The Basics of Cold Fusion — Response to Axil Axil (Andrea Calaon)

The following comment was posted by Andrea Calaon in this thread.

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!< /p>
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 hydroge n 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 la yering 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 o f 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 aroun d. And they are not neutrons.

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

Andrea Calaon

  • f sedei

    Adrea Calaon: A very learned and cogent analysis. Do you believe Rossi should use this as an accurate description to obtain his patent?

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Mr. Sedei,
      Thank you for your appreciation of my comment. The world of patents is governed by “equations” that I do not know. What I described is not recognized by any official entity, so I think it would be of no use in a patent request.
      A fact is that no one would like to admit that Cold Fusion, if stimulated, can generate neutrons and tritium. So I guess for Andrea it would be better to skip the theory for now. Airbus has already admitted there can be gamma emissions.
      Regards

      • Eyedoc

        Andrea,
        Does this mean that A Rossi may be in some danger from his prolonged exposure to the Ecats ?

        • Andrea Calaon

          Andrea said that he and his team are taking constant care of this issue and that there is no risk.
          The guess is that the mean free path of Hyd is of the order of a few micrometers in “common” solids. Clearly a sheet of pure Ni62 would be transparent as probably other isotopes that do not have magnetic moments. Probably the shielding effect will decrease with time as the possible transmutations progress. This is definitely something that will need to be addressed.

      • GreenWin

        At some point our Big Brothers will have to confront the tritium issue. This is one reason why the sim has gone dark on public disclosure of CF. There are however ways to monitor this substance and to engineer its production OUT of any commercial CF reactor.

        Thanks Andrea for your very stimulating theory.

    • Josh G

      I believe the consensus now is that the Lugano report is flawed and the net output is even less than what is stated (though still positive). But in either case the Lugano test was not aiming for maximum efficiency that could be achieved, for example, with self-sustain modes.

    • Axil Axil

      The theorist who is defending his position has failed to explain how this proposed paticle can penitrate a thich layer of glass to produce a uranium based fusion reaction in a seperated, completely enclosed, and isolated water filled chamber. Is ignoring a good faith attemp at peer review the true path to truth?

      • Dave Lawton

        I know. Its the same way ball lightning appears to pass through solid glass. It disassembles itself and then reassembles itself the other-side of the glass wall.

        • Axil Axil

          Yes, ball lightning is SPP vortex operating on the macro scale. The vortex of electrons becomes free roaming and mobile. Upon encountering an obstruction, the vortex using electomagnetic plasma based interaction through the obstruction produces a copy of itself on the other side of the glass.

          • Omega Z

            Axil
            That’s all well & fine as long as it stays put & doesn’t head my way.
            🙂

      • Andrea Calaon

        Hi Axil,
        Please give me time for answering this avalanche of posts. I will answer you. But I also have a life with work, kids, music.
        Thanks

  • f sedei

    Adrea Calaon: A very learned and cogent analysis. Do you believe Rossi should use this as an accurate description to obtain his patent?

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Mr. Sedei,
      Thank you for your appreciation of my comment. The world of patents is governed by “equations” that I do not know. What I described is not recognized by any official entity, so I think it would be of no use in a patent request.
      A fact is that no one would like to admit that Cold Fusion, if stimulated, can generate neutrons and tritium. So I guess for Andrea it would be better to skip the theory for now. Airbus has already admitted there can be gamma emissions.
      Regards

      • Eyedoc

        Andrea,
        Does this mean that A Rossi may be in some danger from his prolonged exposure to the Ecats ?

        • Andrea Calaon

          Andrea said that he and his team are taking constant care of this issue and that there is no risk.
          The guess is that the mean free path of Hyd is of the order of a few micrometers in “common” solids. Clearly a sheet of pure Ni62 would be transparent as probably other isotopes that do not have magnetic moments. Probably the shielding effect will decrease with time as the possible transmutations progress. This is definitely something that will need to be addressed.

      • GreenWin

        At some point our Big Brothers will have to confront the tritium issue. This is one reason why the sim has gone dark on public disclosure of CF. There are however ways to monitor this substance and to engineer its production OUT of any commercial CF reactor.

        Thanks Andrea for your very stimulating theory.

  • LilyLover

    Well, Axil Axil, hate to opportunistically gang-up on you, but, yes, like Andrea says, Lugano results do not even remotely implicate Teleportation. I’d be happy if teleportation were a possibility. With all that I understand, I have to opine against teleportation. As resistance to mass increases with speed the terminal fragmentation of mass into energy at the speed of light is the un-understood basis of the Newtonian-Einsteinian-modified present day Physics. Faster than light travel does not require reconstitution of matter. If you are rowing a boat downstream, faster than the stream, you are similarly being faster than light UFO in outer space. The unspoken thought goes: once you achieve that speed, the resistance of the light moving in the same direction as you are, is akin to rear ending a car and therefore at that speed matter ought to have already converted into electromagnetic waves. Granted, the stream causes resistance to forward motion even if you are trying to push the stream in the same direction, but at the same time, say if you were magically floating in the air and rowing, the lack of resistance is the reason that you cannot push enough mass of air backwards, so as to achieve forward motion. But, in the vacuum of outer space accelerating acceleration need not necessitate infinite energy or matter converted into energy. The universe as we observe it, is observed through energeticness-perspective. In the bulk of it – it’s empty. I.e. There are no “wormholes” popularly envisioned as “fast speed travel lanes” rather, all the travel is through the mesh of spider webs in multiple series. It’s not a matter of finding empty space – it’s a matter of not scraping any single strand. That limits our speed. So, the energetic universe which is rather smaller than the non-energetic one puts the limits on the speed. In intergalactic travel, deep space acceleration is pretty much “easy” / less energy intensive than the present day Physics makes it to be. And yes, no demarkation boundaries between energetic and non-energetic Universe … good old continuum.

    Just remember, the “gravity” of dense matter prevents light to escape also implies that the integrity of energetic mass is stronger than the forces that would cause the speed reduction due to resistance of light.

    “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…”

    >>
    Unlike the multiple energy levels to be latched “onto” as theorized in the mainstream, the matter has much wider range of “existence-potential”.
    Think of matter as “Parents” & Consumers as “loads” or “Children”. The parens may sporadically offer a few dollars to a roadside-bum, a few 20s to their children every once in a while etc. But if situations demanded rightfully, the parents would “find” (deplete savings / wither down with future debt obligations etc.) money for that emergency need. So, they can offer a spectrum of energy based on needs, based on right mechanism of extraction. Parents don’t say I’ll only dispense in denominations of either 1 or 5 or 20 or 100; any other need won’t be met. Similarly, energetic matter, is the possessor and radiator of energy. After giving out enough energy, the matter withers. Although the qualitative degradation of matter is beyond our current measurement capability, just know that it is there.

    Humanity, therefore, do not exploit LENR. Explore it, use it to become happy but do not produce extra, as profligate waste – just because you can.

    By the time you understand qualitative degradation of matter and master the art of Energy from any source, you better wizen up and limit it’s usage lest you be forced to find another Earth, which may not be as beautiful.

    • GreenWin

      Interesting ideas LL. However “teleportation” of entangled particles (e.g. a photon) is the foundation of some quantum computing concepts. And though I think you correct there is no “wormhole” type teleportation – compressing, bending or folding spacetime allows movement within 4 dimensions quite simple.

      I agree too that caution must be primary in energy-matter transitions. Part of the key IMO is to reduce human fear – which drives the “survival” theory introduced by Darwin. Without fear of artificial enemies, apocalypse, resource limits, etc. – tribal culture has less reason for conflict. Also, two difficult lessons for any parent to learn are – when to let go, and to practice what we preach. It requires rigorous honesty.

      • LilyLover

        Dear GreenWin, About 15 years ago I contended in a paper that the “entanglement” is Laplace no Ma in a specific manner. My hypothesis still stays true. What is it? To be able to read one state and therefore predict the other state of the other particle, even with the predictable dependence is no different than observing something and then reporting the observation. X variables and X unknowns. => Relation between two particles, state changing, oscillating or randomly co-varying, is one relation implying one variable. Not two states because of two separate particles. The predictability of ONE bond between two particles is not he same as TWO variables i.e. involved particles. It would have been an entirely different paradigm IF causing one particle behave in certain manner would also CAUSE another particle to change it’s manner to mirror the other, or predictably co-vary with the other, then, the QE could be said to exist.
        To date, quantum entanglement itself is a pipe dream. Not only the fundamentals of entanglement are wrong, but also the “computing” aspect is more of a marketing hype. If you know my position on AI, similar is the state of “entanglement” science. If you don’t I’ll repost it here. You might like it.
        After arguing with countless professors, well, countable on hands, they all eventually concede that “it’s about to happen”. As of now, “bio-computing” is more real than “quantum computing”. So is mirage more real than the pink-unicorn. Therefore those “some” “quantum computing” “concepts” are totally wrong. Polite people would say – “in my opinion”, but, let me assure you – I am polite at least about my opinion of “quantum computing” or “AI”.
        Love.

  • LilyLover

    Well, Axil Axil, hate to opportunistically gang-up on you, but, yes, like Andrea says, Lugano results do not even remotely implicate Teleportation. I’d be happy if teleportation were a possibility. With all that I understand, I have to opine against teleportation. As resistance to mass increases with speed the terminal fragmentation of mass into energy at the speed of light is the un-understood basis of the Newtonian-Einsteinian-modified present day Physics. Faster than light travel does not require reconstitution of matter. If you are rowing a boat downstream, faster than the stream, you are similarly being faster than light UFO in outer space. The unspoken thought goes: once you achieve that speed, the resistance of the light moving in the same direction as you are, is akin to rear ending a car and therefore at that speed matter ought to have already converted into electromagnetic waves. Granted, the stream causes resistance to forward motion even if you are trying to push the stream in the same direction, but at the same time, say if you were magically floating in the air and rowing, the lack of resistance is the reason that you cannot push enough mass of air backwards, so as to achieve forward motion. But, in the vacuum of outer space accelerating acceleration need not necessitate infinite energy or matter converted into energy. The universe as we observe it, is observed through energeticness-perspective. In the bulk of it – it’s empty. I.e. There are no “wormholes” popularly envisioned as “fast speed travel lanes” rather, all the travel is through the mesh of spider webs in multiple series. It’s not a matter of finding empty space – it’s a matter of not scraping any single strand. That limits our speed. So, the energetic universe which is rather smaller than the non-energetic one puts the limits on the speed. In intergalactic travel, deep space acceleration is pretty much “easy” / less energy intensive than the present day Physics makes it to be. And yes, no demarkation boundaries between energetic and non-energetic Universe … good old continuum.

    Just remember, the “gravity” of dense matter prevents light to escape also implies that the integrity of energetic mass is stronger than the forces that would cause the speed reduction due to resistance of light.

    “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…”

    >>
    Unlike the multiple energy levels to be latched “onto” as theorized in the mainstream, the matter has much wider range of “existence-potential”.
    Think of matter as “Parents” & Consumers as “loads” or “Children”. The parens may sporadically offer a few dollars to a roadside-bum, a few 20s to their children every once in a while etc. But if situations demanded rightfully, the parents would “find” (deplete savings / wither down with future debt obligations etc.) money for that emergency need. So, they can offer a spectrum of energy based on needs, based on right mechanism of extraction. Parents don’t say I’ll only dispense in denominations of either 1 or 5 or 20 or 100; any other need won’t be met. Similarly, energetic matter, is the possessor and radiator of energy. After giving out enough energy, the matter withers. Although the qualitative degradation of matter is beyond our current measurement capability, just know that it is there.

    Humanity, therefore, do not exploit LENR. Explore it, use it to become happy but do not produce extra, as profligate waste – just because you can.

    By the time you understand qualitative degradation of matter and master the art of Energy from any source, you better wizen up and limit it’s usage lest you be forced to find another Earth, which may not be as beautiful.

    • GreenWin

      Interesting ideas LL. However “teleportation” of entangled particles (e.g. a photon) is the foundation of some quantum computing concepts. And though I think you correct there is no “wormhole” type teleportation – compressing, bending or folding spacetime allows movement within 4 dimensions quite simple.

      I agree too that caution must be primary in energy-matter transitions. Part of the key IMO is to reduce human fear – which drives the “survival” theory introduced by Darwin. Without fear of artificial enemies, apocalypse, resource limits, etc. – tribal culture has less reason for conflict. Also, two difficult lessons for any parent to learn are – when to let go, and to practice what we preach. It requires rigorous honesty.

      • LilyLover

        Dear GreenWin, About 15 years ago I contended in a paper that the “entanglement” is Laplace no Ma in a specific manner. My hypothesis still stays true. What is it? To be able to read one state and therefore predict the other state of the other particle, even with the predictable dependence is no different than observing something and then reporting the observation. X variables and X unknowns. => Relation between two particles, state changing, oscillating or randomly co-varying, is one relation implying one variable. Not two states because of two separate particles. The predictability of ONE bond between two particles is not he same as TWO variables i.e. involved particles. It would have been an entirely different paradigm IF causing one particle behave in certain manner would also CAUSE another particle to change it’s manner to mirror the other, or predictably co-vary with the other, then, the QE could be said to exist.
        To date, quantum entanglement itself is a pipe dream. Not only the fundamentals of entanglement are wrong, but also the “computing” aspect is more of a marketing hype. If you know my position on AI, similar is the state of “entanglement” science. If you don’t I’ll repost it here. You might like it.
        After arguing with countless professors, well, countable on hands, they all eventually concede that “it’s about to happen”. As of now, “bio-computing” is more real than “quantum computing”. So is mirage more real than the pink-unicorn. Therefore those “some” “quantum computing” “concepts” are totally wrong. Polite people would say – “in my opinion”, but, let me assure you – I am polite at least about my opinion of “quantum computing” or “AI”.
        Love.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Dear Andrea,

    I find your description marginally more believable than that of Axil – mainly because you have less detail. Some general (theoretical) questions:

    (1) Why do we not see Hyds in the extraordinarily large amount of data generated from colliders?
    (2) Why do we not see Hyds indirectly form the very large amount of data generated from colliders – they would surely modify other reaction pathways.
    (3) How do Hyd’s work out in the standard model, or do you chnage the standard model to get them?
    (4) What (at QFT level) is this relationship bteween strong and electroweak forces? X-bosons? Or something else? And at what temperatures is this unification relevant? 10e27K, as in Sheldon et al, is even higher than Axil’s fanciful numbers.
    (5) At a different level. QM says that angular momentum of an electron in a Coulomb potential from a nucleus is quantised – so the tiny non-zero values you claim break Heisenberg’s principle. How does that work out? I just need a rough explanation of what you have to replace classical QM? Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here – if you did the electron wave function equation it would be more precise.

    I feel any theory worth its salt must at least address the above questions

    Now some experimental issues:

    (1) The monitoring of Lugano was precise. How do you explain no detection of netrons, gammas?

    (2) as always – how do you explain the 58Ni -> 62Ni transmutation given the enthalpy released is much higher than that observed? (The enthalpy observed was roughly zero but we have considerable experimental errors so you could allow maybe +/- 0.5 on COP, if you had a priori reasons for expecting energy excess). You need both to explain the reaction chain that gives this transmutation, and then why there are no intermediate products and how somehow enthalpies balance to give net near zero energy release.

    Given the detail of your understanding (reactions catalysed by Hyds) that should not be too difficult based just on basic conservation laws?

    (3) I think I’ll leave it at that for now, though I can feel the likelihood of other experimental anomalies rearing their head in a Hyd-filled world.

    More generally. We have some definite experimental data (if you keep to moderation rules here). Therefore any theory of what is going on must surely start with that data and explain it. That is what I’d like to see.

    • Gerard McEk

      Thomas, I sympathize with your approach of energy conservation, however to really understand the total balance, you need to know all the changes in the ‘fuel’. I do not believe that quantities were measured of the ‘ash’, at least not of the light components (H2, D2, T2, He). From that point of view calculations are impossible to make. Maybe other reactions (isotopic shifts and transmutations) took place which were strongly endothermic, but were happening below the sensitivity of these measurements.
      So maybe it is too early for your kind of approach, because not everything is known and measured and there are questions about the energy released, but I agree that it would be the best proof of the pudding.

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Thomas,
      You can find more details in the draft of my article for ICCF19 at this address:
      http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html
      1 – Because Hyd are like new nuclei and not fundamental particles. Accelerators collide fundamental particles and form others as fragments of the collisions. Moreover Hyd do not originate thanks to high energy. It is somehow the opposite, they form when the electron is sort of “slowed down”.
      2 – See answer 1. I can also add that the special mechanisms that can lead to the formation of Hyd are not present in high energy collisions. These mechanism require long coherence times, which is somehow the opposite of a high energy collision.
      3 – The standard model is untouched. Only the nuclear force (which is not part of the Standard Model) should be interpreted in the correct way as mainly due to an electromagnetic interaction.
      4 – The Cold Fusion theory I have proposed does not entail special features of the weak or the strong interactions.
      5 – I am not questioning quantization or QM. If there are intermediate eigenvalues of the Hyd energy the emitted photons will reflect them. I do not have the Hamiltonian of the bound Hyd state, so I am not able to precisely evaluate energies and states. What I used is just the explanation of the nuclear force as an magnetic attraction that manifests between synchronous rotating charges.
      On the other hand I have a few non-conventional ideas about QM, but they play no role whatsoever in the Cold Fusion theory I described.

      Experimental issues:

      1 – As I said, there are no neutrons because all Cold Fusion reactions producing neutrons are endothermic and require tritium. Soft gammas are easily absorbed by solid matter, plus a large part of the energy is fractionated into even less energetic photons due to the many levels present for the acceleration of the electrons and nuclei.
      2 – About the reactions of Ni and Li in the Hot Cat, my comments about the energy balance and the representativity of the samples, you can look at the pdf document at the end of this page:
      http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/
      2 – So far the Hyd explain all Cold Fusion phenomena. If you name one I will try to explain it. I try always to compare experimental data with theoretical prediction. So far I haven’t got stuck. Edmund Storms is very positive about my theory, so my guess is that it actually passes most of the tests …

      • fact police

        3 – The standard model is untouched. Only the nuclear force (which is not part of the Standard Model) should be interpreted in the correct way as mainly due to an electromagnetic interaction.

        The nuclear strong force as completely separate from the electromagnetic interaction is an integral part of the Standard Model according to physics.info/standard, or any other reputable source.

        • Andrea Calaon

          Dear fact police,
          if you note, at the link you sent me the word “nuclear” appears only at the bottom, as “nuclear physics”. In fact the standard model describes precisely what the strong force (or strong interaction) is. As the text explains it is something related to quarks, gluons, … and goes also under the name of “Quantum Chromodynamics”. The text however says “Without the strong force, every nucleus would blow itself to smithereens”. It therefore mixes QCD with the force that keeps nuclei together IMHO.
          Wikipedia is a bit more clear about the difference:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
          “In the context of binding protons and neutrons together to form atoms, the strong interaction is called the nuclear force (or residual strong force).
          In this case, it is the residuum of the strong interaction between the
          quarks that make up the protons and neutrons. As such, the residual
          strong interaction obeys a quite different distance-dependent behavior
          between nucleons, from when it is acting to bind quarks within nucleons.
          The binding energy that is partly released on the breakup of a nucleus is related to the residual strong force and is harnessed in nuclear power and fission-type nuclear weapons.”
          So wikipedia says that the nuclear force is a residual strong force that actually obeys to a different distance-dependent behaviour from when it is acting to bind quarks within nucleons. May be this residual is so different because it is NOT a residual but something else?
          You choose.
          Anyway QCD should allow to calculate the properties of the nucleons, but can not explain how nuclei are kept together. Have a look to this:
          http://www.int.washington.edu/bedaque.html
          It is an old debate. And it will stay so until someone will show a way to successfully calculate from first principles the potential of the thousands of known isotopes.
          Thank you anyway for the observation.

          • fact police

            if you note, at the link you sent me the word “nuclear” appears only at the bottom, as “nuclear physics”. In fact the standard model describes precisely what the strong force (or strong interaction) is. As the text explains it is something related to quarks, gluons, … and goes also under the name of “Quantum Chromodynamics”. The text however says “Without the strong force, every nucleus would blow itself to smithereens”. It therefore mixes QCD with the force that keeps nuclei together IMHO.

            It’s not a matter of opinion. According to the Standard model, the force that holds nuclei together is the strong force, even if the potential can’t be accurately described. The electromagnetic interaction tends to blow them apart.

            Wikipedia is a bit more clear about the difference:

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

            “In the context of binding protons and neutrons together to form atoms, the strong interaction is called the nuclear force (or residual strong force).

            In this case, it is the residuum of the strong interaction between the

            quarks that make up the protons and neutrons. As such, the residual

            strong interaction obeys a quite different distance-dependent behavior

            between nucleons, from when it is acting to bind quarks within nucleons.

            The force between nucleons is a complex composite force analogous to the force that holds neutral atoms together. A precise distance dependence of van der Waals forces or even covalent bonds is not easy to describe analytically either.

            The binding energy that is partly released on the breakup of a nucleus is related to the residual strong force and is harnessed in nuclear power and fission-type nuclear weapons.”

            Actually this is wrong. The energy released in fission of large nuclei is a result of the Coulomb repulsion, not a release of nuclear binding energy. A release of nuclear binding energy occurs in fusion of small nuclei.

            So wikipedia says that the nuclear force is a residual strong force that actually obeys to a different distance-dependent behaviour from when it is acting to bind quarks within nucleons. May be this residual is so different because it is NOT a residual but something else?

            There should be no expectation that the distance dependence of the residual force has any resemblance to that between the elementary particles. Again, the distance dependence of the forces that hold atoms together is very different from the distance dependence of the forces between point charges. That doesn’t mean that the fundamental source of the forces holding atoms together is not the electromagnetic force. Or that the force holding atoms together is not part of the Standard Model.

            The electromagnetic force within nuclei is repulsive, and acts against binding. It is not the origin of the binding.

            Anyway QCD should allow to calculate the properties of the nucleons, but can not explain how nuclei are kept together. Have a look to this:

            http://www.int.washington.edu/

            There is nothing in that article that suggests nuclear binding results from anything other than the strong force, or that the force binding nuclei together is not part of the Standard Model. The difficulty in obtaining an analytical description of the interaction between nucleons is because it is a complex interaction involving many particles. That does’t change the fundamental origin of the interaction.

            It is an old debate. And it will stay so until someone will show a way to successfully calculate from first principles the potential of the thousands of known isotopes.

            The difficulty is, as you say, about obtaining analytical potentials from QCD. The origin of the potentials is not debated. You can speculate as you want, but if you speculate that the attractive force between nucleons in nuclei is anything other than the strong interaction, you are speculating beyond the Standard Model.

          • Andrea Calaon

            Dear police,
            sorry for misspelling your name in my previous post. I have now corrected it.
            Next time I will declare that I am proposing/speculating something beyond the standard model. But let me say at least this:
            What I am proposing is against that part of the standard model of particle physics that conjectures that using the properties of the strong interaction it is possible to explain the nuclear force.
            I am not a specialist of the field, but I guess that if professors like Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook (the latter published books of the nuclear models), proposed and published already many years ago a theory that tried to explain the nuclear force in terms of a “magnetic” (purely electromagnetic) effect, there must be no publication showing unequivocally the contrary, namely that what keeps nuclei together is a residual part of the strong force. If there were such a clear proof they would have never been able to publish. So the part of the Standard Model I am not in agreement with is actually a conjecture.

            The force between neutral atoms si complex, and can not be developed analytically, but there is no doubt that it is caused by the electron orbitals. And the theory indicates a way for calculating it with precise equations. As far as I know, but I could well be wrong, there is no such clear indication about how to calculate the nuclear force from the strong force. Everyone say it is very complex. However in engineering there is a huge difference between very complex, difficult, and “we don’t know how to do it …!”. Analytical or numerical as it may be. I ask you (simply because I don’t know the answer): Where are we now with the residual strong force?

            The fact that the nuclear force is a residual part of the strong force for me is simply the best or the most accepted guess one can do.

            You say “The electromagnetic force within nuclei is repulsive, and acts against binding. It is not the origin of the binding”. Dallacasa and Cook, in the references I suggested and used, showed that there is a magnetic mechanism (purely electromagnetic) that can account for the amount of attraction between nucleons that surpasses the electrostatic repulsion.

            Police, I would like to thank you for your engagement with me so far, I need more of these exchanges to move a bit forward, even if this was just about the definition of the boundaries of what is called “standard model”.
            Regards

          • fact police

            What I am proposing is against that part of the standard model of particle physics that conjectures that using the properties of the strong interaction it is possible to explain the nuclear force.

            The strong force was identified or *defined* as the force that accounts for the binding of nucleons in a nucleus. This is not a conjecture. QCD is the field theory developed to explain this force, or the interactions between baryons and mesons. You seem to think it is the other way around. — that QCD was a divine intervention, subsequently brought into service to explain nuclear binding. There is no independent evidence from direct observations quarks to motivate QCD; it is motivated precisely by interactions of composite particles.

            I am not a specialist of the field, but I guess that if professors like Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook (the latter published books of the nuclear models), proposed and published already many years ago a theory that tried to explain the nuclear force in terms of a “magnetic” (purely electromagnetic) effect, there must be no publication showing unequivocally the contrary, namely that what keeps nuclei together is a residual part of the strong force. If there were such a clear proof they would have never been able to publish.

            First, publication proves nothing. Hydrinos violate the predictions of QED, but that hasn’t stopped Mills from publishing his ideas about hydrinos anyway.

            Second, nothing is so unequivocal in science that new ideas should not be entertained. But the idea that nuclear binding is predicted / explained by QCD is not an issue. It was invented specifically for that purpose.

            Third, neither of those academics are nuclear physicists, and Cook is not even a physicist. Anyone can publish a book. That doesn’t mean it’s taken seriously.

            Finally, from my brief reading of the Cook FCC model of the nucleus (their 1987 paper in Phys Rev), the reference to anti-ferromagnetic structure regards the symmetry. As I understand it, they do not propose that nuclear binding is a consequence of the electromagnetic interaction. Perhaps I misunderstood, or perhaps they are more explicit elsewhere.

            So the part of the Standard Model I am not in agreement with is actually a conjecture.

            To the extent that the entire model is a conjecture, perhaps. But QCD was invented to explain nuclear binding, and forms one of two or three pillars of the Standard Model. To suggest that it fails at this is to reject an essential component of the model.

            The force between neutral atoms si complex, and can not be developed analytically, but there is no doubt that it is caused by the electron orbitals.

            The confidence in QCD as a successful theory of nuclear binding is no weaker than that of QED for molecular binding, even if it is less quantitative.

            And the theory indicates a way for calculating it with precise equations. As far as I know, but I could well be wrong, there is no such clear indication about how to calculate the nuclear force from the strong force.

            Yes, you are mistaken in this. Both field theories do not calculate the force between neutral particles per se, but calculate stationary states. That’s what Weinberg means when he says the calculations are in agreement with experiment.

            The fact that the nuclear force is a residual part of the strong force for me is simply the best or the most accepted guess one can do.

            Again, it’s not a guess, it’s by design. The field theory was designed to explain / fit the observed binding of nucleons.

            Police, I would like to thank you for your engagement with me so far, I need more of these exchanges to move a bit forward, even if this was just about the definition of the boundaries of what is called “standard model”.

            If anything I’ve said is in the least unfamiliar to you — if QCD is that unfamiliar to you — then you are not qualified to reject it as wrong.

          • Andrea Calaon

            Dear police, dear Thomas,
            to support our chats, I have found an interesting article (simply arXiv) about the state of the art of Lattice QCD in 2013, that you probably know already:
            http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4752

            The author (Martin J. Savage) is confident in the future success of QCD, and declares: “Ideally, one would start with a LQCD calculation and predict all of the quantities of interest in low-energy nuclear physics. Presently, we are not in a position to do this”. So there is still some time to wait. Many masses have now been post-dicted and this for sure is the nth success of QCD for the single nucleons and their inner structure.

            police: I am definitely NOT qualified for judging QCD and its chances because I know only its version “for dummies”. My work as engineer has hardened me towards “only seeing is believing” (I hope you understand what I mean). This is why I am convinced CF is real, by the way.

            My statement about the civilization and the lack of understanding of the nuclear force when answering to Axil Axil was just a strong statement that I thought would match the strong claims of Axil Axil (which is where all this discussion started from).

            Anyway my conclusion so far is that without a more or less stable coupling between electron and a hydrogen nucleus it simply not possible to explain the evidences of CF. And the coupling explains qualitatively many experimental results. What could be the reason of such coupling if not an electromagnetic origin of the nuclear force? I am with almost no other choices left.

            I am looking forward to see what the Lattice simulations will say.
            Thank again you both for your engagement with me.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Andrea –

            You have got it mostly right above.

            However in reply to me (above a little more) you say that Standard Model does not include strong force.

            That is not true – Standard Model is remarkably predictive and includes particles and strong/electroweak forces all nicely interlocked. For example SM gluons are the carrier of gthe strong (and therefore nuclear) forces. I know we do not have a good strong/electroweak unification yet but QCD and QED rock and the whole structure explains so many things well that even though it is not the endpoint it sure is good.

            Residual strong force (nuclear force) can be computed from QCD, and theory fits experiment well. It is like computing Van der Waals forces between molecules.

            Your proposal is still unclear to me. Electrons are leptons and fundamentally different from baryons. They do not have color, are not bound by glusons. That is a pretty fundamental fact. To get round it would need some clever extra reasoning.

            Further, just because you claim there is one way to produce your hypothesised electrons bound by strong force to protons does not stop other ways. High energy collisions (inevitably) produce every possible combo of reaction products subject to energy. So it would be most extraordinary for this bound electron/proton not to be seen.

            So: electrons bound by strong force would be totally weird – they have no color, do not interact with gluons, the whole color, gluons, quarks framework is exceptionally well tested by experiment and indeed has predicted accurately 5 or 6 new particles and masses.

            Your theory has to my knowledge not even one accurate prediction subsequently found correct to its credit, so scores a lot less well.

            Physics is not just some vague idea scribbled down. It is something put together with much pain, effort, and trial and error, and validated through predictions it makes. Some bits better validated than others. You here are I feel not being polite to the very many ground-breaking physicists who have contributed to our current not complete but amazlngly accurate understanding of subatomic physics. Surely it is worth looking at the experimental evidence that supports this when proposing something different?

          • Andrea Calaon

            Thomas,
            I think I have made clear my position on the Standard Model, QCD and nuclear force in my exchange with police.
            If 26 years after Cold Fusion became first public we are still discussing about its mechanism, PART OF IT MUST BE SOMETHING NOT COMMONLY ACCEPTED BY THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS. So, I chose one, and only one, uncommon ingredient, already present in the scientific literature. I used the proposal of Prof. Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook (made in the ‘80s), and assumed that the nuclear force is mainly electromagnetic (or electroweak). In this way I can say that the nuclear force mechanism could manifest between electron and naked nuclei. Without this assumptions electrons would not participate because, as everyone knows, they do no interact through the strong force. Simple as this. I think the strong interaction, whatever it is, remains confined inside nucleons, with families of quarks, colour charge, 8 gluons, asymptotic freedom, and all the rest.
            QCD has predicted the existence (not the mass), of a number of particles and is a huge achievement.
            I repeat what I have already said to make things even more clear:
            I am not suggesting something against a sea of evidence, theory and history. I am just using an ingredient that was proposed and published by expert physicists (Dallacasa and Cook), NOT BY ME. So actually what I did is only putting things together, may be clumsily.

            Answering your questions:

            Testing the Hyd theory in the “particle way” I guess could be done for example trying to deflect the Hyd through a magnetic field and verify that the mass and the magnetic moment are not those of the neutron.

            Once you have the electron binding to naked nuclei a long series of Cold Fusion evidences can be explained, or at least have a chance of being explained, including the titanium wire explosions proposed by Axil Axil.

            If the mechanism of generation of Hyd (the NAE) is (for example) related to the properties of a closed orbital, high energy collisions should not be able to generate them, I imagine. In this case it should not be a problem of energy, but of mechanism. And this mechanism must somehow be related and reachable through chemistry and electromagnetic stimulation.

            Now I hope you understand that your recommendation/suggestion/critics:

            “Physics is not just some vague idea scribbled down. It is something put together with much pain, effort, and trial and error, and validated through predictions it makes. Some bits better validated than others. You here are I feel not being polite to the very many ground-breaking physicists who have contributed to our current not complete but amazlngly accurate understanding of subatomic physics. Surely it is worth looking at the experimental evidence that supports this when proposing something different?”.
            is out of place. I don’t think I am underestimating any overwhelmingly proven and successful part of physics. The idea that the nuclear force could be mainly electromagnetic and not a residual strong interaction is not mine and not new. If anyone will show (not suggest through an elegant and complex architecture) that the nuclear potential is really due to the strong interaction I will simply acknowledge that the proposal of Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook is not correct. I don’t think what you have written is appropriate for these two scientists either, who, differently from me, really know the subject and doubt about the correctness of the residual strong force. I think they proposed their theory without being impolite “to the very many ground-breaking physicists …”

          • fact police

            Anyway QCD should allow to calculate the properties of the nucleons, but can not explain how nuclei are kept together.

            Actually, QCD is designed specifically to explain nucleon binding, and although there are different approaches, and approximations, it succeeds very well in the broad strokes. Here are a few extracts from a description by Steven Weinberg — a towering figure in the development of the Standard Model — cutting through the details:

            “It took a little longer to understand another force, the strong nuclear force that holds protons and neutrons together inside atomic nuclei. Fifty years ago we had mountains of data about this force, and we could imagine any number of quantum field theories that could potentially describe it, but we had no way to use the data to pick out the right theory. […]

            “Worse yet, as time passed more and more types of particles were discovered that are affected by the strong nuclear force. It seemed unlikely that all these hundreds of particle types could be the quanta of different fields, i.e., bundles of the fields’ energy, one for each particle type. Some sense could be made of all these particles by supposing that they were composites of a few kinds of truly elementary particles, called quarks. Three quarks were supposed to combine to make up each proton and neutron in an atomic nucleus. But if so, why had experimenters been unable to find these quarks? I remember a widespread despairing doubt about whether the strong forces could be described by any quantum field theory.

            Then in the early 1970s the right theory was discovered. Like the successful electroweak theory, it turned out to resemble quantum electrodynamics, only now with a quantity called “color” taking the place of electric charge. In this theory, known as quantum chromodynamics, the strong forces between quarks are produced by the exchange of eight kinds of photon-like particles known as gluons. Quantum chromodynamics explained an experimental result: the strong interactions among the quarks seem to become weaker when the quarks are studied at fine scales of distance, as when they are hit with high-energy electrons. This weakening of the force made it possible to do various approximate calculations like those done in the electroweak theory, and the results agreed with experiment, validating the theory.”

            So according to Weinberg, the development of QCD (as a component of the standard model) was specifically to explain the interactions between nucleons. After all, since isolated quarks are not observed, the only experimental evidence to test against the theory was the interactions of baryons and mesons.

      • Thomas Clarke

        see below for main comment.

        Also: the Hyd is (effectively) a very well shielded proton. Therefore it can interact with nuclei – you don’t need spin to accomplish this – nuclear forces provide the interaction once you have got a proton close enough to the nucleus. Whereas if the shielding is not sufficiently short-range spin coupling will not be enough to overcome the strong Coulomb barrier. So the argument that Ni-62 is endpoint does not wash.

        Re Experimental issues:
        1 – please explain the difference between your Hyd catalising nuclear reactions and neutron capture. It looks very similar to me (except that Hyd’s do not exist and neutrons do). Therefore the same reaction pathways that happen from neutron capture are relevant? And those produce many particles easily measurable in Lugano test. We could check this in detail if you like.

        2 – I’ve looked at said document but it is very long. Could you identify specifically where you address the energy balance? Maybe you could summarise it here.

        3 (2) – I’m not clear what you mean by Cold Fusion phenomena because the experimental data is incoherent and has no pattern. For example, if there were a pattern predicted by your theory you could say “this will happen, this will not happen” before it happened. What I think you have is a vague idea that can be bent to support almost any evidence.

        However let us look at this. 50% of CF claims work with H not D. 50% work with D not H (OK some maybe work with both).

        Please explain.

        • Andrea Calaon

          The Hyd is not only a very shielded proton. It is 500 times larger than an hydrogen nucleus and has a large magnetic moment. Without the magnetic attraction mechanism (that Dallacasa and Cook claim is the nuclear force) I guess it would not be able for it to reach other nuclei, because the electron, of which the Hyd is partly made of, does not collapse on the nucleus (in normal conditions …). Anyway you can not have a Hyd in the first place without the magnetic attraction. I think that without the electron “race-track mechanism” the simple shielding of an electron would not be enough for fusion because the electron is huge in comparison to the size of nuclei and to the distance at which nuclear reactions take place.

          I don’t know if I addressed you point.

          Ni62, as other nuclei does not react. Notice that Ni62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon. So whatever you try to do with its structure, you would need to add energy. I think that the reason why Ni62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon is its high symmetry (I think nuclei are layered isospin fcc lattices, as N. Cook suggests). And this high symmetry should result in no magnetic moments. Without magnetic moments there can be no attraction through the magnetic mechanism.

          Experimental issues:

          1- Neutron capture should be due to the same magnetic attraction that I claim keeps the Hyd together. However the Hyd should be able not only to cause isotopic shifts, but also to add to other nuclei a proton, a deuteron, two neutrons, tritium and even three neutrons.

          2- I don’t understand which energy balance you re talking about.

          3- I would simply refer to the description Edmund Storms makes in his latest book “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction”. About the adaptability of any incomplete theory to experimental facts we could discuss at length, but I thinks the point here is the knowledge of what is the NAE and what enables it from the macroscale. I don’t know precisely what a NAE looks like. Experiments suggest that the NAE is manifold.

          About the H and D issue synthetically:

          D produces much more energy per reaction when Hyd react with hydrogen nuclei.

          H generates Hyd, but it needs additional energy to produce D, and so access to the “classical” Cold Fusion reactions that generate T, He4 and He3. If the NAE are sufficiently dense they could provide the necessary gamma and slowly lead to D and to the rest. But it is difficult to generate dense NAEs, especially for long times. The Hyd generated by H, therefore can mainly lead to isotopic shifts or other nuclear reactions with fissions without too much He4 and tritium. These reactions release less energy per reaction in comparison to the formation of He4, so, when the NAE is not dense, excess energy could be difficult to measure.

          The Hyd generated with D (de) can react with other D generating He4 and so releasing large amounts of energy that are simpler to measure, in comparison with those generated by H in an equally dense distribution of NAE. An additional factor is that D has double the mass of H, so, if the NAE depends on the kinetic of the hydrogen nucleus, it could well be that some conditions are significantly more favourable for one or the other isotope. Statistics seems to suggest that it is easier to generate NAE with D. So a bit more of inertia could be favourable.

  • orsobubu

    Andrea, I recommend reading your posts on Rossi’s blog, always very interesting. In particular, I remember last year exchange with Guglinsky:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Cold_fusion_mystery_finally_deciphered#Comment_by_Andrea_Calaon

    Can you tell me if there were some developments/contacts in recent months? What is your current position related to him? After publishing of his last works, he disappeared. Many thanx.

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear orsobubu,
      at some point on the JoNP “blog” someone associated my theory with that of Mr. Guglinsky.
      I do not agree even with the fundamentals of Mr. Guglinsky’s theory, so there is no way we could make progress together.
      All I know about Mr. Guglinsky is what I read on the JoNP. At so me point he stopped writing on that blog. May be he was spammed and didn’t like it. I have no clue.
      Thank you.

  • Omega Z

    I have posted before that the Lugano test reactor appeared to only have a 3.5Kw output. This has been confirmed by Rossi. It is in fact the biggest hot-cat output device he has built.
    ——————————————————————
    Steven N. Karels May 19th, 2015

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    What are the largest High Temperature eCat reactors you have successfully developed/demonstrated? You previously posted the 250kW reactors were of the low temperature variant.
    ——————————————————————
    Andrea Rossi May 19th, 2015

    Steven N. Karels:
    3.5 kW
    Warm Regards, A.R.

    • Facepalm

      Am I missing something? The Lugano report says: 2.3 kW net production, with a input power of 910 W, so the total heat output must be: 3.210 kW.

      • Omega Z

        Your number s are the overall numbers.
        I believe the last few hours indicated very close to 3.5Kw.
        If I find the time, I’ll take another look.

      • Josh G

        I believe the consensus now is that the Lugano report is flawed and the net output is even less than what is stated (though still positive). But in either case the Lugano test was not aiming for maximum efficiency that could be achieved, for example, with self-sustain modes.

  • Monty

    Very neat analysis. Thank you Andrea!

  • GordonDocherty

    “this particle is made of an hydrogen nucleus and an electron kept
    together by the same mechanism that keeps together nucleons inside
    nuclei”

    So, an electron close in to the nucleus. Is this not the hydrino?

    This would be in-line with the need for Casimir spaces (reduced ZPE) allowing electrons to approach closer the nucleus.

    With higher energies in localized high-energy electromagnetic vortices, would not these Hyds / hydrinos absorb energy and, under the right localized conditions collapse in on themselves – and, held in situ by the local high-energy electromagnetic vortex (with an associated “electron storm”) create (slow) neutrons in the eye of the vortex…

    So, the ideal geometry would be an ice-cream cone that is excited by an external source (such as heat/IR or laser) – kind of what we see on the nickel particles.

    Once, as you say, the hydrinos / neutrons are formed – and are ejected (injected?) from the vortex direct into the lattice, further reactions take place. Actually, even if the neutrons were higher energy, as they all have a clear direction down the “ice-cream cone” and into the crystal lattice, they will all (more or less) be absorbed. Now, should the cone deform in any way (say, from a very high burst of energy into the lattice), the cone – and hence vortex – is destroyed (leaving a crater) and the reaction stops. This would certainly explain what is seen in SEM images of “used” crystals – pock marks with ejecta, like on the moon…

    I, personally, have always thought there is a relation between hydrinos and LENR, whether you call them hydrinos or “Hyds” …

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree with you, Gordon. When I read about the Hyds I thought and vented the same, but got no answer a few months ago.

      I believe Hyds or Hydrino’s should have been found long ago in CERN or elsewhere, ore are the energies too high in these facilities?
      Making a Hydrino (and also a Hyd?) releases also a lot of energy according Mills so energy conservation may also be a considerable issue in Andrea’s approach.

      • Andrea Calaon

        The Hyd should NOT have been found at CERN. They are NOT fundamental particles. They are like new nuclei, just assembled by an hydrogen nucleus and an electron, and you DO NOT find new nuclei in particle accelerator experiments. In particle accelerator experiments you find FUNDAMENTAL particles that have generally very short lives. Hyd are practically stable and DO NOT GENERATE AT HIGH ENERGIES, but in special low energy conditions.

        I don’t know what to tell you more than this. I would just suggest you to read the draft of my article for ICCF19 and think about it a bit more:http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html

        • Gerard McEk

          Thank you for your answer, Andrea.
          I have carefully read your theory again .
          Just a few questions of a non physicist:
          1. Do you still believe that normally the electron turns around the nucleus and kept together by electrostatic forces?
          2. When does the electron get a ZB? Can a ZB also exist while it circulates the nucleus (assuming the Bohrian model)?
          3. Why would the static electrical charge not keep two protons apart (Coulomb barrier) within the electron ZB? Is the magnetic attraction force larger within the 386 fm distance?
          4. What external current frequencies would influence Hyd reactions? (Susceptibility to a Magnetic Field)
          5. I assume that Hyds can only react with fully ionized nuclei. How does that work with Nickel in the lattice? (Some Nuclei Do Not React).

          • Andrea Calaon

            Thank you Gerard for your attention and your interesting questions.

            1 If you mean in the Hyd, yes. I believe that the Hyd is kept together by an electromagnetic interaction.

            2 The electron IS its Zitterbewegung, always. The ZB is what defines the properties of the orbitals, the fact that the electron can not “free fall” straight into the nucleus, and all its scattering properties, and I would say its mass as well, … practically every feature the electron has. The electron is the clock defined by its charge … but this is philosophy …

            3 Inside the Hyd the magnetic attraction manifest also between any two captured nuclei. They have their spin aligned and their electrostatic repulsion is partly shielded by the presence of the rapidly rotating electron charge. Plus they have the possibility to phase their precession (this is not explained in my texts). All these factors make the magnetic attraction already prevail over the Coulomb repulsion at a few hundred [fm].

            4 In order to estimate the EM frequencies that influence the attraction of the Hyd to other nuclei, it would be necessary to consider many details together, like the emitted field of electron and hydrogen nucleus combined, the precessions, and the emitted field of the nuclei.

            5 Hyd can penetrate any electron shell because they are neutral. So there is no need for ionization. The Hyd that will travel near enough to any nucleus that can be attracted by them, will lock to it and possibly react.

          • Gerard McEk

            Thank you Adrea for answering my questions. I also read your answers at some other locations. The last few days I used to think about the consequences of your theory.
            I know you received a lot of comment on this forum, but I hope you will also answer a few more questions that have come into my mind thinking about this.
            If you assume that a ‘point charge’ spirals around with the speed of light, than that point charge cannot have any mass. I assume that the electron mass equals the total energy confined in this spiralling and circling point charge.
            Q1a: What force makes the point charge spiralling? (It cannot be the mass, or can it?). At the same time this spiralling charge circles a sphere or a globe or trajectory with a diameter of 386 fm. Q1b: Again, what force would causes this spiralling charge making this trajectory and (Q1c:) how can this be stable in time?
            Q2: Do you postulate this just to suit the explanation of LENR?
            Q3: Is all this in line with the quantum mechanics?
            If this all is true, than we need to rethink what matter is. Are you familiar with the work of Stoyan Sarg? http://www.helical-structures.org/Publications/Sarg-Cold-Fusion-feasibility.pdf

          • Andrea Calaon

            Dear Gerard,
            The point charge can not have mass.
            You say “ I assume that the electron mass equals the total energy confined in this spiralling and circling point charge.”. I guess you assume correctly.
            However the “standard” interpretation of QM sort of “forbids” to look “inside” particles. They have all the properties they have and that is it.
            The Zitterbewegung anyway is a solid consequence of the Dirac equation, which is the best equation we have for describing the electron, even at relativistic speeds.
            So the electron has the ZB. No one will ever object it.
            The Dirac equation, as all the rest of QM is commonly written without an “algebra”, using instead complex numbers and matrices of complex numbers, which are the convoluted tools you have to resort to if you have only “vector spaces”. This “matrix complexity” hides the geometrical significance of the variables. Geometric Algebra instead (the algebra I was mentioning) allows to easily see that for example the equation of Dirac describes in 4D the plane where the ZB takes place, which is orthogonal to the electron spin direction.

            If you google “Geometric Algebra” you will find what everyone should have studied at school. It is the algebra we all should be using for multidimensional things.

            Most of the studies about the ZB in detail have been done by David Hestenes, who has been proposing the use of Geometric Algebra for all his life, not only for QM. I use one of his publications as reference for the ZB.

            Q1: The charge has a helical motion. Nothing more. The helix diameter is 386 [fm] for an external observer when the electron is not flying at relativistic speeds. You are asking the reason for the “structure” of the electron. The standard QM does not answer this. I have some ideas. And some suggestions from friends. But I don’t want to receive another avalanche of questions and objections. So I will not mention them. Anyway it is stable and many think it is a self-interaction.
            Q2: Absolutely not. Answer 1 clarifies this.
            Q3: Yes. The ZB is a consequence of the most “complete” QM equation, the equation of Dirac, which is the relativistic version of the Schrödinger Equation that contemplates the interaction of spin with an external field.I am not familiar with the work of Stoyan Sarg

        • Thomas Clarke

          You do find new nuclei as reaction products (what is an alpha particle?), and the Hyd is particularly easy to find because simple – one hadron+ 1 lepton – even simpler than alpha.

          • Andrea Calaon

            How would you detect it? It has no charge. Inelastic and elastic scattering? Or through the detection of isotopic shifts?

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Dr. Docherty,
      In a sense the Hyd IS the hydrino. The difference is that the Hyd is not a small atom. It is the hydrogen nucleus bound to move along the Zitterbewegung race-track of the electron. The size of a Hyd is exactly equal to the size of the electron: Diameter = 386 [fm].

      You can read more about the Hyd on the draft of the article for the proceedings of ICCF19 on this page:
      http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html
      The NAE does not need energy concentration, despite the fact that everyone is looking for mechanisms to increase and localize the kinetic energy.
      Instead the NAE is something that in a way “slows down” the electron.
      I do not understand your cone and the vortexes.
      The probability of more than one unconventional ingredient for the explanation of all LENR is very near to zero.I think that all LENR are due to the same fundamental mechanism: the generation of Hyd. What is manifold is the NAE. Several completely different systems can make an orbital “oscillate” at radio frequencies with all necessary features.

  • GordonDocherty

    “this particle is made of an hydrogen nucleus and an electron kept
    together by the same mechanism that keeps together nucleons inside
    nuclei”

    So, an electron close in to the nucleus. Is this not the hydrino?

    This would be in-line with the need for Casimir spaces (reduced ZPE) allowing electrons to approach closer the nucleus.

    With higher energies in localized high-energy electromagnetic vortices, would not these Hyds / hydrinos absorb energy and, under the right localized conditions collapse in on themselves – and, held in situ by the local high-energy electromagnetic vortex (with an associated “electron storm”) create (slow) neutrons in the eye of the vortex…

    So, the ideal geometry would be an ice-cream cone in a charged lattice that is excited by an external source (such as heat/IR or laser) and saturated (as far as is possible) by hydrogen atoms – the “cones” being kind of what we see on SEM examination of the nickel particles before use.

    Once, as you say, the Hyds/hydrinos and neutrons are formed, as they are being accelerated by the vortex direct into the lattice, further reactions can then take place. Actually, even if the neutrons were higher energy, as they all have a clear direction down the “ice-cream cone” and into the crystal lattice, they will all (more or less) be absorbed. Now, should the cone deform in any way (say, from a very high burst of energy into the lattice), the cone – and hence vortex – is destroyed (leaving a crater) and the reaction stops. This would certainly explain what is seen in SEM images of “used” crystals – pock marks with ejecta, like on the moon – why only low level of neutrons are seen (if at all), and why, eventually, quite probably, high levels of transmutation will be seen in the ash.

    I, personally, have always thought there is a relation between Hyds / hydrinos and LENR, so find it easier to believe this is the dominant mechanism – though there is still room for “teleportation” (that is, quantum entanglement), possibly as a result of collisions in the cone…

    Having said this, I also believe the Widom-Larsen mechanism is also at work elsewhere on exposed crystal surfaces.

    I don’t believe there is only “one” LENR effect, but rather many of them that, according to geometry and stimulation, are more or less likely to occur in a given system.

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree with you, Gordon. When I read about the Hyds I thought and vented the same, but got no answer a few months ago.

      I believe Hyds or Hydrino’s should have been found long ago in CERN or elsewhere, ore are the energies too high in these facilities?
      Making a Hydrino (and also a Hyd?) releases also a lot of energy according Mills so energy conservation may also be a considerable issue in Andrea’s approach.

      • Andrea Calaon

        The Hyd should NOT have been found at CERN. They are NOT fundamental particles. They are like new nuclei, just assembled with an hydrogen nucleus and an electron, and you DO NOT find new nuclei in particle accelerator experiments. In particle accelerator experiments you find FUNDAMENTAL particles that have generally very short lives. Hyd are practically stable and DO NOT GENERATE AT HIGH ENERGIES, but in special low energy conditions.

        I don’t know what to tell you more than this. I would just suggest you to read the draft of my article for ICCF19 and think about it a bit more:http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html

        • Gerard McEk

          Thank you for your answer, Andrea.
          I have carefully read your theory again .
          Just a few questions of a non physicist:
          1. Do you still believe that normally the electron turns around the nucleus and kept together by electrostatic forces?
          2. When does the electron get a ZB? Can a ZB also exist while it circulates the nucleus (assuming the Bohrian model)?
          3. Why would the static electrical charge not keep two protons apart (Coulomb barrier) within the electron ZB? Is the magnetic attraction force larger within the 386 fm distance?
          4. What external current frequencies would influence Hyd reactions? (Susceptibility to a Magnetic Field)
          5. I assume that Hyds can only react with fully ionized nuclei. How does that work with Nickel in the lattice? (Some Nuclei Do Not React).

          • Andrea Calaon

            Thank you Gerard for your attention and your interesting questions.

            1 If you mean in the Hyd, yes. I believe that the Hyd is kept together by an electromagnetic interaction.

            2 The electron IS its Zitterbewegung, always. The ZB is what defines the properties of the orbitals, the fact that the electron can not “free fall” straight into the nucleus, and all its scattering properties, and I would say its mass as well, … practically every feature the electron has. The electron is the clock defined by its charge … but this is philosophy …

            3 Inside the Hyd the magnetic attraction manifest also between any two captured nuclei. They have their spin aligned and their electrostatic repulsion is partly shielded by the presence of the rapidly rotating electron charge. Plus they have the possibility to phase their precession (this is not explained in my texts). All these factors allow the magnetic attraction to prevail over the Coulomb repulsion at a few hundred [fm].

            4 In order to estimate the EM frequencies that influence the attraction of the Hyd to other nuclei, it would be necessary to consider many details together, like the emitted field of electron and hydrogen nucleus combined, the precessions, and the emitted field of the nuclei.

            5 Hyd can penetrate any electron shell because they are neutral. So there is no need for ionization. The Hyd that will travel near enough to any nucleus that can be attracted by them, will lock to it and possibly react.

          • Gerard McEk

            Thank you Adrea for answering my questions. I also read your answers at some other locations. The last few days I used to think about the consequences of your theory.
            I know you received a lot of comment on this forum, but I hope you will also answer a few more questions that have come into my mind thinking about this.
            If you assume that a ‘point charge’ spirals around with the speed of light, than that point charge cannot have any mass. I assume that the electron mass equals the total energy confined in this spiralling and circling point charge.
            Q1a: What force makes the point charge spiralling? (It cannot be the mass, or can it?). At the same time this spiralling charge circles a sphere or a globe or trajectory with a diameter of 386 fm. Q1b: Again, what force would causes this spiralling charge making this trajectory and (Q1c:) how can this be stable in time?
            Q2: Do you postulate this just to suit the explanation of LENR?
            Q3: Is all this in line with the quantum mechanics?
            If this all is true, than we need to rethink what matter is. Are you familiar with the work of Stoyan Sarg? http://www.helical-structures.org/Publications/Sarg-Cold-Fusion-feasibility.pdf

          • Andrea Calaon

            Dear Gerard,
            The point charge can not have mass.
            You say “ I assume that the electron mass equals the total energy confined in this spiralling and circling point charge.”. I guess you assume correctly.
            However the “standard” interpretation of QM sort of “forbids” to look “inside” particles. They have all the properties they have and that is it.
            The Zitterbewegung anyway is a solid consequence of the Dirac equation, which is the best equation we have for describing the electron, even at relativistic speeds.
            So the electron has the ZB. No one will ever object it.
            The Dirac equation, as all the rest of QM is commonly written without an “algebra”, using instead complex numbers and matrices of complex numbers, which are the convoluted tools you have to resort to if you have only “vector spaces”. This “matrix complexity” hides the geometrical significance of the variables. Geometric Algebra instead (the algebra I was mentioning) allows to easily see that for example the equation of Dirac describes in 4D the plane where the ZB takes place, which is orthogonal to the electron spin direction.

            If you google “Geometric Algebra” you will find what everyone should have studied at school. It is the algebra we all should be using for multidimensional things.

            Most of the studies about the ZB in detail have been done by David Hestenes, who has been proposing the use of Geometric Algebra for all his life, not only for QM. I use one of his publications as reference for the ZB.

            Q1: The charge has a helical motion. Nothing more. The helix diameter is 386 [fm] for an external observer when the electron is not flying at relativistic speeds. You are asking the reason for the “structure” of the electron. The standard QM does not answer this. I have some ideas. And some suggestions from friends. But I don’t want to receive another avalanche of questions and objections. So I will not mention them. Anyway it is stable and many think it is a self-interaction.
            Q2: Absolutely not. Answer 1 clarifies this.
            Q3: Yes. The ZB is a consequence of the most “complete” QM equation, the equation of Dirac, which is the relativistic version of the Schrödinger Equation that contemplates the interaction of spin with an external field.I am not familiar with the work of Stoyan Sarg

        • Thomas Clarke

          You do find new nuclei as reaction products (what is an alpha particle?), and the Hyd is particularly easy to find because simple – one hadron+ 1 lepton – even simpler than alpha.

          • Andrea Calaon

            How would you detect it? It has no charge. Inelastic and elastic scattering? Or through the detection of isotopic shifts?

          • Thomas Clarke

            It would look a bit like a neutron. However given the size you claim (quite large) it would have significant electrostatic quadrupole. It would interact electrostatically with atoms, particles, etc.

            If it is small enough to catalyse nuclear reactions it would be detected in the same way as a slow neutron.

            Eitehr way it would be found in experiments because massive therefore the missing mass would be a clue. Conventional experimental physics, unlike most LENR work, views every anomaly as a chance to check and recheck, track things down and maybe discover new physics. So a “missing mass” anomaly would result in very persistent checking!

          • Andrea Calaon

            The Hyd would have a large electric dipole moment. The displacement vector would pulsate at the ZB circular frequency, 2.47E20 [Hz].

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Dr. Docherty,
      In a sense the Hyd IS the hydrino. The difference is that the Hyd is not a small atom. It is the hydrogen nucleus bound to move along the Zitterbewegung race-track of the electron. The size of a Hyd is exactly equal to the size of the electron: Diameter = 386 [fm].

      You can read more about the Hyd on the draft of the article for the proceedings of ICCF19 on this page:
      http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html
      The NAE does not need energy concentration, despite the fact that everyone is looking for mechanisms to increase and localize the kinetic energy.
      Instead the NAE is something that in a way “slows down” the electron.
      I do not understand your cone and the vortexes.
      The probability of more than one unconventional ingredient for the explanation of all LENR is very near to zero.I think that all LENR are due to the same fundamental mechanism: the generation of Hyd. What is manifold is the NAE. Several completely different systems can make an orbital “oscillate” at radio frequencies with all necessary features.

  • Gerard McEk

    Thomas, I sympathize with your approach of energy conservation, however to really understand the total balance, you need to know all the changes in the ‘fuel’. I do not believe that quantities were measured of the ‘ash’, at least not of the light components (H2, D2, T2, He). From that point of view calculations are impossible to make. Maybe other reactions (isotopic shifts and transmutations) took place which were strongly endothermic, but were happening below the sensitivity of these measurements.
    So maybe it is too early for your kind of approach, because not everything is known and measured and there are questions about the energy released, but I agree that it would be the best proof of the pudding.

  • qzero

    ”Tiny grains of lithium dramatically improve performance of fusion plasma”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520100611.htm

    • Rheulan

      Thanks for the link! It seems some mainstream physicists are paying attention to the latest LENR developments.

  • Sergiu

    Is 1836 Hz the magic frequency that needs to be applied then? Should the width of the pulse be very short or the amplitude very high? This kind of signal can be easily generated with PWM.

    Wondering what would happen if water electrolysis would be done with such a pulsed current instead of continuous current…

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Sergiu,
      I don’t know if 1836 Hz is magic, it is the p/e mass ration, and it comes from the simplest way of considering the charge rotation inside the electron and the nucleons. A pulse contains a broad range of frequencies, so a pulse should not be necessary if you are emitting the right one. Another mater is if you want to control power density …
      I would like to know as well what would happen in CF experiments if low RF were applied to devices while they are producing excess heat.

      • Thomas Clarke

        OK – this worries me very much.

        Dimensional analysis:
        p/e mass ratio – scalar
        1836 Hz (1/t)

        No way can the 1863 p/e mass ratio have any relationship to 1836 Hz.

        This is very deeply wrong at a fundamental level so I’m hoping I’ve misunderstood what you are saying.

        • Andrea Calaon

          If you take some time and read my short article you should understand. 1836 is the difference between two frequencies, so it is a frequency.

        • Andrea Calaon

          You are right Thomas,
          I have already replied above.

      • Gerard McEk

        Andrea, I hope to make a LENR controller with a variable AC (PWM pulsed) frequency (high currents with short PWM pulses) to heat the coil and induce EM in the core of the reactor. Do you advice this 1836 frequency as the frequency which should be at least attainable? (Or should it go to e.g. 10 kHz). What would you specify?

        • Andrea Calaon

          Thomas Clarke helped my understand that the 1836 is a mistake.
          It is the ratio of the two intrinsic frequencies, and the highest is VERY high (4.5E23 Hz) , and not a difference of frequencies. So the number/frequency should not be useful. Sorry

          • Gerard McEk

            That is a pitty, so it is unlikely that frequencies in the order of 1-10 kHz have any influence, according to your theory.
            Thanks anyway and also thanks Thomas Clarke, who sharpens the minds of the theorists who try to bring light in how LENR may function.

      • Andrea Calaon

        Some time ago I answered on this thread and, among the many interesting questions, Thomas Clarke helped me understand a huge mistake I had made in estimating the coupling frequency that would allow to have the magnetic attraction between the electron and a hydrogen nucleus.

        Now I have a correction for that frequency.

        The coupling should manifest not only when the the intrinsic frequencies of the two particle are identical, but also when one is an integer number of times the other. The ratio between the intrinsic frequency of the proton and that of the electron is (as precise as it is known) 1836.15267389. The delta frequency necessary for the electron intrinsic frequency to become equal to 1/1836th of the nucleons’ frequency is therefore:

        This coupling frequency corresponds to an energy of 85 [eV] or, equivalently a radiation with a wavelength of 14.6 [nm], in the Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV) range.
        Only non-valence orbitals of nuclei with proton number higher than 2 reach this energy. Such core orbitals share always the space around the nucleus with other interpenetrated orbitals. This should prevent the coupling and be the reason why Hyd normally are not produced.

        It may be interesting to note that 85 [eV] is not too different from the second ionization energy of lithium, 75.64 [eV], which is by far the highest of all second ionization energies, because the second electron is subtracted from the first principal energy level.

        A possibly interesting fact is that this energy is precisely at the upper limit of the unusual radiation that Randell Mills measures in his plasma ([8]). Emission in the EUV range is absorbed very efficiently in matter and readily transformed into heat, so if the Hyd emit mainly in this range the radiation could remain easily quite confined inside the solid matrix.

        If the NAE in not in a plasma, it should be an electron orbital that has an energy of 85 [eV] and no other internal orbitals. However, as already mentioned, the energy is so high that it can be reached only with nuclei with a proton number > 2. And all orbitals with this energy have always inner orbitals. My “extreme guess” is now that it could be enough for the proton to travel very rapidly near to a naked energetic orbital for the coupling to take place … If this is the case an ionized (+1) Li atom touched lightly by a hydrogen nucleus that has the missing energy (84.985 – 75.6402 = 9.345 [eV]), could provide the necessary frequency and lead to the formation of a Hyd.

        Thomas Clarke, fact police what do you think?

  • Sergiu

    Is 1836 Hz the magic frequency that needs to be applied then? Should the width of the pulse be very short or the amplitude very high? This kind of signal can be easily generated with PWM.

    Wondering what would happen if water electrolysis would be done with such a pulsed current instead of continuous current…

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Sergiu,
      I don’t know if 1836 Hz is magic, it is the p/e mass ratio, and it comes from the simplest way of considering the charge rotation inside the electron and the nucleons. A pulse contains a broad range of frequencies, so a pulse should not be necessary if you are emitting the right one. Another mater is if you want to control power density …
      I would like to know as well what would happen in CF experiments if low RF were applied to devices while they are producing excess heat.

      • Thomas Clarke

        OK – this worries me very much.

        Dimensional analysis:
        p/e mass ratio – scalar
        1836 Hz (1/t)

        No way can the 1863 p/e mass ratio have any relationship to 1836 Hz.

        This is very deeply wrong at a fundamental level so I’m hoping I’ve misunderstood what you are saying.

        • Andrea Calaon

          If you take some time and read my short article you should understand. 1836 is the difference between two frequencies, so it is a frequency.
          The fact that 1836 coincides with the mass ratio hints that mass is somehow proportional to a frequency…

          • Thomas Clarke

            Andrea:

            (1) if 1836 is the difference between two frequencies that is fine. What are the frequencies?

            (2) This is completely wrong. There is no such hint because 1836 (as a number) is arbitrary. Choose different units: radians per second, cycles per hour, etc you get a different number. So this “hint” is 100% wrong.

          • Andrea Calaon

            (2) You get 1836… only using the magnetic
            moments of the particles, their g-factors, and the charge rotations. It is the ratio of the intrinsic frequencies of proton and electron. After getting it I noticed it is identical to the mass ratio. But it could be
            something that happens “by definition”. May be you can check if it is the case.
            At ICCF19 some Russian approached me saying that a Russian scientist some year ago had found something similar. So far I haven’t received a comment on this.

        • Andrea Calaon

          You are right Thomas,
          I have already replied above.

      • Gerard McEk

        Andrea, I hope to make a LENR controller with a variable AC (PWM pulsed) frequency (high currents with short PWM pulses) to heat the coil and induce EM in the core of the reactor. Do you advice this 1836 frequency as the frequency which should be at least attainable? (Or should it go to e.g. 10 kHz). What would you specify?

        • Andrea Calaon

          Thomas Clarke helped me to understand that the 1836 is a mistake.
          It is the ratio of the two intrinsic frequencies, and the highest is VERY high (4.5E23 Hz) , and not a difference of frequencies. So the number/frequency should not be useful. Sorry

          • Gerard McEk

            That is a pitty, so it is unlikely that frequencies in the order of 1-10 kHz have any influence, according to your theory.
            Thanks anyway and also thanks Thomas Clarke, who sharpens the minds of the theorists who try to bring light in how LENR may function.

  • peter gluck

    My tangential comments to this paper are on my blog EGO OUT
    It is time to inject realism and pragmatism in Cold Fusion/LENR theories

    Peter

  • peter gluck

    My tangential comments to this paper are on my blog EGO OUT
    It is time to inject realism and pragmatism in Cold Fusion/LENR theories

    Peter

  • James Andrew Rovnak
  • James Andrew Rovnak

    http://www.enea.it/it/produzione-scientifica/pdf-eai/n2-2014/rf-detection-and-anomalous-heat.pdf Some LENR related frequency responses Andrea Calaon/Axil Should try some of this with Ni LiAlH4 replication test to find the EM sensitivities!

  • Andrea Calaon

    Dear Thomas,
    You can find more details in the draft of my article for ICCF19 at this address:
    http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/iccf-19.html
    1 – Because Hyd are like new nuclei and not fundamental particles. Accelerators collide fundamental particles and form others as fragments of the collisions. Moreover Hyd do not originate thanks to high energy. It is somehow the opposite, they form when the electron is sort of “slowed down”.
    2 – See answer 1. I can also add that the special mechanisms that can lead to the formation of Hyd are not present in high energy collisions. These mechanism require long coherence times, which is somehow the opposite of a high energy collision.
    3 – The standard model is untouched. Only the nuclear force (which is not part of the Standard Model) should be interpreted in the correct way as mainly due to an electromagnetic interaction.
    4 – The Cold Fusion theory I have proposed does not entail special features of the weak or the strong interactions.
    5 – I am not questioning quantization or QM. If there are intermediate eigenvalues of the Hyd energy the emitted photons will reflect them. I do not have the Hamiltonian of the bound Hyd state, so I am not able to precisely evaluate energies and states. What I used is just the explanation of the nuclear force as an magnetic attraction that manifests between synchronous rotating charges.
    On the other hand I have a few non-conventional ideas about QM, but they play no role whatsoever in the Cold Fusion theory I described.

    Experimental issues:

    1 – As I said, there are no neutrons because all Cold Fusion reactions producing neutrons are endothermic and require tritium. Soft gammas are easily absorbed by solid matter, plus a large part of the energy is fractionated into even less energetic photons due to the many levels present for the acceleration of the electrons and nuclei.
    2 – About the reactions of Ni and Li n the Hot Cat and my comments about the energy balance and the representativity of the samples, you can look at the pdf document at the end of this page:
    http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/
    2 – The Hyd explain all Cold Fusion phenomena. If you name one I will try to explain it. I try always to compare experimental data with theoretical prediction. So far I haven’t got stuck. Edmund Storms is very positive about my theory, so my guess is that it actually passes most of the tests …

  • Axil Axil

    This proposed theory fails because it does not demonstrate action at a distance. In experiments with exploding titanium wires, the exploding wire is placed in an icompletely 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 urnium.

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

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Axil Axil,

      thank you for the interesting article about exploding Titanium wires.
      With the premise that I am not into exploding wires, I have to say that in the description and in the pictures of the article I do not see the double water filled chamber you are describing. Instead I see a steel shell with inside an externally pressurized high-density polyethylene sealed vessel. Inside the polyethylene vessel there is bidistilled water plus salts and two Ti electrodes, one in foil form.

      The article says:
      “… if some salt of a metal having several isotopes is added to bidistilled water, the number of admixture atoms from the solution that get to the plasma channel would be small compared to the number of Ti atoms.”
      From this I understand that the authors wanted to verify if only the wire and the plasma of the explosion (that invests only a small portion of the solution) are affected by the strange isotopic shifts, or if the nuclear reactions can instead invest the entire surrounding volume occupied by bidistilled water plus salts. The whole water solution volume is clearly much larger than the volume where the plasma forms.

      The experiments described are a very strong confirmation of the presence of a neutral radiation, that can collect nuclei, cause special nuclear reactions privileging stable nuclei, and that has a large magnetic moment. It really seems the description of the Hyd. But let us analyze things more carefully.

      The radiation emanates from the exploding electrode wire and invests the surrounding solution. Since the isotopic shifts are significant the neutral radiation must have reached in part the polyethylene vessel. And in fact the radiation even partly escaped the steel vessel as well!

      In this case it seems U238 has a larger cross section for Hyd then U235 despite having no magnetic moment of first order, while U235 has one. So, as the results of the Lugano test already showed, the first order magnetic moment does not give a complete picture for what regards the cross section with Hyd.

      Hyd can capture more nuclei on their way, always along electron ZB race-track. The nuclei inside the Hyd meet at almost no excess kinetic energy and sort-of disassemble slowly (I admit that I will have to explore and develop much better this part of the theory), so taht the nuclei have the possibility to “explore many combinations” up to when they find the combination that minimizes the excess energy that has to be released as kinetic, when the Hyd breaks apart. Those combinations seem exactly the ones found by Doctor Fillipov and confirmed in the experiments.

      The “collectivity” of the reactions is due to the collecting capability of the Hyd. I agree with the conclusion that “Since weak interactions are characterized by small cross-sections, a catalyst is needed”. The catalyst that is able to gather more nuclei in a few femtometer range is exactly the electron which acts as a “race-track for nuclei”.

      It seems the Hyd flux was so intense that it managed to exit the steel chamber. I would not stand near to these experiments …

      There are no delta electrons because the Hyd have no charge and do not knock off electrons from orbitals.

      The conclusion that “The particle which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons” is wrong because the authors do not consider the existence of a neutral radiation which is not made of neutrons, which is precisely made of Hyd.

      The conclusion “The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper” is right.

      Another interesting feature is the fact that the traces were strongly influenced by a magnetic field. This confirms that the neutral particle has a large magnetic moment. In fact the magnetic moment of the Hyd is similar to that of the electron, about one thousand times larger than any nuclear magnetic moment.

      The “strange” radiation is precisely the consequence of neutral Hyd crossing solid matter. It is precisely one of the most evident while unusual evidences that are in agreement with the theory I am proposing.

      Summarizing. The article you suggested is one of the most compelling evidences in favour of the existence of the Hyd.
      Axil Axil, I have to thank you because I had never explored carefully the exploding wire experiments.

      • Axil Axil

        The premise of the paper is that a monopole is the cause of the reaction. That monopole is particle like and is free to move in liquid/plasma based reactions. This electron based monople (AKA EV as per Ken Shoulders) is also formed in the proton 21 experiments and LeClairs cavatation experiments. The reason why the LENR causation particle is monipole and not a Hyd is that the monopole can contain a large amount of kinetic energy and the Hyg cannot. Think of this monople as a nano sized ball lightning.

        Proton 21 has measured the energy content of this electron vortex at hundreds of MeVs, LeClair has seen holes in this walls and in the trees outside his office caused by these monopoles that have pass through the walls of his reactor. LeClair has see a monopole eat through 2 meters of copper. The energy content of that monopoles is truly mind boggling. The Hyd cannot carry such huge amounts of energy.

        You are mistaking the EV, aka soliton, aka ball lightning, aka monopole for the Hyd. The idea behind the Hyd is just to overcome the coulumb barrier whereas the soliton carries huge energy that produces the nuclear reactions and can move freely through space.

        • Andrea Calaon

          I see, Ok.

  • Axil Axil

    This proposed 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,

      thank you for the interesting article about exploding Titanium wires.
      With the premise that I am not into exploding wires, I have to say that in the description and in the pictures of the article I do not see the double water filled chamber you are describing. Instead I see a steel shell with inside an externally pressurized high-density polyethylene sealed vessel. Inside the polyethylene vessel there is bidistilled water plus salts and two Ti electrodes, one in foil form.

      The article says:
      “… if some salt of a metal having several isotopes is added to bidistilled water, the number of admixture atoms from the solution that get to the plasma channel would be small compared to the number of Ti atoms.”
      From this I understand that the authors wanted to verify if only the wire and the plasma of the explosion (that invests only a small portion of the solution) are affected by the strange isotopic shifts, or if the nuclear reactions can instead invest the entire surrounding volume occupied by bidistilled water plus salts. The whole water solution volume is clearly much larger than the volume where the plasma forms.

      The experiments described are a very strong confirmation of the presence of a neutral radiation, that can collect nuclei, cause special nuclear reactions privileging stable nuclei, and that has a large magnetic moment. It really seems the description of the Hyd. But let us analyse things more carefully.

      The radiation emanates from the exploding electrode wire and invests the surrounding solution. Since the isotopic shifts are significant the neutral radiation must have reached in part the polyethylene vessel. And in fact the radiation even partly escaped the steel vessel as well!

      In this case it seems U238 has a larger cross section for Hyd then U235 despite having no magnetic moment of first order, while U235 has one. So, as the results of the Lugano test already showed, the first order magnetic moment does not give a complete picture for what regards the cross section with Hyd.

      Hyd can capture more nuclei on their way, always along electron ZB race-track. The nuclei inside the Hyd meet at almost no excess kinetic energy and sort-of disassemble slowly (I admit that I will have to explore and develop much better this part of the theory), so that the nuclei have the possibility to “explore many combinations” up to when they find the combination that minimizes the excess energy that has to be released as kinetic, when the Hyd breaks apart. Those combinations seem exactly the ones found by Doctor Fillipov and confirmed in the experiments.

      The “collectivity” of the reactions is due to the collecting capability of the Hyd.

      I agree with the conclusion that “Since weak interactions are characterized by small cross-sections, a catalyst is needed”. The catalyst that is able to gather more nuclei in a few femtometer range is exactly the electron which acts as a “race-track for nuclei”.

      It seems the Hyd flux was so intense that it managed to exit the steel chamber. I wouldn’t have stand near those experiments …

      There are no delta electrons because the Hyd have no charge and do not knock off electrons from orbitals.

      The conclusion that “The particle which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons” is wrong because the authors do not consider the existence of a neutral radiation which is not made of neutrons, which is precisely made of Hyd.

      The conclusion “The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper” is right.

      Another interesting feature is the fact that the traces were strongly influenced by a magnetic field. This confirms that the neutral particle has a large magnetic moment. In fact the magnetic moment of the Hyd is similar to that of the electron, about one thousand times larger than any nuclear magnetic moment.

      The “strange” radiation is the consequence of neutral Hyd crossing solid matter. It is precisely one of the most evident while unusual experimental result that are in agreement with the theory I am proposing.

      Summarizing. The article you suggested is one of the most compelling evidences in favour of the existence of the Hyd.
      Axil Axil, I have to thank you because I had never explored carefully the exploding wire experiments.

      • Axil Axil

        The premise of the paper is that a monopole is the cause of the reaction. That monopole is particle like and is free to move in liquid/plasma based reactions. This electron based monople (AKA EV as per Ken Shoulders) is also formed in the proton 21 experiments and LeClairs cavatation experiments. The reason why the LENR causation particle is a monipole and not a Hyd is that the monopole can contain a large amount of kinetic energy and the Hyg cannot. Think of this monople as a nano sized ball lightning.

        Proton 21 has measured the energy content of this electron vortex at hundreds of MeVs, LeClair has seen holes in this walls and in the trees outside his office caused by these monopoles that have pass through the walls of his reactor. LeClair has see a monopole eat through 2 meters of copper. The energy content of that monopoles is truly mind boggling. The Hyd cannot carry such huge amounts of energy.

        You are mistaking the EV, aka SPP “dark mode” soliton, aka ball lightning, aka monopole for the Hyd. The idea behind the Hyd is just to overcome the coulumb barrier whereas the soliton carries huge energy that produces the nuclear reactions and can move freely through space.

        • Andrea Calaon

          I see, Ok.

  • Mark

    Good job Andrea in deflecting all the criticisms so far … if it fails to be falsified then it remains a candidate for truth 🙂

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Mark,
      I interpret the comments more as possible precious occasions of improvement or suggestions of a better explanation, more than pointless critics.

    • Axil Axil

      The theorist who is defending his position has failed to explain how this proposed paticle can penitrate a thich layer of glass to produce a uranium based fusion reaction in a seperated, completely enclosed, and isolated water filled chamber. Is ignoring a good faith attemp at peer review the true path to truth?

      • Dave Lawton

        I know. Its the same way ball lightning appears to pass through solid glass. It disassembles itself and then reassembles itself the other-side of the glass wall.

        • Axil Axil

          Yes, ball lightning is SPP vortex operating on the macro scale. The vortex of electrons becomes free roaming and mobile. Upon encountering an obstruction, the vortex using electomagnetic plasma based interaction through the obstruction produces a copy of itself on the other side of the glass.

          http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/ball-lightning-121012.htm

          EMF is how LENR can go through glass to cause nuclear reactions in uranium salts.

          • Omega Z

            Axil
            That’s all well & fine as long as it stays put & doesn’t head my way.
            🙂

      • Andrea Calaon

        Hi Axil,
        Please give me time for answering this avalanche of posts. I will answer you. But I also have a life with work, kids, music.
        Thanks

    • Mark

      It is only through good/valid criticism that we learn something new, otherwise things stay the way they are and we have failed to learn anything new … related to the topic … except maybe the biases of the players involved.

  • Omega Z

    Your number s are the overall numbers.
    I believe the last few hours indicated very close to 3.5Kw.
    If I find the time, I’ll take another look.

  • Andrea Calaon

    Dear Mark,
    I interpret the comments more as possible precious occasions of improvement or suggestions of a better explanation, more than pointless critics.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Ok – I’m putting a pointer here to a matter that anyone contemplating this idea should consider.

    1836 is the p/e mass ratio. A scalar. Andrea says below that this is the reason you need 1836 Hz. A frequency.

    That is impossible – deeply wrong because seconds are not a natural unit and you cannot therefore compare a number (1836) with a frequencies measured in units of 1/second. The latter unit is arbitrary. Dimensional analysis means you cannot equate ratios and frequencies.

    This is a big deal – but maybe I’ve just misunderstood Andrea below.

    Apologies for not joining this discussion earlier – I’ve now replied to all Andreas’ replies to my first comments I think. However, this 1836 problem is separate from that and more fundamental.

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Thomas,
      about the 1836 issue you are right. It is a silly mistake and I will need to reconsider the electron – nucleon coupling conditions. Let me anyway try so answer to your other many questions and observations. I will not have too much time in the weekend. I will do my best.

    • Andrea Calaon

      I would like to add that you get 1836… only using the magnetic moments of the particles, their g-factors, and the charge rotations. I then noticed it is identical to the mass ratio. But it could be something that happens “by definition”.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Ok – I’m putting a pointer here to a matter that anyone contemplating this idea should consider.

    1836 is the p/e mass ratio. A scalar. Andrea says below that this is the reason you need 1836 Hz. A frequency.

    That is impossible – deeply wrong because seconds are not a natural unit and you cannot therefore compare a number (1836) with a frequencies measured in units of 1/second. The latter unit is arbitrary. Dimensional analysis means you cannot equate ratios and frequencies.

    This is a big deal – but maybe I’ve just misunderstood Andrea below.

    Apologies for not joining this discussion earlier – I’ve now replied to all Andreas’ replies to my first comments I think. However, this 1836 problem is separate from that and more fundamental.

    • Andrea Calaon

      Dear Thomas,
      about the 1836 issue you are right. It is a silly mistake and I will need to reconsider the electron – nucleon coupling conditions. Let me anyway try so answer your other many questions and observations. I will not have too much time in the weekend. I will do my best.

    • Andrea Calaon

      I would like to add that you get 1836… only using the magnetic moments of the particles, their g-factors, and the charge rotations. I then noticed it is identical to the mass ratio. But it could be something that happens “by definition”.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Andrea,

    I regret that I did not, below, address your point that QCD is unpredictaive and cannot be calculated.

    Your reference was 2006.

    Have a look at a 2013 review:

    http://www-physics.lbl.gov/seminars/old/LBLRPM.pdf

    • Andrea Calaon

      Thank you Thomas!

      I will read the reference carefully trying to understand as much as I can. Cheers

  • Thomas Clarke

    Andrea,

    I regret that I did not, below, address your point that QCD is unpredictaive and cannot be calculated.

    Your reference was 2006.

    Have a look at a 2013 review:

    http://www-physics.lbl.gov/seminars/old/LBLRPM.pdf

    • Andrea Calaon

      Thank you Thomas!

      I will read the reference carefully trying to understand as much as I can. Cheers

  • Andrea Calaon

    Thomas,
    I think I have made clear my position on the Standard Model, QCD and nuclear force in my exchange with police.
    If 26 years after Cold Fusion became first public we are still discussing about its mechanism, PART OF IT MUST BE SOMETHING NOT COMMONLY ACCEPTED BY THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS. So, I chose one, and only one, uncommon ingredient, already present in the scientific literature. I used the proposal of Prof. Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook (made in the ‘80s), and assumed that the nuclear force is mainly electromagnetic (or electroweak). In this way I can say that the nuclear force mechanism could manifest between electron and naked nuclei. Without this assumptions electrons would not participate because, as everyone knows, they do no interact through the strong force. Simple as this. I think the strong interaction, whatever it is, remains confined inside nucleons, with families of quarks, colour charge, 8 gluons, asymptotic freedom, and all the rest.
    QCD has predicted the existence (not the mass), of a number of particles and is a huge achievement.
    I repeat what I have already said to make things even more clear:
    I am not suggesting something against a sea of evidence, theory and history. I am just using an ingredient that was proposed and published by expert physicists (Dallacasa and Cook), NOT BY ME. So actually what I did is only putting things together, may be clumsily.

    Answering your questions:

    Testing the Hyd theory in the “particle way” I guess could be done for example trying to deflect the Hyd through a magnetic field and verify that the mass and the magnetic moment are not those of the neutron.

    Once you have the electron binding to naked nuclei a long series of Cold Fusion evidences can be explained, or at least have at least a chance of being explained, including the titanium wire explosions proposed by Axil Axil.

    If the mechanism of generation of Hyd (the NAE) is (for example) related to the properties of a closed orbital, high energy collisions should not be able to generate them, I imagine. In this case it should not be a problem of energy, but of mechanism. And this mechanism must somehow be related and reachable through chemistry and electromagnetic stimulation.

    Now I hope you understand that your recommendation/suggestion/critics:

    “Physics is not just some vague idea scribbled down. It is something put together with much pain, effort, and trial and error, and validated through predictions it makes. Some bits better validated than others. You here are I feel not being polite to the very many ground-breaking physicists who have contributed to our current not complete but amazlngly accurate understanding of subatomic physics. Surely it is worth looking at the experimental evidence that supports this when proposing something different?”.
    is out of place. I don’t think I am underestimating any overwhelmingly proven and successful part of physics. The idea that the nuclear force could be mainly electromagnetic and not the a residual strong interaction is not mine and not new. If anyone will show (not suggest through an elegant and complex architecture) that the nuclear potential is really due to the strong interaction I will simply acknowledge that the proposal of Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook is not correct. I don’t think what you have written is appropriate for these two scientists either, who, differently from me, really know the subject and doubt about the correctness of the residual strong force. I think they proposed their theory without being impolite “to the very many ground-breaking physicists …”

  • Andrea Calaon

    (2) You get 1836… only using the magnetic
    moments of the particles, their g-factors, and the charge rotations. It is the ratio of the intrinsic frequencies of proton and electron. After getting it I noticed it is identical to the mass ratio. But it could be
    something that happens “by definition”. May be you can check if it is the case.
    At ICCF19 some Russian approached me saying that a Russian scientist some year ago had found something similar. So far I haven’t received a comment on this.

  • Andrea Calaon

    Dear police, dear Thomas,
    to support our chats, I have found an interesting article (simply arXiv) about the state of the art of Lattice QCD in 2013, that you probably know already:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4752

    The author (Martin J. Savage) is confident in the future success of QCD, and declares: “Ideally, one would start with a LQCD calculation and predict all of the quantities of interest in low-energy nuclear physics. Presently, we are not in a position to do this”. So there is still some time to wait. Many masses have now been post-dicted and this for sure is the nth success of QCD for the single nucleons and their inner structure.

    police: I am definitely NOT qualified for judging QCD and its chances because I know only its version “for dummies”. My work as engineer has hardened me towards “only seeing is believing” (I hope you understand what I mean). This is why I am convinced CF is real, by the way.

    My statement about the civilization and the lack of understanding of the nuclear force when answering to Axil Axil was just a strong statement that I thought would match the strong claims of Axil Axil (which is where all this discussion started from).

    Anyway my conclusion so far is that without a more or less stable coupling between electron and a hydrogen nucleus it simply not possible to explain the evidences of CF. And the coupling explains qualitatively many experimental results. What could be the reason of such coupling if not an electromagnetic origin of the nuclear force? I am with almost no other choices left.

    I am looking forward to see what the Lattice simulations will say.
    Thank again you both for your engagement with me.

  • Andrea Calaon

    Some time ago I answered on this thread and, among the many interesting questions, Thomas Clarke helped me understand a huge mistake I had made in estimating the coupling frequency that would allow to have the magnetic attraction between the electron and a hydrogen nucleus.

    Now I have a correction for that frequency.

    The coupling should manifest not only when the the intrinsic frequencies of the two particle are identical, but also when one is an integer number of times the other. The ratio between the intrinsic frequency of the proton and that of the electron is (as precise as it is known) 1836.15267389. The delta frequency necessary for the electron intrinsic frequency to become equal to 1/1836th of the nucleons’ frequency is therefore:

    This coupling frequency corresponds to an energy of 85 [eV] or, equivalently a radiation with a wavelength of 14.6 [nm], in the Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV) range.
    Only non-valence orbitals of nuclei with proton number higher than 2 reach this energy. Such core orbitals share always the space around the nucleus with other interpenetrated orbitals. This should prevent the coupling and be the reason why Hyd normally are not produced.

    It may be interesting to note that 85 [eV] is not too different from the second ionization energy of lithium, 75.64 [eV], which is by far the highest of all second ionization energies, because the second electron is subtracted from the first principal energy level.

    A possibly interesting fact is that this energy is precisely at the upper limit of the unusual radiation that Randell Mills measures in his plasma ([8]). Emission in the EUV range is absorbed very efficiently in matter and readily transformed into heat, so if the Hyd emit mainly in this range the radiation could remain easily quite confined inside the solid matrix.

    If the NAE is not in a plasma, it should be an electron orbital that has an energy of 85 [eV] and no other internal orbitals. However, as already mentioned, the energy is so high that it can be reached only with nuclei with a proton number > 2. And all orbitals with this energy have always inner orbitals. My “extreme guess” is now that it could be enough for the proton to travel very rapidly near to a naked energetic orbital for the coupling to take place … If this is the case an ionized (+1) Li atom touched lightly by a hydrogen nucleus that has the missing energy (84.985 – 75.6402 = 9.345 [eV]), could provide the necessary frequency and lead to the formation of a Hyd.

    Thomas Clarke, fact police what do you think?