Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Developing an Efficient Low-Temperature Nuclear Fus ion Reactor

Developing an Efficient Low-Temperature Nuclear Fus
ion Reactor
Jamal S. S
hrair
Abstract
There is an increasing empirical data supporting th
e evidence of different types of low temperature nu
clear fusion
reactions in condensed matter, mainly in metals. Th
e mechanism of this phenomenon is similar to
μ
-catalysis. The
rate of this reaction depends on the type of materi
al and its environmental conditions. The rate can b
e increased
enormously by having hybrid nanostructured material
with high screening energy capability. The correla
tion
between electron screening and low temperature nucl
ear fusion constitutes the most important notion in
modern
physics. Understanding this phenomenon would revolu
tionize physics and open up new frontiers in scienc
e and
technology.
Contemporary nuclear physics theory conceives of a
nuclear reaction as an isolated process
between two bare nuclei, neglecting the environment
where the nuclear process takes place, e.g.
the electron clouds surrounding the target nucleus.
In the so called LENR, however, the effects of
the surroundings of a nucleus on the nuclear phenom
ena were surprisingly very strong.
However, for fusion reaction to occur with a high p
robability, the nuclei must be brought close to
distances of the order of (10
-11
– 10
-10
cm). Attempts have been made since the beginning of
the
1950s to obtain fusion energy based on the principl
e of thermonuclear reaction (heating dt- or
dd- mixtures up to temperatures 10
8
-10

). There is another potential way of initiating fus
ion
reactions, viz. by using the
μ
-catalysis effect. The process of
μ
-catalysis was first discussed as
early as 1947.
L.Alvarez in 1957 was the first to detect the
μ
-catalysis in a hydrogen bubble chamber
containing a natural impurity of deuterium. Muon ha
s a remarkable resemblance of electron.
Indeed, both have identical spin (S=1/2), baryon ch
arge (
Β
=0) and electric charge ( Z= ± 1). Both
participate in weak interactions and reveal all the
characteristics of such an interaction (small
cross section, parity violation). Both participate
in electromagnetic interactions in an identical
manner. For example, just like electrons, negative
muons can form an atom (called the
μ-
atom)
and the energy transitions of negative muons in a
μ-
atom are accompanied by the emissions of
electromagnetic radiation.
It is well known that the electron obeys Dirac’s eq
uation from which it follows in particular that
the electron magnetic moment is the following:
μ
e=
e
2m
e
C=
M
B
(1)
Where,
M
B
is the Bohr magneton.
This value was found to be in good agreement with t
he experimental value which had been
already known at the time when Dirac obtained his r
esults. Later on, the interaction of the


electron with its intrinsic electromagnetic field w
as taken into account, and this introduces a
small correction to formula (1).
The appropriateness of the radiation corrections wa
s also confirmed experimentally. If the muon
completely resembles the electron, it must satisfy
Dirac’s equation like the electron, i.e its
magnetic moment must coincide, to a first approxima
tion, with formula (1) in which the electron
mass is replaced by the muon mass:
μ
μ=
e
2m
μ
C =
m
e
m
μ
M
B
(2)
If, however, the muon is not a Dirac particle, its
magnetic moment must differ from (2). This
difference must reflect some special features of it
s interaction (in the same way as the anomalous
magnetic moment of the nucleons indicates that they
participate in electromagnetic as well as
strong interactions). Measurements of the muon magn
etic moment made by using the resonance
Method fully confirmed the validity of formula (2),
which once again reflects the amazing
resemblance between the electron and the muon. Ther
efore, it was found that the muon
resembles the electron in all respects, including t
he fine effects like the radiation corrections to
the value of the magnetic moment. Only the mass of
the muon was found

207 times larger than
that of the electron. The muon has another feature,
different from the electron, as it has a very
short life time.
It was assumed, that the difference between the mas
ses of electron and muon was related to the
difference in the electron and muon neutrinos. Howe
ver, it is difficult to understand this
assumption since the difference in the properties o
f the neutrinos is a property of the weak
interaction, which should not significantly affect
the mass of the particles. The situation became
more complicated after the discovery of the heavy
τ
-lepton with a mass of 1.78 BeV. The
problem of the mass of charged leptons is now consi
dered being solved by the unified theory of
weak and electromagnetic interactions.
However, since the muon is similar to the electron
in all its properties, with the exceptions of
mass and life span:
m
μ

200 m
e
and
τ
μ
= 2.2 ×10
-6
S
Therefore, a negative muon can replace an electron
in a Bohr orbit and form a
μ

-atom (fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Fig
μ-

⁻⁻

μ-

⁻⁻

μ-

⁻⁻

p
d
t



The radius of the
μ
-orbit
in a
μ

atom
is about 200 times smaller than the radius of the e
-orbit.
Therefore,
μ

atoms
of the type
μ

P, μ

d
,
and
μ

t
are smaller than the corresponding hydrogen
isotopes H
1
,
H
2 ,
H
3
by a factor of 200. For this reason and due the fac
t that a
μ

atom
has a zero
electric charge, this atom can come too close to a
nucleus and form a
μ
-molecule of the type p
μ
d, d
μ
d, d
μ
t, which is of a very small size (10
-11
-10
-10
cm), thus allowing reactions of the type
pd, dd and dt to take place (fig.2).
Fig.2
The process of
μ

catalysis was soon found to be quite unsuitable fro
m a practical point of view,
due to a low rate of
μ

catalysis
at low temperature. Even though there were some the
oretical
predictions that raised the hope that
μ
-catalysis could be suitable, these hopes soon vani
shed.
The short life span of the muon was, and still is,
the basic problem that has not been overcome.
Before a muon decays it should be able to interact
about 100 times with nuclei, in order to
release energy comparable with the energy devoted t
o the creation of the muon itself.
Thus, for this type of nuclear reaction to be suita
ble from a practical point of view, we need
either muon with a longer life time or electron wit
h a heavier mass. However, the electron does
not have to be as massive as the muon in order to b
e captured by the proton. It is sufficient for
the electron to be around 2.531 times as massive to
be captured by the proton. In the free atom
the mass of the electron is of course too small to
screen the Coulomb barrier in an effective way,
but in condensed matter the mass of the electron ca
n be modified by local electromagnetic field
fluctuations. Proper energy stimulation system on t
he right surface can dress an electron with
additional mass. In many cases the mass addition ca
n be very large. In this respect, it is beyond
dispute that the surface states of certain metal hy
drides and also other non-metallic materials
with special properties (similar in a certain respe
ct to metals) are very important.
μ-
e-
dt
Screening energy of the D+D reaction in metals obta
ined from the Lab. Of Nuclear Science,
Tohoku University, Japan (Jirohta Kasagi), Surface
& Coating Technology 201 (2007) 8574-
8578
Material
Screening energy (eV)
PdO
Pd
Fe
Re
Cu
Yb
Ni
Au
Ti
600±30
310±30
200±20
200±20
120±20
80±20
80±20
70±20
65±30
In the past few years, a very large amount of scree
ning energy was also obtained for Li+D
reaction. This is an expansion of nuclear reactions
other than D+D reactions. This large energy
obtained for Li+D reaction for certain metals raise
s the important question whether these large
values are due to electron screening alone, since b
ound electron screening, according to
theoretical prediction, gives at most an energy of
20eV for the D+D reaction and 0.3 KeV for the
Li+D reaction.
Therefore, one can see that there are variables for
enhancing the screening energy. Those
variables strongly depend on the physical and chemi
cal properties and also on the enviroment of
the host material such as surface dynamics, stimula
tion energy system, density, type and
conditions of the working gas. Understanding the me
chanism of the enhancement factors by
extended comparative studies of certain materials c
an allow for the design of new nanostructured
material. Studies must focus on finding composite m
aterial like complex metal hydrides. The
best approach that can accelerate the possibilities
for finding this ideal nanostructured material is
through the combination of virtual high throughput
screening (VHTS) and combinatorial
synthesis and screening (CSS). This method can lead
us to find the most promising material and
understand its thermal and electronic properties, a
nd as a result, develop models and simulations
for improving our understanding of the enhancement
factors and increasing the reaction rate of
low temperature nuclear fusion.
Bring together ions of hydrogen isotops at distance
s of a few fermis, will allow a maximum
increase in fusion rates. The investigation would a
im to find the right lattice structures and
understand their rearrangement when hydrogen, detur
ium or other gas mixtures is absorbed in
them. The problem is how to trap the deuterium nucl
ei in the host lattice, and move them much
closer together than they would otherwise be (in th
e gas phase), so that quantum effects take over
and energy levels merge into broad bands rather tha
n remaining discrete. The Coherent
vibrations of the trapped nuclei, the electron clou
d and the host lattice interact. That will greatly
enhance quantum mechanical barrier penetration thro
ugh the Coulombic field for fusion of
adjacent deuterons held closely together in the lat
tice.
Experiments have already shown that when deuterium
is absorbed or generated in a metal
electrode, the deuterons become delocalized as wave
s with periods of the host lattice, this is
known as Bloch state. Bloch states will cause the w
aves of different deuterons to overlap and
when the kinetic energy of the vibration becomes gr
eater than the potential energy of the
Coulomb barrier, the result is that the deuteron wa
ves would fuse into one another since the
Coulomb barrier becomes essentially irrelevant. In
this interaction the electrons are also
delocalised as Bloch waves and serve to shield the
relevant charges of the nuclei and enable them
to come closer together.
Thus, having particles with very long wave lengths,
in a lattice of confined deuterons leads to an
extraordinarily high cross section, and therefore,
if the charge distribution has dimensions of the
order of de Broglie interaction length, the potenti
al barrier due to Coulomb interaction can
become very small and as a result, the internuclear
distances and the height of the potential
barrier are varied, both having an effect of increa
sing the fusion rate. When two deuterons fuse,
the result is helium 4 and excess energy of 23,8 Me
v. The excess energy is transferred to the host
lattice as phonons and dissipated as heat. Dependin
g on the precise experimental conditions, the
excess heat can be produced in a predictable steady
state or in unpredictable bursts of intense
activity associated with the production of tritium.
So far all microscopic investigations have shown th
at low temperature fusion reaction is taking
place only on tiny, isolated areas of the surface o
f Pd and also other metals. In order to have a
significantly higher reaction rate we have to modif
y the material’s atomic configuration. This can
be achieved by applying non-equilibrium materials s
ynthesis methods, incorporating substitution
and adding catalysts in a continuously modified rea
ctive environment such modification will
enhance the kinetics by increasing the diffusivity
and reducing the diffusion distance. The
desired material can allow the reaction to take pla
ce on a much larger area of the surface, rather
than on a tiny, isolated area. This material can ce
rtainly be structured. There is considerable and
compelling evidence about the feasibility of making
it and creating the proper environmental
conditions for inducing a very high reaction rates.
A scheme such as Monte Carlo Simulation has to be d
eveloped for understanding electrons
phonon interaction and phonon transport to gain a f
undamental understanding of the electronic
and thermal properties at the material interface.
But the main hurdle in revealing the high energy re
action mechanism in condensed matter is the
myth in the field of nuclear science that our knowl
edge about high energy reactions is nearly
final and perfect and there is nothing else to add
except for a few details. Furthermore, a
researcher who does not follow these guidelines wil
l be considered anti-establishment, a
pseudoscientist pursuing a crackpot theory. Low tem
perature nuclear fusion is a demonstration of
the above argument.
The limited research in this field has yielded a hu
ge body of evidence by numerous experiments
around the world. Some of those experiments generat
ed heat for days at certain times. In May
2008 a demonstration of the phenomena was shown liv
e to large academic and media gatherings
in Japan. More important, however, is that these ea
rly endeavours at mapping the parameters of
the domain can be improved by many orders of magnit
ude.
There is a real opportunity to develop entirely new
and green nuclear power; nuclear power that
does not create hazardous radiation or radioactive
waste. This new power can improve the
density and longevity of energy storage compared wi
th existing technologies and can be cost
effective, scalable, portable, so that it allows an
airplane or spacecraft to travel for a very long
journey without refuelling. We do not need millions
of degrees and billions of Euros to fuse
atomic nuclei and yield energy. We have been trying
to achieve this goal for almost six decades
and according to the most optimistic scenario we mu
st wait at least another five decades before
we can know for certain that hot fusion power can b
e practical. In the last few decades scientific
communities started to behave like groups of high s
heikhs or priests rather than seekers of
genuine scientific understanding. We can no longer
afford to protect either the financial interests
of certain corporations or the selfish interests of
certain individuals or scientific groups.
Politicians must take action on climate change now
or face long decades of war and social unrest
and a planet that becomes totally unrecognisable. T
he first step and the wise action is to start
investing in all types of fusion research.
The story of fusion energy research is the stranges
t untold story of 20th century science, but the
enigma is now beginning to show signs of resolution
. The most surprising part of this story may,
in the end, well turn out to be that it is low temp
erature nuclear reaction and not thermonuclear
reaction that is the only possible way for producin
g nuclear fusion on a large scale.
There can be no doubt that we have a serious defici
ency in our present knowledge of the
principles of electromagnetic theory. Nuclear fusio
n in metal crystal structures at low energy
levels is real proof that electromagnetic interacti
on extends over the full range of dimensions,
including the dimensions of nuclear force. Weak and
strong interactions might be different
manifestations of this most fundamental reaction in
nature.
References:
1- Jirohta Kasagi. Surface and coatings Technology
201 (2007) 85 74 85 78
2- C.Rolf: A plasma of the poor man, Mem.S.A. It. (
2006) Vol.77, 907
3-Raiola, F. et aL. 2005,Eur. Phys. J. , A31,1141
4- Cruz, J. et aL. 2005, phys. Lett., B6 24, 181
5-C.Rolfs, prog. Theor.phys. Suppl. 154 (2004) 373.
6-Kasagi, et aL., J.Phys. Soc.Jpn. 64 (1995) 3718
7- M.Fleischmann,S.Pons, J. Electro.Chem. 261 (1989
) 301, S.E. Jones, et aL., Nature 338 (1989) 737.
8- C.M. Hurd, The Hall effect in Metals and Alloys,
Plenum, New York, 1972
9- M. Lattuada, et aL., Astron. J. 562 (2001) 1076.
10- H. Yuki et aL., Proc. of ICCF7 (1998) p. 180.
11- H. S. Bosch and G.M. Hale, Nucl.Fusion 32, 611
(1994).
12- H.J.Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C.Rolf, Z. Phys.
A237, 461 (1987).
13- S. Ichimaru, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65,255 (1993).
14- K. Czerski, A. Hulke, A. Biller, P. Heide, M. H
oeft, G. Ruprecht, Eur. Phys. Lett. 54 (2001) 449.
15- R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 56, 585 (2003).
16-K. N. Mukhin, Exp. Nucl. Phys. Volume, I Phys. o
f Atomic nucleus, Mir publishers, 1983.
17–K. N. Mukhin, Exp. Nucl. Phys. Volume, II Elem.
Particle Phys. , Mir publishers, 1983
Source gsjournal.net

Share

Leave a Reply