I periodically have to start over with this discussion because the
response provided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear
conclusions are no longer possible. In addition, a clearer
understanding results from these discussions and this needs to be
examined without the distraction created by the earlier discussion.
The phenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to
guide a model and were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These
features are:
1. The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as
energetic particles, as is the normal case by nuclear reactions and
hot fusion in particular.
2. The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and
difficult to replicate in the laboratory.
3. The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience
with the hot fusion process.
4. The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain
solids.
5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated
although extra energy will increase its rate.
These features do not need additional demonstration or experimental
detail to be accepted as real by a knowledgeable observer.
The challenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not
conflict with what is known about "conventional" nuclear reactions and
is consistent with what is observed. The need for such an
explanation, even thought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that
this phenomenon is too complex to investigate successfully using trial
and error. In fact, all experiments in science are guided at some
level by an explanation, which is sometimes informal and based on
current observed behavior but more often is based on established laws
of Nature. The best model is the one that is consistent with the
largest number of observations and makes accurate predictions about
previously unseen behavior. These models are not designed to or are
required to justify belief that the phenomenon called LENR is real.
They are required to guide effective research that might eventually
provide the required justification for acceptance.
To do this, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must be
consistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical
systems in which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which
assumptions are consistent with the required rules (laws) and which
are not has been the basic cause of conflict and argument about the
proposed models.
Before listing the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several
nuclear processes and reactions can occur in a material at the same
time. For the discussion to be clear, we need to focus on only one
reaction at a time. Initially the discussion will focus on the most
active reaction that results in the major amount of detected heat
energy.
Several models propose processes other than fusion. These models
involve either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized
form in the material. The resulting neutrons then interact with nuclei
to form the observed nuclear products. This discussion is not focused
on this claim other than to note that the observed behavior is not
consistent with this process and many parts of the model conflict with
basic laws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be explored here.
The present discussion focuses only on fusion of hydrons as the
process called LENR.
Three basic processes have to occur at the same location and at the
same time. No significant delay may separate these three events.
These events are:
A. Two or more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same
time in the material.
B. Two or more hydrons must overcome the Coulomb barrier separating
them.
C. The resulting reduction in mass-energy must be converted to heat-
energy.
The basic assumptions used here are:
1. The behavior involves only one basic mechanism that occurs at
the same basic location in the active material being examined.
2. The nuclear process can involve any isotope of hydrogen.
3. The entire process must be consistent with all known laws of
physics and chemistry, although gaps in knowledge are accepted.
The above assumptions and observed behavior alone allow a useful model
to be proposed. To start the process, the location of the nuclear
process in the material must be identified. I call this location, the
Nuclear Active Environment (NAE). Consequently, a new assumption is
introduced that says:
The NAE is a new physical structure having no connection through
quantum mechanical processes or the laws of thermodynamics with the
atoms that form the lattice structure.
This assumption eliminates a number of proposed models from
consideration, which is discussed later.
I have explained previously why I propose that the nuclear reaction
occurs in cracks of a critical size, so I will not repeat this
argument here. Once the crack forms, the three basic processes (A, B,
C above) must take place in this structure. The model now must
describe how this series of events happens.
First, the hydons that are present in the surrounding lattice as H+ or
D+ must enter the crack and create a structure that is able to reduce
the coulomb barrier. The only way this process has been seen to occur
is either by applying enough kinetic energy to force the two nuclei
together (hot fusion) or by insertion of a muon between two D. Both
methods produce the typical and expected energetic particles. Use of
ion bombardment has revealed that the electrons normally present in a
material are able to reduce the magnitude of the Coulomb barrier for
the conventional hot fusion process. Consequently, the logical
implication is that electrons are also involved in the LENR process,
but in a different way. Regardless of their involvement, the Coulomb
reduction process must take place in a manner to allow the mass-energy
to be released gradually in small quanta before the fusion process is
complete. Otherwise, if mass-energy remains in the final structure, it
must result in gamma emission to be consistent with known behavior.
At this point in the model, we are faced with a dilemma. What process
can be proposed that satisfies the observed behavior but does not
conflict with known and accepted concepts in physics? All of the
proposed models are faced with this dilemma while attempting to solve
the problem different ways. The only question is which of the proposed
methods (theories) provides the most logical description of observed
behavior and best predictions, because they all contain the
consequence of this dilemma. Can we focus the discussion on this
dilemma?
Ed
