The following URL contains links to various nuclear reaction equation
reports I have created relating to LENR:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
This is a work in progress, nothing is finalized, and all conclusions
are tentative. Improvements are being made in reaction energy
calculations, additional reports are in progress, and a review for
accuracy is continuing. However, the reports at this point already
exemplify some new and important principles. One such principle is
nuclear catalysis, the existence of nuclear catalytic reactions,
(NCRs). A nuclear catalytic reaction is one in which a heavy lattice
nucleus acts as nuclear catalyst. It fuses hydrogen nuclei while
remaining intact post-reaction. It is essentially a fusion reaction
enabled by deflated state deuterium, followed by a reduced kinetic
energy alpha decay.
Another important principal is the potential effectiveness of some
isotopes for producing LENR, due to all LENR channels being initially
closed due to the de-energization due to the deflated hydrogen
fused. These isotopes are identified in special "Electron
constrained isotopes" sub-reports, in reports E-H.
At the above URL the blue text areas are links to the actual reaction
reports.
Following is the text of the above URL:
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)
Reports of Prospective Reaction Equations and Energies
Based on the Deflation Fusion Model
Horace Heffner Jan, 2010
Report A - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n D* -> Y + Z
Aneutronic Reactions, for n=1 to 12
Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions
Report B - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n p* --> Y + Z
Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 4
Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions
Report C - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + 2 D* -> X + Z
Aneutronic Reactions
Creating Stable Isotope Z Via Nuclear Catalytic Action
Report D - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n D* -> X + Z
Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 10
Creating Stable Isotope Z Via Nuclear Catalytic Action
Report E - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n D* --> Y + Z
Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 1
Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions
Report F - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n D* --> Y + Z
Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 2
Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions
Report G - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n p* --> Y + Z
Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 1
Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions
Report H - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n p* --> Y + Z
Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 2
Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions
Report i1 - Energetically Feasible X + n D* --> Y + Z + n e
Reactions, n = 1 to 12
Where X = Ba56, Y=Sm62, (Potential reactions for Iwamura's Ba --> Sm
transmutation)
Report i2 - Energetically Feasible X + n D* --> Y + Z + n e
Reactions, n = 1to 12
Where X = Cs55, Y=Pr59, (Potential reactions for Iwamura's Cs --> Pr
transmutation)
Report i3 - Energetically Feasible X + n D* --> Y + Z + n e
Reactions, n = 1 to 12
Where X = Sr38, Y=Mo42, (Potential reactions for Iwamura's Sr --> Mo
transmutation)
Report i4 - Energetically Feasible X + n D* --> Y + Z + n e
Reactions, n = 1 to 12
Where X = Sr38, Y=Mo42, but rfact=0.85 (Iwamura's Sr --> Mo
transmutation)
Report J - Evaluation Spreadsheet for Deflated Proton Fusion Candidates
Notes on Report Contents
Report A, including 48,031 reactions in 1093 pages, in 2 MB, is one
of the most general types of report presented here. It is intended to
identify every energetically feasible aneutronic deuterium LENR
reaction that might be of any interest, whether likely to occur or
even feasible within the confines of the deflation fusion theory. The
only reaction conditions enforced in Report A aneutronic reactions
are that proton and neutron counts are preserved, and that each
reaction produces net energy. Isospin is conserved in these
reactions. Note that in all reports summarized here that one or more
of the fused entities is either p* or D*, deflated state hydrogen.
The deflated state electrons are included in the equations even
though their role is primarily catalytic, and the catalytic energy
deficit effect, as described in “Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions”, and
as applied to the intermediate or compound nucleus, is included in
the energy value in brackets for each reaction. It is also notable
that the deflated state electrons reduce the kinetic energy of the
heavy reaction products, because the bulk of the reaction energy, due
to conservation of energy and momentum, goes to the electrons. This
further means that there is never less than two nonzero rest mass
products, so the reaction energy is not required to be carried off
via one or two high energy photons, as it is in the D(D,g)4He hot
fusion reaction.
What is important about some of the reports here, is not so much what
kinds of reactions are in them but what is not in them across the
domain of the report, e.g. across the domains of X + n D* or X + n
p*. For example, what is not to be found in the reports are reactions
which by conventional nuclear physics, i.e. without the nuclear
electrons involved, can have no highly energetic signatures. For some
reports, e.g. Reports E-H, what is important is also what is not
there. Some isotopes have no decay channels which are not blocked by
the negative energy of the hypothesized nulear electrons. These
isotopes should be the most effective at generating deflation fusion
based LENR.
One of the mysteries of heavy element LENR is that large quantities
of heavy transmuted material are in some experiments produced without
other readily noticeable effect. This means the primary reaction
types involved necessarily produce (a) no neutrons and (b) no high
energy signature particles including energetic gammas. Conventional
fusion reactions are thought to have insufficient time to involve a
large portion of weak force reactions, so only strong force mediated
reactions are included in Report A. One of the most useful aspects of
Report A is that it clearly demonstrates one of the greatest
mysteries of heavy element LENR, namely the mystery as to how such
reactions can occur without high energy signatures, because, as can
be seen in the report, nearly all such reactions yield MeV magnitude
energies based on mass changes alone. This report also clearly
demonstrates that even the negative energy due to catalytic electrons
located at the nuclear radius, as predicted by the deflation fusion
theory, is not enough to suppress the huge energies of some heavy
element LENR. Therefore, the energy deficits created by the presence
of deflated quarks is necessary to the explanation of heavy element
transmutation LENR. It is notable that few theories that may account
for deuterium fusion also account for heavy element transmuation.
Given that no neutrons are created in bulk of heavy element
transmutation reactions, it appears likely that “excess neutrons” are
given the time in the de-energized compound nucleus to decay by the
catalytic electrons binding the compound nucleus. The primary weak
reaction in heavy transmutation, especially for deuterium reactions,
is thus likely beta decay. This momentarily increases the in-nucleus
electron count and increases the Coulomb binding energy in the de-
energized nucleus. It also increases the multiple low energy photon
radiating ability of the compound nulceus, thus eliminating high
energy signatures.
Report A may be of interest with regard to models other than
deflation fusion. For example, it may of interest with regard to
cluster fusion models. For this reason all
X + n D* --> Y + Z
reactions, for n=1 to 12 are included for all X, Y and Z isotopes
with natural abundances. A smaller value of n is used for other
reports here, such as the Report B
X + n p* --> Y + Z
reactions, for n = 1 to 4. Note, however, that branching ratios for
deflation fusion are vastly different from other reaction types due
to the presence of the electron(s) eliminating the Coulomb barrier
and de-energizing the resulting nucleus. This means ordinary
approaches to determining reaction outcome probabilities do not
directly apply to the compound nucleus formation, because there is no
Coulomb barrier to the formation of the compound nucleus by deflation
fusion, nor do they apply to reaction channel probabilities, because
the compound nucleus is initially highly de-energized. The components
of the compound nucleus are held together longer due to extra binding
energy supplied by the electrons. In addition, a true compound
nucleus may not actually form in all cases. The catalyzing nucleus
may only provide a general vicinity for tunneling of a neutral
deflated hydrogen pair from separate sites. Once in the general locus
of the nucleus, a deflated hydrogen pair can jointly tunnel back out
to a single adjacent lattice site. The tunneling probability out of
the vicinity of the catalyzing lattice heavy nucleus is about the
same to all empty adjacent sites of equal distance, but the
probability of joint tunneling of a deflated hydrogen pair is
increased due to their spin coupling, i.e. attracting magnetic
fields. This catalytic effect is enabled energetically by the
magnetic binding energy of the pair once jointly and briefly in the
locale of the catalytic nucleus.
Report B, 564 kB, including 13,771 reactions in 280 pages, is similar
in all ways to Report A, except it examines energetically feasible
reactions of the form:
X + n p* --> Y + Z
for n = 1 to 4.
Report C, including 288 reactions in 20 pages, 44 kB, demonstrates 3-
body nuclear catalytic LENR reactions, which can more simply just be
be called “nuclear catalytic reactions”, or NCRs, a new class of LENR
reaction. This class of reaction may provide a fundamental new
understanding of how hydrogen fusion most often occurs in a lattice,
by use of the lattice heavy element nuclei as catalysts. A given
hydrogen atom is much closer to lattice element nuclei that to any
other hydrogen atom. If a hydrogen nucleus is in the deflated state,
it is much more probable it will tunnel to a lattice nucleus than to
the site of another hydrogen nucleus which is much further away.
Tunneling distance is in an exponential term of the tunneling
probability. The lattice nucleus can thus act as a catalyst for
multiple simultaneous deuteron reactions which would otherwise not be
feasible under less than extreme loading conditions. In that magnetic
gradients are necessary to the tunneling of deflated state nuclei,
and thus heavy element LENR, it is therefore also true that magnetic
gradients are important to n-body heavy element catalytic LENR. While
only 3-body reactions of the type:
X + 2 D* --> X + Y
were selected for Report C, it is also true that many more (n+1)-body
catalytic reactions of the form:
X + n D* --> X + Y
can be found in Report A, and reactions solely of that type are in
Report D. It is likely that 3-body catalytic reactions, rather than n-
body reactions, n > 3, dominate heavy element catalyzed LENR, so
Report C was created to show only those reactions, though it is very
boring as they are all exactly of the form:
X + 2 D* --> X + 4He2 + 23.847 MeV
Though boring, it also provides a useful test of the program that
created Report C.
It is especially notable that no equivalent report is feasible for
the strong force catalytic reactions:
X + 2 p* ---> X + z
because no such reactions are feasible producing stable z, because pp
is not a stable particle. This makes for a significant difference
between light water and heavy water experiments. Light water
experiments are not capable of heavy element catalytic LENR unless
weak reactions follow the creation of the compound nucleus. This
makes such reactions rare. It is feasible for X + n p* --> X + Z + n
e heavy element transmutation reactions to occur via strong force
reactions, but only in the cases n > 2, or the cases of reactions of
the form X + 2 p* --> Y + p + 2 e. It is important to note that
X + 2 p* --> Y + p
is energetically not the same as:
X + p* --> Y
because the negative energy due to the two catalytic electrons in the
former greatly exceeds the negative energy provided by the single
catalytic electron in the later reaction. Further, two additional
bodies are available to carry off kinetic energy. For example,
consider the two reactions:
26Mg12 + p* --> 27Al13 + 8.271 MeV [3.663 MeV]
26Mg12 + 2 p* --> 27Al13 + 1H1 + 8.271 MeV [-1.593 MeV]
The trapping energy of the extra deflated electron provides a strong
catalytic influence due to the initial negative reaction energy, i.e.
due to deflated electron binding energy immediaely post fusion.
Report D, 136 kB, including 2,016 reactions in 94 pages, provides all
the energetically feasible X + n D* --> X + Z Reactions, for n = 1 to
4. These are in the set of all n-body heavy element nuclear catalytic
LENR reactions, a new class of reaction. Note the preponderance of
negative energies in brackets for the heaviest lattice elements. This
indicates good prospects for subsequent weak reactions when these
heavy elements are in the lattice. Such weak rections are covered in
separate reports.
Report E, 168 kB, 109 pages, provides all 1,203 energetically
feasible reactions of the form X + D* --> Y + Z, with the added
information provided by the table “Electron constrained isotopes
involving up to 1 D fusions”. This kind of table, and its supporting
documentation in the form of the reaction equations, is the principle
aim of reports E-H. This kind of table is useful for designing
deuterium based experiments because it identifies which isotopes and
elements are effective at creating nuclei that are initially
sufficiently de-energized such that no reaction channel is available
until the electrons radiate away enough energy such that their
wavelengths expand sufficiently to eliminate the energy deficit
caused by deflation fusion. Reports E-H are also useful for designing
experiments intended to produce kaons and strange matter. Ziconium
should be very effective in this regard, due to its ability to
sustain high voltage glow electrolysis.
One of the more notable features in reports E-G is the effectiveness
of 16O in catalyzing deuterium reactions, and its ineffectiveness in
catalyzing protium reactions.
For each source element in the Reports F-H, a “Fusion Product Chart”
is produced at the end of the reaction equations for that source
element. It is weighted by source isotope abundance, the square of
the ratio of fusion energy to deflated hydrogen binding energy, and
inversely as the square of the number of deuterons fused. This chart,
which has the general appearance of an element spectrogram, is not
yet a predictive spectrogram, but is provided at this point merely as
a somewhat arbitrary visual representation of the equation data.
Report F, 201 Pages, 336 kB, examines the 4,500 X + n D* --> Y + Z
reactions to look for elements and isotopes with good hydrogen fusion
catalytic qualities. Tl, Pb, Th, Pa, and U stand out in the “Electron
constrained isotopes involving up to 2 D fusions” Table, though the
lattices for these appear to not be effective in producing cold
fusion. These elements may be more effectively located in the
electrolyte in HV glow experiments, or more effectively used as
lattice dopants or co-deposited agents. The fact that 32% of Pt atoms
are effective as X + 2 D* nuclear catalysts, while Pd and Ni are not,
is also potentially useful information. This is a sparse and
unexpected list.
Report G, 123 pages, 188 kB examines the 1,484 feasible reactions of
the form X + p* --> Y + Z. The lack of effectiveness of Ni shown in
the “Electron constrained isotopes involving up to 1 p fusions”
Table, and the apparent effectiveness of Cu, are both notable, as
these are unexpected. Ba, Y, La and U stand out as very effective. Br
stands out for use as an electrolyte ingredient in high voltage anode
glow type electrolysis experiments.
Report H, 203 pages, 348 kB, examines the 5,025 energetically
feasible reactions of the form X + n p* --> Y + Z, for n= 1 to 2. Of
special interest here is the effectiveness of thorium in producing
the reactions:
232Th90 + 2 p* --> 234U92 + 11.880 MeV [-22.144 MeV] (H_Th:1)
232Th90 + 2 D* --> 232Th90 + 4He2 + 23.847 MeV [-10.081 MeV] (F_Th:1)
as well as the lack of the presence of Th in Reports E and G. This
may be an indication that Thorium “remediation” experiments, which
expose Th to light water cavitation, may be producing some uranium.
The half-life of 234U is 245,500 years. The deuterium reaction with
thorium is nuclear catalytic in producing 4He, which might be useful,
but does not provide remediation.
Also very notable is the high effectiveness of all the isotopes of Ni
for X + 2 p* reactions, while only the 0.925% abundant 64Ni is
effective at X + p* reactions. This is an indication that a light
water experiment with 64Ni enriched nickel may be useful.
Report H indicates iron and various forms of steel are under explored
for light water Fe + 2 p* reactions, especially for the apparent
ability to produce Co and Ni.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
