Nuclear Catalysis Mediated by Localized Anharmonic Vibrations (New Paper on by Vladimir Dubinko)

A new paper has been published on titled “Nuclear catalysis mediated by localized anharmonic vibrations” by Ukrainian researcher Vladimir Dubinko, who incidentally was one of the presenters of at the recent conference on LENR hosted by Airbus in France. He also made a presentation at the ICCF19 conference in Padua, Italy earlier this year.

Here’s an excerpt from the abstract:

Recently, it has been proposed that discrete breathers (a sub-class of LAVs [Localized Anharmonic Vibrations] arising in periodic systems) present the most natural and efficient way to produce correlation effects in regular crystals due to time-periodic modulation of the potential well (or the Coulomb barrier) width and hence to act as breather nano-colliders catalyzing low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) in solids. It has been shown that the tunneling probability for the D-D fusion under electrolysis of heavy water increases enormously with increasing number of oscillations resulting in the fusion rates comparable with those observed experimentally. In the present paper, we discuss possible ways of engineering the nuclear-active environment (NAE) and catalyzing LENR in NAE based on the LAV concept. We propose some practical ways of catalyzing LENR that are based on a special electro-magnetic treatment or electron irradiation, which trigger LAVs in crystals and clusters.

This is a complex theoretical paper, and one that I don’t feel qualified to offer an opinion on, but Dubinko does reference experimental results from LENR experiments. He notes that many replications have not been successful. He notes the work of fellow Ukrainian Nick Oseyko who has reported positive results (excess heat production) from his testing and includes photos from one experiment in his paper. Dubinko notes that Oseyko has inconsistent results from different reactors, and makes this comment about replications in general:

“This controversy of different experimental results points out to the necessity of careful examination and comparison of microstructures of successful and unsuccessful fuels, and to the need for search of new ways of triggering LENR, which could result in a higher success rate.

“One of the perspective ways of triggering LENR is to use electron beams with variable beam energy [41]. The point is that electrons hitting the target atoms displace them from equilibrium positions by the distance depending on the electron energy and the atomic mass. The displaced atoms start vibrating with frequencies inversely proportional to the initial displacements.”

The PDF to the paper can be accessed here.

  • Zephir

    Compare my comment here

    Lattice vibrations undoubtedly help the cold fusion, but in many cases the special triggering of LENR (other than heat) wasn’t really necessary

  • Job001

    The three top LENR issues seem to be;

    1)Periodic structure VII(Ni, Pd, Pt) + AI(H, Li) –>O(He) or VII+(Cu, etc)

    2)Slow loading to critical 88% minimum hydrogen saturation

    3)Self quenching due to non-engineered controls; Arrhenius exponential heat release limited by full or partial sintering quench of fuel.

    Note; When 3) has happened, the experiment was generally classified a failure when it was actually a SUCCESS!

    Consequently, many more successes have occurred than were reported.

    Down the line are the wide variety of theories, such as this time-periodic modulation of the potential well. More research needed.
    Cool idea with some positive evidence!

  • Ged

    Obviously, to test this we just need to use a cathoray tube and some nickel-hydrogen as the target. Anyone got a CRT computer monitor laying around?

    • Mats002

      How will you get the reactor inside the glass of your monitor? It is vacuum inside for the electron beam to survive from the emitter to the target. Maybe the NiH can tunnel itself into the monitor if the monitor and the fuel get entangled. Hmm. But the power cables and TC signal must still be connected. Beats me ^^

      • Ged

        Just slather the hydrogen loaded nickel or whatever other fuel mix onto the glass target, instead of having phosphors as a normal CRT does. Gotta start with a vacuum, though not sure how hydrogen gas by itself would interact with an electron beam. The entire CRT becomes the reactor, rather than the reactor placed in the CRT ;).

    • Axil Axil

      There is another way to get an electron beam. It involves using a special electrode that produces either a electron beam form one end or a proton beam from the opposite end. If you are interested, I will say more.

  • Axil Axil

    How does this theory explain muon production, cluster fusion, fission, and action at a distance away from the NAE?

    • Ged

      Doesn’t seem like it addresses any of that directly. But, what seems useful is the suggestion that electron bombardment could trigger LENR via resonance, like how heat is being used to do it, but in a more controlled way due to electron energies being easily tunable.

      IF that is accurate, it could lead to much easier reaction control and directly delectable output levels. All we’d need is a CRT’s electron gun, a starting vacuum (so hydrogen doesn’t ignite and explode from the sparks), and our usual fuel mixtures.

      The overall theory itself seems to be behind the times of more developed ones like NAVSEA, but we’ll see.

    • Gerard McEk

      Axil, enganglement is now officially proven to be not influenced by the speed of light. Dutch scientists were able to separate two entangled particles over a distance 1.3 km. It was proven that quantum properties of the particles were revealed at exactly the same moment, so the information between these two travelled infinitly faster than light.

      • Axil Axil

        In quantum mechanics, entanglement is monogamous. That means that alice and bob must be married and not have any extramarital affairs (entanglements).

        In LENR, cluster fusion exists. This means that there is a multi-particle entanglement going on. This can only happen when a black hole is causing the entanglement.

        Ergo, cluster fusion must therefore be caused by a black hole.

        • maybe using the term entanglement is not good.
          Coherence is better.

          note that now I have a vision of what could be an Hydroton or simila NAE with LAV/DB/NBC…

          take many atoms, in line like hydroton, or someway else…
          assume they are insulated from outside by huge potential pit like the negative charge that ed Storms assume in a crack.

          now maybe the interaction between nucleal, the break of born-oppenheimer approximation, in the context of a very regular and insulated lattice, can allow very strange excitation to exist…
          this is pseudoparticles, like are SPP, cooper pairs, plasmon, polariton, magnons…
          they may be LAV/DB/NBC excitations modes.
          now assume this particles are very numerous, but of low/intermediate energy (keV).

          assume that other complementary pseudoparticle have a tendency to be pumped by those particles, so they disapear, letting a huge population of strange excited modes.

          now the system cool down and dissipate the energy of those modes… as keV photons…

          anyway behind those pseudo particles there is good old atoms, and once the coherence is broken the system have to fall into a classical state (eigenstate). this state include a fusion result.

          my vision of the NAE/Hydroton is something as complex as an atom, with many energy states.
          however the energy of the pseudoparticles must be associated with slight change in the NAE (nucleus isospin/spin swap? nucleus excitation? ).
          the intermediate states of the NAE should not be “classical”, it must be superposition of classical nuclear states.

          It is hard to find an explanation, but for me the two-body solution is a dead end.

          • Axil Axil

            Quantum coherence ( in necessary for quantum entanglement (, but not the other way around. Coherent photons can interfere. Entangled photons are dependant on each other, such as if you measure one of them, you know with certain probability something about the other photon.

            Entanglement is a two body mechanism. It is monogamous. Entanglement produced by a black hole is a many bodied mechanism.

          • ok, entanglement is a question of twin.
            coherence is just synchronicity of the phases.

            clearly I talk of coherence with DB/LAV/BNC and Hydrotons…

            independent question, why is it impossible to have three “twin” particle (or 4)… particle that are the same entity, spread as different “avatar”?
            let us imagine a mechanism that eject 4 photons, identical, but their spin…

      • Stephen

        Interesting I just heard this today too. sometimes in discussing entanglement we talk about spooky action at a distance. Since the particles interacted in the same space and became entangled in the past I wonder if there is another or equivalent way of looking at it in terms of time. May be there is a kind of spooky action in time? If the particles that interact and have entangled states could they be some how stretched like an elastic band in in time so that when we measure one some time later it effects the other one at the time of entanglement. Could this tell us something fundamental about time. Ok probably I’m being crazy or just had one too many beers.

        • Gerard McEk

          Hi Stephen, it was on TV and e.g. in the Volkskrant:
          Yes, I do think that entanglement has no dependence on time. This means that quantem particles can also be linked to quantem particles in the past or the future, or to any particle in the universe. Obviously we cannot check that.
          Many processes in our brain are are also quantum processes which may entangle to similar other processes in the past or the future. Maybe that via entanglement things like telepathy are possible? I am convinced that our Will can influence the probability of things to happen. Because this is not an exact science (you can never reproduce the results in an exact way). Science will probably never kick in and start studying it properly.

  • Axil Axil

    Marie Curies choice of a thesis topic was influenced by two recent discoveries by other scientists. In December 1895, about six months after the Curies married, German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen discovered a kind of ray that could travel through solid wood or flesh and yield photographs of living people’s bones. Roentgen dubbed these mysterious rays X-rays, with X standing for unknown. In recognition of his discovery, Roentgen in 1901 became the first Nobel laureate in physics.

    In early 1896, only a few of months after Roentgen’s discovery, French physicist Henri Becquerel reported to the French Academy of Sciences that uranium compounds, even if they were kept in the dark, emitted rays that would fog a photographic plate. He had come upon this discovery accidentally. Despite Becquerel’s intriguing finding, the scientific community continued to focus its attention on Roentgen’s X-rays, neglecting the much weaker Becquerel rays or uranium rays.

    These ignored uranium rays appealed to Marie Curie. Since she would not have a long bibliography of published papers to read, she could begin experimental work on them immediately. The director of the Paris Municipal School of Industrial Physics and Chemistry, where Pierre was professor of physics, permitted her to use a crowded, damp storeroom there as a lab.

    A clever technique was her key to success. About 15 years earlier, Pierre and his older brother, Jacques, had invented a new kind of electrometer, a device for measuring extremely low electrical currents. Marie now put the Curie electrometer to use in measuring the faint currents that can pass through air that has been bombarded with uranium rays. The moist air in the storeroom tended to dissipate the electric charge, but she managed to make reproducible measurements.

    “Instead of making these bodies act upon photographic plates, I preferred to determine the intensity of their radiation by measuring the conductivity of the air exposed to the action of the rays.”

    This device for precise electrical measurement, invented by Pierre Curie and his brother Jacques, was essential for Marie’s work.

    With numerous experiments Marie confirmed Becquerel’s observations that the electrical effects of uranium rays are constant, regardless of whether the uranium was solid or pulverized, pure or in a compound, wet or dry, or whether exposed to light or heat. Likewise, her study of the rays emitted by different uranium compounds validated Becquerel’s conclusion that the minerals with a higher proportion of uranium emitted the most intense rays. She went beyond Becquerel’s work, however, in forming a crucial hypothesis: the emission of rays by uranium compounds could be an atomic property of the element uranium–something built into the very structure of its atoms.

    Curie’s simple hypothesis would prove revolutionary. It would ultimately contribute to a fundamental shift in scientific understanding. At the time scientists regarded the atom–a word meaning undivided or indivisible — as the most elementary particle. A hint that this ancient idea was false came from the discovery of the electron by other scientists around this same time. But nobody grasped the complex inner structure or the immense energy stored in atoms. Marie and Pierre Curie themselves were not convinced that radioactive energy came from within atoms–maybe, for example, the earth was bathed in cosmic rays, whose energy certain atoms somehow caught and radiated? Marie’s real achievement was to cut through the complicated and obscure observations with a crystal-clear analysis of the set of conclusions that, however unexpected, were logically possible.

    Like Marie Curie, we now stand at a similar crossroads in science. Tachyons have been seen in photographic plates by many experimenters. Do we ignore them as being impossible? Do we let there explanation pass us by. Like so many back in Marie’s time, who say that these observations are against all common sense and the current laws of science, do we trust the observations of our eyes to know what is real? Do we take the time and effort to learn whatever is required to explain what is going on in LENR to produce these strange images on the photographic plates? Who has the courage to walk in the footsteps of Marie Curie? Who will open the door to the new science of tomorrow?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The assumption is that a deuteron (d) is reacting directing with another deuteron but the Mitsubishi transmutations show that deuterons are reacting with heavy nuclei. So, maybe the following consecutive nuclear reactions are taking place where palladium, Pd absorbs two deuterons to become cadmium in an excited state, Cd* that loses its excess energy by emitting an alpha (helium) to recreate another palladium (a fusion-fission reaction). This would explain why there are no (or very few) neutrons, tritium or 24 MeV gamma rays.

    Pd + 2 d > Cd* > Pd + He (helium)

    with 24 MeV of kinetic energy (but no gamma rays)

    • Ted-X

      This deuteron/heavy metal nuclei interaction makes a lot of sense sense and can lead to the explanation of the isotope shifts (that is, not all energized(*) isotopes decompose the same way, perhaps some can absorb more deuterium or even protons). Please note that acoustic vibrations can cause the resonance vibrations of the nuclei, as in the nuclear acoustic resonance (the frequencies are very high, but the harmonics might be lower… was Rossi listening to the harmonics in his picture with a stetoscope?).

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Oh, and another point. Perhaps super saturation of the palladium with deuterium is needed in order to get the stoichiometry that is required to form the
        palladium deuteride, PdD2 needed for these reactions to take place via the infrared stretching of the D-Pd-D covalent bonds.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, Ted-X, I find it rather frustrating that the only thing people have been theorizing about for a quarter of a century is d-d fusion because the first thing I thought of after the F&P announcement was an Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction, Pd-108 (d,p) Pd-109 [a “stripping” reaction].
        See my one sentence letter to Chemical & Engineering News (May 15, 1989,
        page 3) where I misspelled Fleischmann.

  • Axil Axil

    Believe it or not…

    After I saw the presentation on tachyon tracks:

    I started to read this article:

    The Inside Story: Quasilocal Tachyons and Black Holes

    It explains how and why Lief Holmlid is seeing mesons and muons produced in his experiments.

    These SPPs evaperate through hawking radiation untill they become stable and quiescent. They form a tachyon condensate inside their boundary that will produce quark based (mesons) particles when they receive more EMF.

    Holmlid says that muons are produced when his reactants are exposed to the fluorescent lighting in his lab. They release muons as a declining rate even in a dark room.

    The SPP hold a huge amount of energy in excess of 1,000,000 giga electron volts

    I got through to Holmlid but Holmlid does not believe in black hole LENR causation. I am now faced with the bleak prospect of learning black hole physics, string theory, tachyon physics and general relativity.

    The dot connecting effort has gotten into some really heavy stuff. I am not that smart so progress from now on will be very slow. These subjects are at the cutting edge of physics and chemistry so there is a limitation here.

    On another related note, what amazes me is that Gary T. Horowitz and Eva Silverstein make theoretical predictions based on their theories and when these predictions turn out to come true in the real world, they can’t believe it. Very strange.

    You would think that these people would be excited by the prospect of using LENR to experimentally verify the predictions of string theory. What a strange time we live in.

    And finally, why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?

    When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.

    This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response. They don’t keep at it for long enough. Rossi must need to cook his fuel for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.

    I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful enough concentrated EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level fast enought. An electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.

    The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It will save a lot of time.