This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

341) High voltage electrolysis:
neutrons and production of tritium


Ludwik Kowalski; 12/25/2007

Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA

Introduction
1) During a recent conference in Catania Yuri Bazhutov suggested that we use CR-39 detectors to explore a possibility that track-forming nuclear particles are emitted in one of the setup he experimented with in the past. This suggestion was a natural outcome of our conference presentations, my talk about investigations of Oriani-type effect and his poster about the ongoing search for erzions, elementary particles that might be able to account for some CMNS effects. Similar suggestion for cooperation was made by Pierre Clauzon, when I visited him in Paris (on the way to Catania). Pierre demonstarted to me generation of excess heat in an improved setup for high voltage electrolysis. About a month ago I sent each of them several CR-39 chips to perform preliminary, background testing, experiments. So it is about time I write something about about Yuri’s experiment in which the CR-39 will be used. Pierre’s new setup, by the way, is described in a report that can be downloaded from the library at <www.lenr-canr.html>. Numerous Bazhutov reports can also be downloaded from that library.

2) The concept of an erzion, a massive hadron, was first formulated, in 1981. Existence of such stable particle was postulated to explain energy spectra of cosmic-rays muons. According to Bazhutov’s Catania presentation, there are two erzions, negative, Eo and E-. Their internal structure, in terms of quarks, is not essential in my context. The rest mass of an erzion is said to be close to 200 u (atomic mass units), the charge of the negative erzion is the same as the charge of an electron. Negative erzions are believed to form loosly-bound structures with positive atomic nuclei. These structures are called enions. The binding energy of E- and p, for example, is said to be ~1.5 eV, while the binding energy E- and 208Pb, is ~50eV.

Electrolytic - anodic glow discharge
3) Let me begin be summarizing a Russian paper of Y. N. Bazhutov, W.G. Grishin and W.N, Nosov. The title is “Electrolytic anodic glow discharge.” The date can be inferred from the most recent reference --2003. The high voltage electrolysis apparatus used by Bazhutov et al, is illustrated in Figure 1. The upper left part shows Bazhutov’s cell immersed in cooling water. The electrolyte is 7M KF in a 50% mixture of light and heavy water. The stainless steel cathode, on the right side, had the area of 400 cm^2. The anode was a tungsten rod (diameters 1 to 6 mm), only partially immersed in the liquid. The cell had to be cooled (in the aquarium-like container with ordinary water) because the electric power dissipated in the cell was rather high (glow discharge at 300 v with various currents up to 2A, depending on experiments).

4) The glow discharge at ~300 V, near the anode, was said to be quazi-stable (current in the plateau region was changing monotonically from about 1.2A at 200 V to about 1.5A at 300 V). Typically an experiment lasted for about one hour, depending on the rate at which the anode was consumed. Some electrolyte had to be added to the cell during the discharge to keep the current constant, more or less. The cell was placed into an aquarium-like vessel containing cold water. The temperature of the electrolyte was rising during the experiment, typically up to 50 C.

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

Figure 1
Bazhutov’s cell. Dots in the right side of the aquarium-like vessel represent bubbles formed in cold water.

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

5) The phenomenon discovered in these experiments consisted of unexplained changes in cooling water. After 40 minutes water on the right side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency. Water on the left side remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed from the right side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transpaency with other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water.

Erzion interpretation of bubble formation
6) Note that cooling water at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced when neutral erzions, Eo, generated at the anode, are elastically scattered on 16O. Enions are always present in water (one out of 1015 nuclei in 16O is believed to be attached to a negative erzion).

7)Here are some calculations. At the current of 1 A, the flux of OH- ions, in the electrolyte, is ~1019 per second. Thus, the flux of enions bombarding the anode is 1019*10-15 = 104 per second. The following nuclear transmutation reactions, induced by enions, are believed to take place in the anode:

180W + EN = E- + 181W (equivalent to 180W + n = 181W)
182W + EN = E- + 183W (equivalent to 182W + n = 183W)
183W + EN = E- + 184W (equivalent to 183W + n = 184W)

8) Erzions produced in these reactions are expected to be isotropically distributed. In a 1 cm layer of the 50% D2O electrolyte; their intensity is expected to be reduced by the factor of ten, due to inelastic nuclear reactions with deuterium. The glass wall of 2 mm is believed to be totally transparent to neural erzions. Thus the flux of neutral erzions arriving into the cooling water on the right side is expected to be about 10000*0.1*0.1=100 per second. The first 0.1 factor is due to absorption; the second is due to scattering in the electrolyte(the solid angle effect). This can be contrasted with the expected flux of negative erzions of 0.001 per second on the left side of the cell (because the layer of the electrolyte between the anode and the wall of the cell is 6 cm). That is why the effect described in the next paragraph is not observed on the left side.

9) Neutral erzions, entering cooling water have a range of about 1 cm. They collide with oxygen nuclei and produce recoils with energies close to ~0.1 MeV. Ranges of such recoils in water are about 1 micron. Each recoiling oxygen nucleus is thus able to produce a highly ionized region. Long-lasting bubbles of vapor (half-life of 10 hrs) are formed in regions of high ionization. Sizes of bubbles are of the order of 1 mm. Each negative erzion, entering cooling water, produces about 10 bubbles. The estimated number of long-lasting bubbles, produced in 1000 seconds is one million. In reading this I was thinking about bouble chambers containing liquid nitrogen. Such track-recording instruments were often used in high energy research.

Appended on 1/12/08
10) Let me begin be summarizing another Russian paper; it describes more recent resualts obtained by using a similar high-voltage electrolytic cell. The authors are Y. N. Bazhutov, V. Y. Velikdnyi, W.G. Grishin, A.W. Eremeev, E.W. Pletnikov, A. D. Rumiancev, Y. A. Sapozhnikov and N. I. Khokholov. The title is “Nuclear diagnostics of cold fusion transmutation at electrolysis with anodic gas discharge in water solutions.”

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

Figure 2
Experimental setup showing the detector of neutrons (on the left) and the detector of gamma rays (on the right of the cell).

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

The paper begins by mentioning earlier publicaions that provided motivation for the new study. In the first publication the radioactive 183 Ta was produced during the electrolysis. It has been identified by characteristic gamma radiation peaks and by the half-life. The second publication has been described above (starting at point 3). The experimental setup in the new investigation was essentially the same as summarized above, except that four nuclear instruments were used in anticipation of nuclear radiation. These were:

a) NaI gamma ray spectrometer (6.3 by 6.3 cm) had a background of 100 c/s. Spectra, in the energy range of up to ~2MeV, were recorded on the 1024 multichannel analyzer.

b) A commercial gamma dosimeter “Sosna” (background 0.1 micro-rad per hour)

c) Two liquid scintillators to study production of tritium in the electrolyte (background ~1 Bk/mL). Samples of electrolyte (removed from the cell before and after each experiment) were injected into the liquid scintillator to detect tritium.

d) A commercial detector of thermal neutrons (RUP-1”) The available ranges ( n/cm2 per second were: 100, 1000, 10000 and 100000 sensitivity could be chosen

Twelve series of experiments, using different electrolytes and different anodes, were performed between July 20 and September 1, 2005. Cell temperature, current and voltage were recorded each minute. The readings of the dosimeter and of the neutron flux detector were also recorded each minute.

11) The NaI detector was accumulating counts during the electrolysis and then, for the same duration, after the electrolysis. The authors wrote “unfortunately, the spectra were never seen to be not significantly different from the background.” But emission of neutrons, and production of tritium, were observed in some experiments. Numerical results (minute-by-minute readings of the neutron detector), are shown in their figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The reported 2 neutron/cm2 per second background was exceeded in all cases. But the actual counts in the 7th series, for example, fluctuated between 20 and 75 while in the 9th series they fluctuated between 2000 and 2200.

12) Production of tritium, on the other hand, took place only in the 5th series. It was at the level of about three times the background. The authors conclude “if we were really recording neutrons, then the maximum production (in the 9th series) was ~106. Using the data from series 5, in which production of tritium was observed, we conclude that the ratio of the total number of tritons (1012) over the total number of neutrons (107) was close to 105. This is typical for cold fusion experiments but not for thermonuclear reactions, where the ratio is close 1.”

13) The motivation for these experiments was to check the hypothesis that neutrons are produced by reactions induced by erzions. With this in mind, the electrolyte in series 11, was changed to make such reactions impossible (according to previously postulated mechanism). The absence on the emission of neutrons in that series confirmed the hypothesis. In all other series the choice of the electrolyte was made to maximize, not to minimize, the mechanism based on erzion theory. In that sense, one can say that experimental results are consistent with the theory.

Appended on 1/18/08
14) Here is a brief summary of some terminology. Hopefully, it will be sufficient in the context of Yuri’s investigations. It is based on what I knew before the conference in Catania and what I learned from Yuri during that conference.

a) Nucleons are not elementary particles; they are composed of particles called quarks. The up quark, u, has a charge of +2e/3 while the down quark, d, has a charge of -1e/3, where e is the magnitude of the charge of one electron.

b) A neutron consists of one u and two d; that is why its electric charge is zero. A proton consists of two u and one d; that is why its charge is +1e.

n = {u,d,d} <---- charge of n is +2/3 -1/3 - 1/3 = 0

p = {u,u,d} <---- charge of p is +2/3 + 2/3 - 1/3 = 1

c) Yuri has good reason to postulate existence of a massive stable “mirror aniquark,” U*. That elementary particle is rare; in comparison with common u and d quarks. On the average, only one U* exists for every 1015 of common quarks. Combining with one common quark (either u or d), U* becomes part of a neutral or a negative pair, as shown below. Such pairs are called erzions.

A neutral erzion Eo consists of U* and u; it is bag of two quarks (a meson).

Eo = {U*,u} <---- charge of U* is 0 - (2/3) = -2/3, equal but opposite of the charge of u

A negative erzion E-consists of U* and d; it is a bag of two quarks (a meson)

E- = {U*,d}<---- charge of E- is -(2/3) - 1/3 = -1, equal but opposite of the charge of p


d) A negative erzion, according to Yuri, can form a bound with a proton. This produces a “bag of 5 quarks.” The name of that structure is enion,

EN. ={U*,u,u,d,d}


The neutral enion can dissociate into a pair of particles, a negative erzion (charge -e) and a proton {E-,p} or a neutral erzion and a neutron {Eo,n}. In other words,

EN --> E- + p + Δ1 . . . or . . . EN --> Eo + n + Δ2

where Δ1 and Δ2 represent reaction energies. They are positive for exothermic reactions and negative for endothermic reactions.

e) Enions (EN), negative erzions (E-) and neutral erzions (Eo) are rare (because U* are rare). But they can interact with common atomic nuclei, (A,Z).

15) For a given atomic nucleus, (A,Z) one can consider only six possible interactions: two with an enion, two a neutral erzion and two with a negative erzion. They are:

(A,Z) + EN = (A+1,Z) + Eo + Q1 neutron is going from the enion, EN, into (A,Z)
(A,Z) + EN = (A+1,Z+1) + E- + Q2 proton is going from the enion, EN, into (A,Z)

(A,Z) + Eo = (A-1,Z) + EN + Q3 neutron is going from the neutral erzion into (A,Z)
(A,Z) + Eo = (A,Z+1) + E- + Q4 proton is going from the neutral erzion into (A,Z)

(A,Z) + E- = (A-1,Z-1) + EN + Q5 neutron is going from the negative erzion into (A,Z)
(A,Z) + E- = (A,Z+1) + Eo + Q6 proton is going from the negative erzion into (A,Z)

where symbols Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6 stand for energies released in six possible reactions. In the first two reactions the enion is changed into a neutral erzion while in the second the enion is changed into a negative erzion. In either case the unusual antiquarks, U*, remain outside the newly formed nucleus. The same is true for the next two reactions (transformation of a neutral erzions into enion or into a negative erzion) The last two reactions (transformation of a negative erzion into an enion or into a neutral erzion) also do not consume the unusual antiquarks. These elementary particles always remains available to produce numerous reactions, one after another. That is why the U* can be said to be a catalyst. It participates in reactions but it is not consumed in them.

16) Suppose the symbol A is used to describe the target nucleus (A,Z) and the symbol B is used to describe the product nucleus. Then the above six reactions can be described in the following way. The symbol Q represents the absolute value of the released nuclear energy (+ when the reaction is exothermic and - when it is endothermic).

A(EN,Eo)B + Q
A(EN,E-)B + Q
A(Eo,EN)B + Q
A(Eo,E-)B + Q
A(E-,EN)B + Q
A(E-,Eo)B + Q

Yuri Bazhutov would replace my Latin symbol E (see above) by the Cyrillic symbol (see below). What follows is a list of possible nuclear reactions (induced by enions and erzions) in light isotopes. Column 2 shows natural abundances of target nuclei while numbers in column 3 can be used to identify reactions.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Table 1

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

17) Yuri thinks that some of these reactions might be responsible for production of neutrons in his experiments. He also thinks that formation of tracks in CR-39, such as those I reported in Catania, can be explained in terms of the above reactions.

18) After listing six possible reactions (see items 15 and 16 above), Bazhutov writes: “Enion, due its special quantum numbers, is strongly repelled by atomic nuclei. But, due to its electric dipole moment, it is also attracted to them.” At some distances these two tendencies cancel each other and a “stable long-lived state” can be formed, provided “the exothermic exchange reactions are absent. The bounding energy is about 1.5 eV for proton (Z=1) and about 60 eV for 208Pb (Z=82). Atomic nuclei able to form bound states with enions (1H, 4He, 12C, 16O, 64Ni, . . .) are called ‘donors’ .”

19) A little later, after mentioning the low concentration of “captured enions” (about one out of 1015 nuclei), Bazhutov continues: “When enions become free they react exothermically with atomic nuclei; the cross sections of such reactions are expected to be of several mega-barns. Sequences of reactions, as described above, are very fast, approaching billion per second, under the most favorable conditions. As usual, only exothermic reactions [see Table 1 above] are expected to occur, under ordinary temperatures. The table shows that exothermic reactions induced by negative erzions are relatively rare. The eleven stable isotopes, reacting with the negative erzion, are called converters. To produce a long sequence of nuclear reactions one must have a mixture of donor nuclei and converter nuclei. Deuterium happens to be the best converter. To produce neutrons one must have a mixture of hydrogen and lithium atoms.”

Appended on 1/30/08 What follows was not seen by Yuri Bazhutov. I will add his comments after receiving them.
20) To illustrate the idea of chains Yuri pointed to reactions 9 and 10 (see the above table). That was during our Catania conversation. Note that 13C represents 1.1% of carbon atoms in a plastic material, such as CR-39. It is an example of a converter. An enion being neutral, approaches the 13C nucleus, deposits a neutron into it (production of 14C and a neutral erzion). That is reaction 9. The neutral erzion, created in that reaction, approaches another 13C converter and triggers the reaction 10. That reaction is also exothermic; it results in the pickup of a neutron, from 13C (creating 12C and a neutral enion). This constitutes an element of a sequence of identical pairs of reactions. The sequence ends when the enion is either captured by a donor, such as 12C, or escapes from the plastic material. The net result of reactions 9 and 10 is conversion of one 13C into one 12C, and release of 3.2 MeV of energy.

21) Similar long sequences of repetitive nuclear events can be based on reactions 16 and 17, or on reactions 3 and 4. To calculate Q values of reactions produced by enions and erzions one must know exact masses of these projectiles. How large are these masses? How were they determined? Not knowing the answers I can work backward, taking the posted energies (2.0 MeV and 1.2 MeV) for granted. Suppose the exact mass of an enion is X while the exact mass of the neutral erzion is Y. Then

M13 + X = M14 + Y + Q9/c2 <----- (Q9=2.0 MeV in reaction 9)
M13 + Y = M12 + X + Q10/c2 <--- (Q10=1.2 MeV in reaction 10)

where c is the speed of light. This is a set of two equations with two unknowns. Using the known nuclear masses (in atomic mass units, u):

M12 = 12.000000 u
M13 = 13.003354 u
M14 = 14.003074 u
1 u = 931.5 MeV (1 MeV = 0.001073537u)

22) This leads me to X=1.0017677 u and Y=0.000099343 u. My calculated rest mass on the enion is only slightly smaller than the rest mass of a proton.(1.0078252 u) while the calculated mass of the negative erzion is 5.4 times smaller than the rest mass of an electron, (0.0005389 u). The mass of the negative erzion can be calculated, for example, from the 5.6 MeV of reaction 2. Yes, I know that this is not the answer to my questions. The simple algebra tells me what enion and erzion masses were actually used to compose the table. What I want to know, however, is justification for these masses. Something is missing in my understanding of Yuri’s explanations. What is it? My guess is that masses of erzions were assumed to be negligible while the mass of the enion was assumed to be 1.0017677 u, perhaps on the basis of some advanced QCD considerations.

23) I will try to learn more about quarks in the furure. And I will try to summarize what I learn. One thing is already clear; most quarkologists probably never heard about the U* antiquark. The accepted standard model quarks, and antiquarks, are listed at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

Mainstream theoretical physicists probably treat the idea of another quark in the same way in which the idea of thermonuclear reactions at low temperatures is treated by mainstream nuclear physicists. In the final analysis, only experiments will show who is right and who is wrong.

Appended on 4/4/08 (to be posted later):
24) This is a message I posted at the Internet discussion list for CMNS researchers. “ Some time ago Juri Bazhutov sent me a message saying that the last part of what I wrote above (appended on 1/30/08) has a mistake, and that rest masses of the enion and neutral erzion, are about 200 u each. (The u stands for what used to be abbreviated as amu (atomic mass unit); it is defined as 1/12 of the mass of C12. The mass of a proton, for example, is approximately one u. Note that E=m*c^2 becomes E=m*931.5, when E is in MeV and m is in  u.)

Yuri is correct, I made a mistake; the mass of C14 should have been 14.003242, and not 14.003074. The mass I used would be OK for N14 but not for C14. The very small print in the mass table was probably responsible for the mistake. I just corrected the mistake and recalculated the masses. But this did not bring me closer to Yuri's masses of approximately 200u. In fact, my values of Y is now negative.

How can this be interpreted? Masses of particles are always positive. My interpretation is that the suggested reactions 9 and 10 (From Yuri's table), are not consistent with masses attributed by him to the enion and to the neutral erzion. Please help me to bring clarity to this. I will update my webpage accordingly.

P.S.
Here are numerical calculations, where X is the mass of an enion and Y is the mass of an erzion)

Yuri's reaction 9:
13.003354 + X = 14.003242 + Y + 2/931.5  -->   X + Y = 1.002035

Yuri's Reaction 10:
13.003354 + Y = 12.000000 + X + 1.2/931.5  --> X - Y = 1.002266

Solving these two equations with two unknowns I found  that

X = 1.00215 u (rather than ~200 u)
and
Y= -0.000115 u (rather than ~200 u)

X is the rest mass of an enion and Y is the rest mass of a neutral erzion.”

25) I calculated the X and the Y again but from another pair of reactions (reactions 16 and 17 in the same Yuri's  table). The new values of X and Y turned out to be:

X=1.004219 u (rather than ~200 u). Thus is slightly larger than before.
and
Y = -0.002146 u (rather than ~200 u) The absolute value is 18.7 times larger than before.

That is strange; the masses of the enion and the erzion should be the same no matter which pair of reactions is used to calculate them from.  Either what I am doing is wrong or reactions in Yuri's table are not consistent with each other.  Once again X and Y are very different  from ~200 u.

26) Suppose a totally different approach is taken to 24 exothermic reactions listed in Yuri's table. Let me rewrite four of them.

Reaction  9 ---> C13 + X = C14 +Y + 2.0 MeV
Reaction 10 ---> C13 + Y = C12 + X +1.2 MeV

Reaction 16 --->O17 + X = O18 + Y + 1.9 MeV
Reaction 17 ---> O17 + Y = O16 + X + 2.0 MeV

where X stands for the enion and Y stands for the neutral erzion, as before. Each of these reactions can be used to calculate the difference between the rest masses of X and Y.

According to reaction 9, the difference is
X-Y = C14 - C13 + 2/931.5 = 14.003242 - 13.003354 + 0.002147 = 1.002035 u

According to reaction 10, the difference is
X-Y = C13 - C12 - 1.2/931.5 = 13.003354 - 12.000000 - 0.001288 = 1.002066 u

According to reaction 16, the difference is
X-Y = O18 - O17 + 1.9/931.5 = 17.999160 - 16.999133 + 0.002040 = 1.002067

According to reaction 17, the difference is
X-Y = O17 - O16 - 2/931.5 = 16.999133 -15.994915 - 0.002147 = 1.002071

The differences obtained from the four reactions are nearly identical. The mass on the enion exceeds the mass of the neutral erzion by  nearly one u.  The results are consistent with X-Y values calculated yesterday. But yesterday I was able to calculate masses of X and Y, not only X-Y. Each mass was much smaller that ~200u. I am making no progress in trying to understand the situation.

27) On 3/24/08 Bill Collis wrote:
Ludwik I'm not sure I follow all your discussion about Erzions and Enions. One point I would make is that no data regarding reaction energies is going to give the absolute mass of any particle.  Masses are relative. In the case of conventional nuclear reactions they are relative to C12. In the case of Erzions, we may arbitrarily choose the mass (or mass defect) of one of the three Erzions.

28) On 3/24/08 Ludwik wrote:
1) I am leaning on Yuri Bazhutov's Catania presentation available from

http://www.iscmns.org/catania07/program.htm

His paper can be download by scrolling down to the "Monday 15 October"  and by clicking on the corresponding "pdf" link.

2) Yuri's paper lists 24 exothermic nuclear reactions. What were the masses of three exotic particles ( enion and two erzions) that were used to calculate the Q values? I simply tried to answer this question. Each of Yuri's reaction gives an equation with two unknown. The three unknown masses -- I labeled them X, Y and Z -- can be found by solving three equations with three unknowns.

3) The values of X, Y and Z should be the same, no matter which three reactions are chosen to calculate them. And each mass should be positive. Right or wrong?

P.S. (after reading Bill’s message):
OK, suppose the mass of X is declared to be 1.000000 by definition. Also suppose that Y and Z, according to a theory, happen to be one thousand times smaller, or larger, than X. How would you use this information to calculate the Q values of Yuri's 24 reactions? I think that this would be possible only if masses of X, Y, and Z were accurately expressed in familiar C12 units. I took Yuri's Q values for granted and calculated X, Y, and Z from them in C12 units. What was wrong with this?

29) On 3/25/08 Bill Collis wrote:
Ludwik, reaction energies, whether chemical or nuclear, are based on the energy difference between products and reactants.  For conventional nuclear physics nucleons are treated as indivisible particles (we cannot weigh quarks) and we choose a single "anchor" to specify an absolute mass of C12.

This is not sufficient for Erzions because they cannot be specified in terms of nucleons alone.  They cannot be converted into "normal" nucleons.  Erzion Number is always conserved so hypothetical Erzion reaction energies can only give the difference between Erzion masses.

The first such difference, as proposed by Yuri, is the Erzion / Enion mass difference required to ensure low level tritium production without simultaneous 14.1 MeV neutron production:-

       2H + zN --> 3H + z0

This reaction would have to be almost endothermic otherwise fast tritons would interact with deuterium. ;)

Similarly some reaction must be found to fix the negative Erzion mass. With these 2 parameters you can calculate any number of Erzion reactions.

Last year I presented a paper on this at ICCF13 using results from ENSAP software.  If anyone would like a full list of ALL hypothetical Erzion reactions with naturally occurring isotopes I'll be happy to send it to them privately.  For ICCF14, I'm working on a paper revising the Erzion masses with a view to further reducing the predicted radio-activity which Erzions would otherwise induce through interaction with ordinary matter.  The goal is to explain heat and transmutation without lethal radiation, without Coulomb barrier using the ordinary laws of physics. That's quite difficult of course (but software helps!).  If anyone would like to collaborate on this, just let me know.

30) On 3/25/08 Ludwik wrote (addressing Bill):
OK, Let us calculate the Q value (released energy) in the following  
reaction

Na23 + A = Na24 + B

where A and B are exotic particles of some kind. The answer is Q = m*c^2, where m is the mass difference between the right side and the left side. I know the difference between the masses of two sodium isotopes. What I need is the mass difference between B and A, in the same units (such as kg or u). I assume your answer is Q=0.8 MeV, when A is an enion and B is the neutral erzion. Please show your arithmetic. Why do I assume that your answer is 0.8 MeV? Because that is what was reported by Yuri; it is reaction 21 in his Catania presentation at:

http://www.iscmns.org/catania07/program.htm

31) On 3/25/08 Bill Collis wrote:
Ludwik wrote: “OK, Let us calculate the Q value (released energy) in the following reaction

Na23 + A = Na24 + B

I assume your answer is Q=0.8 MeV, when A is an enion and B is the neutral erzion. Please show your arithmetic.”

Following Yuri's logic and the reasoning given in  my previous message, we can write:-

23Na + t = 24Na + d + 0.702 MeV

More precisely, in the case of Erzions being the catalytic intermediaries 2 reactions are possible:-

 23Na+  EURO N ->  EURO- + 24Mg  +5.194 MeV
 23Na+  EURO N ->  EURO 0 + 24Na  +0.708 MeV

The first reaction is favoured over the second by energy and spin considerations and may explain why we do not observe radio-active sodium in our experiments. Does this answer your question?

32) On 3/25/08 Ludwik wrote:
Bill wrote: “Does this answer your question? “
Perhaps it does but I am still in the dark. My question was about the reaction

23Na + (enion) = 24Na + (neutral erzion) +Q

According to Yuri's table, Q for this reaction is 0.80 MeV. How was this calculated? Please describe assumptions behind Yuri's logic.   Please show the arithmetic.
P.S.
I also got the Q=0.702 MeV for your first reaction. How can this number be used to calculate Q=0.80 MeV?
.
P.P.S.
In the previous message you wrote:

``. . .  Erzion Number is always conserved so hypothetical Erzion reaction energies can only give the difference between Erzion masses. The first such difference, as proposed by Yuri, is the Erzion / Enion
mass difference required to ensure low level tritium production without simultaneous 14.1 MeV neutron production:-

2H + zN --> 3H + z0

This reaction would have to be almost endothermic otherwise fast tritons would interact with deuterium. ;)

Similarly some reaction must be found to fix the negative Erzion mass. With these 2 parameters you can calculate any number of Erzion reactions. . . . ''

a) What is the erzion number?
b) How much is  ``almost'' (in almost endothermic), and why?
c) The  23Na + t = 24Na + d + 0.702 MeV and the 23Na + (enion) = 24Na + (neutral erzion) +0.80 MeV reactions describe conversion of 23Na into 24Na (adding a neutron to 23Na). But why should the Q of the second reaction depend on the Q of the first reaction? I need a more detailed description of logic (and assumptions) used to calculate Q of reactions involving enions and erzions. Hints are not sufficient, at my zero-level familiarity with such particles.

33) On 3/27/08 Bill Collis wrote:
1) Ludwik wrote: “I am still in the dark. My question was about the reaction 23Na + (enion) = 24Na + (neutral erzion) +Q According to Yuri's table Q for this reaction is 0.80 MeV. How was this calculated?” I suggest you ask Yuri.  It may be a misprint.  My calculation, agrees with yours.

The assumptions [in Yuri’s logic] are that endothermic nuclear reactions are impossible at room temperature and fast tritons would create unobserved 14.1 MeV neutrons in any heavily deuterated material.

2) [He also wrote] “Please show the arithmetic.”
See my previous posts.
3) [He also asked] “What is the erzion number? It's another way of saying that Erzions cannot be created nor destroyed.
4) [He also asked] “How much is  ``almost'' (in almost endothermic), and why? Almost means a few keV.  The d+t reaction would be detectable if the tritons had more than about 10 keV.
5) [He also asked} “The  23Na + t = 24Na + d + 0.702 MeV and the 23Na + (enion) = 24Na + (neutral erzion) +0.80 MeV reactions describe conversion of 23Na into 24Na (adding a neutron to 23Na). But why should the Q of the second reaction depend on the Q of the first reaction?” The two Qs should be similar.  As I say, this looks like an error.  Or maybe Yuri is refining his model in some undocumented way.  Ask him.

At this stage we can make many assumptions varying the two parameters which describe Erzion masses.  When we find a pair which coherently explain CMNS observations, we may be closer to the truth.  You don't have to be a nuclear expert to do this if you have the right software.

Ludwik (not posted):
At this stage I do not mind performing manual calculations. Software is useful in repetitive calculations. And I will wait for Yuri’s input. I hope he is no longer sick, as he was last month. The idea that a mass cannot be associated with a particle participating in a reaction is not easy to swollaw. The answer to my question "what is the erzion mass number" does not add clarity. I wanted to know what physical quantity is represented by the erzion number EN. Suppose someone tells me that EN=3. How does this differ from EN=7, 13.5, or -2, etc. ?

34) Appended on 4/10/08 (to be posted later)
Two days ago I posted this message on the Internet list for CMNS researchers: “

Dear Bill, your slide #6, of Catania presentation, shows four reactions involving  Yuri’s erzions and enion. Let me use X for an enion, Y for the neutral erzion and Z for the negative erzion. With these labels your four  
reactions are:

Li6 + Z = X +He5 +3.48 MeV    (A)
Li6 + Y = X + Li5 + 0.58 MeV    (B)
Li6 + X = Y + Li7 + 0.99 MeV    (C)
Li7 + X = Z + Be8 + 9.17 MeV   (D)

Masses of nuclei involved in these reactions are know. They are:

5He --> 5.01222 u
5Li ---> 5.01254 u
6Li ---> 6.01512279 u
7Li ---> 7.01600455 u
8Be --> 8.00530510 u

The accuracy for the highly unstable 5He and 5Li (life-times of 10^-21 sec) are not as high as for the other three nuclei. But that is OK, I  will take the Q values for granted. Suppose that x, y and z stand for masses of three exotic particles: enion, neutral erzion and negative erzion. Then, applying the energy conservation law to reactins (B)  and (C) one has:

6.01512279 + y = x + 5.01254 + 0.58 / 931.5          (b)
6.01512279 + x = y + 7.01600455 + 0.99 / 931.5   (c)

1) Each of these equations tell me than the enion, X, is more massive  (by about one mass unit) than the neutral erzion, Y. That is is an  important conclusion. I suppose the Q values were artificially chosen  to make the (x-y), calculated from (b) and (c),   identical. Please  confirm.

2) Let me do the same thing with equations (A) and (D).

6.01512279 + z = x + 5.01222 + 3.48 / 931.5         (a)
7.01600455 + x = z + 8.00530510 + 9.17/931.5     (d)

Each of these equations tell me than the enion, X, is more massive (by about one mass unit) than the negative erzion, Z.  Once again, I suppose the Q values were artificially chosen to make the (x-y),  calculated from (a) and (d), identical. The masses are knot known  accurately enough for this to happen, except by accident. Please  confirm.

3) In other words, erzions, neutral and negative, have about the same mass. Their masses are by about one C12 unit smaller than  the mass on the enion.

4) According to one of Yuri’s papers erion is a “single charged particle with mass -- M of about 200 GeV/c^2.” If that number were exact then the mass of a negaitve erzion would be 200000 / 931.5 =  214.707461 u. In other words, the A would be 214 and the mass deffect  would be 0.7074611 units. The value of A for the enion, according to  my calculations above, would be close to 215. But the 200 GeV/c^2 seems to be only a very rough estimate based on cosmic-ray data. The bottom line is that erzions and enions are very massive particles.  Enion and neutral erzion, like polyneutrons, are not repelled by atomic nuclei. That is a very important property.

5) Is my description acceptable? If not then what else should be added to introduce Yuri’s particles to students and teachers?

References:
W. Collis at ---    > http://www.iscmns.org/catania07/program.htm
Y. Bazhutov at ---> http://www.iscmns.org/catania07/program.htm

35) Ed Storms wrote:
This discussion is interesting, but I don't understand how it relates to LENR. Are these erzions proposed to be everywhere and can initiate nuclear reactions under certain circumstances?  Why are they not easy to detect when material is vaporized and/or ionized? What keeps them from reacting at anytime in any material?

36) Bill Collis wrote:
“Ludwik your description looks OK but please remember we do not know what the absolute or relative masses of Erzions are.  Erzions are a model system of neutron transfer catalysts.  Another such model is John Fisher's polyneutron theory.  The question at this time should be, "What properties should these catalysts have to explain CMNS observations".

Ed, yes Erzions are supposed to be everywhere!  In most materials they do not react or react but once and so are never observed.  More interesting effects occur in a limited range of composite materials, an Erzion picks up a neutron from one isotope and deposits it into another.

The neutral Erzion can react with a deuterium producing a proton and a heavier Enion.  But the Enion cannot normally react further (but perhaps if it has a little more energy it can create tritium).

In pure Beryllium, Erzions should set up an exothermic chain reaction producing helium and radioactive 10Be!  Can you see why?  (Be9 can both accept and donate a neutron).  The fact that nobody has detected 10Be suggests either they weren't looking or the model is wrong!  (Fisher's initial polyneutron theory did not make this prediction.)

If Erzions are everywhere why are electrolytic cells good places to find them?  I haven't really thought about this problem deeply, but maybe negative erzions somehow get trapped there and so accumulate.”

37) Responding to Bill, Ludwik wrote (also on the private CMNS list):
``Your statement about not knowing `the absolute or relative masses of erzions’ still troubles me. I have three concerns

1) Consider reaction 9 from Yuri’s Catania paper:

X + 13C = 14C + Y + 2.0 MeV 

This implies that  

(x-y) = 14Cmass - 13Cmass) +2.0 / 931.5 =1.002034 u. <-------(E)

This does give the absolute difference between the masses of two exotic particles. If the value of  (x-y) is not known then the Q of the reaction is also not known. But the Q=2 MeV is given. How was that Q determined? 

2) Or consider reaction 10, also from Yuri's  Catania paper:

Y +13C = 12C +X +1.2 MeV

This implies that  

(y-x) = 12Cmass - 13Cmass) + 1.2 / 931.5 = -1.002066 u <------(F)

 If the value of  (y-x) is not known then the Q of the reaction is also not known. But the Q=1.2 MeV is given. How was that Q determined? 

3) Suppose I do accept the fact that the Q of each of these reactions is given. Then what is wrong with treating the (E) and (F) as two equations with two unknown? That would give me exact values of x and y. In other words, specifying Q of reactions, induced by exotic erzions and enions, does not seem to be consistent with the statement that "absolute masses" are not known. On what basis were the very accurate value of Q chosen? Some assumptions were probably made. Please explain these arbitrary assumptions.’’

Appended on 4/12/08
38) Responding to Ed, Bill wrote:
The beauty of catalysed neutron transfer reactions is that only a tiny number of catalyst entities need be present to make measurable excess heat.  Being (mostly) neutral, their reaction cross sections are measured in Mega-barns because no gamma-ray emission is necessary to conserve energy (in contrast to neutron capture).  This enhancement of about 1 million is due the fact that the nuclear force is 6 or 7 orders of magnitude stronger than the electromagnetic force and correspondingly faster.  In turn this means that the mean free path of such neutral catalysts is about 1 millionth of that of a neutron.  Consequently a 3 dimensional CMNS reactor may be 10**18 times smaller than a fission reactor!  Instead of weighing 10**12 g scales are reduced to tiny hot-spots of 10**-6 g.  Indeed individual hot spots may be caused by single catalytic particles.  Of course these figures are all VERY approximate.

No let's see how these particles catalyze neutron transfer.  In the case
of Erzions we may have simple cycles such as:-

EURO N +  6Li->  EURO 0 +  7Li  +0.99 MeV
EURO 0 +  6Li->  EURO N +  5Li  +0.58 MeV
5Li      ->  4He + p    +1.966 MeV

As you can see Erzions are regenerated and we get lots of He4 and protons (but no X-rays or gammas).  However we all know that bulk Lithium alone does not get hot!  We must explain why.  One possibility is:-

EURO N +  7Li->  EURO- +  4He + 4He +10.85 MeV

Once the negatively charged Erzion is formed its reactivity is dramatically reduced (but not quite eliminated).  Of course the situation is much more complicated in reality because our hypothetical catalysts may react with other isotopes too.   Furthermore we do not know their masses (and therefore their reactivity).  We need to make reasonable assumptions, test them against reality, and refine the parameters.  I am making some progress in this direction and hopefully I'll report at ICCF14.

So how many catalytic neutral particles would you need to make say 1 watt?  Dozens?  Hundreds?  So few that they would be undetectable by density or physical properties.

39) Responding to Bill, Ed wrote:
I agree, some kind of semi-neutral catalyst is required. Apparently, we now have hydrinos, Erzions, and polyneutrons to consider. Such a catalyst must be made either by an exothermic reaction, as with hydrinos, or be supplied fully formed by nature, as is the case with the latter two possibilities. I think we agree, creation of a catalyst, such as neutrons, by a endothermic process is not possible. How do we evaluate each of these possibilities?

As an answer, I suggest we need to consider two questions. What conditions make each catalyst reactive and what are the expected products. Both questions can be answered by experimental observation. In addition, these answers have to be provided with a minimum of arbitrary assumptions that can not be verified.  At the present time, we already have some of these answers.

In the case of polyneutrons and Erzions, we need to assume that they are more or less uniformly distributed in nature. Therefore, the trigger that initiates a nuclear reaction must be created by a unique chemical or physical environment. Next, we need to ask why this environment is so rare and difficult to create. Why do the few environments used by CF researchers work and most other environments do not work?  This question is easier to answer about hydrinos. This nuclear catalyst requires a chemical catalyst to form. Therefore, nuclear reactions can occur only when this rare chemical catalyst is present.  Nevertheless, I find one fact rather troubling. In all of nature, why are these possible nuclear reacts not being catalyzed all the time in various opportune circumstances? The result would be an isotopic distribution in nature that would be highly distorted, favoring the reaction produces being proposed by the various proponents of the different catalysts.

I suggest we need to discuss these broader issues rather than debating hypothetical reactions that might never occur. We know that certain nuclear products are produced. I suggest we need to discover why and how these products are formed. Other products might be produced, but until they are verified, their formation is simply an assumption having no value. Meanwhile, we know that tritium and helium result from the CF reaction. How are these elements formed and what are the required conditions? Why have these conditions not converted all of the deuterium to tritium then to He3 or to He4 during the life time of the universe? This question is easier to answer for hydrinos than for the other possibilities.

40) Responding to Ludwik, Bill wrote:
I answered your questions already, but here goes again!  To calculate Q
values for Erzion reactions we need to assign 2 parameters for mass
differences between the 3 Erzions.  In the case of the 2 reactions you
cite above which do not involve the negative Erzion only 1 parameter is
required.  It is fixed (in Yuri's view) by the non observation of 14.1
MeV neutrons in tritium producing deuterated which implies in turn the
absence of fast tritons from the reaction:-

       X + d = Y + t

If the above reaction has an energy close to zero, the Q for reactions 1
& 2 can be calculated.   Is this clear now?  John Fisher used the same
reasoning, quite independently, to fix poly neutron masses.  However I
am not convinced that this method is appropriate.  After all, tritium
has been produced in light hydrogen systems too.

41) Responding to Bill, Ludwik wrote:
Thanks for being patient with my slow learning. Let me follow your hint. I will continue using X, Y and Z for neutral enions, neutral erzions and negative erzions, resperctively (and x, y, z for their unspecified masses)

1) Let me try to calculate the Q value for the

X + 13C = 14C + Y + Q1- - - - - - - (9) Yuri’s reaction #9

I want to verify that the answer is 2.0 MeV, as given by Yuri. You suggested I lean on the zero Q for the

 X + 2H = Y + 3H - - - - - - - - - -- - (0) Bill’s reaction (assuming Q=0; to impose absence of 14.1 MeV neutrons)

This gives me two equations:

x + 13.003354 = y +14.0032419 + Q1 - - - - - (9’)
x + 2.0141022 = y + 3.0160494 - - - - - - - - - - - (0’)

The first equation gives me

x-y = 0.999888 +Q1

The second equation gives me

x - y = 1.001947

In other words,

0.999888 + Q1 = 1.001947 or Q1 = -0.0020592 u = 1.92 MeV

That is indeed close enough to Yuri’s value 2.0 MeV; I am using masses from an old table. Let me do this again for Yuri’s reaction #10.

Y +13C = 12C +X +Q2 - - - - - -(10)

x-y = 13.003354 12.000000 - Q2 = 1.003354 - Q2 - - - - (10’)
x-y = 1.001947

In other words,
1.003354 - Q2 = 1.001947
or Q2 = 0.001407 u = 1.31 MeV.

This is again close enough to Yuri’s value of 1.2 MeV. He probably used more accurate masses. Things become clear in my mind. Thanks for your help, Bill.

2) But one thing remains to be clarified. What is the second independent assumption? It must known to calculate the Q values of reactions involving a negative erzion, Z.
P.S.
3) I wander why Yuri is silent. In the last private message, about three weeks ago, he wrote that he was recovering from being sick. How are you now, Yuri?

42) Bill Collis (responding to Ed) wrote (on 4/19/08):
1) The questions you pose are relevant, but in my view they may not be the primary questions to resolve the issue!  The first requirement is that any theory of CMNS explains (most of) the generally accepted observations.  The second is that the theory must not make predictions which are not observed.   Many theorists conveniently overlook this second requirement.

2) My approach is to assume some (not too many!) parameters (1 or 2 masses in the case of Erzions) and see what happens to their interactions with ALL known natural isotopes.  I refine the parameters as needs be.  It seems that all interactions of the E0 Erzion produce no penetrating radiation whatsoever!  That's a miracle that makes me think the theory is worth looking into in more detail.  Every theory I know purporting to "explain" heavy element transmutation fails at this hurdle.

3) In the early 90s there were many reports (Notoya, Bush & Eagleton etc.) of apparent transmutations by exactly 1 nucleon.  Again, that is something expected by polyneutron or Erzion catalysis.  I don't pretend for a moment that these models explain everything.  I merely suggest that they are very testable, and therefore worthy of study.

4) If you want to analyse an extremely complicated series of transmutations it may be well to concentrate on very simple systems first before applying ones attention the generality of all CMNS experiments.  For example how many theories attempt to explain the emission of neutrons from cold deuterium gas in a magnetic field (Mizuno)?  Could it not be that our hypothetical catalysts have a magnetic moment and are trapped in a magnetic field?  Could this also explain the successes of Letts, Piantelli and others?

5) I am not convinced that the Nuclear Active Site is a chemical catalyst. Rather, it may be an environment where specific nuclides permit and participate in a self sustaining series of reactions.  This unusual combination of nuclides does not occur in nature and so CMNS reactions are not observable in natural systems.

6) You ask "Why have these conditions not converted all of the deuterium to tritium then to He3 or to He4 during the life time of the universe?". In order to achieve a sustained chain reaction the Erzion model requires:-

a) The presence of neutron donors like deuterium, Li6, Be9, C13, O17
b) The presence of neutron acceptor nuclei such as He3, Li6, B10.
c) The absence of negative Erzion precursors such as Li7, Be9, B10, N.
d) Some Erzions!

Of course what counts as an acceptor, donor or poison depends critically on the mass differences we assign to the Erzions themselves. This is why it is so important to discuss "hypothetical reactions that ... never occur" because they help us refine the model.

7) If you look at Physics as a whole, and at Cold Fusion in particular it is littered with untestable (and therefore unscientific) conjectures and models which barely survive because although useless (they make no predictions they cannot guide experiment), they cannot be demolished either.  We are left with a set of models which are wrong in detail but leave open the possibility of improving that detail, and suggesting new experiments to perform.  If this is unsatisfactory, it is nevertheless common reality of most science at the frontiers of knowledge.

8) I do not believe that hydrinos or mini-molecules explain CMNS.  They might explain excess heat but not the observed nuclear transmutations. They predict unobserved nuclear reactions such as p+d->3He+gamma.

9) As you mention the Universe, consider this.  Venus, Mars and Earth (in that order) have a higher D/H ratio than the interstellar medium which in turn has a higher ratio than the giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.  These last 4 radiate more energy than they receive from the Sun.  Could that excess heat be cold fusion?  If so one might presume that the power was greater in the past when deuterium concentrations were higher (assuming deuterium is the fuel and is being consumed).  Well the 2 inner satellites of Jupiter have no atmosphere. Were these atmosphere blown away by nuclear heat some 5 billion years ago?

43) Ed Storms wrote:
[Referring to 1] I agree totally, Bill. However, I would add several other requirements. The theory must not violate any basic law and must show why the phenomena is so rare and difficult to initiate.  In addition, a theory must explain how the Coulomb barrier is overcome and how the resulting energy is communicated to the observed world. These mechanisms must have universal application and not be uniquely available to the CF environment. Therefore, any proposed mechanism must be observed to be part of other phenomena besides CF. As you say, most theories overlook these requirements as well.

[Referring to 2] I agree, this hurdle is worth exploring. If no radiation is produced, how is the energy converted to heat? Can the resulted Erzion be detected? If not, the transmutation reactions would result in no detectable heat because all energy would go off with the invisible Erzion. How does the Erzion model fit with the Russian gas discharge work where heat and radiation are claimed?

[Referring to 3] Study is always worthwhile. However, there is always a competition between the time it takes for the study to be made and its potential success. If the model is too far from reality, potential success is too low to make the study worthwhile. We see this problem in most of the suggested theories. As you argue, it may be too early to render a judgment about Erzions.

[Referring to 4] Here, we get to the issue of what needs to be explained. Personally, I see no need to explain a single, unreplicated experiment, no matter how unusual the result. I suggest the effort should be directed to explaining the well known and well documented behavior. We have a lot of such information without being distracted by what could be a wild goose chase.

[Referring to 5] I agree, the NAE could take many forms. However, we have found a few universal features to be present.  For example, oxygen can always be found in the environment. The local deuterium concentration is high, but not because it is dissolved in a metal lattice. I could suggest other less well documented features, but will avoid getting into the resulting debate, which is a subject for another time.

[Referring to 6]
The model, as I understand it, exploits the energy gain that results when neutrons are added to certain atoms resulting in an unstable isotope. In addition, the Erzion also has to change mass for this process to be exothermic.  My question is, What features about the environment must be unique to permit such reactions to occur?  Why would a Erzion not immediately react with, say 6Li, just as soon as it has made contact? Some additional condition must be present to make such a reaction very rare. This condition is the "secret" that would make such a reaction reproducible once it is known and can be created at will.

[Referring to 7] True, but some theories are easier than others to improve.  Some are so far from meeting the conditions we both agree are necessary that they are worth very little time. I suggest it is worthwhile to weed out such theories early in the discussion to avoid wasting a lot of time.

[Referring to 8]Yes, this reaction would be expected. However, the gamma may be eliminated by the same process that operates during the d + d = He4 reaction. To fit the hydrino model, we have to make an assumption about why this reaction does not occur. Making similar assumptions is not an uncommon requirement even in the Erzion model.:-)

[Referring to 9] I agree, cold fusion probably operates in such environments. Too bad we can't create a Jupiter atmosphere here on earth.

44) Bill Collis wrote:
{Bill, earlier] The questions you pose are relevant, but in my view they may not be the primary questions to resolve the issue!  The first requirement is that any theory of CMNS explains (most of) the generally accepted observations.  The second is that the theory must not make predictions which are not observed.   Many theorists conveniently overlook this second requirement.

[Ed] I agree totally, Bill. However, I would add several other requirements. The theory must not violate any basic law and must show why the phenomena is so rare and difficult to initiate.  In addition, a theory must explain how the Coulomb barrier is overcome and how the resulting energy is communicated to the observed world. These mechanisms must have universal application and not be uniquely available to the CF environment. Therefore, any proposed mechanism must be observed to be part of other phenomena besides CF. As you say, most theories overlook these requirements as well.

[Bill] We agree completely!

[Bill, earlier] My approach is to assume some (not too many!) parameters (1 or 2 masses in the case of Erzions) and see what happens to their interactions with ALL known natural isotopes.  I refine the parameters as needs be.  It seems that all interactions of the E0 Erzion produce no penetrating radiation whatsoever!  That's a miracle that makes me think the theory is worth looking into in more detail.  Every theory I know purporting to "explain" heavy element transmutation fails at this hurdle.

[Ed] I agree, this hurdle is worth exploring. If no radiation is produced, how is the energy converted to heat?

[Bill] When heavy charged fragments such as alpha particles or fission fragments pass through condensed matter, they lose energy principally by interaction with electrons.  Because electrons weigh so much less (say 8000 times less in the case of alphas) they can only take a tiny proportion of the energy away.  So we would expect heat to be removed by energetic electrons in the 100s-1000s eV range.  There would be corresponding soft X-rays too with very little penetrative power.

[Ed] Can the resulted Erzion be detected?

It would be wise to determine its properties before attempting detection.  He3 neutron counters might work.

[Ed] If not, the transmutation reactions would result in no detectable heat because all energy would go off with the invisible Erzion.

No.  The Erzion is not so light and may be charged itself.  Its mean free path in dense matter is of the order of microns as I have already discussed.  We expect "hot spots".

[Ed] How does the Erzion model fit with the Russian gas discharge work where heat and radiation are claimed?

See above.

[Bill, earlier] In the early 90s there were many reports (Notoya, Bush & Eagleton etc.) of apparent transmutations by exactly 1 nucleon.  Again, that is something expected by polyneutron or Erzion catalysis.  I don't pretend for a moment that these models explain everything.  I merely suggest that they are very testable, and therefore worthy of study.

[Ed] Study is always worthwhile. However, there is always a competition between the time it takes for the study to be made and its potential success. If the model is too far from reality, potential success is too low to make the study worthwhile. We see this problem in most of the suggested theories. As you argue, it may be too early to render a judgment about Erzions.

[Bill, earlier] If you want to analyse an extremely complicated series of transmutations it may be well to concentrate on very simple systems first before applying ones attention the generality of all CMNS experiments.  For example how many theories attempt to explain the emission of neutrons from cold deuterium gas in a magnetic field (Mizuno)?  Could it not be that our hypothetical catalysts have a magnetic moment and are trapped in a magnetic field?  Could this also explain the successes of Letts, Piantelli and others?

[Ed] Here, we get to the issue of what needs to be explained. Personally, I see no need to explain a single, unreplicated experiment, no matter how unusual the result.

Agreed.

[Ed] I suggest the effort should be directed to explaining the well known and well documented behavior. We have a lot of such information without being distracted by what could be a wild goose chase.

True.

[Bill, earlier] I am not convinced that the Nuclear Active Site is a chemical catalyst. Rather, it may be an environment where specific nuclides permit and participate in a self sustaining series of reactions.  This unusual combination of nuclides does not occur in nature and so CMNS reactions are not observable in natural systems.

[Ed] I agree, the NAE could take many forms. However, we have found a few universal features to be present.  For example, oxygen can always be found in the environment. The local deuterium concentration is high, but not because it is dissolved in a metal lattice. I could suggest other less well documented features, but will avoid getting into the resulting debate, which is a subject for another time.

[Bill, earlier] You ask "Why have these conditions not converted all of the deuterium to tritium then to He3 or to He4 during the life time of the universe?". In order to achieve a sustained chain reaction the Erzion model requires:-
1) The presence of neutron donors like deuterium, Li6, Be9, C13, O17
2) The presence of neutron acceptor nuclei such as He3, Li6, B10.
3) The absence of negative Erzion precursors such as Li7, Be9, B10, N.
4) Some Erzions!

Of course what counts as an acceptor, donor or poison depends critically on the mass differences we assign to the Erzions themselves. This is why it is so important to discuss "hypothetical reactions that ... never occur" because they help us refine the model.

[Ed] The model, as I understand it, exploits the energy gain that results when neutrons are added to certain atoms resulting in an unstable isotope.

No.  If the products were unstable, we would have penetrating radiation in most cases - Bremstrahlung in the case of beta decay.  Such radiation would be fatal (and not just to the theory!).  We need to show, without any magic, that stable products are the only ones possible from stable precursors.

[Ed] In addition, the Erzion also has to change mass for this process to be exothermic.  My question is, What features about the environment must be unique to permit such reactions to occur?  Why would a Erzion not immediately react with, say 6Li, just as soon as it has made contact?

It is expected to.

[Ed] Some additional condition must be present to make such a reaction very rare.

Why?  The trouble with pure lithium is that it generates negative Erzions which being charged cannot move in condensed matter.  They have a half life of at least seconds so nuclear catalysis is slowed by at least 9 orders of magnitude.  However if the layer of lithium were very thin, as it may well be on the surface of an active cathode, the energy of the reaction might be sufficient to send it somewhere else (such as the electrolyte)

[Ed] This condition is the "secret" that would make such a reaction reproducible once it is known and can be created at will.

When you find it, I'll come to Stockholm!

[Bill, earlier] If you look at Physics as a whole, and at Cold Fusion in particular it is littered with untestable (and therefore unscientific) conjectures and models which barely survive because although useless (they make no predictions they cannot guide experiment), they cannot be demolished either.  We are left with a set of models which are wrong in detail but leave open the possibility of improving that detail, and suggesting new experiments to perform.  If this is unsatisfactory, it is nevertheless common reality of most science at the frontiers of knowledge.


[Ed] True, but some theories are easier than others to improve.  Some are so far from meeting the conditions we both agree are necessary that they are worth very little time. I suggest it is worthwhile to weed out such theories early in the discussion to avoid wasting a lot of time.

It would be nice if someone would write a critical review paper for JCMNS.  A good starting point would be Preparata's review published in Fusion Technology.

[Bill earlier] I do not believe that hydrinos or mini-molecules explain CMNS.  They might explain excess heat but not the observed nuclear transmutations. They predict unobserved nuclear reactions such as p+d->3He+gamma.

[Ed] Yes, this reaction would be expected. However, the gamma may be eliminated by the same process that operates during the d + d = He4 reaction. To fit the hydrino model, we have to make an assumption about why this reaction does not occur. Making similar assumptions is not an uncommon requirement even in the Erzion model.:-)

Not really.  Assuming mass or energies is quite different from assuming new physics.  What assumption do you make with the hydrino model?  Is there a paper anywhere which discusses CMNS in terms of hydrinos?  I ask because Mills himself is said not to believe in "Cold Fusion".  Dufour has abandoned his hydrex / deutex model.

Ludwik:
It is evening of 4/21/2008. I just stoped appending messages to this unit. The last two messages (from Ed and Bill) were even more convoluted than the last one. I decided not to record them here. I have to stop somewhere; this unit is already too long. Then I uploaded the expended unit 341 to my website. That should not prevent me from being interested in what is going on. I might decide to compose another unit abou erzions at some later time.

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links