ISIS Report 04/12/08
Widom-Larsen Theory Explains Low Energy Nuclear Reactions & Why They Are Safe and Green
All down to collective effects and weak interactions Lewis Larsen
A fully referenced
version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website. Details
here
An electronic version of the full report can be downloaded from the ISIS online
store. Download Now
Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs predicts ultra low momentum neutrons created
by collective weak interactions
The Widom-Larsen (W-L) theory explains low energy nuclear reactions (LENRs)
in terms of the production of neutral subatomic particles called “neutrons”
at ordinary temperatures and pressures. Unlike conventional neutron-triggered fission and
hot fusion reactions (that involve random collision of individual particles
and require extremely high temperatures and pressures), the W-L theory proposes
that collective processes involving many particles acting in concert
to generate neutrons with negligible kinetic energies, i.e., they have ‘ultra
low momentum’ (ULM) [1] (Transmutation,
The Alchemist Dream Come True, SiS 36).
Such neutrons are created within collectively oscillating patches of protons
or deuterons (found on surfaces of hydrogen-loaded metallic hydrides) that
can react directly with heavy-mass electrons created by
the huge local nanoscale electric fields that
also occur on the hydrogen-coated metallic surfaces. In such nanoscale
surface environments, neutrons are created collectively in a weak interaction
process directly from electrons (e-) and the
nuclei of hydrogen, i.e., protons
(p+) and/or deuterium, deuterons (d+), as
follows [2]:
e- + p+ -> neutron + neutrino
(1)
e- + d+ -> 2 neutrons + neutrino
(2)
This type of neutron production due to weak interactions in very high surface
electric fields is well-described by the generally accepted electroweak theory
[3] on which the W-L theory of LENRs is based.
An isolated ‘normal’ thermal neutron outside a nucleus travelling through
a solid has a quantum mechanical wavelength of about 0.2 nanometre (1 nanometre
is 10-9m) and a speed of about 2 200
metres per second, which is faster than a rifle bullet. Interestingly, the
‘size’ of a neutron confined inside an atomic nucleus is even smaller,
at several femtometres (10-12 m).
By contrast, an ULM neutron formed on a metallic hydride surface in a LENR is
more-or-less standing still. Being formed collectively, ULM neutrons have almost
no kinetic energy at the instant of their creation, effectively zero. This
gives them huge quantum mechanical wavelengths compared to ‘normal’ neutrons.
ULM quantum mechanical
wavelengths (conceptually, effective ‘size’) increase dramatically [2]. Note
that ULM neutrons have much smaller energies (and correspondingly
larger quantum mechanical wavelengths) than even the ‘ultracold’ neutrons
[4] produced so far in certain experiments.
The ‘size’ of ULM neutrons is typically extremely large in comparison to
thermal neutrons. It is directly determined
by the spatial dimensions of the surface ‘patch’ of protons or deuterons in
which they were created. In particular, their wave function must span the
entire patch. Therefore, on the surfaces of condensed
matter (e.g., a metallic hydride), the wave functions of ULM neutrons
can easily reach 20 – 30 microns, i.e., 10 000 to 15 000 times that of thermal
neutrons; and roughly the size of a large bacterium or a cell. Surfaces
of hydrogen-loaded metallic hydrides are one of the
few environments in the Universe where subatomic neutrons become almost microscopic.
Capture of ultra-low momentum neutron results in a variety of transmutations
to non-radioactive elements
At a ‘size’ of 0.2 nanometre, a thermal neutron is only able to interact
with just a few atoms at any given instant; and it is also moving fast. In
contrast, the gigantic ULM neutrons can interact collectively with literally
thousands of nearby ‘target’ atoms all at once. This unique property increases
the probability of their being absorbed by those nearby atoms to nearly 100
percent. A nuclear physicist would say ULM neutrons have phenomenally high
“absorption cross-sections.”
ULM neutrons’ huge size is exactly why biologically dangerous energetic (‘hot’)
neutrons are not released
by LENR systems. ULM neutrons are extraordinarily ‘cold’ to begin with; and virtually
all are absorbed locally; they never get a chance to escape and go
anywhere. It is the first reason why LENRs are safe and environmentally friendly
in comparison with heavy element neutron-triggered
fission and light element hot fusion.
After being created, ULM neutrons are efficiently absorbed by nearby target
atoms, resulting in nuclear transmutations into different elements or isotopes
[5]. Unstable transmutation products undergo subsequent weak interaction beta
decays [6] that, depending upon exactly which nearby target elements were
used as ‘fuel,’ can then release large amounts of nuclear binding energy [7].
Another reason why LENRs are green (environmentally friendly) is that extremely
neutron-rich, very unstable
intermediate transmutation products turn into stable, non-radioactive
elements very quickly via cascades of rapid beta decays. Such neutron-rich intermediate nuclear products have short half-lives, of milliseconds, seconds,
minutes, or at most hours; and typically
not even days or months, let alone years. That is why LENR systems do not
produce large quantities of long-lived hot radioactive isotopes like today’s
commercial fission reactors. As a result, there are no known nuclear waste
disposal issues with LENR systems. Long-lived, highly radioactive isotopes
(gamma emitters like cobalt-60) are not produced in detectable
quantities; this has been verified in many LENR experiments.
Hard gammas and X-rays are absorbed and converted into soft radiation or heat
The W-L theory also explains why hard gamma and
X-rays are not released during LENR system operation [8]. This arises
from unique heavy-mass electrons created by the very strong nanoscale electric fields that occur in regions above
localized patches of collectively oscillating protons and deuterons where
neutron production and absorption are taking place. Unlike isolated normal-mass
electrons situated in a vacuum or a hot plasma, heavy-mass electrons created
in condensed matter LENR systems can directly absorb a hard gamma or X-ray
photon, “ring like a bell” for an infinitesimal fraction of a second, then
(according to conservation of energy) reradiate a much larger number of much
less energetic photons (mostly in the infrared region,
with a much smaller ‘tail’ of soft X-ray photons).
In operating LENR systems, therefore, hard gamma ray
photons in an energy range between 0.5 MeV and 10.0 MeV (often created during
absorption of ULM neutrons by some, but not all, atoms/isotopes) are locally
absorbed by heavy-mass electrons before they can escape [8]. Those electrons
then convert the absorbed gammas directly into raw heat in the form of benign
infrared photons that are also locally absorbed.
LENR systems have what amounts to built-in
gamma shielding during operation, a remarkable property by any standard.
A gamma-absorbing ‘patch layer’ of heavy-mass
electrons in an LENR system has the ability to stop a very dangerous (~5 MeV)
gamma ray in less than two nanometres. Whereas it would take ~10 cm of lead,
~25 cm of steel, or ~1 metre of very heavy concrete to accomplish the same
degree of protection against ‘hard’ gamma radiation [9].
LENR-based power generation much safer and affordable than fission or hot
fusion
Unlike the deadly energetic neutrons and X-ray/gamma
radiation produced by nuclear fission or hot fusion reactions, the charged-particle
products produced by LENRs (beta and alpha particles) cannot penetrate a piece
of paper or the human skin [10]; they could not escape through the outer casing
of an LENR system in the first place.
Future commercial versions of Lattice’s purely
weak interaction, LENR-based systems would not require expensive, bulky
shielding or radiation confinement structures. Neither would they have any
costly end-of-life nuclear waste disposal issues, as LENRs do not in the end
produce biologically significant quantities of long-lived hot radioactive
isotopes. That being the case, it would seem unlikely that government regulation
of LENRs would be anywhere near as onerous as it is for existing fission and the hoped-for fusion
technologies. Altogether, it seems reasonable to assume
that power generation based on LENRs would be much less expensive as well
as safe from accidents or intentional sabotage.
A revolution in power generation
Prior to W-L theory, weak interactions were thought to be useless
for power generation.
In contrast to hot fission and fusion associated with the controversy over
nuclear weapons and the potential of a nuclear war
in the aftermath of WWII, Enrico Fermi’s beloved weak interactions became
somewhat neglected. It was looked upon more as a
scientific curiosity of theoretical interest with no practical applications.
After all, every physicist and chemist ‘knows’ that radioactive beta decay
rates are mainly low-energy and, being random, cannot be controlled; and hence
useless for power generation applications. Also, no one considered the possibility
of creating neutrons directly via the weak interaction; there just didn’t
seem to be any reasonable way to get weak interaction rates high enough to
be useful. The Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs and hundreds of credible experiments
have demonstrated otherwise.
Weak interactions are not weak energetically
Contrary to common belief, weak interaction LENRs are not necessarily weak
in terms of the total amount of energy released. Widom and Larsen’s 2006 European
Physical Journal C paper [2] shows the following net result of
a series of LENR reactions starting with lithium
Lithium-6 + 2 neutrons -> 2 helium-4 + beta particle + neutrino + 26.9 MeV
(3)
This particular series can release about the same
amount of energy as fusion reactions without creating any energetic
neutrons, hard gamma radiation, or hot radioactive
isotopes. While some of the 26.9 MeV in excess nuclear binding energy released
is certainly lost to the neutrino, much of it remains in the kinetic energy of
the two helium atoms (alpha particles) and beta particle. Local solid matter
is heated-up by the impacts of the alpha and beta particles; and heavy-mass
electrons also convert any locally produced hard gamma or X-rays directly into infrared heat.
The details of nuclear reactions that comprise a condensed matter LENR lithium
cycle are as follows (n = ultra low momentum neutron; beta particle =
e−; neutrino = n):
Li-6 + n -> Li-7 + n -> Li-8 -> Be-8 + e−
+ n {neutron absorption, then betadecay} (4)
Be-8 -> He-4 + He-4 {perfectly symmetric, ‘green’ fission of a beryllium-8 nucleus} (5)
He-4 + n -> He-5 + n -> He-6 {neutron absorption, making neutron-rich helium} (6)
He-6 -> Li-6 + e− + n
{final beta decay of helium- 6 that regenerates lithium-6} (7)
The above series of nuclear reactions comprise a ‘reaction
cycle’ in that lithium-6 is regenerated as the final reaction product [2].
Lattice has also uncovered other LENR reaction cycles that release varying
amounts of energy.
Although LENRs occur in condensed matter at comparatively low temperatures
and pressures, weak interaction LENR reaction cycles are conceptually analogous
to the ‘CNO cycle’ [11, 12] of stars in which the carbon-12 nucleus, at which
the CNO cycle starts, is regenerated at the very end. While this stellar nuclear
reaction cycle also releases ~27 MeV, it differs from the LENR lithium cycle shown in Eqs.(4)–(7) above in that the CNO cycle involves primarily high-temperature
strong interaction fusion reactions rather than a combination of neutron
absorption and weak interactions.
Theoretical astrophysicists believe that the CNO cycle is responsible for
most of the energy production in stars that are larger and hotter than our
sun. Interestingly, the LENR lithium cycle releases roughly as much energy
as the stellar CNO cycle, but without using energetic neutrons or emitting
gamma rays and, amazingly, can be initiated in ‘tabletop’ experimental systems.
By comparison, each fission reaction in a commercial power reactor releases
roughly 190 MeV per fission of a uranium-235 atom. Depending on the specific
reactions, known individual fusion reactions involving charged nuclei (which
includes protons and deuterons) and high coulomb barriers can produce energy
releases that range from ~0.6 MeV all the way up to ~23 MeV.
Why would anyone want to build the gigantic International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reaction (ITER) [13] that has been proposed for the expensive deuterium-tritium
(D-T) fusion if LENRs could be used to achieve about the same level of energy
release with markedly greener, near-infinitely scalable power generation systems
at a small fraction of the cost? For those interested in learning more about
the long quest for controllable fusion, its history and the many foibles of
some of the scientists searching for this ‘Holy Grail’, please see Charles
Seife’s new book, Sun in a Bottle [14].
LENRs produce enormous heat in tiny hot spots on metallic hydride surfaces
Lithium LENRs can produce huge amounts of heat in tiny hot spots located
on the surfaces of metallic hydride substrates. There is direct experimental
evidence for the existence of such hot spots in before-and-after scanning
electron microscope (SEM) images of the surfaces of experimental LENR devices,
some of which have lithium in or around them. In post-experiment SEM images
[15], a host of new, weird looking micron-scale structures are observed scattered
randomly across the metallic surfaces. Various researchers have described
these unusual structural features as resembling “craters”, “volcanoes”, flash
melted and cooled “puddles,” “gas holes”, “ejecta from craters”, etc. Based
on their appearance, they appear to be the result of some sort of “flash”
melting of the surface in small sites at many locations. A US Navy group actually
imaged an operating cathode with an IR camera: hot spots
in infrared looked like fireflies in a field at night [16, 17] (see
From
Cold Fusion to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, SiS 36).
In their paper, Widom and Larsen calculated LENR reaction rates based on
their theory and found they matched the experimental results [18].
They also estimated the ‘noise temperature’ for such ‘hot spots’ to be 4 000
– 6 000 degrees Kelvin, comparable to the temperature on the surface of the
sun and above the boiling point of any metal. This is entirely consistent
with many experimental observations.
LENR devices produce vastly higher energy densities than chemical power sources
Being nuclear, LENRs have intrinsically huge, orders-of-magnitude advantages
over any chemical power generation technologies with regard to energy density.
Chemical reactions can release stored electronic energy on the order of several
electron-Volts (eVs). By contrast, nuclear reactions can release stored nuclear
binding energy on the order of Mega electron-Volts (MeVs), which is more than
a million times larger than typical chemical energies. This creates a potential
commercial opportunity to develop cost-effective LENR portable power sources
that have unprecedented performance in terms of system energy density and
longevity.
It must be noted that 100 percent of the theoretical difference in energy
density shown in Table 1 below will not be realized in real-world LENR devices;
heat dissipation and thermal management issues will prevent that from happening.
Nonetheless, realizable energy densities with LENRs would still be vastly
larger than those of chemical technologies. In fact, Lattice and others have
occasionally observed experimental LENR devices that had larger measured power
densities than fuel rods in operating U-235 fission reactors.
| Table 1. Comparative Energy Densities of LENRs versus
Chemical Energy Sources |
| |
| Energy Source |
Specific Effective Energy Density
(Watt hours/kg = Wh/kg)
|
| Alkaline Battery |
164 |
| Lithium-Ion Battery |
200 |
| Zinc-Air Battery |
460 |
| Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (Efficiency = 35%)
|
1 680 |
| Gasoline Burning Microgenerator (Efficiency = 20%) |
2 300 |
| Combustion of Pure Methanol (Efficiency = 100%) |
5 930 |
| Combustion of Pure Gasoline (Efficiency = 100%) |
11 500 |
| LENRs – Lattice estimate (based on
a conservative assumption of ~0.5 MeV per nuclear reaction)
|
57 000 000 (Maximum
potential) |
Note that LENRs at energies of just 0.5 MeV will have an intrinsic energy
density that is nearly 5 000 times that from a 100 percent efficient combustion
of pure gasoline. Importantly, there are many types of practical LENR fuel
cycles based on certain beta decays that could theoretically generate substantially
more energy than 0.5 MeV, such as the lithium LENR reaction
series summarized in Eq.(3) that releases ~ 27 MeV [2].
Longevity in terms of the total duration of power output from a given power
source is also directly related its effective energy density.
The author declares his commercial interest as President and CEO of Lattice
Energy LLC.
|