Kervran - Nature"s little solid state fusion systems?

A place to keep track of reference material - any particularly useful books, articles, etc. should be listed here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11531
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Kervran - Nature"s little solid state fusion systems?

Post by Richard Hull » Tue May 27, 2003 2:21 pm

Book: Biological Transmutations, Louis C. Kervran, 1972, paper back.

Upon expounding on my theory of a potential energy driven universe before a few folks during my recent visit to Electric Spacecraft, I was told that I should read Kervran.

This related to my suspicions that something real was behind the still shadowy but persistent CF and LENR results where transmutations are found following active CF cell periods.

I obtained the book (now out of print) with some trepidation as it was billed on the cover as "a new science" practiced by M.D's, Chemists and Biologists (back in 1972). This smacked of hucksterism to me.

It turns out that the front and back cover hype was just that...Hype. The verbage there describes some dream that the publisher wished to put in your head and doesn't even mildly reflect the thrust of the material contained in the book. This is the kind of clap trap that sold paper backs in the early 70's with the rise of "the new human aura" and "heal thyself" rage. Looking for that impulse buy, I guess.

Kervran was a french scientist who just gathered interesting information regarding seemingly impossible nautral biological processes where the balance sheet was lopsided. This book is just a compendium of those observations with a few experimental examples. It is an easy read that teases and taunts the reader and hopefully generates thought and reflection.

What amazes me is that back in the late 60's when his work was on going, he dared suggest a fusion process outside of the hot fusion system. All this long before the Pons and Fleishman CF announcement in March of 1989. It all seems to focus around water and low energy transmutation of some of the alkali and alkali earth metals in biological systems. A little more seed energy in electrolytic cells (CF) and most all metals can leave transmuted metals Apparently only on the first 10 microns of the metal surface. (see cold fusion reference URL in the LINKS forum for more on this)

This book is highly recommended to any who are open minded enough to look at what appears to be a form of proton exchange in the "soft", which is something I have considered possible and the ultimate explanation for a lot of LENR reactions. This anuetronic reaction seems to leave no classic nuclear ash and, therefore, no radiation. The energy output is rather low compared to any hot nuclear fusion we are used to and does not seem to disrupt biological systems, (which would be a good thing).

Basically, nature seems to have a special process whereby fusion is done in the solid state with atomic densities are at 10e23atoms/cc instead of 10e14atoms/cc (rarified gases-plasma). Thus a billion fold increase in the density of the fusion reactants with the system being self limiting.

New energy? Highly doubtful.... New physics? more likely.... We are just not able to deal with its possibility as we have studied and codified our nuclear physics around, first, nuclear disentigration in the 1890's where million electron volt alphas were a' flyin' and in this modality advanced to huge particle accelerators to blast nature to bits with ever more energy. We never seriously studied low energy physics for the atomic nucleus seemed a "hard nut" from which only mev energies are found and dealt with.

I personally feel that electrostatics is at the core of this and would have to do something rather amazing at ultra-short ranges. A laboratory environment that we are not privy to.

Richard Hull

postscript added 6/10/08 - Well five years later and more nanotech research has yeilded the following discussion to be found at.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6449#p43414

It seems that intense electric fields within living cells have been measured in the 15 million volts per meter range!

RH
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:10 am
Real name:

Re: Kervran - Nature"s little solid state fusion systems?

Post by grrr6 » Wed May 28, 2003 4:53 am

Where do these crazy high atomic densities come from? magic? A quick calc says that such a high density at room temperature a pressure of 4000 atmospheres is needed, where in nature does that occur?

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11531
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Kervran - Nature"s little solid state fusion systems?

Post by Richard Hull » Wed May 28, 2003 5:48 am

Sorry, I probably misspoke. I was referring to the normal fusion plasmas being a million times more tenuous or rarified than atmospheric pressure gas which itself represents only about 10e19 molecules/cc.

Fusion probabilities go up as number of atoms/unit volume of material to be fused increases.

In the solid state (biota, metals, etc.) there are on the order of 10e23 molecules/cc. In a fusor it is more like 10e14. That is approximately nine orders of magnitude more atoms in the solid state per unit volume than in tenuous plasmas.

I have modifed my original post for more clarity. Thanks for calling this out to me.

Kervran's book deals with this in a bit more detail, but he is not offering a theory, instead he is exposing well documented cases of contolled experiments involving bio systems where a biologic is seen to excrete or contain more of some specific elements than are absorbed in foods or nutrients. Biologists and bio-specialists have wrangled with this for years. Kervran just wants to rub some noses in it a bit more thoroughly. He studied these issues for years. He is just noting that there is apparently no physics or chemistry to explain the observed results.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:10 am
Real name:

Re: Kervran - Nature"s little solid state fusion systems?

Post by grrr6 » Wed May 28, 2003 4:16 pm

Unfortunately htough, fusion probabilities would go down with decreasing temps, and with solid state you are talking really really low temps, so having high atom densities doesnt mean squat for ignition (unless you are talking spark ignition)

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11531
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Kervran - Nature"s little solid state fusion systems?

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:01 pm

Again, regardless of temps or densities, we are both struggling here against our background education which could be as flawed as the "bleeding" technique taught to doctors in the 1600s.

Nature does things in her own manner without consulting us and defies us to figure it all out over long periods of time and many mis-steps.

I consider my academic and self read acquired knowledge a very shakey base of operations and nothing more.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

john_h
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Kervran - Nature"s little solid state fusion systems?

Post by john_h » Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:40 pm

Not sure if this pertains, but I was impressed and bemused by it and copied it, so herewith. Deuterons in a cage:
Best, John Harris

Triple deuterium fusion

K. C. Engvild

If it were possible to keep deuterons at a separation of 0.1 angstrom
the fusion rate would be about one million per mole per second (1).
This separation is almost 10 000 times more than the range of the
strong nuclear force, but only about 1/8 of the distance between D's in
the deuterium molecule (0.74 angstrom). In deuterium molecules the
fusion rate is less than one per ton per billion billion years (1). It
is probably not possible to find a method of keeping deuterons within
0.1 angstrom of each other for "long" times here on earth. Consider,
however, a deuterium molecule snugly trapped in a crystal in a cage of
its own size, about 2 x 2 x 3 angstrom, surrounded by heavy atoms. What
would happen if a third deuteron was injected into this crystal, e. g.
by glow discharge? Probably the third deuteron would be pressed out
into the cage by the strong coulomb forces of the heavy atom nuclei.
The cage is not so large that a D3+ ion or a D3 Rydberg molecule (3 x 3
x 2 angstrom) could find room. For some "long" time we might have 3
deuterons and 3 electrons - if the crystal is an electrical conductor -
in a cage of 2 x 2 x 3 angstrom. What might happen? It is known that
the interaction range between three bosons, in this case three
deuterons, is much longer than the interaction range between the bosons
two and two. This effect is called the efimov effect (2) and the
corresponding states efimov states. Efimov states are very large
spatially. Several hundred papers have been published on this, albeit
only few involve charged bosons. An efimov state of three deuterons
screened by electrons might be the result. This efimov state would not
be stable; in a sense the (3D) efimov state would be a kind of excited
6Li state which could decay in the following ways:
(3D) --> helium-4 + deuterium; (24 MeV)
(3D) --> helium-3 + tritium; (9.5 MeV)
The energy would probably be distributed between the particles. But the
efimov state might be so large spatially that it could - primitively
speaking - kick at the surrounding heavy atoms. This amounts to
transferring some of fusion energy to the crystal lattice with
a "gong". This energy would appear as heat.
Many of the reported signatures of cold fusion (3,4) develop
organically from the scheme above.

1) The poor reproducibility problem: cold fusion only occurs when
deuterium molecules can be trapped, namely in chemical compounds of
metal and impurities, e. g. silicon or boron (3). Almost all
experiments have been done using pure metals where such deuterium
molecule trapping is impossible.

2) The reported prevalence of
4He >> 3He ~ 3H >> neutrons
follows, because an asymmetrical approach of the third deuteron to the
two in the molecule is much more likely than a symmetrical approach.
This would give helium-4 and deuterium much more often than helium-3
and tritium. Neutrons are not produced at all; the few neutrons that do
occur come from secondary reactions involving mainly accelerated
deuterium or tritium.

3) The short duration of the effect follows from the injection of
deuterium atoms into the structure. They could destroy the structure by
sputtering, and they could destroy it by reducing the compound of metal
+ impurity to free metal and e. g. SiH4 or BH3.

4) There is the correct relation between the amount of heat and 4He,
but no obvious relationship between heat and tritium or neutrons.

5) It explains the "dead graduate student" paradox. The amount of 4He
is not correlated with 24 MeV gamma rays or the number of neutrons. So
cold fusion in this scheme is not very dangerous, and inherently safer
than hot fusion.

6) It also explains the occurrence of x-rays, radioactive isotopes,
gamma-rays other than 24 MeV and, perhaps, "heat after death".

Which consequences would the above scheme have for obtaining cold
nuclear fusion? The most important would be that the crystal lattice
should accommodate D2 molecules. Therefore it cannot be an ordinary
hydrogen dissolving metal, like Pd or Ti. They dissolve deuterium as
single deuterons, adding the electrons to the metal conduction band.
Rather the lattice should be an electrically conducting chemical
compound. After much discussion it is now accepted that semiconductors
such as silicon, germanium and gallium arsenide do accommodate hydrogen
molecules in the lattice.
It is generally recognized by most authors of the about 1250
refereed published papers on cold nuclear fusion that the positive
results are very difficult to reproduce (3,4). The results are obtained
only with certain batches of palladium, or only with certain impurities
like boron. The effect is fairly shortlived and only reestablished
under very special conditions. This poor reproducibility could be
explained by the fact that it is a deuterium molecule trapping
material, not a D dissolver that is needed.
The products of the process have been reported as much helium-
4, much less tritium and helium-3, and just detectable levels of
neutrons. This distribution follows naturally from the scheme above.
The cleanest cold nuclear fusion results have been obtained by
glow discharge at Lutch in Russia, Los Alamos in USA, and in China
(3,5,6). The glow discharge experiments do not involve so many unknown
substances as the electrolysis experiments, but they do involve more
sophisticated equipment.
The scheme outlined above has been put together by borrowing
from many people (6); Takahashi proposed triple D fusion along with
others, and the efimov effect has name after V. Efimov. The major new
input is the proposal that deuterons interact with the two deuteriums
in a molecule, and drawing some consequences of that.
In the scheme outlined above there is no need for any new
physics, only slight extrapolations of already known effects.

References.
1) Cottingham, Greenwood. J. Phys. G 15, L157 1989.
2) Fedorov. http://www.ifa.au.dk/~fedorov/
3) Britz. http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db/
4) Storms. http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/review1.html
5) Claytor. http://www.nde.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm
6) Engvild. Fusion Technol. 34, 253, 1998.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11531
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Kervran - Nature"s little solid state fusion systems?

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:01 pm

This is a nice piece of theoretical musing. That something is going on is fairly certain, otherwise Los Alamos, NRL and other premiere facilities would not be hanging in there after all this time. It is just terribly frustrating. We are dealing with something we passed by.....something that got overlooked in the rush of the "mev-gev-tev" physics of the twentieth century.

It is nearly impossible to un-learn basic doctrines that form one's core level concepts of physics. For casting them aside and then trying to proceed would leave anyone feeling rather naked.

I have every confidence that someone will be able to do this in future and solve the CF riddle. How seriously this might affect the current, established doctrine, we can only guess. It may be a matter of us already being in the right church, but just sitting in the wrong pew.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Post Reply