LENR theory – overview paper of Mark Davidson

We had a discussion in AIAS about LENR theory concerning the paper

This journal is open source.
1st email:

I’ve attached a copy of the IOP paper. The link worked on my computer. The authors certainly cover a broad range of phenomena. Of note to me when I skimmed the paper, was the Mizuno exp’t of cold D2 gas emitting neutrons when exposed to a magnetic field (section 2.3.2). Another was the change of nuclear decay rates when decaying material embedded in metallic host (2.10) and decay rate change with time (2.11). This fits with what is thought to be observed in the Magnetic Miles experiments. Thiorium embedded in tungsten indicated possible decay rate increase during electric discharge. Also, this may raise questions about the carbon dating process that could change lots of things.
The emission of low energy X-rays from pulling tape off a roll is interesting. One would think that if triboelectric effects occur, then X-Rays should be a observed during Earthquakes.

Have a good day


2nd email:

many thanks for this highly interesting paper. I obtained a similar paper by a colleage of our Munich group concerning mass changes in LENR, but the Russian author spoke of neutrino effects that sound very doubtful. This paper of Davidson is much clearer and more understandable.
BTW, neutrinos are also mentioned in section 2.11 of Davidson’s paper.

First I have to stress that the term “effective mass” is well known in condensed matter physics, it mainly refers to electrons in a lattice matrix, changing their apparent mass by some orders of magnitude. The author Davidson mentions this in the introduction but I doubt that this is well known for non-solid-state physicists. However, the author explains that this cannot be the true reason for LENR decay channels that change the known particle decay channels by 50 orders of magnitude (!).
In 3.4 he mentions “effective Lagrangian approximations” to the standard model. This is where ECE theory comes in. In paper 431 we have shown that “m theory” is able to compensate the Coulomb part of repulsion in a way that a proton can react with the nucleus of Ni for example. m theory assumes a special near-distance modification of the relativistic line element in the frame of ECE (or even Einstein) theory. Therefore it might have effects similar as the “effective lagrangian calculations” mentioned by Davidson. So far, m theory is parametrized. It would take much more effort and comparison to experiments to fix the “decay parameter” appearing in m theory.


3rd email:
Good comments Horst.  As I recall, the very earliest that ECE takes on LENR had the Coulomb barrier being breached using a relativistic mass increase (UFT 226) to explain part of the abnormally high tunneling rate.  The rest of the effect was an energy increase (equivalent to mass) due to a packet of  potential that got carried along with the impacting particle. In this sense, ECE explains what Davidson talks about also.
I hope Parhomov’s (the Russian who’s theory you are referring to I think) neutrino theory, will be better explained in the translation of his book coming out in September.  I am looking forward to the linking of torsion (faster than c) waves with neutrinos.  I hope it will explain a lot of nagging questions that are skirted by conventional physics (history effects in materials and operator interaction with experiments as two examples).
I am going to ready the paper in more detail, and if I see anything of interest, I will comment on it.  Have a good day.

Leave a Reply