Nuclear Fusion Induced by X-rays in a Crystal (Arxiv.org)

Thanks to Stephen for the following post:

There is a very Interesting paper reported on the LENR Forum by Lou Pagnucco here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.01723

“Nuclear fusion induced by X-rays in a crystal” by V. B. Belyaev, M. B. Miller, J. Otto, S. A. Rakityansky

ABSTRACT: The nuclei that constitute a crystalline lattice, oscillate relative to each other with a very low energy that is not sufficient to penetrate through the Coulomb barriers separating them. An additional energy, which is needed to tunnel through the barrier and fuse, can be supplied by external electromagnetic waves (X-rays or the synchrotron radiation). Exposing to the X-rays the solid compound LiD (lithium-deuteride) for the duration of 111 hours, we have detected 88 events of the nuclear fusion d + 6Li → 8Be∗. Our theoretical estimate agrees with what we observed. One of possible applications of the phenomenon we found, could be the measurements of the rates of various nuclear reactions (not necessarily fusion) at extremely low energies inaccessible in accelerator experiments.

Full PDF is available here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.01723v1

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This might be a little off topic but I thought there might be some useful info in this article.
    http://web.mit.edu/ceder/publications/prb-66-144107-2002.pdf
    For example:
    “The hydriding energies are computed for various crystal structures using density functional theory.”

    “For the alkali and alkali-earth metals hydrogen insertion introduces a hydrogen s state below the Fermi level. In lithium hydride this band is quite wide, explaining lithium hydride’s unusual stability.”

  • Bob Greenyer

    I do remember that – thanks for sharing it – it is as well to be reminded.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I’m not very surprised by their experimental result, i.e. that x-rays give about one fusion reaction per hour. Concerning their mathematical model, to the extent that I understand it, I’m not sure if I agree with it. I would have thought that X-rays mainly interact with electrons, causing ionisation, and that the ionised atom including its nucleus then receives a kick from the electric field of nearby atoms in the lattice.
    The paper anyway shows that 1) X-rays increase fusion probability, 2) the effect is small, 3) no evidence for mystery. The process is too weak to explain CF as such, but it’s possible that CF reaction rate is increased by X-rays, as we discussed on previous page in another context.
    Based on the paper, X-rays seem to increase the hot fusion reaction rate by many orders of magnitude: from virtual zero to something barely measurable. If the same relative increase would happen in CF, then since CF rate is high (kilowatts) with X-rays, it could be unmeasurably small without them. This would mean that CF needs at least two independent ingredients: the “miracle” which enables it in the first place (which I think could be high plasma frequency due to effectively zero mass electrons enabling coupling of plasmons with MeV nuclear energies), and another stimulant such as X-rays which boosts the effect enough to become measurable and useful. In CF, the X-rays would originate from CF itself, directly or indirectly, thus making the process nonlinear and have characteristics of a chain reaction. The “seed” X-ray could be just a random cosmic ray which are always present. X-rays would play a similar role than neutrons play in fission reactor.
    Having said that, the original radiation need not necessarily be X-rays. It could also be some fast charged particles, especially electrons, which produce X-rays when interacting with the matter. And, of course, there could be other stimulants besides X-rays that could make CF going.

    • Stephen

      Its interesting that stimulation around 100s keV seem to come up again and again in experiments both for LENR and other kinds of stimulated fusion due to proton bombardment of targets etc.

      Interestingly some nuclei can have low level initial energy levels below 100 or 200 keV.

      Lithium 7 initial energy is about 477 keV though and Lithium 6 much higher at 2186 keV

      So perhaps no stimulation of lithium occurs in this case (maybe if it was above 477 keV stimulation something would occur?)

      Norman Cook and Andrea Rossi have indicated in their paper last year that Lithium 7 that is excited to the first energy level is more likely absorb a proton. I suppose this is related maybe to the spin parity of the nucleus in this state in relation to the incident proton or an optimum nucleus structure at this energy.

      It would be interesting if heavier nuclei with low nucleus energy levels, especially for those transition elements implicated in LENR such as Ni 61 or Fe 57 are included in the crystal structure.

      (I wonder if electron positron annihilation gamma can excite electrons and associated x-ray bremsstrahlung up to energies > 477 keV?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I do not think that the nuclei need to be stimulated, in the nuclear sense. The X-rays just shake the nuclei so that tunnelling through Coulomb barrier becomes more likely. How this shaking happens is something that can be debated (is it a direct effect on nuclei or indirect effect through electrons and ionisation), but anyway it seemed to do the trick because the authors observed hot fusion reactions.

        Concerning the Cook and Rossi paper, to me the paper looks just wrong. Either that, or I misunderstood it completely.

        One has to keep in mind all the time that based on what we know observationally, the reaction is embarrassingly radiation-free. That few times background X-rays were seen by MFMP doesn’t change it, because their power is nine (or whatever) orders of magnitude below heat output. For this reason, I am rather sceptical to models where high-energy quanta play an important stimulating role. High energy quanta (>30keV) exist since MFMP saw them (if the measurement was right), but in so small numbers that they cannot have much to do with stimulating the reaction. Their low energy cousins can be much more numerous and can play a role in stimulation, but they are at the moment hidden from view.

        • Stephen

          Hi Pekka. I entirely agree in this particular experiment it works exactly the way you described. This is why quite low rates if fusion were seen fully consistent with that model.

          The high energies i alluded to in other setups would I suppose be below the plasma frequency and therefore perhaps support the plasmons you mentioned. This means any radiation would be evanescent at those frequencies and maybe couple with the thermal electrons with out propogating as gamma quanta.

          Incidentally could you by chance point me to a good reference on the zero mass electrons and high plasminogen MeV. I found a lot on the plasma frequency being lowered in graphine with heavy electrons but not much the other way. Is there a good paper which shows the coupling of zero mass electrons with high MeV plasmons or one that describes the electrical characteristics of these plasmons including the plasma frequency? Maybe I was wrong about the plasma frequency associated with these objects being high in keV?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Stephen: For Dirac plasmons, paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3822 looks interesting.

          My background is not in solid state physics, but in space plasma physics. Hence my approach may bee simplistic.

          • Stephen

            Thanks Pekka, for the link I will enjoy reading it. Your knowledge is far from simplistic. I have huge respect for your views and ideas and inventions. Having touched on Space Plasmas, Solar Flares and Corona and the earth bow shock when studying Astrophysics a very long time ago I understand the huge scope of your background even if I have forgotten many details and perhaps even many fundamentals myself. These days I still work in space technology but at a much simpler level more as an engineer.

            Condensed matter physics is new to me too so probably it is my ideas that are over simplistic. I have huge curiosity though and like to see good new ideas and technology developed.

            • Pekka Janhunen

              Thanks. One note about the paper I gave. It seems to me that their conclusion that the long-wavelength limit is fully quantum mechanical is not correct. Namely, although their modified fine structure constant is proportional to 1/sqrt(h), the dependence of Fermi velocity vF on h cancels the h-dependence. Their equation 7c boils down to the usual classical plasma frequency formula sqrt(n*e^2/(epsilon0*me)) [apart from a numerical factor 0.89 which might also be my calculation error].

              • Stephen

                Hehe thanks Pekka I can see I have some revision to do and some new learning too 😉

                It’s a very interesting paper though, I need to get more into it get to grips with the quantum mechanical nature of Dirac Plasmas and their conclusion and your view on it. I’m not there yet, but I have one simpler question if I may that maybe relevant or not.

                On page 3 paragraph 2 they talk about the effect of density on the plasma frequency of Dirac Plasmas. Normally in Plasmas the plasma frequency (wp) is proportional to sqrt of electon density (n) According to this paragraph. For Dirac Plasmas. 3D Plasma has wp proportional to n^1/3, 2D Plasma has wp proportional to n^1/4 and 1D Plasma has wp proportional to n^0.

                If we ignore change in mass of the carrier In effect the change in the relationship to density would result in lower wp in the Dirac Plasma compared to normal. This is consistent I think with what I have read about reduced wp elsewhere.

                I havnt gone through all the details yet but wouldn’t the change in density dependence counter the effect of change in mass especially in the 1D case?

                Or does the change in ‘root type’ also effect other parameters under the sqrt term of the normal equation apart from density including the mass in the denominator?

                Well Its a good paper a lot of maths to try to understand and I guess the answers are in there I just need to read and study and try to understand a bit more.

                • Pekka Janhunen

                  It seems to me that n-dependence of Fermi velocity vF which is n^(1/3), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_energy , makes the overall n-dependence sqrt(n). Notice that in 7c, vF appears as multiplicative factor and also inside sqrt(r_s).

                  (I assume that Fermi velocity obeys its usual formula. If it’s not so, then what I said is wrong.)

                • Stephen

                  Yup if n3 is indeed equivalent to N/V in the normal Fermi velocity formula in Dirac Plasmas it looks to me that you are right for the 3D case as described in equation 7c

                  I wonder how it goes in the 2D and 1D Dirac plasma case (7a and 7b))

                  I suppose as n^5/12 in 2D case and n^1/6 in 1D case? I’m not sure if the Fermi velocity formula is applicable in these cases?

  • Rene

    Now there is a fine example of a COP of 0.00000001

  • bachcole

    Very interesting!!!

  • Michael W Wolf

    Are they saying the Coulomb barrier can be penetrated with less energy than is supposed to be possible?

    • Ged

      More like, that one can cheat using lattice vibrations and energetic “kicks” to smash nuclei together. Just like Ni-Li-H cold fusion that the E-cat is all about, if a simpler version.

  • Mike Henderson

    It is quite refreshing to see the mathematics of the energy well, probabilities and rates followed by an experiment that spot-on confirms the prediction. It would be interesting to see the same approach taken to an H-loaded Ni FCC crystal.

  • Gerard McEk

    So once you have X-Ray’s,the reaction continues, like Bob Greenyer already proposes in his vid presentations. Good!
    It does not explain the initial gamma pulse. (Step 4 in Mats Lewans/Bobs proposed LENR theory). In that step H- spirals down to a Ni atom, releasing a lot of Auger electrons and may at the end fuse with the Ni atom or release a high energy proton. This step is initiated by quick changes in temperature. It is one of the most controversial steps at this moment. (Not that is does not happen in practice, but how it theoretical should work). Very interesting to follow these discussions.

    • roseland67

      Gerard,

      Has Bob been able to replicate the gamma burst yet?
      Absolutely critical he does, once that is done,
      And the recipe to do same is documented, the how and why will be deciphered.
      I would not expect academia will spend any time at all trying to understand something they don’t believe can happen.

      • Michael W Wolf

        In one of bob’s videos, I recall him hinting at that. But I was thinking. maybe they are working on a way to demonstrate it, now that they think they are getting a handle on it. I think sooner or later you will see a guy putting it in his car, live for all to see. I don’t see it happening until they learn how to do it initially with capacitors to get it going. Then loop it back to self sustain. There has really got to be a theory to perfect it.

      • Bob Greenyer

        SKINR / University of Missouri starting main part of first analogue replication attempt.

        Arik Boher has confirmed that the team at SKINR received the Nanoshel Passivated Lithium from Brian Albiston and, following confirmation of procedure for sealing and preparation are loading their cell.

        For the past week, they have been processing their Carbonyl Nickel in the way described in the MFMP recipe and, when they have started, there will be a near 3 day warm up to get in to the region of “Signal”. We wish them interesting data.

        In the meantime, Dennis C. Pease, Ph.D. sent over their list of toys they have on hand for emission analysis! mmmm

        Some INFO About SKINR radiation detection capability:

        1. We have two Amptek high spectral resolution low energy x-ray detectors which have a nominal range of 1 – 100 KeV but which are most sensitive below 30 KeV. Both of these detectors we have used to monitor various LENR experiments for the last 2 to 3 years.

        A) An XR-100CR Si-PIN diode detector which we are using with a PC board based MCA and Maestro software.

        B) An Amptek X-123 detector which also uses a Si-PIN an all-in-one which has a built in MCA

        2. We have a Canberra radiation monitoring system which includes both an NP100H Neutron Detector and a MD455E Beta-Gamma Scintillation detector. This radiation monitoring system has been “ON” for about the last year and we have witnessed a couple high level “events” which had no apparent correlation to the nearest experiment. (Unfortunately this system is not currently configured to log data so we must be near enough to hear the alarm and then see the display to get any info on an “event”.

        A) The MD455E uses dual plastic and Bismuth Germanate (BGO) scintillators which are coupled to a single PM tube with a Canberra PA300E preamplifier / pulse shape discriminator that is used to distinguish beta from gamma pulses. (It does not currently have an MCA to allow energy discrimination.) We have not tested or calibrated the response ourselves but the manual specifications show provide Beta sensitivity from 50 Kev to 1 Mev and Gamma sensitivity from 70 KeV to 3 MeV.

        B) The NP100H Neutron Detector uses a 3He proportional counter encased in a cylinder of high density polyethylene to simulate human body response to neutrons from 0.025 eV to 15 MeV . We have not tested this detector in the last five years with an actual neutron source but we do have local sources available at the University. Usually these sorts of detectors are quite reliable with only slight degradation over time due to Helium loss/contamination.

    • Michael W Wolf

      It seems to me you regular folks on these boards are actually aiding in the understanding of this invisible process that can be created with controlled, and eventually harnessed so it can be useful. You guys should be paid with some grants. MFMP people are very humble and receptive. I hope you all are successful and get the rewards you deserve for your enlightening inputs.

      • Gerard McEk

        A grand is not really needed Michael, although MFMP deserves it. What everyone can do is to try bringing it to the public. Inform people newspapers etc. At some time politicians will come and then the grands.

  • jimbo92107

    What a wonderful new playground. Vibrating atoms trapped in lattices, just to see what shakes out, if they merge, transmute, give off heat, electricity, or other things. Imagine how Faraday would have loved these experiments!

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    The E- Cat reactor operating essentially two reactions : D + D = T + P in nickel and P + 7Li = 2He reaction with a proton and lithium primary energy . Converting soft gamma energy through the plasmon mechanism

  • Ged

    If the E-cat X works half as well as the hype, we will.

    • Michael W Wolf

      But brother. Hype doesn’t matter. If they put out more power then it takes to run, then that reactor is an achievement that will change the world all by itself. Remember 1 watt more than what is possible will do. 🙂 For me anyway.

      • DrD

        Heat pumps hve been doing that for decades.

  • Ged

    Well boy howdy. That is interesting, if the data is sound. X-rays impact the electron shell directly, so they have very interesting atomic effects; but in this case, likely causing brief ionizations resulting in much higher frequency lattice vibrations. Hmmmm.