A Hypothesis of Kinetics and Dynamic Control of Nuclear Reactions in Solids

#Luciano Ondir Freire 1, Delvonei Alves de Andrade 1

1
Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares (IPEN / CNEN - SP), Brazil
E-mail: [email protected] Corresponding Author’s address

Several authors suggested that background noise could influence nuclear reactions in solids, resulting in
neutrons or excess heat. Literature shows that repeatability is improving, but the control over the intensity
remains out of reach. This work aims at identifying possible causes for intensity variations and proposing
solutions to improve controllability. The first step is to search in literature the characteristics of nuclear
reactions in solids: input, output, controlling factors and enabling means. The second step is, from solid
experimental facts, to draw solid conclusions. The third step is developing some assumptions about the
phenomenon. For each controlling factor, verify the feasibility of implementation in a heat exchanger with
high surface to volume ratio. The final step is to present six suggestions to improve reactions intensity
control. A solid conclusion is that hot spots come from aneutronic nuclear reactions, and that background
neutron radiation starts chain reactions. One assumption is that each energetic charged particle causes the
appearance of more than one new charged particle (effective multiplication factor k eff>1). Another
assumption is that a localized keff>1 causes micro explosions terminating those localized reactions. Since heat
propagates faster than the particle population increases, the net result is low average k eff. A suggestion is to
shield the reactors using moderators with neutron absorbers to avoid undesirable power excursions and then
add a controlled neutron source to control the excess heat. Nanoparticles or working temperatures near the
melting point could be used to reduce local k eff allowing slow enhancement of particle population up to a
level that is proportional to the background neutrons. Doping the metal lattice with neutron absorber
elements like Boron could be used to enhance the excess heat for a given neutron flux. Electric fields could
also be used to enhance excess heat using closed loop control with a time response of nanoseconds by using
Radiofrequencies emitted by the LANR reactions.

1. INTRODUCTION
Background radiation is always present, either due to cosmic rays or radioactive decay of unstable isotopes
found in nature. Neutrons can either heat light atoms, which in turn can overcome the Coulomb barrier and
undergo fusion reactions, or they can stimulate radioactive neutron capture in many isotopes. Given their
ubiquitous presence and relevant interactions with matter, researchers should not neglect, a priori,
background neutrons while studying cold fusion phenomena. In fact, several authors have suggested that
background neutrons could influence nuclear reactions in solids, either informally by doing a single
observation or by conducting controlled experiments [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
This work adopts the term Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction (LANR) because so far there is no evidence
that chemical configuration alone is enough to start nuclear reactions, but it is sure there are nuclear reactions
in solids.
Some were not satisfied with observations of the correlation of cold fusion phenomena with background
neutrons and instead made experiments with neutron sources that verified neutron multiplication in
deuterated Palladium [2] [7] [8] [9]. All those works, being from distinct teams (and even countries), provide,
as a literature body, solid evidence that background neutrons play some role in LANR phenomena.
Today, most teams have been successful in obtaining excess heat in at least some of their experiments;
thereby supporting the reality of cold fusion. Despite this general success, most scientific authors do not
claim to be able to control the intensity of the effect or be able to reproducibly generate excess heat with a
Coefficient Of Performance (COP, ratio of heat output over heat input) that is adequate for practical
applications. In short, the literature shows that while repeatability is gradually improving, actual control over
the intensity of the effect and/or COP remains difficult.
In practice, controlling the intensity of excess heat implies the capability of achieving a minimum COP and
the assurance of avoiding power excursions that could damage the reactor such as is achieved by reactivity
control in current nuclear reactors. In fact, cold fusion literature reports some reactors melting [10] [11]
[12]and other reactors making use of large safety coefficients to avoid power excursions since actual
deterministic control of reaction rates is not currently within reach.
This work aims at identifying possible causes for intensity variations and then proposing techniques to
improve controllability.
 2. METHOD
The starting point for this work was a critical review of the literature while treating the cold fusion
phenomenon as a black box. From this review, various consistent facts were identified and assumptions
about the underlying phenomena were used to identify practical solutions to control cold fusion reactions.
The detailed steps of the adopted method are listed below:
1. The literature was searched to identify the characteristics of nuclear reactions in solids: input, output,
controlling factors and enabling means.
2. The solid experimental facts were identified and used to draw solid conclusions.
3. Some general assumptions about the underlying phenomenon were postulated.
4. for each possible controlling factor an attempt was made to verify the feasibility of implementation
in a heat exchanger with a high surface over volume ratio.
5. Various alternative control architectures were evaluated relative to their potential to improve
intensity control of reactions.

3. DEVELOPMENT
The first characteristic that was found is that cold fusion reactions occur within solids, or at least at their
surfaces. Another characteristic that researchers agree on is that few neutrons are emitted relative to the
amount of excess heat that is generated. From this one can conclude that the cold fusion phenomena involve
mostly aneutronic nuclear reactions. Note that this statement does not imply that the triggering mechanism is
necessarily chemical; even though the original presumption of a particular chemical configuration being able
to cause nuclear reactions is the foundation of the word “cold” in cold fusion.
In Figure 1the top text string lists the many controlling factors or triggering techniques that researchers have
used to generate cold fusion products. The products or outputs effects are listed to the right of the aneutronic
reactor block and are much more varied than simply excess heat. It should be noted that these effects include
many expected products of nuclear reactions as well as many other additional unexpected features. While
neutrons, X-rays, charged particles, radiofrequencies and transmutation products are typical of nuclear
reactions; hot spot formation, micro explosions, strange radiation, and ball lightning are typical of nuclear
reactors that are based on a large neutronic flux. To the left of the aneutronic reactor it is listed the “fuel”,
which typically involves a metal and Hydrogen isotopes. At the bottom are the enabling means, like the
preparation processes the researchers used before the experiment, including metallurgical treatment,
nanoparticles or nanolayers, codeposition, isotopic enrichment and dopants. At right are the products, that
include heat, X-rays, strange radiation, ball lightning, neutrons, transmutation products, charged particles,
hot spots, micro explosions, and radiofrequencies.

Figure 1 Black box analysis of most cold fusion experiments, regardless of type. Any theory needs to address all those aspects.
An interesting review of stimulation methods is given in [13]. The most famous and sought after product of
cold fusion reactors is heat presumed to come from aneutronic nuclear reactions. This heat output is
commonly called “excess heat” to make it clear that there may be heat from other sources, like chemical and
electrical. It should be realized that excess heat can be measured only if a very large quantity of nuclear
reactions take place.
The most reported product is X-rays, which is easily explained by electrons being displaced from atoms by
charged particles or by changes in electron occupancy of orbitals caused by fusion reactions. Some
researchers, however, have used X-rays films to reveal the presence of unusual filaments, rings, or tire-tracks
within the films. These odd impressions have been attributed to “strange radiation”. The source of this
observed phenomena is not yet understood but suggests that LANR creates organized structures that can
penetrate matter and impress radiation sensitive films. Whether such structures have any causal relation with
nuclear reactions remains a mystery.
In an exploding wire experiment, [14] reported a ball lightning that decays into several smaller luminous
points and generate impressions in X-rays films in form of tire-tracks and comets, also called “strange
radiation”. Such impressions are modified by magnetic fields.
Although most authors did not detect neutrons, others did detect and some reported neutron multiplication
phenomena [3] [2] [7] in deuterated Palladium. BARC studies found evidence that neutrons are produced in
small quantities, about 8 to 10 orders of magnitude less than Tritium, which in turn appears in much smaller
quantities than Helium-4.
Transmutation products are often present in LANR experiments. Helium-4 seems to correlate with excess
heat (about 31MeV for each Helium-4 [15], which is larger than the 24MeV of the D (d, gamma) 4He
reaction) and Tritium seems to be a secondary reaction product. In case of deuterated Palladium, a set of
lighter elements appear (Ca, Fe, Zn and others) [16] [17] [18] along some heavier elements (Ag), and the
proportion of some Palladium isotopes seems to change after the reactions [19]. For deuterated Titanium, S,
K, Al, Ca, V, Ni, Zn, and Fe appear [20] [21]. For Nickel-Hydrogen systems, the following elements appear:
K, Fe, Cu, O, Rh, Zr, Pb, Si, Mg, Mn, Zn. Further, for Nickel-Hydrogen systems, Nickel-60 and 62 seems to
disappear [22]. Also, for Tungsten-Hydrogen, lighter elements appear, like Fe, Ca, Zn, Al, Ti, S, P [23]. For
carbon-Hydrogen systems, iron is a common product [24] [25].
Researchers also reported the appearance of charged particles using CR-39 [26]. The energy range is more
complex than the 3MeV of protons from the D (d, p) T reaction, involving also 5MeV and even larger
energies, like 15MeV.
[27] also reported micro-explosion measured with pressure sensors and with a thermal camera. A footage is
available at YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUVmOQXBS68). Such explosions seem to
leave hot spots where part of the Palladium has disappeared and apparently been replaced by a set of lighter
elements [18] [16] [17].
Researchers also report Radio Frequencies (RF) both as a product of and as stimuli for LANR, having some
preferred frequencies for stimulation (82kHz). For example, reference [28] suggested that LANR may be
caused by a deuterium-based MASER operating at 327 MHz, presenting experimental evidence for this by
measuring a hyper fine signal at the exact frequency of a known deuterium metastable state.

From the information obtained from Figure 1 and basic concepts of nuclear physics, one may draw the
following solid conclusions:
1. Hot spots come from aneutronic nuclear reactions concentrated in a small region: one can state that
there are nuclear reactions because there are new elements concentrated in hot spots. Since few
neutrons appear, one can also state that those nuclear reactions must be aneutronic.
2. The quantity of nuclear reactions happening within the hot spot consumes a large fraction of the
original metal with the percentage of Palladium within the spot being typically reduced from 71% to
11% according to [16].
3. Micro explosions are a natural consequence of having many nuclear reactions occurring within a
small volume: since the amount of transient heat liberated is larger than the metal can accommodate
by conduction.
4. The nuclear reactions in all known cases must stop within nano or microseconds: Otherwise, there
would have been observed explosions such as those seen in nuclear weapons.
5. Background neutron radiation starts chain reactions: Background neutrons cannot be a cause of
every reaction because they are relatively few, but they are a plausible candidate to trigger a chain
reaction. Given the evidence of relation of neutrons with the cold fusion phenomena, it is a solid
conclusion that neutrons start aneutronic nuclear chain reactions [1] [2] [4] [5] [7] [29] [30].
 6. Background neutron radiation variations cause excess heat intensity variations: because the flux of
background neutrons changes over time due to atmospheric conditions and neutrons are a triggering
factor. This explains why excess heat is somewhat difficult to control because there is an external
factor at play, giving an explanation to variations in [11] and [31]. Such fact was also used to deny
the existence of “cold fusion phenomena” as measured neutron bursts had correlation with solar
flares [32], so such bursts would be only ambient noise.
7. Photons generate nuclear reactions in deuterated metals: Didyk made a series of experiments like
[18] irradiating deuterated metals with tens of MeV photons and obtained large amounts of nuclear
reactions. NASA team also obtained nuclear reactions with 1,8 to 2,9MeV photons [33] [34] [35],
but at a smaller reaction yield and a possible explanation is pair production along a recoil, which
would allow surpassing the Coulomb barrier. However, there are also experiments of direct electron
beams on metal deuterides or hydrides [36] [37] which result in charged particles using rather small
electrons energies (30keV to 400keV), meaning that perhaps electrons catalyze nuclear reactions in
solids.
8. High energy photons are absent: it is a general observation that such quanta are absent, and this
poses a serious theoretical problem because nuclear reactions and charged particles collisions should
generate such radiation. For instance, electron-positron pairs should appear and the 511keV lines of
their annihilation should be easily measured.
9. Charge structures appear in specific plasma conditions:
10. Charge structures correlate with nuclear reactions:
11. LANR correlates with lattice temperature: [38] [39] [40] [41]
12. Magnetic fields enhance nuclear reactions: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
13. Mossbauer effect:
From those solid conclusions, one may start formulation of theories, which need a set of coherent
assumptions to try to explain the cold fusion phenomena. The first is the theory of chain reactions:
1. Chain reactions: Each nuclear reaction causes the appearance of more than one new reaction
(effective multiplication factor keff >1), otherwise, one need an assumption of large number of
simultaneous reactions to explain the appearance of hot spots with size of micrometers. On the other
side, nuclear reactions may generate products in time scale of nanoseconds, so it is credible that
there is an exponential growth of number of reactions population within microseconds.
2. Short range confinement: products of nuclear reactions do not go far. For instance, stopping power
of charged particles in metal could explain dimensions of hot spots as the daughter particle does not
have the same direction as mother, meaning the volume where reactions occur has slow expansion in
all directions. For instance, a 3MeV proton reaches some tens of micrometers in metals and larger
particles have smaller reach.
3. Termination by micro explosions: a local k eff >1 causes micro explosions because the heat liberation
is larger than metal cooling by conduction (fast, huge, and concentrated heat). Such heat results in
removal of the pre-conditions to start new reactions, like reducing the quantity of fuel available,
removing lattice strain by melting or expelling lighter atoms (hydrogen isotopes). Therefore, micro
explosions result in low average keff because reactions stop making daughters, killing the chain
reaction, but a local keff less than unity would allow slow growth of reactions population. In steady
state, if the keff is less than unity, the reactions population n would be expressed by equation (1),
where ∅ is the flux of background neutrons, ∑ is the macroscopic cross-section of neutron
absorption, and T is the mean time between two consecutive reactions generations (mean interval
between daughter and mother births).

∅ ∑T
n= (1)
1−k eff

4. Reactions population retention: in consequence of previous assumption, to obtain excess heat, one
must avoid the exponential growth of reactions population (k eff>1) in a concentrated way. For
instance, metal near melting point seems to keep reactions population by inhibiting in short delay the
exponential population growth, before the heat spreads beyond nano-sized domains. As charged
particles can traverse about microns in metal lattice, keeping the reaction volumes small allows some
reactions to survive to the next generation. At lower temperatures, the loss of preconditions for
reactions takes a longer time and affects a volume large enough to render all reactions childless.
Other solution is to use nano powders or nano layers to let a larger number of products to exit the
 reactive metal volume before undergoing any nuclear reaction, reducing the k eff. It may seem
paradoxical, but a local reduction of k eff may have a positive effect in the global k eff, so a hydride or
deuteride metal increases global k eff with the temperature rise. Inspecting equation (1), when k eff
approaches 1, the equilibrium population of charged particles tends to infinity. If local k eff is larger
than unity at lower temperatures (resulting in global k eff near zero), increasing temperatures could
cause large increases in excess heat. It means this kind of reactor has a positive temperature
coefficient, making aneutronic nuclear reactors unstable, and when nuclear power surpasses removed
power, temperature increases until complete melting of the reactor.
5. Deep reactions cause explosions: explosions may occur when local k eff is larger than 1 in a large
portion inside (in a position far from surface) the metal because the lattice inertia holds the
conditions for local keff >1 for a time long enough to vaporize a large portion of metal. Vaporized
metal escapes violently only when the pressure overcomes the yield strength of the metal. This
assumption reinforces the need of using thin sheets of materials to avoid such events, which is in line
with the need of large surfaces to transfer heat. The difficulty of achieving k eff is larger than 1 in
portions far from the surface explains the rarity of explosions.
6. Energetic gamma rays’ absorption: hydrides or deuterides lattices have high cross-sections for high
energy photons capture, creating local organized plasmoids that tend to leave the metal under the
form of strange radiation. Such radiation impress X-rays films, is affected by magnetic or electric
fields, and has limited reach (about 40 cm in some cases). Metals also create plasmoids, but with
smaller cross-sections and smaller decay times, being responsible for the Mossbauer effect. This
effect explains why gamma radiation is near background in most cold fusion experiments.
7. Plasmoids induce nuclear reactions: when the photons energetic enough, plasmoids may neutralize
Coulomb repulsion of smaller atoms and a series of fusion reactions occur, liberating charged
particles and gamma rays. Charged particles excite target nuclei and those liberate gamma rays too.
However, all gamma rays are promptly absorbed in vicinity of their origin
The demonstration of equation (1) is as follows: assuming a hydrated/deuterated metal sample under a
neutron flux ∅ (neutrons per second per square meter), having a global macroscopic cross-section of neutron
absorption ∑ (reactions per meter), mean time between two consecutive charged particles generations T, and
an effective multiplication factor keff, the variation of the number n of charged particles is:
−n n k eff
dn= dt + dt+∅ ∑ dt (2)
T T
dn
In steady state, we have =0 , então:
dt
n n k eff
− =∅ ∑ (3)
T T
Isolating n, we arrive at equation (1). In practice, equation (1) means that one may control the excess heat by
acting either on:
1. Neutron flux: using of shielding against background neutrons, using of neutron sources.
2. Neutron absorption: adding an element with strong neutron capture properties to the metal lattice or
using isotopes with larger neutron capture cross-sections, for instance Nickel-62 has about three
times larger neutron absorption cross section than Nickel-58.
3. Effective multiplication factor: reducing particle size (nano particles), layer thickness (nanolayers),
increasing temperature near melting point, using codeposition or surface treatments.
The second theory is the catalysis by plasmoids:
1. Plasmoid is a cluster of charged particles (electrons and perhaps ions) moving in a coherent fashion
dictated by quantum and electromagnetic laws and containing a given energy. Perhaps other
unknown forces are at play too.
2. Plasmoids induce nuclear reactions: plasmoids may neutralize Coulomb repulsion of smaller atoms
and a series of fusion reactions occur within its volume. It is not enough to cause fusion reactions
between Aluminum atoms. This explain the hot spots and the size of the hot spot is determined by
the plasmoid size.
3. Plasmoids continuously lose energy: this is a direct consequence of being observable, as cameras
only may see them because they are emitting energy.
4. Plasmoids need a minimum energy to exist: this means they decay in smaller parts when the
contained energy is not enough to keep the coherency.
 5. High energy photons feed the plasmoid: this effect increases plasmoid life and explains explosions
and chain reactions in deuterated metals and the absence of hard gamma rays. This also explains why
neutron absorption generates more neutrons but does not produce gamma rays. Also, it explains why
gamma rays bombardment causes so many nuclear reactions.
6. Plasmoids accelerate decay of unstable nuclei: this explains the strange radiation nullification of
radioactivity.
7. Plasmoids are negatively charged: tend to leave a negatively charged cathode and this may be solved
by application of a magnetic field parallel to metal surface, explaining the positive effect of the
magnetic fields.
8. Excess heat is proportional to population and energy of plasmoids
9. Electron density increases plasmoid density: explain why negative electric potential improve X-ray
films fogging near deuterated
10. Ionic flow through a surface generates plasmoids: explains why gas loading causes nuclear reactions
mainly at surface and it seems the presence of oxides on the solid surface improves the formation of
such plasmoids, perhaps by creating narrow channels where the flow is larger, allowing some pinch
effects.
Table 1 Feasibility analysis of known triggering effects, considering the need of large heat exchange surfaces
in small volumes

Control parameter Analysis

Temperature A high constant temperature gives high thermal cycle efficiency. However, high
temperatures limit the materials that may compose the reactor
Magnetic field Use of permanent magnets or coils is feasible, but it may be difficult if high
temperatures are present
Ion beam Apparatus is too large and can affect a small area, so it seems impractical for a
competitive power source
Background neutron A design could rely on background neutrons flux as a stimulus, but its variations
flux (caused by tempests, atmospheric pressure variations) may cause overheat or
reactivity accidents leading to core meltdown. This means that LANR reactors
probably will require external shielding against background radiation
Controlled Neutron Provides dynamic control and little radioactive waste after disposal. This means this
source option adds some design complexity but has great dynamic advantages and little
inconvenient for a product life cycle
Constant neutron Nanolayers of radioactive and fissionable material (U, Th) could be effective as
source stimulus, have a simple design, but the source could become radioactive waste after
disposal. However, Ivan Stepanovich Filimonenko claimed that deuterated
Palladium emitted a strange radiation able to neutralize radioactive isotopes and
some recent experiments confirms this claim Invalid source specified.Invalid source
specified.. Therefore, it is possible that at the end of life, the fuel would have little
radioactivity, opening the possibility of lucrative treatment of spent nuclear fuel
from nuclear reactors. Deuterium (or Hydrogen) loading would provide dynamic
control, but the dynamic response would be slower, yet more than enough for low
cost and nearly constant output reactors. Last, but not least, such approach is
already tested at laboratory [31] [47].
LASER Light photons cannot penetrate metals, so they can only affect a small area,
and heat exchange needs the nuclear reactions happening uniformly in a large
area. Therefore, it seems unpractical to use LASER as stimulus.
High energy Provides dynamic control and little radioactive waste after disposal. Its
photons (X-rays, penetrating nature facilitates the use in practical applications but would
gamma rays) require shielding to protect people.
Electric field It seems to be a very cheap and easy method for nuclear reaction stimulation.
It may provide dynamic control by use of glow discharge (low pressure
hydrogen or deuterium under hundreds of Volts). Experiments showed
promising COPs [48]
Control parameter Analysis
Pressure variations Cavitation tends to wear down materials and requires large apparatus.
Furthermore, transferring heat to water to generate electricity would require
high temperatures and pressures, becoming a new kind of Pressurized Water
Reactor. Such reactors, due the high temperatures and pressures, require
heavy and expensive circuits.
Lattice structure Requires large apparatus and temperature changes may cause thermal fatigue
changes
Radiofrequency Depending on the frequency (for instance, 82kHz), it may be very interesting
(RF) and cheap, besides avoiding the need of shielding because- it is not ionizing
radiation.

4. RESULTS

This section presents some suggested alternatives to develop reaction control and achieve the dream of
repeatable power generation.
The first suggestion is to shield the reactors using moderators (like water, paraffin, polyethylene)
along with neutron absorbents (like boron, cadmium, silver, gadolinium) to avoid undesirable power
excursions. The same shielding against background radiation also would protect people against
radiation coming from the nuclear reactor.
The second suggestion is to add an active neutron source (active means electrically powered) to control
the excess heat because of the penetrating nature of neutron radiation. The reactor should have an
annular shape to minimize the shielding protecting people and the deuterated/hydrated metal should
have solutions to improve neutron capture. Such solutions could be enrichment of isotopes with larger
neutron capture cross-sections (Nickel-62, Palladium-105), doping with elements with huge neutron
capture cross-sections (Lithium, Boron), straining the metal (Lipson reported strained Palladium has
one order of magnitude larger neutron capture cross-section [49]). Alternatively, a small portion of
radioactive elements (for instance, U or Th) could provide stimulation both by alpha decay and by
fission.
The third suggestion is to use electric fields to help the enhancement of excess heat. A solution would
be deuterated/hydrated metal under glow discharge enacted by electrified parallel plates with low
pressure Hydrogen or Deuterium gas. The electric field could have a constant value along a set of
frequencies (for instance, 82kHz), like E-Cat SK demonstration ( https://youtu.be/Nz0Z94Ix-kc) showed.
This way, the electric field is also RF stimulation and, being the parallel plates a capacitor, it would
require a series inductance to minimize the required energy to impose the oscillation.
The fourth suggestion is adopting alternated nanolayers of active and inactive materials like [38]
because they should reduce the reactivity (number of daughter particles for each charged particles). A
slower increase in charged particles population should allow better dynamic control. Nanolayers seem
to be better than nanoparticles or powders in long term because the melting cycles tend to aggregate
particles and nanolayers tend to provide a better cooling, especially if the passive material is copper.
Further, if strain is important to enhance nuclear reactions, nanolayers present a better way of
controlling strain. Nanolayers also have the advantage of reducing the risks of explosions.
A fifth suggestion is to increase the macroscopic cross section of neutron capture of the lattice, for
instance, by adding an element in the alloy with large neutron absorption cross-section, like Boron.
Alternatively, one could use isotopic enrichment, like [50] patented as methods to enhance excess heat.
Last, but not least, authors suggest the use of control in closed loop to avoid the reactivity excursions.
The best variable to measure the instant power seems to be the intensity of emission of RF [51]
because:
1. it has fast dynamic response: the charged ions generate currents and phonons which
immediately make RF waves. The waves travel at light speed and directly generate voltage
signals in an antenna.
2. it is almost omnidirectional: as the area emitting RF waves is much smaller than the
wavelength, the waves are probably quite distributed in all directions. Other radiations (X-
rays, gamma) may be more directed.
The time response of the control loop should be very fast, perhaps in few nanoseconds range, to allow
a proper reduction in stimulation before the charged particles population goes beyond the cooling
capability of the core.
 5. DISCUSSION

The present work treats the LANR phenomenon as a black box, so assumptions on the inner
mechanisms (leading to the nuclear reactions) are absent. After identifying what is known for sure,
only four hypotheses give foundation for the proposed measures (the last assumption, deep reactions
cause explosions is just an explanation of known events and demands use of thin sheets for safety, but
it is not a dynamic control issue):
 Chain reaction
 Stopping power confinement
 Termination by micro explosions
 Particle population retention
If those two assumptions are true, the exploitation of nuclear aneutronic nuclear reactions in solids
requires:
 Creating an environment with keff near unity but keff <1.
 Homogenizing the charged particles population through a vast surface to allow heat exchange.
 Protecting this environment from background neutrons.
 Generating radiation (neutrons, gamma, charged particles) to trigger the nuclear reactions.
For instance, the use of a dense plasma focus neutron source which produces high quantity of neutrons
within nanoseconds and concentrated in anode axis could also provide time-resolved information on
chain reaction. Analyzing the neutron production over time after a fast neutron burst could provide
information on reactivity, doubling time, maximum temperature rise rate. Further, such a source
could also allow the verification of neutron capture cross-section when the metal lattice is strained like
Lipson [49] suggested, but with a larger number of neutrons, achieving greater statistical significance.
Given the success of many experiments with only background neutrons present, the neutron source
intensity needed to investigate the above postulate does not need to be very strong and it is expected
that just one order of magnitude above background should be enough.
Many independent research groups suggested a relation between neutrons and LANR reactions [1] [2]
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Experiments using heavy shielding showed weak or no LANR reactions [52] [53]
[54], showing an implicit relation between LANR effects and background neutrons. Experiments
without shielding under high background neutrons counting had strong reactions [55]. An interesting
work is [29], which did the same experiment in surface and in a submarine and obtained neutron yields
proportional to background neutrons in both cases. Diurnal variations in excess heat were observed in
more than one research group and type of experiment [30] and this could be explained by variations in
local atmospheric pressure, which has significant impact in cosmic neutrons incidence.
The assumption of micro explosions being prejudicial to attaining high levels of excess heat explains
the success of nanoparticles [56], nanolayers [57] and co-deposition [58] in enhancing excess heat.
Potentially reactive material with size of nanometers increases the probability that charged particles
go out of the material without inducing a new reaction. This way, the reactivity is lowered, and the
excess heat becomes proportional to the background radiation.
Parkhomov obtained excess heat only at high temperatures [12], as Figure 2 presents.
Figure 2 Required heat to achieve a given temperature in Parkhomov reactor
The assumption of molten metal having higher global k eff explains why Parkhomov obtained high
levels of excess heat above 1070ºC. Nickel melts at 1455ºC but Nickel-Hydrides have lower melting
point as shown at Figure 3.

Figure 3 Phase diagram for the Nickel-Hydrogen system

But other factors may explain this change in excess heat, like phase changes in Nickel Hydride or
crystal structure changes in Ni-Al-Li-H system. The assumption of metal near melting point having
higher global keff also explains the need of intermittent heating in Rossi generators to avoid a complete
melting. This assumption comes in line with [59], which shows that molten Lithium is more efficient to
assist nuclear fusion reactions than solid Lithium.
The fusion cross-section is apparently enhanced in hydrated/deuterated metals [60] [61], but if there
are aneutronic chain reactions, the charged particles should heat deuterons and about 1 in 10e5 or
10e6 hot deuterons, assuming current models, should undergo fusion reaction with another deuteron.
In other words, it is possible that observed neutrons are side reactions.
Lipson et al. [49] reported enhancement of neutron absorption cross-section when both deuterium and
residual stresses are present. This effect could happen in all metal-Hydrogen systems and stresses the
importance of metallurgical treatment and the potential role of neutrons in LANR. Perhaps alloys
have the same effect as atoms feel stressed and treatment or alloying could be ways of improving
neutron capture, triggering more reactions for a given neutron flux. Transient gas flow conditions also
could play similar effects of residual stresses, explaining experiments like [16].
Explosions were observed in some experiments [6], indicating that certain conditions may lead to chain
reactions. Observed explosions reinforce the assumptions that this work adopted because chain
reactions starting far from the surface will make a growing bubble of molten and vaporized metal,
achieving a very high pressure before rupture of bulk metal. It is probably difficult to start those chain
reactions in the bulk metal, though, requiring long charging times, proper metallurgy, etc so generally
chain reactions start (and end fast) in surface.
The experiment of irradiating deuterated Palladium with fast and thermal neutrons [7] revealed that
thermal neutrons start nuclear reactions (measured by added neutrons emissions) as much as fast
neutrons. Such evidence goes against the proposition that hot neutrons would heat deuterons in metal
lattice and the hot deuterons would hit other deuterons and undergo fusion [62]. Thermal neutrons
starting nuclear processes culminating in other neutrons (neutron multiplication) means there are
other reactions besides Deuterium-Deuterium fusion because thermal neutrons are not capable of heat
Deuterium atoms. A possibility could be a neutron capture by a Palladium atom, resulting in an
excited state. The excited atom captures another Deuterium and suffers fission. The fragments either
hit other Palladium atoms exciting them or hit Deuterium atoms, heating them. Excited Palladium
atoms may capture Deuterium and heated Deuterium may undergo fusion or Oppenheimer-Phillips
stripping reactions. It does not mean that neutrons are the only triggering mechanism, but they surely
give a contribution.
Another possibility is gamma rays from excited states decay following a neutron capture trigger the
chain reactions in hydrated/deuterated metals, explaining why NASA experiments [33] [34] [35] and
Didyk experiments [18] caused so much radiation.
Given its penetrating power and efficiency in heating Deuterium atoms, neutrons seem to be one of the
best options to stimulate nuclear reactions in solids, like [62] proposed, but possibly by another
mechanism. Regardless the mechanism, given all evidence neutrons can help the stimulation of nuclear
reactions in hydrated/deuterated metals, perhaps the use of a controlled neutron source could allow
larger COPs and faster dynamic answers to load demands or load rejections.
Most evidence about effect of neutrons on LANR is for Pd-D systems and authors did not find any
solid evidence for Ni-H systems. However, Fabio Penon report [31] shows Coefficient of Performance
(COP) variations from 62 to 142 and apart some daily variations, data suggests some seasonal
variation. Further, one of Kitamura’s experiments [56] suggested, by chance, that neutrons could
increase excess heat as excess heat increased 50% when the presence of neutrons increased due a
particle accelerator functioning nearby. Figure 4 combines part of figures 9 and 11 from [56] and
suggests that both neutrons and intermittent heating enhance excess heat, as the excess heat had a
sharp increase after a brief time without heating. Perhaps this is the reason Rossi’s reactors employ
intermittent heating (some seconds on and some seconds off). [63] also obtained heat burst by changing
electrical power.
Figure 4 – Correlation of background neutrons and excess heat in Kitamura experiment

Another evidence that background neutrons may play a role in Nickel-Hydrogen systems is
Parkhomov obtained Coefficient of Performance (COP) around 1.2 with a reactor involved in water
and heat insulators (Protok-6 [40], fig. 7) and COP around 3 for a reactor without heat insulator ( [40],
table 2).
There are many questionable assumptions that nuclear researchers make:
 Nuclear forces are omnidirectional: if chemical forces are not, why nuclear should be? If
nuclear forces are organized in form of lobes and there is a coupling between electronic shells
and nuclei orientation, chemical composition or mechanical stresses could change nuclear
properties, like neutron capture cross-sections.
 Nuclear forces are constant over time: some isotopes present distinct neutron absorption cross-
sections at excited states, so why proton capture should be always constant? This means it is
possible that excited compound nuclei after a neutron capture could undergo proton or
deuteron capture if there is availability of such nuclei at vicinity. Such phenomenon could
happen multiple times, capturing 2 deuterons or four deuterons, if the second capture has
larger probability than the first and third. Such hypothesis would explain why proton beam
experiments have low yield but hydrides and deuterides are prone to chain reactions.
 Excess heat comes from D-D fusion: many different isotopes appear, while neutrons, Tritium,
Helium-3 appear in extremely low quantities, suggesting fission of Palladium. Such mistake
induced a lot of negative assessments of the LANR phenomena because people was expecting to
see neutrons, like [64] which obtained excess heat but ignored it because they did not find
neutrons. Only later [16] the same team made an analysis and found transmutation products,
which were evidence of unknown nuclear reactions.
 Chemical conditions start nuclear reactions: an overview of experimental works shows a
correlation of LANR with background neutrons, explicitly said by authors or implicitly by
negative results.
 Attribute LANR effects to a single type of reaction: perhaps many metals participate in
complex reactors like those made by Rossi, Parkhomov, Kobe and Tohoku Universities and
simultaneous fission and fusion reactions occur.
 Simultaneous condensation of even number of Deuterium atoms: why not serial deuterium
capture where the first capture has smaller cross-section than the second?
 Strong nuclear force is essentially distinct from electromagnetic forces: if so, why constant
electric or constant magnetic fields would enhance reaction rates?
 Neglect effects of background radiation: many authors demonstrated those effects.
One should not discard other unknown phenomena, suggested by strange radiation, which seems
related to ball lightning and plasma filaments, also seems to relate to enhancement of nuclear reactions
inside regions of dense plasma focus (DPF). [65] states that short filaments in deuterium correlates
with neutron production, being an evidence that LANR could be related to such structures. Dense
plasma focus creates a region of very dense plasma (the pinch volume) for nanoseconds that eject a
narrow beam of deuterons at energies some tens or hundreds of keV. [66] reported that deuterated
metal near the pinch volume gave larger neutron yield than pure metal, but the same deuterated metal
under the deuteron beam at 100mm distance from the pinch yielded the same neutrons as pure metal.
This is an evidence that the filaments may be the key to the nuclear fusion both in gas and in metal
lattice. In past decades, some researchers (Winston H. Bostick, Kenneth Shoulders, G. A. Mesyats, as
shown by Robert Greenier in a video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqfLVI3-mUk) reported
those structures in plasma experiments. [67] presented a hypothesis of compression of electrons in self-
organized structures using quantum mechanics and electromagnetic equations. Such structures would
be powerful enough to cause nuclear reactions by screening electrostatic repulsion.
The problem with this approach is LANR does not need necessarily of plasmas, as gas load
experiments also present excess heat, and they do not have large electric fields or currents, along with
magnetic fields. A possible explanation is deuterium absorbed in metal could behave like a plasma,
especially in non-equilibrium conditions. The check if gas load experiments undergo the same
phenomenology as vacuum plasma experiments, one need to verify if gas load experiments also emit
strange radiation. In any case, to verify such question is quite easy: an experiment like NASA [16] with
a set of X-rays films should be enough to know if strange radiation appears. In case strange radiation
appears in gas load experiments, probably the LANR phenomena is related to those structures, which
would mean that the chain reaction hypothesis is false, as LANR would be a consequence of a
collective electron/ion movement phenomenon instead of a chain reaction. The assumption of stopping
power confinement also would be false, as the confinement would be consequence of the size of the
plasma filament.
Anyway, there is plenty of empirical evidence that neutrons trigger the LANR, so regardless the
mechanism, neutrons should be an option for heat intensity control, but other options could be better.
Particularly, the need to shield the reactor from background radiation should continue unless other
stimulation methods become much larger, making this effect neglectable.
If plasma structures are the only cause of micro explosions, the termination is related to plasma
structures decay or movement outward the hydrated/deuterated material and not to a heat/shock wave
propagation. In this case, the solution would be adjusting the plasma structures formation rate
accordingly to power demands. Instead of trying to retain the charged particles population, one should
aim at maintaining the plasma structures in the metal or avoiding their decay. For safety, the solid
should have small thicknesses to avoid occurrence of a plasma structure deep inside the solid, which
would generate a large energy release (explosion). Plasma structures would also provide a diverse
explanation for the success of nanomaterials, being the distinct electrical characteristics and possible
current concentration in boundaries or vacancies. That means that nanomaterials may enhance the
rate of formation of plasma structures instead of avoiding a chain reaction. In any case, as
nanomaterials have provided good results, they are likely to be useful in future, unless a cheaper
method to enhance heat generation is found, so their usefulness does not depend on the assumptions of
this work. A fact that seems to suggest the plasma structures hypothesis is the appearance of many
distinct elements in all experiments, regardless the materials involved (Pd-D, Ni-H, W-H, Au-H, Ti-D).
Table 2 presents a discussion of the validity of each suggestion in case the assumptions made are
proven false, along some facts that reinforce the plausibility of the suggestion.
Table 2 Robustness of suggestions in face of the assumptions made

Assumption
Suggestion Chain reaction Stopping power Termination Particle Deep reactions
confinement by micro population cause
explosions retention explosions
shield the Even if nuclear reactions occur simultaneously due unknown phenomena (for instance,
reactor plasma filaments), the need to shield the reactor still would be valid given the empirical
evidence that background neutrons affect the intensity of reactions
add There is experimental data evidencing that neutrons can induce LANR, so, even if the
neutron assumptions are false, this suggestion remains useful. However, other stimulation
source method could be more convenient if the assumptions are false.
use Even if the mechanism is different than the assumptions describe, electric fields are
electric already proven as LANR stimulus
fields
adopt If this assumption is false, the use of Could be Other Anyway,
nano nanomaterials could be substituted useful to mechanism nanomaterials
materials by other solutions. However, the limit the size would explain reduce risks of
success of nanomaterials is on of explosion the effect of explosion
experimental data, so, it could be by limiting nanomaterial
useful even so. the fuel s
available
add Boron is reported to help excess heat No effect, because neutron absorber works in
neutron and strain seems to increase neutron the start of reactions, not on the termination.
absorber capture and improve excess heat, so
it still valid. However, perhaps not
all neutron absorbers would be
useful.
use RF for This measurement would be a black box approach, so regardless the true mechanism,
control if the control loop is fast enough, there is possibility that excess heat could reach any
level below core meltdown and accidents like explosions would be avoided.

6. CONCLUSION
There is large experimental (explicitly written or implicit) evidence of role of background neutrons on
excess heat and hot spots are consequence of aneutronic nuclear chain reactions. Treating the LANR
phenomena as a black box, this work provided five assumptions to explain and control LANR. The
first is there is an aneutronic nuclear chain reaction starting with a single charged particle (caused by
a background neutron) which has more than one daughter, each daughter, in turn, having more than
one daughter, leading to an exponential growth of charged particles population within nanoseconds.
Second, this population stays confined in a small volume due the stopping power. Third, the enormous
heat liberated by nuclear reactions in a micrometric volume and in nanoseconds time scale completely
changes the configuration (by melting, shock wave) and kills the entire charged particle population.
Fourth, one needs to keep the particle population to reap large excess heat, and this means each
charged particle should have less than one daughter, but almost one daughter in average. Fifth,
reactions starting deep in bulk metal (far from surface), due an improved thermal inertia, may hold
conditions for longer times, allowing a charged particle population large enough to cause an explosion.
Those assumptions gave foundation for six suggestions for control of excess heat (shield the reactor,
add neutron source, use electric fields, adopt nano materials, add neutron absorber, and use RF for
control). For instance, nanoparticles or nanolayers should reduce the number of daughters, avoiding
the micro explosions that kill the charged particles population, which in turn increase the excess heat.
If the proposed assumptions are correct, excess heat control needs shielding against background
radiation and a controlled neutron source to improve the dynamic response. Only experiments can
check the validity of these assumptions, like running any LANR experiment in a neutron-free
environment and in normal background neutron flux. Placing a neutron source near a LANR
experiment and measure excess heat effects in function of neutron flux would provide precious
information. A more scientific experiment would be to measure strained and deuterated Palladium
neutron absorption cross-section (confirming [49]) using a dense plasma focus as neutron source
because it provides a very sharp and abundant neutron pulse (tens of nanoseconds duration). Such
experiment should also use a time resolved neutron measurement to obtain data on chain reactions
speed (time constants of the phenomenon), allowing to know how fast a closed loop control of the
LANR should be. Another interesting and easy experiment would be to use X-ray films to seek strange
radiation in gas load experiments like [16] [64]. Other experiment would be to compare the occurrence
of micro explosions in nanolayered and bulk metal. None of the above assumptions depend on the
inner mechanism of aneutronic nuclear reactions in solids (how they overcome the Coulomb barrier),
so this work is a black box analysis, although some ideas of plausible mechanisms were discussed.
Last, but not least, it would be interesting to use X-rays films to check if gas load experiments also
produce strange radiation to verify the assumptions of chain reactions limited by stopping power.
Future work is to improve the methodology of the meta-analysis to check the reliability of those
assumptions.

Bibliography

[1] N. Hawkins, S. S. Yi, X. Z. Qi, X. D. Li, L. Wang and Q. X. Zu, “Investigations of mechanisms and
occurrence of meteorologically triggered cold fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences,” in AIP
Conference Proceedings 228, 177, Provo, Utah (USA), 1991.
[2] G. Shani, A. Brokman, C. Cohen and A. Grayevsky, “Background Induced D-D fusion,” in fifth
International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems, ICENES '89, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1989.
[3] A. G. Lipson and D. M. Sakov, “Amplification of the Neutron Flux Transmitted Through KD2PO4 Single-
Crystal at the Ferroelectric Phase Transition State,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Cold Fusion, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France, 1995.
[4] A. L. Samgin, S. V. Vakarin, V. S. Andreev, V. A. Khokhlov, E. S. Filatov and V. P. Gorelov, “Solid
protonic conductors: conductivity, structure, protron traps, phase transitions, excess heat and neutron anti-
effect,” in The 6th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF6), Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan, 1996.
[5] A. Lipson, V. A. Kuznetsov, D. M. Sakov and E. I. Saunin, “Cold Fusion and Electrophyslcal Processes in
Ferroelectric Deuterated Crystalls. Influence of Thermal Neutron Background Level, D-H Substitution and
Crystal Mass,” in The Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan, 1996.
[6] M. Buxerolle and J. Kurkdjian, “An Historical Experiment of Neutron Detection Near an Electrolytic
Cell,” Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 21, p. 7–12, 2016.
[7] B. Stella, M. Corradi, F. Ferrarotto, V. Milone, F. Celani and A. Spallone, “Evidence for Stimulated
Emission of Neutrons in Deuterated Palladium,” in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion,
"Frontiers of Cold Fusion", Nagoya, Japan, 1993.
[8] A. S. Roussetski, “Investigation of Nuclear Emissions in the Process of D(H) Escaping from Deuterized
(Hydrogenized) PdO-Pd-PdO and PdO-Ag Samples,” in The Sixth International Conf ere nee on Cold
Fusion, Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan, 1996.
[9] Y. Oya, H. Ogawa, T. Ono, M. Aida and M. Okamoto, “Hydrogen Isotope Effect Induced by Neutron
Irradiation in Pd-LiOD(H) Electrolysis,” in The Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Lake Toya,
Hokkaido, Japan, 1996.
[10] G. Levi, E. Foschi, T. Hartman, B. Höistad, R. Pettersson, L. Tegnér and H. Essén, “Indication of
anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.,”
arXiv.org, p. 31, 2013.
[11] Industrial Heat LLC, “Industrial Heat 18-month business plan,” Raleigh , NC, 2014.
[12] A. Parkhomov and E. Belousova, “Research into Heat Generators Similar to High-temperature Rossi
Reactor,” Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 19, p. 244–256, 2016.
[13] D. Cravens and D. Letts, “Practical Techniques In CF Research - Triggering Methods,” in Proceedings of
the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2003.
[14] L. I. Urutskoev and V. I. Liksonov, “Observation of transformation of chemical elements during electric
discharge,” Prikladnaya Fizika (Applied Physics, in Russian), vol. 4, pp. 83-100, 2001.
[15] M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions,” in Tenth International
Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-10), Cambridge, Massachusetts , 2003.
[16] G. C. Fralick, R. C. Hendricks, W. D. Jennings, T. L. Benyo, F. W. VanKeuls, D. L. Ellis, B. M. Steinetz, L.
P. Forsley and C. E. Sandifer, “Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium silver metals
with deuterium gas,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, no. 56, pp. 32320-32330, November
2020.
[17] G. Miley and P. Shrestha, “Review Of Transmutation Reactions In Solids,” in 10th International Conference
on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, MA, 2003.
[18] A. Didyk and R. Wisniewski, “Changes Observed in the Elemental Composition of Palladium and Rhenium
Specimens Irradiated in Dense Deuterium by γ-Quanta with Boundary of Energy 23 MeV,” Journal of
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 13, p. 89–105, 2014.
[19] A. B. Karabut and E. A. Karabut, “Experimental results on Excess Heat Power, Impurity Nuclides and X-
ray Production in Experiments with a High-Voltage Electric Discharge System,” Journal of Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 6, p. 199–216, 2012.
[20] M. F. Klopfenstein and J. Dash, “Thermal Imaging during Electrolysis of Heavy Water with a Ti Cathode,”
in The Seventh International Conference On Cold Fusion (ICCF-7), Vancouver, 1998.
[21] R. Kopecek and J. Dash, “Excess Heat and Unexpected Elements from Electrolysis of Heavy Water with
Titanium Cathodes,” Journal of New Energy, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 46, 1996.
[22] K. P. Rajeev and D. Gaur, “Evidence for Nuclear Transmutations in Ni–H Electrolysis,” Journal of
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 24, pp. 278-283, 2017.
[23] T. Mizuno, T. Ohmori and T. Akimoto, “Generation of Heat and Products During Plasma Electrolysis,” in
Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-10), Cambridge, 2003.
[24] E. F. Mallove, “CHEMISTRY'S DIRTY SECRET: simple alchemy Converting carbon into iron,”
INFINITE ENERGY Magazine, 1994.
[25] R. Sundarsen and J. O. Bockris, “Anomalous Reactions During Arcing Between Carbon Rods,” Fusion
Technology, vol. 26, p. 261, 1994.
[26] A. S. Roussetski, A. G. Lipson, E. I. Saunin, F. Tanzella and M. McKubre, “Detection of high energy
particles using CR-39 detectors Part 2: Results of in-depth destructive etching analysis,” International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 429-436, 2017.
[27] S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, J. Dea and F. E. Gordon, “Polarized D+/Pd–D2O system: Hot spots and mini–
explosions,” in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, 2003.
[28] M. R. Swartz, “Active LANR Systems Emit a 327.37 MHz Maser Line,” Journal of Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science, vol. 33, no. 1, p. 81–110, 2020.
[29] J. R. Granada, R. E. Mayer, P. C. Florido, G. Guido, V. H. Gillette, S. E. Gómez, N. E. Patiño and A.
Larreteguy, “Neutron measurements on (Pd-D2O) electrolytic cells under pulsed current conditions,” in
AIP Conference Proceedings 228, Provo, Utah (USA), 1991.
[30] D. J. Nagel, T. Mizuno and D. Letts, “Diurnal Variations in LENR Experiments,” in 15th International
Conference on Cold Fusion, Rome, Italy, 2009.
[31] F. Penon, “Official ECAT 1MW one year report from Expert Responsible for Validation,” 2017. [Online].
Available: https://ecat.com/news/page/2. [Accessed 01 4 2021].
[32] E. M. Attas, K. W. Chambers, W. Dueck, R. Dutton and A. K. McIlwain, “Solar flares and 'cold fusion',”
Nature (London), vol. 344, p. 390, 1990.
[33] T. L. e. a. Benyo, “EVIDENCE OF THE ELECTRON-SCREENED OPPENHEIMER PHILLIPS
 REACTIONS 162Er(d,n)163Tm OR 162Er(p,γ)163Tm IN DEUTERATED MATERIALS SUBJECTED
TO A LOW-ENERGY PHOTON BEAM,” in 9th International Particle Accelerator Conference, IPAC2018,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2018.
[34] T. e. a. Benyo, “Investigation of Deuterium-Loaded Materials Subject to X-Ray Exposure,” Cleveland,
Ohio, 2017.
[35] B. M. Steinetz, T. L. Benyo, L. P. Forsley, V. Pines and G. C. Fralick, “Novel Nuclear Reactions Observed
in Bremsstrahlung-Irradiated Deuterated Metals,” NASA, Cleveland, 2020.
[36] K. Kamada, “Electron Impact H-H and D-D Fusions in Molecules Embedded in Al,” in ICCF-3, Nagoya,
1992.
[37] A. Lipson, I. P. Chernov, V. Sokhoreva, V. Mironchik, A. S. Roussetski, A. Tsivadze, Y. P. Cherdantsev, B.
F. Lyakhov, E. I. Saunin and M. E. Melich, “Charged Particle Emissions and Surface Morphology of
Pd/PdO:Dx and TiDx Targets Under Electron Beam Excitation,” in Proceedings 15th International
Conference on Condensed Matter, Rome, Italy, 2009.
[38] Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, J. Kasagi, S. Murakami and M. Saito, “Excess Energy Generation using a Nano-sized
Multilayer Metal Composite and Hydrogen Gas,” Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 33, pp.
1-13, 2020.
[39] F. Celani, B. Ortenzi, S. Pella, A. Spallone, G. Vassallo, E. Purchi, S. Fiorilla, L. Notargiacomo, C.
Lorenzetti, A. Calaon, A. Spallone, M. Nakamura, A. Nuvoli, P. Cirilli and P. Boccanera, “Improved
Stability and Performance of Surface-Modified Constantan Wires, by Chemical Additions and
Unconventional Geometrical Structures,” Journal of Condensed Nuclear Matter Science, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 9-
21, 2018.
[40] A. G. PARKHOMOV, K. A. ALABIN, S. N. ANDREEV, S. N. ZABAVIN, A. G. SOBOLEV and T. R.
TIMERBULATOV, “Nickel-hydrogen reactors: Heat generation, isotopic and elemental composition of
fuel,” RENSIT, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 74-93, 2017.
[41] T. Mizuno, T. Ohmori, T. Akimoto and A. Takahashi, “Production of heat during plasma electrolysis in
liquid,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics A, vol. 39, no. 10R, p. 6055–6061, 2000.
[42] P. A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak, F. E. Gordon and L. P. G. Forsley, “Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition
experiments,” EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL APPLIED PHYSICS, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 293-303, 2007.
[43] P. L. Hagelstein and D. Letts, “Temperature Dependence of Excess Power in Two-laser Experiments,”
Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 165-176, 2014.
[44] K. Kamada and I. Yoshizawa, “Heating of heavy water by acoustic wave propagation in magnetic field and
phonon MASER action of Deuteron,” in Proceedings of the 5th Meeting of Japan CF Research Society,
Kobe, 2003.
[45] T. Mizuno, T. Akimoto, A. Takahashi and F. Celani, “Neutron emission from D2 gas in magnetic fields
under low temperature,” in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,
Marseille, France, 2004.
[46] M. Swartz, G. Verner, J. Tolleson, L. Wright, R. Goldbaum and P. Hagelstein, “Amplification and
Restoration of Energy Gain Using Fractionated Magnetic Fields on ZrO2–PdD Nanostructured
Components,” Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 66-80, 2015.
[47] L. P. Forsley and P. A. Mosier-Boss, “Space Application of the GeNIE HybridTM Fusion–Fission
Generator,” Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 29 , p. 95–118, 2019.
[48] A. B. Karabut, Y. R. Kucherov and I. B. Savvatimova, “Nuclear product ratio for glow discharge in
deuterium,” Physics Letters A, vol. 170, no. 4, pp. 265-272, 1992.
[49] A. G. Lipson, V. A. Kuznetsov, E. I. Saunin and G. H. Miley, “Anomalous thermal neutron capture and
sub-surface Pd-isotopes separation in cold-worked palladium foils as a result of deuterium loading,” in The
9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, 2002.
[50] J. A. Murray, M. B. Hill and T. Tank, “Methods for enhancing anomalous heat generation”. US Patent
application number 16/473024, 17 October 2019.
[51] F. Scholkmann, D. Nagel and L. F. Dechiaro, “Electromagnetic Emission in the kHz to GHz Range
Associated with Heat Production During Electrochemical Loading of Deuterium into Palladium: A
Summary and Analysis of Results Obtained by Different Research Groups,” Journal of Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 325-335, 2016.
[52] S. E. Jones, E. P. Palmer, J. B. Czirr, D. L. Decker, G. L. Jensen, J. M. Thorne, S. F. Taylor and J. Rafelski,
“Observation of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter,” Nature, vol. 338, p. 737–740, April 1989.
[53] N. S. Lewis, C. Barnest, M. Heben, A. Kumar, S. Lunt, G. McManis, G. Miskelly, R. Penner, M. Sailor, P.
Santangelo, G. Shreve, B. Tufts, M. Youngquist, R. Kavanagh, S. Kellogg, R. Vogelaar, T. Wang, R.
Kondrat and R. New, “Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of deuterium in palladium,” Nature ,
vol. 340, no. 6234, p. 525–530, 1989.
[54] M. Gai, A. Davenport, K. G. Lynn and H. S. Isaacs, “Upper limits on neutron and yray emission from cold
fusion,” Nature, vol. 340, no. 6228, pp. 29-34, 1989.
[55] P. K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan, “BARC Studies in cold fusion,” Bombay, 1989.
[56] A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, K. Takahashi, R. Seto, T. Hatano, Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, J. Kasagi, M.
Nakamura, M. Uchimura, H. Takahashi, S. Sumitomo, T. Hioki, T. Motohiro, Y. Furuyama, M. Kishida
and H. Matsune, “Heat evolution from silica-supported nano-composite samples under exposure to
hydrogen isotope gas,” in Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of Japan CF Research Society, Tokyo College,
2017.
[57] S. Murakami, T. Itoh, Y. Iwamura, M. Saito and J. Kasagi, “Excess Energy Generation Experiments using
a Nano-sized Multilayer Metal Composite and Hydrogen Gas,” in Proceedings of the 20th Meeting of Japan
CF Research Society, Fukuoka, Japan, 2019.
[58] S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss and F. E. Gordon, “Experimental evidence for LENR in a polarized Pd/D
lattice,” in NDIA 2006 Naval S&T Partnership Conference, Washington, DC, 2006.
[59] Y. Toriyabe, E. Yoshida, J. Kasagi and M. Fukuhara, “Acceleration of the d+d reaction in metal lithium
acoustic cavitation with deuteron bombardment from 30 to 70 keV,” PHYSICAL REVIEW C, vol. 85, no.
054620, 2012.
[60] T. Schenkel, A. Persaud, H. Wang, P. A. Seidl, R. MacFadyen, C. Nelson, W. L. Waldron, J.-L. Vay, G.
Deblonde, B. Wen, Y.-M. Chiang, B. P. MacLeod and Q. Ji, “Investigation of light ion fusion reactions with
plasma discharges,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 126, no. 20, p. 203302, November 2019.
[61] A. G. Lipson, A. S. Rusetskii, A. B. Karabut and G. Miley, “D–D Reaction enhancement and X-ray
generation in a high-current pulsed glow discharge in deuterium with titanium cathode at 0.8–2.45 kV,”
Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, vol. 100, p. 1175–1187, 2005.
[62] V. Pines and e. al., “Nuclear Fusion Reactions in Deuterated Metals,” Physical Review C, vol. 101, p. 044609,
May 2020.
[63] Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, J. Kasagi, T. Takahashi, M. Saito, Y. Shibasaki and S. Murakami, “Progress in
Energy Generation Research using Nano-Metal with Hydrogen/Deuterium Gas,” in ICCF-23, Online
(Xiamen), 2021.
[64] G. C. Fralick, A. J. Decker and J. W. Blue, “Results of an attempt to measure increased rates of the
reaction D-2 + D-2 yields He-3 + n in a nonelectrochemical cold fusion experiment,” Cleveland, 1989.
[65] P. Kubes, M. Paduch, J. Cikhardt, J. Kortanek, B. Cikhardtova, K. Rezac, D. Klir, J. Kravarik and E.
Zielinska, “Filamentary structure of plasma produced by compression of puffing deuterium by deuterium
or neon plasma sheath on plasma-focus discharge,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 21, no. 12, p. 122706, 2014.
[66] S. P. Moo, C. K. Chakrabarty and S. Lee, “An Investigation of the Ion Beam of a Plasma Focus Using a
Metal Obstacle and Deuterated Target,” IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 515 - 519,
1991.
[67] L. Jaitner, “Condensed Plasmoids (CPs) – A Quantum-Mechanical Model of the Nuclear Active
Environment of LENR,” Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 33, no. 1, p. 168–193, 2020.
[68] S. Szpak and J. Dea, “Evidence for the Induction of Nuclear Activity in Polarized Pd/H–H2O System,”
Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 21-29, 2012.
[69] V. A. Romodanov, “Tritium Generation From The Interaction Of A Glow Discharge Plasma With Metals
And With A Magnetic Field,” in ICCF-10, 2003.