Friday, October 9, 2015

LEONID URUTSKOEV: Phenomenological model of collective Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

My dear Readers,
What follows is the paper that will be presented by Leonid Urutskoev at the
11th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals 15-16 October 2015 Airbus, Toulouse, France. I am publishing it with the kind permission of ISCMNS, the copyright owner. Special thanks!
In my opinion it is a very important paper based on uncommon ideas, bold creative thinking and high class experiments- it can contribute, more or less directly to the much needed awakening, renewal, paradigm shift in LENR.
I am grateful to the author for his bold revolutionary ideas in physics and for his generous support given to EGO OUT, for the privilege to be his friend.
"Phenomenological model of collective Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (Transformation)
After the famous press conference of Fleischmann and Pons, the term "cold fusion" ingrained behind the physical phenomenon of nuclear reactions at low temperatures.  The opening idea of American scientists was that use of Pd cathode during electrolysis of "heavy" water could initiate nuclear fusion of deuterium (D + D) in the atomic lattice of Pd. But in the conclusions of the scientific article [1] published later, it was stated that the registered quantity of neutrons, tritium and gamma rays is by many orders of magnitude below the level that is needed to provide explanations for additional thermal power.  It hereof follows that in the above experiment, the synthesis of deuterium is not a major nuclear process responsible for the allocation of additional thermal power. However, the term "synthesis" firmly entrenched in the minds of not only ordinary people, but of scientists engaged in LENR research as well.

The experimental conditions of creating a phenomenological model
Interest of the authors of this report to the LENR problem emerged in the late 90s of the last century in the study of multi-channel (8 channels were used) high current electric explosion of titanium foils in water. During the research, it was accidentally discovered that strong distortion of the original (natural) isotopic distribution was observed in the titanium powder formed by electric explosion. The relative Ti48content in the powder was ~65% instead of natural 73.8% [2]. The measurements were duplicated on several types of mass spectrometers and the measurement results of isotopic Ti distortion coincided up to the inevitable experimental error ~1%. Moreover, with high accuracy degree no significant neutron flux or gamma radiation were registered during the experiments.
Analysis of numerous mass-spectrometric measurements showed that the parent nucleus Ti48 transgress not into a nuclei of other Ti isotopes or the nearest neighbors in the periodic table, which should have been observed in conventional nuclear reactions, but rather "dissolve" into a range of subsidiary chemical elements (from the lightest - to zinc) [2]. This process is clearly contrary to the traditional nuclear physics and initially seemed to be impossible.
The results of these experiments were independently confirmed by a similar setup at the Institute for Nuclear Research (Dubna). [3] Analysis of the experimental results showed that chemical elements are formed both lighter than iron (such as Al and Si) and heavier than iron. Energy reserve, which was used in the experiment, was not enough to initiate either one or the other process. The capacitor bank stored only 50 kJ per 1019-20 acts of nuclear reactions.  Analyzing these results suggested the hypothesis that both synthesis and fission can occur at     the same time. This can be represented as if the wave functions of the nuclei, for some reason, overlapped and an ensemble of the nearby nuclei "feel" themselves as a single kernel, in which protons and neutrons can be redistributed.
Some experiments on electric explosion were accompanied with a loud bang, and in these cases bright plasma glow occurred over the installation. In these experiments, a significant distortion of the isotopic Ti distribution was recorded. In the other experiments, the sound was quieter and no plasma "ball" or isotopic distortions were observed. Moreover, energy stored in the capacitor bank was the same, and even in "successful" experiments the installation was not destroyed. Consequently, the energy released by the nuclear processes in the order of magnitude matched that of the capacitor bank. Thus, the energy released in the observed nuclear reactions was significantly less than what could be expected in nuclear reactions as described in the traditional nuclear physics. This fact imposes stringent requirements on the enthalpy of hypothetical nuclear processes. Therefore, the question arises: is it possible to choose the combination of atoms in which the mass of the parent atom is different from that of the daughter atoms by the scale of chemical energy ≤ 1 keV (the mass of an electron is 0.5 MeV)?
If we assume a hypothetical possibility of collective nuclear reactions (according to some unknown new physical mechanism), it is necessary to require compliance with the fundamental conservation laws: energy, baryon, lepton and electric charges. A computer model was created that showed that if you allow the occurrence of weak nuclear processes and take Ti, O and H     as parent nuclei, it is possible to choose the combination, where you can obtain daughter nuclei which are located in the periodic table before Zn inclusive. This was consistent with the experimental data. The model was called phenomenological, because there was no physical mechanism behind it, but only conservation laws. The phenomenological model suggested that   if vanadium atoms are added to the parent atoms, it must form Fe57 isotope. This is a rare isotope and it is easy to identify.  A corresponding experiment was conducted, and the result coincided with the predictions of the model, which was the argument in favor of the correctness of the path chosen.
The results have convinced us that there must be a new type of nuclear reactions, which we have called: transformation reactions (as opposed to the term "transmutation", which is used by all LENR researchers and which implies a shift of the nucleus of one chemical element into the nucleus of another chemical element). The introduction of the term "transformation", which was taken from the theory of groups, was intended to emphasize the fact that this is an entirely new class of nuclear reactions with a collective, rather than a two-partial character. It is usually considered that three- (or more) partial collisions are rare. However, collisions do not occur in transformation reactions. They are more similar to the exchange reactions rather than traditional nuclear reactions in which an intermediate nucleus occurs resulting from a collision and then breaks into the excited fragments. In nuclear physics, everyone is used to the fact that the greater the energy yield of the reaction channel, the more likely it occurs. Comparison of the experimental data against the results of calculations of the phenomenological model showed that   all proceeds contrary in the transformation reactions, the smaller the difference in the masses ensembles of parent and daughter nuclei, the more likely the reaction to proceed through this channel.
In the electric explosion experiment majority of the daughter elements are formed in the isotopic distribution which is close to the natural one (with the exception of iron and antimony). Thus, the transformation reactions may be that very basic process that underlies the formation of matter, since it is an approximately constant isotopic distribution of chemical elements found in all visible regions of the universe allows us to assert about a unified mechanism of origin of matter (stars, planets, meteorites).

I apologize for the trouble, have some technical and vision problems with my Blog.

Phenomenological model
One of the problems of the traditional nuclear physics is calculating the energy balance from the known reaction products. Well-known characteristics of nuclei are used for its solution: the nuclear binding energy, nuclear mass, the mass defect of the nucleus. The task faced by phenomenological model is somewhat different and it is in finding the unknown sets of daughter nuclei close in energy to the original set of cores. The above characteristics are not convenient for the solution of that problem. First, these characteristics do not take into account the laws of conservation of electric and baryon charge (number of nucleons) - it is necessary to simultaneously monitor these conservation laws in the calculation of the energy of nuclear reactions. Second, these characteristics were chosen with rather inconvenient zero levels: for example, the binding energy is equal to zero for both proton and neutron - and this is quite different objects; and the mass defect of the nucleus is zero in C12 nucleus, which does not reflect physical reality.
The basis for constructing a phenomenological model of collective transformation of nuclei is a new energy rule that allows convenient, adequate and unique evaluation of the sets (groups, ensembles) of cores. This is of the norm of nuclei set {Xi}:
‖{Xi}‖=iNXi ,
Xi=Wi+(Zi-Ai)(mn-mH) ,
where Wi, Zi and Ai- the binding energy , the charge (in units of the electron charge) and the atomic mass of the nucleus Xi; mn and mH - the mass of the neutron and the neutral hydrogen atom:
mn-mH≈782.3 keV - the energy of β-decay of a neutron into a bound state of an electron (i.e. β-decay with the formation of neutral hydrogen atom). Introduced norm automatically takes into account the preservation of the electric and baryon charges during nuclear transformations and equal to zero on the set, consisting of neutral hydrogen atoms.
If we consider the traditional nuclear reactions (nuclear decay, fission, fusion)
inputXifinXj ,
then the energy released in a nuclear reaction is equal to the difference between the original atomic masses of elements and the reaction products:
Q=inputMi-finMj .
Let us proceed from the masses of neutral atoms M to the nuclear binding energy W:
Mi=(Ai-Zi)mn+Zi(mp+me)-Wi ,
where mp and me - masses of a proton and an electron. It should be remembered that, based on the definition of the nuclear binding energy, it follows that it is not the nucleons binding energy in the nucleus, but the sum of binding energy of the nucleons in the nucleus and the electrons in the neutral atom [4]. I.e. the binding energy W - is the energy required for the separation of neutral atom into its constituent protons, neutrons and electrons of the atomic shell. The fact that this is precisely the total binding energy of nucleus and the atomic electrons, follows, for example, from the measuring method of the binding energy in the β-decay of nuclei - to determine the binding energy (which are indicated in the tables of physical quantities) the decays of neutral atoms in the neutral atoms are investigated. That is why the β-decay of fully ionized nuclei has a completely different energy of β-decay and a different β-decay period, compared with the decay of neutral atoms [5]. Of course, in most cases, the energy of the electrons in an atom can be neglected in comparison with the binding energy of the nucleons in the nucleus, when we calculate the energy released in the traditional nuclear reactions. However, the energy of the electrons in the atom cannot be neglected in the calculation of the energy released in the collective nuclear transformation.
The suggested nuclei norm Xi  is the energy required for the separation of neutral atoms to neutral hydrogen atoms and neutrons, followed by the decay of neutrons in the neutral hydrogen atoms. This means that the zero of this norm is selected for the set of nuclei consisting of neutral hydrogen atoms. To determine the energy released (or absorbed) by nuclear transformation of some initial set of nuclei in the final set, it is necessary to subtract the norm of the initial set from norm of a final set. You do not need to follow the laws of conservation of electric and baryon charge - they are included in norm and are included in the calculation automatically.
We believe that the process of collective nuclear transformation proceeds in the "delicate" way in which nuclear transformations occur between multiple nuclei with close total energies, that is the process goes through the resonance path. The use of this norm in the phenomenological model allows to quickly find the ensembles of nuclei close in value of the total energy. When searching for the closest sets, only nuclei other than hydrogen should be taken into account. Unlike the solutions of traditional problems of nuclear physics in which the energy of processes is calculated with well-known products of the reaction, the problem of the phenomenological model consists in finding the unknown sets of nuclei close in energy to the original set of cores. Obviously, the use of the proposed norm, which take into account the laws of conservation of baryon and electric charges, greatly facilitates the task.

Rossi Experiments
We suggest to consider the reaction of the proton capture by nucleus Li7 [6] in an attempt to explain the observed isotopic distortion of Li in the Rossi experiments:
Li7+p→Be8+17.255 MeV→2He4+17.347 MeV .
From our point of view, it does not explain the process of transformation, which leads to a distortion of the isotopic distribution of Li: first, a lot of energy produced during this reaction, and secondly there is a similar reaction for Li6
Li6+p→He4+He3+4 MeV
If we assume that the transformation proceed through the channels with small energies, then the analysis of the closest, by the phenomenological model, sets can explain pre-emptive disappearance of the Li7 nuclei compared to Li6 nuclei. At the same time the results of the calculation shows that the hydrogen atoms are absorbed in three partial transformation process:
Li7+2H→Li6+He3+0.47 MeV
Also, the phenomenological model implies that Li7 better combines with Ni rather than Li6, for example:
Li7+Ni60+2H→N15+Mg25+Si29+0.004 MeV
The authors of this paper have little doubt in the fact that the "cold fusion" phenomenon    does not exist. At the heart of the processes observed in the LENR experiments, lie low-energy transformations which bear a collective character.

  1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons and M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261, 301 (1989).
  2. L. I. Urutskoev, V. I. Liksonov, V. G. Tsinoev, Ann. Fond. L. de Broglie 27, 701 (2002).
  3. V. D. Kunznetsov, G. V. Mishinsky, F. M. Penkov, V. I. Arbuzov, V. I. Zhemenik, Ann. Fond. L. de Broglie 28, 173 (2003).
  4. L. I. Urutskoev, D. V. Filippov, Physics–Uspekhi 47, 1257 (2004).
  5. F. Bosch, T. Faestermann, J. Friese, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5190 (1996)
  6. N. Cook, A. Rossi, On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the E-Cat,

Wednesday, October 7, 2015



Dear Friends,
PLEASE tell: which old ideas and principles have to be abandoned and 
which new ideas and principles  have to be accepted, developed and used in order
to solve the problems of LENR?
For the sake of simplicity- please no more than a dozen ideas in one essay.
For the sake of LENR and its future, please reject any hope of simplicity in solutions.


1) MFMP  publishes statement frm Naval Research Labs source on LENR

2) A critical discussion about the possibility of directly extracting electric energy from LENR, taking into account the configurations of Rossi, Piantelli, Open Power

3) A Comparative Analysis about the Role of Lithium in A. Rossi’s Patent, F. Piantelli’s Patent and Open Power’s Patent Application

4) Electron Mediated Nuclear Reactions (EMNR) - Andrea Calaon (Terni Conference - Claudio Pace)
5) Andrea Rossi about the household E-Cat
October 7th, 2015 at 7:02 PM

Giannino Ferro Casagrande:
Thank you.
About the domestic E-Cat off the shelf: it is absolutely impossible to make a scheduling. Supposed at the end of Feb we will have positive results ( but this is not sure) we will have to:
1- buy a factory ( that’s fast)
2- buy and install the massive production system
3- complete the safety certification
How much time will be necessary for these issues? I do not know, but I will continue to work to make it as fast as possible.
Honestly, I am already working on this; the engineering of the robotized lines is done. We are working.
Warm Regards,

6) In the USA it was created a harmless nuclear reactor of 1MW based on Li-7
В США запущен безопасный ядерный реактор 1 МВт на Li-7

7) The recent interview with Andrea Rossi in Russian
07/10/2015]  Интервью с Андреа Росси, пионером низкоэнергетического ядерного синтеза

8) A Small Peek At IEEE Meeting On “LENR PHENOMENON”


About reproducibility
How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop
Humans are remarkably good at self-deception. But growing concern about reproducibility is driving many researchers to seek ways to fight their own worst instincts. by Regina Nuzzo
07 October 2015



in place of a Motto:
"Well that is NRL's experience ...  meanwhile Rossi is pumping out 1MW from his grams of dirt. Stay tuned."


In the spirit of the Motto, the explanation of DeChiaro is far from encouraging for 
the  future of PdD - and does not make that system better cognoscible and/or more manageable. The model he uses is far from Storms' nano-crack hydroton model.

Other: Jean Francois' theory breakthrough paper has a more direct title now, it is not more-or not only about "Energy Creation" but about "Reverting the Burden of Proof of the Non-Existence of LENR to Orthodox Physicists"  A bright idea but the orthodox physicists have many methods of self-defending, Teflon brains is only one the invincible ones.


First some echo-papers more or less
Luis DeChiaro of US NAVAL SYSTEMS  command about replicating Pons and Fleischmaan
It has generated many interesting discussions in more languages

Now interview with Andrea Rossi published at the Huffington Press

Some of the Biggest Names in Tech are interested in Fusion

UPDATE: Hot Fusion Professor Says LENR Scientists Should Check For Muons

Claudio Pace: LenrTerni Filmati News e considerazioni finali

Andrea Rossi
October 6th, 2015 at 4:58 PM

I have, but I will not emit further publications on this issue until Prof Cook, our mathematician and I will have reached a rigorous and conclusive interpretation of all the data, included the data that will come from the analysis of the ashes of the 1MW plant n course of tests and R&D.
Warm Regards,

Critical conditions needed for LENR aka Cold Fusion

From Louis DeChiaro
 He discusses the atomic vibrational LENR initiation mechanism.
There is a lengthy list of prerequisite conditions for successful LENR.

1. It is necessary to set up conditions favoring the formation of molecular hydrogen (H2 or D2) inside the solid lattice for a certain range of possible values of lattice constant and for some fraction of the allowed values for electron momentum. This condition alone rules out almost ALL the elemental , because the electron density is just too large to permit molecules to form, except near vacancies in the lattice where a metal atom is absent.

2. The overall hydrogen loading fraction (ratio of hydrogen to palladium atoms, for example) must exceed the minimum threshold of about 0.88, otherwise the “party” never even gets started. Achieving this level of loading in Pd is not trivial.

3. Conditions must be set up (by appropriate choice of materials parameters and achieved by the right kind of alloying) so that these hydrogen molecules can be caused to break up and then re-assemble very rapidly in a periodic time sequence when an appropriate physical quantity such as background electric charge, magnetic field, etc. is made to oscillate periodically over a small range.

4. The critical value of lattice constant at which this break up and reassembly occurs must lie very close to the nominal value of lattice constant for which the ground state energy of the lattice is minimal. This requirement alone rules out essentially all of the elemental lattices and about 99% of the binary and ternary alloys.

5. A departure from equilibrium must be established that will permit an external energy source (eg. the DC power supply in an electrolysis experiment and/or a pair of low power lasers as in the Letts/Hagelstein two laser experiment) to feed energy into the H-H or D-D stretching mode vibrations. 

6. The nature of the lattice must permit these stretching mode vibrations to grow so large (over a period of perhaps many nanoseconds) that their amplitude becomes comparable to the lattice constant. When this occurs, the H atoms oscillate so violently that at the instants of closest approach, the curvature of the parabolic energy wells in which the atomic nuclei vibrate will become perturbed

7. When the curvatures of the parabolic energy wells of the nuclei are modulated at a frequency very near the natural resonant frequency, the quantum expectation value of the nuclear wave function spatial spread will oscillate with time in such a way that the positive-going peaks grow exponentially with time. 

This was verified by doing a direct numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger Equation for a single nuclear particle in a parabolic energy well. These oscillations in spatial spread will periodically delocalize the nucleus and facilitate the tunneling of adjacent nuclei into the Strong Force attractive nuclear potential well, giving rise to nuclear fusion at rates that are several tens of orders of magnitude larger than what one calculates via the usual Gamow Factor integral relationship.

Almost none of this material was obvious back in 1989. Without knowing what one is doing and why it works, the probability of achieving successful results via the so-called Edisonian method of trial and error is disappointingly low. Reasonable scientists and engineers can be forgiven for their difficulty in believing that there might exist ANY circumstances under which such things could be possible. And to be blunt, it was only in the last few months that the causal chain finally became clear.

The Naval Research Labs (NRL) ran over 300 experiments using pure Pd cathodes, all of them yielding negative results. Then somebody suggested that NRL should try an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Rh. The very first such alloy cathode they tried yielded over 10,000 Joules of excess thermal energy – all from less than 1 gram of cathode material. I ran Density Functional Theory simulations on that alloy, and it, too, satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Pd and pure Rh do not.
A nice Anonymous write re a paper I found yesterday but it was not freely 
 You can access the paper 
"The release behavior of helium in palladium nanowire: A molecular dynamics study" here: