Discussion on Paper: "Electron assisted neutron exchange in solid state"

--------------www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg88124.html--------------

Electron assisted neutron exchange process in solid state environment http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.5498v1.pdf

Excellent find, Lou. This Kalman neutron-exchange paper is most definitely of interest to LENR. It offers yet another hypothetical way to get nuclear energy out of hydrogen-loaded metals with no free neutrons (as with W-L)- and with few of the other indicia of hot reactions.

This electron-assisted modality also seems to work well - even better - in the context of relativistic inner shell electrons in dense metals, which could possibly supply the energy deficit which is needed, instead of external electron irradiation (which needs only to provide for negative charge asymmetry).

Relativistic electrons are evident in a few metals like nickel and palladium, which are out of place in the progression of the elements in the periodic table - in terms of density, compared to atomic weight - was a subject that was introduced recently. It has been given almost no attention in the literature, but it is standard physics. This could be another piece of the puzzle.

Coincidentally, the paper in question focuses on exactly these two metals (but does not mention the inner shell electron velocity). Instead free electrons are accelerated slightly but they are slow and cannot supply the energy needed. Relativistic inner orbital electrons can provide the energy- so all one needs to complete the picture is electron substitution, which could involve the zero point field or possibly proton mediation of some kind.

BTW - the density of nickel (or copper) is over 8900 kg/m3 whereas for comparison zinc, which has a higher atomic number - is 7130. Iron is 7974. The 25% density gain in nickel is due to tighter inner shell orbitals, which implies relativistic electrons. Zinc or iron have significantly less electron contribution to their structure compared to nickel and are more typical.

Density alone is not enough, and the host metal must also be a proton conductor. But Kalman is saying that there is a double exchange, which seems to imply something remarkable and moreover falsifiable, and it should be subject to validation in a Rossi type of system.

-----------------------www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg88145.html---------------

No John, the Meulenberg-Sinha Extended Lochon Model and my model are not similar any more than apples and oranges are similar. I have studied the Lochon model. It assumes electrons can get closer to the nucleus than the Bohr orbit and this deep electron can hide the Coulomb barrier. This electron energy state is only supported in theory and has no relationship to what I propose in my model. However, Andrew is trying to fit his theory to mine.

They both propose linear clusters in a crack-NAE (what ELT refers to as a "surface defect"). They also both propose slow dissipation of energy through photons (and ELT includes phonons). Yes there are clear differences beyond this, but the theories are not completely disconnected.

Yes John, they mentioned a crack as one place the process might occur. The concept of linear clusters has not been described well enough for me to understand how this can happen. I understand this is a cluster of two, being D- and D+ combined in some strange way never found in Nature before.

The TSC does not require a crack to form and has no clear way to dissipate the energy except from the implausible formation of Be8.

It does require an NAE "Sub-Nano Space". Nano-crack, Nano-cavity, Nano-mesh...aren't we splitting hairs a little bit too much?

The theory is not described as needing these features. It has been described as occurring on the surface of ordinary particles. Of course, a hypothetical special condition is proposed, but this seems not to be necessary for the process to function. The nano-gap is ESSENTIAL for my model. It is the only condition that is required. Methods for its creation are described. The TSC theory seems to rely only on having small particles available. I see no evidence that the LENR process is uniquely related to having small particles. Small particles only increase the rate because their high surface area allows more NAE to form.

We need more data do we not before we can crown one as "The" NAE? The energy dissipation in this model is accomplished through periodic photon bursts as well, again similar to your model.

These bursts have no logical source. This appears to be an assumption of convenience.

The Be8 hypothesis is at least in line with the experimental findings of Iwamura and Arata that suggest somewhere between 4-6 deuterons are clustering together to initiate fusion.

I do not believe this conclusion results from the Arata and Iwamura data. Ask yourself, why would an unstable structure be assembled, after which it immediately blows apart? This is not how Nature behaves. All nuclear reactions, when they can occur, lose energy and go directly to the most stable condition, sometimes in steps but the steps are always down hill.

Creation of the TSC assumes this structure is more stable in the lattice than any other combination of deuterons. This cannot be demonstrated from observation or known thermochemical relationships. Consequently, this concept is based on assumption.

I feel its based on well reasoned "imagination" plus experimental data, even if "unlikely".

By imagination I mean proposing ideas that have no support other than imagined theory. My "theory" has support because it comes directly from how LENR behaves, not how I might imagine it behaves based on a quantum theory.

Some clearly do this. Like W-L for example. I think the various cluster hypotheses are better grounded in experimental findings. Not all to the same degree of course.

A cluster of some form is clearly required. However, formation of the cluster MUST follow the rules of thermochemistry. The cluster models ignore these rules.

In addition, we know a great deal about how LENR behaves. Some theories are in direct conflict with this knowledge base. Of course, a book will be required to demonstrate this claim...No, I do not have the final word. However, I do have a better map and I now know where to dig for the gold, which is what all theories are attempting to discover.

Certainly, and your KISS model accounts for the "knowns" quite well in my opinion. But just like other cluster models, the hydroton is novel and still requires more vindication.

The only "proven" cluster I know of is the rydberg cluster, and that's only been seen in hot fusion experiments (as far as my understanding goes).

Formation of the Rydberg state requires energy. Where does this energy come from?

Me too. I'm working every day. Reading the papers again allows many early conclusions to be changed now that we better understand what is real and not have to fight skeptics.

John, the other theories are in direct logical conflict with each other and are also in conflict with many observations. I predict the final theory will be nothing like what has been proposed.

I'm not proposing to throw all of them into a tumbler and hope a coherent theory emerges. But clearly certain theories are more analogous to one another than you believe. For example your theory and Meulenberg-Sinha Extended Lochon Model have striking similarities.

And cluster theories like TSC are quite compatible with the idea of a Nano-NAE (whether crack or cavity).

The TSC does not require a crack to form and has no clear way to dissipate the energy except from the implausible formation of Be8.

Your theory is perhaps the best at KISS, but you can't always indict someone for using "imagination", it is simply part of theoretical work.

Even you have used "imagination" in developing the hydroton and its particular dynamics for example. And of course certain speculations go out on longer limbs than others, and that is when criticism can take center stage to bring stuff back to reality.

Clearly there are differences between theories, I'm not attempting to whitewash the issue. But to say all of them are mutually exclusive is taking an absolutist position on a phenomenon that is, still in many ways, not well elucidated.

However, what is well elucidated is general science and what has been discovered about Nature's behavior. In addition, we know a great deal about how LENR behaves. Some theories are in direct conflict with this knowledge base. Of course, a book will be required to demonstrate this claim.

There are still many experiments to do. You can't possibly think any theory, including yours, is the final word do you?

No, I do not have the final word. However, I do have a better map and I now know where to dig for the gold, which is what all theories are attempting to discover.

Nice effort listing all the theories side by side Jones. Indeed it is quite a smorgasbord, and the final theory will likely being some unpredicted synthesis of two, three, or more. And that's only the main reaction pathway, which we can then add secondary or tertiary pathways to that involve stuff like hot fracto-fusion, Casmir cavitation, etc.

John, the other theories are in direct logical conflict with each other and are also in conflict with many observations. I predict the final theory will be nothing like what has been proposed.

Jones, this description has no relationship to my theory. My theory is not evolved from fractofusion. Fractofusion results only as the crack is formed, which generates a very brief high voltage across the gap. My mechanism occurs after the crack had formed and has no relationship to high voltages or to hot fusion. I propose a structure forms in a very narrow gap that is able to dissipate the mass-energy gradually as photon emission. The overall mechanism can explain all observations very logically, which the other theories can not do.

* The Takahashi tetrahedral TSC model is similar to the BEC. * The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Focardi/ Rossi/ Brillouin/ NASA explanation. * Polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving

plasmons, surface phonons and photons. This is more of an "enabler" pathway. * Casimir dynamics, in general including a dynamical effect. This is

* RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong force, QCD and a transient state, the diproton, deriving energy from quark or gluon

* The "nanomagnetism" ideas of Brian Ahern - which is a formative theory involving magnons and cyclical phase change around the Curie point of

mutually exclusive and most experiments cannot be defined by a single hypothesis.

have overlooked your favorite, but this is a running effort and your favorite may appear on the next list.

Here’s the best comment...

——————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg88136.html-————

Here are a few further musings on this fine paper.

The electron assisted neutron exchange process is interesting for nickel
since the yield is almost 600 keV for each of the two see-saw isotopes. This
is on the high side of what can remain “gammaless”. The downside is that
Ni61 is only 1+% of natural nickel, and it is required for all 3 exothermic
reactions. In practice this would probably limit the lifetime of the
reaction severely without some kind of enrichment.

The downside for Rossi - if this theory is correct, is that he blew it and
has little IP protection ... since essentially, in his filing, Rossi bet the
farm on Ni62 being the active isotope. However, it is unlikely that the
neutron exchange reaction is the only gainful reaction in any experiment, or
even a main reaction - and it could be only contributory. It could be one
of a dozen pathways, any of which will reinforce the probability of others
in a synergetic way.

Here are a few of the most viable hypotheses for gain - well over a dozen of
them. But the most controversial suggestion is that these are not mutually
exclusive, and that several or even ALL of them could be at work
simultaneously and contributory in a given experiment which has the
necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for “most likely”
IMHO.

* The original theory of P&F applicable to palladium and deuterium,
involving fusion to helium or tritium caused by coherent electron effects
(screening)
* Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation
fusion model of Horace Heffner.
* The “hydrino” (fractional hydrogen) mechanism of Randell Mills.
* The dense hydrogen or dense deuterium model, differentiated by Miley
and others as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer).
* The Storms mechanism for NiH, which envisions protons fusing to
deuterium via screening in a specific kind of NAE site, evolved from
“fractofusion.
* The NASA effort (US 20110255645) suggests a method for producing
“heavy electrons” as a fusion catalyst (screening).
* The Yeong Kim (Zubarev) proposal of a BEC Bose-Einstein Condensate
* The Takahashi tetrahedral TSC model is similar to the BEC.
* The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by
Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Focardi/ Rossi/ Brillouin/ NASA
explanation.
* Polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving
plasmons, surface phonons and photons. This is more of an “enabler” pathway.
* Casimir dynamics, in general including a dynamical effect. This is
also an “enabler” pathway as are other geometry constraints.
* Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from long-lived
but unstable isotopes like potassium-40.
* RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong force,
QCD and a transient state, the diproton, deriving energy from quark or gluon
mass.
* The “nanomagnetism” ideas of Brian Ahern - which is a formative
theory involving magnons and cyclical phase change around the Curie point of
Ni.
* Any combination or permutation of the above - since none of them is
mutually exclusive and most experiments cannot be defined by a single
hypothesis.

There are many more, especially variations and refinements. Pardon me if I
have overlooked your favorite, but this is a running effort and your
favorite may appear on the next list.

And here’s another good one.

-———————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg88150.html-——————

[Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper

Jones Beene Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:23:00 -0800

Apologies in advance for the long posting.

Earlier is was suggested: The downside for Rossi - if
Kalman’s paper is correct, is that he blew it and has little IP protection
... since essentially, in his filing, Rossi bet the farm on Ni62 being the
active isotope. However, it is unlikely that the neutron exchange reaction
is the only gainful reaction in any experiment, or even a main reaction -
and it could be only contributory.

In light of the Kalman paper and the fact that the proposed “neutron
exchange reaction” has “hit a raw nerve” amongst many who are striving to
find accurate answers to the underlying modality of LENR, and the active
isotopes - there are a few more points to consider.

Keep in mind that Kalman requires Ni61 instead of Ni62 (Rossi patent).

Many months ago, it was learned from a source in the isotope enrichment
business - who prefers to remain anonymous, that Andrea Rossi had indeed
purchased enriched nickel isotopes for testing. That is essentially all that
was learned - other than the price paid (very high) and the fact that Rossi
was longer a customer of this supplier.

The main value of this information now, as we go into 2014 - is that it came
near the time that Rossi’s patent application was changed to focus
essentially on this one specifically named isotope (Ni-62) AND that it
verified that indeed, Rossi had used enriched nickel isotopes in testing.
Many had doubts that Rossi would have gone to great expense of doing this
since he made the claim that “he did not need to enrich”. But that was a
half-truth.

Yawn? Maybe this detail is not a yawner - thanks to the new paper. The
emerging value of this factoid, given a reinterpretation - is that it can be
a strong clue to where we stand today IF (big “if”) the Kalman neutron
exchange reaction is accurate for a large percentage of the gain which is
seen in the Rossi reaction, especially in the HotCat - and the Ni62 route is
relatively minor. Both could be active but one could be far more active.

It should be realized that the prime function of free electrons in the
Kalman paper can be supplied by plasmon-polaritons in a thermal zone, and
that the Rossi HotCat seems to be an ideal vehicle for all of these major
types of polaritons (which can supply the charge disruption which is
required for neutron substitution). They are:

1) Phonon-polaritons result from coupling of an infrared photon with a
thermal phonon;
2) Exciton-polaritons result from coupling of photons with excitons
3) Intersubband-polaritons result from coupling of an infrared photon
in the conduction band of a semiconductor heterostructure (like SiC).
What Kalman seems to have missed, but which we can now have the luxury to
re-evaluate in the context of the HotCat is that the charge disruption
(preceding neutron substitution) can be of either negative or positive
polarity, probably does not require electrons per se, and that a polariton
would be an good substitute vehicle for this task !

One other thing. If we assume that Rossi did actually try a number of
isotopes before deciding to risk everything in his IP protection on only one
isotope - doesn’t this pretty much rule out the Kalman “neutron shuffle” -
since that modality absolutely demands Ni61 ?

The answer is a resounding NO! In fact it shows precisely where Rossi could
have made his big mistake in trying to cut corners with the high price of
isotopes.

Hint. If you must use enriched isotopes in any process, it is much easier
and less costly to remove either the heavy fraction OR the light fraction,
rather than to try to isolate a single isotope. Removal by density gradient
can often be done in an ultracentrifuge (meaning that almost any lab could
do it). The cost difference between buying nickel which is enriched in the
heavy fraction (by removing only Ni58 and Ni60) and any pure isotope is
about 1000:1.

The light isotopes (58 and 60) are over 94% or natural nickel, so to deplete
them preferentially can give one a high multiple of enrichment in the heavy
fraction for about $20 gram (in high volume) instead of $20,000 per gram for
pure Ni62. This is a ballpark estimate.

Thus - a tentative hypothesis, taking all of this old info into account in
the new context, is that sometime in 2012 Rossi learned that the heavy
isotope fraction of nickel was where the activity was, and to reduce cost -
he thereafter bought nickel which was depleted in the light isotopes.

My apology for the complicated attempt to explain all of this in a single
posting, and I realize that most who have followed Rossi will balk at this
explanation, given that it is dependent on a new understanding (Kalman)
which is unproved.

Especially disappointed will be those who have been enamored with DGT.
However, it would be a mistake to overlook this possibility, especially
since the spokesman for Defkalion stated emphatically that “all the isotopes
all work, other than Ni61”.

In fact, the truth (if Kalman is correct) is just the opposite: ONLY Ni61
works !

Yet this makes perfect sense. A company like Defkalion who has no IP and who
have lied about so many other things in the past, including their so-called
move to Canada (Not!) would be expected to make the most untruthful claim
possible to mislead competitors - which is exactly what has happened.

In short, the bottom line is that the heavy isotope fraction of nickel is
only 6% of natural, and includes Ni61, Ni62 and Ni64 - with most of that
being Ni62. When Rossi found this heavy fraction to be more active, he may
have jumped to a conclusion on the single isotope Ni62 - reasoning it can be
transmuted to stable copper with a proton addition... AND furthermore that
to avoid a patent which is based on Ni62 the practitioner would need to
remove it, at which point the reactor would presumably not work.

When in truth, Rossi was getting high enrichment in Ni61 at the same time,
along with the Ni62 ... and since Ni61 can NOT go to copper with a proton
addition (there is no stable Cu62) he could not have guessed that it was
actually the active isotope. Also, this is because Focardi had convinced him
years ago that the gain comes from nickel going to copper. But as Kalman
shows us, the gainful substitution reaction happens in nickel, which does
NOT TRANSMUTE to copper. (at least that is the premise of this posting).

The result is completely clean- no free neutrons and no gammas. This revised
explanation is so elegant and logical in fitting into the historical
picture, that I will savor the moment with another café latte ...

...before someone comes along and bursts Kalman’s hydrogen filled balloon
:-)

Jones

Oh... ok. Here's another good comment, and a chance for skeptics to comment on the science behind LENR. --------------www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg88126.html---------- Re: [Vo]:Electron assisted neutron exchange in solid state H Veeder Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:40:53 -0800 On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:54 AM, wrote: > > One of these is - > "Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes" > http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1078 > > ABSTRACT > Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that > if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a > "free" electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude > of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear > reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can > significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy > particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a > heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much > greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and > consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively > charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the > door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are > thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear > reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is > partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated > numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed > charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d+d→ 4He > process. > The summary describes important aspects of the paper which are not mentioned in the abstract: <> Note: reference 13 is Ed Storms' 2010 paper in Naturwissenschaften. Harry

FR's HTML autodetect really goes kaflooey sometimes.

Oh... ok. Here's another good comment, and a chance for skeptics to comment on the science behind LENR.

Re: [Vo]:Electron assisted neutron exchange in solid state

H Veeder Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:40:53 -0800

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:54 AM, wrote:

pagnucco Thu, 19 Dec 2013 21:55:05 -0800
In case they were not cited in Vortex earlier, the two authors have a number of papers on Arxiv that may be relevant to LENR - at URL:
(note HTML) arxivdot org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Keszthelyi_T/0/1/0/all/0/1

One of these is -
"Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes" (note HTML ) arxivdot org/abs/1303.1078

ABSTRACT
Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a "free" electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d+d¨ 4He process.

The summary describes important aspects of the paper which are not mentioned in the abstract:

VI. SUMMARY
It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid metal surrounding nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like (positive) charge of low initial energy. It is recognized, that one of the participant particles of a nuclear reaction of low initial energy may pick up great momentum in a Coulomb scattering process on a free, third particle of the surroundings. The virtually acquired great momentum, that is determined by the energy of the reaction, can help to overcome the hindering Coulomb barrier and can highly increase the rate of the nuclear reaction even in cases when the rate would be otherwise negligible. It is found that the electron assisted d + d → 4He process has the leading rate. In the reactions discussed energetic charged particles are created, that can become (directly or after Coulomb collisions) the source of heavy charged particles of intermediately low (of about a few keV ) energy. These heavy particles can assist nuclear reactions too.

It is worth mentioning that the shielding of the Coulomb potential has no effect on the mechanisms discussed. Our thoughts were motivated by our former theoretical findings [9] according to which the leading channel of the p + d → 3He reaction in solid environment is the so called solid state internal conversion process, an adapted version of ordinary internal conversion process [10]. In the process formerly discussed [9] if the reaction takes place in solid material, in which instead of the emission of a photon, the nuclear energy is taken away by an electron of the environment (the metal), the Coulomb interaction induces a p + d → 3He nuclear transition. The processes discussed here can be considered as an alternative version of the solid state internal conversion process since it is thought that one party of the initial particles of the nuclear process takes part in Coulomb interaction with a charged particle of the solid material (e.g. of a metal).

There may be many fields of physics where the traces of the proposed mechanism may have been previously appeared. It is not the aim of this work to give a systematic overview these fields. We only mention here two of them that are thought to be partly related or explained by the processes proposed. The first is the so called anomalous screening effect observed in low energy accelerator physics investigating astrophysical factors of nuclear reactions of low atomic numbers [11].

The other one is the family of low energy nuclear fusion processes. The physical background, discussed in the Introduction and in the first part of Section V., was questioned by the two decade old announcement [12] on excess heat generation due to nuclear fusion reaction of deuterons at deuterized Pd cathodes during electrolysis at near room temperature. The paper [12] initiated continuous experimental work whose results were summarized recently [13]. The mechanisms discussed here can explain some of the main problems raised in [13]. (a) The mechanisms proposed here make low energy fusion reactions and nuclear transmutations possible. (b) The processes discussed explain the lack of the normally expected reaction products.

The authors are indebted to K. H¨artlein for his technical assistance.

Note: reference 13 is Ed Storms' 2010 paper in Naturwissenschaften.

Harry

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.