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)


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


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:


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


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



Thermal Environment and Boltzmanns 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:



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



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



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):



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.


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 .



  • Publius

    Electron capture?

    • Stephen

      It might be that the spare energy in the nucleus after gamma absorption might have a part to play in this. If 10 to 100’s or so keV is sufficiently high to generate a neutrino anti neutino pair. It may be possible tis contributes to capture of the k she’ll electron. I am also trying to reconcile conservation of momentum at the moment the gamma photon momentum is relatively low, but the excess energy must be released some how i am wondering if neutrino anti netrino pairs could be released in the opposite direction to the nucleus. Or even a sterile neutrino if they exist 😉

      • Axil Axil


        You state that a gamma can leave and enter the nucleus without any regard to the coulomb barrier. After all, gamma rays are just a high energy form of EMF. If a gamma can go and come in and out of the nucleus, then other kinds EMF should be able to do the same. If gamma can come from matter and be turned into matter, so too other kinds of EMF can do the same. What might happen if a form of EMF can be produced in a controlled way that can enter the nucleus and be turned into matter.

        • Stephen

          Thanks Axil Axil. You make a very good point, your thoughts have just made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck! In a good way! If EM is subject to the Coulomb barrier then it would be subject to quantum tunnelling constraints too. Both for energy in the Coulomb barrier and Gama photons from out side the barrier. Interesting neutrino emission would be under the same constraint.

          First if we consider gamma coming from outside. The probability of absorption would depend on their energy, the chance to be absorbed through quantum tunnelling and the number of receptive nuclei in the diffracted light field.

          Second if we consider the energy inside the nucleus. The energy levels are apparently described by the size and shape of the energy well along with nucleus structure considerations that are very well explained by Norman Cook. Both the spare energy after the absorption of Gamma and the normal gamma emission due to change in energy state are subject to the same Coulomb Barrier constraint. In the case of normal gamma emission perhaps this explains the Coulomb barrier effectively bottles the energy until it can be released. Since an energy level exists it can stay at this level until quantum tunnelling allows it to escape. This may explain in part the half life for the gamma emission. If energy is remaining in the system that can not be held in the higher energy States then it would still subject to the same bottle but not in a stable energy level. For conservation of energy and momentum reasons this energy wants to go some where. And either transform to something in the nucleus or escape in some form out of the nucleus. Neutrino anti neutrino pairs are generated they will also be contained in the same bottle and in these rare occasions may interact with an electron through electron capture, or if not then escape the nucleus through quantum tunnelling after a certain half life. More speculatively If sterile neutrinos exist they are maybe not be subject to the Coulomb Barrier in the same way, very speculatively perhaps a kind of longitudinal EMF too. If this is the case then that might fit with the last idea you had about energy being to leave and enter the nucleus too.

          Thanks for your thoughts On this Axil Axil

        • Stephen

          Maybe ordinary EMF in resonance?

          • Axil Axil

            There was an experiment done where an exploding titanium wire in water caused by an arc discharge. The wire was enclosed in a sealed glass tube. This event produced nuclear fission in devolved uranium salt in another water filled compartment of the experiment that was completely separated from the wire compartment. No neutrons were detected.

            What can cause this nuclear reaction to occur? These kinds of experiments can pinpoint what causes LENR.

          • Stephen

            Thanks Axil Axil. This is really interesting. Wow you find an know some interesting stuff! I am traveling a bit later and I will take this along to read more carefully along the trip.

      • Stephen

        I would prefer to keep to topic of LENR but speculatively could DM and DE be explained by emission of sterile neutrinos iin this way over the life time of the universe? They would have both mass and energy and would interact only weekly with matter if they encounter nuclei with just the right energy gap to absorb them.

    • Axil Axil

      Electron capture is far too highly improbable to carry on energy production that requires trillions upon trillions of reactions per seconds.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Thanks Stephen

    I was about to go out for a walk on this spring day but I got hooked on your post.

    In palladium-deuterium systems the Oppenheimer-Phillips process, (d,p) may also come into play. Here are some of Ragheb and Miley thoughts about O-P reactions. Ihttp://www.springerlink.com/content/u87311484300658g/
    I was just wondering if a hybrid of your wonderful thoughts with an O-P mechanism could be used to better explain palladium-deuterium systems.

    I’ll think about it on my walk.

    • Stephen

      Thanks Alan

      I will certainly enjoy taking alook at the process you mentioned too, pobably I will take a nice evening walk to think on that too. If you have good insights let me know. I had a small problem accessing the link but I think I can track it down. Most of he proposal I wrote was collected from and inspired by what was said on this site and other web blogs and forums. I’m still new to it all. But what an amazing time to start following what’s been happening in the LENR world!

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, I’ve been hooked on this since March of 1989. I’ve heard all the “Please, May I have a cup of tea” jokes. So, these are really exciting times for me. I just hope Rossi doesn’t run out of tea bags at the debut of the MW plant.

        • Omega Z


          • Alan DeAngelis

            That would make a great T-shirt.

          • Stephen

            I totally agree… I want one!

          • Mats002

            Stephen, I disagree you promoted simple physics, nevertheless I am happy you are here now, that is positive! Apart from T we enjoy popcorn.

          • Stephen

            Thanks Mats, Probably traditional physics would have been a better term but even so although i try to use it to explain LENR, it doesn’t explain all the experimental observations during heat up etc which some other ideas out there could explain better. Im glad to have been able to participate and share my thoughts here too. Im looking forward to seeing the developments in LENR over the next months.

        • Stephen

          Me too and I am looking forward to his official paper, I hope if LENR can be explained simply enough for the patent office to understand, they will have no excuse to keep blocking his patent applications. I’m persuaded by the people on this site that LENR technology is needed now. I’m looking forward to having a nice cup of tea privately in my living room when that happens too 😉

          • Axil Axil

            Mossbauer effect is wrong, don;t let it confuse you.

  • Stephen

    I feel fantastic! I enjoyed wirting this. Probably there are plenty of errors and corrections needed but I hope at least some of the material is useful. Many of the ideas I have mentioned came originally from the Forums, blogs and web sites that I mentioned in my introduction especially this one. I would say 99% of the other ones were stimulated by the discussions on those same sites. I consider it open science in action and In the end that’s why I wanted to post it here 🙂

  • parallelB

    Thank you for the clearest and most detailed account of the possibilities that I have seen so far.
    Adrian Ashfield

  • Stephen

    Hi Orsobubu. Thats a great idea if its possible. I am sure there are lots of holes and corrections that need to be made, and having a document that can be added to and improved by people on this site sounds brilliant. It certainly could do with some diagrams and improved references. And maybe if better mathematical proofs based on data. If it is good enough and complete enough maybe introduce a concept of an “Open Paper”, written and authored by the Open Science Community. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could get something based on that in an established Journal along with papers written and authored and attributed to Axil Axil etc. But I suppose this particular proposal here is far from ready for that at the moment. Having an on line document anyway is a great idea. I might need some help maintaining it though or maybe as its Franks site he would prefer to be the Book Captain of this..

    I don’t think I have checked the Vortex blog yet but I will certainly take a look. I have the feeling I will enjoy it.

  • Stephen

    Thanks Zephir, It sounds intriguing I will certainly take a look Something else to take with me to read when I travel this afternoon. Wow there are some great ideas out there.

  • Stephen

    Hi Artifex, Do you mean that due to wave particle nature of photons the single emitted photon form an atom is not defined in position or direction until it is detected so when considering it as a wave it could be considered to be emitted in a sphere? Thats an interesting idea to think about, I wonder what this means for conservation of momentum since photons have a small amount of momentum but the nucleus should move slightly in the opposite direction but if it doesn’t have direction until it is detected what does this mean about the momentum given to the nucleus. I’m not sure to be honest. Perhaps someone here has a clearer picture on this? Thanks for raising this interesting point.

  • Axil Axil

    The EMF produced by a vortex (AKA soliton) is projected in a thin straight beam. The spherical power dissipation of the inverse square law does not apply to anapole magnetic beam projection. Both photons and virtual photons travel along this tight beam. This beam is another amplification mechanism that makes the surface plasmon polariton a powerful EMF amplifier.

  • Artifex 28

    About Parkhomov’s experiments. These are crackpot questions from a layman, so be gentle.

    Do we know if the fusion/nuclear reaction is happening only on the outermost layer of atoms in the Nickel or is the occurring past the first layer as well? Will the transmutation from Ni to eg. Cu form a layer of Cu on the Ni or will the Cu?

    Localized surface plasmons can cause a thousandfold increase in localized electric fields. It does sound plausible that this could can act as an catalyst/actor in the Ni H-fusion. Coulomb’s law is about overcoming the electric repulsion and the main point of LENR critique. Perhaps there’s something at play that increases the attracting electric force (eg. due to the lattice form of Ni) eg. due to surface plasmons? Does the Lorentz force law have something to do with all this due to magnetics?

    3.2.2. for Boundary charge method: http://dipc.ehu.es/etxenike/admin/documentos/archivos/publicaciones/307RPP2007.pdf

    What kind of role does the vaporous Li play in all this?

    • Stephen

      Hi Artifex, These are not crackpot questions at all, they are very good questions. Now I’m also curious, hope someone has some good answers for them. Thanks as well for the link

      • Stephen

        Its a really good Link

    • Axil Axil

      The nuclear reactions are happening inside the nickel and on the outside and in the gas. So you might sy the nuclear rections are happening everywhere. The are all kinds of reactions going on making all kinds of new elements. It is a nuclear free for all.

    • Axil Axil

      What causes tunneling? Tunneling is caused by disturbances in the vacuum caused by fluctuations in the EMF field. Increase in the EMF field will increase tunneling. But the creation of resonances in the energy of the vacuum produces particles. Increases in the EMF field will increase the probability of particle creation in the vacuum. When EMF condenses into a particle, charge and spin are created. It is this charge and spin of particles created within the vacuum that produces the LENR reaction.

      • Stephen

        I like this it’s innteresting that it tries to explain the mechanism of Quantum Tunneling rather than just looking at it as Energy and probability. This might be interesting from the processes occurring from inside a Nucleus as well as from outside particularly unstable energy states.

        • Axil Axil

          Increase of magnetism inside the proton will increase the energy content of the proton, as an increase in the energy of the spin inside the proton. When the extra energy gets up to about 400 KeV, the proton transforms into a neutron. This is how Nickel 58 is transmuted into Nickel 62 for Lagano and Nickel 64 for Parkhomov. A proton enters the Ni58 nucleus and then becomes a heaver nickel isotope as energy from magnetism is added, one additional neutron at a time inside the nucleus. This transmutation of a proton into a neutron is how no neuron are seen outside the nucleus because all the transmutation occurs inside the nucleus.

          • Stephen

            Hmm that’s interesting I’ve also been thinking about excess energy left over after a particular energy level is reached if gammas are absorbed. But now I understand better your ideas about directed magnetic beams causing disruption I can see there are some areas of common ground in the two approaches when dealing with the resulting energy in the nuclei. I suspect that because this energy is too low to occupy an energy state and can not easily radiate as EM radiation due to the Coulomb barrier it is either putting one of the nucleons in an energised but unstable state that needs to transform or decay or creating some kind of proto meson with out enough energy to manifest the meson which then decays into particles such as neutrinos that can pass through the Coulomb Barrier without hinderance.

            Do we know if neutrinos also have an EM nature like photons that can be impacted by the Coulomb barrier? Or since they have no charge are they only potentially affected by the weak force or the W and Z boson. In Beta decay is the beta particle is emitted with a Neutrino at the same time i.e. do they pass through the coulomb barrier at the same time. If it was down to half life only, would we not expect these 2 very different particles to be emitted at differant times? But then how is momentum conserved?

          • Axil Axil

            Its hard to tell what subatomic particle or particles canalizes the fusion. It could be that many reaction possibilities can produce disruptions. There may be a particle formed and then decay down some decay chain to a fusion active particle like the muon.

            The coherent entanglement of all particle interactions mean that no energy is wasted because all energy is returned to the soliton for reapplication to the next fusion event.

            The way to tell what is going on is to put the LENR reactor in or near a neutrino detector to identify what neutrinos are being produced.

    • Axil Axil

      The surface pasmon polariton is form of light that converts heat into alternating current and then into magnetism. It is this magnetism that excites the vacuum into particle production. It is these particles that produce the LENR reaction. The direction of the magnetism is random so its effect on the vacuum is random and therefore the LENR reaction acts randomly.

    • Axil Axil

      The magnetic field acts in a strigh line but that line is randomly directed.

    • Axil Axil

      Lithium will form nanoparticles when the pressure and the temperature fluctuates on the boundary of spercriticallity of the gas containing the vaporized lithium. It is these nanoprticles that amplifiy the magnetic beams powered by dipole motion of electrons on the surface of the nickel micro particles.

    • Axil Axil

      Magnetism is what causes LENR through the formation of charged particles(msons, pions, muons) near the nucleus.

      Read the following posts replies in reverse order from last to first.

      • Stephen

        Nicely written Axil Axil. I hope this is all going into your book. 🙂

        • Stephen

          In the concept I’m looking at with gamma absorption by nuclei I have been thinking about similar issues with the remaining energy in the atom and it touches on the same ideas in some ways. It will be interesting to see if they converge in some way. Me looking from inside of the atom out you looking from outside in. I know you have good alternative ideas for gamma absorption though too. I’m thinking to post a follow up at some point dealing with conservation of momentum issues and some of the other points raised on the approach I used in this thread. I think your views make a really good parallel track and actually comparing them is helping me understand the advantages and good arguments in your approach.

          • Ted-X

            If the gamma would be somehow polarized, the nuclei could become hyperpolarized and extremely sensitive to a resonance frequency (those nuclei that are NMR-responding, at least). The hyperpolarization state is surprisingly very stable (with the time-scale of minutes or even hours). Many nuclei synchronized in their hyperpolarized state may (potentially) lead to some sort of a nuclear interaction of a low energy. It is known that the hyperpolarization can be transferred between nuclei, even for different elements, so these activated nuclei interact, this is well proven. Ted-X

          • Stephen

            Thanks Ted, I’d like to read and find out more about this. It brings another interesting aspect and twist to the story that i would never have thought about with out these kinds of posts. I will see what I can find out on the Internet, but do you also have some good references or links you can recommend about hyper polarised nuclei?

          • Axil Axil

            The degree of magnetic power that is projected into the nucleus varies from system to system. Even within any given system, the magnetic power varies from reaction to reaction. The spin of the atom and its nucleus plays a major role in determining how much spin power gets through into the nucleus. A zero spin nucleus will let all the spin power in. Ni62 and Ni64 are zero spin nuclei. These atoms are ideal for the LENR reaction because the do not block the reaction. A non zero spin atom will waste spin power by converting that power into RF radiation. Ni61 is an example of a NMR active atom that will produce RF and may not be easily transmuted.

            But if the magnetic power is strong enough, the spin value of the atom and its nucleus is not strong enough to stop the LENR reaction from occuing.

  • Axil Axil

    Charge and magnetism are the same thing. They only differ in their reference frame. Charge is caused by electrons standing still. Magnetism is caused by electrons in motion. But the unit of magnetism, spin can be amplified by running elections in circles. That is where magnetism has its advantage over charge, it can be amplified by huge amounts when these electrons are forced to run in circle.

  • Axil Axil

    When a light beam hits a boundary of matter, it will bend. A piece of glass will bend light on the way into it and on the way out of a glass. When the matter is very small, , a nanoparticle, the light is bent so much that it forms a circle and that circle is very small. The light interferes with itself, it steps on its own toes, to fit itself inside that small space. The light will resonate at a frequency that will allow it to stay inside the circle. All the light that does not fit inside the circle is busted up and put back together. In this way, all the light will form a single wave that rolls around inside the circle. This is a soliton, one huge common waveform.

    • Ted-X

      Could these surface plasma polaritons be polarized? A beam of light deflected from a surface often becomes polarized. If so, the hyperpolarization of nuclei could play role in the LENR reactions.

      • Axil Axil

        The SPP is a strange thing. It is light and electron mixed together for time. It has lost charge and gained in spin. I don’t know what its waveform looks like yet, but because it has no electric component, it might not have the ability to be polarized.. The real world is all about waves and particles are illusions in our world.

  • Axil Axil



    The alignment in a surface plasmon polariton(SPP) vortex is set to produce a beam of magnetism in the same way that a quasar does.

  • Axil Axil

    An SPP waveform is not light and it is not an electron; it is a magnetic waveform with spin of 2.

    • Stephen

      Hi Axil Axil, Would we expect to see Bremstahlung radiation either from the SSP it self or a free electrons in the vicinity of the SSP or the magnetic beam? Perhaps this is something that could be looked for experimentally?

      • Axil Axil

        See second post here


        The beam has been experimentlly verified, with theory and with pictures of the beam in the reference here.

        Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles


        The storage of energy by the soliton is near perfect. It is essentually an EMF black Hole.

        • Stephen

          Thanks Axil Axil for the links another good read

      • Stephen

        Note in the dog-bone and E-cat type devices the EM is applied in the heater coil and this would also produce an alternating magnetic field down the length of the device. I was wondering if in the case the gas inside has some ionised elements or if the gas itself had become a plasma then it would rotate around the magnetic field effectively around its circumference. In the case of electrons if this rotation occurred it may cause some kind of Bremstrahlung type radiation and I suppose for ions to. The rotation effect should be alternating back and forward in direction due to the alternating current if the plasma or ionised elements have enough energy perhaps this also has an acceleration/deceleration effect (at 50 Hz?) that can give rise to a EM signature at radio wavelengths? Im not sure what effect EM Sine wave chopping would have on this though.

        Perhaps Langmuir waves which occur in plasmas due to density oscillations in an electrically neutral plasma also play part. Im also wondering if we have a rotating ionised gas if it could be considered a neutral plasma. If so then maybe we have some kind of combination of Langmuir waves and Bremstrahlung radiation.

        I wonder if we can expect some Alfven wave tip behaviour in these devices. Alfven waves are often associated solar flares and propagate along the magnetic axis. They are generated from the density fluctuation ions in the magnetic field and the retiring force of that magnetic field. Maybe the alternating current, Sine wave chopping or the size of the device prohibits this.

        • Axil Axil

          Parkhemov said that dirty input power (pulse power)was required to get the reaction going. A triac will generate a clipped sine wave with a steep rise and fall in power. This will produce shock waves in the gas via the production of a magnetic pulse. This is because the production of nano particles requires a varying pressure/temperature condition around the supercritical transition point in the gas. The production of shock waves in the gas will produce nanoparticles of lithium, aluminum and hydrogen. These particles are required to produce and amplify SPP solitons.

  • Stephen

    If any one is interested in looking more deeply into the energetics in addition to the wiley-vch link mentioned in this posting


    There is another very good link from TUNL duke that gives much more detail and information about these energy levels and the nuclear interactions for elements and isotopes with Atomic numbers between 4 and 20.


    Elements and Isotopes with atomic numbers of 3 such as Tritium, He 3 and Li 3 are also considered on this site to some extent

  • Stephen

    Here is another very good link which I have just found that explains quite a lot about the energetics of gamma decay and absorption. It gets into a lot of quite complicated detail but it explains it well and has helped me understand a bit better the processes. Unfortunately it brings into question some of the ideas in this proposal but I think it is still worth a read and provides good information that may also be relevant to LENR.


    For emission it explains about the impact of spin and parity between the energy states on the emission and its impact on half life. It also introduces an concept of “internal conversion” that basically occurs when a drop in nucleus energy level causes close elections shells in the atom such as the K shell or M shell to emit an electron rather than the nucleus emitting a gamma.

    They also indicate that gamma absorption is unlikely. This is partly due to the spin and parity requirements which I was expecting and I think can maybe accounted for. Unfortunately they also indicate that the gamma should have resonant frequency with higher energy state with narrow band width and only slight broadening due to the thermal environment. They later explain the mossbauer effect quite well given this context.

    This unfortunately seems to preclude the gamma absorption as the cause of Li 7 and other nuclei getting to the higher energy state unless they have exactly the right angular momentum, parity and energy (477 keV +/- a few eV in th case of Li 7). The resonant frequency and narrow bandwidth also implies that excess energy left over from the absorption does not play a role in the nucleus. Which is a Pitty as I was hoping that through some mechanism the excess energy could give rise to kinetic nuclei.

    This link Implies that these nuclei can only normally have higher energy states due to nuclear decay from other elements such as beta – decay or from prior neutron or proton absorption or fusion of other elements. I’m not sure if they have observational data for this constraint on resonance and bandwidth of absorbed gamma or if it is based on their model. I will try to dig a bit more before I fully discount the more general gamma absorption fully.

    There are some indicators from LENR experiments that gamma is seen at some points that imply higher energy nucleus states are occurring, unless this is all from bursts of Beta+ annihilation, along with some process which may require higher energy States such as the Li 7 process described by Rossi and Cook.

    This might be explained if transmutation is occurring before the high energy states are archieved, but initially the fuel apparently only contains elements with stable isotopes in ground state.

    This may give some more weight to some of the other ideas such as Axil Axil SPP that can apparently affect even stable nuclei.

    That said I wonder if the concept of “internal conversion” that releases an electron from the inner shells instead of a gamma can have some part in the story. According to the link this process has a certain rate compared to the gamma emission that can be calculated. It still requires higher enrgy nuclei though.

  • Stephen

    I have just found this interesting link from 26th February this year. The original posting by Jones Beene on the Vortex-I blog I think.

    https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg101783.html

    Do you know if it was also posted and discussed on e-cat world?

    It discusses the role of LENR and Dark Matter and in particular a very interesting paper by Yasuhiro Iwamura. Which I will copy here. Its a very interesting find by Jones Beene I think.


    Jones Been was looking at the LENR literature to try and explain soft x-ray emission below 10 keV that may be interpreted as a signature of or associated with Dark matter production.

    I should really take a look in the Vortex Blog too as it seems a lot of ideas regarding LENR are also covered there.

    This posting is interesting as it discusses some things that are relevant to this posting. The role of Flourine in Pd D2 systems for example, production of soft X-rays around 10 keV which is in the same energy area discussed in this posting and more speculatively the link to possible to production of DM.

    I wonder if Jones Beene and Yasuhiro Iwamura have already considered if the the low energy state of the first energy level of Flourine plays a part in the process?

    • Axil Axil


      Nanovortices have mass. This has profound implications for the characterization of cosmic LENR. There is evidence that space is filled with excited hydrogen and helium. These vast areas between galaxies form dusty plasma that produce extreme ultraviolet light and soft x-rays to the tune of 400% above any possible celestial body source. The dark matter inside galaxies behave as if this strange stuff was coherent and exist in a huge galaxy wide BEC.

      I had conjectured that Cosmic LENR had mass and it was in fact the source of the mass attributed to dark matter. Well here is the experiment that shows that nano vortices which includes LENR associated vertices have mass.

    • Axil Axil

      That is an excellent question.

      The stuff that causes the LENR reaction in the E cat is polariton solitons. These EMF vortexes are built up over time by the transfer of nuclear binding energy that is produced by the LENR reaction. These solitons get more energetic over time. Their energy level starts in the infrared range when they are first created and then increase in energy into the soft X-ray range.

      As witnessed in the experiments of DGT, these magnetic vortexes explode in a Bosenova. The soliton releases all the x-ray level photons that have accumulated in the soliton from their entangled electrons. It is like what happens in sonoluminescence when the cavitation bubble explodes.These x-rays will ionize to some level any atoms in the neightborhode of the Bosenova.

      In the early experiments by Randle Mills, he saw x-rays produced in the 10 nm wavelength range. This black light inspired the name of his company.

      Of interest, there is a 400% excess of extreme ultraviolet radiation in space that cannot be explained through the action of luminous objects like stars and black holes. Mills says that this excess is generated because of hydrinos in space. He is right it some level. The reason for this excess is the ubiquitous production of polariton solitons in space dust.

      I also think that these solitons are what is called dark matter. The Higgs mechanism gives these solitons (aka magnetic monopoles) very large mass while they exist.

      I am very excited about Cosmological LENR.

    • Axil Axil


      Particle detector finds hints of dark matter in space

      As the visible matter in the universe consists of protons and electrons, the researchers reasoned that the contribution of these same particles from dark matter collisions would be negligible. However, positrons and antiprotons are much rarer in the universe; any detection of these particles above the very small expected background would likely come from a new source. The features of this excess—and in particular its onset, maximum position, and offset—will help scientists determine whether positrons arise from astrophysical sources such as pulsars, or from dark matter.

      Dark matter is not producing these positrons, it’s LENR. Proton rich fusion of hydrogen with interstellar nanoparticles will generate loads of positrons.

      This together with a 400% excess of XUV radiation points to a likely footprint of cosmological LENR.

      Until science recognizes LENR, they will be chasing their tails in trying to explain these LENR footprints..