Empirically incontrovertible evidence for D-D "cold" fusion seen in accelerator experiments

The following was submitted by E-Cat World Reader Gordon Docherty

I came across the following on the Cold Fusion Now website (via Alain Coetmeur ‘s LENR revolution in process, cold fusion website) — an interesting presentation from E. N. Tsyganov, Cold Fusion Power, International, OSNovation Systems, Inc., Santa Clara, CA :

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tsyganov-Dubna-Talk.pdf

for a seminar, entitled “DD fusion in conducting crystals” by Edward Tsyganov, to be held on July 7th (3:30 pm) at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in the N. N. Bogolyubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics in Dubna, Russia near Moscow.

Basically, in the presentation, he points out the empirically incontrovertible evidence for D-D “cold” fusion seen in accelerator experiments and the reason for it. As he states:

“Target deuterium atoms implanted into metals are no longer in (the) s-state. The free electron cloud in a metal causes the electron of an implanted atom to occupy the excited p-state. The magnitude of the screening potential of 300 eV and above in experiments on DD-fusion accelerators indicates that the incident deuterium atoms in the conductor crystal are also moving in (a) p-state. These processes allow the two deuterium nuclei to get close without the Coulomb repulsion in the potential niche of the crystal cell at a very close distance.”

In other words (and in line with the Brillouin “sweet-spot”), crystals structures provide potential wells that overwhelm those seen between two D-atoms, with the result that the D-atoms come closer together, especially as they move from the s-state to a p-state (“The free electron cloud in a metal causes the electron of an implanted atom to occupy the excited p-state”). Further, he goes on to hypothesize that:

“A possible cause of slowing of nuclear decays with decreasing excitation energy: residual Coulomb barrier between the deuterium nuclei in the potential well of the strong interactions”

and

“One can assume that the potential inside of the Coulomb barrier common well after the strong interactions of the fusion reaction is no longer a retaining factor for neutrons, and neutrons can almost freely move from one proton to another.”

and

“According to our hypothesis, the rate of nuclear decay of a compound nucleus 4He* is a function of the excitation energy of the nucleus (Ek). We assume that when Ek is around 0 (thermal energy), the compound nucleus 4He* is metastable with a lifetime of about 10-15 s. After a time of around 10-16 seconds, the compound nucleus is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach the nearest electrons in a crystal, and carry away the excitation energy of the compound nucleus 4He*. It must be emphasized that the above hypothesis is merely an attempt to explain the well-established experimental fact of the virtual absence of nuclear decay channels of the intermediate compound nucleus 4He* in the process of cold fusion”

In other words, the formed 4He becomes “energetically connected” with the lattice and is able to transfer its excess energy off through the lattice via virtual photons while allowing neutrons transfer to neighboring atoms, so preventing the formation of high-energy neutrons and high-energy gammas that would otherwise have been given off in the fusion of two D-atoms. This energetic connection is likely much enhanced by inducing resonance.

So, in a nutshell, here is yet another empirically incontrovertible piece of evidence for D-D “cold” fusion, this time from accelerator experiments and, of course, with low energy neutrons available, more Deuterons (i.e. Deuterium nucleii) can form from Protium nucleii (i.e. Protons), while with many (excess) energetic electrons in the cloud, more esoteric particles, such as “Negatrons” (Light (Y) and Heavy (Y#) Electrons), Virtual Neutrons (Shielded Proton-Electron pairs), and even regular Neutrons can form, as well as Metallic Hydrogen chains (“Hydroton”). The hydrogen atom p-state in the crystal may also provide the mechanism by which Hydrinos are formed.

Gordon Docherty

  • bachcole

    I am probably missing something here, but all I was able to understand (which I really didn’t understand) was a lot of theory. I didn’t see the “empirical” part, the observations, and transmutations, or whatever. Could someone help me out here.

    • Billy Jackson

      Sorry.. this one is above my pay grade 🙂

      • kdk

        Just don’t think, it’ll be okay.:D

        • Billy Jackson

          but i dont wanna be a sheep! (i was gonna say democrat…) 😛

          • bachcole

            We are ALL sheep. You just have to be wise and insightful about who you listen to, who you follow. If you have no wisdom and insight, then I guess you are a mega-sheep, even worse than the rest of us. Very few people, like Andrea Rossi and Nelson Mandela, get to be leaders.

      • bachcole

        There is experience/observation, and there is theory. I’m just asking, where is the experience/observation? I didn’t see it. Perhaps I didn’t see it because I was nodding off during the theory part.

        • Billy Jackson

          for a seminar, entitled “DD fusion in conducting crystals” by Edward
          Tsyganov, to be held on July 7th (3:30 pm) at the Joint Institute for
          Nuclear Research in the N. N. Bogolyubov Laboratory of Theoretical
          Physics in Dubna, Russia near Moscow.

          i would expect that its to be explained more in person than on the link provided. unfortunately for me i dont speak russian

          when they start abreviating or using symbols in the article.. i get lost as this is not my natural field of experience so it leaves me guessing on specifics but i can understand what they mean in general… i guess i could plead ignorance 😛

    • yes, we should focus on the experimental part…
      Theory is a pit trap for progression at early state.

      • MasterBlaster7

        ding ding ding….let me modify that for you though

        less “speramenting” more “commercial product”.

    • bkrharold

      The empirical part of the observations is referring to the the accelerator experiments. In these experiments they bombarded a metal with a beam of high energy particles of deuterium(heavy hydrogen) atoms. They detected Helium which can only have come from nuclear fusion. Ironically these are the techniques used for hot fusion.

      I recognized the s and p diagrams. These are the solutions to a mathematical formula called schrodingers equation. They map the high probability areas where the orbiting electron will be found. for all intents and purposes it is the shape of the atom. So an electron of a hydrogen atom in its lowest energy state will be in an s orbital, which is shaped like a sphere. For a hydrogen atom in this state, the nucleus is completely shielded. It would require a tremendous amount of energy to undergo a nuclear reaction. This has been the main objection to cold fusion by mainstream physicists.

      There are other solutions to the schrodinger equation which yield different shapes. The next most energetic state is the p orbital. This is shaped like two spheres joined together with the nucleus in the middle. If you look at the diagram of an atom in the p state, you can see the electron cloud is almost absent in certain areas.

      The other part of the puzzle is the crystalline metal lattice. The outer electrons of metal atoms in a lattice are diffused, rather than localized around individual metal atoms. They form an area of probability within the octahedral centers of the metallic lattice.

      So this paper is saying that when a Deuterium atom is introduced into a metallic lattice, its electron is excited from the s to the p state, by the existing electron cloud from the metallic lattice, due to their mutual repulsion. Now if you add another Deuterium atom, it will also enter the p state. The nuclei of these two Hydrogen nuclei are both almost completely unshielded, and in such close proximity, that a nuclear interaction is very likely.

      The last part of their theory is an attempt to explain the other main objection to cold fusion, namely the lack of ionizing radiation, or high speed neutron particles. They theorize that two deuterium atoms fuse to create a highly energized intermediate product they call 4He*. This excess energy is soaked up, by exchange of virtual photons with the free floating electron in the surrounding metallic lattice, rather than emitting high energy neutrons or Xrays.

      So the incontrovertible evidence is the formation of Helium from a beam of Deuterium atoms emitted by an accelerator aimed at a metallic target. I usually think of accelerators as a tool of hot fusion, it is ironic that this author is using these experiments to explain cold fusion. But I think it is good, because it shows there was no magic going in those initial experiments by Pons and Fleischmann. They had merely stumbled on a natural process which nobody understood.

      This is a tremendous advance in our understanding of the mechanism for cold fusion. It also presents us with a testable hypothesis, and answers the two main objections to cold fusion.

      • pelgrim108

        Excelent summary. Thanks.

        • bkrharold

          pelgrim108
          I was thinking it over during my afternoon walk, and it occurred to me that there may be more than one mechanism capable of transferring the excess energy from the excited state of Helium (4He*) to the lattice. Within the confined space of a lattice, even a fast neutron has a good probability of exchanging its energy with metallic atoms, and adding to the kinetic energy(heat) of the lattice. I remember some time ago Rossi reported finding isotopes of other metals like Copper, after some of his experiments.

        • clovis ray

          I also agree, i’ll have to add it to all the rest i have collected, but i truly think this one is very close, it is along these lines, of thought, that i came to long ago,

      • MasterBlaster7

        I don’t think you are going to get to a theory of LENR with standard nuclear physics with a dash of quantum mechanics. I think that a true LENR theory may modify or re-write quantum field theory…electrochemistry…advanced nuclear physics. But, every paper on the subject helps to get there…like 1000 ways to not invent a light bulb.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Your usage of the term “shielding” is somewhat unclear to me. If I understood the various approaches which involve “shielding” in this context correctly, then the electron “shields” or “masks” the charge of the proton when it comes for a moment very close to the nucleus, due to its elliptical orbit in the excited state. That is, the presence of the electron makes the approaching nucleus virtually ‘invisible’ for the Coulomb wall. An electron that is more distant from the nucleus would not be able to shield or mask the proton’s charge. It could prevent two atoms from coming closer together, but that’s a different kind of shielding, based on the mutual repulsion of the electron shells. The reduced repulsion between the shells alone would not neutralize the repulsive force between the nuclei. If this were so, free protons or deuterons could fuse without any problems.

      • Peter Mobberley

        This is a tremendous advance in our understanding of the mechanism for cold fusion. I very much agree.

        The nuclei of these two Hydrogen nuclei are both almost completely
        unshielded, and in such close proximity, that a nuclear interaction is
        very likely.If the nuclei are almost completely unshielded then their
        positive same charge will drive them further apart, not closer.

  • Maxfield Q Norse

    I believe that the declarative aspects of the title would need to come from the mouths of the scientific community not internet commentators.
    Which is to say the conclusion in the title is above the author’s pay grade.

    We can reasonably disregard that matter.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In addition, to be “empirically incontrovertible” would be rather a drawback for a theory, if you want to apply Popper’s methodology. Maybe Gordon could find another title.

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        Excellent suggestion!
        I second the motion.

      • Gordon Docherty

        Acually, I agree – I was just writing this in a coffee break. The title is probably not the best (the problem with Fridays…). I really meant something like:

        Empirical evidence pointing to possibility of D-D “cold” fusion seen in accelerator experiments
        Still, title aside, the slide show does make some interesting points – with this, in particular, catching my eye:

        “The accelerator experiments have shown that the magnitude of the screening potential of the impurity atoms in metallic crystals can reach 300 eV and even more. This means that in the DD reaction occurring in the medium of the metal crystal, the implanted deuterium atoms are excited and are no longer spherical. They have more sophisticated electronic orbitals, and they are oriented relative to each other in a certain crystallographic manner. In this case, the nuclei of these atoms can approach each other at a distance substantially less than for a nominal size of the atom without Coulomb repulsion. Such processes are known in chemistry and are the cause of chemical catalysis. Johannes Rydberg first described these processes in 1888.”

        • bachcole

          Better, but are these his observations or are these generally accepted observations or what?

    • Gordon Docherty

      Help me out here, when you say “our hypothesis”, who is the “our” you are referring to. Please explain. Again, with “we may reasonably disregard”, who is the “we” you are referring to. I don’t disagree that the title is none too accurate – the problem with coffee breaks on a Friday – but at least I don’t hide behind pronouns like “our” and “we”. The title I scribbled down may be not have been the best (in fact, it was crap, but never mind) but the use of group pronouns to bully – as your text above is clearly an attempt to do – is in a whole different league of nastiness. As to referring to “the author’s pay grade”, that’s just plain childish.

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        I was having a jest with some of the wording of the papers contents.

      • bachcole

        Gordon, I thank you for the article.

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        The paygrade reference was an homage to an earlier post where Billy Jackson was being humble. It was not intended as an insult, not even an opinion, but it is a fact statement. I believe there were only four posts at that time. The relationship was more clear. I thought he showed a good example, and hoped that you would have the pride and humility to follow that example.

        I think I made it quite clear why no single scientist has the right within science to determine something “Empirically incontrovertible”. Which is to say an absolute fact and not subject to change.

        Billy Jackson bachcole • 12 hours ago

        Sorry.. this one is above my pay grade 🙂

        If I wished to call your title or writing crap I would have done so. My words have meaning. You may not like my words, but I think they are reasonable given the grand hype. You need not read into them.

    • ecatworld

      http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tsyganov-Dubna-Talk.pdf

      This is the link in the article above — does this work for you? It’s for the Tsyganov presentation. I see the reference to a paper. I wonder if it can be found.

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        Thank you, this is forbidden to me, perhaps an account is required.

  • Maxfield Q Norse

    According to our hypothesis the declarative aspects of the title would need to come from the mouths of the scientific community not internet commentators. Which is to say the conclusion in the title is above the author’s pay grade, and outside the bounds of any single qualified scientist to declare. One can assume that we may reasonably disregard that matter.

    The link is to the home page of a website. So there is not even a vague reference to a particular paper. A particular pdf file is cited in the link, but this is not what is returned by clicking the link.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In addition, to be “empirically incontrovertible” would be rather a drawback for a theory, if you want to apply Popper’s methodology. Maybe Gordon could find another title.

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        Excellent suggestion!
        I second the motion.

      • Gordon Docherty

        Acually, I agree – I was just writing this in a coffee break. The title is probably not the best (the problem with Fridays…). I really meant something like:

        Empirical evidence pointing to possibility of D-D “cold” fusion seen in accelerator experiments
        Still, title aside, the slide show does make some interesting points – with this, in particular, catching my eye:

        “The accelerator experiments have shown that the magnitude of the screening potential of the impurity atoms in metallic crystals can reach 300 eV and even more. This means that in the DD reaction occurring in the medium of the metal crystal, the implanted deuterium atoms are excited and are no longer spherical. They have more sophisticated electronic orbitals, and they are oriented relative to each other in a certain crystallographic manner. In this case, the nuclei of these atoms can approach each other at a distance substantially less than for a nominal size of the atom without Coulomb repulsion. Such processes are known in chemistry and are the cause of chemical catalysis. Johannes Rydberg first described these processes in 1888.”

        • bachcole

          Better, but are these his observations or are these generally accepted observations or what?

    • Gordon Docherty

      Help me out here, when you say “our hypothesis”, who is the “our” you are referring to. Please explain. Again, with “we may reasonably disregard”, who is the “we” you are referring to. I don’t disagree that the title is none too accurate – the problem with coffee breaks on a Friday – but at least I don’t hide behind pronouns like “our” and “we”. The title I scribbled down may be not have been the best (in fact, it was crap, but never mind) but the use of group pronouns to bully – as your text above is clearly an attempt to do – is in a whole different league of nastiness. As to referring to “the author’s pay grade”, that’s just plain childish.

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        Gordon, I was having a jest with some of the wording of the papers contents.
        It was like a little personal joke to my self, I copied some of the more humble statements the author of the paper made. “According to our hypothesis,”
        “One can assume that the potential inside” which contrasted with the extravagance of the title: Empirically incontrovertible evidence for D-D “cold” fusion seen in accelerator experiments

        My apologies for the confusion.

      • bachcole

        Gordon, I thank you for the article.

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        The paygrade reference was an homage to an earlier post where Billy Jackson was being humble. It was not intended as an insult, not even an opinion, but it is a fact statement. I believe there were only four posts at that time. The relationship was more clear. I thought he showed a good example, and hoped that you would have the pride and humility to follow that example.

        I think I made it quite clear why no single scientist has the right within science to determine something “Empirically incontrovertible”. Which is to say an absolute fact and not subject to change.
        ———
        “Billy Jackson bachcole • 12 hours ago

        Sorry.. this one is above my pay grade :)”
        ———
        If I wished to call your title or writing crap I would have done so. My words have meaning. You may not like my words, but I think they are reasonable given the two overly enthusiastic words in the title. You need not read into them.
        You may also notice I never mentioned the body of the text, only two words of the title and a problematic link.

    • Frank Acland

      http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tsyganov-Dubna-Talk.pdf

      This is the link in the article above — does this work for you? It’s for the Tsyganov presentation. I see the reference to a paper. I wonder if it can be found.

      Ok — here’s a link: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Cold%20nuclear%20fusion.pdf

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        Thank you, this is forbidden to me, perhaps an account is required.

      • bachcole

        I was able to open up the pdf file. It was 82 pages. I did not read it because it is a lot of pages and I wanted someone who I trust who could perhaps read faster than me to reassure me that I would see some experience/observation there. I just glanced at it and I did see a massive amount of namedropping there; that didn’t help me.

  • GreenWin

    The acceptance or lack of a viable theory for low temperature fusion will not change or alter the commercial application of LENR. Use of superconductivity in hundreds of commercial settings confirms this. The Tsyganov-Dubna discussion in July intends to present evidence of diminished coulomb repulsion (permeability) in D+D accelerator experiments. Page 35 of the presentation provides this summary:

    Although complete interpretation of this
    phenomenon is still lacking, many accelerator
    experiments leave no doubt to its existence.
    Coulomb barrier permeability in such conditions
    during the cold DD-fusion is very strongly (55–60
    orders) increased as compared to the
    permeability of the barrier in the case of the free
    molecule of deuterium.
    “Although complete interpretation of this phenomenon is still lacking, many accelerator experiments leave no doubt to its existence. Coulomb barrier permeability in such conditions during the cold DD-fusion is very strongly (55–60 orders) increased as compared to the permeability of the barrier in the case of the free molecule of deuterium.”

    The theoreticians will argue “interpretation” and how it applies to protium in the Rossi effect. None of this will alter the development or commercialization of LENR as a source of clean, green, abundant energy.

    Although complete interpretation of this
    phenomenon is still lacking, many accelerator
    experiments leave no doubt to its existence.
    Coulomb barrier permeability in such conditions
    during the cold DD-fusion is very strongly (55–60
    orders) increased as compared to the
    permeability of the barrier in the case of the free

    • GreenWin

      ADMIN: sorry about the weird formatting – the editor did not show the quoted text copies.

    • bachcole

      Finally, someone said something that I can actually understand. To test, does this mean that the speed of the proton is directly proportional to the repulsive power of the Coulomb barrier? Faster protons generate higher Coulomb values; slower protons generate lower Coulomb values.

      If so, I told y’all so. I have been saying this for the past 32 months. If this is the case, then hot fusion is kind of a losers game. The hotter the gas, the faster the protons, the higher the Coulomb barrier values. So hotter gases and more pressure is necessary, which causes higher Coulomb barrier values. Which requires hotter gases and more pressure, which causes higher Coulomb barrier values, etc. You get the picture.

      If not, please correct me.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Roger, it’s not so. Basically, the Coulomb barrier could be reduced by three mechanisms:
        1) Uncertainty principle: if a proton is confined in a tight space, its kinetic energy may be substantial even at zero temperature, and quantum tunnelling through the barrier then becomes easier.
        2) Shielding: Negatively charged particles which are around always reduce the barrier height and width to some extent by shielding the positive charge of the nucleus when viewed from outside. The more massive the negative particles are, the more effective is the shielding, because lightweight particles are restless (uncertainty principle again) and hence their charge density tends to vary more smoothly.
        3) Multi-body effects: The simple concept of a barrier only holds for two particles approaching each other, like what happens in hot fusion. Multi-body effects might modify the picture and hence they might modify the effective barrier height. I am not able to give a specific example, though.

        Needless to say that in solid matter all mechanisms 1-3 might conceivably occur.

  • GreenWin

    The acceptance or lack of a viable theory for low temperature fusion will not change or alter the commercial application of LENR. Use of superconductivity in hundreds of commercial settings confirms this. The Tsyganov-Dubna discussion in July intends to present evidence of diminished coulomb repulsion (permeability) in D+D accelerator experiments. Page 35 of the presentation provides this summary:

    Although complete interpretation of this
    phenomenon is still lacking, many accelerator
    experiments leave no doubt to its existence.
    Coulomb barrier permeability in such conditions
    during the cold DD-fusion is very strongly (55–60
    orders) increased as compared to the
    permeability of the barrier in the case of the free
    molecule of deuterium.
    “Although complete interpretation of this phenomenon is still lacking, many accelerator experiments leave no doubt to its existence. Coulomb barrier permeability in such conditions during the cold DD-fusion is very strongly (55–60 orders) increased as compared to the permeability of the barrier in the case of the free molecule of deuterium.”

    The theoreticians will argue “interpretation” and how it applies to protium in the Rossi effect. None of this will alter the development or commercialization of LENR as a source of clean, green, abundant energy.

    Although complete interpretation of this
    phenomenon is still lacking, many accelerator
    experiments leave no doubt to its existence.
    Coulomb barrier permeability in such conditions
    during the cold DD-fusion is very strongly (55–60
    orders) increased as compared to the
    permeability of the barrier in the case of the free

    • GreenWin

      ADMIN: sorry about the weird formatting – the editor did not show the quoted text copies.

    • bachcole

      Finally, someone said something that I can actually understand. To test, does this mean that the speed of the proton is directly proportional to the repulsive power of the Coulomb barrier? Faster protons generate higher Coulomb values; slower protons generate lower Coulomb values.

      If so, I told y’all so. I have been saying this for the past 32 months. If this is the case, then hot fusion is kind of a losers game. The hotter the gas, the faster the protons, the higher the Coulomb barrier values. So hotter gases and more pressure is necessary, which causes higher Coulomb barrier values. Which requires hotter gases and more pressure, which causes higher Coulomb barrier values, etc. You get the picture.

      If not, please correct me.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Roger, it’s not so. Basically, the Coulomb barrier could be reduced by three mechanisms:
        1) Uncertainty principle: if a proton is confined in a tight space, its kinetic energy may be substantial even at zero temperature, and quantum tunnelling through the barrier then becomes easier.
        2) Shielding: Negatively charged particles which are around always reduce the barrier height and width to some extent by shielding the positive charge of the nucleus when viewed from outside. The more massive the negative particles are, the more effective is the shielding, because lightweight particles are restless (uncertainty principle again) and hence their charge density tends to vary more smoothly.
        3) Multi-body effects: The simple concept of a barrier only holds for two particles approaching each other, like what happens in hot fusion. Multi-body effects might modify the picture and hence they might modify the effective barrier height. I am not able to give a specific example, though.

        Needless to say that in solid matter all mechanisms 1-3 might conceivably occur.

  • kemosabe

    One problem with this theory is that we know from muon-catalyzed fusion that branching ratios are not affected by simple charge screening. If the theory simply proposes enhanced fusion by screening, then there should still be copious neutrons. A much more radical theory is needed to explain the absence of energetic reaction products.

    • bkrharold

      kemosabe, the authors are not invoking muon-catalyzed fusion. Their theory posits the influence of the metallic lattice and its free floating electrons in mediating the nuclear transformation of Deuterium. In cold fusion terms this is called lattice assisted nuclear reaction or LANR.

      • MasterBlaster7

        Hmmm…kemosabe…the lone ranger….the lone ranger wore a mask. bkrharold…if kemosabe is who I think he is…you might just want to listen…only.

        It is nice to see this theory. There are a 100 theories on LENR. What we need is a commercial success so that big science throws brains and money at the problem. Then we might start getting to a theory of LENR. I like what Storms said….”we are probably going to need to throw a billion dollars at this problem like they did at the beginning of micro chips”…well…maybe not an exact quote…it was something like that…the advent of “clean rooms” was involved or something.

        • bkrharold

          I agree a commercial success would catapult the ecat into the spotlight. However even with the support of IH, Rossi’s ecat has not had the big breakthrough we are all hoping for. The US patent office still refuses to issue patents for Cold Fusion, and the certification of the ecat for home use is languishing in the inbox of some bureaucrat. The vested powers that stand to lose a lot of money are very powerful and determined to prevent Cold Fusion from taking off. Right now they are using the excuse that cold fusion somehow contravenes our understanding of physics, and so therefore must be some sort of hoax. We need a theory that shows, it does not break any of the laws of physics. I think commercial and theoretical success will go hand in hand, if this thing is ever going to get off the ground floor.

          • MasterBlaster7

            The “vested powers” are not directly holding LENR back with established science. And, we do not need a theory that neatly fits established orthodox. We do need a commercial success to motivate established science to properly investigate the phenomenon We do need a commercial success to get the US patent office to lift the special restrictions on cold fusion. We do need a commercial success to stimulate investment in LENR.

      • kemosabe

        You misunderstood my point. I know the authors are not claiming muon-catalyzed fusion. But muon-catalyzed fusion works because the muon in muonic hydrogen (or deuterium) improves the screening — because of its higher mass, it is on average closer to the nucleus — and this allows other nuclei to get closer, improving the probability of fusion.

        The paper in question is also claiming increased fusion rates because of better screening allegedly provided this time by electrons in the p-state.

        But if improved screening in the case of muon-catalyzed fusion had no effect on the branching ratio, it seems unlikely that improved screening from electrons (and not improved as much, by the way) would influence the branching ratio. And that leaves aside the absence of any plausible reason that it should.

        • bkrharold

          I see your point. However the experiment described in this article, was found to generate Helium by aiming a beam of deuterium at a metallic target. The author was attempting to interpret this finding. The presence of Helium is proof that some type of nuclear reaction did occur. You may object to the authors interpretation, however there must be some rational explanation for this. The author also suggests that the metallic lattice plays an important role. Within the confined spaces of the lattice, multiple deuterium nucleii are necessarily brought into close proximity, increasing the likelihood of a nuclear reaction. He goes on to explain why no harmful radiation or energetic particles are emitted by postulating a slower process of decay of the activated Helium through photonic exchange. All these ideas are hypothetical, but they can certainly be tested. This is how science is supposed to work, healthy skepticism is an important ingredient on our path to the truth. Unfortunately another unhealthier form of skepticism, has slowed progress in this exciting new field characterized by an obstinate refusal to accept experimental evidence.

          • kemosabe

            bktharold> I see your point. However the experiment described in this article, was found to generate Helium by aiming a beam of deuterium at a metallic target. The author was attempting to interpret this finding.

            Not that it affects my point at all, but from what I can get out of those powerpoint slides, he was not set up to detect helium. He was measuring enhanced d(d,p)t reaction rates by detecting the energetic protons. He argues that the enhancement of that reaction in metallic lattices in accelerator experiments proves cold fusion is possible. He tries to explain the enhancement of a standard fusion reaction by charge screening. What I said was that even if charge screening did explain enhanced fusion reactions, it does not explain why cold fusion reactions have a different branching ratio. His attempt to explain the different branching ratio (which he does not observe) is simply speculation, and not based on any experimental or empirical evidence.

            bktharold> This is how science is supposed to work, healthy skepticism is an important ingredient on our path to the truth. Unfortunately another unhealthier form of skepticism, has slowed progress in this exciting new field characterized by an obstinate refusal to accept experimental evidence.

            The events of 1989 proved that scientists were not obstinately refusing to accept the possibility of cold fusion, but were far too enthusiastically accepting of it. As Storms wrote of that time:

            “Excitement was building as more people heard about the “discovery” and wanted to get in on the action. If real, such an important discovery hardly ever happens during a scientist’s career, … ”

            “many of us were lured into believing that the Pons-Fleischmann effect would solve the world’s energy problems and make us all rich.”

            “At one point, the director of LANL, Dr. Siegfried Hecker, confided to me that he had not seen so much enthusiasm at the Laboratory since World War II. “Physicists are actually talking to chemists,” he observed with amazement. This attitude was being duplicated all over the world.”

            It was only when they examined the evidence that the majority of scientists became skeptical.

            What you say about slowing progress assumes there is progress to be made, which is to say that the phenomenon is real. If it’s not, then the absence of sufficient skepticism among the cold fusion investigators, has led to a colossal waste of time. Every scientific field is a balance between skepticism and speculation, and this judgement is based on training, expertise, experience, intuition, and wit. The judgement of the best scientists is that the evidence for cold fusion is not persuasive.

            There is no simple recipe that says that any unusual observations or claims *must* be investigated. If there were, scientists would spend all their time investigating perpetual motion claims, or remote sensing claims, or crystal-healing claims etc. Cold fusion claims *have* been carefully considered, and rejected. If it’s ok with you, I have more confidence in expert evaluations than in your evaluation, or for that matter the evaluation of a dwindling band of unimpressive researchers left in the field.

  • Job001

    Astounding!

    The visuals are fantastic. Two or three heavy hydrogen atoms in the 2p or higher excited state create a metastable virtual excited atom with nucleus atoms in chaotic reaction proximity. This metastable atom would not be expected to emit gamma rays but virtual photons.

    Love the 2p+ visuals which explain a lot about how the coulomb barrier is dramatically reduced and the charts which show coulomb barrier reductions of up to 95%.

    Congratulations to Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics!

    Very very very cool science.

  • Job001

    Astounding!

    The visuals are fantastic. Two or three heavy hydrogen atoms in the 2p or higher excited state create a metastable virtual excited atom with nucleus atoms in chaotic reaction proximity. This metastable atom would not be expected to emit gamma rays but virtual photons.

    Love the 2p+ visuals which explain a lot about how the coulomb barrier is dramatically reduced and the charts which show coulomb barrier reductions of up to 95%.

    Congratulations to Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics!

    Very very very cool science.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    There is an announcement of the seminar at the website of Bogoliubov Laboratory:

    http://theor.jinr.ru/perl-cgi/seminar.pl/

    E. N. Tsyganov is associated with a company (?) named “Cold Fusion Power, Intl.”.

    Their site comes with some additional PDF’s (not all of them are scientific papers):

    http://www.coldfusion-power.com/

  • Pierre Ordinaire

    GreenWin says:

    “This friggin guy over at Barclays Bank (Brits most snooty bank) Y. C. Koh, is still makin our ecletric utilities look bad. Couple weeks ago he told clients to “underweight” the whole sector. That means SELL! Now, he says:

    “We expect utilities to continue to play an important (albeit…diminished) role in the nation’s power markets in the long term. But history has shown that transition periods can be painful, occur rapidly and cause considerable value destruction before renewed stability sets in.” Y.C. Koh, Barclays Bank

    Values destruction? Hey, skeps is just tryin’ to make a buck over here!”

    • GreenWin

      Ha ha! Although the ECN “GreenWin” is a skeptical caricature, he is damned amusing! Thanks Pierre.

  • Hope4Dbest

    GreenWin says:

    “This friggin guy over at Barclays Bank (Brits most snooty bank) Y. C. Koh, is still makin our ecletric utilities look bad. Couple weeks ago he told clients to “underweight” the whole sector. That means SELL! Now, he says:

    “We expect utilities to continue to play an important (albeit…diminished) role in the nation’s power markets in the long term. But history has shown that transition periods can be painful, occur rapidly and cause considerable value destruction before renewed stability sets in.” Y.C. Koh, Barclays Bank

    Values destruction? Hey, skeps is just tryin’ to make a buck over here!”

    • GreenWin

      Ha ha! Although the ECN “GreenWin” is a skeptical caricature, he is damned amusing! Thanks Pierre.

  • Gerard McEk

    Thanks Gordon, I found this also and submitted the PDF to ECW but with only a few words. I wondered, when I read it, why Tsyganov limits his theory to Palladium and Deuterium. Would his theories and experiments also extend to Nickel and Hydrogen? Further it seemed to me that lot of it was old stuff, partly forgotten. But it is good he picked it up, brought it together and investigated it further. The timing of this is perfect as it will not take long before LENR takes off.

  • Billy Jackson

    for a seminar, entitled “DD fusion in conducting crystals” by Edward
    Tsyganov, to be held on July 7th (3:30 pm) at the Joint Institute for
    Nuclear Research in the N. N. Bogolyubov Laboratory of Theoretical
    Physics in Dubna, Russia near Moscow.

    i would expect that its to be explained more in person than on the link provided. unfortunately for me i dont speak russian

    when they start abreviating or using symbols in the article.. i get lost as this is not my natural field of experience so it leaves me guessing on specifics but i can understand what they mean in general… i guess i could plead ignorance 😛

  • Kevin O
  • Kevin O
  • Dods

    They do mention that a complete interpretation of this phenomenon is still lacking and this is Just a thought.

    Toroidal orbit of the 2p state in the PDF reminded me of Stoyan Sarg’s – BSM Theory

    They mention this p-state as being excited but no mention of resonance or harmonics from the lattice being
    a contributor to this state. could this be the first testable evidence to a new structure of the atom?

    Maybe someone should show Stoyan this data if he isn’t already aware?

  • protn7

    Chemonuclear Fusion is a
    type of low energy nuclear fusion that has been shown to produce
    energy in two experiments. Aneutronic nuclear fusion can provide
    unlimited electric power without polluting the environment with
    radioactive waste and greenhouse emissions. Chemonuclear processes in
    small dense white dwarf stars accelerate the rate of nuclear fusion
    and cause them to explode in spectacular supernova explosions.

    We are soliciting volunteers to help our crowdfunding and
    educational campaigns. Our crowdfunding webpages will soon be up and
    running. We want people to post to discussion groups and help us get
    the word out that aneutronic chemonuclear fusion might be the
    radiation free way to power the world if we can get the funding to
    build and test reactors.

    Artists can help us design T-shirts,
    mugs, and promotional items to sell and give away to our
    contributors. Writers to write promotional materials and post to web
    forums are also wanted. Video producers and professional and amateur
    scientists who can help the public understand the concepts of
    chemonuclear fusion are encouraged to contact us also.

    Visit our facebook page
    and give us a like. We welcome your comments and questions!

    https://www.facebook.com/chemonuclearfusionproject

    • bachcole

      Reading that leaves me empty. Soliciting funds for something which has so little indication that there is anything real happening; I hesitate to use the “s” word but am tempted.

  • Chris I

    I must be too dumb but at first glance I don’t get how the p states explain a closer mean distance. It seems if anything backwards to me. At close distances the molecular orbitals ought to prevail anyway.

  • Chris, Italy

    I must be too dumb but at first glance I don’t get how the p states explain a closer mean distance. It seems if anything backwards to me. At close distances the molecular orbitals ought to prevail anyway.

    • bachcole

      I don’t even know what a p-state (Pennsylvania?) and I don’t feel dumb in the least.

      • Chris, Italy

        Look up s, p, d and f in spectroscopy and their ties with the periodic table of chemical elements.

        Anyways it isn’t dumb to not know what they are, but it could be dumb to not figure it out when I do know. Unless it actually is backwards, as I would tend to think. Or maybe it’s just too complicated for me.

  • Chris I

    Look up s, p, d and f in spectroscopy and their ties with the periodic table of chemical elements.

    Anyways it isn’t dumb to not know what they are, but it could be dumb to not figure it out when I do know. Unless it actually is backwards, as I would tend to think. Or maybe it’s just too complicated for me.

  • Jacques

    “Empirically incontrovertible” is way too strong a statement for a hypothesis.