by
Jacques Dufour
CNAM Laboratoire des sciences nucléaires, 2 rue Conté 75003 Paris France
Direct Download
Abstract:
The nuclear signatures that can be expected when contacting hydrogen with nickel, were derived from thermal results recently obtained (Rossi energy amplifier), using the type of reaction paths proposed as the explanation of the energy produced. The consequences of proton or neutron capture have been studied. It was shown that these consequences are not in line with the experimental observations. A novel tentative explanation is thus described. Should this explanation be true, it is proposed to call pico-chemistry the novel field thus opened.
…
Introduction:
In a recent paper [1], it was shown that, if the reaction path occurring in a Rossi energy amplifier [2], was mainly proton capture, the lead thickness required to completely suppress the gamma flux produced, would be in the order of tens of cm. The lead screen used (2 cm) should thus have resulted in a lethal gamma dose emitted in the surroundings. Another explanation, different from proton or neutron capture is thus to be found. In [3], the concept of pico-chemistry was presented, that could explain the generation of photons in the range of tens of keV, thus compatible with the lead screening used in the energy amplifier.
In chemistry, compounds are formed by the binding of the components through their outer electronic shells. Ionic, metallic and covalent hydrides of metals are known. Thus, Nickel hydride NiH can be viewed as an hydrogen and a nickel atoms maintained at a few angstrom distance, through a metallic bound.
In contrast, in a pico-nickel hydride, a (shrunken) hydrogen atom would be inside the electronic cortege of the Nickel and bound to the nickel at close proximity of its nucleus. In [3] a tentative explanation was given, of the possibility of such an exotic hydride. Another approach is presented in this paper.
Possible existence of a small hydrogen-like dipole and reaction with a nickel nucleus:
Various concepts of a shrunken hydrogen atom have been presented. In [4], the possibility of having bound states of a proton and an electron with lower radius and higher ionization energy than the usual Bohr values is claimed. These bound states were called hydrinos and attributed to the possibility of having fractional values for the main quantum number of the hydrogen atom. In [5] a metastable state is justified by the electron spin/proton nuclear spin interaction being first order in the environment of a lattice (it is third order in vacuum). This state was called hydrex and proposed as an explanation for fission-like reaction occurring in metallic lattices. Finally, the interaction of a proton and an electron could result in a virtual neutron [6], that could be captured by and react with the Ni nucleus.
In this paper, the evolution of a virtual neutron like association between a proton and an electron, in contact with an atom is examined.
At the surface of various materials (metals, metal oxides, metal hydrides…), electrons are more or less free to leave the solid (work function). In an hydrogen environment, it is conceivable that from time to time a virtual neutron can be formed between such an electron and a proton [6], with a deficit of energy of 0.781 MeV:
The life time of this virtual neutron is limited by the Heisenberg uncertainty relation ∆t∆E>h, which sets the maximum distance d it can travel:
The maximum of d is thus some 250 fm and the virtual neutron, formed at the periphery of an atom has hardly any chance to reach the close vicinity of the nucleus of this atom. It can nevertheless sufficiently penetrate the outer electronic cortege of the atom so as to feel the (screened) positive potential of the nucleus of the atom, when reverting to a proton and an electron. An electrical dipole is thus formed, which is attracted by the nucleus of the atom. One can wonder if the resulting effect of the action of the positive charge of the nucleus will ultimately end up in the destruction of the dipole, the proton being rejected to infinite and the electron bound to the nucleus. This would certainly be the case if the nucleus where not surrounded by its electronic cortege (Z time ionized nucleus). In the case of an atom with its electrons, an equilibrium position of the dipole could be reached, at close vicinity of the nucleus. To demonstrate the possibility of such a bound state, the complete Hamiltonian of the system would have to be solved, which is not possible. A semi-empirical approach has thus been developed, to reach the orders of magnitude of the characteristics of such a dipole and its interactions with an atom A. This could be used as a guide when looking at the experimental results expected in case of an excess energy measured in the system hydrogen/nickel (energy of radiations emitted, characteristics of the by-products).
In order to distinguish this concept of shrunken hydrogen atom from others, it is proposed to call it Hypole (Deupole and Tripole being the 2 other isotopes).
Semi empiric description of the Hypole:
Figure 1 gives a description of the Hypole, which is proposed to be written H¯Ni when the host atom A is Nickel and its (possible) bound state with the Ni atom, a Nickel pico-hydride NiH¯Ni.
d is the distance between the centers of gravity of positive and negative charges in the hypole.
r is the distance between the proton and the electron.
R is the distance between the center of the nucleus of the atom A and the center of gravity of the hypole.
Z is the charge number of the atom A
The potential that the dipole proton/electron feels from A is at first order (when d/R is small):
During its attraction by A, the spatial extension of the dipole is limited by the repulsion of the inner layers of the electrons of A, resulting in a shrinking of this hydrogen-like object and in a limitation of its polarization. In order to get first guesstimated values of the size and energy of the hypole and of the bound state it might form with A, following assumptions are made:
1. The action of the electronic cortege of A (especially the s electrons of A) on the dipole and the presence at short distance of the Z protons of A are equivalent to the attraction of the electron by the proton in the hypole being multiplied by a factor K>1. Hence, the (pseudo) coulomb interaction in the dipole is:
2. d is small and proportional to R. Hence, d=kR, with k small.
3. The electron of the hypole H¯A cannot be found in the nucleus of the atom A (competition with the s electrons of A). Hence, r≤R
With these assumptions, the Bohr radius of H¯A would be:
and its energy of formation:
In a similar way, the Bohr radius of AH¯A would be:
and its energy of formation:
with mH being the mass of the hydrogen atom.
Under assumption 3, the smallest possible bound object AH¯A is obtained for
In that case meK=mHKZ. Expressing the energies as a function of the unknown k, one gets:
and
finally yielding the following value for the total energy given by the hypole formation followed by its binding with A:
The bulk of the energy is coming from the formation of the Hypole. EH¯A likely to be of the order of magnitude of the energies that can be found close to the A nucleus, that is the s electrons energy E^sA.
A guesstimated value of k is thus:
In the case of Nickel and taking for E^sNi the average value 10.5 keV, the following guesstimated description of H¯Ni and NiH¯ Ni is obtained (Table 1):
Properties of the Hypole:
The hypole is a picometer size hydrogen-like object. It can only exist when embedded in the electronic cortege of an atom A, where its equilibrium position is very close to the nucleus of A. Its size and energy of formation depends upon A. In the case of Nickel, the size is some 2 picometer and the energy of formation round 10 keV. Hence the names and notations proposed.
The best way for characterizing an hypole, is to measure the mass of the corresponding A/pico-hydride. In the case of nickel, following masses are expected, that take into account the energy of formation (Table 2):
The mass differences given by Table 2 could be easily detected using a high resolution TOF Mass Spectrometer on an acidic solution of the nickel pico-hydride (probably possible see below, chemical properties). SIMS TOF Mass Spectrometry is not adapted, since the primary ions energies are of the order of the energy of formation of the hypole. An ICP TOF Mass Spectrometer would be adapted.
As regards the chemical properties of NiH¯Ni, they should be close to the Nickel ones. The outer electronic layers of NiH¯Ni indeed see the positive charge of the nickel atom, the effect of the hypole H¯Ni being second order in that respect. A shift of the characteristic rays given by nickel in ICP-AOS could be observed.
Finally the radiations emitted during the hypole formation, would be photons in the 10 keV range, thus completely suppressed by the 2 cm layer of lead in the energy amplifier. Faint signals of higher energy photons (annihilation radiation) could anyhow be detected. They might be the signature of an inherent instability of the hypole and of the corresponding pico-hydride, which is discussed now.
Stability of the (nickel) hypole:
The nickel hypole is a small object of picometer dimension and at picometer distance from the nickel nucleus. Its virtual neutron state may have a non zero probability to penetrate the nickel nucleus and react with it according to the neutron capture route developed in [6] and [1]. Most of the gamma photons resulting from the stabilization of the primary excited nickel nuclei are of energy higher than 1 MeV [1]. They mainly interact with the lead shield by producing electron/positron pairs, ultimately yielding the annihilation radiation. From the experimental observations, the rate of virtual neutron capture should be very low (some 10^-20 s^-1, in the experiment 2009(3-5/4-26) presented in [2]).
Conclusions:
In this paper, a rough description is given, of a novel chemical interaction. Orders of magnitudes of the main characteristics of this still hypothetical interaction are given.
It is hoped that this approach will be of help when trying to understand the thermal results obtained with the energy amplifier.
Should the experimental results and their interpretation be true, pico-chemistry would become a reality.
References:
[1] J. Dufour “Nuclear signatures to be expected from Rossi energy amplifier” Journal of nuclear physics May 6th 2010
[2] S. Focardi and A. Rossi “A new energy source from nuclear fusion” Journal of nuclear physics
[3] J. Dufour “Very sizeable increase of gravity at pico-meter distance: a novel working hypothesis to explain anomalous heat effects and apparent transmutations in certain metal hydrogen systems” J. of condensed matter nuclear science 1 (2007) p 47-61.
[4] R.L. Mills and W.R. Good “A unified theory derived from first principles” Black light power, Inc. (1992)
[5] J. Dufour, D. Murat, X. Dufour and J. Foos “Experimental observation of nuclear reactions in palladium and uranium: possible explanation by the hydrex mode” Fusion Science and Technology Vol.40-July 2001- p.91-106
[6] L. Daddi “Virtual neutrons in orbital capture” Journal of nuclear physics March 18, 2010
TO OUR GENTLE READERS: HAS BEEN PUBLISHED TODAY ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE:
“ABNORMAL EXCESS MEASURED DURING MIZUNO TYPE EXPERIMENTS: ARTIFACTS ELIMINATION”
WRITTEN BY:
JEAN FRANCOISE FAWARQUE
PIERRE PAUL CLAUZON
GERARD JEAN MICHEL LALLEVE’
GERARD LE BUZIT
(CNAM – PARIS, FRANCE)
It is worth a careful study.
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
This really is this kind of a terrific resource that you’re supplying and also you give it away for absolutely free. I take pleasure in seeing sites that comprehend the value of providing a prime resource for free. I really loved reading your post. Thanks!
Electron-Proton Overlap: Is the hypole a Santilli neutron?
Due to possible viruses in some (I-B-R) links, I limited myself to cutting and pasting text.
(Figures deleted to save space. )
There may be an overlap in the Santilli concept of the neutron and Prof. Dufour’s concept of the hypole.
And, perhaps, between the deupole and the deuteron.
If the extended wave packet of an electron is/can be embedded within a proton, that seems similar to a hypole.
The electron may not only be ‘nearby’, it may be partially within a proton. (Not standard quantum mechanics!) Where the binding energy (.78 MeV) comes from, I don’t understand.
If a hypole is a “virtual” neutron (not bound to the nucleus), its lifetime would be similar to that of a neutron e.g. ~10^3 seconds.
Some of Dr. Santilli’s ideas on the structure of the neutron are presented below. I apologize for posting sections of text versus the link itself. The link may be found on the I-B-R.org site or on the recently established santilli-foundation site. (Check downloads for viruses.)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/news.html
J.F.
(excerpts from:)
THE RUTHERFORD-SANTILLI NEUTRON J. V. Kadeisvili
The Institute for Basic Research
…………………………………………………….
1) The neutron is synthesized in the core of stars solely from protons and electrons. Hence, all theoretical and experimental studies on the neutron synthesis must be conducted via the sole use of protons and electrons, the use of nuclei being political whether in favor or against the synthesis since nuclei follow the neutron synthesis and are structurally different than the same.
2) The proton and the electron are the only massive, permanently stable particles known to mankind to date. Hence, they simply cannot be assumed to ”disappear” from the universe and be replaced by quarks, just to please academic schemes. Consequently, the proton and the electron must be assumed to be actual physical constituents of the neutron, not in their old quantum states, but on suitably lifted hadronic states.
3) Quarks cannot be credibly assumed to be the physical constituents of the neutron for numerous technical reasons, including the “disappearance” of the proton and the electron at the time of the synthesis; their mysterious “reappearance” at the time of the neutron decay; the impossibility for quarks to be permanently confided inside the neutron; the impossibility for quarks to have gravity because not defined in our spacetime; etc.
4) Quantum mechanics is inapplicable for the synthesis of the neutrons and it cannot be ethically claimed to be “violated” because not conceived for that structure. This is the case for a large number of technical reasons, including the inability to represent any of the neutron features, as well as the fact that the proton and the electron must necessarily be abstracted to dimensionless points for quantum mechanics. Such an academic abstraction does indeed work well for the structure of the hydrogen atom due to the large mutual distances, but it is equivocal academic politics when the extended wavepacket of the electron is totally immerses/ (…immersed?…) within the hyperdense medium inside the proton. Additionally, the latter conditions cause contact, nonlinear and nonlocal interactions that are irreconcilably beyond any serious dream of representation with the very limited capabilities of quantum mechanics.
5) Any serious study of the neutron synthesis requires a nonunitary theory, namely, a theory whose time evolution characterizes a nonunitary transform on a Hilbert space. This request is mandated by the need to exit from the class of unitary equivalence of quantum mechanics, as a condition to have any hope of any scientific advancement. At any rate, nonunitary transforms of the Schroedinger equations of the hydrogen atoms are necessary for any scientific (that is, quantitative) representation of the energy anomaly (the missing 0.78 MeV achieved via isorenormalization), the spin anomaly (to reach a spin 1/2 via two particles with spin 1/2), the magnetic moment anomaly, …
[Image deleted]
The sole bound state of a proton and an electron predicted by quantum mechanics is the hydrogen atom, with smallest orbit of the order of 10-8 cm. Santilli hadronic mechanics has identified the existence of an additional bound state when the electron orbits within the proton structure at distances of the order of 10-13 cm or less. Remarkably, Santilli has proved that the hadronic state is (…THE ONLY ONE..??) one and one only, (…FOR…) the neutron [24,35], because, when excited, the electron leaves the proton structure, thus recovering all conventional quantum states. In this sense, the energy levels of the hydrogen atom are the excited states of the neutron. As we shall see, these notions are at the foundation of the new hadronic energy studied later on.
Representation of the neutron spin.
The conceptual interpretation of the spin 1/2 of the neutron, first achieved by Santilli in Ref. [35], is quite simple. As indicated earlier, a general law of hadronic mechanics is that only the singlet coupling of spinning particles at mutual distances of the order of their size is stable, while triplet couplings are highly unstable. Hence, the spin of the proton Sp is equal but opposite to the electron spin Se. Consider the initiation of Rutherford’s compression of the isoelectron within the proton in singlet coupling, as illustrated in the figure below. It is evident that, as soon as the penetration begins, the isoelectron is trapped inside the hyperdense medium inside the proton, thus resulting in a constrained orbital motion of the isoelectron that must coincide with the proton spin. This is due to the fact that any value of the orbital angular momentum of Santilli’s isoelectron different than 1/2 would imply that the isoelectron orbits inside the protons against his hyperdense medium, a condition that would be nonsense.
True.
A.R.
On Don Borghi experiment, Santilli has taken my contribution, now 6.2.12.G section entitled “Studies on Daddi’s Don Borghi’s Experiment” in his text HADRONIC MATHEMATICS, MECHANICS AND CHEMISTRY. It can be found as http://www.ibr.org / Hadronic-Mechanics.htm and is on page 999.
Thank you, very interesting,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Dr. Rossi,
Thanks to you for your guidance and thanks to Dr. Dufour for his explanations.
Recently, I learned about the works of Ruggero Maria Santilli and his development of Hadronic Mechanics ( and I am asking for comments as to its validity.)
http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm
and the paper:
‘Confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons’ — Ruggero Maria Santilli,
Institute for Basic Research
which is available in the arXiv at
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229
Also, I saw this paper authored by Dr. J. V. Kadeisvili on the same i-b-r website.
http://www.i-b-r.org/Rutherford_Santilli_neutron.htm
“It is impossible for quantum mechanics to be exactly valid for the nuclear structure because nuclei do not have nuclei”
Due to the less than enthusiastic reception of Hadronic Mechanics, I am somewhat skeptical. But there could be some relevance or a ‘nucleus’ of truth in the paper.
It is too soon for me to digest this material.
But if it can be helpful to the effort, I will be pleased.
Respectfully,
Joseph Fine
Thank you, as usual,
A.R.
Dear Dr Fine,
in my approach hydrogen, deuterium and tritium can give the corresponding virtual states: virtual neutron, virtual di-neutron and virtual tri-neutron. Each of these species being neutral can penetrate the electronic cortege of an atom and,when reverting to there real states (proton+electron, deuteron+ electron and triton+electron, give electrical dipoles, which I call hypole, deupole and tripole. Wathever is the hydrogen isotope, the dipoles ends up in a bound state with the Nickel nucleus (with different values for the binding energy, depending upon the isotope).
Spalation or pick-up reactions are known. But they involve energy levels of several MeV, which is not the case for the hypoles (deupoles, tripoles), where energies are in the order of keV. In that respect, there is no marked difference between deupoles and hypoles.
The life time of the hypole (deupole)seems very long from the experimental evidence (faint gamma emission after experiemnt shut-down) and have been considered in my paper under chapter “stability of the hypole”)
This interesting comment of our Friend Joseph Fine needs an answer, from you, Dr Dufour: again, you are the best entitled to tis issue.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
“We have two ears and one mouth so we can listen twice as much as we speak.” – Epictetus
(And ten fingers to type with!)
What is the stability/half-life of a hypole? ( Same as a neutron? )
When deuterons or deupoles are present, (see Oppenheimer-Phillips process) the neutron part of the deuteron/deupole can get captured – and a proton ejected.
But how do deuterons/deupoles get into the electronic cloud/cortege of host atoms? Either hypoles can become deupoles or there is some deuterium in the mix.
J.F.
—————–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process
“The Oppenheimer–Phillips process or strip reaction is a type of deuteron-induced nuclear reaction. In this process the neutron half of an energetic deuteron (a stable isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron) fuses with a target nucleus, transmuting the target to a heavier isotope while ejecting a proton. An example is the nuclear transmutation of carbon-12 to carbon-13.”
2D + AX → 1H + (A+1)X
The link below (JCMNS Vol 1) is Reference 3 of the current paper:
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/publications.htm
(Volumes I, II and III)
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol1.pdf#page=53
[3] J. Dufour “Very sizeable increase of gravity at pico-meter distance: a novel working hypothesis to explain anomalous heat effects and apparent transmutations in certain metal/hydrogen systems” J. of condensed matter nuclear science 1 (2007) p 47-61.
Related publications
—————————-
http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm
http://www.iscmns.org/catania07/ProcW8.pdf
Synthesis Of A Copper Like Compound From Nickel And Hydrogen
And Of A Chromium Like Compound From Calcium And Deuterium
J. Dufour, D. Murat, X. Dufour and J. Foos
Laboratoire des Sciences Nucléaires, CNAM, 2 Rue Conté, 75003 Paris, FRANCE
ABSTRACT
A working hypothesis is presented that aims to explain results observed in the LENR-CF field. This hypothesis is based on a novel conjecture: a very sizeable increase of the strength of gravitation at pico-meter distances. Experiments designed to confirm (or deny) this working hypothesis are described.
good post thanks for the info. will come back for more!!!
I am delighted to read that the work we are making stimulates further research.
Andrea Rossi
Gentlemen;
I’m reading through this now.
In case any of you weren’t aware of this meeting at MIT, I’m sending the link.
I’ll comment further next week.
( Sorry for calling a hypole a ‘hydrole’ earlier. )
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Colloquium2010.pdf
J. F.
Dr. Brian Ahern presented the tenth talk, “Inverse
Capillary Discharge for Amplifying LANR.” Ahern has been
very intrigued by the recent work by Rossi and Focardi
(http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf)
involving Ni and normal hydrogen. He pointed out that
they have used two important innovative steps: 1) The use
of a composite material involving nanometer scale Ni and a
ceramic; 2) The use of gas-loading to significantly raise the
levels of excess heat that are observed in Ni-H systems. As in
his first talk, Ahern emphasized the idea that energy localization,
resulting from non-linear effects, might potentially
play a key role in initiating excess heat.
Thank you for your precious comment,
A.R.
As usual: Dr Dufour writes, we learn.
Thank you,
Andrea Rossi
Dr. Rossi,
Thank you for your kind words.
Since protons have ~1,836 the mass of electrons and the active environment is a solid-state (Nickel) lattice or its surface, electrons have the highest mobility.
External protons probably are not directly involved in producing Virtual Neutrons (VN’s).
That so-called “heavy electrons” are involved seems quite reasonable. The Widom Larsen theory is commented on here by Prof Dufour here:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/critique/WLTheoryDufourCritique.pdf
Here is an article on Heavy electrons that you might find interesting. Apparently, “Heavy Electrons” do dive deeply into an atom. That raised my eyebrows.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June10/HeavyFermions.html
J.F.
Dear Dr Fine
Hypoles (and Deupoles) result from the very transitory formation of a virtual neutron from a real proton and a real electron at the surface of the metal under consideration. The exact requirements for these virual states to form in sufficient amounts, are yet not clear (and probably need to be protected by a patent, when found). Due to the high energy deficit, the life time of these virtual neutrons is very low (order of magnitude of the nuclear time) and they cannot travel very long. Moreover, they would need twice the effect of g2 (the strong interaction constant) unless you accept the conclusions of the paper of Russel above quoted, which I do. You can then develop 2 steps scenario as I did in this paper, wich can explain most of the features that are observed in CF-LENR field. So this is different from the Widom -Larsen theory.
As regards the Widom-Larsen theory, I am afraid it violates the momentum-location Heisenberg uncertainty: if the momentum is very low, the position of the neutron is undifined. It cannot then react with a femtometer dimension object.
J. Dufour
Thank you, Joseph Fine, for your interesting considerations.
A.R.
Gentlemen,
My intuition is that virtual neutrons result from external protons that (try to) enter a host (Nickel or Pd) atom and interact with an electron.
L. Daddi proposes that virtual neutrons result when electrons occasionally get close enough to interact with a quark in protons in the nucleus.
Still, Nickel atoms do not spontaneously transmute to Copper or anything else, or do so extremely rarely. That is, without the help of a lot of external protons.
I think if enough protons oscillate towards and away from the outer electron levels of the host atoms, eventually, one or more of the protons get inside and become miniatoms/hydroles.
What happens next I don’t understand.
Possibly, an oscillating “sea of protons” moves towards and away from host atoms and distorts the electron cloud/cortege/field of the host atom.
So, external protons “knock on the front door” and then run away (and do so again and again). The host electrons “run to see who knocked on the door”. Meanwhile, the distorted electric field
increases the likelihood that a host electron will find itself close to the nucleus and interact.
Or to continue the analogy, while the external proton(s) knock on the front door, the distorted electron cloud enables a host electron to “come in the back door” and interact with the nucleus.
J. F.
And again, Dr Jacques Dufour, a question for you pops up from the strong interest raised by your paper.
By the way, looking at my working modules in these days, that we are testing for our Customers,I am cropping a theory about the reason why they are working the way they are working. The study of these papers and of the Cook’s book are convincing me of a sery of nuclear reactions models. I think I will expose the theory at the presentation of the first plant, before the end of the year.
Anyway, I feel what’s going on in this blog is extremely important. The Journal Of Nuclear Physics is much more important than my friend Sergio Focardi and me thought it was going to be when we started it. Thanks to you all.
Andrea Rossi
Does the hypole/miniatom consist of a proton that enters the Nickel (or Pd) atom and then acquires a virtual electron (from electron-positron pair production) or, instead, is it a neutron that splits into a proton-electron system (miniatom).
If from neutrons, where are the neutrons coming from? From the nucleus of the Nickel atom or is it from an external neutron? It seems easier to believe that virtual electrons are created than virtual neutrons.
Are these the low momentum neutrons, as in Widom-Larsen Theory? And can a low-momentum neutron react with a mini-atom to form a Deupole or deuteron? (Is there an exclusion principle between hypoles and neutrons?)
J.F.
Very interesting, as usually.
A.R.
I answer to the last two comments on the paper:
Answer to comment on 3rd of September by Dr Joseph Fine
It seems to me very unlikely that 2 hypoles can react, just because, in the concept I develop, they should obey some kind of Fermi exclusion principle. There is another possibility to find charged particles: the excited nucleus resulting from the reaction of the Nickel nucleus with the virtual state of the hypole, could de-excite through charged particle emission. The rate of emission of charged particles is the product p*nu*exp(-gamma), p being the pre-forming factor of the charged particle, nu the frequency with which the preformed particle hits the wall of the potential well of the nucleus and gamma the Gamow penetrating factor. p is likely to be higher when a deupole interact than when an hypole does. The production of helium4 from deuterium could thus be favored through this mechanism, which should be more probable when dealing with heavy nuclei (Pd) than with Nickel.
I now came to the interesting comments of Pr Stremmenos on the 5th of September.
The Bohr radius of the hydrogen atom is in fact an elementary calculation of the dimension (and hence of the energy of formation ) of the hydrogen atom. This radius (which gives the optimal balance between the kinetic energy of the electron and its potential energy due to its attraction by the proton), gives a very good approximation of what is finally obtained when solving the complete Hamiltonian of this object. This is valid in vacuo, where no other interaction takes place in the system. It is then of course stable (no perturbations). What happens when an hydrogen atom is adsorbed or absorbed by a metal (Ni), is well described by Pr Stremmenos. This description finally ends up to the possibility of formation of neutral mini-atoms. It is correctly stated that, in order to react with Nickel nucleus, the size of these mini atoms should be less than 10 fm. This statement sets an upper limit for the life time of these objects, which is in the order of 10-21 seconds, much shorter than the figure proposed in the comment (10-18 second). This short life-time limits the distance they can travel to some 250 fm and the probability of reacting with a nickel nucleus is thus close to 0. Hence the scenario proposed in the paper.
Pr Stemmenos then considers that the gamma photons resulting from the absorption of the mini-atoms by the Nickel nucleus are the signature of the e+ : e- annihilation, inside the nucleus (yielding some 1 MeV, usually showing up as two 511 keV gamma photons). This is a possibility. For momentum conservation, these photons share their energy between the recoil of the emitting Copper atom and the finally emitted gamma photon. An elementary calculation of the ratio r between the recoil energy Er of the emitting nucleus and the energy Eg of the emitted photon, gives r=Er/Eg=Eg/(2Mc2), M being the mass of the Copper atom and c the speed of light. In the case under consideration, this ratio is round 4×10-6. It is thus impossible to transfer much energy to the lattice through this mechanism and the energy of the emitted photon is virtually unchanged.
Dear Dr Jacques Dufour:
Also in this case and for the former comment of Joseph Fine regarding your paper, I think it is opportune that the person who answers is you.
Warmest regards,
A.R.
Forgive me for writing this, but for clarity, “10-20” sec should be written as 10 exp(-20) or 10^-20. (It is not high speed – if read as 10 to 20 seconds. )
“The reasoning presented in this note is based on elementary considerations of….
•The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental energy state
•The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
•The high speed of nuclear reactions (10-20 sec) “
Thank you, Prof. Stremmenos, for your important comment.
A.R.
HYDROGEN/NICKEL COLD FUSION PROBABLE MECHANISM
Prof. Ch. E. Stremmenos
Leaving aside for the moment any rigorous theoretical approach based on quantitative analyses, I would like to focus, qualitatively only, on the subject of shielding of dispersed protons in the electronic cloud within the crystal structure. The Focardi-Rossi approach considers this shielding a basic requirement for surpassing the Coulomb barrier between the hydrogen nuclei (protons) and the Nickel lattice nuclei, resulting into release of energy, which is a fact, through a series of exothermic nuclear processes leading to transmutations, decays, etc.
The reasoning presented in this note is based on elementary considerations of
•The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental energy state
•The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
•The high speed of nuclear reactions (10-20 sec)
The hydrogen atom (Bohr) in its fundamental state, in the absence of energy perturbations, remains indefinitely in its stationary state. This is due to the in-phase wave (de Broglie), which is associated with the “circular” path of its single orbiting electron. The wave length and radius of the “circular” path are determined by the fundamental energy state of this atom.
When hydrogen atoms come in contact with the metal (Ni), they abandon their stationary state as they deposit their electrons in the conductivity band of the metal, and due to their greatly reduced volume, compared to that of their atom, the hydrogen nuclei (naked protons) readily diffuse into the defects of the nickel crystalline structure as well as in tetrahedral or octahedral void spaces of the crystal lattice.
It should be underlined that, in addition to the deposited hydrogen electrons, in the nickel mass included are also electrons of the chemical valence of the metal. Jointly these electrons constitute the conductivity electronic cloud, distributed in energy bands (Fermi), and quasi free to move throughout the metallic mass.
In this dynamic state of “dislocated plasma”, based on the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg),
ΔΕ.Δt≥h/4π
it is conceivable that, for a very short time period (e.g. 10-18 sec), a series of neutral mini atoms of hydrogen could be formed, in a transitional state, of various size and energy level, distributed within a band, which is enlarged due to the very short time (Heisenberg).
The neutral mini-atoms of high energy and very short wave length – which is in phase with the “cyclic” orbit (de Broglie) – are statistically captured be the nickel nuclei of the crystal structure with the speed of nuclear reactions (10-20 sec).
For these mini-atoms to fuse with the nickel nuclei, apart from their neutral character for surpassing the Coulomb barrier, they must have dimensions smaller than 10-14 m, where nuclear cohesion forces, of high intensity but very short range, are predominant. It is assumed that only a percentage of such atoms satisfy this condition (de Broglie).
The above considerations are based only on an intuitive approach and I trust this phenomenon could be tackled in a systematic and integrated way through the “theory of time dependent perturbations” by employing the appropriate Hamiltonian, which includes time:
Η(q ,t)
The mechanism proposed by Focardi – Rossi, verified by mass spectroscopy data, which predicts transmutation of a nickel nucleus to an unstable copper nucleus (isotope), remains in principle valid. The difference is that inside the unstable copper nucleus, produced from the fusion of a hydrogen mini-atom with a nickel nucleus, is trapped the mini-atom electron (β-), which in my opinion undergoes in-situ annihilation, with the predicted (Focardi-Rossi) decay β+ of the new copper nucleus.
The β+ and β- annihilation (interaction of anti-matter and matter) would lead to the emission of a high energy photon, γ, (Einstein) from the nucleus of the now stable copper isotope. However, based on the principle of conservation of momentum, as a result of the backlash of this nucleus, the photon energy γ is divided into kinetic energy of this nucleus of large mass (heat) and a photon of low frequency.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the system does not exhibit the Mössbauer phenomenon for two reasons:
1.The copper nucleus is not part of the nickel crystal structure and behaves as an isolated atom in quasi gaseous state
2.Copper, as a chemical element, does not exhibit the Mössbauer phenomenon.
In conclusion, it should be underlined that the copper nucleus thermal perturbation, as a result of its backlash, is transferred to its encompassing nickel lattice and propagated, by in phase phonons, through the entire nano-crystal (Preparata). This could explain why in cold fusion the released energy is mainly in the form of heat and the produced (low) γ radiation can be easily shielded.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. A.G. Youtsos for their contribution in formulating this notes in English
Book of Job (Eyov):
28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth (Constellations/Zodiac) in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?
36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
Today on the Wall Street Journal has been reported the publication of Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinov entitled “Why God did not create the Universe”.
This has not to do directly with our matter, but being a declination of Physics in phylosophical issues, I deem opportune to make a guess about this, also because sometimes I ask to myself from where the heck I come, where the heck I am, to where the heck I will go. Nothing is disturbimg to me more than the presumption derived from excess of education. The phylosophy of Hawking-Mlodinow derives from the foundamental observation that in the Universe exist billions of galaxies, therefore is impossible to believe that God created the Man along what written on the Testaments. This statement, actually, demonsters exactly the contrary of what they say under a mathematical point of view. In fact, they apply the calculation of the probabilities that out of billions of galaxies is impossible that there is not another kind of life outside the one God should have created: but if we allpy the same mathematical principle to what happened on the Earth, we can surely say that there were billions of DNA combinations that could pop out of a sery of evolution processes, generating a lot of animals able to evolve until become scientists as smart as Hawking and Mlodinow… why didn’t it happen? I say: out of billions of combinations of DNA, why only one arrived to become scientist-level ? Consider that we cannot say that only men remained because the other scientist-level-animals have been exterminated by the man…in hundreds of million of years no scientist-level-animal appeared at all. Men have, actually, exterminated a lot of other men, animals, plants, stones, whatever…but not a single scientist-level animal. No survival of the sharker in this field.
So, while the calculus of probabilities made by Hawking & Mlodinow can be useful to give demonstration that it is impossible that there does not exist another scientist-level-guys in the Universe, it does not give any demonstration of the fact that all the existing living guys of the Universe are not Creatures of God: on the contrary, their calculation is good to confirm the impossibility of a spontaneous birth of intelligent life without the think of God. Unless they want to sustain that it is possible that in billions of billions of possible combination of the DNA, only one can evolve to superior life if it is possible that life can evolve spontaneously. To sustain this means poor knowledge of mathematics.
Andrea Rossi
Stimulating hypothesis. Whattaya think, Jacques?
A.R.
If two or more hypoles/miniatoms are inside the Ni electron shells/(cortege) and interact, would deuterons or Helium atoms be produced vs. Nickel or Copper isotopes (via the mechanisms of neutron or proton capture)?
This seems unlikely, but might be observed if looked for. That is, what can’t be done outside of host Ni or Pd atoms (in public), might take place inside of them (in private).
J.F.
Very interesting.
A.R.
The questions raised by Dr Joseph Fine are very interesting. As I mentioned in my paper, various concepts of mini or shrunken hydrogen atoms have been proposed. What Random Mills calls hydrino is built in vacuo (or at least not inside the electronic cortege of an atom), from a proton and an electron. The justification is that the main quantum number n that determines the Bohr radii of the hydrogen ground state and its excited states, can have, not only integer values (1,2 3 …) but also fractional values (1/2,1/3, 1/4 …). The fractional values correspond to a shrunken atom, with energy of formation higher than the ionization energy of the hydrogen atom. The hydrino can then further chemically react with another atom.
What I call hypole, cannot be formed in vacuo, but only inside the electronic cortege of an atom. It results from a virtual neutron state of the system proton electron penetrating inside the electronic cortege of an atom A. Under the influence of the positive charge of the nucleus of A, an electric dipole is formed when the virtual neutron reverts to a proton and an electron. This electric dipole is then attracted by the nucleus of the atom, finally yielding a bound state.
Solving the Hamiltonian corresponding to such a complicated system is a formidable (if not impossible) task. But that does not mean that the bound state cannot exist. What I have proposed in my paper, are educated guesstimated values of the main characteristics values of what can be considered as the ground state of the bound object thus formed, which should be between the nucleus of A and the S-shell electrons. This object results from the complex electromagnetic interactions inside the electronic cortege of the atom A and is thus essentially chemical by nature. (Note that I have so far not taken into account the spin/orbit and spin/spin interactions that might be important at these distances).
That excited states of this bound object exist cannot be excluded and this is probably what Dr Joseph Fine suggests when considering the hypole between the S-shell and the P-shell electrons. But this is an even more complicated problem than guesstimating the ground state. In this position, the probability of the hypole to react with the nucleus of A is likely to be lower than for the ground state.
As a conclusion, I think that, if my conjecture is true, considerable experimental work is required to fully understand all the implications.
Dear Dr Jacques Dufour,
I think you are the most proper person to answer to the comment of Mr Joseph Fine.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Are the hypoles within Nickel atoms located between the nucleus and the S-shell electrons or between the S and P-shell electrons? If between the S and P shells, can it still interact with the nucleus?
So the Hydrogen hypole/hydrino/mini-atom is inside the Nickel Atom’s electron shells and in proximity to the nucleus (with finite probability). That’s fascinating chemistry.
Please, also a copy to me, if it is possible.
Thanks a lot,
Andrea
Dear Enrico and Lino,
I have a paper version of the article. If you send me your adress (at 3jdufour@laposte.net), I shall send you a copy.
Best regards
Jacques Dufour
I would also like to receive a copy of Russell. Thanks Lino
Unlucky right now i am not able to check the work J.L. Russel Ann.Nucl.Energy Vol 18 N°2 pp75-79, 1991. I wanna ask you if you have a digital version of this publication to pass me.
Enrico Billi
Everytime Dufour writes I learn something.
Thanks,
Andrea
The remarks from Lino Daddi and Enrico Billi are very interesting. They point to important features of the model I propose.
Let’s start with the comment on the possibility of several hypoles in 1 Nickel atom. I refer to the work of Iwamura (see for instance Y.Iwamura, T. Itoh, M. Sakano, S.Sakai and S.Kuribayashi “Low energy nuclear transmutation in condensed matter induced by D2 gas permeation through Pd complexes: correlation between deuterium flux a nd nuclear products” 2003: Cambridge MA:LENR-CRAN.ORG. They observe a “transmutation” of 133Cs into 141Pr, by permeating deuterium through palladium comprising a multilayered CaO/X/Pd system. The reaction invoked is the absorption of 4 deuterons into the Cesium nucleus. No gamma rays were observed. The result can well be interpreted as the formation of 4 deupoles inside the Cesium electronic shell. SIMS on the samples shows a peak at mass 140,908. No internal calibration was done, which could have discriminated 141Pr from Cs,4DCs. The presence of CaO (which has a low work function) is considered as an important point for the process to occur: the efficiency of the interaction between an electron and a proton to yield some kind of virtual neutron could be enhanced by the presence of a low work function material in the system (first step of the process).
The life time of the “virtual neutron” formed, needs not be very important: it should only allow the penetration of the outer shell of the host atom. Several possibilities are indicated by Enrico Billi. It might be interesting to have a look at “Virtual electron capture in deuterium” by J.L. Russel Ann.Nucl.Energy Vol 18 N°2 pp75-79, 1991. Russell addresses the problem of the very low rate imposed by the weak force and shows this rate is considerably increased provided a mass in the order of 0,1 eV is attributed to the neutrinos. May be Enrico Billi could look to this possibility and of course also the second route he proposes.
Finally, the model is aimed at giving a first order description of pico-chemistry. Some simplifications are made: the spin/orbit and spin/spin interactions are not taken into account and could be important at the distances involved. The reaction rates are considered the same for the various isotopes, which might not be true. An internal calibration (by spiking the samples with the corresponding isotopes) might be important to analyze and understand the M.S results.
In theoretical physics is always difficult to know what is right and what is wrong. Your analysis is interesting, anyway, and stimulating.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A detailed work of analysis requirements should be done before. If we consider the “Dufour Model”, some things still must be specified.
At first the protons go into the Nickel lattice and interact with the electron of the conduction band. The most important processes will be ionization and multiple scattering between the proton and electrons. We should include a new process called “Dufour-Model”.
The Dufour-Model consider two steps:
1) The virtualization of the proton-electron system in a neutron-neutrino system. The neutron-neutrino should then go over the outer shell of the Nichel atom.
2) The formation of the Hypole in the Nickel atom produce X-ray emission.
For the first point we don’t know exactly the cross section or probability of this process.
After the formation of the Nickel-Hypole system we can have the formation of a new virtual neutron captured by the Nickel atom and produce new Nickel isotopes.
To a first approximation we don’t consider the Daddi interaction and focus on Dufour-Model. If Prof. Dufour allow me, i was thinking the processes:
proton-electron -> neutron-neutrino -> proton-electron (Hypole in the Nickel)
need the emission of two virtual W-bosons, the low coupling costant of the weak interaction makes the probability of this process very very low.
Instead the protons could became virtual neutrons with the emission of virtual pions. The virtual pion could interact with the electron because it is charged and “trap” the electron for the formation of the Hypole. The process include alwaya the emission of two bosons, but the coupling costants (effective strong interaction and electromagnetic) should be larger than the weak interaction.
Let me know if my analysis is wrong.
Warm regards,
Enrico Billi
Dear Prof. Daddi,
your assumption is interesting.
It also remembers to us your article published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
You can think of a virtual neutron as a nucleon with quarks (u, d, d virt), d virt as consisting of a quark u and an electron. May have a longer life?
But applying the Heisenberg uncertainty relation to the atomic hydrogen the formation of miniatoms could be justified. These probably having longer life of virtual neutrons.
Is this possible to work upon this issue by means of the simulation program you are preparing for us?
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Interesting, this reaction has an electromagnetic nature, a quantum mechanic model could be interesting to find the wave functions and the probability of nuclear reactions in such system. What will happen if more than one Hypole will go into the electronic shell of the Ni atom?
Thanks to Professor Jacques Dufour some of the mystery wrapped inside the reactor of Eng. Rossi are going to be unveiled.
Very interesting. Thanks a lot.