Thoughts on LENR Based on ICCF20 Reports (Zeddicus23)

The following comment was submitted by Zeddicus23

I’m not sure where is the best place to post this but I’ve been reading Jean-Paul Biberian’s summaries of the ICCF20 talks (http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian.blogspot.ro/) and I have a few thoughts on LENR.

(1) Several talks indicate that the optimum temperature for excess heat is around 300 C. A claim has also been made that this corresponds to a wavelength for deuterium which “matches” the lattice. I’ll leave this aside for now since this corresponds to a wavelength of around 1 Angstrom for protium, and I don’t quite see how this matches the lattice. Also, the dependence of wavelength lambda = h/sqrt(3 m kT) on temperature is relatively weak.

(2) Several talks (Celani, Takahashi) indicate that the reaction is a non-equilibrium process and only occurs when driving H/D into or out of the system. This could be via a pressure change in the gas, a mechanical shock, heating up or cooling down, or last but not least EM or electrical stimulation or pulses. The latter could provide “non-equilibrium shocks” via local heating or charged particle (p, H-) acceleration or motion through an interface or defect, or even magnetostriction. This is also consistent with Brillouin, as well as with Fralick’s results and Piantelli’s statements.

(3) Item 2 above also suggests that defects (e.g. nanocracks) and/or the surface may play an important role, since it is through the “surface” (broadly defined to include the boundaries of cracks etc.) that the H/D can be “pushed” through. (A lot of this is I believe also consistent with F&P type Pd/D electrolysis experiments.)

(4) The fluctuation/non-equilibrium idea is also consistent with Vysotskii’s ideas of oscillating nanocracks creating a coherent state, and perhaps also consistent with Storms’ nanocrack idea.

(5) For metals at least (as opposed to say bacteria) attaining sufficient fluctuations may require higher temperatures (e.g. 300 C or higher) and also nano or micro structures, which may be dynamic, either at the surface or near the proper defects. This is also consistent with Rossi’s “microtubules”, Clean Planet’s micro/nanostructures, Miley’s nanoparticles, Swartz’s Nanor’s. In particular, it might explain why Swartz’s Nanors work so well (even though the heat output is very small due to the small size). The optimum temperature might be related to a competition between the thermal wavelength of protium (which decreases with increasing temperature) and the need for sufficient thermal fluctuations (which increase with increasing temperature).

(6) There is a related idea of Dubinko involving solitons or large amplitude/energy nonlinear oscillations. I imagine that these could also play a role.

(7) Somewhat unrelated but Peter Gluck (and also Focardi, Piantelli etc.) have emphasized that for Ni/H systems, a high-temperature “degassing” period in a very high vacuum is necessary to “clean” the system of impurities which could either “trap” the H or not allow it to penetrate into the Ni. I’m not sure if Celani/Takahashi/MFMP are all doing this but I imagine that a number of their preparation procedures may be comparable.

I guess a lot of this has been speculated before but it’s nice to see some of these ideas being confirmed experimentally at ICCF20. Also, while I had previously thought of “shocks” as “compressing” or inputting large amounts of energy locally (to overcome for example the Coulomb barrier) I had not thought of this in terms of driving H/D through the system via non-equilibrium conditions. Also, perhaps because I would have expected them to be random, I had not connected the idea of non-equilibrium fluctuations with Vysotskii’s correlated states ideas.

I would appreciate any thoughts, comments, or insight (especially from those who are at ICCF20 but not excluding those who are not).

Zeddicus23

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.