The following is a fourth draft of a formative hypothesis for excess energy release in one category of LENR involving nickel as the active host; and in particular the Arata-Zhang results and numerous replications.
Arata demonstrated, in a remarkable low-powered (unpowered) experiment, a stronger excess heat effect in nickel than in palladium; but an alloy of nickel with about 15% Pd seems to be optimum. The key to his success is probably related to nanostructure - but it highlights the fact that nickel is likely to be the better choice for the host matrix in any kind of LENR, especially when alloyed, and for the reasons independent of geometry, to be outlined below. The logic of that observation is that an essentially unpowered experiment, which has been reproduced by at least six groups to date (two yet to be published) must imply that when power is added, the gain will be multiplied. This obvious "next step" is underway in a few labs and in particular the Rossi energy amplifier, which Dufour mentions in the citation at the end. The further hope is that a combination of nanostructure, Casimir cavity enhancement and outside energy input can be anticipated to push the results of a hybrid reactor much closer to the level of what will needed for the long-awaited commercial application, even if that first product only involves space heating. Perhaps A. Rossi has accomplished that feat already, but his credibility has been severely tarnished by the thermoelectric generator episode of the recent past; and in any event, this is a wide open area of research due to the range of prior art and expired patents. In prior version of this hypothesis there was an incorrect focus "Halo Nuclei" which are nuclei having excess neutrons and teeter on the edge of nuclear stability, known as the "drip line." These is no need to invoke this or any modality for converting the metastable halo nuclei into unstable isotopes and a variant of the Oppenheimer-Phillips (O-P) effect will suffice, when it is considered to operate within the confines of a Casimir cavity - with relativistic effects. The first relevant fact is that over two-thirds of natural nickel is the isotope 58Ni, which has very high nuclear stability - but there is also a ~1% isotope 64Ni which is 6 a.m.u. or ~11% heavier. This is the highest percentage of excess neutrons, compared to the most stable isotope for any transition metal, but this fact alone does not necessarily imply metastability, as in the case of true halo nuclei. From there on, "facts" fade and the explanation offered is to a large part contingent on how well it explains experimental results. If we look into the precise mechanics of the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect, it is clear that it might not work well to explain experimental results with 58Ni, nor 60Ni - but will work with 64Ni. Whether or not there is anything special about the extra level of neutrons, such as near-field shielding of positive nuclear charge to an approaching deuteron -which shielding statistically favors the O-P effect for one isotope, is an open area which may be addressed later. The Oppenheimer-Phillips process, or deuteron stripping reaction, is a type of deuteron-induced nuclear reaction which depends on charge shielding. In this process, the neutron component of an energetic deuteron 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. Let us make the clear distinction that this is a fusion reaction, followed by beta day of the heavier nucleus. The fusion is between deuterium and nickel. The ash is a proton, and eventually a beta particle and a transmuted element (to copper). The mechanics of interaction allow a nuclear fusion interaction to take place at much lower energies than would be expected from a calculation of the Coulomb barrier between a deuteron and a target nucleus. This is because as the deuteron approaches the positively charged target nucleus, it experiences a charge polarization where the "proton-end" faces away from the target and the "neutron-end" faces towards the target. The deuteron must be accelerated of course, but the rate of acceleration, being a function of time, is expected to be influenced by time distortion within a Casimir cavity. In this hypothesis, the Casimir cavity of 2-10 nm is a sine qua non. The fusion proceeds when the binding energy of the approaching neutron and the target nucleus exceeds the binding energy of the deuteron and the trailing proton. That proton is then repelled from the new heavier nucleus. This is one indicia of the reaction - hydrogen in place of deuterium - which will poison the reaction unless removed. OK - putting that into the context of nickel, with the 58Ni, the O-P effect would give 59Ni as the activated nucleus - but this has a very long half-lie - thousands of years so that does not help us very much. However, with 64Ni you get 65Ni as the activated nucleus and it has a 2.5 hr half life and decays to copper. This is the range half-life that can explain "heat after death" and also the delay in heat buildup over time. ERGO - if the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect is the correct approach - and it could be, then I might have been right for the wrong reason initially - and hope to have finally got it right. The remaining problem will be look for an document the expected reactants and transmutation products. The best part of the hypotheses is that it is falsifiable, but not in the way originally thought. The beta particle is much higher energy than with 64Ni and can be detected, as can the copper isotope as the transmutation product. It turns out that Dufour has looked into the range of possible reactions and the expected energy with nickel: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Nuclear%20signatures%20-%20J acques%20Dufour.pdf .but he missed the connection to the O-P effect, as did Widom and Larsen, which narrows the playing field down considerably to the heavy nickel isotope. Plus the O-P effect is real fusion, followed by beta-decay - and the irony there is that the fusion reaction is far less energetic than is the beta decay. Jones
