{"id":168,"date":"2010-03-18T05:14:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-18T10:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/?p=168"},"modified":"2010-04-15T10:27:24","modified_gmt":"2010-04-15T15:27:24","slug":"virtual-neutrons-in-orbital-capture-and-in-neutron-synthesis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/?p=168","title":{"rendered":"Virtual neutrons in orbital capture and in neutron synthesis"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Lino Daddi<\/em><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the present work a parallel is drawn, by adopting a virtual neutron mechanism, between the orbital capture and the formation of neutrons from protons and electrons (or from deuterons and electrons).<\/div>\n
It is known the possibility, given by the uncertainty principle, that an orbital electron may be right on the nucleus, ready to interact with one of the protons present in it. Even in the case of isotopes of hydrogen is to be taken into account the occasional, although rare, presence of the electron on the nucleus, and this makes the atom itself, temporarily, a “miniatom”, ready to turn into a virtual neutron.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For the isotopes of hydrogen, the most likely to form miniatoms should occur when the atoms were in \u201cnascent\u201d state (a rather uncommon condition in nature).<\/div>\n
The life of the virtual neutron can be considered started from the moment at which the electron begins to interact, through the weak force, with one of the quark up of a proton. The nucleus is trying to capture the virtual neutron as if it were real. The virtual neutron becomes real, and as such is absorbed, \u00a0if somehow obtains the required energy.<\/div>\n
Many LENR reactions, some of which mentioned in the text, \u00a0can be explained as absorption of the thus formed neutrons.
\nIn the present work a parallel is drawn, by adopting a virtual neutron mechanism, between the orbital capture and the formation of neutrons from protons and electrons (or from deuterons and electrons).\u00a0It is known the possibility, given by the uncertainty principle, that an orbital electron may be right on the nucleus, ready to interact with one of the protons present in it. Even in the case of isotopes of hydrogen is to be taken into account the occasional, although rare, presence of the electron on the nucleus, and this makes the atom itself, temporarily, a “miniatom”, ready to turn into a virtual neutron.For the isotopes of hydrogen, the most likely to form miniatoms should occur when the atoms were in \u201cnascent\u201d state (a rather uncommon condition in nature).The life of the virtual neutron can be considered started from the moment at which the electron begins to interact, through the weak force, with one of the quark up of a proton. The nucleus is trying to capture the virtual neutron as if it were real. The virtual neutron becomes real, and as such is absorbed, \u00a0if somehow obtains the required energy.Many LENR reactions, some of which mentioned in the text, \u00a0can be explained as absorption of the thus formed neutrons.<\/div>\n

1. The orbital capture<\/strong><\/p>\n

The orbital capture is a radioactivity (of beta type) of many atoms whose nuclei are characterized by excess of protons compared to stability. So that \u00a0an electron may be captured, it must last for some time close to the nucleus. This closeness is expected from the uncertainty principle, for which the orbital electrons of atoms have a small (but significant) probability of being temporarily on the nucleus (while maintaining the energy that lies to orbital). Of course the orbital electrons of the nearest, i.e. \u00a0K and L orbitals, are most interested in the process. The presence of a K or L electron on the nucleus does not alter the size of the atom, which remains that of the outer orbital of left electrons.
\nWhen an electron is captured by the nucleus, it lowers by one unit the atomic number Z (a nucleus proton becomes a neutron). Then the energy defect of about 0.78 MeV between the sum of the masses of proton and electron and the mass of the neutron is provided at the expense of released energy by rearrangement of the nucleus (and not by the single capturing proton ). In order to this may be, the isobar of atomic number (Z-1) must be of suitably low mass. The orbital capture is not possible in the case of fully ionized atoms (as happens, for example, in certain astrophysical situations), in the absence of orbital electrons to be captured.
\nThe casual approach of an orbital electron to the nucleus is an event that the uncertainty principle allows for all atoms, even for those who do not have excess protons. But so that \u00a0the electron is captured the requirement of sufficiency of the mass-energy, which occurs more easily for the nuclei that have a high value of the ratio Z \/ A, must be satisfied.
\nWe intend to analyse the phases of the process that brings an orbital electron to be captured, by separating that is question of the strong force with respect to the weak interaction. Although the beta decay theory was originally set (starting from Fermi) ignoring underlying quarks, we will find appropriate to take into account the quark composition of the nucleons in the nucleus.
\nIn the following we will distinguish \u00a0two zones of the orbital: the peripheral orbital (where the electron is usually) and the central orbital (area of the nucleus, where the electron can be only occasionally).
\nThe presence of a particular electron on the nucleus should have very short duration, waiting to return in the orbital \u00a0itself. However statistically there is always a certain number of electrons in contact with its nucleus. If \u00a0f \u00a0is the probability of finding an electron on the nucleus and N is the total number of nuclei of the nuclear species under consideration, f N is the total number of electrons that each moment can be found on the nuclei.
\nThen with \u00a0q \u00a0We denote the probability for each of the N f electrons that are on the nucleus, to be in touch, in time unit, with one of the protons. We suppose, for simplicity, that the contact with the proton involves to the certainty of orbital capture from the nucleus, then, in the absence of alternative disintegrations, N decreases of dN in the time dt:<\/p>\n

dN \u00a0= – f q \u00a0N dt
\n(1)<\/p>\n

So the product fq \u00a0is the decay constant \u03bb\u00a0for capture. As \u03bb is typical of a given nucleus and f of the atom, q should depend on both so that, multiplied by f, has precisely the \u03bb value.\u00a0Only when f = 0, i.e. when the atom is fully ionized, will be also \u03bb = 0\u00a0(and then the q \u00a0value is indeterminable).\u00a0Among the nuclei showing typical orbital capture We can remember 40K \u00a0and 136La , which are very different examples of instability, since the 40 potassium is almost stable (half-life of billions of years) and 136 lanthanum is decidedly unstable (half-life of 9.5 min). For the latter radioisotope the value of \u03bb\u00a0is about 1,2.10\u02c6-3 s\u02c6-1, from which one can deduce that \u00a0the f and q \u00a0factors should not be too small.<\/p>\n

2. Virtual neutrons and virtual quark down in orbital capture<\/strong><\/p>\n

The uncertainty principle in conjugated variables “time and energy\u201d permits, although the sum of mass-energy of the nuclear proton and orbital electron is not enough, their temporary synthesis into a virtual neutron<\/em> (which is not yet a neutron, but in some verses, it could already have some feature). The virtual neutron can be thought of as a completely imaginary particle, or rather \u00a0as a very compact (pe) couple. The life of the virtual neutron is obtained using the relationship:<\/p>\n

\u0394 t = h<\/span> \/ \u0394 E
\n(2)<\/p>\n

where \u0394E is given by the difference in mass between neutron and proton\/ electron pair.
\nWe can evaluate whether the available energy is sufficient by consulting the tables of nuclear masses. The nucleus \u00a0however will be informed of sufficient energy in his attempts, promoted by the strong force, to absorb the virtual neutron as if it were real. If the available energy from the nucleons rearrangement is sufficient, the orbital capture is accomplished, the neutron virtual becomes real and a neutrino is emitted.
\nOtherwise, the electron returns to its peripheral orbital (as do the other electrons, which, although arrived on the nucleus, have not formed virtual neutrons); this can happen, especially, because the nucleus has no excess of protons, being stable or radioactive beta minus. But the ” virtual neutron reversibility” should be ensured , in the sense that during Dt must not be anything that results in the impossibility for electron of returning to the itself \u00a0orbital.
\nOne might think that for one of the \u00a0N f \u00a0electrons that are on the nucleus, the weak force begins to act, when the electron comes into contact with the \u00a0quark up of one of the protons. So a very compact (quark up, e) couple is formed, which behaves like a virtual quark down<\/em>.\u00a0But then the virtual neutron can be thought of as a neutron which has one of two quarks down in virtual state. So it would seem more logical to use the difference between the mass of \u00a0(quark up, e) couple and the mass of the quark down for \u0394E in (2),\u00a0namely to assess the life of the virtual neutron. But it is possible that significant contributions to \u0394E,\u00a0and consequently to \u0394t,\u00a0can come from the coulomb interaction.<\/p>\n

3. Hydrogen and deuterium miniatoms<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s should try to understand to what extent the considerations made about the orbital capture can be applied to atoms of hydrogen and deuterium. For the hydrogen atom the capture of its electron would lead to the transformation of the proton in a neutron; for the deuterium atom the capture has two neutrons as a result. In the first case the mass-energy shows a deficit of 0.78 MeV while in obtaining two neutrons from the deuteron the deficit is of \u00a03.01 MeV. But, in both the atoms the energy level in the ground state is just of the order of tens of eV, so \u00a0they can not receive energy from the nucleus rearrangement , the inverse beta reaction in hydrogen and deuterium is prohibited by the law of conservation of energy. In other words in hydrogen and deuterium can not occur capture radioactivity.
\nHowever, in order to justify certain LENR reactions observed in metals or alloys that have absorbed hydrogen or deuterium, in the past the assumption was made that proton or deuteron can associate very closely the atomic electron. There being no other electrons in atoms of hydrogen \/ deuterium, the presence of the electron on the nucleus \u00a0 minimizes the size \u00a0of the system-atom.
\nSaid system-atom of hydrogen \/ deuterium intend to refer to its atoms (in nascent state ), and not to the free proton \/ deuteron in a plasma or to \u00a0hydrogen \/ deuterium molecules. When it is not ionized, hydrogen in nature is almost always in the molecular state; the membership of a molecule (hydrogen \/ deuterium or different) alters the probability distribution of the \u00a0presence of the electron, with the likely decline to be on the nucleus.
\nIn particular, the probability that the electron \u00a0of hydrogen atom is in contact with the proton is very low. It sometimes refers to the 10\u02c6-14.\u00a0From the point of view of probability is an intermediate situation between that of 136La and the 40K, as referred in the case of orbital capture. Nevertheless \u00a0CONTE [1], with a calculation in the General Relativity, has found a 1000 times greater value. So every 10\u02c611 atoms of atomic hydrogen, one would be very compressed.
\nFrom now on we will call \u201chydrogen miniatom” and denote with (pe) any proton\/electron system much more compact of the normal hydrogen atom. Similarly will call “deuterium miniatom”, indicating with (de), a neutron \/ proton \/ electron system decidedly more compact of \u00a0the normal \u00a0deuterium atom.
\nFor the formation of miniatoms may be sufficient, therefore, that the single electron of hydrogen \/ deuterium atom is occasionally found himself on the proton \/ deuteron, just as in orbital capture the \u00a0K \/ L electrons are asked to be on the nucleus.<\/p>\n

A way to maintain the largest number of atoms into the nascent state is \u00a0they are loaded on metals which promote the dissociation of hydrogen molecules, for example, nickel, tungsten, titanium, zirconium (as happens in many LENR reactions). In such cases, the large number of atoms loaded into the lattice can offset the low probability and produces a observable number of processes. On absorption of hydrogen (and its isotopes) in metal lattices \u00a0a major review was due to \u00a0SHLAPBACH [2].
\nIn the past, processes have been hypothesized of miniatoms production alternative to that based on the uncertainty principle, so far shown. For the most part they were based on the possible existence of quantized states different from those calculated with the ordinary quantum mechanics [3-5]. But very significant and important is the theory of WIDOM [6], which suggests \u00a0the formation of electrons “heavy” with a consequent decrease of atomic radius.
\nHowever formed, these compact systems would behave as neutral particles and could pass through thick materials without electrical actions from charged particles encountered in their path, and in particular from nuclei of atoms of the metal or present in its crystal structure.<\/p>\n

4. Absorption of miniatoms as virtual neutrons<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hhydrogen miniatoms and deuterium miniatoms can be so compact that the electron, as in orbital capture, can come to be close to one of the quark up of the proton, thus beginning to feel the effects of \u00a0the weak force. This would promote the following reactions, both endoenergetic:<\/p>\n

p + e = n + \u03c5\u03bd\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(Q = – 0.78 MeV)
\n(3)<\/p>\n

d + e = n + n + \u00a0\u03c5\u03bd \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(Q = – 3.01 MeV)
\n(4)<\/p>\n

The Q energies are not initially available, so the neutron of the first reaction \u00a0and one neutron of \u00a0second reaction could occur only in a virtual \u00a0state (nv<\/em>), as follows:<\/p>\n

p + e = (pe) = nv
\n(3′) <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

and<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

d + e = (de) = n + nv<\/em>
\n(4′)<\/p>\n

In the recent past several Authors [7-11], and in particular MILEY [10] have proposed the virtual neutron, variously justified, as a transitional phase for the production of nuclear transmutations at low energy.
\nThe:<\/p>\n

nv = n + \u03c5\u03bd
\n(5)<\/p>\n

would the final reaction of virtual neutrons that appear in (3 ‘) and (4’).
\nThe missing mass-energy in order to \u00a0virtual neutrons become real according to (5) can not be obtained, as in \u00a0orbital capture, by a rearrangement of (hydrogen or deuterium) nucleus. However it may be abundant energy available in the virtual neutron capture, as if it were a slow neutron by a nucleus absorber N (Z, A) with which the miniatom is able to come into contact. Indeed it is well known the ease with which the nuclei absorb slow neutrons.<\/p>\n

In LENR reactions that could be a nucleus of the lattice which has absorbed hydrogen or deuterium, or a different nucleus in it (or even a nucleus of a detector placed in the immediate vicinity).
\nFor hydrogen would take place the process:<\/p>\n

N (Z, A) + (pe) = N (Z, A) + nv = N (Z, A +1) + \u03bd
\n(6)<\/p>\n

So it could have happened in the transmutation \u00a0of 133Cs in the of 134Cs (observed by VYSOTSKII [12]) and of 56Fe in 57Fe (observed by OHMORI [13]). For iron we have the situation that three adjacent isotopes are stable. But more often the capture of a neutron generates a \u03b2-radioactive isotope: NOTOYA [14], for example, refers transmutations from 23Na to 24Na, detected by measuring the gamma radiation emitted by the produced nucleus.
\nIn the case of deuterium we can think of the possibility that both the neutron (4′) are absorbed by a nucleus N (Z, A), with the reaction:<\/p>\n

N (Z, A) + (de) \u00a0= \u00a0N (Z, A) + n + nv \u00a0= \u00a0N (Z, A +2) + \u00a0\u03bd
\n(6′)<\/p>\n

According to which, OHMORI [15] observed transmutations from 39K to 41K.
\nBut it could be absorbed only the virtual neutron, while the other remains free:<\/p>\n

N (Z, A) + (de) = N (Z, A) + n + nv = N (Z, A +1) + n + \u03bd
\n(6”)<\/p>\n

that would explain, at least partially, the transmutation of 6Li to 7Li observed by COUPLAND [16] and the transmutation from 53Cr to 54Cr viewed by MIZUNO [17]. Simultaneously the neutron n would be free, so that the deuterized solid will operate as a source of neutrons. The (6) and (6′) may include the capture of virtual neutrons by the deuterium. Tritium is found frequently in research, although often attributed to D + D fusions.
\nVery interesting, for the possibility of remedy the waste of nuclear fission reactors, are the reactions with radioactive isotopes. For example WYSOTSKII [18] has obtained the accelerated decay of 137Cs, from half-life of about 30 years to less than a year.
\nMany of these processes require that the total life of the chain miniatom-virtual neutron is not too short. However, if the proximity of the electron to quark up remains at the end of \u0394t,\u00a0should be able to begin an additional \u0394t\u00a0life to virtual neutron. That, however, should be determined, through (2), by the difference between the mass of the \u00a0couple (quark up, e) and the mass of the quark down (with the possible contribution to \u0394E of the colulomb force).<\/p>\n

5. Alternatives for miniatoms<\/strong><\/p>\n

The processes involving virtual neutron can explain that part of LENR reactions that led to final products in accordance with reactions (6), (6 ‘) and (6\u201d) (which are equivalent to absorption of neutrons). \u00a0 But to justify other also observed reaction, the fact can given that, come in the immediate vicinity of the target nucleus, the miniatom of \u00a0hydrogen \/ deuterium could give rise to a different event from the virtual neutron capture. The proton \/ deuteron of miniatom, closer at nucleus without suffering the coulombic repulsion, could be captured by that nucleus (fusion after tunnel effect).
\nThis type of reaction has been considered by several Authors as a possible producer of energy, being generally exoenergetic. If the target nucleus was N (Z, A), the nucleus thus formed is N (Z +1, A +1) if a proton is captured, and N (Z +1, A +2) if a deuteron is captured. They are generally stable, but after the capture , they may be \u00a0in excited state.
\nThe simplest case is the capture of the proton:<\/p>\n

p + N (Z, A) = N (Z +1, A +1)
\n(7)<\/p>\n

probably observed by BUSH [19] with 41K (getting 42Ca), and by NOTOYA [20] with 39K, obtaining 40Ca.
\nImmediately after the capture of the proton, the electron of the miniatom can be captured by the new nucleus. This last is almost always an endoenergetic capture, but it can happen by using the residual excitation energy of the above reaction (7) [21]. Of course, this final nucleus is the same as if it had been absorbed a virtual neutron, according to (6”) or a real neutron.
\nIf the interaction is that of deuteron, the reaction results:<\/p>\n

d + N (Z, A) = N (Z +1, A +2)
\n(7′)<\/p>\n

verified by VYSOTSKII [22] for 55Mn, obtaining 57Fe (10\u02c610 nuclei\/second).
\nImmediately after the deuteron \u00a0capture, the electron of the miniatom can be captured by the nucleus. The electron capture, which transforms a proton of the nucleus of in a neutron, is endoenergetic, but even this has a chance of being achieved by utilizing the residual excitation energy of the reaction before. The overall reaction is equal, of course, to a double neutron absorption. Ultimately it would have the same result as with the (6′). I particularly remember the product nuclei seen by OHMORI [15], We already reported in par. 4 as a support of (6′) itself.
\nMany LENR reactions experimentally observed are reported in an article by MILEY [10] and in a review of STORMS [23]; they could find justification in the hypotheses above referred.
\nFor other LENR reactions involving a variety of end products should be thinking about more complex processes, such as fission, (perhaps initiated by miniatoms or virtual neutrons). In particular, with a gold cathode in electrolysis, OHMORI [13] observed that the 197Au becomes 198Au or 199Au; after beta decay, they may undergo fission with production of 56Fe and 57Fe. The production of iron isotopes in the cathode of gold was confirmed by experiments made by YAMADA [24] and of MILEY [10,25], which supports the possibility of fission reactions.<\/p>\n

6. Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The cold nuclear reactions (LENR) referred in paragraphs 3 and 4 are a large number of clues on behalf of the hypothesis given in this work. A more direct test of the function performed by the virtual neutrons could be the measurement of the gamma radiation accompanying the neutron capture. When a virtual neutron is absorbed, the \u00a0emitted gamma rays will have a total energy lower than in the slow real neutron capture.
\nThe reproducibility of LENR can be problematic in some cases for the difficulty of maintaining a constant number of atoms to the nascent state. On the other hand, the contribution to \u0394E of coulomb force close to nucleus, although difficult to quantify, may be important, leading to a variable \u00a0life of virtual neutrons.<\/p>\n

by Lino Daddi<\/em><\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1] \u00a0E.CONTE – Proc.Workshop TESMI, Lecce \u2013 (2002) pag 50
\n[2] \u00a0L.SCHLAPBACH – The Science of Cold Fusion \u2013 SIF Bologna (1991) pag.409
\n[3] \u00a0J.A.MALY et al.\u2013 Fus.Technol. 24, 307 (1993)
\n[4] \u00a0J.DUFOUR – Fus.Technol. 24, 205 (1993) Fus.Technol.40,91(2001)
\n[5] \u00a0R.L.MILLS \u2013 Infinite Energy 17, 21 (1998) \u00a0Fus.Technol.28,1697 (1995)
\n[6] \u00a0A.WIDOM et al.- Eur.Phys.J.C DOI 10.1140\/epjc\/S2006-02479-8
\n[7] \u00a0P.HAGELSTEIN \u2013 Proc.ICCF1 99 (1990)
\n[8] \u00a0G.PREPARATA \u2013 Fus.Technol. 20,82 (1991)
\n[9] \u00a0L.CHATTERJEE – Fusion Technol. 34, 147 (1998)
\n[10] G.H.MILEY et al. \u2013 Proc.ICCF10 (2003)
\n[11] L.DADDI – Fus.Technol. 39,249 (2001)
\n[12] V.I.VYSOTSKII et al – Proc.ICCF9, 114 (2002)
\n[13] T.OHMORI et al.- Current Topics in Electrochemistry 5, 37 (1997); Proc.ICCF10 (2002)
\n[14] R.NOTOYA et al.- Fus.Technol. 26, 179 (1994)
\n[15] T.OHMORI et al.- ProcICCF9, 86 (2002)
\n[16] D.R. COUPLAND et al.- Frontiers of Cold Fusion pag.275 \u2013 Tokyo (1993)
\n[17] T.MIZUNO et al \u2013 J.Soc.Matem.Eng.Res. 6, 45 (1998)
\n[18] V.I.VYSOTSKII et al \u2013 Symp.Am.Chem.Soc.\u2013 Salt Lake City (2009)
\n[19] R.BUSH et al – Trans.Fus.Techn. 26,344 (1994); Fus.Technol. 22, 301 (1992)
\n[20] R.NOTOYA et al.- Proc. ICCF5, 531 (1995); Environ Res.Forum 1-2,127 (1996)
\n[21] L.DADDI – Infinite Energy, 47, 22 (2003)
\n[22] V.I.VYSOTSKII et al.- Proc.New Hydr. Energy 687 (1997); Proc.ICCF6, 687 (1996)
\n[23] E.STORMS – A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion, Library LERN-CANR. Org (2003)
\n[24] H.YAMADA et al.- Proc.Symp. Nucl.Transmut. in Solids 93, (1997)
\n[25] G.H.MILEY et al.- Infinite Energy 9,19 (1996)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Lino Daddi<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/p>\n

In the present work a parallel is drawn, by adopting a virtual neutron mechanism, between the orbital capture and the formation of neutrons from protons and electrons (or from deuterons and electrons). It is known the possibility, given by the uncertainty principle, that an orbital electron may be right […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=168"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":170,"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions\/170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}