How the explanation of LENR can be made

Uncorrected proof
How the explanation of LENR can be made
consistent with observed behaviour and natural
Edmund Storms*
The phenomenon called ‘cold fusion’ or low energy
nuclear reaction (LENR) has been a challenge to accept
and explain. The problem is compounded because an
effective explanation must be consistent with the
observed behaviour and natural laws. Hundreds of
explanations have been published, but none was able
to meet this expectation. Consequently, acceptance of
the phenomenon by conventional science and application of the energy have been handicapped. The present
article summarizes an effort to reduce this problem by
identifying a few critical requirements and proposing a
mechanism that is consistent with these requirements.
This model can also predict many behaviours of importance to science and commercial applications.
Cold fusion, hydroton, LENR, theory.
LOW energy nuclear reaction (LENR) has attracted many
explanations without any of them gaining general agreement. Most are in conflict with each other and/or with
various natural laws. As a result, confusion reigns. The
first step toward solving this problem requires agreement
about some basic facts, rules and assumptions.
The following observed behaviours of LENR are
strongly supported and need to be explained.
(1) Formation of helium with the amount of energy
corresponding to that expected from D–D fusion.
(2) Formation of tritium when using either deuterium
containing some protium or natural hydrogen containing
some deuterons. The amount of tritium is found sensitive
to the D/H atom ratio.
(3) Absence of significant energetic radiation of any kind.
(4) Extreme difficulty in initiating the fusion reaction.
(5) Significant excess energy produced using natural
(6) Two kinds of transmutation, one that results in
fragmentation of the product nucleus and one that does
not fragment after hydrogen isotopes are added to a target
(7) An occasional fusion rate in excess of 1012 events/s.
(8) Absence of the nuclear products and radiation
expected to result from hot fusion.
Regardless of the assumed explanation, two or more
nuclei must occupy the same small region at the same
time before fusion can occur. Assembly of these nuclei
must be consistent with the natural laws that apply to a
chemical system because this structure must form in a
chemical system at a rate and concentration consistent
with the observed rate of energy release. Once assembled,
a means must be available in the structure to overcome
the Coulomb barrier at a significant rate. After the barrier
is overcome, a mechanism must be available to dissipate
the massive resultant nuclear energy as many low energy
units. All parts of this process must take place at roughly
the same time and at the same location until the final nuclear product is formed with no residual energy. In addition, the process needs to be compatible with the
mechanism that causes the two kinds of transmutation
and involves all isotopes of hydrogen. These requirements severely limit the possibilities and encourage some
people to believe the process is impossible.
The reality of these observations and requirements is
accepted here for the purpose of suggesting a plausible
explanation containing as few conflicts with the natural
laws as possible. In addition, some novel features of
nuclear interaction must be considered if LENR is to be
explained, regardless of which proposed explanation is
considered. Consequently, finding the most plausible and
effective novel feature becomes the challenge to accomplish and accept.
The next question requiring attention is where in the
material the fusion reaction takes place. Some theories
place the reaction within the bulk material. However, the
reaction is now known to take place not in the bulk, but
very near the surface when the electrolytic method is
used and possibly in all cases. An additional complexity
is added because the cathode surface is not pure PdD,
which is the assumed host for the fusion process in this
case. The process has also been found effective in very
thin films and powders where little bulk material is available compared to the amount of surface. Apparently, a
feature present only on the surface of a material is important to the process.
Uncorrected proof
Because most information about LENR is based on the
behaviour of PdD, this face-centred-cubic compound is
used as an example of a process that might take place in
any material containing any isotope of hydrogen. To start
the fusion process in PdD, a collection of deuterium
atoms must assemble in the same place at the same time.
Because most theories place this assembly in the crystal
lattice, the consequence of this location needs to be
explored first.
For such a cluster to form, the rules of chemistry
require Gibbs energy be created. This energy can be only
created if the assembly is more stable than any other arrangement of D in the lattice. Multiple deuterium atoms
are not known to exist in PdD at the same location and
their presence would be inconsistent with all that is
known about the material. Furthermore, because the assembly process takes place as one nucleus at a time finds
the location, the rate of formation will limit the rate at
which power can be released by subsequent fusion within
the required large structure to small values. To add further difficulty, the amount of energy available in a
chemical lattice to initiate fusion is limited by the energy
of the bonds holding the atoms in the lattice together,
which is far too small to affect a nuclear process. Consequently, a different location must be found for the hydrogen to assemble that is outside the crystal lattice, where
these limitations would not apply.
The interior of a crack meets this requirement. Such
cracks form by stress relief generally on the surface of a
material. In fact, they are observed to form on the surface
of a PdD cathode. However, not all cracks will be active.
Cracks having too large a gap allow D2 gas to form,
which is well known not to fuse. A crack having too
small a gap will not be sufficiently different from the
conditions in the lattice to meet the requirement. Consequently, if a crack is the site, it must have a critical gap
width in which a collection of hydrogen atoms can form a
unique structure able to accomplish what normal D2 or
deuteron ions in the lattice cannot do. This structure is
called a Hydroton.
Once this structure forms, its first job would be to
reduce the separation between two deuterons enough to
start the fusion process. However, if the deuterons are
simply brought too close, whether by applying high
energy or by use of a muon, the strong force takes over
and the fusion process releases excess mass energy as kinetic energy when the resulting nucleus explodes, i.e. hot
fusion. This does not happen when LENRs occur. The
question is ‘Why not’? Apparently, the LENR process
causes the nuclei to get close enough for the fusion process to start, but then allows the excess mass energy to
leak out slowly so that the normal fragmentation of the
resulting 4He does not occur. The great mystery of cold
fusion is contained in this process.
To add more complexity, this mechanism is not the
only novel feature that needs attention. A mechanism
must also overcome the Coulomb barrier without having
to apply high energy. The various proposed theories all
try to explain this process in different ways, sometimes in
ways so complex as to defy understanding. Unfortunately,
in the process, they ignore many requirements summarized above and create conflicts with natural laws. To
fully explore these conflicts requires a level of detail not
possible here. Instead, the reader’s attention is directed to
a book1 where a representative collection of proposed
theories and their limitations have been described. Rather
than examining this large collection in the limited space
available here, the discussion is moved directly to a new
proposed mechanism that does not have the identified
The process of finding this explanation starts using the
Sherlock Holmes approach. To paraphrase, ‘After all the
obvious possibilities have been eliminated, what remains
must be the truth’. The many attempts at finding an effective explanation have eliminated much of the obvious.
Does anything of value remain? One possibility is examined below. Whether this is the truth remains to be determined, but it provides a fresh start down a different path.
The path contains some features proposed by other people, but how these features are combined is unique.
Suppose a gap forms (crack) and hydrogen atoms (any
isotope of hydrogen) move into the opening. A structure
shown in Figure 1 might form if the gap had the proposed
critical dimension. At the same time, a strong negative
charge forms in the gap as electrons associated with the
metal atoms are shifted, on average, into the gap. The
electrons associated with the hydrogen atoms in this gap
react to this charge by moving to a higher energy state to
avoid conflict, perhaps to the conventional p-level. Consequently, these bonding electrons are expected to move
freely in the gap between the hydrogen nuclei and the atoms are expected to vibrate in line with the length of the
structure. This vibration (resonance) allows adjacent
Figure 1. A cartoon of the Hydroton. The Hydroton structure is
shown in the active gap with the electron density distribution shown for
one part of the resonance cycle. The arrows show emission of photons
in opposite directions from adjacent nuclei as they are briefly forced
closer by the resonance process1.
Uncorrected proof
hydrogen nuclei, for a short time, to get closer than is
normally possible. So far, this process is completely conventional, but perhaps rare. Now the mystery starts.
As the nuclei resonate, they periodically get closer.
This process can be visualized using Figure 2, which
shows the force existing between the nuclei. Energy
provided by ambient temperature causes the nuclei to
move within the energy wells created by the Coulomb
force. Because the bonding electrons in this structure and
those provided by the metal atoms have reduced the Coulomb force, the nuclei can get closer than is normally the
case, but only for a limited time. A novel kind of interaction is proposed to occur when the separation is reduced
to a critical value, as shown in the lower part of Figure 2.
Once this critical separation is achieved, the nuclei sense
that too much mass energy is present for the amount of
separation. This unique interaction is the novel feature
revealed by the LENR phenomenon. This kind of interaction has not been previously detected because application
of high energy causes the separation to pass too quickly
through this critical region to allow emission of detectable radiation.
The implications of this idea are significant. For example, for such a process to occur, the nuclei must have a
means to communicate besides using the Coulomb force,
the strong force, or the weak force. Perhaps, nuclei can
interact at a much greater distance than previously
thought possible and start to radiate excess mass energy
before the strong force gets involved and fusion is complete. Full justification for this is not possible here. Nevertheless, the possibility is worth considering in view of
how LENR is observed to behave and the identified
requirements all explanations must acknowledge.
To summarize the proposed idea, if the distance is
large, the nuclei repel each other; if the distance is very
small, they attract and immediately fuse using the strong
Figure 2. Diagram showing the energy needed to achieve a separation
between hydrogen nuclei in a Hydroton. (Top) The quiescent position
of hydrogen nuclei in a Hydroton. (Bottom) Two hydrogen nuclei after
resonance has caused them to move up the Coulomb barrier and to
achieve a distance that allows photon emission. Figure are not to scale1.
force, and if the distance is just right, they start to anticipate the fusion process but do not yet experience the
attraction of the strong force. This ‘goldilocks’ zone is
the unique condition revealed by LENR.
The two arrows in Figure 1 indicate emission of the
energy as photons, in opposite direction and with opposite
spin from each nucleus. This process repeats as a series
of emitted photons gradually drains excess mass energy
from the nuclei until they can finally fuse while capturing
the intervening electron (see note 1). Emission of each
photon transfers some momentum to the emitting nucleus,
which allows it to climb higher on the energy barrier and
achieve closer separation at each cycle until eventually
the strong force completes the fusion process after most
excess mass energy has been emitted from the hydrogen
If the structure contained only D, the product would be
H, which is proposed to rapidly decay to form 4He by
weak beta emission. If the structure contained D+H, the
result would be tritium (3H) that is known to decay
slowly to 3He by weak beta emission. Finally, if only H
were present, the result would be stable deuterium ( 2H).
In each case, energy would be generated, weak photon
emission having a range of energy would result, neutrinos
would be involved in the various nuclear reactions
involving electrons, and the observed nuclear products
and heat energy would be produced.
This process can be described in greater more detail as
follows. The active gaps form as a result of stress relief,
generally as a result of an uncontrolled and random process. A variable amount of hydrogen assembles in the gap
by normal diffusion from the surrounding material to
form the Hydroton. This molecular structure forms by
release of Gibbs energy as the electrons surrounding the
hydrogen nuclei shift to a higher energy and those in the
gap wall shift to a lower energy. The highest negative
charge resulting from these bonding electrons is found
located between the hydrogen nuclei where they are able
to partially reduce the Coulomb barrier. The normal
vibration caused by ambient temperature causes the nuclei to get close, at which time a photon is emitted. The
energy of the photon would not be constant but would
depend on how many nuclei are in the Hydroton, the isotopic composition and how much mass energy has been
released. Nevertheless, the energy is obviously not sufficient to allow most photons to leave the apparatus where
they can be detected. The energy of the photons is sufficient to cause most of them to move well away from the
source before their energy is converted to heat in the surrounding material. Consequently, the process does not
cause local damage that might stop it, as would result
from phonon emission, which is a form of high temperature that would have its greatest value at the source.
The theory further proposes that transmutation cannot
occur unless fusion provides the energy to overcome
large huge Coulomb barrier for this process. To acquire
Uncorrected proof
this energy, the target nucleus would need to be attached
to the Hydroton where it could gain access to the hydrogen and required energy. Which of the two different
kinds of transmutation is produced is determined by the
isotope of hydrogen present in the Hydroton. The transmutation process is too complex to explain here, requiring a book to justify (see storms1, p. 228).
The model can also be applied to understanding the
engineering aspects of the problem. Three variables can
be identified and used to control the rate of the fusion reaction and hence power production. These are (i) Availability of fuel at the nuclear-active sites. (ii)Number of
nuclear-active sites. (iii) Rate of conversion of massenergy into heat energy by a nuclear process.
The first process is sensitive to the concentration of
hydrogen in the surrounding structure and to the rate at
which this hydrogen can diffuse from its location in the
material to an active gap by normal diffusion. Because
the effect increases rapidly as temperature is increased, a
runaway condition is possible at high applied temperature, as is observed. The second variable is the hardest to
control and generally determines whether the material
will be active or not. When too few active gaps are present in the material, the power will be too small to be
detected, no matter how much fuel is present. Because
these variables interact to control power production, they
must be considered when designing a generator and when
experimental results are evaluated.
The relative amount of D and H in the material is
important. If all else is the same, the amount of power is
determined by the isotopic composition of the Hydroton,
with 100% D producing much more power than 100% H.
Because H produces D by the proposed process and the
combination of D and H produces tritium, a power source
containing H is expected to generate increasing amounts
of tritium. This could be a problem if the presence of this
radioactive isotope is not taken into account. For this reason and because more power can be produced, a power
generator using pure D is preferred.
A number of predictions can be made to test the concept. For example, when a nucleus on occasion fails to
fuse after losing some mass energy, a nuclear isomer
having a deficit amount of energy is formed, which is in
contrast to the normal nuclear isomer that contains excess
energy. This possibility encourages a search for protons
and deuterons with slightly less mass than normal. A further prediction results because the Hydroton is similar to
a form of metallic hydrogen, which predicts that a fusion
reaction would be expected when metallic hydrogen is
made by application of high pressure. Resonance in the
Hydroton is predicted to generate conventional radiation
as a result of charges moving in the electric field created
by the crack, which might be detected by suitable detectors. The photons resulting from mass-energy release
would have much greater energy than this conventional
radiation. The model also predicts that heat energy would
result from deuterium formation, not from transmutation
as is commonly assumed, when the protium isotope of
hydrogen is used.
A collection of requirements is partially summarized as a
means to evaluate the proposed explanations. Because
none of the present explanations is consistent with all the
proposed requirements, a new approach is proposed. The
new explanation is consistent with the identified requirements and predicts many behaviours. The phenomenon
can be explained without violating any basic natural law
provided a single unique kind of nuclear interaction is
accepted. At the very least, this explanation provides a
new approach to explaining LENR.
Even if this new approach were not accepted, some
kind of novel process is required to explain the phenomenon. The question is, ‘what kind of novel process can be
accepted while remaining consistent with the chosen
requirements’? The possibilities are limited. Nevertheless, the common use of those concepts obtained from the
hot fusion process is neither needed nor appropriate.
Hopefully, this article will encourage a search for an
effective explanation to this amazing and potentially
useful phenomenon.
Understanding the process at a deeper level than is
presently available is essential before the phenomenon
can be used as the ideal power source mankind has
sought and is required because conventional sources continue to poison the earth.
Capture of the intervening electron is required to explain the observed
formation of tritium without prior neutron formation, which demonstrates the tritium did not form as result of hot fusion. The only other
possible source would be for fusion to occur in the Hydroton
between H and D with electron capture. Electron capture is required
because otherwise 3He would form. Helium-3 is not a direct nuclear
product, being found only as a product of tritium decay. Furthermore,
the close involvement in lowering the Coulomb barrier would make
the electron susceptible to being captured by the fusion process.
If this capture can take place to form tritium, the same process
can be assumed to take place when any isotope of hydrogen is
caused to fuse in the Hydroton. Of course, neutrino emission would
occur, but it would only carry away a small fraction of excess mass
energy because very little energy remains when neutrinos are emitted during the fusion process, with most energy having been removed by previous proton emission. While this process cannot be
justified using conventional cross-section concepts, the observed
behaviour and logic encourage consideration of such a process. See
www.LENRexplained for more details.
1. Storms, E. K., The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,
Infinite Energy Press, Concord, NH, 2014, p. 365; www.