In further pursuit of better understanding the role of the host metal matrix for hydrogen in LENR, including the likelihood that some of the energy imparted to absorbed hydrogen derives from the inner (relativistic) electrons of that metal, there is a well-known phenomenon called "lanthanide contraction" - which is applicable by analogy if not actuality (in the event lanthanides are used in the host alloy) to LENR.
Lanthanide contraction is a term used to describe the greater than expected decrease in the ionic radius of an element in the lanthanide series - which encompasses elements from atomic number 57 to 71, resulting is a smaller than expected diameter which naturally comes along with increased density (to the extent the packing parameters are similar but they do change). This is another aspect of an underlying connection in LENR which relates ultimate gain to density - meaning the anomalies of atomic density in the host, which are the result of relativistic inner electron dynamics. The Contraction effect in these lanthanide elements results from reduced shielding of nuclear charge on inner electrons, such that the 6s electrons are drawn closer towards the nucleus, resulting in a more compact spheroid which can be reduce by 20% in diameter. Since the volume is a cubic power law, this can result in a volume decrease of about 60%. If the ionic condition is cycled rapidly then this results in enormous effective pressurization of internal cavities and matrices. This is not precisely the same phenomenon as the effect of abnormal density (per AMU) which was the impetus that started out this inquiry. That involves the relativistic effect of the inner electrons of mercury, which lower the melting point of the metal significantly. But it may not be coincidental that two prime metals for LENR - nickel and palladium are comparatively dense. Nickel is 25% denser than zinc for instance while being lower in AMU while palladium is denser than silver or lead and lower in AMU. Cerium and lanthanum are two lanthanide elements which have been used in LENR. Of particular interest is the alloy known as lanthanum nickel (LaNi5) which is possibly the premiere proton conductor (for hydrogen storage - see the classic paper by Wallace from 1978). BTW lanthanum itself is not high density when neutral but the swing between high and low due to fluctuations in valence electrons makes it an attractive alloy (on paper) for kinetic transfer of energy. In a following post, there will be an attempt to make the theoretical connection - through Puthoff's theory of orbital electron interaction with the zero point field - of how relativistic electrons can impart energy to hydrogen and then recover it at a later time without requiring any nuclear component to explain the increased kinetic energy. Fran Roarty should like this, since it is similar to the M.O. which he implores for DCE (which is a dynamical Casimir effect). However, this explanation requires no cavity per se, even if cavities can accentuate the effect. Cavities probably do accentuate the kinetic effects, but they are not required. The beauty of a hypothetical explanation which employs relativistic electrons as the prime input - is that although it is non-nuclear for the bulk of the heat gain, it fully explains how slight nuclear transmutations are seen at the same time (in the experiments of Piantelli, Mizuno and Cirillo for instance). In these experiment nuclear transmutations are documented but they are generally 6-10 orders of magnitude too small to account for the excess thermal energy. This is the expected result of proton acceleration based on the influence of relativistic inner electrons where most of the time the acceleration gradient is too low for nuclear reactions, but occasionally it is sufficient. What LENR requires, as a general consideration, is an underlying group-theory which is a collection of related theories of hydrogen kinetics which can explain 1) Excess heat 2) Almost no gammas and almost no neutrons 3) Slight transmutation 4) Transmutation that favors proton addition (i.e. nickel going to copper) In short, there is the strong indication from experimental results over 23 years that LENR is NOT one single phenomenon. Instead LENR must consist of 7-8 related methods of hydrogen manipulation in condensed matter. Some of these effects are nuclear, and some are not. Some are exothermic and some are endothermic. There is simply no alternative to LENR being a collection of related hydrogen effects - probably less than 10 and more than 5. In the end, it is clear that we cannot reduce the complexity of this field down to a single theory or even two or three. There are many loose ends and the inputs involving hydrogen kinetic reactions, phonics, plasmonics, magnon effects, QCD, at the nanoscale and below are all important. The could even be a place for the occasional ultracold neutron :-) And it is this high level of ingrained complexity in LENR which is the general problem - since many of the pieces are already understood - but none of them can be the exclusive level of understanding. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
