of his Kingdom had changed because Saudi Arabia thinks that “one day” there can be a breakthrough “in research, or boosting efficiency, or using non-fossil fuels”. So that Saudi Arabia must be prepared for a time that will require flexibility in the price of oil.

The keywords used were 3: research, efficiency and non-fossil fuels.

Well, the recent Editorial on Arab News is entitled “Saudi businesses must not neglect R&D”. It speaks about new revolutionary batteries based on graphene and describes, among all possible breakthrough that could influence the world of energy, just one single thing: Cold Fusion.

It really seems Saudi Arabia (i.e. the House of Saud) is trying to progressively convey the fact that Cold Fusion has already entered the engineering phase, and that the strategy of the Kingdom had to adapt to this simple fact.

Additionally Ali Naimi declared in Berlin a few days ago: “Some speak of OPEC’s ‘war on shale,’ others claim ‘OPEC is dead.’ Theories abound. They are all wrong”. May be he is not lying.

Dear Alain,
Thank you for the interesting questions, you are a skilled moderator.

I think that if this theory makes any sense sooner or later it will be "found" by theoreticians, and developed properly.

The reasons why I suggest that the NAE is an opening vacancy are many:

• The temperature dependence as you mentioned,
• The need of a deuteron/hydrogen flux for the development of excess heat,
• The need for annealing after rolling of Palladium, which cancels dislocations that would prevent vacancies movement,
• The fact that only during a moving vacancy you can have a very small volume with lower charge density,
• The fact that the reacting metals are those that can develop super-abundant vacancies if loaded with hydrogen, ...
• etc.

Hydronions are hydrogen nuclei trapped inside the circular trajectory of the electron (Zitterbewegung). They can only move along the circular (helical) track made by the circular movement of the point charge of the electron. When the hydrogen nucleus rotates at around 2 [kHz] there is a force that keeps it along the track. The electron point charge crosses the hydrogen nucleus 10²⁰ times per second so it is not a dog chasing its tail. It is the hydrogen that sees a practically continuous attraction towards the circular track. Due to the mass ratio between hydrogen and electron is actually the electron ZB that sort of rotates around the hydrogen, but this is not essential.

The first paper you linked in your comment is a very interesting one by David Hestenes, the professor that has spent most of his professional life trying to explain to our civilization that we are missing the power of THE algebra of multidimensional spaces: Geometric Algebra. We keep using only vector spaces because we have only the sum defined on multidimensional entities, while the algebra has a product as well … Is sound simple, and actually it is, the incredible part is that students are not even introduced to Geometric Algebra. Hestenes, using the Algebra explained what complex numbers, quaternions, spinors, really are, why some linear operators have complex conjugate eigenvalues, what is the correct way of making multidimensinal calculus, … and many more things. Unfortunately his teaching is still confined in limited circles. For understanding clearly and intuitively the meaning of the complex formalism of quantum mechanics and of the Dirac equation (Shroedinger and Pauli as well) Geometric Algebra is essential. And the lack of this tool has slowed down the comprehension of Quantum Mechanics, by separating mathematical formalism from geometrical intuition.

Gamma rays are actually produced in LENR, but are generally soft gammas. There are however no daughter particles with high kinetic energies that, while being slowed down generate showers of intense gammas. Thanks to the mediation of the electron the nuclear reactions happen with very low excess kinetic energy. The magnetic attractive force manifests at distances much larger that the common nuclear range, so that part of the energy is radiated in not-so-energetic photons before the attraction between the nucleons takes place. Neutrons are generally absent because the reactions that produce them need the contribution of gamma radiation.

The conditions of Edmund Storms:

ASSUMPTION #1 - CF cannot occur in a “normal” material but requires formation of a unique condition called a nuclear-active-environment (NAE)
In a normal material there is no highly abundant interstitial hydrogen, and even when there is, normally there is no sufficient movement of vacancies because grains are full of dislocations piled near to the grain boundaries that tend to clean up vacancies.

ASSUMPTION #2 - The heat energy and nuclear products are produced by the same basic process operating in the same NAE.
The heat comes from the acceleration of the charges that end in a nuclear reaction with almost to excess kinetic energy.

ASSUMPTION #3 - Cold fusion is not hot fusion.
The energies of hot fusion can not be reached by a solid state material.

ASSUMPTION #4 – The explanation must apply to each method for producing cold fusion and the resulting behaviour.
I could not apply my theory to all processes where cold fusion has reportedly being found, however the few I applied the theory to seem to be explainable.

ASSUMPTION #5 – No Law of Nature is violated.
The electron Zitterbewegug and the magnetic attraction of Dallacasa and Cook are violating any law of nature?

The Zitterbewegung is not an effect, is the ESSENCE of the electron. The electron exists because of the ZB, or, in other words, the electron IS the ZB. Here the talk could take a VERY long path. I will try to synthesize.

Since the so called Copenhagen Interpretation of QM prevailed, it became nonsensical/forbidden to think that the strange properties of particles are emerging from an “inner” structure they possess. Instead they should be considered as funny structureless entities with mass, spin and intrinsic magnetic moment, that’s it. Even thinking about the trajectory of a particle became inappropriate. All what remained were probabilities to find some properties given the experiments. So, the concept of a Zitterbewegung was sort of “forgotten”. But the equation of Dirac is quite clear about the reality of the ZB.

The non locality (EPR incompleteness, delayed choice, Aharonov–Bohm) and the interpretation of spin made particles almost unthinkable and logically unacceptable. Richard Feynman (it seems) used to say “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics”. Particle-wave duality, collapse of the wave-function, contextuality ...

The equation describing the electron that Paul Dirac found in 1928, which is still the best description of the electron today (and which suggested the existence of the positron), describes a point charge that can not stay still, but that exists only in a very agitated and localized state of motion. This motion is a tremendously rapid circular rotation orthogonal to what we interpret as the the particle speed, but with no photon emissions. The rotation “must” have a fixed radius.

There is however a problem. The equation is built on the formalism of 4x4 complex matrices: quite COMPLEX indeed! Hestenes (the author of the article you linked) showed however that all that complexity is due to the lack of an explicit algebra in the formulation. If you use the correct algebra, the equation appears much simpler and loses many of its miseries. The variable of the equation is actually the orientation of the plane where the ZB takes place along the electron trajectory. And part of the essence of the electron appears. The electron hence gets a sort of inner structure and the particle seem to have a definite trajectory ...

Hidden variable theories, with a pilot wave, are very linked to the ZB. I will write only the essence.
J. S. Bell “showed” that HV theories have really only two shortcomings:

• they must be non-local,
• the must be contextual.

My contribution:
Non-locality is due to the fact that particles (like the point charge of the electron with its ZB) "travel" always at the speed of light. Aharonov–Bohm and delayed choice experiments show that particles are timeless. They know the future and depend on what happened in the whole universe in the past. The notion of time we have is an illusion.

Contextuality, the nastiest of the shortcomings of HV theories, depends actually only on the formalism of spin. If this formalism, as Hestenes showed, is wrong, contextuality disappears. And Hidden Variable, after having been neglected for many years, should be put back as the best description of the “quantum world”.

I know this last part of this comment is not easy at all. A complete explanation of my thoughts would require many pages.

Alain,
how did you find http://shamanicnews.wordpress.com/?
The article about LERN and the Price of Oil is not bad, only too optimistic about the transition time and about the diffusion of the knowledge that the Oil Industry will fall.
But the rest of the shamanic news are cr...

Vive la Civilisation des Lumières et de la Science pacifique.
A bas toutes les idéologies, notamment ceux intolérants, et les fausses promesses des religions.

Regards

Dear All,
I tried to have a text about the link between the fall of the Oil Price and LENR published somewhere ("non-LENR media") without success. So I decided to make it public on this blog, without changes:
_______________________________________________________________________

Why is Saudi Arabia not decreasing its oil production and stop the oil price fall?

If you follow me, I will describe you a scenario that could seem almost science fiction, but it is not, and that explains why Saudi Arabia is not cutting production and is letting the oil price fall. The Saudi strategy is probably the first strong sign that the world has already entered the “transition” that in the next decades will change the energy sector and beyond. You’ll decide if it makes sense or not.

Here is what’s happening now in the oil world.

All the possible reasons that could be behind the oil price drop have been thoroughly explained by uncountable articles on journals and newspapers in these last few months. For the House of Saud however all those sensible reasons are just a useful self-weaving blanket that helps them hide the real reason for the move, which is part of an undisclosed long term strategy. The strategy is the response to something extraordinary and disruptive.

In the second half of 2014 the royal family of Saudi Arabia, a country that has 740 billions US dollars reserves, has managed to verify that an energy source that will eventually misplace all others sources has already entered the engineering stage and will probably be openly commercial in 2015.

The energy source is Cold Fusion, the too-good-to-be-true nuclear fusion clean energy that Fleischmann and Pons unveiled in 1989 and that in the following years was completely discredited. Now Cold Fusion is back. In the meantime it has acquired a series of new fresh names, the most common of which is probably “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” (LENR).

Ridiculous? Ludicrous? Well, try to google it and verify yourself. If you do it properly it will take some time. Check how much Bill Gates is planning to invest in this field. Check also the already delivered 1 [MW] thermal plant that the US based company Industrial Heat is testing right now. And the plans for China producing the plants of Industrial Heat.

A convincing and recent article to start with may be this (but there are many similar ones):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…ear-reacti_b_6189772.html

With this short text I am not trying to convince you about the existence and importance of Cold Fusion, I am just suggesting you to look at it, possibly with a honest and informed expert physicist or engineer for technical support.

Back to the strategy of Saudi Arabia.

The consequences of the the engineering of Cold Fusion will be vast and for a large part unforeseeable. What is but foreseeable is that in, let us say, 40 years, crude oil will be used only for producing materials and for a residual number of small means of transport still using internal combustion engines. Thus the amount of oil that humanity will consume is much less than expected so far.

I will now go through a few simple estimations, for which I will use round numbers because what I am trying to convey is the message and not the details.

The world consumption of oil in the late 2014 has been about 92.4 million bbl/day, which corresponds roughly to 34 BILLION bbl per year. Let us imagine that in the next 40 years the average oil demand without any disruption from LENR, would be 15% more than the current value: about 39 billion bbl/y.

The proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are 270 billion bbl (the real reserves are clearly more than that). This means that Saudi Arabia, which has a now a world shear of oil production of 12%, could keep selling its reserves for about 60 years. And the number grows probably to 80 years or more with the real reserves.

However, as the House of Saud knows, the adoption of LENR will progressively and inevitably substitute all conventional energy sources. It is impossible to precisely estimate the time that the complete replacement will need, but, based on other previous major changes in energy sources, and given that the cost drop and the advantages offered by Cold Fusion over all other sources are dramatic, it make sense to estimate a replacement time of about 40 years, starting, may be, as early as in 2016.

Then for Saudi Arabia it makes no sense to keep with a strategy that is optimal for a double amount of time and a constant oil demand. Saudi Arabia must change strategy otherwise it will remain with a lot of oil unsold at the end of the energy transition, despite being one of the countries with the lowest oil production cost. So the best strategy is to rapidly increase the production share as much as possible and keep it as long as possible. Thanks to the low oil production costs for Saudi Arabia and other Middle East Countries it is easy to put many of the competitors out of business by just letting the prices fall.

The oil production cost for Middle East Countries is around 30 $/bbl. Saudi Arabia, with a break-even price of 110 $/bbl, roughly equal to the Brent price in the last 4 years, was getting all it needed, until this summer. The gain was then about 110 - 30 = 80 $/bbl.

Let us assume Saudi Arabia wants to maintain the oil revenues as today. If it will manage to rise the production share to three times the present value, that means to 36%, the oil price that will allow Saudi Arabia to keep the revenues unchanged is about 57 $/bbl. In fact the margin per barrel with such a low price would drop to 27 $/bbl, that, multiplied by 3 gives 81 $/bbl, pretty much the present gain.

During the 40 years transition the world oil consumption will decrease with a curve that is difficult to precisely guess. However for the estimation of the total oil consumption during this period, the curve can be simplified to a straight line going from the present consumption to zero in 40 years. This means that the oil that will be consumed during the whole transition will be more or less equal to the initial yearly demand multiplied by the transition time and divided by two (the triangle area is half the base times the height). It is a very rough estimation, but it suffices for explaining the scenario.

So with a world oil production share of 36%, the present world demand +15% and a constant price of 57 $/bbl, Saudi Arabia would manage to finish its proven reserves of oil in 39 years, very near to the estimated transition time. The plan makes sense.

The remaining 67% of the oil production will come from the “simplest” onshore and offshore rigs around the world that have the lowest production costs.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and the royal family can decide whatever it wants without needing to explain much to the public. Right now Saudi Arabia is performing a large price fall test that will allow the House of Saud to evaluate how quickly it will be possible to increase its oil share. In fact triplicating the share in a few years would be an unprecedented very large effort that would generate important and probably fierce reactions from countries and markets. It would therefore need very careful planning. The present price shock will provide important data.

After this shock Saudi Arabia and other informed countries will start increasing production and the price will probably stabilize, may be just below 60 $/bbl.

If this scenario is correct, in the second half of 2014 “the transition” towards virtually unlimited energy has already begun. High-end oil, renewables, nuclear fission, hot fusion research and a few other industrial sectors will soon have big troubles. But the transition will offer unimaginable opportunities.

Let’s prepare for the transition.

Andrea Calaon

Numerous experiments have confirmed that the amount of thermal energy liberated by the LENR is so large that it can only be of “nuclear” origin, in antithesis to chemical energy. The absence of significant high energy radiation, despite the large quantity of thermal (low energy) radiation, should have long suggested the most important key concept for understanding the LENR. I will try to explain.

In common nuclear reactions the particles interact at a range that is less than 3 [fm], and there is no electromagnetic radiation emanating from the nuclear reaction itself. The mass difference (the binding energy) goes completely into the kinetic energy of the daughter particles.

The LENR however demonstrate that the nuclear energy can be substantially transformed into electromagnetic radiation. This necessarily questions the very nature of the nuclear energy. Is it really something different from electromagnetism?

What we call nuclear reaction involves only the binding of nucleons into small or large nuclei. Gluons, quarks, W+, W-, Z0, and neutrinos have nothing to do with this binding.

The force that keeps the nucleons together in any nucleus is for sure of short range and has a strong quadrupolar nature (it strongly depends on the reciprocal orientations of the spins/magnetic dipoles). Therefore it apparently looks quite different from well known electromagnetic bounds.

However there is a theory of the 1980’s that was recalled in the article “LENR and Nuclear Structure Theory” presented at ICCF-17 by Norman Cook and Valerio Dallacasa. In this article the authors say: “We have found a fermi magnetic effect that is a microscopic version of the Biot Savart law of magnetic attraction between parallel currents”. This magnetic effect originates from the phasing of the charge rotation inside the particles. And it has energies in the MeV range that are compatible with the binding energies of the “nuclear force”. This suggests that the nuclear force is actually not “nuclear” in nature, but is “simply” electromagnetic, but with all odd properties built-in. The authors suggest that the short-rangeness is essentially due to the lack of phasing for large distances.

Therefore Cook and Dallacasa, who undoubtedly are experts in this field, actually suggest an explanation of the nuclear force in terms of a magnetic attraction, that would fit with what the LENR suggest. If that magnetic potential is correct, the LENR could be just a larger range version of the same nuclear binding. But what can extend the range of this magnetic attraction potential so much as to allow the attracted particles to accelerate towards each other and therefore radiate electromagnetically the energy in the magnetic attraction potential, well before the final “really nuclear reaction” takes place?

Well I found an solution, and that is explained in my very simple web pages:

http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/

Essentially I think magic is done by the electron that in some conditions can extend the range of the nuclear force and accelerate protons/deuterons/tritons … for distances much larger than a few [fm], forcing them to transform the magnetic attraction into photons.

I shared it with Professor Dallacasa himself.

Maybe tomorrow I will comment all this a bit more in detail.

Ciao

Andrea

Thank you for your comment Pathoskeptic. It is not a contribution, but I appreciate your interest.
Anyhow I think I know how science works ... hehehe, but thanks for remembering it to everyone, it is never inappropriate.
If you read the two documents in the web site I linked, you will find that the "theory" I propose produces a series of falsifiable statements. Not all are critical for the theory. Unfortunately I am not a LENR experimentalist (neither an "official theorist" actually ...), so I have no means to test those statements.

For your convenience I will name a few of these falsifiable statements.

Stimulation/Interference from kHz Photons
The theory I propose predicts that some electromagnetic frequencies in the kHz range should be able to stimulate/interfere in the coupling between the electron and the p/d/t. In particular the frequency of 1836 [Hz], equal to the p/e mass ratio, should influence the p-e coupling. Is Rossi pumping in this range with its impulses?

Neutron Emission Stimulation
A quite stringent test for the proposed reactions is the stimulation of neutron production via gamma rays.

3a: d+e+d ->H4+ neutrino + (max) 6.82 MeV
non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
3b: d+e+d+141[keV] ->H4 + neutrino +(max) > 0.00 MeV
excited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV
4a: t+e+p ->H4 + neutrino + (max) 2.79 MeV
non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
4b: t+e+p+4.17[MeV]->H4 + neutrino + (max) > 0.00 MeV very unlikely
exited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV

In fact the equation 3b says that if the NAE is irradiated with photon just above 141 [keV] the production of neutrons should be activated. Reaction 4b suggests another higher energy: 4.17 [MeV]. If my estimation of the mass of the beta decaying H4 is wrong these frequencies should be changed accordingly.

Tritium Elimination
The d-e attraction should be less intense than the t-e attraction. Together with reaction 4, this means that any tritium added to an hydrogen loaded charge should gradually be consumed by the LENR. The E-Cat and the Hot-Cat in fact seem not to accumulate tritium, despite hydrogen loading (see Edmund Storms’ comments …).

Vacancy Movement Stimulation
Stimulating the charge with photons that enhance the movement of vacancies could possibly raise the reaction rate.

Ni64 is the Source of Copper 65
The experimental results say that Ni64 is depleted by the LENR. I therefore gather that Ni64 has a magnetic moment (quadrupole or higher) that allows it to react and become Ni65. Ni65 then decays beta to Cu65 (with a half-life of 2.517 [h]):

16: Ni64+e+p ->Ni65+neutrino+ (max) 5.15 [MeV]
Ni65 ->Cu65 + e- + antineutrino + (max) 2.138[Mev]

I think this is the origin of the isotope shift described in the Rossi-Focardi paper “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”. In that report the natural isotope ratio between Cu63 and Cu65, equal to 2.24, was found to have shifted to 1.16 in the ashes. I suggest that that shift was due to the addition of Cu65, in an amount exactly equal to the Ni64 that reacted.

Decay of Ni69
Ni69 is radioactive, with a half-life of 76,000 years, and decays almost exclusively via electron capture. The branching to positron emission is only 0,000037%. Therefore if this isotope remains in the charge only as traces it will not cause significant gamma radiation (for a 0.55 [g] Ni charge …). A problem remains in the fact the that the X ray emissions (in the range of a few [keV]) that follow the electron capture should have been measured.

Lithium Isotopic Shift
The LENR I propose for Lithium, differently from what happens for Nickel, lead to an enrichment in Li6 only because the two become He4 at different rates. This means that the total amount of Li should decrease together with the Li7/Li6 ratio.

Unfortunately I think that even if all the predictions agreed with the experiments, Andrea Rossi would not declare it, since he and Industrial Heat need to keep the technology and the corresponding theory as secret as possible.

Best Regards

Andrea Calaon

yes Alain, the reactions of Storms are "necessary" (as he well understood after excluding everything else) and therefore correct. But there is no "laser in the crack" effect.
The large electron can actually capture two small nuclei, one of which must be a p/d/t, inside its Zitterbewegung orbit, and guide the two nuclei to fusion distances. Then the electron comes and ... bang.
I am in contact with Prof. Dallacasa, author in 1983 of the potential I am using. He knows my theory. And he told me he had thought about a coupling between electron and proton a long time ago (I think independently from LENR), but never really push forward the idea.
The idea of Dallacasa that Cook published in his book is actually strong: the nuclear force has nothing to do with the strong force, and is purely a magnetic coupling (electromagnetism). This is why the range in LENR can be extended to picometric scales by the electron. And this is why fractionation is "automatic". Hagelstein spent so much time on it ...
No free neutrons, only bound ones: this is the key to absence of nuclear garbage.

So far I had about 650 visits on my web page since the 2nd of October, but you are the first to comment.
Thanks.
Now I need to sleep.
See you tomorrow.
Andrea

Hi Everyone,
In my free time I developed the bases of a LENR theory that I think could explain most of the strange experimental features. No fancy new physics.
I propose that the LENR are electron-mediated ternuclear reactions. The attractive potential is the one of Dallacasa and Cooks (described the nuclear physics book that Rossi keeps suggesting ...).
The Nuclear Active Environment comes from the movement of the metal vacancies.
The reactions do not produce free neutrons, apart from extreme conditions, and there is no need for a special energy fractionation mechanism.

Here is the simple site where I put it, divided in a page with my guesses before the ITPR, and another with the updates after the ITPR:
http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/

I would really like to have your comments about my theory.

Regards

Andrea Calaon