Neutron production in LENR (Axil Axil)

The following post was submitted by Axil Axil

The overarching theme of this essay is to explain how neutrons are only transmuted from protons as a result of beta decay mediated under the control of the weak force. Nuclear decay requires the weak force and neutron production requires nuclear decay. Nuclear decay resulting in the production of neutrons from protons must occur INSIDE the nucleus.

To start off, quantum mechanics (QM) is a sometimes thing. Sometimes it does this and sometimes it does that. What QM does is based on probability. Nuclear decay is subject to the vagaries of probability. The production of a neutron from a proton is a sometimes thing. Because of the transient nature of beta decay, we cannot depend on nuclear decay to drive the LENR process. LENR must be produced by an absolutely certain cause…a cause that is guarantied to occur. Descriptions of what quantum mechanics does is absolutely adverse to absolute statements. And at the same time, it is nearly impossible to predict how subatomic particles and energy interact to get to the results that are later observed in LENR.

Next, the weak force is one of the four fundamental forces that govern all matter in the universe While the other forces hold things together, the weak force plays a greater role in things falling apart, or decaying. In nuclear physics, beta decay (β-decay) is a type of nucleon rebalancing function in which a proton is transformed into a neutron, or vice versa, INSIDE an atomic nucleus. This process allows the atom to move closer to the optimal ratio of protons and neutrons. Atoms want to have a one for one balance of protons and neutrons INSIDE the nucleus.

The weak force, or weak interaction that is responsible for turning a proton into a neutron is only effective at incredibly short distances. It acts on the subatomic level and plays a crucial role in keeping the number of protons and neutrons balanced in the nucleus or for converting stray neutrons that somehow get outside the nucleus and away from their proton partners into protons.

So it is seen that INSIDE the nucleus, the quark changes its flavor when interacting via the W- or W+. This interaction cannot be observed outside the nucleus because quarks do not exist outside the nucleus. Because of quark confinement, isolated quarks are not observed and the weak force only works in decay processes inside the nucleus. I am ignoring the decay of subatomic particles associated with nuclear processes.

There are many neutrons inside of atoms and they are universally stable when protons and neutrons are paired together INSIDE the nucleus. But if there is a very large mismatch in the number of protons or neutrons INSIDE the nucleus, a neutron can decay into a proton or a proton can become a neutron. When a neutron is outside of the nucleus, it will decay into a proton, positron and a neutrino. But in order for a stray neutron to decay into a proton, positron and neutrino, a very heavy W boson is needed to be born out of the energy of the vacuum to mediate the decay of the neutron through the weak force.

The weak force only manifests itself INSIDE the nucleus or INSIDE the neutron, not in or around the proton or the electron. The weak force is absolutely required to turn a proton into a neutron. In order for the weak force to manifest outside the nucleus, a massive W boson must be born out of the vacuum. Under the rules of virtual particle production, the probability that this huge amount of virtual energy could be borrowed from the vacuum is proportional to the mass of the W boson. Since the W boson is one of the heaviest boson that there can be… it is huge, the probability that the W boson will come into existence unbidden from the vacuum is vanishingly small. And if the W boson were generated from the vacuum, it would only be around for a very short time since its lifetime is inversely proportional to its mass. And if it did spring into existence from the vacuum, it would need to be produced and located within .1 percent of the diameter of the proton* to properly project the weak force during it almost near instantaneously short lifetime.

* ( the weak interaction involves the exchange of the intermediate vector bosons, the W and the Z. Since the mass of these particles is on the order of 80 GeV, the uncertainty principle dictates a range of about 10-18 meters which is about .1% of the diameter of a proton.)

The bottom line, the probability that the weak force affects subatomic particles OUTSIDE the nucleus is almost ZERO.

In beta plus decay, for a proton to become a neutron requires the proton to decay into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino OUTSIDE of the nucleus. This virtual neutrino must be produced out of the energy of the vacuum just in the vanishingly short time that the W boson is in existence. This probability of two such extremely unlikely event occurring simultaneously is so small that this nearly impossible combination of events can occur together is close to zero.

Now in a 1 megawatt LENR reactor, there needs to be 10^25 LENR reactions more or less happening during each and every second. This implies that the LENR reaction must be a sure thing and absolutely prolific. Because of timing, the range of the weak force, and the large energies involved, the probability of the creation of neutrons outside the nucleus is almost zero. This beta decay OUTSIDE the nucleus therefore cannot be the cause of LENR.

Yes, neutrons are produced by LENR but that creation must be a result of beta decay INSIDE the nucleus after the proton has become a part of the nucleus and the weak force must subsequently re -balance the number of protons and neutrons to keep the nucleus in the zone of stability.

For all who propose the creation of neutrons OUTSIDE the nucleus as the root cause of LENR, they must address how the rules of the standard model, the production of virtual particles from the vacuum and the nature of beta decay and color change through the weak force are changed to allow this neutron production process to move forward with such great intensity and rapidity. Its not just meeting the requirements of energy balance, it’s meeting all the other conservation laws involved with beta decay and obeying all the rules of road for the standard model.

Axil Axil

  • GreenWin

    i.e., what you are really saying is Rossi=Randell Mills whose name “should” appear on Thermacore’s patent #5,273,635 December 28, 1993
    Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach;
    Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) — since Gernert stated it was Mills’ idea.

    Mills moved to gas loaded metals when he started BLP and is now working on plasma systems.

    You forget to include the additional assistance Dr. Rossi receives from various Navy and National labs.

    • Independent Experimenter

      So it looks like Andrea Rossi is the first one to have actually made a working embodiment. I also see he made a doctoral thesis on with a thesis on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and its interrelationship with Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology.

      Very very interesting. Rossi is amazing. So he really is after the mind in the matter, or in this case the mind in the fuel.

      Dr. Rossi’s Doctoral thesis, Dr. Edmund Storm’s “seducing the Coulomb barrier” etc.

      So it turns out I invented nothing after all. As a consolation, their work does validate my assumptions.

  • Stephen

    Thanks again Axil for another clear and well written explanation. Thanks also to Independent Experimenter for your discussions I learnt a lot from them.

    I am quite persuaded by your arguments that Neutrons are unlikely to be generated from Protons out side a nucleus. It does seem extremely unlikely if it relies on the weak interaction in that way.

    This is clear for Protons outside the atom. Could you clarify that this is the case even for a Proton that is already close to the nucleus. I suppose there are 2 cases:

    A) A fully ionised atom.

    B) A atom retaining inner shell electrons

    I suppose in both these cases the Proton is still well outside the influence of the Weak force so probably your comments still fully apply. However, can the nucleus or shell elections influence the process ? :

    Case A: I think even if the nucleus is able to influence a near by proton by some kind of resonance effect or other disturbance due to the nucleus shape, size, spin and or magnetic moment it is extremely unlikely that an available electron would be around at the same time and sufficient energy would be available for this to occur.

    Case B: If we consider a slow proton approaching a nucleus in an atom with inner electrons. As the Proton approaches the nucleus it may disturb the inner electrons due to changes in Potential well and also their reduced mass. Could those electrons then have insufficient energy to occupy their inner energy level? If so could this increase the likelihood of and interaction with the Proton to form a Neutron perhaps taking other influences form the nucleus such as nucleus shape, size, spin and or magnetic moment into account? I suppose the energy for the weak interaction would not be present but its an interesting case to consider.

  • Axil Axil

    “If Rossi and other replicators are having results with just mixing the powders together and heating them, I am astonished. This is very good news for me.”

    You need to go to the school of hard knocks. The reactors of the replicators blowout because of the cluster nature of the LENR reaction when powder is packed tightly together, The powder needs to be spread out. Use a nickel nano foam like DGT used to separate the nickel powder in space so that when the reaction kicks in, the reaction in all the particles will moderate.

  • Axil Axil

    I might have over estimated reaction rate, but who can tell at this juncture.

    There is possibly that a large amount of energy is consumed in the Rossi reactor directed toward the production of electrons. You have not accounted for that energy drain, Rossi has said that he might be able to directly extract electric power from the E-Cat.

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi applies power to that powder is a special way(square waves with delays) in order to produce nano particles.

    Heat activation requires the production of nano particles from super saturated condensation using cooling plasma. This is a chemical process. This is done through temperature and pressure changes. Learn how to produce nano particles chemically in a gas.

    An electric arc will produce Rydberg matter(AKA nano particles) in the cooling plasma. This is what DGT used in their reactor, This nano particle production method is simpler to do, IMHO,

    Note: It’s energetic distortion of the vacuum that stabilized radioactive isotopes.

    • Independent Experimenter

      Lithium Aluminum Hydride has a very low melting point and it is conducting when it is melted, I wonder what are the prospect of sending a high voltage and high current electric arc through the molten fuel instead of simply heating it.

      Couldn’t Rossi’s fuel be made to react all at once if a high power electric arc was discharged directly through the fuel ?

      I refer to US Patent 4182650 which proposes to do just that with a much more difficult fuel.

      I would be interesting to test Rossi’s fuel using the method outlined in US Patent 4182650.

      Please tell me if you think it’s too dangerous to use Rossi’s fuel in this method.

      • Axil Axil

        I suspect that Leif Holmild has already done the type of cluster fusion experiment that you intend to do. He produced a huge amount of fusion of which 10^13 DD detected fusion events in a few nano seconds is just a tiny fraction of the whole amount. His method is different than Rossi’s. You will be interested is the potassium based fuel the Helmild used and how that catalyst generates Rydberg matter(nano particles).

        The fact that he is producing 14 MeV protons and 3 MeV protons implies that the vacuum based energy thermalization process that we discussed above in not applied, so a large amount of nuclear energy is not converted to heat. I call this the Joe Papp LENR reaction.

        This experiment was peer reviewed. I reference the draft experiment below in this post that I wrote a short time ago.

        ———————————-

        http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2015/07/17/icelandic_scientist_may_have_found_solution_to_glob/

        The Sveinn Ólafsson news can reveal some insights into the LENR reaction. The LENR reaction produced by the LASER pulse is different from the Rossi reaction because it produces high energy protons rather than thermalized heat energy. This explosive reaction looks like the reaction that produces pressure in the Papp engine and is without heat. It is unlikely that this Leif Holmild reaction is a hot fusion reaction. It is more likely a reaction based on quantum mechanical entanglement and coherence in a aggregation of hydrogen crystals.

        http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5414.pdf

        Note the pictures of the rydberg matter in the figures at the end of this paper

        F. Winterberg, University of Nevada, Reno, has a reaction mechanism that I like a lot. It is based on a electron vortex and a Bose Einstein condensate(BEC) being imposed on the ultra dense hydrogen crystals of Rydberg matter. But unlike F. Winterberg thinking, I believe that the LASER pulse produces the BEC over the area that it irradiates.

        But Leif Holmild has this dense hydrogen covered through his detection of ultra dense hydrogen Rydberg matter molecule. Yes, that stuff is a molecule and not a single atom and it is very important in LENR. Holmild just showed an experiment that produced 10^13 fusion of D D to He4 using a laser. Holmild has taken control of this theory with work that extends for the last decade.

        http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.2781.pdf

        After the LASER pulse, a very large number of high energy protons up to 14 MeV are detected and measures by test equipment, Up to 10^13 in number. Just like what happens in the Piantelli experiments where protons carry away the nuclear binding energy of copper transmutation, for Holmild, protons carry away the nuclear binding energy of D D fusion. That number of D D reactions exceeds any number of atoms that can be found in a single Rydberg crystal. The LASER must set up a BEC in the area that the laser spot covered. That area of radiance must have covered a large number of individual Rydberg crystals.

        Where the aggregation of crystals form a BEC, they become entangled and coherent. This is what cluster fusion is all about. The aggregation of Rydberg clusters act as a single super-atom. As F. Winterberg suggests, the laser changes the nature of the electrons into polaritons that form a vortex ring that reposition deuterium ions(protons, neutrons) at its center, These ions combine because they are so close in terms of QM entanglement; not PHYSICAL LOCATION. The deuterium atoms are separated physically, but overlap quantum mechanically. When the LASER pulse is complete, the superposition of the protons is resolved and the energy of the fusion of deuterium ions is imparted to the millions of protons in the QM core of the aggregation. But what makes the difference now, the LASER beam is not capable of connecting the region of positive vacuum energy with the associated negitive vacuum energy region so the energy produced by fusion is not thermalized over the population of polaritons. The LASER produces entanglement and not the polaritons so the polaritons do not get the energy, and the polaritons do not thermalize the energy from fusion.

        The important point to understand is that actual location of the deuterium atoms does not matter, the BEC moves all the atoms via the multi connection wormholes so that their wave forms all overlap.

        The formation of the BEC makes the LASER more powerful to induce fusion than does all the power produced in the National Ignition Facility, or NIF. There, a laser beam of 500 terawatt (TW) peak flash of light cannot produce fusion in deuterium. But with Rydberg matter of deuterium, fusion using a laser is easy.

        On the other hand, the Sveinn Ólafsson’s reaction is the Rossi reaction where potassium doped iron oxide produces the polariton vortexes the catalyze the fusion of deuterium and thermalize the nuclear energy of that fusion into heat.

  • Axil Axil

    In the Lugano fuel analysis, not much potassium was detected. LENR activity in the hot cat is carried by hydrogen and lithium. In the E-Cat, potassium is the LENR active element.

  • Axil Axil

    IF you think of the SPP as a rotating black hole, the magnetic energy that projects from its poles produced the disturbances in the vacuum. This magnetic field provides LENR “action at a distance” Energy applied to the vacuum will always distort it. The stabilization of radioactivity is inherent integral to the LENR causal mechanism.

    I have referenced papers here on this site to show how the confinement of electrons and light as SPPs on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism, can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.

    See references:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

    Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below:

    “Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water”

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830

    Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf

    ===============================

    In these experiments, nano geometry converts light energy from the laser into vortex motion of electrons in a nanoplasmonic soliton produced on the surface of the gold nanoparticles. Without the gold nanoparticles, laser light alone is ineffectual in this type of experiment.

    The soliton produces the separation of the vacuum into positive and negative energy zones. It also forces the entanglement of the soliton with the U232 nucleus by pumping energy into the vacuum. This vacuum energy pumping using EMF energy from microwaves also happens in the EmDrive system.

  • Axil Axil

    The radio waves inside the tube may have produced regions of increased and reduced concentration of EMF based on EMF interference patterns do to resonance just like in the EMdrive microwave resonator.

    This EMF pattern would produce associated regions of increased positive and negative vacuum energy. The change in the distribution of vacuum energy inside the tube might have produced a change in nuclear decay rates.

  • Axil Axil

    The LENR reaction is not concentrated in the nickel micro particle because the LENR reaction can endure for a year or more (as per some reports). In order for the micro particles to retain their character and structure, the nuclear active areas must be outside of the nickel micro particles.

    In the Lugano nickel particle examination, that particle was completely covered with lithium. The surface of the micro particles are were the LENR reaction is occuring. The LENR reaction must be occurring in the alkali metal nano particles that find their way onto the surface of the nano wire covering of the nickel particles. These particles form aggregates in which the spaces, projections and voids between and among the collections of these nano particles are where the LENR reaction occur. It is within these aggregates that SPP solitons form.

  • Axil Axil

    The transmutation of the famous Lugano nickel particle into pure Ni62 may have occurred in a single quantum mechanical event where countless Li7 atoms transferred a neutron to Ni58, Ni60, and Ni61. This operation leaves just Li6. All the lithium and nickel may have been entangled in a BEC when this cluster fusion occurred.

  • Eyedoc

    can someone clarify ‘energy of the vacuum’ for an old layman, (who thought he was taught the vacuum of space is total nothingness, devoid of any properties at all)

  • Axil Axil

    “The bottom line, the probability that the weak force affects subatomic particles OUTSIDE the nucleus is almost ZERO.”

    should read

    “The bottom line, the probability that the weak force affects protons and electrons and their interactions OUTSIDE the nucleus is ZERO.”

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding: “Nuclear decay is certain.”

    I am interested in how rapid if not almost instantaneous radioactive stabilization of radioactive isotopes occurs in LENR and only stable isotopes result from nuclear reactions caused by a nanoplasmonic based effect. I am impressed by the possible role of negative vacuum energy in this regard as described in the paper “Effects of Vacuum Fluctuation Suppression on Atomic Decay Rates”.

    At: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1638v1.pdf

    Nuclear decay rates are subject to the state of the vacuum in which the nuclear decay happen. LENR affects the state of the vacuum by separating the vacuum into a zone of high positive vacuum energy and negative vacuum energy. The zone of negative vacuum energy produces a greatly accelerated flow of time in which nuclear decay proceeds essentially instantaneously.

  • Gerard McEk

    Axil, your explanation is clear and absolutely convincing to me. It does not comply with the W-L theory, does it? It does also require a proton to fuse with another proton, lithium- or nickel atom, which may be more difficult to explain. Maybe it comes nearer to the Rossi-Cook suggestion, at
    least for the lithium part? I am sure the surface plasmons are part in that explanation, which is more W-L again?

    • Independent Experimenter

      Dr. Widom also explains that lithium-ion battery thermal runaway could be due to the surface plasmons turning hydrogen into low energy neutrons transmuting lithium-7 into lithium-8 which beta decays into beryllium-8 with the release of a lot of energy.

      However, unexcited Beryllium-8 has a decay energy of only 6.8 eV. It is questionable as wetter the low energy neutrons, a few eV themselves, are sufficient to lead to high energy Beryllium-8 decay. Lithium-8 decays with a Beta minus at 16 MeV, that’s a lot of energy.

      Lithium-7 is stable and I doubt that a low energy neutron would lead to the formation of Lithium-8. It seems Dr. Widom wants to get something for nothing.

    • Axil Axil

      Any theory that depends on neutrons that are formed from coalescence of electrons and protons thus permitting the penetration of the coulomb barrier is wrong in that posit.

      Cluster fusion of N hydrogen atoms might well occur in a single quantum mechanical event to produce a heavier element.