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.

• Ophelia Rump

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

There was a part that vaguely sounded to me like if you were correct you would also be dead.

No doubt Carl Oscar is correct but is that considerable lump of lead around the E-cat core not supposed to deal with this? The E-cat core transfers the bulk of its energy as 50-120keV radiation which is deposited in the lead which then heats the water. How thick does the lead have to be to deal with this additional issue?

• Obvious

The number of reactions, 50 to 120 keV at a time, to do significant (kW level) heating is rather burdensome.

Rossi’s statement, not mine. To make it worse he also stated that the peak was at 50keV.

• Obvious

1 Ws = 6.24 quadrillion keV.

Multiplying that by 3600000, then dividing by 50 to get the number of 50 keV units in 1kWh, let alone multiplying that by another 980 times to make 1MWh (20 kWh excluded for driving the reaction), makes for a Very Big Number of reactions that must work correctly every hour for the Plant to work. Dividing the VBN by two for 100 keV units instead doesn’t make it a much smaller number.

Of course this excludes any side or a priori reactions required to achieve the 50 or 100 keV units that are to be thermalized.

p+Li7->2He4+17.3Mev might cut the numbers down a bit.

Edit: But it doesn’t. The issue is how to turn 17.3Mev kinetic energy of two He4 atoms into (about 17300/50=346 less losses) 50keV photons. The 17.3Mev gets thermalized, so the hot Nickel has to somehow emit 50keV X-rays.

One way to emit 50keV photons is to accelerate electrons from thermionic emission from hot metal to more than 50kev and hit a target; usually tungsten in an X-ray machine but Nickel in our case. That would produce a Bremsstrallung distribution. The peak emissions are at 120keV, so you actually need a 120keV electron source.

And then this appears :-
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000032278621/PDOC/WO2016018851.pdf
Rossi Effect and apparatus to produce heat with high efficiency

Nickel powders, Hydrogen at a pressure of 3-6 bars and a temperature of 400-600C, and at one side of the reactor is put an anode, at the opposite a cathode, so that electrons are accelerated up to 100keV. At these conditions neutrons are freed from the reactants and further recaptured by the atoms emitting photons with energies between 50 and 100keV, which are thermalized.

This is the Rossi Effect. The reactions happen in the microcaves of the Nickel powder which also shields the gamma rays during their thermalization: this makes intrinsically safe the reactor, which does not emit radiations.

What is claimed is the use of hydrides together with Hydrogen and Nickel to obtain exothermic reactions, together with Hydrogen and Deuterium, in particular the preferred hydride is LiAlH4.

• Obvious

Having some experience with X-Ray devices, the conundrum is that the accelerated electron conversion to X-Ray bremmstrahlung rate is actually quite low. Most of the electrons impact the target material and simply make the target hot. It is not a very efficient process for making X-rays, even in fairly optimized X-Ray devices. Typically, the electron event to x-ray production conversion rate is about 0.8%.

OK. How about a Hydrogen plasma?
https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma
A plasma (often ionized gas, but see Pseudo-plasma), is a gaseous substance consisting of free charged particle such as electrons, protons and other ions, that respond very strongly to electromagnetic fields. The free charges, make the plasma highly electrically conductive that may carry electric currents, and generate magnetic fields that may cause the plasma to constrict (or pinch) into filaments, generate particle beams, emit a wide range of radiation :-
light,
microwave,
x-ray,
gamma and
), …

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/07/25/does-plasma-power-the-e-cat-hank-mills/
Rob Woudenberg’s question :-
Q: The basic question is however where does the proton plasma comes from in Rossi’s Lugano reactor inside which causes the alpha particles to form?

A: In the microcavities as Rossi calls them.

• 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????

• 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????

• roseland67

Warthog,
Do these replicated data all exhibit the same quantity of excess heat?

• 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.

• cashmemorz

All this says is that there is not even an acceptable hypothesis to start explaining the reactions in LENR/cold fusion. It looks like a long and steep hill for the researchers. And probably a long time before everything is in place for domestic or other wide use of the E-Cat. Is Randall Mills theories any better at really explaining what is going on? Brillouin’s Godes says he has a theory or is it just a nice looking hypothesis? Proof of any of these hypotheses to the point of becoming a widely accepted theory is way down the road. Is there anyone knowledgeable that one can ask? Almost all in the establishment of science want nothing to do with it because it is so off the beaten track, way off. Or we simply know so little about what is happening inside atoms, nucleons, quarks, dark matter and the rest of quantum world. “It just works” is fine for me or anyone that just wants to save money on using energy. That just doesn’t seem to work similar to Georghants wish that it should just given away also doesn’t work in the real world. So we end up in a wishy washy state where we just wait for something to happen if and when some one, anyone starts selling a few hundred units and hopefully some of the buyers are willing to show that it works.
Patience is virtue here in spades.

• 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.

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.

• 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.

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 https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3437-The-general-cold-fusion-theory-aka-the-broad-view-of-LENR In addition, just this explanation also explains the overcomming of Coulomb barrier as a common lowdimensional catalyst effect
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3476-Question-why-is-hot-fusion-DD-fusion-seldom-toward-He4 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.”
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory

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

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.

• Zephir

Carl-Oscar Gullström’s objections are all well substantiated and funded – but I think, I could explain them https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3437-The-general-cold-fusion-theory-aka-the-broad-view-of-LENR In addition, just this explanation also explains the overcomming of Coulomb barrier as an extreme lowdimensional catalyst effect
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3476-Question-why-is-hot-fusion-DD-fusion-seldom-toward-He4 For surface catalysts is typical, they not only lower the energetic barrier for 3D reaction sources, they also decrease the energy density of reaction products. For example 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. And at the case of cold fusion the reaction is catalyzed by nickel one-dimensionally.

• 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.

/* The interaction range of the strong force and the absence of gamma radiation. */

IMO there is a tiny little secret of the Nature: when multiple atom nuclei collide along a single line, then the common Cassimir and pilot wave effects will get extremely pronounced there and it will form a elongated area of dense vacuum along their connection line (a sorta worm hole), which will create an energetic continuum with atom nuclei enabling the neutrons to pass from one atom nuclei into another one smoothly This worm hole will also serve like the waveguide for gamma ray photons, which would prohibit them to escape the atom nuclei. As the result, the resulting energy of fusion will get dissolved inside multiple atom nuclei and scattered into lattice vibrations, all particles will get reabsorbed along compact line of atom nuclei. I can explain it in more details, if someone would be interested.

• 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.”
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory

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 and discussion thread 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 use or look for that may help clarify and evaluate each theory.

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

And when someone new asks about an idea in another thread the author could point them there.

• 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: http://milesmathis.com/prorad.pdf

More slightly related stuff on the fine structure constant and the different masses of neutrons and protons:
http://milesmathis.com/fine3.pdf

And on the magnetic moments of protons and neutrons:
http://milesmathis.com/magmom.pdf

• 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 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/extref/nature09250-s1.pdf 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.

• 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: http://milesmathis.com/prorad.pdf

More slightly related stuff on the fine structure constant and the different masses of neutrons and protons:
http://milesmathis.com/fine3.pdf

And on the magnetic moments of protons and neutrons:
http://milesmathis.com/magmom.pdf

• Zephir

I’d be rather cautious with it – the calculations of proton radius are based on nearly thirty (!) various QED and QCD corrections to Standard Model Lagrangian, which is twenty six constant equation by itself http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/extref/nature09250-s1.pdf You should understand the mainstream models really well for being able to say, which correction and terms are overestimated and which ones are underestimated or missing completely. In particular, Miles Mathis has not even idea, how complex problem he is trying to comment.

• Josh G

What a steaming pile of bluster and misdirection Zephir! Served on a patronizing platter of condescension no less. There is now an unresolved puzzle in physics: why does the radius of the proton appear different when measured with electrons than when measured with muons? This is not predicted by current theory and currently nobody (in mainstream physics) can explain it. In fact it is at odds with current theory and is considered the biggest problem in Hadron physics. Are you going to try to tell me that that experimental result doesn’t exist? That there isn’t a proton radius puzzle?

And yet here is someone who can explain it and instead of reading the paper and dealing with it substantively you just wave your hand dismissively and tell us children to go play somewhere else while the adults do the thinking. Give me a break. How about telling me why Mathis is wrong instead of telling me that he just doesn’t understand the complexity of the situation? What a dodge!

• 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 overly complicated equations. 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% error is not statistic 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.

• Axil Axil

The possible Role of Axions in LENR

Carl-Oscar Gullström is talking about CP violation

The axion is a hypothetical elementary particle postulated by the Peccei–Quinn theory in 1977 to resolve the strong CP problem in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). If axions exist and have low mass within a specific range, they are of interest as a possible component of cold dark matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

In particle physics, the Peccei–Quinn theory is a well-known proposal for the resolution of this strong CP problem. It was formulated by Roberto Peccei and Helen Quinn. The theory proposes that the QCD Lagrangian be extended with a CP-violating term known as the θ term. Because experiments have never measured a value for θ, its value must be small if it exists.

The strong force is balanced on a knife’s edge where CP-violation does not occur. Only mesons show CP-violations in their decay. The particle that was invented to keep the strong force particles in balance is the axion. The strong force sits on a teeter totter that is held in balance by the axion as a dynamic process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_CP_problem

The Maxwell equations have been modified to include the axion, so axions are an EMF kind of thing.
Since Holmlid is seeing massive CP violations in the production of mesons, CP violation could be the cause of LENR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon

Axions convert back and forth between photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. This is just what the doctor ordered for LENR: A method relating to EMF using strong magnetism to disrupt the balance of strong force particles that may result in the production of mesons.

I am disregarding the grand unification theory of LENR to work on this axion connection because it has a strength range that does not depend on the power of the emf field to generate LENR activity.

Here is some background that shows how strong magnetic field production is central to the detection of the axion particle though the magnetic conversion of axions to photons.

http://www2.kek.jp/physics-seminar/files2014/20150127_semertzidis.pdf

Axions and the Storage Ring Proton EDM experiments
Yannis Semertzidis, CAPP/IBS and KAIST

Reference:

Wilczek explains what the axion field is and why it is so small in the color theory. The axion parameter in QCD is a measure of QCD excitement. QCD directs what the nucleus will do in a nuclear reaction. Like the Higgs field, the axion field once produced an excited state of QCD and over time that excitement in the nucleus has reduced to near zero. Now, the nucleus is in its lowest energy state. THis low energy condition has produced a state of QCD superconductivity to set in.

This superconductivity protects the nucleus from EMF and keeps out EMF photons through the meissner effect. The low energy state and QCD superconductivity keeps the CP violation from occurring. The color force processes work all the time with no symmetry breaking.

My thinking goes as follows. If a sufficiently strong magnetic field is applied to the nucleus, the QCD superconductivity will breakdown and the QCD will become excited, the axion field will become non zero, and CP violation will occur.

CP violation means that the weak force can cause particle decay. This decay includes the nucleons.

When CP violation occurs, the quarks in the proton and neutron can change into strange quarks through a change of state in the color force. This could cause a D-meson to form. The D-Meson can decay into Kaons, then to pions, then to muons, then to electrons.

The D mesons are the lightest particle containing charm quarks. They are often studied to gain knowledge on the weak interaction. The D mesons are the lightest mesons containing a single charm quark (or antiquark), they must change the charm (anti)quark into an (anti)quark of another type to decay. Such transitions involve a change of the internal charm quantum number, and can take place only via the weak interaction. In D mesons, the charm quark preferentially changes into a strange quark via an exchange of a W particle, therefore the D meson preferentially decays into Kaons and pions.

In LENR experiments by Leif Holmlid

Total rate estimation
10e7-10e10 s-1

DN(0) →···→···→ K± → π± → μ± → e±
Nx4x938MeV →···→···→ 493MeV → 139MeV → 105MeV → 0. 511MeV

See

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/dmeson.html

An interesting example of a particle interaction which involves the D meson was observed in a bubble chamber at SLAC in 1982 (K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 48,1526 (1982)). Photons at about 20 GeV were produced by Compton scattering of radiation from a YAG laser from energetic electrons from the linear accelerator.

The presumption is that the photon interacted with a proton, producing the D mesons indicated. The reaction which produced these products would appear to be the following.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/imgpar/ddec1.gif

Here two D mesons were produced. Holmlid specifies 4 mesons are produced.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/imgpar/feynmanw.gif

• Stephen

Hi Axil,

Do we really need a D meson containing a Charm Quark?

The Phi meson is a neutral vector meson containing a strange and anti strange quark only. It is also its own anti particle.

Phi mesons can also decay to Kaons and are generated and used in many high energy Kaon factory machines such as TRIUMF, DelPhi and DaPhiNe. They use a well known nucleon resonance cross-section that opens the door so to speak to to generate the Phi mesons.

The Phi meson is rather more analogous to a neutral Pi meson with up and anti up or down and anti down quarks and are their own anti particle. Than the neutral Kaon pair that contains a down and anti strange quark or anti down and strange quark or the Long and Short neutral Kaons that contains quarks that oscillate between strange and down states and are their own anti particles.

The strong force between a neutron and proton is often visualized as an exchange of virtual pion.

I suspect under the magnetic and energetic environment in a nucleus this virtual pion exchange between paired proton neutron nucleons is preferable than beta decay of the neutron. In effect it’s the magnetic field interaction that stimulates the strong force interaction. If so it may well have more fundamental implications at quark/lepton level but that’s another story.

I wonder if under the right energy and/or magnetic conditions if instead of a virtual Pion being produced we have a virtual Phi meson perhaps the strange quarks they contain would then disrupt the nucleon along the lines you imagine pairing with the down quarks to produce a short or long neutral Kaon using the energy released in the nucleon disintegration that then continues to disintegrate and generate the mesons reported by Holmlid.

(Note most D mesons have rest masses higher than that of 2 Nucleons where as the Phi Meson rest mass is a little over that of one nucleon. However for virtual particles I suppose this is less problematic. The rest mass of the long and short neutral Kaon is about half that of a Nucleon)

I find your ideas about a strong magnetic field applied to a nucleus and how it could be achieved interesting in this regard.

• Alan DeAngelis

I think I set off the wild goose chase.
http://disq.us/p/d2lx60

• Alan DeAngelis

PS

Perhaps I should ingest some of that lithium because I’m still thinking if it could be a coupled chain reaction with this reaction.

He(4) + Al(27) > Si(30) + p 2.37 MeV (Coulomb Barrier 4.49 MeV)

• Alan DeAngelis

PPS

Pardon me, via

He(4) + Al(27) > P(31)* > Si(30) + p 2.37 MeV

And there might be gamma rays associated with this reaction.

• Alan DeAngelis

I haven’t run out of BS yet.

Would there be enough energy in those alphas [Li(7) + p > 2 He(4)] for the following endothermic reaction to take place?

He(4) + Ni(58) > Cr(50) > C(12) -7.54 MeV

• 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.
http://wordsmith.org/words/images/pabulum.jpg

• Alan DeAngelis

Pardon me,
….can be managed…

• 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.
http://wordsmith.org/words/images/pabulum.jpg

• Alan DeAngelis

Pardon me,
….can be managed…