The possible theory of LENR. Please criticize.

[guron17]

A model is proposed that explains LENR in nanocrystals. We should expect "flares" of the neutron yield (or, more accurately, the reaction events) in a certain narrow temperature range, the evaluation is performed in the work. The experiment is to heat the powder and slowly cool, while keeping track of the "flashes". Please criticize.

 

 

 

 

guron_lenr_eng.pdf

Edited May 3, 2017 by guron17

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Details of the idea must be posted here. Members must not be forced to venture off-site to participate in the discussion. If you do not provide enough of the idea for discussion the thread will be locked

 

[DrP]

What powder exactly? What conditions does this powder need to be under for these LENR's to occur?

 

From reading around it does seem like the initial experiments were set up by a con man to get funding. Has this changed? Are there credible labs producing results now? (I did not go to the link)

 

PS - what are the nuclear reactions taking place and how are the new products characterized?

Edited May 3, 2017 by DrP

[guron17]

sorry. text is here

guron_lenr_eng.pdf

[Enthalpy]

The cited document has the same scientific value as about everything related with LENR: none.

 

I'd close an eye on the g versus kg, the 9g versus 7g, and so on... But NOT about the electron's energy in a periodic potential equalling its kinetic energy. Nor about the nuclei's potential being allegedly a barrier. Did you notice? Their are positively charged and attract the electrons. And so on and so forth.

 

B*llocks.

[guron17]

The cited document has the same scientific value as about everything related with LENR: none.

 

I'd close an eye on the g versus kg, the 9g versus 7g, and so on... But NOT about the electron's energy in a periodic potential equalling its kinetic energy. Nor about the nuclei's potential being allegedly a barrier. Did you notice? Their are positively charged and attract the electrons. And so on and so forth.

 

B*llocks.

[AlainCo]

The exploitation of 1-dimentionality is interesting, but I cannot comment more.

I'm worried that it seems that you focus only on the initiation of the reaction, and not the biggest point in LENR observation, the mild average energy of outcome.

 

The most important miracle in LENr reactions is not that a nuclear reaction is initiated from low average energy, but that once a huge energy per He4 produced (see this P-R review http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf ), the outcome seldom contains MeV energy events (gamma, charged particle), not even proportionate neutrons.

For me this is the key, and the key to the incredulity about reality of the numerous and varied experimental results (I consider that only PdD results are sound and enough replicated to be hard to deny).

 

The only credible proposal from my point of view, is the one of Edmund Storms, who propose not a full theory, but a bounding of possible theories , of possible mechanism, and the embryo of a proposed mechanism (hydroton).

you can find few article and books there

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258148116_Efforts_to_explain_low-energy_nuclear_reactions

 

Hydroton is not far from your ideas, as it is a 1-D structure.

The work of Vladimir Dubinko on discrete breather, is interesting too, but again the key to explain is the absence of huge energy events.

 

the work of ENEA, confirmed by NRL and SKINR, is clearly confirming the importance of cristallographic state, caused by impurities and treatments (manufacturing, loading-unloading), in LENR rate of success in PdD experiments.

 

If your theory

 

- does not explains why there is no MeV gamma or charged particle braking

 

- does not explains why metallurgy is key

 

It have few chance to be true or useful.

 

It seems anyway, from what i understand that you are going in a fruitful direction, of collective phenomenons in 1-D structures. The theory of Edmund Storms looks experimentally well founded, and have good chances to be correct about the metallurgy, but there is a need of a quantum mechanism.

 

Edmund Storms ideas is that LENR is a kind of "slow fusion", where keV quantum are accumulated or dissipated in a collective phenomenon not unlike superconduction. There is a great need of QM expertise on that point, in strong connection with the experimental database.

Edited June 16, 2017 by AlainCo

[guron17]

The exploitation of 1-dimentionality is interesting, but I cannot comment more.

I'm worried that it seems that you focus only on the initiation of the reaction, and not the biggest point in LENR observation, the mild average energy of outcome.

 

The most important miracle in LENr reactions is not that a nuclear reaction is initiated from low average energy, but that once a huge energy per He4 produced (see this P-R review http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf ), the outcome seldom contains MeV energy events (gamma, charged particle), not even proportionate neutrons.

For me this is the key, and the key to the incredulity about reality of the numerous and varied experimental results (I consider that only PdD results are sound and enough replicated to be hard to deny).

 

The only credible proposal from my point of view, is the one of Edmund Storms, who propose not a full theory, but a bounding of possible theories , of possible mechanism, and the embryo of a proposed mechanism (hydroton).

you can find few article and books there

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258148116_Efforts_to_explain_low-energy_nuclear_reactions

 

Hydroton is not far from your ideas, as it is a 1-D structure.

The work of Vladimir Dubinko on discrete breather, is interesting too, but again the key to explain is the absence of huge energy events.

 

the work of ENEA, confirmed by NRL and SKINR, is clearly confirming the importance of cristallographic state, caused by impurities and treatments (manufacturing, loading-unloading), in LENR rate of success in PdD experiments.

 

If your theory

 

- does not explains why there is no MeV gamma or charged particle braking

 

- does not explains why metallurgy is key

 

It have few chance to be true or useful.

 

It seems anyway, from what i understand that you are going in a fruitful direction, of collective phenomenons in 1-D structures. The theory of Edmund Storms looks experimentally well founded, and have good chances to be correct about the metallurgy, but there is a need of a quantum mechanism.

 

Edmund Storms ideas is that LENR is a kind of "slow fusion", where keV quantum are accumulated or dissipated in a collective phenomenon not unlike superconduction. There is a great need of QM expertise on that point, in strong connection with the experimental database.

 

Thank You for Your opinion. You are right- I don 't explain the reaction, I explain the possibility of Coulomb barrier overcoming only (like Gamov for quantum tunneling). Besides, I attempt to estimate the amount of "one dimentional" ossilations among general 3- dimentional. Thus 1-dimentional estimation is credible.

Edited June 17, 2017 by guron17

[AlainCo]

 

Thank You for Your opinion. You are right- I don 't explain the reaction, I explain the possibility of Coulomb barrier overcoming only (like Gamov for quantum tunneling). Besides, I attempt to estimate the amount of "one dimentional" ossilations among general 3- dimentional. Thus 1-dimentional estimation is credible.

 

The possibility of energy accumulation allowing Coulom barrier overcoming is a key question. This possibility would however produce classic "hot fusion" outcome. There are some experimental results with mild energy bombardment that seems to support that possibility, with usual results like neutrons and tritium proportionate to the reaction.

 

Maybe would a similar approach, exploiting QM theoretical competence, would be able to explain mild radiation outcome. There is a need for such effort.

LENR is caught in a complex catch22. The absence of a theoretical framework make some prefer to deny the experimental results, whoever obtain them, whatever they are, whatever is the sigma and the cross checking. On the other side, it attract easy "new physics" claims, whose supporters ignore all dissenting data in LENR and outside LENR. Finally the few who consider the data, and base their reflection like you on established QM in the unexplored material science landscape, focus first on the first miracle of LENR, the low energy ignition, keeping the low energy outcome miracle to later. This is the key point to make things advance. My vision is that any tentative to explains LENR should start from the latest miracle : low energy outcome. This position is not much shared.

 

On you 1D approach, it is clearly one of the key direction, and as I understand in established physics the 1D QM have already delivered counter-intuitive results. Nanotubes experiments may have already produced interesting results?

2D (graphène is one example, HTSC too) is more explored, and already delivered surprises.

 

My position, I admit, is mostly at the epistemological level, highlighting where research may be fruitful, given it's apparent structure emerging from data, and what are the locks.

Edited June 18, 2017 by AlainCo