Welcome to our webinar and we're
going to begin
with a welcome from Bill Sutton.
-Thank you so much Pat. Hello and
welcome.
On behalf of the Energy 2.0 Society
I'd like to greet you to our first webinar.
I'm 
Bill Sutton, I'm a board member here
at the Energy 2.0
Society. This webinar will
feature three presenters whose
experience closely
relates to the subject of low energy
nuclear reactions.
I'd like to thank them in advance.
They are graciously sharing their
time and opinions today
with us in this form. I'd also like to
thank all the people
that are joining us as participants
in the webinar.
As we looked over the registrations
we noticed it was a widely diverse group
of people from all over
the globe who have registered and
have an interest
in this webinar. So thank you. For those
of you that have seen the Energy 2.0
website you know
that our organization is primarily
educational
in it's mission. In the past we've had
guest 
lecturers go out from our board and
make presentations
and you'll find some of those on the
website. They serve as a
good introduction to the subject of
LENR.
Our goal and intent though is to
identify a method to demonstrate
LENR as a 
practical means of producing heat and
electricity, make those results
open to the public, and to supply
research labs with
demonstration kits for their use.
However,
replication to date has been somewhat
of an elusive target.
As more is known and released, the
home replicator will
have a better chance of producing a
successful trial.
It's our goal to make the process
well known
and to put the process within reach
of the public for adaptation.
We do anticipate future webinars
so as to reach these goals. I will now
turn the mic back over to Pat Higby,
who is from the
University of Northern Iowa.
-Now we're going to move over 
to the introduction of speakers by
Frank Acland.
-We've got a good
line up of speakers today. We're
going to be starting out
with Dr. Vladimir Dubinko who is
leading researcher at the National
Science Center at the Kharkov
Institute of Physics and Technology in
Karkov, Ukraine.
Vlad will be talking about
local anharmonic vibrations in
crystals 
and clusters with applications to LENR.
-I now announce 
the title Quantitative Model of E-Cat
Based on the LAV
Theory. By quantitative model I mean
that I would like to present you
some clear logic from the theory
fundamental laws of physics and
remind you conventional physics. I'm 
not going to invent any new principles
in contrary to the majority of scientists
walking in the LENR field.
One of my main
arguments is that the known physics
is quite
sufficient for us to understand the
principles of LENR.
The other message we'll be
that probably we will not going
to reach the 
control of LENR without understanding
its physics.
We will discuss a little shortly
some replications like Rossi,
Parkhomov, Nick Oseyko, and then
proceed with some short theory
on why it's so difficult to tunnel through
Coulomb barrier at
low temperatures. Actually we will
try to find the way out of this
difficulty introducing
new concept of Discrete Breathers.
It's not a new concept for solid state
physics
or for mathematics but to the field of
LENR it's
kind of a new thing. 
Then we will try to understand how
this
concept will help us to tunnel through
the Coulomb barrier and actually
to build some quantitative
estimates of the duration of any
generators. The first slide is
very well known replication,
experiment
by Rossi which is claimed to produce
kilowatts of energy, excess energy
per gram of the fuel which is
composed mainly from nickel and hydrogen.
Also lithium seems to be
an important ingredient.
After
Rossi and especially after the replication
by Parkhamov a lot of
researchers tried to reproduce these
experiments
but only a few of them have been
successful. The principle question is
why.
In spite of the fact that all tried to
imitate the
same conditions some of them are
successful
and some of them are not. For instance I
was a witness of a successful replication
by Nick
Oseyko in Kiev, which is the capital
of Ukraine.
In his replication
it can be clearly said
you see the reactor set up
it's just heating
some vessel, with the reactor let's
say that is fuel very closely 
imitating the Parkhamov setup. The
difference
is that the temperature
is very good controlled
in this particular case it's 1000 of
celsius. Then one can compare between
the energy consumption of the test
specimen with no fuel and with the
loaded fuel.
You can see on the bottom
part of this slide that the test
the control specimen shows the
energy consumption 181
while the loaded one shows the 
consumption of
140, which means that at least
40 watt difference
is produced in this reaction.
The question is why other 
replicators, like for instance
Jean Biberian from France
or Budko and Korshunov from Moscow 
and many others,
didn't succeed in spite of
the very close approach to the problem.
To my mind the answer
lies in the 
material in the microstructure of
the specimens.
To understand that first let us shortly
consider the underlying physics. 
Of course
the most difficult problem
we are facing is filtration, or tunneling
as physicists call it, though the
Coulomb barrier which prevents
any nuclear reaction from being
stopped. It is very well known that
at room temperature the probability
to penetrate
the Coulomb barrier is 10 to minus
two thousand something,
which is practically zero.
A lot of theoretical attempts
directed at screening of the
Coulomb barrier
by for instance electrons. This slide
shows you
the plot of the tunneling coefficient
with probability
of tunneling as the function of the
tunneling
distance. The idea is that if we, by
some mechanism, can bring the
nucleus, for instance of
two neutrons at the distance of
one angstr, like here, then you will
see the 
probability of tunneling is ten to minus
a hundred, which is zero.
If it is possible to screen
this barrier up to the distances of just
a few fractions of angstroms then the
probability
increases drastically. But in order to
achieve ten to minus twelve, which is
still very low quantity but in principle
it would
explain some of the experiments, you
need a 
screening distance just one percent 
of an angstrom
which is too small for electrons.
Electrons are far away as compared
to this distance.
This is why all the additional physicists 
don't believe in this mechanism.
To my mind
the answer lies in the well-forgotten
but nevertheless very well established
principles.
These principles were established by
Schrodinger 
and Robertson, who actually modified
the very well known uncertainty
relations by Heizenberg.
Heizenberg relations looks like this.
This is a product 
of uncertainty between one quantity
and another,
for instance momentum and distance.
On the right side this is some operators.
When you
resolve these algebra
you will get something like this.
The product is more than a planned
constant.
If you take into account the correlation
between these operations then you
will result with correction. 
Usually if there is no correlation of
course you have the same result
and the same result which was 
obtained by gamma.
If you take into account this correlation
coefficient then
we can really modify the gamma
formula and then the probability
at least in principle can be increased
normally. The question is can the
correlations
make the barrier
practically transparent?
The principle answer is yes and
this plot shows
you why. It shows you the distribution
of the
probability of the particle to be somewhere
inside or outside the potential well.
If there's
no correlation it is localized, 
it's strongly localized within the
potential well.
When the correlation
appears it becomes delocalized 
it shows you, which means that
somehow
there's a high probability of the particle
go under the barrier and if the barrier
is dense at some point
some angstroms away it principle it
can penetrate through the barrier.
The physicist from Kiev,
Vladimir Vysotskii actually demonstrated
the way to increase the correlation
coefficient. 
This way consists in modulation
oscillation of these potential
well points.
It's kind of a vibrating potential of
well. If you can vibrate
this potential well, make is oscillate,
then just pure mathematics shows you
that the correlation factor
increases and becomes very close to unique.
What we need is, for instance,
these three atoms oscillating like this.
One of the atoms should oscillating with
a very large amplitude
as compared to usual amplitudes of
atoms and
thus making his neighbors, let's say
to experience these oscillations of the
potential wells.
But why?
My message is all you need to
understand it is LAV.
LAV is Localized Anharmonic
Vibrations.
Actually discovered in 1969 by
Ovchinnikov
who showed us that already two
coupled oscillators can be more or
less independent from each
other, which means that they don't 
share energy.
Now with a very
sophisticated tools we can show that,
for instance
in iron, we can model by
MD modeling these LIV,
these vibrating atoms as you see in this
animation. It can be 
either standing or mobile like
in this one.
We come for instance to the 
deuterium palladium.
You will know that the structure
is the same as the rock salt.
Heavy and light atoms interchanging.
You tell the difference, there's a gap
in the phonon spectrum. In this gap
you can excite the LIV.
Not going into details, it's possible
to contract the picture
of the density of states of
the vibration modes of this crystal
which actually
can make what we call the parametric
resonance when the frequency of the
oscillation of the
potential well equals the cell frequency
multiplied by two. If this is so
then the tunneling coefficient from the
starts to increase
with increasing number of oscillation
cycles
enormous from 10 to minus hundred
and less
practically to energy. That's the
leading idea.
Now preliminary conclusion is
that this LAV, localized anharmonic
vibrations, 
can result in giant increase of
Coulomb barrier transparency.
The calculations show that we don't need
these super sharp distances, just
oscillation
of 10% from
the lattice spacing can be enough,
provided
that the lifetime of these
vibrations is long enough. About,
for instance,
conduct of cycles, which is just ten
seconds actually.
Based on this understanding
we can construct the
rate theory of LENR which
can become paired with the success
of electrolysis of heavy water or
under the conditions
of E-Cat by Rossi, Parkhamov, and others.
For instance in this case there is a
quantitative comparison between the
model and
the experimental points provided by
different researchers.
From this picture
you can see that LAV can provide up to
ten to 14 successful low energy
nuclear reactions per second in the case
of heavy water electrolysis. The most
important for us for the replicators of
E-Cat
is the effect of temperature because
this slide shows you
that the success of our production of
LIVs for one gram depends on the
temperature
monotonously. 
The red line shows you the effect of
pure temperature. If you apply
electric current like in
the electrolysis you can produce
more and more LAVs
that's why the reaction rate increases.
In the E-Cat installations
in principle it is possible to produce LAVs
by pure heating but
you see if you have a look
already at 600 of K you have
a prediction from this very simple model
of excess 
energy production exceeding ten of
kilowatts, which is much more than is
observed by
experiments. The answer,
the explanation of this discrepancy
is very simple
because the model doesn't take into
account the second effect
of temperature. The first effect of
temperature is to help LAV
to rise, to be excited.
The second effect of the temperature
is the efficiency 
of LAV for the tunneling is decreased
because fluctuating barrier
is not as easily can
be tunneled through not as easily as
a stable. So the
barrier should oscillating periodically
then it's okay. If you have this white
noise, which is caused
by the temperature, it's not so okay.
Our explanation is the temperature
dependence can be non-monotonous
that's why we need some
other ways of stimulation 
LENR. For instance in this experiment
by Letts
and Hagelstein they demonstrated that
you can
somehow help facilitate
the reaction by applying the 
terahertz laser frequencies. 
These terahertz frequencies actually
lies very near the phonon bands. 
It is some coincidence, some resonance
with the LAV frequencies to my mind.
The questions are where and how to
look for this nuclear
active environments and how to
trigger than LENR.
The first question can be answered
that small energy gap is required
to excited LAV. Then
you can produce this nuclear
active environment.
Some examples already known from MD
simulations of very small nano sized
nickel particles. In this picture you'll see
different colors and sizes of
these circles correspond to the
different amplitudes
of atoms. You see that some atoms
or some chains of atoms lying along the
grains and on the surface are really 
excited.
This is a molecular dynamic verification
of the idea of LAV.
Then the last question is how to
trigger LENR.
The example is
to use some excitation of the
terahetz
and the electrolysis done by
Hagelstein and Letts.
The other is to try electron beam
as the source
of displacement of atoms
from the electron positions
and these displacements can be
tuned
due to the drying of the energy
of the electrons. This picture shows
you the plot
of our installations 
that we would like to build if we are
funded
because it's not a very simple thing
to do but in principle it can be realized.
This is one of the ways to my mind
to approach this problem
from the side of
deep science.
In conclusion, I would like again to
stress that the present results
are based only on the known
physical principles and
on the independent and atomistic
simulations of LAVs
in metals and ion crystals.
Our outstanding goal is to suggest
new ways of engineering the nuclear
active environment
which help to create LAVs by
maybe special dopings
or some mechanical treatments and
also to suggest new ways of triggering
LENR. Thank you for your attention.
