Nasa testing the Widom-Larsen LENR theory.

[MSimon]

Is it possible for a number of hydrogen atoms confined in a quantum box that is reducing in size to fused: some protons and electrons to form neutrons?

Some people want to hit a pile of metalized hydrogen with a laser to do this. Possible?

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=7807226

The short D-D distance of 2.3 pm in the condensed material ultra-dense deuterium means that it is possible that only a small disturbance is required to give D+D fusion. This disturbance could be an intense laser pulse. The high excess kinetic energy of several hundred eV given to the deuterons by laser induced Coulomb explosions in the material increases the probability of spontaneous fusion without the need for a high plasma temperature. The temperature calculated from the normal kinetic energy of the deuterons of 630 eV from the Coulomb explosions is 7 MK, maybe a factor of 10 lower than required for ignition.

We now report on experiments where several types of high-energy particles from laser impact on ultra-dense deuterium are detected by plastic scintillators. Fast particles with energy up to 2 MeV are detected at a time-of-flight as short as 60 ns, while neutrons are detected at 50 ns time-of-flight after passage through a steel plate. A strong signal peaking at 22.6 keV u−1 is interpreted as due to mainly T retarded by collisions with H atoms in the surrounding cloud of dense atomic hydrogen.

Increasing the probability is not the same as net power.

[MSimon]

Axil,

Suppose it works as you say and all that is required is to keep the lattice loaded while keeping it at 500 C vs 5,000 C for a plasma.

You are still dealing with tail effects vs bulk effects. If you have to go to 2,000 C to get the rate up it will be hard to keep everything (since it is solid matter) intact.

OTOH why a heater once the reaction is going? It should self sustain. According to the latest theory.

Ever notice how the theory proposed keeps changing according to the objection?

[Giorgio]

We now report on experiments where several types of high-energy particles from laser impact on ultra-dense deuterium are detected by plastic scintillators. Fast particles with energy up to 2 MeV are detected at a time-of-flight as short as 60 ns, while neutrons are detected at 50 ns time-of-flight after passage through a steel plate. A strong signal peaking at 22.6 keV u−1 is interpreted as due to mainly T retarded by collisions with H atoms in the surrounding cloud of dense atomic hydrogen.

And the point is?

[tomclarke]

Is it possible for a number of hydrogen atoms confined in a quantum box that is reducing in size to fused: some protons and electrons to form neutrons?

Some people want to hit a pile of metalized hydrogen with a laser to do this. Possible?

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=7807226

The short D-D distance of 2.3 pm in the condensed material ultra-dense deuterium means that it is possible that only a small disturbance is required to give D+D fusion. This disturbance could be an intense laser pulse. The high excess kinetic energy of several hundred eV given to the deuterons by laser induced Coulomb explosions in the material increases the probability of spontaneous fusion without the need for a high plasma temperature. The temperature calculated from the normal kinetic energy of the deuterons of 630 eV from the Coulomb explosions is 7 MK, maybe a factor of 10 lower than required for ignition.

We now report on experiments where several types of high-energy particles from laser impact on ultra-dense deuterium are detected by plastic scintillators. Fast particles with energy up to 2 MeV are detected at a time-of-flight as short as 60 ns, while neutrons are detected at 50 ns time-of-flight after passage through a steel plate. A strong signal peaking at 22.6 keV u−1 is interpreted as due to mainly T retarded by collisions with H atoms in the surrounding cloud of dense atomic hydrogen.

Increasing the probability is not the same as net power.

Increasing sub-inition neutron rate from D-D is very different from forming neutrons from p + e.

D-D fusion (15keV) is a lot easier than p + e -> n (700keV)

[happyjack27]

i had an idea a while ago for a science fiction power source: quantumn confinement fusion. i believe its relevant here.

basically you just use quantum wires or quantum wells or quantum dots, or just double slits like in the double slit experiments to quantum-mechanically confine the fuel nuclei to overlapping regions of space. i suppose it'd be a variation on inertial electrostatic confinement (using QED instead of classical ED), but it'd be more like an LED than a light bulb.

one of the really cool things it'd be really small and really safe. (if the cell gets physically damaged, it breaks the quantumn confinement and the "battery" no longer works.) you could use it as like a cell phone battery. fusion-powered cell phones.

and all i need is some dude on stargate or something to utter "quantum confinement fusion" in passing and i'll feel totally validated.

[marvin57]

Ever notice how the theory proposed keeps changing according to the objection?

Isn't that a reasonable description of the scientific method in a nutshell?

[Helius]

The high excess kinetic energy of several hundred eV given to the deuterons by laser induced Coulomb explosions in the material increases the probability of spontaneous fusion without the need for a high plasma temperature. The temperature calculated from the normal kinetic energy of the deuterons of 630 eV from the Coulomb explosions is 7 MK, maybe a factor of 10 lower than required for ignition.

So how far back do I need to flee after I light the fuse on one of those newfangled D-D M80s?

[MSimon]

Ever notice how the theory proposed keeps changing according to the objection?

Isn't that a reasonable description of the scientific method in a nutshell?

It would be if the new theory had answers for the "old" objections as well. I don't see it.

[MSimon]

Einstein showed that Newtonian mechanics was an approximation of his theory at low velocities.

[tomclarke]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=7807226

The short D-D distance of 2.3 pm in the condensed material ultra-dense deuterium means that it is possible that only a small disturbance is required to give D+D fusion. This disturbance could be an intense laser pulse. The high excess kinetic energy of several hundred eV given to the deuterons by laser induced Coulomb explosions in the material increases the probability of spontaneous fusion without the need for a high plasma temperature. The temperature calculated from the normal kinetic energy of the deuterons of 630 eV from the Coulomb explosions is 7 MK, maybe a factor of 10 lower than required for ignition.

We now report on experiments where several types of high-energy particles from laser impact on ultra-dense deuterium are detected by plastic scintillators. Fast particles with energy up to 2 MeV are detected at a time-of-flight as short as 60 ns, while neutrons are detected at 50 ns time-of-flight after passage through a steel plate. A strong signal peaking at 22.6 keV u−1 is interpreted as due to mainly T retarded by collisions with H atoms in the surrounding cloud of dense atomic hydrogen.

Increasing the probability is not the same as net power.

Increasing sub-inition neutron rate from D-D is very different from forming neutrons from p + e.

D-D fusion (15keV) is a lot easier than p + e -> n (700keV)

OK - I've read a bit of this stuff.

Basically, some Rydberg matter people have got some interesting results which they claim indicate a new state of deuterium (they call it D(-1)) which is 100,000 X denser than normal. It coexists with the known lowest energy Rydberg state D(1) where ionised deuterium (or hydrogen) can form a solid with density of 0.6 g/cc.

Obviously dense deuterium has strong links with fusion. In fact the D(-1) stuff would spontaneously fuse unless present in avery dilute mixture with D(1).

If this stuff exists (it sounds v weird) it would make CF ideas more plausible, except as always that the CF people do not observe any signs of fusion.

Anyway, it is clever stuff, if it exists. And opens up possibilities for new types of fusion.

The evidence FOR this is some clever TOF measurements after laser-induced explosions which give energy/mass ratios for ejected particles.

The peaks in these measurements are very sharp, indicating something with well-defined energy and constant mass. They point out the energy is so high (even with mass = 2u for one deuteron) that it cannot be chemical, and the narrow peak => not thermal process.

They state only two possibilities are nuclear or coulomb explosion.

Idea of Coulomb explosion is displace (pushing to higher energy level) electrons glueing together a molecule. The neclei are then ejected by Coulomb force. the ejection energy can be related to the nuclear charge and the bound distance of the nucleons. This method is well established studying molecules etc.

They have done some stuff looking at how TOF changes in electric field to rule out photons etc, and their conclusions that in fact their sharply-defined peaks are due to Coulomb explosion look well-reasoned.

If that is true, they argue convincingly that it must be due to two deuterium nuclei very very close together (2.4pm). They actually have a 8% accurate correlation between the peaks they get and the expected density of deuterium if deuterons and electrons exchange momentum as proposed by Winterberg, so you have deuterons in bound states around stationary electrons. Maybe the deuterons from a Bose Einstein Condensate. Very exotic. No idea if it holds water.

There are a clutch (maybe 10) of papers looking at this stuff all from the same experimental group. Key reference:

Fusion reactions in high-density hydrogen: A fast route
to small-scale fusion?

Papers are published in decent journals.

The theory for this very exotic stuff is speculation, separately, is from Winterberg (Nevada Uni) - decent theoretical physicist but with history of slightly maverick views - made after the experimental observations:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5414.pdf

I have not found anyone else commenting on this stuff, so it is entirely possible that a less exotic reason will be discovered for the sharp TOF lines, and the whole thing collapses.

But the whole thing looks more interesting than usual CF rubbish:

based on experimental anomaly with definite positive data.

Interpretation does explain the data - coincidence in calculated & measured ultra-dense deuterium mass

Theory (inversion for D(1) to make D(-1)) exists. But I'm not qualified to say whether it has holes, and also I have not seen it properly worked out. What are the electron wave functions in this stuff?

BTW this matter is not Rydberg matter - just it exists in equilibrium with Rydberg matter, and is catalysed from the same. It obviously exists in very small quantities at the moment. If it exists at all!

[Giorgio]

BTW this matter is not Rydberg matter - just it exists in equilibrium with Rydberg matter, and is catalysed from the same. It obviously exists in very small quantities at the moment. If it exists at all!

This quite graciously sums up all what there is to say on the subject.

[tomclarke]

BTW this matter is not Rydberg matter - just it exists in equilibrium with Rydberg matter, and is catalysed from the same. It obviously exists in very small quantities at the moment. If it exists at all!

This quite graciously sums up all what there is to say on the subject.

You can perhaps tell I like this stuff much more than CF.

The CF people run experiments expecting excess heat & gammas & nuclear transmutation. They find excess heat (but no clear indication of this given errors).

This group has got very clear anomalous sharp TOF energy peaks at high energy. They have done a decent amount of cross-checking making sense of results. They have a theory that predicts values of peaks. They have other stuff like laser-induced fusion observations which should not be happening in absence of D(-1). They have some experiments claiming to show their stuff is superfluid tho I'm skeptical.

It all looks much less flakey than CF stuff usually does. When do you find more than one anomaly in CF field that is repeatable and consistent? Or any such that is consistent with (any) theory?

Also notable is that this work is inconsistent with all the other CF results and with Rossi/Piantelli.

Best wishes, Tom

PS - sure all know - TOF = time of flight. => can determine velocity, and hence (given mass) energy. They can rule out subatomic particles - most do not last long enough, others have wrong energy/mass ratio. They can rule out neutral particles cos TOF shifts with field. They have control with H not D. etc.

[Giorgio]

Same for me. I am deep into papers with review of experimental setups bringing weird results. I feel this is one of the very few roads we have left to find new physics.
CF intrigued me for a couple of years but, as you said, the anomalies were so small and difficult to repeat that most of the time I got myself convinced that it was just measurement errors.

I have been looking for the last couple of years also at the so called piezonuclear anomalies due to fracturing of specific solids.

I was never fully convinced by the published papers, but I attended a seminar by Prof. Cardone in University of Torino last month, and the presentation almost convinced me that they might have also found something weird.
Not sure it can be called piezonuclear reactions, but something weird is going on there too.
Do you know him and his work?

[tomclarke]

Comments on “Piezonuclear decay of thorium” by F. Cardone et. al.

G. Ericsson 1 , S. Pomp 1,* , H. Sjöstrand 1 , E. Traneus 2
1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Box 516, 75121 Uppsala, Sweden
2
Nucletron Scandinavia, Uppsala, Sweden
*
Corresponding author at: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Box 516,
75121 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail address: Stephan.pomp@physics.uu.se (S.Pomp).

Abstract
Subjecting a solution of
228
Th to ultrasound (20 kHz, 100W), Cardone et al. [Phys. Lett. A 373
(2009) 1956] claim to observe an increase in the transformation or decay rate of
228
Th by a
factor of 10
4
. The evidence provided seems however far from conclusive and in part
contradictory to the claims made. In fact, looking at the presented data we find it cannot be
taken as justification to discard the null hypothesis, namely, that the data from exposed and
non exposed samples are drawn from the same distribution. We suggest a number of additional
tests that should be made in order to improve the quality of the study and test the hypothesis
of so-called piezonuclear reactions.

Introduction

In a recent paper, Cardone et al. [1] present a measurement where they subject a solution of
228
Th to cavitation. The authors claim that during the 90-minute experiment, half of the thorium
content vanished and conclude that a reduction of
228
Th has occurred that is 10
4
times faster
than the natural decay rate.

In view of the body of knowledge in nuclear physics that has been collected over the past 100
years, this claim is extraordinary and would have rather exciting consequences for the whole
field of nuclear physics and its applications. Such an extraordinary claim should, however, be
substantiated by extraordinary evidence. We find that such evidence is missing in this paper
and it even seems that methodological mistakes have been made.

Since we should, nevertheless, stay open to honest new and potentially revolutionary
discoveries, we suggest additional test that the authors can do in order to test their claim.

Comments regarding the experimental setup and technique

The authors write that the CR39 detectors were “placed underneath the vessel”. This means
the detectors were placed outside of the borosilicate vessels containing the thorium solution.
We note that the range of the emitted α particles in glass is in the order of tens of micrometers and that it thus would be impossible for α particles, and of course even more so for the thorium
nuclei themselves, to penetrate the vessel.

Furthermore, the authors claim to recognize thorium alpha decay events by their ‘unmistakable
“star-shaped” look’. It is not clear to us why decay of
228
Th should be special in this respect; if
the star shape indicates detection of several of the 5 alpha decays
1
in the chain to
208
Pb then
the same should be true for the 4 alpha decays in the chain of
222
Rn. The authors’ reasoning
seems based on the failure of the automated counter system “Radosys” to identify the alleged
traces as coming from
222
Rn or cosmic rays. To us it seems more logic to conclude that since the
events are not recognized by the automated system they are not valid alpha decay events at all.
This leads us to wonder how the events were in fact recognized as alpha decay events. If this
was done by operator ocular inspection we would strongly caution against operator bias.

To investigate the nature of the observed traces in the CR39 detectors, we suggest that the
authors conduct further background measurements, e.g., measurements during cavitation of
pure water, or with empty vessels, but in other respects identical to what is done with the
thorium solutions. A clearer description of the use of the CR39 detectors and the decay
identification procedure would also help.

From the information provided in the paper it seems that each sample solution had a (natural)
thorium activity of the order of 2 MBq. This means that for the whole measurement time of 90
minutes and a total of 12 samples about 10
11
of the
228
Th nuclei would decay. The authors claim
to have detected and identified 6 such events. It is not clear to us if the authors have made an
estimate on whether this is a reasonable amount and if so why this should be the case.
Furthermore, if the decay of
228
Th is actually accelerated as (possibly) claimed during the
cavitation, and such decay can be registered by the CR39 detectors, then the detectors
monitoring the cavitated solutions should not show fewer but four orders of magnitude more
events.

Besides investigating the above mentioned questions, we suggest the following measurements
to further test the hypothesis. Using their NaI detector, it is a straightforward task to measure
the general and characteristic γ radiation that accompanies the decay chain. If the decay rate
increases substantially during cavitation, it should be possible to observe an equally increased γ
count rate
2
. It is possible, however, that by using the word ‘transformation’ instead of ‘decay’,
the authors imply that no γ radiation is emitted; that would constitute a second extraordinary
claim which would need separate careful study, documentation and verification.


1
An individual
228
Th nucleus decays by a chain of 5 α and 2 β
−
decays. There is a branching at the last stages of the
chain which means that for an ensemble of
228
Th nuclei, 6 different α decays and 3 different β
−
decays will be
observed.
2
A rough estimate shows that an experimenter about one meter away from the setup and assuming a decay rate
that is indeed increased by a factor of 10
4
, would be exposed to a dose in the order of hundreds of mSv in the
course of the experiment. Another problem is the lack of reported
228
Th concentration values for each of the test samples,
both before and after cavitation. Such measurements are only shown for a selection of 6
samples and only after cavitation.

Comments regarding the analysis

To draw any positive conclusions from experimental data careful quantitative analyses of the
systematic and statistical uncertainties have to be performed and it should be shown that from
the data the null hypotheses can be discarded on an acceptable significance level.

In their analysis the authors use Fig. 1 as evidence that the non-cavitated solutions give rise to
significantly more events than the cavitated solutions (3 out of 4 plates versus 3 out of 8 plates,
respectively). However, the authors have not tested their data against the null hypothesis,
namely, that the two data sets are drawn from the same parent distribution. Granted that the
authors’ identification of thorium decay events is correct, we find that the null hypothesis
cannot be rejected on a significance level normally applied in such cases. Performing, for
example, a student’s t-test we obtain a p-value for the data of 0.26. The p-value is the
probability, under the null hypothesis, of observing a value as extreme or more extreme as the
test statistic. In order to conform to accepted standards for statistical significance, the null
hypothesis can only be rejected if the p-value is very small, say of the order 0.01 or lower;
clearly the data presented by the authors fail this test by a large margin. To remedy this
shortcoming, we suggest the authors expand their measurements in order to provide much
more experimental data and thereby, possibly, substantiate their claim on a level of significance
acceptable by the physics community.

In the text the authors state that the “12 identical samples” differed in concentration from 0.01
to 0.03 ppb, i.e., a variation in concentrations of a factor of 3. In Tables 1 and 2 the authors
present their results on the concentration of thorium in non-cavitated and cavitated samples,
respectively, based on mass spectrometry measurements. Since measured values of the original
concentration of each sample are not provided, it is virtually impossible to judge the validity of
the treatment of these data. The treatment of the uncertainties in the averaging is also unclear;
the authors use an absolute uncertainty of 0.01 ppb both in the individual samples and in the
mean. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the quoted uncertainties in the mean value
are correctly estimated and also that the original concentration of all samples agree within the
quoted uncertainty of 0.01 ppb. If we then treat these uncertainties as 1-sigma uncorrelated
uncertainties, the ratio of the two mean values should read R = 2.1 +- 2.6. Thus the uncertainty
in this ratio is so large that the null hypothesis, i.e., that the ratio is one, cannot be rejected
with any significance.

Furthermore, the paper lacks estimation of the systematical uncertainties and propagation of
the uncertainties is not reported. We urge the authors to perform a quantitative analysis on
both systematic and statistical uncertainties.
Conclusions

The authors base their conclusion, that the transformation or decay rate of
228
Th has been
increased by a factor 10
4
, on “two converging evidences” regarding the cavitated samples; first,
a reduction of alpha traces in the CR39 detectors, and second, a reduced concentration of
thorium. However, as we have shown, the authors’ own data have by far failed to provide
conclusive evidence for such an effect. Due to the mentioned shortcomings in the experimental
procedure and the lack of statistical evidence we must dismiss the authors claim as mere
speculation.

[Giorgio]

@tomclarke,

yes, the liquid solution experiments never convinced me too.

I was referring here to the solid fracturing tests.
The one they did with different samples and bubble meter indicators to measure neutron emission.
Those are the one I can't figure our where the neutron indications could have come from.