251) Crack fusion


Ludwik Kowalski (8/24/05)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

As mentioned in another unit, I belong to the International Society of Condense Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS). That society has a restricted discussion list, called CMNS, for its members. What follows is an interresting discussion of the so-called fracto-fusion. It evolved from the dabate about names of various CMNS phenomena. The sugested names, as described in unit #248, were: cold fusion (CF), cold transmutation (CT) and energy excess (EE). Somebody mentioned that fusion of two deuterium nuclei dominated by the n+³He and p+³H channels, as opposed to the ⁴He channel, does not belong to CF.

Edmund Storms wrote:
Bill, the concept of chemistry being involved is based on the observation that a solid lattice appears to be a common feature for producing the anomalous nuclear effects associated with CANR. This environment, because it has a high concentration of electrons and a periodic nature, allows a variety of mechanisms to operate that are not present in a plasma. These features are the basis for conventional chemistry, hence allow one to observe that the nuclear reactions are assisted by chemistry. The designation CANR focuses attention on the environment while LENR focuses attention on the mechanism. The choice of which is more accurate goes to the heart of understanding, and obviously has not yet been resolved.

As for the neutron emission observed by Mizuno, we do not yet know whether this is caused by a cold fusion environment. A CF environment seems unlikely because neutrons are normally not produced by cold fusion. It is possible that several different and independent processes are operating, one producing ⁴He, and others producing neutrons and tritium. When evaluating theory, this possibility must be kept in mind.

Ludwik Kowalski (addressing Ed) wrote:
1) According to what was reported at ICCF10 by Jones Steven (nearly two years ago) neutrons and protons are signatures of cold fusion. Does the NAE, to which you refer, have anything to do with the phenomena described by him?

2) Would you object if I characterized your current efforts to understand CMNS phenomena as, mostly, studying the EE (excess energy). I know that you were also one of the pioneers in the investigation of CF; I have the accumulation of tritium in mind.

Ed Storms wrote:
1) Personally, I do not think he [Jones] is studying "conventional" cold fusion, but I do not make a big point of this because any replication of an anomalous nuclear reaction is part of the general field and useful to obtain attention. In his case, I suggest the NAE is TiD that forms cracks where a "normal" hot fusion reaction occurs.

2) I produced tritium when at LANL. but I have no way to test for its presence in my present laboratory. This is one of the basic problems with the field, i.e. we do not have the tools to determine just what is happening. However, I have good calorimeters and can measure heat with confidence.

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
It seems that Ed is saying that only D + D --> ⁴He should be called cold fusion; events leading to n+³He and p + ³H (tritium) channels do not belong to CMNS phenomena. If one accepts this point of view then generation of ⁴He is just another case of transmutation and CF is no longer a subfield of CMNS. That would be ironic.

The answer to the first question is interesting. Ed thinks that electric potential differences (in microscopic cracks) accelerate deuterium ions to energies at which fusion becomes practically possible. The phrase “to obtain attention” might be an indication of something else. The following message from Stven Jones confirms this.

Steven Jones wrote:
Ed wrote: "Personally, I do not think he [Jones] is studying "conventional" cold fusion, but I do not make a big point of this because any replication of an anomalous nuclear reaction is part of the general field and useful to obtain attention."

Makes me feel used.  My research is not just to “obtain attention” for you, Ed or for the excess-heat claims -- what an amazing, unscientific attitude you portray here.

PS – when will you return the BYU equipment I loaned to you years ago, during your visit to BYU? 

The emphasis (bolding) is not mine; it was in the posted message. I was nor aware of personal conflicts within the CMNS community till last week. But that deserves a separate units.

Ed Storms wrote:
Sorry to hurt your feelings, Steve. As you well know, an understanding of CF is still in the future. While I have my opinions, these are not shared by everyone. My opinion that you are not observing what I believe to be cold fusion is not as important as the fact that you are seeing something anomalous, which I acknowledge brings attention to the field. I fail to understand why you think an acknowledgment of such attention is unscientific. Conventional physicists do pay attention to what your work, which helps the field. However, it remains to be determined how your work relates to CANR. On the other hand, should I get my feelings hurt because you don't think my published excess heat measurements are important, least of all to demonstrate CANR?

As for the power supply you loaned to me, I will return it when you want it back. It has been very useful and I'm grateful for its use when I had nothing.

Ludwik Kowalski:
It seems that Ed is saying that only D + D --> ⁴He should be called cold fusion; events leading to n+³He and p + ³H (tritium) channels do not belong to CMNS phenomena. If one accepts this point of view then generation of ⁴He is just another case of transmutation and CF is no longer a subfield of CMNS. That would be ironic.

Steven Jones:
Look, Ed, I do not think your published excess heat results are unimportant -- my personal interest remains however in the nuclear particle measurements as a better window (IMO) on what is going on sub-microscopically. I'm glad to hear the power supply has been useful; you may continue to use it for your research. Hope all is going well for you in New Mexico -- I haven't been there for a long time, but love the place! Hopefully I'll bring my wife back to Sante Fe sometime.

Ludwik Kowalski:
If I understood him correctly Ed thinks that fusion events leading to n+³He and p + ³H channels are due to static charges in the microscopic surface cracks. Electric fields created by these charges accelerate deuterium ions and this leads to fusion. This calls for some questions:

1) Is Ed’s “fusion in cracks” an assumption or is it a fact?
2) If it is a fact then what is the experimental basis for it?
3) What evidence does Steven have to rule out a possibility of cracks fusion?

Ed Storms wrote:
You have the essence of my opinion, Ludwik. However, the effect can be initiated by additional mechanisms other than acceleration produced by static charge. This mechanism has been explored in the past and claimed to be insufficient, at least using conventional theory. The other mechanism, which has not been explored, is the effect of unbalanced charge in the surface that can produce large local voltage gradients. This mechanism has also been applied to the surface of cathodes in F-P cells. Even though the mechanism is still not understood, people who report low level neutron and energetic particle emission have conditions that would be expected to produce cracks. In addition, these emissions are at least 12 orders of magnitude smaller than the nuclear reaction rates associated with heat production and cold fusion. This large difference, along with production of n and t rather than He, suggests to me that two different mechanisms are operating.

[In other words, the effect is only assumed. How can it be assumed if it “has been explored in the past and claimed to be insufficient” to produce the observed events? What kind of theory was used? My guess is that it was the coulomb penetration formula for the highest possible differenece of potential. That is what Steven will probably write, if he decides to reply. I wish the reply from Ed was more informative. Perhaps somebody else will explains the “unbalanced charge in the surface.” I also do not know the meaning of the phrase: the “mechanism has been applied to the surface of cathodes? “ ]

Steven Jones wrote:
Ludwik and Ed raised again the possibility of “crack” fusion to explain observations of protons, tritons, neutrons we have observed coming from deuterided metals. In the early days, this idea was referred to as “fracto-fusion.” However:

 1. The metal is still an excellent electrical conductor, so it is very difficult to see how the required large electric accelerating fields could be produced.

2. We actually followed up on this hypothesis several times, by grinding, bending, crushing metal-deuterides, hoping to produce “fracto-fusion” conditions.  NO enhancement of particle emission was observed, at BYU or (later) at LANL in joint BYU-Los Alamos experiments.

3. The current experiments which are most successful in this area of energetic charged-particle production are those involving low-energy deuteron beams impinging on metal foils, as described briefly in my previous posts here.  I do not see any connection of those experiments to fracto-fusion ideas.  The explanation in terms of screening by electrons is most popular at this time, IMO, although it too seems to be insufficient to account for the large effects seen.

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
1) I do not understand crack fusion. Ed wrote that "the Casmir effect and van der Waals forces are available to initiate nuclear reactions." Can you elaborate, please.

2) Every physics textbook tells us that metallic surfaces are equipotential. If the piece is grounded then the total charge on its surface is zero and the electric field is zero, everywhere.

3) If the piece is not grounded then a net electric charge can be introduced through its manipulation, especially if air is dry. But that electric field is always distributed is such a way that the vector E is perpendicular to the surface, anywhere. A cavity (crack) is essentially a Faraday cage and the surface charge density in the cage is essentially zero. The only places where concentration of static charges can be high are very sharp points. Thus the term "needle fusion" would probably be more appropriate as "crack fusion" or "fracto fusion."

4) Steven Jones wrote: "We actually followed up on this hypothesis several times, by grinding, bending, crushing metal-deuterides, hoping to produce “fracto-fusion” conditions. NO enhancement of particle emission was observed . . . " . Is this not the best possible experimental proof that the postulated phenomenon does not exist? I would like to know about reproducible experiments demonstrating existence of crack fusion. Is there at least one person on this list who performed a crack fusion experiment? Please share your results.

5) Textbooks also tell us about potential differences due to dissimilar metals. For example, a particle of Zn deposited on the surface of copper can generate a difference of potential of one or two volts (I do not recall the exact number). But that is several orders of magnitude below what is needed to accelerate a deuterium ion to a kinetic energy at which the DD fusion is practically possible.

6) What is experimental evidence that rare events observed by Steven are due to crack fusion?

7) What is experimental evidence that rare events observed by Steven are due to Casimir effect?

8) What is experimental evidence that rare events observed by Steven are due to van der Waals forces?

Edmund Storms wrote:
1) Yes [in the early days, this idea was referred to as “fracto-fusion] and a large literature describing this process is available on www.LENR-CANR.org.

In addition to short lived voltage gradients [see item 1 in Steven’s message above], the Casmir effect and van der Waals forces are available to initiate nuclear reactions at low levels.

2) This [see item 2 in Steven’s message above] has been done by Russian workers. I don't have the citations just now but will find them.

3) [Referring to item 3 in Steven’s message Ed added:] Obviously something is being overlooked.


Ed Storms wrote:
1) The nuclear action occurs only as the crack forms. As it forms, unequal number of electrons and ions are separated at the two surfaces. For a brief time, this produces a charge separation, which can cause acceleration of ions from one surface to the other. This is the usual explanation. However, the crack is so small that Casmir effects can be expected. These might introduce energy into the ions from the vacuum energy. Also, the surfaces contain ions with unbalanced charge, as is the case with all surfaces, so called van de Waals forces. In this case, the surface is pure and free of absorbed ions, except deuterium. This will strongly distort the electron charge on the D atom or D2 molecule.

2) This [equipotentiality and neutrality of a grounded metallic sphere] is only true in a gross sense. Local charge still exists.

3) Charge on a point [needle] usually exists because a gross charge is concentrated there or because electrons are being added as would be the case in an electrolytic cell or during gas discharge.

4) [Concerning “reproducible experiments demonstrating existence of crack fusion:] It is well known that if LiD crystals are hit with a hammer, neutrons will be emitted. Such work has been published.

5) Concerning Zn on Cu:] Differences in Fermi levels can create a few volts difference between metals, whether they are in contact or not. This is measured by comparing work function values.

6) “What is experimental evidence that rare events observed by Steven are due to crack fusion?” There is none. The expectation is that the very low level of emission is associated with experimental conditions used during the study that are expected to produce cracks. Also, the nuclear products are characteristic of a high energy reaction rather than the low energy reaction associated with cold fusion.

7) “What is experimental evidence that rare events observed by Steven are due to Casimir effect?” None, just a suggestion.

8) “What is experimental evidence that rare events observed by Steven are due to van der Waals forces?” None, just a suggestion.

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
Thanks for answering all my questions, Ed. I commented: “Every physics textbook tells us that metallic surfaces are equipotential. If the piece is grounded then the total charge on its surface is zero and the electric field is zero, everywhere.’” To which you replied: “This is only true in a gross sense. Local charge still exists.” How can this (violations of Gauss law) be demonstrated?

Denns Cravens wrote:
So if I insert two positively charged D's into a metal where is the charge on the nucleus or on the metal surface?

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
Good answer, Dennis. Gauss' law does not refer to situations in which a net charge consists of a pair of single particles. But does anybody think that a pair of duterons (or thousand such pairs) would produce observable CF (cold fusion) events? Even a million would not be sufficient to observe particles (such as n and p) generated via CF events. I was not thinking about a single pair of ions.

Suppose an insulated metallic sphere was bombarded with alpha particles. This produced a net charge of one nC. How is that charge distributed? I think that transformation of He ions into neutral atoms is practically instant. The total number of free electrons is reduced by 2*k, where k is the number of intercepted alpha particles. Is there any reason to think that the distribution of free electrons will not be uniform after the bombardment?

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote: “It is well known that if LiD crystals are hit with a hammer, neutrons will be emitted. Such work has been published.”

1) How well is it known? What was the reported emission rate? Who published papers describing such observations? Did someone on this list observe such remarkable CF phenomenon? My inclination is to think that neutrons were due to cold fusion, unless reality of crack fusion (or Casimir fusion, or van der Waals fusion) is independently confirmed.

2) Unless published papers are already at our lenr-canr library, I would appreciate if someone could send me a copy of the most recent paper. Write to me in private and I will send you my postal address. The phenomenon would be worth verifying, for example, by observing 3 MeV protons with CR-39. I am thinking about cracking crystals with pliers above the CR-39.

3) Steven Jones wrote: "We actually followed up on this hypothesis several times, by grinding, bending, crushing metal-deuterides, hoping to produce 'fracto-fusion' conditions.  NO enhancement of particle emission was observed, at BYU or (later) at LANL in joint BYU-Los Alamos experiments." Why were no excess neutrons observed in these experiments? Who should I believe? Are the authors "hammer fusion" papers more experienced in detecting neutrons than LANL people?

4) Those with no experience with detection of neutrons, or with no access to necessary instruments, must rely on credential of researchers reporting experimental results. What else can we do?