Dr Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA’s Langley research center told New Energy Times today that NASA is attempting a low-energy nuclear reaction replication.
Photo: Aaron M. Cohen
“Our experiments are based upon the earlier Piantelli-Focardi work, which were some of the better bits extant,” Bushnell wrote. “But we are trying to core down on the theory, as well as utilize it for system optimization. We are not trying to do a net energy demo at all, we are simply trying to make sure there is a valid theoretical understanding.”
Bushnell told New Energy Times that their LENR experimental approach is based on the nickel-hydrogen research of Francesco Piantelli, retired from the University of Siena, and Sergio Focardi, retired from the University of Bologna.
The theory NASA is evaluating is the “Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENRs” developed by Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen. New Energy Times has a dedicated “portal” page for information about this theory.
NASA researcher Joseph. M. Zawodny, along with this writer, have contributed the chapter “Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs in the forthcoming Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.
New Energy Times published two articles on the Piantelli work in 2008. The second article has an extensive list of references and downloadable papers.
According to Bushnell, NASA is not working on a replication of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer device.
“We do not have enough details, by far, to even start to think of a replication of Rossi,” Bushnell wrote.
seems to me that Rossi uncorked some pandora bottle.
For some NASA big wig to talk about this might mean they are actually further along than he lets on. Why would he talk unless they already had some results?
It would make no sense from a political standpoint.
Or maybe not.
Good point. Indeed, this adds creditability to Ecat
Perhaps this idea is a bit surprising, but they could ask Piantelli! (I hope they did!).
It happens that Piantelli is a -probably- unique case in LENR- he understands scientifically
what he does. His experiments are based on strictly scientific principles.
if they are further along it means that, during the same months, more or less, two separate research groups, one in Italy and one at NASA, had evident results with Ni-H Low Energy reactors.
What a coincidence!
or perhaps not a coincidence at all.
both were based on works by piantelli and focardi.
it would just means that research in the field has reached a point were it’s possible to obtain evident results.
About Dennis Bushnell opinion:
David Houle: “What do you think are the most promising forms of energy to replace petroleum short term? Why?”
Dennis Bushnell: “… LENRS , Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Not hot fusion but weak interaction nuclear reactions. Large body of experiments world-wide and several theories indicate this is both real and understood.”
http://www.science20.com/david_houle/leading_thinkers_and_scientists_on_energy_dennis_m_bushnell
Joshua,
I have rejected your comment. It has too many inaccuracies and it fails to contribute even constructive criticism.
SBK
Has NASA’s Langley research center released an official statement about its involvement on LENR research? It would be good for the entire field, in my opinion.
You know, before we all get excited over Rossi’s work, we may want to consider the case of Genesis World Energy (GWE) about 10 years ago. GWE claimed to have a catalytic process that made fuel cells competitive with other energy conversion technologies and there was considerable hoohaa in the press. GWE turned out to be a scam and the founded ended up in prison for 5 years.
I hope that Rossi’s technology is real. The world could certainly use it. However, I think the proof is in the eating of the pudding and we need to wait and see if the Greek company produces the generators that work in the marketplace. Until then, skepticism is warranted.
The “new” energy field has a sordid history of scams and delusions, some of which have been investigated by the host of this website. I hope that we are not disappointed once again.
Abelard,
I remember GWE. Very slick Web site. Very slick PR. For a trip down memory lane, click here:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/commerce/genesisworldenergy/
I saved a copy of their Web site in 2003. I just made PDFs of all the pages to make it easier to archive. I never found out much more than what I have here.
SBK
Abelard, it is good not to let hope run away with reason. Please share this idea for whatever it could be worth:
Hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, is a substance that can be dissolved in water with any concentration. It can easily be catalyzed to decompose into water, oxygen and 0,196 MJ of heat per mol. This liquid looks very much like water and has no noticeable odour.
I principle we could build a gadget that would be fed water with hydrogen peroxide and produce a lot of heat. Let us call such a device an F-Cat. In the reactor of the F-Cat a catalyst would decompose the peroxide as described. The exit products would look very much like the ones that the E-Cat produces: steam and some hot water. The oxygen would normally not be noticed. But, if you tried to put the hose down into a bucket of cold water (calorimetry!) you would certainly notice that all the “steam” would not condense. In a high water flow low temperature test like the 18-hour one the oxygen would probably also not be noticed unless you put the hose under water.
If we with our F-Cat perform experiments parallel to those that have been done more or less in public with various E-Cats the following peroxide concentrations in weight percent would be required to produce the same net power with the same liquid input.
dec 16 39%
jan 14 39%
feb 21 0,3%
mar 29 39%
apr 19 35%
apr 28 35%
It is interesting to note that the five steam experiments can be described with only two different hydrogen peroxide concentrations. Is it possible that E-Cat = F-Cat?
Do you have any idea how much H2O2 you need to decompose to obtain anything near 1kW?
The scenario described by HG Branzell checks out completely. A 40% H2O2 concentration would autocatalyse on contact with Ni to produce the rate of heating demonstrated by the E-Cat. A flow of 4.1kg/hr of 40% H2O2 would produce 2.5kW of thermal heat. So for future demonstrations the independant observers should bring along their own containers of water.
A very clever way to fake it. Rossi would need some to arrange some trick plumbing so that the initial flow would be pure H2O, then shunt in just the right proportion of H2O2 to when the reactor “ignites”, but clever scam artists have done tricks more elaborate than that before.
OTOH, Rossi would almost certainly have needed to have an alternate fake for the April demos observed by Lewan. Lewan reported (and documented on video) that he repeated drew water from the tap into a plexiglas container, weighed it, and then poured it into the input reservoir. Since 40% H2O2 is an extremely powerful bleach/oxidizer, any drop splashed on skin or fabric would have given the game away immediately. Even traces of organic impurities in the containers would have caused noticeable foaming.
Cheers,
Mike
I’m quite sure how they are connecting Piantelli and Widom/Larsen. Acoording to what I know about Piantelli he does not subscribe to W-L. As for W-L I don’t believe ultra-cold neutrons could be produced without a broad energy spectrum in which case they would no longer be ultra-cold. It’s much more likely that tunneling probabilities may be modified at turning points in harmonic oscillations of protons. This may increase the protons ability to interact with nickel nuclei. Piantelli’s theory is different and involves the orbiting of a H- molecule around the nickel nucleus in a reduced radius Bohr orbit.
The reaction rate Rossi reports seems to be explicable without an appeal to either of these theories and requires only modest energies of ~100-1000eV. Since the densities of nickel and protons are so large in this case the low cross-section of the reaction is less problematical than in lower density systems. Oscillation of the protons at frequencies of ~ 10^14 Hz mean there are many more incident particles than can be arranged for in a particle beam. Also gamma emanations would seem to be able to couple with plasma modes and perhaps be attenuated while catalyzing protons to react by increasing their energies.
The first sentence of my previous post should read “I’m not quite sure…”
I too am replicating Piantelli and getting between 4 – 10 watts of excess power when operating above 350C. We are examining new spillover catalysts to amplify the output.
What are you doing exactly?
@ J. Catania
what you are saying is very interesting. Can you elaborate?
1. Which is the reaction rate Rossi reported?
2. How this high reaction rate can be related to such low energies under 1 kev?
3. The beam of oscillating particles beam is a beam of oscillating protons?
4. So you are talking about proton scattering? With some of them actually reaching a Nickel nucleus?
5. You are suggesting that the gamma radiation is attenuated releasing energy to the protons (so more of them can reach a nucleus)?
5. (most important) to excite the protons beam (to make them oscillate) don’t you need something like a “protonic vacuum tube”? With variable field to get that 10^14 Hz? Terahertz?
thanks in advance.
Rossi says in 6 Months 30% of 100 grams of Ni react. In 6 months there are 1.5 x 10^7 sec. The number of Ni atoms reacted in 6 mos. in one cc= moles Ni/cc x Avogadro’s# = 0.15 x 6.02 x 10^23 x 30%= 2.7 x 10^22. The # of Ni reacted per cc per sec is obtained by dividing by # of seconds in 6 mos. We obtain 1.8 x 10^15 per cc per sec.
Calculations:
http://t2.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/endf?3,5,/inet/WWW/data/data/ENDFB-VII-proton/Ni/62, this is the interpreted ENDF file from LANL for Ni-62 for an incident proton in and anything out. Although it is not equal to proton capture I assume its close. In the top row 5th and 6th column are the energy and cross-section for the reaction at 2MeV which equals 4.58 x 10^-4 barns. 1 barn= 10^-24 cm^2.
Its fairly easy to set up a reaction rate formula for Ni-62 + p fusion. Reaction rate/volume= n1.n2.sigma.v, where sigma is the cross-section in barns for the reaction. (4.58 x 10^-4 barns). n1 can be estimated from the density of nickel (~9g/cc) and molar gram weight (62g/mole) to give ~0.15 mole/cc. For the hydrogen molar density I’ll use 0.01 mole/cc (usually its stated that the hydrogen density is comparable to metal density within an order of magnitude). Since Avogadro’s number ~6 x 10^23, we have respectively 1 x 10^22 and 6 x 10^21 per cc. @2MeV the reaction cross section is 4.58 x 10^-28 cm^2 so RR=[(6 X 10^43)cm^-6 x 4.58 x 10-28 cm^2].v= (2.7 x 10^16).v per cc per sec if v is in cm/sec.
In 6 months there are 1.5 x 10^7 sec. The number of Ni atoms reacted in 6 mos. in one cc= molar density Ni/cc x Avogadro’s# = 0.15 x 6.02 x 10^23 x 30%= 2.7 x 10^22. The # of Ni reacted per cc per sec is obtained by dividing by # of seconds in 6 mos. We obtain 1.8 x 10^15 per cc per sec. Therefore the coeff of v is about an order of magnitude from the reaction rate calculated from Rossi’s data and we should expect v~0.1. [The proton velocity (v) is likely to be much higher if we consider that it might be able to pick up energy from plasma oscillations (~100 eV) which would give 10^7 cm/sec. If we consider proton thermal velocities instead we obtain ~ 10^5 cm/sec. This would allow a reaction rate (and reaction cross section) about a million times smaller than 4.58 x 10^-4 barns.] But note the reaction rates drop preciptously for anything lower than 2 MeV! The reaction cross-sections in the area we’re interested in are ruled by quantum tunneling and it is possible to estimate a scale factor to predict the effect at lower energies.
http://pntpm.ulb.ac.be/private/divers.htm.
This link gives the scale factor (Gamow factor) I was talking about for tunneling. If the tunneling probability is P= exp(-GF) and GF ~ 28. sqrt(29)/sqrt (energy in MeV) then as E is decreased by a factor of 10 P should decrease by a factor of 23.6. By order of mag we have: 1, 23.6, 557, 13144, 310204.
Using the scaling factor it seems an energy as little as ~100eV could be supported!
PS It would seem possible that gammas from the reaction could be fueling other fusions. It seems that the gammas could be exciting metastable states and increasing energies of protons and definitely excite plasma oscillations. This would also attenuate the gammas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waves_in_plasmas.
I’ll be glad to answer questions.
I just realized 2 MeV is not in the range of tunneling! and so scaling with Gamow won’t work. I’ll have to re-do that part.
No I’m not talking about a beam. I’m saying its better than a proton beam. The protons exist in the metal interstices and vibrate or oscillate. Each oscillation could be condidered as an incident particle on the nickel nucleus.
It turns out that the Coulomb barrier for Ni-62 + p ~700,000 eV. Judging from the steep descent in cross-sections from a paper on cadmium presumably above the tunneling regime (http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/06/nasa-working-on-lenr-replication-and-theory-confirmation/#comment-928) the rate of descent in cross-section for a halving of energy is ~1/400. This means that < 5 orders of magnitude are lost in dropping the Ni-62,p reaction from 2MeV to approximately the range where the tunneling regime and the Gamow factor preside. Just what the actual number is is unknown since no data seem to be available in the range of interest. But the prognosis seems good especially when we factor in proton vibrations which may be ~10^15 Hz and higher with gamma stimulation.
It seems I made an error when calculating the Coulomb barrier for Ni and the real result is some 12MeV (not 700,000eV) which brings us back to what I was saying before. BTW you are encouraged to check my calculations as they are somewhat error prone. A good reference for the Coulomb barrier is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier
@J. Catania
impressive.
you’re just saying that with present physics could be enough to explain both the heat excess and gamma attenuation.
just pumping enough huydrogen in nickel lattice and exciting the proton cloud to oscillate so at least a fraction can interact with nuclei.
and if gamma radiation sustain the reaction which could be the starter? Oscillating EM field in the metal? Simply heating?
The protons will naturally undergo plasma oscillations. I take it the heating in Rossi’s device is to catalyze formation of atomic hyfrogen but I could be wrong.
According to a prior model by me, yes, simple heating and the consequent internal metal bonding dynamics and rehybridizations of the metal lattice induce an internal electromagnetic field (in particular internal magnetic field dynamics) that can confine and oscillate the protons and electrons by what I have called the Little Effect. A suitable external magnetic field and/or electromagnetic wave can enhance such phenomena. Such oscillations by QED can present core orbitals for the electrons and the protons for their screenings and captures by the metal nuclei.
I believe Piantelli’s patent mentions several ways of starting a nuclear reaction one of which is mechanical shock, another a amgnetic field. Have you read it?
Could the “catalyst” just be a magnet? Something especially strong to nickel?
Piantelli and Focardi have contributed experimental evidence of such reactions since early 1990s with Ni-H. But I had not seen their patent until today. I thought patents on such systems were not being accepted by patent offices. I did today at your notice see their Nov 2009 patent where indeed they noted using external magnetic and electric field on their system for activating reaction. I simply mention that during April 2005 I previously gave a magnetic mechanism that may explain the data of Piantelli and others and I previously gave a magnetic mechanism that may give ways to accelerate the reaction for practical purposes and greater reproducibility. Thanks sincerely for sharing the reference.
Not Nickel Lattice. Insted singel nickel atom.
No, I meant the lattice (as written) as I proposed a collective effect of the lattice to confine the motion and energy onto one Ni atom of the lattice. It seems that confining the electron and proton onto Ni-62 present greater reaction. But thanks for your comment.
Sorry for bad english
Maybe the e-cat randomly destroy the nickel lattice (nano particle). The purpuse could be to create a single nickle atom who can transmutate with H or D to copper. The process could be mekanik, heat, electricity, elektromagnetik or a combination of all. Because the process is randomly
all kind of isotopes is created. The single copper atom seek a lattice.
Sometimes the process goes “wrong” and we end upp with iron or something else.
What i mean is that is not neccecery to explain everything in e-cat from one startpoint. Try a broader spectrum of startingpoints.
[Moderator deleted personal attack comment]
[Moderator: "Jag bara undrar?" is not getting personal with you. You are attempting to get personal with him. Moderator deleted personal comment. Take it somewhere else.]
[Moderator: Comment deleted. Tagged as spam.]
Muons are known to be able to catalyze LENR, what if Rossi’ and other similar units need hit by galactic muon, like ignition?
Then it will not work deep undergound (or reaction starts with longer pre-heating).
It may be sensitive to muon bursts (can be checked by comparing dates/times of anomalous Ni-H reaction accelerations with closest muon counter readings).
@J. Catania: with a coulomb barrier of roughly a MeV you are not gonna get any fusion reaction if you only have 100eV. The reaction rate drops sooo low at these energies, that it’s simply not gonna happen at any rate.
Note the barns even at 1MeV (in the page provided by yourself): its 0.000000+0. There is no fusion at all at energies (much) lower than that. Becuase it’s doesn’t scale linear when dropping below the coulomb barrier: there simply isn’t enough energy to overcome it.
Not correct. The energy regime below the Coulomb barrier is governed by tunneling. There is always a probability of a reaction and as we know reactions like D-D fusion do take place even at room-temperature albeit slowly. The rate is governed by an exponential law called the Gamow factor as I’ve detailed above. I use that law in the calculations. Although the cross-section is low the dwnsities and particle incidence are high.
This is where there is a mistake:
“If the tunneling probability is P= exp(-GF) and GF ~ 28. sqrt(29)/sqrt (energy in MeV) then as E is decreased by a factor of 10 P should decrease by a factor of 23.6. By order of mag we have: 1, 23.6, 557, 13144, 310204.”
To explain:
Let’s say GF = 1 at some chosen MeV. Then exp(-1) is 0.367.
If GF is sqrt(10) = 3.1622 times larger (due to E being a factor of 10 lower) then exp(-3.1622) is 0.0423. (about 8.7 times lower chance chance than when GF was 1)
If GF is sqrt(100) = 10 times larger (due to E being a factor of 100 lower) then exp(-10) is 0.0000454 (about 8083 times lower chance chance than when GF was 1).
If GF is sqrt(1000) = 31.622 times larger (due to E being a factor of 1000 lower chance than when GF was 1) then exp(-31.622) is 1.846 x 10^-14 (about 2 x 10^13 times lower chance than when GF was 1).
If GF is sqrt(10000) = 100 times larger (due to E being a factor of 10000 lower chance than when GF was 1) then exp(-100) is 3.72 x 10^-44 (about 9.86 x 10^42 times lower chance than when GF was 1).
That number is astronomical!! Not to mention 5 orders of magnitude…
In other words: the chances drop exponentially. Therefore no fusion occors, even if you have lots of atoms and lots of time. You need some KeV of MeV to make fusion occur in any meaningful way.
Hope that clears it up.
Jeffrey
Well, I think you need to go over your math again. 23.6 is the correct decrease factor for a factor of 10 decrease in energy. 1/23.6 =0.0428. And I do correctly give the 0th, 1st, 2nd ..etc powers of 23.6, I believe.
I have to apologize to you Jeffrey. I see my mistake now. What a silly blunder! Ok yes I was multiplying the old probability by exp(sqrt(10))instead of raising to the old probability to the 3.16. That’s quite a slip-up but I still don’t seem to see your numbers are right. Saying there is a multiplicative factor involved in calculating the new prob from the old is just plain wrong. This is more like raising the old prob to a power, say 3.16 to get te new prob and it seems to drop off even faster. I looked at your numbers and thought “this thing will still work even with a 10^-44 factor since we throw in a 10^15 or possible higher for oscillation freq. Also the Gamow factor with out the approximation usually includes a 1/Energy multiplication factor which would shave 5 orders off. There are also 7 orders of mag for the velocity. Ok so that isn’t good enough but what you have to realize is that there are 80000 keV gammas for metastable states, annihilation gammas (1/2 MeV and some as high as ~1.5MeV I believe). So if that energy is used wisely we might be seeing on the order of 2MeV or ~ 1 order lower in which case the rates are maybe around 10^-16 barn to 10 ^-5 barn during gamma emissions if the gammas can be used directly. Also the frequencies will be higher (~10^20 Hz). I’ll admit I thought that 100eV reactions were a bit high since this would mean room-temperature and below if one admits coupling to plasma oscillation through photons and we might see metal hydrides producing copious energy a bit more spontaneously. This way it seems necessary that nuclear emanations play an important role and external gamma irradiation might be able to increase the reaction rate.
I have followed developments in the misnamed field of cold fusion since its inception in 1989.The term cold fusion is an oxymoron. To achieve nuclear fusion with a particle, wave form energy(photon)or kinetic energy(heat) must be applied to allow the particle to overcome the natural energy present as a barrier in any atomic formation at room temperature. This is good for humanity since if there were many fusion reactions occuring at the temperatures normally encountered in our environment we would all perish from the released radiation. Radioactivity of some elements in the earth are not primarily fusion reactions but instabilities of atomic nuclei, and nature has helped us by shielding them with layers of soil and rock.
I believe that I was first to suggest that Rossi’s device was a form of linear accelerator since I am convinced that he had to somehow inject some sort of energy into a particle to the extent that it could cause the nuclei of encountered atoms to become unstable and release some sort of energy.
The most obvious particle to accelerate would be an easily formed negatively charged hydrogen atom i.e.a proton with two electrons. This ion can be energized by falling through an external electrostatic field or by an internal atomic positive field. Since the particle exhibits both mass and wave characteristics, once inside the electronic shells of the atom, the particle doesnt have to enter the nucleus but just get near enough for its wave character to disturb the nuclear equilibrium and cause a rearangement of forces with a subsequent ejection of energy. The possibile interactions are so many that any form and magnitude could ensue. The internal atomic structure can be considered a wave guide, which can enhance the wave form of the entering particle through Fournier transforms. I saw this effect when I conducted a research program for my masters thesis which involved measuring electron spin absorption bands in free radicals in 1956. The test cavity was a wave guide that enhanced the absorbtion when the free radicals were placed in one of the wave guide nodes. This is perhaps only an analogy but at this stage of developing a workable theorem with the dirth of information from Rossi, anything goes
I have to take it that there is definitely fusion going on in Rossi’s reactor (as reported). This is Ni + p fusion. I find it difficult to believe that the nuclei would not be in their ground states normally although a couple metastable states do occur and would be excited by gamma.
What eernie1 seems to be talking about above is called solid-target bombardment. Most of the energy is speny uselessly in interactions with electrons. No one seems to have very high hopes for this method although theoretically it does produce energy. Rather magnetic confinement seems historically to a be the choice because its a bit more efficient. I continue to toy with the idea of STB. If I remember correctly the upper end of theoretical efficiency was something like 10-15% efficiency with DT so it wouldn’t breakeven with existing power conversion technology.
J.Catania; What I am talking about is the ability to create an instability in the nucleus of one or more of the isotopes present in the metalic mixtures of Rossi’s device. Radioactive materials emit radiation because their nuceli are naturely unstable and rearange their interior composition to form a more stable state. If there is an isotope close to an unstable nuclear equilibrium state in his device, it may not take much more perturbation from an external em wave or particle to trigger a rearangement of nuclear forces to produce emission radiation of some source. The combination of particles and their forces within a nucleus is well known to be numerous and highly complex so any output from the nuclei can theoretically occur within limits. We as research experimenters have only touched the outer fringes of what is possible. Before this happens pedantic beliefs cannot discourage experiments but are only useful in guiding us in our efforts.
If Rossi’s device is normal physics then there need to be very many red faces and apologies .
If Rossi’s device is beyond normal physics then there needs to be very many red faces and apologies.
I agree with Eernie1. I agree that a barrier has to be overcome or diminished, so I previously proposed in 2005 the acceleration of hydride ions in the metal lattice, but under the electromagnetic fields associated with magnetic orchestrated rehybridization of the metal lattice. In fact, I published such a mechanism within a broader mechanism in 2006 with possible proton capture, electron capture and inverse beta processes.
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/PDF/Pdf2006/Dec/Little.pdf
See pages 188-192, in particular page 190.
I previously proposed that such processes are more readily possible in ferrometals (Fe, Co and Ni) due to their intrinsically strong internal magnetic fields for rehybridizing orbitals of the s, d and p subshells. I conceived that such rehybridization of the metals orbitals can shift the negatively charged d electrons into s orbitals, but more over such rehybridization can shift (accelerate) negatively charged hydride anion (one proton and two electrons) from d-orbitally bound hydrogen into s or sd hybridized bound hydride (one proton and two electrons confined into s orbital of metal). Thereby the chemically bound hydrogen to d orbital is transformed and becomes buried within the core shells of the metal lattice by the lattice rehybridization. Such hydride anion in s orbital has greater probability quantum mechanically of being near the nucleus for nuclear processes. Of course the hydride anion’s negative charge presents a Coulomb attraction to the positively charged nucleus. The hydride is of course heavier than the electron for differing mechanics. Moreover the strong magnetism presents an environment wherein many spin are polarized (chemically unbound protons, electrons and hydride anions) and can create multi spin mechanics of novel statistics wherein it is possible that the kinetic energies of many spins (including hydride anions and of course electrons and protons) can be focused into fewer spins for accelerating these fewer spins for novel (high energy) chemical and nuclear processes! The ability of such ferrometals via their magnetic fields to metastabilize many high energy, broken chemical bonds is manifested in the catalytic actions of Fe, Co and Ni for graphene and carbon nanotube formation and ammonia synthesis from nitrogen molecules. C-C and N-N bonds are some of the strongest possible chemical bonds, but the ferrometals are able due their strong magnetism to stabilize bare carbon and nitrogen atoms on their surfaces, transiently storing the huge chemical energies of thousands (possibly millions) of C and N broken chemical bonds in their metal lattices! Summing those many huge chemical bond energies surely exceed nuclear energies! The beauty of the ferrometals is their ability to metastabilize, synchronize and organize the dynamics of many such transiently broken high energy chemical bonds and highly reactive atoms of C, N, and H. Oxides interfere with such catalytic actions of the ferrometals. The nanometer size of such ferrometals affords single magnetic domains for more efficient, coherent magnetic synchronized and organized accelerations of the phenomena. I started out creating novel chemistry of such in 2000, I later realized in 2003 that such may also extend to novel nuclear processes in metal lattices. Such phenomena of multi spins and magnetic fields accelerating/decelerating the orbitals and rehybridizing orbitals for catalyzing chemical and nuclear transformations, I have named ‘the Little Effect’.
Piantelli theorizes similarly about hydride ions but I don’t see the advantage in this. A hydride bond is merely chemical and the two electron clouds (the hydride cloud and nickel cloud would strongly repel each other. It’s merely a chemical bond with an equilibrium distance which is certainy not close enough to fuse nuclei. There is no advantage to considering the proton to be a part of a hydride ion since there is more repulsion not less in this case. Also the term hydride as in metal hydride is somewhat of a misnomer and the hydrogen is more likely to be in the form of a proton. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride
As for the layer of chemical bonds having more energy than nuclear it does seem clear from Rossi’s statements as to the amount of energy released that the reactions must be nuclear since the involve many MeV per nucleus and up to 30% of nuclei react.
I appreciate your comment.
Piantelli may have also proposed hydride ion, but I think my model differs from his proposal.
In the conventional sense, it would be a chemical bond with repulsion between the nickel electron cloud and the two electrons of the hydride.
But in the new sense and my new perspective that I presented in 2005 in my model, the electron and hydride motions and magnetic attraction may counter the Coulombic repulsion of the hydride electron cloud and the Ni electron cloud. The resulting hydride is however Coulombically attracted to the metal nucleus (small size) with more poignancy and sharpness relative to the diffuse repulsion by Ni electron cloud (larger size). The consequent magnetism, motions and Coulombic attraction of the hydride anion to the metal nucleus (and its Coulombic repulsion by the Nickel electron cloud) may allow the hydride ion to be transformed from chemical bond (as Ni-H) [(d-s) bond] and its absorption into the d orbital (of the metal) and its torque from d orbital (of metal) into sd orbital (of metal) and its torque into s orbital (of a metal atom) by exchange with the lattice and its strong interaction with the nucleus of the metal due to its proximity to nucleus in the s orbital of the metal atom. Such rehybridization and localization of the hydride anion from d orbital to sd orbital to s orbital to nucleus, I propose in analog to rehybridization and localization of normal metal electrons by exchange in the lattice during rehybridization between d to sd to s orbital of the lattice electrons in the metal. Note the Coulomb repulsion of the lattice metal d electrons would drive such localization of the hydride into a d orbital and into sd hybrid orbital and into s orbital. Also the Coulombic attraction of the hydride to the nucleus of the metal would drive it from d to sd to s and into the nucleus of the metal. Possibly relativistic motions and very strong magnetic fields can further support such dynamics as the motions contribute magnetic attractions of the hydride anion to the lattice electronic magnetism and electronic motions with the lattice magnetism and motions organizing and synchronizing the rehybridization and localization of the hydride into d orbital into sd orbitals and into s orbitals of a metal atom. It seems feasible that such dynamics may be important and there is a way to account for such repulsions of electron clouds due to it being more diffuse relative to the more infeasible accounting for the sharp Coulomb repulsion of a bare proton to densely charge metal nucleus!
I think this magnetic compensation of electron could repulsion is reasonable as the electron cloud charge densities are much less than the nuclear charge density. On the other hand for a bare proton interacting with a metal nucleus, the charge density of the nucleus is much, much greater (relative to the diffuse electron cloud charge density) due to the small size of the nucleus and therefore more extravagant reasoning would be necessary to account for the proton – metal nucleus Coulomb repulsion barrier due to its less diffuseness relative to the more diffuse electron clouds. For these reasons I think it is more feasible the way I magnetically accommodate the weaker electron cloud repulsions rather than more unreasonable accommodations of Coulombic repulsions to protons and densely charged metal nuclie.
Actually the internal magnetic nature of the d bands and the electronic speeds is the way such cloud resistance is accommodated in transition metals.
Because egos can quickly (and unfortunately) become involved in this type discussion I do not wish to proceed further. But thanks for your comment.
In the Rossi reactor, I believe that clusters of coherent and entangled Rdyburg hydrogen condensate crystals are formed on the surface of a solid such as graphite and attain a long average lifetime due to the high pressure maintained within the hydrogen envelope of the reaction vessel. This lifetime is sufficient to support a hybrid hydride reaction with highly eroded nickel oxide powder.
Because they are quantum mechanically entangled, these multi-atom crystals of hydrogen behave as a single atom. More generally, these clusters behave and in fact mimic negligibly charged hydrogen ions with sufficiently long lifetimes to enter into the lattice defects produced by the hydrogen erosion of the nickel oxide nano-powder.
After this adsorption step, these complex H- ions interact with the nickel atoms that form the walls of the lattice defect. It is possible that a number of these complex H- ions can be confined in the nickel lattice defect. In accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle and with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the conditions are created for replacing electrons of the nickel metal atoms with these complex entangled assemblages of hydrogen atoms, thereby forming metal-hydrogen complex atoms.
So at the end of this absorption process, these complex H- ions are adsorbed into the lattice interstices, but adsorption at the grain edges, by trapping the negatively charged Rydburg ions into the lattice defects; replacement of an atom of the metal of clusters may also occur.
This event can take place due to the fermion nature of these complex Rydburg H- ion; however, since H- ions have a very large composite atomic mass many times larger than an electron mass, they tend to penetrate very deeply into the nickel lattuce structure of the ninckel oxide nano-powder, and cause an emission of Auger electrons and of X rays.
Thermal isolations in the metal lattice compress the large number of hydrogen atoms causing a structural reorganization and freeing energy by mass defect; these constant protons of this mass of sequestered hydrogen atoms can now be expelled as individual protons, and can generate nuclear reactions with the neighbouring cores.
More in detail, the complex entangled super atom that has formed by the metal atom capturing the Rydburg H- ion, in the full respect of the energy conservation principle, of the Pauli exclusion principle, and of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, is forced towards an excited status, therefore it reorganizes itself by the migration of the Rydburg – ion towards deeper orbitals or levels, i.e. towards a minimum energy state, thus emitting Auger electrons and X rays during the level changes. The Rydburg – ion falls into a potential hole and concentrates the kinetic energy which was previously distributed the entire entangled volume of the entire Rydburg hydrogen crystal into a smaller volume whose radius is about 5x10e-15 m.
This results in the fusion into various light elements which form a light atomic weight ash and whose feedstock is solely hydrogen atoms and copper atoms whose feed stock is nickel atoms and protons expelled from the site of light element fusion during light element reformation.
So at the end of the process, the Rydburg-ion is at a distance from the core that is comparable with the nuclear radius; in fact in the fundamental status of the complex atom that is formed by adding the Rydburg- ion, due to its mass that is far greater than the mass of the electron, the Rydburg – ion is forced to stay at such deep level at a distance from the core that is comparable with the nuclear radius, in accordance with Bohr radius calculation. As above stated, owing to the short distance from the core, a process is triggered in which the Rydburg – ion is fuse into heavier elements and/or constituent protons that are captured by the core of the nickel atoms that form the lattice defect walls, with a structural reorganization and energy release by mass defect, similarly to what happens in the case of electron capture with structural reorganization and energy release by mass defect or in case of loss of two electrons, due to their intrinsic instability, during the fall process towards the lowest layers, and eventually an expulsion of protons and nuclear reactions can occur with other neighboring nickel atom cores, said reactions detected as transmutations on the active core after the production of energy.
This mechanism of transmutation accounts for the production of both light elements and heavy element such as copper and zinc.
A compound negative particle compriced of many hydrogen atoms is required to explain the production of many light elements in the Rossi ash besides Copper as follows:
8 – Oxygen
9 – Fluorine(captured to form fluorides)
10 – Neon (outgased ?)
11 – Sodium
12 – Magnesium
13 – Silicon (mentioned as ash)
14 – Phosphorus
15 – Sulfur (mentioned as ash)
16 – Chlorine (mentioned as ash)
17 – Argon (outgased ?)
18 – Potassium (mentioned as ash)
19 – Calcium (mentioned as ash)
A single proton will have only produced copper as stated by Rossi.
In Widom-Larsen Theory protons and electrons combine into neutron to screen coulomb barrier – sounds great, but required energy for such process is 0.78MeV – it’s quite huge, we could borrow it from vacuum due to Heisenberg principle, but only for about 4*10^-22s. Protons in room temperature have about 1000m/s velocity, so in this way we could only explain last attometers …
To understand LENR, we would indeed need electron’s charge to screen charge of proton, but it should be rather between proton and nucleus. It occurs that taking into consideration electron’s magnetic moment, classical approximation of electron’s behavior is literally bouncing from nucleus (or low angular momentum Sommerfeld orbits) – or between nucleus and proton as required for fusion.
These classical trajectories were considered for a few decades by Michal Gryzinski ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model ), he became cold fusion enthusiast after P&F experiment and had explaining article in Nature a month after .
Here is his lecture with animations of such bouncing electron trajectories: http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor5ang.html
The “Heating” resistor also provides a magnetic field, AC or DC??? Hi frequency or square wave???
I see so little thought directed toward the switch.
Mike