Comments on Recent Posts About Theory (Carl-Oscar Gullström)

The following post has been submitted by Carl-Oscar Gullström, a doctoral student at the Uppsala University, Sweden

Recently there have been some post about LENR thoery using p+Li7->2 He4 as the main source of energy. I just want to point out that even if the reaction generates low radiaton it would at the same time have radiation levels in several order of magnitide above background level. Assuming that a reaction produces 1 MeV of energy LENR experiments where radiaton is below background level while producing energies has an average of 10^12 reactions per second. To compare with an average background level of radiation one can set up a very average gamma rate per second for measurement of radiation done at 0,5 m away depending on gamma energy:

E(gamma)=10 keV 10^6

E(gamma)=100 keV 10^5

E(gamma)=1 MeV 10^4

All previous measuremnt of low energy protons fusion with lithium has Be8 going into an exited state at that is least 300 keV below p+Li thresh hold so the reaction is really p+7Li->8Be+gamma. This would generate 10^12 ~100 kev gammas per second ie a radiation ten million times larger than the background level.

Even if there where a hidden state in 8Be that lies exactly at the p+7Li energy and had 100% alpha decay the alpha energy is to high. Normal alpha radiation from heavy element is about 1 MeV but here the kinetic energy of the alpha particles are about 9 MeV. The result is that the energy is high enough for the alpha particles to interact with other nucleons. For example Nickel+9 MeV alpha would create radioactive copper at a probabilty rate of 10^-4 per released alpha. Radioactive copper generates gamma photons in the MeV range so radiation would still be about a million times to high. It is nothing that one would reccomend to carry around in your pocket.

What is possible from a radiation point of wiev is beta minus unstable nucleids without secondary gamma ie creation of for example 3H, 6He and 63Ni. The high energy electrons from beta minus decay does not interact with the nucleons(at the same rate) and the only secondary radiation is x-ray from interaction with which has an reduction factor about 10^-6 ie in the allowed range. Also possible if one demands alpha decay is to have nuclear transmutation of a bound proton into Lithium. There is strong evidence that Mn+Al->Cr+Si have takend place then one could also think about reactions Mn+Li7->Cr+8Be*->Cr+2Alpha (10MeV). The probability that the alphas would react with surrounding nucleids is exponential reduced with energy so at 5 MeV it is neglectible compared to 9 MeV.

For people that want to work with LENR theories there are two major problems: The interaction range of the strong force and the absence of gamma radiation.

Other experimental observations that could be related is the proton radius puzzle (the proton has a different radius when measured with muons), no electricdipole moment in nucleons (which is not forbidden by the quark-gluon model) and the extra baryons observed in the universe (the matter-antimatter asymmetry).

The theory behind the radius of the proton and neutron is not sufficient to rule out that low energy at zero distance spin dependent electron-nucleon interaction could increase the radius of the nucleons.

The absence of an electric dipole moment in nucleons is an indication on why there is no gamma in LENR. Photons have a dipole moment so if there where a dipole moment in baryons then it could be a decay where a photon is present so the lightest baryon is the one with no dipole moment. At the same time there is an internal structure with charges in the baryons then there must exist a force stronger than the electromagnetic force that could hold two photons in exact opposite direction still. As long as one conserves the no electic dipole law there is nothing that forbids that low energy at zero distance spin dependent electron-nucleon interaction could increase the radius of the proton and neutron.

Carl-Oscar Gullström

  • Ophelia Rump

    If I am not mistaken that is Swedish for you are looking in the wrong place, look over here.

  • Warthog

    Replicated data from Pd/D electrolysis LENR systems show that the mass balance and energy balance data support a 2D2–>He4+24MEV overall reaction based on measurements of He and heat in systems showing active LENR.

    What the comparable reaction might be in the presence of Ni????

  • Gerard McEk

    So it would be interesting to see with what theory AR and Cook are composing. Radiation seems a difficult nut to crack. As far as I know the Ecat is surrounded by lead to shield it, but that doesn’t work for the QuarkX, at least not if it must show light.

    • GiveADogABone

      You can dog-leg an optical passage with mirrors through the shielding. It would seem a bit much though, if the little quarkx had to sit in the middle of a hundred kg of lead.

  • Zephir

    Carl-Oscar Gullström’s objections are all well substantiated and funded – but I think, I could explain them In addition, just this explanation also explains the overcomming of Coulomb barrier as a common lowdimensional catalyst effect For catalysts is typical, they not only lower the energetic barrier for reaction sources, they also decrease the energy density of reaction products. The oxidation of gas by platinum not only eliminates the need of its heating above ignition temperature, it also decreases the temperature of its burning.

    • Zephir

      /* Other experimental observations that could be related is the proton radius puzzle (the proton has a different radius when measured with muons), no electricdipole moment in nucleons (which is not forbidden by the quark-gluon model) and the extra baryons observed in the universe (the matter-antimatter asymmetry). */

      They’re really related, as the virtual quark cloud around protons decreases its effective radius and it participates to entanglement, which prohibits the gammas to escape the line of collision. But we should be cautious in direction of causality here, as these proton radius effects are rather weak, whereas the cold fusion violates the existing theories wildly. My theory here is, the low-dimensional collisions and entanglement leads into formation of dark matter-alike filaments of virtual quarks connecting the atom nuclei, which are rather subtle at the case of isolated individual atoms. What we are facing here is the Allais effect at small scales and it’s related to shielding model of gravity, dark matter and virtual particles in vacuum. I can explain it in more details, if someone would be interested.

      • Kevmo ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ

        It sounds quite close to my V1DLLBEC theory.

        Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

        Kevin O’Malley Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:37:59 -0800

        Sure sounds like a Luttinger Liquid to me. But in this case, rather than
        the liquid forming out of gas state, it is a solid forming out of liquid
        state. Either way, it points to a large, localized, single-file effect of
        lower-than-anticipated temperature. Such a state favors the formation of a
        BEC. What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein
        Condensate , the V1DLLBEC.

        One big problem with any BEC theory is that “One experimental fact is that
        the observed reaction rate generally increases with temperature.”

        So maybe the BEC formation is just the initiator of some 2nd stage, more
        coherent LENR reaction. Evidence for this would be: When Celani measured
        Gamma rays at Rossi’s demo, it only occurred during the startup phase.
        Also, the same thing seems to be happening at MFMP, it seems to only happen
        during startup. My proposal for how this happens is that H1 monoatomic gas
        is adsorbed into the lattice and recombines into H2 gas, and this is an
        endothermic reaction. That is what sets up temperatures cold enough for
        the formation of a BEC or V1DLLBEC.

        My instinct tells me that the 2nd stage LENR reaction is Reversible Proton
        Fusion (RPF) because it is by far the most abundantly occurring fusion in
        nature. Basically, we set up the conditions where fusion occurred with a
        BEC, and then once the physical system sees fusion occurring, Nature wants
        to see RPF taking place.

        • Axil Axil

          Read up on non equilibrium BEC

      • Stephen

        I’m interested 😉 could you write a new post about it? It could be a really interesting thread especially now we are getting more and more interesting data.

        Actually it would be really interesting to have a separate posting for each theory out there which we could discuss and evaluate compare and hybridise if necessary in some way as more and more data comes in for comparison.

        May be those threads could also identify markers and tracers that experimentalists could look for that may help clarify and evaluate each theory.

        With the smart minds here I’m confident the right solution can be found.

        • Zephir

          I already wrote about it at lenrforum
          and reddit – they can be discussed there.
          My general idea of cold fusion within metal lattice is, it results from simultaneous collisions of many atom nuclei at the same moment along very exact line, which leads to massive Astroblaster effect and into temporal entanglement of multiple atom nuclei, which averages and dilutes the energy formed. This exact alignment also leads into anomalous phenomena (analogy of Allais effect at the atomic scale), which attenuate both the entanglement, both thermalization of reaction products.

          • Warthog

            It’s been quite a while since I looked at these studies…they are summarized in George Beaudette’s book “Excess Heat”. IIRC, each author ran multiple units, some of which showed heat, and some of which did not. Calorimetric data and helium analysis samples were taken from those units that gave off heat.

            I think the final data reduction ratioed the heat and helium from the individual cells and that the individual cells did NOT give the same absolute values of heat output.

  • Josh G

    If anyone is curious, here is the solution to the proton radius puzzle Carl-Oscar brings up. It’s actually a huge problem for the standard model:

    More slightly related stuff on the fine structure constant and the different masses of neutrons and protons:

    And on the magnetic moments of protons and neutrons:

    • Zephir

      I’d be rather cautious with it – the calculations of proton mass in Standard Model are based on nearly thirty various QED and QCD corrections You should understand the mainstream model really well for being able to say, which ones are overestimated and which ones are underestimated or missing completely.

      • Josh G

        What a load of misdirection Zephir! Served on a platter ofThere is now an unresolved puzzle in physics: why does the radius of the proton

        • Zephir

          Try to imagine the situation: some team of physicists calculates the radius of proton with using of twenty six constants and thirty corrections with 4% error. And after then Miles Mathis enters the scene and explains, where exactly their mistake is with some tirade, which isn’t even remotely related to subject. This is not even funny.

          • Josh G

            It would be nice to have an honest debate with you but I can see it’s not going to happen. So this will be my last word on the matter and you can continue to dodge and avoid and misdirect.

            First off, the paper I linked to is not just “some tirade” that isn’t even remotely related to the subject of the proton radius puzzle. I agree it starts with a tirade, but then quickly moves the matter at hand, which is explaining the proton radius puzzle. The paper is relatively short, but the understand it requires a better knowledge of the theory that Mathis has spent well over a decade developing. You might disagree with his theory and conclusions, but to say that it isn’t even remotely related to the subject is just dishonest.

            You apparently believe the proton radius puzzle is just a “4% error” due to all the complex calculations. Well that’s just hogwash. The experiment has been repeated with results at 7 sigma. It’s not experimental error. It’s a real difference that currently cannot be explained (although some explanations have been proposed). Here I’ll quote at length from the Ars Technica article Mathis links to in his paper:

            “Their first attempt showed something strange: the value for the radius they got was significantly smaller than the one obtained when you measure using an electron. Remember, the muon and the electron should be equivalent, so there should be no difference. Currently, we have no physics that could explain the difference.

            “The finding had a statistical significance of over five sigma, which is the standard for announcing discovery in physics. Still, it might have been possible to dismiss this as some sort of experimental oddity. Or at least it was until the team gathered even more data, pushing the significance up to over seven sigma. At this point, there was no way around the fact that we have what has become known as the “proton radius puzzle.”

            “This may sound like a minor puzzle, but remember that the proton’s radius is tied into theories like the Standard Model, so the result suggested that there might be something wrong with our understanding of some basic physics. Theorists, naturally, responded with enthusiasm and developed some new models that added an additional fundamental force that influenced the muon’s interactions with the proton.”

            So no, Zephir, the 4% miss is not “error” due to It’s real. And it punches a gaping hole in the Standard Model. So please stop blowing smoke. I am done with this conversation. Feel free to continue on with your dishonest misdirection.

          • Zephir

            /* You apparently believe the proton radius puzzle is just a “4% error” due to all the complex calculations */

            Of course not, but you should be able to calculate it better before saying anything about subject. The solving of proton radius is the task for people, who can compute it, not just twaddle.The 4% is not “an error”, but a difference between calculated and observed value and it’s not “due to overlycomplicated equations”. You’re opposing the things, which don’t follow from my post at all.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This is an important post. Yes, even if the reaction generates low radiation it must be addressed head on so that it can managed. It is a NUCLEAR reaction.

    Calling it “Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions” for a dumbed-down pabulum puking public is a big mistake.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Pardon me,
      ….can be managed…