Skip to comments.Method of controlling a chemically- induced nuclear reaction in metal nanoparticles
Posted on 12/20/2013 11:21:18 PM PST by Kevmo
Method of controlling a chemically- induced nuclear reaction in metal nanoparticles
Hydrogen Engineering Application & Development Company
Three System Building 6 floor,
Kita-ku, North 12, West-4, 1-15, Sapporo 001-0012
A nuclear reaction can occur when metal nanoparticles are exposed to hydrogen isotopes in the gas phase. When hydrogen isotopes (light hydrogen and deuterium) enter the nanoparticles and are exposed to electron irradiation, the hydrogen reacts inside the lattice, producing energy. The reaction also produces neutrons, gamma rays and transmutations. Normally, electron irradiation does not produce anomalous heat or radiation. A reaction occurs when hydrogen acts as a heavy fermion (a heavy electron) inside metal nanoparticles below a certain particle size, allowing protons or deuterons to approach one another closely.
Usually, with deuterium, to cause a fusion reaction it is necessary to supply energy of 107 K, or 1 keV per atom. With light hydrogen it is necessary to supply 1.5 × 107 K, for a reaction rate of 10 -31
. With a reactor system on a scale smaller than the sun, a significant fusion reaction does not occur. However, when heavy electrons enter the outer shell of a proton, the radius of the hydrogen atom becomes exponentially smaller with respect to the weight of the heavy electrons, bringing the protons closer together. When this happens, the probability of tunneling fusion increases exponentially.
The nuclear reaction can be controlled with this energy production method of bringing protons and heavy electrons together inside nanoparticles. This brings within reach the goal of developing a practical nanoparticle energy reactor.
A population of free electrons in 10 nm metal nanoparticles are subjected to strong forces by the metal atoms and by other electrons. This occurs when: 1. Hydrogen isotopes are injected into nanoparticles.
2 2. This causes the hydrogen density to rise, changing the nature of the nanoparticles, which increases the effective mass of electrons to a high level.
3. Heavy electrons combine with hydrogen nuclei to form atoms.
4. When heavy electrons become extranuclear electrons the electron orbital radius shrinks.
5. The distance between the nucleus and the heavy electron shrinks.
6. The probability of nuclear fusion between hydrogen atoms increases because of the tunneling effect.
7. When the mass of electrons doubles, the probability of fusion increases by 10 orders of magnitude.
8. The reaction causes heat.
9. The reaction may cause neutrons, helium and other reaction products.
10. Other elements that easily generate heavy electrons increase the fusion probability between heavy electrons and hydrogen nuclei include: alkali and alkaline-earth elements (such as Li, Na, K, Ca, and so on which have atomic structures similar to hydrogen). These elements enhance the electron transfer effect.
Twenty-five out of 50 tests produced significant excess heat. During excess heat production, neutrons, gamma rays and x-rays were also observed in some cases. Data on this will be presented later.
Table 1 shows a summary of the 25 successful tests. Electrodes were nickel or palladium. Electrodes in the shape of coils and spirals were wrapped around tubes. The gas was either a vacuum, hydrogen or deuterium gas. The tests were performed after both electrodes were activated with glow discharge for many hours. The electric power was either direct current or alternating current at 50 Hz. Voltage up to 1000 V was used.
In Table 1, energy in includes resistance heat and glow discharge. Heat out is calculated based of the temperatures of T5 and T6 during calibration with the resistance. The last column shows the ratio of excess heat and input power
This preprint paper was presented at a poster session at ICCF18 in July 2013. After the conference, the author improved the calorimetry and ran a new series of tests. The problem described above in section 4.2, in which the Pdwire sensor rises and falls only slightly in response to excess heat, has now been address. Figure 26 shows the response of Pdwire (labeled electrode here) and the two outside wall sensors in the new configuration. The linear series of red data points are from calibration runs. They show that the electrode sensor registers ~260°C with 50 W input.
The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List
“Usually, with deuterium, to cause a fusion reaction it is necessary to supply energy of 107 K, or 1 keV per atom. With light hydrogen it is necessary to supply 1.5 × 107 K, for a reaction rate of 10 -31”
Heh.... I hear you :-)
Articles like this one are obviously meant for a scientifically educated audience, but there's often enough plain English in there for us laymen to grasp the most important points.
This one's encouraging.
Am I correct that more energy is coming out of this reaction than is being pumped into the reaction?
If so, what is the ratio between energy-in and energy-out?
"Twenty-five out of 50 tests produced significant excess heat."
"If so, what is the ratio between energy-in and energy-out?"
I haven't read THIS paper yet (will do so today), but typically, EO/EIN can range from 1.1 to infinity (i.e. zero EIN). The companies claiming to have working prototypes range from six (Rossi), fourteen (Schwartz) and up.
"That's tough reading for a layman."
If you want to read a really excellent exposition of the science, read George Beaudette's book "Excess Heat". It is written sufficiently clearly that the layman can understand what is going on, but includes sufficient detail and references such that the deep technical expert can benefit as well.
Google search (Beaudette "Excess Heat") will find a PDF file on LENR-CANR.org that has excerpts. The excerpts are very limited.....the full book has MUCH more.
OK, I'm probably wrong here but this sounds like an explanation for Blacklightpower's hydrides.
I wonder where BLP is these days.
Unless BLP has changed their theory, no.
BLP claims that a NORMAL electron can occupy fractional quantum energy levels BELOW the standard "ground state", and that a normal electron can be "catalytically" caused to drop from the ground state into such a fractional quantum level, giving off energy in the process, with the catalytic energy needed to trigger the process being much less than the energy given off.
The BLP process does NOT involve the nucleus, and the energy per atom is much less than fusion would supply.
A "heavy electron" (which is what a muon is) is known to allow NUCLEAR reactions to take place. Muon catalzyed fusion is well known and well accepted.
What this (and similar) new theories posit is that there are other entities/conditions available in the solid state that can cause a normal electron to behave like a muon.
I haven’t read BLP’s theory in a while but what you wrote sounds like it.
So, in your opinion, does BLP have anything?
What about BLP, Mill’s TOE?
Like you, I haven't read it in a while. Glad my memory is still dredging up detail after so long.
"So, in your opinion, does BLP have anything?"
It's hard to see how. BLP has been saying "they had it" for almost as long as the "hot fusion" boys, and has delivered less. Mills makes a good "on-line" case of references and statements, and he definitely has some high-powered people on his board of directors, but I think he has had more than enough time to "go commercial" with "something".
This is in contrast to cold fusion, which has had no one saying they were approaching "commercial viability" until Rossi kicked things in the shorts, then some others "showed their cards", but that has been less than two years compared to thirty or more (I may be wrong on time frame, as I have not checked.....but my USWAG* is about that) for BLP.
"What about BLP, Mills TOE?"
Not sure what you're asking here. Clarify??
*USWAG----Unscientific Wild Assed Guess.
Mills has a Theory Of Everything that is available from here:
It’s his grand unified theory. I had someone look at it a few years ago and she said he made some assumptions in the beginning that made the whole thing flawed. I remember her saying that he put quantum theory equations into physics equations in order to solve the link between the two except she said the quantum equations he supposedly solved were undefined. I can’t find her email and I hope that doesn’t sound like gibberish.
If you look at his work, can you tell if it makes sense?
He has spent a lot of money (60 million according to his website) and has a pretty nifty research facility and some relationship with a local college whose name I forget but it starts with an R if that helps. He had deals with some power companies a few years ago but nothing ever happened.
It’s Rowan university.
Yes. The last page shows the results. The average appears to be about 1.2 or so. I tried to post it but it’s a table and HTML kills tables from PDFs onto Free Republic.
I know a physicist who’s looking into Mills’s TOE. He is intrigued. He won’t say more.
I also know a chemistry PhD who worked with Mills on his software and the guy wrote a paper saying that Mills’s software is a better predicter of some kind of protein formation. But I cannot find the paper. So many things turn into frustrations with R. Mills.
Not I. I'm no theoretician. Experimentalist all the way.
>>Method of controlling a chemically- induced nuclear reaction in metal nanoparticles<<
What a long-wined way to describe a fart...
asked & answered