Iron and Lead Fusion?

A kind reader forwarded me a link to an abstract of an article that has apparently been accepted for publication in the American Physical Society’s Physical Review C journal. The title of the article is “Cold fusion reaction of 58Fe + 208Pb analyzed by a generalized model of fusion by diffusion” authored by Zu-Hua Liu and Jing-Dong Bao. Fe is the symbol for iron, and Pb is lead.

An abstract to the article can be found at the following link: Quite honestly, reading the abstract I can understand very little of what the authors are talking about. The abstract concludes by saying, “we have arrived at the conclusion that nucleon flow between the asymmetric reaction partners in the early stage of fusion process plays an important role in the formation of superheavy nuclei in the cold fusion reactions.”

If any readers might be able to interpret what might be going on here, I for one would be very grateful!

  • georgehants

    Just to return to Cold Fusion for a moment, putting the search – Italian school reports cold fusion Leopoldo Pirelli – into Google, returns not a single report except from the Cold Fusion Websites.
    Well I suppose that a breakthrough regarding abundant energy is not very interesting for the World.
    It must be said that the few of us that find these things important must surly be crazy, the rest of the world must be right in ignoring the subject.
    I will continue to give Cold Fusion every chance and not be swayed by our clever scientists, media and institutions into closing my eyes and brain and hoping it all goes away.
    Thank goodness for the few Rebels in every subject or progress and knowledge would grind to a complete halt.

    • Robert Mockan

      “Ignorance is ultimately the worst enemy of a people who want to be free.”- Jonathan Hennessey

    • Bob

      Google responses are customized to the user. I am logged off google (so, in theory, it doesn’t tailor my search returns), and search for cold fusion, and find a few responses – Forbes, Wired,, and Discovery News on the first page. What Google returns in a search is no longer a reliable gauge of what is going on, but rather a gauge of what Google thinks you will be interested in. A measure of how tailored your search results are is how high in the search results Wikipedia is. The higher it is in your search returns, the less tailored your search results are reported to be.Back to lurking for me.

  • As it was explained in wikipedia, this cold fusion reaction has nothing to do with our cold fusion reactions. Term ‘cold’ is just referring particle acceleration energies in range of 10-20 MeV in contrast to hot fusion events where collisions are at the range of 40-50 MeV. Both of these energies are corresponding to temperatures that are billions of kelvins and are found in small particle accelerators. (LHC has record collision energies of 8 TeV, and that is the hottest place in the known universe)

  • Robert Mockan

    Their title is misleading (obviously), and would be so even to other scientists researching the sequence of changes in nuclei topology and other nuclear reaction coordinates during fusion. Subject citation indexing of published science articles requires relevant wording for researchers searching for previous work on the subject. Author citation indexing is used when the authors are well known in the field (but these are not). Their use of the words “cold fusion” in their title would return many (undesired) papers, if one were searching citation indices to find previous work done in nuclear chemistry and nuclear reaction coordinates, because those words are generally not used for the subject they are researching. And clearly they are not researching “cold fusion” in the LENR sense. The authors could use pointers on proper writing of research reports.

    • Robert Mockan

      I just completed a citation search and found 46 papers from 1990 to the present that use the phrases “cold fusion” and “fusion by diffusion” in the title. None of them were about LENR specifically, but I can see how they could relate to LENR if one attempted to apply the “fusion by diffusion” model hypothesis being developed to elucidate conventional fission and fusion reactions, to the LENR field. So maybe the authors title is not so misleading after all.

  • bob

    The article is talking about a nuclear fusion reaction and the necessary conditions. It’s related to LENR only in that one proposed mechanism involves a similar fusion of a Hydrogen nucleus (a “naked” proton) with a heavier nucleus. The Fe in the article plays the part of H in this reaction. There is some controversy in the LENR version about how the “coulomb force” a.k.a. electric field force is overcome. The LENR guys say it involves a special arrangement of the atoms involved, and a thermal force that’s induced in the system by RF excitation.

    As far as I can tell (and I’m in no way a physicist) the mass asymmetry and thermal excitation model MAY BE common to the two reactions. But this doesn’t prove anything about LENR (yet).

    • Robert Mockan

      A “special arrangement” of the atoms involved in LENR seems common to the different hypotheses, but very little work has been done to determine if a corresponding nuclei (special) state is required of the nuclei at the other end of the fusion reaction, that might enhance the LENR probability. Dr.Norman Ramsey, in early theoretical work on cold fusion, held that the phenomena of NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) might be relevant to enhancement of cold fusion reactions (from the nuclei perspective). Unfortunately when he passed away that avenue of research was not publicly followed up. In any case I would add magnetism effects to thermal energy effects, however induced (RF or otherwise), may be required excitation to help LENR happen.

    • Robert Mockan

      It can be frustrating that the people we need to talk to understand LENR better are not available. For example, a lunch with Dr. Brian Ahren, where he could talk freely about LENR, and we could learn from him exactly how he is making his nuclear active catalyst compositions, and more in depth mathematics to describe why they work. Instead of trying to replicate his findings without his laboratory and intellectual input from his colleagues, we could make faster progress taking the next steps to making catalyst able to operate to higher temperatures, with greater thermal energy densities, and longer time intervals of use before deterioration. I can think off hand of about 20 scientists I’d like to talk to directly.

      • This is perhaps a silly comment, but have you tried contacting them by email? If you are thinking of as many as 20 scientists, chances should be good that some of them would reply.

        • Robert Mockan

          Not a silly comment at all. The answer is yes, and I have received some replies. But when getting into discussions that involve details and math, only direct works. In the past I had communications with Mallove, Marinov, Gleeson, Fox, Bass, Puthoff, Bearden, Lambertson, O’Leary, Patterson, Craven, Champion, Graneau, Tewari, Weaver, Cure, Forward, Maglich… the list is quite long. But that was many years ago when I was studying the subject more seriously myself. Most of them are dead now, because the only scientists that dared getting into the field were those already secure in their positions or near (official) retirement anyway, and that was already 20 years ago. Many of the new generation are who we need to learn from now, and they are not spending their time among just interested people outside the scientific community. So one does the best one can.

        • Robert Mockan

          An example of the advantages of direct communication was at a lecture by Jorge Cure at the International New Energy Symposium in 1994. He was not a podium speaker and only about 20 of us attendees were at his lecture in an adjunct room to the main convention hall. His talk was on quantum nuclear chemistry. I think O’Leary was there, and Puthoff, but it was too long ago. Why was it important? He discussed specifically a hypothetical allotrope form of hydrogen that could behave similar to a neutron, (and perhaps become a neutron with sufficient activation energy), that could then mediate cold fusion. Or, as he explained it, one or more of the quantum numbers describing the hydrogen atom and usually discarded as insignificant in electrodynamic quantum theory, may be relevant to cold fusion. His references to the hypothesis went back to theoretical work by Eddington, Pauling, Wilson, in the first half of the 20th century, that (still!) needs to be redone in light of new discoveries about the hydrogen atom. That might provide a basis for better understanding of how the single electron atom could cause nuclear reactions in a lattice. Another matter of importance is that cold fusion should work better near liquid helium temperatures. If so, a new theory would describe a means for bulk cold fusion reacting of all the hydrogen in a crystalline lattice structure, at the same time.

          Note that Cure was talking about this in 1994! Recently researchers today are making the speculations that it might be possible to do exactly what Cure was talking about in a lecture 18 years ago!

  • Free thinker

    Fusion: merging two nuclei.
    endothermic: have to ADD energy to achieve it.

    no energy out, hence “cold fusion”. No relation to LENR.

    • R.Elcox

      The atom produced is unstable, does not exist in nature, its decay products will carry kinetic energy, probably more energy than required to create it, i.e. endothermic(?).

  • AB

    This has nothing to do with LENR or cold fusion in the P&F sense.

    • Agreed, it’s an ordinary high-energy collision of two nuclei. Not sure why it’s named “cold”. But “nucleon flow” term which is also mentioned at least is related to high energy collisions of nuclei.

  • Jason

    This reaction will be endothermic. Iron is the most tightly bound nucleus. All fusion reactions up to iron are exothermic and all fusion reactions above iron are endothermic. This is an interesting reaction from a scientific perspective but is the same kind of thing that is done in particle accelerators.

  • Filip

    I don’t have a scientific background. Do I get it right that the CF reaction doesn’t always mean it’s generating more energy out than in? So, it’s a search for an energy generating CF. Thus I think many scientist accept CF but not the one that generates more out than you put in.
    It wouldn’t be a bad idea to call it different for expl
    EGCF(Energy Generating Cold Fusion)

    • Filip

      To many people(scientific or not) is sound like a perpetume mobile. Therefore it’s difficult to accept.

  • Actually 269Hs is an artificial element called ‘hassium’. Wikipedia say “More than 100 atoms of hassium have been synthesized to date in various cold and hot fusion reactions, both as a parent nucleus and decay product.” I wonder who used the phrase ‘cold fusion’ in the WP article and how long it will stay there!

    • Sorry – that was supposed to be a reply to Hempenearth’s comment below.

      • georgehants

        Peter if it’s not Cold Fusion that messes up my comment below. grrrr.

  • georgehants

    One may think it important that our wonderful premier journal has condescended to even publish something so heretical.
    It must be straining their religious policy of hide and debunk everything beyond a steam engine to extremes.

    • GreenWin

      Huh? The APS Physical Review has accepted this study for publication?? The political implications outweigh the science. That an APS journal publishes the words “cold fusion” is most curious. Even if this is not a fusion reaction per se, why have they accepted a study with those word prominent in the title?

      Perhaps APS is paving the way for the inevitable. The introduction of commercial technology based on an unknown reaction previously called “Cold Fusion.” APS has a huge dollop of egg on its face – along with most other mainstream science with regard to P&F.

      We might expect to see more studies confirming LENR/”Cold Fusion” now that APS has seen fit to publish the words.

  • daniel maris

    Not claiming to understand it, but I think I understand the appearance of those two words togther: cold and fusion. Moreover it talks of “the cold fusion processes” as though therese are a given.

    Isn’t this saying cold fusion – not just LENR – is a reality. In which case Rossi would be vindicated, as he has maintained it is still a cold fusion process.

  • Pingback: Iron and Lead Fusion? | E-Cat News Live Feed()

  • Looks to me to be a hypothesis using a theroetical mathematical simulation models. They are comparing two functions or indicators for a relationship.

    Looks like the relationship of the distance of the
    atoms from the lattice and the number that are in an excited state beginning the reaction.

    Nothing I can see on a practical real world
    experiment yet with what is there.

  • hempenearth

    From this it sounds like Hydrogen is again involved in the reaction:

    “The excitation function for the 208Pb(58Fe,n)265Hs reaction…”

    • Considering above discussion that power ouptut could be overestimated up to 7 timesbecause of difference between vaporization and just reaching 100C, it brings to power ouptutin the range of existing power sources. A set of suspicious coincidences is pointing towards using nickel-metal hydride batteries, which are used in innovative way. Instead of just discharging them directly, they can be overheated to about 100-110C which will cause accelerated internal self discharge through direct reaction between H2 developed from metal-hydride anode and NiO(OH) cathode. This self discharge causes large heat dissipation, beasically entire energy of the battery is dissipated as heat instead of electricity.Their energy density is about 300Wh / L, so considering that most of the blue box shown in the presentation is filled with batteries, it would account for enough energy (considering 7 times underestimation it would be just 1.7kW needed for 30 min presentation.Using thermally induced self-discharge would also account for about 30 min delay becausethermal time constant of all batteries is about 30 min due to large mass and thermalcapacity, it takes about 30 min to heat it up to needed 110C temperature with 400W heater.This elegant apparatus would exhibit the same behavior os Rossi demonstration unit,and, conveniently, it would even be rechargeable! By simple switching wires from heaterto battery string terminals, they can be recharged for the next demonstration!Care should be taken not to allow overheating above 140C where NiO(OH) decomposes withoxygen release and whole thing can blow up. That is where the need of very accurateexternal temperature control and water flow control comes in. Btw operating batteryin such way is extremely dangerous as thermal run-away is possible, so all the participants of this demonstrations might have been exposed to mortal danger. Hopefully these considerations are just a coincidence and Rossy device is a real thing.But for any prospective investor I would absolutely require long time testand inspection of the volume/weight of the inside of the device to exclude above mechanism.Regards,Yevgen

  • alex

    I’ll take a crack. This looks a probability theorem, when tested for, they observed some interesting results. I don’t believe they have actually attained successful cold fusion. They took lead and Iron, and added heat, then it seems at some point of thermal reaction they observed a condition where an increase in energy (pushing over the saddle) happened when they had stopped adding heat. As if the lead was reaching a state change, and it’s atomic bonds were aligning differently, and the material was less resistive, giving the appearance that heat or energy was being created.

    • alex

      In my defense and in the likely case I am wrong, they provided no formulas to support their observations.