New LENR Paper: “Thermal Resonance Fusion” from China Institute of Atomic Energy

Thanks to Lou Pagnucco on the LENR Forum for posting a link to a newly published paper on Arxiv.org titled “Thermal Resonance Fusion” by Bao-Guo Dong of the China Institute of Atomic Energy in Beijing, China, in which the author proposes a mechanism for a new way of producing nuclear fusion.

Interestingly, this is the same institute that sponsored the experimental LENR work of Songsheng Jiang which was published in a report in May 2015 — so here’s another indication of Chinese interest in LENR.

Here’s a summary of the proposed mechanism from the article:

In summary, we have suggested a possible mechanism to create a new type of nuclear fusion, thermal resonance fusion, i.e. low energy nuclear fusion with thermal resonance of light nuclei or atoms, such as D or T. The fusion of two light nuclei has to overcome the Coulomb barrier between them to reach the interacting region of nuclear force. We found low energy nuclear fusion could be realized with thermal vibrations of crystal lattice atoms
coupling with light atoms at low energy by resonance to overcome this Coulomb barrier. The other mechanism is the thermal resonance combining with the tunnel effect to realize the fusion

The abstract and link to full text can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.01650

  • Guest

    Wow! They are fast

  • Guest

    Wow! They are fast

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    The paper’s main references are from Wikipedia ? :-/

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    The paper’s main references are from Wikipedia ? :-/

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, like the infrared stretching frequencies of the hydride bonds (see comments). http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/
    Are there references from Axil Axil in ECW that he could add to his paper or is this going to be like an Einstein relativity paper with no references to the earlier works of Jules Henri Poincaré who wrote M = E/C^2.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, like the infrared stretching frequencies of the hydride bonds (see comments). http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/
    Are there references from Axil Axil in ECW that he could add to his paper or is this going to be like an Einstein relativity paper with no references to the earlier works of Jules Henri Poincaré who wrote M = E/C^2.

  • Bernie Simon

    This paper is not much more than hand waving and is not going to be taken seriously by the physics community.

    • Job001

      The physics community, due to “funding biased spokesmen” seems to have taken a serious credibility beating, especially given that condensed material physics assumptions are not plasma physics assumptions.

      On the other hand, this paper has what appears to be somewhat weak theoretical and experimental basis given it pays lip service to the phony coulomb barrier heuristic that is not even in play for many proposed mechanisms such as heavy neutrons or virtual particles or lattice shielding or altered energetic electron shielding or lattice energy fractionation or whatever.
      Other evidence the coulomb barrier is irrelevant(for what is happening for LENR) is the absence of hard radiation typically resulting when the coulomb barrier is relevant in plasma physics but not necessarily in energized condensed matter.

    • GreenWin

      And not particularly original hand waving. But it does suggest China is on the LENR path.

    • Dave Lawton

      That is a very sweeping statement. Statements are static and gather dust so how do
      you know its not going to be taken seriously by the physics community ?

  • Bernie Simon

    This paper is not much more than hand waving and is not going to be taken seriously by the physics community.

    • Job001

      The physics community, due to “funding biased spokesmen” seems to have taken a serious credibility beating, especially given that condensed material physics assumptions are not plasma physics assumptions.

      On the other hand, this paper has what appears to be somewhat weak theoretical and experimental basis given it pays lip service to the phony coulomb barrier heuristic that is not even in play for many proposed mechanisms such as heavy neutrons or virtual particles or lattice shielding or altered energetic electron shielding or lattice energy fractionation or whatever.
      Other evidence the coulomb barrier is irrelevant(for what is happening for LENR) is the absence of hard radiation typically resulting when the coulomb barrier is relevant in plasma physics but not necessarily in energized condensed matter.

      • Bernie Simon

        I think a big part of the misunderstanding that arises when arguing whether LENR (or anything else) is scientific is that the term is used in two different senses and people argue past each other. First, whether the experiments are well done and can be replicated. But second, whether the observations can be reduced to known scientific laws. To date, LENR suffers from a physics deficit. Someday this deficit will be addressed. But this paper isn’t it.

      • fact police

        Job001 wrote:

        given that condensed material physics assumptions are not plasma physics assumptions.

        A great many nuclear experiments have been done by the “physics community” in condensed matter as well, in which case, they make condensed matter assumptions. Commercial neutron sources represent nuclear reactions in the same sort of metal hydrides that are used in cold fusion experiments. All military research into atomic weapons involves reactions in condensed matter (at least to start with), and for fusion weapons, it involves metal hydrides. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators provide power for space ships from nuclear reactions that take place in condensed matter. So, condensed matter is not some exotic thing that physicists have no experience with, whether for nuclear reactions or otherwise.

        Other evidence the coulomb barrier is irrelevant(for what is happening for LENR) is the absence of hard radiation typically resulting when the coulomb barrier is relevant in plasma physics

        The absence of hard radiation cannot be taken as evidence that the Coulomb barrier is not relevant, because the absence of hard radiation is also seen when the barrier effectively prevents reactions, or in certain aneutronic reactions when the barrier is overcome; and because hard radiation *is* observed in cases where the Coulomb barrier is shielded (ineffective), as in muon catalyzed fusion.

        • Job001

          So we somewhat agree that the coulomb barrier is a “heuristic”, dependent upon conditions, assumptions, shielding, charge, configurations, energy states, magnetics and charge field and so forth. By and large for LENR not simple plasma conditions at all. Little published science seems excellent for the LENR combination of physics, material and observational science needs, a tough research arena essentially between disciplines.

          • fact police

            No, definitely not a heuristic. It the result of a real force, and applies between like charges, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to shield it or penetrate it. Muon catalyzed fusion has been known since the 50s. But shielding without exotic particles (which take energy to make) requires confining electrons, and that takes energy too. You can make neutrals first, a la WL, but that also takes more energy than penetrating the barrier. Nuclear reactions have been explored in detail, in the context of condensed matter. As I said already, a great deal of science *has* been done in exactly the context of LENR (the same metals, the same hydrogen isotopes) for commercial and military purposes.

          • Job001

            Real force has nothing to do with it being a heuristic. Due to complexity one must discover and measure how much force is involved. This is simple only for two particles. More than two and the math nears impossibility quicker than chaos. With transistors, lattice, etc. it is all a heuristic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

          • fact police

            By “real” I meant real and calculable. While large scale chemistry and biology is studied with empirical rules and generalizations, simple reactions, and especially nuclear reactions are not merely guessed at or determined by trial and error, or by empirical means. Energy levels and states and wave functions and tunneling probabilities and reactions can be calculated to exquisite accuracy for a great many subatomic scenarios involving condensed matter, and therefore many particles. Of significant relevance to this is muon catalyzed fusion, which was *predicted* before it was observed based on sound theory. Similarly, phenomena like anyons, massless Dirac fermions, BECs, lasers were all predicted before they were observed. There are surprises like superconductivity (and HTSC) as well, but if we were dealing only with heuristics, they wouldn’t be so surprising, and while it was not predicted, it was also not excluded. Some things can be predicted with confidence, and some things can be regarded as unlikely with confidence. The Coulomb barrier can be calculated to great accuracy in a wide variety of contexts, including condensed matter. It is not a heuristic.

          • bachcole

            fact police, with a handle like that, I think that you may not have a practical grasp of practical epistemology. Out here on the fringes, there are no facts. There are only degrees of certainty. And if someone told you that the Coulomb barrier is unbreachable, then you need to self-examine and ask yourself how it is that you know that and how it is that the other person knows it and said it. With wiz-bang elementary particles being used to probe the inside of the atom that are moving at a minimum of 5% of the speed of light, it is entirely possible that there may be another perspective using elementary particles that are moving at a much slower rate.

          • fact police

            bachcole wrote:

            Out here on the fringes, there are no facts.

            Perhaps there are no facts anywhere. And yet, we have coined the word. So, I use the word in the spirit in which it was coined. It is, for example, a fact that you just wrote “there are no facts”. It’s of course not absolute, but you get the drift.

            There are only degrees of certainty.

            But it’s a fact that there is a high degree of certainty that the world is not flat.

            And if someone told you that the Coulomb barrier is unbreachable, then you need to self-examine and ask yourself how it is that you know that and how it is that the other person knows it and said it.

            But I neither said that it is unbreachable, nor that anyone else said it was unbreachable. In fact, we know it is breachable. It is breached in the sun with only a few keV hydrogen isotopes. It is breached on a regular basis in palladium hydrides in commercial neutron sources. And it can be breached at much lower energies if muons are involved.

            And I’m not claiming it’s impossible in the context of cold fusion. I was merely pointing out that the physicists who have said that it is unlikely in that situation are not unfamiliar with the physics of the solid state, and that they have considered that context in great detail in fusion research for commercial and military purposes, in addition to pure scientific interest.

            It’s a common mistake to suggest, as Schwinger did, that physicists are blinkered into thinking only of plasmas when they consider the possibility of fusion. Nuclear reactions, including fusion, have been examined theoretically and experimentally in great detail in condensed matter by the physics community. That’s the fact I was trying to establish.

    • GreenWin

      And not particularly original hand waving. But it does suggest China is on the LENR path.

    • Dave Lawton

      That is a very sweeping statement. Statements are static and gather dust so how do
      you know its not going to be taken seriously by the physics community ?

    • Gerard McEk

      The combination of fusion and fission is interesting (opposite to the H-bomb), but you need a lot of lead to shield it. The usage of radioactive material excludes this technique for using it in planes because of radiation and contamination of the crash site in case of a crash.
      LENR can also produce a lot of extra heat when used in combination with fissile material, but that takes away some of the most apparent advantages (no radiation and no pollution) of LENR.

  • bachcole

    Very cool!! It confirms our observations that the Chinese are somewhat serious about LENR research.

  • bachcole

    Very cool!! It confirms our observations that the Chinese are somewhat serious about LENR research.

  • Job001

    So we somewhat agree that the coulomb barrier is a “heuristic”, dependent upon conditions, assumptions, shielding, charge, configurations, energy states, magnetics and charge field and so forth. By and large for LENR not simple plasma conditions at all. Little published science seems excellent for the LENR combination of physics, material and observational science needs, a tough research arena essentially between disciplines.