On Feb 4, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Below can be found at least 12 viable and distinct hypotheses for
LENR gain.
Given that some of the listings represent slight variations or enabler
mechanisms there are more than a dozen entries (16). All are related
in some
way to hydrogen which is constrained in a lattice, and many require QM
tunneling.
The range of these, and the generally strong evidence for each are
almost
conclusive evidence for me that LENR cannot be reduced to a "single"
reaction, nor even two - one for deuterium and one for protium. QM
tunneling
is complex.
But the most controversial suggestion of all is that none of these are
mutually exclusive, and several, or even most of them, could be at
work
simultaneously in any given experiment, if that reactor has all the
necessary components.
There is not even a good candidate for "most likely" unless the
reaction
involves only a limited range of options, such as palladium and
deuterium
which only produces helium-4 as ash.
I am now dropping the attribution - since earlier there were numerous
overlooked contributors, like Mitchell Swartz who were not credited
but who
are still fighting the USPTO for basic priority.
1) The original theory of P&F applicable to palladium and deuterium,
involving gammaless fusion to helium caused by coherent electron
effects
(screening)
Jones, please forgive my brevity and use of great certainty in my
opinions. I find that if the issue can be reduce to black and white,
it is easier to understand and discuss without getting distracted by
irrelevant arguments.
Screening, as normally applied, only affects the hot fusion reaction.
Cold fusion requires a mechanism that both screens and dissipates
energy. Normal screening does not do this.
2) Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation
fusion model. When any one channel is highly favored, such as
tritium or
He-3, then there will be another separate distinguishable reaction
at play,
and it often involves an alloy or dopant to the lattice or to an
electrolyte. Thus it is distinctly unique, and not a channel reaction.
I have no idea what this means. It makes no sense.
3) The "hydrino" (or fractional hydrogen) mechanism. Several
variations
now exist. The species may be a predecessor step for LENR and may
actually
provide no excess heat unless it does proceed to a nuclear reaction.
I agree this is a possibility.
4) The dense hydrogen cluster or dense deuterium model, differentiated
as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). The DDL
can be
applicable to deuterium and it can result in something completely
different
from 1 and 2, such as heat only with no ash.
The DDL is pure theory without any experimental support. The DDL and
the hydrino might be the same thing. The Rydberg state has no
justification and is only a way to use an accepted concept, i.e. name
dropping.
5) The P-e-P mechanism for Ni-H, which envisions protons fusing to
deuterium via screening at much higher probability than in the solar
model
This is proposed to occur in all materials and results in most of the
energy. The process also provides the energy needed to cause
transmutation. The process is NOT based on screening. This is a novel
process that LENR has revealed. It has no relationship to what happens
in the sun.
6) The NASA filing (US 20110255645) suggests an alternative method for
producing "heavy electrons" as a fusion catalyst in what looks like
a beta
decay mechanism. This is similar to 2, 5 and 8
This idea is not like 2 or 5 in any way. In 5, the neutron is created
ONLY inside the nucleus where energy is available. This "patent" is a
rip-off of W-L and proposes the neutron is formed outside the lattice
where energy is not available.
7) The proposal of a high temperature BEC - Bose Einstein Condensate
and/or the tetrahedral TSC model which is similar.
The BEC and TSC are not similar even to the authors of the models.
8) The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by
Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Brillouin/ NASA explanation.
Yes, these are similar and wrong!
9) Proton addition - to the metal lattice atoms, which was the
original
Focardi/Rossi conception. Rossi later refined this to emphasize only
the
heavier nickel isotopes, especially Ni-62 but gammaless.
I do not believe the claim. We have been provided only hear-say.
10) Piantelli has a version of Ni-H with gammas and transmutation.
Yes, and this claim is well supported and can be explained.
11) SPP or surface plasmon polariton catalysis in general - which is a
theory involving plasmons, phonons and photons. This is more of an
"enabler"
pathway for several types of reactions.
This is only a suggestion without any supporting evidence.
12) Casimir dynamics, in general, including a dynamical effect, called
DCE. This is an "enabler" pathway, as are other geometry constraints.
This is another application of pure imagination.
13) Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from unstable
isotopes like potassium-40 which can undergo accelerated decay rates,
This has been demonstrated using Cs and perhaps Th and tritium.
14) RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong
force,
QCD and a transient state called the diproton, deriving energy from
excess
proton mass with no gammas.
I never heard of this idea.
15) The "nanomagnetism" formative theory involving magnons and
cyclical
phase change around the Curie point of Ni. This may be nonnuclear (ZPE
related).
Yes, this is non-nuclear.
16) Any combination or permutation of the above - since none of them
is
mutually exclusive, and most actual experiments cannot be defined by a
single hypothesis, adding to the confusion.
Yes, the observations can be explained by a single basic mechanism,
which I have done. Unfortunately, this idea has not created much
interest and, consequently, is largely not understood. Apparently, a
book length explanation is required.
There are more, especially variations and refinements. Pardon me if
I have
overlooked your favorite, but this is a running effort and your
favorite may
appear on the next list.
Jones, I suggest you refine your list because it does not describe
what has been proposed in some cases.
Ed Storms
<winmail.dat>
