The many discussions of theory have encouraged me to summarize what is known about LENR having relevance to theory, and what a theory requires to explain.
A theory in conflict with any one of these essential requirements, I suggest, is not worth discussing. On the other hand, many details about each of the requirements need to be ignored until more information is obtained. Nevertheless, the basic requirements can be used to eliminate many ideas and reduce the discussion to a few possibilities.
For those who believe theory is not important or useful, I would like to point out that we presently have theories being used to explain behavior and to design experiments. If these theories are wrong, the conclusions being reported will be wrong. Agreeing on the basic characteristics of LENR would help prevent such mistakes.
LENR has a few basic and well established behaviors and many unknown features. We can debate the unknowns, but the well known behaviors must be acknowledged by any effective explanation.
Of course, imagination can provide all kinds of exceptions to any condition, but an effective search best focuses on the more plausible and more likely possibilities.
The well known LENR behaviors include:
1. LENR is initiated only with great difficulty. Many materials have been subjected to a wide range of conditions without LENR being produced.
2. Once a material is “activated” the LENR effect is robust and sustained with a possible rate in excess of 10^11 events/sec.
3. Helium, tritium, and a variety of transmutation products are formed.
4. Each of these nuclear products are found produced in the surface region when the location can be determined.
5. Helium production is the source of most observed heat energy.
6. Very little energetic radiation is detected outside the apparatus.
7. Because LENR takes place in a chemical structure surround by normal atoms, the mechanism causing the nuclear reaction must be consistent with this environment.
Normally, any mechanism able to initiate a nuclear reaction will also cause significant chemical changes in the surrounding material. Such changes are not observed when LENR occurs.
1. The behavior identified as #1 implies that a rare and novel condition must form in the material in order for the LENR process to occur. I call this region the nuclear active environment (NAE). This region is not present in most materials and can not be easily created.
This characteristic eliminates vacancies of any type, dislocations of any kind, impurities of any kind, and large cracks because each of these features is normally present in common materials.
2. The characteristics listed in #2 show that the NAE is stable once formed and can be present in significant concentration. The NAE is not the result of a minor impurity or an occasional flaw in the material.
3. Helium and tritium formation can be attributed to reactions between isotopes of hydrogen but transmutation is difficult to explain. The explanation of transmutation must account for two types, one that adds helium to a nucleus without fragmentation and another type that results in fragmentation of the target after hydrogen is added.
4. The nuclear products are found associated only with the surface region. Consequently, the NAE is not expected to form in the bulk material.
5. Most of the heat energy results from He4 formation when deuterium is used. An effective theory must explain how helium is formed while producing the amount of energy expected to result from D+D fusion.
6. The huge mass-energy released by a nuclear reaction must be communicated to the surrounding material as heat energy. This process must not destroy the NAE or create significant energetic radiation. Consequently, a narrow range is placed on the rate at which energy is released and the type of the energy release process.
7. Creation of the NAE and the nuclear process must be compatible with the chemical conditions known to be associated with the material in which LENR takes place.
Are there additions or clarifications?
Can these requirements be used to eliminate the bad theories?
37 thoughts on “LENR behaviors that theory must explain”
Mack, I can accept the idea that formation of a hydrino-type structure might form and allow the Coulomb barrier to be reduced. Nevertheless, this can not be the entire process. The nuclear reaction is obviously not a side effect because the measured energy/helium matches that expected from d-d fusion every time the measurement is made.
Once He forms, 23.8 MeV of mass-energy MUST be dissipated as heat without energetic radiation. This simply can not be done using the electron while being consistent with observation and accepted physics. You can say the process involves a catalyst but this word reveals nothing about the process.
It is not possible to prove the energy was dissipated before fusion. This is a logical conclusion based on there being only three possibilities. Based on the observed behavior, the other two possibilities are not operating.
Christmas is a real event. Pretending it does not exist is like pretending LENR does not exist. So, I hope you have a fun Christmas no matter what you believe about God.
Are you still using Seebeck effect calorimeters? What is the highest amount of power from LENR, sustained for how long, that you obtained using those instruments (either yours or commercial versions) in experiments. And what was the ratio of power out to power in, please? I understand this varies but I am looking for an average as well as a best result.
Yes, I’m using the Seebeck method. My experience with various methods has shown the great advantage of this method in both accuracy and convenience. The largest amount of applied power is about 20 watts and the largest anomalous produced power is about 500 mW. This is about 10 times the maximum expected error. In the past, I have measured amounts over 4 watts. The goal of this study is to find ways to increase the anomalous power. The ratio of power in/power out is totally arbitrary and has no relevance to any kind of evaluation. The Seebeck method can measure 50 mW with equal accuracy from 0 to 20 watts of applied power.
The only questions of importance are, Is the excess power real and does it result from LENR? The first question is answered based on experience and care in making the measurements. The second question has to be answered by correlating the energy with a nuclear product. This has been done using helium production in the past. In my case, I’m looking for radiation that can only result from a nuclear reaction. Such radiation has been reported in the past. So far, I have not produced LENR at a rate sufficient to produce detectable radiation. Consequently, I must assume the anomalous energy I make results from LENR.
As you note Alain, Mills claimed to detect radiation having an odd energy spectrum he could explain using his theory. He also claimed to produce odd chemical compounds involving the hydrino and other elements. Of course, he also produced energy he attributed to hydrino formation.
Mills placed himself in an odd situation. On the one hand, he discovered a new phenomenon that had to be explored in order to be accepted by the scientific establishment. On the other hand, he wanted to make money from his discovery. This required keeping some information secret. He attempted patent protection but the claim was eventually rejected. Rossi is in the same situation. Universal rejection of the new idea quickly followed.
Like LENR, this phenomenon needs the skill and the large number of studies normally provided by university research for it to be fully understood. The intellectual climate of the time prevents this from happening. So, the rest of the population is denied a benefit by self-interest, arrogance, and ignorance.
Just on this point of claimed secrecy mentioned above, I’m not sure Mills has kept anything secret. He wrote and provides for free his 2000 page Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics which outlines in detail not only how the hydrino process works but how much as yet unexplained phenomena can be explained by reinstating classical physics both at the scale of the atom, a well as the entire Universe.
The rejection of Mills appears to derive from a majority attachment to QM which mandates that QM must never be challenged and must always be referred to as the best theory ever, even when it isn’t and its theoretical calculations are extremely poor in many cases requiring thousands of years of supercomputer time and complex algorithms on what should be simple multi body calculations. Mills uses GUTCP to calculate these instantly in MS Excel with nothing but fundamental constants and integer values. On that basis it should be clear that GUTCP is the correct theory.
Mills’ energy patents applications provide so much detailed information that it led one LENR enthusiast Jones Beene to snidely declare that everything seemed to be a hydrino catalyst to which it can only be said that it’s true that many things may lead to hydrino reactions but that would be expected if the physics follows the same consistent rules of an integer multiple of 27.2eV.
I’m interested in this hydroton theory as a comparison to Mills hydrino. Is there a set of rules you have derived for the formation of a hydroton? Why do you think that your hydroton isn’t a hydrino that is created due to the presence of a Mills catalyst?
Mack, I share your interest in the Mills theory. Were it not for the lack of evidence and the mathematical slight of hand some people see, I would be much more interested. But let’s assume the idea is correct and hdrinos can form in the Hydroton, as you suggest. Their formation would have to lead to fusion with He as the nuclear product when deuterium is used. Presumably, the bonding electron between the deuterium nuclei would lose energy to the surrounding electrons, thereby allowing the nuclei to get closer. Being closer would presumably allow fusion. The problem is that this process in no way would lower the Coulomb barrier. I suspect that is why Mills did not suggest this process. He was willing to propose loss of some energy from the electron structure but not enough to result in a nuclear reaction and helium formation. I can accept that a small amount of energy, say 2×27.2 eV from each electron, might be lost when the Hydroton forms, but the rest of the 23.8 MeV has to be lost by a different process.
Lets agree to differ on the evidence for now. There is quite a lot of it if you take the time to look for it.
Page 226 of Mills GUTCP has a page on Hydrino Catalysed Fusion. For your convenience I will post a streaming link for you and others to have a look at without having to download and setup the actual book.
Mills considers and compares the case of muon catalysed fusion and concludes that fusion is unlikely with very low rates even using collapsed dueterium/tritium hydrinos. I think his conclusion appears to be that hydrino transitions may cause fusion with deuterium or tritium but not at rates that will provide usable energy.
You may perhaps need to understand the Mills concept of the electron orbitsphere even if you don’t agree with it to see how very small collapsed deuterium in a molecule might lead to fusion. This link shows Mills depiction of a di-hydrino molecule.
That is, hydrinos and their deuterium and tritium equivalent can, like normal Hydrogen, form a molecule in which two electrons are spin paired around the two nuclei that exist in balance at the foci of the electron shells.
The force balance is explained and derived for hydrogen type molecules at:
You can appreciate that where a hydrino type molecule of the above form with the dueteron nuclei tightly fixed at the foci of a molecule that is a substantial fraction of a normal H2 molecule, vibrational energies may occasionally cause the nuclei to overlap and fusion to occur. The smaller the molecule gets or the smaller the deuterinos that bind to form the molecular form, the smaller the intra-nuclear distance will be and the greater the probability that vibrational energies of the nuclei will cause them to superimpose and fuse.
Thanks for all the links to background information, Mack. I agree, the Mills idea is attractive. Other people have proposed a similar idea based on different arguments. So, lets assume the electron can fall below the Bohr level and assume a location closer to the nucleus. In order for fusion to have a significant rate, this process would have to occur in an assembly of hydrogen, such as I propose forms in the Hydroton, not in the general lattice as Mills is describing.
Once fusion occurs, we have a serious problem. Somehow the 23.8 MeV/event has to be dissipated without fragmenting the helium and without producing energetic radiation. When fusion occurs using the muon, as Mills recognizes as being similar to his method, the helium fragments and produces the hot fusion products. If you want to argue that the hydrino is involved, you need to show why this result of fusion does not happen. Somehow, the huge energy must be released gradually as photons, a process that conflicts with the rules of conventional nuclear physics. How would you propose this happens?
Pure theoretical speculation follows but here goes.
In the case of D + D forming 4He and not fragmenting plus accounting for the 23.8MeV where a Hydrino type transition is responsible, fusion may putatively arise when 2 deuterium atoms collapse and forms a D2(1/n) molecule in which the dueterons are fixed at the foci of the surrounding 2 electrons spin paired around both nuclei as per Mills theory. The decrease in intranuclear distance permits vibrational energies to occasionally superimpose the D nuclei to fuse into 4He.
Compare this to “Hot” fusion where dueterium nuclei are rammed at each other . In the usual case this forms T + P and He3 + N. Nothing forbids 4He (as far as I know) it is just very unlikely where two deuterium nuclei are smashed together.
In the hydrino type reaction there is no smashing. The collapsed D bind into a molecule where the D nuclei are fixed close to each other at a distance where the probability of superposition of the nuclei permits fusion into stable 4He with no fragmentation.
This leaves the question of the missing gamma of 23.8MeV. Unlike “hot” fusion, this deuterino nuclear fusion occurs within the confines of the surrounding electrons as the deuterino molecule ceases to be a molecule and instead transitions to a 4He atom with an excess of energy.
The only possibility I can think of for the failure to detect gamma rays is that the excited helium nucleus resonantly transfers the energy to one of the surrounding electrons which is ionised with a kinetic energy of 23.8MeV, a well known nuclear decay process called internal conversion, see:
Such a high speed electron may transfer energy via multiple collisions in matter, causing a cascade of multiple ionisations which ultimately manifest as heat.
Mack, it is easy to “explain” anything these days using only imagination because physics has so many features to apply. Nevertheless, the consequence of an idea must be considered. In your case, the fusion process would produce a flux of 10^11 electrons/sec when 1 watt was generated. Not only would the 23.8 MeV elections be detected, the secondary radiation generated when they slowed in the surrounding material would be easy to detect, if not hazardous. Such mechanisms as you and many others propose are simply not consistent with what is observed. Besides, transferring this much energy from an excited nucleus to an external electron is impossible to justify, regardless of how you describe the process.
I think the reasons you give are probably why Mills does not think that fusion occurs at any great rate and that most of the heat that is claimed by LENR arises from hydrino type transitions themselves with trace amounts of hydrino assisted fusion.
I would expect that if people were looking for internally converted ejected electrons of 10-23MeV they should be able to do an experiment to detect at least some of them, even inside what you call the NAE. But if high kinetic energy electrons are not the energy transfer mechanism where do you say the nuclear energy goes? If it’s not emitted as gammas and as electrons as kinetic energy, where is it? It must be conserved and can’t just disappear. Do you propose some kind of slow transfer to the metallic lattice? I don’t see how the physics of that would work.
And if you can help me out here, why do you say that an excited nuclei can’t transfer energy to inner shell electrons? I was under the impression that where the excited nuclei meets certain conditions (zero spin, no change in atomic number etc) , such nuclear internal conversion events are likely even preferred over gamma emission.
In the meantime I’ll start going through your work to see what I can find…
Machen, my answer to your question about how the energy is dissipated from LENR can be found in my book, “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” (Amazon). I believe energy is dissipated in the form of many photons before fusion takes place. These photons are too weak to get out of the apparatus, yet they are detected when detectors have been placed in the apparatus. The reasoning behind this conclusion is too complex to explain here. You need to read what I have written elsewhere. I’m in the process of writing a new paper that examines this idea in more detail and will be available soon.
As for energy being communicated to an electron, this is a problem of magnitude. As you note, small amounts of energy can be communicated to an external electron by the internal conversion process. This process is known to communicate only a small amount of energy and is a very uncommon way for energy to leave the nucleus. The helium nucleus made by fusion is known not to use this method but instead it fragments. I know of no theoretical process that can justify communicating 23.8 MeV to an external electron. Even beta decay does not reach this level of energy. I think we can safely rule out the Mills process as explaining LENR.
We might have to agree to disagree on that. My preliminary view is that hydrino type transitions are an essential first step for every claim of excess energy.
What I am hoping to find out is whether Mills’ is right or not that any nuclear reactions are a very minor side effect of very small deuterino transitions and that the majority of observed heat arises from the transitions themselves or whether you are right and nuclear reactions are the primary source of energy.
In any case hydrino reactions would seem to supply the smallest number of assumptions to cover the widest observations of experimental facts.
There must be a splitting of H, D or T molecules to an atomic form (usually requiring the involvement of heat and metals to initiate)
There must be a catalyst to absorb integer times 27.2eV (many catalysts exist that are differentially active under many different experimental conditions and including multi-body H reactions, hydrino autocatalysis and atomic, ionic or molecular catalysts in solid or gas form. Catalysts can also be “tuned” to tighter resonance and therefore higher reaction rates by heat and external fields)
The location of H, D or T and catalyst must be within forster distance or an augmented forster distance that arises from the experimental observation of increased forster distances involving cracks in metals or metal particles)
Hydrino reactions alone produce significant heat and can produce significant reaction rates (For example the total energy release from a single hydrino where the electron radius is collapsed from H(1/1) to H(1/60) is 48.9keV.
Hydrino type reactions involving D or T may produce observed trace amounts of fusion products.
I am interested in your concept of energy loss BEFORE fusion actually occurs which I don’t think anyone else has proposed. I’m not sure if it is possible or if anyone has observed such a thing under any type of experimental conditions but I will flag it as something to consider.
For example what if there was an interaction between the tightly bound deuterium nuclei in a hydrino type molecule where the vibrational energies between the nuclei induce the emission of a continuum of low energy photons prior to superposition?
Not sure how you would go about proving such a loss of energy before fusion. I will check the literature.
I hope you are successful in your theory and wish you all the best for the future in this field. (And a happy Christmas too if that isn’t too politically incorrect to say so these days).
This remark lead to the conclusion that
about 24MeV of energy are borrowed from the fusion-reaction, before an “indebted fusion” happen.
This mean that somewhere in the system minus 24MeV of interactions can be accumulated to “explain” the final fusion .
This is not at all an accumulated energy like many imagine to overcome the coulombic barrier, which not only will be paid back, but with 24 more MeV from the fusion.
One escape, the WLS solution, is that this energy is transmitted to a collective object and dissipated slowly.
You reject that idea, as I understand, because so much energy accumulated would be dissipated quickly(thermodynamic?), with dirty consequences.
If we accept this idea of “short sale of the fusion result”, this mean that in the NAE there is a strange way to dissipate energy, thus go down in the energy level, that in normal environment is impossible.
And not only NAE/hydroton can go down to negative energy, but 24MeV down.
Of course this is linked to a collective phenomenon, but being able among few thousand (depth of the active zone where NAE are, seems about a micron, thus 10k angstrom) to store such energy (1keV per atom) required either nucleus excitation, or (question!) deep electrons of surrounding nucleus (because H have no deep electron!)…
I am raising question I cannot answer at all.
Alain, the process I imagine involves a process that has two parts. This process has never been observed before and it is unique to our understanding of how nuclei interact. It only functions in a special structure within a matrix of atoms. The process is different from the process that works in plasma on which our present understanding is based. LENR has revealed that its behavior can be explained in a consistent way only when a novel process is applied.
I propose a collection of hydrogen nuclei can form a structure and it acts as if it knows that it can fuse, but not until energy has been lost from each nuclei in the structure. You can imagine this as a form of entanglement if you want. The energy is lost as many weak photons over a brief time. Once the nuclei have lost the required energy to make H4, H3 or H2, depending on the hydrogen isotopes present, the final fusion event takes place. The H4 rapidly decays by beta emission to He4. The H3 slowly decays to He3 by beta emission and the H2 is stable.
I realize this idea is difficult to accept, yet it can be used to create a consistent explanation of ALL the observed behavior of LENR, including the two different kinds of transmutation, using only eight assumptions. It can make easily testable predictions , which most of the present theories can not do. The idea might be wrong, yet it has all the requirements of an effective explanation. To fully understand the idea, you need to read what I wrote in my book. If the process is correct, it has amazing implications worth exploring
I appreciate the attempt to boil down the results from many disparate experiments to find what is common among them. The dual ideas that a theory might arise from your lists and theories can be tested against the lists indicates to me that this is a step along the proper path towards resolution of the cognitive dissonance that comes from nuclear reactions appearing in ordinarily stable material.
An initial comment and question regarding 1 and 2 on both lists. Between the need for special preprocessing to form the material (co-dep, nanoparticles or foams) and the usual delay in initiation of significant nuclear activity, there is the implication of self-organization at or just below the surface of the material. It seems that the reaction sites need not be individually durable. The delay of onset implies they are generated: the continuation of reactions may rely on regeneration of particular nuclear reaction sites. The question is how are all forms of discontinuity ruled out in item 1 of list 2? Could it be that the NAE is a broader organization of sites that preferentially re-creates dislocations in a correlated way?
Lemoyne, thanks for understanding the approach I’m exploring. The nature of the NAE and its lifetime is an essential question that must be answered. The nature must be consistent with the chemical properties of the materials found to host LENR and the great difficulty in its formation. To further restrict the possibilities, once formed, the NAE must make possible a very odd type of nuclear interaction. Very few conditions meet these requirements. I have been unable to rationalize how dislocations can do the job while being consistent with these restrictions.
As for the lifetime of the NAE. its difficulty of formation would be expected continue even after some NAE has formed and resulted in detectable energy. If the NAE decomposes as result of the nuclear process, its replacement would be expected to be just as slow. Consequently, the LENR effect would be expected to quickly die. Otherwise, a person has to assume that once formed, the NAE can quickly renew itself. This behavior adds one more limitation to the unique nature of the NAE, which makes the NAE even more difficult to identify.
I prefer to simplify the problem by assuming the NAE is nano-cracks having a rare critical dimension that remains stable as long as the gap contains hydrogen isotopes. The energy is released slow enough to allow the gap to remain stable except where the concentration is high enough for the local energy to cause melting, as has been seen. My studies indicate that once the hydrogen is completely removed, the cracks heal and LENR is no longer possible. I do not see how dislocations can behave this way.
Thanks for the reply. I can now see a difficulty that seems to permeate discussions of potential LENR phenomena. I used the term ‘discontinuity’ intending it to be general and cover the gamut of nanocracks, voids, impurities, etc. I think you have the term refer to a shift in the crystal structure, perhaps caused by and near void, that isn’t the void or crack itself. So, we end up talking past each other somewhat.
What I recognize now is that the term Nuclear Active Environment [NAE] is used by different people in significantly different ways. If I am understanding this and other writings more clearly:
— you [Storms] and Dubinko and others have the NAE as the particular site where LENR is favored to occur at a recogizable rate. So, there are perhaps 10e11 or 10e12 per square cm in a LENR active surface at any time. And there must be about the same number at all times during its operation whether or not they are durable or re-generated.
— A. Caolan (and Axil) have the NAE as the nuclear active species itself: a condensed form of H/D that is prone to nuclear interaction. So, there are perhaps 10e11 or 10e12 per square cm in a LENR active surface area at any one time time and perforce many more over operation for more than a few seconds.
From trying to build a model that describes LENR action and its relative rarity I have understood the NAE in a more general way. I have taken the term NAE to be a special status or type of action of the environment: the surface, the volumes on either side and the EM drivers that cause LENR action whether that action involves particular sites or special species of H/D or not.
In summary, there is a need for common terminology, or at least well understood versions of similar terms in order to make progress towards a common understanding. This need is not just the universal need for clarity to have effective communication. It is especially necessary because LENR appears to occur not just at the boundary of materials but at the boundary (really: conjunction) of various fields of study.
LeMoyne, in my world, the NAE refers to the unique structure or condition in which the nuclear process occurs. It is a local condition with properties much different from the surrounding lattice structure.
I proposed this concept in 1996 and have been working ever since to get it understood and accepted. Unfortunately, every one in this field has their own independent idea about what words mean and how to apply the concept to behavior.
In my theory, I identified the NAE as nanocracks, which can be thought of as being the start of a crack that, if it grew bigger, would be seen and identified as a normal crack. According to my model, the gap width is critical with an active gap being near 1 nm. Large gaps do not support LENR. The cracks are three dimensional, allowing the Hydroton to form anywhere within the crack structure where the gap has a critical value. Consequently, millions of Hydrotons might be operating at various locations in a single crack structure. In addition, many separate crack structures are expected to form within the surface region.
This is a very simple concept. But, as you point out, not only do people insist on distorting what I propose but they apply the designation of NAE in different ways. This makes communication impossible and leads to ongoing confusion. I wish I knew how to solve the problem. Apparently continuous repetition of the idea is required with many analogies and variations.
We have a large collection of theories containing many ad hoc assumptions designed to fit a few chosen behaviors. Each of these concepts is defended to the death, including my idea. 🙂 So, progress is very slow. As is often said, we need more data before this problem will stop being a distraction.
antimatter is a vector fuel not an enegry source.today there is no enegry source more dense than LENR, fission, or fusion difference in density is mostly linked to engineering and radiation safety (except for LENR which have a great advantage).On advantage of fusion/lenr is that you may scoop fuel on the way in hydrogen cloud. don’t know if the density is enough hard job but that is hightec job.
Mack, helium as the source of heat energy when deuterium is used is not an assumption. The He/energy has been measured and it is consistent with D-D fusion.
Hydrino formation is a unproven theory that is not consistent with the overall behavior of LENR. Use of the hydrino concept to explain dark matter makes sense, but this idea does not have to be then applied to LENR. These are apparently two separate phenomenon.
My approach is to focus thinking in the most productive direction. If the collapse to a lower electron level occurs during LENR, this process will have to be explored after the LENR process is better understood. I believe this better understanding has to be based on exploring the more probable, not by adding unproven and generally unseen behaviors to the mix.
Beside the weird theory, what are validated experimental results of Blacklight Power …
I remember of e-UV, that he interpret as hydrino evidence, but which could be interpreted in many way.
Alain, there is a lot of validation and experimental work. The theory in its book form is well worth perusing even as a skeptic as you may find its explanations quite convincing for a large amount of natural phenomena even if you don’t accept it all. Four convenience I post a link to the book but you will have to download a djvu reader:
(I found installing the djvu software and downloading the entire book the best approach as the theory is about 2000 pages long and it is much easier to search for keywords)
But in relation to energy claims, Mills theory predicts what hydrino catalysts are, how they interact and the energy and spectra given off in these reactions which seem to match quite well to experiment. Mills has also got a number of analytical tests of the products of his reactions which seem to indicate that the electron does indeed reside close to the proton. These methods are covered in some of his peer reviewed papers.
The theory appears incredibly powerful. For example using only fundamental constants and integer values, Mills can accurately derive the ionisation energies of hundreds of atoms and ions, as well as the energy conformations and exact charge distribution in complex molecules, whereas Quantum Mechanics cannot make accurate predictions for anything other than hydrogen and requires complex algorithms on supercomputers.
This seems to me at least a good indication that Mills’ model of the electron is the correct one and as a result, his classical physics that explains “ground state” stability is likely to be correct, as is his mechanism for inducing a collapse below these states that may be the source of anomalous heat.
Those of you you who wonder why LENR claims are so different and unreliable in terms of replication should consider that the reason may lie in the experimental setup that governs the activity of a particular Mills catalyst.
Take Iwamura’s results. The diffusion of D through Pd/CaO thin layers with MgO as an unreactive control produces Xrays and claimed transmutation. One obvious conclusion is that CaO under those particular experimental conditions acts as a Mills hydrino catalyst and given the spectra detected, quite an effective one.
Ed, you say that it is the LENR process that should be explored first before even considering hydrinos. I respectfully suggest that the other approach will be more productive. You should keep an open mind in looking for the Mills hydrino catalyst in each reliable case of excess energy and then consider whether hydrinos/deuterinos could lead to fusion.
As a side note, although Mills theory supports the possibility of fusion of dueterinos at very small radii, he does not believe fusion rates are significant and that most excess energy will come from the collapse of the electron radius. Of course, he may be wrong about that and I would be entirely happy to find out that he is. However just in case he is right about that, perhaps some of the claims of transmutations should be looked at in terms of erroneous readings arising from hydrinos or hydrinos/deuterinos tightly bound to normal atoms.
Mack, I agree the Mills theory is impressive. It is not generally accepted because when people look at it carefully, they find errors and hidden assumptions. In addition, Mills has applied his theory for many years using a modern laboratory and about $50M dollars without creating a practical source of energy or any convincing proof. The idea of there being a lower energy state below the Bohr orbit is not new. This is an attractive idea for lowering the Coulomb barrier. However, Mills does not apply his idea that way because he does not claim to detect nuclear reactions.
As for the Iwamura result, we have two aspects to explain. How can any effect taking place at the CaO be communicated to the surface where transmutation is found? In addition, how can up to 3 nuclei of helium be added to a target nucleus by a hydrino? Before you get too excited about Mills, you need to answer these questions.
I welcome the challenge.
For this purpose, lets assume that the Iwamura transmutation results are accurate and I’ll speculate why hydrinos/deuterinos might/could be responsible.
Question 1 is how can any effect taking place at the CaO be communicated to the surface where transmutation is found?
Hydrino transitions occur via resonance, that is the ground state and all hydrino states cannot lose further energy by radiation/photon emission. It can only be lost to a catalyst that can act as the energy sink and it must be a close match to an integer multiple of 27.2 OR the experimental conditions must make up the difference to ensure resonance (ie temperature, electric or magnetic fields etc – this also explains the diversity of some LENR experimental conditions where the temperature of the experiment appears to be a factor. Temperature is not a factor in this experiment so one would expect the hydrino catalyst match to be extremely close to a multiple of 27.2eV).
So D2 gas begins squeezing through the Pd/CaO barrier layers towards the vacuum. The Pd layer disassociates a D2 molecule into D and the D encounters the thin CaO layer and undergoes a large hydrino transition.
As a side note as to why cracks and cavities appears to be active areas for LENR, the simplest answer is the physics governing resonance.
There is much literature on the effect of metal layers, atoms or clusters on the enhancement of FRET reactions where they were observed to increased both the Forster distance and the rate or reactions. Dr. Mills’ hydrino transitions are essentially higher energy resonant processes where a donor (atomic H or D) transfers energy to an acceptor atom, ion or molecule that is able to absorb integer multiples m x 27.2eV.
Thus the cracks in metal, atoms and clusters may serve a role in enhancing resonance and therefore hydrino type transitions for H or D. For the effect of metal layers and nanoparticles on FRET see below. My view is the same considerations will apply to enhancing hydrino transition rate and the Forster distance and goes some way to explaining the inconsistencies governing what you call the Nuclear Active Environment (NAE).
Once D becomes a deuterino, like normal H it can bind to another D to form a dueterino molecule D(1/n)2. At cryogenic temperatures normal H2 can also form dimers and trimers. However hydrino/deuterino molecules are much smaller with the consequence they can form stronger bonded dimers and trimers at higher temperatures.
Question 2 asks how can up to 3 nuclei of helium be added to a target nucleus by a hydrino?
Formed dimers and trimers of D such as 2D(1/n)2 and 3D(1/n)2 are forced out of the barrier material back to the surface of the barrier as they are too large to diffuse through the barrier material. At the surface a dimer or trimer encounters a target atom on the surface and undergoes a type of chemical reaction where the reduced hydrino orbits of the trimer molecule capture and bond to the inner electron shell of the target atom that more closely matches the dueterino bonding energies.
Put more simply, the target atom and the deuterino molecule trimer form a temporary quatrimer due to the magnetic attraction between target atom’s inner shell electrons that have the same or similar binding energy of the deuterino molecule. (This may explain the apparent selectivity in Iwamura’s experiments as to what atoms undergo transmutation.)
One possibility is that a hydrid molecule results that looks like transmutation but is merely tightly bonded deuterinos (ie no fusion occurs but Mass spectrometer and XPS results are fooled by the presence of tightly bonded D nuclei) BUT if we accept the premise that transmutation occurs, then the D nuclei that have been delivered close to the nucleus of the target atom undergo fusion as the nuclei superimpose. resulting in transmutation.
Pure speculation on my part but one mechanism as to how this could occur might be the reorganisation of the electron shells of the hydrid molecule. In Mills model, electrons form spheres around nuclei that spin capture other electrons and form separate shells that either superimpose and create a new shell based on calculable para and diamagnetic forces arising from spin pairing. (As he uses this model to accurately derive multi electron ionisation energies, his concept is likely correct.) If subshell chemistry is possible leading to nuclear reactions, it may be that reorganisation of electron shells provides the energy that permits LENR reactions.
Since the transmutation has occurred at low energy with electrons still surrounding the nuclei, any gammas might be lost by internal conversion, where the transmuted nucleus resonantly couples to an inner shell electron and ionises it to relativistic speeds. See:
Mack, your explanation is based on so many ad hoc assumptions, I hardly know were to start. Unfortunately you start with an incorrect understanding of how the Iwamura study is done. The deuterium is caused to diffuse through the lattice starting at the surface where the target atoms are deposited. If deuterinos are made at the CaO, they would have to diffuse to the surface against the flux of the diffusing deuterium. You need to explain why they ignore the Pd nuclei on the way and chose to react only with atoms deposited on the surface. You ignore how up to three helium are injected into the target nucleus as a simultaneous reaction and why the target does not fragment in order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. Like most theories, you use ad hoc assumptions based only on imagination while ignoring what is known to occur. If any one of these assumptions turns out to be wrong, the logic structure would collapse.
I’m stating that a different approach must be used. You need to start with assumptions having a clear relationship to what is observed and use only the smallest possible number of assumptions. This is like painting a picture using precise brush strokes rather than throwing paint at the canvas and hoping it creates a picture of something recognizable.
Thanks Ed. I don’t agree that Mills’ GUTCP and the hydrino are imagination. Having studied his claims for many years I think his theory will ultimately be adopted as the first correct Grand Unified Theory, probably only after he unveils his Suncell as a commercial product within the next year or so. I do agree that LENR requires clear cause and effect based on reproducible physics.
Yes, I did understand that the target atoms existed on the D2 gas side and not the vacuum side. I would assume that the same physics of granular convection applies in a D2 gas-barrier,-vacuum experiment.
Larger composite molecules such as hydrino/dueterino dimers and trimers formed in the layers would be jostled back toward the D2 gas side and the waiting target atoms (like a larger brazil nut in a jar of peanuts) by the smaller D2 molecules, disassociated D and deuterino particles diffusing through the barrier toward the vacuum side (until they too formed a deuterino molecule, dimer or trimer and were similarly ejected). Is this an unreasonable assumption to make?
The deuterium flux outside the barrier would also likely hold the large trimer molecules at the surface, enabling whatever reaction might ultimately cause transmutation, to occur.
The deuterino trimers preferentially ignore the Pd, Ca and oxygen nuclei because if, and however, this transmutation occurs, it clearly first involves a yet to be defined chemical-like bond interaction between the target atoms and the deuteron trimers that enable the transmutation. There is no bais for them to simply drift gently into the target nucleus in passing. Like any chemical bond there will be selectivity rules that govern what will bind and what wont. The experiment would indicate that Ca, O and Pd lack this selectivity but Sr does not.
It may be possible to derive clear rules for this process by studying the nature of the target atoms and the nature of CaO as a hydrino catalyst. For example, if the CaO layers do generate hydrino/deuterino type molecules, what radius and state are generated? Mills GUTCP details that there are 137 hydrino states corresponding to proportional radii of the ground state. What geometry do D(1/n) dimers and trimers take? Does this geometry form a natural binding site for a target Sr atom?
Also can I ask what your explanation as to why the transmuted target does not fragment? There can only be a limited number of ways for a nuclei to get rid of its excess energy which is why internal conversion of an inner electron seems to me at least the most likely. What is your position as to the lack of observable energies from transmutation?
You say in point 5:
“Helium production is the source of most observed heat “energy.”
Isn’t this an assumption on your part? Since most issues remain unresolved why have you not considered the energy release in the formation of the hydrino of Dr. Mills to see if it could explain all of the factors that seem so perplexing.
I’m not trying to be argumentative just saying it shouldn’t be excluded. The evidence for below ground states of hydrogen (and deuterium) and their predominant role in the Universe as dark matter seems extremely strong (and growing stronger as dark matter has now been identified as reacting with itself and is therefore likely to be baryonic in nature) and would go a long way to unifying many of the apparent difficulties in this field.
Axil, why do you believe the claimed reaction did not take place on the surface of the particles? Why do you believe Ni58 was converted to Ni62? No evidence exists for either assumption. The claim is based on a poorly designed test, nothing else.
I suggest you put yourself in a material at the location of the Li and Ni. Please tell me how neutrons could be extracted from many Li7 nuclei and be delivered to the various isotopes to produce only Ni62 and nothing else. Nuclei are real, not some mathematical construct. The neutrons have to actually move from one nuclei to another and do this in a way that gives only Ni62 without magic being involved. Such a nuclear reaction has never been observed before when Li and Ni have been mixed on many occasions in other laboratories . Please explain how this happened on this one occasion without using star trek.
The Lugano test report
Read carefully section 8 and appendix 1 through 4
The fuel and ash analysis was the best executed part of the Lugano test results which features multiple cross checked test results using multiple type test and expert analysts.
I am surprised that you have not included this important LENR test result in your fuel and ash analysis. Through extensive public debate, even Mary Yugo and Thomas Clarke has this document virtually memorized.
The Rossi effect is a dominant LENR reaction and should be well represented in your theory.
Axil, I have included the Rossi effect in my theory. I predict the measured energy results from p-e-p fusion to form deuterium. This reaction might produce minor transmutation but not enough to generate detectable energy. Consequently, I reject the claimed isotope shifts as either error or manipulation of the results by Rossi. I’m willing to be proven wrong by better studies, but right now I do not see enough good evidence to accept transmutation as the source of measured energy.
In addition, serious doubt exist about believing any nuclear energy was made during this test. Energy production by nuclear interaction between Ni and Li is still being explored and is not proven. Rossi clearly creates nuclear energy using a special form of Ni, but the latest claim for Li being involved at high temperature has no credibility.
Ed, I will keep it simple. You say that LENR is a surface reaction. Well then, how did the Ni58 transmute to Ni62 at the center of the Lugano 100 micron particle?
It’s hard to see how they would have licensed their tohcnolegy to several’ power companies when they also state on their web site; The goals are a 100 W unit in 2012 and a 1.5 kW unit by 2013. With some chagrin, I must admit to having gotten a bit excited several years ago by Blacklight, when they announced that they were almost ready to ship commercial units, within months. (I got freaking ecstatic in 1989, and then really deflated after.) It seems these claims of immanent deployment are endemic to at least many in the LENR community. I still remain somewhat hopeful, but I am way past letting myself get excited. I will allow myself excitement when I see actual units not just for sale, but purchased and functioning.
Axil, your comment suffers from a common problem when people attempt to explain LENR. You reject a large and well documented data set in favor of one study that happens to fit your favorite explanation. What is worse, the Lugano test was not even a scientific study with the normal checks for error.
You then introduce a concept having no universal understanding, especially in this context. You assume quantum teleportation of lithium occurs and involves the entanglement of lithium 7. Perhaps you understand what these words mean, I certainly do not in spite of your star trek reference. In fact, I’m tempted to attribute to you a delightful sense of humor.
You seem to be proposing that the Li7 transported in to the Ni particle where it provided neutrons to the different isotopes of Ni to form in each case Ni62. As best as I can tell, you propose this donation of neutrons to the Ni involves magic.
Your conclusion seems to rest on your belief that the Lugano results are real combined with your inability to imagine any other explanation. You seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility that Ni62 was not made during the test but resulted from a flawed interpretation of the mass spectrum of the small sample recovered by Rossi after the test or that the Ni62 was added on purpose by Rossi for reasons we will never know. In spite of these possibilities, you are willing to reject all behavior known to describe LENR that conflicts with you interpretation.
This approach causes me to ask, What is your scientific background? Are you trying to be funny?
The transmutation process that occurred in the 100 micron nickel fusl particle analyzed in the Lugano test undercuts most of your(Ed Storms) assumptions about the LENR reaction.
Analysis of the experimental evidence from Lugano contradicts your reaction guidelines. A more appropriate analysis goes as follows…
The complete conversion of a proportionally large micro sized nickel particle with a 100 micron diameter might provide convincing supporting evidence that nucleons find their way into the center of this massive nickel particle by quantum teleportation. This quantum mechanical based movement is supported by the entanglement of lithium 7 on the outside of the 100 micron nickel particle that completely covered the outside of the nickel particle.
In the Lugano test, the 100 micro nickel particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or 4 neutrons from lithium 7 to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and this swap happened to all billion atoms of the that particle in one shot. This is what this latest theory cannot explain. This is called cluster transformation.
Yes, Teleportation…like in star trek. A nucleon located in lithium 7 atom does not need to find its way through large amounts of nickel by bumping and grinding their way through all that nickel. These nucleons just appear like magic inside the micro particle.
This conclusion might seem ridiculous on it face but this conclusion is fully supported by the experimental evidence from Lugano.
If the nucleons or in fact any subatomic particle did physically penetrate the nickel particle in many singular events over and extended timeframe, we would expect that the outer layers of the particle would experience more nuclear reactions than the center of the particle. This penetration type of reaction would produce a layered ash profile. The outmost surface of the particle should have some copper and/or zinc content, and the inside should still have some untouched lower Z isotopes of nickel…like Ni58.
But NO, the particle is pure Ni62, completely homogeneous Ni62, utterly pure Ni62. It must be that the nucleons that make up the lithium 7 coating see no material resistance to the penetration of the nickel. The entangled nucleons mated with each nickel atom move through the nickel particle via the 5th dimension in which entanglement works directly through the nickel bulk to its entangled nickel mate into the center of the micro particle or to its dedicate nanowire edge with equal probability. This looks like nucleon teleportation to me.
And even more perplexing, the delicate nickel nanowire surface covering of the microparticle is pure NI62. This delicate surface nano sized feature has suffered no subatomic particle impact damage what so ever. This ash looks the same as the fuel…physically unchanged but isotopically different.
No neutrons were detected so the active subatomic particle supporting the Ni58 to Ni62 transmutation must be neutrons from the lithium outside the particle. In some cases, this neutron teleportation changes lithium 7 into lithium 6 were 4 lithium 7 atoms gave up a single neutron to form a nickel 62 atom from a nickel 58 atom starting point.
Yes, this transmutation result from Lugano is impossible to believe but it happened, If it weren’t for logic and the very detailed results of the Lugano experiment, what other answer could there be?
I agree with many of your observations, Alain. I suggest many odd reactions can be initiated during LENR, but these clearly are rare and not part of the main reaction. For example, strange radiation is produced on rare occasions without any clear relationship to any other behavior or condition. While these rare events are interesting, nevertheless the basic and most common behavior must be explained. The Calaon theory does not do this. In fact, none of the present theories address ALL of the main behaviors. People simply select what they want to explain and ignore the rest. I do not think this is an effective approach.
I like the distinction you make between cold and hot fusion. Science has focused on applying increasing energy to nuclear interaction and has achieved much understanding. Science has ignored what happens when the applied energy is low because, unless a NAE forms, nothing happens at low applied energy. The LENR process has opened a door to this new method of causing nuclear interaction. Because the process plays by different rules, the behavior is ignored by people educated about hot fusion. We need to emphasize this difference and help science focus on the NAE where the real mystery exists.
Key requirements, root of the book, even if the NAE is maybe different.
I would like some expert to reinterpret Hydroton theory, in 2D with WLS theory ideas (as-is it seems incompatible).
I would like some expert to reinterpret Hydroton, 1D or 2D, with Discrete Breather idea (as-is it seems impossible).
Andrea Calaon theory is very strange to me, but the experimental results it justify are interesting.
Unlike Hydroton, it explains Russian experiments with strange particles traces. Are those experiments credible ?
Calaon reinterprets Iwamura X+2/4/6D transmutations, as a general preference to stability.
This preference to stability is really an interesting hypothesis that may be the key to the good theory.
I even support, from my greatest incompetence, that the “magic moment” of hydroton theory, where it emits energy from fusion, before the fusion happen, may explain that preference.
Hotfusion is 8-ball game, when you crash balls, and there is a huge preference for energetic outcome.
It is like overfunded startup who “burn cash” just because they have to…
on the contrary, hydroton theory, propose that you borrow money backed by the “potential benefit” of a fusion, and distribute it coin by coin.
Since this is slow, you have the tendency to execute the “sale”: the nuclear fusion (decoherence of the NAE, or another reason as A Calaon says), as soon as it is possible, this mean when there is the least possible effort to do, probably the least energetic state among the possible nuclear structures.
This explain preference to Ni62, to stable elements in iwamura experiments, avoidance of radioactive results.
in that case the mystery is why there is still some tritium, neutrons, and some fission products ?
maybe accidents, “fire sales”?
LENR theory is a puzzle, and maybe you have to use, and re-carve many pieces already on the board.
Good luck for the experiments.