WJMFC Verified User
  • Member since Oct 28th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by WJMFC

    But explain why the numbers match for all elements and isotopes, or why any nuclear reactions perfectly fits! No cheating needed nor allowed!

    SAM makes a whole bunch of predictions, but one needs to be wiling to look at it....

    I am willing to look at SAM if you can reduce the calculation of the mass or binding energy of the neutral atom to some algorithm depending on N and Z (neutron and atomic numbers). Can you be a bit more specific about how "the numbers match for all elements and isotopes". What is the RMS error of the SAM's predictions compared to experimental values?

    The assumption that the LENR reaction involves nuclear reactions and fusion is why LENR is rejected by Science. Because of this assumption, LENR has become a laughing stock in Science. If LENR supported a fusion reaction, it would demonstrate neutrons, and gamma rays of a specific energy levels associated with the type of fusion that is occurring.

    To the best of my understanding, nobody in the LENR community has ever explained why these tell tale fusion indicators were lacking in the LENR reaction. The assumption that LENR is a nuclear reaction is obviously invalid.

    Surely BEC's electron capture model is appropriate enough to allow further engineering approaches?

    I agree. Every single theory of CMNS anomalies predicts radioactivity. In the vast majority of theories this radioactivity is not observed and consequently is strong evidence that the model is fundamentally wrong. This is the elephant in the room which most people ignore.

    Of course there are many other reasons why LENR is NOT explained by any fusion reaction. After 33 years of sterile searching, we need to take a step backwards and look at the big picture. I have systematically analyzed the major proposed mechanisms of LENR / CMNS and I presented at IWAHLM14 last year. In particular I covered

    Heavy electron capture

    Proton / Deuteron capture

    Poly deuteron capture (Iwamura like reactions)

    Poly neutrons


    Exotic Neutral Particles (ENP)

    I studied how these conjectured processes would interact with the 288 isotopes found in nature. The ONLY model which seemed to pass the test was the ENP model. Not only did the model predict radiation correctly, but it also explained why nickel, palladium, titanium, and other metals can produce heat without radiation.

    Of course a model is only as good as the data on which it is based. Some of the claims of radiation seem to be tenuous at best. It's amazing how researchers use primitive methods such as dental X-ray film, Geiger counters, etc., but finding some anomaly, do not follow up with more specific measurements. No wonder LENR is rejected by Science!! Only nuclear measurements can identify nuclear reactions precisely. And if we cannot identify nuclear reactions, we will never convince the scientific community. It's the "get rich quick" mentality of developing a valuable anomalous heat device without the slightest coherent understanding how it works, which undermines the entire field.

    1. Please don't waste our time with never seen or suspected reactions. Also, 58Co, if made using neutron spallation, decays to 58Ni.

    We are not discussing neutron spallation. More than 99.45% of ground state 58Co decays to 58Fe with 810 keV gammas and a half life of 70 days. The fact that these gammas are "never seen" strongly suggests your electron capture model is incorrect. Among the naturally occurring isotopes there are 19 which could capture 780 keV electrons to produce positron emitting radioactive products and corresponding 511 keV gammas. Not observed.

    If you still think that electron capture is a valid mechanism please produce evidence.

    The energy required to effect Electron Capture (EC) is 782KeV. You can say that is not possible, as Rick Whitman of PNNL did when starting our TAP. The problem is, it worked. He simulated confining a proton and electrons in a box on PNNL computers. It results in ultra-cold neutrons, potentially even below 10-50eV. At these extremely low energies, they have incredibly high crosssections.

    1. The 782 keV required only refers to electron capture by protons. As I pointed out earlier, electrons of lower energies could also be captured by other isotopes present, in particular:-

    58Ni+ e- -> 58Co -0.382 MeV (endothermic).

    So where are the expected gammas from 58Co decay? The energetic electron conjecture doesn't seem consistent with observation.

    2. You would need a heat pump to make ultracold anything including neutrons. As an engineer you surely know this. And ultracold neutrons, even if they existed, cannot provide 782 keV additional energy by definition. Energy has to be provided for any confinement. You cannot expect any cross section if the reaction is endothermic as energy must conserved.

    3. You cannot expect large numbers of low energy phonons "constructively interacting to provide 782KeV" as this would be a violation of thermodynamics. (Otherwise you could create a perpetual motion machine).

    The energy required to effect Electron Capture (EC) is 782KeV. You can say that is not possible, as Rick Whitman of PNNL did when starting our TAP. The problem is, it worked. He simulated confining a proton and electrons in a box on PNNL computers. It results in ultra-cold neutrons, potentially even below 10-50eV. At these extremely low energies, they have incredibly high crosssections. I also worked with Charles Martin to produce a more extensive paper on the subject. See Confinement-Induced-Electron-Capture.pdf

    If phonons represent all energy in the system and each phonon is 5meV, it would require ~1.6E8 phonons constructively interacting to provide 782KeV. This helps to explain why certain sizes and morphology nanoparticles are more likely to have LENR occur. i.e. they form a NAE. If they are too small, there are not enough lattice elements to accumulate the required energy. Other nonlinear effects also arise from things like the Lennard-Jones potential.

    If the average energy in a system is 35meV (0C), then every element has seven phonons associated with it. If the NAE where the reaction is taking place has 2E7 atoms related to it, then that particle can already have enough energy to run the reaction if they align just right. That is enough energy at 0ºC. As things warm up the number of phonons increases, raising the probability of EC by a proton.

    1. I am unsure what you are referring to in the statement "65Ni was only "discovered" later".
    2. Cerium can not provide any information on radioactive isotopes.
    3. As the binding / nucleon in Ni is > 8MeV the Q-Pulse is unlikely to generate EC in Nickel.
    4. The neutrons formed are EXTREMLY cold. On the order < E-20eV and will not leave the Nickle lattice. They will only interact with the catalyst lattice if the catalyst has been deprived of Hydrogen. Neutrons, when they form are well away from the lattice elements. This is why most researchers agree that you must have hydrogen moving through the lattice, although most don't recognize why that is necessary.
    5. On "63Ni will not produce any gammas?". Never really looked at it as it is not of interest to me but sounds reasonable. I'm an engineer not a scientist. I only study what is necessary to solve problems in designing a product.

    1. You write "There will also be gammas emitted from the decay of 65Ni".

    2. But as you predict gammas, you could have measured them.

    3. The binding / nucleon is irrelevant factor for predicting EC.

    4. Even if the neutrons were cold, they would warm up to thermal energies by collision. At thermal energies, the only way a slow neutron could make protons is via 58Ni+ n -> 58Co+ p +0.401 MeV As I say, the 58Co decays by positron emission and electron capture to 58Fe.

    "Neutrons, when they form are well away from the lattice elements." You have provided evidence that neutrons are not forming.

    5. I'm surprised you are designing a product. If you are making measurable heat, the expected gammas will be lethal. You will never get a license to sell a nuclear technology when you don't know what the underlying nuclear reactions are.

    In my opinion, to understand the phenomenon of cold fusion, there is no need to involve new physics, it is enough to take into account the collective interaction of nuclei within the framework of the old classical physics (at least in the approximation of three nuclei).

    See Vortex plasma thruster

    Have you published a model which explains CMNS? I am compiling a summary of models and I would be happy to consider yours. Every model, without exception, that I have looked at so far predicts unobserved radioactivity. Is yours an exception?

    OK, so what about Erzions, postulated by Celani and William Collis's group in their purely empirical mathematic modelling? In my limited understanding, do they equate with mesons (specifically negative muons) postulated by Leif Holmlid's and Sveinn Olafsson's groups? And furthermore, of course you are correct, in line with @Wyttenbach's model in his theoretical new SO(4) physics. The clincher may be simply that which Sakharov proposed, the -muon i.e. heavy electron (or clusters of electrons) is the primary mover of cold fusion.

    Erzions have nothing to do with nuclear structure. They were postulated by the late Yuri Bazhutov.

    If anybody would be interested, I am happy to test any nuclear model which predicts ground state atomic masses and or spins. Predictions are compared with the experimentally measured masses from The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation https://www-nds.iaea.org/amdc/ The data has an RMS experimental error of 24 keV which is much better than any model can provide.

    Obviously you will need to specify your model in sufficient detail to construct an algorithm for testing.

    At Decay radiation information on 65Ni from www.nndc.bnl.gov < 40% of the 65Ni produces gamma > 1MeV. Even under conditions way outside the allowed operating conditions (Those of this test) the amount of 65Ni produced is small and inside a stainless steal reactor. The event occurred several hours before we discovered it had happened and there was no evidence of reradiation left at that time.

    If the 65Ni could be measured by mass spectroscopy then the gamma radiation expected would be very easily measured and identified using a gamma spectrometer. This could be done without disturbing an experiment. You wouldn't need to go to any external lab.

    It's all very well claiming that 65Ni was only "discovered" later, but if you suspected neutron capture you should have have made a list of all possible reactions in advance of any experiment. And given that these neutrons are conjectured to come from energetic electrons, as in the Widom Larsen theory, you would need to consider these electrons too.

    So for example an energetic electron could be captured by 58Ni (the most abundant isotope of nickel) to produce 58Co decaying by gamma and positron emission.

    58Ni+ e- --> 58Co -0.382 MeV

    Although this electron capture reaction is endothermic, the required energy is less than that required to make neutrons. And if you had made neutrons, the stainless steel would have been activated. It seems that neither energetic electrons nor neutrons fit your observations.

    BTW, do you agree that 63Ni will not produce any gammas?


    I'm amazed this obvious problem with LENR is not understood by everyone. This method will never be applied to produce commercial energy until it is correctly understood. At the present time, we are decades away from having even a basic understanding of LENR. It's fun to speculate, but this will not lead to a useful product. The issue is not whether the claim can be replicated.

    I agree Ed. All the problems which have held up the field will evaporate if and when we understand the underlying process. You are one of the few experimental researchers who are actually trying to do this. Far too many cannot even identify the nuclear reactions compatible with their experiment or predicted by their model. 30 years on, people are still measuring excess heat (and little else) and this adds nothing new to our understanding. Indeed it makes it look like they still doubt if CMNS is real. They are making a grave disservice to the field.

    Well even Rossi appeared to be sincere at first. To avoid premature acceptance of conjecture as fact we need to raise scientific standards and avoid unsupported claims. Scientific criticism and peer review are an essential part of the process. Note that I do not accuse anyone of insincerity.

    I quote from the document entitled "Why would one see more energy out when you replace

    Hydrogen with Helium in a Brillouin reactor?" which reads:-

    "At large scale we may see some 63Ni decays. You get a gama out of the decay of 63Ni to 63Cu because 63Ni is a spin 1/2 and 63Cu is a spin 3/2. This transition provides the spin 1 change necessary for gamma emission."

    I believe 63Ni beta decays without any gamma emission at all. And in fact Brillouin apparently did not detect any gammas. Brillouin predict them, as explained above, based on the need to conserve spin. But this is taken care of by the emission of the 2 fermions, the beta particle and the neutrino. The energy of this decay is only 67 keV which doesn't leave much scope for creating an excited state of 63Cu. See https://ehs.stanford.edu/refer…3-radionuclide-fact-sheet

    In contrast 65Ni decays much more energetically than 63Ni with a half life of just 2.5 hours. It can and often does populate an excited states of 65Cu which emit copious gammas of over 1 MeV. The question is, what evidence is there for these isotopes?