New Paper on ‘Renaissance of Low Energy Physics’ (Arxiv.org)

Thanks to pg and LENR G for posting about the following.

There is an article that has just been published in the Arxiv.org database titled, “Charged particle assisted nuclear reactions in solid state environment: renaissance of low energy nuclear physics” written by Péter Kálmán and Tamás Keszthelyi both of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics in Budapest, Hungary.

Here’s the link: http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01474

I have to admit that I am unable to understand most of what is written in this paper because of its highly theoretical nature, but the abstract explains the scope of the paper:

The features of electron assisted neutron exchange processes in crystalline solids are survayed. It is stated that, contrary to expectations, the cross section of these processes may reach an observable magnitude even in the very low energy case because of the extremely huge increment caused by the Coulomb factor of the electron assisted processes and by the effect of the crystal-lattice. The features of electron assisted heavy charged particle exchange processes, electron assisted nuclear capure processes and heavy charged particle assisted nuclear processes are also overviewed. Experimental observations, which may be related to our theoretical findings, are dealt with. The anomalous screening phenomenon is related to electron assisted neutron and proton exchange processes in crystalline solids. A possible explanation of observations by Fleischmann and Pons is presented. The possibility of the phenomenon of nuclear transmutation is qualitatively explained with the aid of usual and charged particle assisted reactions. The electron assisted neutron exchange processes in pure Ni and Li−Ni composite systems (in the Rossi-type E-Cat) are analyzed and it is concluded that these reactions may be responsible for recent experimental observations.

Perhaps this paper is a sign of a rebirth in interest in LENR among theoreticians.

  • Gerrit

    LENR == Low Energy Neutron Reactions

  • Gerrit

    LENR == Low Energy Neutron Reactions

  • Gerrit

    As I see it now, this paper offers a theoretical explanation for all observations in the LENR field. The predictions fit with the ash analysis of the Lugano test. That is pretty exciting.

    I would like to know what the swedish professors think of this explanation.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Presumably they will be interested, since the paper presents, among others, a more elegant model of the stripping reactions that have been proposed by Gullström.

      I agree that this is an exciting one.

  • Gerrit

    As I see it now, this paper offers a theoretical explanation for all observations in the LENR field. The predictions fit with the ash analysis of the Lugano test. That is pretty exciting.

    I would like to know what the swedish professors think of this explanation.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Presumably they will be interested, since the paper presents, among others, a more elegant model of the stripping reactions that have been proposed by Gullström.

      I agree that this is an exciting one.

  • Gerard McEk

    I have read it too Frank and I must admit that the document omits some clear lay-man statements. My questions are: Why would electron capture happen more easily inside a lattice? Why would heavier atoms collide/ fuse? Has one of these atoms catured many electrons such that it is completely neutral? As far as I know considerable energy is required to convert an e+p->n. Where does it come from?
    Maybe these questions were explained but I did not carefully read the whole text as it was a bit too theoretical for me.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      This paper is not about electron capture. It’s about how electrons, or other charged particles, might ‘assist’ certain nuclear reactions.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks Andreas, ur answer made me reading a part of it more carefylly again and I am starting to understand it now. An in my view crucial part in their reasoning is the following:

        “The cross section of electron assisted neutron exchange process has a further (about a factor 10^22) increase due to the presence of the lattice since the cross section is also proportional to 1/vc. Here vc ∼ d3 is the volume of the elementary cell of the solid with d the lattice parameter of order of magnitude of 10−8 cm. The extremely huge increment in the Coulomb factor increased further by the effect of the lattice makes it possible that the cross section of electron assisted neutron exchange process may reach an observ- able magnitude even in the very low energy case. Thus it can be concluded that the actual Coulomb factors are the clue to charged particles assisted nuclear reactions and therefore we focus our attention to them especially concerning the Coulomb factors of heavy charged parti- cles.”

        My lay-man intrepretation: “Because there is so little space, the probability of interaction in a lattice is vastly higher than in open space. That makes electron assisted interaction, due to which a slow neutron can be libarated likely. This neutron will strong force interact with a near-by atom and much energy may be released. This energy may be used to interact with heavier atoms due to which even more energy is released”.

        Is this a proper interpretation of this theory?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          If I understood it correctly, there are two factors that facilitate the reactions – first, the interaction of the initial nucleus with the charged particle and, secondly, the geometry of the lattice.

          A shortcoming of all the models that involve 7Li as a neutron donator is that they cannot easily explain the disappearance of 64Ni in the Lugano fuel, since the reaction 64Ni + 7Li > 65Ni + 6Li (65 Ni would subsequently beta decay to 65Cu) is endothermic (-1.15 MeV). Therefore, the authors have to assume a different mechanism in order to explain the depletion of 64Ni (see p. 8), which complicates the theory a bit.

          The main problem for all LENR theorists appears to be that there are currently not enough reliable data on isotopic changes, possible radiation and other parameters of interest. I could imagine that it will need hundreds or thousands of experiments until there is a sufficient empirical basis that would allow to find the ‘ultimate’ theory…

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            Indeed, however the biggest shortfall of this paper is that it assumes that Lithium is the neutron donor in the ECAT, when, more likely, it is the hydrogen (hydrogen loading being necessary for LENR reactions)

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It is correct that the postulated mechanism for 64Ni is analogue to the reactions that involve 7Li, but in this case the neutron is not taken from the lithium, but from another nickel atom. That’s what I meant when I said that the mechanism is “different” (not the best wording, admittedly). But since both 64Ni and 61Ni are considered to be neutron donors (Table II), the whole concept looks more plausible.

            There are still two known problems: First, there are not enough neutrons with the given amount of 7Li in the fuel, provided that the samples for the isotopic analyses have been representative. Your argument on the almost complete depletion of 7Li is also worth considering, although we do not know if the reaction would have ceased if the test had been continued after the 32 days.
            Secondly, as you indicate the role of the hydrogen has to be clarified. In case that the missing neutron issue cannot be solved, one would have to assume that hydrogen nuclei are converted to neutrons by electron capture (Widom-Larsen). An experiment with a fuel that contains no potential isotopic neutron donors (7Li, 64Ni, or 61Ni) could be instructive. The released amount of energy in the Lugano test can be explained by the mass differences between the isotopes (under the above mentioned condition). Nevertheless, ‘true’ fusion remains a theoretical option. As you say, a gas analysis would be essential. Maybe MFMP’s new, super-tight reactor cores can be useful with regard to this.

  • Gerard McEk

    I have read it too Frank and I must admit that the document omits some clear lay-man statements. My questions are: Why would electron capture happen more easily inside a lattice? Why would heavier atoms collide/ fuse? Has one of these atoms captured many electrons such that it is completely neutral? As far as I know considerable energy is required to convert an e+p->n. Where does it come from?
    Maybe these questions were explained but I did not carefully read the whole text as it was a bit too theoretical for me.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      This paper is not about electron capture. It’s about how electrons, or other charged particles, might ‘assist’ certain nuclear reactions.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks Andreas, ur answer made me reading a part of it more carefylly again and I am starting to understand it now. An in my view crucial part in their reasoning is the following:

        “The cross section of electron assisted neutron exchange process has a further (about a factor 10^22) increase due to the presence of the lattice since the cross section is also proportional to 1/vc. Here vc ∼ d3 is the volume of the elementary cell of the solid with d the lattice parameter of order of magnitude of 10−8 cm. The extremely huge increment in the Coulomb factor increased further by the effect of the lattice makes it possible that the cross section of electron assisted neutron exchange process may reach an observ- able magnitude even in the very low energy case. Thus it can be concluded that the actual Coulomb factors are the clue to charged particles assisted nuclear reactions and therefore we focus our attention to them especially concerning the Coulomb factors of heavy charged parti- cles.”

        My lay-man intrepretation: “Because there is so little space, the probability of interaction in a lattice is vastly higher than in open space. That makes electron assisted interaction, due to which a slow neutron can be libarated likely. This neutron will strong force interact with a near-by atom and much energy may be released. This energy may be used to interact with heavier atoms due to which even more energy is released”.

        Is this a proper interpretation of this theory?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          If I understood it correctly, there are two factors that facilitate the reactions – first, the interaction of the initial nucleus with the charged particle and, secondly, the geometry of the lattice.

          A shortcoming of all the models that involve 7Li as a neutron donator is that they cannot easily explain the disappearance of 64Ni in the Lugano fuel, since the reaction 64Ni + 7Li > 65Ni + 6Li (65 Ni would subsequently beta decay to 65Cu) is endothermic (-1.15 MeV). Therefore, the authors have to assume a different mechanism in order to explain the depletion of 64Ni (see p. 8), which complicates the theory a bit.

          The main problem for all LENR theorists appears to be that there are currently not enough reliable data on isotopic changes, possible radiation and other parameters of interest. I could imagine that it will need hundreds or thousands of experiments until there is a sufficient empirical basis that would allow to find the ‘ultimate’ theory…

          • NCY

            EDIT: after reading the paper more thoroughly, it seems that the mechanism for the depletion of 64Ni is the same mechanism as that of Li neutron donation (donation of neutrons from 64Ni and 63Ni is also favoured in the model, lowering the atomic number to 62Ni. while the opposite occurs for 58Ni 59Ni 60Ni and 61Ni; these nuclei are preferred neutron recipients.
            in short, the model explains fully both the depletion of 7Li and the enrichment of 62Ni at the expense of all other Ni isotopes.

            The fact that all Ni was enriched (fuel for the above reactions was exhausted) and the reactor in the lugano test continued to produce excess heat without change suggests that the above reactions, although exothermic, are a minor reaction. the Major reaction most probably involves hydrogen and the production of 4He.

            Thus it is incredibly important during subsequent replications of the Ni – LiAlH system that not only the solid ash be analysed, it is also important to do an isotopic analysis of the gas inside the reactor.

            The solid ash should also be examined for other byproducts, as the Lugano ICP-MS and ICP-AES only looked at Ni and Li isotopes. Other reactions may be producing carbon atoms for example, that we haven’t been able to see.

            in Pd experiments, the paper suggests the probability of a reaction involving e- + 46Pd + 46Pd >> 44Ru + 48Cd +energy
            indicating that in long-lasting Pd experiments, isotopic analysis looking for these products might be used to test this model.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It is correct that the postulated mechanism for 64Ni is analogue to the reactions that involve 7Li, but in this case the neutron is not taken from the lithium, but from another nickel atom. That’s what I meant when I said that the mechanism is “different” (not the best wording, admittedly). But since both 64Ni and 61Ni are considered to be neutron donors (Table II), the whole concept looks more plausible.

            There are still two known problems: First, there are not enough neutrons with the given amount of 7Li in the fuel, provided that the samples for the isotopic analyses have been representative. Your argument on the almost complete depletion of 7Li is also worth considering, although we do not know if the reaction would have ceased if the test had been continued after the 32 days.
            Secondly, as you indicate the role of the hydrogen has to be clarified. In case that the missing neutron issue cannot be solved, one would have to assume that hydrogen nuclei are converted to neutrons by electron capture (Widom-Larsen). An experiment with a fuel that contains no potential isotopic neutron donors (7Li, 64Ni, or 61Ni) could be instructive. The released amount of energy in the Lugano test can be explained by the mass differences between the isotopes (under the above mentioned condition). Nevertheless, ‘true’ fusion remains a theoretical option. As you say, a gas analysis would be essential. Maybe MFMP’s new, super-tight reactor cores can be useful with regard to this.

  • mytakeis

    crystalline solids – crystal-lattice. I do not know if I have just missed this (I miss a lot) but don’t recall crystals being part of the E-cat adventure. Maybe studying crystals relates to LENR advances.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      solid nickel is a crystalline solid.

      • mytakeis

        Mucho gratias

  • HS61AF91

    crystalline solids – crystal-lattice. I do not know if I have just missed this (I miss a lot) but don’t recall crystals being part of the E-cat adventure. Maybe studying crystals relates to LENR advances.

    • NCY

      solid nickel is a crystalline solid.

      • HS61AF91

        Mucho gratias