THE RIDDLE AND POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle
of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29, 58CO27, and 62Cu29
to the Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This
solution of the specific problem byproducts problem is manifest if
the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in
extremely improbable instances:
1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus
plus two p*
2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically
disallowed.
Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton
and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a
neutrino.
The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible
reactions:
58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657]
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843]
Ni28 + 2 p* ---> 2 1H1 + 0 MeV
THE ZERO POINT ENERGY FUELED CASES
Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results in
1H1, ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton are not
ejected at the same time. The large positive nuclear charge ejects
the proton immediately with approximately 6 MeV kinetic energy.
This kind of zero point energy fueled proton ejection should result
in detectible brehmstrahlung. This energy is in addition to the mass
change energy listed above. The approximately 6 MeV free energy so
gained is made up from the zero point field via uncertainty pressure
expanding any remaining trapped electron's wavefunction. Such energy
may also be obtained from the direct magnetic attraction of a pair of
deflated protons, without the aid of a lattice nucleus. This is of
the form:
p* + P* --> 2 1H1
However, the repulsion of a proton from a proton is far less than
from a large nucleus, and the electrons in this case are not trapped
when the protons separate. However, some EuV radiation can be
expected from the ensemble breakup. A very very small rate of pep
reactions may occur:
p + p* --> D + e+ v + 0.42 MeV
These are followed immediately by:
e- + e+ --> 2 gamma + 0.59 MeV
and this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background
in the Rossi E-cats.
COMPARISON WITH PURELY STRONG REACTIONS
The following represent energetically feasible initial strong
reactions based on deflation fusion theory:
Compare to 18.822 MeV:
58Ni28 + p* --> 59Cu29 # + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV]
58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 56Ni28 # + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV]
58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Zn30 # + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV]
Compare to: 16.852 MeV:
60Ni28 + p* --> 61Cu29 # + 4.801 MeV [-3.394 MeV]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.391 MeV]
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Zn30 # + 11.277 MeV [-5.022 MeV]
Compare to: 9.814 MeV
61Ni28 + p* --> 58Co27 # + 4He2 + 00.489 MeV [-7.661 MeV]
61Ni28 + p* --> 62Cu29 # + 5.866 MeV [-2.284 MeV]
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Ni28 # + 4He2 + 9.088 MeV [-7.125 MeV]
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Cu29 # + 1H1 + 5.866 MeV [-10.347 MeV]
61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Zn30 # + 12.570 MeV [-3.643 MeV]
Compare to: 14.931 Mev
62Ni28 + p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV]
62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.293 MeV]
Compare to: 16.378 MeV
64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [00.415 MeV]
* Note - reaction products marked with * above are radioactive.
In all cases the net reaction energies of the proposed reactions
exceed those the net energies from reactions that produce radioactive
isotopes. This makes rule 2 reasonable and understandable on an
energy only basis. The mechanism that enforces the rule is more
difficult to understand. Understanding the mechanism requires
understanding the initial energy deficit due to the trapped electron.
This electron trapping energy deficit is shown in brackets above.
The deficit shown is a net of the Coulomb trapping energy less the
nuclear reaction energy. This deficit provides a limit to how far an
energetically ejected electron can travel out of the coulomb well
before being pulled back. If an electron is in the nucleus at the
site of the initial reaction, then a large part of the energy that
normally goes into ejecting a gamma goes into ejecting the trapped
electron. However, given that this ejection energy is insufficient,
i.e. the number in brackets is negative, the electron has numerous
delayed passes through the nucleus in which to effect a weak
reaction. The electron, when outside the nucleus and accelerating,
is free to radiate large numbers of gammas in much smaller than
normal energies. It is also notable that the electron energy
deficits in brackets are only initial lower limits. The actual
energy deficit can be much higher, depending on the radius of the
deflated proton or deflated quark involved.
THE MOST IMPORTANT ENTHALPY PRODUCING NUCLEAR REACTIONS
The neutrino producing reactions lose almost all their kinetic energy
to the neutrinos. If these reactions are excluded, the following
list is produced:
60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786] improbable
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656]
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612] improbable
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369] improbable
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145]
improbable
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497] improbable
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843] improbable
The branches having less energy are marked improbable. The reaction
energy appears in an exponential term (in the erfc function) when
computing channel probability. See page 7 of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
Removing the improbable reactions, to obtain the most prolific heat
producing reactions leaves:
62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656]
64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918]
This implies that, given the initially assumed two rules, Ni highly
enriched in 62Ni and 64Ni will provide a much higher energy density.
The natural abundances of 62Ni and 64Ni are 3.634% and 0.926%
respectively. For this reason the reliability and energy density of
reactors using nickel highly enriched in 62Ni and 64Ni should be
significantly improved.
WHAT IS DEFLATION FUSION THEORY?
Deflation fusion theory has evolved from this:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusionExp.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf
to this:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion.pdf
MAGNETISM AND DEFLATION FUSION
Magnetic orbitals involving electrons with either deuterons, protons,
or positive quarks, are the essence of Deflation Fusion concepts.
The magnetic force due to spin coupling is a 1/r^4 force, while the
Coulomb force is a 1/r^2 force. At close radii, the magnetic binding
between electron and nucleating particle greatly exceeds the Coulomb
force, though magnetically bound orbitals are intrinsically unstable,
due to their 1/r^4 nature. The hydrogen electron is momentarily
bound to its nucleus in a very small magnetic orbital periodically,
but briefly, on the order of an attosecond. This is the deflated
state. This magnetically bound small state, being neutral, but
having a very large magnetic moment for a nucleus, has a
significant probability of tunneling to any adjacent nucleus that has
a magnetic moment. The magnetic gradients provide the net energy for
tunneling of the neutral deflated state hydrogen to the adjacent
nucleus.
Heavy lattice nuclei magnetic moments are periodically enhanced by
electrons which enter the nucleus in their ordinary orbital states.
That orbital electrons enter nuclei is evidenced by the facts that
(1) they are point particles in valid QM treatments, with non-zero
nucleus residence probabilites, and (2) evidenced by the existence
of electron capture. The magnetic moment of an electron is 3 orders
of magnitude larger than typical nuclei. Some nuclei have no
magnetic moment at all. Orbital electrons, when in a heavy nucleus,
have the ability to form momentary small deflated state nuclear
components within the heavy nuclei, and thus provide extremely large
nuclear magnetic moments, three orders of magnitude larger than
typical nuclei, to the heavy nuclei. When in the nucleus, the
electrons can momentarily magnetically bind to nuclear particles,
such as protons or quarks, including strange quarks, sometimes
resulting in weak reactions between an electron and strange quark,
thereby leaving behind unpaired strange matter. Strange quark pairs
are produced from the vacuum in nuclei. If one strange quark is
weakly transmuted, or catalytically extracted, then the paired
strange quark remains behind in a potentially long term stable form.
By deflation fusion theory, nuclear electrons have the ability to
catalyze strange particle production from the vacuum and separate
them, as well as produce low energy state, and thus stable, product
particles. See page 20 ff of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
This strange matter catalysis process, which is primarily magnetic
force based, has the potential to produce and store antimatter, and
to dwarf the capacity and energy density of all other methods of
energy storage and production. The momentary extremely low energy
state of deflated nuclei in a heavy nucleus reaction has the
potential to produce stable and separated matter and antimatter
strange particles, hyperons, and hyper nuclei. That is perhaps the
most significant part of deflation fusion theory.
The formation of the deflated state in bare hydrogen nuclei, e.g.
lattice absorbed nuclei, is feasible in an electron flux provided
the flux density is high enough. This was theorized some years ago.
A recent development, related to Brian Ahern's work, is the
significance of magnetic vortices, i.e. electron vortices. These
vortices produce a dense electron flux in the vicinity of absorbed
hydrogen nuclei, and thus can be expected to greatly enhance the
probability of the deflated state hydrogen nuclei in their presence.
Once an electron is momentarily trapped in a heavy lattice nucleus,
and the nucleus has orders of magnitude larger magnetic moment, that
nucleus can act as a nucleating point for numerous other deflated
state hydrogen nuclei to tunnel into that heavy nucleus, thus
trapping multiple new hydrogen nuclei and, their magnetically bound
electrons, from every lattice locus nearby. In a dense lattice with
a high deflated nucleus population density, this can be 4 or 8
hydrogen nuclei. Depending on the duration the lattice nucleus
retains a high magnetic moment, additional hydrogen nuclei can tunnel
into the vicinity to occupy the sites vacated by the now fused
hydrogen This general process can be called cluster fusion.
Non-magnetic material can be made magnetic within nanopores, by
creation of rings of free electrons at the nanopore metal boundary.
Nickel itself can be magnetic or not, depending on the chemical
loading processes and chemical nature of the nanopores in which it is
embedded, and depending on the presence sometimes of a single iron atom.
These are some of the facts and theories behind this post regarding E-
cats etc. last April:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html
Here the potential value of mu metal was discussed. An example of mu
metal, 80% Ni, 14% Fe, 5% Mo, 0.5% Mn, plus trace S, Si, C, P, was
provided. Its Curie temperature is about 454°C. The saturation
induction is 7500 gauss, and permeability is 325,000. The
permeability of mu metal is increased by a factor of 40 by baking it
at high temperature in hydrogen. This hot hydrogen environment is
most notably the environment of the E-cat. The only thing apparently
lacking is the application of a large magnetic field.
Loading of nanopores with fusion lattice material, or even just using
metallic glasses or amorphous materials, in addition to providing
magnetic advantages, permits the application of extreme electric
fields to the condensed matter in which fusion is to occur. This is
because the small islands of active material are physically isolated
by highly insulating dielectric material. This permits electron
concentration over a vast surface area, i.e. the production of volume
dense high electron fugacity surfaces. The importance of electron
fugacity was discussed starting on page 6 here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf
The use of a high frequency high voltage AC field, possibly via
resonant microwave cavities, or maser or laser stimulation, applied
to such material as discussed above, has the added advantage of
generating polarons, and large electron surface flux, and thus
increased population density of the deflated state hydrogen. The
Letts effect, increased activity in the presence of laser stimulation
in magnetic field, is an indication this approach has some prospect
of success. (See: Cravens, D. and D. Letts. 2003, “Practical
Techniques In CF Research - Triggering Methods”,Tenth International
Conference on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, MA:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDpracticalt.pdf)
Magnetism, especially magnetic *gradient* induced tunneling of
neutral particles with high magnetic moments, is key to LENR. It is
notable that this has been a key difference between deflation fusion
theory and Windom Larsen theory. If an electron has a weak reaction
with a proton, creating a slow neutron, prior to its fusion with a
heavy nucleus, then the 3 orders of magnitude larger electron
magnetic moment is lost. The massive magnetic gradients permitting
tunneling into lattice element nuclei is lost. The reactions
themselves, and their products, can be expected to have massive and
in some cases long lasting signatures. No energy deficit is brought
to the composite nucleus, as it is with deflation fusion. No
prospect exists for follow-on weak reactions because the electron no
longer exists.
Magnetism is the key. Magnetic orbitals at nuclear radii or less are
key. This theme runs throughout deflation fusion theory.
STRONG REACTION PRECEDES WEAK REACTIONS
Except for purely strange matter reactions, the initial (post
hydrogen tunneling) nuclear fusion reaction is almost always strong
force based. The electron trapped in the new composite nucleus
provides the opportunity for a very fast follow-on weak reaction,
provided the energy is available for that to happen. The trapped
electron post strong force reaction is not near the nucleus, it is
inside of it. The electron only expands its orbital to reach outside
the nucleus if a weak reaction does not quickly follow the strong
reaction. This orbital expansion is driven by zero point energy.
The proximity of the electron to the hydrogen nucleus, and its high
kinetic energy and mass, prior to tunneling into a heavy nucleus, are
for practical purposes random variables. The resulting associated
values post tunneling are thus also random variables. The energy
balance for individual LENR reactions are therefore also random
variables. Energy does not appear to be conserved, because vacuum
energy transactions are involved. Time of electron near the nucleus
is a random variable, and one which, along with the other random
variables, affect the branching ratios.
DEFLATION FUSION VS WINDOM & LARSEN THEORY
The deflated state requires no preliminary weak reaction. Such a
reaction would produce a neutron. This is the opposite of what is
suggested, because neutrons can not explain the energy deficits of
heavy LENR, neutrons activate heavy nuclei, neutrons can not explain
the unusual branching ratios, cluster fusion, etc. etc. etc.
The deflated hydrogen state is explicitly stated to exist for
attosecond order durations, but, where LENR occurs to any observable
degree, the state is repeated with a high frequency so as to make the
state sufficiently probable, and the lattice half life of the
hydrogen appropriate.
DEFLATION FUSION VS HYDRINO THEORY
The main difference between the deflated state and Mill's hydrino is
that the deflated state is primarily magnetically bound, and thus a
much smaller state.
Mill's hydrino also requires no weak reaction to form. It requires a
catalyst molecule or ion or atom which can remove the precise amount
of energy required to form a fractional quantum state orbital. This
is necessary because fractional state changes in Mill;s theory do not
involve radiating photons. The radii of Mill's hydrinos are huge
compared to the dimensions of deflated hydrogen. Deflated hydrogen
state requires no photon emission or other energy transaction to
form. The deflated state is thus a degenerate state of the hydrogen
within its environment. The fusion tunneling probability is raised
in Mill's theory by the reduced hydrogen atom radius. The fusion
probability in deflation fusion is raised by the vastly increased
*combined* ensemble tunneling probability of the hydrogen-nucleus-
electron pair, which retains at all times a low Coulomb binding
energy, and its vary small size.
Deflation fusion is not initially a weak force reaction. What it is
suggested to do is create a highly de-energized nucleus via a strong
force reaction, this de-energized nucleus has trapped within it an
electron. An electron energetically trapped within a nucleus
provides the possibility of a very short half-life weak reaction. I
have published numerous prospective strong force only heavy LENR
reactions here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
along with an approximation (in brackets) of the resulting energy
deficit based on the composite nucleus radius. To look at weak
reaction prospects it is only necessary to assume a weak reaction
follows and then compute the product masses and energies involved.
DEFLATION FUSION AND MIRROR MATTER
It has been proposed that mirror matter has a negative gravitational
charge. See:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CosmicSearch.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GravityPairs.pdf
This is of some relevance with regard to LENR. If LENR can create
low mass neutral particles, like K0 kaons, then there is a
possibility it can create long lasting mirror matter. This can
happen directly, or via neutral particle oscillation. Small neutral
particles like K0 kaons can oscillate state, like neutrinos. If the
oscillations include mirror symmetry, then mirror particles could be
created before kaon disintegration or absorption. Mirror particles
can weakly couple to ordinary matter nuclei. Anti-gravitational
mirror matter could be manufactured by LENR. Mirror matter radiates
mirror photons which travel through ordinary matter unimpeded. There
is no means to insulate mirror matter, so it causes matter to which
it is coupled to spontaneously cool. If enough mirror matter is
created, and bound by the very small mirror matter couplig constant,
it can be detected by this thermal property. For a sample experiment
see:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Mirror4
SUMMARY
Two assumptions regarding Ni + p, assumptions with some degree of
logical foundation, given the application of deflation fusion theory,
can explain the lack of radioactive byproducts from Ni + p reactions.
These assumptions also make potentially useful predictions. The most
important predictions are the potential improvements to reaction
rates that can be provided by use of magnetic fields and high mu
fusion catalysis material, such as mu metal. Also, the use of Ni
highly enriched in 62Ni and 64N is implied to improve energy density.
In 62Ni and 64Ni only material production of Zn is predicted to be
highly correlated with excess enthalpy production.
This is a tenuous theory, but one with readily testable predictions
and potentially useful applications.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
