U.S. Navy scientists claim cold fusion breakthrough

Eds: A terrific comment back-and-forth has developed on this post since we published it March 24. If your interests trend toward particle physics and cold fusion, treat yourself with a read.

Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called “cold fusion” that may promise a new source of energy.

One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring.

Low-energy nuclear reactions could potentially provide 21st Century society a limitless and environmentally-clean energy source for generating electricity, researchers say. The report, which injects new life into this controversial field, will be presented here today at the American Chemical Society’s 237th National Meeting. It is among 30 papers on the topic that will be presented during a four-day symposium, “New Energy Technology,” March 22-25, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion.

“Our finding is very significant,” says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. “To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device.”

The first report on “cold fusion,” presented in 1989 by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, was a global scientific sensation. Fusion is the energy source of the sun and the stars. Scientists had been striving for years to tap that power on Earth to produce electricity from an abundant fuel called deuterium that can be extracted from seawater. Everyone thought that it would require a sophisticated new genre of nuclear reactors able to withstand temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.

Pons and Fleishmann, however, claimed achieving nuclear fusion at comparatively “cold” room temperatures — in a simple tabletop laboratory device termed an electrolytic cell.

But other scientists could not reproduce their results, and the whole field of research declined. A stalwart cadre of scientists persisted, however, seeking solid evidence that nuclear reactions can occur at low temperatures. One of their problems involved extreme difficulty in using conventional electronic instruments to detect the small number of neutrons produced in the process, researchers say.

In the new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an electrode composed of nickel or gold wire into a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium or “heavy water” in a process called co-deposition. A single atom of deuterium contains one neutron and one proton in its nucleus.

Researchers passed electric current through the solution, causing a reaction within seconds. The scientists then used a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles that may have been emitted during reactions, including any neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium atoms.

At the end of the experiment, they examined the plastic with a microscope and discovered patterns of “triple tracks,” tiny-clusters of three adjacent pits that appear to split apart from a single point. The researchers say that the track marks were made by subatomic particles released when neutrons smashed into the plastic. Importantly, Mosier-Boss and colleagues believe that the neutrons originated in nuclear reactions, perhaps from the combining or fusing deuterium nuclei.

“People have always asked ‘Where’s the neutrons?’” Mosier-Boss says. “If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons. We now have evidence that there are neutrons present in these LENR reactions.”

They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions including X-rays, tritium (another form of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works, which is key to being able to control it for practical purposes.

Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers can’t predict when, or if, LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications. The U.S. Department of the Navy and JWK International Corporation in Annandale, Va., funded the study. Other highlights in the symposium include:

Overview, update on LENR by editor of New Energy Times – Steve Krivit, editor of New Energy Times and author of “The Rebirth of Cold Fusion,” will present an overview of the field of low energy nuclear reactions, formerly known as “cold fusion.” A leading authority on the topic, Krivit will discuss the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of this controversial subject, including its brief history. (ENVR 002, Sunday, March 22, 8:55 a.m. Hilton, Alpine Ballroom West, during the symposium, “New Energy Technology)

Excess heat, gamma radiation production from an unconventional LENR device —Tadahiko Mizuno, Ph.D., of Hokkaido University in Japan, has reported the production of excess heat generation and gamma ray emissions from an unconventional LENR device that uses phenanthrene, a type of hydrocarbon, as a reactant. He is the author of the book “Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion.” (ENVR 049, Monday, March 23, 3:35 p.m., Hilton, Alpine Ballroom West, during the symposium, “New Energy Technology.”)

New evidence supporting production and control of low energy nuclear reactions — Antonella De Ninno, Ph.D., a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment in Italy, will describe evidence supporting the existence of low energy nuclear reactions. She conducted lab experiments demonstrating the simultaneous production of both excess heat and helium gas, tell-tale evidence supporting the nuclear nature of LENR. She also shows that scientists can control the phenomenon. (ENVR 064, Tuesday, March 24, 10:10 a.m., Hilton, Alpine Ballroom West, during the symposium, “New Energy Technology)


The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Have a question? Let us know.

Subscribe

One email, each morning, with our latest posts. From medical research to space news. Environment to energy. Technology to physics.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

89 thoughts on “U.S. Navy scientists claim cold fusion breakthrough”

  1. I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here.
    The sketch is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get bought aan nerousness
    over that you wish be delivering the following.
    unwell unquestionably come further formerly again since exactly
    the same nearly very often inside case you shield this hike.

    Reply
  2. In their report, the Navy indicates they have no idea what type of fusion reaction must have occurred in their experimental set-up to cause the release of a very energy neutron in the 9-15 MeV range. They cite a few examples, one the well know D-D (deuterium-deuterium) type of reaction from ‘hot fusion and a modified type D-D fusion within Pd by Takahashi.

    I am now reading a very interesting book on the topic–‘The Science of Cold Fusion Phenomenon”, Hideo Kozima, 2006, Elsevier. In this book, Kozima offers an alternative explanation to the typical D-D fusion process which I think has merit. He calls his model of the process–Trapped Neutron Catalysed Fusion [TNCF Model]. I cannot present what it takes a whole book to present, but the TNCF Model could very well explain what the Navy found.

    In a nutshell, the TNCF model suggests the fusion process occurs within spaces of metals such as Pd that have an affinity for hydrogen, both H (the proton) and D (deuterium). Next the TNCF uses the fact that neutrons constantly hit the earth, and that some of these background neutrons must be within any cold fusion set-up–that is, some must be within the Pd lattice along with the added D and other metals that may be present such as Lithium 3Li6. So, with the background neutron [N] in close packing to a D [NP], the TNCF model suggests that low energy input in the keV range can result in the background N to become a thermal neutron (Nt) and fuse with D to form tritium [NPN]. So the reaction is: (Nt) + D = tritium-energized(6.98 KeV) + gamma (6.25 MeV). Now, once this tritium is formed, it then can undergo a second reaction at the Pd electrode as such:T-energized + D = Helium-4(3.5 MeV) + high energy neutron (14.1 MeV). So, this high energy neutron with 14.1 MeV on average is right within the range of what was predicted by the Navy experiment. Of course then Navy evidence on the CR-39 film is that the high energy N hit carbon-12 to form the 3-pit pattern.

    In summary, my point is, it is possible that what Navy observed may have nothing at all to do with D-D type fusion reaction that is well studied in hot fusion process. It is possible a new model is needed and the model must allow for enough energy to form a 3-pit pattern. The TNCF Model of Kozima meets this goal. Anyone interested in this topic must read the book by Kozima.

    Now, one problem I see with Kozima TNCF is that background N is not a parameter that can be experimentally increased (?-or maybe it can), so some other factors must be responsible for the large range of heat energy observed in cold fusion type experiments. A nice test of the Kozima TNCF model would be to isolate the experimental setup from background radiation for different times. Since N is unstable and decays to proton, less heat energy should be generated in an experiment where new neutrons were blocked for say 24 weeks or 52 weeks compared to one where neutrons blocked for 1 week, all other experimental parameters being the same.

    Finally, it would be nice to have a summary list of any other models, outside the typical D-D reaction known from hot fusion, that could in theory explain the Navy experimental results–so here is the first I add to the list–along with predicted energy of a thermal neutron released–please anyone add to the list, also please give citation:

    MODELS OF COLD FUSION NOT OF THE D-D TYPE THAT MAY EXPLAIN NAVY EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
    ==============================================================

    1. TNCF Model (H. Kozima)…….thermal N with (14.1 MeV)
    N + D reaction first, then Tritium + D reaction second to form thermal N (14.1 MeV)
    The Science of Cold Fusion Phenomenon, 2006, Elsevier

    Anon-Robert

    Reply
  3. “He touts an e-mail from someone who likes his theory, but that person doesn’t have a single mention on Google Scholar and barely appears on Google at all. Yet WG treats that e-mail as if it has come from a reputable scientist doing important work.”

    Well, at least Edel Pons is making experiments in his laboratory.

    While you try to impose your opinion to everybody, without any experimental support.
    This is a betrayal to the scientific method

    wladimir guglinski

    Reply
  4. Now I’m actually starting to feel concern for Wladimir Guglinski.

    He touts an e-mail from someone who likes his theory, but that person doesn’t have a single mention on Google Scholar and barely appears on Google at all. Yet WG treats that e-mail as if it has come from a reputable scientist doing important work.

    It’s one thing to be enamored of an idea, but quite another to interpret such a wisp of support as validation. He must really be hungry for acceptance, which explains why he misread that e-mail from the Navy researchers.

    At this point, I fear that WG is in a precarious psychological state and that my challenge to his ideas may have pushed him closer to a breaking point.

    This is sad!

    Reply
  5. From: Edel Pons (canmarrai@gmail.com)
    Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:20:10 PM
    To: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

    Thank you Wlad

    I am working in similar experiments to those of Prof. Kanarev. When a variable and complex sinusoidal signal is applied to an electrolyte composed of water and KOH, the hydrogen and oxygen production is higher than predicted by Faraday laws. I have been reading Kanarev theory about this process but I must say that I like your theory more than Kanarev´s one.

    I have found a curious article from Popular Science June 1944. It is actually related with one of the experiments I will carry out. It seems that when electrolysis takes place under the effect of a magnetic field, the production of hydrogen and oxygen increases without an increase in the used power. Prof. Felix Ehrenhaft, former director of the Physical Institute at the University of Vienna, suggested the existence of magnetic particles already in 1944 following his experiments with electrolysis under the effects of a magnetic field. His and my experiments confirm your theory. You can read the article at http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetism/.

    Regards

    Edel Pons

    Reply
  6. I previously wrote: “there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the “antineutrino”. The reaction is actually n->p+e+antineutrino.”

    I was referring to the Standard Model in Modern Particle Physics, of which WG appears to be ignorant. His reply to what I wrote also appears to contain the assumption that I was talking about his own model —but I actually wasn’t. I admit to stupidly making the assumption that WG was not ignorant of the Standard Model, such that he could be able to recognize what I was writing about.

    Final note to WG: It is essential to learn a great deal about any Standard Thing, before you try to point out flaws in it. It is the only way to have a chance of convincing others that the claimed flaws are actually there. Even Pablo Picasso first became an expert at realistic painting, before he led the art into new directions.

    “Handel”

    Reply
  7. This is for Handel and the other readers of this thread, not for WG, who has gone off the deep end.

    WG’s comment called “Handel:” is precisely the kind of rant I predicted when I took my leave from discussions with WG. Note that WG has started calling his detractors stupid because they don’t understand him. Okay, I’m stupid, too. Everyone who disputes WG is clearly stupid.

    And his message stating that the Navy will test his results is simply wrong. What he was given is a gentle put-down:

    Like many, we have very few funds and resources. But we will consider your suggestions and see what we can do as time and money permits.

    In other words, it is really saying, “We have no plans to test your ideas, but this looks like a good way to end the discussion without telling you what we really think of your suggestions.”

    As a writer, I know all about such gentle and noncommittal rejections, as in, “Your work does not fit our present needs. Good luck.”

    Do we need any more than this to conclude that WG is not worth further engagement?

    Fred Bortz
    Science Books for Young Readers
    and
    Science Book Reviews

    Reply
  8. I will not waste my time with you anymore, since you dont have knowledge of theoretical physics.
    I will only put a last comment here, only in order to show how stupid things you say.

    Handel wrote:
    “You wrote: “the electron loses its spin into the neutron, otherwise there is no way to conciliate the model n=p+e with Fermi-Dirac statistics.”
    –This is also false; there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the “antineutrino”. The reaction is actually n->p+e+antineutrino. All the particles are fermions, and…”

    WHY WHAT YOU SAID IS STUPID:

    1- the model n=p+e is proposed by my Quantum Ring Theory. Such model does not exist in current Modern Physics.

    2- The model n=p+e is not accepted in current theories (they consider a quark model).
    So it is stupid to say: “This is also false; there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the “antineutrino”, because you try to justify a model n=p+e that does not exist in current theories.

    3- But as you say that: “there is indeed a way for the model to work”, this means that you believe that the neutron model of Quantum Mechanics is wrong, since a model n=p+e is considered impossible in QM.

    4- It is stupid to say: “there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the antineutrino”
    because the antineutrino does not exist into the neutron.. The antineutrino is created in the instant of the neutron’s decay.

    You have a confuse mind, Handel.
    And I dont have time to waste with confuse people.

    wladimir guglinski

    Reply
  9. RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background?
    From: Boss, Pamela A CIV SPAWAR SSC PAC, 71730 (pam.boss@navy.mil)
    Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 2:29:49 PM
    To: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
    Cc: m_bernstein@acs.org; David Hestenes (hestenes@asu.edu); EDEL PONS (canmarrai@gmail.com)
    Dear Wladimir,
    Like many, we have very few funds and resources. But we will consider your suggestions and see what we can do as time and money permits.
    Regards,
    Pam

    RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background?
    From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:35:59 PM
    To: PAMELA MOSIER-BOSS (pam.boss@navy.mil)
    Bcc: JOHNATHAN CHAN (coldfusion111@gmail.com); jnaudin509@aol.com
    Hi, Pamela
    Be careful, and take cary.
    If all the deuteriuns of the Pd lattice alligned in the same direction get resonance and have fusion at the same time, perhaps it can occur a small explosion in your electrolytic cell.
    Also, I recomend you to put a loadstone externally in the cell (like in the Letts-Cravens experiment), in order to help to keep a lot of deuteriuns alligned toward the same direction (that of the external magnetic field applied)
    Good luck
    WLAD

    Reply
  10. This is off topic to Navy experiment, but…there was a comment below concerning the deuterium molecule, which is a stable system of two D atoms, it is called D2. It is possible a pathway that forms a stable D2 molecule also results in a rare possibility of fusion.

    It has been experimentally shown that, the distance between the two D atoms is in the D2 stable state ~ 0.74 Angstrom, and the reason the two protons in D2 stable molecule do not repel via Coulomb repulsion of the two positive charged protons is from electron screening, which has two probability waves of e- ever present between the two protons at different levels of screening.

    However, as predicted by statistical quantum mechanics, there exist very, very rare system states that would arrive when the two electrons show 100% maximum magnitude of Coulomb screening effect, which then results in spontaneous fusion of the two D, to form the unstable 2He4, which is also observed in the common D+D “fusion” reaction (for both low energy and hot energy pathways). As known, the reaction of the unstable 2He4 path is: tritium with ~1.01 MeV and proton with ~ 3.12 MeV. The “fusion” of the D2 molecule is predicted to occur 10 -74 times/second.

    Now, this has nothing really to do with the Navy experiment, but it does show that quantum theory does predict that two D atoms will fuse naturally, and rarely, under normal low energy conditions. It also provides one mechanism to explain possible background concentrations of tritium and proton in cold fusion type experiments. Not sure, but it seems one would expect 10-74 times/second that within a pure gas of D2 there should arrive free D when both electrons are 180 degrees opposite the Coulomb potential when the Coulomb force would be greatest and perhaps force the two protons apart.

    Now, perhaps the addition of low energy across two electrodes as in the cold fusion experiments increases the rate at which the above D2 molecular fusion would occur ? — and thus perhaps be one way to explain small increases in heat (from the positive charged particles) with no high energy neutrons and/or gamma rays seen in some cold fusion experiments ?

    But again, this has nothing to do with the Navy experiment which is predicting high energy neutrons have been observed (indirectly, via splitting carbon-12) to be released. As I see it, there is only one other possible explanation of the Navy 3-pit pattern, and it is that a very high energy helium-3 was released, at an energy not predicted by any widely accepted model of how cold fusion experiments work. Then for reasons associated with the unstable energy dynamics of such a high helium-3 being released, that the Navy 3-pit pattern results from the impact of the individual nucleons present. I see no other even possible explanation of the Navy 3-pit pattern, and even this helium-3 hypothesis impossible from energy considerations unless it can be linked to a model of the atomic nucleus that predicts it to occur.

    Anon-Robert

    Reply
  11. Among various conversations about Cold Fusion on the Internet is an occasional note regarding hydrogen molecules and the probability that their nuclei might fuse. It seems that the probability is not quite zero, but is rather close to zero (something like the 50th digit after the decimal point is not zero). In a few of those conversations it was indicated that if the distance between nuclei could be reduced to about a tenth of the initial distance, the probability that fusion could occur would actually become reasonable (rare, but reasonable).

    So let’s take another quick look at muon-catalyzed fusion, in which the muon, 206 times as massive as an electron, orbits at 1/206 the distance from the nucleus. If we had two muonic deuterium atoms and bounced them off of each other, the distance between nuclei would drop to 1/206 the initial value represented by ordinary deuterium atoms. Given the data at the end of the previous paragraph, is it any wonder that the nuclei fuse, even when only one muon is involved?

    In the electron-catalyzed fusion scenario, it is not necessary for electrons to screen the deuterons until it is guaranteed they are close enough to fuse. Only enough screening is needed to make the probability of fusion reasonable. And, of course, the more that deuterium is packed into the metal, the greater will be the quantity of nuclei that might be screened such that some fusions, among all of those nuclei, actually happen in accordance with that “reasonable probability”.

    Given that the experimental observations indicate a relatively low rate of fusions, considering the total quantity of deuterium loaded into the metal, we might forever be disappointed in being able to use CF on a large scale. However, the point of this message is simply that a hypothesis has been proposed that might explain how, if CF happens at all via electron catalysis, the deuterons might not need the same magnitude of screening that is observed in muon-catalyzed fusion.

    “Handel”

    Reply
  12. Wladimir Guglinski, you should be discussing this subject in a different forum, since this subject is not about hydrogen fusion at low temperatures, and the lead blog article on this page is about that topic –and the comments here are supposed to be about that topic.

    You wrote: “explain to us from Quantum Mechanics how a neutron is formed by proton+electron at low energy” –I think you need to specify the magnitude of that “low energy”. Also, how well-shielded were those experiments from cosmc rays? It is well known that cosmic ray interactions can easily interfere with delicate experiments/measurements, and so it is often necessary to go deep underground to do those experiments.

    For the standard explanation of how a neutron becomes a proton and an electron, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force –especially see the diagram near the top of that page. It clearly shows a quark transforming to a different type, and an electron resulting from it (along with an antineutrino). Regarding the reaction going the other way, one possibility is this (slightly different than the exact opposite): An appropriately energetic electron, interacting via the Weak Force, would disappear; a quark would change its type, and a neutrino (an ordinary neutrino) would be emitted (the simultaneous absorption of an antineutrino is not required).

    I note that you sometimes put some effort into staying within strict limits of the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, and sometimes you might not. For example, if an electon that has “insufficient” energy (relative to the previous paragraph) was to be absorbed by a proton, causing a neutron to appear, then where did the extra mass-energy of the neutron come from (it is more than the simple sum of proton plus electron)? This is why I’d like to know just how “low” are those low-energy electrons you were talking about. As far as I’m concerned, if an electron has enough energy, such that proton plus electron can equal neutron plus neutrino, then QM does indeed answer your question, per the description in the previous paragraph (or by some other but not very different mechanism, involving the positively charged W boson). If the electron doesn’t have enough energy, then either the proton-conversion reaction doesn’t happen, or Energy Conservation gets violated, long-term. Take your pick.

    On the other side of the coin, you have declared the Uncertainty-spawned temporary loophole in Energy Conservation to be “stupid”. Yet we have some quite good data indicating that it is quite real. Have you studied the properties of liquid helium lately? Are you aware that even at Absolute Zero, at ordinary Earthly atmospheric pressure, liquid helium will remain a liquid? It will not turn solid because the Uncertainty Principle declares that it is impossible to actually remove enough energy from it to solidify it (at ordinary pressure). In other words, Uncertainty’s Loophole in Energy Conservation provides just enough temporary energy, one atom at a time, to ensure that helium does not solidify at Absolute Zero. (Hmmmm…recent developments may indicate it might turn into a Bose-Einstein Condensate instead, but that doesn’t qualify as a solid, either.)

    There is also the “Casimir Effect”. In a vacuum, just place two flat metal sheets, neither one electrically charged, facing very close to each other, and a force will appear that will cause the two plates to collide. QM explains this force in terms of the Energy Conservation Loophole: At each and every spot in that vacuum, its energy content is not Certainly zero. Temporary energy fluctuations are happening everywhere and all the time. Some of those fluctuations produce temporary photons of various energies. I assume you know that lower-energy photons have longer wavelengths than higher-energy photons. Well, in-between the two metal plates, spontaneous temporary formation of larger-sized photons is suppressed, they simply cannot fit in the narrow space. But they are not suppressed in the space surrounding the plates. The net effect is that interactions between all the photons and the plates are unbalanced; there are more temporary photons bouncing off the outside of them than in-between them. The result is the force that pushes the plates together; this Casimir Effect demonstrates quite well the loophole in Energy Conservation, thanks to the Uncertainty Principle.

    Regarding positron emission by aluminum 26, I’d like to say that while it is known that the result of the decay of this isotope is indeed a positron and magnesium 26, it is not-so-thoroughly known just what happens inside the nucleus. Nobody has ever had a camera in there watching the events unfold! It is of course quite possible that an electron/positron pair spontaneously appears inside the nucleus (even inside one of the protons there!), simply because Energy-Time Uncertainty allows it to happen anywhere and any time. The electron could then interact via the Weak Force with one of the quarks of a proton, on the rare occasion when the Weak Force bothers to act at all (it requires another and simultaneous and rather larger-magnitude/shorter-duration energy fluctuation). The proton then becomes a neutron, while a neutrino and the positron shoot out of the nucleus. The outside observer would merely see, basically, the event I described in # 36052. It could be explained more simply in this manner: One of the quarks inside a proton changes into a different quark while emitting a positively charged W boson; the boson decays into a positron and a neutrino. Either way, the total mass of the aluminum 26 nucleus goes down a bit, as the temporary energy (that had appeared courtesy of the Uncertainty Principle) disappears.

    Finally, you wrote: “the quark model of neutron cannot be conciliated with the results of Don Borghi’s experiment.” –This is false. Quantum Physics, especially in the forms of Quantum ElectroDynamics and the Unified Electro-Weak Theory, which includes descriptions of proton/neutron conversions (and involves quarks borrowed from Quantum ChromoDynamics), has theory and experiment matching each other to as many as dozen significant figures in places. Only if Borghi’s experiment violates Energy Conservation long-term, by using too-low-energy electrons, would there be a problem.

    I think I will not be writing more on the subject of neutron/proton conversions in this particular Blog page. It is simply not related to the main/original topic here. Please find a more relevant forum.

    TO THE EDITORS: Can you extract all these neutron-proton conversion messages from the Cold Fusion page and put them on another? Thank you!

    “Handel”

    Reply
  13. To Wladimir Guglinski, regarding messages #36073 and #36099:
    Fred Bortz indicated (#36073) he is not likely to reply to your message, until after you become better informed on several issues. I dare to attempt some teaching.

    You wrote: ” nothing gives us garantee that QM is correct, mainly because from such a model of neutron it’s impossible to explain cold fusion.”
    –That statement is nonsense, on the face of it. (However, see the last paragraph here; I wrote what follows based on a standard definition.) It is indeed quite possible to explain cold fusion using various known facts, including a number of facts about quantum mechanics. See messages #35911, #35926, #36005, #36023, and #36051. And that’s not the only hypothesis that has been dreamed up, using quantum mechanics, over the past 20 years.

    You wrote: “the electron loses its spin into the neutron, otherwise there is no way to conciliate the model n=p+e with Fermi-Dirac statistics.”
    –This is also false; there is indeed a way for the model to work, and it involves the particle known as the “antineutrino”. The reaction is actually n->p+e+antineutrino. All the particles are fermions, and all of them are generically associated with 1/2 spin, although because it is an anti-particle, the antineutrino actually has -1/2 spin. That cancels out the spin of one of the other two decay products, leaving the total spin of the equation balanced.

    You wrote: “Yukawa’s theory violates the energy/mass conservation, nevertheless he won the Nobel Prize with such a stupid theory.”
    –In actual fact Yukawa did not devise the notion that energy conservation can temporarily be violated; Albert Einstein devised it. Yukawa merely used it to predict that a particle with certain characteristics might exist, to explain how the Strong Nuclear Force held protons together against their mutual repulsion in all nuclei more complex than hydrogen. When the particle (the “pion”) was discovered, that was when Yukawa was declared worthy of a Nobel Prize.

    Now, regarding Einstein, he got into a famous debate with Niels Bohr over the Uncertainty Principle. Einstein did not like the idea one bit, and proposed a number of thought-experiments to show that the Uncertainty Principle should be declared invalid. But Bohr was able to poke logical holes into every single one of Einstein’s arguments, and the Uncertainty Principle has never been seriously challenged by any physicist since.

    As you may know that Heisenberg’s formulation of Uncertainty involved multplying momentum and position together, let us take a moment to consider the “dimensional units” of that. First, “position” is a location in Space that is typically measured in units of distance (d), “momentum” is the product of a “mass” (m) and a “velocity” (v); velocity itself can be described as some distance (d) associated with a certain amount of “time” (t). So, if momentum is (m)(d)/(t) and this is multiplied by position/distance (d), then the total of dimensional units is (m)(d)(d)/(t).

    Einstein specified that the momentum-position formulation of Uncertainty was mathematically equivalent to an energy-time formulation; he then used that to specify a thought-experiment in which the energy of something could be precisely measured in zero time. Well, the thought-experiment was wrong, but the mathematical equivalence is perfectly correct:

    I’m sure you are aware that the dimensional units of energy are mass multiplied by velocity, and again by velocity (especially when the velocity equals the speed of light). We can write those dimensional units as (m)(d)(d)/((t)(t)). If this is multiplied by time (t) per Einstein’s specification, then the result is (m)(d)(d)/(t), exactly the same as the combined dimensional units of the original momentum-position formulation for the Uncertainty Principle.

    Therefore the Law of Conservation of Energy DOES have a very small loophole in it. It allows a short-term and undetectable change in the total energy-content of any system. We can only detect side-effects of the violation having happened; we can never directly detect the violation in action.

    You wrote: ” Dehmelt experiment showed that the electron peruses the space between two orbits” –Sorry, I don’t have a clear picture of what that is supposed to mean, so I can’t specifically comment on it at this time. I DO know that because of the Uncertainty Principle, the exact location of an electron is not fixed; an orbiting electron could indeed be located (momentarily) outside or inside the pathway it would take if Uncertainty did not exist.

    You wrote: “experiment that proves QM be wrong is that made by Don Borghi, where a neutron is formed by proton and electron at low energy” –This experiment does not in any way prove that QM is wrong. Various radioactive istopes routinely, at low temperatures, grab electrons and convert protons to neutrons. See “K-capture”.

    You wrote: “Don Borghi experiment is a cold fusion experiment. He showed that a neutron is formed by proton+electron at low energy.” –That does not match the typical definition of “fusion”. In nuclear physics the word is intended to describe the merging of entire atomic nuclei. It most certainly does not usually involve the Weak Nuclear Force (the thing responsible when a proton and an electron combine), except in the lone case where two protium-hydrogens fuse to form deuterium (a reaction that is difficult because it depends on the Weak Force acting at just the right moment). It is important that you use the terminology of the field correctly. The type of Cold Fusion discussed at the top of this Web page, and in many of the comments, has nothing at all to do with proton or neutron transformations.

    “Handel”

    Reply
  14. a- A pair positron-electron is formed within the nucleus. They are formed from the energy into the nucleus 26Al, which is converted to mass according to Einstein’s equation E=mc2.
    b- The positron is emitted by the nucleus.
    c- After that, a proton captures the eletron, forming a neutron
    d- As the pair positron-electron was formed from the energy of the nucleus Al, and as the positron is emitted out, then the nucleus Al loses some mass regarding that of the positron

    Reply
  15. 1- “I disagree, completely. At most, all that the actuality of CF would prove is that physicists need to be more clever in applying QM to explain how it can occur. That’s because there is”

    Ok, Handel.
    Then explain to us from Quantum Mechancis how a neutron is formed by proton+electron at low energy, as obtained by Don Borghi and Conte-Pieralice in their experiments (the experiments were confirmed by Ruggero Santilli in 2008).

    2 – “Also, you might consider the fact that one of the known methods of radioactive decay, by various unstable isotopes (example: aluminum 26) involves a proton emitting a positron, and thereby becoming a neutron.”

    What a stupid assertion.
    It’s not the proton that emits the positron.
    The correct is the following:
    a- A pair positron-electron is formed within the nucleus.
    b- The positron is emitted by the nucleus.
    c- After that, a proton captures the eletron, forming a neutron

    From such alternative interpretation there is not need to use that stupid solution mentioned by you:

    “Despite the fact that an individual proton has less mass than an individual neutron, this decay process can happens because…”,
    since from such interpretation there is not need to make use of the uncertainty principle (used in that stupid solution because it violates the mass/energy conservation)..

    3- “Where did you get the idea that quantum physicists think that a neutron is composed of a proton and an electron? ”

    The first model n=p+e of neutron was proposed by Rutherford (he supposed the neutron is formed by proton+electron).
    Such model was abandoned because the theorists supposed wrongly that such model n=p+e would be formed by two fermions.
    But actually the model n=p+e is formed by one fermion and a boson (a fermion that losts its spin), as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    Concerning the quark model:
    the quark model of neutron cannot be conciliated with the results of Don Borghi’s experiment .
    From here you may start to understand why the quantum theorists betray the scientific method, rejecting the Don Borghi experiment : it’s because his experiment requires a New Physics, where some wrong concepts of Quantum Mechanics must be replaced by new fundamental principles .
    It’s not the first time that scientists betray the scientific method, trying to keep their dogmas in Physics.

    wladimir guglinski

    Reply
  16. This is a separate reply to #36052.

    You wrote: “cold fusion occurrence proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong”

    I disagree, completely. At most, all that the actuality of CF would prove is that physicists need to be more clever in applying QM to explain how it can occur. That’s because there is too much interlocking/mutually-supporting experimental data for quantum mechanics. It’s always possible that QM might be incomplete, but that is hardly the same thing as saying it is “wrong”.

    And, right here in this blog are a few posts that offer an explanation for CF that in no way violates QM. Not to mention there are a number of alternative ideas that have been developed over the past two decades, most of which also strive to stay within the framework of QM. There is no reason to bother stepping outside that framework so long as people think some aspect of QM can explain CF.

    I also want to take issue with this statement of yours: “the neutron is not formed by two fermions (proton and electron), as wrongly supposed the quantum physicsts”

    Where did you get the idea that quantum physicists think that a neutron is composed of a proton and an electron? For the last few decades most quantum physicists have instead embraced the idea that the neutron is composed of three quarks (all of which are fermions). Two of their spins cancel out; the neutron basically gets its spin from the third quark.

    Also, you might consider the fact that one of the known methods of radioactive decay, by various unstable isotopes (example: aluminum 26) involves a proton emitting a positron, and thereby becoming a neutron. Despite the fact that an individual proton has less mass than an individual neutron, this decay process can happen because the proton is part of a fairly complex nucleus; the entire nucleus loses some mass during the event. It can happen because of energy-time Uncertainty. Look up the Weak Nuclear Force for details.

    “Handel”

    Reply
  17. Anonymous poster of comment ID 36023:

    I don’t have to be able to know who you are, or may be, in real life. I would have no problem with you, any of you, registering with pseudonyms for posting in this forum. Even using a pseudonym as a signature (without any registration and logging in) would be preferable over the present lack of continuity and context even within this limited sphere. (At least Wladimir Guglinski, even though his identity is certainly unverified, though it is plausible that it is actually him [based on the nature of his comments], does provide a name in his signature, at least much of the time. Of course why he doesn’t register/login is still a mystery.)

    As to your “mystery” of how such a tightly bound muon can escape any fusions it may catalyze to be able to catalyze others: I’m reasonably certain Professor Jones addressed this, though it’s been a long time since I’ve ready any of the work or heard him speak on such. I would hope you recognize that 1) the nucleus resulting from the fusion will recoil from the emission of a neutron or proton (with the emission of a proton providing additional cause for “ripping” the muon from the “clutches” of the nucleus it engendered); and 2) while the muon cannot “feel” the strong nuclear force, the lowest energy state of the electron and muon within the created atom entails reasonably high probabilities that they will be “inside” the nucleus, well able to couple to the nucleus through the electromagnetic interaction (and even the weak force).

    So, while I’m not certain of the details of how the muon “escapes” I can certainly see that it is well within the energetics of the system. After all, all it would take is a transfer of energy on the order of a tenth of an MeV to free it. This is nothing like the energy gaps in DD fusions in the palladium-deuterium system.

    David

    Reply
  18. Anonymous author of comment ID 36005:

    I do remember having read the comment you quote: “If electron catalyzed fusion can occur, it certainly won’t happen in the same manner that muon catalysis works (due to the difference in mass of the two particles).” The problem was not that you hadn’t acknowledged the difference in masses, the problem appeared to be your lack of recognition that it is the difference in mass that is the sole raison d’etre of muon catalyzed fusion (MCF). Hence, no higher mass, no “catalyzed” fusion of anything like unto MCF. However, I can see the subtle distinction that’s possible within what you wrote so I’ll grant you that.

    As for your proposed scenario: You appear to have little understanding of the nature of the hydrogen molecule (“the electron shells of hydrogen atoms” are not a part of the hydrogen molecule). The separation of the hydrogen atoms/nuclei in the hydrogen molecule is not due to a repulsion of the electrons, but of the nuclei themselves. The separation distance is a balance between the repulsion of the nuclei and the tendency of the electrons to seek their lowest energy state (close down to the nuclei, though Quantum characteristics prevent them from “collapsing” all the way down to those attractive nuclei, as they would in the classical case: However, the higher the mass of the negative charge carriers [electrons or muons, for instance] the closer they can get to the classical “ideal”, in a sense).

    However, you are roughly correct that the hydrogen atoms sort of “dissolve” into the palladium (or other hydride making material, or, to a greater or lesser extend in almost any metal—it’s really difficult to prevent hydrogen from leaking through almost any metal). On the other hand, your concept of electron screening within palladium (or any material with conduction electrons) just doesn’t jibe with any and all observations of solid state conductors (or even ion conductors).

    While there is most certainly a screening effect within any conductive material (including plasmas, which are great conductors), it’s not nearly so effective as what you propose. (If it were, we would be seeing a great many strange transmutations occurring in practically all such systems.) Perhaps a more fruitful avenue for pursuit would be the nature of periodic structures within the solid state (Bloch states and such). (By the way, there are metals that pack hydrogen in significantly more densely than palladium. Why have these not been pursued, especially if hydrogen density is what’s needed?)

    Anyway, thanks for trying. :-)

    David

    Reply
  19. Although I wrote #36005 in response to #39995, there were a couple of things that seemed to me to deserve a separate posting.

    Since Cold Fusion research has had low status for so many years, anonymous posting of ideas relating to it may be the best option, and for several different circumstances. For example, I could be somebody well-known, who would be academically assailed for having anything to do with the subject. Or I could be someone whose specialty is a wildly different subject, who only dabbles in this area, and doesn’t need to hear remarks from colleagues like, “Why are you wasting time on THAT?” Or I could be someone you could find with a Web search, associated with all sorts of idiotic notions, and if you saw that before reading an idea I posted here, would you bother?

    I like the fact that anonymity dissociates the writer from the idea. The idea either stands or falls on its own, and no preconceptions about it, based on the writer’s reputation, need get in the way.

    Next, while studies of muon catalyzed fusion do indeed indicate that low-temperature conditions need not affect the types of fusion results that occur, as compared to hot fusion, there is nevertheless a minor mystery here. Remember that because the muon is about 206 times as massive as an electron, it can orbit a proton 206 times closer than an electron. That means, thanks to the inverse-square law, the electrical attraction between proton and muon is about 206*206 (or 42436) times stronger than the ordinary attraction between a proton and an electron. More, when the muon catalyzes a fusion, two protons are nearby, so we can deduce that the attraction is roughly doubled, to maybe 85,000 times the normal attraction between one proton and one electron. Well, it is a fact that frequently, despite its mass and that electrical attraction, the muon can somehow acquire enough energy to escape the site of the fusion that it catalyzed (and can afterward catalyze another fusion).

    The mystery is HOW did it acquire that energy? We know the muon cannot “feel” the Strong Nuclear Force, which is going to release a bunch of energy during the fusion reaction, usually appearing as the kinetic energy of particles such as a tritium nucleus and a proton, or a helium 3 nucleus and a neutron..

    David and others, I leave you to ponder that mystery, while I await a reply to #36005.

    Reply
  20. David, regarding your posts #36024 & 36025 (replies to my earlier posts):

    I did not say much about hydrogen molecules in my posts; I mostly focussed on atoms. That’s because of the palladium environment, through which smaller helium atoms cannot pass, while larger hydrogens can. It makes no sense to imagine hydrogen in palladium as still being molecular. There is also the aspect of using electrolysis in many CF experiments, which offers an excellent chance for hydrogen atoms to interact with palladium (directly entering the body of the metal) before interacting with each other (that is, forming molecules).

    So, if we consider two ordinary hydrogen atoms bumping into each other (at low enegy, so they don’t form a molecule), it is their electron shells that are closer to each other than their nuclei. Since the electrons in those shells have the same magnitude of charge as the protons in the nuclei, it logically follows that there is more repulsion between electrons than between nuclei, at least during the initial phase of that “bumping”. It also logically follows that IF there might be able to exist such a thing as “electron catalyzed fusion”, the shells MUST be eliminated somehow. It would be the only way a loose electron can, if only momentarily, pass closer to a deuteron than normal orbital distance (say on a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory, although I do know that doesn’t translate perfectly from classical to quantum mechanics). In all ordinary circumstances involving intact electron shells, no loose thermal-energy electron would be able to penetrate a shell and do such a thing.

    As mentioned previously, it is the simple fact that helium, a smaller atom than hydrogen, cannot permeate palladium while hydrogen can, which can lead us to the possibility that perhaps hydrogen indeed has no ordinary sort of electron shell, inside palladium, thereby setting the stage for the possibility of ECF. You have not denied the stage, although you seem to have introduced some irrelevent data.

    You wrote (parenthesized), regarding a large effectivenss of charge-screening by electrons: “If it were, we would be seeing a great many strange transmutations occurring in practically all such systems”. However, the apples are low energy and the oranges are high energy. Per quantum mechanics, the size of an electron’s “cloudiness of position” shrinks as its energy goes up. At stellar-core temperature/pressure the number of nuclei electrons can “simultaneously” be nearby, thanks to their quantum cloudiness, goes way down, and so the numbers of electrons “nearby” any protons or deuterons, available to screen those particles long enough for them to get close enough to fuse, also goes down. On Earth, plasmas we’ve made at low temperature are simply all too diffuse; they don’t approach the particle density of solid matter, and therefore again the conditions don’t actually exist for the magnitude of screening you are talking about.

    And the preceding goes double or squared, to the extent you dared to talk about electrons being able to screen other nuclei that contain multiple protons! (apples, oranges, and bananas!)

    Only inside solid metal have we so far examined conditions that can include lots of low-energy loose electrons plus lots of bare nuclei (hydrogen isotopes only!). It is my understanding that some CF researchers claim to have obtained excess heat using titanium instead of palladium, for example. What you wrote implies that a great many metals have been saturated with deuterium, by people looking for the CF effect, but I don’t know that that is actually true. Besides, the palladium evidence indicates a limited number of metals can work (they have to be able to allow tremendous “loading” of deuterium).

    What you wrote about other metals that can pack hydrogen more densly than palladium is interesting. Perhaps their existence is not widely known (I thought palladium was the champ, until I recently learned about some palladium alloys)? Or, perhaps they simply don’t work right. For example, if they pack hydrogen as molecules or as chemical compounds (metal hydrides) instead of as nuclei-in-the-conduction-band, then CF should not be expected to occur in those metals, IF electron catalysis is the fusion initiation mechanism. A hydride almost by definition would have very few loose electrons!

    Moving on to the other message, if you wish, you can use “Handel” as the handle for me, just because I’m feeling punny at the moment. I will confess to having written these messages in this blog: 35911, 35925, 35926, 35927, 35938, 35942, 35959, 35972, 35988, 35991, 36005, and 36023. And I’m not planning on registering because I’ve discovered it’s basically a way to get spammed after a data breach (the fewer sites I register to use, the lower the risk).

    Next, you wrote: “the lowest energy state of the electron and muon within the created atom entails reasonably high probabilities that they will be “inside” the nucleus” –I’m curious as to why you mentioned “electron” in that. Accident? (Of course, if ECF is the explanation for CF, then I couldn’t agree more.) In purely muon-catalyzed fusion, no electrons are involved; the MCF event happens totally inside an ordinary deuterium’s electron shell, a muonic deuterium atom interacting with the nucleus of the ordinary deuterium atom.

    Your description of the two products of an ordinary fusion reaction (say a tritium nuclide and a proton) shooting away from each other, leaving the muon behind, makes excellent sense. However, I suspect the muon shoots out even before that happens (some backward logic is involved.) One way it might do that involves the pions mentioned in #35959. Consider the situation when the two deuterons have JUST started to interact via the Strong Force. In that situation the deuterons are some distance apart, and have begun exchanging virtual pions. Many of those pions will be electrically charged, and therefore they are able to electrically interact with the muon that is directly in-between the deuterons (in their way!). This of course would mean that the total energy of the fusion reaction would actually be divided among all three real particles (tritium, proton, and muon), and of couse some measurements would need to be made to verify this scenario.

    The reason I brought up the mystery directly relates to the ECF idea. After all, if a number of electrons got sequentially in-between two deuterons, allowing them to approach closely enough to fuse, then it follows that a number of electrons might continue to get in-between the two deuterons even after they start exchanging virtual pions. ALL of those electrons could then (still sequentially) interact electrically with pions, acquire some energy, and leave the scene. Net result: most of the energy of the reaction is drained away, before-the-deuterons-actually-merge/while-they-are-merging, allowing helium 4 to be directly produced most of the time. No gamma ray; just a lot of energized electrons (heat!).

    In situations where the metal is very thin (such as during electrolysis co-deposition), electrons could approach the scene of a catalyzed fusion reaction from only 2 dimensions, not 3. That significantly restricts the total number of electrons involved, increasing the chance that not enough energy can be carried away before two deuterons merge, to prevent the result from breaking apart as the “more typical” fusion reaction products.

    Heh, it happens the electrons as a group only need to carry away a little more than 4MeV to force the fusion reaction to yield helium 4. That’s because the total energy released, when the fusion yields tritium and a proton, or helium 3 and a neutron, is at most about 4Mev. Those reactions simply can’t happen if more than their total possible energy has already been carried away! (Hmmmm…maybe we should be looking for a lot of 18-19MeV gammas…or maybe not, depending on the total energy it is possible for the gang of electrons to carry away.)

    The “backward logic” mentioned earlier is simply that if CF is real, then SOME sort of explanation is required for why two deuterons make helium 4 and heat so often. If “pion interactions with many electrons” is the answer, then pions must energize the muon in MCF, also (and so, logically, “Q.E.D.”, the muon is energized even before the reaction ends). It is because only one muon is involved in MCF that that particular kind of cold fusion process exhibits the same reaction-product statistics as hot fusion.

    Reply
  21. An email was sent to Pamela Mosier-Boss in 11 April 2009, suggesting to use an oscillator in her experiment.

    The email is ahead.

    From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:46:25 PM
    To: pam.boss@navy.mil
    Cc: m_bernstein@acs.org; David Hestenes (hestenes@asu.edu); EDEL PONS (canmarrai@gmail.com)

    Dear Pamela

    My theory can be tested by your experiment.

    My idea is to use an oscillator capable to increase the oscillatory motion of the molecules D-D within the Pd lattice, by stimulating the resonance D-D.

    If you succeed to stimulate the resonance D-D , we have to expect a growth in the rate of fusion D-D and also in the rate of neutrons emission by unity of time.

    The oscillator I suggest is the following:

    1- A glass buble is fulfilled by heavy hydrogen (D-D molecules).

    The buble must be placed close to the Pd lattice deposited in the cathode.

    2- Two electrodes are connected inside the buble.

    3- A high voltage is applied to the electrodes, producing an electric discharge that crosses the gas of molecules D-D.

    4- The molecules D-D into the buble are excited, and they emit photons in a frequency which is a sub-multiple of the frequency oscillation of the molecules D-D that fulfill the Pd lattice.

    5- The molecules D-D within the Pd lattice get resonance with the frequency of emission by the D-D molecules into the buble, and the oscillation of D-D within Pd is stimulated to increase its amplitude.

    6- I suppose such stimulation of resonance may increase the velocity of D-D fusion within the Pd lattice.

    A SECOND ALTERNATIVE:

    You can use a laser that hits the molecules D-D within the glass buble, instead of using an electrical discharge.

    A THIRD ALTERNATIVE:

    The best would be to build a laser which emission is produced by D-D molecules. In such case there is no need to have a glass buble, because the laser would be applied directly to the region of Pd lattice.

    Perhaps you have to try the three alternatives.

    It’s my opinion you should have to try it.

    After all, we are in front to a new Physics, and we have to try any new idea if it makes sense.

    Good luck in your attempt, if you decide to do it.

    Regards

    Wladimir Guglinski

    Reply
  22. Here is the monomer structure of CR-39 used in Navy experiment:

    CH2=CH-CH2-O-CO-O-CH2CH2-O-CH2CH2-O-CO-O-CH2-CH=CH2

    Lots of carbon-12 atoms for a high energy neutron to hit and cause three alpha break-up pattern (the 3-pits). So, why so few 3-pit patterns seen in the Navy experiment when so many DD fusion events predicted to occur given the density of deuterium loaded near Pd electrode ?

    Also lots of oxygen atoms in CR-39. So, what pit pattern expected in the Navy experiment on CR-39 film when high energy neutron hits oxygen ? Seems like also would be good evidence that high energy neutron was released. So, seems logical that if high energy neutron hit carbon and caused break-up, some also must hit oxygen and form some type of pit pattern. Anyone have any idea what pit pattern predicted from N hitting O in CR-39 ?

    Of course, neutron that hits hydrogen (a proton) in CR-39 would form a 1-pit pattern, and lots of these shown in Navy experiment. But perhaps these 1-pits only caused by lower 2.5 MeV neutrons from DD fusion, and not the 9-15 MeV neutrons claimed to break-up the carbon-12 ?

    Reply
  23. Based on the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, a new theory is proposed to explain the results obtained by Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment, published in last March.

    See the article in Peswiki:
    How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:
    peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment

    Reply
  24. Anonymous poster of comment ID 35927:

    What you have here only validates what I said: the neutron will not, itself, due to its electromagnetic neutrality, cause any tracks. Neutrons only cause tracks when they interact with the nucleus of another atom in the material. Hence there will be only one track (tritium) or two tracks (helium-3) before the neutron or neutrons interact(s) with a nucleus or nuclei. Furthermore, the likelihood that both neutrons from a fully disintegrated tritium will interact with nuclei at very nearly the same time and place will be extremely low.*

    David

    * Of course, all this presumes the existence of fully disintegrated tritium and/or helium-3 particles in the first place. :-)

    Reply
  25. Anon-Robert:

    The questions you pose are good ones, and yes, I am concerned at the poor quality of the “cold” fusion evidence in this and many other experiments. (See, for instance, my first post to this topic and my Reply to Wladimir Guglinski (unverified ID, though plausible).)

    However, just because the experiments are of poor quality doesn’t, immediately, invalidate the possibilities. On the other hand, I shall most certainly reserve judgement until I see sufficient evidence.

    David

    P.S. As for your question #3: Even if “cold” fusion has a difficult time producing sufficient excess heat to do much work (for instance, if the reaction can only work at room temperatures, so thermodynamic efficiency is down the drain), if there are novel phenomena involved, the research may yet be well worthwhile. (See my discussion in my first post to this topic.)

    Reply
  26. David, I wrote #35911, and can attempt to respond to #35995.

    One thing I shall quote from the earlier message: “If electron catalyzed fusion can occur, it certainly won’t happen in the same manner that muon catalysis works (due to the difference in mass of the two particles).” Your message did not seem to acknowledge that.

    For ECF to be possible, the electron shells of hydrogen atoms have to be “out of the picture”, since (1) the shells repel other electrons, including other electron shells, and (2) trapped within separate shells, nuclei are basically too far apart to fuse.

    It happens that palladium is special in a way that could be relevant to the preceding. Helium is a physically smaller atom than either a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule, but helium cannot permeate palladium, while hydrogen can flow through the metal fairly easily. Why? One possibility is that hydrogen “alloys” itself to palladium, giving its electron up into the overall “conduction band” of the metal. We know that hydrogen absorption by palladium is exothermic, yet we also know the two elements have practically identical electronegativities, and that palladium remains metallic after absorbing 900 times its volume of hydrogen. An ordinary chemical reaction between the two seems unlikely. If this possibility of alloying is correct, then the size of a hydrogen atom would shrink by about 100,000 times, since it has only one electron and so becomes just a bare nucleus without it (having donated it to the conduction band). That would make it easily able to permeate the solid metal; it would simply claim an electron from the conduction band as it emerges on the other side.

    So, in deuterium-saturated palladium, if the deuteriums have given away their electrons to the conduction band, we can now consider what sorts of interactions there might be between bare deuterons and loose conduction-band electrons. Since the electrons are not orbiting the deuterons, is there anything preventing the two from approaching (momentarily) arbitrarily closely? So far as I know, the answer to that is “NO”. This means that if two deuterons just randomly happen to be on a collision course, their mutual repulsion can momentarily be shielded by any loose electron that happens to get in-between them (and that location is the point of greatest electrical attraction between the two deuterons and an electron). The extent to which the electron electrically attracts the two deuterons closer together would be balanced by the fact that the electron’s location-uncertainty will cause it to quickly leave that special location –but there are lots of other electrons nearby, also loose in the conduction band. THEIR location-uncertainties can allow them to replace the first electron just as soon as it leaves the scene. Remember that in muon catalysis, only one negative charge suffices to shield two deuterons (and only one negatively charged particle is present); in the conduction band the deuterons can easily attract two or more charges to their vicinity. (Talking in terms of quantum uncertainty, we can imagine 20 nearby electrons each having 10% of its “cloudiness-of-location” close to the two deuterons, the group effectively acting as two close-by electrons.) That’s a major reason why a second electron should be “right there”, able to immediately replace the first, and take over the task of shielding the deuterons from each other.

    The net result seems to be that random collision courses can be shielded until two deuterons are close enough for the Strong Nuclear Force to start overcoming their mutual repulsion. Note that the collision courses need to be very precise, since nuclei are so small; this means that high loading of the palladium by deuterium is needed, for significant numbers of precise collision courses to happen. And, of course the failure to achieve high loading is now considered to be a major explanation for why so many early attempts failed to replicate the original experiment.

    Do you have an objection to that scenario, David?

    Reply
  27. David,

    Your statement that the neutron found within either helium-3 or tritium cannot cause a pit in CR-39 seems to be falsified by this previous post from somewhat that apparently works in the field–since they state they made an oops of information known:–see here:
    ====

    April 7, 2009 by Anonymous, 2 days 10 hours ago
    Comment id: 35927

    I neglected to remember that a moderately energetic neutron can interact with hydrogen in CR-39 plastic in a particular way. A collision with a hydrogen nucleus can give it enough energy to break its molecular bond and go tearing for a short distance through the other molecular bonds in the plastic. This damage can be revealed by etching. Only a single track or pit is revealed, and other causes of such damage (cosmic rays, for example) are quite possible, leading to some uncertainty as to the true cause of the pits. This is why the triple-track data is much more important (it’s more difficult to explain as anything other than the result of neutron interactions).

    ====

    So, David, your statement that a neutron cannot form a pit in CR-39 just not correct. So, since we being scientific here, my hypothesis that 3-pit pattern observed by Navy (which they admit is very, very rare pattern of all the pits they see) may be caused by rare break-up of [PNP] and/or [NPN], given extra momentum to neutron supply from knock-on reaction, still on the table, open for you or anyone else to falsify via controlled experimentation.

    Reply
  28. To David….

    Question #1
    The Navy experiment claims very high energy neutrons were produced–in the range of 9-15 MeV. Yet the Navy made no attempt to monitor directly the number of neutrons directly using a neutron detector–as you must know there are many ways to count number of neutrons directly (Los Alamos lab for example uses four He3 tubes in what is called a ‘veto’ counter). So, are you concerned that the Navy made no attempt to measure counts of neutrons released ‘directly’ — but only reports very rare 3-pit cluster events (supposed evidence of 9-12 MeV neutrons hitting carbon-12 to release 3 alpha) as evidence of significant DD – DT fusion ? Seems to me direct counts of neutrons from Pd loaded with D should be statistically and significantly higher than number found at control Pd not so loaded.
    **********
    Question #2
    Navy claims evidence of high energy neutrons released, in range 9-15 MeV. This not possible from DD reaction alone. Thus there must be a DT second fusion reaction that occurred to get a neutron with this energy. But this also means tritium expected to be released. So, are you concerned that Navy made no attempt to measure directly the amount of tritium released ? Would there not be predicted a strong statistical association between the number of 3-pit patterns and level of tritium if a DT type reaction has occurred ?
    **********
    Question #3
    The point of using a cold fusion devise is to produce excess heat, which can then do work, perhaps make steam–then steam engine, etc. So, are you concerned the Navy does not report how much heat energy was released in their experiments where they see the 3-pit patterns ? I understand the importance of the claim that a 9-15 MeV neutron may have been released–an important step forward in LENR experiments. But, do you not agree now must come a new level of experiments (by Navy and others) to show BOTH high energy neutrons AND excess heat–in the same experimental setup ?
    **********
    Question #4
    How you think the Coulomb barrier overcome in the type of Navy experimental design ? From your post you appear to have knowledge of topic–what is your best guess as to the dynamics how the initial fusion reaction began to release the 9-15 MeV neutron predicted by the Navy that hit carbon-12 within the CR-39 and split it into 3 alpha. Must it always begin as a DD fusion ? —- are there other explanations possible ?

    Anon-Robert

    Reply
  29. There are so many Anonymous users, without even any signature, that it makes this discussion very hard to follow. At least WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI signed his posts responding to me, unlike every body else.

    Why no names? Is it possible people fear to be identified?

    As to Tritium and/or Helium-3 disintegrating to produce triplets of pores: Even if such disintegrations occurred (a highly improbable occurrence, and, even if so, indicative of high energy processes, as has already been pointed out repeatedly), the neutrons will not interact in anything like the same way as the protons (or alpha particles, or anything else that can interact more than weakly via the electromagnetic interaction), so they will not produce pores directly (hence the supposition that what is seen are other high energy particles resulting from neutron collisions with nuclei).

    What’s needed is a real scientific discussion. Please. (I know that at least some Science Blog readers are able to participate at the necessary level.)

    As to whether there may be anything occurring with electrons within the solid state lattice like unto muon catalyzed fusion (referred in the discussion, at times, as “electron catalyzed fusion”); This suggests nearly a complete lack of understanding of muon catalyzed fusion. You are absolutely correct that the only differences between electrons and muons is their masses and the short lifetimes of muons. The lack of understanding is exhibited in not recognizing that the very characteristic of the muons greater mass is the sole cause of their catalytic effect on fusion: The greater mass causes any molecules coupled via muon replacement of bonding electrons to have atomic (nuclear) separations far closer than in the usual electron coupled cases. This, and the fact that the nuclei are held in this closer configuration for a significant time period, greatly increase the likelihood of the nuclei tunneling through the coulomb barrier to fuse.

    However, this “cold” muon catalyzed fusion can be studied to see what fusion products, characteristics, and statistics may be expected under other “cold” conditions. As I recall, Professor Jones (who I’ve heard talk many times on his various “cold” fusion experiments, including fusions producing neutrons with deuterated water in setting concrete) has never suggested that these features we have cataloged from “hot” fusion experiments change in some (or any) inexplicable way in any “cold” fusion processes, including his muon catalyzed fusion experiments.

    So, absolutely, experiment/observation trumps theory, not the reverse. On the other hand, of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (Notice, I didn’t say “proof”, since science experiments can never “prove” anything. [A fortiori, theories can never “prove” anything either.] The best that can be accomplished is verification or falsification: Falsification is, arguable, the strongest of the two “best” outcomes.)

    So, please, lets be more scientific* in our discussions here.

    David

    * See Building a better way of Understanding Science (at <http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/building-a-better-way-of-understanding-science.ars&gt;), and the link to the sctual site contained therein.

    Reply
  30. It seems that it needs to be re-stated that the whole point of observing pits, including triple pits, in CR-39 is that it qualifies of evidence of nuclear reactions that produced particles that caused damage in the molecular structure of CR-39, revealed as pits by etching.

    Please remember that the main objection to the idea of Cold Fusion is, simply, “No Way!”

    Yet if CR-39 records evidence of energetic subatomic particles, then those particles had to come from somewhere. The CF proponents therefore get to say, “Way!” –even if they don’t know any details about that Way. They can simply be confident that some sort of Way exists.

    Objectors who can replicate this experiment, who continue to claim that energetic particles could not result in a CF experiment (because “no way” can fusion happen to produce those particles), will need another mechanism to explain the data represented by the pits in CR-39. All the talk here about breakdown of tritium or helium 3 (a thing requiring energetic particles to happen!) does nothing at all to affect this simple reasoning.

    Ultimately, that is the breakthrough made by the SPAWAR people. Objectors have long demanded more substantial evidence than mere heat for concluding that Cold Fusion can happen. Now that such evidence is at hand, progress in the field might start to go a little faster.

    Reply
  31. To Anon comment 35988:

    Your comment is well taken, as can be seen in Navy Fig.2 (2i) a 3-pit pattern caused by neutron 12.6-12.9 MeV differs from Fig. 2 (2iii, iv) caused by neutron ~ 15.44 MeV, and the higher the neutron energy the more apart the pits. But….being devil advocate….even the 3-pit Navy pattern caused by 15.44 MeV neutron, at energy expected from hot fusion, appears very differ from that shown by 2003 Palfalvi et al. Fig. 2, completely different shape to the “prongs” of the star pattern.

    Also, compare Navy Fig. 1(D) to Navy Fig. 2(iv)–see how in the first, the middle pit larger than others, yet in the second the middle pit smaller. So, given known mass of proton and neutron, I suggest Navy Fig. 1 (D) may be [PNP] since neutron mass larger, and Fig. 2 (iv) may be [NPN] for same reason. Also, why not possible to have multiple causes for 3-pit patterns on CR-39 film–why only breakup of carbon-12 the mechanism ?

    It is the way of science for other scientists to do all possible to falsify what others claim, not put head in sand and just accept. What would help is to find documented CR-39 pictures of what impact of helium-3 [PNP] and tritium [NPN] looks like—so, if anyone knows, please post. This seems like easy way to falsify my hypothesis, then I go away.

    Reply
  32. Regarding triple tracks, in comment #35961, it was stated, “Navy claims high energy [N] > 9.6 MeV released during the fusion reaction that occurred”

    Now, the type of fusion reaction needed to release a neutron of at least that much energy is the D+T reaction. However, that reaction typically yields neutrons having 14MeV of energy. It is not unreasonable to think that “typical” triple pits in reference plates of CR-39 were created by 14MeV neutrons released during hot fusion. These neutrons would dump maximum energy into a carbon 12 nucleus, so that the three shattered pieces (alpha particles) would also have maximum energy, able to do maximum damage to the molecular structures in CR-39.

    Now, as was indicated in comment #35938, some energy of a Cold Fusion reaction can apparently be released mysteriously as heat, prior to the typical reaction products leaving the scene, and those products would have less-than-typical energy. Neutrons from the D+T reaction could therefore have rather less energy than 14Mev. Any such that is barely sufficient to shatter a carbon 12 nucleus would not be able to also give them a lot of flying-apart kinetic energy. And the amount of damage that those less-energetic alpha particles could do, in the CR-39, would be appropriately less than the reference standard.

    Reply
  33. I wish to comment on this comment by Anon to a comment I made……….

    “is not a fact that the pits are caused by alpha–this is an assumption that the Navy makes.”

    –That’s true, and they make that assumption because in other experiments where it is KNOWN that energetic neutrons have interacted with CR-39, carbon atoms are sometimes shattered leaving a triple pit behind.

    ===

    I agree completely, Navy makes an assumption that known 3-pit patterns caused from
    12C(n,n’3 alpha) breakup is similar to the 3-pit patterns they observe. So, let us look at the data, let us look at what is known about how 12C(n,n’3 alpha) breakup looks when it hits CR-39 film. Because this forum does not allow pictures to be posted, anyone with interest will have investigate by reading the papers:

    First, the 3-pit pattern formed by 12C(n,n’3 alpha) breakup that hits CR-39 is shown in this paper by Palfalvi et al. 2003–follow the link to the document by Palfalvi:

    http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=cosmic+particle+induced+reaction+detection&btnG=Google+Search

    In Fig. 2 of Palfalvi et al. is reported a 3-pit pattern formed on CR-39 when a neutron hits carbon-12 . Take close look at this pattern.

    Now, take a look at the 3-pit pattern reported in Fig 1.(D) observed in the Navy 2009 paper:

    http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library2/2008/2008BossTripleTracks.pdf

    I’ll let each person come to their own conclusions, but the only thing I see similar is that three of something has formed a pattern. The pattern formed by 12C(n,n’3 alpha) breakup
    is much different than the pattern reported by Navy. Most telling is the vastly different angle of inclination between the two, the angle in the 3-pit pattern given in the Navy Fig.1 (D) is much less than what is found when carbon-12 splits into three alpha. So, whatever it is that caused the 3-pit cluster, it is not conclusive that it was by 12C(n,n’3 alpha) breakup !
    One has to wonder if the peer reviewers of the Navy paper were aware of the Palfalvi et al. 2003 diagram.

    Also, look closely at Fig. 1 (D) in the Navy experiment–does it look to you like three things identical as would be required if three alpha ? — well it does not to me. It looks more like two things identical (top,bottom) with a third slightly larger thing in between. Consider that the mass of the neutron is somewhat larger than mass of proton and then [PNP] or helium-3 is thus a valid possibility to explain the 3-pit pattern given by Navy in Fig. 1(D).

    Given the facts presented above that the 3-pit pattern reported by the Navy is not similar to what is expected during 12C(n,n’3 alpha) breakup, I suggest my hypothesis, that the 3-pit Navy pattern could be caused by [NPN] and/or [PNP] that breakup just prior to hitting the CR-39 film, remains on the table for discussion.

    Reply
  34. To those reading this thread concerning the results of the Navy cold fusion experiment, I wish to make it clear that I do not dispute that Navy may well have evidence that alpha (He4) particles have been released in their experimental design, and if so, then as correctly presented by Anon.., this would explain excess heat production. However, please note that Navy never measured heat production, so this is unknown for their experiment, we have no idea how much heat was produced in the Navy experiment–they did not report it. Because we have no idea of heat, it is pure conjecture to back calculate energy dynamics using predicted DD and/or DT fusion results from hot fusion reactions.

    My first concern is that I am not convinced that the 3-pit pattern observed by Navy is caused by three close packed alpha being released from carbon-12 isotope found within CR-39 film.

    Why this concern ? Because there are other possible and more simple explanations not falsified by the data presented by Navy. One such possibility is that during DD and/or DT fusion (or perhaps some fusion not known at this time) is resulting helium-3 [PNP] and/or triton [NPN] particles, which if split prior to hitting CR-39 film could result in a 3-pit pattern. Since we have no idea the energy dynamics involved in the Navy experiment, I have no idea the dynamics of such a hypothesis. Perhaps the type of fusion reaction involved in the Navy experiment produces [PNP] and/or [NPN] particles at energies not predicted by hot fusion DD and DT fusion reactions.

    Second, the Fig. 1 in the Navy 2008 publication shows the diameter of the 3-pit pattern to be ~ 6-8 microns/pit, yet there is published data that the alpha when it hits CR-39 film at identical time of etching ( 6hr) produce pits much larger in diameter. Also, the Navy data on diameter of alpha in Fig. 1 produced from radioactive decay of Am shows single alpha pits of diameter ~ 12 microns. So, the Navy’s own data in Fig. 1 confirms that the 3-pit pattern is too small in diameter to be caused by three alpha. The more likely explanation is that the 3-pit pattern is caused by something with much less energy that hit the CR-39 than three alpha, and either [NPN] or [PNP], with the three nucleons breaking up just prior to hitting CR-39 film are thus likely options. It is predicted that either [NPN] or [PNP] would hit CR-39 film with less energy than the alpha [NNPP].

    Third, Fig. 1 in Navy paper shows many large dark pits that appear to be 3-4 times diameter of the 3-pit clusters–thus my hypothesis is that these large dark pits may represent single alpha particles released. If so, then it predicts that many different types of fusion reactions may be going on in these Navy experiments, all kinds of positive changed particles plus neutrons may be hitting the CR-39 film.

    So, until someone from Navy that conducted this experiment provides comment on this forum, I think it best to not put much importance on any comments posted here, especially by me.

    Reply
  35. “is not a fact that the pits are caused by alpha–this is an assumption that the Navy makes.”
    –That’s true, and they make that assumption because in other experiments where it is KNOWN that energetic neutrons have interacted with CR-39, carbon atoms are sometimes shattered leaving a triple pit behind.

    “one way for breakup of [NPN] and [PNP] prior to hitting CR-39 film is to have them interact with a free [N], since Navy claims high energy [N] > 9.6 MeV released during the fusion reaction that occurred”
    –If an energetic neutron exists such that it could shatter a tritium or helium 3 nucleus, then it also exists such that it could shatter a carbon 12 nucleus. Meanwhile, you have not offered any evidence that your proposed collision would indeed totally shatter the tritium or helium 3. What if the most frequent outcomes involved merely knocking a single nucleon out of the three-nucleon nucleus, leaving a nucleon-pair behind? So, not only do you lack key information regarding your hypothesis, you require for it to happen the same evidence for D+T fusion –energetic neutrons– that the SPAWAR people assume have shattered nuclei of carbon 12.

    Therefore there is no benefit in choosing your hypothesis over the other one. In both cases the triple track requires a sufficiently energetic neutron to have existed, such that a mechanism like D+T fusion (or a cosmic ray) needed to have occurred, to produce it. Since appropriate shielding plus quantities of triple pits can rule out cosmic rays, what is left? Nuclear fusion in relatively ordinary physical conditions….

    It is extremely important for the SPAWAR data to be replicated by other researchers, especially the skeptics who continue to claim that no nuclear reactions of any sort can occur in these experiments. The skeptics make that claim because of the lack of a good theoretical explanation, as we know. Only after enough data has been gathered and replicated (if it can indeed be done) will they be able to accept the idea that there might be something inadequate in the theory they are currently using to reach their current conclusions, and therefore that theory could use some improving.

    Reply
  36. On page 140 of 2008 Navy publication they make the statement that the pits caused have “energy … between 1.0 and 1.1 MeV”. So, the facts are that each pit, in the 3-pit pattern, is caused by some particle that carries ~ 1.05 MeV average. These are the experimental facts. But it is not a fact that the pits are caused by alpha–this is an assumption that the Navy makes.

    The known binding energy of triton [NPN] = 8.48 MeV, for helium-3 [PNP] = 7.72 MeV. So, more than enough energy within either [NPN] or [PNP] to cause the pits with ~ 1.05 MeV observed by Navy if impact by a single nucleon.

    Then, of course DD fusion is first a sum of nucleons, but, then it takes two common paths that cause nucleons to split (1) DD –> [NPN] + [P] and (2) DD –>[PNP]+[N]. So, one way for breakup of [NPN] and [PNP] prior to hitting CR-39 film is to have them interact with a free [N], since Navy claims high energy [N] > 9.6 MeV released during the fusion reaction that occurred. But this explanation only applies if in fact the fusion reaction was DD to DT. Even this is but an assumption, other types of fusion reactions could be involved in these types of LENR experiments.

    So, my hypothesis that total breakup of tritium and/or helium-3 is the cause of the 3-pit pattern fits perfectly the Navy statement that each pit formed by ~ 1.05 MeV particle impact. Navy hypothesis the pits caused by alpha impact is not the only hypothesis that meets the energy data reported.

    Reply
  37. Regarding “fusion of nucleons (which must then be explained at the quark level using QCD theory).” –That’s not true! There is a perfectly good particle, the “pion” –look it up– which was quite adequately associated with the Strong Nuclear force for decades before quarks and gluons were discovered. Virtual pions are perfectly adequate “exchange particles” nowadays for **continuing** to explain nucleon binding in a nucleus, just as they were adequate in prior decades. Quarks and gluons are really only needed to explain the nucleons themselves.

    Next, you wrote: “the simplistic answer to your question is that the energy to break apart He3 and/or tritium, once they are formed as daughters, comes from breaking the strong force of the parent nucleons during whatever fusion reaction has occurred.” –That is nonsense. Nucleons do not break during fusion. When we start with two deuteriums, each consists of one proton and one neutron, and their fusion yields a simple SUM (temporarily in most hot fusions), the two protons and two neutrons of a helium 4 nucleus. In ordinary fusion there is also a lot of energy that MIGHT be released as a gamma ray, but because this is usually “too much” (about 24MeV), one of those four particles, either a proton or a neutron, exits the scene, leaving a tritium nucleus or a helium 3 nucleus behind (moving the opposite direction). The total energy released by either of those two reactions is only about 4MeV, far less than the reaction with the gamma ray. Also, this energy appears as the kinetic energy of the flying-apart particles; there simply isn’t enough, inside either a tritium or helium 3 nucleus, to break it apart.

    The preceding was blatantly about hot fusion, but its data is available for comparison with facts and logical inferences about cold fusion. For example, since the available CF data indicates that usually the 24MeV is released as heat instead of a gamma, we seldom get any tritium or helium 3 nuclei. But when it happens, there cannot be more energy available than the about-4MeV specified above. (It would be a violation of Energy Conservation.) Indeed, due to a description in a prior post here (#35938), even less than 4MeV can be expected to be available, due to the liklihood of some of the energy first getting released as heat before the reaction finalized and yielded tritium-plus-a-proton or helium-3-plus-a-neutron.

    Please do not confuse the total possible energy available when the result of a fusion is helium 4 (plus a gamma or heat), with the actual energy that appears when the other reactions occur. For comparison note that when a tritium fuses with a deuterium, the total energy released is more than 17MeV, because one of the products of that reaction is helium 4. It’s a simple and straightforward fact that without the product of helium 4, a large amount of energy simply does not get released.

    So, care to try again? Or would you rather drop the notion regarding a total breakup of tritium or helium-3 nuclei?

    Reply
  38. Well, the Navy experiment is not suggesting that there is a “chemistry-scale” energy involved that formed the pits (there may well be, an open question)–Navy claims there is a ‘nuclear scale’ strong-force reaction occurring at the Pd electrode, it claims fusion of nucleons (which must then be explained at the quark level using QCD theory). Since it is the strong force holding together the nucleons, the simplistic answer to your question is that the energy to break apart He3 and/or tritium, once they are formed as daughters, comes from breaking the strong force of the parent nucleons during whatever fusion reaction has occurred. Recall the Navy concludes they have no idea about how the fusion reaction occurs. Just because what I propose has never been seen, does not mean it cannot be seen–sounds like no body has taken the time to look.

    Reply
  39. You are failing to explain why either tritium or helium 3 should break apart into separate nucleons. Also, you are somewhat mistaken about the instability of tritium; ALL it does, when it decays with about a 12-year half-life, is turn into helium 3 (the Weak Nuclear Force causes a neutron to turn into a proton, while ejecting an electron and an antineutrino). The nuclide continues to quite happily remain a 3-nucleon nuclide.

    So, why should either break apart into 3 separate nucleons? Where is the energy going to come from to make it do that? Do you realize that nuclear-scale energy is required to do that, and not chemistry-scale energy? And if you have nuclear-scale energy available to do that, then you would be better off accepting that that energy could originate in fusion, which can produce neutrons that can cause carbon-12 in the CR-39 to shatter and leave triple tracks behind. Because the breakdown you are proposing, so far as I know, has never been seen anywhere outside a particle accelerator facility –and likely not even there, since accelerator “targets” are seldom tritium or helium 3.

    Reply
  40. So many Anon..here I refer to Anon comment ID 35945,

    Your answer indicates that if He3 or tritium hit CR-39 it would always only form a ‘single’ pit. I think there is another possibility.

    Both He3 and triton have three nucleons, so a picture of He3 is [PNP] and tritium [NPN]. So, why it not possible that, after the initial DD fusion, that the three nucleons in either [PNP] or [NPN], being now unstable, begin to come apart while moving toward the CR-39 from the Pd electrode and thus each ‘pit’ = one of the three nucleons found in He3 and/or tritium ? That way, there is not predicted that you find some ‘initial track’ that would then be surrounded by a triple track pattern. Instead you would predict to see 3-pits, each caused by one of the three nucleons found in [PNP] and/or [NPN]. Navy nor anyone has any idea what energy a [PNP] or [NPN] could have after a DD fusion reaction–they have no idea the dynamics of the DD fusion that occurs at the Pd electrode.

    If hypothesis possible, then one would predict, since the nucleons already coming apart while in transit, that the 3-pit pattern formed should be as if coming apart from a center of mass–that is, the two side [P] appear to come apart from the central [N] in He3 and the two side [N] appear to come apart from central [P] in tritium. Both the Navy 2007 and 2008 papers indicate that 3-pits patterns in their experiments show this, the three pits appear to be coming apart from a center of mass. I see nothing in Navy experiment nor the references cited to indicate that the 3-pit pattern could not be caused by the individual neutrons found in [PNP] and/or [NPN] that begin to “come apart” some small time before impact with CR-39 film. Now, since tritium is known to be very unstable, while He3 stable, I would suggest it most likely the 3-pit pattern is caused by the more stable He3–again–caused by the individual nucleons within the [PNP] that begin the process of “coming apart” priori to hitting CR-39 film. It is well known that one path of DD fusion is He3 + neutron.

    Reply
  41. I agree that newly manufactured CR-39 would not contain any significant amount of helium 3 or tritium. Therefore:

    If He3 or tritium arrived in CR-39, it would create damage that would become a pit or track during etching. If the particle broke down afterward, or was broken by some other impacting particle (atomic lightning striking twice in the same place?), then the triple track formed by that breakdown would surround the initial track. We don’t see the initial track, so this explanation for the triple track doesn’t work.

    Reply
  42. Neither of those atoms exist to any significant extent in freshly manufactured CR-39.
    You are asking “Why can’t such a nuclide arrive and then disintegrate completely, in the plastic?”
    The logical answer is: “It would much more likely disintegrate long before it arrived, if it really could disintegrate completely.”

    Reply
  43. “But you did not answer my question. Where in the Navy experiment results can we falsify that the 3-pit pattern is not caused by the three nucleons found in a close packed helium-3 isotope?”

    I don’t need to answer that question. If YOU think the triple-track data can be explained by something else (I note you don’t say WHY you think that), then you should be willing to specify the “something else”, not request somebody else to do your thinking for you. I already wrote that it seems statistically unlikely (“doubtful”) for random events to explain the entirety of the triple-track count. That means I accept the likelihood that energetic neutrons existed to explain at least some of the triple tracks. It means I accept the possibility that some Cold Fusions actually happened in solid palladium, to produce those neutrons. Since I’m aware of the possibility of electron-catalyzed fusion as an explanation for at least the initiation of reactions between two deuteriums (and between tritiums-and-deuteriums), I don’t have to swallow the claim of “impossible!” made by many physicists who either lack sufficient data or sufficient imagination. All that remains, FOR ME, is a satisfactory explanation of the mysterious heat-producing mechanism. And, as it happens, I encountered a somewhat plausible explanation for that some time ago. Therefore I don’t see any great issues remaining, except, “How do we encourage the die-hard objectors to try replicating some of the more recent experiments?” It is data that trumps theory, after all, not theory that trumps data.

    Reply
  44. Thanks Anon,,,all you say is logically. But you did not answer my question. Where in the Navy experiment results can we falsify that the 3-pit pattern is not caused by the three nucleons found in a close packed helium-3 isotope ? I think this possibility more likely then the Navy explanation that the 3-pit patterns formed by 3 alpha found in carbon-12. Here is the 2008 Navy paper for you:
    http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library2/2008/2008BossTripleTracks.pdf

    Reply
  45. I neglected to remember that a moderately energetic neutron can interact with hydrogen in CR-39 plastic in a particular way. A collision with a hydrogen nucleus can give it enough energy to break its molecular bond and go tearing for a short distance through the other molecular bonds in the plastic. This damage can be revealed by etching. Only a single track or pit is revealed, and other causes of such damage (cosmic rays, for example) are quite possible, leading to some uncertainty as to the true cause of the pits. This is why the triple-track data is much more important (it’s more difficult to explain as anything other than the result of neutron interactions).

    Reply
  46. There was no intention on my part to claim that muon catalyzed fusion had anything to do with the Navy experiment. I simply wrote that to show various uninformed people that nuclear fusion can indeed happen at nice low temperatures; this is FACT. All it takes is an appropriate catalyst; certainly a muon can do it; POSSIBLY electrons can do it, since the particles are so similar.

    This sentence:
    ” They just have no understanding of the process either at classical or quark level dynamics that could have provided the energy to form the pits on the CR-39 film.”
    –makes inadequate sense. How do you KNOW they have no such understanding? Why is it necessary to assume something other than energetic neutrons explains the CR-39 data, when in many other experiments for many years, CR-39 data much like this is considered to be evidence that energetic neutrons had interacted with the plastic?

    Next, this statement:
    “[with] no direct evidence of neutrons released, then a cold fusion model is needed that does not require that neutrons be released.”
    –is logically flawed. If there is indirect evidence of neutrons released, then it is NOT required that we devise a cold fusion model that produces no neutrons. I admit that a greater quantity of indirect evidence is needed, than direct evidence, to support this argument. I’m sure that other experimenters are even now trying to obtain that quantity of evidence. And I’m willing to wait for their results, before insisting on one theory over another.

    Reply
  47. It appears that one or more of the posters here are confused about the SPAWAR experiments with CR-39. I shall attempt to thoroughly explain what they THINK happened.

    1. Cold Fusion between two deuterium nuclei happened inside palladium metal. This is traditionally (in most experiments) associated with significant heat production, and not the variety of energetic particles that is associated with ordinary “hot fusion”. Even the SPAWAR experiments detect a fair amount of heat. However, the assumption here is that sometimes the traditional reactions do also occur. These are:
    deuterium + deuterium -> tritium (hydrogen 3) + moderately energetic proton
    deuterium + deuterium -> helium 3 + moderately energetic neutron
    In ordinary hot fusion, those two reactions happen in equal amounts, and constitute nearly the entirety of all fusions between two deuteriums. About once in a million, a third reaction happens:
    deuterium + deuterium -> helium 4 + very energetic gamma ray
    Assuming that cold fusion happens, not only does a variant of this reaction need to be taking place almost all the time, the reaction somehow yields heat instead of a gamma ray. Physicists do not agree on any mechanism by which this can happen, which is a major reason why they tend to think that something other than fusion is causing the observed heat (up to and including fraud by CF researchers).

    2. However, should the other two reactions happen, it should be possible to detect tritiuim, helium 3, protons, and/or neutrons. Immediately there are complications. The quantities produced are very small; it is possible to detect the natural background amount helium 3 to an extent that objectors would consider compromising. Even when helium 4 is detected, this is also frequently attributed by objectors to the natural background. I’ll talk about tritium in the following paragraph. Next, because the protons only have moderate energy, they cannot travel very far (maybe the thickness of a sheet of paper) and thus probably cannot reach a detector. Perhaps their slow-down would release some photons that could be detected, but I don’t know any experiments looking for that (not to mention any photons released inside solid metal are not likely to get out). Finally, because the neutrons also are only moderately energetic, they are much more difficult to detect than high-energy neutrons. CR-39 almost certainly does not interact significantly with THESE neutrons.

    3. Regarding any tritium that is produced by fusion of two deuterium nuclei, remember that if that happens, then the environment in which it happened is favorable for fusion between deuteriums. Well, it happens that tritium is even more reactive than deuterium, with respect to fusion. That means any tritium produced will almost immediately react (in that same environment!) with the first deuterium it encounters. The result of this reaction is well known:
    deuterium + tritium -> helium 4 + very energetic neutron
    THIS is the energetic neutron that can significantly interact with CR-39. If it hits a carbon atom’s nucleus, it contains enough energy to shatter that nucleus (carbon 12) into three “alpha particles” (each one a helium 4 nucleus). The three alpha particles are energetic enough to damage the molecular structure of the CR-39 plastic, such that etching reveals the “triple tracks” or “triple pits”.

    4. For those who object to this evidence, it is necessary to explain what alternatives there might be, that leaves this signature in CR-39. This could include alternative sources (not fusion) of appropriate-energy neutrons. For those who think that fusion is responsible, this clarification post is for them, to use as they see fit.

    Reply
  48. Your comments of muon catalyzed fusion are well taken–but they have nothing to do with Navy experiment. Navy makes no claim the fusion reaction in their experimental design results from muons–they claim direct DD and DT type reactions involving nucleons at classical scale. They just have no understanding of the process either at classical or quark level dynamics that could have provided the energy to form the pits on the CR-39 film. There are many different hypotheses–which one(s) explains the experimental facts the best ? Given that Navy has no direct evidence of neutrons released, then a cold fusion model is needed that does not require that neutrons be released. So, what are the possible models that meet this criterion ?

    Reply
  49. For anyone who thinks there is no possibility that any sort of Cold Fusion can happen, please look up “muon catalyzed fusion”. This phenomenon was discovered by physicists who were working at particle-accelerator laboratories in the1950s. Particle accelerators can make muons easily. One of the types of particle-detectors used in those days was called a “bubble tank”. A variety of liquids are possible for use in a bubble tank; muon catalyzed fusion was discovered in bubble tanks that used LIQUID HYDROGEN (roughly 20 degrees above Absolute Zero). If that doesn’t qualify as Cold Fusion, nothing does!

    Of course muons don’t exist to any extent worth mentioning in solid metal, where the modern sort of Cold Fusion is talked about. However, a metal does happen to have enormous numbers of loose electrons in its “conduction band”, and it also happens that electrons and muons have many physical properties in common. Both are “leptons”, both have the same electric charge, isospin, magnetic moment, etc. The main difference is that a muon has about 206 times the mass of an electron and is an unstable particle that lasts only about 2 microseconds. That’s why we don’t have fusion reactors today using muon catalysis as their method of operation; it takes more energy to make muons than we can get from the reactions they can catalyze, before the muons decay. But electrons persist indefinitely, and vast numbers are available in solid metal, POSSIBLY able to catalyze fusion reactions between some deuterium nuclei that might have entered the metal. If electron catalyzed fusion can occur, it certainly won’t happen in the same manner that muon catalysis works (due to the difference in mass of the two particles). But until we know for sure about that possibility, it would be nice if people would stop insisting that Cold Fusion is totally impossible.

    Reply
  50. Anon…

    Thanks for the explanation.

    So, if I understand you correct, pits on CR-39 film can be formed by various particles that may be released from the Navy experimental design. The possibilities include (1) moderate to high energy neutrons–the [N] nucleon; (2) helium-3 as a type of cluster [PNP], same as alpha is released from carbon-12 as a cluster [NPNP]; (3) tritium as a type of cluster [NPN], the alpha as a type of cluster [NPNP] released from carbon-12 when split by a neutron. The sum over history of these above possibilities could then be represented mathematically by quantum mechanic dynamics perhaps using Feynman diagrams.

    So, on Navy CR-39 film it is predicted that there be evidence of three basic types of pits, ( 1) those caused by medium to high energy [N], (2) those caused by [NPN] and/or [PNP], (3) those caused by the alpha [NPNP]. You say you do not predict a single proton [P] could hit CR-39 film with enough energy to form pit, is there experimental evidence of this, since release of [P] is predicted when tritium is released ?

    So, my simple question, why is it not possible the triple pit pattern seen by Navy cannot be a moderate to high energy [NPN] and/or [PNP] type of cluster released from DD to DT fusion process with each pit resulting from energized single nucleons close packed together at start of DD fusion process, then perhaps observed in different modes of splitting apart when the hit CR-39 film ? While it is true the tritium [NPN] is very unstable, it is also true that helium-3 [PNP] is very stable–so it seems very possible that the 3 pit pattern could well be from a [PNP] type cluster released during path D+D = [N] + [PNP].

    How do we know at what energy tritium [NPN] and helium-3 [PNP] are released during DD fusion during LENR type DD fusion reactions ?

    Reply
  51. Regarding the “CR-39 pit evidence” post:
    A simple answer to one of your questions involves the law of conservation of momentum. Reaction products of a fusion tend to move in opposite directions. If one hits the CR-39 detector, the other won’t. Evidence such as a triple track (with 120-degree angles from their center, again because of momentum-conservation), not caused by a shattered carbon12 nucleus, would require random chance to do something a bit unusual. Sure, it can do it once in a while. Can it do it often enough to explain ALL the triple tracks? Doubtful.

    A point you might be missing is, basically, evidence of energetic nuclear particles IS evidence of energetic nuclear particles. If we detect them, they had to come from somewhere. CF researchers think the “somewhere” is fusion, of course. Objectors will need an alternative “somewhere”.

    Next, one aspect of the overall situation that must not be neglected involves the mysterious mechanism that yields heat. Let me work towards this point kind-of “backward”.
    1. Ordinary hot fusion mostly involves two reactions that yields either tritium and a proton, or helium 3 and a neutron. Once in a million it produces helium 4 and a gamma ray.
    2. The REASON that happens is because of the sheer energy of the third reaction. If a plain ordinary helium 4 nucleus was just sitting there, and that gamma ray arrived from elsewhere and impacted it, we could expect that nucleus to shatter, into either a tritium and a proton, or into a helium 3 and a neutron. Very seldom would the gamma ray pass through the helium 4 nucleus and leave it intact.
    3. Now consider that Cold Fusion apparently releases heat instead of a gamma ray. The evidence suggests it does this quite well and quite often; only rarely does the mysterious mechanism fail to produce enough heat, such that the energy not released as heat suffices to shatter the helium 4 nucleus, thereby giving us small quantities of either tritium and a proton, or helium 3 and a neutron.
    4. The point is that, IF almost always SOME of the total energy of a Cold Fusion is released as heat, THEN when the shattering reactions do occasionally occur, the energies of the released particles will be less than the energies traditionally measured in hot-fusion reactions. We can expect quite a spread of these lesser energies for particles such as tritiums, protons, neutrons, and helium 3.
    5. You asked, “How do we know at what energy tritium [NPN] and helium-3 [PNP] are released during DD fusion during LENR type DD fusion reactions?” The answer is, “We CAN’T expect them to be particular values.”

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.