Not Nuclear, Not Fission, Not Fusion — Tapping the Color Force (Engineer48)

The following has been posted by Engineer48

We need to understand that inside the nucleus of every atom other than H, there are 2 stores of potentially trappable energy: While the H nucleus has no type 1 proton and neutron binding energy, it still contains quark binding energy type 2 as below.

1) The redundant strong force energy that is carried and exchanged by pions inside the nucleus and that binds the protons and neutrons together.

2) The color strong force energy that is carried and exchanged by gluons inside the proton or neutron and that binds the quarks together.

The 1st energy store is what is tapped in fission and fusion reactions and atomic weapons.

The 2nd energy store is what makes up 99% of the non dark mass in the universe via m = e/c^2. Releasing it would be like a matter & anti matter reaction. Or energy availability that makes what we call nuclear energy seem like a firecracker compared to an atomic bomb.

So when you wonder where the energy release from LENR or other plasma OU systems could come from, look no further that tapping the redundant strong force proton or neutron binding energy or doing a mind blow and tapping the vast store of quark binding energy.

There is no requirement to invent new energy sources, as almost all the universe’s energy and mass are contained in the quark colour confinement strong force. This force gets stronger the further away are the quarks.

If what I think is going on, there is no bad radiation as this process is NOT NUCLEAR, NOT FISSION, NOT FUSION.


  • roseland67


    Is this how you think the Ecat is generating excess heat, And did you order your Ecats yet?

  • Gerard McEk

    E48, It would be nice if you describe the second process in relation to the things we see in LENR and also how energy can be extracted from the quarks. As far as I know most, if not all, studied LENR processes show definately also changes in the nuclei: it is explained as ‘transmutation, fusion or fission’, definately things that happen to the nucleus of the atoms. It may happen by slow neutrons like the W-L theory tries to explain LENR. Most of these reactions usually cause some kind of radiation and I understand that you choose the second type for explaining LENR because of the lack of radiation that occurs. But these changes in the nuclei should still cause radiation, wouldn’t it?

    Maybe the QX and the SunCell work in a different way. Of both I have no indication that transmutation and fusion/fission-like reactions have occurred. It would be nice if both Rossi and Mills would publish measurements on the materials around the reactor and on the ash to check for nuclear changes.

    • Axil Axil

      For the lack of a better name, let us call the LENR active agent an optical cavity(OC). The OC is a standoff mechanism that can reach out at a distance using magnetism to tap into the energy contained in protons and neutrons, The OC becomes entangled with these subatomic particles and extracts photons (gamma rays) from them where this photons are stored within the OC. The residue of the various nuclei of this extraction process condenses into a complex transmuted nuclear product. This transmutation process is also entangled with the OC so that all photon energy is captured so that no energy is lost to the far field. All photon based energy is stored in the OC and accumulates. This energy is released gradually over time at a constant rate as heat, light, and subatomic particles like mesons.

      See for details

  • Dr. Mike

    How does your theory explain the transmutations that have been observed in the analysis of the post operation fuel of many different LENR devices, such the change in the ratio of Li7 to Li6 in the Lugano reactor?

    • Axil Axil

      Li7 to Li6 in the Lugano reactor is simple to explain. A neutron in Li7 decays into mesons leaving Li6.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    “Not nuclear, not fission, not fusion”

    The lack of hard radiation in LENR experiments supports this supposition. But as Dr. Mike wrote below, one would have to explain the apparent transmutations. One hypothetical explanation is the existence of an unknown type of bond that creates compound entities which look similar to ordinary nuclei (Pekka introduced the term “nuclear molecules” in the other thread) or atoms. If such bonds would exist, they might also be responsible for the observed excess heat. There are several theoretical approaches – among others, Santilli’s concept of “magnecular bonds” – that seem to point (more or less) in this direction.

    • Gia’

      how can talk about of lack of high energetic radiation? Have we any short rarge capture measure to support it ?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        If you don’t measure high energy gammas, there are two possibilities:

        1 – They are not there.
        2 – They are somehow shielded.

        While #1 is most likely, #2 is rather speculative. Widom & Larsen have hypothesized that shielding might be achieved by heavy electrons that absorb the energy and redistribute it as low energy photons ( ). Obviously, this idea violates Occam’s razor – which is, however, a recommendation and not a strict law. But at least, the proposed mechanism of gamma shielding should be experimentally verified. As far as I know, this has not yet been done (if somebody has different information, please post it here).

        • Axil Axil

          The third possibility is that the gammas are thermalized through interference (FANO) while they are being stored in an optical cavity.

    • Axil Axil

      This bond is called entanglement.

  • Stefenski

    here’s Gaede’s take on it..

  • Gia’

    hi Engineer48, there might be something consistent in a part of your resume, have you computed the total quarks charge fraction conservation out of the typical lenr nuclide atomic mass shift on ash analysis ?

  • Engineer48

    To answer a few questions

    As the inverse Compton Scatterin effect of lower energy photons impacting higher energy quarks, being absorbed and then emitted with more energy than on impact, there is a slow drain of the strong force energy in the form of reduced quark KE.

    Here is a mechanisn that can export some of the quarks KE as slightly higher energy photons, averaging a 50% increase in energy, ie a 1eV impacted photon could be enitted as a 1.5eV photon.

    Over a lot of such impacts I suggest the redundant strong force that binds neculons together could weaken and allow protons and neutrons to migrate between other redundant strong force weakened neculus, thus causing isotopic shifts.

    Here as the redundant strong force reduces, neculus diameter should increase.

    Plus there may be bound neutron decay to protons occuring as the colour strong force reduces. Ie non neculus neutron decays quickly as there are no pions to maintain min maintenance internal energy levels.

    Same thing could occur wirh bound neutrons if they can’t get enough energy from the pions to kerp them stable.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Enabling neutron transfer between nuclei would explain transmutation and energy release, and the Coulomb barrier problem does not apply. However, separating a neutron from the source requires a lot of energy. Although that energy is more than gotten back when the neutron fuses with the destination nucleus, the problem is where to borrow the energy. Heisenberg’s energy-time uncertainty relation allows one to borrow energy from the vacuum over a brief time, but it doesn’t seem sufficient for this purpose because it takes some time for the neutron to make the trip (and this is consistent with the experimental fact that LENR does not occur in matter normally).

      A crazy idea: what if neutrons form Cooper pairs and the collective condensate of such pairs is what loans energy temporarily to nuclei to enable neutron transfer between nuclei.

      However, one has to remember that chemical processes (i.e. processes related to electrons, in particular valence electrons) seem to dictate whether LENR occurs or not. Hence I consider it more likely that massless electrons (“Dirac” or “Weyl”) form a sea of particles that intercepts gammas because its plasma frequency is effectively infinite, and thereby promotes gamma-producing nuclear reactions by absorbing the gammas before they are born.

      • Axil Axil

        magnetism can condense and form particles called instantons. It is these instantons that cause the mass of the quarks to increase which leads to the decay of the proton and the neutron into mesons.

    • Gerard McEk

      E48, I do think all this is fascinating and there may be some truth in it. The question is though: If photons can simply drain energy from the quarks, why isn’t that happening all the time? Why does seem the universe so stable and why don’t we see matter changing all the time?

      • Axil Axil

        There first is the need to form metallic hydrides, distressed metal surfaces, and nanoparticles/plasmoids to support the optical cavities that store photons.

  • Engineer48

    Please consider:

    Source of mass

    Most of the mass of hadrons is actually QCD binding energy, through mass-energy equivalence.

    This phenomenon is related to chiral symmetry breaking. In the case of nucleons – protons and neutrons – QCD binding energy forms about 99% of the nucleon’s mass.

    That is if assuming that the kinetic energy of the hadron’s constituents, moving at near the speed of light, which contributes greatly to the hadron mass,[1] is part of QCD binding energy.

    For protons, the sum of the rest masses of the three valence quarks (two up quarks and one down quark) is approximately 9.4 MeV, while the proton’s total mass is about 938.3 MeV.

    For neutrons, the sum of the rest masses of the three valence quarks (two down quarks and one up quark) is approximately 11.9 MeV, while the neutron’s total mass is about 939.6 MeV.

    Considering that nearly all of the atom’s mass is concentrated in the nucleons, this means that about 99% of the mass of everyday matter (baryonic matter) is, in fact, chromodynamic binding energy.


    This means that 99% of all the msss in the universe is in quark KE. This energy can be tapped via low KE photons hitting high KE quarks and carrying away some of the quark KE.

    Of course in doing so the quarks will be effected. We should expect to see transmutations and particle emissions as the neculons and neculus becomes unstable.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “This means that 99% of all the mass in the universe is in quark KE.” That’s correct. Binding energy is negative, so it contributes to mass negatively (the linked article is misleading on this point). But the closer the gluon field pulls the valence quarks, the faster they have to move, because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Nature finds a balance (energy minimum) which is such that quarks move pretty fast, relativistically.

      It’s even more correct to say, I think, that 1XX% of universe quark KE and -(XX+1)% of it is gluon binding energy (which is negative).

      The issue is subtle because unlike in electromagnetism, a free quark is not a valid comparison point for total energy because a free quark cannot exist.

      • Axil Axil

        A free quark can exist in what is called a quark soup.


        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes but by “free” I meant far from other particles.

      • PhysicsForDummies

        I believe your description of binding energy is misleading. Binding energy is positive, at least according to the standard definition. When a nucleus is bound (or neculus, to some of our authors), positive energy is released. Splitting the nucleus requires positive energy. From Wikipedia:
        “Binding energy is the energy required to disassemble a whole system into separate parts. A bound system typically has a lower potential energy than the sum of its constituent parts; this is what keeps the system together. Often this means that energy is released upon the creation of a bound state. This definition corresponds to a positive binding energy.” Not that I consider Wikipedia as the most accurate source, but I believe this is correct.

    • Axil Axil

      very good indeed.

      The extraction of “quark KE” or gluon energy is accompanied through the formation of a quark soup condition where free quarks can be reconfigured in a transmutation process.

  • Da Phys

    Yes I agree that LENR may result from the non conservation of the baryon number as you suggest. Holmlid’s experiments give credence to this postulate. However the key question that remains is why the usual strong interaction would not be at play in LENR. Because the latter remains the preferred route based on energy-time relation considerations.

    • Axil Axil

      Strong magnetism caused the mass of the quark to increase via the instanton mechanism. This produces a change in the quark type to a new mare massive type. This in turn causes a decay of the nucleon as strange matter enters the nucleon.

      Strange matter is unstable, This nucleon decay process is a weak force reaction.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        The magnetic field required for that would be truly huge.

        Some people have considered the possibility that strange matter could have lower energy than ordinary nuclear matter (strange matter hypothesis). If that would be so, turning ordinary matter to strange matter would produce energy. People have tried to find out about the nature of neutron star surfaces, because if the strange matter hypothesis is true, their surfaces could (or rather should) be strange. Currently observations of neutron stars tend to favour the hypothesis that neutron star surfaces are ordinary matter, however.

        Strange matter refers to nuclear matter, called a strangelet, which is made of roughly equal proportions of up, down and strange quarks, and which is approximately electrically neutral although the surface layer of such strangelet is likely positively charged. Although the strange quark is heavier than up and down quarks, the fact that three quark species are present lowers their average kinetic energy because more quantum states are allowed compatibly with the Pauli exclusion principle. Calculation methods of QCD are not yet good enough to predict properties of strange matter or its stability. See .

        A nucleus-sized strangelet could appear as an anomalously heavy isotope of some atom. If LENR would turn nickel into strangelets, for example, the resulting atoms would be some lower Z elements (e.g. lithium, carbon, hydrogen..) but with heavy isotope mass, for example something like carbon-57.435. Normal matter isotope masses are close to integers, but strangelets would not obey that rule.

        • Axil Axil

          Holmlid claims to have seen kaons generated from the protons that come into contact with metallic hydrogen. Also muons are a decay product of kaons and Holmlid has also seen muons produced by metallic hydogen.

          Regarding: “The magnetic field required for that would be truly huge.”

          Also, metallic hydrogen shows super fluidic behavior which means that it is a Bose condinsate. Such a quantum mechanical structure will produce superradiance which would multiply the spin projected by the bose condensate by “N” the number of photons and electron spins contained in the condinsate. This spin will also be focused as if it were produced by a single member of the condensate.

          In addition, there is experimental evidence that many metallic hydrogen particles aggregate in a coherent and entangled collection of many members of a larger condinsate. A multi leveled and entangled bose condensate may contain 10^25 units of spin all focused in a single narrow collective beam.

          Like the winding in a coil, each time a polariton orbits inside a soliton, its spin is increased by 1 quantum. Therefore, there is a spin multiplication factor of at least 10^6 for each polariton in the condensate and maybe more based on the lifetime of the soliton.

      • Da Phys

        A nucleon mass increase is irrealistic because requiring irrealistically large magnetism. On the other hand, a small decrease in nucleon mass can do the trick. However I’m not aware of a physical process that can lead to a decrease in nucleon mass.

        • Axil Axil

          See my response to Pekka Janhunen below,

  • hunfgerh

    Nuclear Fusion and radiation

    As a rule, nuclear fusion is accompanied by neutron and gamma radiation, which
    requires shielding the reactor to the outside.

    The “cold fusion” that takes place in a superconducting solid layer does not need this

    Here, the free neutrons formed by e-capture – from hydrogen atoms.- have such a
    low neutron energy that they are trapped by another nucleus before leaving the
    superconducting layer. The excited nuclei formed in this way cancel out with the emission
    of gamma rays.

    This gamma radiation which is formed in a medium – high electron density
    (superconductor) – can not leave this either, as it is totally reflected at the
    boundary layer to the medium – low electron density (normal conductor)-.

    High current density in ultra-thin superconducting layers is therefore not only
    the cause of e-capture, but also explains the absence of the expected radiation
    in a nuclear fusion

  • sam
  • Axil Axil

    The energy/mass carrier inside the proton and neutron is the gluon. The gluon is the binding force that “glue” quarks together, forming protons and neutrons.

  • Max Nozin

    Axil’s particle fiction stories are a product of dark ages of physics we all living through now.
    Massless particles and magnetism condensing into instantons. All of course in accordance with uncertainty principals.

  • clarkey

    magnetism can condense and form particles called instantons. It is these instantons that cause the mass of the quarks to increase which leads to the decay of the proton and the neutron into mesons.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Perhaps we should first study the simplest LENR device (that I’m aware of), Les Case’s “football” (at 36:36 min.). It’s just palladium on carbon with deuterium gas. Helium is created, (See Michael McKubre’s mass spec at 37:04).

    • Alan DeAngelis


      Maybe X-ray fluorescence could be used to see if any cadmium in an excited state, Cd* is formed as an intermediate.

      Pd + 2d > Cd* > Pd + He 24 MeV

      (no gamma ray, only the kinetic energy of the fission reaction of this fusion/fission reaction)

  • Engineer48

    Consider a stable 62Ni neculus bombarded by 3eV photons.

    Next 1.29 MeV of energy is removed by Inverse Compton Scattering of 3eV photons each taking away on average 1.5eV.

    Then 1 neutron converts into a proton with no emissions due to the photon removed 1.29MeV, making one neculus neutron unable to maintain its higher energy state.

    The neculus changes into proton rich 62Cu.

    One 62Cu proton captures an inner shell electron, replaces the 1.29MeV carried away by the photons from the captured electron energy and converts back to 62Ni.

    When another 1.29MeV of energy has been carried away by the photons, the process repeats.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      If we leave the question aside how hundreds of thousands of photons could hit a nucleus at the same time, how is conservation of charge maintained in this model?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Andreas,

        No need to hit at the same time. Just progressively remove say 5eV chunks of energy.

        When ~1.3MeV is removed, there is no longer enough overall energy to maintain all the higher energy neutrons as neutrons and one converts to a 1.3MeV lower energy proton and the once 62Ni neculus becomes 62Cu.

        This makes the neculus proton rich, causing one proton to capture an K shell electron and flip back into a neutron.

        62Ni stability is then returned, at least for a short time until the photon bombardment takes away more energy and there is again not enough energy to maintain all the neutrons, causing one to flip into a proton.

        And so it continues.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I was referring to this step:

          „and one [neutron] converts to a 1.3MeV lower energy proton“

          This would require the additional release of an electron (beta minus decay):

          n -> p + e- ( + ve)

          Otherwise, you get a ‘forbidden’ charge imbalance ( ).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Andreas,

            Consider what would happen if total neculus maintenance energy had dropped 1.3MeV?

            Then no way could all higher energy neutrons maintain status.

            So one higher energy neutron flips to a lower energy proton.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Of course neutrons can decay, but the sum of the resulting charges must be zero. Therefore, the electron is obligatory.

          • Engineer48

            Hu Andreas,

            Yup, the neutron needs to dump 1 unit of negative charge to flip into a proton. Ejected electron eV value could be very low.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Andreas,

            Sure the neutron needs to dump charge. But as it’s internal energy level is already 1.3MeV low, the eV value of the emitted electron could be very low as it is not required to carry away the full 1.3MeV.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The nucleus is very small and it makes only very tiny antenna. Therefore it’s a very inefficient at absorbing photons whose wavelength is much larger than the nucleus itself. Similarly as a tiny metal sphere would make a poor LF radio antenna.

      Also, as I have said in another thread, there is the problem that the nucleus doesn’t have closely separated energy states available that would be needed to realise gradual release of its energy. The reason is quantum mechanics. One has to take QM seriously.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        One also has to take inverse compton scattering seriously.

        As far as I know QM does not invalidate Compton Scattering via photon impacts.

        And yes the neculus has stable energy levels. However those energy levels do not stop photons carrying away small 5eV chunks of energy

        • Pekka Janhunen

          If you only have hundred dollar bills in your pocket, you cannot buy a thing that costs only a nickel, unless the seller can give you change. One needs something wealthier than the photons because they have only coins.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            Yet photon triggered LENR is real.

            Ok you cant see my viewpoint. Fair enough as you have your theory.

            We agree to disagree.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        Understand proton and neculus cross section.

        Makes no difference, 3eV photons will still impact on members of the neculus quark population, removing an averaged 1.5eV per inverse compton scatter.

        Eventually the total energy availability inside the neculus will not be enough to support all the higher energy neutrons and one will flip into a proton, with the neculus becoming proton rich 62Cu. Which will capture a K shell electron, flip back into a neutron and flip the neculus back 62Ni.

        Of course during this maintance process, the proton bombardmenr continues and total neculus energy continues to drop.

        Likewise the neculus energy distribution system, via pion energy transfer, continues to receive and send energy to all the neculons as it tries to find and maintain a stable mix of protons & neutrons.

      • Engineer48

        Hu Pekka,

        Visible light photons can’t travel more than a few um into Ni before they hit an electron or quark and are absorbed.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes, they cannot penetrate much into metals. But the reason is that they interact collectively with the conduction electrons of the metal, because the visible photon frequency is below the plasma frequency of the conduction band. The process is similar to what happens in the ionosphere when it reflects low-frequency radio when e.g. some radars can see beyond the horizon. The photons do not interact with individual charged particles. The situation is different for shorter wavelengths such as X-rays. The same is true for the ionosphere: higher radio frequencies (such as those used in EISCAT radar) scatter from the ionospheric plasma incoherently.

          I have speculated that in LENR-active material, the plasma frequency is very high, effectively infinite, because some electrons have formed effectively massless pseudoparticles. If that is so, then LENR-active material should reflect off external X-rays and/or gammas, by a similar mechanism by which nickel reflects off visible light. That’s a testable prediction of such model.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            Photons do interact with free electrons, which generate eddy currents in the metal.

            As a microwave engineer I can assure you photons interact with the neculus as this is what is behind radiation pressure being p = 2 pwr / c.

            I’m working with some experimental data which is showing 25x the expected radiation pressure in a very high Q resonant cavity. One explanation is the Cu emitted photons have higher energy than when impacted.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Yes, photons interact with free electrons (i.e. conduction band electrons) collectively. Photons exert their radiation pressure on the free electron cloud, which shifts slightly and in that way transmits the force electrostatically to the positively charged lattice nuclei.

            I’m looking forward to seeing your experimental findings when you are ready to report them.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            Radiation pressure via photon momentum exchange with outer shell valance electrons?

            I think not.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Glass is transparent, metal is shiny. Both have atoms with electron shells but the difference is the conduction electrons. They interact with light.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            What about opaque non-conductors (for example, ceramics)?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Tony,

    It is not fusion or fission as the way energy is carried away from the neculus is via many low energy photons instead of a few very high energy gammas.

    Transmutations happen as a result of the decreased neculus energy no longer being able to sustain the existing neutron and proton population. So the neculus self adjusts to a new stable neutron and proton population that matches the neculus energy availibity.

    But as neculus energy is being continually drained away, there is no long term neculus stability until the photon bombardment stops.

  • Axil Axil

    Gerard ‘t Hooft is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He shared the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics with his thesis advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman “for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions”.He also studied the role of so-called instanton contributions in QCD. His calculation showed that these contributions lead to an interaction between light quarks at low energies not present in the normal theory.

    Studying instanton solutions of Yang–Mills theories, ‘t Hooft discovered that spontaneously breaking a theory with SU(N) symmetry to a U(1) symmetry will lead to the existence of magnetic monopoles. These monopoles are called ‘t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles, after Alexander Polyakov, who independently obtained the same result.

  • Paolo Marcoz

    Not Nuclear, Not Fission, Not Fusion, Not a Thing, Nothing

    • Engineer48
    • Tom Ridell

      I would think it would still be called a Nuclear reaction, as the energy is derived from the nucleus of the atom – as opposed to just swapping electrons, aka chemical reactions.

  • causal observer
  • Engineer48

    Interesting data on photon triggered LENR:

    Suggest the photons are doing more than playing with outer shell valance electrons.

  • Engineer48

    Hi ???,

    Why should i worry about what guys on LENR Forum say?

    My fingers are big, the keyboard on my phone is small, eyesight not so good.

    Even then I’m very sure what I write is clearly understood.

    Photon triggered LENR is real. Time for the LENR haters on LENR Forum to accept reality and move on.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Co,

    Working on it.

    Experimental data like this helps to underpin my efforts:

  • Engineer48
  • Engineer48

    Seems others have the same idea:

    “It was only in the late 1990s that we considered models which were based on excitation transfer (which we now consider to be a key mechanism for a successful model), and it was 2002 before we

    finally found a mechanism that was strong enough to fractionate a large quantum into a very large number of smaller quanta.”

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Thanks, this seems a useful paper.

    • causal observer

      Very helpful paper. Written in accessible language. Some stiff reading in parts but overall a great story about many aspects of LENR.
      Particular points:
      1) “A sudden change in the cell potential as a precursor to the initiation of an excess heat pulse has been seen in many laboratories over the years”: suggestive of Rossi’s controller behavior, as discussed in the posts on the demo.
      2) The understanding that the authors’ experimental results (excess energy) are SO reproducible that they could test, analyze, interpret and retest from many different points of view.
      3) The authors’ elimination of conventional explanations for the experimental results.
      4) Details on the difficulties of reproducing the Fleischmann-Pons results, particularly in the early years.
      5) The “sociology of science” in the authors’ responses to criticisms of LENR.
      And the paper definitely gets down to a level of detail that lends credence to Engineer48’s model.

  • Engineer48

    More laser induced LENR data:

    Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)
    Leif Holmlid

    Large signals of charged light mesons are observed in the laser-induced particle flux from ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) layers. The mesons are formed in such layers on metal surfaces using < 200 mJ laser pulse-energy.

  • Engineer48

    The NASA photon triggered LENR data:

    NASA establishes that X-rays, which are photons[e48], of between 65-200 keV trigger nuclear FUSION reactions – Patent published

  • Engineer48

    Photon trigger LENR experimental results that I know of:

    Letts and Craven – 650 nm photons
    Holmlid – 532 nm photons
    NASA – 65-200 keV XRay photons

    Any I missed?

    Which very strongly suggests low energy photons can trigger LENR excess heat and can, depending on the conditions, generate high energy particles as output or not.

    Strongly suggesting an atoms electron cloud does not stop low energy photons impacting the nucleus’ quarks

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I do not say that photon-triggered LENR would be impossible. But I am sure that the photons cannot do such trick by interacting directly with quarks.

      Shining laser light to ordinary metal does not produce any anomalous heat. LENR seems to be possible, however, in some special chemical systems. Chemistry is physics of valence electrons. Valence electrons also interact easily with light. In some way or another, the valence electrons must cause nuclear effects in LENR. The only speciality of valence electrons (compared to normal orbiting electrons) is that they form a non-localised population where collective effects like plasmons are possible. Therefore I’m thinking that it’s not the valence electron itself that the nucleus is interacting with in LENR. Rather, it is some wavemode that the sea of valence electrons supports, which for some reason exists in LENR active matter, but does not exist in typical matter.

      Any LENR theory must accomplish two things: 1) explain why LENR occurs in E-cat etc., 2) explain why LENR does *not* occur in normal matter. Any LENR theory that deals with only individual atom, for example, fails condition (2).

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        I respect your opinion but dont agree with it as it conflicks with the experimental data.

        Letts and Cravens also observed very sifnificant excess heat when using 6 – 30 mW of 365 MhZ Rf.

        Do you really think 1 orbital electron will stop photons from impacting on the 8 quarks in the deuterium nucleus?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Which part of what I wrote conflicts with experimental data?

          No, I don’t think orbiting electrons would stop photons from interacting with the nucleus. Rather it’s the fact that the nucleus is 50 million times smaller than optical wavelength. Consequently the light wave looks as a “DC field” to the nucleus. The nucleus responds to the light wave’s electric field by rocking back and forth as one piece (phonon oscillation), but its internals (quarks) are not affected.

  • Engineer48

    All this photon triggered LENR data can also apply to the Rossi quark as the plasma created between the Ni rods can supply photons to enter the Ni matrix and initiate LENR activity.

    This also applies to the older style Ni reactors of Focardi and onward that could have used thermal IR photons from the heater coil to enter the matrix and trigger LENR activity.

  • Engineer48

    One question of interest is why is it better to load a matrix with deuterium than hydrogen?

    One answer could be that hydrogen has 1 electron target and 3 quark targets, while deuterium has 1 electron target and 8 quark targets.

    So a deuterium loaded matrix has more quark targets for photons to hit and carry away a small quanta of energy. Plus more momentum transfer kicks /recoils to generate phonon vibration / heat waves in the host matrix.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      In case of Pd, yes D is better than H. But probably not so with Ni. I don’t know anyone doing Ni/D.

      (Deuterium has 6 quarks, not 8, by the way. Probably just a typo.)

  • Engineer48

    Letts and Cravens also demonstrated that 6 – 30 mW of 365.5 MhZ photons could trigger excess heat to the same extent as did the 1 – 10 mW 651 nm photons from their laser pointer.

  • Engineer48

    Photon scattering against bound atomic electrons is an elastic process. ie the emitted photon has the same energy as the impacting photon and thus there is no energy nor momentum exchange between bound orbital electrons and inbound photons.

    Rayleigh Scattering Elastic Photon Scattering By Bound Electrons

    Which shows radiation pressure can’t be involved with bound orbital electrons as it involves inelastic scattering where momentum is exchanged. Thus radiation pressure is indirect proof that photons do impact nucleus quarks, exchanging momentum and causing the atom matrix to gain momentum from the impacting photons.

    • Ted-Z

      Hyperpolarization, nuclear, is an example of interaction of photons with the nucleus.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      In elastic scattering, momentum is usually exchanged although energy is not. The momentum is a vector quantity while energy is a scalar quantity. The magnitude of the momentum vector must agree with the energy, but its direction can be anything. The radiation pressure effect is due to electrons. In metals, it’s mostly due to the conduction band electrons. In other materials, it depends on the type of material. Glass is transparent and thus feels no radiation pressure effect.

      The fact that glass is transparent shows that your conclusion is incorrect. If your conclusion would be true, all materials would look the same and none could be transparent.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        Not possible to transfer photon momentum and not photon energy as they are basically the same thing.

        Photon momentum p = m * c
        Photon mass m = e / c^2

        As an inelastic transfer changes photon energy, the photon wavelength also alters

        Photon wavelength lambda = (h * c) / e

        • Pekka Janhunen

          That equation holds for the magnitude of the momentum vector.

          When a photon is reflected a mirror, it goes back with the same momentum magnitude and energy as before. But with the opposite direction, and consequently the mirror must have received a kick which is the radiation pressure effect (actually twice the original momentum, because the photon makes a 180 degree turn). Momentum and velocity are vector quantities.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            If the photon transfered momentum to the mirror and tbe mirror accelerates, as in a solar sail, it is an inelastic event. The emitted photon is of a longer wavelength as it has lost momentum and energy, while the solar sail gained momentum and energy.

            If the mirror or solar sail does not move or accelerate then it is an elastic event and the emitted photon has the same energy as the impacting photon.

            The inelastic event is also called radiation pressure.

            And yes there are 2 momentum & energy exchange events. One on impact or absorb and another on emit.

            Which is way the radiation pressure equation has a 2 in it.

            N = (2 * e) / c, which assumes a right angle impact. If the impact is at another angle then cos(angle)^2 loss comes into play.

            Momentum is a force, which needs energy to do work to move or accelerate the mass.

            Work = (N^2 x t^2) / 2 x m

          • Pekka Janhunen

            If the sail is initially at rest and is then hit by a single photon, the sail gets only negligibly low velocity so that the interaction is very nearly elastic and the reflected photon has very nearly the original wavelength. (Let us assume that the sail is macroscopic and not e.g. only a single atom.) Even if many photons hit the sail almost simultaneously, one can always consider a time interval so short that only a single one of them hits.

            If the sail is already moving away from the sun, then the reflected photons are indeed red-shifted. Then the radiation pressure force performs work and consumes power. Power equals force times velocity. But if the velocity is zero, the power is zero: this is the above elastic case with no red-shift.

            Whether or not some force performs work, it depends on which coordinate frame one looks the situation from. It’s consistent with the fact that the red-shift depends on the velocity of the observer.

          • “When a photon is reflected a mirror, it goes back with the same momentum magnitude and energy as before. But with the opposite direction, and consequently the mirror must have received a kick which is the radiation pressure effect (actually twice the original momentum, because the photon makes a 180 degree turn). Momentum and velocity are vector quantities.”

            This surely a way to create infinite energy. Or at least double it …

  • Engineer48

    Good paper to read:

    The Interaction of Light with Matter: I – Scattering

    Only issue I have with it is it focuses on the high energy end of town and does not discuss what happens with low energy photons. ie less than gamma rays.

    This is a useful chart showing some of the photon / matter interactions. It does not include inverse Compton scattering from photons with less energy than their impacted particles.

    Just maybe that is a chapter of photon to matter interactions that needs to be added?

    Imagine the last equation being written Photon + Atom = Atom-

  • Engineer48

    NI + H or D, where it all started:

    Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems.

    Here I suggest the effect was triggered by photons produced by the heater. Plus very importantly that the Ni needed to be loaded with H or D, So two triggers.

    1) a matrix loaded with H or D.

    2) low energy photons impacting the H or D loaded matrix.

    So far there is experimental data to show the LENR triggering photons can be:

    1) High freq RF, 365 Mhz photons
    2) IR photons from an external heater coil
    3) UV & visible light photons from a laser or plasma
    4) low energy XRay photons

    It becomes clearer.

  • Engineer48

    There is one common thread to all these various LENR triggering photons:

    1) High freq RF, 365 Mhz photons
    2) IR and visible light photons from an external heater coil
    3) IR, visible and UV light photons from a plasma
    4) visible light photons from a laser
    5) 2 visible light photon lasers beating together
    6) low energy XRay photons

    Their eV value is much less that that of the impacted quarks and as such the impacts trigger inverse Compton scattering, ie the emitted photons are at a higher energy than when impacted, ie the emitted photons carry away energy and the quark would thus lose a very small amount of energy.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Might be two processes at play. The RF and IR cannot break molecules or cause ionisation, while the UV and X-ray can. Making atomic hydrogen or ionised hydrogen might improve the process if hydrogen then gets better into the nickel. While the RF/IR parts cause oscillations (plasmons, phonons), maybe their frequencies need to be tuned to some resonances.

  • Engineer48

    Some interesting numbers.

    A 1 um or 1,000 nm IR photon has an eV of 1.2398 or each of these photons is worth 1.986×10 -19 Joules.
    Therefore 1J of these 1 um photons requires 5.03×10 18 photons.
    Which is a lot of photons that will not go any deeper into the Ni matrix than a few um before they hit a quark (heaps of them) that generate an inverse inelastic compton scattering with carry away energy or electron (not too many of them) that generate an elastic compton scattering with no energy transfer or carry away.

  • Engineer48

    More interesting numbers from a very useful web site

    651 nm laser used by Letts and Cravens data analysis:

  • Engineer48

    It would seem that transparent glass can experience radiation pressure:

    Optical Levitation by Radiation Pressure

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Yes, a little bit, because glass refracts light so the incoming and outgoing laser beam directions are not exactly equal.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        Yrs refraction occurs but there is no mention of it being what causes the radiation pressure.

        I’ll do more research but my gut feel says refraction does not produce radiation pressure as such.

        Note the force is shown occuring inside the spheres and not at the bottom and top dielectric boundaries where refraction would occur.

  • Engineer48

    Another interesting paper showing experimental data for excess heat in a Pd+D system excited by 80 – 365 MHz Rf photons.

    So now we have experimental data showing photons from 82MHz (339×10^-9 eV) to 200keV soft XRays trigger LENR excess heat reactions in Pd+D targets.

    No impacting proton or neutron neculons nor any impaction ions, alpha, beta or gamma particles. Just photons with energy less than the quarks.

  • Engineer48

    Another interesting document

    where D2 gas glow discharge is created and the dissociated D+ neculus is accelerated to impact a palladium target, forcing it to enter the Pd matrix and locate at interstitial sites in the matrix This deuterates the target Pd matrix. I believe this action is precursor to what triggers the LENR reaction and is nor the cause or trigger for LENR effects.

    Also entering the Pd matrix are the photons generated by the D2 glow discharge.

    I suggest it is the low energy photons from the D2 glow discharge that impact the D+ ion, naked deuterium neculus, and trigger the LENR activity.

  • Engineer48

    Another interesting document

    where a D2 gas glow discharge is created and the dissociated D+ nucleus is accelerated to impact a palladium cathode target, forcing it to enter the Pd matrix and locate at interstitial sites in the matrix This deuterates the target Pd matrix. I believe this action is precursor to what triggers the LENR reaction and is nor the cause or trigger for LENR effects.

    Also entering the Pd matrix are the photons generated by the D2 glow discharge.

    I suggest it is the low energy photons from the D2 glow discharge that impact the quarks in the D+ ion, naked deuterium nucleus, and trigger the LENR activity.

  • Engineer48

    It would seem the 3 Rf frequencies that Letts found causing excess heat in Pd+D are the NMR frequencies for D, the neutron and the proton.

    “Thus, the exothermic effect observed at these specific frequencies may be related to spin orientations, occuring within the deuterium nucleus in the PdD lattice.”

  • Engineer48

    And so it continues:

    “The most anomalous phenomena appeared with pulsed triggering with a static mode.

    When loading 0.1 and input power was 25 mW, the heat response from the Pd wire increased up to

    k = 177°C /W (see Figure 3 and Table 3),

    an astounding result.

    That meant each deuteron released

    4.9 × 10-15 J,

    and the excess heat power density reached

    1.8 × 104 W/cm3 Pd.

    The reason for this anomalous phenomenon needs to be further discussed”

  • Missing: Any consideration how MUCH the larger ‘light waves’ affect MUCH smaller atoms, and esp electrons. This is not addressed in photoelectric affect either.

    Think about it, over a factor of 1,000 or so difference in size. Check it out with the reference source of your choice.

  • causal observer
  • causal observer

    Investigation of laser-matter interactions in strong and ultrastrong near-infrared radiation fields: atomic and molecular response

    Monday, February 12, 2018 – 3:30 pm
    SLAC, Redtail Hawk Conference Rooms
    Speaker: Nagitha Ekanayake, MSU


    The advent of chirped pulse amplification (CPA) and subsequent advances in laser technology have made the development of terawatt-(1012 W) and petawatt-(1015 W) scale ultrafast laser systems possible. CPA lasers operating at near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths are now capable of producing focal intensities in what are referred to as strong-field (>1014 W/cm2) and ultrastrong-field (>1017 W/cm2) regimes. Under these conditions, the field strength of the incident laser radiation tends to surpass the Coulomb binding field and the interaction becomes non-perturbative. Therefore, the response of matter to such extreme field intensities is of high interest to many branches of science. Some aspects of these intense laser-matter interactions are: the production of highly-charged ions, the generation of energetic electrons (well exceeding their rest mass), and the onset of novel photochemical reactions. In this talk, I will discuss a few topics of my previous and ongoing research activities, related to intense laser-matter interactions, and include an overview of my experience with ultrafast laser systems and relevant applications in both academic and free-electron laser (FEL) user facility environments. I will present a table-top, solid-state, ultrafast laser system capable of producing focal intensities exceeding 1019 W/cm2, discuss the formation and dynamics of relativistic photoelectrons from noble gas atoms, and unveil an exotic photochemical reaction occurring on extremely short timescales.

    • Engineer48

      Hi CO,

      Photons have no charge and are not repelled by the Coulomb barrier.

      Remember Letts achieved excess heat with 80 MHZ Rf low power photon excitation and 681nm 1mW laser pointer.

      Plus Shawrtz showed 532nm low power laser produced significantly more anti stokes, higher energy, back scatteted photons than stokes, less energy, back scattered photons.

  • Engineer48

    Hi CS,

    I would agree with you on that.

    It seems those that explore the atom work at the higher and higher energy end of the spectrum.

    However LENR experimenters are showing photons can trigger excess heat. Everything from Letts 82 MHz to NASA’a soft XRays has been shown to work with various material matrixes that are Deuterated. Here the NASA results with deuterated polyethylene and soft XRays is very interesting as this is the 1st result that I know of not using a metalic matrix.

    • causal observer

      Yep. I’ve been pursuing the radiation pressure angle, which of course can involve very low energy photons, to see if I can get to the base physics without having to mention lasers and LENR. Plus it seems that they are related phenomena in that something is making the hadrons move, and it could be the same photon-quark soup interaction that you speculate may be the cause of the LENR excess energy. The fact that there are so many papers on calculating radiation pressure that do NOT reference an underlying photon-particle interaction indicates that they have not figured it out. Knowing that interaction would really seem to be the best way to get the most accurate formula for the radiation pressure. On the other hand if someone has figured out that photon particle interaction for radiation pressure then that might be the door to understannding how the the quark soup energy might be tapped.

      • Engineer48
        • causal observer

          Sorry, gotta laugh. Not you, it’s because of what I keep running into – how calculate vs. the specific photon-particle interaction. I’m beginning to suspect that there is so MUCH information on how to calculate that it blocks thinking about what’s actually going on. Something is imparting momentum to the hadrons…what and how?

          • Engineer48

            Hi CO,

            Measured force generation for a photon rocket is ~3.3uN/kW of emitted photons.

            That same force is measured on impact.


            Bouncing the photons between mirrors increases the force as it increases the number of impact and emit events.

            As the moving mirror is free to move, the impacting and emitted photons cause the velocity and KE of the moving mirror mass to increase. So no momentum nor energy stays inside the matrix that contains the electrons and quarks the photons are impacting. They just pass it on to the matrix as a whole, accelerating the mass and increasing it’s KE as per the work done to move the mass.

            Some energy is lost as heat, so not all the energy drain from the impacting photons ends up as increased KE.

  • causal observer

    Another SLAC presentation
    Kankan Cong
    Rice University
    Coherent Light-Matter Coupling and Nonequilibrium Carrier Dynamics in Single- Chirality Carbon Nanotubes
    Wednesday, February 14
    11:00 a.m.
    Haidan Wen
    Single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) are unique one-dimensional condensed matter systems in which strongly enhanced Coulomb interactions are combined with unusual band structure. There are metallic and semiconducting SWCNTs, in both of which electron-electron interactions have significant impact on their electronic and optical properties. In this talk, I will demonstrate how ultrafast optical pump-probe spectroscopy can be used to investigate nonequilibrium dynamics of photogenerated electron-hole pairs, or excitons, in a sample in which a particular species, or chirality, of semiconducting SWCNTs was enriched. Depending on the pump photon energy, intensity, and polarization, different physical processes ensue after ultrafast pumping, including coherent light-matter interactions and incoherent relaxation of carriers/excitons. For example, under below-gap pumping, a transient blueshift of the exciton peak occurred, only during the pump pulse duration, a hallmark of the optical Stark effect. Under resonant pumping, transient splitting of the exciton peak was observed within the pulse duration, which is a manifestation of the Rabi doublet due to coherent light-matter interaction in the strong coupling regime. In the case of above-gap excitation, incoherent relaxation processes dominated the dynamics of excitons. Analysis of these ultrafast, nonequilibrium, and strongly driven phenomena provided considerable new insight into the states and dynamics of electrons in the presence of extreme quantum confinement and strong many-body interactions.

  • Engineer48

    I now believe there is another proven fact that drives excess heat in a highly deuterated matrix.

    The matrix must be vibrating in some resonant mode. That is shown from the following data:

    82 MHz Rf stimulation directly couples to deuteron atoms and causes then to precess at their NMR frequency.

    This precession or movement of the magnetic moment of the deuteron induces forces in the matrix and causes it to vibrate, generating phonon waves. In such a system with unaligned magnetic moments the vibration will be in many directions and not synchronised. However over a short time, the precession of the deuterons will sync with resonant phonon production and cause significant and resonant expansion and contraction of the host matrix. This will vary the distance between the deuterons and as the whole matrix is doing the contraction and expansion, localised deuteron pairs may gain enough KE to breach the electrostatic Coulomb barrier created by the positive charged protons in the deuteron nucleus.

    Sort of an Ed Storms resonance but occurring inside the matrix.

    Here the NMR freq of the deuterons in the matrix allow external photons to excite and vibrate the deuterons, which then cause vibration in the matrix, which then causes the deuterons to get close enough so the attractive strong force overcomes the repulsive proton to proton Coulomb force and thus for the 2 x deuterons to combine into 4He.

    While this is theory, it has been shown that exciting a highly deuterated Pd matric with 82 MHz Rf, at the deuteron NMR freq, can cause the generation of significant excess heat.

    What the experimental data tells us is that exciting the deuterons with external excitation that causes then to presess can trigger excess heat.

    Other data, shows that there is high correlation between matrix temp and the amount of excess heat released. Ie excite the deuterons to release excess heat and then vary the matrix temp, then observe the excess heat to increase as the matrix is externally heated.

    So some form of external synchronous deuteron excitement is required to get the deuterons to start moving about in a timed way and then to get that movement altered from random directional to resonant directional movement of the matrix.

    Then the release of 23.8 MeV as heat for each D+D > 4He event is the next issue to understand.

    This also implies that using brute force, ie high external matrix heating can also induce the excess heat event, again due to the matrix vibration from heating seeking and locking onto resonant phonon vibrational modes created by the bulk excess heating.

    What Letts showed is there is another way that can also trigger the same excess heating effect but do it with very much less energy via using NMR resonant photons to trigger deuteron vibrations that then lead onto matrix vibrations that then trigger D+D > 4He reactions.

    So several pathways to achieve excess heat. Using bulk heating to generate matrix vibration or using tuned photons to cause deuteron precession that leads to matrix vibration.

    No Magic Mushrooms needed.

    • Engineer48

      Here another way to induce matrix vibrations was tested. This is how science is done:

      Significant excess heat and nice transmutations were observed.

      However like bulk heating, this is a forced effect with no resonant feedback from the matrix. I like external photon excitation as it directly caused the deuterons to vibrate, then vibrate the matrix and feed high localised energy back to a deuteron pair. Sort of like Storms but not requiring a crack, just a resonant vibrating matrix.

      • causal observer

        Interesting stuff. Curious: what is your motivation for focusing on the Pd / D experiments vs nickel / hydrogen?

        • Engineer48

          Hi CO,

          H+H fusion results in a deuteron via beta plus decay of one proton into a neutron, a neutrino, a positron and 0.42 MeV of excess energy. Not too exciting.

          D+D seems to be much more interesting, assuming the expected deadly 23.8 MeV gamma is coupled to the matrix as KE (heat).

          • causal observer

            Got it. Do you have a theory of what Rossi’s reactor might be doing in that framework?

          • causal observer

            Leads to the question of how long the deuterium or hydrogen will persist in metals, if that’s a critical part of the QX, which is supposed to have a 3 to 6 month fuel lifetime.

          • Engineer48

            Hi CO,

            20W 24/7/180 is 3.11×10^8 J. At 23.8 MeV or 3.8×10^-12 J per D+D reaction. Will need 8.18×10^19 reactions over the 180 days or 1.64×10^20 deuterons. At 3.34×10^-24g per D, that is 5.48×10^-4g of D.

            So not a lot of D fuel.

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