My Opinion Regarding Rossi/Cook Reaction Theory (Axil Axil)

The following post was submitted by Axil Axil

Norman D. Cook, Andrea Rossi, «On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the E-Cat»,

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf

Analysis of the experimental evidence from Lugano contradicts this reaction mechanism. A more appropriate analysis goes as follows…

The complete conversion of a proportionly large micro sized nickel particle with a 10 micron diameter might provide convincing supporting evidence that protons find their way into the center of these massive nickel particles by quantum teleportation. This quantum mechanical based movement is supported by the entanglement of protons in the hydrogen gas that surrounds the outside the nickel particle and the atoms of nickel inside the particle. Yes, Teleportation…like in star trek. A proton located in the hydrogen gas envelope does not need to find its way through large amounts of nickel by bumping and grinding their way through all that nickel. These protons just appear like magic inside the micro particle.

This conclusion might seem ridiculous on it face but this conclusion is fully supported by the experimental evidence from Lugano.

If the protons or in fact any subatomic particle did physically penetrate the nickel particle, we would expect that the outer layers of the particle would experience more nuclear reactions than the center of the particle. This penetration type of reaction would produce a layered ash profile. The outmost surface of the particle should have some copper and/or zinc content, and the inside should still have some untouched lower Z isotopes of nickel…like Ni58.

But NO, the particle is pure Ni62, completely homogeneous Ni62, utterly pure Ni62. It must be that the protons that make up the gas envelope see no material resistance to the penetration of the nickel. The entangled protons mated with each nickel atom move through the nickel particle via the 5th dimension in which entanglement works directly through the nickel bulk to its entangled nickel mate into the center of the micro particle or to its dedicate nanowire edge with equal probability. This looks like proton teleportation to me.

And even more perplexing, the delicate nickel nanowire surface covering of the miro particle is pure NI62. This delicate surface nano sized feature has suffered no subatomic particle impact damage what so ever. This ash looks the same as the fuel…physically unchanged but isotopically different.

No neutrons were detected so the active subatomic particle supporting the Ni58 to Ni62 transmutation must be protons from the gas outside the particle. These protons change themselves into neutron after they enter the Ni58 nucleus.

Yes, this is impossible to believe, If it weren’t for logic and the results of Lugano experiment, what other answer could there be?

Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi are inventing theory that has no experimental foundation from Lugano data. Rossi was as astounded as the rest of us when he got the transmutation results, but he put out his theory anyway.

Axil Axil

  • Mark

    So you must believe that there was not significant sampling problems of that ash in the Lugano experiment like sample size, distribution or contamination. Is that correct?

    BTW, I am all for Star Trek.

    • Axil Axil

      We are dealing with the analysis of only one micro particle. Sampling that one particle is full proof. Either you have it or your don’t.

      Knowing the way a thing works will allow a good engineer to take advantage of that understanding.

  • Mark

    So you must believe that there was not significant sampling problems of that ash in the Lugano experiment like sample size, distribution or contamination. Is that correct?

    BTW, I am all for Star Trek.

    Even if there was a significant sampling problem, you present a model that someone else might be able to exploit commercially.

    • Axil Axil

      We are dealing with the analysis of only one micro particle. Sampling that one particle is full proof. Either you have it or you don’t.

      Knowing the way a thing works will allow a good engineer to take advantage of that understanding.

  • Eyedoc

    Very Interesting Axil ……. what would this mean as far as trying to produce the effect on a regular basis, ie does the heat vs EM debate shift at all? How do we create this environment in a tube ?

    • Axil Axil

      The Ni62 question indicate that a huge amount of energy is being concentrted into the nucleus; so much so that the vacuum is being ripped apart. Negative vacuum energy and entanglement is causing all those imposible to beleive effects like “no unstable isotopes”, “no gamma”,the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated, the lack of strong neutron emissions.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Axil –

        Ni particles are quite large, containing millions of atoms. Could you please explain:

        (1) do you suppose the electrons, or the nucleons, to be entangled?
        (2) how can the incoherence initially present for all subatomic particles in these lumps of solid Ni be eliminated?

        My guess is that the words “negative energy” will crop up in your answer. I’d like to understand how negative energy can make this transformation of a whole Ni particle? Quantum incoherence is a very basic thing.

        • Axil Axil

          See post Gerard McEk # 2 above.

  • Eyedoc

    Very Interesting Axil ……. what would this mean as far as trying to produce the effect on a regular basis, ie does the heat vs EM debate shift at all? How do we create this environment in a tube ?

    • Axil Axil

      The Ni62 question indicate that a huge amount of energy is being concentrted into the nucleus; so much so that the vacuum is being ripped apart. Negative vacuum energy and entanglement is causing all those imposible to beleive effects like “no unstable isotopes”, “no gamma”,the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated, the lack of strong neutron emissions.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Axil –

        Ni particles are quite large, containing millions of atoms. Could you please explain:

        (1) do you suppose the electrons, or the nucleons, to be entangled?
        (2) how can the incoherence initially present for all subatomic particles in these lumps of solid Ni be eliminated?

        My guess is that the words “negative energy” will crop up in your answer. I’d like to understand how negative energy can make this transformation of a whole Ni particle? Quantum incoherence is a very basic thing.

        • Axil Axil

          See post Gerard McEk # 2 above.

  • roseland67

    Axil,
    Must??
    You seem to be making some quantum leaps in your assumptions here amigo,
    Looking very much forward to seeing the next evolution of, “As Rossi’s World Turns”.

    Wish I had a fast forward button

    • Axil Axil

      There are dozens of theories of Quauntum mechnics and many theories discribing the vacuum. This is the ground that the LENR reaction takes place on. The Ni62 question is ignored by everybody, but it turns out to be allmost definitve in understanding how the LENR reaction works. Any theory worth its salt must explain how a micro particle can change is isotopic composition without that change producing physical and/or structural effect in the micro particle. Not even Mr. Rossi will jump into this snake pit.

  • roseland67

    Axil,
    Must??
    You seem to be making some quantum leaps in your assumptions here amigo,
    Looking very much forward to seeing the next evolution of, “As Rossi’s World Turns”.

    Wish I had a fast forward button

    • Axil Axil

      There are dozens of theories of Quauntum mechnics and many theories discribing the vacuum. This is the ground that the LENR reaction takes place on. The Ni62 question is ignored by everybody, but it turns out to be allmost definitve in understanding how the LENR reaction works. Any theory worth its salt must explain how a micro particle can change is isotopic composition without that change producing physical and/or structural effect in the micro particle. Not even Mr. Rossi will jump into this snake pit.

  • Andy Kumar

    “Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi are inventing theory that has no experimental foundation from Lugano data.”
    Axil, Very bold of you to accuse the greatest inventor since Edison of theoretical sloppiness. Rossi himself has said that your speculations lack mathematical foundations. On the other hand, Rossi learnt math from Prof Focardi, a pioneer of NiH systems. Remember the calculus 101 notes Rossi published on JoNP.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Interesting. Does the Parkhomov ash testing results also fit your theory?

    • Axil Axil

      LENR should produce a wide range of isotopes. In this, Parkhomov ash conforms.

    • Axil Axil

      The russians designed a computer progam that predicted the products of any LENR reaction that they produced in their exploding wire experiemts. I won’t waste my time with provideing the reference because I know you are not really interested in this subject except as a debate point.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Interesting. Does the Parkhomov ash testing results also fit your theory?

  • Thomas Clarke

    I agree with Axil 100% about the importance of the 62Ni measurements. He is right that it is not fully appreciated.

    In the space of LENR hypotheses, which thus far is unconstrained by any need to make testable predictions because all that is needed is to explain anomalies, there is much room for different theories.

    Crucially, however, these theories all (to my knowledge) have a common thread. They support mass/energy conservation.

    That being the case, if we take the 62Ni results as definitive, we can, independent of precise reaction or theory, estimate the enthalpy released.

    We have (mostly) 58Ni -> 62Ni (about 70%, the rest mostly 60Ni -> 62Ni).

    For this to happen we need nucleon capture. Traditionally (and according to Axil’s theory) this would derive from 1H. In this case, so as to be absolutely unconstrained by any straitjacket of traditional physics, let us allow Li also as a nucleon source.

    According to your theory the 4X 1H + 58Ni -> 62Ni reaction releases a large amount of energy estimated from an amu calculation. However 7Li also releases about 1/3 as much.

    58Ni = 57.93 amu => mass/nucleon = 0.9988
    62Ni = 61.93 amu => mass/nucleon = 0.9989
    1H = 1.0079 amu => mass/nucleon = 1.0079
    7Li = 7.016 amu => mass/nucleon = 1.0022

    You can see from this that the energy release comes from fusing light element nucleons, with a much higher mass/nucleon, with Ni, thereby releasing their binding energy deficit. It does not depend much on the Ni mass, the energy released comes from the lower binding energy of the light nucleons. This makes it easy to calculate total enthalpy:

    For 62Ni we fuse 4 X light nucleons for each 62Ni nucleus or conveniently an excess ratio:
    0.0079*4/62 = 5.1e-4
    0.0022*4/62 = 1.4e-4

    That is then multiplied by the Ni mass of 0.8g or so and c squared to get the enthalpy released.

    In all cases it is much larger than the excess enthalpy measured in the Lugano test. (Axil’s enthalpy – from 1H capture – is even much larger than the excess claimed in the Lugano report before correction of emissivity factors).

    That is the main surprising data that any hypothesis for Lugano test results must explain. I’m resisting my pathoskeptic tendencies here and allowing anything consistent with mass/energy conservation. Still, the numbers must add up, and they do not without something much more complex than what Axil proposes here.

    The arguments here are definite. You can get round them, assume the 99% 62Ni figure is wrong for example. No empirical result is 100%. A proper LENR-based scientific analysis of this data, consistent with ECW moderation policy, would start with what is known and see what can be deduced from evidence, rather than starting with imaginative speculation and ignoring what is known.

    In that manner we can deduce that indeed either 99% 62Ni figure for the Lugano ash is wrong, or the 70% 58Ni figure (natural ratio) for Lugano fuel is wrong, or (in principle) some additional endothermic nuclear reaction balances the exothermic Ni one. I’m not supposing this because there is no such reaction I can see that is anything like large enough to do this.

    For example, 7Li->6Li gives us a mass increase (it is endothermic) per nucleon of;
    7Li 7.016 => 1.0022
    6Li 6.015 => 1.0025
    0.0003 amu/nucleon which is orders of magnitude smaller than the H capture – further the total mass of Li is much smaller than the total mass of Ni.

    So, accept the empirical data here, then that can be fitted in with whatever other theory you like, and used to screen theories that do not cut it as well as to guide us towards new theories.

    I’d like to see fuller discussion on ECW of the empirical data, with people (there are many here capable of doing it I know) joining up the dots and pointing out what is and is not consistent with the data. Personally I feel that the 62Ni result must be the key. Rossi has given up for testing a device with a relatively low COP (3.6 by the Lugano report which however is known to confuse total and band emissivity, 2 by Bob Higgins recalculation, or 1.1 when the Plank Law is taken into account properly). Note that errors on all these numbers of +/- maybe 50%. Yet his device is also apparently a very efficient transmuter of 58Ni into 62Ni – a highly exothermic reaction. How is that circle, quantitatively, squared?

    • AdrianAshfield

      Good to see you holding your pathoskeptical nature in check. As result I agree with much of what you wrote. As McKubre said, it is important to stick with the evidence rather than develop exotic theories about unproven facts.
      My suspicion is that the reaction is far from uniform in the fuel and as only a very small sample was taken, it may not be representative. I don’t know how much of the sample was looked at for the isotope analysis either.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Right. So we then need some nuclear reaction mechanism that distinguishes between Ni particles, since the sample taken (I think only one particle or two) was so completely converted. For most of the sample not to be much converted is most peculiar and surely therefore an important indicator.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Possibly when the reaction starts, at one point, something happens like it get hot and the reaction spreads. It may also be nuclear/emf etc.
          As the analysis is of such a small sample it it hopeless to try and match the theoretical energy to the heat measured. .You don’t know how much of the fuel was involved.
          The important point is that something nuclear does happen, something you have been reluctant to admit before.

    • Axil Axil

      There are tens of thousands of possible nuclear reactions that can occur in the Lagano demo. Ni62 is just one of many possibilities. We concentrate on the Ni62 micro particle in this analysis because the data is available from the ash analysis from Lagano.

      The Ni62 result is just one of many possibilities for transmutation, but we do not have data about all those other transmutations. We should make the most of the limited data that we have and avoid generalization from such a limited transmutation sample.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Perhaps you could state just one of these 10s of thousands of other transutations that would make the enthalpies balance? We know, according to the provided samples, the composition of the fuel and ash…

        I thought your point in this thread was that the 100% 62Ni transformation was an important clue? So are you now saying the data that this happened should not be replied upon, or something else? I’m not sure what you mean.

        • Axil Axil

          The russians designed a computer progam that predicted the products of any LENR reaction that they produced in their exploding wire experiemts. I won’t waste my time with provideing the reference because I know you are not really interested in this subject except as a debate point.

          So take my word on it like you expect me to take your word on your assertions. You never supply references.

    • Obvious

      There are so many oddities in the data that get ignored, and so many gaps in the data that will never be filled, one could “prove” hundreds of mutually exclusive possibilities.

      “Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant”
      – Lord Kelvin

  • Gerard McEk

    Thank you for bringing this to forum Axil!
    Your theories always inspire my thinking. At the same time it is good to share your thoughts with others and criticism like that of Thomas Clarke below will sharpen your thoughts and ultimately lead to the insight how it really works.
    Not being a physicist I have to ask you some questions which bother me.
    1. Why do you assume that protons (hydrogen) are not moved further into the lattice? Like in the PdD reaction the Pd lattice should be over 90% filled with deuterium to allow for a LENR reaction.
    2. How do the protons become entangled with the Ni atoms and why would entanglement lead to teleportation of the proton into the Ni nucleus?
    3. Has it ever been observed that protons teleport into another atom and become a neutron and if so, where does the energy come from?
    4. Did you do a mass balance/energy calculation to to verify your theory? I know Rossi/Cook did not, but a agree with Thomas Clarke (below) that this should be one of the foundations of any theory to explain LENR.

    • Axil Axil

      “Why do you assume that protons (hydrogen) are not moved further into the lattice? Like in the PdD reaction the Pd lattice should be over 90% filled with deuterium to allow for a LENR reaction.”

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

      Nickel does not absorb hydrogen well, and if any absorbtion happens, nickel does not absorb hydrogen evenly. High pressure is required for any major absorption of hydrogen to take place in nickel. Heat will cause the desorption of hydrogen if any does get absorbed. In short, chemistry does not support the even absorption of hydrogen.

    • Axil Axil

      “2. How do the protons become entangled with the Ni atoms and why would entanglement lead to teleportation of the proton into the Ni nucleus?”

      Nano-dust that condenses out of the vapors of the lithium, hydrogen, and aluminum compounds will be electrostatically attracted to the nanowire covering the nickel micro particle. These particles of dust will settle in large numbers everywhere on the nanowire cover of the micro particle.

      These dust particles will produce magnetic beams pointed in random directions. Many beams will point toward the inside of the micro particle and many will point into the hydrogen gas that surrounds the micro particle.

      All these magnetic beams will produce a zone of high magnetic activity all around the micro particle. This zone of high powered EMF will produce quantum entanglement all around the micro particle. This zone will include both nickel and hydrogen atoms.

      Entanglement is produce when high levels of EMF suppress the quantum fluxuations that distroy entanglement. So high EMF power produces entanglement.

      The distribution of Ni62 transmutation will be same as the distribution of atomic entanglement of the zone of magnetic influence, that means that transmutation will be even and synchronized in lock step between all the nickel atoms that are entrangled. All the atoms in the zone of entanglement act as one superatom. The nickel micro particle acts as one superatom. This is why lithium is not a participant in the transmutation. Only hydrogen can interact with the nickel.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Axil, could you be more precise as to the mechanism:
        EMF => quantum entanglement?

        The thing is, while high EMF might perhaps suppress flutuations of some types that could destroy entanglement, the Ni particle constituents are not, ab initio, entangled. Entanglement is a very delicate state easily destroyed and it can only be reproduced by some interaction that generates entangled particles.

        Your argument that EMF can generate entanglement here is wrong – because “not destroying” is completely different from “generating”. In ground state bosonic systems entanglement comes from the fact that no particle has enough energy to achieve other than the ground state. Would you like to explore what that means, quantitatively, in the context of an Ni particle at 1000K? It seems, at first glance, very far from the truth.

        Finally I’d be very interested to understand what is entangled. Electrons? Nucleons? Then I might be able to make sense of your “superatom” analogy.

        • Axil Axil

          See

          Quantum Energy Teleportation without Limit of Distance

          http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3955.pdf

          When enough energy is pumped into the vacuum, the uncertainty in position goes away. This means that all particles are at the same place, they become one combined compound waveform.

          The reference explains how positive vacuum energy produces entanglement. Distance is not a factor in entanglement and in quantum teleportation.

    • Axil Axil

      “3. Has it ever been observed that protons teleport into another atom and become a neutron and if so, where does the energy come from?”

      No. not to my knowledge.

      The energy come from the magnetic field that the Surface Plasmon Polariton soliton projects into the atom. That energy could be in the hundreds of MeV range.

      In the post called the fine tuning argument, I explain how a math model projects proton to neutron conversion in a magnetic field.

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/28/the-fine-tuning-argument-axil-axil/

    • Axil Axil

      “4. Did you do a mass balance/energy calculation to to verify your theory? I know Rossi/Cook did not, but a agree with Thomas Clarke (below) that this should be one of the foundations of any theory to explain LENR.”

      This is too complicated to do. Electrons may be being produced in the reaction as a result of muon decay. Then there is the production of neutrinos to deal with.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Axil:

        (1) neutrinos do not affect mass balance
        (2) electrons are insignificant in mass balance compared with the nucleon mass change. (electron = 1/2000 amu).

        I’d have thought, given the complexity of the concepts you grapple with in your theories (negative energy, entanglement), that a little bit of quantitative checking would be relatively easy?

        • giovanniontheweb

          (1) neutrinos do not affect mass balance, that is right but they never miss the appointment

          (2) electrons are insignificant in mass balance compared with the nucleon mass, that is right too but a beta decay transform your nucleons

          as time is “matter” dependent, the most important innovation, in my miserable opinion, is not about producing chip energy but about waking-up from ancient physics concepts.

        • Axil Axil

          Each reaction might suffer from a 512 KeV energy reduction overhead to account for electron production. In addition there is a large amount of reaction energy producing RF and magnetic radiation escaping the reactor.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thank you for answering my questions Axil. I like the discussions that are being unleashed with it, because it sharpens my mind and tickles my imagination as it does with others.

  • Gerard McEk

    Thank you for bringing this to forum Axil!
    Your theories always inspire my thinking. At the same time it is good to share your thoughts with others and criticism like that of Thomas Clarke below will sharpen your thoughts and ultimately lead to the insight how it really works.
    Not being a physicist I have to ask you some questions which bother me.
    1. Why do you assume that protons (hydrogen) are not moved further into the lattice? Like in the PdD reaction the Pd lattice should be over 90% filled with deuterium to allow for a LENR reaction.
    2. How do the protons become entangled with the Ni atoms and why would entanglement lead to teleportation of the proton into the Ni nucleus?
    3. Has it ever been observed that protons teleport into another atom and become a neutron and if so, where does the energy come from?
    4. Did you do a mass balance/energy calculation to to verify your theory? I know Rossi/Cook did not, but a agree with Thomas Clarke (below) that this should be one of the foundations of any theory to explain LENR.

    • Axil Axil

      “Why do you assume that protons (hydrogen) are not moved further into the lattice? Like in the PdD reaction the Pd lattice should be over 90% filled with deuterium to allow for a LENR reaction.”

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

      Nickel does not absorb hydrogen well, and if any absorbtion happens, nickel does not absorb hydrogen evenly. High pressure is required for any major absorption of hydrogen to take place in nickel. Heat will cause the desorption of hydrogen if any does get absorbed. In short, chemistry does not support the even absorption of hydrogen.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Axil – here you will be glad to note that we agree.

    • Axil Axil

      “2. How do the protons become entangled with the Ni atoms and why would entanglement lead to teleportation of the proton into the Ni nucleus?”

      Nano-dust that condenses out of the vapors of the lithium, hydrogen, and aluminum compounds will be electrostatically attracted to the nanowire covering the nickel micro particle. These particles of dust will settle in large numbers everywhere on the nanowire cover of the micro particle.

      These dust particles will produce magnetic beams pointed in random directions. Many beams will point toward the inside of the micro particle and many will point into the hydrogen gas that surrounds the micro particle.

      All these magnetic beams will produce a zone of high magnetic activity all around the micro particle. This zone of high powered EMF will produce quantum entanglement all around the micro particle. This zone will include both nickel and hydrogen atoms.

      Entanglement is produce when high levels of EMF suppress the quantum fluxuations that distroy entanglement. So high EMF power produces entanglement.

      The distribution of Ni62 transmutation will be same as the distribution of atomic entanglement of the zone of magnetic influence, that means that transmutation will be even and synchronized in lock step between all the nickel atoms that are entrangled. All the atoms in the zone of entanglement act as one superatom. The nickel micro particle acts as one superatom. This is why lithium is not a participant in the transmutation. Only hydrogen can interact with the nickel.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Axil, could you be more precise as to the mechanism:
        EMF => quantum entanglement?

        The thing is, while high EMF might perhaps suppress flutuations of some types that could destroy entanglement, the Ni particle constituents are not, ab initio, entangled. Entanglement is a very delicate state easily destroyed and it can only be reproduced by some interaction that generates entangled particles.

        Your argument that EMF can generate entanglement here is wrong – because “not destroying” is completely different from “generating”. In ground state bosonic systems entanglement comes from the fact that no particle has enough energy to achieve other than the ground state. Would you like to explore what that means, quantitatively, in the context of an Ni particle at 1000K? It seems, at first glance, very far from the truth.

        Finally I’d be very interested to understand what is entangled. Electrons? Nucleons? Then I might be able to make sense of your “superatom” analogy.

        • Axil Axil

          See

          Quantum Energy Teleportation without Limit of Distance

          http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3955.pdf

          When enough energy is pumped into the vacuum, the uncertainty in position goes away. This means that all particles are at the same place, they become one combined compound waveform.

          The reference explains how positive vacuum energy produces entanglement. Distance is not a factor in entanglement and in quantum teleportation.

          • Thomas Clarke

            QET comes from newly entangled vacuum energy.

            We are talking here about existing Ni atoms which are quantum incoherent (both the electrons and the nucleons).

            BTW – I’d like to understand is it the electrons or the nucleons that are entanged? It is difficult to get any clue what you are proposing without this info.

          • Axil Axil

            Atoms from different elements have never be experimentlly entangled before. How nuclear reactions happen in this situation is not known. The subatomic particles may form an waveform soup that condence when the SPP based magnetic radiation is over.

            Wnen a million atoms fuse with another million atoms, what is the result? Time will tell.

            Rossi is right, when we heat our homes with Hot cats, we will be motovated to find out how it works no matter how strange the reaction turns out to be.

    • Axil Axil

      “3. Has it ever been observed that protons teleport into another atom and become a neutron and if so, where does the energy come from?”

      No. not to my knowledge.

      The energy comes from the magnetic field that the Surface Plasmon Polariton soliton projects it into the atom. That energy could be in the hundreds of MeV range.

      In the post called the fine tuning argument, I explain how a math model projects proton to neutron conversion in a magnetic field.

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/28/the-fine-tuning-argument-axil-axil/

      • Thomas Clarke

        So: energy from magnetic field in 100s of Mev range? Could you tell me:
        (1) Do you suppose the Ni particle is conductive?
        (2) what frequency is the 100MeV magnetic field?
        (3) what amplitude is this 100MeV magnetic field?
        (4) over what length scale does this field couple 100MeV

        Just ball park figures would do that you think add up – because again my initial feeling is that the energy here is some millions of times too high to be derived from any possible magnetic field.

        • Axil Axil

          “(1) Do you suppose the Ni particle is conductive?”

          The Ni paticle will support heat driven dipole vibrations on its surface. And the nanowire will be superconductive based on ballistic conduction even at high temperatures.

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

        • Axil Axil

          “(2) what frequency is the 100MeV magnetic field?”

          The monopole magnetic field flashes on and off at the freqency of the SPP soliton. That SPP life cycle varies from attoseconds to houndreds of picoseconds.

          • Thomas Clarke

            You have lost me Axil.

            So far we have:

            Magnetic Field densities that would require a 1MW power station output for 10,000 years just to generate in one 1u particle.

            Magnetic monopoles ??

            You don’t need LENR if you can generate 10e16T magnetic fields – just harvest the field energy.

            BTW – 10e38J/m^3

            energy density of water converted perfectly to energy:
            10e6*(3*10e8)^2=10e23J/m^3

            This field energy is 10^15 times more dense than 100% mass conversion to energy.

            This is getting difficult – what can we find to make this number real?

            How about the energy density of radiation? This is 10e-15*T^4

            so for this we need T=10e13K or 10,000,000,000,000K

            The centre of a supernova is 10e11K – 100 times lower than this.

          • Axil Axil

            You have lost me Thomas.

            I think that you must have over estimated someting.

            my estimate as follows

            20 cm/200microns = 1000

            Magnetic fields drop off at minus the third power

            ((1.6 tesla) (1000))e3) = (1.6)(10e9) tesla.

            1.6 billion tesla at the surface of the reaction zone

          • Thomas Clarke

            The field at the nanoscale per SPP at maximum intensity must be at least 10^16 tesla. The field could be far more powerful or a little less.

            Axil, it was you who said 10e16 T, not me.

            Perhaps you should decide what magnetic field is needed, and why? We have now a 10e7 discrepancy…

            Changing the above calculations for your new figure (I wish I did not think you nwere plucking these out of the air) we have a radiation temperature of approximately 1,000,000 K.

            Quite hot.

          • Axil Axil

            The billion tesla estemate was at 200 microns. If a 1 nanometer vortex is producing that billion tesla at 200 microns, then that 10e7 discrepancy in power production can be accounted for.

        • Axil Axil

          “(3) what amplitude is this 100MeV magnetic field?
          (4) over what length scale does this field couple 100MeV”

          We can make estimates of the nature of the anapole magnetic field by the experimental info released by Defkalion. At 20 cms, the fields was 1.6 tesla.

          This field was produced by a large collection of SPP solitons whose beam direction are pointed in random directions around a reaction zone sphere of about 100 microns in diameter. The field at the nanoscale per SPP at maximum intensity must be at least 10^16 tesla. The field could be far more powerful or a little less. Calculation are welcome.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Axil, 1.6T magnetic fields do not imply exotic science.

            10^16T fields => ED of (1/2mu0)B^2 ~ 10^38J/m^3=10^20J/um^3

            Thus for a particle the size of 1um to have such fields, as you claim, we have:

            (1) 10^20J ~10^14kWh

            Thus you would need a stimulus power of 1kW as in the Lugano test for
            10^14 hoursor 10,000,000 years – just to create the magnetic field in one particle assuming no losses.

          • Axil Axil

            https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf

            I made a mistake. Could you rework the numbers for a 200 micron reaction zone?

            The power for the magnetic field come from a nuclear powered based positive feedback loop. The input power comes from a 24kv pulsed electric arc.

            “Triggering the effect is accomplished by hydrogen
            discharge across the two W/TZM electrodes at V = ~ 24 kV,
            using the current I = ~ 22 mA DC current with ~ kHz
            frequency”

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        I believe Godes sees the mechanism of hydrogen Ion transport thru the metal lattice as simply caused by reality of S4 & S5 valence electron shell energy levels in NI & similarly the outer shells in Pd. Hydrogen Ion & electron capture in the lattice produce the ultra low momentum neutrons for the isotope formation process!

    • Axil Axil

      “4. Did you do a mass balance/energy calculation to to verify your theory? I know Rossi/Cook did not, but a agree with Thomas Clarke (below) that this should be one of the foundations of any theory to explain LENR.”

      This is too complicated to do. Electrons may be being produced in the reaction as a result of muon decay. Then there is the production of neutrinos to deal with.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Axil:

        (1) neutrinos do not affect mass balance
        (2) electrons are insignificant in mass balance compared with the nucleon mass change. (electron = 1/2000 amu).

        I’d have thought, given the complexity of the concepts you grapple with in your theories (negative energy, entanglement), that a little bit of quantitative checking would be relatively easy?

        • giovanniontheweb

          (1) neutrinos do not affect mass balance, that is right but they never miss the appointment

          (2) electrons are insignificant in mass balance compared with the nucleon mass, that is right too but a beta decay transform your nucleons

          as time is “matter” dependent, the most important innovation, in my miserable opinion, is not about producing chip energy but about waking-up from ancient physics concepts.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Well, the only physics concept I’m using here is conservation of mass/energy.

            Ancient or not, it seems a good one to me!

          • giovanniontheweb

            correct, it sounds fair to me too, as we know the quantity of produced energy we can easily calculate the quantity of disappeared matter, electrons included. Yet difficult to evaluate if we do not take in account the disappeared electrons and that the disappeared matter is proportionally distributed among a wide family of isotopes on the base of their specific energy per nucleon so it might require a little bit of calculation.

        • Axil Axil

          Each reaction might suffer from a 512 KeV energy reduction overhead to account for electron production. In addition there is a large amount of reaction energy producing RF and magnetic radiation escaping the reactor.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thank you for answering my questions Axil. I like the discussions that are being unleashed with it, because it sharpens my mind and tickles my imagination as it does with others.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Good to see you holding your pathoskeptical nature in check. As result I agree with much of what you wrote. As McKubre said, it is important to stick with the evidence rather than develop exotic theories about unproven facts.
    My suspicion is that the reaction is far from uniform in the fuel and as only a very small sample was taken, it may not be representative. I don’t know how much of the sample was looked at for the isotope analysis either.

  • Axil Axil

    There are tens of thousands of possible nuclear reactions that can occur in the Lagano demo. Ni62 is just one of many possibilities. We concentrate on the Ni62 micro particle in thhis analysis because the data is available from the ash analysis from Lagano.

    The Ni62 result is just one of many possibilities for transmutation, but we do not have data about tall those other transmutations. We should make the most of the limited data that we have and avoid generalization from such a limited transmutation sample.

  • Nixter

    From reading Vortex, I get the idea that the 5th (Extra), dimension is associated with “the vacuum”, and temporal (Time distortions), effects that occur to matter/energy while in this domain. Is there any way to verify this theory through experimentation?

    • Axil Axil

      See

      Matter and Light in Flatland

      http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401153.pdf

      This reference explains how electron self intererence reqires the 5 demension.

      There is a striking parallel between LENR and reactionless propulsion. On the most basic level, LENR is a result of the production of charged subatomic particles out of the vacuum through the action of focused EMF. These bosons are mesons produced by a highly focused beam of EMF. Reactionless propulsion could be the result of the same mechanism where huge EMF is pointed in a focused direction that could produce subatomic particles out of the vacuum and push against those particles giving them momentum in that direction to exert a propulsive force in the opposite direction.

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

      The EmDrive

      If the EmDrive and LENR spring from basically the same source, would it not be reasonable to expect a connection be drawn between LENR and reactionless propulsion? Might not LENR produce Em-Propulsion and the EmDrive mechanism produce LENR. This common mechanism involves the momentary realization of subatomic particles out of the vacuum.

      • Nixter

        Interesting stuff Axil, these concepts and theories are so “out there”, it’s easy to see why some skeptics say these developments are “too good to be true.”

        As an avid science fiction reader, I am struck by how many hard core science fiction writers use similar sounding physics to power everything from huge space ships to energy weapons, to see some of these ideas being realized now, it feels a bit surreal. It looks like science/physics are following art, that is nothing new, much of the technology that has become ubiquitous today was first conceived in the mind of a science fiction writer. If this trend continues I expect to see faster than light travel, time travel, (or perhaps time portals to look through), matter transfer, and electro-gravitic technologies to follow. While we are at it, why not go for molecular, or even atomic level 3D printing?

        • Axil Axil

          All this and more will come to pass. This is why LENR is inportant, it is a portal to a new age in science. Understanding LENR will someday allow humankind to stride like gods among the stars.

      • Thomas Clarke

        If we could generate charged mesons (e.g. muons) without enormous energy expenditure we would have muon catalysed fusion from conventional science. In fact people have tried hard to do this, with the idea that would would be a usable conventional fusion energy source. So far with no luck.

        However generating muons is difficult. I’m at the moment unclear how you think it should be done by SPPs, except by using your 10e16T magnetic fields.

        These are so intense they correspond to a radiation temperature 100 X hotter than a supernova, so should be able to generate pretty well anything you like.

        Now however the problem now is how you get the 10e16 fields. To create them over a 1u particle you need a 1MW power station output for 10,000 years.

        • Axil Axil

          I beleive that mesons are created all the time and keeps matter together because of the vacuum.

          http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf

          Casimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potentials

          This paper proposes the the meson that keeps the proton and neutron stabilied through a messager mesion is due to the casimir force. The meson forms from the vacuum because the space between the proton and the neutron is just the right smallness.

          I also beleive that the superconductive property of the strong force that is discribed in the nuclues in supersymetric theory comes from the suppression of quantum fluxuations and entranglement inside the nucleus produce by the uncertainty principle.

          In short, I beleive that the vacuum is a major factor in nuclear processes.

        • pelgrim108

          Like you say “So far with no luck”
          Muon Cat. Fusion Company: http://www.starscientific.com.au/
          youtube(dot)com/watch?v=vXhVnOgw9ng

    • GreenWin

      Yes. This is what Bernie Haisch and Rueda’s work is about. The Standard Model does not adequately consider vacuum energy as a stabilizing field in all nuclear actions. This is evidenced by vacuum bandwidth cutoff in the Casimir effect. The reduction of vacuum symmetry allows NAEs such as those described by Andrea Calaon. NAE asymmetry will also alter the temporal and gravitic effects inside the NAE; i.e. 5th dimension-like effects described by Axil.

  • Nixter

    From reading Vortex, I get the idea that the 5th (Extra), dimension is associated with “the vacuum”, and temporal (Time distortions), effects that occur to matter/energy while in this domain. Is there any way to verify this theory through experimentation?

    • Axil Axil

      See

      Matter and Light in Flatland

      http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401153.pdf

      This reference explains how electron self intererence requires the 5th demension.

      There is a striking parallel between LENR and reactionless propulsion. On the most basic level, LENR is a result of the production of charged subatomic particles out of the vacuum through the action of focused EMF. These bosons are mesons produced by a highly focused beam of EMF. Reactionless propulsion could be the result of the same mechanism where huge EMF is pointed in a focused direction that could produce subatomic particles out of the vacuum and push against those particles giving them momentum in that direction to exert a propulsive force in the opposite direction.

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

      The EmDrive

      If the EmDrive and LENR spring from basically the same source, would it not be reasonable to expect a connection be drawn between LENR and reactionless propulsion? Might not LENR produce Em-Propulsion and the EmDrive mechanism produce LENR. This common mechanism involves the momentary realization of subatomic particles out of the vacuum.

      • Nixter

        Interesting stuff Axil, these concepts and theories are so “out there”, it’s easy to see why some skeptics say these developments are “too good to be true.”

        As an avid science fiction reader, I am struck by how many hard core science fiction writers use similar sounding physics to power everything from huge space ships to energy weapons, to see some of these ideas being realized now, it feels a bit surreal. It looks like science/physics are following art, that is nothing new, much of the technology that has become ubiquitous today was first conceived in the mind of a science fiction writer. If this trend continues I expect to see faster than light travel, time travel, (or perhaps time portals to look through), matter transfer, and electro-gravitic technologies to follow. While we are at it, why not go for molecular, or even atomic level 3D printing?

        • Axil Axil

          All this and more will come to pass. This is why LENR is inportant, it is a portal to a new age in science. Understanding LENR will someday allow humankind to stride like gods among the stars.

          • orsobubu

            Axil, could you imagine a solution to a problem I read somewhere years ago, about very high speed human space travel. Not only would be almost impossible to
            avoid crashes against space dust becoming like deadly missiles at those
            velocities; also, particles (sub-atomic?? I don’t remember) should be
            assimilated to cosmic rays penetrating every shield and damaging living
            tissues. These issues were brought as a proof of interstellar travel
            being utopistic for every advanced alien species. Thanx

          • Obvious

            Good points. In this category, it could be mentioned the problem of time travel, which is ending up in the correct location in space where one wants to be in time. For example, you go back in time two years. The Earth has moved a lot since then (as well as rotated), as well as the solar system has moved, as well our galaxy, space has expanded, etc. So one ends up in open space probably, (or even in a moon or asteroid), probably hurtling at the combined speeds of the rotation of the Earth’s surface, the orbit the of the Earth, the speed of the sun moving in rotation around the galactic centre, etc. (if you were on the surface of the Earth when you started the trip). A rather unsatisfactory arrival.

      • Thomas Clarke

        If we could generate charged mesons (e.g. muons) without enormous energy expenditure we would have muon catalysed fusion from conventional science. In fact people have tried hard to do this, with the idea that would would be a usable conventional fusion energy source. So far with no luck.

        However generating muons is difficult. I’m at the moment unclear how you think it should be done by SPPs, except by using your 10e16T magnetic fields.

        These are so intense they correspond to a radiation temperature 100 X hotter than a supernova, so should be able to generate pretty well anything you like.

        Now however the problem now is how you get the 10e16 fields. To create them over a 1u particle you need a 1MW power station output for 10,000 years.

        • Axil Axil

          I beleive that mesons are created all the time through the action of the vacuum. The vacuum keeps matter together because of this meson in the vacuum creation.

          http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf

          Casimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potentials

          This paper proposes the the meson that keeps the proton and neutron stabilied through a messager mesion is due to the casimir force. The meson forms from the vacuum because the space between the proton and the neutron is just the right smallness.

          I also beleive that the superconductive property of the strong force that is discribed in the nuclues in supersymetric theory comes from the suppression of quantum fluxuations and entranglement inside the nucleus produce by the uncertainty principle.

          In short, I beleive that the vacuum is a major factor in nuclear processes and the vacuum is a major factor in LENR.

        • pelgrim108

          Like you say “So far with no luck”
          Muon Cat. Fusion Company: http://www.starscientific.com.au/
          youtube(dot)com/watch?v=vXhVnOgw9ng

    • GreenWin

      Yes. This is what Bernie Haisch and Rueda’s work is about. The Standard Model does not adequately consider vacuum energy as a stabilizing field in all nuclear actions. This is evidenced by vacuum bandwidth cutoff in the Casimir effect. The reduction of vacuum symmetry allows NAEs such as those described by Andrea Calaon. NAE asymmetry will also alter the temporal and gravitic effects inside the NAE; i.e. 5th dimension-like effects described by Axil.

  • Obvious

    There are so many oddities in the data that get ignored, and so many gaps in the data that will never be filled, one could “prove” hundreds of mutually exclusive possibilities.

    “Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant”
    – Lord Kelvin

  • Axil Axil

    “(1) Do you suppose the Ni particle is conductive?”

    The Ni paticle will support heat driven dipole vibrations on its surface. And the nanowire will be superconductive based on ballistic conduction even at high temperatures.

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

  • Axil Axil

    “(2) what frequency is the 100MeV magnetic field?”

    The monopole magnetic field flashes on and off at the freqency of the SPP soliton. That SPP life cycle varies from attoseconds to houndreds of picoseconds.

  • Axil Axil

    “(3) what amplitude is this 100MeV magnetic field?
    (4) over what length scale does this field couple 100MeV”

    We can make estimates of the nature of the anapole magnetic field by the experimental info released by Defkalion. At 20 cms, the fields was 1.6 tesla.

    This field was produced by a large collection of SPP solitons whose beam direction are pointed in random directions around a reaction zone sphere of about 100 microns in diameter. The field at the nanoscale per SPP at maximum intensity must be at least 10^16 tesla. The field could be far more powerful or a little less. Calculation are welcome.

  • Andrea Calaon

    Dear Axil Axil,
    You are funny! I like your (quite correct) pushing towards inevitable consequences of the assumptions … teleportation … magic appearance of protons behind an impregnable metallic wall of atoms … If we think about the transmutation of heavy nuclei like Cs, protected as they are by a series of electron shells, … things get possibly even worse …

    But reality is actually much simpler and less phantasmagoric. If you believe me only for the length of this text, I will tell you what Cold Fusion is and what actually happened inside the Hot Cat!

    The main obstacle for understanding what cold fusion is, has been the fact that so far this civilization has not understood the nature of the nuclear force …

    Let us start from the beginning.

    Cold Fusion is essentially due to the formation of a neutral pseudo-particle in what is called the Nuclear Active Environment. This particle is made of an hydrogen nucleus and an electron kept together by the same mechanism that keeps together nucleons inside nuclei. In fact the nuclear force is actually electromagnetic (as unbelievable and absurd as it may sound …) and can manifest also between electrons and protons. Fortunately one of the necessary conditions for the formation of the neutral particles (I will collectively call them Hyd), is almost never occurring: the electron has to rotate around a naked hydrogen nucleus with its spin aligned and at a VERY low frequency: less than 2 kHz (1836 Hz)! In less “hidden variables terms”, the angular momentum must have a component at very low frequencies … No Born-Oppenheimer … the guaranteed coherence time of the oscillation must be very long (about 1/2000 of a second) …

    In a Hyd the proton is bound along the Zitterbewegung trajectory of the electron. Actually it is the electron that moves more because it is much lighter, but anyway …

    Rossi stimulates the NAE by switches applied to a normal AC current from the net, obtaining frequencies components that are not higher than a few [kHz]. The same seems to be doing A. Parkhomov.

    The Hyds can travel quite freely in matter and are what deeply penetrates the micrometer sized grains. They can grab other nuclei by the same nuclear force mechanism, and have these nuclei react “inside the electron” where quite special nuclear reactions take place. The necessary condition for the attraction with the Hyd is that the nucleus must have a magnetic moment, not necessarily of first order. For example Ni62 does not have magnetic moments and its cross section with the Hyd is therefore zero. Ni61 instead has a magnetic moment and therefore a high “cross section”. In fact Ni61 disappears quickly from the powder (there is no trace of it in the ash …).

    The binding energies of the Hyd are: 1.745 [MeV] in the case of p-e and 1.445 [MeV] in the case of d-e. Iwamura measured the photons directly.

    The first of the two binding energies prevents the formation of deuterium in the Hot Cat through the reaction:

    p+ep(Hyd) > d + neutrino + (max) 1.442[MeV] ­- 1.745[MeV].

    This reaction is endothermic and needs 303 [keV] to proceed.

    Without deuterium all other reactions of Hyd with protons can not take place. As a consequence during the Lugano test there was almost no production of He4, tritium and He3. However as the reacting nuclei deplete all around the NAEs (during the 32 days of continuous electromagnetic stimulation) the Hyd start to see and react more with other hydrogen nuclei and other Hyd that did not react. When the gamma coming from the formation of a Hyd strikes another Hyd that has captured a second proton, it causes the reaction above to generate deuterium. The efficiency of the reactor then starts to grow, as it was already happening in the last 4 days of the test, because deuterium is the door to the reactions which produce He4, and which are the most energetic of all possible.

    Rossi stopped the experiment cautiously before the agreed 35 days because when deuterium appears, apart from the growth in volumetric power density, some tritium (and He4) is actually produced. The decay of tritium is easily detectable and … In practice tritium does not accumulate (there is a precise reason for this), but Andrea wanted anyway to show a “perfectly” clean device, with no tritium and no beta decay. The energy emitted during the 32 days came from the formation of Hyd (ep) and the isotopic shifts of Li and Ni.

    In most other Cold Fusion devices instead the majority of the power comes from the generation of Hyd and of He4.

    With the help of the electron Cold Fusion can generate tritium without neutrons. This is what explains the so called branching ratio problem.

    The main function of Li is its capability to increase the density of NAE and not a special nuclear property.

    You correctly noticed that the final ash grains are homogeneous. However in the first part of the Lugano test the grains were actually isotopically layered, as you suggest. As I already mentioned the COP did grow during the last 4 days of the test because the grains were approaching complete isotopic depletion, and the layering disappeared.

    You mentioned neutrons. All Cold Fusion reactions leading to free neutrons are endothermic, apart from this one, which actually requires tritium and deuterium to be present:

    t+ed -> He5 + e + 14.387[MeV]

    He5 -> He4 + n + 0.735[MeV]

    Neutrons can appear only in presence of tritium plus gamma (normally coming from the formation of the Hyd), or when tritium is abundant in presence of ed.

    You say: “These protons change themselves into neutron after they enter the Ni58 nucleus”. Actually you are right. It is however the electron that changes the protons to a neutron. But this change does not take place with a proton and an electron generating a free neutron. It happens instead only when the actual “nuclear” reaction between Ni, proton and electron takes place (in this case it is a ternuclear reaction). For example:

    Ni60+ep->Ni61 + neutrino + 5.3 [MeV]

    The preference for stable nuclei comes from the fact that “inside the electron” the nuclei meet at almost no excess kinetic energy and only stable and less massive nuclei can be assembled. In a way the electron is like a workshop where nuclei are disassembled and assembled at no kinetic energy excess.

    Fractionation comes from the acceleration of the electron in the formation of the Hyd and form the acceleration of the Hyds when coupling to other nuclei. Moreover the final approach between nuclei “inside the electron” before fusion causes the emission of photons as well. This happens because the nuclear force mechanism between oppositely charged particles (e and p/d/t) is much more long range than its version between equally charged protons, and no Coulomb barrier must be overcome. In Cold Fusion the coulomb barrier between nuclei is NEVER overcome kinetically, but only through the nuclear force mechanism. In other words the electron, in very special conditions, can act as a range extender of the nuclear force.

    So teleportation is NOT supported by the experimental evidence in the Lugano Report because there are neutral particles flying around. And they are not neutrons.

    Now you know the basics of Cold Fusion! I hope you liked the journey.

    • Axil Axil

      Why isn’t the electron confined to the nucleus? The uncertainty principle forbids it from being restricted to a space as small as an atomic nucleus. The mass of an electron is 9.1 × 10-31 kg, and it can’t move any faster than the speed of light, so the smallest space an electron can be restricted to without violating the uncertainty principle is 4 × 10-13 m; about 270 times farther than a messenger meson can reach.

      In my theory the meson.->pion->muon is the reaction activation particle as formed by ccndinsation of EMF energy in the vacuum.

      • Obvious

        Good points. In this category, it could be mentioned the problem of time travel, which is ending up in the correct location in space where one wants to be in time. For example, you go back in time two years. The Earth has moved a lot since then (as well as rotated), as well as the solar system has moved, as well our galaxy, space has expanded, etc. So one ends up in open space probably, or in a moon or asteroid, probably hurtling at the rotational speed of the surface of the Earth combined with the combined speeds of the orbit the of the Earth, the speed of the sun moving in rotation around the galactic centre, etc. (if you were on the surface of the Earth when you started the trip), a rather unsatisfactory arrival.

      • Andrea Calaon

        The electron has an intrinsic “size” which can not be changed (if you can not change the unitary charge …). The electron manifests as a pointwise charge that travels at the speed of light along a helical trajectory with a diameter that, for “non-relativistic” electron speeds, is 386 [fm], as you say. As you know it is what was historically called Zitterbewegung. It is not really a generic trembling motion, but a helical motion.

        A Hyd is NOT an electron in the same tiny space of a nucleon. Nucleons are much smaller than the electron, and as you correctly say, electrons can not be confined so much (without acquiring additional mass).

        Essentially a Hyd is a hydrogen nucleus trapped along the almost circular trajectory of the point charge of the electron. Marc Davidson suggested me the term race-track. Nuclei are attracted by the electron when they are outside the race-track, but as soon as they cross the electron radius, the attraction becomes a repulsion, and the confinement takes place.

        Now, the electron is much lighter than any nucleus so the real picture is similar to an electron precessing around a fixed hydrogen nucleus.

        Isotopic shifts happen when the captured nucleus (moving along the race-track together with the hydrogen nucleus of the Hyd) CANNOT react simply adding the hydrogen nucleus. So the reaction takes place only when the two nuclei are almost in contact (like 2 [fm] distance) and the point charge of the electron crosses them. It is a ternuclear reaction because it involves three particles at the same time. Something that practically never happens without the mediation of the electron.

        What keeps nuclei together is not related to the exchange of mesons, it is a huge “magnetic” effect due to the rotation of the charges inside particles. The rotation is what causes the intrinsic magnetic moments and is somehow “the essence” of particles.

        Nuclei are isospin layered fcc lattices of neutrons and protons, as Norman Cook suggested (http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/09%20NVSIndex.html).

        http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/40%20NVSDownload.html If you download the executable and the dll and put them in the same folder you can quickly understand what I mean.

    • Eyedoc

      Another very Interesting theory, where does it come from?……And can you explain what would this mean experimentally as far as trying to
      produce the effect on a regular basis, ie does the heat vs EM debate
      shift at all? How do we create this environment in a tube ?

      • Andrea Calaon

        Thank you Eyedoc,
        This theory comes from myself. It was presented at ICCF19 in Padua on a poster.
        The idea that the nuclear force is electromagnetic comes from Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook. Dallacasa told me that when he proposed the mechanism, many years ago, he had thought about the coupling with the electron, but never really develop the idea.
        I can tell you that this theory passes the acceptability criteria of Edmund Storms, who already knows it.
        You can find a draft of the article for ICCF here:
        http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html
        The NAE can be of different types, and even organic matter could develop a NAE.
        In solids it should be related to a superficial vacancy that keeps hopping back an forth. The hopping has a particularly low energy barrier because near to the surface the lattice is distorted (helped by lithium) and optical phonons can pump the movement. It is briefly explained in the article.

        The stimulation of the hopping should be possible with low frequency radio waves, but also with higher frequencies, as many researchers already demonstrated.

    • Axil Axil

      This proposed Hyd theory fails because it does not demonstrate action at a distance. In experiments with exploding titanium wires, the exploding wire is placed in an completely enclosed isolated water filled chamber surrounded by a outer water filled chamber filled with a dissolved uranium salt. After the wire explosion, fission of uranium is found in the outer chamber through detection of the fission ash of uranium.

      This says that no particle based agent is responsible for the LENR reaction.

      See page 7

      http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

      Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

  • Andrea Calaon

    Dear Axil Axil,
    You are funny! I like your (quite correct) pushing towards inevitable consequences of the assumptions … teleportation … magic appearance of protons behind an impregnable metallic wall of atoms … If we think about the transmutation of heavy nuclei like Cs, protected as they are by a series of electron shells, … things get possibly even worse …

    But reality is actually much simpler and less phantasmagoric. If you believe me only for the length of this text, I will tell you what Cold Fusion is and what actually happened inside the Hot Cat!

    The main obstacle for understanding what cold fusion is, has been the fact that so far this civilization has not understood the nature of the nuclear force …

    Let us start from the beginning.

    Cold Fusion is essentially due to the formation of a neutral pseudo-particle in what is called the Nuclear Active Environment. This particle is made of an hydrogen nucleus and an electron kept together by the same mechanism that keeps together nucleons inside nuclei. In fact the nuclear force is actually electromagnetic (as unbelievable and absurd as it may sound …) and can manifest also between electrons and protons. Fortunately one of the necessary conditions for the formation of the neutral particles (I will collectively call them Hyd), is almost never occurring: the electron has to rotate around a naked hydrogen nucleus with its spin aligned and at a VERY low frequency: less than 2 kHz (1836 Hz)! In less “hidden variables terms”, the angular momentum must have a component at very low frequencies … No Born-Oppenheimer … the guaranteed coherence time of the oscillation must be very long (about 1/2000 of a second) …

    In a Hyd the proton is bound along the Zitterbewegung trajectory of the electron. Actually it is the electron that moves more because it is much lighter, but anyway …

    Rossi stimulates the NAE by switches applied to a normal AC current from the net, obtaining frequencies components that are not higher than a few [kHz]. The same seems to be doing A. Parkhomov.

    The Hyds can travel quite freely in matter and are what deeply penetrates the micrometer sized grains. They can grab other nuclei by the same nuclear force mechanism, and have these nuclei react “inside the electron” where quite special nuclear reactions take place. The necessary condition for the attraction with the Hyd is that the nucleus must have a magnetic moment, not necessarily of first order. For example Ni62 does not have magnetic moments and its cross section with the Hyd is therefore zero. Ni61 instead has a magnetic moment and therefore a high “cross section”. In fact Ni61 disappears quickly from the powder (there is no trace of it in the ash …).

    The binding energies of the Hyd are: 1.745 [MeV] in the case of p-e and 1.445 [MeV] in the case of d-e. Iwamura measured the photons directly.

    The first of the two binding energies prevents the formation of deuterium in the Hot Cat through the reaction:

    p+ep(Hyd) > d + neutrino + (max) 1.442[MeV] ­- 1.745[MeV].

    This reaction is endothermic and needs 303 [keV] to proceed.

    Without deuterium all other reactions of Hyd with protons can not take place. As a consequence during the Lugano test there was almost no production of He4, tritium and He3. However as the reacting nuclei deplete all around the NAEs (during the 32 days of continuous electromagnetic stimulation) the Hyd start to see and react more with other hydrogen nuclei and other Hyd that did not react. When the gamma coming from the formation of a Hyd strikes another Hyd that has captured a second proton, it causes the reaction above to generate deuterium. The efficiency of the reactor then starts to grow, as it was already happening in the last 4 days of the test, because deuterium is the door to the reactions which produce He4, and which are the most energetic of all possible.

    Rossi stopped the experiment cautiously before the agreed 35 days because when deuterium appears, apart from the growth in volumetric power density, some tritium (and He4) is actually produced. The decay of tritium is easily detectable and … In practice tritium does not accumulate (there is a precise reason for this), but Andrea wanted anyway to show a “perfectly” clean device, with no tritium and no beta decay. The energy emitted during the 32 days came from the formation of Hyd (ep) and the isotopic shifts of Li and Ni.

    In most other Cold Fusion devices instead the majority of the power comes from the generation of Hyd and of He4.

    With the help of the electron Cold Fusion can generate tritium without neutrons. This is what explains the so called branching ratio problem.

    The main function of Li is its capability to increase the density of NAE and not a special nuclear property.

    You correctly noticed that the final ash grains are homogeneous. However in the first part of the Lugano test the grains were actually isotopically layered, as you suggest. As I already mentioned the COP did grow during the last 4 days of the test because the grains were approaching complete isotopic depletion, and the layering disappeared.

    You mentioned neutrons. All Cold Fusion reactions leading to free neutrons are endothermic, apart from this one, which actually requires tritium and deuterium to be present:

    t+ed -> He5 + e + 14.387[MeV]

    He5 -> He4 + n + 0.735[MeV]

    Neutrons can appear only in presence of tritium plus gamma (normally coming from the formation of the Hyd), or when tritium is abundant in presence of ed.

    You say: “These protons change themselves into neutron after they enter the Ni58 nucleus”. Actually you are right. It is however the electron that changes the protons to a neutron. But this change does not take place with a proton and an electron generating a free neutron. It happens instead only when the actual “nuclear” reaction between Ni, proton and electron takes place (in this case it is a ternuclear reaction). For example:

    Ni60+ep->Ni61 + neutrino + 5.3 [MeV]

    The preference for stable nuclei comes from the fact that “inside the electron” the nuclei meet at almost no excess kinetic energy and only stable and less massive nuclei can be assembled. In a way the electron is like a workshop where nuclei are disassembled and assembled at no kinetic energy excess.

    Fractionation comes from the acceleration of the electron in the formation of the Hyd and form the acceleration of the Hyds when coupling to other nuclei. Moreover the final approach between nuclei “inside the electron” before fusion causes the emission of photons as well. This happens because the nuclear force mechanism between oppositely charged particles (e and p/d/t) is much more long range than its version between equally charged protons, and no Coulomb barrier must be overcome. In Cold Fusion the coulomb barrier between nuclei is NEVER overcome kinetically, but only through the nuclear force mechanism. In other words the electron, in very special conditions, can act as a range extender of the nuclear force.

    So teleportation is NOT supported by the experimental evidence in the Lugano Report because there are neutral particles flying around. And they are not neutrons.

    Now you know the basics of Cold Fusion! I hope you liked the journey.

    • Axil Axil

      Why isn’t the electron confined to the nucleus? The uncertainty principle forbids it from being restricted to a space as small as an atomic nucleus. The mass of an electron is 9.1 × 10-31 kg, and it can’t move any faster than the speed of light, so the smallest space an electron can be restricted to without violating the uncertainty principle is 4 × 10-13 m; about 270 times farther than a messenger meson can reach.

      In my theory the meson.->pion->muon is the reaction activation particle as formed by ccndinsation of EMF energy in the vacuum.

      Isotopic shift has a different mechanism than fusion. For example, heavy atoms like lead is sometimes found in LENR. That rection is caused by meson mediation of fusion between two or more atoms.

      • Andrea Calaon

        The electron has an intrinsic “size” which can not be changed (if you can not change the unitary charge …). The electron manifests as a pointwise charge that travels at the speed of light along a helical trajectory with a diameter that, for “non-relativistic” electron speeds, is 386 [fm], as you say. As you know it is what was historically called Zitterbewegung. It is not really a generic trembling motion, but a helical motion.

        A Hyd is NOT an electron in the same tiny space of a nucleon. Nucleons are much smaller than the electron, and as you correctly say, electrons can not be confined so much (without acquiring additional mass).

        Essentially a Hyd is a hydrogen nucleus trapped along the almost circular trajectory of the point charge of the electron. Marc Davidson suggested me the term race-track. Nuclei are attracted by the electron when they are outside the race-track, but as soon as they cross the electron radius, the attraction becomes a repulsion, and the confinement takes place.

        Now, the electron is much lighter than any nucleus so the real picture is similar to an electron precessing around a fixed hydrogen nucleus.

        Isotopic shifts happen when the captured nucleus (moving along the race-track together with the hydrogen nucleus of the Hyd) CANNOT react simply adding the hydrogen nucleus. So the reaction takes place only when the two nuclei are almost in contact (like 2 [fm] distance) and the point charge of the electron crosses them. It is a ternuclear reaction because it involves three particles at the same time. Something that practically never happens without the mediation of the electron.

        What keeps nuclei together is not related to the exchange of mesons, it is a huge “magnetic” effect due to the rotation of the charges inside particles. The rotation is what causes the intrinsic magnetic moments and is somehow “the essence” of particles.

        Nuclei are isospin layered fcc lattices of neutrons and protons, as Norman Cook suggested (http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/09%20NVSIndex.html).

        http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/40%20NVSDownload.html If you download the executable and the dll and put them in the same folder you can quickly understand what I mean.

    • Eyedoc

      Another very Interesting theory, where does it come from?……And can you explain what would this mean experimentally as far as trying to
      produce the effect on a regular basis, ie does the heat vs EM debate
      shift at all? How do we create this environment in a tube ?

      • Andrea Calaon

        Thank you Eyedoc,
        This theory comes from myself. It was presented at ICCF19 in Padua on a poster.
        The idea that the nuclear force is electromagnetic comes from Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook. Dallacasa told me that when he proposed the mechanism, many years ago, he had thought about the coupling with the electron, but never really develop the idea.
        I can tell you that this theory passes the acceptability criteria of Edmund Storms, who already knows it.
        You can find a draft of the article for ICCF here:
        http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html
        The NAE can be of different types, and even organic matter could develop a NAE.
        In solids it should be related to a superficial vacancy that keeps hopping back an forth. The hopping has a particularly low energy barrier because near to the surface the lattice is distorted (helped by lithium) and optical phonons can pump the movement. It is briefly explained in the article.

        The stimulation of the hopping should be possible with low frequency radio waves, but also with higher frequencies, as many researchers already demonstrated.

    • Axil Axil

      This proposed Hyd theory fails because it does not demonstrate action at a distance. In experiments with exploding titanium wires, the exploding wire is placed in an completely enclosed isolated water filled chamber surrounded by a outer water filled chamber filled with a dissolved uranium salt. After the wire explosion, fission of uranium is found in the outer chamber through detection of the fission ash of uranium.

      This says that no particle based agent is responsible for the LENR reaction.

      See page 7

      http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

      Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I think I read somewhere it is being isotopically tested and the results will be published at some point in time.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Although I do not understand everything that is being discussed here, I find it fascinating to read this discussion especially as it is being conducted in a respectful and professional manner. For that all participants have my thanks.

    One thing though: if according to Axil Axil a strong magnetic field is involved, wouldn’t the Lugano testers have noticed such a strong field during the 32 day run of the reactor?

    • Axil Axil

      We would expect the emmision of RF radiation.

    • Stephen

      I think this one of the best discussions I have ever read. There are really interesting ideas out there.

      I agree with Axil that monitoring the RF radiation could be interesting and may give some interesting data… the spectrum is huge though so I wonder which frequency bands can be monitored and how they can be measured. Also which frequency bands would be most interesting to monitor for the different particular ideas out there.

      Could we also measure the RF Produced by processing/filtering the current used to heat or energise the LENR device for higher frequency effects. I suppose the coil it self would act like some kind of antenna, It would be great if there is an RF expert out there with some ideas.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Stephen this paper may spread some light even though it was done with Platinum, etc. https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/601084356019539968 It has always been my contention that high freq EM is needed to start & control the LENR reaction & the referenced paper has some experimental data showing such a relationship.A sharpe step in dI/dt current introduces high EM in Rossi’s work as inferred in Vessela Nikolova web sight showing TRIAC graphs on work tables of Rossi’s shop! The Discrete Breather Paper in ICCF19 aslo indicates resonance related phenomena during LENR!

        • Stephen

          Hi James thanks a lot for the link. I enjoyed reading the paper. It definetly seems RF is playing some part in the LENR process in that case. I wonder if the THz radiation would be visible through the tubes in the current replications? But even other frequencies could be interesting to monitor.

        • Stephen

          One of these days I need to get a Twitter and Facebook account sorted, so I can better follow some of these things. Thanks for your comment. Let me know if you have any other references like this one. It gets me thinking.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Although I do not understand everything that is being discussed here, I find it fascinating to read this discussion especially as it is being conducted in a respectful and professional manner. For that all participants have my thanks.

    One thing though: if according to Axil Axil a strong magnetic field is involved, wouldn’t the Lugano testers have noticed such a strong field during the 32 day run of the reactor?

    • Axil Axil

      We would expect the emmision of RF radiation.

    • Stephen

      I think this one of the best discussions I have ever read. There are really interesting ideas out there.

      I agree with Axil that monitoring the RF radiation could be interesting and may give some interesting data… the spectrum is huge though so I wonder which frequency bands can be monitored and how they can be measured. Also which frequency bands would be most interesting to monitor for the different particular ideas out there.

      Could we also measure the RF Produced by processing/filtering the current used to heat or energise the LENR device for higher frequency effects. I suppose the coil it self would act like some kind of antenna, It would be great if there is an RF expert out there with some ideas.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Stephen this paper may spread some light even though it was done with Platinum, etc. https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/601084356019539968 It has always been my contention that high freq EM is needed to start & control the LENR reaction & the referenced paper has some experimental data showing such a relationship.A sharpe step in dI/dt current introduces high EM in Rossi’s work as inferred in Vessela Nikolova web sight showing TRIAC graphs on work tables of Rossi’s shop! The Discrete Breather Paper in ICCF19 aslo indicates resonance related phenomena during LENR!

        • Stephen

          Hi James thanks a lot for the link. I enjoyed reading the paper. It definetly seems RF is playing some part in the LENR process in that case. I wonder if the THz radiation would be visible through the tubes in the current replications? But even other frequencies could be interesting to monitor.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            MFMP informs me that “Thankyou for the reference
            James, we’ll look at it. We know that Sergei Godin is looking into EM
            emissions, being somewhat of an expert. We will speak to him about this” I think I found Sergei’s email address at Penn State & dropped him a line about our mutual interest in the subject to see what could be uncovered or further explored about the subject which fascinates us so! It seems the EM can be seen in the Palladium wires in the references resistance over the range so it is probably present in the Ni LiAl4 process & fuel tube casing thru induced changes in resistance?

        • Stephen

          One of these days I need to get a Twitter and Facebook account sorted, so I can better follow some of these things. Thanks for your comment. Let me know if you have any other references like this one. It gets me thinking.

  • Axil Axil

    The list of elements was shown at ICCF-19.

  • Gerard McEk

    How Andrea Rossi thinks about this discussion 😉

    AlbertN
    May 19th, 2015 at 6:16 PM
    Dear Dr.Rossi,
    There is quite an interesting discussion about the Rossi/Cook Reaction Theory on E-Cat World:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/19/my-opinion-regarding-rossicook-reaction-theory-axil-axil/comment-page-1/#comment-224146
    The discussion (I admit) is way above my head. Some people do the
    hard work (like yourself) and some people just talk. Talk, as we know,
    is cheap. Does any of this discussion make any sense to you? Care to
    comment?
    Regards,
    Albert N

    Andrea Rossi
    May 19th, 2015 at 6:30 PM
    AlbertN:
    If you find the discussion interesting, this means it is useful for something.
    I respect the opinions of everybody and confirm what Prof. Cook and I wrote.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Axil Axil

      Mr. Rossi might take the time to peer review the opinons that he is interested in. He expects others to peer review his theories. In return, He should return this kindness.

      Ignoring LENR is how others disrepect this subjsct.

  • Gerard McEk

    How Andrea Rossi thinks about this discussion 😉

    AlbertN
    May 19th, 2015 at 6:16 PM
    Dear Dr.Rossi,
    There is quite an interesting discussion about the Rossi/Cook Reaction Theory on E-Cat World:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/19/my-opinion-regarding-rossicook-reaction-theory-axil-axil/comment-page-1/#comment-224146
    The discussion (I admit) is way above my head. Some people do the
    hard work (like yourself) and some people just talk. Talk, as we know,
    is cheap. Does any of this discussion make any sense to you? Care to
    comment?
    Regards,
    Albert N

    Andrea Rossi
    May 19th, 2015 at 6:30 PM
    AlbertN:
    If you find the discussion interesting, this means it is useful for something.
    I respect the opinions of everybody and confirm what Prof. Cook and I wrote.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Axil Axil

      Mr. Rossi might take the time to peer review the opinons that he is interested in. He expects others to peer review his theories. In return, He should return this kindness.

      Ignoring LENR is how others disrepect this subjsct.

  • Axil Axil

    The billion tesla estemate was at 200 microns. If a 1 nanometer vortex is producing that billion tesla at 200 microns, then that 10e7 discrepancy in power production can be accounted for.

  • Axil Axil

    Atoms from different elements have never be experimentlly entangled before. How nuclear reactions happen in this situation is not known. The subatomic particles may form an waveform soup that condence when the SPP based magnetic radiation is over.

    Wnen a million atoms fuse with another mission atoms, what is the result? Time will tell.

    Rossi is right, when we heat our homes with Hot cats, we will be motovated to find out how it works no matter how strange the reaction turns out to be.

  • Brad Arnold

    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Scientists-must-Study-the-Nuclear-Weak-Force-to-Better-Understand-LENR.html

    As explained by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center in his article “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook”:

    “The Strong Force Particle physicists have evidently been correct all along. “Cold Fusion” is not possible. However, via collective effects/ condensed matter quantum nuclear physics, LENR is allowable without any “miracles.” The theory states that once some energy is added to surfaces loaded with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form– neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.”

    • Axil Axil

      As stated below in this tread, this low energy neutron process does not explain action at a distance or LENR in a plasma as found in a Rossi reactor meltdown where the lattice has vaporized at 3000C to 4000C,.

  • Brad Arnold

    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Scientists-must-Study-the-Nuclear-Weak-Force-to-Better-Understand-LENR.html

    As explained by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center in his article “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook”:

    “The Strong Force Particle physicists have evidently been correct all along. “Cold Fusion” is not possible. However, via collective effects/ condensed matter quantum nuclear physics, LENR is allowable without any “miracles.” The theory states that once some energy is added to surfaces loaded with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form– neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.”

    • Axil Axil

      As stated below in this tread, this low energy neutron process does not explain action at a distance or LENR in a plasma as found in a Rossi reactor meltdown where the lattice has vaporized at 3000C to 4000C,.

  • Axil Axil
    • Gerard McEk

      Thanks Axil, quite interesting and explaining.

  • Axil Axil
    • Gerard McEk

      Thanks Axil, quite interesting and explaining.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Possibly when the reaction starts, at one point, something happens like it get hot and the reaction spreads. It may also be nuclear/emf etc.
    As the analysis is of such a small sample it it hopeless to try and match the theoretical energy to the heat measured. .You don’t know how much of the fuel was involved.
    The important point is that something nuclear does happen, something you have been reluctant to admit before.