An Organized Approach to LENR Experimentation (Axil Axil)

The following post has been submitted by Axil Axil

An organized approach to LENR experimentation with the aim of optimizing the reaction.

As an aid to LENR developers, a nanoplasmonic based experiment suggested as a probe of the nature of the LENR reaction involving the fission of thorium by muons.

An organized and scientific approach in testing various combinations of test various materials and temperature ranges involving the LERN reaction can be carried out within the framework of this class of experiment.

This expanded experiment is based on this already verified experiment that has already been performed as follows:

Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in
the presence of Thorium aqua-ions
A.V. Simakin and G.A. Shafeev

“The resulting average size of Au NPs as determined by Transmission Electron Microscopy lies between 10 and 20 nm.”

The addition is to configure this experiment with two double concentric glass chambers with pure water and gold nanoparticles in the inner chamber and one with a thorium salt in solution in water filling the outer chamber but without any nanoparticles inside of it.

First, test the two concentric chambers without nanoparticles added to the inner chamber. Expect to see no transmutation in either the inner or the outer chamber.

Next, test the two concentric chambers with nanoparticles added to the inner chamber. Expect to see transmutation results involving thorium in the outer chamber as was seen in the referenced experiment done by A.V. Simakin and G.A. Shafeev.

This will show that interaction between light and nanoparticles produce the LENR reaction and that the reaction is carried out at a distance by subatomic particles that can penetrate a glass wall.

Variations on the wall material: aluminum, iron, stainless steel, lead etc. can be carried out if the laser beam enters the inner chamber from an open top of the inner chamber.

Next, a high voltage spark discharge can replace the laser light that is fired just above the top of the water level on the inner chamber. As a probe of the LENR reaction with gold nanoparticles present, expect to see transmutation results involving thorium in the outer chamber.

No LENR reactions will be produced without the presence of gold nanoparticles in the inner chamber.

The simplicity of the framework of this experiment lends itself to adding variations to optimize the LENR reaction.

The optimum matching of material type and light frequency can be determent by changing the size of the nano/micro particles and the light frequency produced by the LASER. Gold, silver, nickel, iron, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium, zirconium and so on are material variations.

Various crystal frequency doublets can be used to change the frequency of the LASER light.

The efficiency of the wall material as a shielding against muon penetration can also be determined.

The heat range of the LENR reaction can be probed by replacing water with transparent molten salt (FLiBe) as the nanoparticle support medium. FliBe dissolves thorium.

  • Axil Axil

    Study offers new theoretical approach to describing non-equilibrium phase transitions

    A new and elegant take on Quantum Mechanics has arrived on the scene just in time to help explain how LENR works. With this new tool, dynamic systems are understood to include phase transitions at the extreme limits of their solution sets.

    Dynamic operators that have been only discovered a few years ago are now widely used in quantum optics which is at the heart of the LENR reaction.

    Phase transitions are hot in physics now central to the understanding of the Higgs field, optics with changing indices of refraction, and superconductivity all demonstrate phase transitions and the famous Mexican hat upside down potential that only using the complex number set can properly explain.

    In this figure, think of the blue optical resonators as the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) with a whispering gallery wave structure. The red toroids are the protons and neutrons in the nucleus.
    In this experimental setup explained by the figure, coupled optical resonators (paired red and blue toroids on little pedestals) are PT symmetry systems. When they are tuned through a “phase transition” light, instead of moving through them in both directions, can only travel one way.

    In LENR terms when a phase transition occurs is the SPP optical resonators, and when a proton decays, the energy of that decay in the form of a Gamma ray can only be absorbed by the SPP. Light energy cannot move from the SPP into the proton.

    Because the nucleus is drained of all its reaction energy by the SPP, no gamma rays are produced by the LENR reaction and the nucleus is immediately stabilized from any excitation that would result in radioactive decay at some later time. This is why LENR does not generate gamma radiation or radioactive isotopes after the reaction has occurred.

    We learn from this model that quantum theories need not obey the conventional mathematical condition of Hermiticity so long as they obey the physical geometric condition of space-time-reflection symmetry (PT symmetry).

    PT symmetry challenges a standard convention in physics—the widely held belief that a quantum Hamiltonian must be Hermitian. And, because PT symmetry is a weaker condition than Hermiticity, there are infinitely many Hamiltonians that are PT symmetric but non-Hermitian; we can now study new kinds of quantum theories that would have been rejected in the past as being unphysical. Moreover, PT-symmetric systems exhibit a feature that Hermitian systems cannot; as indicated in the energy levels become complex when energy from outside the system changes in the system.

    The transition from real to complex energies is a key feature of PT-symmetric systems and it is called the PT phase transition. At this transition the system goes from a state of physical equilibrium (called a state of unbroken PT symmetry) to non-equilibrium (broken PT symmetry).

    LENR occurs when PT symmetry is broken in an optical micro cavity.

    • Thomas Baccei

      Does your theoretical model produce any testable predictions not consistent with the standard model? If so have they been performed and reviewed? If so, which publications? Are there derivative citations of any such articles? Are there areas where you theoretical model produces different predictions where those predictions are not accurate and the standard model is more predictive? Can you provide any specific instructions for an experiment producing phenomena violating they key elements of the standard model?

      Your air of certainty is actually quite hollow without such experimental verification. I do not intend to confront you by claiming you are wrong, but wonder if you can provide anything beyond an entertaining theory to show that you are correct. Or at least provide a framework in which real physicists can use these bold theories to do some actual science.

      • Axil Axil

        “The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly laser-induced nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the laser-induced transfer of the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material H(0) from excitation state s = 2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to s = 1 (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2]. The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and observed [16,17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.”

        Also see

        • Thomas Baccei

          Axil, these are all merely claims and unfounded conclusions. None of this is peer reviewed, and while I agree that the “peers” often turn a blind eye to new theories, they rarely do so to new (and replicable) experiments which provide empirical evidence contradicting established theories. There is a good deal of exciting work being done in solid state physics, but your convictions lack a solid basis. Take the time to design a few experiments preferably not requiring a billion dollars and staff of 500! Make predictions and subject your ideas to falsification. It is clear you are well trained / educated, but you are simply farting into a windstorm if you do not do something like this. I do wish you luck, and will continue to scan your ideas but will not make the investment in mathematical rigor until you can provide more than your conclusions.

          • Axil Axil

            Have you had a look at Leif Holmlid’s latest experiment?


            I believe that I have influenced Holmlid away from the fusion hypothesis in favor of the Proton decay hypothesis. He cannot understand how his experiment is producing what it produces. I have explained it in terms of emerging science. The advancement of Holmlid’s experimental results and theoretical underpinning was and is my goal. There have been people who work at CERN who have interacted with Holmlid and cannot believe his results. A theory that uses existing science will go a long way in justifying what Holmlid has found. I hear from his associates that a miniature version of his experiment is to be placed inside a particle detector, maybe at CERN? I support the work of Holmlid, if he gets recognition I will be gratified.

            If you want to support the advancement of science, support Holmlid. His work will produce a major shift in the both the progress and direction of science.

  • LION
  • LION