LENR+: reazioni al paper di Rossi e Cook

L'articolo recente di Norman Cook e Andrea Rossi sull'inaspettato shift isotopico osservato nel combustibile (la famosa polverina di nichel) dell'Hot-cat ha gia' suscitato reazioni. Pure costruttive. Ne propongo qui due, che ricordano i tempi in cui fisica significava filosofia naturale. Questi filosofeggiano di micro-, nano- e pure femto-natura.

Estratti dal blog di Peter Gluck:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ch/2015/04/taking-good-parts-of-cook-rossi-paper.html

Help received from a theorist

Professor Andrew Meulenberg has generously answered to my appeal to theorists. He writes:

After hearing Norman for the 3rd time at an ICCF, I decided that I needed to make the time to read his book. I am glad that I did. In that process, I became convinced that he had the best approach to nuclear structure. So I (with a PhD in low-energy-nuclear physics) consider him to be a good source.
Cook has made a number of minor mistakes in his paper and others have pointed them out, so I won't repeat them. None seem to be serious. He has also made a number of comments that I will address.

"... the lithium nucleus itself may be promoted to low lying excited states."
He has identified the special trait of the 7Li nucleus on which I have commented previously in the CMNS group - the 477 keV 1st excitation level. He does not read the material there and did not figure out (publish) why it is so important. He wrote:
"It must be stated that an energetic justification of the 7Li4 + p => 8Be4 reaction is still lacking,"
He, like most knowledgeable people, does not know how the proton can overcome the high Coulomb barrier about the 7Li nucleus. X. Z. Li, et al. (7th item in http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=3) has written about the anomalously high proton-capture cross section for 6Li. However, this is an entirely different mechanism, which, if the Lugano results are believed, has a much lower interaction probability than the one I propose.

The deep Dirac level (DDL) model gives the answers. An atomic electron, decaying to the DDL needs to get rid of 509 keV. It cannot do this by ordinary photo-decay. However, with much closer coupling of H and Li within a Ni (or Pd) lattice surface region, the proton-bound electron can transfer most of its potential energy (via near-field coupling) to the 7Li nucleus while shrinking its orbit about a proton. Even if it does not reach all of the way down to the DDL, in the resonant exchange of energies between the electron and 7Li nucleus, the electron orbital radius is greatly decreased for a significant percentage of its time. This 'strong screening' of the greatly shrunken electron orbit greatly increases the tunneling probability of the proton into the 7Li nucleus. If an electron actually is able to attain the DDL, then the femto-H atom (as a 'fat neutron', less than 10 fermi across) could easily penetrate to, and into, the nucleus of either the interacting 7Li or an adjacent lattice Ni.

If femto-H penetrates the 7Li nucleus, then the fusion of the 7Li to 8Be and the fission to two 4He atoms follows the predicted pattern. However, the tightly bound DDL electron now becomes a means of dissipating the excess nuclear energy to the lattice in the process of its absorption and re-radiation (*) of the radiant energy from the excited nuclear protons prior to its being ejected (in an internal conversion process). It would mean that the release of nuclear energy is not confined to the alpha pair. The multi-body decay process allows a range of alpha decay energies, mostly much lower. This process is identical to the one that prevents fragmentation of the excited 4He in D-D fusion. (**) It is a continuous process that is faster than nuclear decay processes, which are probabilistic.

Cook has recognized a possible path for CF:
"If the excitation of stable nuclei to low-lying excited-states is indeed an essential prerequisite of LENR phenomena, it would not be surprising that LENR effects can occur in very different solid state/chemical environments, provided only that the necessary proton/deuteron constituents can be brought into contact with the unusually-reactive low-lying excited states of substrate nuclei."

However, he has not explained why it happens. On the other hand, his nuclear model may be able to help unravel the apparent Defkalion and Lugano differences in the 61Ni activity. I have proposed an answer, but I would like to see confirming data before committing whole-heartedly to it. Nevertheless, Cook's lattice-nucleus model complements my DDL-fusion model and both are strengthened by the other in the CF results. Perhaps he and I can work together to resolve some apparent differences in the fusion rates between lattice-H and the 7Li and 61Ni nuclei.

Andrew

(*) A. Meulenberg, "Deep-orbit-electron radiation absorption and emission", ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science, Columbia, Missouri, 25/07/2013, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015), 125-136
(**) A. Meulenberg and K.P. Sinha, "Deep-Orbit-Electron Radiation Emission in Decay from 4H*# to 4He", 17th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Daejeon, Korea, 12-17 August, 2012, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014), 357-368

--

Axil dixit

April 8th, 2015

Like so many LENR theories, the Cook theory of the LENR reaction is not fundamental. Like almost all other LENR theories, it deals with the emergent results of the fundamental LENR reaction without explaining the cause of the observed experimental results.

If a theory cannot explain EVERY aspect of the experimental results in every dimension, it is not valid.

In particular, the way energy of these high powered alpha particles are converted to heat is not addressed, even though that part of the LENR theory is central to how the energy of the nuclear reaction is converted to soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light.

I have concluded from the experimental results derived from many LENR systems that the gamma suppression and the basic LENR nuclear reaction is tightly coupled together so that if a LENR based nuclear event occurs, no gamma is ever seen in a environment that has gotten hot enough (500 C).

Gamma suppression is an essential part of the LENR reaction. So Gamma suppression is an essential part of what is going on inside the Nuclear Active Environment. If energy is carried away from the NAE, it cannot be converted to its final moderated form (soft x-rays and extreme ultraviolet light) by the LENR reaction.

Cook says that high energy alpha particles exit the NAE at high energy and deliver their energy to the far field at an some indeterminate distance from the NAE that produced the energy. If this were true, there is always a slight chance that the alpha particle could exit the gas envelop and deposit its kinetic energy in the Alumina shell where a gamma ray would result. This gamma ray is never seen. So if an alpha particle is produced it must have little or no kinetic energy that is transferred to the far field.

All the energy of the nuclear reaction is carried away from the NAE by the LENR reaction itself. The gamma emission or better said, the lack of gamma emissions, is an intrinsic part of the LENR reaction energy transfer mechanism.

--
What could Andrea Rossi do for this theory?

The noblesse oblige of an researcher is to demonstrate that his theory is resistant even to the most perfidious falsification- Karl Popper dixit.
Relaying an idea of Brian Ahern, it is children's play to make a Hot Cat test with LiAl D4 instead of LiAlH4 - If hydrogen is the key and not Li-7, then this stuff does not work. If in Rossi's lab, or at the testers there are still made serial
experiments, just insert one with the deuteride? What happens? Or is the problem even more complex?
I want return in the experimental world, writing blogs is too easy.

Peter