A Possible explanation for observed LENR heating behavior and Transmutation using Simple Physics Principles (Stephen)

The following article was submitted by Stephen

My Motto

Discovery: Discovery is often down to a change in perspective. We are often like the ant that can’t see an elephant because of the mouse standing in front of it, discovery happens when the ant steps to the side and decides to look around the mouse. (respect to Ego out)

Context

I have only been following LENR for a couple of months but I really enjoy the discussions and I learn more about some modern atomic Physics concepts from your discussions than I have learnt since I finished studying astrophysics some nearly 30 years ago, especially the posts and discussions from Axil Axil and Matt Sevrens.

Currently I am following E-Cat world, Ego Out and the LENR Forum all of which are great in my opinion.

I love open science and the open experimental work done by MFMP. It is brilliant. They are my current heroes.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if the explanation for the energetics of LENR was also finally explained by and attributed to the Open Science community? When some one writes a science paper the references are often recognised but rarely the people and the environment that influence and inspire the work. What previously took 30 years in an unconnected world Open science discussions on the internet forums makes possible tin 30 months or maybe even 30 weeks! There are no good or bad ideas since they all contribute to the right environment. That can also be said of both supporters and critics of particular ideas and approaches. It all contributes something

Someone elsewhere on this forum said the amazing thing about open science is that you don’t know who is contributing it can be a well established scientist, but it can equally be a Nobel prize winner or an inspired high school student — or perhaps just an ordinary bloke who likes to read about physics like me.

Perhaps someone can collect the various concepts out there and find a way to review and discuss them to see how they can contribute to LENR. Ed Storms approach in his book “The explanation of LENR” does this very well for the ideas around at the time.

I understand the Rossi-Cook paper explains something about the isotope abundances but not the energetics involved. For example he does not explain how the Li 7 is at a higher energy level. And he attributes the lack of gamma to the 2 Alpha emission of BE 8. On the other hand the Ni to Cu to Ni reaction absorbs a proton with again the energetics not explained and emits a Beta +. This would in fact still result in gamma radiation since the beta + would normally react with a k shell electron and produce two 511KeV gamma.

From the various discussions on these forums and some thoughts I had myself I have formed a kind of collective idea about the energetics of LENR by relatively simple physics (I have to say I’m not at the level of understanding of most people on this site yet). I think it may explain a lot of the observations with both Pd based systems and Li Ni systems. I think it maybe a self contained idea but it could be the energetics are still a bit low, if not it may also play some role in the more complex physics concepts you discussed by Axil Axil and elsewhere by others.

I don’t want to disturb the already good energy on this site by raising ideas that have already been considered and discussed also its possible Rossi already has something like it in mind although he didn’t mention it in the last paper, so I don’t want to pre-empt that either.

The idea is loosely based on the concept of rather than having no gamma, the gamma is absorbed by nuclei, possibly along with gamma photon diffraction on surfaces and the effect of locally energised and accelerated nuclei. Note if I understand correctly both Pd 105 and 106 and Li 7 have low energy levels above base level below 511 keV. The idea is somewhat more than that but its part of what I’m thinking about.

If this is all already understood and explained you may not want to read further as it is quite long and I don’t want to waste you time with a long dialogue. In this case you have my apologies and my permission to assign it to the rubbish bin 😉

The following tries to explain in a bit more detail:

A Possible explanation for observed LENR heating behavior and Transmutation using Simple Physics Principles.

First of all some recent background:

Comments on the Andrea Rossi and Norman D Cook draft paper:

I enjoyed reading a lot this paper it explained a lot of things and Normans way of modeling the shell model of the nucleus as a lattice is brilliant and very accessible to people like me. I immediately ordered his book from Amazon! The paper as currently seen tries to explain the isotope abundances in the Lugano test ash and the lack of Gamma. The paper does not explain the energetics, however, and clearly states in several places the energetics is not explained.

They explain the 7Li decay by absorption of a Proton to form 8Be and then to 2 Alpha particles through a “reverse Mossbrauer effect” as way to explain why momentum is conserved and no Gamma is seen. They assume 7Li is already in an (477 keV) low energized state as part of the explanation.  And give a good argument based on the energy state characteristics that the proton can only be absorbed in this state. They do not explain how the 7Li reaches this energized sate.

They explain the change in 61Ni and 62Ni between the fuel and ash as being due to 61Ni absorbing a Proton to form 62Cu which then decays via Beta + decay to 62Ni.

Note in this case Gamma would still be produced since the Beta + should react with an electron (probably the k shell electron) to produce two Gamma of 511 keV.

Comments on Carbon Cycle suggestion from Bob Greenyer from MFMP.

Bob has suggested the Carbon Cycle may play a part through contaminants. From my old Astrophysics I recall this is commonly used to explain fusion in stars and consumes Protons to generate energy. I think it is an interesting clue too but it also suggests an energetic process is involved. Another fact with this reaction is is that it emits Gamma and Beta + particles. The Beta + particles will also react with electrons to produce two Gamma of 511 keV.

There are in fact other Fusion Cycles in Stars that may also be of interest

The Energetics Problem:

The problem with the Energetics is to explain how the Protons over come the Coulomb Barrier in the Carbon Cycle, Li and Ni reactions and how the 7Li Nuclei can reach the higher energy state of 477 keV.

Proton absorption:

Proton absorption requires proximity and enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier

Many ideas are out there to try and explain the Proton absorption either by giving the Protons sufficient energy to overcome the barrier by using some mechanism to lower the energy barrier sufficiently for a lower energy Proton to be absorbed. These ideas are generally based on good physics and there is some evidence to support some of these ideas such as the effect of Surface Plasmon Polaritons and vortexes proposed by Axil Axil. There is also the evidence of absorption of Hydrogen into the lattice that looks like it could consistent with these ideas.

I believe that Proton absorption can be explained by simple physics, however, if we have localized high energy atoms or nuclei that mimic the energies required in the Sun.

But it is certainly possible the other mechanisms may also pay a role if the kinetic energy of the atoms or Nuclei is not sufficiently high enough.

Coulomb Barrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier

The Coulomb barrier is dependent on the Atomic number i.e. the number of protons in each of the colliding nuclei so it is lower for lighter Nuclei such as Hydrogen and Lithium than heavier elements.

There is a nice calculator on line that can be used for calculating the size of the coulomb barrier:

http://nrv.jinr.ru/nrv/webnrv/qcalc/

Interesting for most isotopes of Hydrogen, H, H reactions are calculated to have a coulomb barrier of 389 MeV and 7Li H reactions a Coulomb Barrier level of 901 keV. This calculation may only be accurate for heavier ions however so may need some adjusting.

A more approximate method for calculating the size of the Coulomb Barrier to first order seems to be to use the total number of Protons in both particles / 4 in MeV. i.e Proton Proton interaction would have A coulomb Barrier of  0.5 MeV

Quantum Tunneling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling 

Classic Gamma absorption.

The Isotope analysis of various tests indicate clearly that transmutation is occurring.  Both the mechanisms described by Rossi and Cook and by Bob Greenyer generate Gamma either directly or indirectly via Beta + annihilation with an electron (probably the k shell electron if the atoms are not ionised). In many LENR cases Gamma is not observed so this means that they must be absorbed some how.

Classic Gamma absorption normally considers the absorption due to interaction with atomic shell electrons . Three energetic cases can occur.

  1. High energy Gamma > 1.022 MeV: These tend to generate electron positrons pairs that later self annihilate and produce two 511 keV Gamma.
  2. Gamma < 1022 Mev Interact with the electron through Compton or Thompson scattering.
  3. Lower energy Gamma or xrays etc may dislodge an electron through the Photoelectric effect
  4. Beta + radiation will also interact with electrons to produce 2 511keV Gamma.

Note in the event the Beta + is not being annihilated with the electrons via (d)  perhaps due to high velocity Bremstrahlung X-ray radiation would be expected to occur.

Therefore we would tend to get Gamma in the 511keV range due to the interactions described in (a) and (d) above with some Gamma at slightly higher or lower energy but < 1.022 MeV due to (b) and (c).

This kind of Gamma absorption is what is usually considered in radiation shielding by Lead etc.

In the LENR experiments it seems that there is insufficient material to the lack of gamma through absorption this way.

Wave particle Nature of Photons and Diffraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

Thermal Environment and Boltzmanns Constant

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant

Gamma Absorption and Heat Generation with Receptive Nuclei

Gamma absorption.

There is another potential way that Gamma can be absorbed. This is through absorption by atomic nuclei. These will tend to absorb Gamma if it is of sufficiently high energy to raise the nuclei to the next energy level..

I haven’t yet made a through analysis but from what I see so far most common and stable nuclei have 1st energy levels  above base at too high level to absorb a 511keV Gamma. 7Li (477 keV) and 105Pd ( 7 independent levels between 280.5 kEV and 489 keV) and 108Pd (434 keV) are exceptions however as the have low initial energy levels. 106Pd is also very close at 511.8 Kev. Refer to the following useful reference from wiley-vch:

http://www.wiley-vch.de/books/info/0-471-35633-6/toi99/www/decay/table4.pdf

 

There are some others that might be interesting such as 19F  (with 2 low energy  levels 197 keV and 109 keV) which could be present in water.  23Na  (440 keV). Note Sodium Fluoride NaF is used in water treatment.

 

In addition to the others below 511keV there may be some other nuclei with 1st energy level below 1022 keV that may also be of interest.

 

Energised Nuclei Kinetic Energy

 

If these nuclei absorb a gamma of sufficient energy I understand that the difference in energy would be manifested as kinetic energy. If we assume the Gamma is 511keV and the energy levels for 7Li this would be about 34 keV converted to kinetic energy.  For 105Pd about 22 keV, for 108Pd  77keV and for 106Pd possibly absorption with little or no eV transferred to kinetic energy.  Interestingly if 19F absorbed a 511 keV Gamma this would give a kinetic energy for 304 keV.

 

In general it looks like the typical Kinetic energy generated from such an inter action is of the order 10s or 100s keV. This kinetic energy would not be enough for individual nucleons in the nucleus to overcome their binding energy of the Nucleus but should accelerate nucleus itself with this boost of Kinetic Energy to a higher relative velocity.

 

Energised Kinetic Nucleus and Atom Ionisation

 

This individual atom with a Nucleus with high keV would I assume be ionized. This would need to be checked however.

Half Life of the Energised and Kinetic Nuclei

 

These Nuclei will remain in the high energy state for a certain time with half life typically of the order of nano-seconds before decaying by emitting a lower energy Gamma equivalent to energy steps in the nucleus. This will occur unless it changes state due to nuclear transmutation or absorption of proton etc. For 7Li for example with one step above base level this would be a 477keV Gamma. If the Gamma is released the kinetic energy of the nuclei will be retained.

Heating due to Kinetic Nuclei Collisions with the Surrounding Medium

 

Whether or not the Energised Kinetic Atom is ionised it would tend to interact kinetically through collisions with the surrounding medium energizing and raising the j=heat of the surrounding medium and bringing the energy of the initially accelerated ion or atom down to the equivalent to the ambient Temperature. Assuming Boltzmanns Law this could contribute to observed heat increase in LENR.

Absorption of Protons and Transmutation

 

If the Energised Kinetic Nuclei have high enough kinetic energy it could interact with protons, hydrogen nuclei or other atomic nuclei. If a collision of sufficiently high energy is achieved the nucleus could absorb the proton or nucleus through Fusion. Other wise the Proton or Nucleus would be accelerated as a result of the collision. Perhaps with neutrons can be absorbed too and electrons in a kind of electron capture but I understand that the chance for electron capture to succeed is very remote due to the need for both neutrinos and anti-neutrinos to be present at the same time as the electron capture. This is dealt with, however, in the Next Section.

 

Possible role of Diffraction:

 

The amount of material in the experiments is usually very small and if we only think of the Gamma as a particle it may be difficult too explain the lack of Gamma leakage unless the density of receptive nuclei is sufficient.

 

However If we take the wave particle nature of photons into account there may be another contributor to the story due to the effects of diffraction.  This part is a bit speculative on my part and a may be wrong in some aspects so feel free to correct me.

 

If I understand correctly: The classic experiment used to show demonstrate the wave/ particle nature of light is Youngs Slits. When photons pass through the slits they demonstrate their wave nature as an interference pattern. Interestingly this occurs even if a single photon is used. Effectively the photon can be detected by the photo electric effect on the other side of the slits anywhere within the interference pattern. Only once detected the wave function collapses and you know which slit the photon passed through.  This also means that once it is diffracted the photon is not localized in space until it is detected.

Gamma Photons could be being diffracted within the crystal lattice like structure of a solid or around micro structures on the surfaces of materials within the devices, this could include gaps between particles, rough edges and cavities.

When a photon interacts with a receptive nuclei this is effectively a detection. So maybe nuclei with the right energy state available in the space of the diffracted photon are more likely or possibly guaranteed to be absorbed. I should still account for conservation of momentum when absorbing a Gamma Photon

Possible role of Particle/Cavity/Surface Texture Size. 

If a Gamma photon of sufficient energy is to pass through the surface of a particle in order to interact with the surrounding medium it may need to be of small enough size to allow Gamma of 511 keV to be generated but have only limited attenuation due to Compton scattering. This could also be resolved in part by the surface textures of the particle.

Low energy Gamma 

Gamma less than 511keV would occur due to Compton scattering and some of these may still be high enough energy to excite states in some elements with lower energy levels such as 105Pd and 19F. Any remaining low energy Gamma or would continue to interact with shell electrons via the Compton scattering effect perhaps resulting in the generation of once enough scattering has occurred X-rays and UV.

Section Conclusion

In conclusion of this Section The heating effect seen in LENR can be explained in part by absorption of Gamma by Receptive Nuclei. The heating is caused by the acceleration of the Nucleus relatively high Kinetic Energy by the remaining energy not absorbed by the Nucleus and the interaction with the surrounding Medium. The rate of gamma absorption may also be influenced by Gamma Photon diffraction. For this to occur a source of Gamma is required this source may be explained in part by the Fusion Concepts in next section.

Nuclear Transmutation and Gamma Ray Production

Size of Coulomb Barrier and Fusion energetics for Nuclei implicated in LENR Transmutation

According to the coulomb barrier calculator on:  http://nrv.jinr.ru/nrv/webnrv/qcalc/

According to this calculator the calculation of the Compton Barrier may only be accurate for heavier ions however so these values may need some adjusting.

Rossi Cook reactions

7Li, H: Vc = 901 keV. -> Yields 8Be + 17.254 MeV

8Be decays to 2 Alpha

61Ni, H: Vc = 6.005 MeV -> Yields 62Cu + 5.855 MeV

62Cu decays via Beta+ decay to 62Ni + ? MeV

Some of the energy in the Beta+ decay will be taken by the neutrinos that likely leave the system without further interaction.

Hydrogen and Helium reactions

Most isotopes of Hydrogen, H, H: Vc = 389 keV.

1H+1H -> Yields 2H + Beta+ + 420keV

1H+2H -> Yields 3He + 5.493 MeV

2H+2H -> Yields 4He + 23.864 MeV

1H+3H -> Yields 4He + 19.813 MeV

3He +1H: Vc = 778 keV. -> via Beta+ decay to 4He + 18.8 MeV

3He +3He: Vc = 1.557 MeV. -> Yields 4He + 1H+1H + 12.86 MeV

Some of the energy in the Beta+ decay will be taken by the neutrinos that likely leave the system without further interaction.

Flourine and Sodium Reactions

19F , H: Vc = 2.554 MeV -> Yields Stable 20Ne + 12.835 MeV

23Na, H: Vc = 2.983 MeV -> Yields Stable 24Mg + 11 .693 M3V

 

Stella Fusion Concepts:

Bob Greenyer mentioned that the CNO Cycle may explain some of the contaminants seen in the Lugano test. It could be that other Fusion cycles present in the Sun are implicated as well.

Note it is normally considered to require the very hot temperatures and pressures of a stella interior of order 10s million Kelvin to over come the Coulomb Barrier. However even in this case quantum tunneling is need to explain the reactions. Maybe localized energetics and interactions can play a role too that create similar interactions as occur in the sun but in a local manner.

The Temperature of the Core of Stars where fusion occurs is around 8 x 106 K to around 1 x 108 depending on the size of the star.  The sun is estimated as having a core temperature of around 1.5 x 107 K. Using Boltmannz law we can calculate the kinetic energy of the particles in the medium.

E = kT

K = 8.617 x 10 -5 eV

For T = 8 x 106 K     E = 689 eV

For T = 1.5 x 107 K  E = 1292 eV

This maybe lower than you might expect but with the densities and pressures in the suns core this is sufficient through quantum tunneling to allow a certain probability of fusion which in turn explains the rate and amount of energy production and contributes to stella structure and behavior.

Note on Gamma Absorption Concept

Note these energies are much lower than the kinetic energies of the local kinetic energized nuclei generated by gamma absorption mentioned in the previous section.

Stella Fusion Cycles

As well as the CNO Cycle mentioned by Bob Greenyer there are in fact more that come into play at different temperatures. The lowest energy Cycle is in fact the Proton- Proton Cycle, there is also Lithium 7 Burning (associate with Rossi Cook Paper), 4 types of CNO Cycle, and at higher energies 3 types of so called Hot CNO Cycle HCNO Cycles. There may in fact be there maybe other cycles leading up to the production of Iron. The energetics of these typically occur in high temperature and pressure.

The temperatures required result in energies well within the localized kinetic energies implied by Gamma absorption. And imply absorption can occur in these cases providing enough interaction occur before the high energy nuclei looses energy. If an encounter occurs the probability of absorption should be higher relative to that in the sun due to the higher kinetic energy relative to the coulomb barrier.

Note in the ash analysis of some LENR experiments transmutation of Ni and other heavier elements is implicated which has more Protons and higher Coulomb barriers in interactions.

61Ni, H: Vc = 6.005 MeV -> Yields 62Cu + 5.855 MeV

62Cu decays via Beta+ decay to 62Ni + ? MeV

61Ni, H interaction has a coulomb barrier of 6.005 MeV that maybe overcome through quantum tunneling of a high kinetic energy encounter with Hydrogen

Proton-Proton Cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton–proton_chain_reaction

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/procyc.html

1H+1H -> Yields 2H + Beta

1H+2H -> Yields 3He

3He+3He -> Yields  4He + 1H+1H

This yields about 25 MeV and no Gamma .The following reaction can also occur.

1H+3He -> Yields 4He + Beta+ + 18 MeV

Some of the energy in the Beta+ decay will be taken by the neutrinos that likely leave the system without further interaction.

Lithium 7 Burning as described by Rossi and Cook can also play a role following if produced from He and Hydrogen reactions

Carbon Cycle (CNO-I):

This normally requires higher core temperature of about 1.8 x 107  K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

12C->13N->13C->14N->15O->15N->12C

12C, H: Vc =  1.899 MeV -> Yields 13N  + Gamma + 1.95 MeV

13N decays via Beta+ decay to 13C + 1.20 MeV

13C, H: Vc = 1.863 MeV  -> Yields 14N + Gamma + 7.54 MeV

14N, H: Vc = 2.136 MeV -> Yields 15O + Gamma + 7.35 MeV

15O decays via Beta+ decay to 15N + 1.73 MeV

15N decays via Alpha decay to 12C + 4.96 MeV

 

The 2 Beta+ will annihilate with electrons to produce 4 Gamma of 511keV each

Total energy released by Carbon cycle = 26.7 MeV

Some of the energy in the Beta+ decay will be taken by the neutrinos that likely leave the system without further interaction.

The Gamma will also likely take much of the energy in the reactions producing Gamma.

There are a three other CNO Cycles that are less common that run at hotter temperatures and include isotopes of Fluorine (F). CNO IV is possibly interesting in the Wet LENR cases if treated water is used as 19F may be present and this is  already implicated in gamma absorption in Section 1 so could be already accelerated due to this.

Carbon Cycle (CNO-IV):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

19F->16O->17F->17O->18F->18O->19F

19F, H: Vc =  2.544 MeV -> Yields 16O  + Alpha + 8.114 MeV

16O, H: Vc = 2.365 MeV  -> Yields 17F + Gamma + 0.60 MeV

17F decays via Beta+ decay to 17O + 2.76 MeV

17O, H: Vc = 2.331 MeV  -> Yields 18F + Gamma + 5.61 MeV

18F decays via Beta+ decay to 18O + 1.656 MeV

18O, H: Vc = 2.299 MeV  -> Yields 19F + Gamma + 7.994 MeV

The 2 Beta+ will annihilate with electrons to produce 4 Gamma of 511keV each

CNO-II and CNO-III may also play a role

Consideration of the Gamma Radiation released by Proton absorption and above fusion Cycles

The Proton Proton Cycles described above all release Beta + and the CNO Cycles also release Gamma. The Beta+ will annihilate with electrons to produce 511 keV Gamma. This can be the potential source of radiation to sustain the Gamma absorption reactions described in Section 1

Consideration of energetics released by Gamma Absorption

Clearly the Carbon Cycle and Nickel reactions still require high energy to over come the coulomb barrier even with quantum tunneling taken into account, but once these reactions occur they can potentially generate additional kinetic energy to their nuclei which can lead to overcome the barrier for further reactions. This kinetic energy will of course also contribute to the thermal environment as with nuclei accelerated by gamma absorption.

The Hydrogen type reactions require much lower energy 389 keV, This is a little bit higher that the kinetic energy from 19F absorption of 511keV gamma which yields 304 keV.

The 7Li reaction requires 901 keV. If the nucleus is already energized by a Gamma to 477 keV I wonder if this reduces this value?

If either of these reactions occurs they release quite a lot of energy

Note if there are some higher energy Gamma >511 keV but < 1022 MeV they could yield potentially higher kinetic energy from these nuclei.

Collision Interaction Considerations

Since the nucleus with high Kinetic energy has high relative velocity it should interact with a relatively large volume of the medium whilst still in the excited state.

This may also be important if the excited state is needed to absorb the Proton as with 7Li.

 

Possible Diffraction Considerations

Note it is also possible that the accelerated Protons have wave particle behavior and could be affected by diffraction considerations mentioned for Gamma radiation Section 1

 

Section Conclusion

The signatures of LENR particularly element and isotope abundance of ash, indicate that Proton absorption is occurring. In addition there is some evidence that similar processes are occurring as occur in stars under much higher ambient temperatures and pressures.

 

Gamma absorption as described in Section 1 can generate localized nuclei with high Kinetic energy. These can have energies even higher than the energies implied by Boltzmanns law in the sun. The nuclei can potentially fuse with protons if one or the other has high kinetic energy and quantum tunneling is taken into account.

In this sense LENR could be thought of as similar to normal stella fusion but in a very localized, remotely distributed and more controlled sense maybe they are “Localised Energetic Nuclear Reactions”.

These reactions can contribute to the heating as the nuclei themselves will gain kinetic energy and can also provide the gamma needed for Section 1

Note it is also possible that the accelerated Protons have wave particle behavior and could be affected by diffraction considerations mentioned in Section 1

Rate of interactions and energy generation.

Since in this proposal the rate of interactions  and heat generation seems to depend on the number of high kinetic nuclei generated by 511 keV Gamma or similar this implies the rate depends on 3 things.

  1. a) The Gamma environment,
  2. b) The Beta+ production rate
  3. c) The chance for the gamma to encounter a receptive nucleus.
  4. d) The chance for the accelerated nucleus to or interacted with other nuclei and generate heat

A sustained interaction seems to depend on:

  1. A good supply of Protons
  2. Directly or indirectly accelerated nuclei to encounter a nuclei that can absorb a proton and cause Beta+ or Gamma Decay.
  3. Sufficient kinetic energy of localized nuclei to trigger absorption of a proton via quantum tunneling.
  4. Energizing the medium to increase chance of encounters

Possible Other Contributions

Coulomb Barrier disruption

If the Coulomb barrier disruption is occurring due to Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) described by Axil Axil’s for example this could accelerate the absorption. I’m not sure if it is needed but it maybe if the rate of absorption due to quantum tunneling of high Kinetic nuclei is not sufficient. I also wonder what happens when these SSP and concentrations of Hydrogen encounter a high Kinetic energy nucleus or proton?

Thermal Considerations

The Medium will have an ambient energy related to the ambient temperate through Boltzmanns law. This will be much lower than the initial kinetic energy of the nuclei accelerated by Gamma or Proton absorption.

External Heating seems to be implicated in the intialisation of LENR and the rate of LENR. Part of this is to provide  they hydrogen to the system, part is to excite some of the nuclei to liquid or gaseous state. Perhaps it also affect the reaction rate by heating the surrounding medium so that encounters with energized nuclei are more likely.

EM Considerations. 

Since the binding energy of even low level electrons is of the order of a few keV I suspect Atoms with energized nuclei of 10s or 100s keV kinetic energy likely to be ionized.

This could lead to the RF signals that are sometimes mentioned as occurring.

The AC Current and sine wave chopping has also been implicated as influence LENR may be this can affect the ionized material. This would cause the ionized material to oscillate and perhaps differentiate the ions from the electrons. I suspect that the chopping could cause shocks in the ionized material and maybe creat waves of concentrated ionized nuclei. Perhaps these concentrations are more likely to interact with high kinetic energy nuclei that are produce by Gamma or Proton absorption.

Roll of 19F and 23Na

19F and 23Na have already been mentioned as potential absorbers of  511keV Gamma and 19F has a potential role in CNO IV reactions.

19F  (with 2 low energy  levels 197 keV and 109 keV)

23Na  (440 keV).

These are also interesting for Wet LENR These elements are often present in naturally occurring water F3 for example is often mentioned. In addition they can both be found in treated water and in particular FNa is used for water treatment and may be found in tap water in UK for example.

Both 19F and 23Na are stable and have 100% natural abundance. They will absorb gamma gain Kinetic energy and have energy levels below 511 keV. Once energized they will eventually radiate at lower energy gamma. If they absorb a Proton they could potentially transmute to other stable nuclei.

19F , H: Vc = 2.554 MeV -> Yields Stable 20Ne + 12.835 MeV

23Na, H: Vc = 2.983 MeV -> Yields Stable 24Mg + 11 .693 M3V

I’m not sure if these reactions occur or require  particular energized states as indicated for 7Li in the Rossi Cook paper. Also 19F is implicated in the CNO IV cycle where it decays to Oxygen via Alpha decay. But if 20Ne and 24Mg is seen in the products this is where it could be coming from.

Pd based Systems

Pd has 3 isotoped that are likely to be implicated in 511keV Gamma absorption.

a105Pd ( 7 independent levels between 280.5 kEV and 489 keV) and 108Pd (434 keV) are exceptions however as the have low initial energy levels. 106Pd is also very close at 511.8 Kev.

After 511keV Gamma aborbtion 105Pd yields about 22 keV Kinetic energy is yielded, for 108Pd  77keV and for 106Pd possibly absorption with little or no eV transferred to kinetic energy.

These are less likely to transmute the Coulomb barrier for Pd is high 8.627 MeV if does due to Proton absorption it may transmute to Ag.

If it does not transmute it would reradiate Gamma at lower energy. 105Pd is particularly interesting as it has 7 energy levels between 489 and 280 keV. Each separated by a few 10’s of keV and each with decay times of from us to less than 1 ns. As this This would generate very low energy Gamma and a final 280 Gamma that may be absorbed by other 105Pd so eventually only low energy Gamma is produced.

These could be absorbed by Compton and Thomson Scattering and eventually by the Photoelectric effect. If F and Na are present they could also be absorbers of Gamma.

19F  (with 2 low energy levels 197 keV and 109 keV)

23Na (440 keV).

There would still need to be a source for the Gamma. This could come about through the localized kinetic Proton Proton reactions described in Section 2, through the production and annihilation of Beta+. Or alternatively if Contaminents are present such as 19F or 12C through the localized kinetic CNO Cycle.

Applications

If this proposal is valid it could lead to some interesting applications including:

  • radiation shielding
  • Improved Batteries
  • Ion Drive technology for space vehicles
  • Heat and energy source for space vehicles etc

Safety Concerns

Radiation is a concern if the shielding effect of gamma absorption breaks down.

Safe use of 7Li in batteries at high altitude and high radiation environment should be checked .

 

 

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.